ML20155G610
| ML20155G610 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1988 |
| From: | YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155G604 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810170251 | |
| Download: ML20155G610 (117) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -
7
.. I r
I i
t i,
l i
1 I
APPENDIX A YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION 1
INCORE DETECTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS I
REVISION 1 i
i-I SEPTEMBER 1988 l
[
t t
I 8810170251 394 PDR ADOCK 050 29 i P PNU F L
. ~. - _ - - _ _ . .-. . . _ _ _ _ = . . _ - . . , -- __ .= - ._-- _. ._ - . _ _ . _ _
l
.o ,
i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 i
- t i
j Paig i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
/ PURPOSE.............................................. A-1 f t
2.0 STATUS O F C URR ENT SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3 i 3.0 FIXED DETECTORS - GENERAL DATA.................................... A-9 l c
4.0 CALIBRATION / NORMALIZATION OF FIXED DETECTOR DATA.................. A-14 I 5.0 STEADY-STATE PC'4ER DISTRIBUTIONS.................................. A-20 6.0 DETECTION OF POWER DISTRIBUTION ANOMALIES......................... A-101 !
7.0 DETERMINATION OF CONTROL R00 POSITIONING.......................... A-103 ;
r 8.0 INCORE DETECTION SYSTEM MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES................. A-107 '
9.0 FIXED DETECTOR OPERABILITY........................................ A-108
10.0 CONCLUSION
S....................................................... A-114 l
11.0 REFERENCES
........................................................ A-115 .
l f,
L 1
I I
l l
l i
i l
i i
i l
i
r .O
1.0 INTRODUCTION
/ PURPOSE i The Incore Detection System provides information on the neutron flux distribution at selected reactor core locations. The information obtained with the Incore Detection System, in conjunction with previously determined analytical data, can be used to determine the three-dimensional fission pcwer distribution in the core at any time throughout the operating cycle. Once she fission power distribution has been established, the maximum power output can be determined, and confirmation of reactor core design parameters and calculated hot channel factors can be made. ,
The Incore Detection System for the Yankee plant provides three basic functions. The primary function is to provide the three-dimensional neutron flux and power distributions which are used to monitor the power peaking and hot channel factors versus established limits. Verification of the analytical core parameters assumed in the safety analyses is made as well. Comparisons of measured peaking f actors, such as peak linear heat generation rates, F q and FAH, t established limits are generally made via monthly surveillances utilizing the Incore Detection System. The secondary functions of the Incore Detection System are to detect anomalies in the core usually during core startup due to possible misloaded fuel assemblies or quadrant asymmetries and to aid in the determination of control rod positioning during loss of primary control rod position indications.
The purpose of this analysis is to show that the Incore Detection l
System with a combination of both movable U-235 fission chambers and fixed. l self-powered, rhodium detectors can be used to accurately predict the core power distribution parameters with a monitoring aapability which has increased measurement observability and consequently less measurement uncertainty. In addition, this combination system provides greater core coverage for detection of possible core anomalies and control rod malfunctions. The Fixed Incore l i
Detector System (FIDS) can provide equivalent movable trace data which can be !
used in conjunction with the Movable Incore Detection System (MIDS) data for better monitoring capabilities than the MIDS alone. The fixed detectors, therefore, will be viable replacements for failed movable detector paths and will help provide the greatest possible core coverage and system monitoring I
capabilities.
I A-1
,o
- The INCORE (Reference 1) code used in our analysis is a data analysis l
I code which processes the information on neutron flux obtained from the Incore
! Detection System. Given the measured pointwise axial flux distributions, normalised relative reaction rates can be calculated based on the available instrumented assemblies. This information, along with power-to-flux ratio 4 analytical predictions, can be used to determine the axial and radial relative power distributions in the reactor core. Also, hot channel factors, peak i linear heat generation rates, and DNB margins can be calculated given the i
power distribution.
j
] The radial assembly average power distributions are determined from '
comparisons between measured and predicted normalized reaction rates.
Extrapolation techniques using the analytical predictions are used to extend j radially, to all parts of the core, the measured values of the fluxes obtained. The technique presently used for the Yankee reactor is an inverse
] .
square weighting based on *,he distance from thimble centers to available l sources. Assembly power distributions are then calculated based on the
! following formulat
! i
) -
Assembly [RR in Flux Thimble (Measured)](Assem Relative = in W Relative Flu NmMe ( Power (Anabtical))
Anabtical) pay,, Average of Numerator for all Fuel in the Core ,
I ,
I
! A similar procedure is used to determine peak assembly pin powers (Fxy) and ;
J maximu* - sembly channel powers (Fg). !
l I
J l l
) l i
4 l
4 A-2 I I l
~
2.0 STATUS OF CURRENT SYSTEM The original MIDS installed in the Yankee core in 1974 had provision:
for monitoring 22 reactor core locations as shown in Figure 2-1. Since that time, there have been numerous thimble failures and subsequent attempts to repair inoperable thimbles. The thimble failures have led to various Technical Specification changes (References 2, 3, 4) regarding the operability of the Incore Detection System and application of un,-rtainties to the measured data. A number of these changes were made an . *ingencies to possible future thimble failures but were never exercised. Presently, provision (Reference 5) has been made for the current operating cycle, Cycle 19, to accommodate up to four additional thimble failures before operability requirements could not be met. During Cycle 18, 13 thimbles were available for access by the movable fission chambers as shown in Figure 2-2.
After Cycle 19 startup, another thimble was declared inoperable due to restrictions in the thimble itself which would not permit a movable detector to be fully inserted into the reactor core. Therefore, there :ro 12 thimbles presently operable for meeting the operability requirement of the MIDS.
The FIDS installed in 1987 during the Cycle 18-19 refueling outage was originally scheduled to contain eight fixed detector strings in the core locations shown in Figure 2-3. However, two thimble locations, No. 9 and No. 15, had damaged tubes which would not allow insertion of the fixed strings; therefore, only six fixed strings were installed. Also, during plant heatup, three of the six fixed detector thimble locations were identified to be leaking a small amount of primary reactor coolant. Yankee plans to remove l one of the fixed detector strings from a leaking thimble location for mechanical analysis during the next refueling outage and will attempt to replace it with one of the detectors originally scheduled to go into one of the damaged thimble locations. Therefore, Cycle 20 will have either five or six fixed detector strings for use in core monitoring. Once the mechanical analysis of the removed detector string is complete. Yankee plans to continue to install fixed detector strings in all the available locations during future refueling outages.
A-3
l i 1
i
- i i .*
l j The analysis in this submittal is based on 12 movable detector '
i locations and six fixed detector locations. This is the number of available i I
4 locations expected for the remainder of Cycle 19 and during Cycle 20, the next ;
operating cycle. These locations are shown in Figure 2-4. j l
, i l
i
! I i :
i !
1 l
! t t t r
i t 1
h i i I !
l I
i ,
F a
1 i t
7 i !
l :
i i I
4 A-4 1 4
1
)
i i
i l
l
e G
FIGURE 2-1 It3 CORE INSTRUME!3TATION LOCATIOflS AS ORIGINALLY INSTALLED
@i 2 3 4 5 8
6 7
@p @10 @ 11
@ @14 12 13 16 17 15 ,
18 19
@ @ 21 20 .
22 A-5
e e
e FIGURE 2-2 MOVABLE PATHS AVAILADLE DURING CYCLE 18-19 REFUELING
@s
..I @ l 2
5 6 7 l
@10 @11 h
13 l
I 16 17
. i I '
1
- i
@0 2 i
l C
A-6
FIGURE 2-3 l
I PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF FIXFD DETECTOR STRINGS e
3
@4 ,
8 9
12 __
15 i l
@ 21 N'
22 A-7
FIGURE 2-4 CURRENI LOCATIONS AVAILABLE COMBINATION INCORE DETECTION SYSTEM i
I Y
I
,.i g ,
g 2 3 i @4 5
8 6 7 t
@to
.g ,
g ,
l 13 12 _.
b b
b I
i' 16 17
@,, 1 -
@0 2 @ 21 22 @ - FIXED
@ - MOVABLE A-8
3.0 FIXED INCORE DETECTOR SYSTEM - GENERAL DATA The Yankee plant FIDS consists of six strings each containing five self-powered rhodium neutron detectors manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) and a Data Acquisition System (DAS). The detectors contain twin-leads which allow background-created signals to be subtracted from the raw rhodium detector signals. The Yankee design is .054" in diameter and consists of 10" rhodium emitters hard packed in a ceramic insulator of AL23 0 as shown in Figure 3-1 and cross-sectionally in Figure 3-2. The strings are designed so that the detectors are positioned axially 18.3" center-to-centar as shown in Figure 3-3. The rhodium emitter absorbs thermal neutrons and, af ter a half-life of about 45 seconds, decays to palladium with the emission of a negatively-charged beta particle. As these beta particles leave the rhodium emitter, a small electrical current flows in the lead wire connected to the emitter. This current is proportional to the neutron flux present at the detector location.
i The DAS is designed to collect, store, and process data from the fixed incore detectors. The DAS obtains signals once every five seconds f rom the fixed detectors and stores them in a file containing 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> worth of the l latest five-second readings. In addition, files containing an 18-minute average, six-minute snapshots, and 12 effective full-power hours worth of data are stored by the DAS. The DAS updates the expended charges of each detector
- every 18 minutes and will recover expended charges and other integrated data i from history files following a computer failure. The DAS software, supplied by B&W, identifies inoperable detectors, corrects the signals for depletion and sersitivity of the detectors, and will substitute for "failed" detector ,
signals. Statistics on detector stability are calculated and stored by the I DAS as well. The DAS software also provides an estimate of the total co.e power level based on input signal to power conversion factors.
Post-processing of the DAS data files is performed by Yankee's Nuclear Services Division in Framingham. The fixed detector data files are post-processed by spline fitting the five detector points plus two extrapolation points, converting the curve to 46 axial points similar to A-9
1 . i 1 ;
. .* i l
j the movable traces, and providing output in a format compatible for use in the INCORE data analysis code. The INCORE code then determines the full core ,
power distribution as it did before with only the movable data. ,
i I
- \
t Q .
i
- i t
I i !
[
[
f f 4 ;
I t
1 :
- I r
I f
I i l l
. ?
l l
l i t
f i
1
] ,
a t i I 1
l 3 ,
i t I
I l
I A-10 i
i I
4 :
i :
HARD PACKF' \ SIGNAL BACKGROUND AL2.
{r 1
1 4'
i s mr 1 7 7 -
7 , , , , , , , , ,
- H M
NEUTRON-SENSITIVE INCONEL ELEMENT (RHODIUM) SHEATH 3 y
~ !
Y.
Twin-Leadwire Self-Powered Neutron Detector
lil ,
.t \f:! ' ,i l1!!ll> b P l ! ;l lJ 5R Y" E
R I
W y R l
E b C A S P
m S LS EE e S D NN OK s E R
O CC s I W
8 l
i T
NI IH A D A
2 0
A E "
T E
f 4L r L i
S 1L t
o L Al
" {
- 0. W A
E 04 c N r e
O O. 2 C
t N _
e I
//) _
D / c.-
d e -
e _
x e i
e F
e w
o l' ) s
[/
5 4
1 R- !
o e e e
k n
a Y /i h /V =
f o
n R E DR i
o T T
OOH TT t I 1" CA i c M E 4EE 5TI e M 0.E D S S U I _
- D _
s O H
s R _
o r D O
C "
8 _
1 _
0 _
T* _
l:
ul, 4 I! ljllI
1 E'ICURE 3-3 Position o" Emitters Re ative
~:0 Fue Heig1t tr7 - a TOP OF
_{ ACTIVE FUFL 8 . 14 v
18.3" I i
}
10"
I v
18.3" i i
- ------- GRIDi.
