FUS-TN-SA-SE-R-100
ENTE PER LE NUOVE TECNOLOGIE, L'ENERGIA E L'AMBIENTE
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
FUSION DIVISION
NUCLEAR FUSION TECHNOLOGIES
POST TEST ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIMENTS P1-P8
IN THE ICE FACILITY
USING THE ECART CODE
S. Paci (1)
M. T. Porfiri(2)
EFDA Task TW3-TSS-SEA5.5
Milestone 5 bis
(1)
Pisa University
Via Diotisalvi 2, I-56100, Pisa , Italy e-mail: [email protected]
(2)
Fusion Unit
Via E. Fermi 45, I-00044, Frascati (Rome), Italy e-mail: [email protected]
February 2004
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
Title:
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
2 of 117
Post test analysis of the experiments P1-P8
in the ICE facility using the ECART code
Reference:
European Fusion Development Agreement Workprogramme 2003
EISS3 Cadarache
EFDA task TW3-TSS-SEA5.5
Validation of computer code and model
Milestone 5 bis
Authors:
S. Paci (Pisa University, Pisa, Italy)
M. T. Porfiri (ENEA FUS TEC, C.R. Frascati, Italy)
Scope:
Signatures
This work is related to the application of the ECART code
(property of CESI and EdF) on the evaluation of the thermalhydraulic transients for eight calculations of the modified
Integrated ICE test facility (JAERI). In this report, the ECART
results in post test calculations are presented.
Results obtained by ECART have shown a quite good capability
of the code to simulate the experimental conditions of the ICE
facility. Activities relating to code validation has been promoted
inside the Euratom Fusion Technology Programme to test the
capability of codes in simulating phenomena expected in case of
accidents, generally, in fusion facilities and, specifically, in the
ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) plant.
The activities have been also carried out in the general framework
of the validation phase of the ECART code, initially developed
for integrated analysis of severe accidents in LWRs, for its
application on incidental sequences related to fusion plants.
ECART was originally designed and validated for safety analyses
of fission NPPs and is internationally recognized as a relevant
nuclear source term code for these fission plants. It permits the
simulation of chemical reactions and transport of radioactive
gases and aerosols under two-phase flow transients in generic
flow systems, using a built-in thermal-hydraulic model.
Issued by
Reviewed by
Approved by
M. T Porfiri
T. Pinna
A. Pizzuto
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
Distribution list:
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
M. Samuelli, Fusion Division (ENEA, FUS Frascati, Italy)
Technologies (ENEA, FUS TEC Frascati, Italy)
A. Pizzuto
L. Di Pace
T. Pinna
L. Topilski (ITER JWS, Garching, Germany)
W. Gulden, E. Eriksson (EFDA, Garching, Germany)
G. Cambi (Bologna University, Bologna, Italy)
X. Masson (Technicatome, Aix en Provence, France)
T. Marshall, B. Merril (INEEL, Idaho Falls, U.S.)
P. Sardain (CEA, Cadarache, France)
K. Takase (JAERI, Naka, Japan)
Z. Yitbarek (NFR, Studsvik, Sweden)
ENEA FUS-TEC Secretarial Staff
Authors:
S. Paci (Pisa University, Pisa, Italy)
M. T. Porfiri (ENEA, FUS, Frascati, Italy)
Archive
PAGE
3 of 117
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
4 of 117
SUMMARY
This work is related to the application of the ECART code (property of CESI and
EdF) on the evaluation of the thermal-hydraulic transients for eight calculations of
the modified Integrated ICE test facility (JAERI). In this report, the ECART results
in post test calculations are presented.
Results obtained by ECART have shown a quite good capability of the code to
simulate the experimental conditions of the ICE facility. Activities relating to code
validation has been promoted inside the Euratom Fusion Technology Programme to
test the capability of codes in simulating phenomena expected in case of accidents,
generally, in fusion facilities and, specifically, in the ITER (International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) plant.
The activities have been also carried out in the general framework of the validation
phase of the ECART code, initially developed for integrated analysis of severe
accidents in LWRs, for its application on incidental sequences related to fusion
plants. ECART was originally designed and validated for safety analyses of fission
NPPs and is internationally recognized as a relevant nuclear source term code for
these fission plants. It permits the simulation of chemical reactions and transport of
radioactive gases and aerosols under two-phase flow transients in generic flow
systems, using a built-in thermal-hydraulic model.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
5 of 117
INDEX
1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................11
2.
MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ECART CODE .....................................................13
2.1 Main Features of the Code...................................................................................................13
2.1.1 Thermal-Hydraulic Models.........................................................................................15
2.1.1.1
Evaluation of Heat Transfer Coefficients ..........................................................................16
2.1.2 Aerosol and Vapour Models .......................................................................................17
2.1.2.1
2.1.2.2
2.1.2.3
Transport of Volatile Substances..................................................................................17
Transport of Aerosol Particles ......................................................................................18
Coupling Between Aerosol and Thermal-Hydraulic Calculations ..........................21
2.1.3 Chemistry Models ........................................................................................................21
2.1.3.1
3.
Models for Chemical Reactions in Fusion Reactor Accidents...........................................22
INTEGRATED ICE TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION ....................................................27
3.1 ICE Main Components ........................................................................................................28
3.1.1 Boiler ...............................................................................................................................28
3.1.2 Plasma Chamber..............................................................................................................29
3.1.3 Simplified Vacuum Vessel..............................................................................................29
3.1.4 Divertor Orifice Plate ......................................................................................................30
3.1.5 Drain Tank.......................................................................................................................31
3.1.6 Suppression Tank ............................................................................................................32
3.2 Test Protocol .........................................................................................................................32
4.
INPUT ASSUMPTIONS .........................................................................................................34
4.1 Control Nodes .......................................................................................................................35
4.2 Junctions................................................................................................................................35
4.3 Heat Transfer Structures.....................................................................................................37
4.4 Boundary Conditions ...........................................................................................................38
5.
RESULTS FROM CALCULATIONS OF ICE P1-P8 TESTS............................................40
5.1 ICE CASE P1........................................................................................................................40
5.1.1 Main results .....................................................................................................................40
5.1.2 Analysis of the results .....................................................................................................40
5.2 ICE CASE P2........................................................................................................................43
5.2.1 Main results .....................................................................................................................43
5.2.2 Analysis of the results .....................................................................................................43
5.3 ICE CASE P3........................................................................................................................46
5.3.1 Main results .....................................................................................................................46
5.3.2 Analysis of the results .....................................................................................................46
5.4 ICE CASE P4........................................................................................................................48
5.4.1 Main results .....................................................................................................................48
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
6 of 117
5.4.2 Analysis of the results .....................................................................................................48
5.5 ICE CASE P5........................................................................................................................50
5.5.1 Main results .....................................................................................................................50
5.5.2 Analysis of the results .....................................................................................................50
5.6 ICE CASE P6........................................................................................................................52
5.6.1 Main results .....................................................................................................................52
5.6.2 Analysis of the results .....................................................................................................52
5.7 ICE CASE P7........................................................................................................................55
5.7.1 Main results .....................................................................................................................55
5.7.2 Analysis of the results .....................................................................................................55
5.8 ICE CASE P8........................................................................................................................57
5.8.1 Main results .....................................................................................................................57
5.8.2 Analysis of the results .....................................................................................................57
6.
CONCLUSIONS FOR ICE TESTS P1 - P8 CALCULATIONS .........................................59
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................62
APPENDIX A: ECART INPUT DECK FOR TEST P1...............................................................64
APPENDIX B: OUTPUT COMPARISON TABLES AND PLOTS ...........................................69
B.1 Test P1 ...................................................................................................................................70
B.2 Test P2 ...................................................................................................................................76
B.3 Test P3 ...................................................................................................................................82
B.1 Test P4 ...................................................................................................................................88
B.1 Test P5 ...................................................................................................................................94
B.1 Test P6 .................................................................................................................................100
B.1 Test P7 .................................................................................................................................106
B.1 Test P8 .................................................................................................................................112
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
7 of 117
Index of Tables
Table 2.1: Catalogue of the chemical species available in ECART...................................................24
Table 3.1: ICE tests P1 – P8 nominal boundary conditions...............................................................33
Table 4.1: Components of the ECART nodalisation..........................................................................35
Table 4.2: Connections in the nodalization........................................................................................36
Table 4.3: Actual experimental initial conditions used in the post-tests............................................39
Table 5.1: P1 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................40
Table 5.2: P2 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................43
Table 5.3: P3 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................46
Table 5.4: P4 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................48
Table 5.5: P5 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................50
Table 5.6: P6 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................52
Table 5.7: P7 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................55
Table 5.8: P8 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................57
Table B.1: Summary of the main results for the cases P1 – P8. ........................................................69
Index of Figures
Figure 1.1: The upgraded ICE Facility...............................................................................................12
Figure 2.1: Schematic of the linking among the three main sections of ECART. .............................13
Figure 2.2: Control volume model adopted for ECART thermal-hydraulics. ...................................14
Figure 2.3: Aerosol and vapour transport phenomena simulated in each control volume.................18
Figure 2.4: Aerosol particle size distribution modelled by ECART at a given time. ........................19
Table 2.1: Catalogue of the chemical species available in ECART...................................................24
Figure 3.1: Major components of the upgraded ICE Facility. ...........................................................27
Figure 3.2: Appearance of the upgraded ICE Facility. ......................................................................28
Figure 3.3: Location of the points where the wall temperature was measured..................................30
Figure 3.4: Slit configuration at the divertor......................................................................................31
Table 3.1: ICE tests P1 – P8 nominal boundary conditions...............................................................33
Figure 4.1: ECART model of the upgraded ICE Facility. .................................................................34
Table 4.1: Components of the ECART nodalisation..........................................................................35
Table 4.2: Connections in the nodalization........................................................................................36
Table 4.3: Actual experimental initial conditions used in the post-tests............................................39
Table 5.1: P1 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................40
Table 5.2: P2 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................43
Table 5.3: P3 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................46
Table 5.4: P4 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................48
Table 5.5: P5 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................50
Table 5.6: P6 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................52
Figure 5.1: ICE P6 – Heat transfer coefficient for the PC. ................................................................53
Table 5.7: P7 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................55
Table 5.8: P8 – Experimental data vs. ECART results. .....................................................................57
Table B.1: Summary of the main results for the cases P1 – P8. ........................................................69
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
8 of 117
Figure B.1 ICE P1 – Flow rates. ........................................................................................................70
Figure B.0.2 ICE P1 – PC Pressure (short term)................................................................................70
Figure B.3 ICE P1 – PC Pressure.......................................................................................................71
Figure B.4 ICE P1 – VV Pressure......................................................................................................71
Figure B.5 ICE P1 – ST Pressure.......................................................................................................72
Figure B.6 ICE P1 – PC Atmosphere Temperature. ..........................................................................72
Figure B.7 ICE P1 – VV Atmosphere Temperature. .........................................................................73
Figure B.8 ICE P1 – PC Wall Temperature. ......................................................................................73
Figure B.9 ICE P1 – VV Wall Temperature. .....................................................................................74
Figure B.10 ICE P1 – DT Pressure. ...................................................................................................74
Figure B.11 ICE P1 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.........................................................................75
Figure B.12 ICE P2 – Flow rates. ......................................................................................................76
Figure B.13 ICE P2 – PC Pressure (short term).................................................................................76
Figure B.14 ICE P2 – PC Pressure.....................................................................................................77
Figure B.15 ICE P2 – VV Pressure....................................................................................................77
Figure B.16 ICE P2 – ST Pressure.....................................................................................................78
Figure B.17 ICE P2 – PC Atmosphere Temperature. ........................................................................78
Figure B.18 ICE P2 – VV Atmosphere Temperature. .......................................................................79
Figure B.19 ICE P2 – PC Wall Temperature. ....................................................................................79
Figure B.20 ICE P2 – VV Wall Temperature. ...................................................................................80
Figure B.21 ICE P2 – DT Pressure. ...................................................................................................80
Figure B.22 ICE P2 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.........................................................................81
Figure B.23 ICE P3 – Flow rates. ......................................................................................................82
Figure B.24 ICE P3 – PC Pressure (short term).................................................................................82
Figure B.25 ICE P3 – PC Pressure.....................................................................................................83
Figure B.26 ICE P3 – VV Pressure....................................................................................................83
Figure B.27 ICE P3 – ST Pressure.....................................................................................................84
Figure B.28 ICE P3 – PC Atmosphere Temperature. ........................................................................84
Figure B.29 ICE P3 – VV Atmosphere Temperature. .......................................................................85
Figure B.30 ICE P3 – PC Wall Temperature. ....................................................................................85
Figure B.31 ICE P3 – VV Wall Temperature. ...................................................................................86
Figure B.32 ICE P3 – DT Pressure. ...................................................................................................86
Figure B.33 ICE P3 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.........................................................................87
Figure B.34 ICE P4 – Flow rates. ......................................................................................................88
Figure B.35 ICE P4 – PC Pressure (short term).................................................................................88
Figure B.36 ICE P4 – PC Pressure.....................................................................................................89
Figure B.37 ICE P4 – VV Pressure....................................................................................................89
Figure B.38 ICE P4 – ST Pressure.....................................................................................................90
Figure B.39 ICE P4 – PC Atmosphere Temperature. ........................................................................90
Figure B.40 ICE P4 – VV Atmosphere Temperature. .......................................................................91
Figure B.41 ICE P4 – PC Wall Temperature. ....................................................................................91
Figure B.42 ICE P4 – VV Wall Temperature. ...................................................................................92
Figure B.43 ICE P4 – DT Pressure. ...................................................................................................92
Figure B.44 ICE P4 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.........................................................................93
Figure B.45 ICE P5 – Flow rates. ......................................................................................................94
Figure B.46 ICE P5 – PC Pressure (short term).................................................................................94
Figure B.47 ICE P5 – PC Pressure.....................................................................................................95
Figure B.48 ICE P5 – VV Pressure....................................................................................................95
Figure B.49 ICE P5 – ST Pressure.....................................................................................................96
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
9 of 117
Figure B.50 ICE P5 – PC Atmosphere Temperature. ........................................................................96
Figure B.51 ICE P5 – VV Atmosphere Temperature. .......................................................................97
Figure B.52 ICE P5 – PC Wall Temperature. ....................................................................................97
Figure B.53 ICE P5 – VV Wall Temperature. ...................................................................................98
Figure B.54 ICE P5 – DT Pressure. ...................................................................................................98
Figure B.55 ICE P5 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.........................................................................99
Figure B.56 ICE P6 – Flow rates. ....................................................................................................100
Figure B.57 ICE P6 – PC Pressure (short term)...............................................................................100
Figure B.58 ICE P6 – PC Pressure...................................................................................................101
Figure B.59 ICE P6 – VV Pressure..................................................................................................101
Figure B.60 ICE P6 – ST Pressure...................................................................................................102
Figure B.61 ICE P6 – PC Atmosphere Temperature. ......................................................................102
Figure B.62 ICE P6 – VV Atmosphere Temperature. .....................................................................103
Figure B.63 ICE P6 – PC Wall Temperature. ..................................................................................103
Figure B.64 ICE P6 – VV Wall Temperature. .................................................................................104
Figure B.65 ICE P6 – DT Pressure. .................................................................................................104
Figure B.66 ICE P6 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.......................................................................105
Figure B.67 ICE P7 – Flow rates. ....................................................................................................106
Figure B.68 ICE P7 – PC Pressure (short term)...............................................................................106
Figure B.69 ICE P7 – PC Pressure...................................................................................................107
Figure B.70 ICE P7 – VV Pressure..................................................................................................107
Figure B.71 ICE P7 – ST Pressure...................................................................................................108
Figure B.72 ICE P7 – PC Atmosphere Temperature. ......................................................................108
Figure B.73 ICE P7 – VV Atmosphere Temperature. .....................................................................109
Figure B.74 ICE P7 – PC Wall Temperature. ..................................................................................109
Figure B.75 ICE P7 – VV Wall Temperature. .................................................................................110
Figure B.76 ICE P7 – DT Pressure. .................................................................................................110
Figure B.77 ICE P7 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.......................................................................111
Figure B.78 ICE P8 – Flow rates. ....................................................................................................112
Figure B.79 ICE P8 – PC Pressure (short term)...............................................................................112
Figure B.80 ICE P8 – PC Pressure...................................................................................................113
Figure B.81 ICE P8 – VV Pressure..................................................................................................113
Figure B.82 ICE P8 – ST Pressure...................................................................................................114
Figure B.83 ICE P8 – PC Atmosphere Temperature. ......................................................................114
Figure B.84 ICE P8 – VV Atmosphere Temperature. .....................................................................115
Figure B.85 ICE P8 – PC Wall Temperature. ..................................................................................115
Figure B.86 ICE P8 – VV Wall Temperature. .................................................................................116
Figure B.87 ICE P8 – DT Pressure. .................................................................................................116
Figure B.88 ICE P8 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.......................................................................117
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
Acronyms
AMMD
AV
CH
DIMNP
DT
DV
EdF
ENEA
EU
EVITA
HTC
ICE
ITER
LWR
NPP
PC
RCS
RD
RP
SA
ST
TH
VV
Aerosol Mass Median Diameter
Aerosol and Vapour
Chemical
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica, Nucleare e della Produzione
Drain Tank
Divertor
Electricité de France
Ente per le Nuove Tecnologie l’Energia e l’Ambiente
European Union
Experimental Vacuum Ingress Test Apparatus
Heat Transfer Coefficient
Ingress of Coolant Event
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
Light Water Reactor
Nuclear Power Plant
Plasma Chamber
Reactor Cooling System
Rupture Disk
Relief Pipe
Severe Accident
Suppression Tank
Thermal-Hydraulic
Vacuum Vessel
PAGE
10 of 117
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
11 of 117
1. INTRODUCTION
This work is related to the application of the ENEL (now
) and EdF ECART (ENEL Code
1
for Analysis of Radionuclide Transport) code [Parozzi, 1997a and 1997b] on 8 thermal-hydraulic
tests performed inside the upgraded [Takase, 2001a] Integrated ICE test facility (Figure 1.1),
built by the JAERI in Naka laboratories (Japan). The new set of experimental tests (P1 - P8) has
been scheduled and performed by JAERI during 2001, to assess the influence of the suppression
tank connection (upper position, in the upgraded facility) and the presence of a drain tank on the
reached maximum pressure [Topilski, 2003].
