Thesis

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Benjanmin R. Bristol for the degree of Master of Science in Nuclear Engineering
presented on June 11, 2015.
Title: Flat Plate Free Convective Heat Transfer
Abstract approved:
Qiao Wu
The OSU MASLWR Test facility is a scaled integral systems LOCA and proof-of-concept
test facility for the Multi-Application Small Light Water Reactor design concept. A unique
feature of this design is to utilize a small high pressure containment vessel to provide the
safety containment function for an integral reactor pressure vessel. The containment ves-
sel sits in a pool of water which acts as the ultimate heat sink for any accident scenarios
making the wall to pool free convective heat transfer important to the overall safety evalu-
ation of the design concept. Test data from the test facility is reduced to get heat transfer
rates and heat transfer coefficients for variety of test scenarios. The heat transfer is com-
pared to existing free convective heat transfer correlations. The test facility is then modeled
in RELAP5-3D to compare the overall heat transfer predicted by the code to the test data.
Modeling sensitivities were also performed to investigate various modeling techniques.

c
Copyright by Benjanmin R. Bristol
June 11, 2015
All Rights Reserved
Flat Plate Free Convective Heat Transfer
by
Benjanmin R. Bristol
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
Presented June 11, 2015

Commencement June 2016
Master of Science thesis of Benjanmin R. Bristol presented on June 11, 2015.
APPROVED:
Major Professor, representing Nuclear Engineering
Head of the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics
Dean of the Graduate School
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State
University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader
upon request.
Benjanmin R. Bristol, Author

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to my committe members especially my Major Professor Dr. Wu who has guided
my through this process for the past few years. Thanks to all the OSU MASLWR/NIST
Facility staff who has helped support this oportunity for me. Thanks to all of my graduate
school friends and aquaintences especially Allyson and Jeff who have been so integral in
helping me through this degree process. Finally thanks to my family espicially my wife who
has patiently supported my though this long process.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Brief History of US Nuclear Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 Current Nuclear Power Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Small Modular Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.2 Integral Pressurize Water Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Application of Testing in Nuclear Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Introduction to Free Convection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5 Description of Thesis Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5.1 Test Facility Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5.2 Purpose of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.5.3 Data Analysis Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2 Literature Review 20
2.1 Free Convection Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.1.1 Laminar Boundary Layer Basic Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.1.2 Turbulent Free Convection Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2 Free Convection Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.1 Fields of Free Convection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.2 Vertical Free Convection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3 MASLWR Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3.1 Haugh Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3.2 Bowser Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.3 Other MASLWR Thesis Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3.4 RELAP5-3D MASLWR Modeling Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.4 RELAP5-3D Pool Modeling Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.5 Convective Heat Transfer in RELAP5-3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3 Analysis Methodology 40
3.1 Methodology Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.1.1 Definitions and Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.1.2 Testing of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.2.1 Data Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3.2.2 Analysis Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2.3 Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2.4 Theoretical Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.5 Mass Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2.6 Energy Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2.7 Heat Transfer Coefficient and Nusselt Number Calculation . . . . . 58
3.2.8 Error Quantification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3 RELAP Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.3.1 General Model Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.3.2 Hydrodynamic Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.3.3 Heat Structure Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.3.4 HPC Level Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.3.5 Energy Balance Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.3.6 RELAP Code Option Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.4 RELAP5-3D Calculation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.4.1 Initialization of Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.4.2 Modeling Sensitivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4 Results 73
4.1 Data Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.1.1 Heat Transfer Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.1.2 Nusselt Number Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.1.3 Energy Balance Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.1.4 Mass Balance Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.2 RELAP5-3D Calculation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.2.1 Initial RELAP Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.2.2 Nodalization Sensitivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.2.3 Heat Transfer Sensitivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5 Conclusions 98
5.1 Data Reduction Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.2 RELAP5-3D Modeling Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.3 Test Facility Upgrade Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.4 Future Work Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Bibliography 99
Appendices 103
A MATLAB Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
B RELAP Input Deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Westinghouse IRIS PWR Design.[12] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 NuScale Power Module.[12] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Natural circulation in a pot of water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 MASLWR concept schematic.[19] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5 MASLWR Facility Containment and Pool Vessels.[20] . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.6 MASLWR Facility Piping Diagram.[18] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.7 NIST Facility Piping Diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.8 Diagram of the research process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.9 HTP T/C Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.10 HTP Temperatures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.11 Diagram of Steady State Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1 Free convection laminar boundary layer.[22] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2 Plot of N u vs Ra for vertical free convection correlation.[14] . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3 Plot of the Churchill-Chu correlation vs. data for vertical free convection.[4] 27
2.4 INEEL MASLWR Concept RELAP5-3D Model.[19] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.5 IPR-R1 TRIGArReactor.[7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.6 IPR-R1 TRIGA Reactor RELAP5 MOD.3.3 Model.[7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.7 RELAP5-3D Wall Heat Transfer Model.[25] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1 Figure of the MASLWR HPC & Pool with instrumentation.[19] . . . . . . . . 52
3.2 SNAP representation of the MASLWR RELAP5 model. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1 SEC Test 3 Heat Transfer vs. Churchill Correlation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
4.2 SEC Test 3 HPC Ė vs Steam Inlet Ė. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.3 SEC Test 4 Heat Transfer vs. Churchill Correlation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.4 SEC Test 4 HPC Q vs Steam Inlet Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.5 CCT 6A Heat Transfer vs. Churchill Correlation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.6 CCT 6A HPC Ė vs Steam Inlet Ė. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.7 SEC Tests Nusselt Number vs. Churchill log scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.8 SEC Tests Nusselt Number vs. Churchill with Error Bars. . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.9 CCTs Nusselt Number vs. Churchill log scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.10 CCTs Nusselt Number vs. Churchill with Error Bars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.11 SEC Tests Data Fit Plot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.12 CCT Data Fit Plot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.13 SEC Test 3 Energy Balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.14 CCT6A Energy Balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.15 SEC Test 3 Mass Balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.16 CCT 6A Mass Balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.17 SEC Test 3 HPC pressure vs RELAP Base Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.18 SEC Test 3 Inlet Energy & Total Pool Heating vs RELAP Base Case. . . . . 90
4.19 SEC Test 3 Pool heat transfer vs RELAP Base Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.20 SEC Test 3 Lower HPC Temperature vs RELAP Base Case. . . . . . . . . . 91
4.21 SEC Test 3 Pool temperatures vs RELAP Base Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.22 SEC Test 3 HPC pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.23 SEC Test 3 Pool heat transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.24 SEC Test 3 Top pool temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
4.25 SEC Test 3 Lower HPC temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.26 HTP HTR Sensitivity (HPC Pressure). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.27 HTP HTR Sensitivity (Qpool ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2 NuScale 2013 MASLWR Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.4 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.5 Data Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.6 Containment geometry description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.7 RELAP HPC Model Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.8 RELAP Cooling Pool Model Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.9 RELAP Heat Transfer Plate Model Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.10 RELAP HPC and Pool vessel surface areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.11 RELAP Volume Control Flags [26] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.12 RELAP Junction Control Flags [26] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Brief History of US Nuclear Power
Nuclear fission was first commercially utilized to produced electricity in the mid 1950s and
by the mid 70s Nuclear power had an extremely promising future, with a developing and
reliable industry and increasing cost of natural energy sources like petroleum. In order to
take advantage of the principal of economy of scale, vendors quickly increased the size of
the reactors and the power generation capacity of the plants however this occurred while
industry operating experience was still quite low. With the increased reactor size came op-
erations complexities which reduced the safety confidence within the industry and paved
the way for increased safety requirements and complex redundant safety and auxiliary
systems. Another complexity of the large plants was a tendency to specially design each
plant which increased licensing, construction and operating costs. By the Three Mile Is-
land (TMI) accident in 1979, the industry was on a pronounced downward trend and most
existing plant orders and construction projects were abandoned post TMI. [12]
Over the next two decades, the existing plants continued operating and while demonstrat-
ing a safe and reliable industry that was vital for providing base load power new plant
orders were not being made, in part to new licensing requirements that existing plants did
not always have to meet. Around the turn of the millennium it became clear that while new
plants weren’t being built, the existing nuclear power plant fleet would need to eventually
be replaced so new designs began to focus on passive safety features that weren’t reliant
on AC power to perform their cooling safety function. Cost sharing programs successfully
help license these designs which include the Advance Boiling Water Reactor from General
Electric and the Advanced Passive (AP-600) from Westinghouse. [12] The Energy Policy
Act of 2005 also help to streamline the regulatory and financing process for new plant or-
2
ders but only 10% of the proposed projects ever went into construction. Of these, cost
overruns had schedule delays have re-enforced the first of a kind construction problems
that have always plagued the industry. The economic down turn in 2008 also crippled the
energy demand and cheaper natural gas options have recently contributed to the early
closure of several plants across the US. [6]
1.1.2 Current Nuclear Power Economics
In spite of the lack of a thriving industry there are some who remain convinced that nuclear
power will remain a viable energy option if not become a much larger piece of the overall
energy solution. Of the several commonly cited factors, developing economies world wide
and an increasing focus on reducing green house gas emissions within developed coun-
tries are two of the hardest to ignore. Within the US, natural resources of coal and natural
gas create an energy market that nuclear power has a hard time competing with econom-
ically. Public perception has long made it politically impossible for the existing nuclear
industry to be considered for the same "green" energy subsidies that have been alloted to
wind and solar energy research and development. In spite of this, any regulation on carbon
emissions via economic penalties like a carbon tax or simple emissions limits would level
the economics and nuclear power is often identified as the obvious replacement for the
base load demands.
An alternative to the large and costly light water reactor (LWR) power plants is the small
modular reactor (SMR) concept. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has clas-
sified the SMR as a reactors producing less than 300 MWe and has long been interested
in the deployment of SMRs as an energy option in developing countries. Low capital cost,
manufacturer, expandability and alternative uses, such as desalination or hydrogen pro-
ductions are some of the primary merits of some the SMR concept. [15] While the concept
of an SMR will have obvious advantages for meeting energy needs in a developing country
it may also demonstrate viability in developed energy market like the US as well. Some
plant concepts have been proposed to put multiple SMRs within the same power production
infrastructure such that the plant would provide similarly capacity to that of larger plants.
This concept would reduce the upfront capitol burden and should reduce the construction
3
cost risk as many of the components would be factor built and assembled.
In 2011 an earthquake off the coast of Japan tripped three operating nuclear power plants
at Fukushima Daiichi. Emergency safety systems actuated normally and were functioning
correctly until a large tsunami hit the plants flooded the emergency electricity generators
and wiped out large portions of the power grid in Japan. All three reactors were irreparably
damaged due to an extended loss of power for the plants normal safety systems. As a
reaction to this event, the US nuclear industry realized the need to develop safety systems
that were not vulnerable to flooding event and refocused safety evaluations for extended
loss of power events. The SMR industry was quickly recognized to provide a clear advan-
tage over traditional large power plants in the area of safety and long loss of power coping
periods due to the smaller cores and inherent passively designed cooling systems.
The US Department of Energy recognized the inherent safety of SMR designs combined
with the need for developing a reliable replacement for the green house gas (GHG) gen-
erating coal electrical capacity could result in a strong future market for SMRs. In order
to ensure the US would be a leader in SMR deployment, they developed a $452 million
SMR Licensing Technical Support program which was awarded to two US SMR designs.
Former US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu confirmed the DOE position by identifying
that countries like China, India and South Korea are all investing in nuclear energy and
therefore driving a demand for nuclear power. He believed that is was critical for the US to
develop technologies internally to avoid having to depend on foreign nuclear technology in
the future. [1] One of the two designs selected for the DOE funding is the NuScale Power
Module which is based on the Multi-application Small Light Water Reactor (MASLWR) con-
cept originally developed and tested at Oregon State University.
1.2 Small Modular Reactors
1.2.1 Overview
Small modular reactor design concepts are extremely varied ranging from nearly every type
of fission reactor that has ever been operated to concept reactors that currently cannot be
demonstrated because of the lack of materials suitable for the conditions the reactor would
4
operate under. Some of these concepts include the pebble bed-type high temperature gas
cooled reactors and the liquid metal reactors which operate at much higher temperatures
than typical LWRs which also allows for much higher cycle efficiencies, up to 50% com-
pared with the maximum of 33% for the normal Rankine steam cycle of the LWRs. [16]
This discussion will mostly focus on light water reactor technology as it is the most proven
in the power production industry and thereby the closest to deployment.
1.2.2 Integral Pressurize Water Reactors
The light water SMR reactor technology has mostly focused on what is known as the
integral pressurized water reactor (IPWR) design which utilizes a steam generator built into
the downcomer region of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and a pressurizer space at the
top of the RPV. The IPWR has the unique inherent safety feature of designing out the large
break loss of coolant accident (LOCA) which is the common worst consequence event in
the LWR designs. [27] Examples of this IPWR design can be found in Figure 1.1 and
Figure 1.2 which are the Westinghouse led International Reactor Innovative and Secure
(IRIS) and the NuScale Power Module (NPM) respectively.
As discussed previously, the NPM design was based on the original MASLWR concept
which included the unique features of a natural circulation reactor coolant loop and a small
high pressure containment vessel which sits in a pool of water to provide heat removal dur-
ing accident conditions. Some primary differences between the MASLWR concept and the
NPM design are that the NPM containment is evacuated well below atmospheric pressure
which removes the need for insulation on the reactor pressure vessel. Both designs relied
on the outer containment surface heat transfer to pressurized containment post accident
and provide ultimate cooling for an indefinite period depending on the pool volume.
1.3 Application of Testing in Nuclear Design
While the inherent safety basis of many SMR designs is a marketing and licensing asset,
the innovative nature the engineered systems and components creates some unique reg-
ulatory challenges. [10] An example of this is the IPWR designs that use internal control
5
Figure 1.1: Westinghouse IRIS PWR Design.[12]
rod drive mechanisms. This allows for boron-free operation which reduces operating costs
and eliminates some of the unique long term loss of power coping analysis complexities
where boron has to be credited to keep the reactor subcritical. These safety and regula-
tory advantages are substantial but so is the testing demonstration necessary for this new
technology. The license applicant will be required to prove that these drive mechanisms
will always perform their prescribed safety function under all normal and off-normal circum-
stances. Design organizations are often faced with difficult business decisions of whether
6
Figure 1.2: NuScale Power Module.[12]
to implement and unproven novel concept design or retain as many normal nuclear sys-
tems and components in order to reduce costly testing programs.
Several types of testing are utilized in the evaluation and qualification of a complex plant
concept. Destructive and non-destructive examination is often used on a component basis.
For example, a safety sensor may need to be qualified to perform a safety function within
harsh environments due to accident conditions. A mock-up of this sensor would then
go through great number of thermal and pressure cycles to evaluate if any damage had
occurred due to the environmental conditions. Often this component would also be heated
until it no longer functioned to determine the margin between the break point and the actual
expected worst case conditions. These are examples of destructive and non-destructive
testing.
7
Beyond simple component testing and qualifications complex, separate effects and integral
effects testing programs are required to demonstrate safety and performance of systems
and large components for licensing purposes. [10] These testing programs are often used
to qualify safety analysis codes and methods as well. Separate effects are often used for
particular components like integral steam generators or special heat exchangers used for
decay heat removal. These test facilities would consist of scaled down versions of a proto-
type component where electric heaters are used to apply prototypic boundary conditions.
These are often highly instrumented facilities focused on a single phenomena of interest.
Integral systems testing is an even more complex endeavor. The US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) endorses what is known as the Evaluation Model Development and
Assessment Process (EMDAP), defined in Reg. Guide 1.203, as a method for determining
if an evaluation model is sufficiently suitable to perform a safety evaluation. This is often
applied to the evaluation of the design of an emergency core cooling system which is tra-
ditionally the most critical safety system for the limiting plant accidents. Part of the EMDAP
is performing system scaling and developing an integral effects testing program based on
the most critical phenomena related to a particular design. These integral system test facil-
ities are designed to sufficiently demonstrate the prototypic sequence of an accident event
with the results being used to demonstrate proof of concept and qualification of evaluation
models and codes.
The MASLWR Test Facility at OSU is an integral test facility that was scaled to demonstrate
the proof of concept of natural circulation, helical coil integral steam generator, and the high
pressure condensation and pool natural convective heat transfer phenomena critical to the
high pressure containment and ECCS design for the MASLWR natural circulations iPWR.
Of the various mechanisms this facility was designed to test and demonstrate, one of the
most critical is the natural convective heat transfer that occurs due to the high pressure
containment vessel sitting in a large pool of water. When a break occurs inside the contain-
ment vessel, the reactor vessel level drops until ECCS valves open providing recirculation
of liquid back to containment. The heat transfer through the containment vessel to the pool
is the critical mechanism that ultimately dictates the depressurization rate of the system
and also provides the critical sizing basis for the ECCS valves to ensure recirculation will
occur when it is required to keep the core covered with liquid at all times during the event.
This heat transfer mechanism is the focus of the work described in this thesis.
8
1.4 Introduction to Free Convection
Convective heat transfer is due to two mechanisms, energy transfer due to random molec-
ular motion known as diffusion, and energy transfered by the bulk motion of fluid, termed
advection. The magnitude of this energy transport per unit area can be quantified with
Newton’s law of cooling, show in Equation 1.1. This states that the quantity of heat trans-
fered through a surface, also known as heat flux q 00 is proportional to temperature gradient
between the surface and the fluid where Ts is the surface temperature, T∞ is the bulk fluid
temperature and h is known as the convective heat transfer coefficient. [11]
q” = h(Ts − T∞ ) (1.1)
Advective heat transfer to a fluid with flow that is driven by an external force is known
as forced convection. The convective heat transfer coefficient is dependent on surface
condition, fluid conditions, and fluid velocity making problems with higher velocities result
in greater heat transfer. In the case of a temperature gradient, ∆T , but no driving force
on the fluid, convection will still exist and is known as free or natural convection. Free
convection exists where the temperature gradient causes a density gradient in the fluid and
a body force, such as gravity induces buoyancy forces within a fluid causing natural flow.
This concept is illustrated in Figure 1.3 where the burner causes heating of the water at the
bottom of the pan. Due to the physical properties of water, the warmer water contains less
mass per unit volume (i.e. lower density) causing the heated water to rise and be replaced
with the colder water that wasn’t exposed to the heat source.
Fluid velocity due to buoyancy driven flow is generally much less than fluid velocity due
to other external forces, like pump driven flow, making free convective heat transfer much
less than force convective heat transfer. This, however, does not minimize the importance
of free convection for certain cases where it becomes the driving mechanism for heat re-
moval. Free convective heat transfer is an important phenomena in daily life. The heat
exchangers on the back of refrigerators and freezers, in computers and room heaters rely
on free convection to remove or add heat to their respective systems. As discussed in sec-
tion 1.2.2 passive heat removal to ensure the safety of nuclear power systems is extremely
useful and important, accurately quantified the amount and rate of heat transfer from a hot
surface to a pool of cold water becomes a useful scientific and engineering endeavor.
9
Figure 1.3: Natural circulation in a pot of water.
1.5 Description of Thesis Project
1.5.1 Test Facility Introduction
The multi-application small modular light water reactor (MASLWR) is an integral reactor
concept originally developed by Idaho Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Oregon
State University, and NEXANT-Bechtel. The MASLWR concept was to have a natural circu-
lation driven small PWR that could be modular allowing off-site manufacturing decreasing
construction costs. The MASLWR module would produce 35 MWe and operate at 7.60
MPa with an integral pressurizer and steam generator. The primary vessel sits inside of a
partially filled containment vessel which sits in a pool of water acting as the ultimate heat
sink during accident scenarios. [18] Figure 1.4 show a schematic of the MASLWR concept.
The OSU MASLWR Test Facility was constructed with funding from a US Department
of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) grant to investigate natural
circulation phenomena related to the MASWLR concept as well as test a few accident
scenarios. The primary and containment vessels are decoupled in the test facility with
10
Figure 1.4: MASLWR concept schematic.[19]
piping to simulate the automatic depressurization system (ADS) A scaled stainless steel
heat transfer plate couples the containment vessel (HPC) to the cooling pool vessel (CPV).
The HPC is rated for pressures up to 2.07 MPa. Figure 1.5 is a picture of the HPC and
pool vessels and Figure 1.6 is a piping diagram of the piping connecting the primary vessel
to the HPC.
11
Figure 1.5: MASLWR Facility Containment and Pool Vessels.[20]

12
Figure 1.6: MASLWR Facility Piping Diagram.[18]
The MASLWR Test Facility has been utilized for three major testing projects. The first being
the initial sequence of three tests funded by the NERI grant which included an inadvertent
middle ADS actuation, circulation startup and an inadvertent vent line actuation. The facility
successfully demonstrated the ability to achieve natural circulation and produce steam
with its integral steam generator. The facility also completed test of two of the proposed
accidents for MASLWR concept. [20]
The second testing program at the MASLWR facility was funded via a grant from the Inter-
13
national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for hosting an International Collaborative Standard
Problem (ICSP). The grant included funds to fix issues with the facility’s core design and
perform testing on "Integral PWR Design Natural Circulation Flow Stability and Thermo-
hydraulic Coupling of Primary System and Containment During Accidents". The testing
phenomena of interest to the IAEA are natural circulation stability during steady state and
transient conditions, coupled primary and containment depressurization, and emergency
cooldown scenarios. This testing was completed in 2010.
The third and current testing program is funded and operated by NuScale Power LLC.
to support their design certification efforts for the NuScale Power Module. The NuScale
design is a similar IPWR inside a containment vessel in a pool, however the NuScale
design operates with a containment under deep vacuum, ∼ 1 psia and no initial liquid
level. The RPV is also not insulated, increasing the heat transfer through the RPV during
accident scenarios. Improvements and design changes to the MASLWR Test Facility slowly
transformed the facility into the NuScale Integral System Test (NIST) Facility to align with
the NuScale Module design over the period of 2007-2014 including the following major
facility changes:
• Evacuated Containment
• Additional temperature instrumentation in the HPC and pool vessel regions
• Redesigned ADS to ECCS
• Improved control systems
• Steam bypass line addition
– Heat traced piping
– Temperature measurements
– Additional valves to redirect steam flow to the HPC
Figure 1.7 is a piping diagram of the NIST Facility including the steam bypass piping which
allowed for metered steam flow into the HPC vessel for performing separate effects con-
densation testing. The NIST Facility is not currently scaled correctly for the current NuS-
cale design; however, significant modifications are being planned. In late 2013 and early
14
2014, testing was performed for NuScale which comprised of two series of tests using
the steam generator to inject superheated vapor into the containment via the steam by-
pass line. These tests comprise the data of interest to this thesis and will be discussed in
greater detail in section 3.1.2.
Figure 1.7: NIST Facility Piping Diagram.

