POLITECNICO DI MILANO

School of Industrial and Information Engineering

Master of Science in Nuclear Engineering

Thermal Hydraulics Analysis of an Innovative

Bayonet Tube Heat Exchanger

Supervisor: Prof. Marco E. Ricotti

Author: Stefano Cozzi Matr. 819058

Academic year

2014-2015
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AdP Accordo di Programma

ALFRED Advance Lead Fast Reactor European Demonstrator

CHF Critical Heat Flux

DHRS Decay Heat Removal System

DWO Density Wave Oscillations

EHRS Emergency Heat Removal System

ENEA Ente Nazionale per l'Energia e l'Ambiente

HERO-2 Heavy liquid mEtal pRessurized water cOoled tube

HS Heat Structure

ICAPP International Congress on Advances in nuclear Power Plants

IETI Impianto Esperienze Termo Idrauliche

I-PWR Integrated Pressurized Water Reactor

IRIS International Reactor Innovative and Secure

LMFR Liquid Metal cooled Fast Reactor

LOCA Loss Of Coolant Accident

LOFA Loss Of Flow Accident

LWR Light Water Reactor

MiSE Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

MSFR Molten Salt Fast Reactor

PAR Piano Annuale di Ricerca

POLIMI Politecnico di Milano

PWR Pressurized Water Reactor

RELAP5 Reactor Excursion and Leak Analysis Program

SG Steam Generator

SMR Small Modular Reactor

I
 CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... IV

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... V

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... VIII

1. Estratto italiano ...................................................................................................................... 1

2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 8

3. Bayonet tubes ......................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Concepts ............................................................................................................................ 9

3.2 Applications ................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 LMFR......................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 I-PWR ........................................................................................................................ 16

3.3 HERO-2 Facility ............................................................................................................. 21

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 30

4. Relap5 .................................................................................................................................... 32
4.1 The code .......................................................................................................................... 32

4.2 HERO-2 facility model ................................................................................................. 37

4.3 Results & Test matrix ................................................................................................... 41

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 53

5. Tests ....................................................................................................................................... 54
5.1 Characterization tests ................................................................................................... 54

5.2 Test-matrix & exp. Data................................................................................................ 58

Bibliograpy ................................................................................................................................ 63

6. Post-test analysis ................................................................................................................. 64

6.1Post test results ............................................................................................................... 64

6.1.1 Pressure drops ......................................................................................................... 68

II
 6.1.2 Stability – static characteristic curve of bayonet tube ..................................... 75

6.2 Data comparison ............................................................................................................ 78

6.2.1 Reference case, SG ................................................................................................. 78

6.2.2 Reference case, DHRS ........................................................................................... 84

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 89

7. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 90

Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 94

A: P&I SIET 105.01.00 rev.0 ................................................................................................. 95

B: Constructive Scheme HERO-2 ....................................................................................... 96

C: First test matrix ................................................................................................................ 97

III
LIST OF TABLES

Tabella 1-1: Dimensioni di massima del vessel di un reattore del tipo I-PWR che utilizzi
scambiatori di calore con tubi a baionetta. 3

Table 3-1: IRIS4FlexBlue specifications 18

Table 3-2: Data for the SG unit of an integrated PWR SMR of 530MWth 19
Table 3-3: Possible configurations of bayonet tube steam generator as a function of basis
parameters 20
Table 3-4: suitable configurations for a SMR of 530 MWth with a pressure vessel of a diameter
lower than 5 meters and using bayonet tubes. 20
Table 3-5: Dimensional data of HERO-2 bayonet tubes 23
Table 3-6: Design conditions of HERO-2 facility 24
Table 4-1: Comparison between different average mesh size, number of control volumes and
computational versus simulation time 42
Table 4-2: Operating conditions for primary and secondary side of the reference case SG unit 45
Table 5-1: Variance between calculated and measured saturation temperatures 57
Table 5-2: Corrections 58
Table 5-3: Resume of experimental tests. Notice that on the values reported for TF01, no
correction was made 61
Table 6-1: Thermal hydraulic conditions of the experiments used for the analysis of pressure
drops 71
Table 6-2: Test and simulation conditions, steam generator case. 79
Table 6-3: test and simulation conditions, passive security system case 85

IV
LIST OF FIGURES

Figura 1-1: Schema di un tubo a baionetta. Le frecce evidenziano le direzioni del flusso 1
Figura 1-2: perdite di carico per frizione per unità di lunghezza in funzione del titolo. 4

Figure 3-1: Schematic layout of a bayonet tube. Fluids can also flow in the opposite direction
depending on the application 10
Figure 3-2: (a) Bayonet tube steam generator for LMFR (3) (b) Bayonet steam generator for use
in gas cooled reactors (4) 12
Figure 3-3: ALFRED layout (Alemberti et al., 2013) 14
Figure 3-4: Cross section representation of ALFRED steam generator bayonet tube 15
Figure 3-5: Longitudinal section of Alfred steam generator bayonet tube (9) 16
Figure 3-6: Schematic layout of IRIS (left) and IRIS4FlexBlue (right) integral SMRs, adopting
Helical Coil Steam Generators. 17
Figure 3-7: Scheme of an SMR with bayonet-type SG and connected EHRS (12) 18
Figure 3-8: Bayonet tube section 22
Figure 3-9: Bayonet tube functioning scheme 23
Figure 3-10: Conceptual scheme of IETI facility 25
Figure 3-11: Electrical heater 26
Figure 3-12: Simplified scheme of HERO-2 instrumentation 28
Figure 3-13: Pictures of the test section installed in SIET 28
Figure 3-14: Picture of the test section. On the left the helical coil of the first IETI configuration
29
Figure 4-1: RELAP5 control volumes (1) 33
Figure 4-2: Mesh point spacing (2) 34
Figure 4-3: Vertical flow regime map. 36
Figure 4-4: RELAP5 reference case model 38
Figure 4-5: RELAP5 model for electrical heated bayonet tube 40
Figure 4-6: Schematization of the bayonet tube and relative RELAP5 nodalization. 41
Figure 4-7: Trends of temperature calculated at the point in which are posed thermocouples of
HERO-2 versus number of meshes of the model 43
Figure 4-8: Total pressure drops [in kPa] and equilibrium quality versus number of meshes of
the model. 44
Figure 4-9: Comparison of heat transfer coefficient trends calculated with different mesh size 44
Figure 4-10: Reference case temperature distributions 46
Figure 4-11: Reference case pressure trend 47

V
Figure 4-12: Reference case heat transfer coefficient 47
Figure 4-13: Reference case exchanged power 48
Figure 4-14: Comparison between different power distribution shapes imposed in RELAP5
simulations 49
Figure 4-15: Comparison of fluid temperature trends obtained with different thermal power
distribution 50
Figure 5-1: Preliminary actions to be performed at the beginning of the day 59
Figure 5-2: checklist for single tube tests - enclosure 3, SIET 02566 RP 15 rev.0 page 2 (1) 60
Figure 6-1: Trends of raw data from fluid and wall thermocouples. Some issues in the
acquisition are evident 65
Figure 6-2: Trend of fluid temperatures after the correction proposed in chapter 4 and trend of
raw data from wall thermocouples. 66
Figure 6-3: Trends of fluid and wall temperatures after the correction. A non-good behavior is
still evident in the set of wall temperatures 67
Figure 6-4: Frictional pressure drops per length unit, experimental data at 70, 50, 20 bar; 178
kg/m2 s; 22.5 kW of electrical power 72
Figure 6-5: Frictional pressure drops per length unit, experimental data at 70, 50, 20 bar; 178
kg/m2 s; 18.4 kW of electrical power 72
Figure 6-6: Frictional pressure drops per length unit, experimental data at 70, 50, 20 bar; 148.5
kg/m2 s; 18.4 kW of electrical power 73
Figure 6-7: Trends of Frictional pressure drops as a function of thermodynamic quality. 73
Figure 6-8: (a) Frictional pressure drops as a function of thermodynamic quality for helical coil
tube (19) and (b) same quantity for bayonet tube. Pressure and mass flux are different but of
comparable order of magnitude. 75
Figure 6-9: Internal pressure drops versus mass flow curve for a boiling system (5) 76
Figure 6-10: Total pressure drop versus mass flow, (a) 70 bar (b) 20 bar 77
Figure 6-11: Outer tube external wall temperatures versus time in the steam generator
reference case. 80
Figure 6-12: Fluid temperatures versus time in the steam generator reference case. 80
Figure 6-13: Outlet pressure versus time in the steam generator reference case. 81
Figure 6-14: Temperature trends, comparison between RELAP5 results and experimental
points in the steam generator reference case. 82
Figure 6-15: Pressure trend in the annular riser, comparison between RELAP5 result and
experimental points in the steam generator reference case. 83
Figure 6-16: Pressure drops with the respect of average equilibrium quality, comparison
between RELAP5 results and experimental points in the steam generator reference case. 84

VI
Figure 6-17: Experimental data from differential pressure drop sensors in the upper section of
the bayonet, decay heat removal system case. 85
Figure 6-18: Temperature trend, comparison between RELAP5 results and experimental points
in emergency heat exchanger case. Error bars are very small and are not appreciable. 86
Figure 6-19: Pressure trend, comparison between RELAP5 results and experimental points in
emergency heat exchanger case. 87
Figure 6-20: Pressure drops with the respect of average equilibrium quality, comparison
between RELAP5 results and experimental points in the emergency heat exchanger case 88

VII
ABSTRACT

The work here presented covered the thermal hydraulics characterization of bayonet
tubes, which have never been deeply studied, with the aim of starting the building of a
first database of experimental data. This database should be used in support of future
works and developments, and also for code validation: programs like RELAP5, whose
potentialities are acknowledged for what concerns all kind of heat exchangers
commonly used in nuclear field, are not ensured with regards to bayonets and other
innovative layouts.

The first part of the work concerned the construction of a model for bayonet tubes using
the RELAP5 code. A first analysis of performance on the heat exchanger was conducted
using the simulated data and, from its results, the most interesting conditions of
operation were extrapolated. Based on those reference conditions, the test matrix for the
experimental campaign was composed and set. Furthermore, from those simulations
operative exploitable conditions for a preliminary sizing were individuated. The calculi
carried out for the sizing regarded the encumbrance of an I-PWR based on the IRIS
concept, in which the use of bayonet tubes steam generators was hypothesized instead
of helical coil ones, and the results were quite promising.

During the thesis project, the author has actively participated in the whole experimental
campaign conducted in SIET labs on the guidelines of the constructed test matrix,
attending to the sensor characterization process and to all experimental trials.

The second part of the work was conducted on the experimental data, which were
deeply analyzed and commented. This analysis has proven as an evidence some issues
in the facility and in the data acquisition, which were corrected where possible. A first
efficient database for the bayonet tubes was compiled. As the conclusion of data
interpretation, some proposal to enhance the facility and the HERO-2 test section were
made, in order to improve the system in prevision of future works.

The latest activity performed was a comparison between experimental data and
simulated results, in order to verify the prediction accuracy of the thermal hydraulics
phenomena for a type of heat exchanger for which RELAP5 is not certified, in an optic
of using this code to study, dimension and to analyze incidental conditions of bayonet
tubes heat exchangers

VIII
1. Estratto italiano
Questo lavoro di tesi si configura come attività di supporto alle attività del PAR 2014
dell’Accordo di Programma MiSE-ENEA nel campo dei reattori nucleari a fissione, ed in
particolare riguardo scambiatori di calore e generatori di vapori innovativi per un
utilizzo in soluzioni di tipo SMR.

L’oggetto di studio in questa tesi è uno scambiatore di calore innovativo composto da

tubi a baionetta, una tipologia diffusa in ambito convenzionale ma mai sfruttata in
ambiente nucleare, le cui peculiarità possono essere interessanti per una futura
applicazione in reattori modulari. La Figura 1-1 mostra uno schema di un tubo a
baionetta, con evidenziate le direzioni dei flussi così come sono state studiate in questo
lavoro. In particolare, il progetto di tesi ha come scopo la caratterizzazione
termoidraulica di tale soluzione che non è mai stata studiata a fondo, con lo scopo di
costruire un primo database di prove sperimentali che saranno di supporto agli sviluppi
e campagne di studio future, nonché per la validazione di codici quali RELAP5, le cui
potenzialità sono riconosciute per l’utilizzo di tutti i tipi di scambiatore comunemente
usati in ambito nucleare, come ad esempio generatori di vapore once-through o con tubi
a U, ma non accertate per quanto riguarda tubi a baionetta.

Figura 1-1: Schema di un tubo a baionetta. Le frecce evidenziano le direzioni del flusso

1
La prima parte del lavoro di tesi ha riguardato la costruzione di un modello in RELAP5
di tale scambiatore. Attraverso le simulazioni condotte con il codice di calcolo è stata
fatta una prima analisi di performance e sono state dedotte le più interessanti condizioni
di funzionamento, le quali hanno permesso la costruzione della matrice di test per le
prove sperimentali che sono state condotte presso SIET. Una prima matrice di test è stata
costruita con lo scopo di operare alle pressioni e potenze per cui sono stati dimensionati
i due tubi della sezione di prova HERO-2, ossia 170 bar e intorno ai 35 kW termici per
tubo. Tuttavia, essendo i limiti dell’impianto di test molto stringenti, in particolare sulle
temperature, limitate a 350 °C all’interfaccia tra riscaldatori e tubo esterno e sulle
potenze, limitate a circa 22.5 kW termici per tubo, si è reso necessario ripetere le
simulazioni e l’analisi, in modo da poter rientrare nei limiti della facility in ogni punto
della matrice di test. Il limite di pressione, dovuto alla presenza di un separatore di
vapore posto a valle della sezione di prova e operante a 70 bar, non è stato
particolarmente critico: per un utilizzo come generatore di vapore in un SMR infatti, 70
bar sono sufficienti.

La facility sperimentale utilizzata non è stata costruita ad-hoc, ma è stata

precedentemente costruita in stretto accordo con POLIMI per condurre attività
sperimentali sui tubi elicoidali progettati per il reattore IRIS e opportunamente
modificata per accogliere la sezione di test HERO-2.

Le simulazioni condotte hanno altresì permesso di individuare delle condizioni di

funzionamento sfruttabili per il calcolo di dimensionamento di massima degli ingombri
di un I-PWR sul modello di IRIS, utilizzante un generatore di vapore integrato con tubi
a baionetta. Tali risultati, riassunti in Tabella 1-1, mostrano come le dimensioni del vessel
di un reattore che sfrutti i tubi a baionetta, operanti in condizioni di portata e potenze
pari a quelle individuate come caso di riferimento per la costruzione della matrice di
prova, siano troppo abbondanti. Si è quindi provveduto a individuare delle condizioni
di esercizio che permettano di mantenere il diametro del vessel inferiore ai 5 metri. Tali
condizioni forniscono la base per l’attuazione di una futura campagna sperimentale da
effettuarsi previo un miglioramento della facility.

2
Tabella 1-1: Dimensioni di massima del vessel di un reattore del tipo I-PWR che utilizzi
scambiatori di calore con tubi a baionetta.

