ML20151S167
| ML20151S167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1985 |
| From: | Heberle G, Jansen R, Lyman W WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151S140 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808150089 | |
| Download: ML20151S167 (23) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. l l s' . ANALYSIS OF COOLANT AT REDUCTION OBSERVED AT MCGUIRE UNIT 2 October 30, 1985 G. H. Heberle Plant Transient Analysis Nuclear Safety R. L. .lansen Technical Specification Services Nuclear Safety W. G. Lyman Fluid Systems Design Systems Engineering Westinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear Technology Division 3448e:ld/103085 8808150089 880801 PDR ADOCK 05000369
.P , _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _
. PDC ___, _ _ .
.)_
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Subsequent to the startup of McGuire Unit 2 on its second fuel cycle, plant
~
p.ersonnel noted that the reactor coolant temperature difference (&T) had decreased by about l'F (1.7%) over a period of 8 weeks. An evaluation of key pla~nt parameter variations during the period was perforned to determine the cause of the AT decrease. Based on this evaluation, it was concluded that: The AT reduction that might be caused by changes in hot leg temperature streaming patterns was limited to 0.5'F. Some secondary plant parameters indicate that up to 0.S'F of the AT reduction might be due to a reduction in thermal power. No other phenomenon other than the usual instrument drift was identified as a possible cause of the AT reduction. From a safety analysis standpoint, the reduction in AT is within the allowed margins, so there is no impact on the safety analyses and therefore no reduction in the margin to safety. 3448e:ld/102885
.. __ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . - . - - - --.- -. .. . _ - - - . - . _ _ _ . . - - - - ._-
.g.
INTRODUCTION Subsequent to the startup of McGuire Unit 2 on its second fuel cycle, plant p,ersonnel noted that the reactor coolant temperature difference (AT) at full 1 power was decreasing. Over a period of 8 weeks at full power, the AT l decreased linearly in all loops by about l'F. A review of operating data from McGuire Unit 1 showed that AT had also decreased at that plant, but by a smaller amount. Large decreases in AT experienced at some other nuclear ! plants have been caused by fouling of the feedwater flow venturi meters and I the resulting decrease in thernal outp'ut. Small variations in AT will likely occur as a result of drift in the instrumentation. Trends in other key I plant parameters at McGuire Unit 2 indicated that venturi fouling could be l responsible for only part of the AT decrease, so a review of the available data was performed, primarily to evaluate the possibility that changes in hot leg temperature streaming patterns could be causing part of the decrease in coolant AT. The results of this review are summarized in the next section. l 3448e:1d/102885
T l
SUMMARY
A review of the core exit therinocouple (T/C) data for the first 8 weeks of McGuire 2-Cycle 2 operation shows that the temperature distribution-ihanged noticeably during the period. This change would probably cause a change in the fiot leg temperature streaming distribution, which in turn could cause a i change in the temperature measured by the RTO bypass system. However, it is not likely that a temperature streaming change could be responsible for the entire l'F decrease in coolant AT. A similar core exit T/C data review for all of McGuire 2-Cycle 1 shows similar changes in the temperature distribu- ) tion, but the decrease in coolant AT observed during the cycle was less than l 0.3*F. If a streaming change had caused a decrease of 1'F in measured coolant ! AT, the dif f arence between measured hot leg temperature and the average of l all core exit temperatures would have increased by l'F; however, the trending data indicates that the difference remained constant over most of the period and that the only change, which occurred at the beginning of the period, was limited to 0.5'F. Since the AT decrease was essentially linear over the 8-week period, it is concluded that some other phenomenon must be responsible for any change beyond the 0.5'F noted above. In consideration of the plant safety analyses, if the AT decrease had been caused entirely by a change in temperature streaming, a conservative method of compensating for the change would involve rescaling the full power AT to the lower AT value, and reducing the T,yg setpoint by 1/2 of the decrease in AT. The safety analyses incorporate an allowance of il'F on T,yg for the temperature streaming uncertainty for protection and control functions. An allowance of !1. 2'F for streaming uncertainty was applied for the precision , calorimetric flow measurement. The changes observed to date at McGuire 2 Cycle 2 are within these allowances. The overall calorimetric flow measurement uncertainty is 1.55, so repeat flow measurements within a 3% band would be consistent with the expected flow measurement range. Since the changes observed at McGuire 2 are within the allowed margins in the safety analyses, there is no impact on the safety analyses and therefore no reduction in the margin to safety. 3448e:1d/102885
