| ORNL-TM-4122 DEVELOPMENT OF A VENTURI TYPE BUBBLE GENERATOR FOR USE IN THE MOLTEN-SALT REACTOR XENON REMOVAL SYSTEM C. H. Gabbard MASTER OPERATED BY UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION = FOR THE U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government., Neither the United States nor the United States Atomic Energy Commission, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights, ORNL-TM-4122 Contract No. W-Th0S5-eng-26 Reactor Division DEVELOPMENT OF A VENTURI TYPE BUBBLE GENERATOR FOR USE IN THE MOLTEN-SALT REACTOR XENON REMOVAL SYSTEM C. H. Gabbard Molten-Salt Reactor Program NOTICE NOTICE ::tllfr:ealf;t wiznti?sa;f; rrxr-ljatmnfloffa preliminary This report was prepared as an account of . work at the originatinp i:stallafioflali i 011; 1n_tfrna1 1se sponsored by the United States Government, Neither vision or correc%ion and theré-f r]sdsu 1e°tto re- the United States nor the United States Atomic Energy sent a final report. It is passf;é)tg thoes noi ;‘Epre- Commission, nor any of their employees, nor any of confidence and should not be a-bstract?a;?)i}t? e[:;lin their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, disclosed without the a, roval‘ f th igri l:? r makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any installation or DTI Extpps' 5 k e inating legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com- ension, Oak Ridge. pleteness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. December 1972 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Cak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 operated by UNION CARRIDE CORPORATION . for the ASTE R U.S, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION SYSTOTRUTION OF THIS DOCUNENT IS LH&H&E% it Y Snatenpk 15 sna MEG Guniraciors | iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT I. INTRODUCTION ITI. BUBBLE GENERATOR DESIGN IIT. OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS AND TEST RESULTS IIT.~-1. Bubble Size IIT.-2. Gas Injection Pressure Characteristics IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NOMENCLATURE REFERENCES APPENDIX 14 27 28 29 30 31 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure lo' 11. 12. LIST OF FIGURES Bubble Generator Design Configurations which were Given Reduced Scale Evaluation Tests Bubble Generator Design for the Gas Systems Technology Facility Bubble Size Produced by 2.1 in., Threoat Diameter Bubble Generator as a Function of Liquid Flow Rate Bubble Size Produced by GSTF Bubble Generator as a Function of Surface Tension Surface Tension as a Function of Sodium Oleate Concentration for Laboratory Batch Samples and for Loop Samples Bubble Size Correlation for GSTF Design Bubble Generator Simplified Flow Diagram of the Gas Systems Technology Facility Gas Injection Pressure and Overall Pressure Drop of Prototype Bubble Generator as a Function of Gas Flow Reate Geometry of Bubble Generator Used in Analysis of Gas Injection Pressure and Overall Head Loss Pressure Drop of Gas Feed Passages as a Function of Gas Flow Reate Pressure Drop Across the Gas Plume Interface as a Function of Throat Void Fraction Correlation of Plume AH (H6) to Throat Liguid Velocity and Throat Void Fraction 10 11 16 16 17 19 22 2k 25 DEVELOPMENT OF A VENTURI TYPE BUEBLE GENERATOR FOR USE IN THE MCLTEN-SALT REACTOR XENCN REMOVAL SYSTEM C. H. Gabbard ABSTRACT A venturi type bubble generator was developed for appli- cation in the xenon removal system proposed for a molten-salt _breeder reactor. Gas injected into the high velocity liquid ‘at the“venturi throst is formed into bubbles by the fluid turbulence in the diffuser cone. Tests were conducted using aqueous solutions tc determine the various pressure drops of the bubble generator as a function of liquid and gas flow rates and to determine the bubble diameter produced. Empirical relaticnsktips were developed which could be used in combination with the more conventional fluid flow equations to predict the overell head loss and the gas injection pres- sure of the bubble generator. A dimensionless correlation for predicting the tubble diameter was developed for bubble generators of similsr geometry. Keywords: Bubble Generator, Bubbles, Bubble Size, Gas Injection, Fused Salts, MSBE, MSBR, Performance, Xenon, Fluid Plow. o — I, INTRODUCTION In a nuclear reactor operating in the thermal energy range, the con- tinuous removal of the geseous fission product poison xenon-135 is neces- sary to obtain a breeding ratio greater than 1.0. In a molten-salt breeder reactor (MSBR), the xenon-135 circulates in solution with the molten flucride fuel salt. A proposed method of removing this xenon is to continuously inject helium bubbles into the salt stream to a gas volume fraction of 0.2 to 1.0 percent at the reactor core midplane. The xenon-135 would transfer by turbulent diffusion and would be stripped from the salt when the bubbles were removed. Calculations indicate that, even with this low gas volume fraction, adequate xenon-135 removal would be cbtained by stripping the bubbles from a bypass stream which is about 10 percent of the main salt flow. Little advantage would be gained by stripping larger flows. A more complete discussion of xenon removal from a MSBR by this method is presented in Reference (1). This report describes the design, development, and operating char~ acteristics of the bubble generator proposed for use in a 150 MW(t) molten-salt breeder experiment (MSBE).(z) A full scale Plexiglas model of this bubble generator was stfiaied in a test facility using water, glycerin-water mixtures, and CaCl2 aqueous solutions. A prototype model of Hastelloy "N" will be further evaluated with molten salt as part of the test program of the Gas System Technology Facility (GSTF).