Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology

ISSN: 0022-3131 (Print) 1881-1248 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnst20

Prediction of temperature and water level in a

spent fuel pit during loss of all AC power supplies
Translation

Chihiro Yanagi, Michio Murase, Yoshitaka Yoshida & Takayoshi Kusunoki

To cite this article: Chihiro Yanagi, Michio Murase, Yoshitaka Yoshida & Takayoshi Kusunoki
(2015) Prediction of temperature and water level in a spent fuel pit during loss of all
AC power supplies, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 52:2, 193-203, DOI:
10.1080/00223131.2014.939597

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2014.939597

Published online: 17 Jul 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 843

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tnst20
Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 2015
Vol. 52, No. 2, 193–203, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2014.939597

ARTICLE Translation

Prediction of temperature and water level in a spent fuel pit during loss of all AC power supplies†
Chihiro Yanagia∗ , Michio Murasea , Yoshitaka Yoshidaa and Takayoshi Kusunokib1
a
Technical Support Project, Institute of Nuclear Technology, Institute of Nuclear Safety System, Inc., 64 Sata, Mihama-cho,
Mikata-gun, Fukui 919-1205, Japan; b Nuclear Power Division, The Kansai Electric Power, Co., Inc., 13-8 Goichi, Mihama-cho,
Mikata-gun, Fukui 919-1141, Japan
(Received 5 June 2014; accepted final version for publication 23 June 2014)

A prediction method for water temperature in a spent fuel pit of a pressurized water reactor (PWR) has
been developed to calculate the increase in water temperature during the shutdown of cooling systems. In
this study, the prediction method was extended to calculate the water level in a spent fuel pit during loss
of all AC power supplies, and predicted results were compared with measured values of spent fuel pools
in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The calculations gave reasonable results, but overesti-
mated the decreasing rate of the water level and the water temperature. This indicated that decay heat was
overestimated and evaporation heat transfer from the water surface was underestimated. Results of calcu-
lations with 80% decay heat and 155% (Unit 4 pool) or 230% (Unit 2 pool) evaporation heat flux were in
good agreement with measured values. The data-fitted evaporation heat fluxes agreed rather well with the
evaporation heat transfer correlation proposed by Fujii et al.
Keywords: spent fuel pit; loss of all AC power supplies; decay heat; evaporation; water temperature; water
level; the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

1. Introduction
A spent fuel pit (or spent fuel pool, hereafter SFP)
in a nuclear power plant is generally equipped with two
cooling systems to remove decay heat from spent fuel
assemblies and to keep the SFP water at a low tempera-
ture. Above the water surface of the SFP, an air curtain
is formed by air ventilation systems, which are normally
operated by external AC power supplies or by emergency
diesel generators when external AC power supplies fail.
Evaluating the increase in the SFP water temperature
and the time until the upper limit of the SFP water tem-
perature is reached becomes important during the shut-
down of cooling systems. On the other hand, evaluating
the water level in the SFP becomes important during loss
of all AC power supplies including the emergency diesel
generators. Important uncertainties for prediction of the
water temperature and water level in the SFP during the
shutdown of cooling systems and air ventilation systems
are decay heat and evaporation heat transfer from the
water surface to air in the fuel handling building.
The normal water level in the SFP is about 7 m above
the top of the spent fuel racks and this is a large amount
of water to provide gamma radiation shielding. There-
fore, the water temperature increasing rate and water
level decreasing rate in the SFP are very small, and these
issues have been rarely reported. For decommissioning
of a nuclear power plant, the USNRC has reported the
time limit and the cooling period needed to ensure no
damage to spent fuel assemblies when they are exposed
in the air during loss of all AC power supplies [1]. How-
ever, the report calculations focused on the cooling pe-
riod and an adiabatic condition was used. The adiabatic
condition means that heat losses from the SFP water to
air and concrete are neglected. The adiabatic condition
also means that all decay heat is stored in the water be-
fore reaching 100 ◦ C or all decay heat is consumed in

∗
Corresponding author. Email: yanagi.chihiro@inss.co.jp
1
Present address: Institute of Nuclear Technology, Institute of Nuclear Safety System, Inc., 64 Sata, Mihama-cho, Mikata-gun,
Fukui 919-1205, Japan.
†
This is a translation of an article originally published in Japanese in Transactions of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan
<http://dx.doi.org/10.3327/taesj.J11.050>. Taylor & Francis do not warrant the accuracy of the translation.