The main features of the ECART code will be described in this report, as far as the
characteristics of the modified experimental facility ICE and the conditions for the 8
experiments.
The combined effect of the jet impingement and heat transfer between the fluid and the walls
have been studied too. Some of these effect are significant for ITER, some others play a very
little role in ITER (jet impingement, for example) but they are significant to model correctly the
behaviour of the ICE facility, as shown also in the previous DIMNP calculations for the former
layout of the ICE device [Oriolo, 1998].
All the related geometrical data and the specific initially and boundary conditions for the
analysis have been furnished to the DIMNP by ENEA Frascati Fusion Division [Porfiri, 2002],
[Porfiri, 2003] while the ECART code was made available to ENEA Frascati and Pisa University
by CESI Milan.
The structure of the report is the following:
1
-
the second chapter depicts the ECART code features;
-
the third chapter outlines the ICE facility;
-
the fourth chapter traces the nodalization adopted in ECART to model the ICE facility;
-
the fifth chapter reports the simulation results
-
the sixth chapter draws the conclusion of the validation work.
CESI acquired at the end of 1999 the Research & Development division of ENEL.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
12 of 117
Figure 1.1: The upgraded ICE Facility.
These activities have been carried out in the general framework of the ECART validation phase.
The code was initially developed by ENEL and EdF for integrated analysis of SAs in LWRs.
Afterwards it was applied on incidental sequences related to the ITER FEAT fusion plant. Main
points of this validation phase for the thermal-hydraulic module were, in the past, the DIMNP
activities related on the first Japanese ICE facility [Oriolo, 1998] and on the French EVITA
experimental apparatus [Paci, 2000], always performed in the framework of research contracts
between Pisa University and ENEA Frascati. Several campaigns for the validation of the
computer codes to be utilised in safety analysis were performed in the ITER design frame
(EFDA Task TW0-SEA 5A – Analysis verification) during the last years. So, a specific aim of
these calculations is also to evaluate the capability of the ECART code to perform the accident
analyses necessary for the safety reporting.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
13 of 117
2. MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ECART CODE
2.1 Main Features of the Code
ECART is designed [Parozzi, 1997a and 1997b] to operate with three sections (Figure 2.1),
linked together, but able to be activated also as stand-alone modules:
a) thermal-hydraulic (th)- providing boundary conditions for chemistry and aerosol/vapour
transport models;
b) aerosol and vapour (av)- calculating the amount of radioactive or toxic substances that
may be retained or released in the analyzed circuit components;
c) chemical (ch) - chemical equilibrium among the compounds (only in vapour form) and
reactions between gaseous phase and solid materials.
Figure 2.1: Schematic of the linking among the three main sections of ECART.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
thermal-hydraulic boundary conditions for chemical reactions
quantity of each chemical compound in gaseous phase
concentration of airborne reactants
thermal-hydraulic boundary conditions for aerosol and vapours transport phenomena
heat sources associated to transported species and aerosol concentrations capable to
modify gas physical properties
The code applies to pure transport phenomenology (mass, energy, momentum transfer and
chemical processes) in whatever part of a given circuit. Support by other tools or experimental
data can be used as boundary conditions or to account plant-dependent phenomena (e.g. releases
from fuel, intervention of specific safety devices, etc.).
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
14 of 117
The ECART structure is designed to treat the thermal-hydraulic phenomena and the
aerosol/vapour transport in an arbitrary flow system that the user can arbitrarily subdivide into a
series of control volumes connected by flow junctions, chosen on the basis of considerations
regarding geometrical features, thermal-hydraulic conditions and/or the expected retention of
aerosols and vapours. Other details of transport analysis can be also decided by the user, like the
number of chemical species, the occurrence of agglomeration or other phenomena and the
multicomponent description.
Inside each control volume, a two-region model is adopted (Figure 2.2), being the liquid pool
separated from the atmosphere. Within each region, thermal equilibrium is always assumed.
Therefore, non-equilibrium effects related to superheated vapour injected in the pool or
subcooled water sprayed in the atmosphere are separately accounted for.
Figure 2.2: Control volume model adopted for ECART thermal-hydraulics.
Aerosols are assumed to be well-mixed inside the volumes. This assumption requires that the
amount of vapour and/or aerosol removed within the control volume is “small” in relation to the
total amount of material transported throughout the control volume itself. A corrective action
(called “plug” flow) is provided for those volumes, like a long pipe, having only a radial mixing
(a concentration gradient exists along the pipe). The direction and the rate of the carrier flow can
be directly assigned in input, together with other boundary data, or can be predicted by the
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
PAGE
15 of 117
thermal-hydraulic section. This direction can change with time, although the aerosol transport
through junctions is treated as one-dimensional (i.e. there is not simultaneous mixing through a
junction). Two-dimensional flows, required to simulate scenarios where the natural convection
streams could enhance the mixing among the volumes, can be accounted using two junctions to
describe the exchanges between the two volumes. Recirculation phenomena or chimney-effects
promoted by the injection of hot or lighter gas into large environments are taken into account by
aerosol and vapour module, in the absence of any sub-nodalisation, through the estimate of a
“recirculation velocity”.
2.1.1 Thermal-Hydraulic Models
Basing on previous DIMNP experience in the development & application of models for
analyzing thermal-hydraulics during postulated accidents and considering the peculiarities of the
AV models, the following characteristics were established for the TH section:
a) capability of describing TH accident transients in NPP circuits, with the degree of detail
required by the AV section, and capability of processing incomplete experimental data
providing the lacking information on local behaviour;
b) transport simulation of the aerosol carrier gases expected within LWR plants under SA
conditions and usually employed in experimental tests (steam, argon, helium, hydrogen,
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, krypton, nitrogen, oxygen and xenon);
c) solution of mass, energy and momentum balance equations in order to provide for realistic
representations of fluid flow and heat transfer;
d) calculation of pool levels in the control volumes and evaluation of steam suppression
effects to support the aerosol scrubbing phenomenology;
e) steam condensation modelled by splitting bulk and wall condensation (influencing,
respectively, aerosol growth and aerosol diffusiophoretic deposition);
f) allowance for counter-current flow conditions at junctions;
g) capability of evaluating wall heat transfer taking into account wall thermal conductivity
changes due to aerosol deposition and radioactive decay heat sources;
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
16 of 117
h) possibility of characterizing heat structure surfaces with local hydraulic parameters having
strong influence on aerosol deposition and resuspension mechanisms (i.e. hydraulic
diameter, local fluid velocity and Reynolds number, etc.).
The assumption of complete stratification in a control volume is fairly well suited for
containment analyses. It has some limitations in pipelines, but these limitations are accepted
considering that, under SA conditions, single-phase flow (superheated steam-hydrogen mixture)
or stratified flow (formation of water sumps in cold components) is likely to occur. A complete
solution of the problem would require flow regime maps and constitutive laws for interfacial
area and heat transfer under various regimes. However, this kind of accident scenarios, expected
to be of minor importance in terms of Source Term (as a Steam Generator Tube Rupture), would
imply removal mechanisms differing from those mainly influencing the Source Term associated
to the SAs normally considered for probabilistic safety assessments.
2.1.1.1 Evaluation of Heat Transfer Coefficients
The particular heat transfer regime applicable to the actual conditions is selected by ECART
[Parozzi, 1997b] on the basis of various thermal-hydraulic parameters related to the heat transfer
surface and the facing control volume. Pressure, fluid temperature and velocity, hydraulic
diameter, fluid thermo-physical properties, wall temperature, etc., are the heat transfer package
main input parameters, the output ones being the convective heat transfer coefficient and the heat
flux. A full range of heat exchange phenomena is considered, although the need to develop a
fast-running package required to adopt various simplifications, which are nevertheless consistent
with the overall strategy adopted in setting up ECART.
The criteria for choosing the heat transfer regime and the related correlation are based on the
comparison of the wall temperature, the saturation temperature and the dew temperature with the
actual fluid temperature value. Six different heat transfer modes are considered:
1.
single-Phase Liquid Convection (natural or forced, laminar or turbulent);
2.
boiling (subcooled and saturated);
3.
transition Boiling;
4.
film Boiling or Dispersed Flow Film Boiling;
5.
single Phase Gas Convection (natural or forced);
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
6.
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
17 of 117
condensation.
As far as the evaluation of thermal-hydraulic parameters taken into account for heat exchange
coefficient is concerned, the value of average volume pressure is considered, but void fraction,
fluid temperature, enthalpy and thermo-physical properties are assigned considering the actual
position of the structure in the volume with reference to the calculated liquid level; in particular,
if the level separates the surface in two regions, facing the liquid and the gas respectively, an
average fluid temperature and an heat transfer coefficient are evaluated for each region; these
values are averaged considering the relative areas in order to obtain realistic values of the overall
conductance.
2.1.2 Aerosol and Vapour Models
Although ECART adopts the classic well-mixed assumption to describe the transport within each
control volume, the vapour and particles deposition and resuspension phenomena can be
described by dividing each control volume into sub-regions (normally, coincident with single
heat structures or sumps), where local thermal-hydraulic conditions (temperature, gas flow
velocity, etc.) can be taken into account. By this way, small components or devices can be
analyzed as part of larger control volumes, with a unique run of the master aerosol equation and
longer time steps. Within each control volume, all phenomena that can be responsible for
retention or re-entrance of radioactive or toxic substances can be taken into account (Figure 2.3).
2.1.2.1 Transport of Volatile Substances
Because of their negligible latent heat, condensation and evaporation of volatile species onto and
from airborne particles and structure surfaces are dynamically calculated by diffusion equations.
Conversely, steam-water phase changes can be either calculated by the TH module or assigned
as input. The condensation and evaporation onto and from airborne particles promote aerosol
growth or shrinkage, modify the two shape factors if necessary (see next paragraph) while the
presence of a liquid phase in an aerosol deposit can inhibit its resuspension.
Irreversible sorption of CsOH, I, I2, HI, Te and Te2 vapours onto wall surfaces (made by SS or
nickel alloys) and airborne particles is also modelled by adopting experimentally based
correlations. The experimentally determined vapour deposition velocities on hot surfaces may
not represent an accurate description of the process as it occurs because of the imprecision in the
available data [Parozzi, 1997b].
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
18 of 117
STEAM
VAPORS
DEPOSITION
SURFACES
PHYSICAL RESUSPENSION
LAMINAR DEPOSITION
TURBULENT DEPOSITION
THERMOPHORESIS
GRAVITATIONAL SETTLING
WATER
SUMP
AEROSOL
G R O W TH
CENTRIFUGAL DEPOSITION
DIFFUSIOPHORESIS
SUM P
BUBBLING
AEROSOLS
Figure 2.3: Aerosol and vapour transport phenomena simulated in each control volume.
2.1.2.2 Transport of Aerosol Particles
ECART works with discretised size distributions (Figure 2.4), both for airborne and deposited
particles, where the maximum number of the size bins is an input choice (default 20). Ordinary
differential equations solvers, with implicit integration methods, allow saving computing time
and preventing numerical instabilities.
To compute the evolution of aerosol particles, mono-component basic aerosol equations can be
used as default choice (i.e., at a given time, all the size bins in a given volume have the same
composition). A multicomponent description of both airborne and deposited particles is possible
optionally. This multicomponent approach (i.e., each size bin has its own composition), is
obtained through an approximation: the aerosol and vapour module individually tracks the
transported species in each size bin, accounting for sources, particle growths or shrinking,
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
PAGE
19 of 117
depositions, resuspension, etc.. The correctness and the stability of this multicomponent
approach were tested through virtual tests having a known solution.
8.E-09
0.6
AMMD 1.2 microns - GSD 2.0
7.E-09
Log-normal distribution
mass concentration at time 0.0
0.5
0.4
5.E-09
4.E-09
0.3
3.E-09
0.2
Mass concentration [kg/m3]
Log-Normal distribution [-]
6.E-09
2.E-09
0.1
1.E-09
0.0
0.E+00
0.007
0.012
0.021
0.037
0.067
0.119
0.211 0.375 0.667 1.186
Mean Radius [micron]
2.109
3.750
6.668 11.857 21.085 37.495
Figure 2.4: Aerosol particle size distribution modelled by ECART at a given time.
The asphericity of aerosol or dust particles is simulated by input assigning two size-dependent
shape factors:
1. “aerodynamic shape factor” χ, accounting for the different resistance to the motion of
the actual particle if compared to the mass-equivalent sphere;
2. “collision shape factor” γ, accounting for the increased effective collision cross-section.
The spherical shape is the code default for the particles (χ = 1.0 and γ = 1.0) but larger values for
these two shape factors are normally present in LWR RCS conditions for “dry” particles
[Parozzi, 1997b]. This spherical shape is however always assumed for “wet” particles, having an
input given mass fraction of water (default 0.7), while the “dry factors are utilised if the liquid
mass fraction is lesser than 0.2; for intermediate values a linear interpolation is performed.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
20 of 117
The agglomeration models are based on the calculation of “collision kernels” related to the
different mechanisms for the agglomeration of the airborne particles. The collision frequency is
then calculated multiplying this kernel by the aerosol concentration. Three processes of
agglomeration are taken into account:
i) Brownian (formula derived by Smoluchowski);
ii) Gravitational (collision between particles having different settling velocities);
iii) Turbulent, shear and inertial (Saffman and Turner’s formula).
Particle growth due to bulk condensation of vapours and steam is modelled, also allowing the
simulation of a possible hygroscopic behaviour of particles through the Van’t Hoff factor,
characterising the hygroscopicity of the considered chemical species. The Kelvin effect is taken
into account in the case of steam condensation, which is inhibited for particles having radii
smaller than the critical radius calculated by the code.
The deposition rate of the aerosol particles onto the different wall or pool surfaces is calculated
as the sum of “deposition velocities” attributed to different effects:
¾ inertial impaction from turbulent flow (according to Liu-Agarwal observations);
¾ diffusion from turbulent flow (Davies’ formula);
¾ diffusion from laminar flow (Gormley-Kennedy’s formula);
¾ thermophoresis (Brock’s correlation with Talbot’s coefficients);
¾ gravitational settling (Stokesian and non-Stokesian regimes);
¾ centrifugation in curved pathways and pipe bends (Stokesian and non-Stokesian regimes;
trapping in narrow bends);
¾ diffusiophoresis (Schmitt-Waldmann’s formula).
The particle mechanical resuspension and the inhibition of their deposition, both caused by fast
gas flows, is evaluated though an original semi-empirical approach based on a relationship
between the acting forces on particles (adhesive and aerodynamic) and resuspension rates
experimentally measured. This model takes into account both for the transient resuspension of
already formed aerosol deposits and for the steady-state resuspension occurring in equilibrium
with particle turbulent deposition.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
21 of 117
In water sumps, the possible particle scrubbing phenomena is modelled, accounting for the
aerosol phenomena occurring within the rising bubbles: inward and condensing steam,
gravitational settling, particle diffusion and centrifugation.
2.1.2.3 Coupling Between Aerosol and Thermal-Hydraulic Calculations
In the case of a coupled run of aerosols and thermal-hydraulics, the AV section receives all the
required data from TH, and gives a feedback to heat and mass transfer calculations. Then, the
influence of high airborne aerosol concentrations on the gas physical properties (apparent density
and viscosity) is taken into account.