l: \ BACKGROUND 1 Over the past several years, some nuclear plants have reported an unexplained 1,oss in electrical output, and trending reviews of key plant parampters, including coolant AT and steam flow, have established that the unexplained loss was being caused by fouling of the feedwater flow venturi nozzles. In some cases the loss in power reached a steady state level of 2 to 35 power; in other cases, losses of as much as 6 to 75 have been experienced. In all cases, trending of plant parameters such as coolant AT identified the fouling condition, and most of the plants have taken measures to compensate for the loss, by employing alternate feedwater flow measurements or calorimetric measurement procedures. Until recently, no operating plant had reported any unexplained, significant change in full power coolant AT. One plant in Sweden has recently identified a significant change in a hot leg temperature in one of its three loops, and this change is under investigation by the Westinghouse office in Brussels. When questioned about AT variations, one U.S. plant advised that they have'had minor changes in AT occasionally, generally less than 0.5'F. and have rescaled their AT channels accordingly. It is likely that other plants have also experienced small changes in AT and have rescaled the instruments without reporting the changes. Based on the available data, it is concluded that AT changes have occurred but, other than those associated with feedwater venturi fouling, have not presented significant problems at operating plants. Hot leg temperature streaming was identified as a significant problem at the San Onofre plant in 1968. Circumferential temperature gradients of 7 to 10'F were measured at San Onofre and, as a result, the RTD Bypass System was designed and installed to improve the temperature measurement on subsequent plants. Operating experience to date has shown that the hot leg temperature measurements on these plants have been reasonably stable, i.e., no significant changes in coolant AT. Recent tests at a French plant and another U.S. plant, in which the hot leg circumferential temperature gradients were measured, showed that the temperature streaming distributions were essentially 3448e:1d/102885
unchanged over a period of several months. A review of core exit T/C data over an entire fuel cycle at the U.S. plant showed negligible changes in the core exit temperature distribution; hence, changes in the hot leg temperature distribution would not have been expected. . Although the review of data on core exit and hot leg temperature behavior has been limited, the available data has shown reasonable stability in measured temperatures, with variations of 0.5'F or less reported from several sources, and no significant problems had been reported prior to the McGuire 2 experience. DATA EVALUATION McGuire Unit 2 operating data from the first 8 weeks of cycle 2 operation has been reviewed to help identify the cause of the coolant AT decrease. Only two possible causes for the decrease have been postulated: changes in hot leg temperature streaming distribution, and feedwater venturi fouling. The information in this report deals primarily with the evaluation of the temperature streaming possibility. Core Exit Thermocouple Data McGuire plant personnel provided core exit T/C maps for selected times during the first fuel cycle and for every day during the 8 weeks at full power for the second fuel cycle. All of the first cycle data and 8 cases (1 per week) of the second cycle data were evaluated. The data was normalized to the average core exit T/C temperature, so each T/C measurement is expressed in *F above or below the average. Table 1 presents the Cycle 1 data and Table 2 presents the cycle 2 data. Typical radial profiles for both cycles were established for comparison. These radial profiles are illustrated on Figure 1 (Cycle 1) and Figure 2 (Cycle 2). The radius is presented in units of core area f rom the center to the edge of the core, to more clearly illustrate the impact of the temperature 3448e:1d/102885
[ . i profiles. Figure 1 shows that the radial profile is well-defined, with i minimal scatter, and with a maximum AT of about 35'F. Figure 2, on the ! other hand, has a smaller maximum AT of about 25'F and illustrates a much more complex profile, with two distinct radial profiles, one on the major axes and one displaced 45' from the major axes. Both profiles are similar to the cycle 1 profile on the outer edge of the core, but the profile on the major axes has a temperature depression at the exit of the older fuel assemblies next to the new fuel assemblies installed on the outer edge of the core. Although different, this Cycle 2 core exit temperature distribution is consistent with the predicted power distribution for the fuel loading pattern, The magnitude of the hot leg temperature streaming distribution is related to the magnitude of the maximum core exit temperature differences, and may be related to the radial profiles. Larger hot leg streaming differences would be expected during the first cycle, but more complex temperature streaming distributions might be present during the second cycle due to the radial ' temperature distribution. The effect of these differences on the hot leg temperature measurement error is dif ficult to predict; however, analyses of numerous hot leg temperature distributions has shown that the RTD Bypass System is reasonably effective in minimizing this error. A review of the data on Tables 1 and 2 shows that the core exit temperatures changed noticeably during both fuel cycles. To assist visualization and analysis of this phenomenon, all of the core exit temperatures were combined into one quadrant, and temperatures in the same fuel assembly locations were averaged. With few exceptions, the differences from quadrant to quadrant were minimal. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the quadrant temperatures for all cases evaluated for the two fuel cycles. As would be expected, the core exit temperatures increase with burnup at the outer edges of the core and decrease with burnup at the center of the core. Figure 5 compares the net change in core exit temperature at each location, for both fuel cycles. It is noted that the changes across the core are very similar on both cycles, so the impact on hot leg temperature streaming distributions would also be expected to be similar. According to McGuire plant personnel, the coolant AT during 3448e:1d/102885