(B) ITI. BUBBLE GENERATOR DESIGN The uwltimate goal of the development program was to obtain informa- tion which could be used to design a full scale bubble generator which could be tested in the GSTF using molten salt., Several design criteria that have evclved during the development of the bubble generator are listed in Table I. Devices requiring auxiliary power or having moving parts were considered originally but were rejected as being unnecessarily complex for a high-temperature molten-salt system. Fluid powered devices basically resembling flow venturi appeared to satisfy the criteria and three configurations were selected for continued development. The dif- ferent configurations, shown in Figure 1, are variations in the method of forming the high velocity throat region. Helium injected into the high velocity salt stream at the throat forms small bubbles as a result cf the fluid turbulence in the diffuser section. Reduced scale tests were performed on these three configurations and each performed satisfactorily. Initial testing of the "teardrop" design indicated that the resulting bubble size was about one-fourth of the salt flow gap over the range of liquid flows tested.(u) Consequently, a flow passage of 0,080 in. would be required to produce 0.020 in. diameter bubbles. The "multivane' design was an extension of this principle to provide a more uniform bubble distributicon over larger pipe sizes and to avoid the large diameter that would have been required in a full scale teardrop design with a 0.080 in. annulus. Tests of a single vane prototype revealed a flow oscillation around the trailing edge of the vane. In addition, the gas distribution along the width of the vane and btetween the flow passages on either side of the vane was difficult to control. Reduced scale tests on the "venturi" design were performed using 3/k in. and 1 1/2 in. pipe size commercial jet pumps that were modified to more Table I Bubble Generator Criteria The bubble generator shculd be sized for application in the MSBE. Nominal salt flow rate = 500 gpm, Gas flow rate = ¢ - 0,65 scfin helium. The generated bubble diameter should be 0.020 in. or less. The gas bubbles should be uniformly dispersed in the flowing salt stream. The bubble generator should be simple, reliable, and maintenance-~-free. The bubble generator should operate from pressure drop inherent in the overall system design and should not require a gas com- pressure for the injection cof gas. ORNL-DWG 71-10220 GAS FEED-EH VANES | H O RECTANGULAR . CROSS SECTION —g[ PN FEEDE;}} e FLow) | MULTIVANE VENTURI " TEAR DROP FIGURE 1 BUBBLE GENERATOR DESIGN CONFIGURATIONS WHICH WERE GIVEN REDUCED SCALE EVALUATION TESTS closely provide a venturi geometry. These tests showed that well dis- tributed bubbles of abcut the desired size could be produced. Because of its simplicity and ability to meet the other requirements, the venturi design was selected for full scale development. Figure 2 shows the final design chosen for further testing with molten salts at high tem- perature in the GSTF, This design is a modified venturi with the 2.10 in. diameter throat stepped to 2.18 in. at the gas feed holes. The gas is injected through 18 - 1/8 in. diameter radial holes into the high velocity region at the venturi throat. An annular gas cavity forms between the wall of the bubble generator and the flowing liquid in the 2.18 in. diameter cylindrical mixing chamber. The length of this cavity depends on the gas flow rate, and at full gas flow the cavity extends into the 15° diffuser section. The actual bubble formation occurs in the fluid turbulence in the entry of the diffuser cone. ITI. OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS AND TEST RESULTS A full scale model of the proposed bubble generator with a 2.1 in. diameter throat and with 4 in. diameter inlet and outlet piping connec- tions was fabricated of Plexiglas for complete testing and evaluation, Tests on this bubble generator were conducted to determine the bubble size produced, various pressure drops, and general operating characteris- tics. The tests were run with demineralized water, L41.5 wt percent glycerin in water, and 31 wt percent CaCl,. agueous solution. The glycerin- 2 water mixture and the Ca012 solutipn have the same kinematic viscosity as fuel §alt and provided dynamic similarity. Tests were also conducted with up to about 200 ppm n-butyl alcochol or sodium oleate added to demineralized water, The n-butyl alcohol, a surfactant; stabilized small bubbles and inhibited coalescence but had little effect on the density, viscosity, or surface tension of the bulk fluid. The sodium cleate, also a surfactant, decreased the surface tension by about a factor of two and inhibited bub- ble coalescence, but did not alter the density or viscosity of the bulk fluid. ORNL-DWG 72-9609 _-GAS INJECTION LINE " Y~in, OD x 0072-1in. WALL TUBING 18 Y-in-diam GAS INJECTION HOLES —._ 5047 in. diam ANNULAR GAS D|STR|BUT|ON/‘/ : | CHANNEL 3/4 in. x 5/8 in, — n - 4'%g in— I - — 9% in. — FIGURE 2 BUBBLE GENERATOR DESIGN FOR THE GAS SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY FACILITY I1IT.,-1. Bubble Size I1T1.-1.1 Test Condition In the proposed xenon removal system, helium bubbles are to be injected and removed in a 10 percent bypass loop. The bubbles on the average are expected to circulate several times around the primary cir- cuit of the reactor before being processed in the side stream. During this circulation, the bubbles will be affected by solution and dissclution as they pass through different regions of pressure and temperature, and by breakup and ccalescence as they pass through high and low shear regions (e.g., the pump). Consequently, the circulating bubble size is likely to be controlled by the system dynamics rather than by the bubble generator itself. However the size generation characteristics of the bubble gen- erator should be of general interest for other systems and for possible unanticipated modes of operation, such as full flow gas injection and removal, In addition, the size produced may serve as an "initializing" condition for monitoring changes as the bubbles pass through the system. Consequently, some analysis and some limited tests were made to obtain an indication of the bubble size produced by the bubble generator as it is affected by flow and fluid properties. Flow rate was varied from 200 gpm to 550 gpm and surface tension was varied from 72 dynes/cm to 30 dynes/em by adding different amounts of sodium oleate. An antifcaming agent, G.E. Silicone Emulsion AF-T2, was also added at concentrations of 10 percent of the sodium oleate. III1.