Dimensioni non Dimensioni sfruttabili

sfruttabili
Pressione secondario [bar] 70 60 60 60
Numero tubi [#] 23 555 20 686 11533 13180
Potenza per tubo [kW] 22.5 25.6 46 40.2
Diametro interno vessel [m] 6.19 5.88 4.78 5
Velocità fluido primario [m/s] 1.5 1.5 2.13 1.9
Portata al secondario [kg/s] 0.013 0.013 0.0257 0.023
Utilizzo area [%] 80 80 80 80

Durante il periodo di tesi, il sottoscritto ha partecipato attivamente alla campagna

sperimentale, che è stata condotta sulla base della matrice di prova costruita, assistendo
nelle operazioni di caratterizzazione dei sensori e durante tutte le prove sperimentali.

La seconda parte del lavoro è stata condotta sui dati sperimentali ottenuti, di cui è stata
fatta una approfondita analisi e interpretazione, che ha portato ad individuare alcune
criticità della facility e nell’acquisizione dei dati.

In particolare, è stato individuato un errore nel sistema di acquisizione dati, accertato

poi dai tecnici di SIET, che ha compromesso la bontà dei dati di temperatura, sia per
quanto riguarda il fluido sia per la temperatura di parete. Dall’analisi dei test di
caratterizzazione è stata estrapolata e proposta una correzione valida per poter
sistematicamente correggere i dati sperimentali corrotti. Tale operazione non si è potuta
fare per i sensori di temperatura a parete, i quali richiedono l’effettuazione di test di
caratterizzazione ad hoc che non sono stati condotti durante la campagna sperimentale,
e la cui correzione, basata sui dati a disposizione, si è rivelata inaffidabile.

Processando i dati ottenuti dai test sperimentali è stata effettuata una analisi delle perdite
di carico bifase all’interno dell’area di passaggio anulare dei tubi a baionetta e sono stati
estrapolati gli andamenti delle stesse in funzione del titolo e di varie portate. In questa
fase è stata anche condotta una analisi preliminare di stabilità da cui è stata ricavata la
parte iniziale della curva di caratteristica statica dei tubi a baionetta.

3
 kPa/m 178 kg/m2s
35.00

20 bar
30.00

25.00

20.00

50 bar
15.00

10.00
70 bar

5.00

0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Average equilibrium quality

Figura 1-2: Perdite di carico per frizione per unità di lunghezza in funzione del titolo, dati sperimentali ottenuti con
una portata di 0.012 kg/s. Le tre diverse curve identificano tre livelli di pressione a cui sono stati acquisiti i dati,
rispettivamente 20, 50 e 70 bar. I colori indicano le diverse condizioni di potenza a cui sono stati acquisiti i dati: in
blu 22.5 kW, in grigio 20 kW, in giallo 18.4 kW e infine in rosso 16.6 kW. Si noti come, nello stesso tratto, a potenze
maggiori corrispondono titoli medi più alti. .

Purtroppo non si è potuta condurre una analisi approfondita circa i coefficienti di

scambio termico a parete del componente, in quanto i dati di temperatura ottenuti e
affetti da vizio hanno permesso di ottenere solamente considerazioni qualitative circa
l’evaporazione o meno del fluido. Dai dati corretti, infatti,, si evince solamente come, nei
test in cui si ha generazione di vapore surriscaldato, vi sia un innalzamento della
temperatura di parete dovuta al dryout del tubo. Tuttavia, anche il valore di temperatura
raggiunto non è da ritenersi affidabile.

Terza ed ultima parte del lavoro di tesi è stato un confronto dei dati sperimentali con le
simulazioni ottenute dal codice di calcolo, in modo da verificarne la bontà di previsione
dei fenomeni termoidraulici per una tipologia di scambiatore per il quale RELAP5 non
è stato certificato, sempre in previsione di un futuro utilizzo sistematico di tale
programma per dimensionamento, studio e analisi di condizioni incidentali di

4
scambiatori di calore con tubi a baionetta. Tali confronti hanno permesso di individuare
le modifiche da apportare al modello, in particolare per quanto riguarda la scabrezza dei
tubi che, nelle attività di pre-test, è stata solo ipotizzata, non avendo a disposizione i dati
affidabili direttamente dal costruttore. Tralasciando le migliorie, si nota come RELAP5
sia in grado di descrivere molto bene il comportamento del fluido all’interno dei tubi,
ma fatichi a descrivere lo scambio termico nella camera di vapore, in cui, nel modello,
sono presenti fenomeni di condensazione sulle pareti più fredde del downcomer.

A conclusione dell’interpretazione dei dati, sono state proposte migliorie all’impianto e

alla sezione di prova HERO-2, in modo da poter allargare il database creato e fornire una
base dati più ampia possibile per futuri utilizzi. In particolare, si è proposto di apportare
correzioni o sostituire il sistema di acquisizione dati per poter condurre una analisi
approfondita dei coefficienti di scambio termico e di sostituire il sistema di
riscaldamento con uno più efficiente, in modo da poter esplorare aree a maggior portata
e temperatura.

5
2. Introduction
In the more and more keen interest of society and institutions for new concept of
reactors, especially in SMRs projects, to which more reliability, safety and both
environmental and economical sustainability are demanded, having a wide range of
choice for what concerns technological solutions, in order to identify the best possible
option, is mandatory. In fact, errors in the engineering or in the choice of the typology
of heat exchangers can lead in un-programmed shutdown for maintenances and cause
incidental scenarios non predicted by safety studies (1). These considerations apply for
both steam generators and emergency heat removal systems (EHRS). In this context,
ENEA, within the framework of National Research Program funded by the Italian
Minister of Economic Development, is leading important studies on innovative heat
exchangers, in collaboration with POLIMI and SIET S.p.A.

Previous activities have focused mainly on helical coil tubes. In this thesis work, another
solution based on bayonet tubes was faced. Bayonet tubes consist of two concentric tube;
the inner tube conducts the fluid to the far end where it turns back and gets heated in
the annular area between inner and outer tube. The main feature of such a solution are
the absence of expansion stresses, due to the freedom of thermal expansion of the tube,
and the easiness to substitute one failed tube of the bundle (2). Those facts make them
suitable for a use in I-PWR reactors or in pool type LMFR.

To provide a good background for a comparative analysis of different solutions that can
be used in innovative layouts or designs, having a complete understanding of the
behavior of the different suitable components is a necessity.

The poorness of studies and the absence of an extended database (3) regarding bayonet
tubes has led to the necessity of the creation ex novo of a database, which can be used
for the qualification of simulation codes that are used as a support in design operations
and for incidental events analysis. With this purpose, two different test sections of the
same concept but of different application were commissioned by ENEA and are
currently object of study. The first section was designed for the use as steam generator
in a liquid lead cooled fast reactor, in the particular case the ALFRED project, whereas
the second one was designed for use as heat removal system or steam generator in LWR,
especially in integrated design reactors.

The work presented focuses on the second test section, which was tested at SIET labs in
accordance with the activities of the PAR 2014 of the MiSE-ENEA AdP.

6
Part of the activities of the present thesis work produced the report ADPFISS-LP1-062
(1), already submitted to ENEA, and a paper, which will be submitted to ICAPP 2016
conference, currently under development.1

1M. Polidori, P. Meloni, C. Lombardo, G. Bandini, M. E. Ricotti, S. Cozzi, A. Achilli, O. de Pace,

D. Balestri, G. Cattadori - Design and execution of the test campaign on the Bayonet Tube HERO-
2 component -

7
Bibliography

1. M. Caramello, M. de Salve, B. Panella, M. Ricotti, S. Cozzi, M. Santinello. Analisi e

confronto di soluzioni tecnologiche diverse per la rimozione del calore in reattori SMR. CERSE-
POLITO-POLIMI RL 1499/2015. 2015. Attività LP1. C2.2 AdP MSE-ENEA. ADPFISS-
LP1-062.

2. Hurd, N. L. Mean Temperature Difference in the Fiel or BAyonet Tube. 1946.

3. Smith, Eric M. Advances in Thermal Design of Heat Exchangers: A Numerical Approach:

Direct-Sizing, Step-Wise Rating, and Transients. s.l. : Wiley, 2005.

8
3. Bayonet tubes
This chapter deals with bayonet tubes, explaining what is their peculiarity and providing
an overview of what were and are their applications, especially regarding nuclear field.
In the first subsection, the main features of this type of heat exchanger are described,
together with a brief history. The second part is focused on applications, with a look on
conventional uses and a more extent discussion on nuclear application both in past and
in present. In the end of this subsection, a preliminary dimensioning for the use of
bayonet tubes in SMR applications is proposed. At the end of the chapter the component
and the facility used in the experimental campaign, which is the core of this work, are
described.

3.1 Concepts

The bayonet tube, also known as Field tube, from the name of its inventor, was proposed
for the first time in the middle ‘800 to steam fire-extinguishing engines2. The simplest
design of a bayonet tube consists of two concentric tubes vertically placed in the firebox
or in the boiler. In order to function properly, Field tubes must always be submerged or
exposed completely to combustion gases.

2 First steam-powered fire-extinguishers began to replace manually-powered one in those years

9
 Figure 3-1: Schematic layout of a bayonet tube. Fluids can also flow in the opposite direction depending on the
application

Figure 3-1 represents a schematic layout of a simple bayonet. Many developments to this
design were made for both land and marine applications by Babcock&Wilson, and by
French engineers, with De Poray and Niclausse boilers. Niclausse boilers, in particular,
had a wide diffusion as naval steam engines in various marine due to their good
performance and reliability but were progressively abandoned because of their difficult
cleaning and emptying (1). The main advantages of using bayonet tubes are simplified
maintenance and low rupture frequency. Being welded or rigidly coupled to the tube
sheet only at one extremity, they do not suffer from thermal expansion stresses, thus
reducing the formations of cracks and improving reliability with the respect of single
tube boilers. Moreover, they can be easily extracted from the component and replaced,
if failed (2). The major issue of Field tubes is the tendency in accumulating mud and scale
at the closed end, which is hard to wash out. The accumulation of dirt can obstruct the
passage of fluid, resulting in a compromised circulation and in overheating and it is to
be avoided. Another interesting fact is that bayonet tubes can be used in several
configurations and are not obliged to be set in vertical, but find application also in
obliquus layout and even as horizontal boiler. Notice that in applications where the
production of steam is involved, a vertical or oblique layout is preferred in order to
encourage the circulation and the rising of the steam in the system.

10
3.2 Applications

The multiple interesting features of bayonet tubes have led to numerous application both
in conventional and in nuclear field. Nowadays, they are commonly used as heat
exchangers and boilers in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry. In the past 40 years,
many studies were proposed for the use of Field tube heat exchangers for nuclear
applications and many patents were registered. For the most part there were proposal
as heat exchanger for high temperature gas reactors because of their capability of sustain
very high temperatures with reduced thermal stresses-related issues. Other proposal
were made for molten salt reactors and liquid metal cooled fast reactors due to the
possibility of use bayonets in pool type layouts with both forced and natural circulation,
for LMFR, and as external heat exchangers for MSR (3). The main goal achieved by all
these projects is the possibility to have a compact, reliable and low-cost component. As
a matter of fact, at least for the simplest design, the possibility to use conventional
materials and an easier manufacturing process is translated into cost saving (4).

11
 (a) (b)

Figure 3-2: (a) Bayonet tube steam generator for LMFR (3) (b) Bayonet steam generator for use in gas cooled reactors
(4)

In modern times, with Small Modular Reactors concepts, there has been a renewed
interest in bayonet tubes technology. According to IAEA classification, SMRs are all
those plant having a nominal electrical output of 300 MWe or less (5), compared to
typical GenIII/III+ designs whose production is about 1000 MWe. The key features
towards which new small modular designs are heading to are simplicity; improved
performance; enhanced safety; multipurpose applications and modular/in factory
construction. Those concepts can offer many advantages on the market, such as (6):

- Reduced construction duration: lower power, smaller size and simpler design
allow in-factory fabrication of component and modules, greatly simplifying on-

12
 site activities and assembling work. A reduced construction duration means
lower investment cost and faster pay-back time

- Factory fabrication and mass production economies: rather than being built on-
site, many SMRs are thought to be pre-fabricated, mass-produced and deployed
on site. Even the only factory production of modules and component allows to
benefits from learning effects and the so-called economy of multiples.

- Design simplification: integral designs and features specific to smaller reactors

give advantages in construction and safety issues.

Bayonet tube boilers were taken into account due to their constructive simplicity, which
allows, as already said, the possible use of conventional materials and constructive
techniques. Actually, one of the major issues in conventional power plant is related to
steam generators, which are one of the most fragile component in a nuclear power plant:
tubes are subject to corrosion, thermal stresses and, consequently failure. Replacing of
SG units is not always an easy operation and many power plants were closed and
dismissed, like San Onofre power station (7) because of the impossibility to replace heat
exchanger units, which is a required operation for life extension (8). During the years,
many techniques were used to enhance their lifetime and performance. The advantage
of having only one tube-sheet and a vertical positioning is clear if a use in pool type
reactors is hypothesized. For example, with the exception of the upper plate of the vessel,
no other penetrations are required, enhancing safety and giving a faster access to the
component in case of maintenance. Furthermore, the whole steam generator unit can be
assembled in factory and then placed directly in its housing on the upper plate of the
pool, both reducing working costs and simplifying all on-site operations.

3.2.1 LMFR

In the latest years Ansaldo Nucleare, which is partner in the development of the
European project on IV Gen reactor and is involved in the design of a reference
configuration for the LFR industrial plant and the definition of the ALFRED
demonstrator reactor main features, focused its attention on bayonet tubes as a
competitor of helical coil tubes (9). ALFRED is pool-type lead cooled fast reactor with an
output power of 300 MWth and a global efficiency expected to be higher than 40%. Its
vessel is a cylindrical-shaped containment closed at its bottom by a hemispherical cap,
as shown in Figure 3-3. The inner vessel assembly is also cylindrical and from it eight
ducts bring the lead through the eight pumps to the SGs. The two vessels are both made

13
of austenitic stainless steel. The best option of utilization of ALFRED seems to be coupled
with a desalinization plant.

Figure 3-3: ALFRED layout (Alemberti et al., 2013)

ALFRED steam generator unit is composed by eight bundles of bayonets organized in

triangular and placed vertically in the annular region between the core and the reactor
vessel. The new concept of Field tubes as conceived by Ansaldo consists of four
concentric tubes as shown in Figure 3-4:

- Slave tube:

- Inner tube

- Outer tube

- Outermost tube

The cold water from the secondary side enters from the slave tube and, once reached the
bottom of the bayonet, inverts its flow and rises in the annulus between the inner and
the slave tube. The gap created by the coupling of inner tube and slave tube is filled with
a strongly thermal insulating powder, which is necessary to improve heat exchanger
performance (10) and avoid the presence of droplets of water, due to condensation on
the slave tube wall, in the superheated steam in outlet. The channel between outermost
and outer tube is filled with helium and conductivity particles in order to have a good

14
thermal conduction efficiency. The helium-filled gap is required for safety reasons. First
of all it constitutes a second barrier between liquid lead and water, avoiding the contact
of the two fluids in case of break of the outer or of the outermost tube. The second
important feature is that, by the continuous monitoring of helium, it allows to check the
integrity of the heat exchanger and thus its availability, permitting the use of the SG in
the DHR safety system.