18.3" i i J -------
18.3"
- 9. fi E I BOTTOM 0F ACTIVE FUEL A-13 i
4.0 CALIBRATION / NORMALIZATION OF DETECTOR DATA The sensitivity of the rhodium esitter in the fixed detectors to i neutrons is a function of its geometry. Even though the emitter mass is the same for all rhodium detectors in the core, the relative sensitivity of the detectors will vary as a function of the emitter surface area. The neutron
! sensitivity of a given rhodium detector to a reference detector can be I determined either by direct calibration in a known neutron flux or by
, accurately measuring the mass and length of the emitter and using an analytical formula to determine sensitivity. Babcock and Wilcox has shown (Reference 6) that the analytical method yields the samm calibration results as the measured method, with a high degree of accuracy.
The sensitivity calibration of the fixed detectors ustd in the Yankee core is performed analytically based on the as-built lengths of the rhodium emitters. The neutron sensitivity of the rhodium detectors is proportional to the surface area of the emitter. Babcock and Wilcox manufactures the detector emitters with constant mass; therefore, the emitter surface area is directly i r
proportional to the squa e root of the emitter length. The as-built emitter lengths supplied by the manufacturer can be measured quite accurately and is used as input in the DAS software.
I, 1
The movable detectors are calibrated by insertion of the movable detectors into one or more connon (calibration) thimbles. In the Yankee MIDS, I two detectors are usually employed for power distribution mapping, and both ,
I detectors are inserted into two independent calibration paths. There are also situations where only one detector may be used for incore mapping, therefore, j I no movable detector calibration is needed. For cycle 19 operation, the i l
mappings to date have included both double and single detector mappings.
l l
Our analysis has shown that the fixed detector signals can be used in l conjunction with the movable detector signals to determine the !
j three-dimensional fission power distribution in the reactor core. The axial l
positions of the fixed strings in the core and extrapolation points were i determined via comparison to symetric movable traces. Radial normalization j
A 14 1 ;
of the fixed data and movable data was perfore+d independently to provide the ratios of the measured-tos redicted reaction rates. Modifications to the INCORE data analysis code allowea separate normalisation of each detector system, with the core power distribution determined from the measured-to-predicted reaction rate ratios from both systems.
The first eter in the norms 11:ation process involved the determination of the axial shupes obtained from the fixed detectors. Axial positioning of the fixed strings in the core was originally designed as shown in yigure 3-3.
However, actual positioning of the fixed strings in the various thimbles changed due to variances in the thimble tube lengths and axial positioning aeasurementr. Prior to installation, eddy current techniques were used to detertaine reference core axial thimble pocitions in order to position the fixed strings. These fixed axial positions were used as the initial locations in the analytical processing of the fixed data. Fine tuning of these locations was subsquently made based on comparisons to the detailed movable synenetric traces. Once these positioning adjustments were made, extrapolation distances for the spline fitting routines were determined based on synenetric movable traces, and resulted in extrapolation distances of +8.65". These extrapolation distances have remained constant based on comparison to the mappings made to date in Cycle 19 and are expected to re.nain constant throughout the cycle based on discussions with Babcock ar.d Wilcox on their experiences with fixed detector curve fitting techniques and power distribution monitoring.
The normalisation of the radial component of the fixed data was determined without using the movable trace data. There is no common thimble path which accoasnodates both a fixed and movable detector for cross-calibration analogous to the movable system. The fixed detector etasured reaction rate integrals are norralised only to the available fixed data alone. In this way, both the movable and fixed signals are never adjusted, and no cross-calibration error is induced.
All fixed detector integrals analysed throughout the present cycle have represented fresh detector signals since the signals from the fixed detectors A-15
l 4 .
. i
! have been depletion corrected. The movable signals also represent fresh detector signals since depletion of the U-235 in the fission chambers is negligible.
A study was performed which evaluated the relationship between she movable and fixed signal responses as a function of assembly burnup. Using CASMO-3 (Reference 7), a transport theory assembly fuel depletion code, both detector types were modelled in the present Yankee assembly design. This design is a 3.8 w/o assembly manufactured by Combustion Engineering. For the (
fixed and movable detector types, the rhodium emitter and U-235 in the fission chamber were each modelled as unique regions within the instrument thimble.
The fuel assemblies were depleted 50.000 mwd /Mtu. well past the expectcd j burnup in Yankee dischargs assemblies. The rhodium and U-235 numoer densities in the detector regions were held constant to simulate fresh detee*. ors. From j each CASMO-3 depletion. Y-factors were extracted and compared. The Y-factors are defined as follows:
Fission Rate in Fuel "
f fuel Fixed
- Rh Absorption Rate g Rh a Rh
' I Fission Rate in Fuel "
f fuel Movable
f U-235 3
The Y-factor represents the relationship between the assembly power and the signal response of the fixed or mo"rble detectors. These factors as a l l
1 function of assembly burnup are shown for each detector in Figure 4-1. As can i be seen, both curves follow similar trends and differ ot;1y by a proportionality constant. When the U 135 fission detector data is mitiplied by a constant, as shown in Figure 4-2 the two curves compare remarkably well, implying no incon Stency in detector signal response as the flux spectrum changes in the assembly due to burnup. This is consistent with the data from
! the two detector types seen to date. There has been no observed bias between the fixed signals located in the fresh assemblies with burnups ranging from I
i A-16
O to 10,000 mwd /Mtu versus the recycled fuel assemblies with burnups ranging from 15.000 to 25.000 mwd /Mtu.
A procedure for noraalization of the fixed detector data to be used as equivalent movable data has been established. Normalization of the fixed data is independently performed by the INCORE data analysis code without dependence on the Movable System data. The data presented in the following section is based on three different conditions having two movable detectors initially, having only one detector when a detector failure occurred, and having a new detector s a replacement for a failed detector. The analysis shows that with our established method for normalizing the fixed data, any combination of movable detector availability can be acconmodated without biasing the ,
i ' etermination of the reactor core power distribution.
I i
l l
f l
A-17
YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION
. COMPARISON OF Y-FACTORS FOR FIXED RHODIUM EMITTER AND MOVRBLE U-235 FISSION DETECTORS 10- a - RHODIUM FIXED o - U-235 MOVRBLE 8-
% 00 0 0 = =
l .
2 yy S s-
- as
~
% 2 5
w O .
H O .
(I-
- h. 4 I
P .
- .M aj 2-I o'''2E' VERAGE BURNU MWD /MTU)
RSSEMBLY
YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATTON
~
COMPARISON OF NORMALIZED Y-FACTORS FOR FIXED RHODIUM EMITTER AND U-23S FISSION DETECTORS to o - RHODIUM FIXED o - U-235 MOVRBLE 8-b -
N ,~ % n A
f w
6-
% ; A g L S -
e -
t w
4-2-
( .
' g ,
gg '
30600
- BOD "CU RSSEMBLY RVERRGE BURNUP (MWD /MTU)
n t
5.0 STEADY-STATE POWER DISTRIBUTIONS l
l The primary function of the Incore Detection System is to measure the three-dimensional neutron flux distribution in the reactor core during steady-state operation. Given ths flux distribution, power distribution and
- peaking factors can be determined using the data analysis INCORE code. Once the peaking factors have been calculated, compliance to operation within i established limits can be shown, and verification of the physics parameters I
i assumed in the safety analysis can be made.
]
This section deals with the individual components of the measured flux l distributions and provides comparisons of the measured data taken during l Cycle 19. the operating cycle, for the MIDS. TIDS, and combination Incore
) Detection Systems. All measured data is taken during steady-state operationt j a prerequisite for movable detector mspping. Detailed comparisons of measured i reaction rates, axial power profiles and nuclear peaking factors are provided I for the Fixed. Movable, and combination Incore Detector Systems. Comparisons are made based on 12 flux mappings taken from startup to near the end of Cycle 19. The reactor conditions prevailing during the 12 maps are provided i for reference in Table 5-1.
Figures 5-1A through 5-1L show the measured and analytical relative reaction rates for the movable maps for Cycle 19. These maps all had 12 l
]
operable thimbles and represent the base cases for the purpose of discussion l i of the subsequent cases presented. The fixed detector only comparisons of l 1 measured and analytical reacticn rates are provided in Figures 5-2A through '
) 5-2L. while Figures 5-3A through 5-3L provide the reaction rate comparisons i for the combination Incore Detection System. As can be seen from the latter
- figures, the differences between both the MIDS and FIDS and the analytical
)
l data has remained unchanged. Yankee feels that the combination system is
] capable of providing better core-wide power distributton information than the j Movable System alone. Given more measured data (18 versus 12 locations) less j inference of the radial power distribution values is made by the INCORE code.
l l As previously discussed, the INCORE code determines "measured" assembly and l
local power distribution based on measured-to-predicted reaction rate i 1
) A-20 l A l
comparisons and input theoretical power s .tributions. Based on the results j presented, we feel the radial conponent of the core power distribution, as q
! determined by the combination system, has been justified. ;
j The second component of the three-dimensional power distributions is l the axial power profiles. The MIDS provides a fii.e detailed trace of the l axial flux distribution at 2" intervals in the Yankee core. The FIDS provides l five signals approximately 18" apart based on the average flux over the fixed l detuctor's 10" length. For the purpose of comparison, the fixed detector [
l values are represented axially at the center of the detectors. Of the six !
l fixed detector strings, four strings have symmetric movable locations for !
! comparisons. As previously discussed in Section 4.0, the final axial i positioning of the fixed strings was accomplished through comparison of the !
)
i fixed data with symmetric movable shapes during the initial flux mappings
! performed in Cycle 19. The two fixed strings having no syvenetric movable [
i
! locations were assumed to be in the positions determined by the eddy current f measurements prior to installation and adjusted by the average deviations of f l the four symetric traces between the eddy current positioning and the axial I shape comparisons' positioning. All fixed detector axial profiles also have l the same extrapolation distances, both top and bottom, for all mappings made f
i to date. l 1 :
Figures 5-4(A-H) through 5-7(A-H) show comparisons of the normalized j axial shapes of Tixed Detector Numbers 3, 4, 21, and 22 versus their synsnetric j movable locations for the first eight flux mappings performed in Cycle 19. l The movable traces can be identified by the smooth curves and grid j depressions, while the fixed shapes are shown by smooth spline-fitted curves -
and triangles which are the actual five fixsd data points. Overall, the f agreement is excellent, therefore, providing sufficient justification that the i fixed detectors can properly determine the axial component of the power distribution in the core.
The third aspect of steady-state power distributions to addrers is the peaking factors which are used to demonstrate compliance to established safety limits. Yankee's Technical Specifications have established limits on the peak i
i i A-21 1
1
-__..m _.____-_____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___
1 . t
! i f
j j linear heat generation rase (kW/ft) for both the fresh and recycled fuel batchest the maximum heat flux hot channel factor Fq and the maximum enthalpyrisehotchannelfactor,(H. Comparison of the measured peaking l
f actor values as a function of cycle burnup for the MIDS and the combination ,
- system are shown for the fresh and recycled fuel batches in Figures 5-8 I through 5-13 for the respective parameters. The peaking factors as determined i by the dif ferent system. agree well within expected tolerances. No one system i l is aivays conservative or nonconservative versus the other. This trend is due
- to the cycle-specific loading pattern where peak local powers may or may not
!, be in the area of instrumented locations. This is shown la Table 5-2, A {
j Susenary of the Calculatad Peaking Factors, where the peak values sometimes {
occur in different core locations for the different combinations of available !
] measurement locations. In general, however, none of the peaking factors f calculated for Cycle 19 are close to the established limits and the minor !
variances have no impact on actual operation. F 1 I Comparison of the average absolute error and ILMS error of the MIDS and f
4 combination system versus the analytical predictions, are presented in Figures j j 5-14 and 5-15. Once again, aoth curves agree closely with the larger error l seen in the combination system. However, both sets of measured data agree f very well with the analytical data further supporting the use of a combination (
l system of fixed end movable data. I i l i
l I
l k
), [
I 1 l A-22 i i
l i !