-1.2 DBubble Size Measurements The bubble size distributions produced by the bubble generator were determined by taking still photographs at the discharge of the diffuser cone. A conventional studio camera with a 12 in., focal length lens was used to take the photographs on 4x5 Polaroid film. A strobe light with a 1/30,000 second duration was used to "stop" the bubble motion and to pro- vide back lighting. The photographs, which were about actual size, were enlarged to obtain a total magnification of 8. Enlargements to greater magnification resulted in a loss of resolution. The bubble size distributions for each condition were determined by scaling bubble sizes directly from the enlargements. The diameters were measured by comparison with a plastic template having drilled holes ranging from 1/32 to 3/4 in. in increments of 1/32 in. A volume averaged bubble diameter as defined below was cal- culated for each distribution: 1/3 L(n, 4, where: n. is the number of bubbles of a given diameter, di,per unit area of the photograph. The resolution of the photographs was adequate to measure bubble diameters in the 0.008 in. range (1/16 in. on the enlargement), but no bubbles could be identified in the 0.004 in. diameter range. The results of these tests are shown on Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows the volume average bubble diameter produced by two bubble generator designs plotted as a function of liquid flow rate at several values of surface tension. The data are compared with a slcpe of -0.8 power dependence discussed in greater detail later in this report. There was a high degree of scatter in some of the sets of data at constant surface tension. Consequently, only selected data sets having low scatter are shown on fihe plot. Although there were differences in the slope of the various lines, the data tend to support a -0.8 power dependence. Similar data taken previously alsc support a -0.8 power, and none of the data have suggested a slope significantly different from -0.8. Figure L is a plot of the bubble diameter as a function of surface tension at three flow rates. The measured surface tension data from locp samples taken during the course of this experiment were scattered and did not agree with the data from previous laboratory scale samples which were in general agreement with the sodium cleate supplier's litera- ture. The values of surface tension used in Figure L were obtained from the calculated concentrations in the test loop and the surface tension vs concentration data from the laboratory semples as shown on Figure 5. The measured surface tension data from the loop samples are also shown on Figure 5. The discrepancy between these is not fully understocd. However, the actual circulating concentration of sodium cleate could change BUBBLE DIAMETER , VOLUME AVERAGED (in.) ORNL-DWG 73—1541 GSTF STEPPED BORE DESIGN DEMINERALIZED WATER 10 ppm SODIUM OLEATE O ® A 20 ppm SODIUM OLEATE A 75 ppm SODIUM OLEATE SMOOTH BORE DESIGN V DEMINERALIZED WATER v 0.050 | o v > @1+— 0 N v 0.020 \g . TN v 0.010 > FLOW RATE (gpm) FIGURE 3 BUBBLE SIZE PRODUCED BY 2.1 IN. THROAT DIAMETER BUBBLE GENERATOR AS A FUNCTION OF LIQUID FLOW RATE BUBBLE DIAMETER, VOLUME AVERAGED (in.) 0.060 0.050 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.009 ORNL—DWG 731542 A LIQUID FLOWRATE = 200 gpm @ LiQUID FLOWRATE = 350 gpm O LIQUID FLOWRATE = 500 gpm L’ / ° / : | @ (d,) =c (0/p)0-B A @ O ei O A A ® O ) A A O ® O O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 SURFACE TENSION {dynes/cm) FIGURE 4 BUBBLE SIZE PRODUCED BY GSTF BUBBLE GENERATOR AS A FUNCTION OF SURFACE TENSION 100 0T SURFACE TENSION (dynes/cm) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 ORNL—-DWG 73-1539 ® LABORATORY SAMPLES O O LOOPSAMPLES o . \ .\ 5 o O ° L © q -\. \\ e ———— \’ 20 | 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 CONCENTRATION OF SODIUM OLEATE (ppm) FIGURE 5 SURFACE TENSION AS A FUNCTION OF SODIUM OLEATE CONCENTRATION FOR LABORATORY BATCH SAMPLES AND FOR LOOP SAMPLES 1T 12 during a given test run because the sodium oleate, being a surfactant, would be stripped from the circulating loop along with the bubbles. The concentration in the loop samples could then be less than the calculated average concentraticn for the entire loop depending on the time the samples were taken. The bubble photographs were taken immediately after gas flow was started following -an hour's circulastion without gas flow. This proce- dure should have provided a concentration of sodium cleate essentially equal to the.calculated average 8t the time the photographs were taken. The bubble diameter data of Figure 4 are too scattered to accurately determine the actual power dependence. However, the data tend to support a value cf 0.6 as predicted by the theoretical considerations discussed below and as illustrated on Figure L. IIT.-1.3 Analysis of Bubble Size Data The bubbles produced by the bubble generator are apparently formed in the entrance region of the conical diffuser as a result of fluid tur- bulence. The following equation has been proposed to predict the size of gas bubbles produced by fluid turbulence. - 2 e, 3/5 /5 1{ o €g (5) to calculate droplet diameters produced Equation (1) was used by Hinze by emulsification of one ligquid in another in an isotropic-turbulent flow field. Assuming turbulent flow in a conduit with conditions such that the friction factor would be constant, the power dissipation per (6) TR e =k Re (2) 2 2 L * p D2 Ea unit volume (e) can be expressed as: Substituting this relationship for the power dissipation, Equation (1) gives: gp D, g "1V, D5 o 2 —2 ¢ 2 (3) 2 2 u H 13 The bubble size data presented in Figures 3 and 4 generally confirm a 3/5 power dependence for the surface tension term, but indicate an expon- ent of -0.8 for the Reynolds Number term rather than -1.2 as indicated by Equation (3). This would tend to confirm the form of Equation (1), but suggests a relation different from Equation (2) for the power dissipation rate in the bubble generation region of our device. Equation (3) might apply when power is added to the fluid continuously as in an agitated tank or in pipeline flow where the friction losses represent a continuous energy dissipation within the fluid. In the present bubble generator, the fluid may receive an "energy impulse' as some of the kinetic energy of the high velocity fluid in the thrcat is converted to fluid turbulence in the dif- fuser, and the above equations may not apply specifically for this mechan- ism., An alternate expression for the power dissipation rate based on the wall shear stress has been proposed by Kress* for the GSTF bubble genera- tor design. Using his prcpesed relation for power dissipation, Equaticn (1) gives the following relationship predicting a 3/5 power dependence cn surface tension and a -4/5 power dependence on the Reynoclds number as observed. 