Figure 3-4: cross section representation of ALFRED steam generator bayonet tube

15
 Figure 3-5: longitudinal section of Alfred steam generator bayonet tube (9)

3.2.2 I-PWR
Possible applications of bayonet tubes steam generator are not only in LMFR,
characterized by heavy duty and by extremely high temperatures, but also in LWR and
especially in integrated-designed PWR, for example as IRIS is. A picture of IRIS and a
cross-section of its internals can be found in Figure 3-6. The approach behind these kind
of SMRs is the so-called “safety by design”, which means the tendency in avoiding the
possibility of the happening of an incidental case, rather than taking measures to
mitigate them. For this reason, in I-PWRs steam generators are placed inside the reactor
pressure vessel and are often designed to work in natural circulation: the integral design
does not require piping for the primary side and avoids by design the possibility of
LOCAs and LOFAs3. Bayonet tubes can be suitable for the use as in-vessel steam
generators due to their easy assembly and reduced number of penetrations of the vessel.
Moreover, the absence of thermal stresses makes them interesting from the

3 Loss Of Flow Accident, e.g. the blocking of a pump

16
accommodation point of view. For a LWR use, bayonet tubes layout should be simpler
than liquid metal use: the necessity to have an outermost tube in order to have one more
barrier between primary side coolant and water is not needed, making bayonet less
costly and thinner. This fact means a higher density of tubes and a reduced size of the
component, associated to constructive easiness, which, in a view of serialization and in-
factory assembling, can be an advantage on helical coil, which require a certain expertise
in construction and handling.

Figure 3-6: Schematic layout of IRIS (left) and IRIS4FlexBlue (right) integral SMRs, adopting Helical Coil Steam
Generators.

The use of bayonet tubes is not limited to steam generations. They can be usefully
adopted even in passive security systems where reliability is the main goal to achieve.
On this topic, POLIMI has made a wide work of characterization and analysis of IRIS
helical coil heat exchanger units, which can be theoretically replaced by bayonet tubes
steam generators, whose behavior has yet to be investigated (11). A scheme of this
possible utilization of such heat exchanger is depicted in Figure 3-7.

17
 Figure 3-7: scheme of an SMR with bayonet-type SG and connected EHRS (12)

In the framework of the projects carried out by POLIMI in SMRs field, and in particular
referring to IRIS and a possible application of its concept, a preliminary study of the
sizing of a steam generator unit consisting of bayonet tubes was made (12). The sizing
was conducted referring to the core power and geometrical specifications of a concept
studied for submerged marine applications, following the concept of FlexBlue of DCNS,
named IRIS4Flexblue (13) whose general data are reported in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: IRIS4FlexBlue specifications

Thermal Power [MW] 530

Electrical Output [MW] 160
Core diameter [m] 2.85
Primary pressure [bar] 155
Secondary pressure [bar] 60
Primary fluid temp. [°C] 330

18
The steam generator configuration chosen for the analysis is bundle of bayonet tubes
with the same geometrical features of those used in HERO-2 facility, which will be
described in the following subchapter 3.3, disposed in a triangular array. The main
specification of the considered component are summarized in the following Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Data for the SG unit of an integrated PWR SMR of 530MWth

External diameter [mm] 25.40

Pitch/Diameter [#] 1.2
Tube lenght [m] 7
Primary fluid flow area, per tube [m ]
2 8.05 x 10-4
Inlet primary temperature [°C] 330
Outlet primary temperature [°C] 292

In the sizing process, as a preliminary sensitivity study, different values of some

operative parameters were adopted. The principal investigated quantities are pressure
on the secondary side, which was considered between 60 and 70 bar, and the velocity of
the primary fluid flowing in the channel, supposed to be variable in a range within 1 and
2 m/s. Secondary side mass flow and grade of subcooling have also been taken into
account. However, inlet temperature was not considered below 20 degrees from
saturation point, in order to ensure a high grade of superheating and a limited thermal
drop among primary and secondary side. The most significant result of this analysis are
reported in the following Table 3-3. Having set the core diameter, equal to 2.85 meters
including the barrel around the fuel elements, the different dimensions, in terms of
number of tubes, and the size of the steam generator, give as a result the vessel diameter.

19
 Table 3-3: Possible configurations of bayonet tube steam generator as a function of basis
parameters

Secondary side pressure [bar] 70 60 60

Total number of tubes [#] 23 555 20 686 16 825
Power per tube [kW] 22.5 25.6 31.5
Vessel inner diameter [m] 6.19 5.88 5.44
Primary fluid velocity [m/s] 1.5 1.5 1.5
Secondary side mass flow [kg/s] 0.013 0.013 0.016

In every configuration considered, an efficiency of 80% in the use of the annular region
between vessel and barrel for the placement of bayonet tubes was assumed by
hypothesis. The remaining 20% of that area is used to accommodate internals and steam
collectors. As can be seen, in those cases the diameter of the vessel is always larger than
5 meters. Such a width is realizable, but is not the best option and is not desirable,
because it would suffer from too high costs and transportation issues. Therefore, more
suitable configurations, that could ensure a vessel diameter of roughly 5 meters, were
investigated and simulated. In order to remain under the limit imposed by geometry,
mass flows were increased and the maximum pressure taken was 60 bar. As a result, the
thermal power given to each bayonet has risen up to about two times the previous value
detected for the same pressure and the number of tubes was halved. For what concerns
mass flows, on the secondary side it was doubled and first side fluid velocity was
increased of about a quarter (Table 3-4)

Table 3-4: suitable configurations for a SMR of 530 MWth with a pressure vessel of a diameter
lower than 5 meters and using bayonet tubes.

Secondary side pressure [bar] 60 60 60

Total number of tubes [#] 11533 11533 13180
Power per tube [kW] 46 46 kW 40.2
Vessel inner diameter [m] 4.78 5m 5
Primary fluid velocity [m/s] 2.13 2.13 1.9
Secondary side mass flow [kg/s] 0.0257 0.0257 0.023
Percentage of area utilization [%] 80 70 80

20
A reactor operating with the conditions reported in the table above, provided the height
of the whole vessel, could theoretically find accommodation in FlexBlue’s hull or taken
into account for a SMR layout; its dimension is, in fact, comparable with conventional
PWR pressure vessels with the advantage of an integrated design.

3.3 HERO-2 Facility

The object of this study is HERO-2 (Heavy liquid mEtal pRessurized water cOoled tube
– 2), a heat exchanger unit designed by ENEA and supplied to SIET, which dealt with
assembling instrumentation, test section preparing and testing.

During 2005 – 2006 Politecnico di Milano realized at SIET labs, in Piacenza, an

experimental facility called IETI meant to be used for the study of a passive safety
system, characterized by two-phase natural circulation and variable pressure, for the use
in the IRIS SMR project4. The experimental apparatus links a helical coil steam generator
unit to a steam condenser placed at high elevation and submerged in a pool with
connection pipes. This test section successfully allowed to investigate the behavior of the
passive system and its stable operating conditions.

The IETI facility has been recently readapted to accommodate the new test section
HERO–2 assembling the new unit on the preexisting structure and modifying only the
hydraulic connections.

HERO–2 is composed of two bayonet tubes manufactured with commercial parts of AISI
304 Stainless Steel coupled together by an upper plenum, made of AISI 304 too, which
serves as steam chamber, for a total length of roughly 7.3 meters. Each tube is composed
by three concentric tubes, as shown in Figure 3-8.

4 POLIMI is partner in the IRIS consortium together with SIET and ENEA

21
 Figure 3-8: bayonet tube section

The cold fluid in inlet flows down the slave tube and then goes ahead in the annular gap
between slave tube and outer tube, where it gets heated by the heat provided to the
external surface of the outer tube. In order to minimize the heat transfer between
ascending and descending fluid (the so called regeneration) is realized an insulation gap
by coupling inner and slave tube. In the case of HERO–2 this gap is filled with air but
for nuclear applications a noble gas will be preferred. In Figure 3-9 the functioning
principle of a bayonet tube is schematized, whereas for the assembly details see the
drawing in appendix B. At the inlet of each bayonet is placed a structure welded to the
upper surface of the steam chamber, which accommodates the orifice needed to avoid
stream instability.

22
 Figure 3-9: bayonet tube functioning scheme

Dimensional data are summarized in Table 3-5

Table 3-5: Dimensional data of HERO-2 bayonet tubes

Ext. Diameter Int. Diameter Thickness Length

[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
Slave tube 9.53 7.09 1.22 7262
Inner tube 19.05 15.75 1.65 7262
Outer tube 25.40 21.18 2.11 7118

In the design of the HERO–2 test section, grid spacers were provided to keep the axial
alignment between slave and inner tube, whereas this task is carried out by the

23
instrumentation cables and by the fluid thermocouples inside the annular riser, for what
concerns outer and inner tube.

Component design conditions are those shown in Table 3-6

Table 3-6: Design conditions of HERO-2 facility

Fluid - water
Pressure [bar] 180
Inlet temperature [°C] 330
Outlet steam temperature [°C] 400

Unfortunately, during the experimental campaign was not possible to test the
component at its pressure design because the IETI facility is able to operate at a
maximum pressure of 70 bars, which is the design limit of the steam separator unit
downstream the two bayonet tubes and used for a better pressure regulation.
Furthermore, the maximum temperature admitted at the interface by the heaters
provided by SIET is 350 °C.

24
 Figure 3-10: conceptual scheme of IETI facility

As can be seen in Figure 3-10, the IETI facility is composed by a pumping system, a
preheater section, a dip cooler and a steam/water separator unit.

The mass flow in the test section is provided by a volumetric pump IMAMI with variable
displacement able to guarantee a stable fluid flow of 36 kg/h and guiding it to the
preheating section. Variation of the mass flow is made by regulating the piston stroke,
whereas the control and the reading of flow data are made with two flow detectors
exploiting the Coriolis Effect. The preheater is a helical coil electrically heated section
able to provide saturated or subcooled fluid at the desired temperature and is located on
the ground downstream the flow meter. After being preheated, water enters the dip

25
cooler, which is constituted by HERO–2, and exits from the top of the test section in the
direction of the steam/water separator unit. On the steam line, upstream the separator,
are placed two valves used for pressure control and a security valve. For a better
description of the facility and its control and regulation, please refer to (14) and to the
P&I SIET 105.01.00 rev.0 in appendix A.

Band-type electrical heaters (Figure 3-11) provide heating to the test section. Each heater
has a length of 6 cm and is capable to deliver 240 W of power at a voltage of 100V, with
a maximum temperature at the surface of 350 °C. This limit has proven to be the strictest
one in the operation of the test plant.

Figure 3-11: electrical heater

A total number of 110 heaters were placed on each tube, making available a total thermic
power of roughly 22.5 kW to the fluid, net of dispersions. Notice that the solution
adopted leads to little discontinuity in the heat flux, which should be as linear as
possible, due to the area left necessary free between one band and the following to
accommodate pressure taps and wall thermocouples and due to edge effects. The
heating section of each tube was separated in two distinct zone, controlled
independently one from the other, of a length equal at 1/3 and 2/3 of the total bayonet
length. This division was made in order to recreate in the most faithful way possible the
typical heat flux trends of such fluid/fluid heat exchanger and, at the same time,
decrease, if necessary, the thermal power in the upper side of the tube in order not to
exceed the heater’s maximum allowable temperature. The so-called TAMINI power
group provide the electrical power to the test section. Three independent power units
organized in the following way compose the TAMINI system:

26
 - TAM1 supplies power in the upper side of each tube, 1/3 of total length

- TAM2 supplies power in the lower side of each tube, 2/3 of total length

- TAM3 supplies power to the preheating unit

Notice that the separation in two parts of the heating section was made after some
considerations, in particular RELAP5 simulations have shown that the thermal crisis
point occurs at about two-third of the tube length5.
The instrumentation of HERO–2 was provided during assembly for what concerns the
set of fluid thermocouples placed in the annular riser and the set of wall thermocouples,
whereas the differential pressure sensors where provided by SIET itself in the preparing
and positioning stage. Each bayonet has installed seven type k6 thermocouples at a
distance of one meter one from the other in the annular riser and on Tube 1 seven type
k wall thermocouples were further applied on the external surface of the outer tube at
the corresponding height. In addition to them, each tube has five pressure taps every 1.4
meter. Note that the two tubes does not have the same instrumental configuration: Tube
1 has seven differential pressure sensors, one across the orifice, one for the downcomer
and five in the annular region; Tube 2 has four differential pressure sensors, one across
the orifice, one for the downcomer, one for the annular riser and the last for the total
pressure drop between inlet and outlet.
Below a brief summary of the instrumentation is reported:

- 14 fluid thermocouples, type k, 7 each bayonet

- 7 wall thermocouples, tube 1 only

- 2 mass flow indicators

- 2 absolute pressure indicators, inlet and outlet

- 11 differential pressure sensors, 7 on tube 1 and 4 on tube 2

- Voltage and current indicators on the TAMINI group

In Figure 3-12 and following, a simplified scheme of the instrumentation and some
images of the test section are shown. In Figure 3-14 can be seen the previous test section
for the helical coil steam generator mounted on the IETI facility

5 Please refer to chapter 4.1 for wider explanations

6 Operating range: from -200 °C to 1260 °C. Sensitivity 41 µV/°C

27
Figure 3-12: simplified scheme of HERO-2 instrumentation

Figure 3-13: pictures of the test section installed in SIET

28
Figure 3-14: picture of the test section. On the left the helical coil of the first IETI configuration

29
Bibliography

1. Dickinson, H.W., A short history of steam engines . s.l. : Cambridge University Press .

2. Topics of the Times. The New York Times. April 24, 1903.

3. Barratt, R. O., 3613781 October 19, 1972.

4. Al., Zamma et. 4431049, February 14, 1984.

5. Status os Small and Medium size reactor design. s.l. : IAEA, 2012.

6. Kessides, I. N., The Future of the Nuclear Industry Reconsidered - Risks, Uncertainties, and
Continued Potential. s.l. : The World Bank Development Research Group Environment
and Energy Team, 2012.

7. Los Angeles Times. [Online] http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/13/local/la-me-07-14-

san-onofre-tic-toc-20130714.

8. Bonavigo L., de Salve M., "Issues for Nuclear Power Plant Steam Generators". In Steam
Generator Systems: Operational Reliability and Efficiency. s.l. : InTech, 2011 .

9. Damiani L., Montecucco M., Pini Prato A,. "Conceptual design of a bayonet-tube steam
generator for the ALFRED lead-cooled reactor". In Nuclear Engineering and Design 265. 2013,
pp. 154-163.

10. Hurd N. L., Mean Temperature Difference in the Fiel or Bayonet Tube, 1946.

11. Santini L., Papini D., Ricotti M. E., "Experimental Characterization of a Passive Emergency
Heat Removal Systemfor a GenIII+ Reactor". In Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations,
2010.

12. Caramello M., de Salve M., Panella B., Ricotti M., Cozzi S., Santinello M., Analisi e
confronto di soluzioni tecnologiche diverse per la rimozione del calore in reattori SMR. CERSE-
POLITO-POLIMI RL 1499/2015. 2015. Attività LP1. C2.2 AdP MSE-ENEA. ADPFISS-
LP1-062.

13. Baldocchi G., Small Modular Reactors for the FlexBlue Concept [Master Thesis], 2014.

14. De Pace O., Balestri D., Realizzazione di una facility ed effettuazione prove termoidrauliche
per generatori di vapore a tubi a baionetta, SIET S.p.A, 2015, Rapporto Tecnico.