, l l
the first fuel cycle changed less than 0.3'F, so the effect of the change in l core exit temperature distribution was minimal. Since the changes in core exit temperatures for Cycle 2 were s'imilar to Cycle 1, a significant change in cpo' ant AT would not be expected. Based on this evaluation, it is-Concluded that some of the l'F change in the Cycle 2 AT is being caused by some other phehomenon such as venturi fouling. l 1 Plant parameter Trends McGuire plant personnel produced the key plant parameter data trends shown on ! Figures 6, 7 and 8. The trend in core exit AT is clearly shown on Figure
- 6. After correcting for the effect of increasing lake temperature and condenser back pressure, the electrical output shown on Figure 6 remained relatively constant over the 8-week period, although a slight decrease of '
about 6 IWe (0.5 percent) appears to have occurred during the last half of the , period. Figure 7 presents trends in average core exit temperature, hot leg temperature and cold leg temperature. Although there is some data scatter, the dif ference between het and cold leg temperature decreases by about l'F, and cold leg temperature increases by at least 0.5'F. Most significant is the comparison of core exit temperature (T HOT (T/C)) and hot leg temperature [T HOT (RTD)]. If hot leg temperature streaming were causing the decrease in AT by decreasing the measured hot leg temperature relative to the actual temperature, then the difference between core exit temperature (equivalent to actual hot leg temperature) and measured hot leg temperature should increase by the same amount. As shown by Figure 7, this difference (neglecting obvious data anomalies) appears to be less than 0.5'F. A more detailed review of this data indicates that the difference remained reasonably constant over most of the period, and that the change of 0.5'F occurred at the beginning of the period. This change does not match the linear change in AT of l'F which occurred during the 8 week period. Therefore, based on this comparison, changes in hot leg temperature streaming patterns do not appear to be the only cause of the decrease in AT. 3448e:1d/102885 _ - _ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _________u._
. .l 1
Figure 8 presents trends in other key parameters: Measured feedwater flow decreased slightly, less than 0.2 percent during the period. This small potential loss in thermal power output
,, was balanced by a decrease in feedwater temperature of about 1.2'F.
The resulting increase in the enthalpy rise across the steam generator maintained the plant at a constant measured thermal power. The feedwater temperature decrease of 1.2*F is, however, an indication of a 0.9 percent decrease in thermal power. Also, ) the turbine impulse pressure decreased about 5 psi, generally l equivalent to e decrease of about 0.7 percent power. There is currently no other explanation for the decrease in these two parameters except a reduction in therral power. !
- Steam pressure increased by about 6 psi. A combination of several factors could explain most of this increase: the feedwater temperature decrease of 1.2*F improves the preheat steam generator heat transfer performance slightly, accounting for at least 1 psi increase in steam pressure; a decrease of 1 percent in thermal power would increase steam pressure by about 2 psi based on the normal Tgyg load program; however, if T gyg remained constant while l thermal power decreased 1 percent, steam pressure would increase an additional 2 psi.
Considering the above evaluation of the parameter trends, it appears likely that part of the AT reduction resulted from a reduction in thermal output, j possibly as much as 0.5'F. Since indicated thernal power was essentially constant, feedwater venturi fouling is a definite possibility, and additional I performance data trends should be evaluated to confirm this conclusion. Another possible cause of a thermal power reduction is drif t in the feedwater temperature measurement channel, which was found to be occurring at McGuire Unit 1. A recalibration of the appropriate instrument channels would identify or eliminate drift as a cause of the AT reduction. 1 3448e:1d/103085
_g_ In the event that the AT decrease continues, while the measured thermal power appears to remain constant, the appropriate parameter trends should be evaluated to identify the most probable cause of the AT decrease. The reconsnended parameter trends are as follows: . Comparison of average core exit T/Cs and hot leg RTDs
- Feedwater flows and temperatures
- Steam and turbine impulse pressures
- Corrected and uncorrected electrical outputs.
If the AT decrease is determined to be the result of a reduction in thermal output, no corrections to the AT setpoints are required. If the thermal output is determined to be at rated output, corrections to the AT setpoints would be required, as described in the next section. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS Backaround Duke Power raised the following questions concerning the decrease in AT of approximately l'F at McGuire Unit 2 duringthe first two months of cycle two operation:
- 1. Was the LCO for OT AT and OP AT violated considering that an l allowable value of 25 is specified?
- 2. Are OP AT and OT AT constants AT,, T' and T' required to be recalibrated or reset each cycle by technical specification
! requirements?
- 3. What is the suggested course of action if AT continues to decrease?
