METHOD FOR DESIGN & ANALYSIS OF

ORIFICES FOR USE IN REACTOR COOLANT

PUMP TEST LOOPS
by
Jeffrey Robert Stack
An Engineering Project Submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Approved:
_________________________________________
Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Engineering Project Adviser

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Hartford, CT
December 2011

CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ iii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................... v
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... vi
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
2. Theory/Methodology ................................................................................................... 5
3. Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Determination of Required Orifice Differential Pressures................................. 7
3.2 Sizing of Orifice 1 .............................................................................................. 9
3.3 Sizing of Orifice 2 ............................................................................................ 11
4. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 13
5. References.................................................................................................................. 14

ii

LIST OF TABLES

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Type the text of your acknowledgment here.

ABSTRACT
Typical Pressurized Water Reactors use Centrifugal, Single Stage Reactor Coolant
Pumps (RCPs) to cool the reactor and transfer heat to the steam generators. These RCPs
are typically required to be full scale performance tested prior to shipment to the power
plant site. To perform this testing, the RCPs are temporarily installed in test loops where
water is circulated through the loop at different operating conditions. Orifice plates or
other flow obstacles such as valves are required to simulate the hydraulic resistance of
the system in which the pumps will eventually be installed.

For Reactor Coolant

Systems (RCSs) in nuclear power plants, the majority of the hydraulic resistance is the
reactor internals and steam generators, which provides a very large pressure drop and
requires very large RCPs. This presents some very challenging operating conditions for
the test loop components to endure. For this project, design and analysis activities for
orifices in a typical test loop used to test RCPs will be performed. The resulting orifices
will provide typically required resistances and will be able to endure typical operational
and testing conditions that RCPs are subject to, particularly Net Positive Suction Head
(NPSH) testing, which is performed at very low pump suction pressures.

vi

1. Introduction
Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCPs) are the main pumps in a Pressurized Water Reactors
Reactor Coolant System (RCS), which provide flow of high temperature and high
pressure sub-cooled water to the nuclear reactor.

This flow cools the reactor and

transfers the thermal energy from the reactor to the steam generator, which produces
steam to turn turbines, thereby producing power for public consumption. RCPs used in
PWRs are typically vertical, single-stage centrifugal pumps as RCPs require large
volume flows, minimal pressure pulsations through the RCS and easy access for
maintenance. A typical nuclear plant will have between two and four RCPs, each of
which circulates on the order of 100,000gpm of water through the RCS (Ref 1). These
pumps are generally required to be full scale performance tested prior to shipment to the
power plant site. This performance testing proves the mechanical and hydraulic design
and function of each RCP prior to shipment in order to minimize risk. To test these very
large pumps, they must be temporarily installed into a test loop at the
manufacturing/testing facility where each pump is operated at various temperatures,
pressures and flows to match expected plant conditions. To ensure proper performance
when installed into the RCS, many aspects of each pump design must be tested such as
hydraulic performance, vibrations, and efficiency, Net Positive Suction Head Required
(NPSHR), hydraulic pressure pulsations and expected transient conditions among others.
As a result of the required testing, the conditions that the RCPs and the test loop are
subjected to are relatively extreme.

According to Reference 5, normal operation

temperatures are between 530F (276.7C) and 590F (310C), pressures are typically
2250 psi (15.51MPa) and normal flows are roughly 100,000 gpm (Ref 1). All test loop
components must be designed to withstand all potential testing conditions. This includes
the test loop piping, any penetrations into the test loop piping, flow meters and orifices
or valves.
One aspect of the testing program that subjects the pump and test loop to particularly
harsh conditions is NPSHR testing. NPSHR is the minimum NPSH required by the
pump to avoid damage to the pump hydraulics due to cavitation. Cavitation can quickly
1

cause irreparable damage to a set of pump hydraulics due to the violent shock waves
generated as the cavitation bubbles collapse. See Figure 1, from Reference 4, below for
examples of damage caused by cavitation.

Figure 1: Examples of Cavitation Damage

NPSHR is a characteristic of the pump itself and is usually determined empirically as a
function of flow rate. The objective of NPSHR testing is to characterize how much
NPSH the pump requires to operate free from the damaging effects of cavitation and to
ensure that the NPSHR is below the minimum NPSH Available (NPSHA) in the system.
To perform this testing, system pressure is reduced while the pump is operating to
reduce the NPSHA in the test loop. Although there may be other means to reduce
NPSHA in the system, controlling the loop pressure is by far the easiest method. The
generic equation used to calculate NPSHA is the following:

(Reference 2)

Where:
po = system pressure
= specific weight of fluid
z = elevation difference between pump and system pressure measurement
hl = head losses between system pressure measurement and the pump
pv = vapor pressure of fluid
Once the pressure (and NPSHA) is reduced below the NPSHR of the pump, the
measured head of the pump begins to degrade. This degradation in head is the generally
accepted measure of how severely a pump is cavitating. According to Reference 3, the
2

point at which the head of the pump reduces by 3% is the generally accepted industry
standard for NPSHR.
As a result of the very low system pressures in the test loop during NPSH testing,
cavitation becomes a concern for all parts of the test loop, not just the pump itself. Of
particular concern is the main flow restricting components of the test loop that provide
the resistance to the pump to simulate the resistances of the reactor internals and steam
generators.