The coupling among the two sections is explicit: as the TH section and the AV section are
advanced with their own convergence criteria, a proper logic of time step synchronization is
adopted. The thermal-hydraulic problem is firstly solved over the time interval between two
synchronous conditions (of the order of the lowest Courant limit in the nodalisation), often
adopting short time steps, suitable for numerical explicit algorithms. The aerosol calculations
follow, with implicit integration methods allowing time steps usually an order of magnitude
longer than the thermal-hydraulics ones: this technique gives the possibility to smooth out the
data related to flow rates and pressures calculated by the TH section in the case of oscillations
due to limited instabilities.
2.1.3 Chemistry Models
The CH section provides the AV section with the gaseous phase composition on the basis of
equilibrium conditions. The chemical equilibrium calculation occurs whenever significant
changes in temperatures, pressures or vapour species amount are calculated by the other two
sections. Possible phase changes causing condensation onto walls and airborne particles,
however, are dynamically accounted for in the diffusive model employed by the AV section.
The solving algorithm is based on Gibbs free energy minimization at constant pressure and
temperature of the system: this allows the calculation of the equilibrium composition of the
mixture in terms of molar fractions. In order to manage the formation and evolution of
radionuclide species within LWR Reactor Coolant Systems, this CH section is dimensioned for
environments characterized by temperatures in the range from room conditions up to 2,500. K,
with pressures up to 15. MPa. Real gas behaviour is modelled by fugacity coefficients computed
according to Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation for a hydrogen-steam mixture. The code uses a
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
22 of 117
non-linear minimization algorithm preventing the linearization of the function to be minimized,
which would affect the correctness of final results.
The possible reactants and reaction products considered (Table 2.1) are the carrier gas
components, with the exception of nitrogen and noble gases, and most of the species which can
be transported in form of vapours. To match with the phase changes calculated by the AV
section, super saturation conditions of the predicted vapours are accepted by chemistry
algorithms. The databases contained in chemical section are also used to determine the
temperature-dependent saturation pressures of all volatile species. The CH section contains
information about the most representative compounds for a LWR SA sequence. Further
compounds, involved in fusion reactor safety problems, are also included in the catalogue (Table
2.1) as discussed in the next paragraph.
2.1.3.1 Models for Chemical Reactions in Fusion Reactor Accidents
ECART allows fitting the fusion reactors model for the oxidation reactions of beryllium,
graphite and tungsten in air and steam. These reactions involve three features modelled by the
code: heat structures, aerosol particles suspended in the carrier gas and aerosol particles
deposited on walls.
The reactions of beryllium, graphite and tungsten solid walls of PFCs or dusts with air and/or
steam are not explicitly treated by the chemical section of ECART but in a separate ad-hoc
module which makes use of surface reactions rates computed by means of semi-empirical
correlations, also giving the reaction heats released to or removed from the environment. The
oxidation reactions are only limited by the availability of steam and oxygen in the carrier gas,
while the mass of the reacting element (Be, C or W) in the suspended or deposited aerosol
cannot become negative (on a solid wall, the reacted elements Be, C and W and the solid oxide
reaction products BeO and WO3 are not accounted for).
If the amount of steam or oxygen required by all the reactions occurring concurrently, in the
current time step, is greater than the available mass, the ∆m of each reaction is scaled by the ratio
of the available to the required mass of steam or oxygen. In this way, no reaction is favoured but
some delay in the reaction completion could result.
Obviously, in a stand-alone aerosol-vapour analysis, no account is taken of the reaction heating
and of the mass addition to or subtraction from the carrier gas because the thermal-hydraulic
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
23 of 117
conditions are fixed by input tables. On the contrary, for the reactions occurring in the suspended
or deposited aerosol, the mass increase (or decrease) in a time step or sub-step, of the involved
chemical species (e.g., Be and BeO) is allowed for in the mass balance equations and is
distributed over the aerosol size bins proportionally to the square of the geometric mean radius of
the particles.
If a thermal-hydraulics/aerosol-vapour coupled analysis is performed, the reaction heat (positive
for exothermic reaction) is added to the gas atmosphere for reactions occurring in the suspended
aerosol and is added to the structure for reactions occurring on the solid surface or in the
deposited aerosol.
The masses of the carrier gas components (steam, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide and
dioxide) released or removed by the reactions, as well as the correspondent enthalpies, are
accounted for in thermal-hydraulics.
The reactions in the suspended aerosol are assumed to occur at the gas bulk temperature, while
the boundary layer temperature (i.e. geometric mean of wall and gas bulk temperatures) is used
for the reactions with solid walls and deposited aerosols. This last assumption is questionable
and it is under further assessment (at the present, in the code input deck is possible to choose the
temperature to be used – bulk or wall).
The reaction area is identified with the wall surface area for the reactions on a solid wall and
with the surface area of all the particles multiplied by the mass fraction of the reacted element for
the reactions in the airborne aerosol. Also, as far as the reaction area for the deposited aerosol is
concerned, the total surface area of the aerosol particles is assumed except when the deposited
liquid mass exceeds a given fraction of the total deposited mass, in which case the area of the
underlying wall is assumed. However, for a multi-layer deposited aerosol, the basic reaction area
should be reduced depending on the depth of the deposited aerosol and on the dispersion
(standard deviation) of the aerosol particles distribution, i.e., on the compactness of the aerosol
agglomerate.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
24 of 117
Table 2.1: Catalogue of the chemical species available in ECART.
Species
Name
Species Description
Normal
melting
point [K]
Normal
boiling
Point [K]
Ag
AgI
B
BI3
B2O3
Ba
BaI
BaI2
BaO
BaOH
Ba(OH)2
Be
BeO
C
Cd
CdI
CdI2
CdO
Cd(OH)2
CdTe
CH4
Co
Cr
CrI
CrI2
CrO
Cr2O3
Cs
CsBO2
CsI
CsO
CsOH
Cs2
Cs2CrO4
Cs2MoO4
Cs2O
Cs2(OH)2
Cs2Te
Cs2TeO3
Cs2ZrO3
Cu
CuO
D
D2
Silver
silver iodide
Boron
boron triiodide
boron sesquioxide
Barium
Barium monoiodide
Barium iodide
Barium oxide
Barium hydroxide
Barium dihydroxide
Beryllium
Beryllium oxide
Carbon
cadmium
cadmium monoiodide
cadmium diiodide
cadmium oxide
cadmium dihydroxide
cadmium telluride
methane
cobalt
chromium
chromium monoiodide
chromium diiodide
chromium oxide
chromium sesquioxide
Caesium
Caesium borate
Caesium iodide
Caesium monoxide
Caesium hydroxide
diatomic caesium
Caesium chromate
Caesium molybdate
Caesium oxide
Caesium dihydroxide
Caesium telluride
Caesium tellurite
Caesium zirconate
copper
Copper monoxide
Elemental deuterium
molecular deuterium
1234.
831.
2350.
323
723.
1000.
-984.
2286.
-681.
1560.
2821.
3925.
594.
-660.
--1314.
-1768.
2130.
-1129.
-2603.
301.5
-900.
-500.
--763.
----1358
1599
---
2436.
1779.
4139
483
2133.
2119.
-2337.
--1325.
2741.
-5100.
1038.
-1069.
----3198.
2945.
---4273.
948.
-1553.
-1263.
--763.
----2843
2073
---
Solid
density
[kg/m3]
10500
5683
2355
3350
2460
3510
-5150
5720
-2180
1850
3010
2250
8642
-5670
6950
4790
6200
-8900
7200
-5196
-5210
1878
-4510
-3675
-4237
1000
4250
--1000
1000
8920
6400
---
Liquid
density
[kg/m3]
9320
4830
2080
3350
2090
3081
-4380
4862
-1850
1500
2258
1912
7530
-4820
5900
4070
5270
-7670
6460
-4417
-4430
1468
-4057
-3308
-4237
0850
3610
--0850
0850
7950
5440
---
Evaporat. /
Condens.
Chemisorption
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No(3)
No(3)
No(3)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
sorbable(1)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
Species
Name
Fe
FeI2
FeO
Fe2I4
Fe2NiO4
Fe2O3
Fe3O4
H
HBO2
HI
H2O
H2Te
H3BO3
I
I2
In
InI
InTe
In2O
In2O3
In2Te
Li2O
LiOH
Mn
MnI2
MnO
Mn2O3
Mn3O4
MoO2
MoO3
Ni
Ni(CO)4
NiI2
NiO
O
OH
RbI
RbOH
Ru
RuO2
RuO3
Sb
SbTe
Sb2
Sb2O3
Sb2Te3
Species Description
Normal
melting
point [K]
Normal
boiling
Point [K]
Iron
iron iodide
iron oxide
iron iodide
diiron nickel tetraoxide
iron sesquioxide
iron tetraoxide
elemental hydrogen
boric acid
hydrogen iodide
water
hydrogen telluride
boric acid
elemental iodine
molecular iodine
indium
indium monoiodide
indium telluride
indium suboxide
indium sesquioxide
diindium telluride
Lithium oxide
Lithium hydroxide
manganese
manganese diiodide
manganese oxide
manganese sesquioxide
trimanganese tetraoxide
molybdenum dioxide
molybdenum trioxide
nickel
nickel carbonyl
nickel iodide
nickel monoxide
elemental oxygen
hydroxyl
rubidium iodide
rubidium hydroxide
ruthenium
ruthenium dioxide
ruthenium trioxide
antimony
antimony monotelluride
diatomic antimony
antimony trioxide
antimony tritelluride
1809.
1650.
--1838.
1870.
---273.
---387.
430.
624
342.
---1843.
744.
1517.
911.
2115.
-1835.
-1075
1726
248
1070.
2263
--929.00
574.
2523.
--904.
--939.
902.
3132.
3687.
---1870.
---373.
---458.
2353.
986
----2836
1897
2332
---1835.
-1428
3005.
316
------4173.
--2023.
--1823.
--
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
Solid
density
[kg/m3]
7860
5320
5700
--5240
5180
---1000
---4930
7300
5310
6290
6990
7179
-2013
1460
7200
5000
5445
4500
4856
6470
4692
8900
1320
5834
6670
--3550
3203
12300
6970
-6684
-5670
6500
Liquid
density
[kg/m3]
7020
4522
4840
--4450
4400
---1000
---4930
5585
4514
6290
6990
6100
-1711
1241
6430
4250
4630
3820
4130
5500
3988
7780
1320
4960
5700
--2870
2723
10900
5920
-5681
-4820
5525
PAGE
25 of 117
Evaporat. /
Condens.
Chemisorption
Yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
no
no
no
sorber(2)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Sorbable
Sorbable
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Sorber(2)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
Species
Name
Sb4
Sn
SnH4
SnI2
SnO
SnO2
SnTe
Sr
SrI2
SrO
SrOH
Sr(OH)2
T
T2
Te
TeO2
Te2
W
WO3
Zn
ZnO
ZrI4
ZrO2
&...
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Species Description
Normal
melting
point [K]
Normal
boiling
Point [K]
tetra atomic antimony
tin
tin tetrahydride
tin iodide
tin monoxide
tin dioxide
tin monotelluride
strontium
strontium iodide
strontium oxide
strontium hydroxide
strontium dihydroxide
Elemental tritium
molecular tritium
Tellurium
tellurium dioxide
diatomic tellurium
Tungsten
Tungsten trioxide
Zinc
zinc oxide
Zirconium tetraiodide
zirconium dioxide
inert species(4)
-505.
-593.
-1400.
1079.
1050.
811.
2938.
-783.
--723.
1006.
-3680.
1745.
693.
2248.
772.
2950.
Input
-2873.
-990.
-2073.
-1685.
2178.
3273.
-1017
--1327.
1518.
-5931
2110
1179.
--4544.
--
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
Solid
density
[kg/m3]
-7280
-5290
6446
6950
6480
2600
4549
4700
-3625
--6250
5790
-19350
7160
7140
5606
1000
5890
input
Liquid
density
[kg/m3]
-7000
-4497
5448
5910
5510
2210
3870
3990
-3080
--5489
4920
-17600
6086
6570
4770
1000
5010
Input
PAGE
26 of 117
Evaporat. /
Condens.
Chemisorption
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
sorbable(1)
No
sorbable(1)
No(3)
No(3)
No
No
No
No
No
Also chemisorbable on steel wall and aerosol particles if Fe and/or Ni are present
Also sorber for chemisorption in aerosol particles
Involved in oxidation reactions with steam and oxygen
Inert as aerosol, not requiring chemical equilibrium or phase change calculation, input added by user
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
PAGE
27 of 117
3. INTEGRATED ICE TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The ICE facility was constructed at the Naka Laboratories of the Japan Atomic Energy Research
Institute (JAERI) as part of the ITER program to obtain experimental data on the effectiveness of
the ITER suppression system [Takase, 2001b].
The upgraded ICE test facility represents a 1/1600-scale model of ITER. A schematic of the
major components of the facility is illustrated in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2. It includes a boiler
(not represented in the figure) and four main volumes: the plasma chamber (PC), the vacuum
vessel (VV), a drain tank (DT) and the suppression tank (ST). A small volume connects the PC
to the VV and in this volume is located the simulated divertor (SD).
80 mm
No.2
No.1
2100 mm
Slit
Plasma chamber
(0.6 m 3)
φ
Water
Relief pipe
No.1
No.2
120 mm
Nozzle
1200 mm
φ
500 mm
Nozzle
Plate
Divertor
Slit
162 mm
Nozzle
Nozzle
1720 mm
Magnet valve
Nozzle
5 mm
No.3
120 mm
Nozzle
15 mm
600 mm
Water injection nozzle
1200 mm
No.3
Magnet valve
Water injection nozzle
100 mm
Relief pipe
A
Vacuum vessel
(0.34 m 3)
Divertor slit configuration
Magnet valve
Relief pipe
Drain pipe
B
B
φ 800 mm
(0.4 m 3 )
Section A-A
Suppression tank
(0.93 m 3)
Water
(0.5 m 3)
1960 mm
Drain tank
Relief pipe
No.3
No.1
No.2
Water
SectionB-B
A
Figure 3.1: Major components of the upgraded ICE Facility.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
28 of 117
Three relief pipes
Boiler
Plasma chamber
Divertor
Vacuum pump
Vacuum vessel
Drain line
Drain tank
Suppression tank
Figure 3.2: Appearance of the upgraded ICE Facility.
3.1 ICE Main Components
3.1.1 Boiler
Connected to the plasma chamber by three injection lines (each with an internal diameter of 10
mm) is a pressurized boiler (not shown in Figure 3.1). This boiler supplies the water simulating
the primary coolant. It consists of a cylindrical stainless steel tank with a diameter of 700 mm
and 1800 mm long (the volume is about 0.631 m3). The maximum water volume stored in the
boiler is about 0.2 m3 and can be heated to 250 °C by electrical heaters located in the boiler
yielding a maximum saturation pressure of 3.97 MPa.
The outlets of the injection lines are located on the bottom of the boiler. The three injection lines
run from the bottom of the boiler and connect to the side of the plasma chamber. The lines are
evenly spaced in the longitudinal direction.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
29 of 117
During the injection phase of the ICE transient the pressure in the boiler is maintained at the
desired boiler pressure by high pressure nitrogen gas, in order to maintain a constant mass flow
to the plasma chamber. A flow control valve located between a high-pressure nitrogen tank and
the boiler is used to control the pressure in the boiler.
3.1.2 Plasma Chamber
The ITER plasma chamber (PC) is represented by a cylindrical stainless steel tank with a
diameter of 600 mm and 2100 mm long (its free volume is about 0.59 m3). The chamber wall,
having a thickness of 10 mm are covered with a thick layer of insulation and can be heated to a
specified temperature with electrical heaters. The maximum wall temperature is set at 250°C to
cover the specified range in the VV of ITER. The maximum pressure of the plasma chamber is 1
MPa that is twice the design pressure of ITER (0.5 MPa).
The SS wall temperature is controlled by several thermocouples. The positions of the
experimental signals chosen in [Topilski, 2003] for the comparison with calculated data are
indicated in the following Figure 3.3
3.1.3 Simplified Vacuum Vessel
The ITER vacuum vessel (VV) is simulated by another cylindrical stainless steel tank with a
diameter of 500 mm and a length of 1720 mm (free volume about 0.34 m3). In particular, this
vacuum vessel simulates the bottom part of the vacuum vessel in ITER. The stainless steel tank
again has a wall thickness of 10 mm, it is covered with a thick layer of insulation and can be
heated to a specified temperature with electrical heaters. The maximum pressure and wall
temperatures are 1 MPa and 250 °C, respectively.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
30 of 117
TPW-7
PC
0
TPW-7
TPW-26
45
TPW-26
Nozzle
TPW-18
TPW-18
TVW-9
TVW-15
VV
TVW-9
TVW-15
TVW-4
TVW-4
Figure 3.3: Location of the points where the wall temperature was measured.
(the channel TVW-9 has been substituted by the channel TVW-8 for acquisition problems)
3.1.4 Divertor Orifice Plate
A channel-like structure connects the vacuum vessel to the plasma chamber. It is made by
insulated stainless steel and representing the ITER divertor (DV). The channel is 162 mm high,
120 mm wide, and has a length of 1200 mm.