15
1.5.2 Purpose of Work
Safety evaluation and licensing of a reactor design dependent on free convective heat
transfer requires confidence in the models and correlations being utilized to quantify and
model this heat transfer. Existing free convection research does not apply well to the tall flat
plate immersed in water that characterizes the MASLWR/NIST facility heat transfer from
the heat transfer plate to the cooling pool. The upper limits of free convection correlations
are well below the range necessary to be applied to the testing performed at OSU. This ne-
cessitates research to see if existing correlations can be extended into the range required
or determination that a new correlation needs to be developed for the NIST geometry.
Heat transfer correlations are based on controlled steady state test conditions and then
are applied or programed into computer codes to model system transient behaviors. Once
a heat transfer correlation has been demonstrated to be applicable and is implemented
within a T/H code, that code is compared to a series of test data to demonstrate validity
to model a particular phenomena. This is process is known as code validation and the
purpose of the MASLWR/NIST test facility is to generate data to be used for this purpose.
Based on this discussion, the purpose of this work is to accomplish the following goals.
1. Perform an assessment of existing free convection heat transfer correlation and se-
lect a correlation to compare to the NIST tests.
2. Perform a detailed analysis of the test data to determine heat transfer rates and heat
transfer coefficients to compare the test data to the selected correlation.
3. Perform an assessment of the ability of RELAP5-3D to correctly model the test data
with a focus on the free convective pool heat transfer.
4. Identify and discuss conclusions related to the correlation applicability and the code
modeling.
Figure 1.8 is a diagram of the process used for this project.

16
Figure 1.8: Diagram of the research process.
1.5.3 Data Analysis Proposal
The original MASLWR test facility was constructed with somewhat limited instrumentation
however the heat transfer plate (HTP) between the high pressure containment (HPC) and
cooling pool was instrumented with a series of five thermocouples (T/Cs) installed in six
locations vertically. The purpose of these temperature measurements was to characterize
the conductive heat transfer through the plate. The theory was that the conduction should
be nearly uniform or that the inner and outer surfaces of the plate should have a fairly
uniform horizontal temperature profile. Figure 1.9 shows a cross section view of the HTP
with the surface T/Cs, TW-832 and TW-834 on the HPC and pool sides respectively. The
original design concept was to use to temperature gradient between these two surface
T/Cs to determine the conductive heat flux. When multiplied by the HTP surface area,
this heat flux should be equal to the condensation and convection heat transfer on either
surface for steady or quasi-steady state testing.
As steady state data became available it became clear that using the centerline plate tem-
perature gradient to approximate the total heat transfer on either surface was not a good
17
Figure 1.9: HTP T/C Instrumentation.
assumption. Additional T/Cs were added which can be seen in ?? as TW-836, TW-837,
TW-895, TW-910, and TW-911. These measurement locations were selected to confirm
the theory that the HPC and CPV vessels were creating a fin effect conduction which was
effectively creating a much larger heat transfer surface area and causing a non-uniform
temperature profile on either HTP surface. This theory was soon confirmed as can be
seen in ?? where TW-895 is the hottest as its the backside of the HCP vessel and well
insulated. TW-836 is located on the HPC corner of the HTP and is much higher at a much
higher temperature than the center plate temperature as measured by TW-832. The same
effect can be seen with TW-837 which is at lower temperature than center temperature
measurement, TW-834.
18
Figure 1.10: HTP Temperatures.
This non-uniform surface temperature creates a problem when attempting to compare the
test data to a free convection heat transfer correlation as the correlations are based on the
temperature gradient between the surface and bulk fluid temperatures. Moreover, while
?? demonstrates the temperature at the corner of the HTP on the pool side surface is
lower than at the center, it does not justify using and average of TW-834 and TW-837. Two
dimensional conduction profiles due to a fin would suggest that most of the HTP surface
should be closer to TW-834 than TW-837 but some complex assumed surface temperature
profile would be difficult to justify. In order to avoid this difficult justification an alternative
method for generating the surface temperature must be proposed.
The tests that were analyzed for this work were steady state or quasi-steady state HTP
heat transfer tests where hot steam was piped from the facility steam generator into the
HPC. ?? depicts these tests where the HPC can be seen in orange representing the steam
space and the blue representing the condensate level. The pool vessel is also filled with
water that will be heated through the test. During the steady state portions of these tests,
the heat removed from the HPC should match the heat that is added to the pool water.
A detailed energy balance of the system should result in heat transfer rates that balance
for a steady state period. With a known heat transfer rate, an effective conduction rate
can be confidently assumed and from this an effective temperature gradient can be calcu-
19
lated. The effective plate surface temperate (T wEf f ) can then be calculated by subtracting
the half of the ∆T from the HTP middle temperature, TW-833. Once the effective sur-
face temperature found, it can be used to calculate the heat transfer coefficient and other
non-dimensional parameters necessary for comparison to heat transfer correlations. This
process is laid out in the following equations while the methods and data used to calculate
Q̇pool and Q̇HT P are discussed in great detail in section 3.2.3.
Q̇Ef f = Q̇pool = Q̇HT P
Q̇Ef f = Q̇Conduction
dT
Q̇Conduction = −k ∗ Area ∗ dx
Q̇Conduction ∗W idth
∆TEf f = −k∗Area
∆TEf f
T wEf f = T W 833 − 2
Figure 1.11: Diagram of Steady State Tests.

20
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Free Convection Theory
2.1.1 Laminar Boundary Layer Basic Equations
The following derivation of the basic equations, continuity, momentum and energy are
taken from Kakac [13] with some supplementation to follow the simplifications and as-
sumption. The solution for free convective flow begins with the conservation of mass in a
control volume ∆x∆y∆z defined by
∇ · (ρV ) = 0 (2.1)
Applying the the law of the conservation of linear moment in the x and y directions to the
control volume results in
∂u ∂u 1 ∂p 1 ∂
u +v =− + ν∇2 u + ν (∇ · V ) − g, (2.2)
∂x ∂y ρ ∂x 3 ∂x
∂v ∂v 1 ∂p 1 ∂
u +v =− + ν∇2 v + ν (∇ · V ) − g, (2.3)
∂x ∂x ρ ∂y 3 ∂y
where g is the gravity per unit mass of the fluid. Using Prandtl’s order of magnitude analy-
sis, Equation 2.3 can be reduced to
∂p
=0 (2.4)
∂y
Indicating that p is not a function of the y direction and the pressure distribution can be
calculated outside the boundary layer where T = T∞ and the velocity is zero everywhere
u = v = 0. Equation 2.2 outside the boundary layer then becomes
∂p
− = ρ∞ g (2.5)
∂x
21
Substituting Equation 2.5 in Equation 2.2 gives
∂u ∂u 1 ∂
ρ(u + v ) = µ∇2 u + µ (∇ · V ) − g(ρ∞ − ρ) (2.6)
∂x ∂y 3 ∂x
Introducing the volumetric thermal expansion coefficient β which is defined to be
1 ∂ρ
β=− ( )P (2.7)
ρ ∂T
The derivative term in β from Equation 2.7 can be approximated resulting in following form
ρ ' ρ∞ [1 − β(T − T∞ )] (2.8)
and when this is substituted into Equation 2.6 results in
∂u ∂u 1 ∂
ρ(u + v ) = µ∇2 u + µ (∇ · V ) − gρ∞ β(T − T∞ ) (2.9)
∂x ∂y 3 ∂x
Utilizing the Boussinesq approximation, where the density variations are considered negli-
gible in the continuity and x momentum equation except in the buoyancy term, the following
simplified form results,
∂u ∂v
+ =0 (2.10)
∂x ∂y
and
∂u ∂u
u +v = ν∇2 u + gβ(T − T∞ ) (2.11)
∂x ∂y
with the following boundary conditions
at y = 0 u=v=0
as y → ∞ u=0
and Equation 2.11 can be further reduced using Prandtl’s order of magnitude analysis to
∂u ∂u ∂2u
u +v = ν 2 + gβ(T − T∞ ) (2.12)
∂x ∂y ∂y
which is known as the Boussinesq approximated momentum equation.

22
The energy equation for natural convection is
∂T ∂T
ρcp (u +v ) = k∇2 T (2.13)
∂x ∂y
which assumes that the viscous dissipation is negligible and that density, thermal con-
ductivity and specific heat are constant. Reducing Equation 2.13 using Prandtl’s order of
magnitude analysis produces the following form for the energy equation
∂T ∂T ∂2T
u +v =α 2 (2.14)
∂x ∂y ∂y
with the following boundary conditions
at y = 0 T = Tw or − k ∂T
∂y = q”w
as y → ∞ T = T∞
Equation 2.10, Equation 2.12, and Equation 2.14 are the well known Boussinesq equations
for natural convection on a vertical plate and can be solved simultaneously using the pre-
scribed boundary conditions to find the velocity and temperature distributions in the steady
laminar boundary layer that develops over a heated plate (Figure 2.1). The Boussinesq
approximation is quite useful for wide variety of natural convection problems however it is
limited to the condition that β(T − T∞ ) 1.
2.1.2 Turbulent Free Convection Theory
The following overview of turbulent free convection is taken from Reference [13]. Much
of the theory and understanding of turbulent natural convection based on the extensive
research done in turbulent forced convection. The limit for onset of turbulence has been
experimentally found to be when the Grashof number, GrL > 109 . The Grashof number is
a dimensionless group representing the ratio of the buoyancy forces to viscous forces and
is the natural convection analogy to Reynolds number in forced flow. The Grashof number
is defined as
gβ(Tw − T∞ )L3
GrL = (2.15)
ν2
23
Figure 2.1: Free convection laminar boundary layer.[22]
The Nusselt number N u, for natural convection is defined as
hx x
N ux = (2.16)
k
A couple other dimensionless parameters of interest in natural convection are the Prandtl
number P r and Rayleigh number Ra defined as
cP µ
Pr = (2.17)
k
Ra = P r ∗ Gr (2.18)
There is limited testing for the turbulent range of vertical plate heat transfer especially at
very high Ra numbers. Several experimental correlations have been proposed, some of
24
which are discussed in the following sections. In general most correlations for Nusselt
number follow the general form
N u ∝ (P r ∗ Gr)1/3 (2.19)
2.2 Free Convection Literature
2.2.1 Fields of Free Convection
In general, free convective heat transfer is divided into horizontal and vertical orientations
with vertical plates being of exclusive interest to this study. Experiments are generally
performed using either a uniform wall temperature or a uniform heat flux. The application
of interest in this work is vertical flat plate free convection heat transfer experiments.
2.2.2 Vertical Free Convection
In 2001 Khalifa release a comprehensive compilation of 40 papers from 1881 to 1988 with
work or correlations related to vertical free convective heat transfer. Most of the correlations
where found to be in the general form of N u = C(Gr ∗ P r)n or h = C(δT )n where n = 1/4
for laminar flow and n = 1/3 for turbulent flow. The conclusion of the review was that
although much work had been done in the specific field of free convection, unexplained
discrepancies for C existed by nearly a factor of two as can be seen in Figure 2.2. [14]
The most commonly reference correlation for free convective heat transfer is one devel-
oped by Churchill and Chu for a wide range of Ra numbers. The boundary layer theory
discussed in section 2.1.1 has been historically used to derive relationships in the form of
N u = (Ra)1/4 f (P r) (2.20)
where f(Pr) is a variety of tabulated experimental values based on Prandtl number.[4]

These values were compiled and used by Churchill and Usagi to develop an empirical
25
Figure 2.2: Plot of N u vs Ra for vertical free convection correlation.[14]
correlation for N u as follows,
0.670Ra1/4
Nu = (2.21)
[1 + (0.492/P r)9/16 ]4/9
This expression was found to be applicable for all P r for a range of 105 < Ra < 109 . [5]
Work by Saunders found the limiting value for N u for a finite sized plate to be 0.68. [21]
Equation 2.21 was added to this value resulting in an equation for all Ra < 109 of
0.670Ra1/4
N u = 0.68 + (2.22)
[1 + (0.492/P r)9/16 ]4/9
which was found to be more accurate for Ra < 105 than Equation 2.21. [4]
26
In the same paper, Churchill and Chu proposed a model for turbulent free convective heat
transfer in the form of Equation 2.19 as follows
N u → A(Ra)1/3 ϕ(P r) (2.23)
where A is an empirical constant and ϕ(P r) is a function which approaches 1 for P r → ∞

and is proportional to P r1/3 .[4] Again, the limiting Nusselt value of 0.68 taken from a laminar
Nusselt correlation is applied to Equation 2.23 to create a test expression of
N un = 0.68n + (A(Ra)1/3 ϕ(P r))n (2.24)
A value for n = 1/2 is proposed by a referenced paper for free convection from horizontal
cylinders in air and is applied to Equation 2.24. A value of A = 0.150 is found by comparing
the correlation to data resulting in a correlation with the final form of
0.387Ra1/6
N u1/2 = 0.825 + (2.25)
[1 + (0.492/P r)9/16 ]8/27
which compared well to the vast range of experimental data presented in the paper as
seen in Figure 2.3. [4] Equation 2.22 and Equation 2.25 were both developed for uniform
wall temperature free convective heat transfer.
Churchill cites a study suggesting that the use of the temperature difference at the midpoint
of a vertical plate is a more consistent results than an averaged temperature difference or
an average heat transfer coefficient for the case of uniform wall heat flux. An expression
for N u was then empirically developed for uniform heating in a laminar boundary layer of:
0.670Ra1/4
Nu = (2.26)
[1 + (0.437/P r)9/16 ]4/9
Applying the same minimum value for N u of 0.68 the following expression is proposed for
all P r in the laminar regime with uniform heating:
27
Figure 2.3: Plot of the Churchill-Chu correlation vs. data for vertical free convection.[4]
0.670Ra1/4
N u = 0.68 + (2.27)
[1 + (0.437/P r)9/16 ]4/9
The same methodology that was used to develop Equation 2.25 can be applied to the
uniform heating case to result in
0.387Ra1/6
N u1/2 = 0.825 + (2.28)
[1 + (0.437/P r)9/16 ]8/27
for turbulent free convective heat transfer where Tw is taken at the midpoint of the plate. [4]
The paper concludes that Equation 2.25 and Equation 2.28 provide a good representation
for the mean heat transfer due to free convection from an isothermal, and uniformly heated
plates respectively. The two cases are quite similar and the constant surface temperature
correlation is adequate to be used for the uniform heating case. Moreover simple power-
law relations of N u and Ra as in Equation 2.19 should not be used in cases with extended
range of P r or Ra. The uncertainty related to the proposed correlations lies within the lack
of experimental data for Ra → 0 and Ra > 1012 . [4]
28
2.3 MASLWR Literature
2.3.1 Haugh Thesis
In 2003, Brandon Haugh performed and extensive containment analysis for the proposed
MASLWR design using the containment analysis code GOTHIC.[9] His dissertation in-
cluded modeling of the MASLWR test facility and the prototypic containments. GOTHIC
uses the McAdams correlations for vertical plate natural convection which calculate Nus-
selt number from Rayleigh number.[9] Equation 2.29 is the McAdams laminar natural con-
vection correlation for Ra < 109 and Equation 2.30 is the McAdams turbulent natural con-
vection correlation for 2x109 < Ra < 1012 . [14]
N u = 0.59(Ra)1/4 (2.29)
N u = 0.13(Ra)1/3 (2.30)
GOTHIC calculates both heat transfer coefficients and then takes the maximum of the two
meaning that the actual transition between correlations occurs at
N uturb = N ulam → 0.13(Ra)1/3 = 0.59(Ra)1/4