C 2014 Atomic Energy Society of Japan. All rights reserved.
194 C. Yanagi et al.
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of a PWR spent fuel pit.
boiling after reaching 100 ◦ C. There is a big difference
in prediction of the water temperature between heat loss
and the adiabatic condition in some cases.
In serial studies [2–4], a correlation for evaporation
of heat fluxes from water surface to air during the shut-
down of cooling systems was derived [2], and based on
the three-dimensional (3D) thermal hydraulic behavior
calculated by using CFD software [3], the water tem-
perature prediction system with a one-region model was
developed [4]. In this paper, this prediction system has
been extended to calculate the water level in the SFP dur-
ing loss of all AC power supplies, and predicted results
have been verified using measured values in SFPs of the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station [5].
2. Outline of the water temperature prediction system
during shutdown of cooling systems
Figure 1 shows a conceptual diagram of a pressurized
water reactor (PWR) SFP. The SFP layout differs among
reactor types. Further, the SFP is generally located in the
fuel handling building outside of the reactor building in
a PWR and on the operation floor in the reactor building
in a BWR (boiling water reactor) [6]. The inside wall of
the SFP is covered with stainless steel. The water depth
of the SFP is about 12 m. The width and length of the
SFP below the water surface are also different, depend-
ing on the plant capacity, but these are about 10 m ×
10 m.
Prediction of water level during the loss of all AC
power supplies in this study was added to the water tem-
perature prediction system [4] during the shutdown of
cooling systems. The water temperature prediction sys-
tem consists of a database for spent fuel assemblies, a
subsystem to calculate decay heat of spent fuel assem-
blies, and a subsystem to calculate the water temperature
and level in the SFP.
2.1. Prediction of decay heat
The burn-up calculation software, ORIGEN 2.2 [7],
and the nuclear cross-section libraries [8] for ORIGEN
2 based on JENDL 3.3 [9] were used to calculate de-
cay heat of fuel assemblies. Calculation conditions were
for uranium fuel assemblies of PWRs and the maximum
burn-up was 48 GWd/t or 55 GWd/t with three cycles.
Decay heat of the shutdown reactor core was calculated
for operation periods of 3, 6, and 13 months and the
operation period to reach the maximum burn-up with
an equivalent mixture of three-cycle burn-up fuel assem-
blies, and the tables of decay heat were made with the pa-
rameters of these four operation periods and the cooling
time after the reactor shutdown. Decay heat of spent fuel
assemblies stored in the SFP was treated for the maxi-
mum burn-up fuel assemblies and calculated after the re-
actor shutdown, and the tables of decay heat were made
for the time after the reactor shutdown. From the data
of the spent fuel assemblies stored in the SFP, respective
decay heat of each fuel assembly was calculated using
the tables of decay heat.
2.2. Prediction of water temperature and
water level
The previous study [3] showed the water temperature
in the rack was higher than the average water temper-
ature due to the decay heat and was almost uniform
outside the rack, except for regions near the water
surface and the concrete walls. Therefore, in the de-
veloped predicting water temperature system [4], the
average water temperature was calculated with the one-
region model of the SFP water, and the water surface
temperature, which was used for calculating evaporation
heat fluxes from the water surface to air, was calculated
separately. The heat balance equation for the one-region
model consisted of decay heat as heat source, heat stored
in water, heat transfer from water to concrete, and evap-
oration heat transfer from the water surface to air. Heat
transfer from water to concrete and heat distribution
in concrete were calculated using the 1D unsteady heat
conduction equation with the natural convection heat
transfer correlation proposed by Kataoka et al. [10].
Thermal resistance of the stainless steel covering on the
SFP wall was small, so it was neglected. Evaporation
heat transfer from the water surface to air was calculated
using water surface temperature and the correlation
proposed by Yanagi et al. [2] for evaporation heat flux.
Calculation of water surface temperature requires the
natural circulation flow rate near the water surface. This
natural circulation flow rate was obtained and good
agreement was seen between water temperatures (both
average water temperature and water surface temper-
ature) computed by the 3D simulation and one-region
model. Then a correlation for natural circulation flow
rates was derived as a function of decay heat and this
was introduced into the water temperature prediction
system with the one-region model.
The water temperature is limited to values lower than
65 ◦ C by technical specifications under normal oper-
ating conditions. For normal operating conditions, the
 Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, Volume 52, No. 2, February 2015 195

water level is almost constant but this prediction sys-

tem was extended to predict water level during loss
of all AC power supplies. The heat balance equation
for the one-region model introduced evaporation from
the water surface to air before the water temperature
reached the saturated temperature (100 ◦ C), and intro-
duced boiling after the water temperature reached the
saturated temperature. (The difference between decay
heat and heat transfer from water to concrete equals
the total of evaporation heat transfer and boiling heat.)
Radiation heat transfer does not affect the decease of
water mass. Because of the uncertain emissivity and
the small effect on the calculation of water mass even
with the emissivity of 1.0, radiation heat transfer was
not considered in this prediction system. Fluid prop-
erties were obtained as functions of temperature and
the water level was calculated from the water mass, the
water density, the water surface area, and the water
expansion.
Figure 2. Evaporation heat fluxes calculated by Equations
(1) and (2).