Westinahouse Response l The Westinghouse position on the above issues is as follows: l 3448e:1d/102885 r
, , , - --- - - - , , , - - , - a,a- , , - ,, - ,, , ,c,-- , , - _ - . --, - ,- -,
1. A l'F decrease in AT and failure to recalibrate AT,, T' and T' at the beginning of cycle 2 do not in and of themselves constitute a violation of the OP AT and DT AT allowable value.
. ?
2.
. The definition of Channel Calibration states:
A CHANNEL CALIBRATION shall be the adjustment, as necessary, of the channel such that it responds within the required range and accuracy to known values of input. Westinghouse has historically interpreted this as requiring rescaling of OP 'AT and OT AT constants AT,, T' and T' (the key words being 'such that it responds within the required range and accuracy"). Westinghouse takes the position that compliance with the requirement to perform a channel calibration requires rescaling. Further it is our position that this rescaling should occur at the ' beginning of each fuel cycle after the operating values of Tavg and AT for the cycle have been established.
- 3. The position is, that in the event that AT continues to decrease, an assessment of the cause of the decrease will have to be made if the reason is unknown. If the AT decrease is not correctable and is attributable to factors which have been accounted for in the error
- analysis for reactor protection system setpoints as documented in the i
statistical setpoint study and if the error analysis remains bounding, no action is required. If the cause of the decrease is not correc-table and not attributable to factors which have been accounted for in the error analysis or if the assumptions of the error analysis are exceeded, then one of the following two actions should be taken:
- a. Rescale the OP AT and OT AT constants to the actual Tavg and AT values observed at 100% rated thermal power.
L 3448e:1d/102885
b. Decrease the values of the Kj and K4 constants 15 for each percent AT deviates from the beginning of cycle value or each percent the assumptions in the error analysis are exceeded,
, whichever is appropriate.
Discussion Westinghouse does not consider the situation experienced at McGuire 2 to be a violation of the allowable value based on,1) the purpose for including allowable values in the technical specifications and, 2) past operational experience. Allowable values (i.e., the assumptions in the error analysis upon which the allowable values are based) are included in the technical specifications in recognition of, and to account for, drift and calibration uncertainties associated with the protection system components. Allowable i values do not account for changes in the operational characteristics of the plant. Periodic testing requires that the actual trip setpoints be determined , by inputting appropriate actual or simulated values. To determine the acceptability of the as measured setpoints a comparison is made to the i allowable values. The allowable values for OP AT and OT AT are determined by calculation using the values set into the circuit, in the case of the constants, and the test value of the process parameter, in the case of process pa rameters . Since the values assumed in the calculation for the constants are l those set into the circuit (and not those last monitored at 100% power), the l actual values of Tavg and AT at 100% do not af fect the setpoint calculation or the as measured setpoint. This is in keeping with the purpose of the 1 allowable value which accounts for measurement related issues and not operational issues. Neither the decrease in AT nor the failure to rescale the OP AT and OT AT constants at the beginning of the cycle which resulted in AT's different than those assumed in the analysis, affseted the periodic setpoint verification. The allowable value would only be exceeded as a result of mistakes made during testing or calibration, or misalignment of failure of the hardware. In other words, becattse of the method used for setpoint l verification and the purpose of the allowable value, Hestinghouse does not conclude that a violation occurred as a result of exceeding an allowable value. l l l l 3448e:1d/102885
i.