(2.31)
Ra1/3−1/4 = Ra1/12 = 0.59/0.13 → Ratrans = 4.53812 = 7.64x107
This is probably a slight over prediction the transition region natural convective heat transfer
but would likely not cause significant error in a large containment situation.
The focus of Haugh’s work was investigation of the MASLWR containment performance
using the condensation correlations in GOTHIC. There were two main correlations com-
pared which produced widely varied results due to one of the correlations having an upper
heat transfer bound well below the pressure range of the prototypic MASLWR blowdown
transient. In Haugh’s model, the cooling pool was ignored and specified as a constant
boundary temperature which would likely result in higher heat transfer and lower long term
pressure. [9] This is due to the thermal boundary layer not being accounted for on the
outer containment surface. Peak pressure in these simulations occurred within the first 5
29
minutes so pool heat transfer would likely have had very little effect on the initial transient
response and conditions. It is important to note that Haugh’s work was completed before
the MASLWR test facility was built and it doesn’t appear that follow comparisons test data
to the GOTHIC model were ever published.
2.3.2 Bowser Thesis
In 2011 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sponsored an International Collab-
orative Standard Problem (ICSP) on testing conducted at the OSU MASLWR Test Facility.
The purpose of the ICSP was to evaluate nuclear industry used thermal-hydraulic (T/H)
computer codes to unique experiments not within normal validation regimes. [2] Bower
chose to evaluate RELAP5-3D against the OSU data collected for the ICSP.
The interest by the IAEA in the MALSWR concept as a standard problem is due to the in-
dustry practice using T/H codes for modeling reactor primary systems and using separate
containment codes for modeling the containment response to loss of coolant accidents
(LOCA)s. The T/H code are used to model break flows and energy releases which are in-
puts to the containment models. In most standard reactor designs, the high pressure and
energy phenomena of the reactor primary system is completely different to the low pres-
sure condensation and natural convection phenomena important to modeling containment
responses. In the MASLWR design, the primary and containment systems are intimately
coupled creating the need for the primary and containment to be modeled by the same
code or using coupled codes. The problem becomes interesting because neither T/H or
containment codes were necessarily developed to accurately model the phenomena im-
portant to the other.
Bowser utilized the OSU data to perform a semi blind calculation of the ICSP using RELAP5-
3D to compare the code to the test data, then he performed sensitivities on the RELAP
model to try and match the test better. The work performed that is of interest to this study
is related to the modeling method and sensitivities performed on the results of the pool
modeling by RELAP. Bowser did not specifically address performing sensitivities related
to pool side heat transfer. Instead much of the focus was spent investigating the effect of
non-condensables on the initial condensation rates, the effect of the choked flow modeling
30
and the effect of ambient heat loss on the early discrepancies between the RELAP5-3D
calculations and that actual test results. The conclusion of his work was that RELAP-3D
seemed to over predict the initial condensation rate as containment level increased much
faster in containment in the simulation than in the actual test. This caused a reduced heat
transfer in the later parts of the calculation relative to the test data. The initial over esti-
mation of the condensation was attributed to RELAP’s treatment of the non-condensables
(air) in the containment vessel and perhaps errors in the heat loss modeling methodology.
No discussion was given to the pool heat transfer as a source of error in the calculation.
2.3.3 Other MASLWR Thesis Works
Mark Galvin proposed a novel method for modeling transient operation of the MASLWR
natural circulation driving primary circuit. He utilized MATLAB and developed modules to
simulate various components of the primary loop. These modules created bulk energy
conditions for the regions they were modeling for the purpose of analyzing global system
response to develop an anticipatory control scheme. Galvin offered the premise that a
natural circulation plant would have a much slower response in the primary circuit to sec-
ondary demands, so a control system that could anticipate the end steady state conditions
could adjust core power in a manner to achieve steady state much quicker. [8]
In 2011 Ahn Mai performed a theoretical analysis of the prospective MASLWR core in-
cluding a theoretical T/H analysis using the subchannel analysis code Viper1 and a fuel
performance analysis using FRAPCON. [17] No analysis of containment heat transfer of
modeling of such was performed in his work.
Jason Casey completed an analysis of the containment condensation rates in 2012 using
test data from the MASLWR facility.[3] The approach utilized was to match the conduction
heat transfer through that plate to a calculated condensation heat transfer based on level
change in the containment vessel. No modeling or consideration was given to the pool
side heat transfer.
31
2.3.4 RELAP5-3D MASLWR Modeling Literature
The first RELAP5 model related to the MASLWR concept was the model generated by
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) to support the MASLWR
project. Modro details this model in the MASLWR Final Report. Of particular interest to
the current work is the utilization of two annular rings to model the containment vessel.
This was chosen in order to capture the natural circulation phenomena in the containment
during an ADS event. [19] This is illustrated in Figure 2.4 where components 500 and 510
are the two annular volumes used to model the containment vessel. These component are
only connected at the top and bottom with a single junction in each place. Modro does not
indicate the volume fraction that is applied to each component.
The pool was modeled using single pipe, component 560 in. [19] It appears as if a the
boundary conditions at the top and bottom of the pool were used to maintain a fairly con-
stant liquid temperature. This modeling methodology could be causing an unrealistically
high fluid flow in the pool which could change the convective heat transfer mode. This will
be discussed in further detail later.
During the IAEAs ICSP, several countries and organization developed models for the OSU
MASLWR Test Facility using a variety of different methods. Section 2.3.2 describes in
great detail the sensitivities Bowser investigating while attempting to match the test data.
Undoubtedly several other approaches were taken including investigations of the cooling
pool heat transfer, but since it is an assertion of this work that the conduction measurement
through the plate does not match the actual heat transfer during accident conditions any
sensitivities that did match the measured conductive heat transfer would be inaccurate.
Furthermore, for the IAEA tests, the facility was not sufficiently instrumented to invalidate
this assertion. As a result, significant effort was not taken to analyze all of the works
resulting from this standard problem and Bowser’s work is assumed to be representative
of other works published.
32
Figure 2.4: INEEL MASLWR Concept RELAP5-3D Model.[19]

33
2.4 RELAP5-3D Pool Modeling Literature
The IPR-R1 TRIGArMark-1 reactor has been operating at the Nuclear Technology De-
velopment Center of Brazilian Nuclear Energy Commission, in Belo Horizonte City, Brazil,
since 1960. This reactor, shown in Figure 2.5, is an atmospheric pool research reactor
capable of generating 250kW t. This reactor sits near the bottom of 6.625 m deep pool
which provides cooling the core and acts as a moderator, reflector and a biological radia-
tion shield. The core cooling is predominantly caused by natural convection. [7]
Figure 2.5: IPR-R1 TRIGArReactor.[7]
In 2010, Costa used RELAP5 MOD3.3 to model the steady state results for this TRIGArreactor.
This model is illustrated in Figure 2.6. While convective heat transfer in RELAP5-3D will
be discussed in great detail in section 2.5 it is important to note that both RELAP5-3D
and RELAP5 MOD3.3 use the Churchill-Chu free convection correlation in the exact same
manner making this paper quite relevant to this thesis. The purpose of the paper was to
discuss utilizing RELAP5 MOD3.3 for validating the current safety analysis code of choice
for the IPR-R1 and was not a specific sensitivity study on TRIGArpool modeling tech-
niques or free convective heat transfer validation. The steady state power level that was
chosen to be modeled was at 50kW and RELAP matched the core inlet and outlet temper-
atures for the reactor data extremely well, within 1%. Fuel rod surface temperatures were
34
not compared to the RELAP prediction nor was thermal hydraulic power tabulated. One
can infer, however, that the natural convection Churchill-Chu correlation is well applied to
this TRIGArcore.
Figure 2.6: IPR-R1 TRIGA Reactor RELAP5 MOD.3.3 Model.[7]
The General Electric Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) passive heat
exchanger is used to remove residual heat from the RPV during a LOCA event. Purdue
University has a test facility to model the condensation on the inner wall of this heat ex-
changer and Zhou modeled this test facility in RELAP5 MOD3.3 in 2013. [28] Secondary
author, Brian Wolf managed the test facility and produced test results while Zhou used a
RELAP model to simulate the various heat exchanger tube sizes. Zhou used an annu-
lus component to model the outer pool that the DHR sits in while the suppression pool
is modeled as a single pipe. The pool modeling is not discussed in much detail and the
heat transfer mechanisms of interest to this paper are pool boiling and vapor condensa-
tion. While free convective heat transfer is likely occurring at the lower sections of the heat
exchanger, this phenomena is not discussed and would not have contributed significant
heat transfer relative to the condensation. Interestingly the RELAP5 MOD3.3 condensa-
tion model does match the experimental data well.
35
2.5 Convective Heat Transfer in RELAP5-3D
The computer code being used in this work is RELAP5-3D which has been developed
by Idaho National Laboratory (INL), formerly known as INEEL, under sponsorship from
the US DOE, US NRC, members of the RELAP5 Users Group and several other organi-
zations. RELAP5-3D is meant to be applied to the simulation of transients in light water
reactor (LWR) systems including LOCA, anticipated transients without scram (ATWS), loss
of feedwater, loss of off site power, station blackout and turbine trip along with several oth-
ers. RELAP5-3D is a generic code with application in nuclear and nonnuclear systems to
simulate hydraulic and thermal transients. The mission of RELAP5-3D development team
was to produced a code version that could be applied to the analysis of all transient and
postulated accidents in LWR systems and fusion reactor transients. [23]
RELAP5-3D is based on a non-homogeneous and non-equilibrium model for two-phase

systems that is solved by a partially implicit numerical scheme. The development objective
of RELAP5-3D was to produce a code that would accurately solve for important first order
effects yet was simple enough to allow for parametric and sensitivity analysis. This code
included many generic component models including pumps, pipes, valves, heat absorbing
and releasing structures, reactor kinetics, electric heaters, jet pumps, turbines, compres-
sors, separators, annuli, pressurizers, feedwater heaters, ECCS mixers, accumulators, and
control system components. The biggest enhancement to RELAP5-3D from previous ver-
sion of RELAP5 is the implementation of multi-dimensional thermal hydraulic and kinetic
modeling capabilities. [23]
The multidimensional capabilities of REALP5-3D would seem to be a very attractive option

for modeling the containment vessel or pool volume for the MASLWR design. According to
Volume II of the RELAP5-3D users manual the multi-dimensional component was primarily
designed for reactor applications, particularly the core, downcomer or steam generator.
These components have either solid structures in the fluid path (core and SG) or have
high surface area (annulus) resulting in form losses, wall friction, and interphase friction
phenomena dominating the source terms in the moment equation and as a consequence
the viscous stress and turbulence terms are not included in the multi-dimensional model in
the current version of RELAP5-3D. "Since these terms are not present in the code at this
time, the RELAP5-3D model should not be used to model large open tanks". [24]
36
A quick inspection of Equation 2.12, the laminar free convective flow momentum equation
results in the conclusion that the viscous stress term is very important in free convective
flow and therefore the multidimensional component does not seem well suited for this study.
Volume 4 of the RELAP5-3D manual discusses the many extensive models and corre-
lations used by RELAP. Of particular interest for this work is the natural convective heat
transfer being calculated by RELAP. Figure 2.7 is the flow chart for wall heat transfer logic
in the code. Heat transfer mode 2 is single-phase liquid convection at subcritical pressure,
subcooled wall and low void fraction is the method of heat transfer being studied in this
work. [25]
RELAP5-3D calculates a heat transfer coefficient for forced laminar convection, forced
turbulent convection and free convection and takes the maximum of the three. The forced
laminar heat transfer coefficient come from the exact solution for fully developed laminar
convection in a tube with uniform heat flux and constant fluid properties and is
k
N u = 4.36 → h = 4.36 (2.32)
D
where
h = heat transfer coefficient
D = equivalent diameter
k = fluid thermal conductivity based on bulk temperature [25]
The force turbulent convective heat transfer correlation is the Dittus-Boelter correlation
which takes the form [25]
N u = CRe0.8 P rn = h D (2.33)
k
where
37
Figure 2.7: RELAP5-3D Wall Heat Transfer Model.[25]

38
C = coefficient = 0.023
GD
Re = Reynold Number = µ
µCp
P r = Prandtl Number = k
G = mass flux
µ = viscosity
Cp = specific heat
h = heat transfer coefficient
D = equivalent diameter
k = fluid thermal conductivity based on bulk temperature [25]
RELAP5-3D has several other turbulent convective correlations that can be chosen for
non-standard geometries but the default for pipe, annular or flat plate single phase liquid
convection is the Dittus-Boelter.
The free convective heat tranfer correlation is taken from the Churchill-Chu correlation for
all Rayleigh and all Prandtl number for free convection from an isothermal vertical plate.
This is Equation 2.25, of section 2.2.2 but written below in a slightly different form as
0.387Ra1/6
N u = (0.825 + )2 (2.34)
[1 + (0.492/P r)9/16 ]8/27
where
39
RaL = Rayleigh Number = GrL P r

µCp
Pr = Prandtl Number = k
ρ2 gβ(Tw −Tb )L3
GrL = Grashof number = µ2
µ = viscosity
Cp = specific heat
k = fluid thermal conductivity based on bulk temperature
ρ = fluid density
g = gravitational constant
L = natural convection length
Tw = wall temperature
Tb = bulk temperature
hL = heat transfer coefficient based on natural convection length [25]
It is important to note that RELAP5-3D will always calculate convective heat transfer from a
higher temperature wall to a fluid regardless of whether flow exists. For conventional LWR
designs this mechanism of heat transfer is generally negligible because of the proportion-
ally large heat fluxes relative to the heat transfer surface areas. However, in the MASLWR
concept the containment surface is an uninsulated conductive material submerged in water
and this heat transfer is the primary mechanism by which RELAP5-3D is calculating the
heat removal during long term core cooling accidents. If RELAP is being used to evalu-
ate to short and long term system response to anticipated transients or postulated acci-
dents, validation of the free convection correlation and understanding appropriate modeling
methodology becomes very important.
40
Chapter 3: Analysis Methodology
3.1 Methodology Introduction
3.1.1 Definitions and Symbols
The following symbols used in this analysis are defined in Table 3.1.
3.1.2 Testing of Interest
The OSU MASLWR/NIST Facility Testing Program became fully operational toward the end
of 2012 to being NuScale Power LLC’s low pressure testing phase. Previously discussed
in section 1.5.1 of this work is the original intent and scaling basis for the MASLWR Test
Facility. While NuScale’s design originated in the MASLWR concept, several licensing,
design certification and marketability strategies have moved the NuScale design away from
the original MASLWR design concept.
A key difference in the NuScale design is to have a dry containment, normally under vac-
uum in order to remove insulation from the RPV. Also the RPV pressure was increased in
order to increase the efficiency of the power cycle resulting in an expected peak contain-
ment pressures much higher than the MASLWR concept. The facility containment vessel
is not currently rated to a high enough pressure and it is also not instrumented well enough
in the lower sections of the heat transfer plate because it was covered with liquid in the
MASLWR design. Ongoing plans exist for NuScale to modify the current MASLWR facility
in order to better match the scaling of the NuScale module.
Toward the end of 2013, a unique modification was implemented allowing highly super-
heated steam from the steam generator to be bypassed to one of the ADS lines allowing
for metered steam flow to containment. Previously no measured flow, liquid or vapor had
41
Table 3.1: Symbols

e error
Ė Energy transfered into or out of a volume (kW )
Cp specific heat (J/kg · K)
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 · K)
∆h change in enthalpy (kJ/kg)
hf g heat of vaporization (kJ/kg)
k thermal conductivity (W/m · K)
∆L level change rate (m/s)
m mass (kg)
ṁ mass transfer rate (kg/s)
q heat transfer rate (kW )
q 00 heat flux (kW/m2 )
Q energy transfer (kJ)
Q̇ energy transfer rate (kW )
ρ density (kg/m3 )
t time (s)
T Temperature (K)
u internal energy (kJ/kg)
V volume (m3 )
been blown into the MASLWR containment vessel. This marked a great advancement in
the area of transient semi-high pressure condensation testing and has allowed for much
greater understand of the heat transfer mechanisms of the test facility heat transfer plate.
Eight Separate Effects Condensation (SEC) tests were completed and Table 3.2 details
the NuScale SEC Tests analyzed in this thesis.
After some analysis had been completed on the results of the SEC Tests, an alternative
method was suggested for performing a pseudo-steady state (constant) pressure test. This
was done by initially injecting steam at a relatively high rate and upon reaching a specific
42
Table 3.2: NuScale 2013 MASLWR Testing

Test Name Test Description
SEC Tests 1 Separate Effects Condensation Test 1a used a SS steam flowrate at 10%
core power with vacuum containment conditions and cold HTP.
Separate Effects Condensation Test 1b used a SS steam flowrate at 10%
SEC Tests 1b core power and utilized the hot initial conditions from SEC Test 1a after the
HPC was drained.
SEC Tests 2 Separate Effects Condensation Test 2a used a SS steam flowrate at 20%
core power with vacuum containment conditions and cold HTP.
Separate Effects Condensation Test 2b used a SS steam flowrate at 20%
SEC Tests 2b core power and utilized the hot initial conditions from SEC Test 1a after the
HPC was drained.
SEC Tests 3 Separate Effects Condensation Test 3 used a SS steam flowrate at 10% core
power with atmospheric containment conditions and cold HTP.
power with atmospheric containment conditions and cold HTP.
power with partial vacuum containment conditions and cold HTP.
power with partial vacuum containment conditions and cold HTP.
pressure inside the HPC, the steam flow was cut back to a much lower flowrate. This
caused a slight dip in system pressure until the condensate level caused the volume of the
HPC to reduce sufficiently that pressure began to increase again.
These test were called the Containment Condensation Tests (CCTs) and in total, twelve
of these tests were completed with a variety of pressures and flowrates as detailed in
Table 3.3. In order to analyze the impact of noncondensable gas on the condensation heat
transfer these tests were also performed at atmospheric and vacuum initial HPC pressure
conditions. A few of these CCTs were also repeated to ensure some data repeatability
could be demonstrated.
43

Test Name Test Description
Containment Condensation Test 2a used a SS steam flowrate at 30% of core

CCT2a power for a period of 4 minutes then the flow was cut back to correspond with
11% of core power. Initial containment pressure was approximately 1 psia with
cold HPC, HTP and CP.
CCT2b Containment Condensation Test 2b was a repeat of CCT2a to demonstrate re-

peatability.
CCT2c Containment Condensation Test 2c was a repeat of CCT2a to demonstrate re-

peatability.
CCT4a power for a period of 6 minutes at which point the flow was cut back to correspond
with 13% of core power. Initial containment pressure was approximately 1 psia
with cold HPC, HTP and CP.

peatability.
with 15% of core power. Initial containment pressure was approximately 1 psia

peatability.
CCT8a power for a period of 10 minutes at which point the flow was cut back to corre-
spond with 17% of core power. Initial containment pressure was approximately 1
psia with cold HPC, HTP and CP.
with 10% of core power. Initial containment pressure was atmospheric conditions
CCT11b Containment Condensation Test 11b was a repeat of CCT11a to demonstrate

repeatability.
44
3.2 Data Analysis
3.2.1 Data Conversion
The OSU MASLWR facility instruments include pressure transducers, power transduc-
ers, flow meters, and thermocouples. Table 3.4 describes the instruments of interest and
recorded measurement units for the instruments with the measurement error associated
with the instrument.
Table 3.4: Instrumentation

Instrument Unit Error
lbm
Coriolis flow meters ( min ) ±0.5% reading
pressure transducers, level (inH 2 O) ±0.55inH 2 O
pressure transducers, gage pressure (psig) ±1.25psi
thermocouples (o F ) ±2.0o F
In the interest of making simple comparisons to RELAP calculations, the tests were con-
verted to SI units using the conversion factors detailed below. This also makes the utiliza-
tion of SI steam tables much simpler. The data analysis and calculations are performed
using a MATLAB script (Appendix A).
kg lbm kg
1.0 s = (1.0 min ) ∗ (0.45359 ∗ lbm ) ∗ ( min
60 s )
1.0 inH 2 O = 0.0024909bar
1.0 inH 2 O = 0.0254 mH 2 O converting level in inches to meters

bar
bar = (psig + 14.7 psia) ∗ 0.0689476 psi
oC 5
= (o F − 32) ∗ 9
45
3.2.2 Analysis Assumptions
The following assumptions were required to produce useful results from the MASLWR test
data due to limitations in instrumentation and extension of the facility into testing for which
it was not specifically designed.
1. The primary assumption/methodology utilized in this work is the application of time

averaged derivatives, (eg. HPC level change rate). Most of the temperature and level
changes of interest oscillate when viewed on a per second basis but show a clear
steady trend when treated over a period of minutes. The calculations would mostly
be noise without using a time period on the order of minutes to evaluate change
rates.
2. Environmental heat losses are not analyzed or accounted for in this analysis which is
a reasonable assumption as the vessels of interest are well insulated so these heat
losses are small.
3. Change in the stored energy of the HPC or pool vessels is not calculated in the
overall energy balance because the periods of analysis are chosen to be near steady
conditions where pressures and temperatures do not change drastically. The mass
of the HPC vessel is small relative to the HTP where energy storage is calculated
and shown to be small for most of the tests analyzed. The pool vessel walls are very
thin making the CPV mass quite small relative to the mass of water in the pool.
4. Liquid condensate temperature is assumed to be the temperature of thermocouple