TABLE 5-1 Sunnary of Incore Mappinas for Yankee Cycle 19 Map Cycle Burnup Power Level ;
) 1D_ Date (mwd /Mtu) (MWt) 07 07/09/87 71. 382.8 i
! 08 07/12/87 161. 597.7 I
) 09 08/19/87 1373. $99.7 l 11 09/23/87 2573. 600.0 l 14 10/28/87 3683. 600.0 I
l 15 12/02/87 4843. 600.0 ,
l I
, 16 12/22/87 5524. 600.0 38 01/27/88 6735. 600.0 ;
41 03/06/88 6012. 600.0 l 42 04/14/88 9120. 596.2 !
1 l
- 43 05/26/88 10335. 599.9 !
1 I 44 06/29/88 11489. 599.9 i I
i l
1
] i s i L
v i
l 1
l i
A-23
TABLE 5-3 l
SUMMARY
OF PEAKING TACTOR VALUES 1
INCOPE FAH FO KW/FT AXIAL RUN 8 FRESH ID BURNT ID FRE5E'sD BURNT ID FRESH BURNT OFFSET MOVABLE INCORE DETECTION SYSTEM YR19007 1.4595 H8 1.5337 E7 2.0100 C8 2.0670 E7 6.246 6.398 1.719 YR19008 1.4532 H8 1.5457 E7 1.98(0 C8 2.0825 E7 9.598 10.064 0.892 YR19009 1.4391 H8 1.5247 c5 1.9668 C8 2.0124 DS 9.537 9.756 -2.724 YR19011 1.4302 H8 1.5052 D5 1.8879 C8 1.9276 D5 9.159 9.351 -0.547 YR19014 1.4385 H8 1.4991 D5 1.8761 C8 1.9045 D5 9.101 9.239 2.029 YR19015 1.4212 H8 1.4809 D5 1.7955 H3 1.8417 D5 8.711 8.935 -2.475 >
YR19016 1.4253 H8 1.4721 D5 1.7996 H3 1,8423 E7 8.730 8.937 -4.008 YR19038 1.4019 H8 1.4646 E7 1.7161 H3 1.7048 E7 8.373 8.561 0.224 YR19041 1.,3852 H8 1.4440 DS 1.6654 J4 1.6917 D5 8.205 8.335 0.464 YR19042 1.3883 HB 1.4508 D5 1.6635 B7 1.7153 DS 8.213 8.469 -2.598 ,
YR19043 1.3703 J4 1.4251 DS 1.6195 J4 1.6582 D5 8.119 8.313 -2.151 YR19044 1.3744 HB 1.4308 D5 1.5983 87 1.6420 DS 8.082 8.303 -0.463 FIXED INCORE DETECTION SYSTEM 6.511 YR19307 1.5058 B7 1.5348 D5 2.0783 B7 2.1035 DS 6.432 0.739 YR19308 1.5143 B7 1.5492 D5 2.0702 87 2.1042 D5 10.004 10.169 -0.608 YR19309 1.4709 B7 1.5321 D5 1.9921 J7 2.0441 DS 9.6f0 9.912 -3.857 YR19311 1.4486 B7 1.5131 D5 1.9122 J7 1.9628 D5 9.2i6 9.522 -1.250 YR19314 1.4518 B7 1.5111 D5 1.8950 J7 1.9453 D5 9.193 9.437 -1.328 YR19315 1.4276 B7 1.4981 DS 1.8240 J7 1.8767 D5 8.849 9.104 -2.390 YR19316 1.4300 J7 1.4999 E7 1.8188 J7 1.8651 G6 8.823 9.048 -2.968 YR19338 1.4109 J7 1,4862 E7 1.7462 B7 1.8218 r,7 8.520 8.888 0.239 YR19341 1.3967 HB 1.4603 DS 1.6959 J4 1.7608 D5 8.355 8.675 0.520 YR19342 1.4028 HB 1.4636 DS 1.7068 B7 1.7763 DS 8.427 8.770 -2.669 YR19343 1.3863 J4 1.4366 D5 1.6692 J4 1.7239 05 8.368 8.643 -2.255 YR19344 1.3900 H8 1.4429 D5 1.6377 B7 1.6975 D5 8.2b1 8.584 -0.154 COMBINATION INCORE DETECTION SYSTE,M i YR19207 1.4737 B7 1.5279 E7 2.0358 B7 2.0618 D5 6.301 6.381 1.380 ,
YR19208 1.4760 B7 1.5384 E7 2.0194 B7 2.0727 E7 9.759 10.017 0.350 .
YR19209 1.4488 B7 1.5242 D5 1.9631 C8 2.01 t D5 9.589 9.804 -2.111 r YR19211 1.4345 B7 1.5052 DS 1.8822 C8 1.9290 D5 9.131 9.358 -0.801 t YR19214 1.4405 B7 1.5003 D5 1.8730 C8 1.9077 D5 9.086 9.255 -2,165 YR19215 1.4191 H8 1.4828 D5 1.7905 C8 1.8431 DS 8.686 8.941 -2,498 i YR19216 1.4241 H8 1.4760 D5 1.7924 H8 1.8408 E7 8.695 8.930 -3.706 '
YR19238 1.4012 H8 1.4664 DS 1.7085 J4 1.7540 D5 8.335 8.557 0.222 YR19241 1.3829 H6 1.4438 D5 1.6601 J4 1.6955 D5 8.179 8.354 0.480 L YR19242 1.3865 HR 1.4437 D5 1.6772 B7 1.7213 DS 8.281 8.498 -2.640 YR19143 1.3724 J4 1.4253 D5 1.6365 J4 1.6667 D5 8.205 8.356 -2.198 l YR19244 1.3727 HB 1.4306 D5 1.6104 B7 1.6433 D5 8.143 8.310 -0.362 l
NOTE:
AXIAL OFFSET REFERS TO CORE AVERAGE VALUE MAPS ARE LABELLED YR19 SS WHERE .
OSS REFERS TO MOVABLE ONLY MAPS '
3SS REFEPS TO T!XED ONLY MAPS l
- JS REFERS TO COMDINATION SYSTEM MAPS .
I A-24 l
. 1 i .
- I l
1 i
FIGURE 5-1A 1
COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS l
i INCORE RUN YR-19-007 382.8 MYTT. GROUP C AT 85.875 INCHES 71. MWD /MTU l ,
l 4
0.662 O.713
-4.3 m1 0.57 2 0.995
-2.3 ;
1.000
- 1.010 l
' -t.0 1.15 0 i ?J03 !
" 1.022 1.111
-1.8 3.5 1.151 l 1.116 i I
1.147 i
- I 1.113 [
3.1 l
' 1.15 9 1.016 1.0.1 1.022 3.4 -0.6 l i
).022 0.995 I I 1.028 1.003
-0.6 -0.8 _
WEAsuun sicNAL t 0.703
( PftD)KTED SIGNAL 0.747 3 PatCOR DIFTTRD4CE ,
i '
-5.9 i
.g i '
l l
l AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE'BETWEEN l
l MEASURED AND PREDICTED 2.540 PERCENT l i
2.999 l
{ RMS ERROR !
A-25 t j
c FIGURE 5 .18 COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-008 597.7 MWT. GROUP C AT 86.625 INCHES 161. MWD /MRJ 0.673 0.713
-5.7 0.975 0.990
-1.5 1.010 1.008 0.2 1.001 1.152 1.019 1.115
-1.7 3.3 1.163 1.119 3.9 1.155 1.116 3.5 1.167 1.0 12 1.124 1.019 3.8 -0.7 1.0 14 0.979 1.025 1.001
-1.1 -2.2 WEASURED S10NAL 0.698 0,750 PREDICTED S10NAL PERCON Dt>FIRENCE
-6.9 AVERAGE ABSOLLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICW_D 2.871 PERCENT RMS ERROR 3.467 A-26
FIGURE 5-1C COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-009 599.7 MWT. GROUP C AT 81.000 INCHES 1373. MWD /MR 0.684
- 0.704
-2.6 0.972 0.991
-1.9 1.029 1.0 14 1.4 1.013 1.146 1.022 1.121
-0.9 2.2 1.15 3-1.12 3 2.6 1.14 5 1.121 2.1 1.136 1.016 1.127 1.021 0.8 -0.4 1.020 0.986 1.025 1.003
~0A ~1.7 WEASURED SIGNAL 0.700 PREDICTED SIGNAL 0.728 PERCENT DIFTERENCE
-3.8 AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICIED 1,766 PERCENT RMS ERROR 2.024 A-27
4 e
FIGURE 5-1D COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-011 .
600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 85.500 INCHES 2573. MWD /MT 0.689
- 0.709
-2.8 0.992 ,
0.997
-0.5 1.031 1.020 1.1 1.018 1.139 ,
1.024 1.119
-0.6 1.8 1.14 2 1.120 2.0 1.14 4 1.118 2.3 l
1.120 1.0 07 1.12 2 1.023
-0.1 -1.5 1.026 0.991 1.024 1.005 0.3 -1.4 WEAstJRED SIGNAL 0.699 PREDICTED StGHAL 0.719 PERCENT OtFTERENCE
-2.8 I
AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DlFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.440 PERCENT RMS ERROR 1,697 A-28 1
FIGURE 5-1E COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-014 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 83.625 INCHES 3683. MWD /M 0.693 0.711
-2.6 0.965 1.000
-1.5 1.027 1.023 0.3 1.022 1.137 1.025 1.117
-0.4 1.7 1.134 l
1.1U 1.5 1.130 1.116 1.3 1.12 3 1.023 1.118 1.024 0.4 -0.1 ,
1.029 1.002 1.023 1.006 0.6 .-0.5 MEASURED SIGNAL 0.696 PRE 01CTED StGNAL 0.719 PERCD4T DIFFTRENCE
-3.2 4
AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETNEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.176 PERCENT RMS ERROR 1.507 A-29
FIGURE 5-1F COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-015 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 84.750 INCHES 4843. MWD /M 0.700 O.70
-1.6 0.995 1.003
-0.7 1.030 1.027 0.3 1.019 1.127 1.0 27 1.11 8
-0.8 0.8 1.128 1.116 1.0 1.126 1.116 0.9 1.122 1.027 1.117 1.026 0.5 0.1
' 1.027 1.0 11 1.023 1.009 0.4 0.3 WEASURED SIGNAL 0.687 PREDICTED SIGNAL 0.708 PERCENT DIF1TRENCE
-2.9 l
AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1 MEASURED AND PREDICTED .863 PERCEtR 4 RMS ERROR 1.131 !
l A-30 l
. j FlGURE 5-1G COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS l INCORE RUN YR-19-016 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 84.750 INCHES 5524. MWD 0.707
- O.7 11
-0.6 1.000 1.003
-0.2 1.0 34 1.028 0.6 1.023 1.121 1.028 1.117
-0.4 0.4 1.121 1.11 6 0.4 1.117 1.115 0.2 1.116 1.029 1.116 1.026 0.0 0.2 1.030 1.013 1.024 1.010 0.6 0.2 ,
WEASURED S10N4L 0.688 PREDICTED S10NAL 0.705 PERCENT DIFFERENCE
~2.4 AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DlFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED .539 PERCENT l
RMS ERROR .804 A-31
FIGURE 5-1H COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-038 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 85.500 INCHES 6735. MWD /MT 0.704 O .7 11
-1.0 1.002 1.004
-0.2 1.035 1.030 0.5 1.022 1.12 3 ,
1.029 1.115
-0.7 0.7
- 1.121 1.1H 0.6 1.12 3 1.1M '
0.8 1.12 0 1.031 1.115 1.028 0.5 0.2 1.029 1.0 12 1.025 1.013 0.4 -0.1 _ l WEASURED S1CHAL 0.678 '
PREDICTED StGNAL 0.700 PERCENT DIFTTRENCE
-3.1 1 AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED .743 PERCENT RMS ERROR 1.0 67 A-32
I FIGURE 5-11 COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-041 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 86.625 INCHES 8012. MWD /MTU 0.703 0.712
. -1.3 1.004 1.006
-0.3 1.039 1.033 0.6 1.026 1.12 0 1.031 1.113
-0.5 0.6 1.121 1.112 0.8 1.12 3 1.112 1.0 1.11 8 1.032 1.112 1.031 0.5 0.1 1.030 1.013 1.027 1.016 0.3 -0.3 -
0.673 MEASURED SIGNAL 0.696 PREDICTED SIGNAL PEP. CENT DIF7T.RENCE
. ~ 3.4
-l '
AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED .817 PERCENT RMS ERROR 1.T71 A-33
l FIGURE 5-1J COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-042 ,
596.2 MWT. GROUP C AT 83.250 INCHES 9120. MWD /MTU l 0.701 0.712
-1.6 1.001 .