30
15. Polidori M., Achilli A., De Pace O., Balestri D., Progettazione, realizzazione ed
interpretazione di prove termoidrauliche di base su generatori di vapore con tubi a baionetta. SIET
S.p.A., ENEA, 2015, Rapporto Tecnico. ADPFISS LP1 - 049.

31
4. Relap5
At the beginning of this chapter, a brief explanation of the code RELAP5 and its
architecture is presented. Further, the construction of the models used to simulate
HERO-2 test section is explained together with the sensitivity analysis carried out before
the choice of the mesh size used to carry out the construction of the test matrix, which is
presented in the third section of this chapter.

4.1 The code

Relap5/mod 3.3 (Reactor Excursion and Leak Analysis Program) is a thermal-hydraulic

simulation tool developed by the US – NRC and by a consortium of ICAP (International
Code Assessment and application Program) members to support licensing and
regulation of nuclear power plant. The mission of the RELAP5 program was to provide
a code able to simulate all types of transient and accident in LWR systems, including
LOCA and normal operation transients. Beyond that, RELAP5 is a highly generic code
which can be used for a variety of thermal and hydraulic simulations both in nuclear
and in non-nuclear systems using fluids that may be a mixture of steam, water,
noncondensables and nonvolatile solute (1).

The mathematical models implemented in RELAP are coupled into an efficient code
structure which includes an extensive input checking capability, helping users to find
errors and inconsistencies, and some user conveniences such as re-nodalisation, restart
and output edit features.

The code is not designed for CFD simulations of the fluid inside the various components
but for analyzing behaviors and interactions between system components. RELAP5 is a
system code in which, unlike physic-based CFD codes, various components of a thermo-
hydraulic system are modeled using different engineering correlations (2).

The hydrodynamic simulation is based on a one-dimensional, transient, two-fluid model

for steam-water mixture that can contain noncondensable gases in the vapor phase or
soluble components in the liquid phase (1). The model and its related schemes are based
on the use of fluid control volumes and junctions to represent the spatial character of the
flow. Control volumes are sketched as stream tubes having positive direction from inlet
to outlet and linked together by junctions. A physical system consisting of flow paths
can be simulated by constructing a network of control volumes connected by junctions.
The hydrodynamic boundaries of a system are modeled using time-dependent volume

32
or junctions and any volume, which does not have a connecting junction at its inlet or
outlet, is treated as a closed end. The code itself provides a wide library of components
for control volumes, from a simple pipe to branches and accumulators, to help users in
the process of modeling the system.

Averaged hydraulic properties are evaluated in the center of the cell, which is the control
volume for mass and energy quantities, except for velocities, which are evaluated in
junctions, namely momentum quantities control volumes, as can be seen in Figure 4-1 .

Figure 4-1: RELAP5 control volumes (1)

Heat structures permit the calculation of heat transfer across solid boundaries of
hydraulic volumes. Heat flow path are once again modeled in a one-dimensional sense,
using a finite difference mesh to calculate temperatures and heat flux vectors. To
simulate the heat flow path normal to the fluid flow path these structures can be
connected to hydrodynamic volumes. Coupling is made by solving heat transfer
equations in a lumped parameter approach. Three different boundary conditions can be
set in input to heat structures: fixed temperature, fixed heat flux or convection. Particular
condition or boundaries may be imposed by the user thanks to a broad range of models
and correlation implemented in the code itself. Notice that if any number of heat

33
structures surfaces can be connected to a hydrodynamic volume, only one
hydrodynamic volume may be connected to a heat structure surface. The temperature
distributions in these structures are represented by a one-dimensional form of the
transient heat conduction equation in rectangular, cylindrical or spherical coordinates;
spatial dimension of the calculation is along any of the coordinates in rectangular
geometry and along the radial one in cylindrical and spherical geometry. The mesh point
spacing is taken in the positive direction from left to right. Since a heat structure can be
made of different compositions, where a composition is defined as material with
associated thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity, mesh points must be
placed on the two external boundaries of the problem and at the interface between
different compositions. Other mesh points can be set in any position along the spatial
coordinate at desired interval between the interfaces, boundaries or both, depending on
the level of detail needed (2). Figure 4-2 illustrates the placement of mesh points, in
which all thermal properties are computed.

Figure 4-2: Mesh point spacing (2)

Boundary condition inputs specify the possible surface connection to a hydrodynamic

volume and the related one-dimensional heat conduction solution. Each of the two
surfaces of a heat structure may use any boundary condition. When a heat structure is
connected to a hydrodynamic volume, heat transferred from or to the heat structure is
added to or subtracted by the internal energy of the volume. For both left and right side,
the heat flowing out of the surface is taken positive by convention. An initial temperature
distribution may be set as input or calculated from a steady state conduction calculus
using initial hydrodynamic conditions and zero-time power values. This initial
distribution is used as initial temperature for iterations of temperature-dependent

34
properties and boundary conditions. Heat flux and heat transfer coefficients are other
boundary conditions that can be set and chosen from time-dependent tables whereas
surface temperature can be either obtained from a time-versus-temperature table or set
equal to the temperature of the hydrodynamic volume the heat structure is connected to
(2).

RELAP5 implements a broad variety of different correlations in order to calculate the

heat transfer coefficients and to compute pressure drops depending on the type of flow
regime that the fluid develops in the hydrodynamic control volume.

The code uses two different flow maps depending whether the flow is vertical (volume
with elevation angle between 45 and 90 degrees) or horizontal. For this work, the most
important map is the vertical flow one, which is composed by nine different regimes:
four for pre-CHF heat transfer, four corresponding for post-CHF heat transfer and one
for vertical stratification. Figure 4-3 represents a three dimensional scheme which shows
flow regime transitions as function of void fraction, average mixture velocity and boiling
regime. The map consists of bubbly, slug, annular-mist, and dispersed (droplet or mist)
flows in the pre-CHF regime; inverted annular, inverted slug, and dispersed (droplet or
mist) flows in post-CHF and vertically stratified for sufficiently low mixture velocity.

35
 Figure 4-3: Vertical flow regime map. The abbreviations that identify each kind of flow regime appearing in the
printed output are shown in parenthesis for each of the regimes (1)

The wall friction modeling is based on the volume flow regime map and the force terms
include only wall shear effects. For what concerns single phase wall friction
computation, in the calculus of the Darcy – Weisbach friction factor needed for the
determination of phasic wall shear stress, RELAP5 uses some correlations for laminar
and turbulent flow and an interpolation for the transition regime. In particular, for
turbulent flow it uses two models: the former based on an engineering approximation
of the Colebrook-White correlation (Zigrang-Sylvester) which has the advantage of
being an explicit relation, the latter instead is based on an exponential function with
user’s defined coefficients. For two-phase flow the model implemented in the code
works with a two-phase multiplier approach. According to Chisholm’s technique, from
the Lockhart-Martinelli model, the problem is split in two single-phase problems, one
for the liquid and one for the vapor phase. The multiplier is calculated from the Heat
Transfer and Fluid Flow Service correlation (HTFS) whereas each single-phase wall
friction coefficient is calculated as explained above. Since from the flow regime is
possible to gain information about vapor and liquid volume fraction in the wall film and

36
from that estimate the wetted surface area for each phase, the flow regime map is of basic
importance in the evaluation of pressure drops (1).

Volume flow regimes are also very important in heat transfer correlation, especially for
what concerns interphase mass transfer. As a matter of fact the flow regime determines
what will be the interfacial area and selects the correct heat transfer correlation for
superheated or subcooled gas or liquid. See reference (3) and (2) for a more detailed
description of heat transfer correlations and related flow regimes.

4.2 HERO-2 facility model

The reference case for the study carried out in this work is a single channel of a bayonet
tube steam generator, characterized by a triangular array and a pitch-to-diameter ratio
of 1.2. In order to be as faithful as possible to the real component tested in SIET the vapor
collector modeled is the one use in the HERO–2 facility. The model designed to simulate
the real behavior of the reference case is, as already said, a single bayonet tube, which
represent the secondary side of the steam generator unit, coupled with a single tube
which has geometrical dimensions equal to the equivalent hydraulic diameter of the
flow channel of the primary fluid. This single-tube model, although being very simple,
is enough to represent heat transfer phenomena, temperature and pressure trends inside
the steam generator unit, even if is not sufficient to identify possible parallel channel
instabilities due to asymmetrical behavior of the fluid. As a matter of fact, most of the
experimental test that had been carried out during the experimental campaign were
made using only one of the bayonets provided in the test section HERO–2, whereas both
tubes were used only for channel instability tests.

Figure 4-4 shows a conceptual scheme of the RELAP5 model used in the analysis.

37
 Figure 4-4: RELAP5 reference case model

Hydraulic control volumes are represented by two simple tube both for the downcomer
of the bayonet tube (PIPE100, in red) and for the primary fluid flow channel (PIPE1, in
light blue). The ascending annular section is simulated by an annulus type component,
selected from RELAP5 library (ANNULUS110, in red). The branch component
represents the upper vapor chamber. Coupling between hydrodynamic volumes is
made through heat structures. HS 110 represents the bayonet’s outer tube and is
responsible of the heat transfer between the primary fluid flowing in PIPE1 and the
secondary fluid flowing in the annulus. Because of its simple geometry is modeled with
a simple monolayer cylindrical structure. For what concerns simulating the thermic
coupling between annular riser and the downcomer, two different heat structures (HS
1001, HS 1002) were built, both formed by a multilayer cylindrical structure composed

38
by inner and slave tube in the middle of which was placed a layer with thermal
properties of air. Air was not thought as a fluid because in first approximation it was
considered still. HS 1001 is representative of the heat transfer between steam or hot fluid
flowing outside the riser in the vapor chamber and the cold fluid in entrance to the
downcomer and was considered adiabatic in the zone of the superior tube sheet because
any possible dispersion due to the tube sheet itself has been neglected. HS 1002 simulates
the wall that separates ascending and descending fluids. Boundary conditions are
imposed by the use of time dependent junctions for mass flows and by time dependent
volumes for pressures.

Another RELAP5 model was built to better match the experimental condition of test, in
which no primary fluid exists but thermal power is provided by electrical heaters (Figure
4-5: RELAP5 model for electrical heated bayonet tube). In the second model, the primary
side of the heat exchanger was removed and replaced by a boundary condition imposed
in HS110: in particular, a volumetric heat source was imposed inside the heat structure
with a total power equal to the amount of thermal power exchanged between primary
and secondary side in the reference case simulations.

39
 Figure 4-5: RELAP5 model for electrical heated bayonet tube

With this model two different kind of simulations were performed: the first with a power
distribution profile similar to the real one and one with equally distributed power. In the
former case, the total thermal power imposed in the heat structure was obtained by
integrating the real profile exchanged in the reference case in pre and post dryout zone
and imposing the corresponding calculated flat distribution in HS 110. The fluid-fluid
simulation also showed that the thermal crisis point occurs in the proximity of two-third
of the total tube length. This fact led to the decision of separating the power bank of the
experimental facility into two distinct and independently controlled areas to better
match temperature distribution and dryout point. The equally distributed profile was
meant to be the shape of thermal flux that SIET could provide with the separation in two
of the heating section. By integrating the profile of the reference case on lengths
corresponding respectively to 2/3 and 1/3 of the total height of the test section was found

40
that, due to the low power per single heater, the total thermal power that could be
supplied in the tallest section (2/3) was less than the power needed. The only possible
choice so far was to use a flat shape, that is making the resistors function al their
maximum admissible voltage and current.

Below, in Figure 4-6, the nodalization scheme used for the RELAP5 models is sketched.
Blue and red dots denote respectively pressure taps and thermocouples. The length of
each control volume was chosen in order to have a matching between the cell’s center
and the real placement of instrumentation. The size of each cell in the scheme is drawn
in scale except for the vapor chamber whose dimensions are too small to be represented
in an understandable way.

Figure 4-6: Schematization of the bayonet tube and relative RELAP5 nodalization.

4.3 Results & Test matrix

The aim under this thesis work was not only to test a possible configuration for the use
of bayonet tube in SMRs’ heat exchangers but also investigating nominal operation
conditions and possible use as ALFRED steam generator unit, in comparison with helical
coil systems. So far a model similar to the second model described in the paragraph
above was built but with T91 as building material, pressure of 170 bar and a nominal
power of 73 kW imposed in the external heat structure (4).

41
This ALFRED-like condition model was used to build the first test matrix proposed
which can be found in enclosure and the same operating conditions were used for a brief
sensitivity analysis. This sensitivity analysis was carried out to investigate the influence
of a different size of the mesh on the result of the simulations in terms of precision and
computational time.

In Table 4-1 are resumed the different size of meshes used and relative computational
and simulated time.

Table 4-1: Comparison between different average mesh size, number of control volumes and
computational versus simulation time

Average size Number of meshes Simulated Computational

[cm] (annulus) time [s] time [s]
Mesh 1 20 38 1000 589.89
Mesh 2 10 73 1000 3366.26
Mesh 3 5 144 1000 7346.20

The difference in simulated values can be seen in Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8. On the
abscissa axis the different number of mesh of each nodalisation is shown and the relative
values of temperature, total pressure drops and equilibrium quality calculated are
plotted on ordinate axis. All the data shown in the graphs are taken at the end of
simulation, that is 1000 seconds.

42
 °K simulation results vs number of meshes
740.00

720.00

700.00

680.00

660.00

640.00

620.00

600.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
number of meshes

TF11 TF12 TF13 TF14 TF15 TF16 TF17 Outlet

Figure 4-7: Trends of temperature calculated at the point in which are posed thermocouples of HERO-2 versus
number of meshes of the model

Series TF12, TF13 and TF14 can not be observed in the graph because they all are
overlapped. Indeed, the temperature calculated in these points is the fluid saturation
temperature and is the same under the conditions of pressure. “Outlet” series shows a
significant variation between meshes. This inequality is due to oscillations in the value
of the calculated temperature: as a matter of fact, simulations show a fluctuation between
719 °k and 707 °k only in the last cell of the model. These oscillations are not a
consequence of the different mesh size but are related to numerical issues because of the
different boundary conditions of the last cell of the annulus with the respect of the
preceding cell, for which no fluctuation is visible in any of the cases simulated. This
behavior is observable even in the quality versus number of meshes graph because at
higher temperature corresponds higher quality.

43
 Pressure drop and equilibrium quality vs number of
kPa, %
meshes
1.7000

1.6500

1.6000

1.5500

1.5000

1.4500

1.4000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
number of meshes
Total pressure drop equilibrium quality

Figure 4-8: Total pressure drops (in kPa) and equilibrium quality (in %) versus number of meshes of the model.

Figure 4-9 shows the trend of the heat transfer coefficient versus the annulus length. As
can be seen, the difference is not appreciable and all calculated points are overlapped.

Heat transfer coefficient

W/m2K
70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Tube lenght
mesh 5 cm mesh 10 cm mesh 20 cm

Figure 4-9: Comparison of heat transfer coefficient trends calculated with different mesh size

44
After this investigation the model with the largest mesh (20 cm) was chosen because of
computational time cost, which is far lesser than the one needed to accomplish a
simulation with smaller mesh size.

The test matrix7 created with such conditions could not be explored with the IETI facility
due to its limits in temperatures, pressures and power, which are much lower than the
proposed ones.

