ENGINEERING JUDGMENT

AND NATURAL
CIRCULATION CALCULATIONS

Conferencia pronunciada por el Dr. Juan Carlos Ferreri

el 23 de agosto de 2003
en la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Buenos Aires,
acto organizado por el Instituto de Investigación y Desarrollo

Instituto de Investigación y Desarrollo

2007
INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIÓN Y DESARROLLO
Director: Dr. AMÍLCAR E. ARGÜELLES

La publicación de los trabajos de los Académicos y disertantes invitados se

realiza bajo el principio de libertad académica y no implica ningún grado de
adhesión por parte de otros miembros de la Academia, ni de ésta como en-
tidad colectiva, a las ideas o puntos de vista de los autores.

Todos los derechos reservados

Hecho el depósito que establece la Ley 11.723
IMPRESO EN ARGENTINA

© ACADEMIA NACIONAL DE CIENCIAS DE BUENOS AIRES

Avda. Alvear 1711, 3er. Piso - 1014 Ciudad de Buenos Aires - Argentina
e-mail: info@ciencias.org.ar

ISBN-10: 987-537-063-0
ISBN-13: 978-987-537-063-0
 ANTECEDENTES CIENTÍFICOS

Ing. Juan Carlos Ferreri graduated as Aeronautical Engineer at the

La Plata University in 1967 and has dedicated his professional
career to the particular field of computational fluid mechanics
and heat and mass transfer.
For more than twenty years he has devoted his work to Nuclear
Engineering.
He is currently an Honorary Consultant Member to the Research
and Development Institute at the National Academy of Sciences
of Buenos Aires; Principal Staff Member and Manager at the
Scientific and Technical Support Branch of the Nuclear
Regulatory Authority and Independent Researcher at the
CONICET.
He has received the Senior 2004 Award to Research, Professional
and Teaching Achievements in Argentina from the Argentinean
Association for Computational Mechanics (AMCA).
He has been Member and President of the Argentine Committee for
Heat and Mass Transfer. He has also been part time professor
at different universities and a member of advisory committees
at the university, CONICET and other institutions.
He has taught in numerical methods, mainly at post graduate
courses, and is usually part of examination staffs for PhD thesis
and has been external peer in Advisory Committees for Nuclear
Engineering and Aeronautical Engineering professors selection
in many opportunities.
In the last decade he developed an intense research activity in
collaboration with researchers at the University of Pisa, in the
particular field of systems computer codes for nuclear safety
analysis.
He has published eighty papers in his field of expertise and has
delivered tens of seminars and invited to conferences in
Argentina and abroad.
 INTRODUCCIÓN

Ing. PEDRO VICIEN

La conferencia de hoy estará a cargo del Ingeniero Aeronáutico

Juan Carlos Ferreri, egresado de la Universidad Nacional de La Pla-
ta en el año 1967. Nació en el año 1944, casi en el año en que comien-
za nuestra decadencia y que todavía se extiende hasta nuestros días.
Sin embargo el conocimiento que aún circula en nuestros círculos
universitarios nos entrega estudiosos de su calibre, que deberían pro-
porcionarnos una cuota de optimismo.
Sería bastante fatigoso para ustedes que yo les leyera los títulos
de los 73 trabajos publicados con su firma junto con algunos de sus
colegas. También su mochila tiene la mención de 14 informes para
instituciones o contratistas en temas serios vinculados principalmen-
te a la CNEA, la Fuerza Aérea y firmas industriales. Su carrera aca-
démica se puede clasificar de brillante. Enseñó en la Universidad de
Buenos Aires y en la Nacional de La Plata, dirige tesis de doctorado
y de maestrías de la UBA, UNLP y en el Instituto Balseiro.
Ha participado como miembro referee en varias revistas impor-
tantes del ámbito científico y tecnológico del país y extranjero. Ac-
tualmente es Director de Proyectos de la Autoridad Reguladora
Nuclear de la Argentina y revista en la carrera de investigador del
CONICET.
La especialidad del ingeniero Ferreri es ahora su actividad en
métodos computacionales y simulación numérica y su participación
en un proyecto internacional de métodos informáticos, aplicados a la
termo-hidráulica.
El tema elegido para la conferencia es Engineering judgment
and natural circulation calculations. La ciencia de la transmisión de
calor ha sido siempre un tema muy difícil de abordar con desarrollos
matemáticos, especialmente en convección. Los cálculos de transmi-
sión de calor por convección son muy complicados por el gran número
de variables diferentes que se presentan.