TF804. This T/C is near the HTP surface about 24 inches from the bottom of the
vessel. The actual bulk condensate may be slightly higher in temperature than this
T/C as this instrument was installed to give HPT surface temperature. Test data
indicates this is a good representation of bulk liquid conditions near the bottom of the
HPC and alternative instrumentation currently does not exists.
5. The pool temperature is assumed to change uniformly. In reality there is likely a

temperature gradient from the surface of the HTP outward. The centerline pool tem-
perature is a good approximation of the average liquid temperature at a given axial
location.
46
6. TF904 is the bulk pool temperature T/C located at the elevation of the 81X HTP T/Cs.
This thermocouple was added after the SEC tests for the CCTs and is found to be
an important measurement in the overall energy balance. Correlation of the CCT
data using the middle temperature measurement (TF903) indicates Equation 3.1 is a
good approximation of the change of temperature in the lower CPV region.
T F 903(i − 240) − T F 903(i − 300)

T F 904(i) = T F 904(i − 1) + 0.6 ∗ (3.1)
60
The correlation appropriately captures the time lag for the heated pool water to cir-
culate back to the lower regions of the pool.
7. HPC vapor temperature is assumed to be uniform and always at the inlet vapor tem-
perature. The inlet vapor temperature well superheated and doesn’t change dras-
tically during the tests. Likely there is a small volume of saturated vapor near the
plate while the remainder stays superheated. This approximation is imporant for the
condensation heat transfer therefore treatment the bulk vapor to be at the inlet tem-
perature or at saturated conditions makes no difference in the overall energy balance
as relevant to the pool side convection heat transfer.
8. Pressure is measured at the top of the HPC and is assumed constant throughout
the vessel. In general the level in the HPC remains fairly low in the HPC while the
vessel pressure is much larger than the pressure head due to the level making this a
reasonable approximation.
9. The pool side HTP surface temperature is assumed to be at the center plate tem-
perature measurement minus one half the ∆T required to conduct at the heat rate
calculated from the HPC and pool heat up energy balance. This is a fundamen-
tal assumption for this work and is deemed appropriate because the location of the
inner and outer HTP surface thermocouples does not allow for a reasonable ∆T
measurement. On average, the conduction heat transfer using the HTP ”surface”
thermocouples for the plate temperature gradient is nearly 30% less than the heat
transfer calculated for the condensation and film convection or the change in pool
internal energy based on increasing bulk temperature rates. These latter two heat
heat transfer rates closely match which provides validation for this assumption. This
47
assumption will be addressed in greater detail later in this section.
3.2.3 Heat Transfer
The purpose of this work is to evaluate the heat transfer via free convection from the tall
vertically oriented flat heat transfer plate. This is accomplished by evaluating Cp ∆T in the
cooling pool vessel over time to get an average internal energy change rate. The heat
addition to the pool is then compared to the energy change within containment and the
conductive heat transfer through the heat transfer plate.
There are two mechanisms of heat transfer from the HPC to the HTP, condensation and
single phase liquid convection. Condensation is the dominant heat transfer mechanism;
however, the cooling of the liquid condensate must also be accounted for to correctly cal-
culate the energy balance of the system. The condensation heat transfer is calculated by
taking the change in level in the HPC to get the condensation mass rate multiplied by hf g .
The cooling of the liquid condensate can be accounted for using temperature measure-
ments at the bottom of the HPC to calculate the enthalpy of the subcooled liquid. The sum
of these two can then be compared with the heating rate of the cooling pool.
The conductive heat transfer is a more complicated calculation. While the HTP has several
sets of surface temperature measurements, assuming a constant azimuthal heat flux is
simply not valid as addressed in assumption 9 in section 3.2.2. The HPC and CP vessel
walls are welded to each corner of the HTP which causes a fin cooling heat transfer effect
at the edges of the HTP. The HPC wall is rather thick and is insulated on the backside,
so its fin effect is reduced. The pool vessel wall, however, is comprised of very thin sheet
metal causing it to be an extremely effective fin on either pool side corner of the HTP.
The analytical solution for an infinite fin is applied to calculate the conduction through the
corners of HTP which is added to the conduction through the rest of the HTP for a total
conductive heat transfer (Q̇HT Po ) which compared to both the pool free convection heat
transfer rate (Q̇pool ) and the HPC condensation, film convection heat transfer rate (Q̇HT Pi ).
The following procedure details calculation methodology for Q̇pool , Q̇HT Pi and Q̇HT Po .
1. The first step taken is to calculate Q̇ from condensation which includes the cooling of
48
the superheated steam, and the enthalpy change from vapor to liquid.
(a) The HPC level change rate is averaged over a two minute period for every data
point.
L(i + 60) − L(i − 60)
∆L = (m/s) (3.2)
120
(b) The mass change rate (ṁl ) is found by multiplying the level change by the HPC
area and the reference line standard density ρST P .
ṁl = Area ∗ ∆L ∗ ρST P (3.3)
(c) The enthalpy change for the inlet superheated steam to saturated liquid is cal-
culated as
∆hcdsn = h(P T 801, T F 873A) − hL (P T 801) (3.4)
(d) The resulting condensation energy transfer rate is then calculated to be
Q̇cdsn = ṁl ∗ ∆hcdsn (3.5)
2. The second mechanism of heat transfer to the HTP is the convection of the saturated
liquid film on the HTP, Q̇lqd .
(a) The enthalpy change for saturated liquid to subcooled liquid is
∆hlqd = hL (P T 801) − h(P T 801, T F 804) (3.6)
(b) The liquid convection energy transfer rate is then calculated using the mass
change rate calculated in Equation 3.3.
Q̇lqd = ṁl ∗ ∆hlqd (3.7)
3. The total energy transferred to the HTP is the sum of Q̇cdsn and Q̇lqd however the
HTP does not maintain a constant temperature during the tests indicating not all the
49
energy transferred to the plate gets transferred to the pool. The energy storage rate,
∆EHT P , of the HTP is fairly simple to calculate using the plate centerline thermo-
couples as an approximation of the average plate temperature at the particular axial
location of the TC. Further simplification can be performed by limiting temperature
change rate calculation to only four of the six sets of thermocouples.
(a) The temperature change rate, ∆Ti , for the the HTP is averaged over a two
minute time frame for each data point.
Ti (j + 60) − Ti (j − 60)
∆Ti (j) = (3.8)
120 sec
(b) The internal energy storage rate is then calculated to be
4
X
∆EHT P = mi CP ∆Ti (3.9)
i=1
4. The total energy transferred through the HTP is then calculated to be
Q̇HT P = Q̇cdsn + Q̇lqd − ∆EHT P (3.10)
5. The conductive heat transfer calculation is performed in two steps. First the con-
duction the through the bulk of the plate is calculated then the fin conduction at the
edges of the plate is calculated. The plate conduction is calculated using the middle
surface thermocouples to get a ∆T which is divided by the thickness of the plate to
get a heat flux q 00 which is multiplied by the surface area of the plate to get the heat
transfer Q̇. The temperature gradient through the middle of the HTP is not constant
axial so the following process is utilized:
(a) Multiple test results have shown that the upper portions of the HTP have very
similar temperature profiles, therefore the regions containing the 82X-86X TCs
are all treated to have the same heat flux. This distinguishes only the lowest
region (81X) to have a different heat flux which is also the section that no longer
has a working HPC side surface thermocouple so a linear temperature gradient
50
is assumed and the middle temperature measurement is used instead.
(T W 813 − T W 814)
Q̇lwr = Llwr ∗ W idthHT P ∗ (3.11)
T hHT P /2
(b) The balance of the HTP heat transfer is calculated to be
(T W 842 − T W 844)
Q̇upper = (LHT P − Llwr ) ∗ W idthHT P ∗ (3.12)
T hHT P
(c) The analytic solution for fin heat transfer can be found in Reference [11]
p
Q̇f in = hP kAc θb (3.13)
where the following definitions apply,
θb = Tb − T∞ = T W 824 − T F 903
h = pool convective heat transfer coefficient
P = fin convective perimeter(LHT P )
k = fin thermal conductivity
Ac = fin cross sectional area
The pool convective heat transfer coefficient is found using the total Q̇HT P cal-
culated previously
QHT P
h= (3.14)
AreaHT P ∗ (T W 824 − T F 903)
The cross sectional area Ac is calculated by multiplying the length of the entire
plate by the thickness of the CP vessel walls.
6. The total HTP conduction is then calculation to be
Q̇cdcn = Q̇lwr + Q̇upper + 2 ∗ Q̇f in ; (3.15)

51
7. The change in temperature of the pool water is related to the total heat transferred to
the pool, Q̇pool .
(a) The hydrostatic pressure at that depth P (j) is calculated for each of the 4 axial
pool regions corresponding to the elevation of HTP T/Cs 81X, 82X, 84X and
86X. (see Figure 3.1)
(b) The water mass of each of the pool regions is calculated as
m(j) = h(j) ∗ Areapool ∗ ρSP T (3.16)
(c) ∆Epool is calculated by evaluating the internal energy of water at the pool tem-
peratures over a two minute period for the faster developing tests and a five
minute period for the less transient tests as show in Equation 3.17.
u(P (j), T (i + 60)) − u(P (j), T (i − 60))

∆upool (j) = (3.17)
120 s
(d) The total heat addition to the pool is calculated as
Q̇pool (j) = m(j) ∗ ∆u(j) (3.18)
This procedure is completed for each of the tests described in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3.
3.2.4 Theoretical Heat Transfer
The next step in the analysis is to calculate the theoretical heat transfer using the Churchill-
Chu correlation. The MASLWR HTP is neither a constant temperature flat plate nor a
uniformly heated flat plate, but between the two options it is closer to the latter. Ultimately
the two correlations published by Churchill are nearly identical at the high Rayleigh number
conditions of these tests due to turbulent free convection being the same for either case.
Equation 2.28 from section 2.2.2 discusses the methodology for calculating free convection
from a uniformly heated wall as follows:
52
Figure 3.1: Figure of the MASLWR HPC & Pool with instrumentation.[19]
1. Tw should be take from the midpoint of the plate

Tw +Tbulk
2. Fluid properties should be evaluated at Tf = 2 .
As discussed in assumption 9 in section 3.2.2, the HTP surface temperature measure-

ments are not reasonable as the conductive heat transfer does not match either the pool
heatup rate or the HTP heat removal rate. Therefore Tw−ef f is calculated to be T W 823 −
∆T Q̇HT Pi ∗T hHT P
2 where ∆T is found rearranging the conductive heat transfer equation ∆Tef f = kHT P .
Tbulk is chosen to be an equally weighted average of the four pool temperature measue-
ments.
The procedure for solving for the theoretical Q̇ then becomes the following:
1. The Grashof number is calculated as
gρ2 β(Tw − T∞ )L3

GrL = (3.19)
µ2
53
2. The Rayleigh number is calculated as
Ra = GrL ∗ P r (3.20)
3. The average Nusselt number is calculated to be

!2
0.387Ra1/6
Nu = 0.825 + (3.21)
[1 + (0.437/P r)9/16 ]8/27
4. The average heat transfer coefficient is calculated as
k
h = Nu (3.22)
L
5. Finally the theoretical heat transfer Q̇Churchill is calculated as
Q̇Churchill = h ∗ A ∗ (Tw − T∞ ) (3.23)
Three methods are applied for estimating the heat transfer from the MASLWR HPC to the
pool vessel which are then compared to the theoretical Churchill-Chu free convective so-
lution. A MATLAB code was written to automatically convert the data into SI and calculate
the Q̇HT P , Q̇pool , and Q̇Churchill and plot all three for each test of interest.
3.2.5 Mass Balance
Validation of the data analysis methods described in section 3.2.3, can be accomplished
by performing a mass and energy balance on the system. The inlet mass flowrate is
measured during the tests and enthalpy of the steam can be calculated using the inlet
temperature. Assuming zero leakage the mass balance is quite simple, ṁsteam should be
equal to the sum of ṁcdsn and ṁvapor due to increasing pressure and decreasing volume.
The inlet flow rate can be integrated for the testing period of interest and compared to
the level change in the HPC. If start is the time first data point of interest, the mass flow
54
integration is performed as follows:
1. The initial inlet mass is set to zero, Mstm (start) = 0
2. The inlet mass is integrated by
Mstm,i = Mstm,i−1 + ∆t ∗ (ṁF CM 511,i + ṁF CM 521,i + ṁF CM 531,i ) (3.24)
3. The mass of the condensate is calculated using the level in the HPC as
Mcdsn,i = HP Carea ∗ ρST P ∗ (LDP 801i − LDP 8010 ) (3.25)
4. The vapor mass is related to the vapor volume in the HPC at a given time step,
therefore the vapor volume needs to be calculated. The HPC contains three distinct
volumetric regions; upper, transition and lower. The upper and transition regions
have a vapor void fraction of essentially 1 for the tests of interest so the volumes
can be found by multiplying the area by height of the region. The lower volume of
the HPC has variable vapor volume based on the changing liquid level. The area is
constant, so the area can be multiplied by the full height minus the liquid height for
a specific time. To get the liquid height, a density correction needs to be made to
account for the measure reference height based on a standard liquid density and the
actual height based on some "hot" liquid density.

ρ(P T 801i ,T F 804i )
VHP C,lwr = AHP C,lwr ∗ Hlwr − hLDP 801i ∗ ρstp
(3.26)
Vvapor,i = VHP C,up + VHP C,trsn + VHP C,lwr
5. The mass of the vapor in the HPC is then calculated to be
Mvapor,i = Vvapor,i ∗ ρvapor (i) (3.27)
6. The total HPC mass is the sum of Mcdsn and Mvapor
7. The mass error is then defined to be the total integrated difference in mass between
55
the inlet steam and the HPC.
Merror = Mstm − MHP C (3.28)
3.2.6 Energy Balance
The system energy balance requires a bit more effort than the mass balance. The mecha-
nisms of energy addition or removal for the HPC include the following:
1. Energy in through steam flow
2. Change in internal energy of the HPC
3. Energy removal via heat loss
4. Energy removal via the HTP
The energy of the steam flow is easily calculated using the mass flowrate times the en-
thalpy of the steam into the HPC, Ėsteam . The heat transfer via the HTP is previously
calculated in section 3.2.3 as the sum of the condensation and subcooled liquid convective
heat transfer. Heat lost to the environment is assumed to be negligible as the vessels in
the MASLWR Test Facility are well insulated, leaving the energy change in the HPC as the
remaining unquantified energy sink.
Within the HPC, there is internal energy stored in the vapor (∆uvapor ), liquid (∆ulqd ), the
HPC vessel (∆uvessel ) and heat transfer plate (∆uhtp ) which was quantified in section 3.2.3.
Because the tests are transient in nature the change in internal energy of the HPC is
important to quantify. The HPC vessel is thin relative to the HTP and the temperature of
the vapor remains relatively constant so ∆Evessel can be assumed to be negligible if the
data being analyzed is after the initial heatup of the vessel.
The final parameter that needs accounted for is the change in the internal energy of the
fluid in the HPC through the test. This is done using different methods for the liquid and
vapor. The change in internal energy of the liquid from one point in time to another is
largely due to the generation of more liquid from condensation. There may be energy
transfer from the hot liquid to the HTP once it settles in the bottom of the HPC, however
56
this effect should be very small and cannot be quantified with the current instrumentation.
The energy change due to liquid generation can be calculated rather directly as liquid
ṁ is previously calculated to get the condensation rate. At each time step the internal
energy can be evaluated at the bulk HPC pressure and the temperature measurement at
the bottom of the HPC, Equation 3.29, to get the change in liquid internal energy with time.
∆EL,i = ṁL,i ∗ u(P T 801i , T F 804i ) (3.29)
The next, more complicated process, is to approximate the change of internal energy of
the vapor with time. The approach taken is to assume all vapor is at the inlet temperature
then calculate the volume of the vapor with time to get mass of the vapor over time. The
mass is then multiplied by the internal energy of super heated steam at the HPC pressure
and inlet temperature to get the total vapor Evap . Taking the derivative of Evap with time
and adding ∆EL gives the total ∆Ehpc of the fluid.
As discussed in section 3.2.5 the vapor volume changes throughout the test with the in-
creasing condensate level. The total vapor mass Mvapor as a function of time is previously
calculated with Equation 3.27. To calculate the total vapor internal energy as a function of
time, an assumption must be made for the bulk vapor temperature profile. As an approxi-
mation the inlet vapor temperature is used along with HPC pressure to calculate Evapor in
Equation 3.30.
Ev,i = mv,i ∗ u(P T 801, T F 873A) (3.30)
The derivative of Evap is then calculated to get ∆Evap , in Equation 3.31.
Ev,i+30 − Ev,i−30
∆Evap,i = (3.31)
60
Finally the total energy change rate in the HPC, ĖHP C from Equation 3.32, is found by
adding the heat removed by the HTP via condensation and convection with the change
in internal energy of the fluid in the HPC. The net energy change is then calculated by
subtracting ĖHP C from the inlet steam flow enthalpy Ėstm .
57
The total system energy can also be calculated by summing the pool heating Q̇pool , the
HPC energy change ∆EHP C and heat transfer plate internal energy change ∆EHT P Equa-
tion 3.33. This represents the total energy absorbed by the HPC, HTP and pool which
should balance with the energy input to the system from the steam flow.
ĖHP C = Q̇cdns + Q̇lqd + ∆EHP C (3.32)
ĖSY S = Q̇pool + ∆EHP C + ∆EHT P (3.33)
The total energy input to the system during the controlled HPC condensation test is directly
measured via inlet steam temperature and steam flowrate. Relative to the other methods
for quantifying energy change rate or heat transfer rate, the steam energy should have
very little uncertainty. An error analysis of the energy calculations can be performed by
comparing the integral energies for the test period of interest. The difference between the
R R
integral of the system energy t ĖSY S dt integral inlet steam energy t Ėstm dt is divided by
R
t Ėstm dt to get an energy error for the system calculations as a function of time Equa-
tion 3.35. This method is applied to the energy balance for the total system and the HPC
system separately, Equation 3.34, which can be used to get an indication of where greater
error was introduced by the assumptions that were made to the various energy rate cal-
culations discussed in this section. These two equations are calculated in terms of % by
multiplying by 100.
t
P t
P
Ėstm,i − ĖHP C,i
i=1 i=1
eHP C,t = 100 ∗ t
P
(3.34)
Ėstm,i
i=1
t
P t
P
Ėstm,i − ĖSY S,i
i=1 i=1
eSY S,t = 100 ∗ t
P
(3.35)
Ėstm,i
i=1
Ultimately the error for either system at the end of the calculation eSY S,T or eHCP,T where
T is the time at the end of the data being analyzed, is the representation of the accuracy
of the energy calculations. Because the tests are all transient there will be a time delay
for the heat transfer at the various locations so at any given point in time t, the net energy
58
balance should not be zero. If the net energy balance for either the HPC or total system
does equal zero then a temporary steady state of heat/energy transfer has occurred.
Calculating eSY S and eHP C as a function of time can be useful to demonstrate the mag-
nitude of "transientness" of the particular data set being analyzed. The integral energy
error for times t << T of either error calculation will indicate how close to steady state the
systems were at the beginning of the analyzed data. As t → T , eSY S → 0 if the energy
calculations are accurate.
3.2.7 Heat Transfer Coefficient and Nusselt Number Calculation
Free convective heat transfer experimental results are often presented in the form of plots
of Nusselt number versus Rayleigh number. The average heat transfer coefficient can be
estimated by dividing the total heating rate of the pool by heat transfer surface area and
the temperature gradient, Equation 3.36. The wall surface temperature for this calculation
is the "effective" surface temperature as discussed in assumption 9 in section 3.2.2 and
defined in section 3.2.4. The bulk temperature for this calculation is an equally weighted
average of the four bulk temperature measurements as discussed in section 3.2.2.
Q̇convection
h= (3.36)
A(Tw−ef f − Tbulk )
The Nusselt number for free convection is defined to be h Lk so an average N u can be

calculated from the heat transfer coefficient for each of the analyzed tests. The average
Ra was previously calculated to get theoretical Q̇Churchill in section 3.2.4 allowing a direct
comparison of a Churchill-Chu heat transfer correlation to the test data using a Ra vs N u
plot. These results are presented in Chapter 4.
3.2.8 Error Quantification
Table 3.5 lists the measurement error of associated with the data that was analyzed within
this work.
59
Table 3.5: Data Error