1.007 I
-0.6 i 1.040 1.0 34 0.5 1.028 1.121 1.032 1.111
-0.4 0.8 1.119 1.110 0.8 1.12 3 1.11 0 1.1 1.115 1.033 '
1.11 0 1.032 O.5 0.1 1.0 31 1.0 17 1.028 1.018 0.3 -0.1 0.671 WEASURED S10NAL 0.693 PREDICTED S10NAL
-3.2 PERCENT DIFTERENCE AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED .840 PERCENT 1
RMS ERROR 1.F7 j A-34 )
1 l
e 1
)
FIGURE 5-1K COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-043 599.9 MWT. GROUP C AT 83.625 INCHES 10335. MWD /MTU 0.702 0.714
- 1.7 1.002 1.010
-0.8 1.040 i 1.0 37 0.3 1.030 1.119 1.034 1.108
-0.4 0.9 1.119 1.107 1.1 1.119 1.108 1.0 1.115 1.034 1.107 1.0 34 0.7 0.0 1.033 1.019 1.029 1.021 0.4 -0.2 0.668 WEASURED SIGNAL 0.691 PREDICTED SIGNAL
-3. 3 PERCENT DIFFTRENCE AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED .930 PERCENT RMS ERROR 1.257 A-35
FIGURE 5-1L COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS !
INCORE RUN YR-19-044 l 599.9 MWT. Gi<0UP C AT 85.875 INCHES 11489. MWD /MTU 0.704 0.715
. -1.7 1.006 1.012
-0.6 1.040 1.039 0.1 1.030 1.117 1.035 1.107
-0.4 0.9 1.114 1.105 0.8 1.11 3 1.106 0.6 1.112 1.036 1.105 1.036 0.7 0.0 1.0 37 1.024 1.030 1.023 0.7 0.1 0.666 MEASURED SIGNAL 0.688 PREDICTED SIGNAL
-3.0 PERCENT DIFTERENCE AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED .810 PERCENT RMS ERROR 1.131 A-36
s FIGURE 5-2A COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-307 382.8 MWT. GROUP C AT 85.875 INCHES 71. MWD /MTU ,
0.698 0.739
'- 5.5
+
1.081 1.063 1.7 1.104 1.116
-1.1 1.225 1.168 4.9 MEAS 1) RED S10NAL 1.092 1.105 PREDICTED S10HAL
-1.2 PERCENT 0lFTERENCE 0.800 0.809
-1.1 AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DlFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 2.587 PERCENT RMS ERROR 3.19 8 A-37
.o RGURE 5-28 l
COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALSl INCORE RUN YR-19-308 l
161. MWD /MTU ,
597.7 MWT. GROUP C AT 86.625 INCHES l 0.704 0.741
-5.0 1.088 1.0 61 2.6 1.101 1.119
-1.5 1.235 1.168 ,
5.7 WEASURED SIGNAL 1.092 PREDICTED SIONAL 1.101
-0.8 PERCENT DIF1TRENCE 0.780 0.8 11
-3.8 AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETV/EEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 3.261 PERCENT RMS ERROR 3.707 A-38
FIGURE 5-2C COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-309 599.7 MWT. GROUP C AT 81.000 INCHES 1373. MWD /
0.709 0.735
-3.6 1.094 1.078 1.4 1.10 8 1.102 0.5 1.221 1.180 3.5 1.087 WEAStJRED SIGNAL 1.104 PREDICTED S1GNAL
-1.5 PERCDfT DIFFIRENCE 0.782 0.601
-2.4 AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 2.158 PERCENT
, RMS ERROR 2.434 A-39
FIGURE 5-2D COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-311 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 85.500 INCHES 2573. MWD /MTU 0.708 0.737
--4.0 1.098 1.086 1.1 1.10 5 1.096 0.8 1.212 1.17 8 2.9 1.087 WEASURED S10NAL 1.10 2 PREDICTED S10NAL l
~1.4 _ PERCENT DIF7DtENCE 0.790 0.801
-1.4 AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.934 PERCENT RMS ERROR 2.244 A-40 l
FlGURE 5-2E COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-314 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 83.625 INCHES 3683. MWD /MT 0.712 f
0.7 37
~ 3.4 f
1.098 1.091 0.6 1.101 1.094 0.6 ,
?
1.209 l
1.US 2.6 1.086 WEASURED S1GNAL 1.101 PREDICTED SIGNAL
- 1.4 PERCENT DIFTERENCE 0.794 0.798
-0.6 AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
, MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.533 PERCENT i
i RMS ERROR 1.8 87 A-41 l
/
FIGURE 5-2F ,
COMf ARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-315 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 84.750 INCHES 4843. MWD /M I 0.713 O.7 37
- 3.2 1.098 1.098 0.0 ,_
1.095 1.064 1.1 1.206 1.160 2.4 I
l I
1.089 MEACURED SIONAL 1.10 2 PREDICTED S!0NAL ,
-1.2 PERCDU DIFTERDICE f O.798 0.799
-0.3 AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.376 PERCENT I RMS ERROR 1.777 A-42 i
FIGURE 5-2G COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-316 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 84.750 INCHES 5524. MWD /M 0.713 0.735
-3.0 1.100 1.101
-0.1 1.092 1.082 1.0 1.206 1.181 2.1 l
1.090 MEASURED St0NAL 1.10 3 PREDICTED SIGNAL
-1.2 PERCDC DIFTERENCE
' l i
0.799 0.798 0.1 l
AVERAGE ABSOLUE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.260 PERCENT l RMS ERROR 1.635 A-43 l
\
FIGURE 5-2H COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-338 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 85.500 INCHES 6735. MWD /MRJ 0.7 12 0.734
-3.1 1.107 1.107 0.0 1.085 1.073 1.1 1.209 1.183 2.2 l
1 1 090 WEASURED S!ONAL 1.105 PREDICTED SIGNAL j i
~1.4 PGCENT DtFTRENCE 0.798 O.798 0.0 AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.291 PERCENT RMS ERROR 1.699 A-44
A l
FIGURE 5-21 COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-341 600.0 MWT. GROUP G AT 86.625 INCHES 8012. MWD /MTU 0
0.713 0.734
-2.9 1.111 1.112
-0.1 1.081 1.068 1.2 1.207 1.183 2.0 1
1.090 WEASURED SIGNAL 1.10 6 PREDICTED SIGNAL
-1.4 PERCENT DIFTERENCE 0.799 0.796 0.1 AVERAGE ABSOLUE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.291 PERCENT i
I RMS ERROR 1.6 31 A-45
FIGURE 5-2J COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS l INCORE RUN YR-19-342 596.2 MWT. GROUP C AT 83.25D INCHES 9120. MWD /MTU l
r i
0.713 ;
i 0.734 ;
-2.9 t 1.116 ,
1.115 0.1 ,
1.079 1.0 64 1.5 i
- l 1.205 1.163 1.8 i
I i
i i
1.088 WEASURED SIONAL 1.107 PREDICTT.D SIONAL
-1.7 , PEP. CENT DIFTERENCE
' O.799 j 0.797 0.2 i AVERAGE ABSOLt.TTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ,
MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.363 PERCENT RMS ERROR 1.663 ,
A-46 i
l
FIGURE 5-2K COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-343 4
599.9 MWT. GROUP C AT 83.625 INCHES 10335. MWD /MR)
. .- t i
1 0.713 0.735 t
-3.0 l
1.12 0 ,
1.11 8 0.1 1.076 1.060 1.4 i
I 1.204 1.182 ;
1.9
. i 1.088 WEASURED S10NAL ,
1.107 PREDICTED S10NAL l
-12/ g PERCENT DIFTIRENCE l I. 0:199
' O.79/
0.2
- AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN i MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.414 PERCENT RMS ERROR 1.731 '
A-47 i
i 1
FIGURE 5-2L COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-344 599.9 MWT. GROUP C AT 85.875 INCHES 11489. MWD /MTU i
l 0.716 I
0.737
-2.8 l 1.118 j 1.12 0
-0.2 1.073 1.058 3 1.5 l
1 e
1.201 1.181
( 1.7 l
l l
1.091 WEASURED SIGNAL 1.107 PREDICTED SIGNAL
~1.5 PERCENT DIFTERENCE 0.801 0.797 0.5 AVERAGE ABSOLUE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.364 PERCENT RMS ERP.OR 1.606 A-48
l l
l FIGURE 5-3A COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-207 382.8 MWT. GROUP C AT 85.875 INCHES 71. MWD /MTU 0.682 0.713
-4.3 0.972 0.099 ,
0.995 0.739 (
-2.3 -5.5 1.081 1.000 1.063 1.010 1.7 -1.0 1.003 1.15 0 1.104 1.022 1.111 1.116
-1.8 3.5 -1.1 1.151 1.116 3.2 1.225 1.147 1.168 1.11 3 4.9 3.1 1.15 9 1.016 l 1.121 1.022 3.4 -0.6 1.022 0.995 1.028 1.003
-0.6 -0.8 0.703 1.091 WEASURED SIGNAL 0.747 1.10 5 PREDICTED SIGNAL
-5.9 -1.2 PERCENT DIFTERENCE 0.800 0.809
-1.0 1 i
AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETNEEN I MEASURED AND PREDICTED 2.553 PERCENT RMS ERROR 3.0 61 A-49 f
FIGURE 5-3B COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-208 597.7 MWT. GROUP C AT 86.625 INCHES 161. MWD /MTU 0.673 0.713
-5.7 I 0.975 0.704 0.990 0.741
-1.5 -5.0 1.088 1.010 ,
1061 1.008 2.6 0.2 ,
1.001 1.152 1.101 1.0 19 1.115 1.119
-1.7 3.3 -1.5 1.16 3 1.119 3.9 1.235 1.155 f 1.16 8 1.11 6 5.7 3.5 1.167 1.0 12 1.124 1.019 3.8 -0.7 !
1.0 14 0.979 :
I 1.025 1.001 !
-1.1 -2.2 O.696 1.092 WEASURED S10NAL 3 0.750 1.101 FREDICTED S10NAL ,
i -6.9 -0.9 PERCENT DIFFT.RENCE ;
1 0.780 0.8 11 l
-3.8 j AVERAGE ABSOUJTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN l MEASURED AND PREDlCED 2.999 PERCENT )
RMS ERROR 3.546 4
j A-50 i
l F1GURE 5-3C COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-209 599.7 MWT. GROUP C AT 81.000 INCHES 1373. MWD /MTU 0.864 !
0.704
. -18 0.972 0.709 0.991 0.735
-1.9 -3.8 1.094 1.029 1.078 1.0 14 1.4 1.4 1.013 1.146 1.10 8 1.022 1.121 1.102
-0.9 2.2 0.5 1.15 3 1.12 3 2.8 1.221 1.143 1.18 0 1.121 3.J 2.1 !