2.3. Correlation for evaporation heat fluxes

The correlation used for evaporation heat fluxes
from the water surface to air qE (kW/m2 ) was given by
the following equation proposed by Yanagi et al. [2] for
forced convection air flow:
 
0.622PS0 0.622PS∞
q E = 0.010ρa Ua0.60 − h fg,
P − 0.378PS0 P − 0.378PS∞
where hfg (kJ/kg) is the latent heat of evaporation, P (Pa)
is the system pressure, PS0 (Pa) is the saturated vapor
pressure on the water surface, PS∞ (Pa) is the vapor pres-
sure in air, Ua (m/s) is the air velocity, and ρa (kg/m3 ) is
the air density. The first and second fractions in Equa-
tion (1) are vapor weight ratios on the water surface and
in bulk air, respectively. Equation (1) contains both con-
vection and radiation heat transfers in the measured wa-
ter temperature range of 20–65 ◦ C.
The correlation used for evaporation heat fluxes
from the water surface to air inside the fuel handling
building qE (kW/m2 ) was Equation (2) [2]. The equa-
tion for natural convection air flow was derived from the
analogy between natural convection heat transfer and
mass transfer of vapor to evaluate the coexisting field
with forced convection and natural convection:
 
0.622PS0 0.622PS∞
q E = h D ρa − h fg,
P − 0.378PS0 P − 0.378PS∞
h Dl
Sh = = 1.65 × 0.0185Gr 0.4 Sc0.4 ,
D
 
 ρ0 − ρ∞  l 3 

Gr = g   , Sc = υ D
ρ  υ2
∞ systems were operating and Equation (1) was used for
where D ([m2 /s) is the mass diffusion coefficient in the
air, g (m/s2 ) is the gravitational acceleration, hD (m/s)
is the mass transfer coefficient, l (m) is the characteris-
tics length of the heat transfer area, and υ (m2 /s) is the
kinematic viscosity. ρ0 (kg/m3 ) is the density of humid
air in contact with the water surface, and ρ∞ (kg/m3 )
is the air density inside the fuel handling building. Sh,
Gr, and Sc are the Sherwood number, Grashof number,
and Schmidt number, respectively. 1.65 is the constant
(1) magnification number in the case of upside heating sur-
rounded by side walls.
Figure 2 shows the evaporation heat fluxes calculated
by Equations (1) and (2). In Equation (1) for forced con-
vection air flow, air velocity Ua was 1.5 m/s and air tem-
perature Ta was 20 ◦ C. In Equation (2) for natural con-
vection air flow, the characteristics length of the heat
transfer area l was 10 m. Dependency on the water tem-
perature differed between forced convection air flow and
natural convection air flow.
2.4. Validation of water temperature
Due to uncertainty of calculated decay heat, a con-
stant magnification number is used in the water tem-
perature prediction system [4] during the shutdown of
cooling systems, but in this validation, the magnifica-
tion number was 1.0 for the decay heat. Figure 3 shows
the increase of water temperature for two cases [4]. Case
1 had fuel assemblies with large decay heat which had
been taken relatively recently from the shutdown reac-
tor core and the period of cooling was short. Case 2 had
fuel assemblies with small decay heat which had been
taken a long time ago from the shutdown reactor core
(2) and the period of cooling was long. The air ventilation
evaporation heat fluxes. The maximum water tempera-
ture values were about 30 ◦ C in Case 1 and about 40 ◦ C
in Case 2. The time and temperature were normalized
196
1.4
1.2
1
Temperature increase
(T -T 0)c /(T e -T 0)m
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4
Time: (t -t 0)c /(t e -t 0)m
Figure 3. Increase of water temperature during the shutdown
of cooling systems.
by the shutdown period of the cooling systems (te − t0 )
and temperature increase during shutdown period of the
cooling systems (Te − T0 ), respectively, where te is the
restart time of the cooling systems, t0 is their shutdown
time, Te is the water temperature at their restart time,
and T0 is the water temperature at their shutdown time.
The calculation results for Case 1 with large decay heat
agreed well with measured temperatures, but the calcu-
lated water temperature increasing rate for Case 2 with
small decay heat was about 35% larger than the mea-
sured temperature increasing rate. The results in Case 2
showed that the calculated decay heat was overestimated
for long-time cooled fuel assemblies. Prediction of decay
heat affected the water temperature and the water tem-
perature was relatively low, so Equation (1) was not suf-
ficiently validated.
3. Prediction of water level during loss of all
AC power supplies
3.1. Prediction of water temperature
Figure 4 shows the heat transfer model used to calcu-
late water temperature during loss of all AC power sup-
plies. The calculation method of water temperature was
the same as the method used for the shutdown of cool-
ing systems [4], and the heat balance equation for the
one-region model was used:
 