The bottom section of the channel contains a removable stainless steel plate with multiple slits
that represents the ITER divertor pumping slots. The plate is approximately 120 mm wide, 1200
mm long and 15 mm thick. The plate was made removable so that the effects of the number of
slits and their spacing on the pressurization of the PC and VV could be experimentally evaluated.
The slits for this plate (Figure 3.4) are 5 mm wide, 80 mm long (in circumferential direction) and
15 mm in depth, i.e. the thickness of the plate. The slits were spaced on center 100 mm apart,
with the first and last slit spaced 50 mm from the ends of the cylinder. All the ICE P1 – P8
experiments were run with a plate having four slits.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
31 of 117
3.1.5 Drain Tank
The drain tank (DT) is a horizontal cylindrical volume of about 0.383 m3 with an inner diameter
of 590 mm. No water is present inside this drain tank at the beginning of the tests.
The drain tank is connected to the bottom part of the vacuum vessel by a drain line with an inner
diameter of 16.1 mm. A magnetic valve is located just downstream from the vacuum vessel in
the drain line. This valve has a set point of 0.11 MPa.
Figure 3.4: Slit configuration at the divertor.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
32 of 117
3.1.6 Suppression Tank
The last major component of the ICE facility is the stainless steel suppression tank (ST), which is
used to control the maximum pressure the plasma chamber can experience. This suppression
tank is a vertical cylindrical vessel with a diameter of 800 mm and a length of 1960 mm. The
free volume is slightly less (~0.93 m3) due to the presence of the relief pipe, which couples the
plasma chamber to the lower region of the suppression tank and of the two organ pipes that
branch off the relief pipe, as shown in Figure 3.1 (inner diameter 800 mm).
The suppression tank is connected with the upper part of the plasma chamber by three relief
pipes with an inner diameter of 35.5 mm. Before each experimental ICE run, it contains
approximately 0.4 m3 of subcooled water. The water temperature is set to be about 20 °C and
2300 Pa in order to condense the steam that flows from the vacuum vessel to the suppression
tank, thus controlling the maximum pressure that the plasma chamber and vacuum vessel will
experience.
3.2 Test Protocol
The experimental transient is initiated when high pressure saturated water from the boiler is
injected into the initially low pressure (~ 500 Pa) plasma chamber.
Here some of the water immediately flashes to steam and the remaining water in the jets issuing
from the injection nozzles impinges on the plasma chamber wall opposite the nozzles. As the
water impinges on the wall, it is dispersed circumferentially and longitudinally around the
plasma chamber wall adjacent to the impingement location. The dispersion produces additional
steam due to film and/or nucleate boiling, depending on the wall surface temperature. This
generation of steam adds to the steam already present from flashing causing the pressure in the
plasma chamber and vacuum vessel to rapidly increase.
A magnetic valve (representing rupture disks in the ITER relief piping) is located just
downstream from the PC in the relief piping (RP). This valve has a set point of 0.15 MPa. It
opens and relieves the pressure in the plasma chamber and vacuum vessel, depending on how
efficiently the suppression tank condenses the high temperature vapour flowing from the PC.
The nominal boundary conditions of the eight cases P1 – P8 are summarized in the following
Table 3.1.
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
PAGE
33 of 117
Table 3.1: ICE tests P1 – P8 nominal boundary conditions.
No.
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
No.
RP Nozzles /
diameter
3 3 / 7.3 mm
3 3 / 7.3 mm
3 3 / 7.3 mm
3 3 / 7.3 mm
1 3 / 7.3 mm
1
½ mm
1
½ mm
1
3 / 2 mm
PC
Temp
(°C)
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
VV
Temp
(°C)
230
100
100
100
100
210
100
100
Div
Temp
(°C)
230
150
150
150
140
210
150
150
Injection
time (s)
45
45
45
45
45
600
600
200
Boiler
Temp
(°C)
150
150
125
125
125
230
125
125
Boiler
Press
(MPa)
2
2
3
2
2
4
2
2
ST Water
Temp
(°C)
22
21
18
19
15
23
22
21
In all the tests the PC-VV flow area is 1.6 10-3 m2 (4 divertor slits).
The set points for the opening of the relief pipe and drain pipe valves are 0.15 MPa and 0.11
MPa respectively. The injection time is 45 s for tests P1 to P5 (3 large nozzles), 600 s for tests
P6 and P7 (1 small nozzle) and 200 s for the test P8 (3 small nozzles).
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
34 of 117
4. INPUT ASSUMPTIONS
The ECART code in its version 2K has been utilised to model the thermal-hydraulics behaviour
of thee upgraded ICE facility. The code nodalization (Figure 4.1) represents the facility using the
components reported in the Table 4.1.
Boiler
Line to ST
Relief Pipe
Plasma Chamber
Rupture Disk
Divertor
Vacuum Vessel
Drain Line
Suppression Tank
Control node
Water pool
Drain Tank
Junction
Figure 4.1: ECART model of the upgraded ICE Facility.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
35 of 117
The main sources for the nodalisation data have been the two ENEA FUS reports [Caruso, 2002]
and [Meloni, 2002], related to the post tests analysis of the same ICE tests carried out
respectively with CONSEN and INTRA codes.
4.1 Control Nodes
In the ECART input deck, reported in Appendix A for the test P1, five control volumes have
been utilised: PC (modelled with only one node, internally subdivided into the classical ECART
regions, atmosphere and sump), VV (same criterion - only one single control node), ST (one
node with an atmosphere zone of 0.1 m3 connected to a sump zone of 0.83 m3, DT (atmosphere
zone only) and, finally, the node PBOIL representing the pipe between the back environment,
schematizing the boiler, and the PC (this control volume is necessary because in ECART it is not
possible to use a back environment volume coupled with an explicit junction as the one
simulating the rupture disk). The back environment BOILER has an input imposed pressure and
temperature time dependent history.
Component
Control nodes
Back environment
Implicit junctions
Explicit junctions
Heat structures
Material
Power tables
No.
5
1
2
4
7
1
3
Table 4.1: Components of the ECART nodalisation.
4.2 Junctions
The connections between the different zones of the ICE upgraded facility are modelled by two
implicit junctions and by four explicit junctions (also called “spill & fill”), as reported in the
Table 4.2, to take into account the exchange of air/ steam between the zones and the drainage for
the water flow.
“Choked” flow conditions are possible only for the explicit junctions [Parozzi, 1997 b], leading
to the necessity of the PBOIL control volumes.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Name
BOPIPE
DIV
INJECT
RDST
RDDT
RDDT2
From
Boiler
PC
PBOIL
PC
VV
PC
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
To
PBOIL
VV
PC
ST
DT
DT
Type
Implicit
Implicit
Explicit
Explicit
Explicit
Explicit
PAGE
36 of 117
Note
Injection
RD
RD
RD
Table 4.2: Connections in the nodalization.
About the explicit junction characteristics, one rupture disk junction RDST is located between
the PC upper atmosphere zone and the sump zone in the ST (explicit junction No. 4). This
rupture disk opens when the pressure in the PC rises up 0.15 MPa.
The pressure drop coefficients in the RDST outlet have been tuned. They are the same for tests
P1, P2, P3 and P4 and they are higher for the tests P5, P6, P7 and P8 due to the reduced number
of the relief pipes towards the ST [Porfiri, 2004] (1 pipe vs. 3 pipes) and the consequent higher
turbulence in the steam discharge [Takase, 2002].
A time delay in opening the RDST valve has been introduced: the ECART post test calculations
have been performed introducing the real opening time inferred from experimental data file
[Porfiri, 2002]. As a matter of fact in the experiments a delay was detected in the rupture disk
opening if it is compared to the peak of pressure in the plasma chamber. This delay can affect
strongly the maximum pressure reached in the PC and VV volumes.
Another rupture disk junction RDDT is located between the VV sump zone and the atmosphere
zone in the DT (explicit junction No. 5). This rupture disk opens when the pressure in the PC
rises up 0.11 MPa but the ECART post test calculations have been performed introducing the
real opening time inferred from experimental data file. There is also a spillage junction RDDT2
(No. 6) between the PC sump and the DT atmosphere zone to better discharge water, with the
same opening set-point. The cross section of the rupture disk junction RDDT represents about
20% of the total area of the pipe in all the cases. The remaining 80% is assigned to the second
spillage RDDT2 junction. As a matter of fact a part of the total amount of water flows through
the divertor slits to the drain tank, without any significant interaction with the vacuum vessel
volume.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
37 of 117
4.3 Heat Transfer Structures
The seven heat transfer structures considered inside the ECART input deck have the following
geometrical characteristics (they are all made by stainless steel):
plasma chamber:
PCWALL - cylindrical, 10 mm thick, externally insulated, with an internal surface of 3.313 m2.
This structure is the main “target” for the jet impingement simulation.
FLNPC - a second plate, simulating the PC flanges, is 0.5654 m2, 6 cm thick, externally
insulated.
DV - the third structures, located in the bottom of the PC to evaluate the simulating divertor, is a
plate 1.2 cm thick, with an area of 0.662 m2, down facing also the VV atmosphere.
vacuum vessel:
VVWALL - cylindrical, 10 mm thick, externally insulated, with an internal surface of 2.71 m2.
FLNVV - a plate simulating the VV flanges, 0.3928 m2, 6 cm thick, externally insulated.
suppression tank:
STWALL - cylindrical, 1.0 cm thick and 5.04 m2 of external surface, without any external
insulation.
drain tank:
DTWALL - cylindrical, 1.0 cm thick and 3.0 m2 of external surface, without any external
insulation.
Three electric heaters warm up respectively the structures PCWALL, VVWALL and DV
according to the power tables specified in [Porfiri, 2003] for the different cases, to maintain
constant the wall temperatures. The temperature control system is simulated as a power density
generation inside the three stainless steel masses. This heating system has not been included into
the flanges.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
38 of 117
As code design choice, the correlations for the determination of the heat transfer coefficients
between the control node atmosphere/sump and the different heat structures present inside the
ICE facility are not chosen by the code user, as it is possible in other computer tools [Topilski,
2003], but are automatically selected by ECART on the basis of various thermal-hydraulic
parameters related to the heat transfer surface and the facing control volume as described in
Paragraph 2.1.1.1. Practically, there is a very small user’s influence on this choice and a
limitation of the possibility to fully simulate particular phenomena; the unique input parameter
that the user is free to force is the structure elevation inside the control volume, forcing in this
way the structure presence inside the lower sump (i.e., heat exchange with the water separated
from the blow-down jet and instantaneously separated in the lower part of the control volume).
This is the choice adopted, inside the ICE nodalisation, for the hot structure PCWALL, forced
inside the PC sump to partially simulate the jet impingement phenomenon caused by the water
blow-down and, in the same way, to increase the steam production for the contact of the sump
water with a hot structure, as carried out in the previous ICE calculations [Oriolo, 1998]. Also
the upper surface of the structure DV has been simulated completely submerged inside the PC
sump while its lower surface is in contact with the VV atmosphere. The other five heat
structures, on the contrary, have their real vertical elevation inside the relative control volumes,
exchanging with the atmosphere or the sump as a function of the predicted water level.
4.4 Boundary Conditions
The actual experimental conditions, transmitted as a MS Excel© file in [Porfiri, 2002] and
summarised in Table 4.3, are slightly different from the conditions utilised in [Caruso, 2002] and
[Meloni, 2002] due to the difficulties to reach all the experimental conditions fixed in the test
matrix at the same time.
The ICE real experimental data have been utilized to initialize the eight ECART input decks, in
order to take into account the differences between the desired experimental conditions, reported
in Table 3.1, and those that was possible to acquire in the eight ICE tests. So, all the specified
conditions have been considered according to the experimental data reported in electronic form
[Porfiri, 2002].
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
39 of 117
Case
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
PC temp (°C)
228
210
205
205
210
226
215
211
PC pressure (Pa)
1000
1000
1000
1000
1900 1000
1000
1000
DV temp (°C)
230
160
162
154
162
215
163
170
VV temp (°C)
227
120
110
105
116
210
121
125
VV pressure (Pa)
1000
1000
1000
1000
1900
1000
1000
1000
22
20
21
16
16
24
21
21
ST pressure (Pa)
3000
2300
2500
2600
4500
3400
2800 2400
Water in ST (kg)
700
700
500
700
700
500
500
700
DT temperature (°C)
19
19
18
16
20
20
21
19
3300
3200
3200
4300
5300
2800
3700
3200
ST temp (°C)
DT pressure (Pa)
Table 4.3: Actual experimental initial conditions used in the post-tests.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
40 of 117
5. RESULTS FROM CALCULATIONS OF ICE P1-P8 TESTS
5.1 ICE CASE P1
5.1.1 Main results
The following Table 5.1 summarizes the comparison between the ECART post test calculations
and the P1 experimental data.
P1
Max p in the PC
DT open time
ST open time
End (600 s) PC
VV
DT
ST
Experimental
t = 2 s 372 kPa
2s
2. s
58.9 kPa
58.5 kPa
37.3 kPa
48.2 kPa
ECART
t = 2.5 s 371 kPa
2.5 s (imposed)
2.5 s (imposed)
37.6 kPa
38.3 kPa
28.2 kPa
36.4 kPa
Table 5.1: P1 – Experimental data vs. ECART results.
The main ECART results are also shown from Figure B.1 to Figure B.11, compared with the
experimental trends and in Table B.1.
5.1.2 Analysis of the results
In the case P1 the calculated flow rate of the water mass entering into the PC (Figure B.1) was in
good agreement with the experimental data. This result is true also for all the other seven ICE
tests and it is due to the use, in the ECART input deck, of a “back environment” for the
simulation of the boiler, with the experimental pressure trend utilised as input datum, together
with the time history of the temperature of the boiler water.
The calculated pressure peaks in the PC (Figure B.0.2 and Figure B.3) and in the VV (Figure
B.4) present a small delay of about 0.5 s respect to the experimental data but a very good
agreement on the values of the peaks. These good results are due to the delay opening of 2.5 s for
the DT and ST rupture disks (reference signals were 0.11 and 0.15 MPa in VV) imposed in the
ECART simulation on the basis of the P1 real experimental conditions (i.e., the measured rupture
disk intervention is delayed of about two seconds from the achievement of the reference pressure
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
41 of 117
set point). As a consequence of this time delay, the initial pressurisation phase is longer and the
peak of the PC pressure reached in the code simulation is in very good agreement with the
experimental one. From this initial pressure peak to the end of the water injection period (at 45 s)
the pressure curves calculated by the code follow accurately the experimental ones, while an
underestimation is present in the long term phase of the P1 test, probably due to a too high mass
flow-rate calculated towards the ST (Figure B.1).
In fact, the ST pressure curve (Figure B.5) is in very good agreement with the experimental
signal during the initial injection phase and the following period (about 150 s) but in the long
term worsens. The prediction of the condensation of the steam inside the ST pool is accurate
enough for the simulation of the injection phase, with a high mass flow-rate, but the
characterisation of the last phase of the transient is questionable, probably linked to a non correct
schematisation of the vent pipes geometry inside the ST and of the real initial ST water level.
The simulated atmosphere temperature in the PC (reported inside Figure B.6) follows correctly
the temperature decrease due to the cold water inlet, apart some numerical oscillations. On the
contrary for the temperature of the VV atmosphere (Figure B.7), different phases in the ECART
simulation are present, with a different agreement with the experimental data:
a) strong temperature peak predicted by ECART due to a compression effect in the first
seconds of the VV transient, not present in the experimental data that immediately (in
about 1 s) shift towards the saturation temperature value;
b) presence of a slow atmosphere temperature increase in the experimental signals during
the first 150 s of the test, phenomena followed quite well by the ECART simulation;
c) probably wetting by liquid drops and/or rivulets of the thermocouples in the long term
phase, where there is no difference between the experimental signals and the calculated
results for the saturation temperature (i.e. the water temperature).
The heat structure temperatures in the PC and in VV (respectively reported in Figure B.8 and
Figure B.9) are in good agreement with the experimental walls’ temperatures during the phase of
the water injection, when the “jet impingement” is the driving phenomenon (only partially
simulated by ECART using a zero structure elevation as previously discussed in Paragraph 4.3).
After the flow discharge interval, the differences between calculated and experimental results
become sometimes significant (about 10 – 20 °C).
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
42 of 117
The calculated pressure in the DT (Figure B.10) has a peculiar trend, always present also in the
other ECART simulations of these ICE tests, that approximates the experimental results with an
initial compression phase, not measured in the experiment. In the long term phase the pressure
values are on the contrary similar between the code prediction and the experiment, also if the
pressurisation rate is slower for the code. This good agreement is particularly true for the DT
atmosphere temperature (Figure B.11).
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
43 of 117
5.2 ICE CASE P2
5.2.1 Main results
The following Table 5.2 summarizes the comparison between the ECART post test calculations
and the P2 experimental data. The main difference respect to the previous test P1 is the lower
initial value of the temperature of the VV atmosphere.