The construction of the second and final test matrix was based on the fluid-fluid model.
After the choice of the geometrical data of the heat exchanger (e.g. pitch/diameter ratio,
type of array…) and having done some calculations by hand to get the order of
magnitude of primary and secondary side flows, many different conditions were crossed
and simulated with the first RELAP5 model presented in this chapter to find out the
most interesting and suitable configurations exploitable to get an operation map of the
component. The result of this preliminary analysis were the condition of the reference
case, namely the operating condition of a hypothetical steam generator with bayonet
tubes, which are resumed in Table 4-2. Trends of temperatures, pressure drops, heat
transfer coefficient and thermal power are shown in the figures below.

Table 4-2: Operating conditions for primary and secondary side of the reference case SG unit

Primary side Secondary side

fluid velocity 1.5 m/s Mass flow 0.013kg/s
pressure 155 bar Pressure 70 bar
Inlet temperature 330 °C Inlet temperature 265 °C
Outlet temperature 290.4 °C Outlet temperature 328 °C

7 First test matrix can be found in Appendix C

45
 °C Temperatures
340

330

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
tube lenght [mm]

primary side secondary side

t. internal surface, outer tube t. external surface, outer tube

Figure 4-10: Reference case (fluid-fluid) temperature distributions

As it can be seen, in the last cell of the annular pipe the temperature decreases of nearly
20 °C. This fact is believed to be caused by a condensation on the wall of the vapor
chamber and on the inner tube that crosses the upper plenum carrying cold water (17).
Anyhow, this phenomenon has to be investigated with experimental tests.

46
 bar
Pressure
70.6

70.5

70.4

70.3

70.2

70.1

70

69.9
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
tube lenght [mm]

pressure downcomer pressure riser

Figure 4-11: Reference case (fluid-fluid) pressure trend

Heat Transfer Coefficient

kJ/kg°K
70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
tube lenght [mm]

internal surface, outer tube external surface, outer tube

Figure 4-12: Reference case (fluid-fluid) heat transfer coefficient

47
 Power exchanged
W
2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
tube lenght [mm]

Figure 4-13: Reference case (fluid-fluid) exchanged power in each cell of the nodalization

Starting from the thermodynamic properties of the reference case, two other kind of
simulations were carried out using the second RELAP5 model as described in the end of
the previous chapter: with equally distributed power and with an imposed thermal
power obtained by integration from the reference fluid-fluid model.

The main aim of this investigation was to verify that the strict temperature limit of 350
°C on the interface between heaters and outer wall of the bayonet tube would not be
exceeded during the experimental campaign. Furthermore, a comparison was made
between the results of the three simulations to study how much such a different
distribution of power would have influenced the fluid behavior in terms of temperatures
and superheating. In Figure 4-13 the power distributions imposed in the external heat
structure are plotted on the same axis and compared with the shape extrapolated from
the output of the reference case simulation. The same comparison involving the
corresponding fluid temperatures is show in Figure 4-14.

48
 W
Power distributions
2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
tube lenght [mm]

fluid-fluid power uniform distributed power two-zone distributed power

Figure 4-14: Comparison between different power distribution shapes imposed in RELAP5 simulations (fluid-fluid
versus electrical heating)

Small fluctuations in the two imposed volumetric heat curves are due to an unequal size
of the model mesh. Cell’s size, as already said, was chosen in order to have
correspondence between the point in which thermocouples are placed in the real test
section and the center of the cell and, as a result, some of them have a different
dimension. If the input table given to RELAP5 contains the total power and not the
specific power, the code requires a user defined internal source multiplier to distribute
the correct amount of power over each control volume. Multipliers are calculated by
dividing the cell’s length for the total height of the heat structure and suffer of
approximation error, leading to a small difference in the total power given in control
volumes with different size.

49
 °K Fluid temperatures
610

600

590

580

570

560

550

540

530
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
tube lenght [mm]
fluid-fluid case two-zones distributed power uniform distributed power

Figure 4-15: Comparison of fluid temperature trends obtained with different thermal power distributions (fluid-fluid
versus electrical heating)

This graph shows the behavior of secondary side fluid in the three different heating
conditions. As can be seen, the outlet temperatures in the vapor chamber (branch
component) are similar in all conditions, but a flat heat source gives much less
superheating and makes the dryout point shift towards the end of the tube. From the
simulation with two different distribution of power, as expected, the best approximation
can be obtained in terms of outlet temperature, superheating, and matching of thermal
crisis point but, because of the more power given in the first section of the annulus, the
saturation point is reached before the real case. In conclusion, because the IETI facility
can supply only a flat distribution of thermal power, it is expected that acquired data
would fit good the fluid behavior until saturation point and during two-phase flow but
the correct superheating curve would not be reproduced and observed.

The test matrix has been built starting from these considerations and varying values of
mass flux and power in the second heated section to explore different grades of
superheating and quality, with the aim of compiling a behavioral map of bayonet tubes
heat exchanger. Notice that in many points the inlet subcooling was set to 3 degrees to
reach superheating in most of the test conditions.

50
The same points simulated at 70 bars were replicated, if compatible with the facility mass
flux and temperature’s limits, for 50 and 20 bars.

In the test matrix of the lowest pressure a test in incidental conditions was included:
using the same approach for the reference case, the typical condition of duty in an
incidental scenario were explored, during which the mass flow on primary side is
reduced and pressures lowered. In particular, a reduction of the 80% of the mass flow
from the core and a reduced pressure of 50 bars in the heat exchanger ware expected.

Below is reported the test matrix constructed.

70 bar Mass Flow Power Notes

[kg/h][kg/s] [kW]
Subcooling 3°C 14.766 14.766 14.766 14.766 2/3
T Sat 285.8 °C 7.234 3.617 1.734 0.0 1/3
T Inlet 282.8 °C 22 18.4 16.5 14.7 TOT

54 0.015 Vap. Vap. Sat. Vap. Sat.

Sat.

50.4 0.014 Surr. Vap. Sat. Vap. Sat.

46.8 0.013 Surr.* Subc. 20

°C

43.2 0.012 Surr.* Surr. Vap. Sat. Subc. 30

°C @22
kW

36 0.01 Surr.* Surr. Vap. Sat. Subc. 30

°C @22
kW

51
50 bar Mass Flow Power Notes
[kg/h][kg/s] [kW]
Subcooling 3°C 14.766 14.766 14.766 14.766 2/3
T Sat 214 °C 7.234 5.425 3.617 1.734 1/3
T Inlet 297.4°C 22 20.2 18.4 16.5 TOT

50.4 0.014 Surr. Vap. Sat. Vap. Sat.

43.2 0.012 Surr.* Surr. Vap. Sat. subc

@22kW +
alto

36 0.01 Surr. Vap. Sat.

20 bar Mass Flow Power Notes

[kg/h][kg/s] [kW]
Subcooling 15°C 14.766 14.766 14.766 14.766 5.2 2/3
T Sat 202.4 °C 7.234 5.425 3.617 1.808 7.3 1/3
T Inlet 261°C 22 20.2 18.4 16.6 12.5 TOT

46.8 0.013 Vap. subc.

Sat. 20°C

43.2 0.012 Vap. Vap. Vap.

Sat. Sat. Sat.

39.6 0.011 Surr. Vap. Vap.

Sat. Sat.

36 0.01 Surr.* Surr. Surr. Surr. subc

@22kW +
alto

30 0.0083 Sur. Surr.

52
Bibliography

1. Information Systems Laboratories, Inc., RELAP5/MOD3.3 CODE

MANUAL VOLUME I: CODE STRUCTURE, SYSTEM MODELS, AND
SOLUTION METHODS. [a cura di] Nuclear Safety Analysis Division,
2001.

2. RELAP5/MOD3.3 CODE MANUAL VOLUME II: USER’S GUIDE AND

INPUT REQUIREMENTS. [a cura di] Nuclear Safety Analysis Division,
2001.

3. RELAP5/MOD3.3 CODE MANUAL VOLUME IV: IV: MODELS AND

CORRELATIONS. [a cura di] Nuclear Safety Analysis Division. 2001.

4. Damiani L., Montecucco M., Pini Prato A., "Conceptual design of a

bayonet-tube steam generator for the ALFRED lead-cooled reactor". In Nuclear
Engineering and Design 265. 2013, pp. 154 - 163.

5. Information Systems Laboratories Inc., RELAP5/MOD3.3 CODE

MANUAL VOLUME II: APPENDIX A INPUT REQUIREMENTS. [a cura
di] Nuclear Safety Analysis Division.

53
5. Tests
In this chapter a brief description of the experimental campaign is presented together
with an explanation of the technical issues encountered during data collection. The
experimental campaign, which lasted two weeks, was articulated in two different steps
to which each paragraph of this chapter is dedicated. In the first stage characterization
tests were carried out and, at the end of the paragraph, a simple correction of
instrumental issues is proposed. The second subchapter deals with the management of
the experimental campaign and the acquisition of test-matrix data.

5.1 Characterization tests

Before the data acquisition, in any experimental campaign, a trial of the whole facility
has to be carried out in order to verify the correct functioning of the instrumentation and
to ensure that all desired conditions of pressure, mass flow and temperature could be
reached. This phase can last several days and is crucial to define whether small
adjustments have to be performed on the data acquisition system (DAS) or even on the
plant itself, e.g. to substitute flanges’ seals subject to losses or non-working instruments.

As a first step preliminary test were performed soon after some runs with cold water to
ensure the hydraulic seal of the facility with both tubes open: resistors were activated to
check the correspondence between electrical heating section and power group. Those
tests were conducted giving power to one heating section at time in order to not only
verifying electrical connections but even to confirm the right matching between both
fluid and wall thermocouples signals and DAS channels. The trial of the test section
allowed to notice that fluid thermocouple TF12 and wall thermocouple TW15 were
broken andTF02 (on the vapor outlet) was missing, for what concerns temperatures and,
on pressure side, that an error on the calibration of sensors P02 and P03. The great
oscillation found on mass flux measures suggested to set another mass flow sensor (F02)
in addition to the already working F0001.

The real characterization consists of several analysis:

- Single phase pressure drop investigation

- Pressure drops characterization on inlet orifices

- External dispersion

- Calibration of fluid thermocouples

54
 - Check of wall thermocouples response

The investigation of single-phase pressure drops is carried out by acquisition of

differential pressure data with subcooled fluid flowing inside the bayonets. To explore
different Reynolds numbers, many runs have to be performed varying mass fluxes and
grades of subcooling, from cold to hot water. The characterization of inlet orifices comes
as a byproduct of the data acquisition by collecting signals from DP11 and DP21. Is
important to notice that, to get only the concentrated pressure drops straddling orifices,
values collected by these instruments have to be post-processed subtracting the
hydraulic head between pressure taps to the measures. As a matter of fact, the
gravitational term is independent from mass flow whereas orifices’ pressure drop is not
independent from mass flow rate. This correction can be done by using data from
instruments P02 and TF01.

External dispersions can be evaluated with a simple energy balance in the form of
equation(x).

𝑄̇ = Γ𝐶𝑝 (𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑖𝑛 )

Equation 1

In order to calculate the power dispersed, single phase hot water is injected in the test
section. From the knowledge of the flow rate, imposed by means of the volumetric
pump, and of temperature values in inlet and outlet the bayonet is possible to have an
estimate of thermal dispersion. The specific heat at constant pressure is assessed using
water properties tables.

The most important characterization test is the calibration of fluid thermocouples. Many
tests were performed in different conditions of pressure and mass flow. In these trials
the component was supplied with two-phase fluid only. The temperature pointed out
by each thermocouple was compared with the saturation temperature calculated8 at the
proper pressure in proximity of the instrument and the variance between calculated and
observed data was collected. The pressure field in the whole pipe was reconstructed by
adding the differential pressure drops collected by instruments DP13, DP14, DP15, DP16
and DP17 to the value of the outlet pressure indicated by manometer P03.

8Calculation performed with XSteam plugin for Excel vers. 2.6 - Water properties complete
IAPWS IF-97 standard.

55
To check the correct response of the wall thermocouples the test section was undergone
to high mass fluxes with the purpose of making the thermal resistance of the heat
exchange secondary fluid side negligible. Under these conditions a known thermal flux
rises among the heating section, not sufficient to bring the fluid at phase transition point.
The data acquired from temperature sensors were then compared each other to check
whether and which thermocouple is in a hot or cold spot of the test section

The analysis of the behavior of fluid temperature sensors pointed out that there was a
strong discrepancy between measured and calculated temperatures. The error observed
was not constant for all thermocouples but increasing with increasing length of
instrumentation cables: sensor TF11, which is the first one placed in the annular region
from the bottom of the bayonet9, had a much higher temperature compared to TF17,
which is the latest sensor from the bottom placed in the annulus. This difference was not
compatible with uncertainty associated to class K thermocouples10 and too high to be
due to thermal leakage. After having reported the problem to SIET it was found that,
because of circuital issues in the DAS, in some conditions the too much higher internal
resistance of the thermocouples caused the system to bypass the signal and process it
with a different circuit, resulting in a fail in the reading the correct voltage output. The
different length of cables, in the order of several meters one with respect to another,
caused a small increment in electrical resistance though sufficient to be recognized and
valuated by the data acquisition system. Notice that, because the same DAS was used
for all quantities of interest, wall temperature sensors suffer from the same error of fluid
wall thermocouples.

The empirical procedure used for the correction of the systematic error in fluid
temperature data is based on the fact that, regardless mass flow and pressure, the
difference between measured and calculated value for each thermocouple remains quite
the same, with very small deviations. First of all, the pressure at every point inside the
annular riser of the bayonet corresponding to the thermocouple’s place had to be
reconstructed. Starting from the data acquired by differential pressure drop detectors,
the pressure at the level of each manometric tap was calculated and then, using a
polynomial fit, the whole field was extrapolated. From that, the pressures at the desired
heights were derived. With these values the theoretical saturation temperature of the
fluid was calculated and compared with the collected data. The variances were

9 P&I SIET 105.01.00 rev.0 in appendix A

10 Regulation IEC 584-2

56
calculated subtracting from measured data the analytical acquired ones and are shown
in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: ΔT in °C between calculated and measured saturation temperatures

File n 1125 1159 1227 1255 1321

TF11 11.16 9.56 11.23 11.20 11.18
TF12 - - - - -
TF13 9.05 7.36 9.02 8.92 8.92
TF14 8.61 6.80 8.45 8.39 8.28
TF15 7.0 5.81 7.69 7.86 8.02
TF16 6.7 4.92 6.57 6.49 6.39
TF17 4.76 3.12 4.79 4.72 4.65
TF02 1.28 -1.49 -0.13 -0.42 0.35

As expected the variance trend is linear and is proportional the length of instrumentation
cables. The numerical value used to correct the data was taken equal to the average of
the variances between calculated and acquired data. Notice that TF12 was broken the
day these data were acquired, therefore its correction was made by exploiting the linear
correlation between the correction values: the average of each variance was plotted and
the points fitted with a linear regression. The equation obtained, in the form of

𝑌(𝑥) = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑞
Equation 2

gives a dependency of the correction from the height of the bayonet. Substituting the
coefficients found from the regression and inserting the quote of TF12, the value of the
proper correction was found. Table 5-2 summarizes the values used in the post
processing analysis to correct temperature data.