dTw
Cpw Mw = Q D − Q E − QC , (Tw ≤ 100 ◦ C)
dt
where Cpw (kJ/(kg·K)) is the specific heat of water,
Mw (kg) is the water mass, Tw (◦ C) is the average water
temperature, t (s) is the time after shutdown of the cool-
ing systems or loss of all AC power supplies, QD (kW) is
C. Yanagi et al.
Case1
Case2
0.6 0.8 1
Figure 4. Heat transfer model for loss of all AC power
supplies.
the decay heat, QE (kW) is the evaporation heat trans-
fer from the water surface to air, and QC (kW) is the
heat transfer from water to concrete. QC is calculated us-
ing the 1D unsteady heat conduction equation with the
natural convection heat transfer correlation proposed by
Kataoka et al. [10]. QE was calculated using the corre-
lation of evaporation heat fluxes for natural convection
air flow (Equation (2)). In Equation (3), the limitation
of Tw ≤ 100 ◦ C automatically gives the transition from
evaporation to boiling. The water surface temperature
was calculated as
QE
Tws = Tw − (4)
2Cpw G ws
where Tws (◦ C) is the water surface temperature and Gws
(kg/s) is the natural circulation flow rate near the water
surface (hypothetical surface layer). Gws was obtained
and good agreement was seen between water tempera-
tures (both average water temperature and water surface
temperature) computed by the 3D simulation and one-
region model. Then a correlation for Gws was derived as
a function of decay heat and was introduced into the pre-
diction system with the one-region model. The fraction
1/2 in Equation (4) comes from the average of the inlet
water temperature (Tw ) and outlet water temperature in
the hypothetical surface layer.
The average air temperature in the fuel handling
building was calculated from enthalpy of air in the fuel
handling building, which was calculated from the heat
balance equation for the one-region model under the
(3) condition of 100% relative humidity:
   
d Qa dTw
= Q D − QC − Cpw Mw − Qout ,
dt
 
dt
Qa
Ta = f , (5)
Va
 Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, Volume 52, No. 2, February 2015
where Qa (kJ) is the enthalpy of air in the fuel handling
building, Qout (kW) is the heat transfer outside the fuel
handling building, Ta (◦ C) is the average air tempera-
ture in the fuel handling building, and Va (m3 ) is the vol-
ume of the fuel handling building. The third term on the
right side is the increasing rate of enthalpy of water. Qout
was calculated using a turbulent natural convection heat
transfer outside of the fuel handling building neglecting
effects of wind. The function f was obtained from the
relationship between air temperature and its enthalpy
(kJ/m3 ) with 100% relative humidity. Physical properties
were calculated using functions of temperature. Using
the term (QD − QC ) instead of QE in Equation (5) makes
it possible to calculate the heat balance after the water
temperature reaches the saturated temperature of Tw =
100 ◦ C (heat is not stored in water after boiling). Equa-
tion (5) was introduced into the water temperature pre-
diction system [4] during shutdown of cooling systems.
3.2. Prediction of water level
The calculation method of the water level was also
the same as the method for the shutdown of cooling
systems [4], and the following mass balance equation for
a one-region model was used:
   