3/5 -L/5 gp D 1/3 68/3 g V, D. p g_}z C 2 C t 72 (L) D, L/3 2/3 Ue Ug Ue At the present time, there are insufficient data to verify Equation (L) because only the liquid velocity and liquid surface tension have been varied. Therefore, we have elected to empirically correlate the data using the dimensionless groups that appear in Equation (3). These same dimensionless groups have been obtained independently by dimensionsal analysis. The recommended form of the equation for the GSTY bubble generator is then: - D, 8J3/5 v ol _ 272 <%}-—KD2 5 J " (5) =2 H where K = L.54 x 10 ~. *Personal communication, T. Kress to C. H. Gabbard, Dec. 4, 1972. 1k The comparison of this correlation with the data is shown in Figure 6. Several data points which were not used in determining the wvalue of K are - indicated on the plot. These were the points on Figure L4 that did not fall on the lines representing the 3/5 power of surface tension. Based on this correlation, the bubble diameter produced by the GSTF bubble generator operating with fuel salt flowing at 500 gpm should be about 0.01, The value of "K" given above is believed applicable only to bubble generators that are geometrically similar to the GSTF design. This is shown by the data on Figure 3 for the smooth bore design which had the same throat diameter, but had a 7° diffuser cone instead of the 15° cone in the GSTF design. A larger value of "K" would be required for the smooth bore design. I1TI.-2. Gas Injection Pressure Characteristics To appreciate the importance of the gas injection pressure, anlunder— standing is needed of the relationship of the bubble generator to other portions of a reactor system. Figure 7 is a simplified flow diagram of the GSTF which is representative of a reactor system in regard to the oper- ation of the bubble generator. The gas injected into the fecllowing salt at the bubble generator is removed by the bubble separator and is recycled back to the bubble generator via the bulk salt separator, the drain tank, and the gas holdup tank. The gas holdup tank including the throttle valves on either end simulates the delay time and flow restriction of a L8-hr charcecal trap which in a reactor system, would allow radioactive decay of the Xe-135 concentration to an acceptable level prior to reinjection of the helium sweep gas back into the salt system. If the pressure required to inject the gas into the bubble generator were sufficlently below the pump tank (or drain tank) pressure to provide the pressure drops for the 48-hr charcoal bed and for the gas flow control valve, a compressor for highly radiocactive gas would not be required. This concept has been shown to be feasible and the necessary design features have been incorporated into the final GSTF bubble generator and system designs for continued evaluation with hot fuel salt. The measured pressure differences vs gas flow rate of the final GSTF prototype bubble generator are shown in Figure 8 for a liquid flow rate of 500 gpm. These pressure differences are expressed as zero-void liquid head GSTF BUBBLE GENERATOR «d, (in.) 0.050 0.040 _Cl < ) o 0.020 0.010 ORNL—-DWG 73—1546 LIQUID FLOW RATE A =200gpm A =350 gpm @ - 50(1 gpm | 0.020 O DATA POINT EXCLUDED FROM / CALCULATION OF K A | ! — 0015 3/5 1-4/5 =4.54x10-202[‘_’_"f_2_9£ [VD?p u? H J N I | 2 A A —] 0010 - - o . M ~ o ® LA & |Oo oo ® o ,F(r)r !L ——3 0.005 L PREDICTED OPERATING POINT MSR FUEL SALT AT 500 gpm | | . 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.35 0.40 BUBBLE SIZE CORRELATION FOR GSTF DESIGN BUBBLE GENERATOR [0 PD2 90]3/5 [V Do p u2 M ] ~4/5 FIGURE 6 qT ORNL.— DWG 71-13437R2 STACK BLOWER SAMPLER INSTRUMENT N PENETRATIONS f ENCLOSURE PORTS SALT PUMP LANCE STATION fl H”/] GAS FLOW SALT (, ATOR MONITORING | __BULK SALT SEPARA FLOW STATION e MEASURING TTT] £ VENTURI FUTURE |5 f EXPERIMENTS \ GAS-SALT MIXTURE T\‘l LOAD ORIFICE T TIT : BUBBLE 1 EESEEETOR/////P SEPARATOR SAMPLER | e—p4— HELIUM SUPPLY Oik“——GAS FLOW CONTROL VALVE 48- HOUR GAS HOLD- i HELIUM EXHAUST TO STACK UP TANK GAS FLOW FIGURE 7 SIMPLIFIED FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE GAS SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY FACILITY 9T 17 ORNL—-DWG 73-1545 12 10 O Od)o// 8 0 6 Qfif:w O DISCHARGE TO INLET 0 52— BUBBLE GENERATOR DISCHARGE —16 / DISCHARGE TO GAS —-18 — INJECTION LINE LIQUID HEAD DIFFERENCE (ft of liquid) ~22 /00 / 00 CALCULATED —24 & O MEASURED 26 £ o 0 1 2 3 4 5 GAS FLOW RATE {cfm at throat conditions) FIGURE 8 GAS INJECTION PRESSURE AND OVERALL PRESSURE DROP OF PROTOTYPE BUBBLE GENERATOR AS A FUNCTION OF GAS FLOW RATE . 