~
i As previously stated we are of the opinion that the technical specifications require the rescaling of OP AT and OT AT constants at the beginning of { each cycle. This position has been adopted based on operational experience which shows that the actual values of Tavg and AT at 100% may differ. by l several degrees from those assumed in the analysis. These differences occur priniari'ly due to results of steam generator moisture carryover tests which may ' justify decreased temperature operation, and actual values of RCS flow being greater than assumed in the analysis. Westinghouse has performed calculations which show that the preferred method to account for these differences is to ; rescale AT, and T' to the as measured 100% value and to set T' at the i design value. This ensures that the assumptions in the safety analysis and operational margin are maintained. Failure to rescale these constants will either restrict operational margin or remove analysis margin possibly to the point where the assumptions of the analysis are violated. Westinghouse is of the opinion that rescaling OP AT and CT AT constanu need only be performed at the beginning of each cycle based on past operational experience which shows that once established the values of Tavg and AT change very little. Changes which have occurred at operating plants (with the possible exception of McGuire) have either been attributable to venturi fouling or are attributable to factors :onsidered in the error analysis and which are bounded. The recommendation to either rescale OP AT and OT AT constants or decrease if required by evaluation, in the event that the AT continues K) and K4 to decrease is based on maintenance of analytical margin. By either rescaling the constants or instituting a percent for percent setpoint reduction the level of protection is mainta;ned. i 3448e:1d/102885
\
1 E t a te M E M TA FOR E 8st E - guli 2 t w enots e tt M ia F m Eg8t g - 317 2 gg e s,1
--ELTA 7 ITI-- -----K L74 i lagt LE R40185 1 8AEA 2/22184,411/84 7111184 !!I22!B4 1189/85 LE RA8!US 1 AREA 2/22tM 4/1/84 7/Ilf8418122/84 g/z9,gt '
O I !.627659 f.I 9.9 6.6 7.9 4.3 C4 4.483 4.8 Ft M.73143 1.2 -4.I 4.4 4.3 2.236 8.13)P90 18.1 38.6 9.3 3.6 4.4 33 6.4e3 M.73143 1.9 2.9 3.2 3.7 6.1 I 19 2.236 8.137M8 f.3 *!. 7.4 3.0 4.5 Cl2 4.403 M.73143 2.5 2.9 3.8 7.9 4.8 til 3 14.64813 12 II.9 10.8 6.3 4.9 913 6.483 M.73143 1.3 3.3 4 3.9 5.2 j LI 5 14.64e93 II.6 f.T 3.3 8.7 4.0 pl3 6.483 M.73143 3.2 4.2 4.4 4.6 7.6 l to 3.686 21.16483 9.1 8.6 6.7 5.3 1.7 512 6.Ge3 M.71143 8 8.3 3.1 7.7 6.3
- F3 3.686 21.16483 18 f.9 8.3 4.7 6.1 R3 6.403 H.73143 1.3 2.1 - 2.4 2.0 5.0 l III 3.686 21.16483 7.5 7.3 7.6 6.1 2.5 94 6.443 M.73143