1.138 1 018 ,
1.127 1.021 !
0.8 -0.4
[
1.020 0.988 r
! 1.025 1.003 3 -0.4 -1.7 l 0.700 1.087 WEASURED St0NAL !
) 0.728 1.104 PREDICTED S10NAL
~3.8 -1.5 PERCENT DIFTTRENCE :
0.782 l 0.801
-2.4 l I
) AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
! MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.897 PERCENT I
l RMS ERROR 2.169 A-51 l
4
___ _ _ _ . _ , - . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . . _ , _ _ - _ _ _ - . - _ . _ _ _ . . _ ~ _ . . _ , _._:
- l i ;
t W
RGURE 5-3D
! COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICED SIGNALS <
- INCORE RUN YR-19-211 600.,0 MWT. GROUP C AT 85.500 INCHES 2573. MWD /MTU !
i ,
O.689 0.709 i . -2.8 l 0.992 0.708 l 0.997 , 0.737 l j j -0.6 -4.0 l
) 1.098 1.031 l i
- 1.086 1.020 i 1.1 1.1 ,, ,
~
1.018 1.139 1.105 l j 1.024 1.119 1.096 l l -0.6 1.8 0.8 !
! 1.14 2 l 1.12 0 l 2.0 1.213 1.14 4 1.77 8 1.118 19 13
~
1.12 0 1.007 1122 1.023
-0.1 -1.5 1.026 0.991
. 1.024 1.005 0.3 -1.4 l
l 0.699 1.0 87 WEASURED SIONAL J 0.719 1.102 PREDICTED SIONAL
-2.4 -1.4 _ PERCENT DIF7TAENCE 0.790 j 4
i 0.801 l l -1.4 i
! AVERAGE ABSOlui? DIFFERENCE BETWEEN l MEASURED AND t niDICTED 1.603 PERCENT 1
i RMS ERROR 1.896 l A-52 I I i I
- s* & J w e- -
p l
FIGURE 5-3E COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-214 !
- 600.0 MWT, GROUP C AT 83.625 INCHES 3683. MWD /MTU
i O.693 0.7 11 ,
'l
-2.6 ;
0.985 0.712 1.000 0.737
' ~1.5 - 3.4 1.098 1 027 l 1.091 1.023 0.7 _,
0.3 1.022 1.137 1.101 1.025 1.10 1.094
-0.4 1.7 0.6 1.134 1.19 1.5 l
1.209 1.130 1.U8 1.11 6 2.8 1.3 1123 1.023 ,
1.118 1.024 i 0.4 -0.1 1.029 1.002 1 023 1.006 0.6 -0.5 0.696 1.086 MEASURED $10NAL O.719 1.101 PREDICTED St0NAL
~ 3.2 -1.3 PERCLNT DiFFT.RENCE
- 0.794 0.798
]
- 0.6
- AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
! MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.297 PERCENT 1
l J
RMS ERROR 1.644 A-53 I
I FIGURE 5-3F
- COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS i INCORE RUN YR-19-215 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 84.750 INCHES 4843. MWD /MTU 0.700
< 0.712
, -1.6 0.995 0.7 12 0.737 !
I 1.003
-0.7 -3.3 1.098 1.030
)'
1.027 1.098 .
0.0 0.3 1.019 1.127 1.095 1.027 1.118 1.0 64 l
-0.8 0.8 1.1 l 1.116 ,
1.0 {
1.208 1.12 6 ,
i 1.18 0 1.116 i 2.4 0.9 r i
1.122 1.027 I 1.1T7 1.026 l
! 0.5 0.1 r
i l 1.027 1.0 11 ;
1.023 1.009 i 0.4 0.3 !
) 0.667 1.089 WEASURED SIGNAL
, 0.708 1.102 PREDICTED SIGNAL '
! -2.9 -1.2 PERCENT Dif7EP.ENCE
) 0.796 :
l 0.799 f 1
-0. 3 ;
) AVERAGE ABSOLlJTE DlFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.037 PERCENT
- RMS ERROR 1.390 A-54
,-, ,n.,, -
, - - - . . - - - - - , , ,,,,...--m n-., . . - . , - - , . , - , . - . - , , - , . - - - - - - - ,
l i
FIGURE 5-3G COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-216 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 84.750 INCHES 5524. MWD /MTU 0.707 0.711
-0.6 1.000 0.713 1.003 0.735
-0.2 -3.0 j 1.10 0 1.0 34 l 1 1.101 1.028
-0.1 0.6 1.024 1.121 1.092 1.028 1.1U 1.062
-0.4 0.4 1.0 a 1.121 1.116 0.4 1.206 1.1U i 1.181 1.115 2.1 0.2 :
1.116 1.029 [
l 1.116 1.026 ;
j __
0.0 0.2 J 1.030 1.013 1.024 1.010 0.6 0.2
- l 0.688 1.090 WEASUREDSl0NAL i
0.705 1.10 3 PREDICTED S10NAL
,; -2.4 -1.2 PERCENT DIFFTAENCE 0.799 l 0.798 l
i 0.2 I AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED .778 PERCENT RMS ERROR 1.149 A-55 I
1 l - _ _ _ - ._ -. ,.
i .
FIGURE 5-3H COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-238 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 85.500 INCHES 6735. MWD /MTU
.i 0.704 1 0.711
. -1.1 l 1.002 0.712 l 1.004 0.734 1
-0.2 -3.1 ;
1.107 t035 j 1.107 to30 I O0 0.5 ,
i 1.024 1.12 3 1085 ;
1.029 1.115 t073
- -0.8 0.8 1.1 1.12 3 1.1M i 0.8 1.209 1122 l'
. 1.18 3 t1H 2.2 0.8 ?
l 1.12 0 1030 l 1.115 1.028 j 0.5 0.2 f
} 1.029 t011 (
) 1.025 t013 i l 0.4 -0.2 l l 0.878 1.090 WEASURED $10NAL j 0.700 L105 PREDICTED $10NAL ,
-3.2 -1.4 PERCENT DIF7T.RENCE I
! 0.798 i 0.798 i
-0.1 AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
) MEASURED AND PREDICTED .927 PERCENT i
1 RMS ERROR 1.3 17 j A-56
]
I
l FIGURE 5-31 COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-241 ,
, 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 86.625 INCHES 8012. MWD /MTU
! 0.703 0.712
-1,3 1.004 0.713 2
1.006 0.734 >
a -0.3 -2.9 1
1 1.111 1.039
) 1.12 1.033 1 -0.1 0.6 I i 1.026 1.20 1.061 1.031 1.113 1.068
-0.5 0.6 ,
1.2 ,
1.us 1.112 ,
0.8 1.207 1.12 3 !
1.18 3 1.112 2.0 1.0 i
! 1.116 1.032 1.112 1.0 31 f ,
- 0.5 0.1 l ;
! 1.030 1.013 i 1.027 1.016 i
} 0.3 -0.3 l i 0.673 1.090 WEASURED SIGNAL
} 0.696 1.106 PREDICTED SIGNAL 1 - 3.4 -1.4 PERCENT DIFTERENCE ,
f 0.~ 99
[
l 0.798 i 0.1 1 ,
! AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN !
MEASURED AND PREDICTED 975 PERCENT
)
4 J RMS ERROR 1.342 i A-57 '
l1
= . , -----.------------,,-----w - ,n .,---n-_ , , ,_--.----..-----,-,,,,,.,,,,,,-_-_v.n-,--,--, -
_ , - - - , , , - ~ , ~ . , , , -
r l
FIGURE 5-3J COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-242 596.2 MWT. GROUP C AT 83.250 INCHES 9120. MWD /MTU 0.701 0.712
-1.8 1.001 0.713 1.0 07 0.734
-0.8 -2.9 1.118 1.040 1.115 1.0 34 0.1 0.5 1.028 1.121 1.079 1.032 1.111 1.0 64
-0.4 0.8 1.5 1.119 1.110 0.8 1.205 1.12 3 1183 1.11 0 1.8 1.1 1.115 1.033 1.110 1.032 0.5 0.1 1.0 31 1.C J 1.028 1.018 0.3 -0.1 0.871 1.088 WEASURED S10NAL 0.893 1.107 PREDICTED S10NAL
-3.2
- 1.7 PERCENT DIFTERENCE 0.799 0.7 97 0.2 AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.015 PERCENT RMS ERROR 1.358 A-58 1
l
,o 6
RGURE 5-3K COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-243 599.9 MWT. GROUP C AT 83.625 INCHES 10335. MWD /MTU 0.702 0.7 14 l
-1.7 1 1.002 0.713 "
1.010 0.735
-0.8 -3,0 1.120 1.040 1.11 8 1.037 0.1 0.3
< 1.030 1.119 1.076 1.0 34 1.10 8 1.060
-0.4 0.9 1.4 1.119 1.107 1.1 I
.l 1.204 1.119 !
- 1.182 1108 1.9 1.0 1 115 1.0 34 ,
i 1.1M 1.0 34 j 0.7 0.0 1 1.033 1 019 j 1.029 1.0 21 ;
0.4 -0.2 0.668 1.088 WEASURED SIGNAL 0.691 1.107 PREDICTED S10NAL
- 3. 3 -1.7 PERCENT DIF7T.RENCE O.799 0.797 l
q , 0.2
! AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETNEEN
! MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1.091 PERCENT I
l
~
RMS ERROR 1.433 A-59 l
s l
.' l l
FIGURE 5-3L COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-19-244 599.9 MWT. GROUP C AT 85.875 INCHES 11489. MWD /MTU 0.704 0.715 ,
-1.7 1.006 0.716 l 1.0 12 0.737
-0.6 -2.8 1.118 1.040 ;
1.12 0 1.039
-0.2 0.1 1.030 1.1U 1.073 1.035 1.107 1.058
-0.4 0.9 1.5 1.114 1.105 l
O.8 ,
1.201 1.11 3 l 1.181 1.10 6 l 1.7 0.6 1.112 1.036 1 1.105 1.036 :
0.7 0.0 h
i 1.0 37 1.024 '
i 1.030 1.023 l 0.7 0.1 j 0.666 1.0 91 WEASURED SIGNAL '
! 0.688 1.107 PREDICTED SIONAL ,
j - 3.0 -1.5 PERCENT DIF7T.RENCE l l 0.001 l I 0.797 l O.5 l AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASURED AND PREDICTED .995 PERCENT
)
RMS ERROR 1.309
]
A-60 l
i
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR #3 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE e20 '
NORMALIZED RELATIVE AXIRL SHAPES 71. MWD /MTU 2.0 1.8-~
1.6-~
m 1.4i b.1 : ~
n g -
TCE {
c S 1.2 -- :o z : m o .
s 'f C
1.05 a
2>
y .
e: :
- 0.8 ~
C _
s -
X :
C 0.6 ~
0.4i 0.25 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1 4 ............
70 80 00 100 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR #3 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE *20 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIAL SHAPES 161. MWD /MTU 2.0 _
1.85 1.62.
U> 1.4 f W : - n H -
E y c :
0 % 1.2 ~ E m
Z :
o m
i g - .e-a 1.0 - 5 c
y m :
- 0.85 c
s Y
C 0.6-
~
0.45 .
0.25 .
- ........s....... .s . ......
0.0 ~......... .........s.........s.........s.........s.........s.........s 30 40 Sn 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT ,
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR e3 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #20 NORMRLIZED RELATIVE RXIAL SHAPES 1373. MWD /MTU 2.0 _
1.8 -
1.6-~
m 1.42 _
ta _
n l-* ~
r kw 1.2 h
==
z .