Instrument Error
Flow ±0.5% reading

level ±0.25%
pressure ±0.25%
temperature ±0.4%
Of primary interest is error associated with Nusselt number as this is what is compared to
the Churchill-Chu correlation. Using error propagation rules for addition and multiplication,
the following uncertainty is applied to the calculated N u.
sum = a + b − c
q (3.37)
esum = e2a + e2b + e2c
x∗y
multi = z
q (3.38)
ex 2 ey 2 ez 2
emulti = |multi| ∗ x + y + z
For a particular data set, the mean value for Q̇pool over the entire period of data is used to
find ∆TEf f which is then used to get h and therefore N u. Four temperature measurements
used to evaluate the change in pool temperature over a period of time resulting in eight total
measurements contributing uncertainty.
p
eT = 8 ∗ e21
√
eT = 8 ∗ 0.0042
√
eT = 0.0113
The error associated with the total mass calculation is due to uncertainty related to the
pool level measurement. This can be directly translated to a % volume or mass error due
60
to the constant cross area of the pool. Using Equation 3.38 the propagated error for Q̇pool
in terms of % is:
√
eQ = 0.00252 + 0.01132
eQ = 0.0116
eQ = 1.16%
To calculate Tw−ef f one temperature measurement and one temperature based property
k is used for a total uncertainty of:
√
eT w = 2 ∗ 0.0042 + 0.01162
eT w = 0.0129
eT w = 1.29%
To calculate N u, Q̇pool , Tw−ef f , Tbulk and k are used for a total uncertainty of:
√
eN u = 2 ∗ 0.0042 + 0.01292 + 0.01162
eN u = 0.0182
eN u = 1.82%
3.3 RELAP Modeling
3.3.1 General Model Description
The tests described in Table 3.2 were modeled using RELAP5-3D with a simple two pipe
model with boundary conditions. Unlike any previous testing at OSU, the SEC tests were
first containment heat transfer tests using known boundary conditions and known mass
flow rates. This greatly reduces the modeling uncertainty and allows for simpler modeling
assumptions to highlight the phenomena of interest. The simplified MASLWR containment
model uses a pipe component for the HPC and a pipe component for the pool. The heat
61
transfer plate is modeled as a flat plat with appropriate thickness and height. The HPC
vessel wall and insulation are modeled with a constant outer surface temperature specified
at ambient conditions to model the heat loss through the insulation. Figure 3.2 is a SNAP
representation of the simple RELAP5-3D MASLWR Test Facility model.
Figure 3.2: SNAP representation of the MASLWR RELAP5 model.
The HTP is modeled as eight axial regions, six of which are centered on a set of thermo-
couples (T/C)s and the remaining to are broken out because of there the top and bottom of
the transition region fall. Each set of T/Cs has a center T/C, an outer surface T/C on either
surface of the plate, and a "film" temperature T/C in the pool and containment. The original
MASLWR concept was to utilized a containment vessel 1/2 full of water and because of
this the lower region of the HTP is much less instrumented than the upper half. The first
62
two axial cells of the HTP heat structure makes up nearly half of the heat transfer area.
The pool pipe component cells (2-7) align perfectly with the center of each set of thermo-
couples. Table 3.6 details the HPC geometry sections of the simplified MASLWR RELAP5
model.
63
Table 3.6: Containment geometry description

Region Component Description
number
The HPV vessel is the high pressure containment ves-

HPC Vessel 800 sel connected to the cooling pool via the heat transfer
plate. The HPC is modeled as a pipe component.
HPC 801 The HPC vacuum pump isolation valve closes at the
Isolation beginning of a test and is modeled as a trip valve.
Valve
The vacuum pump is used to drawn a vacuum on con-
Vacuum 802 tainment at the start of a test and is modeled as a time
Pump dependent volume to allow adjustment of initial condi-
tions.
The steam bypass pipe route steam from the steam
Steam 811 generator to HPC. To make this simple the bypass pipe
Bypass Pipe is simply modeled as a time dependent junction where
the inlet flow can be specified.
The RPV steam generator is modeled as a time depen-
Steam 812 dent volume where the steam conditions are defined to
Generator ensure enthalpy is specified correctly.
DV 801 is the drain valve at the bottom of the HPC and
DV801 816 modeled as a time dependent junction where the outlet
flow can be specified based on the drain rate between
consecutive test (eg. SECTest1a,b and SECTest2a,b)
The drain allows the HPC liquid to be between consec-
Drain 817 utive tests and is modeled as a time dependent volume
at a very low pressure to ensure flow is away from the
HPC pipe.
Cooling Pool 900 The cooling pool is modeled as a straight pipe with the
top cell modeled as air.
Atm 901 Component 901 is a single junction that connects the

Connection top of the pool to an atmospheric boundary condition.
Atmospheric 902 Component 902 is a time dependent volume that mod-

BC els the air space well above the pool.
64
3.3.2 Hydrodynamic Modeling
The containment component is split into eight cells with three different areas. The lower
section of the HPC, making up the lower 4 cells has an area of 0.053868 m2 . The transition
region of the HPC is lumped into one cell with a constant area that is set to the average of
the upper area and the lower area Atrans = 12 (Aup + Alwr ) = 0.11928 m2 . The upper area,
made up by the upper three cells has an area of 0.18469 m2 . The cell heights are displayed
in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: RELAP HPC Model Inputs

Cell Area (m2 ) Height (m)
800010000 0.053868 1.751

800020000 0.053868 1.10
800030000 0.053868 0.80
800040000 0.053868 0.2288
800050000 0.11928 0.510
800060000 0.18469 0.2105
800070000 0.18469 0.7493
800080000 0.18469 0.2953
The pool pipe component is modeled with a constant area and eight axial cells with the
middle six being connect to the heat transfer plate heat structure. Axial cells 4-6 of the
HPC component are lumped into cell 5 of the pool component. Table 3.8 presents the
input area and heights of the pool vessel.
3.3.3 Heat Structure Modeling
Heat structure is the term in RELAP5-3D given to the inputs required for modeling heat
transfer from a surface to a fluid volume. There are five heat structure used in the simple
65
Table 3.8: RELAP Cooling Pool Model Inputs

Cell Area (m2 ) Height (m)
900010000 0.44096 0.7112

900020000 0.44096 1.751
900030000 0.44096 1.10
900040000 0.44096 0.80
900050000 0.44096 0.9493
900060000 0.44096 0.7493
900070000 0.44096 0.2953
900080000 0.44096 1.0
MASLWR RELAP5-3D model, the heat transfer plate, the pool vessel and one for each
section of the HPC vessel. The vessel heat structures are specified as cylindric type with
two material types, stainless steel and fiberglass insulation. The vessel is modeled with
two radial nodes and the insulation is lumped into just one. The left boundary for the vessel
heat structures is connected to the associated hydrodynamic cell of the HPC or pool and
the right is set to a constant temperature boundary condition which is around ambient
temperature allowing a reasonable approximation of energy storage and heat loss. The
cutout section of the vessel for the HTP is not accounted for in this modeling approximation.
The heat transfer plate heat structure is specified as a flat plate with five nodes with the
two surface node specified to be very thin and the middle nodes split evenly between the
remaining thickness of the plate. The axial nodalization is set to match the HPC pipe
component. The HTP heat structure is connected to the pool cells 2-7 on the left side, and
HPC cells 1-8 on the right side. Axial nodes 4-6 of the heat structure are all connected
to cell 5 of the pool. Table 3.9 documents the input heights and surface area for the heat
transfer plate.
66
Table 3.9: RELAP Heat Transfer Plate Model Inputs

Axial Node Height (m) (m2 )
800000100 1.751 0.294662

800000200 1.10 0.185115
800000300 0.80 0.134637
800000400 0.2288 0.0385
800000500 0.510 0.085819
800000600 0.2105 0.035429
800000700 0.7493 0.12609
800000800 0.2953 0.049687
3.3.4 HPC Level Calculation
Level is measured in the test facility vessels using a pressure transducer. A cold sensing
line from the top of the vessel is connected to low pressure side sensing port of the instru-
ment and a second line sensing line from the bottom of the vessel is connected to the high
pressure sensing port. As condensate is collected at the bottom of the HPC, level will rise
reducing the differential pressure across the instrument sensor. The pressure transducer
will always measure level relative to cold sensing line so the data is really a collapsed cold
level not the real mixture level. There is insufficient temperature instrumentation at the
bottom of the HPC to estimate an accurate average bulk density so it is easier to calculate
the effective cold level using a RELAP control variable rather than transform the data into
an approximate mixture level.
RELAP5-3D calculates volume properties for each cell including pressure, temperature,
volume velocity, volume energy, and void fraction. Multiplying the liquid void fraction by
the height of the cell and summing that for all cells in a pipe gives an approximation of
the collapsed liquid level in the pipe. This calculation does not work well for approximating
mixture level in saturated liquids because in reality a cell region may significant vapor void
fraction that is mixed in the volume causing the actual liquid level in pipe to rise. Collapsed
67
liquid level does easily translate to an "effective" cold collapsed level making it simple to
directly compare with the test data.
The liquid mass per unit area of a cell can be calculated using αl ρl hcell . Dividing this
quantity by the reference cold density ρref gives the effective cold level within the cell. If
the area of the pipe constant, then summing the effective cold liquid level for all cells gives a
comparable measurement to the test facility pressure transducer. The following derivation
shows this analytical argument in terms of differential pressure.
∆P where ∆P is given in units of height

hmeasured = ρref g
of water at 4o C
this can be zeroed by adding H to

∆P = ρhot ghlvl − ρc gH
∆P assuming ρc ' ρref
ρhot hlvl
hzeroed = ρref
NP
cells
αli ρli hli
hcalc = ρref
i=1
this becomes an equalized compar-

hcalc vs. hzeroed
ison of RELAP5-3D to the test data
3.3.5 Energy Balance Calculation
The energy being added to the HPC is very simply calculated in RELAP by printing the
flow enthalpy through the time dependent junction component 811. The energy removed
from the HPC is found by calculating the heat transfer through each of the heat structures.
This has been split between the three vessel heat structures which account for the heat
loss and the heat transferred to the cooling pool via the heat transfer plate. Table 3.10
documents the input heights and surface areas for each of the HPC and pool vessel heat
structure nodes.
It is difficult to directly compare the RELAP5-3D HPC energy balance results with the test
data. The test facility does not have sufficient instrumentation to accurately approximate
the energy being absorbed by the vessel walls or the HTP itself. The most convenient
68
Table 3.10: RELAP HPC and Pool vessel surface areas

Axial Node Height (m) I.Dia. (m) Perimeter (m) Area (m2 )
850000100 1.751 0.27305 0.85781 1.50210

850000200 1.10 0.27305 0.85781 0.94359
850000300 0.80 0.27305 0.85781 0.68625
850000400 0.2288 0.27305 0.85781 0.19626
860000500 0.510 0.37783 1.18697 0.60535
870000600 0.2105 0.49530 1.55603 0.32761
870000700 0.7493 0.49530 1.55603 1.16593
870000800 0.2953 0.49530 1.55603 0.45946
900000100 0.7112 0.7493 2.354 1.6742

900000200 1.7511 0.7493 2.354 4.122
900000300 1.1 0.7493 2.354 2.5894
900000400 0.8 0.7493 2.354 1.8832
900000500 0.9493 0.7493 2.354 2.2347
900000600 0.7493 0.7493 2.354 1.7639
900000700 0.2953 0.7493 2.354 1.6951
900000800 1.0 0.7493 2.354 2.354
method for comparing heat transfer results from RELAP5-3D to the test data is by summing
volume Q for each cell in the pool component 900 and comparing that to the pool heating
rate estimated in the heat transfer data analysis section 3.2.3. The Q printed out by RELAP
is the sum of all the heat transferred into or out of a volume. Q for the pool component is the
difference between the heat in from the HTP minus the heat loss through the pool vessel
walls. This second term will generally be very small in both the calculation and in pool heat
loss in the test facility.
Added validation of the model and RELAP simulations can be gained by comparing the
69
integral energy and mass into the HPC. Both these parameters are easily calculated from
the test data as well as the RELAP model.
3.3.6 RELAP Code Option Methodology
The RELAP5-3D code has a vast number of built in models, correlation and options that
can be selected both at the component level and at the calculation input level. For instance,
fluid flow choking can be activated or deactivated at any junction in the model and the
particular choked flow model can be selected from a default model, Henry Fauske. Some
special models, termed "Development Options" are selected for the entire problem. In this
work, option 54, 61 and 88 are used for all of the cases. Option 54 changes the two-
phase to single-phase vapor/gas transition truncation limit in the EQFINL subroutine for
the semi-implicit scheme. Option 61 modifies the constitutive relationships to help reduce
numerical oscillations at low pressure. Although active this modification isn’t necessary for
this work as the modification mostly pertains to interfacial heat transfer in slug and bubbly
flow regimes. Option 88 is an important modification to have active as it ensures that air
mass in the problem is not "thrown out" when all steam condenses. [26]
The default option, flags set to 0, for the cell volumes indicates whether the options are on
or off as described in Table 3.11. The hydrodynamic components in this model are all set
to the default volume flag of 0.
Analogously, the junctions have several modeling options that are activated or deactivated
in a similar manner as discussed in Table 3.12. The flags for the junctions in this model are
also all set to 0 with the exception of the TDJ component 811 which has the e flag set to 1.
The modified PV term is a reference to a modification to the energy equation that allows
for conservation of energy at an abrupt change in area. This model is recommended for
"break junctions that connect to containment volumes". [24] The modification essentially
ensures that specific enthalpy from the upstream volume is the energy flux through the
junction which is important for correctly modeling the energy flux into the HPC. [23]
70
Table 3.11: RELAP Volume Control Flags [26]

Flag Setting Description
t 0 specifies the thermal stratification model

is not used.
l 0 specifies the mixture level tracking model

is not used.
p 0 specifies the water packing scheme is

used.
v 0 specifies the water packing scheme is

used.
b 0 specifies that the pipe interphase friction

model will be used.
f 0 specifies that the friction effects are cal-

culated along the x-coordinate.
e 0 specifies that the nonequilibrium calcula-

tion is used.
3.4 RELAP5-3D Calculation Methodology
3.4.1 Initialization of Simulations
Each of the tests discussed in Table 3.2 was started from a unique initial condition in the
HPC with some minor variations in initial pool water temperature and HTP initial tempera-
ture. Generally each test started with partially heated HPC vessel walls to reduce the initial
condensation effects due to the heating of the vessel itself. As part of the data analysis
discussed in section 3.2, the total inlet steam mass and flow enthalpy are integrated for
each test.
To properly initialize each simulation, the HPC and CP initial fluid conditions are set for
components 800 and 900 and initial temperature are set in heat structures for the two
vessels and the HTP. The flowrate is then estimated based on the test data and put into
71
Table 3.12: RELAP Junction Control Flags [26]

Flag Setting Description
j 0 specifies the jet injection model is not ap-

plied.
e 0 specifies the modified PV term is not ap-

plied.
f 0 specifies the CCFL model is not applied.
v 0 specifies the vertical entrain-

ment/pullthrough model is not applied.
c 0 specifies that the standard choking model

is applied.
a 0 specifies that either a smooth or no area

change is applied.
h 0 specifies that nonhomogenous (two ve-

locity momentum equation) is applied.
s 0 specifies the momentum flux in both the

to and from volume.
the TDJ, 811 and inlet temperature and pressure are set in the steam source component
812. The simulation is then run in RELAP5-3D and the total inlet mass is compared to the
integrated mass flow from the test data and adjusted as necessary.
3.4.2 Modeling Sensitivities
The base simulation for each case uses the model documented in this chapter with the ini-
tialization methodology discussed in section 3.4.1. A wide variety of sensitivities, analysis,
informed modeling and adjustments went into the final calculations presented in this work.
There is no intention by the author to insinuate that the modeling results were blind or even
semi-blind calculations. Also none of the cases or analyses were performed prior to the
completion of the tests.
72
SEC Test 3 was selected to perform the following sensitivities from an initial base case.
The base case was the final initialized restart calculation using the base model nodalization
described in sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3.
1. The first sensitivity was performed by increasing the nodalization at the bottom of the
HPC. Cell volume 1 of component 800 was split evenly into 5, cells 2 and 3 were
split into 3 volumes. The HTP heat structure and pool were also split up to match the
HPC, resulting in 16 axial regions for each component.
2. The next sensitivity investigated was an attempt to better model the pool film fluid
temperatures by modeling a small pipe component with the area equivalent to a 14 "
film thickness. This new component was connected to the HTP heat structure and
connected to the rest of the pool using a multiple junction component allowing direct
thermal and flow communication from each cell of the film component to the corre-
spond pool cell. Variations of the film "thickness" were also calculated by adjusting
the component area.
3. Odd thermal stratification in the HPC component was noticed due to the way RELAP
treats the mixing of noncondensables and steam for the single pipe component mod-
eling choice for the HPC. All the air was being pushed to the top and bottom of the
vessel causing the noncondensable mass fraction to very high which was impacting
the condensation rates at the top and bottom of the HTP. This was studied by in-
puting a heat transfer coefficient as a function of time for the SEC Test3 case. The
heat transfer coefficient was taken from the data reduction calculations discussed in
section 3.2.7
4. Initial RELAP results did calculate sufficient heat transfer through the HTP to match
the test data so multiplication factors were also looked at for the pool side heat trans-
fer by adjusting the fouling factor of the HTP heat structure.
Other smaller modeling adjustments and sensitivities will be discussed with the calculation
results in the next chapter.
73
Chapter 4: Results
4.1 Data Analysis Results
4.1.1 Heat Transfer Results
4.1.1.1 SEC Test Results
There are two primary methods of heat transfer on either surface of the OSU MASLWR
HTP; condensation heat transfer on the HPC side and free convection heat transfer on
the pool side. Section 3.2.3 discusses the data analysis and reduction methods applied to
calculate each of these heat transfer mechanisms for the test data of interest as well as
applying the Churchill-Chu correlation using the wall surface and bulk fluid temperatures
and fluid properties to calculate the heat transfer Q̇. Table 4.1 details the specific time
and the total time of the region of interest for each of the SEC Tests. These regions are
selected where the data trends are somewhat smooth and linear in order to validate the
quasi-steady state assumption required for using the time averaging derivative techniques
discussed in the previous chapter.
There are essentially two different tests in the MASLWR SEC Test Sequence. Four of the
tests were performed at a 40 kW equivalent steam generation rate and four tests were
at double that, 80 kW steam generation. The slower developing tests, (40 kW ) are more
effective for using the large time data averaging techniques outlined in section 3.2.3. The
four faster tests have a much smaller useful data region as outlined in Table 4.1. The
purpose of this analysis is to compare transient test data to a correlation developed in a
controlled steady state testing environment with specific boundary conditions. The RELAP
results discussed in section 4.2, however are more useful to compare with transient tests
regardless of how quickly a given test develops.
To simplify this section SEC Test 3 was chosen to demonstrate results of the data reduc-
74

Test Name Start/Stop (s) Data Region (min)
SEC Tests 1a 5101 → 6900 30

SEC Tests 1b 10701 → 12500 30
SEC Tests 2a 1201 → 1800 10
SEC Tests 2b 3701 → 4000 5
SEC Tests 3 3601 → 5400 30
SEC Tests 4 1351 → 1950 10
SEC Tests 5 6601 → 8400 30
SEC Tests 6 1951 → 2250 5
tions and analysis described in the previous chapter for the slower type SEC Tests. The
heat transfer data is compared with to the Churchill-Chu correlation in Figure 4.1 where
Q̇pool is the calculated pool heating value from Equation 3.18 and where the time rate of
change in temperature is equated to the heat transferred to the pool. The plot of Q̇htp is
total heat transfered through the HTP calculated by summing the condensation and con-
vective cooling in the HPC and subtracting the change in internal energy ∆uHT P . This
equates to the energy transfered into the HTP minus the energy that stayed in the HTP.
Figure 4.1 indicates good agreement between Q̇htp and Q̇pool for test 3.
The second plot, Figure 4.2, shows the inlet steam flow enthalpy vs the total energy change
of the HPC as calculated in Equation 3.32. This plot compares very well indicating the
assumptions made in section 3.2.6 appropriately characterize the mechanisms of energy
sinks in the HPC. An important note it that the primary difference between SEC Tests 1,
1b, 3 and 5 is the amount of air in the HPC vessel at the beginning of each test. Combined
results for all the tests will be presented in section 4.1.2 and demonstrate consistency in
the calculation results between these slower tests.
75
Figure 4.1: SEC Test 3 Heat Transfer vs. Churchill Correlation.
Figure 4.2: SEC Test 3 HPC Ė vs Steam Inlet Ė.