' 3.0 4.4 4.7 t 4.1 IS 3.6h 21.16453 10.9 10.7 10 6.3 6.9 Bil 8.7M 73.24026 -3.9 -4 -2.5 3.3 -8.6 ) 37 4.123 27.M878 T.I T 6.7 3.7 4.6 85 6.700 73.24028 2 2.4 3.2 2.6 5.9 i 54 4.123 27.4 878 12.2 11.6 10.5 6.9 6A, 18 L2 '3.24f28 :.4 I 9.9 8.0 -0.8 N7 4.123 27.M878 - 8.1 6.6 2.8 3.7 214 e.ise 73.248.; -8.8 -8.5 -8.4 2.7 8 l CI 5 40.69147 8.6 7.7 6.6 7.4 1.7 LI4 6.iBc 73.24820 f.I 3.3 1.4 4.4 2.4 ) til 5 40.69147 8.7 9 9 4.5 7.8 PS a.790 73.24828 7.1 - 6.6 - 3.4 m i L12 5 48.69147 9.1 1 8.3 10.5 7.5 E2 6.788 73.24e28 - w 1.4 4.7 2.9 ) 311 5 48.69147 8.4 9.9 T.2 4.7 6.9 N15 7 77.75529 -12.0 -II.7 -18.7 -15.2 -13.5
- N3 5 48.61147 1 8.2 10.8 7.9 f.4 80 7 71.75529 -13.4 -
-12.6 -8.7 -18.5 i C6 5.385 47.19922 f.T 9.8 7.3 11.2 8.6 NI 7 79.75529 -13.4 -15.3 -12.5 -13.7 -12.2 i F13 5.385 47.19122 9.4 0.2 9.4 5.5 7.9 R6 7.20 84.26333 -17.9 -
-15.1 -l!.4 -13.3 l ti3 5.385 47.19122 7.8 8.8 7.6 2.8 4.9 t; 7.28 86.26333 -17.8 -17.5 -15.8 -16.3 -13 I 318 5.385 47.19922 7.1 4.7 4.6 8.4 5.6 M 7.20 N.26333 -14.9 -14.4 -13.4 -f.5 -18.4 R6 5.3t3 47.19972 B.6 0.4 -2 3.9 2 FI 7.28 56.24333 -
-15 -13.3 -13.8 -88.5 Pt 6.e33 68.228e9 5.7 -
6.6 2.8 5.9 RIO 7.28 86.25333 - -
-15.9 -18.2 -12.7 52 6.M3 68.22989 4 4.8 4.9 7.3 5.3 R15 7.28 86.26333 -14.8 -13.6 -12.5 -13.3 -9.6 4 39 6.003 68.22Mt 3 B.4 4.1 2.9 2.7 FIS 7.28 86.26333 -16.9 -56.3 -13.4 -13.7 -18.4 I $14 6.983 68.22839 4.4 4.7 4.3 7 4.3 Alt 7.28 86.26333 .- -21.5 -17.0 -13.3 -84.9 I 314 6.883 68.22809 4.1 4.1 4M 7.3 5.2 93 7.81 99.20006 -24.7 -24 -19.4 -28.5 - 17.I l 77 6.983 68.22909 3.6 -
4.4 2.8 6,1 913 7.81 99.200P6 -28.2 -27.6 . .-13.8 -26.6 -22.6 i Bit' 7.81 19.20006 -19.2 -18.9 -17.7 -83.7 -14.8
- l m2 7.el 99.2ws4 -21.2 -2s.5 -18.4 -14.3 -12.2 1
1 ! TABLI 1 FcGUIRE 2 CYCLE 1 ! EBit
- IET * 'T stLTA i = TIN - THE CORE .*tt 'EMPERA E RAgj g e FM L A$$(Aptl[$
DIFFERiftCE5 FROM RAGE AREA a 58 FUEL AS$Entil[5 t t
1 i
- l f
fifRt0CW.fl[ MTA FM IE8DIR12 l DELT4 1 l*fi--- - l LOC RAP!US 5/21/95 5/29/95 6/5/05 4/12185 4/19/t3 6/2$!t$ 7/2/95 7/ fit: 38 1 -0.3 1.8 -2.4 3.1 -4.1 -4.3 -4.1 -4.1 F1 2.234 7.2 7 5.9 4.9 4.7 4.3 4.5 4.5 tt 2.234 4.1 5.3 J.! 4.5 4 4.4 3.4 3.1 011 3 4.5 4.2 3.2 3.1 2.0 2.9 2.7 2. Lt 3 4.3 - V3 3.686 6.6 3.4 3.4 2 1.5 2 f.6 2 1.2 ' 5.6 4.6 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.1 3.1 tif 3.60s 7.2 6.6 5.5 4.8 4.3
- ~ 3.3 3.5 3.4 F5 3.6t!. 0.5 7.7 6.7 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.3 5.1 i N7 4.123 -5 -4.3 -5.3 -5.1 -5.2 -5.1 5.4 -5.5 97 4.123 -4.4 -4.5 4.5 4.5 -5.1 -$.4 -5.2 -4.6 54 4.123 3.4 :
5 -9.5 4. 9 -1.3 -1.4 1.6 -1.5 h3 5 -14.6 -16 -14.4 -14.7 -15.5 16.9 -13.4 -15.5 Ll2 5 ll.1 18.9 19.2 9.9 V.5 t I.6 9 tt i 5 5
-10.9 13.8
-11.4 13.5
-18.7 le.,
-18.7 12.2
-19.4 12.1
-!f.t
!!.5
-11.4 11.3
@?11.8 nli 5 11.3 II.T 18 II t.I 9.9 9.6 't. 6 33 5.345 -2.4 -2.6 -3.2 -3.7 -3.9 -4 -3.6 3.8 C6 5.39! -5 4. 4 -5.1 -4.8 -5.3 -5.2 -5.5 -5.1 L13 5.3ti -1 -1.1 -1.4 21.4 -1.5 -1.4 -1.1 -1.1 F13 5.3t! -4.5 -4 -4.3 -4 -4.3 -4.2 -4.5 -5.3 Ilt 5.3t5 -1. 7 4.5 -58 4. 4 -6.5 -6.7 -6.5 4.1 Pt 6.I!! 5.2 6 6.5 4.5 7.3 7.2 7.1 8.6 -