57
 Table 5-2: Corrections in °C

sensor TF11 TF12 TF13 TF14 TF15 TF16 TF17 TF02

correction 10.86 9.94 8.67 8.10 7.28 6.22 4.41 -0.08

The thermocouple in inlet, TF01, was the only fluid thermocouple not corrected using
this method. This is due to the fact that, being the first temperature sensor downstream
the preheater, it was used to set the power given to the preheater itself; as a consequence,
it was not possible to recognize any deviation until the error was found in the data
acquisition system. A preliminary correction was made by SIET together with the
correction on wall temperature data and will be included in the revision of the technical
report which, at moment of this writing, is not yet published. Revised data are obtained
by fitting them with a linear curve whose coefficient have been extrapolated from
characterization test and from the analysis of the error on the DAS.

5.2 Test-matrix & exp. Data

The operations used to explore the test matrix were studied and selected by SIET11 in
order to have always the best precision and reproducibility in data acquisition.

Below, Figure 5-1 shows the table containing all preliminary actions that must be
fulfilled to initiate the facility each day of test. Figure 5-2 shows the same checklist table
for single tube tests (1).

11 SIET 02566 RP 15 rev.0, attachment to reference (1)

58
Figure 5-1: Preliminary actions to be performed at the beginning of the day – enclosure 3, SIET 02566 RP 15 rev.0
page 1 (1)

59
 Figure 5-2: Checklist for single tube tests - enclosure 3, SIET 02566 RP 15 rev.0 page 2 (1)

As illustrated in Figure 5-2, a single data acquisition is not sufficient for getting a good
data file. Before starting collecting data from each steady state, launching a pre-steady
state acquisition is mandatory. The duration of a pre–steady state is double the time of
each matrix point data collection because its aim is to prove that the system is stable and
that its condition can be maintained indefinitely. Moreover, in case of data losses or
accidents good pre-acquisition data can substitute the steady-state values.

The exploration of the test matrix was conducted by starting from the lowest pressure
(20 bar) and then moving to higher pressure. This was made because 70 bar were close
enough to the maximum limit of the facility to encounter a significant probability to have
a rupture or a malfunctioning of the regulation valves, with corresponding stops for
maintenance. Being mass flow the parameter with the most difficult regulation and the
most oscillating behavior, test were conducted keeping constant the values of pressure
and fluid flow and increasing power step by step, especially for the test with lesser mass
flow rate. The main positive advantage of this schedule is that, starting from a cold
situation instead from a hot one, there is no need for waiting until the system reaches
thermal equilibrium. Equilibrium condition can be reached in hours depending on the
mass of the heat exchanger. Anyway, the whole test section has a quite small mass,

60
resulting in a low thermal inertia. Preliminary characterization tests have shown that the
waiting time needed to reach a cold situation from a higher temperature condition is
small enough not to pose a problem in case of that happening. For high-pressure tests,
especially for 70 bars points, the scheme depicted above was not always respected for
practicality.

Table 5-3 summarizes all test conditions reproduced in SIET (1)

Table 5-3: Resume of experimental tests. Comparison between nominal and experimental
values. Notice that on the values reported for TF01, no correction was made

Inlet Temp. Outlet Pressure Mass flow rate Power, TAM1 Power, TAM2

#
Nom. Exp. Nom. Exp. Nom. Exp. Nom. Exp. Nom. Exp.

[°C] [°C] [bar] [bar] [kg/s] [kg/s] [kW] [kW] [kW] [kW]

1 197.4 196.93 20 20.43 0.012 0.0121 3.617 3.525 14.766 14.234

2 197.4 196.97 20 20.52 0.012 0.0121 5.425 5.073 14.766 14.617
3 197.4 196.98 20 20.48 0.012 0.0121 7.234 7.155 14.766 14.953
4 197.4 196.35 20 20.27 0.011 0.0112 7.234 7.149 14.766 14.908
5 197.4 198.13 20 20.17 0.01 0.0104 7.234 7.142 14.766 14.875
6 197.4 196.46 20 20.3 0.01 0.0104 5.425 5.486 14.766 15.615
7 197.4 197.17 20 20.44 0.011 0.0112 5.425 5.48 14.766 15.664
8 197.4 198.5 20 20.34 0.011 0.0112 3.617 3.987 14.766 15.335
9 197.4 196.87 20 20.36 0.01 0.0104 3.617 3.806 14.766 15.633
10 197.4 196.95 20 19.94 0.0833 0.0085 3.617 3.865 14.766 15.071
11 197.4 196.38 20 20.6 0.0833 0.0084 1.808 2.01 14.766 15.205
12 197.4 196.69 20 20.35 0.01 0.0104 1.808 2.033 14.766 15.176
13 192.4 192.28 20 20.52 0.013 0.0132 7.3 7.63 5.2 5.885
14 261 262.84 50 50.3 0.01 0.0106 1.734 1.885 14.766 15.464
15 261 262.3 50 50.29 0.01 0.0106 3.617 3.697 14.766 15.451
16 261 262.74 50 50.69 0.012 0.0124 3.617 3.703 14.766 15.444
17 261 262.01 50 50.41 0.014 0.0139 3.617 3.683 14.766 15.401
18 261 261.94 50 50.32 0.014 0.0139 5.425 5.646 14.766 15.397
19 261 263.72 50 50.09 0.012 0.0122 5.425 5.621 14.766 15.41
20 261 264.96 50 50.59 0.012 0.0121 7.234 7.444 14.766 15.443
21 261 260.84 50 50.25 0.014 0.0143 7.234 7.461 14.766 15.454
22 282.8 282.39 70 70.18 0.015 0.0156 7.234 7.432 14.766 15.536
23 282.8 282.06 70 70.22 0.014 0.014 7.234 7.497 14.766 15.623
24 282.8 282.95 70 70.2 0.014 0.0146 3.617 4.291 14.766 15.648
25 282.8 283.59 70 70.65 0.015 0.0152 3.617 4.265 14.766 15.572
26 282.8 282.31 70 70.32 0.015 0.0153 1.734 2.148 14.766 15.67
27 282.8 287.43 70 70.69 0.01 0.0103 0 0 14.766 15.21
28 282.8 282.7 70 71.46 0.01 0.0102 1.734 1.947 14.766 15.239
29 252.8 253.5 70 70.08 0.01 0.0106 3.617 3.981 14.766 15.276
30 282.8 282.74 70 70.31 0.012 0.0126 1.734 1.973 14.766 15.25
31 282.8 280.95 70 69.85 0.012 0.0122 3.617 4.009 14.766 15.218
32 252.8 255.45 70 70.03 0.012 0.0123 7.234 7.388 14.766 15.419
33 262.8 264 70 70.26 0.013 0.0131 7.234 7.388 14.766 15.421
34 282.8 281.83 70 70.15 0.014 0.0138 1.734 2.068 14.766 15.339

61
In addition to single tube test, other trials were made using the double tube
configuration. Those tests were conducted to investigate the possibility of parallel
channel instability occurrence. The matrix used for the analysis, as regards thermal
power, is similar to the single tube one with the addition of some points at lower power.
Mass fluxes used were in general higher.

Because the analysis of DWO is beyond the aim of this work, neither simulations in
support of test matrix construction nor data post-processing related to this phenomenon
was made. It is important to report that some trials performed in single tube
configuration were repeated in double channel configuration to explore whether, under
those test conditions, oscillations could be noticed. In some data files, it has been noticed
that oscillations both occur in single and parallel tube configuration, but they seem to be
caused by different phenomena (2).

Further investigations have to be performed on these conditions and will probably be

carried out in the next experimental campaign.

62
Bibliograpy

1. De Pace O., Balestri D., Realizzazione di una facility ed effettuazione prove termoidrauliche
per generatori di vapore a tubi a baionetta, SIET S.p.A, 2015. Rapporto Tecnico.

2. Polidori M., Achilli A., De Pace O., Balestri D., Progettazione, realizzazione ed
interpretazione di prove termoidrauliche di base su generatori di vapore con tubi a baionetta, SIET
S.p.A., ENEA, 2015. Rapporto Tecnico. ADPFISS LP1 - 049.

63
6. Post-test analysis
The first part of this chapter deals with the post-processing operation carried out on raw
data and investigations made on pressure drops. A few considerations about
characteristic curve of bayonet tube are exposed in the latest paragraph of this section.
In the second part are presented some extended comparisons between reference case
simulation conducted, with RELAP5 and presented in chapter 4, and the result of the
test conducted under the same conditions.

6.1 Post test results

Before starting with any analysis, raw data coming from the DAS need to be checked
and post-processed to ensure that all acquisitions are good enough to be used and to
discard corrupted data. The first post-processing operation was the evaluation of
characterization tests, which were only glanced on the facility control room monitor
during the plant operation in search for macro-issues, like failed sensors.

The analysis of fluid thermocouple characterization data pointed out the error
previously discussed in chapter 5.1. The correction proposed has been extended to the
whole dataset acquired during the experimental campaign. As regards wall
thermocouples, a discrepancy between expected and real behavior was found during the
operations performed on fluid thermocouples data. In particular, it was found that the
trend of wall temperatures was opposed to the trend of fluid temperatures, as shown in
Figure 6-1. Because all trials made for the characterization of bulk sensors were made
with no thermal power imposed by resistors but only with two-phase mixture flowing
inside the test section, the expected trends should have been equal for both fluid and
wall temperatures, with a translation to lower values of the wall temperature curve due
to thermal leakage and temperature jump in the tube.

64
 Raw data - no correction
°C
265

264

263

262

261

260

259

258

257

256
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Tube lenght [mm]
T_FLUID T_WALL

Figure 6-1: Trends of raw data from fluid and wall thermocouples. Some issues in the acquisition are evident

As a wrong trend for fluid temperature was recognized, the same graph was redrawn
with corrected data. As can be seen in Figure 6-2 the temperatures on the external wall
of the bayonet tube show a non-physical behavior: being the tube heated from inside,
sensors must read a value lower than the bulk one, according to Fourier heat transfer
equation. Moreover, towards the end of the tube, which is expected to be the colder
section, wall temperature seems to increase instead of showing a small decrease.

65
 °C Fluid temperatures corrected
262
261
260
259
258
257
256
255
254
253
252
251
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Tube lenght [mm]
T_FLUID T_WALL

Figure 6-2: Trend of fluid temperatures after the correction proposed in chapter 4 and trend of raw data from wall
thermocouples. The non-physical behavior is well recognisable, since the tube is not subjected to heating and hot fluid
is flowing inside

The analysis of characterization test performed on wall thermocouples did not show an
error and an orderliness such that data could be corrected in the same way of fluid
temperatures data12, so the problem was reported to SIET, which proposed a preliminary
correction13. It must be reported that external surface thermocouple were tested and
certified by the manufacturer of the HERO-2 component, hence no extensive
characterization trials were performed. In Figure 6-3 are plotted the same point of Figure
6-1 and Figure 6-2 with both fluid and wall data corrected.

12 Many uncertainties in the data may be due to the fact that the contact between the tube wall
and the thermocouple is not perfect: thermocouples are not brazed but mechanically applied on
the tube. This causes an unpredictable error. The only observable issue is the non-physical
behavior.
13 Chapter 5.1

66
 Fluid and wall temperatures corrected
°C
258
257
256
255
254
253
252
251
250
249
248
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Tube lenght [mm]
T_FLUID T_WALL

Figure 6-3: Trends of fluid and wall temperatures after the correction. A non-good behavior is still evident in the set
of wall temperatures

As can be seen, even though the correction wall temperatures show a non-linear
behavior. This fact and the intrinsic uncertainties on the measures of those sensors due
to the way they were applied in addition to their placing point 14, plus the impossibility
to find a good correction, suggested not to use wall temperatures data for a specific
analysis of thermal exchange coefficients: in fact, outer surface temperature is required
to have an estimate of inner wall temperature. The only considerations that were made
using those data are strictly qualitative.

Notice that in the day of the trials from whose these data were taken, TF 12 (the one
placed at one meter above the bottom of the bayonet) and TW15 (placed at four meters
above the bottom) were broken and do not compare in the graphs.

14Wall thermocouples were placed, as pointed out in chapter 3.3, between one resistor and the
following. This fact means that, being them placed in a “cold spot”, the value of temperature
indicated by each sensor may be affected from a not-estimable error.

67
6.1.1 Pressure drops

In general, four fundamental reasons require obtaining a reasonable accuracy in

predicting the pressure drops in a steam generator (1):

- Calculation of the total head to be supplied by the feed water pump of the
Rankine cycle: the pressure drops in the steam generator of a power plant may
represent a significant portion of the total head (e.g. a supercritical fossil fuel
power station with a pressure of 250 bar at turbine inlet could have more than 60
bar of pressure drops in the steam generator).

- Calculation of the thermodynamic conditions of the steam at turbine inlet:

turbine efficiency optimization is based on design values of inlet pressure and
temperature, on which velocity triangles depend, so that their accurate
prediction is of paramount importance.

- Dimensioning the inlet orifice for damping the two-phase flow oscillations, hence
avoiding flow-pressure instabilities.

- Calculation of pinch point temperature drop: the temperature drop between

primary fluid and secondary one, where the two streams reach the minimum
temperature difference (pinch point), is of paramount importance for steam
generator sizing. Secondary side pinch point local temperature can be predicted
only if an accurate evaluation of local saturation pressure is known and this can
be done with a proper steam generator pressure drops modelling.

In the experimental campaign on the HERO-2 component some tests were conducted
especially for two-phase flow in diabatic conditions. Experiments carried out with liquid
only were too few15 to be used in building a map of friction factors versus Reynolds
number. Analysis conducted on these data are not presented because they can not give
any notable result.

Pressure drop can be expressed with a steady-state momentum balance (2):

𝑝𝑖𝑛 − 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 𝛥𝑝𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡 + 𝛥𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑐 + 𝛥𝑝𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣

Equation 3

15 As a matter of fact, only two trials are available for an analysis. A so small dataset is not
significant.

68
where the terms in the momentum balance are:

- acceleration term: it represents the pressure gradient due to the accelerative recoil
of the fluid. The volumetric gas fraction has to be know if two phase flow.

- friction term: it represents the shear stress that the tube wall exerts on the fluid.
No explicit information on volumetric gas fraction is necessary for this term if the
fluid is a mixture.

- gravitation term: it is proportional to the dynamic density ( also known as

mixing-cup density), that expresses the weight of the fluid column. The
volumetric gas fraction has to be known in order to calculate the gravitational
term in the momentum balance equation.

Since the accelerative pressure drop is small compared to others and can be considered
negligible, the value of the frictional pressure drop was calculated subtracting only the
gravitational pressure drop from the experimental value obtained (3) (1).

The calculus of the dynamic density, ρ*, defined as:

𝜌∗ = 𝛼𝜌𝑔 + (1 − 𝛼)𝜌𝑙

Equation 4

and used to find the entity of the hot fluid head, was made under the assumption of
homogeneous model (same velocity for the two phases). Introducing in the definition of
the void fraction α the slip ratio S, a term which represent the different average velocity
between the two phases and is defined as the ratio between mean vapor velocity in the
cross section of the tube and the mean liquid velocity, the expression of ρ* becomes:

𝑥(1 − 𝑆) + 𝑆
𝜌∗ =
𝑥 (𝑣𝑔 − 𝑆𝑣𝑙 ) + 𝑆𝑣𝑙

Equation 5

with vl and vg the specific volumes of gas and liquid phase.