d Mw dTw
h f g = − (Q D − QC ) + Cpw Mw
dt dt
Mw
Hw = , (6)
ρw Aws
where Hw (m) is the water level, Aws (m2 ) is the water
surface area, and ρw (kg/m3 ) is the water density.
4. Validation for prediction of water temperature
and level
The authors could not find any documents describ-
ing the measurement of the water temperature and level
in a SFP during loss of all AC power supplies. Therefore,
comparison and validation were done by using measure-
ment results [5] in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Station (1F) (hereafter called the 1F-Report). The objec-
tive of calculations with the one-region model for SFPs
in 1F was not to reproduce the thermal-hydraulics but
to validate prediction of the water temperature and the
level. In 1F, some buildings were damaged and water in-
jection was done for a long time.
In the case of a damaged building, QE was calculated
under the condition that Ta in Figure 4 equals the out-
door temperature of Ta,out . Water injection was done pe-
riodically, but in this study, water injection was continu-
ously assumed at the same time-averaged flow rate and
subcooled heat was subtracted from QD in calculations
of the water temperature.
197
Table 1. Calculation conditions [5].
Initial conditions
Vw,0 (m3 ) Hw,0 (m) Tw,0 (◦ C) Ta,out (◦ C) Tw,in (◦ C)
1390 11.5 30 10 10
Note: Vw,0 : initial water volume (m3 ), Hw,0 : initial water level (m),
Tw,0 : initial water temperature (◦ C), Ta,out : outdoor temperature (◦ C),
and Tw,in : temperature of injected water (◦ C).
4.1. Calculation conditions
Table 1 shows the calculation conditions. The initial
water volume Vw,0 and initial water level Hw,0 were given
in the 1F-Report [5]. The initial water temperature Tw,0 ,
outdoor temperature, Ta,out , and temperature of injected
water, Tw,in , were the same values as assumed in the
1F-Report [5].
Decay heats predicted by ORIGEN 2.2 were written
for values at the beginning (t = 0) and three months later
(t = 90 days) in the 1F-Report [5]. In this study, decay
heat was calculated using the correlation recommended
by ANS-5.1-1973 [11], in which the coefficient and index
were fitted to give decay heat at t = 0, 90 days in the
1F-Report [5].
In the Unit 4 pool, water levels were measured during
the no water injection periods; the calculation accuracy
of decay heat was discussed by comparison of the calcu-
lated water level decreasing rate with the measured value.
, In the Unit 2 pool, the calculation accuracy of evap-
oration heat flux, during the period a high water level
was kept by periodical water injection, was discussed by
comparison of the calculated water temperature with the
measured value.
4.2. Unit 4 pool
Decay heats in the Unit 4 SFP were reported [5] as
2.26 MW (t = 0) and 1.58 MW (t = 90 days). In the
calculation for the Unit 4 pool, the water temperature
and level were calculated under the conditions of the in-
tact building and the function of the presented predic-
tion system was considered first. Next, calculated wa-
ter levels during no water injection were compared with
measured values under the condition that air tempera-
ture equaled the outdoor temperature of 10 ◦ C for the
damaged building.
Figure 5 shows the calculated transient behaviors
(heat gain, temperatures, water level from the top of
the racks, and evaporation heat transfer coefficient) af-
ter loss of all AC power supplies with the intact build-
ing. After about three days, Tw was almost 100 ◦ C
(Figure 5(b)), QE rapidly increased due to boiling
(Figure 5(a)), and Hw rapidly decreased (Figure 5(c)).
QC in Figure 5(a) increased once due to the water tem-
perature increase and then decreased due to the water
level decrease and increase of TC (QC was calculated for
the SFP volume below the water level, not including the
volume above the water level). Figure 5(b) shows that the
198 C. Yanagi et al.
Figure 5. Transient behavior after loss of all AC power supplies (Unit 4 pool, intact building).
calculated average water temperatures with and without
heat losses were almost the same, because QD was much
bigger than heat losses to concrete and air, QC + QE .
Tws values after about three days agreed well with the
measured values. Water level in Figure 5(c) is the level
from the top of racks. Increasing water level in the begin-
ning was due to thermal expansion; water level without
heat losses Hw,a was slightly overestimated, even though
during the decreasing water level Hw,a might be generally
underestimated since evaporation was ignored. Because
QC was relatively small, calculated water levels with and
without heat losses were almost the same. The calculated