77 6.PI; 3.7 5.3 1.8 5.4 6.3 6.1 6.8 6.5 als 6.11: 2.5 3 4 4.3 4.3 5.1 4.5 4 H 6.813 5,1 5.7 6 6.5 7.1 7 6.9 7.5 ll! 6.4t3 0.5 7.7 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3 7 7.7 M 6.4t3 I 4.7 6.4 4.4 c.3 5.5 6 6.1. A13 6.4t: 7.4 7 6.4 6.7 6.4 6.5 6.3 7 N' 6.4t 6.3 3.6 5.1 4.6 L6 2.2 4.9 3.3 L14 6.7ti 4.1 3.1 3.8 4.1 3.1 4.8 4.2 3.6 33 4.4t3 4* l 5.1 4.9 5 5.4 5.5 5.3 6 L2 6.791 6.7 6.6 6 6.1 4.3 6.4 6.2 6.1 12 d.70! 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.7
!!! 4.7ti 3.6 4.1 3.1 4.1 4.7 4.1 4.5 54
!!4 6.785 2.2 3.1 3.1 3.6 3.3 3.7 3.2 2.4 P! 6.7ti 3.3 4.1 3.9 4.7 !.3 5.4 5.1 5.0 M1 7 -18.2 -9 -9 -7.5 4.2 4.3 4. 6 4 St- 7 -2.5 -1.5 1.7 -1.7 -1.1 -1.4 -0.9 -t.9 141 5 7 -11.3 -10.3 -12.3 -t I 4.5 -7.7 -t FI 7.29 -
4.1 -
-4.2 -3.3 -
-3.7 -
86 7.2E -9.3 4. 0 -7.1 -6.7 -6.1 4.1 4.1 4. 4 Alf 7.2B -19.3 -3.6 - - - - - - 6e 7.22 5 -4.6 -3.9 3.5 -3.5 4. 4 3.1 4 Fil 7.26 -f.6 4.1 4. 4 4.7 4.1 4.5 -6.1 4.4 l 115 7.29 4.1 -4.9 5.5 -4.6 -3.9 -3.5 -3.4 -2.7 I Cil f.29 -6.4 1.5 -4.0 -4.2 -3.6 -3.7 -3.3 4.4 81 7.21 5.3 -4.2 -4.6 -3.9 -3.3 -3.4 -3.4 4.1 b7 7.81 -11.3 -11.2 -11.5 -i t. t -ll.1 -11 -10.4 -9.9 113 7.81 -16.6 -15.8 -16 -!!.7 -15.5 -15.4 =15. 6 ,-)#- 14 8 Q 616.5 616.6 6 17.2 6l6.9 Gl&.) 616.2 4 17. 3 6I6.4 TABLE 2 McGUIRE 2 CYL : l CORE EXIT TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCES FROM AVERAGE i
. - _ _ . _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ , . - _ _ . . . _ - . - . . - _ _ , . _ _ , . .~,_-,._._ ..-____________-_ _ _ _J
15 O ~b
.lN a o e, o O gQ
( . _ . WE. O * '- m, wg Ld
/ Oa a) w J &5 O
1 /= 4 eW
-s ww
" $O O "/ '8
() ~
/
D ~f" E ~ S' E* ' LLI R N e [Q i bd a g r" u rn O l- I Z I o a E O ED 0, ( ' D = Q to i i
\
)
._I o o o o o o o O O O C
, . g - - N N m i I I i I (A.) 3DN383 BIO 3Mrtl.MGdVG.I.
TBAPERATURE DIFFERENCE '(^F) l I I I l
- - -4
^
"O G G i
t) onwmag ""g p ,
$f,g
$N l f U
(3 0 , 05 l a M I 7
- CD a
) O
_ /'= C) C'
, / ,
' f 6 U
y % % N' I uur e . p,3-1 g m D h a C q l \\ Q GU N J g m 3, c ' 0N /2-mf a x
=~ e
//
-. o- --- --- 3. m .
/ b h @y Em s -
E E
- [/
gl3 cn gN n
/ j *
/
g qp / R o a l a I a ;
\
- WL ._ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7 & S 4 ) f, I DATES
- 2-22*84 11-22-84 1-19-85 S 4 10 ll 12. 13 14 IS 4-{-84
~13.4 -g.] m -IIA R g = -10.3 m - l).3
- IM -15.6 O' +4.1 4 2.3 ' l.7 w' -745 -n&
P 44.9 - + 3.o .ru it, S
+Et 4ZA -21.7 4 8.6 47A *19 47.5 ils + 7.6 -20.2 -154 ,
N c + 1.7 + 1'1 +st *sA +2.2 is.2 .re.1 -13.s cl
- L.L +Ab <2.1 -11.2 49.1 +3.3 881 44.4 *t,8 + 3.2 i M D +s1 '4.7 +9.5 $ 7.4 *3.2*'.2
'*L.7
- 9. l 43.5
+111417 +3.5 +5.7 +9.1 + B.S
- 434 y + 9.9 + 4.8 81.9 42.1 59o +7.8 - 41.2-L
+ 8.1 *7.2 4f.3 e.8 410.5 455
- F.! 4 4.2 -M.3 -14,3
+9.7 43.7 ,
fr '9.8 +4S ilo.3 46.5 48.2 +L4 -1s.4 -fa9 k ' 4F.4 49.2 *S.O -13 4 49.1 47.4 . *ll.2 4105 +4.2 + 7.7 J $ +89443 flL& &S.9 +4.5 84.9 i
*LA +1A0 44 2 FIGURE 3 McGUIRE 2 CYCLE 1 ,
412.0 ,&.3 +94 e 7.9 13.f - 845 H 'll.9 +&9 i t.2 49.4 -13.s -85.o @8Aj%D{sgggE i if0.5 + p.8 0' 38 6 DIFFERENCES FROM AVERAGE j
. l .
~
7 & S 4 3 1 l ' DATES 5-21-85 6-19-85 s a o n n is a is 1-gi:!i tit!!
. 6-12-85 7-08-85 1
-1.5 -I.I -1.5 -4.3 g g 1.5 - l.4 -S.o -4A .