18 and are referenced to the bubble generator discharge because, in the pro- posed piping system, this pressure is more closely related to the system reference pressure in the pump tank gas space. The increase in gas injec- tion pressure with gés flow rate was greater than would be indicated by the increase in diffuser losses and by the increase in the gas passage pressure drop. A study of the measured pressure drop data and the various hydro- dynamic mechanisms of the bubble generator indicated that the pressure differences could be described by six terms: Hl The inlet to throat head difference. H2 The mixing losses and head recovery across the sudden enlargement from 2.1 in. to 2.18 in. H3 The mixing losses and head recovery across the 15° diffuser cone. Hh The liquid head equivalent to the gas compression work between throat and discharge pressure, H5 The liquid head equivalent to the pressure drop in the gas passages. H6 The liquid head difference between the liquid and the gas plume. As a convenience in comparing different fluids, each of the above terms were expressed as feet of zero-void liquid head. With the exceptions of Hl’ which is dependent only on the liquid and of H5’ which is dependent only on the gas, the pressure differences are a function of both liquid and gas flow rates, The procedures used in evaluating these six terms are discussed below. Figure 9 shows the bubble generator geometry used for the following analysis and the location of the various pressure drops outlined above. The fluid head, H_, between the inlet and the throat may be calculated l! from the conventiconal venturi equaticn: 1/2 Q= Fa Ft A2 cV (2ng) Q 2 1 1 H = = |————— (6) 1 2g A2 Fa Ft Cv ORNL-—DWG 73—-1544 THROAT PRESSURE TAP © (; Qe @ <%) Hy - - o i_ Hy AND Hg _1 fi//////////?//////////) S ) L Dg = Dy D4 C5 A 1 ] NN ; V; D3 A 4=D3 v2 V3T V2 v 1 e 4 GAS CAVITY GAS INJECTION LINE FIGURE $ GEOMETRY OF BUBBLE GENERATOR USED IN ANALYSIS OF GAS INJECTION PRESSURE AND OVERALL HEAD LOSS 6T 20 The observed inlet-throat head difference agreed with the calculated value within about 2%. The change in fluid head across the sudden enlargement from a diameter of 2.1 in. to 2.18 in. H2,can be calculated theoretically by a mcmentum balance across the length of the 2.18 in. cylindrical bore. The effect of the gas volume on the fluid velocity was also included in the momentum balance. The boundaries for the momentum balance are taken Just within the 2.18 in, diameter at each end. The upstream velocity at Station No. 3 is assumed uniform and equal to the average velocity at Station No. 2. The liquid and any injected gas are assumed mixed and at uniform velocity at Station No. 4. The increase in mass flow rate due to the gas addition was negligible compared to the mass flow of liquid and was not included in this calculation. M (v, - V.) T - L 3 gC PA, - P)A = P2 Vs 0o Wy = V) 373 LTk g, A3 = A i (P3 - Ph) ] A2 v3 (Vh - v3) H, = - = o (7) e 3 ¢ The value of H2 obtained from the momentum balance includes a mixing loss as well as the change in velocity head that would be predicted by the Bernoulli equation. The pressure recovery and head loss in the diffuser cone can be cal- culated by the Bernoculli equation, where "n" is the "Borda-Carnot" loss: K (Vu - v_)° 1 5 2g h = C 21 A value of Kl = 0.317, determined experimentally for the existing bubble generator, agrees closely with the conventional textbook value for a 15° diffuser.(T) calculated head rise of the diffuser secticon in terms of zerc-void fluid.: A void fraction correction was applied to express the > 5 2 ) Vh - v5 Kl (Vh - v5) H. = - 1 - x|, (8) 3 2gc 2gc In addition to the normal hydraulic losses in the diffuser, the work required to compress the gas is supplied by the kinetic energy of the liquid and decreases the head rise in the diffuser. The work required for a polytropic compression of the gas is given by the equation: n-1 p n _ n RT il W o (Ph) -3 The work of compression can be converted to equivalent liquid head by multiplying by the ratioc of the mass flow rate of gas to that of liquid. \ = T U e (9) The pressure drop through the gas passages of the bubble generator was determined experimentally as a function of the gas volume flow rate, FPigure 10 shows the results of the tests. The results expressed as feet of gas head vs volume flow rate are applicable toc any gas. The gas pres- sure drop expressed as feet of liquid head is given by the following equa- tion which applies specifically to the geometry tested: P Ho=C @ (&) (10) Pe where C = 59.4 mine/ftB; Q@ = volume flow rate of gas, cfm, During the various pressure drop tests of the bubble generator, the gas feed pressure was observed tc be higher than the sum of the static throat pressure and the pressure drop across the gas feed passages. This "Plume D/P" apparently represents the pressure difference required to divert the liquid around the gas cavity similar to an impact pressure GAS PASSAGE AH (ft of gas) 22 ORNL—-DWG 73—1543 10,000 5000 2000 1000 500 200 100 50 20 10 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 GAS FLOWRATE {cfm) FIGURE 10 PRESSURE DROP OF GAS FEED PASSAGES AS A FUNCTION OF GAS FLOW RATE 23 cn a solid object. Direct measurements of this pressure difference were made on the original smooth bore bubble generstor design by using one of the gas feed holes as a static pressure tap for the throat liquid. The pressure drop across the interface of the gas plume was obtained by subtracting the gas passage pressure drop "H_." from the measured pressure difference between the gas injection line ang the static tap. The results of the measurements are shown in Figure 11. The "Plume D/P" was found to be directly proportional to the liquid specific gravity and was found to be a function of both the liquid and the gas flow rates. An empirical correlation relating the plume D/P, the liquid velocity in the throat, and the void fraction at the throat was determined which gave a good representation of the data from various flow rates for two fluids. A coefficient "Kz" was defined as the ratio of the plume D/P, expressed as feet of liquid head, to the liquid velocity to the 2.5 power. The value of K2 vs the void fraction for the existing data was fit to a polynomial by the least squares method. The value of K2 was best described by a cubic equation, and the results of the fit are shown in Figure 12. The value of the plume D/P would then be calculated as fcllows: 2.5 = ) He = K, v, (11) 2 3 where K2 = (A+BX+CX +DX°) Q X = B 9 +Q e g 6 and A = -1.84825 x 10~ B = -1.26802 x 10‘2 C = 0.171324 D = -0.885819 V, = Liquid velocity at throat (ft/sec). Equation (11) gives & negative value of He consistent with the sign convention used in the computer program, BGNDGN, discussed in the Appendix. The pressure in the gas relative to the liquid is actually positive. The pressure distribution of the bubble generator can be obtained by the summation of the above six terms. A BASIC language computer program, BGNDGN, was written to calculate the pressure distribution of the GSTF PLUME AH ({ft of liquid) 10.