5
 Afortunadamente en la mayoría de las aplicaciones estas varia-
bles pueden agruparse en relativamente pocos grupos adimensiona-
les o números sin dimensión y, de esa manera, reduciendo el número
de variables efectivas con las que trabajar experimentalmente. “La
agrupación de estas variables se hace mediante el método de análi-
sis dimensional que es muy usado en los trabajos científicos”. Aquí
termina la cita del libro de Fishenden & Saunders de 1950. En
McAdams se mencionan alguno de esos números y en la tabla de
presentación se enumeran 20 grupos.
Las ecuaciones que se utilizan en ingeniería térmica para el tra-
tamiento de la convección provienen de desarrollos experimentales
más que de desarrollos teóricos, por lo menos era así en mis épocas
de estudio y profesionales.
Modernamente se usan herramientas computacionales, am-
pliando considerablemente el análisis de los problemas que se pre-
sentan en la práctica de la ingeniería. Aspectos de ese tratamiento
nos serán ofrecidos ahora.
No quiero terminar sin manifestar mi personal complacencia por
tener entre nosotros, en esta tribuna, a un ingeniero que tiene una
fuerte capacidad científica que se ha desarrollado en nuestro medio
y que es un ejemplo de lo que debe ser la formación de los ingenie-
ros argentinos para afrontar los desafíos del futuro.

6
 “No hay hombre que, fuera de su especialidad, no sea crédulo…”
Jorge Luis Borges, “El milagro Secreto”, Ficciones

ENGINEERING JUDGMENT AND NATURAL

CIRCULATION CALCULATIONS

Dr. JUAN CARLOS FERRERI

Abstract
The analysis performed to establish the validity of computer code
results in the particular field of natural circulation flow stability
calculations is presented in the light of usual engineering practice. The
effects of discretization and closure correlations are discussed and some
hints to avoid undesired mistakes in the evaluations performed are given.

Resumen
El análisis que se realiza para establecer la validez de los resultados
del cálculo realizado mediante programas de cómputo en el campo particu-
lar de la estabilidad de la circulación natural de fluidos es presentado a la
luz de la práctica usual de la ingeniería. Los efectos de la discretización y
de las correlaciones de cierre son discutidos y se dan, además, algunas guías
para evitar errores no deseados en la evaluaciones.

Introduction

The concept engineering judgment (EJ) is sometimes invoked to

support the validity of technical assertions based on the subjective
judgment of experts. This is particularly true when uncertainty
prevails regarding the data at hand, in opposition to statistically
valid data sets. Many relevant technical decisions are based on this
type of EJ. In particular, the assignment of subjective probabilities
to rarely occurring events is a usual example of this particular use

7
of EJ. The statement “educated guessing” used to be an alternative
nomenclature to denominate this somewhat arbitrary, non-scientific,
way of value assignment to parameters. The nuclear corporation is
sensitive to these aspects and one of the general conclusions of a
nuclear safety specialists meeting [1] was to “Minimize need for
expert judgment as far as practicable”. Needless to say, this is also
the more common cause for public and non-governmental
organizations complaints regarding risk and cost-benefit analyses of
installations. Public and NGOs opposition to chemical, nuclear and
many other types of industrial emplacements are, quite frequently,
the consequence of their negative perception of said risk-benefit
studies.
EJ is really at the base of the usual way of engineering data
analysis. It is the case of deciding whether or not a calculated set of
results can be considered a valid one. In this paper, applications of
EJ deal with the computer prediction of the stability of natural
circulation (NC) flows (jargon for natural thermal convective flows)
in hydraulic loops of interest in the nuclear industry.
The simplest approximation will be considered, namely one-
dimensional (1D), almost incompressible flow in single phase. It may
be argued that it is a rather simplistic problem, because real life
installations show much more complicated situations. However, most
of the calculations performed under these restrictive hypotheses pose
some challenges that must be solved on the basis of EJ if this is
understood, as mentioned above, as the process performed to
determine the validity of a given set of computer results. The
emphasis of this paper is not on the two basic steps of computer code
development, namely: verification and validation. These steps are
assumed as done. Here, the verified and validated codes are used to
analyze quite simple loops, either theoretical or experimental ones,
with the main interest focused on assessing the results. As a
consequence, some insights are derived to account for the effects of
discretization and closure correlations. One aspect that will deserve
particular consideration is whether to stop for the search of
perfection in the achieved results, this in the light of lack of really
valid experimental data allowing for partial validation or lack of
exact solutions for the problem under analysis (the vast majority of
real life engineering problems) with different codes.
Perhaps, before starting the analysis, it may be useful to excerpt
some considerations by Scananpieco and Harlow [2] on the role of
computational predictions: “In as much as we can simulate reality,