69
Is it easy to show that, in the homogeneous model, S = 1; giving the expression of the
mixture density ρm (1):

1 𝑥 1 − 𝑥 −1
𝜌𝑚 = =( + )
𝑥 (𝑣𝑔 − 𝑣𝑙 ) + 𝑣𝑙 𝜌𝑔 𝜌𝑙

Equation 6

Which is the expression of the mixture density used in the formula of gravitational
pressure drop:

∆𝑝𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣 = 𝜌𝑚 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ ℎ

Equation 7

In first approximation, slip ratio equal 1 was taken to calculate the mixture density. If
the slip ratio is >1, the void fraction results smaller than the homogeneous void fraction,
leading to a higher density. This fact means that the gravitational pressure drop due to
the two-phase liquid head should be higher, therefore, after having subtracted its
contribution to the total differential pressure drop, the resulting two-phase frictional
pressure drop is expected to be lower. The real slip ratio can be evaluated referring to
the RELAP5 calculations carried out in the pre-test phase16 or referring to complex
models found in literature.

The experiments used for pressure drop investigation were not dedicated test, in which
the facility would run with two-phase mixture only, but data were extrapolated from
trials performed in the conditions resumed in Table 6-1.

𝑢𝑔
16 The slip ratio can be calculated by RELAP5 output with the formula 𝑆 = , where 𝑢𝑔 and 𝑢𝑔
𝑢𝑙
are respectively vapor phase and liquid phase velocities

70
 Table 6-1: Thermal hydraulic conditions of the experiments used for the analysis of pressure
drops

Mass flow [kg/s] Electrical power [kW] Pressure [bar]

0.010 – 0.012 16.5 – 18.4 - 22.5 20 – 50 -70

In all these matrix point, inlet fluid was subcooled water. Because that, part of the section
between the taps of DP1317 was not completely filled with two-phase mixture: the
bayonet, for the initial part of the annular riser, had subcooled water flowing in it.
Pressure drop from single-phase flow in this portion of the annulus were estimated and
subtracted to the data in order to obtain two-phase pressure drop only.

The evaluation of single-phase pressure drop was made using the Darcy-Weisbach
equation:

𝐿 𝑣2
∆𝑝𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡 = 𝑓𝐷∙ ∙𝜌∙
𝐷𝑒 2
Equation 8

Where the Darcy friction factor fD was calculated using the Zigrang-Sylvester equation,
which is an explicit formulation of the Colebrook equation and, as already pointed out
in chapter 4, is the same correlation implemented in RELAP5 (4). Notice that the same
subtraction was made for single-phase pressure drop due to superheated steam in the
upper section of the bayonet, between DP17 pressure taps, if superheated steam was
present.

Experimental results extrapolated from the data post-processing and analysis compared
with RELAP5 simulations performed in the same conditions are presented in the figures
below.

17 P&I SIET105.01.00 rev.0

71
 kPa/m 178 kg/m2 s - 22.5 kW
35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Average equilibrium quality
70bar 50bar 20bar 70bar_relap 50bar_relap 20bar_relap

Figure 6-4: Frictional pressure drops per length unit, experimental data at 70, 50, 20 bar; 178 kg/m 2 s; 22.5 kW of
electrical power

kPa/m 178 kg/s - 18.4 kW

35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Average equilibrium quality
70bar 50bar 20bar 70bar_relap 50bar_relap 20bar_relap

Figure 6-5: Frictional pressure drops per length unit, experimental data at 70, 50, 20 bar; 178 kg/m2 s; 18.4 kW of
electrical power

72
 kPa/m 148.5 kg/m2s - 18.4 kW
30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Average equilibrium quality
70bar 50bar 20bar 70bar_relap 50bar_relap 20bar_relap

Figure 6-6: Frictional pressure drops per length unit, experimental data at 70, 50, 20 bar; 148.5 kg/m2 s; 18.4 kW of
electrical power

kPa/m 178 kg/m2s

35.00

30.00
22kW - 70b
25.00 22kW - 50b
22kW - 20b
20.00
18kW -70b

15.00 18kW - 50b

18kW - 20b
10.00 20kW - 50b
20kW - 20b
5.00
16kW - 70b
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Average equilibrium quality

Figure 6-7: Trends of frictional pressure drops as a function of thermodynamic quality. Different colors evidence data
acquired under different conditions of power. As can be seen, referring to the same section of the tube, moving to
higher power average quality tends to increase. Error bars are not shown for legibility sake

73
From the trends outlined by Figure 6-4, Figure 6-5, Figure 6-6 the following
considerations can be made:

- As expected from Equation 8, pressure drops increase with increasing mass flow.

- A higher pressure tends to reduce, for a given quality, the pressure drop.

- Data and their fit seem to show a maximum for values of quality between 0.8 and
0.9 but not a marked decreasing with quality approaching unity.

- RELAP5 gives, in general, a good approximation with a discrepancy of few

kPa/m and is quite accurate especially for low pressures.

Notice that, in many of those series of data where average equilibrium quality of
experimental data are higher than the one calculated with RELAP5, the power given by
heaters to the bayonets was higher than the value set in the test matrix, resulting in
higher temperature and higher quality.

Compared to the helical coil, as shown by the works of Santini (2008) and Colombo
(2013) who used the same facility, bayonet tubes seem to suffer from higher frictional
pressure drops per unit length and they do not have a so pronounced maximum for
higher quality values, at least in the range of 200 kg/m2s. It must be pointed out that, due
to the few data available for the analysis, a good trend with a precise indication of the
maximum value of two-phase pressure drops can not be extrapolated from this dataset.
For the same reason, no tentative correlation has been proposed. Below, in Figure 6-8 a
graphic comparison is made between helical coil tubes and bayonet tubes: (a) shows the
frictional pressure drops for helical coil tubes, whereas (b) shows the same quantity for
bayonet tubes. Notice that uncertainties on quality are comparable in the two graphs,
especially for lower pressure points, whether in (a) error bars on pressure drops are not
shown due to legibility sake. The main difference that should be recognized is the
different behavior at quality approaching the unity. In (a) is clearly outlined the
decreasing in pressure drops after a quality of 0.8, in the order of 25%, where in (b) no
appreciable difference is seen, especially referring to 20 bar an 70 curves, which even
suffer from much less uncertainties with the respect of the 50 bar series.

74
 (a)

kPa/m Frictional pressure drop at 178 kg/m2s

35.00

30.00 20 bar

25.00

20.00
50 bar
15.00 (b)

10.00
70 bar

5.00

0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Average equilibrium quality

Figure 6-8: (a) Frictional pressure drops as a function of thermodynamic quality for helical coil tube (19) and (b)
same quantity for bayonet tube. Pressure and mass flux are different but of comparable order of magnitude.

6.1.2 Stability – static characteristic curve of bayonet tube

Instabilities, in thermal hydraulics, can arise quite frequently when systems work with
two-phase fluid, as steam generators and boilers do. The static characteristic curve of a

75
steam generator, which is defined as the relation that exist between the pressure drop
and the mass flow inside the component and it is a useful parameter to have information
about the Ledinegg type instability, is important from the safety point of view.

Ledinegg instability can be reached whenever a system shows an S-type static

characteristic, depicted in Figure 6-9. The working point of the component is identified
by the intersection between its characteristic and the external characteristic of a pump or
natural circulation. When the heated channel has a static characteristic which decreases
more sharply than the external one, a decrease in flow rate will be further enhanced by
the response of the external characteristic and the working point will be shifted away,
provoking the instability. A small decrease in flow rate moves rapidly the working point
from 1 to 2. This fact leads to sudden vaporization of the fluid in the channel and may
leads to problem of critical heat flux and thermal crisis. In short, a channel could be
unstable with the respect of Ledinegg instability when the overall pressure drop has a
decreasing trend with increasing mass flow, and its working point is placed on the
negative slope of the curve (5) (3).

Figure 6-9: Internal pressure drops versus mass flow curve for a boiling system (5)

76
From the dataset obtained with experimental test, a preliminary investigation of
Ledinegg instability was performed. The aim of the analysis was not to find the static
curve of the bayonet tube, which would have been impossible due to the low mass flow
used in the test, but to ensure that, under the condition of the reference cases described
in chapter 4, the system will be unconditionally stable.

Below, in

Figure 6-10, are depicted the trends and points of total pressure drops obtained by
varying the fluid flow in two different conditions: (a) 70 bar and (b) 20 bar. Notice that
the curves on each graph represent the same points obtained with different amount of
power given to the bayonet.

bar 70 bar bar 20 bar

1 1

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0.009 0.01 0.011 0.012 0.013 0.014 0.015 0.016 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01 0.011 0.012 0.013
Mass flow [kg/s] Mass flow [kg/s]
22kW 18kW 16kW 22kWr 18kW 20kW

(a) (b)

Figure 6-10: Total pressure drop versus mass flow, (a) 70 bar (b) 20 bar

77
As can be seen from these two images, in these points of operation the system has always
a positive slope, therefore it is reasonably expected that it will not encounter Ledinegg
instability in this range of operation. Points in these graphs were plotted for various
power in order to have a comparison between different trends. The thermal power given
to the fluid influences the pressure drops because, at equal mass flow, with higher
power, quality at the outlet grows and frictions losses become higher too. In any case, in
most of the experimental trial considered for this comparison, the outlet equilibrium
quality tends to be roughly the same. Notice that, because during the whole
experimental campaign only few mass flow in the range of 0.012 kg/s were exploited,
more test have to be performed especially at higher fluxes in order to reconstruct the
whole static characteristic and investigate the stability of the bayonet.

6.2 Data comparison

In this subchapter an extensive comparison between RELAP5 simulations and reference

case test results is presented. The aim under this work is to provide a basis for the
development of a the model especially in case-reference conditions, with the purpose of
future model validation and following use in more complex analysis or investigations.
The simulation results used were calculated using the model with equally distributed
thermal power imposed on the external surface of the outer tube, as presented in chapter
4 18. The comparison has involved all thermal-hydraulics parameters with the exception
of heat transfer coefficient because, as already pointed out at the beginning of this
chapter, the problems affecting the DAS have compromised wall thermocouples values,
making them useless.

6.2.1 Reference case, SG

Data presented below concern the reference case for steam generator condition, which
are summarized in the following Table 6-2:

18 See chapter 4 , pages 38-39

78
 Table 6-2: Test and simulation conditions, steam generator case.

RELAP5 Test
Outlet pressure [bar] 70 70.26 ± 0.06
Mass flow [kg/s] 0.013 0.0131 ± 0.0003
Inlet subcooling [°C] 20 25.0 ± 0.519
Power [kW] 22 22.8

The first important thing to notice is that, under these conditions, the system is stable
and shows no oscillating phenomena in both RELAP5 simulation and test condition. The
steady state condition obtained in SIET is very stable, as can be seen from Figure 6-11,
Figure 6-12,

Figure 6-13. It shows only a little variation in outlet pressure, which has a little tendency
in rising, and in outlet temperature for both fluid and wall. These variations can be
explained by noting that the inlet temperature tends to fall of few grades during the
acquisition time. The peak at 200 seconds in the wall temperature on the last
thermocouple may be a due to a temporary re-wetting of the inner wall, which caused
the temperature to drop as a consequence of the higher heat transfer coefficient of the
fluid compared to the vapor one, or to temporary error in DAS acquisition.

19The subcooling is differs of about 5 degrees from the one set in the test matrix because of the
error on fluid temperature sensors described in chapter 4. The inlet temperature was regulated
by online reading data from TF01, which had an error estimated in roughly +4 °C

79
 Wall temperature versus time
°C
300

295

290

285 TW11 (ｰC)

TW12 (ｰC)
280
TW13 (ｰC)
275
TW14 (ｰC)
270 TW15 (ｰC)

265 TW16 (ｰC)

TW17 (ｰC)
260

255
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time

Figure 6-11: Outer tube external wall temperatures versus time in the steam generator reference case. The value of
the last thermocouple, TW17, although every value is only indicative, clearly outlines the dryout occurrence, hence
production of superheated steam.

Fluid temperature versus time

°C
317
TF12 (ｰC)

307 TF13 (ｰC)

TF14 (ｰC)
297
TF15 (ｰC)

287 TF16 (ｰC)

TF17 (ｰC)
277
TF11 (ｰC)

267 TF01 (ｰC)

TF02 (ｰC)
257
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time

Figure 6-12: Fluid temperatures versus time in the steam generator reference case. From the graph, subcooling in
inlet and superheating in outlet are easily recognizable

80
 Outlet pressure versus time
bar

72

71.5

71

70.5

70

69.5

69

68.5

68
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time

Figure 6-13: Outlet pressure versus time in the steam generator reference case.

Figure 6-14 represents the trends of temperature inside the bayonet as simulated with
RELAP5 and the corresponding experimental values acquired from the HERO-2 test
section. As can be noticed, the main dissimilarities are the outlet temperature of the
bayonet tube and, of course, the behavior of wall thermocouples. The difference between
the temperature calculated by the code in the vapor chamber and the values of TF0220
may be caused by a not-refined input given to RELAP5 for what concerns the branch
component, which constitutes the vapor chamber, or by the heat structure to which the
branch is connected. In the output of the simulation, as already pointed out in chapter 3,
seems that the superheated steam exiting from the annular riser experiences some kind
of thermal dispersions or condensation on the inner tube wall, whose outcome is to
decrease outlet temperature and quality. This phenomenon is not observed in the results
of experimental test but is it not possible to define whether it does not occur or if the
distance between one thermocouple and the following makes it non-observable. What is
clearly outlined from this comparison is that the experimental outlet temperature, and
consequently the quality of the superheated steam, is higher than expected from
simulations. Notice that RELAP5 has been designed for LWR, which use U-tube or

20 P&I SIET 105.01.00 rev.0

81
straight tube SG; therefore, the code is not completely accurate in simulating the bayonet
tube configuration (6).

Temperature trends
°C

330

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8

Tube lenght [m]

Tfluid.simulated Tfluid.experimental Twall.simulated Twall.experimental

Figure 6-14: Temperature trends, comparison between RELAP5 results and experimental points in the steam
generator reference case.

Below, in Figure 6-15, is represented the pressure field in the annulus of the bayonet in
comparison with the experimental values calculated in correspondence of each pressure
tap. The pressure field was reconstructed by adding to the value of the outer pressure,
measured by P03, the differential pressure drops obtained from DP17 to DP13. In
composing the uncertainty, this method results in a higher and higher uncertainty for
data at the inlet of the annular riser, for the most part caused by the high standard
deviation in the measure of DP17. Once again, RELAP5 calculations show a good
precision in predicting the behavior of pressure in the tube. The calculated trend tends
to be lower the experimental one with a discrepancy limited to roughly 0.3 bar, which is
out from error bars though they are rather pronounced. Since the tube roughness plays
a crucial role in the prediction of pressure drops, it is thought that refining this parameter
in the model could give a better result in prediction: the roughness of the component
was not declared by the manufacturer and it was probably underestimated in the

82
development of the model. The same considerations can be made for the data in Figure
6-16, where pressure drops are put in relation with average quality between pressure
taps. Simulations and tests are quite in accordance as regards quality and show only a
small difference in pressure drop, which is compatible with the considerations made
above.

bar Pressure trend

71.2

71

70.8

70.6

70.4

70.2

70

69.8
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Tube lenght [mm]

simulated experimental

Figure 6-15: Pressure trend in the annular riser, comparison between RELAP5 result and experimental points in the
steam generator reference case.