water level agreed well with the measured value made
by visual observation from a helicopter. It took about
12.7 days until the water level decreased to the top of
the racks without water injection. The calculated evap-
oration heat transfer coefficient in Figure 5(d) rapidly
increased due to the increases in average water temper-
ature and water surface temperature, and its value be-
came 133 W/(m2 ·K) at Tws = 87 ◦ C. Calculated evapora-
tion heat transfer coefficient and evaporation heat trans-
fer rate had a significant effect on the water temperature
calculation, but except for the case of small decay heat
(refer to Figure 11(b)) they had only a small effect on the
water level calculation.
Figure 6 compares the calculation results during no
water injection with measured values; the conditions
were that air temperature was equal to the outdoor tem-
perature (Ta = 10 ◦ C) with the damaged building. Wa-
ter temperature (Figure 6(a)) was measured by a ther-
mocouple that was hung from the water injection crane,
but the depth of the measuring point was not clear. The
water temperature distribution by 3D calculation is nec-
essary for estimation of the measuring point location.
Measured water temperatures were between Tw and Tws ,
and so water temperature calculation was considered to
be reasonable. Heat transfer form was boiling (Tw =
100 ◦ C) during this period in the calculation, and so it
was hard to validate Equation (2) for evaporation heat
fluxes. Calculations overestimated the decreasing rate of
the water level by about 20% as shown in Figure 6(b).
The decreasing rate of the water level calculated with
80% decay heat (0.8 QD ) agreed well with the measured
value as shown in Figure 7. This showed that ORIGEN
 Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, Volume 52, No. 2, February 2015
Figure 6. Transient behavior after loss of all AC power supplies (Unit 4 pool, damaged building).
2.2 overestimated decay heat. The same result was shown
in Case 2 of Figure 3 and for this Case 2, the increasing
rate of the water temperature calculated with 0.75 QD
agreed well with the measured value.
4.3. Unit 2 pool
Decay heat in the Unit 2 pool was reported [5] as 0.62
MW (t = 0) and 0.52 MW (t = 90 days). This build-
ing was only partially damaged, so in the calculation for
the Unit 2 pool, evaporation heat transfer was calculated
under the condition of the intact building (evaporation
heat transferred to outdoor due to discharge of mixture
of steam and air in the building). Equation (2) for evap-
oration heat fluxes was discussed by comparison of cal-
Figure 7. Water level (Unit-4 pool, damaged building,
0.8 QD ).
199
culated water temperatures with measured values during
the period that the water level was fully kept by periodi-
cal water injection.
Figure 8 shows the calculated transient behaviors
(heat gain, temperatures, water level from the top of
racks, and evaporation heat transfer coefficient) under
the condition of the intact building. These were almost
the same behaviors as for the Unit 4 pool. Initial decay
heat of the Unit 2 pool was about 27% that of the Unit 4
pool. The time until the water level decreased to the top
of racks in the Unit 2 pool (Figure 8(c): about 46.6 days)
took about 3.7 times longer than the time in the Unit 4
pool. Decay heat QD (Figure 8(a)) balanced with heat
losses to concrete and air, QC + QE , at the time when
the average water temperature reached about 88 ◦ C and
the water surface temperature (Figure 8(b)) was about
79 ◦ C. Therefore, the boiling status (100 ◦ C) was not es-
tablished.
After 10 days had passed from loss of all AC power
supplies, water was injected periodically, and after
40 days, the pool was evaluated as being at a high water
level. Calculated results after 40 days are shown in
Figure 9. In the calculations, a constant water flow was
continuously assumed to keep the water level high. The
temperature of the injected water was 10 ◦ C. The differ-
ence between decay heat QD and heat losses to concrete
and air, QC + QE , in Figure 9(a) is the subcooled heat of
injected water. The measured temperatures during this
period changed between about 50 and 70 ◦ C due to the
periodical water injection. Water temperature of 50 ◦ C
was evaluated as air temperature [5], i.e. a thermometer
was exposed in the air due to the decrease in the water
level. Maximum temperature (about 70 ◦ C), which was
evaluated as water temperature, is shown in Figure 9(b).
Calculated average water temperatures and water
surface temperatures were higher than measured values.
The reasons for overestimating water temperature
200 C. Yanagi et al.