P2
Max p in the PC
DT open time
ST open time
End (600 s) PC
VV
DT
ST
Experimental
t = 2 s 271 kPa
2s
2s
40.9 kPa
38.2 kPa
32.2 kPa
31 kPa
ECART
t = 2.5 s 288 kPa
2 s (imposed)
2 s (imposed)
34.2 kPa
35.1 kPa
26.5 kPa
33.0 kPa
Table 5.2: P2 – Experimental data vs. ECART results.
The main ECART results are also shown from Figure B.12 to Figure B.22, compared with the
experimental trends and in Table B.1.
5.2.2 Analysis of the results
The water flow rate injected inside the PC (Figure B.12) is in very good agreement with the
experimental data for the reasons previously exposed for the ICE test P1. So, in the following of
the present report, this consideration on the ECART good prediction of the injection flow-rate
will not be repeated.
The simulated PC pressure (Figure B.13 and Figure B.14) is on time respect the experimental
pressure for the cause explained for the previous case P1 (imposed opening time of the ST and
DT rupture disks), and also the value of the pressure peak is quite good respect to the
experimental one. Again the long term behaviour shows the little overestimation of the mass
flow towards the ST (Figure B.16).
The VV total pressure (Figure B.15) is slightly overestimated by the code simulation; this could
be due to the ECART modelling of the junction between the PC bottom part and the VV
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
44 of 117
atmosphere (an implicit junction), that not considers the choking effect in the divertor slits and
calculates a flow rates between PC and VV higher than in the reality. The same little
underestimation in the long term VV pressure, as for the PC, is also present.
The suppression tank pressure trend (Figure B.16) is very similar to the experimental one
excluding some strong oscillations at the beginning of the P2 experiment, confirming the non
adequate geometrical characterisation of the ST vent system. In the medium and long term, on
the contrary, these differences are minimised.
The atmosphere temperature in the PC (Figure B.17) calculated by ECART follows correctly the
experimental temperatures during the whole transient. The good code behaviour will be a
constant also for the results on the PC atmosphere temperature in the next tests (apart the low
injection rate tests P6 and P7). This good results is due to the strong wetting of the PC wall
surfaces, partially simulated in the nodalisation submerging the wall into the sump, that masks
the problem of a non correct prediction of the heat transfer coefficients by turbulent convection
highlighted in the following.
On the contrary, for the VV atmosphere temperature (Figure B.18), where it is again possible to
observe the three temporal phases described for the test P1, this agreement in the long term is
true considering the calculated saturation temperature, while a superheating of about 10 °C is
predicted by the code for the VV atmosphere. This could be due to:
a) a possible wetting (by drops or rivulets from the PC) of the thermocouple bulbs that, in
this case, could be able to measure the saturated water temperature and not the real VV
air temperature;
b) underestimation of the heat transfer coefficient between VV atmosphere and walls,
internally calculated by ECART not considering the strong turbulence induced inside the
small VV volume (turbulent conditions typical for injection in small volumes require an
evaluation of the velocity field, not possible with lumped parameter codes as ECART).
Also this questionable code behaviour will be a constant for all the results on the VV atmosphere
temperature in the next tests (apart the two tests P6 and P7, where the reduced injection flow-rate
inside the PC leads to lower turbulence conditions) and the relative comment will be not repeated
in the following of the report.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
45 of 117
For the walls’ temperatures in PC and VV (reported respectively Figure B.19 and Figure B.20)
all the comments referred to the previous case P1 can be repeated for the corresponding figures,
with no changes. For the VV wall temperatures (Figure B.20) the behaviour of the experimental
signal TVW-15 is to be highlighted: it presents oscillations that can be explained with the
presence of a random wetting of the surface due to a liquid water flow (drops or rivulets).
For the drain tank pressure and atmospheric temperature (Figure B.21 and Figure B.22) is still
valid what said for the case P1, in particular for the presence of the initial strong compression
effect and the quite good agreement in the long term phase.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
46 of 117
5.3 ICE CASE P3
5.3.1 Main results
The following Table 5.3 summarizes the comparison between the ECART post test calculations
and the P3 experimental data. The main difference respect to the previous test P2 is the higher
pressure inside the boiler (3 MPa vs. 2 MPa) and the vacuum vessel and divertor temperatures,
lower in the case P3.
P3
Max p in the PC
DT open time
ST open time
End (600 s) PC
VV
DT
ST
Experimental
t = 2 s 238.6 kPa
2s
2s
41 kPa
40 kPa
31.9 kPa
31.3 kPa
ECART
T = 2 s 223 kPa
2 s (imposed)
2 s (imposed)
35.5 kPa
36.5 kPa
26.3 kPa
34.1 kPa
Table 5.3: P3 – Experimental data vs. ECART results.
The main ECART results are also shown from Figure B.23 to Figure B.33, compared with the
experimental trends and in Table B.1.
5.3.2 Analysis of the results
Obviously, considering the small changes in the boundary conditions (practically only the boiler
pressure), the results obtained in this case P3 are very similar to the ones of the previous tests P1
and P2.
The PC pressure (Figure B.24 and Figure B.25) is on time respect the experimental pressure and
also the value of the pressure peak is in good agreement with the experimental one. The long
term PC behaviour shows again the little overestimation of the flow towards the ST.
The VV total pressure (Figure B.26) is overestimated in the ECART simulation and the same
little underestimation in the long term pressure, as for the PC, is also present.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
47 of 117
The ST pressure trend (Figure B.27) is very similar to the experimental one excluding the strong
oscillations at the beginning of the experiment while, in the medium and long term, the
differences are minimised.
The atmosphere temperature in the PC (Figure B.28) follows correctly the experimental data
during the whole transient. For the VV atmosphere temperature (Figure B.29) this agreement is
true considering the calculated saturation temperature, while a superheating of about 10 °C is
again predicted by the code.
Also for the drain tank pressure and atmosphere temperature (Figure B.32 and Figure B.33) is
still valid what said previously, in particular for the presence of the initial strong compression
effect and the quite good long term agreement.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
48 of 117
5.4 ICE CASE P4
5.4.1 Main results
The following Table 5.4 summarizes the comparison between the ECART post test calculations
and the P4 experimental data. The main differences respect to the previous test P2 are the higher
initial value of the pressure of the DT (4300 Pa vs. 3200 Pa) and the temperature of the water
exiting the boiler (125 °C in P4 against 150 °C in P2).
P4
Max p in the PC
DT open time
ST open time
End (600 s) PC
VV
DT
ST
Experimental
t = 2 s 221.8 kPa
2.5 s
2.5 s
31.1 kPa
29.9 kPa
27.5 kPa
21.6 kPa
ECART
t = 2.2 s 214.5 kPa
2.5 s (imposed)
2.5 s (imposed)
25.5 kPa
26.3 kPa
20.8 kPa;
24.2 kPa
Table 5.4: P4 – Experimental data vs. ECART results.
The main ECART results are also shown from Figure B.34 to Figure B.44, compared with the
experimental trends and in Table B.1.
5.4.2 Analysis of the results
Obviously, for the small differences in the boundary and initial conditions of the test, the
ECART results obtained in this case P4 are qualitatively similar to the ones of the previous ICE
tests P2 and P3.
For the total pressure in the PC (Figure B.35 and Figure B.36) and the total pressure in VV
(Figure B.37) what wrote previously is valid for this case too, in particular about the low
underestimation in the long term phase of the test.
The calculated pressure trend in the suppression tank (Figure B.38) shows again the initial
oscillations and the long term agreement.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
49 of 117
Also on the temperatures in the PC (Figure B.39), in the VV (Figure B.40), in the PC walls
(Figure B.41) and in the VV walls (Figure B.42) can be made comments similar to those made
previously.
Again, the evolution of the atmosphere temperature in the DT is well simulated in the long term
(Figure B.44) but this does not occur for the pressure (Figure B.43).
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
50 of 117
5.5 ICE CASE P5
5.5.1 Main results
The following Table 5.5 summarizes the comparison between the ECART post test calculations
and the P5 experimental data. This test, with a large water injection into the PC (three large
nozzles) as in the previous four tests, has been performed reducing the number of the relief pipes
(RP), linking the PC to the ST, from 3, as in the previous tests, to a single RP.
It is necessary to recall that the opening time in the rupture disk are tuned in order to fit the
simulated peak of the pressure with the experimental one. This is the cause of the difference
between the open time of the suppression tank rupture disk, in this case.
The effects deriving from this strong flow area reduction on the resulting thermal-hydraulic
transient inside the ICE facility is widely described in [Takase, 2002]. In particular, in case of the
three RPs, a lots of vapour is condensed within the ST and then the pressure in the PC decreases
larger than the case where the RP is one.
P5
Max p in the PC
DT open time
ST open time
End (600 s) PC
VV
DT
ST
Experimental
t = 8 s 271 kPa
2.5 s
4.0 s
33.4 kPa
31.9 kPa
35.2 kPa
20.2 kPa
ECART
T = 8 s 291 kPa
2.5 s (imposed)
8.0 s (imposed)
27.1 kPa
28.1 kPa
30.8 kPa
26.1 kPa
Table 5.5: P5 – Experimental data vs. ECART results.
The main ECART results are also shown from Figure B.45 to Figure B.55, compared with the
experimental trends.
5.5.2 Analysis of the results
The calculated ECART results are in good agreement with the experimental ones also in this test
with a strong reduction of the mass flow-rate into the ST (Figure B.45).
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
51 of 117
The short term agreement for the PC pressure (Figure B.46) is again linked to the increase in the
delay of the RD opening towards the ST, that compensate the low steam production in the
interaction with the PC structures and the injected water while the long term behaviour for the
pressure inside the PC (Figure B.47) and inside the VV (Figure B.48) is better predicted than in
the previous cases.
On the contrary, there is an agreement between the experimental pressure and the calculated
results in the ST (Figure B.49) only during the initial flow discharge, also if the pressurisation
rate is faster in the code prediction for the long term, after that ECART overestimates the final
pressure increase in the ST. Again the nodalisation adopted for this tank and the available initial
and boundary conditions are questionable.
The atmosphere temperature in the PC (Figure B.50), in the VV (Figure B.51), in the PC walls
(Figure B.52) and in the VV walls (Figure B.53) can be explained as in the previous cases, not
depending on the pressurisation level reached by the facility. The higher experimental
temperature supplied by the probe TVW-15 (Figure B.53), if compared with the temperature
calculated for a wetted surface, points out the non occurrence of the water wetting in this
particular case.
The calculated pressure (Figure B.54) and temperature (Figure B.55) in the DT are in very good
agreement with the experimental data, showing the effect of the reduced number of RPs, with a
higher pressurisation level (practically doubled) reached inside the DT in comparison with the
previous four ICE tests.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
52 of 117
5.6 ICE CASE P6
5.6.1 Main results
The following Table 5.6 summarizes the comparison between the ECART post test calculations
and the P6 experimental data. This test has been performed with a strong reduction of the mass
flow rate injected into the PC (only a single small nozzle was been employed in the P6 test
procedure) but increasing the injection time from 45 to 600 seconds.
P6
Max p in the PC
DT open time
ST open time
End (1200 s) PC
VV
DT
ST
Experimental
t = 7.5 s 170.8 kPa
6s
8s
37.7 kPa
35.5 kPa
37.6 kPa
30.1 kPa
ECART
t = 7.5 s 170.8 kPa
6 s (imposed)
7.5 s (imposed)
46.6 kPa
46.6 kPa
37.6 kPa
41.8 kPa
Table 5.6: P6 – Experimental data vs. ECART results.
The main ECART results are also shown from Figure B.56 to Figure B.66, compared with the
experimental trends and in Table B.1.
5.6.2 Analysis of the results
The peak of pressure calculated by ECART in PC (Figure B.57 and Figure B.58) and in VV
(Figure B.59) is in very good agreement with the experiment data. This is due again to the
introduction of the delayed opening (about 2 s) of the DT and ST respect to the set points
established (0.11 and 0.15 MPa respectively).
In the short term pressurisation of the PC (Figure B.57 and Figure 5.1), a characteristic code
result at about 4.5 s has to be highlighted. The quite evident change in the PC pressurisation rate
is linked to the poor simulation of the interactions between the forming water sump and the hot
PC structures, responsible for the steam production. In ECART, this interaction sump/structure is
simulated starting only from a minimum water level for the sump; so, when the initial sump mass
is null, the formation of the required minimum level leads to a time delay in the starting of the
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
53 of 117
interaction sump/structure. This delay is shown in the following Figure 5.1 where, at about 4.5 s,
is relevant the strong increase in the values of the heat transfer coefficient utilised for the PC
2
wall (from about 20 to about 200 W/m K), that only from this time begins to exchange with the
forming sump and not only with the PC atmosphere.
0.18
360
0.16
320
0.14
280
PC Pressure (MPa)
0.12
240
0.10
200
0.08
160
0.06
120
0.04
80
0.02
40
0.00
Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)
ECART
Exp
'HTC sump'
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Time (s)
Figure 5.1: ICE P6 – Heat transfer coefficient for the PC.
Again the suppression tank calculated pressure (Figure B.60) is in quite good agreement only in
the injection phase (600 s in this test P6). After this time, there is a decrease of the pressure
inside the ST, not predicted by ECART, that contemporarily predicts also a relevant flow-rate
entering into the ST (Figure B.56) after the injection stopping. This result further confirms the
problems, just highlighted, in the ST characterisation.
The decrease of the simulated temperature in the PC atmosphere (Figure B.61) is congruent with
the experimental data, but the large increase after about 850 s is not predicted by the code and
the superheating in the PC atmosphere is not evidenced by the calculations. Different is the
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
54 of 117
situation for the VV’s temperature (Figure B.62) where the atmosphere superheating of about 60
°C is correctly calculated by ECART. To be noted the good behaviour of ECART for this low
turbulence test, with the presence of a minor overestimation of the energy shearing between
atmosphere and walls.
For the wall temperature trends in the PC (Figure B.63) the calculated values are higher than in
the experiment, but with a similar trend only in the first part of the transient, where a complete
wetting of the surfaces is the resulting behaviour. After the injection stopping, the final growing
trend is not predicted by the code. Probably, the heat transfer phenomena are dominated by a low
but still turbulent convection, not predicted by the natural convection models employed by
ECART in this final part of the simulation.
For the wall temperature trends in the VV (Figure B.64) the agreement is quite better, as in the
previous calculations.
The calculated pressure (Figure B.65) in the DT, excluding the compression effect at the
beginning of the simulation, not present in the P6 experiment, are quite satisfactory. Instead, the
DT temperature (Figure B.66) is largely overestimated in the initial phase while, in the long
term, follows satisfactorily the experimental trend.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
55 of 117
5.7 ICE CASE P7
5.7.1 Main results
The following Table 5.7 summarizes the comparison between the ECART post test calculations
and the P7 experimental data. Also this test, as the previous P6, has been performed with a
strong reduction of the mass flow-rate injected into the PC (a single small nozzle) and a longer
injection time (600 s). The main difference is the decrease of the initial temperature of the VV
zone, now about 120 °C against the about 210 °C of the previous test P6.
P7
Max p in the PC
DT open time
ST open time
End (1200 s) PC
VV
DT
ST
Experimental
t = 13.5 s 156.3 kPa
8.5 s
8.5 s
19 kPa
17.3 kPa
19 kPa
11.2 kPa
ECART
t = 18.5 s 156.1 kPa
8.5 s (imposed)
8.5 s (imposed)
19 kPa
18.6 kPa
17.5 kPa
14 kPa
Table 5.7: P7 – Experimental data vs. ECART results.
The main ECART results are also shown from Figure B.67 to Figure B.77, compared with the
experimental trends and in Table B.1.
5.7.2 Analysis of the results
The timing of the peak of the calculated pressures in PC (Figure B.68 and Figure B.69) and in
VV (Figure B.70) are strongly delayed (5 s) if compared with the results obtained in the other
tests and also the time trend of the two curves maintain high values for a long time, if compared
with the experimental data. On the contrary, the long term behaviour is quite satisfactory. The
time delay in the pressurisation history of the facility is due to the lack of the pressurisation
effect of the steam forming in the interactions with the VV structures, that in this test P7 are
colder respect to the P6 conditions.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
56 of 117
The behaviour of the ST calculated pressure (Figure B.71) is very similar to the results obtained
in the previous test P6, confirming the previous conclusions on a worst characterization of the
tank geometry.
The temperature in PC (Figure B.72) shows again the large superheating (more than 50 °C)
highlighted previously, with the same problems about the ECART prediction of the energy
shearing between atmosphere and walls. The lower wetting of the PC surface in these two tests
P6 and P7 (both performed with only one small injection nozzle) is not sufficient to mask this
problem as in the other ICE tests.
Also for the atmosphere temperature in the VV (Figure B.73), the comments can be the same of
the previous test P6, with the experimental evidence and the code prediction of an atmosphere
superheating.