8
we can use the computer to make predictions about what will occur
in a certain set of circumstances. Finite-difference techniques can
create an artificial laboratory for examining situations which would
be impossible to observe otherwise, but we must always remain
critical of our results. Finite-differencing can be an extremely
powerful tool, but only when it is firmly set in a basis of physical
meaning. In order for a finite-difference code to be successful, we must
start from the beginning, dealing with simple cases and examining
our logic each step of the way”. F.H. Harlow was one of the most
talented experts in Computational Fluid Dynamics, who leaded the
famous Group T3 at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in the 70-80s.
From the regulatory point of view, the need for independent
safety analysis can not be sufficiently emphasized. It must be
understood that the same engineering data most probably will
generate different results, even using the same code and the same
(agreed with the licensee) criteria for discretization. Differences
would arise from choosing different code options or what is the code
user interpretation of the agreed criteria. In passing, the importance
of EJ may be, once again exemplified by the following excerpt from
[3]: “It should be stressed that the staff does not rely solely in
computer analyses, but rather use the analyses as a tool to help guide
understanding of plant behavior in conjunction with EJ, hand
calculations, data analysis, and experience with plant operation”.
Also: “It must be continually emphasized that code results must
always be used with cautionary engineering judgment. This is true
even for those uses where the code has been explicitly assessed
against data because user choices and input deck errors may
influence the calculation results”.
In what follows, some examples coming from previous work by
the author and his colleague at the University of Pisa, Professor
Walter Ambrosini, are reviewed and presented. These results will be
the support for the present contribution. It must be mentioned that
the subject herein discussed is one of the more important aspects of
safety evaluations and only a brief, quite restricted discussion will be
presented.

The search for convergence of results

This is, perhaps, the easiest step in computational analysis of

engineering problems but only conceptually. In fact, it means that

9
grid size, as measured by some suitable norm, is compatible with the
accuracy of resolution of some type of boundary layer. This may be
a momentum boundary layer as in the vicinity of a wall, the depth
of heat penetration in a solid or the time history of some suitable
dependent variable as a function of its time scale, among many other
possible examples. What must be considered is that a given boundary
layer behavior must be solved accurately enough. Searching for grid
convergence is not a too costly activity in simple integration domains,
like the 1D cases herein considered. In multi-dimensional domains,
the use of multiple scale calculations tends to keep detail and
accuracy at an appropriate level in the entire integration domain.
Shape and size variation of computational cells affect the global
accuracy.
In the case of natural circulation in unstable flow conditions
analyzed using time domain computer codes, the problem consists in
using a spatial discretization fine enough as to minimize the amount
of numerical diffusion. It is sometimes added in the process of
solution as a consequence of the inherent properties of the discrete
scheme. This diffusion is usually associated with first-order spatial
discretization. It may be argued that using O(1) numerical schemes
should not be recommended in general. However, most engineering
thermal-hydraulic systems codes use this approximation to
circumvent a worse limitation: the ill-posedness of governing
equations.
The interaction of flow stabilization and discretization may
be exemplified resorting to results in [4], as shown in Figure 1, where
the flow rate in a toroidal loop was obtained using a finite-difference
scheme O(∆x, ∆t) known as forward time (Euler) upstream space
(FTUS in short), 1000 spatial nodes and a cell Courant number
(≡U.∆t/∆x), C=0.8. The results are compared with the ones obtained
using a modal expansion- it is free of numerical diffusion- with 500
modes and adding the numerical diffusion corresponding to the
previous approximation. It may be observed that the results are
nearly the same. Then, it may be concluded that the usual
interaction between numerics and physics persists in this non-linear
case.
The results in [4] showed how using different order schemes
could be useful to get improved convergence of results to some
limiting accuracy. Perhaps the most interesting results were showing
how usual approximations of piping systems related to nuclear
industry could be non-conservative from the point of view of safety.