76
The test described above was a very slow transient where pressure in the HPC increases
slowly which allows for quasi-steady state analysis of the test data and justifies the use
of the five minute data averaging as discussed in calculating methodology, section 3.2.3.
The other four test were preformed with twice the inlet steam flow but the effect on HPC
pressure was much greater than double. This made the smooth steady section of data
much smaller than the slower cases. While 30 minutes of data was analyzed for the first
4 tests, only five or ten minutes of steady data was useful for SEC Tests 2, 2b, 4 and
6. For simplicity the results for SEC Test 4 are presented to represent the results from
these faster progressing tests. Much like the slower tests, the results are fairly consistent
between these four tests and the combined results are presents in section 4.1.2.
Figure 4.3 shows the calculated pool heating rate and condensation energy transfer com-
pared to the calculated results of the Churchill-Chu correlation and, much like the slower
progresing tests, the data compares fairly well with the correlation. The difference between
the two types of tests can be seen as the heat transfer rate is nearly constant in the slower
tests, while the Q̇ is clearly increasing over a ten minute period in each of the faster tests.
This is a reasonable result as the pressure is nearly constant for the slower tests while
the pressure increases dramatically during the faster tests which increases the bulk vapor
temperature which increases the heat transfer rate. The choice of each of data selections
for each of the 80 kW tests is validated by the fairly balanced nature of the condensation
and pool heating rates.
77
Figure 4.3: SEC Test 4 Heat Transfer vs. Churchill Correlation.
Figure 4.4: SEC Test 4 HPC Q vs Steam Inlet Q.

78
4.1.1.2 CCT Results
The twelve containment condensation tests (CCTs) are much more consistent in how they
were performed than the SEC Tests and as such, the analysis results are more consistent
between these tests. A ten minute section of data was selected to be analyzed for each of
these tests which corresponds to the section of data where the pressure drops due to the
reduction in steam flow before increasing again due to the increasing level causing a loss
of condensing surface area as described in section 3.1.2. Table 4.2 details the specific
time and the total time of the region of interest for each of the CCTs.

Test Name Start/Stop (s) Data Region (min)
CCT2a 2601 → 3200 10

CCT2b 1801 → 2400 10
CCT2c 1401 → 2000 10
CCT4a 3001 → 3600 10
CCT4b 1801 → 2400 10
CCT6a 1101 → 1700 10
CCT6b 3001 → 3600 10
CCT8a 1701 → 2300 10
CCT9a 4001 → 4600 10
CCT11a 1301 → 1900 10
CCT11b 1601 → 2200 10
CCT13a 1301 → 1900 10
To simplify this section CCT6A was chosen to demonstrate results of the data reductions
and analysis described in the previous chapter for the CCTs as this is a test that reaches
some of the higher HPC pressure for the matrix of CCTs. The heat transfer data is com-
pared with to the Churchill-Chu correlation in Figure 4.5 where Q̇pool is the calculated pool
79
heating value from Equation 3.18 where the time rate of change in temperature is equated
to the heat transferred to the pool. The plot of Q̇htp is total heat transfered through the HTP
calculated by summing the condensation and convective cooling in the HPC and subtract-
ing the change in internal energy ∆uHT P . This equates to the energy transfered into the
HTP minus the energy that stayed in the HTP. Figure 4.5 indicates reasonably agreement
between Q̇htp and Q̇pool for this test although the pool heatup rate is fairly oscillatory which
is a by-product of the averaging of the pool temperature increase rate and is not likely a
physical result. Larger averaging would likely fix this inconsistency. Also, results presented
in terms of integral values, which was done in section 4.1.3, show overall excellent energy
balance results which is the primary purpose of presenting this figure. Interestingly the
Churchill-Chu correlation predicts a slightly higher heat transfer than is calculated from the
test data. This result is also consistent between the CCTs.
The second plot, Figure 4.6, shows the inlet steam flow enthalpy vs the total energy change
of the HPC as calculated in Equation 3.32. This plot compares very well indicating the
assumptions made in section 3.2.6 appropriately characterize the mechanisms of energy
sinks in the HPC. Combined results for all the tests will be presented in section 4.1.2
and demonstrate consistency in the calculation results between these CCTs. The plot
frequency is four data points per minute for these plots.
80
Figure 4.5: CCT 6A Heat Transfer vs. Churchill Correlation.
Figure 4.6: CCT 6A HPC Ė vs Steam Inlet Ė.

81
4.1.2 Nusselt Number Comparison
The next comparison is the non dimensional Nusselt number plotted as a function of
Rayleigh which is the standard approach for free convection heat transfer as detailed in
Chapter 2. The significance of Nu vs. Ra plot is that the data from the twenty tests can be
compared directly to heat transfer correlations without the need for interpretations of the
correct application of parameters like the evaluation of heat transfer at the midpoint of the
plate or evaluation of fluid properties at some averaged film temperature. The calculation
methodology in Chapter 3 discusses how calculated Q̇ is used to generate an average
Nusselt number N u, section 3.2.7.
Nusselt is a function of both Rayleigh and Prandtl numbers in the Churchill correlation
however P r number is nearly constant for water under the test conditions. This makes the
Churchill N u a function of Ra allowing for a direct comparison between the Nusselt derived
from the test data using Q̇ and N uChurchill . In order to condense the presentation of infor-
mation in this work, the N u vs. Ra for all eight SEC tests are displayed on a log log scale
in Figure 4.7 and the results for the twelve CCTs are shown in Figure 4.9. Reasonable
agreement between the Churchill-Chu correlation is demonstrated with some of the test
data while other test results are under predicted. The trends can be characterized as the
slower SEC tests (1, 1b, 3 and 5) tend to fall closer to the correlation line while the faster
tests (2, 2b, 4 and 6) tend to be under predicted by the correlation. This could simply be
a result of the approximations and assumptions used for the data analysis which are less
appropriate or applicable for the highly transients "fast" SEC Tests. Figure 4.8 is a similar
plot however the error bars are included with the data points. The data error is based on
measurement uncertainty as presented in section 3.2.8.
The results from the CCTs, Figure 4.9, indicate reasonable agreement between the Churchill-
Chu correlation and the test data however there is consistent over prediction for most of
these tests. The results are close enough to the correlation that it is still reasonable to draw
the conclusion that the data tends to indicate the correlation will give reasonable free con-
vective heat transfer results for the CCT series as well. These results are also much more
consistent than the SEC results which provides more confidence in the conclusions drawn.
Figure 4.7 shows much larger data scatter than the results presented in Figure 4.9 which
indicates the greater testing consistency utilized for the CCT matrix as opposed to the SEC
82
test matrix. Figure 4.10 is a similar plot however the error bars are included with the data
points. The data error is based on measurement uncertainty as presented in section 3.2.8.
Figure 4.7: SEC Tests Nusselt Number vs. Churchill log scale.
Figure 4.8: SEC Tests Nusselt Number vs. Churchill with Error Bars.
A method for visually demonstrating how well the correlation fits to the data is to make
a plot Nusselt vs. Nusselt as in Figure 4.11. The center black line indicates a perfect
fit with a 20% fit between the red and blue lines and a 35% fit for green and yellow line.
83
Figure 4.9: CCTs Nusselt Number vs. Churchill log scale.
Figure 4.10: CCTs Nusselt Number vs. Churchill with Error Bars.
The Churchill-Chu correlation fits all the SEC Test data to within 35% which indicates the
correlation will give good free convective heat transfer results when extrapolated well past
the original correlation range. Figure 4.12 is the same plot for the CCT data results and
also indicates all but a few data points that might be considered outliers, fit within the ±35%
window as indicated by the green and yellow lines. In the CCT case, a large majority of
84
the data fits inside the 20% window which is an excellent result and further proof that
the Churchill-Chu correlation can be reasonably applied to tall vertical plates immerged in
water.
Figure 4.11: SEC Tests Data Fit Plot.
Figure 4.12: CCT Data Fit Plot.

85
4.1.3 Energy Balance Results
Figure 4.13 is a plot of the overall energy balance for SEC Test 3, as defined in Equa-
tion 3.34 and Equation 3.35 of section 3.2.6. HP Cerror is a plot of the energy imbalance
for the HPC relative to the inlet energy while Syserror is a plot of the energy imbalance
of the entire system relative to the inlet steam energy. Figure 4.14 is a plot of the overall
energy balance for CCT 6A which is calculated the same way and important to present to
ensure consistency between the data analysis methods for the different test types.
The energy balance for both test types works out very well meaning that the approximations
made regarding the vessel heat loss, lower pool temperature and condensate temperature
were reasonable simplifications. All of the energy input to the system is accounted for be-
tween the pool heating, HTP heating, vapor energy and condensate energy. The energy
balance results for the other CCT and SEC tests are also quite similar to these represen-
tative results.
These results are important to this work, as they validate the use of some of the very broad
simplifications and approximations discussed in the calculation methodology, section 3.2.2.
This also helps solidify the usefulness of Lower Pressure NIST Test Data even though the
facility is under instrumented in the bulk fluid sections of the HPC and pool vessels.
Figure 4.13: SEC Test 3 Energy Balance.

86
Figure 4.14: CCT6A Energy Balance.

87
4.1.4 Mass Balance Results
Figure 4.15 and Figure 4.16 are plots of the overall mass balance for SEC Test 3 and CCT
6A, as defined in Equation 3.28 of section 3.2.5. This mass balance takes the integrated
inlet mass from the FW piping and compares it to the total mass in the HPC as measured by
LDP 801 via a cold collapsed level measurement. The mass balance results are extremely
good which validated the used of LDP 801 as the method for calculating condensation
rates. Over the thirty minutes of test data for SEC 3, the total mass imbalance is less than
1.0kg which is well within 1% of the steam mass flow into the HPC for the testing period.
The mass balance results for the shorter CCTs are even better.
In general, the other tests results demonstrate similar consistency between the mass inlet
measurement and the total condensed liquid mass over the period of data analysis. These
results and the energy balance results presented in the previous section are important to
the help justify the use of the rather large averaging techniques and some of the other
assumptions and approximations that were necessary due to the limited instrumentation
of the HPC when these tests were performed.
Figure 4.15: SEC Test 3 Mass Balance.

88
Figure 4.16: CCT 6A Mass Balance.

89
4.2 RELAP5-3D Calculation Results
4.2.1 Initial RELAP Results
SEC Test 3 was selected as the single test to compare RELAP5-3D modeling sensitivities
against. The RELAP model described in section 3.3 was used to complete a baseline
comparison of RELAP5 to the test data. Some of the parameters of interested are plotted
in the following figures.
A couple items to note include the initial RELAP pressure is higher than the test data in
Figure 4.17 while the actual total integrated inlet steam energy matches very well between
the data and the RELAP case, Figure 4.18. The integral inlet steam enthalpy is essentially
a RELAP input parameter for all of the RELAP calculations so the fact that it matches the
data well suggests the problem was modeled correctly.
The total heat transferred to the pool, Figure 4.18 is greater in the test data than in RELAP
however. This is a result that is confirmed by Figure 4.19 where the heat transfer rate
calculated by RELAP is less than the data. It is also important to notice the lower heat
transfer to the HTP (qhtp) calculated by RELAP. This is an indication that RELAP is likely
not modeling the single phase liquid convection on the HTP. As the liquid film falls down
the plate it is cooled below saturation temperature but RELAP treats the plate heat transfer
to the entire volume so the liquid that is generated stays in temperature equilibrium with
the vapor as shown in Figure 4.20.
Figure 4.21 is interesting as it suggests that while RELAP is correctly calculating the in-
crease in pool temperature toward the lower and middle portions of the pool, it is well below
the correct heating rate at the top of the pool. This is likely due to the lack of circulation in
the RELAP model relative to the test facility. The RELAP pool is modeled as a single pipe
which does not allow for circulation of a single phase of fluid and thereby the middle of the
pool is actually allowed to become higher temperature than that of the top of the pool as
shown in Figure 4.21. This might be solved by modeling the pool as two pipes allowed to
circulate.
90
Figure 4.17: SEC Test 3 HPC pressure vs RELAP Base Case.
Figure 4.18: SEC Test 3 Inlet Energy & Total Pool Heating vs RELAP Base Case.
91
Figure 4.19: SEC Test 3 Pool heat transfer vs RELAP Base Case.
Figure 4.20: SEC Test 3 Lower HPC Temperature vs RELAP Base Case.
92
Figure 4.21: SEC Test 3 Pool temperatures vs RELAP Base Case.

93
4.2.2 Nodalization Sensitivities
The first sensitivity study involved increase the nodalization of HPC and pool components
in the lower region where condensation builds up. The parameters identified to be impor-
tant for the nodalization effort are the HPC pressure, total heat transferred to the pool,
upper pool temperature, and lower HPC fluid temperature.
Figure 4.22, Figure 4.24 and Figure 4.24 were generated to show the results of the various
calculations from RELAP. None of the models calculated the actual test data for pressure
well indicating the need for further modeling adjustments. The pool heat transfer, Fig-
ure 4.23, was also low for all the calculation relative to the test data. The two pool model
is setup to create circulation driven by the heating of the HTP. Due to the multiple junction
however the warmest fluid will never actually circulate back down causing a thermal hold
up at the top of the pool. This explains why the temperature in Figure 4.24 is much higher
while the heat transfer is not that much different that the other cases.
Figure 4.25 shows the lower HPC fluid temperature for the various modeling cases.
The large bump in Figure 4.24 for the base case is the same phenomena causing the
smaller, more frequent "bumps" in the other plots. This turns out to be caused by the way
RELAP treats the change in heat transfer mode after the lower HPC component volumes
become filled with liquid condensate. Either increasing or decreasing the nodalization
substantially would likely reduce this behavior.
94
Figure 4.22: SEC Test 3 HPC pressure.
Figure 4.23: SEC Test 3 Pool heat transfer.

95
Figure 4.24: SEC Test 3 Top pool temperature.
Figure 4.25: SEC Test 3 Lower HPC temperature.

96
4.2.3 Heat Transfer Sensitivities
There was really only one heat transfer sensitivity investigated. In RELAP, a fouling factor
can be added as an input to any surface of a heat structure which works as a direct mul-
tiplier to the heat transferred from or to the surface. A fouling factor of 2 was applied to
the pool side of the HTP for the SEC Test 3 RELAP Case. The calculated heat transferred
to the pool is a little greater than RELAP calculation as seen in Figure 4.23. This is also
reflected in the increased pressure of RELAP relative to the data in Figure 4.22.
It is important to note that in a coupled heat transfer system like that of the HPC and HTP,
a multiplier on the heat transfer does not necessarily work to directly multiply the amount of
energy transferred. As the heat transfer increases on the pool side of the HTP, a decrease
in surface temperature which in free convection causes a decrease in the calculated heat
transfer coefficient and the actual heat transferred due to the reduction in ∆T . This fact is
quite apparent in Figure 4.26 and Figure 4.27 were the actual heat transferred to the pool
increases very slightly in the RELAP calculation while the pressure decreases a little closer
to the test data. This might suggest that in RELAP the HPC pressure is rather sensitive to
pool heat transfer for very slow developing transient cases like SEC Test 3.
97
Figure 4.26: HTP HTR Sensitivity (HPC Pressure).
Figure 4.27: HTP HTR Sensitivity (Qpool ).

98
Chapter 5: Conclusions
5.1 Data Reduction Conclusions
Based on the results from section 4.1 where the data comparison results were presented
the follow conclusions can be drawn:
1. The Churchill-Chu free convection correlation can be reasonably extrapolated well

past its original correlation range to correctly predict the heat transfer coefficients for
very high range Rayleigh numbers. Nearly 100% of the data fits the correlation within
35%.
2. The MASLWR test data can be used to perform fairly precise mass and energy bal-
ances for near steady state test data periods where the HPC inlet mass and energy
are accurately measured.
3. Existing MASLWR test data is limited by the lack of important measurement param-
eters however it still can be utilized to draw conclusions about the pool side heat
transfer for data that is near steady state conditions.
5.2 RELAP5-3D Modeling Conclusions
Based on the results from section 4.2 the follow conclusions can be drawn:
1. In a bulk sense, RELAP will effectively calculate the free convective heat transfer
effects.
2. RELAP does not predict the multi-dimensional bulk pool temperature profiles well
even with 2D modeling techniques due to the limited 1-D advective nature of the
code.
99
3. In general, the pool side convection is a primary important parameter for correctly
predicting HPC pressure for the slow pressurization tests as was demonstrated in
Figure 4.17 and Figure 4.18 where the decreased predicted heat transfer correlated
to an increased system pressure.
5.3 Test Facility Upgrade Recommendations
Based on the challenges identified within this work, the following test facility upgrades are
recommended to support future testing of this nature.
1. More temperature instruments are needed in the CNV and CPV bulk fluid space.
2. Additional level instrumentation should be installed to try to get a higher resolution