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.001 ok ORNL-DWG 731538 — _§ GAS FEED | 500 gpm | O CaCl, SCLUTION SG = 1.3 ® DEMINERALIZED WATER 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.2 05 0.1 THROAT VOID FRACTION QQ/(QQ + Qq) FIGURE T1 PRESSURE DROP ACROSS THE GAS PLUME INTERFACE AS A FUNCTION OF THROAT VOID FRACTION (x 104 2.5 Hg/V2 K= 25 ORNL—-DWG 73-1540 —4 -1 —— K=A+BX+CX2+DX3 A=—184825x 106 B =—1.26802 x 102 C=0.171324 D = —0.885819 | | Hg = PLUME D/P {ft of liquid) —— V5 = THROAT VELOCITY (ft/sec) | | | O CaCly$G = 1.3 500 gpm ® CaCl, SG=1.3 400 gpm A CaCly SG=1.3 300 gpm A H,0 SG=1.0 500gpm 0.02 0.04 0.06 THROAT VOID FRACTION X = Qg/(Q, + Q) FIGURE 12 0.08 0.10 CORRELATION OF PLUME AH (HG) TO THROAT LIQUID VELOCITY AND THROAT VOID FRACTION 26 bubble generator as a function of the liquid and gas flow rates. Although the procedure for calculating the value of H6 was based on data from an earlier bubble generator design, this procedure was used in the BGNDGN pro- gram and the results appear to be applicable to the final GSTF design. A listing of this program and sample output for the GSTF operating with fuel salt are included in the Appendix. The above procedures and the computer program were developed specifically for the bubble generator design for the GSTF and were checked against data from the prototype in the water test locop. However, with the exception of the gas passage pressure drop, the procedures are believed to be applicable to various fluids and sizes assuming a reasonable geometric similarity. The calculation of the gas passage pressure drop could be revised to use conventional pressure 4rop calculation procedures for any other particular design. A comparison of the calculated and measured pressure distributiors for the GSTF prototype design is shown in Figure 8, These pressure distributions apply specifically to the prototype bubble generator in the water test loop and would differ slightly from the distributions of the actual GSTF bubble generator because of the difference in pipe size and the difference in absolute pressure. The calculated pressures for the GSTF bubble generator operating at design conditions with water and two types of molten-salt are shown in the Appendix. The calculations in the Appendix for fuel-salt indicate the gas flow for normal gas recycle operation will be limited to about 1 scfm by the various pressure changes inherent in the system. These calculaticns were based on a pump tank pressure of 15 psig, a salt pressure of 28 psig at the bubble generator discharge, and a pressure drop of 7.5 psi across the 48-hr holdup tank at 0.8 scfm gas flow rate. Operation of the GSTF at higher gas flows up to 1.3 scfm can be achieved by either opening the throttle valves at the L8-hr holdup tank cor by operating on an open cycle with the gas supplied from an external source at somewhat higher pressure. The gas flow capacity of the GSTF was specified a factor of 2 greater than for the MSBE to provide a margin for experimental purposes, and the maxi- mum gas flow of 1 scfm would not be a limitation in the MSBE. The lower than predicted gas feed pressure was probably caused by a local flow disturbance at the step in throat diameter. This belief is supported by 27 the facts that the measurements of the throat pressure just upstream of the step were in good agreement with the calculated value of Hl’ and at low gas flow rates the overall pressure drop of the bubble generator was in good agreement with the summation of Hl’ Hg, H, and H . 3 b The calculated values of HE’ H3 and Hh are subject to some degree of error because in an actual bubble generator it is impractical to pro- vide a throat mixing length long enough to complete the momentum transfer assumed in the calculations. Part of the mixing losses assigned to the mixing section occur in the diffuser and could account for the differences in slope between the calculated and measured pressures shown on Figure 8. IV, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The bubble generator design developed for application in the Gas Systems Technology Facility and the Molten-Salt Breeder Experiment is expected to successfully meet the criteria specified in Table I. The gas flow limit at about 1 scfm would be a valuable safety feature in the event of a malfunction of the gas flow control system at the maximum flow position. However, an initial transient at a higher flow could occur depending on the location and size of holdup volumes and pres- sure drops in the gas system. The design of a reactor gas-system should attempt to minimize the rate and duration of this transient. There are uncertainties in regard to the mechanism of bubble formation in the bubble generator and a relatively extensive program would be required to fully evaluate the proposed mechanisms. However, the bubble size pro- duced by the bubble generator is believed to have a minor influence on the overall operation of a reactor circulating system because of the bubble degradiation and compression in passing through the pump and the other changes in size that may occur because of coalescence, gas solubility, and pressure changes. Therefore, an effort to fully evaluate the proposed mechanisms of bubble formation does not appear to be justified at this time. However, plans have been made to check the viscosity dependence of the reccommended correlation. The calculation procedures and computer program developed for esti- mating the pressure distribution as a function of liquid and gas flow rates appears to be sufficiently accurate for most applications. The suitability of these design calculations to cover operation in a high 28 temperature salt system will be evaluated from the operating data of the GSTF » The calculation procedures for various pressures and bubble diameter are believed to be applicable to other sizes, but we have no experimental verification of this. The reduced scale tests completed early in the pro- gram were survey type experiments and insufficient data were taken to evaluate scale effects. Therefore any bubble generator of significantly different size or geometry should be checked experimentally against the calculations prior to use in any critical application. V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author is indebted to many individuals for their cooperation and assistance in completing this work. In particular, the contribution of T. S. Kress in suggesting mechanisms for the bubble size correlation and the contribution of G. M. Winn for this operation of the test loop and his execution of the various experiments are gratefully acknowledged. 