0 : w s-e _
1.05 i
o c'
, a- :
? td -
1 gr :
l _3 0.85 a- :
e-a -
X :
C 0.6 i 0.45 0.22 5
0.0
~
gg - gg gf gf ' ' ' ' jf ' ' ' ' ' ff ' ' ' ' ' ' ff ' ' ' ' ' f 99 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR #3 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #20 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHAPES 2573. MWD /MTU 2.0 1.8 _
1.6 ~
(n 1.4 k w :
m H -
C : ..
E T 1,2 - !5 z i m O -
H 1 g-L o o C :
y -
x
- 0.8k C
H -
X :
C 0.6 -
0.44 0.2 _
50 .... ....
... 3 80 90 100 0.0 ..............
40 60 70 0 10 20 30 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR #3 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVEABLE #20 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHRPES 3683. MWD /MTU 2.0 1.85
^
1.G i g 1.45 L.J :
E-4
- n C : r '
y 2.2 v
6"O 3 7 g
- m s
y e
1.0 j M x .
[1J :
M -
g 0.8 -
c :
m -
x :
C G.6 5 0.4 0.25 5 5 6 5 5 4 5 g5 5 5 5 5 3 6 5 A & 5 4 5 5 5 4 ga 5 5 5 5 6 I T gd d 5 4 4 5 5 5 gI J d A 3 4 4 4 g5 4 d g& 100 6 4 3 3 3 4 I 4 3 5 6 4 5 5 4 3 5 A A 4 3 6 3 5 g5 4 4 4 60 70 80 90 3
20 30 40 50 0 10 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
e.
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR #3 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #20 NORMRLI2ED RELATIVE RXIRL SHAPES 4843. MWD /MTU ,
2.0 1.8 ~
1.65
~
g 1.4 W : n H _
> C -
O hEz 1.2 Q 5 O : m M -
I H 1.0i ?
g E -
W :
E -
g 0.8 ~
C :
M :
X -
C 0.65 0.4
~.
0.25
~.
0.0 '. . .......... 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
~~
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR x3 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #20 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHAPES 5524. MWD /MTU 1
2.0 _
1.8 i 1.65 g 1.4 W :
> C sMz 1.2i .
g- -
en o : w m .
H a
x 1.0 - -
.[
W :
g 0.85 ~
C s -
X :
C 0.6i .
0.45 0.25 0.0 . .. ......... ................ .> ........... 50 60 70 .... ......
80 90 100 10 20 30 40 0
PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
---e s- ._ a YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR #3 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #20 NORMALIZED RELRTIVE RXIRL SHAPES 6735. MWD /MTU 2.0 _
1.8 j 1.6-~
m 1.4 h tAJ :
n M
M
- ;s; 1.25 -
e i T x
1.0-~
[1] -
M -
g 0.8-~
x H
X -
C 0.6 ~
5 k
0.4 j
~
0.2 0.0 ... .... ... . . .... .. .
50 60
.........70 . . .....
80 90 100 10 20 30 40 '
0 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
e n ._.E m wE>
0 0
1 o
d 9
1 UT o x M d E /D '
L B W-M R
E .
'O V 1 , 7 O 7 _
M '
T H
CI ESP G I
o R
T R dE H
9 1 E M
H S D '
E E M L R R.Y O S R I
oC O
C X d S
U R F
E S O E R E K E V T N V I N R T 'O 4 E Y 4 A C
- L R E E R R P O D T
C E 3 0 _
E Z -
I _
T E LR _
DM :
D 0 L 3
_ E N X
- I F '
- ' c l
2 - 'O
- - : ~ :
i -
k::4 - - :
i : : 4::2.::::
8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 ~
0 1 1 1 0 0 O 0 2 1 1 mwseC zo $cwz acmxC T: -
O YANKEE CORE 19 .
c FIXED DE.TECTOR #4 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE x19 i NORMALIZED RELATIVE flXIRL SHAPES 161 MWD /MTU 1
2.0 -
l 1.85
.si m 1.44 m : '
m M
E 2 i A E c-
>- 2.2 - m
~ z : m o :
~ : m.
H 10- w o -
m c :
w -
e
- 0.8 '.
c :
s -
x :
C 0.6i 0.4 2 0.25
' " " i" ' ' " " " ' " "
0.0 - ..............................." 20 30
~. ~ ... 40
~ ~ ~50." ~ " i' " "
60 70 80 90 100 0 10 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR #4 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #19 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHAPES 1373. MWD /MTU .
2.0 4 1.8i 1.65 m 1.45 w :
_n s : .
c -
c.
M T 1.25 E
- oz : m
~ . m, y 2.0 -
- c :
w :
c -
g 0.85 c
e-o x :
C 0.65 0.45 0.2i 90 .......100 0.0 - . ..............................30 40 50 60 70 80 0 20 29 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 ..
FIXED DETECTOR n4 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVEABLE #19 NORMALIZED RELATIVE AXIAL SHRPES 2573. MWD /MTU 2.0 _
b 1.8i 1.65 m 1.4 i w -
m C b E
e 1.24
$b !
[
$ 1.0 i
- 5 e
i a 0.8 -
C s
X :
C 0.6-~
0.4 :
~/
0.25 0.0 ~ ,... . .. .. . . . , . ,,:
90 100 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
O YANKEE CORE 19 c.
f FIXED DETECTOR #4 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE *19 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHRPES 3683. MWD /MTU .
2.0 I :
1.8-~
]
1.62_
m 1.4 ~
w .
f* -
c : .
S C
T 1.22 "
'd 0 z : A o
~
m c
1.Di m
m
- w -
l z :
a 0.8 -
C . -
m -
X :
C 0.6i l
^
l
- 0.42 j
);
0.2 -_
.. ...,> ... .... . . 6,...
' O.0 .... . .i. 6, 70 80 90 100 30 40 50 60 O 10 20
' PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CCRE 19 .
FIXED DETECTOR #4 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #19 4843. MWD /MRJ NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHAPES 2.0 1.85 1.62.
g 1.4 _
w _ n 1 w - -
! c
" i . e i z 2.2 y w g o : m
- 0, i y 1.0 - m 1 x w :
M -
2 g o.8 _ * -
. c :
l - :
I X -
l C o.64 i :
l :
l o.4 2 l
0.2 -_
l i ... ...... .
0.0
.'o, 80 90 100 2
20
y, ' ' ' ' ' ' jo ' ' ' ' ' ' do ' '
. s 70 l
PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
l YRNKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR #4 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE x19 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHAPES 5524. MWD /MTU 2.0 1.82 1.6 -
m 1.45 W _
E-* -
c : -
m T % 1.2 - - -. -s __
^
~
y 1.Di w
[3 m x
y ~
Z .
g 0.8 -
c X :
C 0.62 0.4 0.2
. . . . . . . . . . ~ , . .
0.0 T ..... .. 70 80 90 100
..... 60 20 30 40 50 0 10 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
o YANKEE CORE 19 :
FIXED DETECTOR #4 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #19 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHAPES 6735. MWDAiTU 2.0 -
i 1.e1 1.6 ~
l m 14 w _
H -
n c :
E l > % 1.2-: -
c-a ~
4 z
a a f V M
~
J.
H 1.0 -
o $
C :
w -
e :
~
3 0.8-c m -
~
X C 0.6 U l ~
1 j I :
- 0. 4 -
0.2 2 1 -
- )
~
' s'''''''' ''' ''''''''''
... - - s- .. '
0.0 ,. .. .... ..- ... .6 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 O
PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT l
t i.____.__.____ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . __
YRNKEE CORE 19 ..
FIXED DETECTOR n21 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE =2 '
NORMALIZED REL8TIVE RXIRL SHAPES 71. MWD /MTU 2.0 1.8-~
1.6 2 m 1.44
- w
- .
1 s : I c - c, T 1.25
)1, 2 :
m o .
~ : T m
H 1.0 - 2 o
c :
w :
E -
i
- 0.8i i c
a w -
i x :
C 0.65 i
i :
0.4 a :
i 0.2 -
! : , , , , , , , , ,, ......i. .> =4= >
' ' yo ' ' ' ' ' ,s'o 70 80 90 103
- 0.0 '. ...
. .g - g >
yf ' ' ' ' ' ' jf 4
PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
. ~ _ . . , - - - - - - - . - . . . - - - - - - -....--,.---,-------..r----v-
- - -.,,, ------.--,--------.----r-- -
_ _ _ _ _ . _ - . - - - ~ - . . - _ - - . _ _ . .. ._ -.
YRNKEE CORE 19
! FIXED DETECTOR *21 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #2 161. MWD /MTU NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHAPES 2.0 -
1 I :
1.8 ~
1.65 m 2.4i w : " n s :
>c .
E h%z 2.25 lg o .
w
~ .
J,
[3 1.0i =
e :
w -
E '
- 0.85 c
s x :
C 0.65 0.44 0.25 0.0 ' g
~
g' jf ' ' 'gf ' ' ' ' go ' ' ' ' yo ' ' ' ' 'do ' ' 'if ' sco
. . . . . . . . ,g PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
FIGURE 5-6C c,
O
- m n
~
- B m .
8 ~
8 ta $ -
- m> =q -
3t . -
>n Eb / fE
- H 1
om
- -* g I
cs,
- e. a.
. g ,ta ld a;
- I
$ p FM i
- ca
,i td s g 1 -
y
,j-t M G' l
1 c
to m
4 h8 ti.
o tu m ta i s,
(d y M
~
n > ., .
~
H t
0 N] TOIdf
- m a ta ta .
m e- : a. <
d o a 98 i l l Uta !.d.
H J
w &j ;
a x x
- o a
ta a
y
.n x,
u- .
10
.- t I
t t
I
., .o i ivii iviiivi ,=>i'ive><it'it" P'
t ii... .iii.i...gi......iii... o
- o M W T N o # h a d a A d d d o i
1 l
l S3108 NOIl0038 1UIXU I A-79
+
1, 1 FIGURE 5-6D 1 --
8a l
1 s
J I
N
- * ~
l -
8 f 1 w s
- l
_a > - ,
a: 3 (D
W d '
o N
O E N I p
l b O mta
- I G
E Q. -* I-J H c- -8 *ti) 4 j CD I'3 I -
r ,
E cn
.-4
- or tr W c- O i O m s-<
- Ln oO .
O >< 3 ,
3' 3 W C ti.
O 1 M -
r J
4
[4]
x @
> (>AJ H
) Z +-4 Z '
i Q' H ..o tij t 1
a
>-4 yC .; -
O M
1
- tij (AJ l y M I i
d o
$~O H
i.- f i tij o r d !
l i O$ .a
+
x t-4 IA. -
l
\
_o
~
t
)
- l .............. .....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
cme ~o I w +.
- O. {
O. e. N.
i o. e. e. e. N.
Q Q Q O j j N m a a a w Q k
! S31U8 N0110938 '191XU f i A-80 l
1 1 i
,e e
FIGURE 5-6E ,
'O a
r o.
a <
\
l l g -
s u ~
l i O 3m *
- i j ,
a
> 03 n s
'~ o 5
i O (D ,
j r F) ~
b
@ r .
j - CD a ,
! M (L . S ~u H en i
i m
~ Wr r to I
W i
l W M .1 Cr' t g C O ;
- M O g - ..g O i O --) y -
1 _
u.
o
- w "3 ;
i w @ w> l H i x > - Z I
! Z { .oM (E H ..
1 I M g C I O w
]
- d x
4 m L fQ -a i
-1 e it!
U-' >
i 4 oE m !
l
' b.
. O
~
< \
' C i 'l' l''l
iiiiii.I' 4' 6''l''4''l y O.
- e. m. N.
) O. O. m. e. N. o. O O O Q
, M M " a n O I
h J
S310M NOI19938 1UIXU
! A-81 j
i _ __
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR #21 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE n2 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIAL SHRPES 4843. MWD /MTU 2.0 m
i 1.82 _
2 1.6 _
g 1.45 n.) : n 9 -
> C $
gMz 1.2-
~
^g "
O : V'
- E y 1.0 - m e :
L.2 :
K -
g 0.85 C :
m -
x :
C 0.65 0.4 -.