10
Figure 1. The flow rate for the FTUS scheme using 1000 nodes and its
simulation using a modal expansion of 500 modes and adding the numerical
viscosity corresponding to 1000 nodes.

In fact, revisiting a pioneering work by P. Welander [5], a stability

map was determined. It corresponds to a two pipes loop 10 m high
and 0.1 m in diameter, with a concentrated heat source at the bottom
and an opposite heat sink at the top, as the one shown in Figure 2.
The analytical stability map is the one in Figure 3, where a
working point corresponding to an unstable flow condition was set.
Then the map was constructed by calculation with the FTUS
approximation and the effect of the number of nodes was determined.
Cooling

Sink 6
s=1
5
R eference Unstable C ase
Stable (α = 339, ε = 2.3)
4

a) b)
ε 3
U nstable
2

0
s=0 s=2 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Source α
Heating
Figure 2. A schematic Figure 3. Theoretical stability map for the positive
view of a natural flow steady-state conditions
circulation loop, adapted
from Welander (1967)

11
In the maps following, α and ε are two non dimensional parameters
that measure, respectively, the buoyancy driving force and the
resisting friction force in the loop.
Figure 4 shows that, as the number of nodes increases, the
unstable region in the map progressively converges to the theoretical
stability boundary (SB). Then, for the point under analysis, flow
changes from a stable condition to an unstable one. Then, the
evaluation of this system goes from a non-conservative stability
condition evaluation towards a conservative, real unstable one.
Predicting system stability is, obviously a non-correct, dangerous
situation in this case.
The interesting consideration here is that discretizing a pipe 10
m long and 0.1 m internal diameter in volumes 0.3 m long seems
natural to a systems code user, at least as a compromise between
computational cost and expected system behavior. Then, assuming
that the system is expected to perform in a stable way, EJ must be
used to decide on various aspects, namely: a) the system satisfies the
design goals; b) the numerical model is appropriate; c) the computer
code is applicable; d) the discretization is adequate and does not
mask some unexpected behavior and e) results are converged. These
questions are of great importance for the safety evaluation of nuclear
installations. Furthermore, as they seem natural, they have been
also considered in the so-called Code Scaling, Applicability and
Uncertainty (CSAU) evaluation methodology [6], an United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s major documented way to assess
the traceability of nuclear safety analyses. Also, the need for the
qualification of codes and their users arises in a natural way and this,
incidentally, has also been the subject of much analysis, see for
example, the discussions in [7], among others.

10 10

8 TheoreticalSB 8 TheoreticalSB
Stable R egion Stable R egion
6 6
ε ε
4 4
TestCase TestCase U nstable R egion
2 U nstable
2

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
α α

Figure 4a. Stability map with 30 Figure 4b. Stability map with 100
nodes per leg nodes per leg

12
 Another problem arises when two independent code results are
compared. A general, sophisticated thermal-hydraulic systems code
like RELAP5 [8] and another of restricted validity can be both
applied to a particular physical situation for which the second is
known to be applicable. In NC flows in single phase, the mass flow
rate scales with the 1/third power of the heat input in the system.
Then, a difference of 10 % in heat input leads to only 3.2 % in flow
rate. This last difference is small and acceptable in most situations,
given the uncertainties in codes and their closure correlations, but
covers a significant one in power. Deciding when it is possible to
accept this difference pose some challenge for large, complex systems
and requires applying EJ again. Regarding convergence of results,
some care must be also taken when lumped parameter simulations
are used. In [9], a lumping criterion for concentrated heat source/sink
was developed, which eliminates the lack of convergence due to
heated length in a FTUS finite-differences scheme applied to the
above mentioned problem. These results arose from applying EJ to
this lack of convergence.