Figure 8. Transient behavior after loss of all AC power supplies (Unit 2 pool, intact building, without water injection).

Figure 9. Transient behavior after loss of all AC power supplies (Unit 2 pool, intact building, with water injection).
 Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, Volume 52, No. 2, February 2015 201

Figure 10. Effects of decay heat (QD ) and evaporation heat flux (qE ) on water temperatures (Unit 2 pool).

were effects of the damaged building, overestimation
of decay heat, and underestimation of evaporation
heat flux.
For the damaged building and the same air temper-
ature as the outdoor temperature (Ta = 10 ◦ C), the cal-
culated water temperature decreased by only 4 ◦ C–5 ◦ C.
So, the main reasons for overestimating the water tem-
perature were overestimation of decay heat and underes-
timation of evaporation heat flux. In the calculation for
the Unit 4 pool, the water level decreasing rate calcu-
lated with 80% decay heat (0.8QD ) gave good agreement
between the calculated and measured values. However,
overestimation of water temperature could not be clar-
ified under the calculation condition of 0.8QD for the
Unit 2 pool.
Figure 10 shows the surveillance results of calcula-
tion conditions which gave good agreement between the
calculated and measured water temperatures. Calculated
water surface temperatures agreed well with measured
values under the conditions of 0.8QD and 130% evapo-
ration heat flux (1.3qE ) as shown in Figure 10(a). Calcu-
lated average water temperatures agreed well with mea-
sured values under the conditions of 0.65QD and 1.7qE,
as shown in Figure 10(b).
The magnification number for evaporation heat flux
was 2.3 to obtain good agreement of calculated average
water temperatures with measured values under the con-
dition of 0.8QD, as shown in Figure 11(a). In this case,
the water level calculated with heat losses to concrete
and air was lower than that calculated with the adiabatic
condition, as shown in Figure 11(b). Evaporation under
the condition of highly subcooled water caused this early
decrease in the water level. The smaller decay heat and
the bigger evaporation (low water temperature) caused