HPC level measurement.
3. HPC level control should be incorporated such that the condensate level doesn’t
decrease the heat transfer surface area over time.
4. Testing should be performed that provides longer steady state data periods.
5.4 Future Work Ideas
Based on the results from this work and after the above facility upgrades have been imple-
mented, the following future investigations are recommended.
1. Investigation of the HTP surface temperature profile should be performed to validate

the vessel fin conduction effects and the assumptions related to Tw−ef f as defined in
section 3.2.4.
2. Confirming the somewhat gross pool heatup assumptions with higher bulk tempera-
ture measurement resolution.
3. Further investigate multidimensional modeling within RELAP for the HPC and CPV.
100
Bibliography
[1] Geoffrey Black, Meredith A. Taylor Black, David Solan, and David Shropshire. Carbon
free energy development and the role of small modular reactors: A review and deci-
sion framework for deployment in developing countries. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 43:83–94, 2015.
[2] Christopher Jordan Bowser. RELAP5-3D modeling of ADS blowdown of MASLWR
facility. PhD thesis, Oregon State University, 2012.
[3] Jason Casey. High pressure condensation heat transfer in the evacuated containment
of a small modular reactor. PhD thesis, Oregon State University, 2012.
[4] S. W. Churchill and H. H. S. Chu. Correlating equations for laminar and turbulent
free convection from a vertical plate. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
18(11):1323–1329, 1975.
[5] S. W. Churchill and R. Usagi. A general expression for the correlation of rates of
transfer and other phenomena. American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal,
18:1121–1128, 1972.
[6] Mark Cooper. Small modular reactors and the future of nuclear power in the united
states. Energy Research and Social Science, 3:161–177, 2014.
[7] Antonella L. Costa, Patricia Amelia L. Reis, Claubia Pereira, Maria Auxiliadora F.
Veloso, Amir Z. Mesquita, and Humberto V. Soares. Thermal hydraulic analysis of
the ipr-r1 triga research reactor using a relap5 model. Nuclear Engineering and De-
sign, 240(6):1487–1494, 2010.
[8] Mark Robert Galvin. System model of a natural circulation integral test facility. PhD
thesis, 2009.
[9] Brandon Patrick Haugh. Multi application small light water reactor containment anal-
ysis and design. PhD thesis, 2002.
[10] H. Hidayatullah, S. Susyadi, and M. Hadid Subki. Design and technology development
for small modular reactors âĂŞ safety expectations, prospects and impediments of
their deployment. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 79:127–135, 2015.
101
[11] David P. Incropera, Frank P.; DeWitt. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, fifth edition, 2002.
[12] D. T. Ingersoll. Deliberately small reactors and the second nuclear era. Progress in
Nuclear Energy, 51(4-5):589–603, 2009.
[13] Yaman Kakac, Sadik; Yener. Convective Heat Transfer. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton,
FL, second edition, 1995.
[14] A. J. N. Khalifa. Natural convective heat transfer coefficient - a review i. isolated
vertical and horizontal surfaces. Energy Conversion and Management, 42(4):491–
504, 2001.
[15] Vladimir Kuznetsov. Iaea activities for innovative small and medium sized reactors
(smrs). Progress in Nuclear Energy, 47:13, 2005.
[16] Vladimir Kuznetsov. Options for small and medium sized reactors (smrs) to overcome
loss of economies of scale and incorporate increased proliferation resistance and
energy security. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 50(2-6):242–250, 2008.
[17] Ahn T Mai. Thermal hydraulic and fuel performance analysis for innovative small light
water reactor using VIPRE-01 and FRAPCON-3. PhD thesis, 2011.
[18] F. Mascari, G. Vella, B. G. Woods, and F. D’Auria. Analyses of the osu-maslwr ex-
perimental test facility. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations, 2012:1–19,
2012.
[19] S. Modro. Multi-application small light water reactor final report. Technical report,
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, 2003.
[20] Jose N. Reyes, John Groome, Brian G. Woods, Eric Young, Kent Abel, You Yao, and
Yeon Jong Yoo. Testing of the multi-application small light water reactor (maslwr)
passive safety systems. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 237(18):1999–2005, 2007.
[21] O. A. Saunders. Effect of pressure upon natural convection in air. Proc. R. Soc.,
A157:278–291, 1936.
[22] Deyi Shang. Free Convection Film Flows and Heat Transfer. Springer, Heidelberg,
Germany, 2006.
[23] RELAP5-3D Code Development Team. Relap5-3d manual volume i: Code structure,
system models and solution methods, June, 2012 2012.
[24] RELAP5-3D Code Development Team. Relap5-3d manual volume ii: User’s guide
and input requirements, June, 2012 2012.
102
[25] RELAP5-3D Code Development Team. Relap5-3d manual volume iv: Models and
correlations, June, 2012 2012.
[26] RELAP5-3D Code Development Team. Volume ii appendices: Input data require-
ments, June, 2012 2012.
[27] Jasmina Vujic, Ryan M. Bergmann, Radek Skoda, and Marija Miletic. Small modular
reactors: Simpler, safer, cheaper? Energy, 45(1):288–295, 2012.
[28] W. Zhou, B. Wolf, and S. Revankar. Assessment of relap5/mod3.3 condensation
models for the tube bundle condensation in the pccs of esbwr. Nuclear Engineering
and Design, 264(1):111–118, 2013.
103
APPENDICES
104
Appendix A: MATLAB Script
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%MASLWR DATA Analysis SEC Tests
%Open saved data that was previously converted to SI from the British test
%data
clc, clear
run('PlotSettings.m') % loads default plot settings
load('DataRangesInp.txt')
load('DATASI_SECTest6.mat')
N=length(DATASI(1,:));
M=length(DATASI(:,1));
%enter times of data interest. These sets were saved in an alternate file
Test=8;
start=DataRangesInp(Test,1);
stop=DataRangesInp(Test,2);
int_lvl=DataRangesInp(Test,3);
intrvl=1;
pint=2; %plot frequency
K=stop-start+1;
%Condensation Calculation
%Pool Pressures at various depths
P1=1.01235;
P2=1.1576;
P3=1.3245;
P4=1.4692;
%below are the column numbers for the data of interest
LDP801=26;
PT801=21;
TF821=99;
TF873A=111;
TF802=94;
TF804=96;
TF805=98;
105
%HPC lower cross sectional area

HPCarea=0.05387; %m^2
rho_stp=XSteam('rho_pT',1.01235,4); %standard density for water at 4C per LDPs
%loop for level and energy change rate averaged over a 2 min period to
%smooth the LDP801 data
for i=start:intrvl:stop
j=(i-start)/intrvl+1;
del_lvl(j,1)=(DATASI(i+60,LDP801)-DATASI(i-60,LDP801))/120; %calculate level chang
del_enth(j,1)=(XSteam('h_pT',DATASI(i,PT801),DATASI(i,TF873A))-XSteam('hL_p',DATAS
end
%Condensation Q=mdot*Delta-h
Condensation(:,1)=HPCarea*rho_stp*del_lvl.*del_enth; %condensation energy rate
%Internal fluid energy of HPC Calculation
%volume of HPC regions in m^3
V_upr=0.18469*(0.295275+0.7493+0.21054);
V_trsn=0.11928*0.514;
L_lwr=0.22879+0.8+1.1+1.7511;
%energy change due to heating of vapor space due to pressure increasing
%and cooling of liquid spaced due to convection on HTP
for i=1:M
%liquid height calc.
h_L(i,1)=(DATASI(i,LDP801)+220.7*0.0254)*rho_stp/XSteam('rho_pT',DATASI(i,PT801),D
V_v(i,1)=V_upr+V_trsn+HPCarea*(L_lwr-h_L(i,1));
m_v(i,1)=V_v(i,1)*XSteam('rho_pT',DATASI(i,PT801),DATASI(i,TF873A));
%vapor internal energy
u_v(i,1)=m_v(i,1)*XSteam('u_pT',DATASI(i,PT801),DATASI(i,TF873A));
end
%sum liquid and vapor internal energy change
%Liquid energy loss heatloss
QLout(j,1)=(DATASI(i,LDP801)+220.7*0.0254)*HPCarea*rho_stp*XSteam('Cp_pT',DATASI(i
DelUL(j,1)=del_lvl(j,1)*HPCarea*rho_stp*(XSteam('uL_p',DATASI(i,PT801))-XSteam('u_
%Q from liquid addition
QLin(j,1)=HPCarea*rho_stp*del_lvl(j,1)*XSteam('u_pT',DATASI(i,PT801),DATASI(i,TF80
%udotL(j,1)=QLin(j,1)+QLout(j,1); %Modification for SECTest6
udotL(j,1)=QLin(j,1);
udotV(j,1)=(u_v(i+30,1)-u_v(i-30,1))/60;
udot_hpc(j,1)=udotV(j,1)+udotL(j,1);
end
106
%Heat to Pool Calculation

%Defining data column numbers
TF825=100;
TF845=104;
TF865=108;
TW814=117;
TW824=120;
TW844=126;
TW864=132;
TF901=113;
TF902=114;
TF903=115;
TF904=154;
FCM511=32;
FCM521=33;
FCM531=34;
%Defining Regions of the pool height (m) and mass (kg)
CParea=0.44096; %Cooling pool area
intlvl=(220.7*0.0254+DATASI(int_lvl,26)); %calculate initial containment level
lwrL1=1.50165-intlvl;
lwrM1=lwrL1*CParea*XSteam('rho_pT',P4,DATASI(10,TF904));
lwrL2=1.6988;
lwrM2=lwrL2*CParea*XSteam('rho_pT',P3,DATASI(10,TF903));
midL=1.8987;
midM=midL*CParea*XSteam('rho_pT',P2,DATASI(10,TF902));
upL=0.546;
upM=upL*CParea*XSteam('rho_pT',P1,DATASI(10,TF901));
Width=0.16823; %HTP width
L_nc=5.6452; %natural circulation length in meters
%energy added to the pool due to temperature increase. This is highly
%averaged to smooth temperature data.
delE_lwr1(j,1)=lwrM1*(XSteam('u_pT',P4,mean(DATASI(i+145:i+155,TF904)))-XSteam('u_
delE_lwr2(j,1)=lwrM2*(XSteam('u_pT',P3,mean(DATASI(i+145:i+155,TF903)))-XSteam('u_
delE_mid(j,1)=midM*(XSteam('u_pT',P2,mean(DATASI(i+145:i+155,TF902)))-XSteam('u_pT
delE_up(j,1)=upM*(XSteam('u_pT',P1,mean(DATASI(i+145:i+155,TF901)))-XSteam('u_pT',
Qpool(j,1)=delE_lwr1(j,1)+delE_lwr2(j,1)+delE_mid(j,1)+delE_up(j,1);
%Calculate inlet flow enthalpy
FWflow(j,1)=mean(DATASI(i,32))+mean(DATASI(i,33))+mean(DATASI(i,34));
107
Flenth(j,1)=FWflow(j,1)*XSteam('h_pT',DATASI(i,PT801),DATASI(i,TF873A));
%Calculate system mass balance
if j==1
M_stm(j,1)=0;
else
M_stm(j,1)=M_stm(j-1,1)+intrvl*(mean(DATASI(i-intrvl:i,32))+mean(DATASI(i-intr
M_hpc(j,1)=HPCarea*rho_stp*(DATASI(i,LDP801)-DATASI(start,LDP801))+(m_v(i,1)-m
M_error(j,1)=(M_stm(j,1)-M_hpc(j,1));
end
end
%Internal energy change of the HTP m*Cp*delT
TW813=116;
TW822=118; TW823=119; TW824=120;
TW842=124; TW843=125;
TW862=130; TW863=131;
th=1.5*0.0254; %plate thickness (m)
Cp=504/1000; %(J/kg-K) HTP is SS316
rhoHTP=8238; %(kg/m^3)
ulwr1(j,1)=Width*lwrL1*th*rhoHTP*Cp*(DATASI(i+60,TW813)-DATASI(i-60,TW813))/120;
ulwr2(j,1)=Width*lwrL2*th*rhoHTP*Cp*(DATASI(i+60,TW823)-DATASI(i-60,TW823))/120;
umid(j,1)=Width*midL*th*rhoHTP*Cp*(DATASI(i+60,TW843)-DATASI(i-60,TW843))/120;
uup(j,1)=Width*upL*th*rhoHTP*Cp*(DATASI(i+60,TW863)-DATASI(i-60,TW863))/120;
delu_HTP(j,1)=ulwr1(j,1)+ulwr2(j,1)+umid(j,1)+uup(j,1);
end
%Heat transfer
Q_HPC(:,1)=Condensation+DelUL+udot_hpc;
Q_HTP(:,1)=Condensation+DelUL-delu_HTP;
%Conduction Solution
dx1=1.5*0.0254;
k_htp=16.3; %Thermal conductivity for SS316L
CPV_th=0.1345*0.0254; %pool vessel thickness (10ga SS)
Ac=CPV_th*L_nc;
P=L_nc;
DT_eff=1000*(mean(Q_HTP(:,1)))*dx1/k_htp;
%Conduction solution for the HTP.
dTdx6(j,1)=(DATASI(i,TW862)-DATASI(i,TW864))/dx1;
108
dTdx1(j,1)=(DATASI(i,TW813)-DATASI(i,TW814))/dx1/2;
%Average dT/dx all sections are weighted equally.
DTDx(j,1)=((L_nc-lwrL1)/L_nc)*dTdx2(j,1)+(lwrL1/L_nc)*dTdx1(j,1);
Q_cdcn(j,1)=k_htp*L_nc*DTDx(j,1)*Width/1000;
Distortion(j,1)=100*(Q_HTP(j,1)-Q_cdcn(j,1))/Q_HTP(j,1);
% Theoretical fin heat transfer
h_bar(j,1)=1000*Q_HTP(j,1)/((Width*L_nc)*(mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TW824))-mean(DATASI(
M(j,1)=(h_bar(j,1)*P*k_htp*Ac)^0.5;
Q_fin(j,1)=M(j,1)*(DATASI(i,TW824)-DATASI(i,TF903))/1000;
Q_cdcnTot(j,1)=Q_cdcn(j,1)+2*Q_fin(j,1);
% Temperature correction
Tp_eff(j,1)=(mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TW813))+...
mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TW823))+mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TW843))...
+mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TW863)))/4-DT_eff/2;
Tp_bar(j,1)=(mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TW814))+...
mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TW824))+mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TW844))+...
mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TW864)))/4;
Tb_eff(j,1)=(mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TF904))+...
mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TF903))+mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TF902))+...
mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TF901)))/4;
Tw_eff(j,1)=mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TW823))+DT_eff/2;
h_eff(j,1)=1000*(Q_HTP(j,1))/((Width*L_nc)*(Tp_eff(j,1)-Tb_eff(j,1)));
end
%Energy Balance
Ebal_HPC(:,1)=Flenth-Q_HPC;
Ebal_sys(:,1)=Flenth-(Qpool+udot_hpc+delu_HTP);
if j==1
E_stm(j,1)=intrvl/2*Flenth(j,1);
E_HPC(j,1)=intrvl/2*Q_HPC(j,1);
E_SYS(j,1)=intrvl/2*(Qpool(j,1)+udot_hpc(j,1)+delu_HTP(j,1));
elseif i==stop
E_stm(j,1)=E_stm(j-1,1)+intrvl/2*Flenth(j,1);
E_HPC(j,1)=E_HPC(j-1,1)+intrvl/2*Q_HPC(j,1);
E_SYS(j,1)=E_SYS(j-1,1)+intrvl/2*(Qpool(j,1)+udot_hpc(j,1)+delu_HTP(j,1));
else
E_stm(j,1)=E_stm(j-1,1)+intrvl*Flenth(j,1);
109
E_HPC(j,1)=E_HPC(j-1,1)+intrvl*Q_HPC(j,1);
E_SYS(j,1)=E_SYS(j-1,1)+intrvl*(Qpool(j,1)+udot_hpc(j,1)+delu_HTP(j,1));
end
Eerr_HPC(j,1)=100*(E_stm(j,1)-E_HPC(j,1))/E_stm(j,1);
Eerr_SYS(j,1)=100*(E_stm(j,1)-E_SYS(j,1))/E_stm(j,1);
%Calculating heat transfer coefficient
h_cdsn(j,1)=1000*Condensation(j,1)/((Width*(L_nc-h_L(i,1)))*(mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,T
h_hpc(j,1)=1000*Q_HPC(j,1)/((Width*L_nc)*(mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TF873A))-mean(DATASI
%Calculate Film Temp
Tbulk(j,1)=(Tb_eff(j,1)+Tp_eff(j,1))/2;
delT_eff(j,1)=Tp_eff(j,1)-Tb_eff(j,1);
delT_bar(j,1)=mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TW824))-mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TF903));
%Tbulk(j,1)=mean(DATASI(i-5:i+5,TF903));
%Calculate Nusselt Number
Nu_bar(j,1)=L_nc*h_bar(j,1)/XSteam('tc_pT',P3,Tb_eff(j,1));
Nu_eff(j,1)=L_nc*h_eff(j,1)/XSteam('tc_pT',P3,Tb_eff(j,1));
end
%Natural Convection Churchill-Chu
%Define Data column number
PT801=21;
g=9.81;
%Calculate Q
Time(j,1)=(j-1)*intrvl/60;
%Calculate beta
beta=(XSteam('v_pT',P3,Tbulk(j,1)+0.5)-XSteam('v_pT',P3,Tbulk(j,1)-0.5))/XSteam('v
%Calculate Grashof Number
Gr(j,1)=g*XSteam('rho_pT',P3,Tbulk(j,1))^2*beta*(Tp_eff(j,1)-Tb_eff(j,1))*L_nc^3/X
%Calculate Rayleigh Number
Ra(j,1)=Gr(j,1)*XSteam('pr_pT',P3,Tbulk(j,1));
%Calculate Nusselt using Churchill-Chu Nat. Convection Correlaion
Nu(j,1)=(0.825+0.387*(Ra(j,1).^(1/6))/(1+(0.437/XSteam('pr_pT',P3,Tbulk(j,1)))^(9/
%Caculate heat transfer coefficient
h_calc(j,1)=Nu(j,1)*XSteam('tc_pT',P3,Tbulk(j,1))/L_nc;
%Caculate heat transfer (kW)
Q_Churchill(j,1)=Width*L_nc*h_calc(j,1)*(Tp_eff(j,1)-Tb_eff(j,1))/1000;
end
%Calculate and adjusted Q theoretical
Q_adj(:,1)=Q_Churchill.*0.70;
110
%Create Nusselt vs. Rayleigh array

SECTest6(:,1)=Ra(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,2)=Nu_bar(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,3)=Time(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,4)=Condensation(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,5)=Qpool(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,6)=Q_Churchill(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,7)=Q_adj(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,8)=Nu(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,9)=h_bar(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,10)=Gr(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,11)=Tbulk(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,12)=Flenth(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,13)=Q_HPC(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,14)=Ebal_HPC(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,15)=Ebal_sys(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,16)=Q_HTP(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,17)=E_stm(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,18)=E_HPC(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,19)=E_SYS(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,20)=M_error(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,21)=Eerr_HPC(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,22)=Eerr_SYS(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,23)=DATASI(start:pint:stop,21);
SECTest6(:,24)=h_cdsn(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,25)=DATASI(start:pint:stop,118);
SECTest6(:,26)=h_hpc(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,27)=h_eff(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,28)=Nu_eff(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,29)=delT_eff(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,30)=delT_bar(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,31)=Tp_eff(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,32)=Tp_bar(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,33)=Tb_eff(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,34)=Tw_eff(1:pint:K,1);
SECTest6(:,35)=delu_HTP(1:pint:K,1);
save('Nu_SECTest6','SECTest6');
SAVELOC = 'Plots\';
111
figure (1)
plot(SECTest6(:,1),SECTest6(:,2),...
SECTest6(:,1),SECTest6(:,8),'-k',...
SECTest6(:,1),SECTest6(:,28));
legend('Data Temp','Churchill','Correct Temp','Location','EASTOUTSIDE')
%title('SECTest6 HTP Heat Transfer (Nu vs. Ra)')
xlabel('Rayleigh Number'), ylabel('Nusselt Number')
ylim([0 15000])
savelabel=[SAVELOC,'SECTest6_NuvsRa.png'];
print(gcf,'-dpng',resolution, savelabel);
%plot condensation energy rate

figure (2)
%j=90;
SECTest6(:,3),SECTest6(:,12));
legend('q_{HPC}','q_{Steam}','Location','EASTOUTSIDE');
%title('SECTest6 HPC $\dot{E}$ vs Inlet Steam $\dot{E}$','interpreter','latex')
xlabel('Time (min)'), ylabel('q (kW)')
ylim([0 90])
savelabel=[SAVELOC,'SECTest6_Qhpc.png'];
%plot HTP heat transfer rate

figure(3)
SECTest6(:,3),SECTest6(:,5),...
SECTest6(:,3),SECTest6(:,6),'-k');
legend('q_{HTP}','q_{Pool}','q_{Churchill}','Location','EASTOUTSIDE');
%title('SECTest6 HTP q vs Pool q')
xlabel('Time (min)'), ylabel('q (kW)')
ylim([0 90])
savelabel=[SAVELOC,'SECTest6_Qhtp.png'];
%plot calculation errors

figure (4)
SECTest6(:,3),SECTest6(:,22))
legend('HPC_{error}','Sys_{error}','Location','EASTOUTSIDE');
112
%set(h,'interpreter','latex')
%title('SECTest6 Error from energy balance')
xlabel('Time (min)'), ylabel('Error (%)')
ylim([-20 20])
savelabel=[SAVELOC,'SECTest6_Eerr.png'];
%plot condensation energy rate

figure (5)
plot(SECTest6(:,3),SECTest6(:,20));
legend('e_{mass}','Location','EASTOUTSIDE');
%title('SECTest6 System Mass Error')
xlabel('Time (min)'), ylabel('Absolute Error (kg)')
ylim([-2 2])
savelabel=[SAVELOC,'SECTest6_Merr.png'];
%plot heat transfer coefficient vs pressure

figure (6)
plot(SECTest6(:,23),SECTest6(:,24));
legend('h_{cond}','Location','EASTOUTSIDE');
%title('SECTest6 Condensation Heat Transfer Coefficient vs Pressure')
xlabel('Pressure (bar)'), ylabel('htc (W/m^2-K)')
ylim([0 1500])
savelabel=[SAVELOC,'SECTest6_hvP.png'];
%plot HTP heat transfer rate

figure(7)
plot(SECTest6(:,29),SECTest6(:,16))
legend('q_{HTP}','Location','EASTOUTSIDE');
%set(h,'interpreter','latex')
%title('SECTest6 HTP q vs \Delta T')
xlabel('\Delta T (K)'), ylabel('q (kW)')
ylim([0 90])
savelabel=[SAVELOC,'SECTest6_QvDelT.png'];
113
Appendix B: RELAP Input Deck
=RELAP5-3D HPC and CP Simplified Model