The effect of closure correlations

Related to the previous search for convergence of results, there

is another aspect to be taken into account. It is whether an accepted,
usually applied closure correlation is appropriate to describe the
physics of the problem under analysis. Closure correlations serve to
set a system of conservation equations closed. Most commonly, they
include interface and interphase relations like friction laws, heat
transfer correlations, phase slip velocity specification and many
others. In this section, the effects of using different versions of the
macroscopic friction law will be discussed. It is important to say, from
the very beginning, that if the results of an engineering computer
prediction are not known (the usual case in engineering calculations),
then using accepted closure correlations is a basic tenet. There is
nothing to be argued against this practice. On the contrary, it is
supported by common sense and EJ.
It may be interesting to consider firstly the effect of friction
law in the stability map of a toroidal loop. This geometry is amenable
to analytical and numerical analysis and has been the subject of
research since decades ago. An example of this may be found in [11]
and Figure 5 shows, without makeup, how the system behaved

13
Figure 5, A toroidal loop with fixed input heat and dynamic heat exchanger

changing the nodalization, showing the usual damping of the FTUS

finite-differences scheme.
Far more recently, in [4], the effects of the friction laws on the
stability maps of a similar system were analyzed. Figure 6a shows
the most usual correlations for the friction factor in a tube, as a
function of the Reynolds number. The one signaled as Churchill law
is an adequate fitting to the Moody’s law used for smooth tubes in
engineering calculations. Figure 6b shows how the neutral stability
boundary is affected by the particular choice of the friction factor
variation at the transition of the flow from laminar to turbulent. The
variation is also predicted using the FTUS methodology and a modal

Figure 6a. The variation of friction factor with Reynolds number

14
 Figure 6b. The stability map as a function of the friction law

expansion solution of the governing equations. Now, a more realistic

situation will be analyzed.
Let us now consider the following experimental results [12],
dealing with NC flow in a simple square loop. The loop consists of a
23.2 mm I.D. glass pipe, having 2.1 m vertical legs and equipped with
0.8 m long electrically heated and fluid cooled horizontal sections.
The latter consists of a pipe-in-pipe heat exchanger, fed by relatively
cold water and at prescribed flow rates.This loop showed unstable
NC flow conditions for a heat power input of 420 W. These results
have been simulated by a set of two codes described in [13]. Figures
7 and 8 show the results of the predictions using Churchill’s

Figure 7. Flow rate variation for 450 W

15
 0.0232 m I.D .Loop ofV ijayan etal.(1995)
1stO rder Schem e,Fine N odalisation,D t= 0.1 s,C hurchill's Friction Law
1000

900

800 U N STA BLE

700
H eater Pow er [W ]

600

500

400 STA BLE

STA BLE
300
U N STA BLE
200

100
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Secondary C oolantTem perature [°C ]
Figure 8. Stability map using Churchill’s law

0.0232 m I.D .Loop ofV ijayan etal.(1995)

1stO rder Schem e,Fine N odalisation,D t= 0.1 s,Friction law suggested by V ijayan etal.
1000

900

800

700
H eater Pow er [W ]

600 A LW A Y S U N STA BLE

500

400

300

200

100
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Secondary C oolantTem perature [°C ]
Figure 9. Stability map using Vijayan’s suggested friction law
approximation. As may be observed, the map shows a band of stable
flow condition. Figure 9 shows the map for the same conditions using
the friction law as suggested in [12]. The flow is always unstable, as
the experiments also indicate. The calculation using the codes of [13]
with the correlation in [12] permitted to recover a condition similar
to the one in Figure 9, i.e. a completely unstable map. Now, the
following may be concluded: the transition laws adopted to link
correlations for laminar and turbulent flow adopted in thermal-
hydraulic codes are under question in unstable flows. It was shown
that a non monotonous transition branch in the correlating curve
may lead to predict stability, whereas experimental observations
show unstable behaviour. Again the condition is not conservative.
It is somewhat difficult to establish an EJ criterion to deal with
this situation. Perhaps, the conclusion in [10] can be repeated here:
the validity of the traditional claim for the inapplicability of the
forced convection friction correlations in natural circulation conditions
appears to be rather dependent on the geometry of the loop. In fact,
though in some literature works, including comprehensive reviews,
recommendations are given to use friction laws providing larger
friction factors than in forced flow, the work in [12] seems to suggest
that classical laminar and turbulent friction correlations perform
reasonably well in rectangular loops. It is so when appropriate
localised pressure drop coefficients are included in the models to
account for the effect of bends and other discontinuities.
Nevertheless, what is clear is that transitional flows must be
evaluated quite carefully, testing the effects even of the most
classical closure correlations.