This is true also for the PC and VV wall temperatures, respectively reported in Figure B.74 and
in Figure B.75.
Calculated pressure (Figure B.76) and atmospheric temperature (Figure B.77) in the DT
approximate correctly the P7 experimental data, excluding again the initial compression effect
predicted by ECART.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
57 of 117
5.8 ICE CASE P8
5.8.1 Main results
The following Table 5.8 summarizes the comparison between the ECART post test calculations
and the P8 experimental data.
This is an intermediate test for the water flow-rate released into the PC, performed with three
small nozzles with an injection time equal to 200 s. The other initial and boundary conditions are
similar to the ones of the previous test P7.
P8
Max p in the PC
DT open time
ST open time
End (600 s) PC
VV
DT
ST
Experimental
t = 6.5 s 170.2 kPa
4.5 s
7.5 s
22 kPa
20.7 kPa
21.1 kPa
9.4 kPa
ECART
t = 6.5 s 170.2 kPa
4 s (imposed)
6.5 s (imposed)
15.6 kPa
15.8 kPa
16.3 kPa
11.4 kPa
Table 5.8: P8 – Experimental data vs. ECART results.
The main ECART results are also shown from Figure B.78 to Figure B.88, compared with the
experimental trends and in Table B.1.
5.8.2 Analysis of the results
The simulated peak of pressure in PC (Figure B.79 and Figure B.80) and in VV (Figure B.81)
are in very good agreement with the experimental data.
This is true also for the pressure trend in the ST (Figure B.82) that is only slightly overestimated
in its final value (11.4 kPa vs. 9.4 kPa).
Satisfactory is also the behaviour of the atmosphere temperature of PC (Figure B.83) while, for
the VV atmosphere (Figure B.84), a superheating of about 30 °C is predicted by ECART but this
superheating is present in the experimental data only in a very short period, before 100 s. Note
that the injection flow-rate is now higher than in the previous two tests, performed with only one
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
58 of 117
small nozzle, leading again to an high turbulence inside the VV atmosphere and to the problem
in the energy shearing between atmosphere and wall predicted in the ECART calculations.
The wall temperatures for the heat structures in PC and VV (respectively reported in Figure B.85
and Figure B.86) show the same behaviour of the previous test P7, as for the satisfactory trends
of the DT calculated pressure (Figure B.87) and temperature (Figure B.88) not in the short term
but in the long term.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
59 of 117
6. CONCLUSIONS FOR ICE TESTS P1 - P8 CALCULATIONS
The post test calculations for the P1 – P8 ICE tests provided useful information on the capability
of the ECART code in predicting thermal-hydraulics transients expected in the future fusion
reactors. These activities have been carried out in the general framework of the ECART
validation phase for its application to fusion reactor.
All the real initial conditions derived from the ICE experimental data have been imposed in the 8
code input decks in order to start the test simulations in the more correct way, also if these real
conditions have been sometimes different from the initial test specifications. During the input
deck preparation, some problems have been also highlighted on the completeness of the ICE
experimental data (as for the water level inside the ST linked to the information on the amount of
the initial water mass).
The obtained differences between the experimental and calculated results are quite satisfactory
for the most important thermal-hydraulics parameters (as the peak of PC pressure, time of the
peak, long term pressure behaviour and maximum temperatures) because they are lower than
20% for the most part of them (see the quantitative comparison in Table B.1).
For the ICE pressure transients, the main problems have been highlighted in the prediction of the
long term depressurization phase, after the end of the water injection into the PC. This is a
temporal phase where the pressure trends are strongly influenced by the predicted mass flow
from the PC to the ST. An unsatisfactory characterization of the ST vent geometry and doubtful
tank initial conditions led to some discrepancies in the code pressure results.
Summarizing, the agreement of the pressure calculated results with the experimental data are due
essentially to:
a) the adoption of the real initial conditions of the ICE P1 – P8 experiments;
b) the forced use of heat transfer coefficients taking into account the presence of the water
in the bottom part of the PC and VV volumes (through the tuning of the heat structure
elevation), also for the partial simulation of the “jet impingement” phenomena against the
PC walls.
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
PAGE
60 of 117
These good results are especially true for the pressure and temperature transients inside the PC
and for pressure inside the VV, while a questionable agreement has been obtained in the ECART
calculations for:
a) the “VV atmosphere temperatures”, where an overestimation of the energy shearing
between atmosphere and walls is present especially for the high turbulence tests, due to
the needs of the turbulent convection models implemented inside the code (these model
are correctly implemented but being ECART a lumped parameter code, the velocity field
necessary as input datum for these models can be only roughly estimated);
b) the “PC and VV wall temperatures”, due to the strong presence in the ICE tests of local
phenomena, as liquid drops or rivulets, impossible to be correctly simulated and for the
energy shearing problem highlighted in the previous point a).
However, the evaluation of the ICE wall temperatures performed by ECART can be considered
adequate for the scope of this type of code assessment analysis.
Concluding, the main problem highlighted is about the heat transfer models that in ECART are
automatically calculated by the code, being the user not free to change the heat transfer regime.
The code package gives quite satisfactory results if the heat transfer regime between atmosphere
and wall is similar to a natural convection situation or condensation. But, during a “jet injection”,
as inside the ICE PC, or “turbulent” situations also the regions outside of the target of the jet or
inside the lower VV are subjected to a “turbulent” regime and the calculated values of the heat
transfer coefficients by the ECART models are underestimated (the evaluation of the velocity
field is only indicative and partial for a lumped parameter code). Some possible improvements
are foreseen in the future for the internal modelling of the heat transfer coefficients, now more
adequate in “stagnant” conditions than in “highly turbulent” situations, especially in small
volumes as the ICE ones. These considerations are however of secondary importance for large
volumes as in ITER.
Other useful modifications of the ECART code could be:
a) a more refined calculation of the surface area wetted by an increasing water pool inside a
horizontal cylindrical vessel (at the moment ECART heat structures have only a vertical
orientation respect to the control volume, so only the transient of the wetted surface of a
vertical cylinder is correctly predicted). This improvement will allow a more accurate
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
61 of 117
simulation of the steam production for the interaction of the released water coolant with
the hot structures present in the bottom part of a VV.
b) Possibility to define implicit junctions having a time/pressure dependent area. In this
way, besides the immediate benefit, could be also possible to investigate about the
influence of the use of a “no chocked” model for the evaluation of the mass flow-rate on
the thermal-hydraulics transient.
c) Possibility to define “combined” trip signals (i.e. a pressure trip plus a time delay) and a
flow area time history for the explicit junctions definition; this modification will allow a
more accurate characterisation of valves or RD behaviour.
d) Finally, for the practical solution of the problem on the turbulent heat transfer, the
possibility to use time-dependent input dials for the values of heat transfer coefficients
calculated by the code (now it is possible to use only a constant value). The modification
could be useful for the simulation of heat transfer conditions dominated by a high
turbulence, especially if an external evaluation of the velocity field, through a CFD code,
could be available. This CFD evaluation of the velocity field could be necessary also for
the quantitative evaluation of other phenomena relevant for the ITER safety analysis, as
the dust resuspension inside the VV.
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
PAGE
62 of 117
REFERENCES
[Caruso, 2002]
G. Caruso, M.T. Porfiri, “CONSEN Validation against ICE Experimental
Campaign 2001”, ENEA ERG-FUS, SA-SE-R-60, December 2002
[Meloni, 2002]
P. Meloni, M.T. Porfiri, “ISAS Calculation for Inlet of Coolant (ICE)
Experiments in 2001: Pre and Post Test”, ENEA ERG-FUS, SA-SE-R-53,
December 2002
[Oriolo, 1998]
F. Oriolo, S. Paci, “DCMN Calculations for the ICE Facility”, Atti del
Dipartimento di Costruzioni Meccaniche e Nucleari, Pisa, DCMN 016
(98).
[Paci, 2000]
S. Paci, “DIMNP Pre-Test Calculations for the EVITA Facility Using the
ECART Code”, Atti del Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica, Nucleare e
della Produzione, Pisa, DIMNP 017 (00).
[Parozzi, 1997a]
F. Parozzi et al., “ECART USER MANUAL Part 1: User’s Guidance”,
ENEL Nuclear Energy Division Report, Milan, May 1997.
[Parozzi, 1997b]
F. Parozzi et al., “ECART USER MANUAL Part 2: Code Structure and
Theory”, ENEL Nuclear Energy Division Report, Milan, May 1997.
[Porfiri, 2002]
M.T. Porfiri, ENEA FUS Frascati, private communication, e- mail October
15th, 2002.
[Porfiri, 2003]
M.T. Porfiri, ENEA FUS Frascati, private communication, e- mail April
11th, 2003.
[Porfiri, 2004]
M.T. Porfiri, ENEA FUS Frascati, private communication, e- mail January
26th, 2004.
[Takase, 2001a]
K. Takase, “Upgraded ICE specifications”, Adobe Acrobat© pdf
electronic file, May 2001, JAERI, Japan
[Takase, 2001b]
K. Takase, H. Akimoto, L.N. Topilski, “Results of two-phase flow
experiments with an integrated Ingress-of-Coolant Event (ICE) test facility
for ITER safety”, Fusion Engineering and Design, Vol. 54 (2001), pp. 593
- 603.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
[Takase, 2002]
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
63 of 117
K. Takase, Y. Ose, H. Akimoto, “Three-dimensional analysis of watervapor void fraction in a fusion experimental reactor under water ingress”,
Fusion Engineering and Design, Vol. 63 (2002), pp. 429 - 436.
[Topilski, 2003]
L.N. Topilski, "Comparison of the results of the ICE post-test calculations
for cases P1- P8", S 84 RI 20 03-05-16 R 0.1, May 3rd, 2003
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
Appendix A: ECART Input deck for Test P1
$LIST
DIMNP ICE Post test using ECART
ICE sequence case 1
$=======================================================================
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$
GENERAL DATA
SECTION
$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$
$ IPROG
0
$ NREST NONCN NVOL
NBE
NJUN
NSPIL
NSTRUC
NMAT NTABP
0
2
5
1
2
4
7
1
3
$$$
NON CONDENSABLE GAS COMPONENTS
$ CHN
CHN
'N2'
'O2'
$=======================================================================
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$
THERMAL-HYDRAULIC SECTION
$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$
$======================== VOLUME DATA =================================*
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ VOLUME 1 - Plasma Chamber
$ CHVOL
RHOUGHV
PHVOL
IAXIS
'PC'
1.E-4
1.885
0
$ AHOR
ALNGTH
PHIVOL
IGEOM
0.283
2.1
0.
0
$ IOPT
1
$ PVOL
TLVOL
XLVOL
TGVOL
XGVOL
ALGLEV
1.0e3
501.1
0.
501.1
1.
0.
$ ANVOL (N2)
ANVOL (O2)
0.7980
0.2000
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ VOLUME 2 - VACUUM VESSEL
$ CHVOL
RHOUGHV
PHVOL
IAXIS
'VV'
1.E-4
1.571
0
$ AHOR
ALNGTH
PHIVOL
IGEOM
0.196
1.571
0.
0
$ IOPT
1
$ PVOL
TLVOL
XLVOL
TGVOL
XGVOL
ALGLEV
1.0e3
500.1
0.
500.1
1.
0.
$ ANVOL (N2)
ANVOL (O2)
0.7980
0.2000
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ VOLUME 3 - SUPPRESSION TANK
$ CHVOL
RHOUGHV
PHVOL
IAXIS
'ST'
1.E-4
0.503
1
$ VNEXT
FAREXT
VNINT
FARINT
NVVOL
1.
1.0
0.
1.0
2
$ ZVOL
AEXT
BEXT
AINT
BINT
0.
0.503
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.9624
0.503
1.0
0.0
0.0
$ IOPT
1
$ PVOL
TLVOL
XLVOL
TGVOL
XGVOL
ALGLEV
3.0e3
295.1
0.
295.1
1.
0.98
$ ANVOL (N2)
ANVOL (O2)
0.7980
0.2000
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ VOLUME 4 - DRAIN TANK
$ CHVOL
RHOUGHV
PHVOL
IAXIS
'DT'
1.E-4
1.916
0
$ AHOR
ALNGTH
PHIVOL
IGEOM
0.273
1.6
0.
0
$ IOPT
1
$ PVOL
TLVOL
XLVOL
TGVOL
XGVOL
ALGLEV
3.3e3
292.1
0.
292.1
1.
0.0
PAGE
64 of 117
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
$ ANVOL (N2)
ANVOL (O2)
0.7980
0.2000
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ VOLUME 5 - BOILER PIPE
$ CHVOL
RHOUGHV
PHVOL
IAXIS
'PBOIL'
1.E-4
0.166
0
$ AHOR
ALNGTH
PHIVOL
IGEOM
0.002
2.75
0.
0
$ IOPT
1
$ PVOL
TLVOL
XLVOL
TGVOL
XGVOL
ALGLEV
2.e6
423.15
0.
423.15
0.
0.0526
$ ANVOL (N2)
0.0
ANVOL (O2)
0.0
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ BACK ENVIRONMENT 1 - BOILER
$ CHBE
NVBE
CHCNBE
TCONBE
'BOILER'
4
'DUMMY'
0.
$ TBE
PBET
TLBET
TGBET
ALGBET
ANBET1 ANBET2
0.
2.00e6
423.15
423.15
0.
0.
0.
7.5
1.57e6
423.15
423.15
0.
0.
0.
45.0
1.62e6
423.15
423.15
0.
0.
0.
600.0
1.62e6
423.15
423.15
0.
0.
0.
$
$======================= IMPLICIT JUNCTION DATA =======================*
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ JUNCTION 1 - BOILER -> PIPE (PBOIL)
$ CHJUN
CHFRJ
CHTOJ
ZFRJUN
ZTOJUN DZFRJU
DZTOJU
'BOPIPE' 'BOILER' 'PBOIL'
0.
0.02
0.
0.02
$ THTFRJ
PHIFRJ
THTTOJ
PHITOJ
IHOMFJ
IHOMTJ
ISCRUB
-90.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
0
$ AJUN
DJUN
AKFJUN
AKRJUN
WGJUN
IRDJUN
2.0e-3
0.0505
1.0
1.
0.0
0
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ JUNCTION 2 - PC -> VV
$ CHJUN
CHFRJ
CHTOJ
ZFRJUN
ZTOJUN DZFRJU
DZTOJU
'DIV'
'PC'
'VV'
0.0
0.45
0.01
0.0
$ THTFRJ
PHIFRJ
THTTOJ
PHITOJ
IHOMFJ
IHOMTJ
ISCRUB
-90.
0.
-90.
0.
1
1
0
$ AJUN
DJUN
AKFJUN
AKRJUN
WGJUN
IRDJUN
0.0016
0.0451
0.5
0.5
0.0
0
$------------------------------------------------------------------$
$======================= EXPLICIT JUNCTION DATA =======================*
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ S&F 1 - INJECTION OF STEAM IN PC
$ CHSPI
ITYSPI
CHFRSP
CHTOSP
ZFRSPI
DZFRSP
ZTOSPI
'INJECT'
4
'PBOIL'
'PC'
0.026
0.0
0.45
$ DZTOSP
THTFRS
PHIFRS
THTTOS
PHITOS
IHOMFS
IHOMTS
0.0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
$ ISCRUB
0
$ ICRTSP
TOPSPI
TCLSPI
POPSPI
PCLSPI
DZTLIN
PREFSP
-1
0.1
45.
10.e6
10.e6
0.0
0.0
$ CTOSP
TAUSP
0.0
0.0
$ AREFF
CDL
CDV
1.3e-4
0.9
0.9
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ S&F 2 - PC -> ST
$ CHSPI
ITYSPI
CHFRSP
CHTOSP
ZFRSPI
DZFRSP
ZTOSPI
'RDST'
4
'PC'
'ST'
0.55
0.
0.85
$ DZTOSP
THTFRS
PHIFRS
THTTOS
PHITOS
IHOMFS
IHOMTS
0.0
0.
0.
-90.
0.
0
0
$ ISCRUB
0
$ ICRTSP
TOPSPI
TCLSPI
POPSPI
PCLSPI
DZTLIN
PREFSP
-1
2.5
99999.
1.50e6
0.0
2.0
0.0
$ CTOSP
TAUSP
0.0
0.0
$ AREFF
CDL
CDV
0.003
0.6
0.6
PAGE
65 of 117
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ S&F 3 - VV -> DT
$ CHSPI
ITYSPI
CHFRSP
CHTOSP
ZFRSPI
DZFRSP
ZTOSPI
'RDDT'
4
'VV'
'DT'
0.0
0.00
0.5
$ DZTOSP
THTFRS
PHIFRS
THTTOS
PHITOS
IHOMFS
IHOMTS
0.0
-90.
0.
-90.
0.
1
0
$ ISCRUB
0
$ ICRTSP
TOPSPI
TCLSPI
POPSPI
PCLSPI
DZTLIN
PREFSP
-1
2.5
99999.