-1.1 -0.9 -S.2 -4.2 -
i _-f.7 - o.s -4.s -4.6
, O' e4.1 <&.9
- 3 4
- S. 5 -I&s -Ins .
1 p g ss:t n.s *4.1 < s. s .os. -as.4 45.1 +12 *S t
- 4.3 -lLo *lSi O, *6.1 *15
- 4.4 + SL . IS.) -14.s
{ I -10.9 -la4 -4A -S.7 +8 o 16.3 4t.3 ar.;
-*'' -4# ~53' I i
i N c -I A3 -144 -4.1 -12 d 1 *S.5
,44 g
-,y'
.ts laq m j -10.7 11A So '
4&A + 6. 8 -14.9 - 1 9 ) -4.7 - S.2 'lla i +1f.o 47.8 + s.f l g g -4.3 - S.2 12.2447 *S.9
- 5.4 l S.) ell.3 eleA
- S.9
- 5.1 0, -S,1 -S.0 ellf + an? 4S.144.o
; 44.5 +t.* 37.2 + .4.3 +si.9 4 95 +4.4 44.9
#4.6
- 3,3 j g g e 3.1 42.o
+ 2.4 4 f.6 *iS*15
+10.9 q.o +4.5 e4.9 44 +4'
+ 10.2 + 3.F
! *2.8
- l.1 e4.5 414 .g.9 4 9.o [ '4.s 44.z
! *&.6 + 4.4 +I4 + 4.9 "2.1 -2.1 A7-4.z \ *&.1 + 4.6 +4 7 +5s - 2.L - 2.3 53-4.5 l N Y 45544b sSL 44.1 -2.t -13 S.E - 4.2 j O* 44.7 + i s +s.t +45 -2.7 -12 4.F -14 . , , (3A -l.3 1 4.t . *2.S 44.3 g -t.1 -4.3 o.o -IA *108A8 ) l J 2.4 -M.8 -e,s -g.4 *t.D + MS j -3.3 -4.1 .o.q - s.S i4,5 4 4.o i
+4.5 4 2.5 -l(& -tAS -iat - I4 FIGURE 4 McGUIRE 2 CYCLE 2 l '4Zd *' -f&9 + -9.7 '74 QUA RANT DISPLAY OF H -M.2 - T.2 CORE EXIT TEMPERATURE
+ 3.2 + 2.1 -fM -114 DIFFERENCES FROM AVERAGE O a.3.1 6 2.5 'I'g . 7g 0 -14.7 *'#8 O O' i
i ~' ~~ ' -
T 4 S 4 3 t I ' ' g q l0 ll g l} l4 lg CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2 i
+3 l4 2 l R A -
- 42 43
+1 +1 +7 j 43 42 42
-7 -l +3 +7 '
N c = l -7 -l -2 +1 ' 3 i -5 - I +4 i M D 1, - o -2 -l i
-7 -6 -l o
~~~
L E l -3 -4 -2 0 1 j -s -4 -2 +S k F _3 _3 o +3 ,,
-S -
-6 4I
( J O -4 -F +2 FIGURE 5 McGUIRE 2
-S O _
1 COMPARISON OF CYCL.E 1 ! H -2 +3 AND CYCLE 2 CORE EXIT
- l
-- [ TEMPERATURE CHANGES i
. Ig ,
~
l!!!!!!!i!.!
- .g l 3 8
- a .
g* . i ..
;g ;. , , ,, .,
- L c
.g f/ ,
!N ff >
g*! gp 3 v .,
, q; ..
g .i .) 5 .,
,L ; \ / .
! y _ c < < I l MM Mn I d'
.v.
=== ==. m.
I'
,g 8
.g k
)
J ' E < g N l r* I (> P 4 '8 sa
- g ,
W .h 8
,7 E rv E
= < i i
w-3 1; db@ q "@- hem ! E = W 3 W g /s % ; 3 i l
. v y u
- _
i .
' - I
. i .;
i i ,I. !. .s m }d d
- I i ..
s 3 e 5 e C e !.
*3 es 5
e C e e e .8 E E B B E (3/1) 10H 1 (01W) ADH 1 (01W) U"103 1
, F-e
( l l l!l l ilj il -
.I.I.I..I
..- . . .. a. l l ?.
3 , E s l 1 5 i r g b
# , , ,, r a g ,,
? ,
' h, t g,
!l ! h
!N att i : e
! v J
g
. I m gga ,
1 : ( -
'",, l' ,
l g -
- i :" n o
'a l
! "r!'
i !! 6 , Y, "
/ ]'
;- b ;:
N s i . l
"$k ! k k! ! ! k eIsd d eIsd I WH/g w
- --_}}