29 NOMENCLATURE Cross sectional areas of bubble generator (see Fig. 9)(ft2) Diameters ¢f bubble generator (see Fig. 9)(ft) 2,-1/2 Approach area factor [l~(A2/Al) ] Thermal expansion factor [1 + a(T—SBO)]2 Various differential heads associated with bubble generator (see Fig, 9) (ft of zero void liquid) Molecular weight of gas Reynolds number, VDp/u Static pressures in bubble generator (see Fig. 9)(lbf/ft2) Volume flow rate of liquid or gas (ft3/sec) Universal gas constant 15L45.3 ft/1bf/# mole-°R Temperature, °R Velocities in bubble generator (see Fig. 9)(ft/sec) Void fraction Velocity coefficient assumed = 1.0 Bubble diameter (ft) Volume averaged bubble diameter (ft) Gravitational conversion factor (lbm—ft/lbf—secg) Mass flow rate of liquid or gas (lbp/sec) Polytropic gas compression constant Coefficient of thermal expansion per °F = 8 x 10_6 Gas film thickness (ft) Power dissipation per unit volume (ft~lbf/ft3-sec) Viscesity of liquid or gas (1bp/ft-sec) Density of liquid or gas (1lby/ft3) Surface tension (lbg/ft) (7) 30 REFERENCES M. W. Rosenthal, P. N. Haubenreich, and R. B. Briggs, The Develop~- ment Status of Molten-Salt Breeder Reactors, ORNL-4812, August 1972, pp 2Th-297. J. R. McWherter, Molten Salt Breeder Experiment Design Bases, ORNL-TM-3177, November 1970, R. H. Guymon, System Design Description of the Gas Systems Technology Facility, ORNL-CF-72-3-1, March 30, 1972. MSR Program Semiannual Progress Report Feb. 28, 1969, ORNL-4396, p 95. J. 0. Hinze, Fundamentals of the Hydrodynamic Mechanism of Splitting in Dispersion Processes, AIChE Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1955, p 295- 298, T. S. Kress, Mass Transfer Between Small Bubbles and Liquids in Cocurrent Turbulent Pipeline Flow, ORNL-TM-3718, April 1972, p 58. J. K. Vernard, Elementary Fluid Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, 1947, p 176. 31 APPENDIX COMPUTER PROGRAM, BGNDGN, FOR CALCULATING GAS INJECTION PRESSURE AND OVER- ALL PRESSURE DROP OF VENTURI TYPE BUBBLE GENERATOR A computer program, BGNDGN, was written in BASIC language to cal- culate the overall pressure drop and the gas injection pressure of the bubble generator. This program, which uses the relationships discussed in Section ITI-2, was written specifically for the GSTF bubble generator design. The program should be valid for different sizes with geometric similarity. The program is listed below along with output covering the bubble generator operation in the GSTF with the proposed fluids. The required data input for running the program are in statements 450 and L51 as follows: 450 Data Fl, G, G9, Mo, N Fl = liquid flow rate {gpm) G = liquid specific gravity G9 = gas density (lbs/ft3) MO = molecular weight of gas N = pelytropic constant for gas 451 Data D8, P9, P8, T2, K9 D8 = inlet and discharge pipe ID (in.) D9 P8 T2 = salt temperature (°F) pressure at discharge (psig) pump tank pressure (psig) K9 = thermal expansion factor (1 + o A T) for Hastelloy "N" The gas flow rates are input into statement 140 as scfm. Different throat and mixing chamber diameter {inches) could be entered in statement 30 and 31, respectively. There are four lines of output for each gas flow rate as foliows: Line 1., a. H1l lead difference across the diffuser cone (ft of zero void liquid) b. HZ2 = head difference across the mixing chamber (ft of zero void liquid) c. H3 = head equivalent to gas compressicn work (ft of zero void liquid) 32 d. HL = total head difference between the gas injection line and the salt at throat (ft of zero void ligquid). e, H5 = head difference across the the gas passages (ft of zero void liquid). Line 2. a. The gas flow rate (scfm). b. The gas flow rate (cfm at throat pressure and temperature). ¢. The salt static pressure at the throat (psig). d. The static pressure at the gas injection line (psig). Line 3. a. The pressure in the GSTF gas line 210 upstream of the flow control valve (psig). b. The pressure drop across the GSTF gas flow control valve (psig). Line 4, a. The overall head loss of the bubble generator (ft of zero void liquid). b. The head difference between bubble generator dis- charge and the gas injection line (ft of zero void liquid). A negative value of the value D/P in output line 3 indicates the pressure drop available in the GSTF gas-system 1s insufficient to provide recycle operation at that flow rate and at the design flow restriction of the L8-hr holdup tank. This calculation assumes a 7.5 psi pressure drop across the 48-hr holdup tank at 0.8 scfm and that the pressure drop varies with the square of the volume flow rate. 1 R 2 R 10 20 21 20 100 110 120 130 131 132 140 150 160 161 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 249 250 260 261 270 280 290 300 310 320 321 322 323 332 340 360 370 380 381 382 383 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 450 451 500 33 EM RGNDGN CHG &6/8/72 CALC RURRLE GEN PRESS DIST EAD Al1,A2,A3, 04 READ F1sG»G2sM0sN READ D8sP9,P8, T2,K9 H1=0 H2=0 H3=0 D9=2.10 Di=2.18 PO=14.7 PRINT *"LIQ SG=""G,"M@L wWT="M0,'"'DIS PRESS="P9 PRINT "LIQ FLAW="'F1,"THR DIA="D9,"B@RE DIA="D1 p2=pg8/12 D=D1/12 DO=D9/12 P2=P9+14.7 T=T2+ 460 K1=N/7C1-N) K2=(N=1)/N Q0=F1/7(T7+48%60) MI=R0*G%x62+ 4 VO=Q00/(0.785%x(DO*XKI) *2) V=Q0/7C(0.785%(D2%K9) 12) H=(V012-yt2)/64.4 FOR F2=0 T? 1.41 STEP .2 M2=F2%G9/ 60 Z=0 PO=P2-(H1+H2+H3)Y*x62.4%G/ 1t 44 CI1=0Q0+F2%T/493%14.T/{PO*x60) A2=QO0+F2%T/493%14.7T/(P2%60) V1=01/C0.785%(D*K9)12) Ve=R2/¢(0.785%x(D2%xKI)t2) FO=F2%14.7/P0*T/ (49 3%60) X2=F9/(Q0+F93) H1=C((VV112-Y21t2)/64¢4~0+31T7/644%(V1-yY2)1t2)%(1.0-X2) G1=G*00/0Q1 F3=F2%T/493%14.7/P0 H2==V1*Gi* (V1 =V0)/(32.2%()-F3%0. 