Figure 11. Effects of decay heat (QD ) and evaporation heat flux (qE ) (Unit 2 pool, 0.8 QD , 2.3 qE ).
202 C. Yanagi et al.
the lower water level. The results indicated that the adi-
abatic calculations were not always conservative.
4.4. Discussion
The decreasing rate of the water level was overesti-
mated in the case of 100% decay heat (1.0QD ) predicted
by ORIGEN 2.2 (Figure 6(b)), but the deceasing rate of
the water level for the 80% decay heat (0.8QD ) predicted
by ORIGEN 2.2 demonstrated good agreement with the
measured water levels (Figure 7).
These results showed that decay heat predicted by
ORIGEN 2.2 was overestimated by 25% (1/0.8 = 1.25)
for long-time cooled fuel assemblies. The magnification
number for evaporation heat flux was 1.55 to obtain
good agreement between calculated average water tem-
peratures and measured values under the condition of
0.8QD, as shown in Figure 12. This result showed that
evaporation heat transfer predicted by Equation (2) was
underestimated by 35% (1/1.55 = 0.65).
Prediction error of decay heat differs according to
the specifications and the status (fuel type, burn-up,
cooling period, etc.) of the spent fuel assembly. If 25%
overestimation of decay heat was adopted in the calcula-
tion for the Unit 2 pool, the same as for the Unit 4 pool,
Equation (2) underestimated evaporation heat fluxes by
57% (1/2.3 = 0.43). Cooling time of spent fuel assem-
blies in the Unit 2 pool was longer than that in the Unit
4 pool; consequently, the prediction error of decay heat
calculated by ORIGEN 2.2 in the Unit 2 pool would be
bigger than that in the Unit 4 pool. Under the assump-
tion that decay heat was overestimated by 54% (1/0.65 =
1.54) in the Unit 2 pool, as shown in Figure 10(b), Equa-
tion (2) underestimated evaporation heat fluxes by 41%
(1/1.7 = 0.59). From these discussions, it is difficult to
Figure 12. Water temperatures (Unit 4 pool, damaged
building, 0.8QD , 1.55qE ).
Figure 13. Comparison of evaporation heat fluxes.
separate overestimation of decay heat and underestima-
tion of evaporation heat flux quantitatively.
It was considered that the underestimation of evapo-
ration heat flux (35%–57%) was a reasonable prediction
error under the uncertainty of the correlation for turbu-
lent natural convection heat transfer used in the deriva-
tion of Equation (2) because the measured heat gains in
forced convection evaporation were about three times of
the values predicted from the analogy [2].
Figure 13 compares evaporation heat fluxes. The data
marked as 1F in Figure 13 were calculated from the data
in Figures 10(b), 11(a), and 12, and agreed well with
the correlation proposed by Fujii et al. [12]. Fujii et al.
measured evaporation heat fluxes with surface areas of
0.034 and 0.29 m2 under pressures of 0.1–0.32 MPa in
stagnant air conditions. Steam pressure ratio (Pso /P) and
heat flux values of Fujii et al. were within the conditions
of this study, but water temperatures (Tw ≥ 100 ◦ C) and
steam pressure (Pso ) were high. Therefore, the correla-
tion of Fujii et al. would not be applicable to the calcu-
lation of the water temperature in the SFP. However, it is
interesting that predicted evaporation heat fluxes agreed
well with data-fitted evaporation heat fluxes which were
adjusted with the water temperature of the Uuit 2 and
Unit 4 pools. These data-fitted evaporation heat fluxes
are affected by the uncertainty of the decay heat calcula-
tion. It is necessary to collect more data on evaporation
heat transfer and to improve the correlation.
5. Conclusions
The prediction system that was developed to predict
water temperature in an SFP after the shutdown of cool-
ing systems was extended to calculate the water level in
the SFP during loss of all AC power supplies. The calcu-
lated results were validated by using the measured water
 Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, Volume 52, No. 2, February 2015
temperatures and levels in SFPs at 1F. The following re-
sults were obtained:
(1) The decreasing rate of the water level with de-
cay heat predicted by ORIGEN 2.2 was overes-
timated. The decreasing rate of the water level
calculated with 80% decay heat agreed well with
measured values. These results showed that de-
cay heat predicted by ORIGEN 2.2 was overes-
timated by 25% for long-time cooled fuel assem-
blies.
(2) The correlation for evaporation heat fluxes,
which was derived from the analogy between
turbulent natural convection heat transfer and
mass transfer of vapor, overestimated water tem-
peratures and underestimated evaporation heat
transfer by 35%–57%.
(3) Evaporation heat fluxes, which were calculated
to give good agreement between calculated and
measured values, agreed well with the correla-
tion proposed by Fujii et al. within limited con-
ditions.
(4) Neglect of heat losses generally had small effects
on the prediction of the water level decreasing
rate; however, in the case of small decay heat,
the water level decreasing rate with neglect of
heat losses was underestimated because enthalpy
stored in water was overestimated.
References
[1] Collins TE, Hubbard G. Technical study of spent fuel
pool accident risk at decommissioning nuclear power
plants, NUREG-1738. US Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion (USNRC); February 2001.
[2] Yanagi C, Murase M, Yoshida Y, Iwaki T, Na-
gae T, Koizumi Y. [Evaporation heat flux form hot
water to air flow]. Trans Jpn Soc Mech Eng B. February
2012;78(786):363–372. Japanese.
203
[3] Yanagi C, Murase M, Yoshida Y, Iwaki T, Nagae T.
Evaluation of heat loss and water temperature in a
spent fuel pit. J Power Energy Sys. June 2012;6(2):51–
62.
[4] Yanagi C, Murase M, Yoshida Y, Iwaki T, Nagae T.
[Evaluation of water temperature in spent fuel pit (5)
development of a simple calculation method]. 2011 Fall
Meeting of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan; 2011
September 19–22; Kitakyushu, Japan. p. 41. Japanese.
[5] TEPCO. Report on effects of the earthquake in
the Northeastern Japan on nuclear facilities in the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. The Tokyo
Electric Power Company; September 2011. Japanese.
[6] Nuclear Safety Research Association, Tokyo, Japan.
Overview of light water nuclear power stations; January
2010.
[7] Ludwig SB, Croff AG. Revision to ORIGEN2 – Version
2.2, Transmittal memo of CCC-0371/17. TN, USA: Oak
Ridge National Laboratory; May 2002.
[8] Katakura J, Kataoka M, Suyama K, Jin T, Ohki
S. A set of ORIGEN2 cross section libraries based
on JENDL3.3 library: ORLIBJ33, JAERI-Data/Code
2004-015. Ibaragi prefecture, Japan: Japan Atomic En-
ergy Research Institute; 2004.
[9] Shibata K, Kawano T, Nakagawa T, Iwamoto O,
Katakura J, Fukahori T, Chiba S, Hasegawa A,
Murata T, Matsunobu H, Ohsawa T, Nakajima Y,
Yoshida T, Zukeran A, Kawai M, Baba M, Ishikawa
M, Asami T, Watanabe T, Watanabe Y, Igashira M,
Yamamuro N, Kitazawa H, Yamano N, Takano H.
JENDL-3.3: Japanese evaluated nuclear data library
version 3 revision-3. J Nucl Sci Technol. November
2002;39(11):1125–1136.
[10] Kataoka Y, Fujii T, Murase M, Tominaga K. Experi-
mental study on heat removal characteristics for water
wall type passive containment cooling system. J Nucl Sci
Technol. October 1994;31(10):1043–1052.
[11] American Nuclear Society. Decay energy release rates
following shutdown of uranium-cooled thermal reactors.
IL, USA: American Nuclear Society; 1973. ANS-5.1-
1973.
[12] Fujii T, Kataoka Y, Murase M. Evaporation and con-
densation heat transfer in a suppression chamber of the
water wall type passive containment cooling system. J
Nucl Sci Technol. May 1996;33(5):374–380.