0.25 0.0 -[........... ...........
20 30 40
.50..... .................
60 70 ... ......
80 90 100 0 10 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR x21 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #2 NORMRLIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHRPES 5524. MWD /MTU 2.0 1.8 1.6 g 1.45 d . r.
g _ __.
c : o E 1.2 " '
4 g z :
m o :
~ a, y 1.0 ;
o c ,
u :
C -
g 0.85 c
. x :
F 0.62.
0.4 0.25 2
yf ' ' ' "jf' " " s'o ' ' ' ' 'd6 ' ' ' ' '7o 80 e 100
......... . ' " ' gg 0.0 0 2
, PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR #21 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #2 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHAPES 6735. MWD /MTU 2.0 ;
1.85 1.6 m 1.4 i ta : m H .
> C $
$ z" 1.2: -
' ^ ~
m o m c'n a 1.0 d 2 x .
ld e :
_J 0.8 f a-x C 2 0.6 :
0.45 0.2 0.0
....................,......... .........40.......................................,...................
50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 0
PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 ..
FIXED DETECTOR #22 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVEABLE #1 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHRPES 71. MWD /MTU 2.0 1.85 1.6 h m 1.45 w :
H -
c : -
5 E 1.25 T
E m
3 zo :
~ .
T c
1.05
~
y .
Z :
- 0.85 c
m X :
C 0.65 0.45 .
~
0.25 0.0 1........... ......................
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19
, FIXED DETECTOR #22 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE al 161. MWD /MTU NORMALIZED RELATIVE AXIRL SHRPES 2.0 1.85 1.62.
en 1.45 m : '
m H
C E
> % T,
- i 1.2i m z
,i O
m T
y H 2.02: -
1 @
m :
e :
- 0.8-~
c s
X :
C 0.62_
. g 0.4 ~
\
0.22 .
~.
i 0.0 . ......... ......... 20 30 40 50 .....
60 .........................................
70 80 90 100 0 10 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR *22 VERSUS SYMhETRIC MOVERBLE al NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHAPES 1373. MWD /MTU 2.0 _
1.85 1.6 '.
m 1.45 W :
n E-* cn c : <-
t.
~ z e 1.2 ; _
A o
T
~
H 1.0 - O o
c :
j W -
e a 0.85 e :
s -
x :
C 0.65 0.45
\
0.22 .
! 0.0 2
10 20 30 40 ...........................................................
50 60 70 80 90 100 0
PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 13 FIXED DETECTOR =22 VERSUS S'iMMETRIC MOVERBLE #1 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHAPES 2573. MWD /MTU 2.0 _
1.8 -
1.65
~
g 1.4 i W : '
9 _
m
> C E 5%
~
1.25 5 Z i O _
w m -
4 c
1,0i o
W -
g 0.8 i c
m x :
1 C 0.6 ~ _
i
\
0.45
~
0.2k
~
.. ....... 100
.... . .................. 70 80 90 0.0 ~, .... ..... ..... .... .
40 50 60 10 20 30
- O
' PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 PIXED DETECTOR x22 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #1 NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHRPES 3683. MWD /MTU .
2.0 _
1.85 1.65 m 1.45 W :
E+
~
1 1.2 _ m
=z :
m O -
E-*
g 1.0 _ 2 h C _
U :
K -
.s g 0.85 .
C : y.
s -
x :
C
~
0.6 _
O.4 -
0.22 .
90 100 0.0 ~1...........................................................................................
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0
PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR n22 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE #1 NORMALI2ED RELATIVE RXIRL SHRPES 4843. MWD /MTU 2.0 1.8 1.6 ~
^
g 1.4 W : n 9 .
T C E
- ~- "
E g . 2: g z :
sn o
s e
y 1.0 2 M c :
W :
E :
- 0.8 C
x - .
C 0.62.
0.4 0.22_
~
0.0
~
40 50 60..... ......
70 ......,....
80 ..............
90 t00 10 20 30 0
PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR #22 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE el NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIAL SHAPES 5524. MWD /MTU ,
2.0 1.82.
1.65 m 1 w
g _
m o
> c :
4 % 1.22 E
" V m z 3 o
- T
~
H 10 2 a o -
c :
W -
^
M g 0.8 k c
m
~
X C 0.6 0.45 0.2-e
..................................'...........n. .s' ' ' '.*.'
70
' ' 's80 ' ' 's 90 100 0.0 30 40 53 60 O 10 20 PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
YANKEE CORE 19 FIXED DETECTOR #22 VERSUS SYMMETRIC MOVERBLE al 6735. MWD /MTU NORMALIZED RELATIVE RXIRL SHRPES 2.0 W
1.8 i 1.6 -
m m
1.4j v H - -
C :
1.2 w z -
m a
H 4
o .. 0- -
x y
x a 0.85 C :
s -
X :
C 0.6-~
0.4 l _
0.2 -
.'.. .s.....
e s.'
90 100 0.0 ~..........s.........s.........s.........s.........s.........s.........s......
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0
PERCENT OF CORE HEIGHT
O YANKEE CORE 19 KW/FT VS EXPOSURE USING INCORE DETECTION SYSTEMS 11.0 o - MOVRBLE SYSTCM o - COMBINATION SYS
! 10.5 -
i 10.0 -
9.5-N . -
I 1hy 8.5-n "i
~
% - 1 8 8.0 -
1 7.5-i i
- 7. 0 -
1 6.5 -
l 3 6.0 , , , , , , , , , ,
11000 12000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 EXPOSURE (MWD /MTU)
YANKEE CORE 19 KW/FT VS EXPOSURE USING INCORE DETECTION SYSTEMS 11.0 a - MOVABLE SYSTEM o - COMBINATION SYS 10.5 - ,
10.0-i n 9.5 -
a i
ta_ 9.0 - -
~
E
> !s aUn:
Y 3 e 8.5-
$ - a H 8.0 -
. ta_
x 2
M l
7.5 -
- 7. 0 -
6.5-l3 l 6.0 , , , , , , , , , , ,
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 EXPOSURE (MWO/MTU)
YANKEE CORE 19 F0 VS EXPOSURE USING COMBINATION INCORE DETECTION SYSTEMS 2.20 a - MOVABLE SYSTEM 2.15-o - COMBINRTION SYS 2.10 -
l 2.05-2.00 -
] 1.95 - 'o hJ U 1.90- g T "*
3 x x
1.85- o b 1.80 -
8 1.75-1.70-1.65 -
1.60 -
1.55 -
1.50 ,
O 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 EXPOSURE (MWD /MTU)
' YANKEE CORE 19 F0 VS EXPOSURE USING COMBINATION INCORE DETECTION SYSTEMS 2.20 0 - MOVABLE SYSTEM 2.15 - o - COMBINRTION SYS 2.10 - ,
2.05-2.00 -
] 1.95- ,
us "4
e 0 1.90 - h m
s 2
1.85- 1 i 1.80 -
4 0 1.75-1.70-1.65-1.60-i 1.55-1.50 , , , , , , ,
l .
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 EXPOSURE [ MWD /MTU)
YANKEE CORE 19 FAH VS EXPOSURE USING COMBINATION INCORE DETECTION SYSTEMS 1.550 o - MOVRBLE SYSTEM o - FIXED /MOVERBLE 1.525 -
1.500 -
t U
w 1.475 - 5 D o T
E w
T 1.450 - C rr b
g w
1.425-i 1.400 -
l 1.375 - _d 1.350 , , , , , , , , , , ,
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 i'D00 EXPOSURE (MWD /MTU)
YRNKEE CORE 19 FaH VS EXPOSURE USING COMBINATION INCORE OETECTION SYSTEMS I 6U a - MOVRBLE SYSTEM o - COMBINRTION SYS 1.575 -
1.550 -
1.525 - g w a s** Y tr 1.500 - C; 5
I 1.475-m i
i 1.450 -
1.425 -
1.400 , , , , , , , , , , ,
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 S000 10000 11000 12000 EXPOSURE (MWD /MTU)
o.
YANKEE CORE 19 ..
COMPRRISON OF RVERAGE ABSOLUTE ERROR BETWEEN MERSURED AND ANALYTICAL DATR FOR MOVABLE AND COMBINRTION SYSTEMS 6
a - MOVABLE SYSTEM o - COMBINATION SYS s- -
~
R v
E 4-
- g
- s E
B t
3 N C g
33-8 g 6 -
8 2-g W
a- -
W
^
~
1-5 l
idOO 2dOO 3dOO 4dOO 5dOO 6dOO 7dOO 8dOO SdOO 10b00 11b00 12000 EXPOSURE (MWD /MTU)
I
YANKEE CORE 19 ..
COMPRRISON OF RMS ERROR BETWEEN MERSURED AND ANALYIICAL DATR FOR MOVABLE AND COMBINATION SYSTEMS S
o - MOVRBLE SYSTEM o - COMBINRTION SYS 5-4-
U Y e -
y seb 3- 0 g
E x .
2-O W
^
=
1-10000 11000 12000 i
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 EXPOSURE (MWD /MTU)
6.0 DETECTION OF POWER DISTRIBUTION AN0HALIES As previously described, one function of the Incore Detection System is to aid in the detection of anomalous power distribution. The combination j system proposed here enhances our ability to detect anomalous power distribution due to increased observability and greater core coverage. In a study performed by Brookhaven National Laboratory (Reference 8), it is suggested that for most perturbations, it is sufficient to consider changes in power and signals at the instrumented core location and its eight primary and secondary neighbors. For the purpose of argument here, we will consider core coverage with instrumented locations and their four primary neighbors (within one assembly pitch) only. Table 6-1 shows a comparison of the core coverage of the current MIDS, combination fixed and movable system, and the MIDS as originally designed. The combination system provides an increased detection capability versus the movable system alone. Therefore, our ability to detect core power distribution anomalies is better than previous cycles of operation where generally only 12 to 15 movable locations have been available for mapping.
In addition to the Incore Detection System Yankee's ability to detect power distribution anomalies is supplemented by suf ficient alternative means.
As has been discussed in a previous submittal (Reference 4), core videotaping after refueling, start-up physics testing, an excellent analytical full core model of the Yankee core, the uniqueness of the Yankee assembly design, incore thermocouple data, excore detector signals, and loop temperature indications provide further protection from operation with any core anomalies.
l
]
A-101 J
i a
- - , - - ,,_,-s
~
h TABLE 6-1 Yankee Incore Detection System Core Coverate Sununary Total Core Bish-Powered Assemblies Description (No.) Assys/ Total Percent Assys/ Total Percent Movables (12) 40/76 52.6 36/52 69.2 Combination (18) 54/76 71.1 44/52 84.6 As Designed (22) 68/76 89.5 50/52 96.2 Notes:
- 1. Core coverage based on instrumented location and primary neighbors.
- 2. High-powered assemblies defined as 11.0 relative power.
t l
A-102 l
l l
7.0 DETERMINATION OF CONTROL R0D POSITIONING Current Yankee Technical Specification 3.1.3.2 requires that with a maximum of one primary rod position indicator channel per group inoperable; determine the position of the nonindicating rod (s) indirectly by the movable incore detectors at least once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and imediately af ter any motion of the nonindicating rod which exceeds 8" in one direction since the last determination of the rod's position. Yankee proposes that indirect determination of control rod position can be better addressed by utilizing the combination Incore Detection System versus the MIDS alone. Depending on the location of a particular control rod, we propose to use the available operable thimbles, either fixed, movable, or both, which best determines the position of a nonindicating control rod. Based on geometry alone, the closest operable thimble to a given control rod provides the best indication of that rod's position.