1.10e6
0.0
1.0
0.0
$ CTOSP
TAUSP
0.0
0.0
$ AREFF
CDL
CDV
1.e-5
0.7
0.7
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ S&F 4 - PC -> DT
$ CHSPI
ITYSPI
CHFRSP
CHTOSP
ZFRSPI
DZFRSP
ZTOSPI
'RDDT2'
4
'PC'
'DT'
0.0
0.00
0.5
$ DZTOSP
THTFRS
PHIFRS
THTTOS
PHITOS
IHOMFS
IHOMTS
0.0
-90.
0.
-90.
0.
1
0
$ ISCRUB
0
$ ICRTSP
TOPSPI
TCLSPI
POPSPI
PCLSPI
DZTLIN
PREFSP
-1
2.5
99999.
1.10e6
0.0
1.5
0.0
$ CTOSP
TAUSP
0.0
0.0
$ AREFF
CDL
CDV
5.e-5
0.7
0.7
$======================= STRUCTURE DATA ===============================*
$
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ STRUCTURE 1 - PC WALLS
$ CHSTRU
ITIPO
RI
NREG
AREAI
AREAE
CHVINT
'PCWALL'
2
0.6
1
3.313
3.4
'PC'
$ CHVEXT
DHI
DHE
HFOULI
HFOULE
FACWI
FACWE
'&ENVIR' 0.6
0.6
1.E10
1.E10
1.
1.
$ ZBOTI
ZTOPI
ZBOTE
ZTOPE
0.
0.0
0.
0.6
$ NVENV
2
$ TENV
TMENVT
HENVT
0.
500.15
0.
600.
500.15
0.
$ DREG
NINREG
FQREG
ITPREG IMREG
0.01
5
0.
1
1
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ STRUCTURE 2 - VV WALLS
$ CHSTRU
ITIPO
RI
NREG
AREAI
AREAE
CHVINT
'VVWALL'
2
0.5
1
2.71
2.8
'VV'
$ CHVEXT
DHI
DHE
HFOULI
HFOULE
FACWI
FACWE
'&ENVIR' 0.5
0.5
1.E10
1.E10
1.
1.
$ ZBOTI
ZTOPI
ZBOTE
ZTOPE
0.
0.5
0.
0.5
$ NVENV
2
$ TENV
TMENVT
HENVT
0.
500.15
0.
600.
500.15
0.
$ DREG
NINREG
FQREG
ITPREG IMREG
0.01
5
0.
2
1
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ STRUCTURE 3 - ST WALLS
$ CHSTRU
ITIPO
RI
NREG
AREAI
AREAE
CHVINT
'STWALL'
2
0.4
1
4.926
5.0492
'ST'
$ CHVEXT
DHI
DHE
HFOULI
HFOULE
FACWI
FACWE
'&ENVIR' 0.8
0.8
1.E10
1.E10
1.
1.
$ ZBOTI
ZTOPI
ZBOTE
ZTOPE
0.
1.96
0.
1.96
$ NVENV
2
$ TENV
TMENVT
HENVT
0.
293.15
10.
600.
293.15
10.
$ DREG
NINREG
FQREG
ITPREG IMREG
PAGE
66 of 117
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
0.01
5
0.
0
1
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ STRUCTURE 4 - DT WALLS
$ CHSTRU
ITIPO
RI
NREG
AREAI
AREAE
CHVINT
'DTWALL'
2
0.4
1
2.96
3.0
'DT'
$ CHVEXT
DHI
DHE
HFOULI
HFOULE
FACWI
FACWE
'&ENVIR' 0.6
0.6
1.E10
1.E10
1.
1.
$ ZBOTI
ZTOPI
ZBOTE
ZTOPE
0.
0.59
0.
0.59
$ NVENV
2
$ TENV
TMENVT
HENVT
0.
293.15
10.
600.
293.15
10.
$ DREG
NINREG
FQREG
ITPREG IMREG
0.01
5
0.
0
1
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ STRUCTURE 5 - PC FLANGES
$
CHSTRU
'FLNPC'
$
ITIPO
RI
NREG
AREAI
AREAE
CHVINT
CHVEXT
1
0.0
1
0.5654
0.5654
'PC'
'&ENVIR'
$
DHI
DHE
HFOULI
HFOULE
FACWI
FACWE
0.6
0.6
1.E10
1.E10
1.
1.
$
ZBOTI
ZTOPI
ZBOTE
ZTOPE
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
$ NVENV
2
$ TENV
TMENVT
HENVT
0.
500.15
0.
600.
500.15
0.
$
DREG
NINREG
FQREG ITPREG IMREG
0.06
12
0.
0
1
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ STRUCTURE 6 - VV FLANGES
$
CHSTRU
'FLNVV'
$
ITIPO
RI
NREG
AREAI
AREAE
CHVINT
CHVEXT
1
0.0
1
0.3928
0.3928
'VV'
'&ENVIR'
$
DHI
DHE
HFOULI
HFOULE
FACWI
FACWE
0.5
0.5
1.E10
1.E10
1.
1.
$
ZBOTI
ZTOPI
ZBOTE
ZTOPE
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
$ NVENV
2
$ TENV
TMENVT
HENVT
0.
500.15
0.
600.
500.15
0.
$
DREG
NINREG
FQREG ITPREG IMREG
0.06
12
0.
0
1
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ STRUCTURE 7 - DIVERTOR
$
CHSTRU
'DV'
$
ITIPO
RI
NREG
AREAI
AREAE
CHVINT
CHVEXT
1
0.0
1
0.662
0.662
'PC'
'VV'
$
DHI
DHE
HFOULI
HFOULE
FACWI
FACWE
0.5
0.5
1.E10
1.E10
1.
1.
$
ZBOTI
ZTOPI
ZBOTE
ZTOPE
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
$
DREG
NINREG
FQREG ITPREG IMREG
0.012
6
0.
3
1
$
$======================= MATERIAL DATA ===============================*
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ MATERIAL 1 - STAINLESS STEEL
$
$ THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY TABLE
$ NAK
2
$ AKT
AKV
0.
11.7
10000.
11.7
$
PAGE
67 of 117
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
$ HEAT CAPACITY TABLE
$ NVHC
2
$ VHCT
VHCV
0.
3.740E6
10000.
3.740E6
$
$====================== POWER DATA ==================================
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ HEATING IN STRUCTURE PC
$ NPOW
FPOW
3
0.03313
$ TPOW
POWT
0.
45280.0
60.
422600.0
600.
422600.0
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ HEATING IN STRUCTURE VV
$ NPOW
FPOW
3
0.027
$ TPOW
POWT
0.
18450.
100.
332100.0
600.
332100.0
$------------------------------------------------------------------$$ HEATING IN STRUCTURE DV
$ NPOW
FPOW
4
0.007944
$ TPOW
POWT
0.
0.
100.
377600.0
400.
692300.0
600.
692300.0
$
$======================= PUMP DATA ==================================
$ NPUMP
0
$
$================ TIME ADVANCEMENT CONTROL DATA ======================*
$
$ TEND
NFREQ
NPLTH
600.
4
22
$ TSTEA
DTSTEA
DTSTOU
NJUDEL
NSPDEL
ICOUST
-1.
0.01
0.5
0
0
1
$ TFREQ
DTUP
DTLW
DTTROU
DTTRPL
ICOURT
10.
0.01
1.e-6
0.5
0.1
1
45.
0.01
1.e-6
0.5
0.5
1
100.
0.01
1.e-6
5.
0.5
1
600.
0.01
1.e-6
10.
5.0
1
$ CHPLOT
CHPLO1
INDPL2 CONVFP
NWCHPL
'PVOL'
'PC'
0
1.e-6
'PC press'
'PVOL'
'VV'
0
1.e-6
'VV press'
'PVOL'
'ST'
0
1.e-6
'ST press'
'PVOL'
'DT'
0
1.e-6
'DT press'
'TGVOL'
'PC'
0
0
'PC T'
'TGVOL'
'VV'
0
0
'VV T'
'TGVOL'
'ST'
0
0
'ST T'
'TGVOL'
'DT'
0
0
'DT T'
'WGSPIL' 'INJECT'
0
0
'inject'
'WGSPIL' 'RDST'
0
0
'w to ST'
'TSAT'
'PC'
0
0
'PC Tsat'
'TSAT'
'VV'
0
0
'VV Tsat'
'TSAT'
'ST'
0
0
'ST Tsat'
'TSAT'
'DT'
0
0
'DT Tsat'
'T'
'PCWALL'
1
0
'PC wall'
'T'
'VVWALL'
1
0
'VV wall'
'T'
'STWALL'
1
0
'ST wall'
'T'
'DTWALL'
1
0
'DT wall'
'T'
'FLNPC'
1
0
'PC flange'
'T'
'FLNVV'
1
0
'VV flange'
'T'
'DV'
1
0
'DV side PC'
'T'
'DV'
7
0
'DV side VV'
'AMVOL'
'TANK'
0
0
'gas mass Tank'
$EOD
PAGE
68 of 117
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
PAGE
69 of 117
Appendix B: Output Comparison Tables and Plots
Time P max PC (s)
P max PC (kPa)
Time P max VV (s)
P max VV (kPa)
P max ST (kPa)
P max DT (kPa)
T max PC at. (°C)
T min PC at. (°C)
T max VV at. (°C)
T min VV at. (°C)
Tsat max VV at. (°C)
Tsat min VV at. (°C)
T max PC wall (°C)
T min PC wall (°C)
T max VV wall (°C)
T min VV wall (°C)
Time P max PC (s)
P max PC (kPa)
Time P max VV (s)
P max VV (kPa)
P max ST (kPa)
P max DT (kPa)
T max PC at. (°C)
T min PC at. (°C)
T max VV at. (°C)
T min VV at. (°C)
Tsat max VV at. (°C)
Tsat min VV at. (°C)
T max PC wall (°C)
T min PC wall (°C)
T max VV wall (°C)
T min VV wall (°C)
exp
2
372
2
368
48
37
227
112
226
79
226
79
228
79
229
81
P1
ECART diff %
2.5
0.5 s
371
0
2.5
0.5 s
363
-1
36
-25
28
-24
228
ns
127
13
310
37
151
91
141
-38
73
-8
228
ns
74
-5
228
ns
74
-9
exp
8
271
11
253
21
35
212
70
125
71
125
71
226
70
130
71
P5
ECART diff %
8
0. s
291
7
8.5
-2.5 s
288
14
26
24
31
-11
212
ns
69
-1
287
130
87
23
124
-1
68
-4
210
ns
68
-3
146
ns
69
-3
exp
2
271
2.5
227
31
32
211
73
125
74
125
74
227
74
131
75
P2
ECART diff %
2
0s
288
6
2.2
-0.3 s
270
19
33
6
27
-16
210
ns
71
-3
289
131
71
-4
130
4
71
-4
210
ns
72
-3
148
ns
72
-4
exp
7.5
171
7.5
168
34
43
226
76
210
90
210
90
231
75
212
77
P6
ECART diff %
7.5
0. s
171
0
7.5
0. s
171
2
42
24
38
-12
226
ns
80
5
268
28
137
52
115
-45
79
-12
227
ns
79
5
214
ns
80
4
exp
3
238
3
192
31
32
211
73
120
75
120
75
228
74
131
76
P3
ECART diff %
3
0s
223
-6
2.2
-0.3 s
214
11
34
10
27
-16
210
ns
72
-1
277
131
93
24
122
2
72
-4
212
ns
73
-1
150
ns
73
-4
exp
2
222
2.5
168
22
27
208
67
116
70
116
70
229
68
122
70
P4
ECART diff %
2.2
0.2 s
220
-1
2.4
-0.1 s
196
17
24
9
21
-21
208
ns
64
-4
280
141
83
19
120
3
64
-9
257
ns
64
-6
138
ns
65
-7
exp
14
156
14
153
11
21
215
58
134
61
134
61
230
57
134
64
P7
ECART diff %
18
4. s
156
0
18
4. s
156
2
14
27
23
10
212
ns
60
3
230
72
97
59
113
-16
58
-5
215
ns
58
2
148
ns
58
-9
exp
6.5
170
6.5
167
9.4
21
210
60
125
61
125
61
228
60
136
62
P8
ECART diff %
6.5
0. s
170
0
6.5
0. s
165
-1
11.4
21
21
0
210
ns
60
0
214
71
83
36
116
-7
55
-10
210
ns
57
-5
152
ns
58
-5
Table B.1: Summary of the main results for the cases P1 – P8.
(* ns = not significant , blue= good agreement, green=satisfactory agreement, red= bad
agreement)
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
B.1
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
70 of 117
Test P1
7
1.4
6
1.2
ECART
Exp
ECART w to ST
5
1.0
4
0.8
3
0.6
2
0.4
1
0.2
0
0
50
100
150
200
Flow rate to ST (kg/s)
0.0
300
250
Time (s)
Figure B.1 ICE P1 – Flow rates.
0.40
0.35
0.30
PC Pressure (MPa)
Flow rate to PC (kg/s)
PAGE
0.25
ECART
Exp
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Time (s)
Figure B.0.2 ICE P1 – PC Pressure (short term).
8
9
10
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
71 of 117
0.40
0.35
PC Pressure (MPa)
0.30
ECART
Exp
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
500
600
Time (s)
Figure B.3 ICE P1 – PC Pressure.
0.40
0.35
VV Pressure (MPa)
0.30
0.25
ECART
Exp
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.4 ICE P1 – VV Pressure.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
72 of 117
0.06
0.05
ST Pressure (MPa)
0.04
0.03
ECART
Exp
0.02
0.01
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Time (s)
Figure B.5 ICE P1 – ST Pressure.
503
230
483
210
ECART
Exp
190
443
170
423
150
403
130
383
110
363
90
343
70
323
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.6 ICE P1 – PC Atmosphere Temperature.
500
50
600
Temperature (°C)
PC Atmosphere Temperature (K)
463
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
603
73 of 117
330
ECART
ECART T sat
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
553
503
280
230
453
180
403
130
353
80
303
0
100
200
300
400
500
Temperature (°C)
VV Atmosphere Temperature (K)
PAGE
30
600
Time (s)
Figure B.7 ICE P1 – VV Atmosphere Temperature.
503
230
483
'PC wall'
'DV side PC'
TPW-7
TPW-26
TPW-18
190
443
170
423
150
403
130
383
110
363
90
343
70
323
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.8 ICE P1 – PC Wall Temperature.
500
50
600
Temperature (°C)
PC Wall Temperature (K)
463
210
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
74 of 117
503
230
483
210
463
190
443
170
'VV wall'
'DV side VV'
TVW-8
TVW-15
TVW-4
423
403
150
130
383
110
363
90
343
70
323
0
100
200
300
400
500
50
600
Time (s)
Figure B.9 ICE P1 – VV Wall Temperature.
0.04
0.04
DT Pressure (MPa)
0.03
0.03
0.02
ECART
Exp
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.10 ICE P1 – DT Pressure.
500
600
Temperature (°C)
VV Wall Temperature (K)
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
75 of 117
363
90
353
80
343
70
333
60
ECART
Exp
323
50
313
40
303
30
293
20
283
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.11 ICE P1 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.
500
10
600
Temperature (°C)
DT Atmosphere Temperature (K)
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
B.2
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
76 of 117
Test P2
7
1.4
6
1.2
ECART
Exp
ECART w to ST
5
1.0
4
0.8
3
0.6
2
0.4
1
0.2
0
0
50
100
150
200
Flow rate to ST (kg/s)
0.0
300
250
Time (s)
Figure B.12 ICE P2 – Flow rates.
0.35
0.30
0.25
PC Pressure (MPa)
Flow rate to PC (kg/s)
PAGE
0.20
ECART
Exp
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Time (s)
Figure B.13 ICE P2 – PC Pressure (short term).
8
9
10
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
77 of 117
0.35
0.30
PC Pressure (MPa)
0.25
ECART
Exp
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
500
600
Time (s)
Figure B.14 ICE P2 – PC Pressure.
0.30
0.25
VV Pressure (MPa)
0.20
ECART
Exp
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.15 ICE P2 – VV Pressure.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
78 of 117
0.08
0.07
ST Pressure (MPa)
0.06
0.05
0.04
ECART
Exp
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Time (s)
Figure B.16 ICE P2 – ST Pressure.
503
230.0
483
210.0
ECART
Exp
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.17 ICE P2 – PC Atmosphere Temperature.
500
50.0
600
Temperature (°C)
PC Atmosphere Temperature (K)
463
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
603
79 of 117
330.0
ECART
ECART T sat
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
553
503
280.0
230.0
453
180.0
403
130.0
353
80.0
303
0
100
200
300
400
500
Temperature (°C)
VV Atmosphere Temperature (K)
PAGE
30.0
600
Time (s)
Figure B.18 ICE P2 – VV Atmosphere Temperature.
503
230.0
483
'PC wall'
'DV side PC'
TPW-7
TPW-26
TPW-18
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.19 ICE P2 – PC Wall Temperature.
