In the event of a loss of integrity of the main coolant line, a large mass and energy release from the primary circuit to the containment is to be expected. The temporal evolution of such depressurization is mainly governed by the critical flow, whose correct prediction requires, in first place, a correct description of the different friction terms. Within this work, selected friction models of the CESAR module of the Accident Source Term Evaluation Code (ASTEC) V2.1 integral code are validated against data from the Moby Dick test facility. Simulations are launched using two different numerical schemes: on the one hand, the classical five equation (drift flux) approach, with one momentum conservation equation for an average fluid plus one algebraic equation on the drift between the gas and the liquid; on the other hand, the recently implemented six equation approach, where two differential equations are used to obtain the phase velocities. The main findings are listed hereafter: The use of five equations provides an adequate description of the pressure loss as long as the mass fluxes remain below 1.24 kg/cm2 s and the gas mass fractions below 5.93 × 10 − 4. Beyond those conditions, the hypotheses of the drift flux model are exceeded and the use of an additional momentum equation is required. The use of an additional momentum equation leads to a better agreement with the experimental data for a wider range of mass fluxes and gas mass fractions. However, the qualitative prediction for high gas mass fractions still shows some deviations due to the decrease of the regular friction term at the end of the test section.

References

References
1.
Chatelard
,
P.
,
Belon
,
S.
,
Bosland
,
L.
,
Carénini
,
L.
,
Coindreau
,
O.
,
Cousin
,
F.
,
Marchetto
,
C.
,
Nowack
,
H.
,
Piar
,
L.
, and
Chailan
,
L.
,
2016
, “
Main Modelling Features of the ASTEC V2.1 Major Version
,”
Ann. Nucl. Energy
,
93
, pp.
83
93
.
2.
Piar
,
L.
,
2015
, “
ASTEC V2.1: CESAR Physical and Numerical Modelling
,” IRSN, Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, France, Technical Report No. PSN-RES/SAG/2015-00332.
3.
Bestion
,
D.
,
1990
, “
The Physical Closure Laws in the CATHARE Code
,”
Nucl. Eng. Des.
,
124
(
3
), pp.
229
245
.
4.
Glantz
,
T.
,
Taurines
,
T.
,
De Luze
,
O.
,
Belon
,
S.
,
Guillard
,
G.
, and
Jacq
,
F.
,
2018
, “
DRACCAR: A Multi-Physics Code for Computational Analysis of Multi-Rod Ballooning, Coolability and Fuel Relocation During LOCA Transients Part One: General Modeling Description
,”
Nucl. Eng. Des.
,
339
, pp.
269
285
.
5.
Gómez-García-Toraño
,
I.
,
Laborde
,
L.
, and
Zambaux
,
J.-A.
,
2018
, “
Overview of the CESAR Thermalhydraulic Module of ASTEC V2.1 and Selected Validation Studies
,”
18th International Youth Nuclear Congress (IYNCWiN18)
,
Bariloche, Argentina
,
Mar. 11–17
, pp.
170
173
.
6.
Jeandey
,
C.
, and
Barriére
,
G.
,
1979
, “
Partie 1: Etude Éxperimentale D'écoulements Eau-air à grande Vitesse
,” CEA, Grenoble, France, Technical Report No. TT/599.
7.
Reocreux
,
N.
,
1974
, “
Contribution a L'étude Des Débits Critiques en Écoulement Diphasique Eau-Vapeaur
,”
Ph.D. thesis
, Université Scientifique et Médicale de Grenoble, Grenoble, France.
8.
Wallis
,
G.
,
1969
,
One-Dimensional Two Phase Flow
,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York
.
9.
Bestion
,
D.
,
2008
, “
System Code Models and Capabilities
,”
THICKET 2008 – Session III
,
Pisa, Italy
,
May 5–9
, pp.
81
106
.
10.
Spindler
,
B.
,
1988
, “
Reconstitution D'essais Moby Dick Avec le Code TRAC-PF1/MOD1 Version 14.3
,” CEA, Grenoble, France, Technical Report No. SETH/LEML/88-131.
11.
Serre
,
G.
,
Thomas
,
P.
, and
Guiot
,
I.
,
2000
, “
Qualification of CATHARE2 V1.5 qR6 on Cise, Collier-Hewitt and Moby Dick Tests
,” CEA, Grenoble, France, Technical Report No. SMTH/LMDS/EM/99-034.
You do not currently have access to this content.