T velocity profil Velocity profile...α1 dT/dy wall δW stationary dependence of temperature...
Transcript of T velocity profil Velocity profile...α1 dT/dy wall δW stationary dependence of temperature...
velocity profil
laminar layer
turbulent layer
turbulent sublayer
y
TF1
α1dT/dy
wallδW
stationarydependence of temperature
instationarydependence of temperature
α2TF2
velocity profil
laminar layer
turbulent layer
turbulent sublayer
y
TF1
α1dT/dy
wallδW
stationarydependence of temperature
instationarydependence of temperature
α2TF2
TF,i+5
TF,i+3
TF,i+4
TF,i
TF,i+1
TF,i+2y
grid lines
grid points
temperatureboundary layer
points insidethe boundarylayer
dTdy W
TF∞
TF,i+5
TF,i+3
TF,i+4
TF,i
TF,i+1
TF,i+2y
grid lines
grid points
temperatureboundary layer
points insidethe boundarylayer
dTdy W
TF∞
Figure 15: CFD calculation, fluid/wall-transition modelling parameter
Velocity profile
Temperature profile
Figure 16: CFD calculations by different partners
T = 0.13 s
T = 2.32 s
T = 2.47 s
0
CEATRIO-U code
•K
VTTfluent
SPGfluent
FANP-Dfluent
DN 50:50
∅ 50 mm
∅ 50 mm
l3
l1
l1/2 main flowsecondary flow
Process the plant files
Test signal ranges
Calculate virtual signals
Integrate modules and fatigue assessment
Man-machine interface
Figure 17: Virtual sensors, software application
WP2
WP4WP1
WP5
VTTFANP-
FIWM
FNSMPA
JRC
FANP-D
CEA
TECN
SPG
Load
determination
Damage measurement
Figure 18: WP 3 partner roles
Stress
Crack init.
Crack prop.
WP 3
SPG
Tests
VTT
Crack prop. Crack prop. Crack prop.
WP 4 Verification test: EDF, JRC, VTT
Stress
Crack init.
Crack prop.
Crack init.
Stress
Crack init.
Stress Stress
Crack init.
WP 2.2: SPG experiments 1:1 T and 4:1 T CEA experiments
Numerical calculationsstarting with benchmark test
FANP CEA
Figure 19: Integrity evaluation (“forward” and “backward” approach)
“Fortum train”
VTT, FNS, TEC
VTT-CFD
Stress calculation
Temperature fields
Stress/fatigue assessment
Crack initiation
Crack propagation
Figure 20: “Fortum train” workflow, VTT, FNS, TEC
WP 3.1
WP 3.1
WP 2.3
WP 3.1
WP 3.1
Thermal shock experiment
WP 3.2
SteamgeneratorMain gate
valve
Topressuriser
Main circulationpump
Main gatevalve
HOT LEG
Reactor
Steamgenerator
COLD LEG
Topressuriser
Purification line nozzle
Fortum train: Mock-up
Figure 21: “Fortum train”, thermal shock experiment mock-up
Cold jet penetrating into the primary pipe
Steep oscillating temperature gradient in the round-off region of the T joint
300 ºC272244
188
21
16013210476
4820
HOT FLOW
CO
LD F
LOW
Figure 22: VTT, CFD analysis on pipe/nozzle connection
FEA: The full model (CFD + pressure)
218 880 elements241 863 nodes725 589 variables
8-node linear brick elements
• overpressure 122.6 bar• main pipe temperature 300 oC• cold-leg temperature 20 oC• turbulent cycle 50 Hz
Materialpropertiestemperaturedependant
Figure 23: “Fortum train”, FE model and loads
Elastic strain in global 1 direction
Max. strain = 0.18 % Min. strain = 0.08 %
Figure 24: “Fortum train”, stress analysis, elastic strains
Primary circuit pipe
Purification line nozzle
Figure 25: “Fortum train”, thermal shock experiment
First cracks occurred after more than 10 000 load cyclesFinal condition: crack length: 34.5 mm (estimated depth: 15 mm)
Figure 26: “Fortum train”, thermal shock experiment, crack monitoring
Figure 27: “FANP-D/F train” and “CEA train” workflow
“FANP-D/F train”
FANP-D: CFD calculation based on
CEA Fatherino II test data:
geometry, fluid mass flow
Time history of fluid temperatureTemperature fields
Numerical approach
Data transfer to FANP-FStress calculation
CEA: experiment
CEA: CFD calculation using TRIO-U code
CEA: measurement
CEAStress calculation
CEA Crack initiation/propagation
Temperature fields
“CEA train”
Fatherino II
DN 50:50
Data transfer to FANP-DCrack propagation
DN 50:50
Figure 28: “SPG/TEC/FHG train” workflow
“SPG/FHG/TEC train”
SPG – experiments
Measurement of fluid temperature
Measurement of outside temperature
Determination of heat-transfer coefficient
Stress calculation
DN 80:20
Glass
TEC
FHG
Crack initiation
Crack propagation
DN 50:50
Steel
DN 100:100
A B
Electrical conductivity measurements(conductivity analogous to temperature)
Data transfer to
Figure 29: TEC, stress/crack analysis based on SPG Data
Results of experiments carried out by Siempelkamp
Additional data (material properties etc.) Finite element calculations
Temperature results over time
Stress results over time
Characterisation of cyclic stresses
Rain-flow counting method
Determination of crack initiation and crack
propagation
S-N curve
Fatigue CGR
Figure 30: TEC, experimental versus analytical results
1 mm. Model