This is because these components reduce the cross section flow area,

resulting in significantly higher flow rates. Since NPSH available is reduced as flow is
increased, the high flow rates through these components make them particularly
vulnerable to cavitation and its damaging effects.
Cavitation damage to test loop components can be detrimental to a testing program.
Damage could have effect on their intended resistance, measuring capability or worse,
broken components flowing through the test loop could cause irreparable damage to the
pump hydraulics.
This Mechanical Engineering Masters Project designs and analyzes two orifices that
simulate the hydraulic resistance of the reactor internals and steam generators and
minimize the potential for damage resulting from cavitation during NPSH testing. Two
orifices are designed as opposed to one since two orifices would provide required
resistance while minimizing reduction in flow area. More than two orifices are not
considered as the number of component and loop penetrations should be minimized
considering the extreme conditions the test loop is subjected to.
The scope of the project includes designing a two orifice system that would provide the
same hydraulic resistance as typical reactor internals and steam generators. Geometrical
features such as flow area, single/multi-hole and shape of orifice entrances/exits must be
considered. Materials will be selected to withstand all conditions. Consideration will
also have to be given to typical requirements for hydraulic performance testing as well
considering RCPs are typically required to be tested over a range of flows. As a result,
3

the design should have the capability to make adjustments to the total resistance to test
the pump at two flow rates. The scope also includes a structural analysis of the orifice
plates to ensure that the orifices will be suitable for use for all conceivable testing
conditions. Finally, a modal analysis of the orifices is performed to ensure that the
frequencies of the hydraulic pressure pulsations generated by a typical RCP do not
overlap with the natural frequencies of the orifices.

2. Theory/Methodology
The first step of the problem will be to size and design the orifices to provide the
required resistances. The dual-orifice system will be designed such that both orifices
installed in series will provide the required resistance to achieve the low flow (rated head
and flow) point. Further, they are sized so that when one orifice (Orifice 2) is removed,
the remaining orifice (Orifice 1) provides the required resistance to achieve the high
flow point. For this high flow point, a slope of the pump curve and a high flow rate is
assumed. Then, using this information and the rated head and flow of the RCP, the head
and flow of the high flow point is determined and the required resistance of Orifice 1 is
known.
Once the required resistance of Orifice 1 is known for the high flow condition, it is sized
using a correlation from Reference 7. This will result in an inner diameter for Orifice 1.
To determine the inner diameter for Orifice 2 (installed to achieve low flow point), the
resistance of Orifice 1 is recalculated for the low flow condition and subtracted from the
total required resistance (defined by the rated pump head). Then, the same correlation
that was used to size Orifice 1 is used to size Orifice 2. Checks of Reynolds Numbers
and /Dh must be performed to ensure that use of the correlation is appropriate.
After the orifices have been designed, the most severe conditions expected to be endured
by the orifice plates must be identified.

This will require a review of testing

requirements to come up with worse-case scenarios for structural analysis purposes. A

check the NPSH available in the water as it passes through the orifices will be
performed. A structural analysis will be performed to ensure that the orifice will remain
structurally sound throughout all expected testing conditions.

This is especially

important considering that any damage to the orifices could result in damage to the
pump hydraulics. 3-D models of the orifice designs will be generated using a program
that is readily available from my employer. These models will be analyzed for the
worst-case scenarios previously identified using finite element analysis.