Conclusions

This presentation dealt with some particular applications of

engineering judgment to evaluate the results of computer codes
application to unstable, one-dimensional, natural circulation flows in
single phase. Despite the simplicity of the systems analyzed, some
problems have been exemplified that pose a challenge to the common
reasoning. Perhaps, the only way to circumvent the questions of
convergence of results and the effects of closure correlations is to
resort to sensitivity to parameters analysis. This author and his
colleague W. Ambrosini have also contributed on this subject that is
an active field of research, as summarized in [4]. If a concluding

17
assertion is needed, it may be that EJ and non dogmatism go
together and that accepting clichés as working rules must be avoided.
In the author’s opinion, the few examples considered fully support
the previous assertion.

References

1) 1998, N. Aksan (Compiler), Best estimate methods in thermal

hydraulic safety analysis, Summary and Conclusions of OECD/CSNI
Seminar 29 June - 1 July, 1998, Ankara, Turkey, NEA/CSNI/R(99)22.
2) 1995, E. Scannapieco and F. H. Harlow, Introduction to Finite-
Difference Methods for Numerical Fluid Dynamics, LA-12984 (UC-
700).
3) 1996, L.M. Shotkin, Development and assessment of U.S. NRC
thermal-hydraulic system computer codes, Nuclear Technology, 116,
pp. 231-244.
4) 2002, J.C. Ferreri and W. Ambrosini, On The Analysis of Thermal
Fluid Dynamic Instabilities via Numerical Discretisation of
Conservation Equations, Nuclear Eng. and Design, 215, pp. 153-170.
5) 1967, P. Welander, On the oscillatory instability of a differentially
heated fluid loop, J. Fluid Mech., 29, part. 1, pp. 17-30.
6) 1989, Quantifying Safety Margins: Application of Code Scaling,
Applicability, and Uncertainty Evaluation Methodology to a Large
Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident, NUREG/CR-5249, EGG-2659 – also in
Nuclear Engineering and Design, 119, 1990.
7) 1998, IAEA, IAEA Specialist Meeting on User Qualification for and
User Effect on Accident Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants, Vienna, 31
August - 3 September, 1998.
8) 1990, K.E. Carlson et al., RELAP5/MOD3 Code Manual Volume I:
Code Structure, System Models and Solution Methods, NUREG/CR-
5535.
9) 1991, G.M. Grandi and J.C. Ferreri, Limitations of the use of a “Heat
Exchanger Approximation for a Point Heat Source”, Internal Memo,
CNEA, GSRN, Argentina Included in: 1999, Ferreri and W. Ambrosini,
Verification of RELAP5/MOD3 with theoretical and numerical
stability results on single-phase, natural circulation in a simple loop,
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG IA/151.
10) 2004, W. Ambrosini, N. Forgione, J.C. Ferreri and M. Bucci, The effect
of wall friction in single-phase natural circulation stability at the
transition between laminar and turbulent flow, Annals of Nuclear
Energy, 31, pp. 1833-1865.
11) 1984, J.C. Ferreri and A.S. Doval, Sobre los efectos de la discretización
en el cómputo de la circulación natural en loops, Seminarios del
CAMAT, 24, pp. 181-212.

18
12) 1995, P.K. Vijayan, H. Austregesilo, V. Teschendorff, 1995. Simulation
of the unstable behaviour of single-phase natural circulation with
repetitive flow reversals in a rectangular loop using the computer code
ATHLET, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 155, pp. 623-641.
13) 2003, W. Ambrosini and J.C. Ferreri, Prediction of Stability of One-
dimensional Natural Circulation with a Low Diffusion Numerical
Scheme, Annals of Nuclear Energy, 30, pp 1505-1537.

19
 MESA DIRECTIVA

- 2005-2007 -

Presidente
Dr. JULIO H. G. OLIVERA

Vicepresidente 1°
Dr. ROBERTO J. WALTON

Vicepresidente 2°
Dr. AMÍLCAR E. ARGÜELLES

Secretario
Dr. HUGO F. BAUZÁ

Prosecretario
Dr. JORGE SAHADE

Tesorero
Ing. PEDRO VICIEN

Protesorero
Dr. FAUSTO T. L. GRATTON
Impreso durante el mes de enero de 2007 en Ronaldo J. Pellegrini Impresiones,
Bogotá 3066, Depto. 2, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, República Argentina
correo-e: rjpellegrini@fibertel.com.ar