4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Revisiting large break LOCA with the CATHARE-3 three-field model

期刊

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
卷 241, 期 11, 页码 4487-4496

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.04.019

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some aspects of large break LOCA analysis (steam binding, oscillatory reflooding, top-down reflooding) are expected to be improved in advanced system codes from more detailed description of flows by adding a third field for droplets. The future system code CATHARE-3 is under development by CEA and supported by EDF, AREVA-NP and IRSN in the frame of the NEPTUNE project and this paper shows some preliminary results obtained in reflooding conditions. A three-field model has been implemented, including vapor, continuous liquid and liquid droplet fields. This model features a set of nine equations of mass, momentum and energy balance. Such a model allows a more detailed description of the droplet transportation from core to steam generator, while countercurrent flow of continuous liquid is allowed. Code assessment against reflooding experiments in a rod bundle is presented, using 1D meshing of the bundle. Comparisons of CATHARE-3 simulations against data series from PERICLES and RBHT full scale experiments show satisfactory results. Quench front motions are well predicted, as well as clad temperatures in most of the tested runs. The BETHSY 6.7C Integral Effect Test simulating the gravity driven reflooding process in a scaled PWR circuit is then compared to CATHARE-3 simulation. The three-field model is applied in several parts of the circuit: core, upper plenum, hot leg and steam generator, represented by either 1D or 3D modules, while the classic six-equation model is used in the other parts of the loop. An analysis of these first results is presented and future work is defined for improving the droplet behavior simulation in both the upper plenum and the hot legs. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据