500
50.0
600
Temperature (°C)
PC Wall Temperature (K)
463
210.0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
503
80 of 117
230.0
'VV wall'
'DV side VV'
TVW-8
TVW-15
TVW-4
483
463
210.0
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
100
200
300
400
500
50.0
600
Time (s)
Figure B.20 ICE P2 – VV Wall Temperature.
0.04
0.03
DT Pressure (MPa)
0.03
0.02
ECART
Exp
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.21 ICE P2 – DT Pressure.
500
600
Temperature (°C)
VV Wall Temperature (K)
PAGE
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
81 of 117
363
90.0
353
80.0
343
70.0
333
60.0
ECART
Exp
323
50.0
313
40.0
303
30.0
293
20.0
283
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.22 ICE P2 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.
500
10.0
600
Temperature (°C)
DT Atmosphere Temperature (K)
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
B.3
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
82 of 117
Test P3
9
0.9
8
0.8
7
0.7
ECART
Exp
ECART w to ST
6
0.6
5
0.5
4
0.4
3
0.3
2
0.2
1
0.1
0
0
50
100
150
200
Flow rate to ST (kg/s)
0.0
300
250
Time (s)
Figure B.23 ICE P3 – Flow rates.
0.30
0.25
0.20
PC Pressure (MPa)
Flow rate to PC (kg/s)
PAGE
ECART
Exp
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Time (s)
Figure B.24 ICE P3 – PC Pressure (short term)
8
9
10
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
83 of 117
0.30
0.25
PC Pressure (MPa)
0.20
ECART
Exp
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
500
600
Time (s)
Figure B.25 ICE P3 – PC Pressure.
0.25
VV Pressure (MPa)
0.20
0.15
ECART
Exp
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.26 ICE P3 – VV Pressure.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
84 of 117
0.040
0.035
ST Pressure (MPa)
0.030
0.025
0.020
ECART
Exp
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Time (s)
Figure B.27 ICE P3 – ST Pressure.
503
230.0
483
210.0
ECART
Exp
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.28 ICE P3 – PC Atmosphere Temperature.
500
50.0
600
Temperature (°C)
PC Atmosphere Temperature (K)
463
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
603
85 of 117
330.0
ECART
ECART T sat
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
553
503
280.0
230.0
453
180.0
403
130.0
353
80.0
303
0
100
200
300
400
500
Temperature (°C)
VV Atmosphere Temperature (K)
PAGE
30.0
600
Time (s)
Figure B.29 ICE P3 – VV Atmosphere Temperature.
503
230.0
483
'PC wall'
'DV side PC'
TPW-7
TPW-26
TPW-18
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.30 ICE P3 – PC Wall Temperature.
500
50.0
600
Temperature (°C)
PC Wall Temperature (K)
463
210.0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
503
86 of 117
230.0
'VV wall'
'DV side VV'
TVW-8
TVW-15
TVW-4
483
463
210.0
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
100
200
300
400
500
50.0
600
Time (s)
Figure B.31 ICE P3 – VV Wall Temperature.
0.035
0.030
DT Pressure (MPa)
0.025
0.020
ECART
Exp
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.32 ICE P3 – DT Pressure.
500
600
Temperature (°C)
VV Wall Temperature (K)
PAGE
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
87 of 117
363
90.0
353
80.0
343
70.0
333
60.0
ECART
Exp
323
50.0
313
40.0
303
30.0
293
20.0
283
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.33 ICE P3 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.
500
10.0
600
Temperature (°C)
DT Atmosphere Temperature (K)
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
B.1
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
88 of 117
Test P4
8
0.8
7
0.7
ECART
Exp
ECART w to ST
6
0.6
5
0.5
4
0.4
3
0.3
2
0.2
1
0.1
0
0
50
100
150
200
Flow rate to ST (kg/s)
0.0
300
250
Time (s)
Figure B.34 ICE P4 – Flow rates.
0.25
0.20
PC Pressure (MPa)
Flow rate to PC (kg/s)
PAGE
0.15
ECART
Exp
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Time (s)
Figure B.35 ICE P4 – PC Pressure (short term).
8
9
10
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
89 of 117
0.25
PC Pressure (MPa)
0.20
ECART
Exp
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
500
600
Time (s)
Figure B.36 ICE P4 – PC Pressure.
0.25
VV Pressure (MPa)
0.20
0.15
ECART
Exp
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.37 ICE P4 – VV Pressure.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
90 of 117
0.030
0.025
ST Pressure (MPa)
0.020
0.015
ECART
Exp
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Time (s)
Figure B.38 ICE P4 – ST Pressure.
503
230.0
483
210.0
ECART
Exp
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.39 ICE P4 – PC Atmosphere Temperature.
500
50.0
600
Temperature (°C)
PC Atmosphere Temperature (K)
463
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
603
91 of 117
330.0
ECART
ECART T sat
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
553
503
280.0
230.0
453
180.0
403
130.0
353
80.0
303
0
100
200
300
400
500
Temperature (°C)
VV Atmosphere Temperature (K)
PAGE
30.0
600
Time (s)
Figure B.40 ICE P4 – VV Atmosphere Temperature.
503
230.0
483
'PC wall'
'DV side PC'
TPW-7
TPW-26
TPW-18
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.41 ICE P4 – PC Wall Temperature.
500
50.0
600
Temperature (°C)
PC Wall Temperature (K)
463
210.0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
503
92 of 117
230.0
'VV wall'
'DV side VV'
TVW-8
TVW-15
TVW-4
483
463
210.0
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
100
200
300
400
500
50.0
600
Time (s)
Figure B.42 ICE P4 – VV Wall Temperature.
0.030
0.025
DT Pressure (MPa)
0.020
0.015
ECART
Exp
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.43 ICE P4 – DT Pressure.
500
600
Temperature (°C)
VV Wall Temperature (K)
PAGE
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
93 of 117
363
90.0
353
80.0
343
70.0
333
60.0
ECART
Exp
323
50.0
313
40.0
303
30.0
293
20.0
283
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.44 ICE P4 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.
500
10.0
600
Temperature (°C)
DT Atmosphere Temperature (K)
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
B.1
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
94 of 117
Test P5
7
0.7
6
0.6
ECART
Exp
ECART w to ST
5
0.5
4
0.4
3
0.3
2
0.2
1
0.1
0
0
50
100
150
200
Flow rate to ST (kg/s)
0.0
300
250
Time (s)
Figure B.45 ICE P5 – Flow rates.
0.35
0.30
0.25
PC Pressure (MPa)
Flow rate to PC (kg/s)
PAGE
0.20
ECART
Exp
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Time (s)
Figure B.46 ICE P5 – PC Pressure (short term).
16
18
20
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
95 of 117
0.35
0.30
PC Pressure (MPa)
0.25
ECART
Exp
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
500
600
Time (s)
Figure B.47 ICE P5 – PC Pressure.
0.35
0.30
VV Pressure (MPa)
0.25
ECART
Exp
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.48 ICE P5 – VV Pressure.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
96 of 117
0.030
0.025
ST Pressure (MPa)
0.020
0.015
ECART
Exp
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Time (s)
Figure B.49 ICE P5 – ST Pressure.
503
230.0
483
210.0
ECART
Exp
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.50 ICE P5 – PC Atmosphere Temperature.
500
50.0
600
Temperature (°C)
PC Atmosphere Temperature (K)
463
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
603
97 of 117
330.0
ECART
ECART T sat
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
553
503
280.0
230.0
453
180.0
403
130.0
353
80.0
303
0
100
200
300
400
500
Temperature (°C)
VV Atmosphere Temperature (K)
PAGE
30.0
600
Time (s)
Figure B.51 ICE P5 – VV Atmosphere Temperature.
503
230.0
483
'PC wall'
'DV side PC'
TPW-7
TPW-26
TPW-18
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.52 ICE P5 – PC Wall Temperature.
500
50.0
600
Temperature (°C)
PC Wall Temperature (K)
463
210.0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
503
98 of 117
230.0
'VV wall'
'DV side VV'
TVW-8
TVW-15
TVW-4
483
463
210.0
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
100
200
300
400
500
50.0
600
Time (s)
Figure B.53 ICE P5 – VV Wall Temperature.
0.050
0.045
0.040
DT Pressure (MPa)
0.035
0.030
0.025
ECART
Exp
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.54 ICE P5 – DT Pressure.
500
600
Temperature (°C)
VV Wall Temperature (K)
PAGE
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
99 of 117
363
90.0
353
80.0
343
70.0
333
60.0
ECART
Exp
323
50.0
313
40.0
303
30.0
293
20.0
283
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.55 ICE P5 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.
500
10.0
600
Temperature (°C)
DT Atmosphere Temperature (K)
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
B.1
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
100 of
117
Test P6
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.16
ECART
Exp
ECART w to ST
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
Flow rate to ST (kg/s)
0.00
1200
1000
Time (s)
Figure B.56 ICE P6 – Flow rates.
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
PC Pressure (MPa)
Flow rate to PC (kg/s)
PAGE
0.12
ECART
Exp
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Time (s)
Figure B.57 ICE P6 – PC Pressure (short term).
16
18
20
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
101 of
117
0.20
0.18
0.16
PC Pressure (MPa)
0.14
ECART
Exp
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1000
1200
Time (s)
Figure B.58 ICE P6 – PC Pressure.
0.20
0.18
0.16
VV Pressure (MPa)
0.14
0.12
ECART
Exp
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
Time (s)
Figure B.59 ICE P6 – VV Pressure.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
102 of
117
0.045
0.040
0.035
ST Pressure (MPa)
0.030
0.025
ECART
Exp
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Time (s)
Figure B.60 ICE P6 – ST Pressure.
503
230.0
483
210.0
ECART
ECART T sat
Exp
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
200
400
600
800
Time (s)
Figure B.61 ICE P6 – PC Atmosphere Temperature.
1000
50.0
1200
Temperature (°C)
PC Atmosphere Temperature (K)
463
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
603
103 of
117
330.0
ECART
ECART T sat
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
553
503
280.0
230.0
453
180.0
403
130.0
353
80.0
303
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Temperature (°C)
VV Atmosphere Temperature (K)
PAGE
30.0
1200
Time (s)
Figure B.62 ICE P6 – VV Atmosphere Temperature.
523
250.0
503
230.0
'PC wall'
'DV side PC'
TPW-7
TPW-26
TPW-18
483
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
200
400
600
800
Time (s)
Figure B.63 ICE P6 – PC Wall Temperature.
1000
50.0
1200
Temperature (°C)
PC Wall Temperature (K)
463
210.0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
104 of
117
503
230
483
210
463
190
443
170
'VV wall'
'DV side VV'
TVW-8
TVW-15
TVW-4
423
150
403
130
383
110
363
90
343
70
323
0
200
400
600
800
1000
50
1200
Time (s)
Figure B.64 ICE P6 – VV Wall Temperature.
0.050
0.045
0.040
DT Pressure (MPa)
0.035
0.030
0.025
ECART
Exp
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
200
400
600
800
Time (s)
Figure B.65 ICE P6 – DT Pressure.
1000
1200
Temperature (°C)
VV Wall Temperature (K)
PAGE
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
105 of
117
463
190
443
170
423
150
403
130
383
ECART
Exp
110
363
90
343
70
323
50
303
30
283
0
200
400
600
800
Time (s)
Figure B.66 ICE P6 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.
1000
10
1200
Temperature (°C)
DT Atmosphere Temperature (K)
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
B.1
106 of
117
Test P7
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.14
ECART
Exp
ECART w to ST
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
Flow rate to ST (kg/s)
0.00
1200
1000
Time (s)
Figure B.67 ICE P7 – Flow rates.
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
PC Pressure (MPa)
Flow rate to PC (kg/s)
PAGE
0.10
ECART
Exp
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (s)
Figure B.68 ICE P7 – PC Pressure (short term).
35
40
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
107 of
117
0.18
0.16
0.14
PC Pressure (MPa)
0.12
ECART
Exp
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1000
1200
Time (s)
Figure B.69 ICE P7 – PC Pressure.
0.18
0.16
0.14
VV Pressure (MPa)
0.12
ECART
Exp
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
Time (s)
Figure B.70 ICE P7 – VV Pressure.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
108 of
117
0.016
0.014
ST Pressure (MPa)
0.012
0.010
0.008
ECART
Exp
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Time (s)
Figure B.71 ICE P7 – ST Pressure.
503
230.0
483
210.0
ECART
ECART T sat
Exp
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
200
400
600
800
Time (s)
Figure B.72 ICE P7 – PC Atmosphere Temperature.
1000
50.0
1200
Temperature (°C)
PC Atmosphere Temperature (K)
463
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
553
109 of
117
280.0
ECART
ECART T sat
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
503
230.0
453
180.0
403
130.0
353
80.0
303
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Temperature (°C)
VV Atmosphere Temperature (K)
PAGE
30.0
1200
Time (s)
Figure B.73 ICE P7 – VV Atmosphere Temperature.
503
230.0
'PC wall'
'DV side PC'
TPW-7
TPW-26
TPW-18
483
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
0
200
400
600
800
Time (s)
Figure B.74 ICE P7 – PC Wall Temperature.
1000
50.0
1200
Temperature (°C)
PC Wall Temperature (K)
463
210.0
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
110 of
117
433
160
413
140
393
120
373
100
353
80
333
60
'VV wall'
'DV side VV'
TVW-8
TVW-15
TVW-4
313
40
293
0
200
400
600
800
1000
20
1200
Time (s)
Figure B.75 ICE P7 – VV Wall Temperature.
0.025
DT Pressure (MPa)
0.020
0.015
ECART
Exp
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
200
400
600
800
Time (s)
Figure B.76 ICE P7 – DT Pressure.
1000
1200
Temperature (°C)
VV Wall Temperature (K)
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
111 of
117
423
150
403
130
383
110
363
90
ECART
Exp
343
70
323
50
303
30
283
0
200
400
600
800
Time (s)
Figure B.77 ICE P7 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.
1000
10
1200
Temperature (°C)
DT Atmosphere Temperature (K)
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
B.1
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
112 of
117
Test P8
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.50
ECART
Exp
ECART w to ST
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
Flow rate to ST (kg/s)
0.00
600
500
Time (s)
Figure B.78 ICE P8 – Flow rates.
0.18
0.16
ECART
Exp
0.14
0.12
PC Pressure (MPa)
Flow rate to PC (kg/s)
PAGE
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
Time (s)
Figure B.79 ICE P8 – PC Pressure (short term).
50
60
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
113 of
117
0.18
0.16
0.14
PC Pressure (MPa)
0.12
ECART
Exp
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
500
600
Time (s)
Figure B.80 ICE P8 – PC Pressure.
0.18
0.16
0.14
VV Pressure (MPa)
0.12
ECART
Exp
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.81 ICE P8 – VV Pressure.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
114 of
117
0.014
0.012
ST Pressure (MPa)
0.010
0.008
ECART
Exp
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Time (s)
503
230.0
483
210.0
463
190.0
ECART
ECART T sat
PC atmosphere
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
50.0
303
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.83 ICE P8 – PC Atmosphere Temperature.
500
30.0
600
Temperature (°C)
PC Atmosphere Temperature (K)
Figure B.82 ICE P8 – ST Pressure.
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
553
115 of
117
280.0
ECART
ECART T sat
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
Exp
503
453
230.0
180.0
403
130.0
353
80.0
303
0
100
200
300
400
500
Temperature (°C)
VV Atmosphere Temperature (K)
PAGE
30.0
600
Time (s)
Figure B.84 ICE P8 – VV Atmosphere Temperature.
523
250.0
503
483
463
210.0
190.0
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
50.0
303
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.85 ICE P8 – PC Wall Temperature.
500
30.0
600
Temperature (°C)
PC Wall Temperature (K)
230.0
'PC wall'
'DV side PC'
TPW-7
TPW-26
TPW-18
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
116 of
117
433
160.0
413
140.0
393
120.0
373
100.0
353
80.0
'VV wall'
'DV side VV'
TVW-8
TVW-15
TVW-4
333
60.0
313
0
100
200
300
400
500
40.0
600
Time (s)
Figure B.86 ICE P8 – VV Wall Temperature.
0.025
DT Pressure (MPa)
0.020
0.015
ECART
Exp
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.87 ICE P8 – DT Pressure.
500
600
Temperature (°C)
VV Wall Temperature (K)
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT
EMISSION DATE
FUS-TN
25-02-2004
SA-SE-R-100
REV. 0
PAGE
117 of
117
443
170.0
423
150.0
403
130.0
ECART
Exp
383
110.0
363
90.0
343
70.0
323
50.0
303
30.0
283
0
100
200
300
400
Time (s)
Figure B.88 ICE P8 – DT Atmosphere Temperature.
500
10.0
600
Temperature (°C)
DT Atmosphere Temperature (K)
Associazione ENEA-EURATOM sulla Fusione
DOCUMENT