*m: SNAP:Symbolic Nuclear Analysis Package, Version 2.2.3, March 20, 2013
*m: PLUGIN:RELAP Version 4.3.6
*m: CODE:RELAP5 3D Version 2.6
*m: DATE:3/1/14
******************************
* Model Options *
******************************
* Developmental Model Control Options
* 54 * Changes the two-phase to single phase vapor/gas.
* 61 * Further reduces numerical oscillations at low pressure
* 88 * Does not throw air away when steam disappears.
1 54 61 88
* type state
100 new transnt
* iunits ounits
102 si si
* Noncondensable Gas Species
110 air
* tend minstep maxstep copt pfreq majed rsrtf
201 5000.0 1.0e-9 0.1 19 500 1000 1000
20500000 9999
*******************************
* Control Blocks *
*******************************
*
* name type value
20500010 "transien" constant 5000.0
*
* name type scale ival iflag limit
20500020 "HCPlvl" sum 1.0 0.0 0 0
* a0 scale name param
20500021 0.0 1.75108 voidf 800010000
114
20500022 1.1 voidf 800020000

20500023 0.8 voidf 800030000
20500024 0.22879 voidf 800040000
20500025 0.509991 voidf 800050000
20500026 0.210541 voidf 800060000
20500027 0.7493 voidf 800070000
20500028 0.295275 voidf 800080000
*
20500030 "DP801" sum 1.0 0.0 0 0
* a0 scale name param
20500031 0.0 1.75108 cntrlvar 11
20500032 1.1 cntrlvar 12
20500033 0.8 cntrlvar 13
20500034 0.22879 cntrlvar 14
20500035 0.509991 cntrlvar 15
20500036 0.210541 cntrlvar 16
20500037 0.7493 cntrlvar 17
20500038 0.295275 cntrlvar 18
*
*d: assuming a reference line density of 1000 kg/m3
20500110 "lvlcomp1" mult 1.0e-3 0.0 0 0
* input param input param
20500111 voidf 800010000 rhof 800010000
*
20500120 "lvlcomp2" mult 1.0e-3 0.0 0 0
20500121 voidf 800020000 rhof 800020000
*
20500130 "lvlcomp3" mult 1.0e-3 0.0 0 0
20500131 voidf 800030000 rhof 800030000
*
115
20500140 "lvlcomp4" mult 1.0e-3 0.0 0 0

20500141 voidf 800040000 rhof 800040000
*
20500150 "lvlcomp5" mult 1.0e-3 0.0 0 0
20500151 voidf 800050000 rhof 800050000
*
20500160 "lvlcomp6" mult 1.0e-3 0.0 0 0
20500161 voidf 800060000 rhof 800060000
*
20500170 "lvlcomp7" mult 1.0e-3 0.0 0 0
20500171 voidf 800070000 rhof 800070000
*
20500180 "lvlcomp8" mult 1.0e-3 0.0 0 0
20500181 voidf 800080000 rhof 800080000
*
20600000 expanded
*******************************
* Variable Trips *
*******************************
*
*n: tripoff
* var param r var param acon l
20600010 time 0 le cntrlvar 1 0.0 n
*
*n: tripon
* var param r var param acon l
20600020 time 0 ge cntrlvar 1 0.0 n
116
*
*******************************
* General Tables *
*******************************
*
*n: Temp
* type trip
20202000 temp 0
* Time Temperature
20202001 0.0 299.817
20202002 1.0e6 299.817
*
**************************
* Materials *
**************************
*
*n: SS
* type
20100100 s-steel
*
*n: Cal-sil
* type tflag vflag
20100200 tbl/fctn 1 1
* temp thcond
20100201 272.039 0.057691161
20100202 310.928 0.059133431
20100203 366.483 0.064902759
20100204 422.039 0.072114107
20100205 477.594 0.079325455
20100206 533.15 0.086536804
20100207 588.706 0.093748152
20100208 644.261 0.093748152
20100209 6922.039 0.1874963
* temp capacity
20100251 273.15 2.527779e5
20100252 616.483 2.527779e5
20100253 810.928 2.333334e5
20100254 6922.039 2.333334e5
*
*n: Fiberglass
117
* type tflag vflag

20100300 tbl/fctn 1 1
* temp thcond
20100301 277.594 0.037383869
20100302 588.706 0.037383869
* temp capacity
20100351 277.594 2.671936e4
20100352 588.706 2.671936e4
*
*n: Water
* type tflag vflag
20100400 tbl/fctn 1 1
* temp thcond
20100401 277.594 0.62306449
20100402 922.039 0.62306449
* temp capacity
20100451 277.594 3915.7106
20100452 922.039 3915.7106
*
*n: Cal-sil2
* type tflag vflag
20100500 tbl/fctn 1 1
* temp thcond
20100501 272.039 0.1153822
20100502 310.928 0.11826699
20100503 366.483 0.12980489
20100504 422.039 0.14422759
20100505 477.594 0.15865091
20100506 533.15 0.17307361
20100507 588.706 0.1874963
20100508 644.261 0.1874963
20100509 6922.039 0.93748152
* temp capacity
20100551 310.928 2.527779e5
20100552 616.483 2.527779e5
20100553 810.928 2.333334e5
20100554 6922.039 2.333334e5
*
*************************************
* Hydraulic Components *
118
*************************************
*
* name type
8000000 "HPC" pipe
* ncells
8000001 8
* x-area volid
8000101 0.053868 4
8000102 0.11928 5
8000103 0.18469 8
* x-length volid
8000301 1.75108 1
8000302 1.1 2
8000303 0.8 3
8000304 0.22879 4
8000305 0.509991 5
8000306 0.210541 6
8000307 0.7493 7
8000308 0.295275 8
* volume volid
8000401 0.0 8
* azim-angle volid
8000501 0.0 8
* vert-angle volid
8000601 90.0 8
* x-wall xhd volid
8000801 0.0 0.0 8
* x-flags volid
8001001 0 8
* ebt press l.temp gas-temp void ncqual id
8001201 008 6895.0 285.0 285.0 0.0228 1.0 1
* ebt press temp qual none none id
8001202 004 6895.0 285.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2
8001203 004 6895.0 285.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3
8001204 004 6895.0 285.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4
8001205 004 6895.0 285.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5
119
8001206 004 6895.0 285.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 6

8001207 004 6895.0 285.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 7
8001208 004 6895.0 285.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 8
* jefvcahs jun num
8001101 00000000 7
* vl vv unused junid
8001301 0.0 0.0 0.0 7
*
* name type
8010000 "unnamed" valve
* from to area
8010101 802010002 800080002 0.0
* fwd. loss rev. loss efvcahs
8010102 0.0 0.0 0
* subcooled twophase
8010103 1.0 1.0
* flow vl vv unused
8010201 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
* type
8010300 trpvlv
* trip
8010301 1
*
* name type
8020000 "vac" tmdpvol
* area length vol
8020101 1.0 1.0 0.0
* az-angle inc-angle dz
8020102 0.0 90.0 1.0
* x-rough x-hd flags
8020103 0.0 0.0 0
* cword
8020200 4
* srch press temp squal
8020201 -1.0 6895.0 286.0 1.0
8020202 1.0e6 6895.0 286.0 1.0
*
* name type
120
8110000 "stmin" tmdpjun

* from to area jefvcahs
8110101 812010002 800060005 2.34116e-4 0
* control trip
8110200 1 2
* srch mfl mfv unused
8110201 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8110202 1.0e6 0.0 0.0 0.0
*
* name type
8120000 "stmsrc" tmdpvol
* area length vol
8120101 1.0 1.0 0.0
8120102 0.0 90.0 1.0
8120103 0.0 0.0 0
* cword
8120200 3
* srch press temp
8120201 -1.0 2.068427e6 533.0
8120202 1.0e6 2.068427e6 533.0
*
* name type
9000000 "CP" pipe
* ncells
9000001 8
* x-area volid
9000101 0.44096 8
* x-length volid
9000301 0.7112 1
9000302 1.75108 2
9000303 1.1 3
9000304 0.8 4
9000305 0.949325 5
9000306 0.7493 6
9000307 0.29528 7
9000308 1.0 8
* volume volid
9000401 0.0 8
121
* azim-angle volid
9000501 0.0 8
* vert-angle volid
9000601 90.0 8
* x-wall xhd volid
9000801 0.0 0.0 8
* x-flags volid
9001001 0 8
* ebt press temp none none none id
9001201 003 1.01325e5 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1
9001202 003 1.01325e5 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
9001203 003 1.01325e5 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3
9001204 003 1.01325e5 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4
9001205 003 1.01325e5 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5
9001206 003 1.01325e5 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6
9001207 003 1.01325e5 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7
9001208 004 1.01325e5 300.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 8
* jefvcahs jun num
9001101 00000000 7
* vl vv unused junid
9001301 0.0 0.0 0.0 7
*
* name type
9010000 "unnamed" sngljun
* from to area
9010101 902010002 900080002 0.0
* fwd. loss rev. loss efvcahs
9010102 0.0 0.0 0
* subcooled twophase
9010103 1.0 1.0
* flow vl vv unused
9010201 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
*
122
* name type
9020000 "atm" tmdpvol
* area length vol
9020101 1.0 1.0 0.0
9020102 0.0 90.0 1.0
9020103 0.0 0.0 0
* cword
9020200 4
* srch press temp squal
9020201 -1.0 1.01325e5 300.0 1.0
9020202 1.0e6 1.01325e5 300.0 1.0
*
********************************
* Heat Structures *
********************************
*
*n: HTX Plate
* nh np geom ssif leftcoord reflood
18000000 8 6 1 0 0.0 0
* mesh format
18000100 0 1
* intervals radius
18000101 1 3.048e-5
18000102 3 0.03806952
18000103 1 0.0381
* material interval
18000201 1 5
* rpkf interval
18000301 0.0 5
* temp source
18000400 -1
* temp1 temp2 temp3 temp4 temp5 temp6
18000401 296.36 296.359 296.323 296.286 296.249 296.249
18000402 297.714 297.713 297.718 297.723 297.729 297.729
18000403 297.735 297.735 297.739 297.743 297.748 297.748
18000404 297.739 297.739 297.743 297.748 297.753 297.753
18000405 297.739 297.739 297.743 297.748 297.753 297.753
18000406 297.739 297.739 297.743 297.748 297.753 297.753
123
18000407 297.943 297.943 297.954 297.966 297.978 297.978

18000408 298.625 298.626 298.66 298.696 298.733 298.733
* Left Boundary Condition Data
* bound incr type code factor node
18000501 900020000 0 101 1 0.294662 1
18000502 900030000 0 101 1 0.185115 2
18000503 900040000 0 101 1 0.134637 3
18000504 900050000 0 101 1 0.0385 4
18000505 900050000 0 101 1 0.085819 5
18000506 900050000 0 101 1 0.035429 6
18000507 900060000 0 101 1 0.126088 7
18000508 900070000 0 101 1 0.049687 8
* Right Boundary Condition Data
18000601 800010000 0 101 1 0.294662 1
18000602 800020000 0 101 1 0.185115 2
18000603 800030000 0 101 1 0.134637 3
18000604 800040000 0 101 1 0.0385 4
18000605 800050000 0 101 1 0.085819 5
18000606 800060000 0 101 1 0.035429 6
18000607 800070000 0 101 1 0.126088 7
18000608 800080000 0 101 1 0.049687 8
* source mult dmhl dmhr num
18000701 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8
* Left Additional Boundary Condition Data
18000800 1
* hthd hlf hlr gslf gslr glcf glcr lbf ncl tpdr foul node
18000801 0.0 30.48 30.48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.644896 1.1 1.0 8
* Right Additional Boundary Condition Data
18000900 1
* hthd hlf hlr gslf gslr glcf glcr lbf ncl tpdr foul node
18000901 0.0 30.48 30.48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.644896 1.1 1.0 8
*
*n: CNVlwr
18500000 4 4 2 0 0.13651992 0
* mesh format
18500100 0 1
* intervals radius
18500101 2 0.13968984
124
18500102 1 0.238125
* material interval
18500201 1 2
18500202 3 3
* rpkf interval
18500301 0.0 3
* temp source
18500400 -1
* temp1 temp2 temp3 temp4
18500401 296.196 296.197 296.198 310.928
18500402 314.331 314.333 314.333 310.928
18500403 310.276 310.276 310.276 310.928
18500404 309.519 309.519 309.519 310.928
18500501 800010000 0 101 1 1.751076 1
18500502 800020000 0 101 1 1.1 2
18500503 800030000 0 101 1 0.8001 3
18500504 800040000 0 101 1 0.228793 4
18500601 -20 0 1000 1 1.751076 1
18500602 -20 0 1000 1 1.1 2
18500603 -20 0 1000 1 0.8001 3
18500604 -20 0 1000 1 0.228793 4
18500701 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4
18500800 0
* hthd hlf hlr gslf gslr glcf glcr lbf node
18500801 0.0 30.48 30.48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4
*
*n: CNVmid
18600000 1 4 2 0 0.18891504 0
* mesh format
18600100 0 1
* intervals radius
18600101 2 0.19683984
18600102 1 0.29051402
125
* material interval
18600201 1 2
18600202 3 3
* rpkf interval
18600301 0.0 3
* temp source
18600400 -1
18600401 309.919 309.919 309.919 310.928
18600501 800050000 0 101 1 0.50999136 1
18600601 -20 0 1000 1 0.50999136 1
18600701 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1
18600800 0
18600801 0.0 30.48 30.48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1
*
*n: CNVupr
18700000 3 4 2 0 0.24765 0
* mesh format
18700100 0 1
* intervals radius
18700101 2 0.25398984
18700102 1 0.34923984
* material interval
18700201 1 2
18700202 3 3
* rpkf interval
18700301 0.0 3
* temp source
18700400 -1
18700401 314.27 314.272 314.267 310.928
18700402 338.431 338.428 338.422 310.928
126
18700403 338.431 338.428 338.422 310.928

18700501 800060000 0 101 1 0.210541 1
18700502 800070000 0 101 1 0.7493 2
18700503 800080000 0 101 1 0.295275 3
18700601 -20 0 1000 1 0.210541 1
18700602 -20 0 1000 1 0.7493 2
18700603 -20 0 1000 1 0.295275 3
18700701 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3
18700800 0
18700801 0.0 30.48 30.48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3
*
*n: CP
19000000 8 4 2 0 0.37466016 0
* mesh format
19000100 0 1
* intervals radius
19000101 2 0.381
19000102 1 0.47625
* material interval
19000201 1 2
19000202 3 3
* rpkf interval
19000301 0.0 3
* temp source
19000400 -1
19000401 297.113 297.114 297.116 310.928
19000402 297.654 297.656 297.657 310.928
19000403 297.666 297.667 297.669 310.928
19000404 297.653 297.655 297.656 310.928
19000405 297.682 297.683 297.684 310.928
19000406 297.977 297.978 297.979 310.928
127
19000407 297.754 297.755 297.757 310.928

19000408 298.05 298.051 298.052 310.928
19000501 900010000 0 101 1 0.7112 1
19000502 900020000 0 101 1 1.75108 2
19000503 900030000 0 101 1 1.1 3
19000504 900040000 0 101 1 0.8001 4
19000505 900050000 0 101 1 0.949325 5
19000506 900060000 0 101 1 0.7493 6
19000507 900070000 0 101 1 0.29528 7
19000508 900080000 0 101 1 1.0 8
19000601 -20 0 1000 1 0.7112 1
19000602 -20 0 1000 1 1.75108 2
19000603 -20 0 1000 1 1.1 3
19000604 -20 0 1000 1 0.8001 4
19000605 -20 0 1000 1 0.949325 5
19000606 -20 0 1000 1 0.7493 6
19000607 -20 0 1000 1 0.29528 7
19000608 -20 0 1000 1 1.0 8
19000701 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8
19000800 0
19000801 0.0 30.48 30.48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 8
*
.

Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Benjanmin R. Bristol for the degree of Master of Science in Nuclear Engineering

presented on June 11, 2015.

Title: Flat Plate Free Convective Heat Transfer

Oregon State University

Presented June 11, 2015

Major Professor, representing Nuclear Engineering

Head of the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics

Dean of the Graduate School

Benjanmin R. Bristol, Author

3.2.1 Data Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

1.1 Westinghouse IRIS PWR Design.[12] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2 NuScale Power Module.[12] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.3 Natural circulation in a pot of water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.4 MASLWR concept schematic.[19] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.5 MASLWR Facility Containment and Pool Vessels.[20] . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.6 MASLWR Facility Piping Diagram.[18] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.7 NIST Facility Piping Diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1.8 Diagram of the research process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.9 HTP T/C Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.10 HTP Temperatures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1.11 Diagram of Steady State Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.1 Free convection laminar boundary layer.[22] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.2 Plot of N u vs Ra for vertical free convection correlation.[14] . . . . . . . . . 25

2.4 INEEL MASLWR Concept RELAP5-3D Model.[19] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.5 IPR-R1 TRIGArReactor.[7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.6 IPR-R1 TRIGA Reactor RELAP5 MOD.3.3 Model.[7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.7 RELAP5-3D Wall Heat Transfer Model.[25] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.1 Figure of the MASLWR HPC & Pool with instrumentation.[19] . . . . . . . . 52

3.2 SNAP representation of the MASLWR RELAP5 model. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.1 SEC Test 3 Heat Transfer vs. Churchill Correlation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

4.2 SEC Test 3 HPC Ė vs Steam Inlet Ė. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

4.3 SEC Test 4 Heat Transfer vs. Churchill Correlation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4.4 SEC Test 4 HPC Q vs Steam Inlet Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4.5 CCT 6A Heat Transfer vs. Churchill Correlation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

4.6 CCT 6A HPC Ė vs Steam Inlet Ė. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

4.7 SEC Tests Nusselt Number vs. Churchill log scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

4.9 CCTs Nusselt Number vs. Churchill log scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4.10 CCTs Nusselt Number vs. Churchill with Error Bars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4.11 SEC Tests Data Fit Plot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4.12 CCT Data Fit Plot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4.13 SEC Test 3 Energy Balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

4.14 CCT6A Energy Balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4.15 SEC Test 3 Mass Balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4.16 CCT 6A Mass Balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4.17 SEC Test 3 HPC pressure vs RELAP Base Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

4.19 SEC Test 3 Pool heat transfer vs RELAP Base Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4.20 SEC Test 3 Lower HPC Temperature vs RELAP Base Case. . . . . . . . . . 91

4.21 SEC Test 3 Pool temperatures vs RELAP Base Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

4.22 SEC Test 3 HPC pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

4.23 SEC Test 3 Pool heat transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

4.24 SEC Test 3 Top pool temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

4.25 SEC Test 3 Lower HPC temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

4.26 HTP HTR Sensitivity (HPC Pressure). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

4.27 HTP HTR Sensitivity (Qpool ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

3.2 NuScale 2013 MASLWR Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.3 NuScale 2013 MASLWR Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.5 Data Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3.6 Containment geometry description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3.7 RELAP HPC Model Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

3.8 RELAP Cooling Pool Model Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3.9 RELAP Heat Transfer Plate Model Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

3.10 RELAP HPC and Pool vessel surface areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

3.11 RELAP Volume Control Flags [26] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70