83
 kPa/m Pressure drops
12

10

0
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3

-2
Quality
Experimental pressure drops simulated pressure drops

Figure 6-16: Pressure drops with the respect of average equilibrium quality, comparison between RELAP5 results
and experimental points in the steam generator reference case.

6.2.2 Reference case, DHRS

The same considerations made for a steam generator configuration can be made
hypothesizing an operation as heat exchanger for a passive security system like a decay
heat removal system. In incidental conditions pressure is lowered, production of
superheated steam is not required and primary side mass flow is reduced to roughly the
20% of the nominal flow rate. After having carried out an analysis like the one presented
in chapter 4 for the reference steam generator-case21, the conditions resumed in Table
6-3: test and simulation conditions, passive security system case were chosen and
tested.

21The analysis was carried out with a fluid-fluid model and imposed primary side fluid
temperature

84
 Table 6-3: test and simulation conditions, passive security system case

# RELAP5 Test
Outlet pressure [bar] 20 20.96 ± 0.04
Mass flow [kg/s] 0.013 0.0132 ± 0.002
Inlet subcooling [°C] 20 23.0 ± 0.3
Power [kW] 12.5 13.5

In this case also, the steady state condition obtained during the trial shows no significant
oscillating phenomena, with the exception of some oscillations regarding especially the
last differential pressure drop sensor, DP17. These fluctuations in the collected data are
small, do not show a defined period and tend to increase approaching the end of the
riser, as can be seen from Figure 6-17. The simplest explanation is that they are maybe
due to the flow regime of the saturated fluid in the upper section of the annulus, which
was expected to be slug type, according to RELAP5 simulations.

Differential pressure drops

kpa

37

32

27

22

17

12
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time

DP15 (kPa) DP16 (kPa) DP17 (kPa)

Figure 6-17: Experimental data from differential pressure drop sensors in the upper section of the bayonet, decay heat
removal system case.

85
In the following graphs are presented the comparison between RELAP5 extrapolated
data and experimental points obtained in the experimental campaign. The
considerations that can be made are roughly the same for both the analysis of steam
generator and emergency heat exchanger case. In the DHRS case, again, the inlet
subcooling was lower of some grades but the behavior of the experimental temperature
field does not differ from the expected one. The difference in the temperature value at
the outlet of the bayonet that can be noticed in Figure 6-18 is probably due to the variance
between pressure calculated and obtained in the same point, which estimate is about
0.55 bars (Figure 6-19), in addition to the error caused by the correction on fluid
temperatures. Wall temperatures are not shown for legibility reasons: they are all
overlapped with fluid data, showing again a big discrepancy with simulation expected
results. What can be notice is that, in the absence of superheated steam in the vapor
chamber, no temperature drop phenomena are observed.

Temperature trend
°C
220

215

210

205

200

195

190

185
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
tube lenght [m]

Tfluid.simulated Tfluid.experimental

Figure 6-18: Temperature trend, comparison between RELAP5 results and experimental points in emergency heat
exchanger case. Error bars are very small and are not appreciable.

86
 Pressure trend
bar
21.6

21.4

21.2

21

20.8

20.6

20.4

20.2

20

19.8
-0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Tube lenght [m]

simulated experimental

Figure 6-19: Pressure trend, comparison between RELAP5 results and experimental points in emergency heat
exchanger case.

As regards pressure, the same considerations valid for the steam generator case, with
the difference that, as pointed out above, the variance between simulations and
experimental point is higher. The main different behavior in the results of simulations
with the respect of experimental point in the two reference case seems to be related to
mixture quality calculation. If in the previous comparison, showed in Figure 6-16, the
value of average mixture quality extrapolated from RELAP5 data was always included
in the uncertainty of experimental data with the exception of one point in the proximity
of an average quality of 0.1, in the case presented in Figure 6-20 it is not. The picture
below clearly outline that, although the trends are very similar and approximately linear,
RELAP5 seems to overestimate mixture quality in a range between 0 and 0.35. In both
comparison can be noticed how the code has the tendency in calculating a higher
frictional pressure drop al lower quality values with the respect of the experimental
points.

87
 kPa/m Pressure drops
25

20

15

10

0
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Quality
experimental pressure drop simulated pressure drop

Figure 6-20: Pressure drops with the respect of average equilibrium quality, comparison between RELAP5 results
and experimental points in the emergency heat exchanger case

88
Bibliography

1. Santini L., Thermalhydraulic issues of IRIS nuclear reactor helically coiled Steam
Generator and Emergency Heat Removal System. 2008. PhD. thesis. Politecnico di
Milano, Department of Energy.

2. Colombo M., Experimental investigation and numerical simulation of the two phase
flow in the helical coil steam generator. 2013. PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano,
Department of Energy.

3. Todreas N. E., Kazimi M. S., Nuclear systems: thermal hydraulic fundamentals. s.l. : CRC
Press, 2011. Vol. 1.

4. Information Systems Laboratories, Inc. RELAP5/MOD3.3 CODE MANUAL VOLUME

I: CODE STRUCTURE, SYSTEM MODELS, AND SOLUTION METHODS. [a cura di]
Nuclear Safety Analysis Division. 2001.

5. Santinello M., Overview on Two-Phase flow instability. 2015.

6. Rozzia D., Del Nevo A., Tarantino M., Activities in Support to the Assessment of Steam
Generator Bayonet Tubes, for GEN-IV Applications. 2012. NNFISS - LP3 - 054.

General Bibliography
7. Santini L., Papini D., Ricotti M.E., "Experimental Characterization of a Passive Emergency
Heat Removal Systemfor a GenIII+ Reactor". In Science and Technology of Nuclear
Installations. 2010.

8. Damiani L., Montecucco M., Pini Prato A., "Conceptual design of a bayonet-tube steam
generator for the ALFRED lead-cooled reactor." In Nuclear Engineering and Design 265. 2013,
p. 154-163.

9. Ponciroli R., Development of a Model-based approach for studying the system dynamics and
control of Gen-IV Lead-cooled Fast Reactors. 2013. PhD Thesis, Politecnico di Milano,
Department of Energy.

10. Rozzia D., Experimental and computational analyses in support to the design of a SG mock-
up prototype for LFR technology applications, 2014, PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi di
Pisa.

89
7. Conclusions

The purpose of this thesis was to start the creation of a database on bayonet tubes for
SMRs applications: despite their quite common use in conventional industry, no
extended experimental campaign or dataset were found in literature22, especially for
applications in the nuclear field. In the first part of the work, a model of the bayonet tube
was built using the RELAP5 code and an extended analysis of the theoretical behavior
of the heat exchanger has been carried out. In particular, simulations conducted with the
code were necessary in order to have an idea on what will be the outcomes of the real
test in accordance with the limits of the facility. From the analysis, the most suitable
operative conditions were found and the test matrix used in the following experimental
campaign was set. Those operation conditions simulated were also used for a
preliminary sizing of a hypothetical SMR configuration, which resulted in the feasibility,
as regards vessel dimensions and cooling, of a I-PWR with the same core diameter and
thermal output size equal to the concept, developed in this department, of
IRIS4FlexBlue. Unfortunately, the limits of the experimental facility assembled in SIET
did not allow to explore all the possible operative ranges of the HERO-2 test section,
limiting the allowable pressure to 70 bar, the thermal power to roughly 22.5 kW and,
above all, outer wall temperature to 350 °C.

The analysis of the experimental data provided a small but sufficient dataset, which was
useful for a preliminary characterization of frictional pressure drops behavior in the
annulus in the explored conditions of 20, 50 and 70 bars and different mixture qualities.
Single-phase pressure drops were not investigated due to the lack of experimental tests.

Results extrapolated from data analysis of two-phase flow conditions showed the
presence of a maximum in pressure drop in the range of 0.8 < x < 0.9 and the tendency
in stabilizing near the maximum value, instead of the expected sharp decrease in
pressure drops, in approaching the quality unity. Due to the lack of data at higher and
more interesting mass fluxes, no correlation was proposed for two-phase frictional
pressure drop prediction: on the basis of the present work, a wider dataset should be
constructed by upgrading the facility and used for further and deeper investigations.

Data acquired allowed to perform a simplified analysis of Ledinegg instability in the

operative ranges of the reference cases, proposed for dimensioning of the SMR, and the

22 Advances in Thermal Design of Heat Exchangers – Eric M. Smith

90
component resulted in operating in the first part of the curve, therefore in the stable zone.
To draw a complete static characteristic, more trials have to be performed with an
upgrade of the facility.

In the second part of the data analysis, the performance of the bayonet tubes were
compared to the competitive technology of helical coil tube, whose operative conditions
were widely investigated in previous works at POLIMI. Because of the low mass flow
used and the few pressure ranges explored, only a qualitative comparison was carried
out.

Some unexpected and not easily manageable issues with the data acquisition system
partially affected the acquisition of temperature data, especially regarding wall
temperatures, preventing the possibility to conduct an analysis on heat transfer
coefficients. A correction for fluid temperature sensors to be implemented in the DAS
has been proposed, and the necessity to conduct extensive characterization tests on wall
thermocouples to develop a better corrective function for wall thermocouples has been
pointed out.

A comparison between RELAP5 calculated data and the experimental values showed
the accuracy of the code to simulate the behavior of fluid and thermal exchange in the
bayonet for what concerns temperatures and pressure drops. It has also confirmed some
particular issues, already pointed out by other authors, regarding the ability of RELAP5
to deal with condensation in the upper part of the tube, where the steam comes in contact
with the descending, and cold, inlet pipe. This fact, which can be slightly overcome by
setting a higher temperature in the boundaries of the upper section, should be corrected
in the code structure and validated using the extension of the database acquired with
this thesis work. Nevertheless, the code can be used “as it is” for a preliminary modeling
of bayonet tubes steam generators.

In conclusion of this work, several implementations to the facility were proposed to SIET
to further enhance the performance of the HERO-2 test section and fully exploit its
capabilities. Keeping valid the purpose of using HERO-2 to explore bayonet tube’s
behavior as SMRs steam generator and EHRS, the following proposal were made:

- Mandatory correction of DAS issues on the acquisition of thermocouples signals

or substitution of the instrumentation.

91
 - Structural modification of the IETI facility to reach a higher operative pressure,
now limited to 70 bar due to limits in the steam separator and in the preheater
flanges. To fully exploit HERO-2, its design pressure of 180 bar should be
reached.

- Upgrade of the present heating system with another characterized by higher

performance. In particular, admissible contact temperature should be far higher
than 350 °C not only to increase operative temperature but also to ensure a
broader safety margin and higher pressure. Power capability should be higher,
ideally reaching the value of 40-45 kW per tube. Such amount of thermal power
is required to explore operative conditions as pointed out by the preliminary
sizing proposed in chapter 3. Moreover, a higher thermal flux is necessary to
increase operative mass flows, now limited to 54 kg/s. The upgrading of thermal
heating systems can be achieved by substituting the current resistors or by
exploiting Joule effect, which is the most performant but troublesome solution.

- Structural enhancement to allow tests in natural circulation conditions.

- Addition of at least one fluid thermocouple in the upper plenum, at the end of
the annular riser, to better follow possible condensation phenomena and outlet
temperatures.

- Provide a better application of wall thermocouples by e.g. brazing them to the

outer tube

- Provide a variation in the 1/3 – 2/3 ratio of the heating sections

- Possibility to contact Prof. Andrey V. Mityakov to install his thermal flux sensor
on HERO-2

In order to extend the experimental database, following the modification of the facility,
more tests should be made by consistently varying the mass flows, at least to values
comparable to the mass fluxes used in the experimental campaign on helical coil tubes23
and Professor Lombardi’s database on straight tubes. The data acquired in such
conditions should be used for better characterization of pressure drops; propose a

23 E.g. ranges from 150 to 800-1000 kg/m2s

92
correlation for the single and two-phase pressure drop prediction and Ledinegg stability
analysis.

With the extension of the thermal power range, the real behavior of the fluid, as pointed
out in fluid-fluid simulations, should be reproduced and studied. Characterization of
heat transfer coefficient has to be made after the acquisition of more accurate data and a
more refined study of the performance of the heat exchanger should be carried out.

Particular operating conditions, such as boiling inside the downcomer should be

included in the future text matrix to explore all the possible range of operations of the
heat exchanger.

93
Appendix

94
A: P&I SIET 105.01.00 rev.0

95
B: Constructive Scheme HERO-2

96
 97
TEST
MATRIX
Pressione Portata ΔT subc Tin P. Preheater P./ Tout=Tsat @ 170 bar Tout P. / Titolo out = 1 Tout P./ Tout = Tlead Tout
(K) (KW) (KW) (K) (KW) (K) (KW) (K)
0,0473
170 bar Kg/s ΔT= -30° 595.41 65.500 10.784 625.2 51.448 625.6 83.125 753.2
ΔT= -17° 608.41 69.506 6.778 625.3 47.442 625.5 79.119 752.6
ΔT= -5° 620.41 73.891 2.393 625.4 43.057 625.6 74.734 753.2
ΔT= 0 625.41 76.284 - - 40.664 625.5 72.341 752.5
Pressione Portata ΔT subc Tin P. Preheater P. / Tout=Tsat @ 170 bar Tout P./ Titolo out = 1 Tout P./ Tout = Tlead Tout
(K) (KW) (KW) (K) (KW) (K) (KW) (K)
0,01
170 bar Kg/s ΔT= -30° 595.41 13.847 2.280 624.6 10.877 625.6 17.574 753.2
ΔT= -17° 608.41 14.694 1.433 624.9 10.030 625.5 16.727 752.6
ΔT= -5° 620.41 15.621 0.506 625.4 9.103 625.4 15.800 753.1
ΔT= 0 625.41 16.127 - - 8.597 625.5 15.294 752.0
Pressione Portata ΔT subc Tin P. Preheater P./ Tout=Tsat @ 170 bar Tout P. / Titolo out = 1 Tout P./ Tout = Tlead Tout
(K) (KW) (KW) (K) (KW) (K) (KW) (K)
0,0473
50 bar Kg/s ΔT= -30° 507.07 44.520 6.882 537.0 84.439 537.1 112.512 751.9
ΔT= -17° 520.07 47.443 3.959 537.0 81.516 537.3 109.589 751.7
ΔT= -5° 532.07 50.215 1.187 537.1 78.745 537.1 106.818 751.7
ΔT= 0 537.07 51.403 - - 77.557 537.3 105.630 751.6
C: First test matrix
RINGRAZIAMENTI

Questo lavoro è dedicato a tutte le persone che hanno reso unici e speciali i miei anni da
universitario, in particolare a Chiara, Andrea e Stefania, molto più che colleghi e amici,
che con la loro vivacità e incredibile pazienza mi hanno sopportato in questi ultimi
quattro semestri, rendendoli un percorso divertente e affascinante. Un pensiero va a
Giulia, che ha condiviso con me gran parte della mia carriera, tra alti e bassi, incazzature,
sconfitte e successi.

Vorrei ringraziare di cuore le persone che mi sono state sempre vicine e mi hanno
supportato, spinto e aiutato soprattutto nelle ultime sfide importanti e stressanti; chi
accompagnandomi in un giro in moto, chi mettendoci anche solo una buona parola o un
po’ del suo tempo. Questo successo è anche, e per la maggior parte, merito vostro.

Per concludere, grazie a chi mi ha accompagnato in questi ventiquattro anni di vita.

Senza di voi non sarei chi e dove sono ora.

98
99