4167 PO=P2-(H1+H2+H3)%62. 4G/ 144 IF PO<0O THEN 404 W=K1*%1545%T/MO({P2/PO)tK2=-1.0) H3=WxM2/M1 PO=P2-(HI+H2+H3)*62.4%G/1 44 F3=F2xT/493%14.7/P0C GEB=GI9%493/T*PD/14.7 H5=2=59« A8B8%F 31 2% G/ (5% &2 4) X3=F3/(F1/T7448+F3) K3=A1+A2%X3+A3%X312+04%X31t3 HA4a=K3*%VO012.50+HS P3=P0-14.7 PO=P2=-(HI+H2+H3+HA) %62 . 4%G/ 144 Z=2+1 IF Z<3 THEN 170 P7=P8-3.58%(F2+0.08476)1t2 P&=P7~(P0-14.7) Li=sHI+H2+H3+HA4 L=H~-(H1+H2+H3)> PRINT PRINT H1,H2,H3sHAasHS PRINT"SCFM="F2,"TCFM="F35s"T PR="P3,"G PR="P0C-14.7 PRINT"L 210 PR="pPT,"VALVE D/P="'Pé& PRINT "I1-@ D/H="L,»"0~G D/H=""L1 NEXT F2 DATA ~1.84825E~62,-1.P6802E~2,0+1713245,-0.885519 DATA S00,3:28365001125451067 DATA S.047s2B8515,13C0,1.009 END 34 Table A-1 GSTF Bubble Generator Operation on Fuel-Salt and Helium LIQ SG= 3.2836 LIG FLOW= 500 THR DIA= 2.1 20.9288 430198 SCFM= 0O TCFM= O L 210 PR= 14.9312 1-@ D/H= S.97787 211368 320759 SCFM= 0.2 TCFM= 1.25849 L 210 PR= 14.2232 I-@ D/7H= 7.06068 21.3703 2.50307 SCFM= C. 4 TCFM= 2.23567 L 210 PR= 1247488 I1-0 D/H= 7.7982 2145242 1.8788 SCFM= 0.6 TCFM= 3.05499 L 210 PR= 10.508 I-0 D/H= B.44298 2146677 1.29773 SCFM= 0.8 TCFM= 3.76738 L 210 PR= 7.50077 I1-9 D/H= 9.03121 21.802 De 754595 SCFM= 1 TCFM= 4.,40476 L 210 PR= 3.72717 1-0 D/H= 9.57257 219267 0250605 SCFM= 1.2 TCFM= 4.98902 L 210 PR==0.812R27 I-0 D/7H= 10.0705 22041 ¢ ~0e21224 SCFM= 1.4 TCFM= 5.53574 L 210 PR=-6.11923 [-2 D/7H= 10.5269 MAL WT= 4 DIS PRESS= 28 BORE DIA= 2.185 0 -2e¢58365E-2 G T PR=2=7.90077 G PR==T7.86401 VALVE D/P= 22.7952 B-G D/H= 25.205 ~0.256411 -2+5625 -2+ 1B4S1E-4 T PR==6.36006 G PR==-2.7139 VALVE D/7P= 169371 @-G D/H= 21.5855 -De 462339 -3+ 67663 -2.90790FK-3 T PR==-5.31064 G PR=+-T91799E~-? VALVE D/P= 12.828 A-G D/H= 19.7339 «0.637301 ~4423783 -S¢96038E-3 T PR==4439319 G PR= 1+.6368¢6 VALVE D/7P= 8.87111 -G D/H= 18.5278 ~0.787922 -4455608 =3 +8003€E-3 T PR=-3.5562 G PR= 2926672 VALVE D/P= 4.57415 Q-G D/H= 17.6214 -0.,920421 ~4.77094 ~1043230CE~2 T PR=-2.7359 G FR= 4«00P€4 VALVE D/P==-0.275467 @~-G D/7H= 16.8652 -1e03916 ~-4435226 =10 46T4E-2 T PR==-2.07739 G PR= 4.96915 VALVE D/7P=-5.78198 @-G D/H= 16.1859 -1.14751 -5« 13854 =2.52009E-2 T PR==1+442803 G PR= 583367 VALVE D/P=-12.0028 @-G D/H= 15.5432 35 Table A-2 GSTF Bubble Generator Operation on Flush Salt (66~3L Mole % LiF-BeF»o) and Helium LIQ SG= 1942 M@L WT= 4 LIQ FLBW= S500 THR DIA=s 2.1 209288 430198 SCFM= 0 TCFM= O L 210 PR= 14.9312 I1-3 D/H= 5.97787 214108 357596 SCFM= Q.2 TCFM= 0625965 . 210 PR= 14.2232 I-8 D/H= 6&.7026 21.2619 2.95381 SCFM= 0.4 TCFM= 121356 L 210 PR= 12.7488 I-@ D/H= 7.33261 2144023 2.38724 SCFM= 0.6 TCFM= 1.77081 L 210 PR= 10.508 I-2 D/H= T.90747 215347 185413 SCFM= 0.8 TCFM= 2.30244 L 210 PR= 7.50077 I-0 D/H= B.44564 216615 134347 SCFM= 1 TCFiM= 281173 L 210 PR= 3.72717 1-0 D/H= B +9566E 21.7843 O0eB497 62 SCFM= 1.2 TCFM= 3.30129 L 210 PR==0.812827 1-0 D/H= 944572 2190364 0370441 SCFM= 1.4 TCFM= 3.7733 L 210 PR==-6.11923 I-0 D/H= 9.91553 DIS PRESS= 22.69 RGRE DIA= 2.18 0 ~2«58365E~-2 0 T PR= 1.45742 G PR= 1.47916 VALVE D/P= 13.452 -G b/H= 25.205 -0.177838 -1 47477 —6.88325E~-4 T PR= 2.0673 G PR= 3.30837 VALVE D/7P= 10.9148 @-G D/H= 23.0313 ~0.339626 ~2¢ 4979 ~2.66891E-3 T PR= 259748 G PR= 4.69954 VALVE D/P= B8.04923 @-G D/H= 21.3782 -~0e 4838344 =322396¢ ~5+84167TE~-3 T PR= 3.08124 G PR= 5.79431 VALVE D/P= 4.71367 2~G D/H= 20.0773 T PR= 353413 G PR= 6€.62143 VALVE D/P= 0.819344 Q-G D/H= 19.0231 -0.75297S ~ 4. 108 49 = 1¢54592E-2 T PR= 396418 G PR= 7.42162 VALVE D/P=-3.69445 -G D/H= 18.1435 -0.871064 -4+376 “2.17810F-2 T PR= 437573 G PR= 8.05827 VAL VE D/7P=-8B8711 @-GC D/H= 17.387 ~0e9K0R826 ~4.5775 ~2e90444F-2 T PR= 477109 G PR= B.6232 VALVE D/P=-14.74724 @-G D/H= 16.7157 36 Table A-3 GSTF Bubble Generator Operation on Water and Helium LIG SG= 1 MIOL WT= 4 LIG FLOW= 500 THR DIA= 2.1 21.6925 40 45896 SCFM= O TCFM= O L 210 PR= 14.9312 I-2 D/H= 6.136 21.9089 3.5988 SCFM= 1t TCFM= Q+.695957 L 210 PR= 3.72717 -9 D/H= 7.07409 22.1104 279977 SCFM= 2 TCFM= 1.37067 L 210 PR=-26.6368 I-8 D/H= T7.88634 223024 2.03906 SCFM= 3 TCFM= 2.02683 L 210 PR==-76+.1608 [0 D/H= 8.65218 22. 488 130439 SCFM= 4 TCFM= 2.66€37 L 210 PR=-144.845 I-0 D/H= 92.3325 22 6688 O« 589443 SCFM= 5 TCFM= 3.29081 L 210 PR=-232.689 I-9 D/7H= 10.0833 22.8454 -0+ 108465 SCFM= 6 TCFM= 3.90148 L 210 PR=-339%9.693 I-@ D/H= 10.7578 DIS PRESS= 18.959 RORE DIA= 2.18 0 ~2.70202E-? 0 T PR= 7+6267 G PR= 7.63841 VALVE D/P= 7.29277 @-G D/H= 26.1245 -0.23437) ~1.69285 -7+ 43097E-3 T PR= 8.0072 G PR= 8.74077 VALVE D/P=-5.0136 0-G D/H= 23.5805 -0.449001 -2.87493 -2.92702E-2 T PR= B.35917 G PR= 9.6049R VALVE D/P=-3642418 @-G D/H= 21.5862 -0.64615 -3.70827 - 6.490235E-2 T PR= 8.69104 G PR= 10.298 VALVE D/P=-86.4588 @-G D/H= 19.987 -0.827413 ~4.29173 -0-113879 T PR= 9.00751 G PR= 10.8637 VALVE D/P=-155.715 9-G D/H= 1846677 ~0e994064 ~4.7P 431 =0.175685 T PR= 9.3112 G PR= 11.3584 VALVE D/P==244.047 B-G D/H= 1745399 ~1.14722 ~5.05471 -0.249944 T PR= 9.60347 G PRP= 11.793K VALVE D/P=-351.487 G-G D/H= 164535 37 TNTERNAL DISTRIBUTION 1. 5. K. Beall 2. M. Bender 3. C. E. Bettis . E. S. Bettis 5. R. B. Briggs 6. C. J. Claffey 7. C. W. Collins 8. W. B. Cottrell 9. D. E. Ferguson 10. A. P. Fraas 11.-12 C. H. Gabbard 13. A. G, Grindell 14, P. N. Haubenreich 15. H. W. Hoffman 16. P. R. Kasten 17. M. I. Lundin 18. R, N. Lyon 19, H. G. MacPherson 20. R. E. MacPherson 21. H. C. McCurdy 22. A. J. Miller 23. A, M. Perry 2l,-25., M. W. Rosenthal 26. Dunlap Scott 27. M, Sheldon 28, M. J. Skinner 29. I. Spiewak 30. D. A. Sundberg 31. D. B. Trauger 32. G. D. Whitman 33.-34, Central Res. Library 35. Document Ref. Section 36.-38. Laboratory Records 39. Laboratory Records (LRD-RC) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION Lo, M, Shaw, AEC-Wash. hi1.-Lk2, ©N. Haberman, AEC-Wash. 43, D, F. Cope, AEC-0OSR L, David Elias, ARC-Wash. b, J. E. Fox, ARC-Wash. L6, E. C. Kovacice, AEC-Wash. 4L7.-49., Director, Division of Reactor Licensing, AEC-Wash. 50.-51. Director, Division of Reactor Standards, ALC-Wash. 52,-68. Manager, Technical Information Center, AEC-For ACRS Memiers A9. Research and Technical Support Division, AEC, ORO 70.-71. Technical Information Center, AEC