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
t (s)
Out
side
wal
l tem
pera
ture
(ºC
)Ansys results
F9 temperature gauge, 6 o'clock
Configuration analysed by FEM
3.9 kg/s
0.015 kg/s
∆Tmain leak ≅ 90 K
• Austenitic steel piping• Wall thickness
– experiments: 1 mm– calculations: 10 mm
This combination turned out to be the most damaging one
Figure 31: TEC, relevant T configuration analysed by FE analysis
ASME Code, Section III, Appendix I: Design fatigue curve for austenitic steels
101.3
81.170.9
60.850.7
40.530.4
20.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09 1E+10 1E+11
Number of cycles, N
S a (M
Pa)
Sa (MPa)
32 EFPY; T16, 6 o'clockσax. = σcirc. (inner surface)
Fatigue analysis
046.0107.3107.1
7
6
=⋅⋅
=geFactorFatigueUsa
Figure 32: TEC; fatigue analysis of through-wall stresses; α experiment = 2000 W/(m²K)
Fatigue analysis
Figure 33: TEC; fatigue analysis of through-wall stresses; α Colburn = 16 700 W/(m²K)
ASME Code, Section III, Appendix I: Design fatigue curve for austenitic steels
30.6
61.2
91.8
122.4
153.0
183.6
214.2
244.8
275.4
306.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09 1E+10 1E+11
Number of cycles, N
S a (M
Pa)
Sa (MPa)
32 EFPY; T10, 6 o'clock σax. = σcirc. (inner surface)h=16700 W/m^2*ºC
Temperature and stress for the SPG geometry
Figure 34: FHG, 3D-FE model for stress analysis and crack initiation/propagation
Figure 35: FHG, elastic-plastic analysis
Stress variation: elastic-plastic analysis
∆T = 250 °C
Da = 59 mm, t = 10 mm
α = 5 kW/(m2K), f = 0.1 Hz
High power density Hea ting m odulus
Model
High power density Heating modu lus
A lternate rotation
Ecrans
Hea tin g For me an
s tabi lisatio n
Hig h p owe r d e n sity H ea tin g
H ig h po we r d en sit y He a ting
A B
Hig h po we r d e nsit y He a tin g
H ig h po we r d e nsit y He a tin g
A B
INTHERPOL descrip tion EDF: WP4 test mock-up
Figure 36: EDF-INTHERPOL “turning cylinder” test
First cracks after 124 000 cycles
Weld
Figure 37: EDF, long-term damage test results
Figure 38: JRC test workflow, JRC, JSI, MPA, FHG
JRC
JRC test
316L model pipe components
Stress/fatigue
Crack initiation
Crack growth
JSI
Crazing
Crack initiation
MPA
Stress
Crack initiation
Crack propagation
FHG
Crack initiation
Crack propagation
Advanced material law WP
3.1
, 3.2
JRC thermal shock experiment (pipe specimen)
Instrumented specimenSpecimen geometry
Material: A316L austenitic steel
48 mm
14 mm20 mm
224 mm
F (axial load)
Tpipe
Tfluid
∆T = Tpipe-Tfluid
∆T = 380 KFirst cracks after 20 000 load cycles
Figure 39: JRC, long-term damage tests
Figure 40: JSI, micro-structure modeling, analysis of the JRC experiment
Figure 41: WP 4.2 Compilation of thermal load tests and additional MPA specimen experiment
Fortum mock-up test x
0,1
1,0
1,E+02 1,E+03 1,E+04 1,E+05 1,E+06N f(25)
e a
%ASME SS best estimate
ASME SS Design
Experimental curveLocal strain by FEA
Crack opening "strain"
Specimen thermal load
Fatigue assessment
MPAtests
HUTsmall
specimenFull-scalemock-up
Nocrack
teststopped
Crackdetected
Operational loadsby CFD & FEA
Figure 42: VTT, fatigue assessment according to experimental and analytic results
ASME designcurve
Mean curve
Figure 43: Overall integrity concept for safety-relevant structures in NPPs
Basic component/system quality by design and manufacturing
Evaluation of current component/system qualitystatus according to current quality requirements
Proactive surveillance/registration/recording of root causes of potential operational degradation mechanisms
• actual mechanical/thermal loads
Integrity evaluation using actual operational loading input
• e.g. stress analysis, fatigue analysis, fracture mechanics
Stipulating measures to monitor consequencesof operational degradation mechanisms
• stress/fatigue-relevant locations, NDE methods, NDE intervals
Reactive surveillance of consequences of potential operational degradation mechanisms
• e.g. non-destructive examinations, loose-part monitoring, destructive examinations of replaced parts
Proa
ctiv
e co
nsid
erat
ion
of re
leva
nt c
hang
es in
the
“sta
te o
f the
art
”
OK Evaluationresults
Additional measures
THERFAT
„Qua
lity
byfa
bric
atio
n &
des
ign“
„Spe
cifie
d or
mon
itore
dlo
adin
gs“
„Inte
grity
eva
luat
ion“
(stre
ss/fa
tigue
ana
lyse
s)
„Stip
ulat
ion
of a
ppro
pria
tesu
rvei
llanc
e m
easu
res“
„Red
unda
nt s
urve
illanc
eof
pot
entia
l deg
rada
tion
mec
hani
sms“
„Design quality“ „Redundant quality assurance“„Quality assurance during plant lifetime“
Operational degradation mechanisms
Integrity requirements:high, medium, low
Integrity building
Figure 44: Integrity concept: the “integrity building”