Resulting

stresses will be compared to the yield strength of the selected material or other
appropriate design criteria with appropriate safety factors considered. An additional
5

modal analysis of the orifices will be performed to ensure that the frequencies of the
hydraulic pressure pulsations generated by a typical pump do not overlap with the
natural frequencies of the orifices.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Determination of Required Orifice Differential Pressures
The first step in defining the geometry of the two orifices that will be used to simulate
the hydraulic resistance of the main Reactor Coolant System (RCS) is to determine what
resistances will be required of them to achieve the desired test flow rates and
corresponding heads. Of course, the most important flow rate for the pump to be tested
at is the normal operating or rated flow rate of the pump. This is the flow rate at which
the pump is expected to operate under the normal steady-state plant operating condition.
However, typical test programs for pumps, especially of this size require the pump to be
tested over a range of expected flows. For RCPs in particular, the system resistance of
the RCS can be much lower than the normal operating system resistance if only one
pump is operating. This may be the case during plant start-up. As a result, testing at a
high flow point is typical in testing programs for RCPs.
To simulate two significantly different operating points, one orifice is sized such that it
will simulate the low system resistance alone (without the other orifice installed) to
achieve the high flow point. The other orifice is sized such that it provides additional
resistance to test at the rated flow rate of the pump. For this configuration, both orifices
are installed in series in the test loop.
The first step in sizing the orifices is to define the head and flow of the two test points.
The head is necessary as the required differential pressure (DP) across the orifice is
defined by the head of the pump. Flow is the test parameter that is typically required by
the test program. To define the two test points, the rated head and flow of Doosans
APR1400 Class Reactor Coolant Pump are chosen (Ref 6). This pump was chosen as
the rated head and flow are relatively large as they will be used in a 1400MW power
plant. The large head and flow of this pump will provide bounding conditions (DP and
NPSH) at the orifice plate.

The rated head of the Doosan APR1400 Class RCP is 114.3m and the rated flow is
7.672m3/s (Ref 6). This will be the first of the two test points and will be referred to as
the rated test point. Both orifices installed in series will provide the resistance so that the
pump operates at this point. To determine the high flow test point, the slope of the pump
curve and the required test flow must be assumed as this is not information that is
publically available. Considering, it is assumed that the pump curve is linear, a typical
slope for the pump curve is negative 20m/(m3/s) and a typical high flow rate is 125% of
rated flow. To get the high flow test point flow rate:
7.672m3/s X 1.25 = 9.590m3/s
Using this flow rate and the assumed slope of the pump curve, a high flow test point
head is determined:
-20m/(m3/s) X (9.590m3/s - 7.672m3/s) = -47.95m
114.3m 47.95m = 66.35m
The heads of the two test points are now be converted to pressure for use as necessary.

114.3
66.35

10
10

1143.0
663.5

These are the DPs required by the orifices to achieve the two test points. Normally,
other test loop piping losses would be considered, but for the purposes of this report,
these additional piping losses are considered negligible. This method also provides
conservative input to structural analyses.

3.2 Sizing of Orifice 1

Sizing of the first orifice which will be installed to achieve both test points will be based
on the requirement to provide a DP of 663.5kPa. From this point forward, it will be
designated as Orifice 1. To minimize constriction of the flow, a sharp edged orifice will
be used as opposed to an orifice with a beveled or rounded leading edge. Further, there
are many good correlations to choose from for predicting the resistance of sharp edged
orifices. Erosion of the sharp edge over time should not be a concern as coolant water
that is pumped by RCPs is extremely well controlled with no dissolved gases or
suspended solids.
The correlation for thick-edged orifice in a straight tube from Reference 7 is used for
sizing of Orifice 1. Thick-edged is defined as l/Dh > 0.015, where l is the thickness of
the orifice and Dh is the inner diameter of the orifice. Considering the large volume flow
going through the orifice, a thick-edged orifice will be required for structural integrity.
The correlation used to determine the inner diameter of Orifice 1 s shown below, all
from Reference 7.
.

0.5 1

Where:
p = differential pressure (Pa)
= density of fluid (kg/m3)
w1 = stream velocity of fluid (m/s), which is expressed as flow (m3/s)/orifice flow area (m2) to solve
F0 = flow area of orifice (m2)
F1 = flow area of upstream and downstream piping (m2)
= thickness of orifice (m)
Dh = hydraulic diameter (m)
= friction factor inside orifice inner diameter (unitless), which is determined from the Moody Chart
2.4

10
0.25

0.535

0.05
9

To size Orifice 1 using this correlation, the parameter F0 is solved for. To determine ,
the thickness of Orifice 1 () must be assumed. If it is later determined in the structural
analysis that the assumed thickness is insufficient, then the orifice may have to be resized as the hydraulic resistance of the orifice is dependent on orifice thickness. For the
first iteration, the thickness is assumed to be 0.05m. It is desired to keep the orifice as
thin as possible to reduce material and machining costs and for ease of installation.
To determine the friction factor (), an absolute pipe roughness from Reference 8 is
used. The value used is for Commercial Steel Pipe and is 0.00015ft (4.572 X 10-5m).
When this is divided this by the hydraulic diameter (Dh) a Moody Chart can be used to
determine the friction factor if fully turbulent flow is assumed. Assuming fully turbulent
flow is reasonable considering the very large volumetric flows.
Other input parameters include the differential pressure (p) and flow, which are defined
as 663.5kPa and 9.59m3/s, respectively, in Section 3.1. Density of the water () is also
required, which for the elevated temperature of 300C, is 745kg/m3. Flow area of the
upstream and downstream piping (F1) is also an input parameter and is defined as
0.785m2 (Ref 9). When all of these inputs are used, F0 is determined to be 0.2384m2,
which corresponds to an inside diameter of 0.551m for Orifice 1.
Now that the orifice has been sized, the Reynolds Number and the /Dh must be checked
as the correlation used requires the Reynolds Number to be greater than 103 and the /Dh
to be greater than 0.015.

The Reynolds Number is calculated below, where the

kinematic viscosity () of the water is 1.236 X 10-7 m2/s for the elevated temperature of
300C.
9.59
0.551
0.2384
1.236 10

1.793

10

10

The Reynolds Number calculated is acceptable for the correlation that was used. In
addition, the assumption of fully turbulent flow for use of the Moody Chart to determine
the friction factor is validated. The /Dh is calculated to be 0.0908, which is greater than
the required 0.015. As a result, all conditions to use the correlation for the Thick-edged
Orifice from Reference 7 are satisfied.

3.3 Sizing of Orifice 2

Orifice 2 is used in conjunction with Orifice 1 to provide additional hydraulic resistance
to achieve the low flow point. Orifice 2 is sized using the same methodology and
correlation that was used for Orifice 1. The only input parameters that are changed are
the volumetric flow through the orifices and required p. As defined in Section 3.1, the
flow rate through the orifices is 7.672m3/s and the total required p across the two
orifices is 1143.0kPa for the low flow point.
According to the correlation in Section 3.2, the p of the orifice is dependent on the flow
rate. As a result, the p for Orifice 1 must first be recalculated for the low flow point.
Using the flow area for Orifice 1 that was calculated in Section 3.2 and the low flow rate
of 7.672m3/s, the p of Orifice 1 at the low flow point is calculated to be 252,573kPa.
With this, the required p of Orifice 2 alone can finally be identified.
1,143,000

252,573

890,427

This means that Orifice 2 is required to have a significantly larger p than Orifice 1 and
therefore, a much smaller inner diameter. Using this p and the low flow rate, the
correlation from Section 3.2 is used again to solve for the flow area (F0) of Orifice 2.
The flow area is calculated to be 0.1575m2, which corresponds to an inner diameter of
0.448m. The Reynolds Number for Orifice 1 is recalculated for the low flow point to be
7.672
0.551
0.2384
1.236 10

1.434

11

10

The Reynolds Number is then calculated for Orifice 2.

7.672
0.448
0.1575
1.236 10

1.765

10

Both Reynolds Numbers make use of the correlation acceptable as they are both greater
than 103. The /Dh for Orifice 1 does not change for the low flow point, but the Orifice 2
/Dh still must be checked. Using the assumed orifice thickness of 0.05m and the
calculated hydraulic diameter of 0.448, the /Dh for Orifice 2 is calculated to be 0.112,
which is greater than the required 0.015. As a result, use of the correlation defined in
Section 3.2 is acceptable for Orifice 2 as well as Orifice 1.

12

4. Conclusions

13

5. References
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

7)
8)
9)

PressurizedWaterReactor(PWR)Systems,NuclearRegulatoryCommissionwebsite
http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/basicref/teachers/04.pdf
FundamentalsofFluidMechanics,FifthEditionbyMunson,YoungandOkiishi.Copyright
2006byJohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
AmericanNationalStandardforCentrifugalPumpTestsANSI/HI1.62000,AmericanNational
StandardsInstitute,Copyright2000HydraulicInstitute
DamagesbyCavitationChemical&ProcessTechnologywebsite,May7,2008.
http://webwormcpt.blogspot.com/2008/05/damagesbycavitation.html
PressurizedWaterReactor(PWR)Copyright19962006,TheVirtualNuclearTourist,
December19,2005.http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/pwr.htm
DoosanHeavyIndustriesandConstructionBusinessSector,APR1400ClassReactorCoolant
Pump,
http://www.doosan.com/doosanheavybiz/en/services/power/power_plant/reactor_coolant_p
umps.page
HandbookofHydraulicResistanceThirdEdition,byIdelchick,JaicoPublishingHouseCRC
Press,Inc.&BegellHouseInc.FirstJaicoImpression:2003,SixthJaicoImpression:2008
Crane
ReactorCoolingSystemsMoreCopyright19962006,TheVirtualNuclearTourist,January
6,2006.http://www.nucleartourist.com/systems/rcs2.htm

14