To qualify the ability of the FIDS to determine control rod position, a study was performed using measured data taken from routine plant operation. A monthly surveillance is performed which requires that each control rod not fully inserted shall be determined operable by moving the rod at least 4" in any one direction. During this surveillance, fixed detector data was analyzed for each of the six fixed detector strings. Figure 7-1 depicts the results of this study, and Figure 7-2 provides reference of control rod and fixed detector core locations. As can be seen, the six fixed detector strings alone are capable of detecting movement of all 24 control rods in the core. Being able to detect 4" rod movements at the top of the core, where the differentici control rod worth is at a minimum, shows that the fixed detectors can determine rod movement within a specified 8" band.
The intent of determining control rod position indirectly is not based on determining the exact position of a control rod, but rather its position within a given range. Neither the Fixed nor Movable System can tell you exactly where a control rod is positioned, but they can be used to determine if the control rod has moved within a given range during a speciffed time A-103 1
j i
inte rval . The movable trace represents the neutron flux at 2" intervals and provides a more detailed axial picture than the fixed detectors which represent the average over a 10" axial interval. However, the fixed detectors can provide nearly cont.inuous flux monitoring versus the movable traces'which .
have to be physically positioned in and out of the core at less frequent time ,
inte rvals . Yankee intends to use either fixed or movable detectors, or possibly both, when making indirect determination of control rod position depending on the rod's location in the core. Generally, determination of position with the MIDS is based on some reference point where control rod position had been established. With the FIDS, since data is taken every five seconds, the establishment of a reference control rod position may be established from the history files presently kept by the DAS.
I l
I a
A-104 1
}
.' FIGURE 7-1
-8 w l
~S a e
$m t '
.g g
R- f 1 q____._..__._._ __.
. . --- 2
-8 ed (i E- i m
~
L
! s-tg .
5e e m (U a L. - - _ . _ _ _ _ . . . - r-W M f 4 I f
$g - C 1 _. _ _ _ _ ___
4~ h w h !O [ 1
-a;s 5a5 ; < t c f
-=8 ""
- H 5 l. ,
%., ( 1 *- ~
?2 li! S+ ( ; '%_,' [ {
j 4- _a Q Men EH
[ i, i
( L s
r (
/ ( l- -
- e f( (
u_ ~
w
( ; ( "-
W '
-56 "0 ll C f ( ,,
e Cif ( ( ,
(
e$
5r (4(
[ [ 5,
(
F
[ '
- -- -8
~
e E8 w x k
( ,t d.
( (- ( l. >-
8 m k { ( "~ *
(
L I ( (( l 4
~
5 [E (/l d { m l r
, - - a g
~ -
e~ r- :-
~ m c, m ~
e r
% % m%
s s - -
- - to s
E E s s s s 33 a la
. . . . ... ........,...., o 8 8 8 8 8 8m R o s o m 4 (SdWU-N) SlUN9IS A-105
e e
4 e
FIGURE 7-2 CONTROL ROD IDENTIFICATION AND FIXED DETECTOR LOCATIONS D
17 D C #3 24 14
@ D
- 4 B B, 6 18 5
e D R _ A B WR h) 3 10 23 9 t
A A C C
2 15 13 1 g .
A B D
- 12 B 4 11 19 12 D B B 22 8 7 l
C D 16 20 D Ut 21 1
- 22 A-106
8.0 INCORE ]ETECTION SYSTEM MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES Present Technical Specifications require 5.0% system measurement uncertainty for 117 operable thimbles and 6.8% for (17 and 112 operable thimbles. The 17 thimbles represent 75% of the total system of instrument thimbles. Yankee feels that the 5.0% value of measurement uncertainty is l valid for the combination system with 117 operable thimbles. We believe that this value is appropriate based on the followingt l i
- 1. The fixed detector data has been shown to be equivalent to the l movable data, in terms of determination of the core power distribution and peaking factors, and the 5.0% value has been !
previously justified for 117 available movable thimbles as 4.231 ;
for assembly powers 1 1 0. {
l 2. An evaluation of the Westinghouse MIDS measurement uncertainty i performed by Westinghouse (Reference 9) has shown the overall (
measurement uncertainty in Fq to be 4.58% (95/95 confidence) fnr a system with 175% of available thimbles. l l
, 3. Babcock and Wilcox has shown (Reference 10) the measurement I j uncertainty for the fixed detectors to be 4.1% (95/95 confidence)
] even at 65% rhodium depletion (abo'tt ten calendar years).
l In addition to these arguments, Yankee has other factors which
! contribute to supporting a 5.01 measurement uncertainty. The Yankee core is I much smaller relative to other reactor cores, both axially and radially. The i small core is closely coupled and minor perturbations within the core can be
! detected even by flux redistribution to other core locations. The Yankee core i
operates at base load exclusively and has no burnable poisons and virtually no control rod insertion. An excellent analytical model of the Yankee core.
l better than th- industry average model which varies about 2.5% (Reference 8),
also contributes to less uncertainty in the inferred locations which are not instrumented.
I A-107 l i i
9.0 FIXED DETECTOR OPERABILITY An analysis was performed to determine an receptable number of fixed 1 i detector failures per string in order to define an operability requirement for the fixed detector strings. This analysis quantified the effect of detector failures on the determination of measured peaking factore. Detector failures are defined via maximum and minimum signal deviation criteria included in the l DAS software. Failed detectors are substituted for by an algorithm in the DAS sof tware provided by BW. Substitution of failed detector data is I accomplished by replacement from a preassigned fixed detector string. .
Substitution for failed detectors is needed to calculate power distribution and provide depletion data for the updating of the failed detector's expended charge. I i
The sensitivity analysis was performed for numerous failed detector replacerent options based on an actual measurement (YR19209) taken during Cycle 19. When a detector signal has been declared erroneous, a replacement signal is calculated using data from another fixed detector string. The l replaced signal is derived by ratioing the sum of the remaining signals from both strings and multiplying the replacement string's signal by this ratio.
An example of this scheme is shown below I Bad String Replacement String l
4 l signal 1 100 200 !
Signal 2 -bad- -400- i 1
Signal 3 300 600 Signal 4 250 500 f Signal 5 200 400 i
- Sum of l Remaining = 850 1.700
! Signals i !
I l
1 I A-108 i l i i 1
4 Replaced Signal = 1 0 x 400 = 200 Since the number of possible combinations of up to two failed detectors per string within the core is large, the analysis was performed on what was believed to be worst-case scenarios. Each detector string has available to it four replacement strings for the substitution algorithm. The four best replacement strings were previously determined for each of the six fixed detector strings by comparison of their measured axial shapes. When an erroneous signal has been found on a string, the B&W software calls for the first choice replacement string. If on thi. replacement string the replacement signal is also erroneous, the B&W software will call for the second choice replacement string. In the highly unlikely situation that all four replacement string options are rejected, a predetermined analytical axial shape would be. used. The possible number of replacement options for the many combinations of failed detectors on a fixed string would lead to an analysis of immense proportions. The analysis performed consisted of finding replacement signals which deviated from the measured signal by the largest amount. The analysis cons!sted of failing each nicasured detector signal independently on a string and determining the worst replacement r! anal ;
obtained from the four replacement string options. It is possible .or each ;
string to have 20 unique combinations of replacement signals assuming only one signal on that string fails. Of the possible 120 combinations of replacement signals for the six fixed strings, 24 separate cases containing only the worst replacement signal per string were analyzed with the INCORE code to determine the calculated peaking factors.
A second scenario considered the possibility that a single erroneous signal occurred on each of the six detector strings. Eight combinations were analyzed. Tour cases used the worst replacement signal in the center detectors, and four cases used the worst replacement signals that would produce a top-skewed or a bottom-skewed ab Je with the greatest deviation from the actual shape. A top-skewed shape was created by combining the available replacement signals in such a way that the larger replacement signals were used on the top detector of the string and smaller replacement signals on the l bottom detector of the string. The converse was used to produce the worst A-109
~. . _ .--. .
I e
bottom-skewed shapes. An example of a top-skewed shape produced by using the worst replacement signal on each of the six detector strings is shown below.
Assumed Failed Signals (Underlined)
I Strinz No. 3 No. 4 No. 8 No. 12 No. 21 No. 22 Top 211 529 618 561 630 411
~
627 1066 1122 1197 1094 780 ;
. 794 1229 1271 1366 1243 903 803 1191 1211 1326 1174 867 l j Bottom 676 919 805 1040 Z99 586 1
4
_ Replaced Signals (Underlined) i 4
{
i 4
String No. 3 No. 4 No. 8 No. 12 No. 21 No. 22 i
l top 12i kii 644 721 630 458 l
627 1066 1122 1197 1094 780 ,
) 794 1229 1271 1366 1243 903 1
J 803 1191 1211. 1326 1174 867
- 1
) Bottom 676 919 805 1040 789 586 i
i The third scenario assumed that two failures occurred on only one of !
- i i the six strings. Eighteen combinations of this scenario were anslysed. The j 4 final scenario considered assumed that two failures occurred on each of the !
i i six strings. For both of these scenarios, only the worst replacement signals 1
were considered. The top and bottom-skewed shapes were found to produce the ,
t l
Inrgest peaking f actor differences from the actual measured values.
The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 9-1. The maximum l deviation in FAR, Fq and kW/ft were found to be 0.431, 0.61%, and j 0.61%, respectively. I i
l i :
j A-110 l
l I
I I
I I '
1 l 1 .
As shown in Figure 9-1, the measured axial shapes are similar for the l I '
six detector strings. First choice replacement signals for each detector deviated from the measured value by up to 5% in the top and bottom detectors l
within a string and by approximately 2% on the three center detectors of the string. The worst cases analyzed assumed top-skewed shapes in which the top j replacement signal was 100% higher and the bottom replacement signal was 25%
l lower than the measured value. As shown in the results, these cases produced !
! the largest deviations in the pin peaking parameters from the base case. In j i most instances of detector failures, the first choice replacement option would 1
be used. However, the analysis has considered the unlikel) situation of multiple detector failures in order to provide for substituted values. l i
- An acceptance criteria of up to two failures per string to define. a f fixed detector string as operable is justified based on the determination of peaking factor values with up to two failed detectors per string. Any more f than two failures per string would be considered unacceptable, and the fixed i i detector string would then be declare.1 inoperable.
j i I '
[
t f
4 I ,
t ,
I l !
- l i
i i
3 1
A-111 i
t TABLE 9-1 Summary of Pin Peaking Results various signal Replacement Options scenario el Scenario 42 scenario 43 Se'enario 64 Base Case 1 Replacement 6 Replacements 2 Replacements 12 Replacements YR19209 on only 1 String 1 Per String on only 1 String 2 Per 8tring
--_ -__ ........--_-_-__ _---__-_------ ----___--------- -__-___-------- r (Min.) (Max.) (Min.) (Max.) (Min.) (Max.) (Min.) (Max.) ,
Prosh 1.4497 1.4481 1.4526 1.4483 1.4535 1.4434 1.4540 1.4495 1.4497 TAH Burnt 1.5235 1.5219 1.5248 1.5219 1.5277 1.5211 1.5279 1.5192 1.5249 1.9584 1.9719 Trosh 1.9621 1.9600 1.9633 1.9585 1.9684 1.9582 1.9601 rq Burnt 2.0142 2.0120 2.0154 2.0106 2.0217 2.0102 2.0192 2.0094 2.0264 Tresh 9.514 9.504 9.520 9.496 9.544 9.495 9.538 9.496 9.562 Kw/tt Burnt 9.766 9.756 9.772 9.749 9.803 9.747 9.791 9.743 9.826 Largest Deviation Trom Base Case (%) :
r FAH rq Rw/rt i rresh Burnt Tresh Burnt Presh Burnt ,
(Min.) -0.43 -0.28 -0.20 -0.24 -0.20 -0.24 (Max.) 0.30 0.35 0.50 0.61 0.50 0.61 l
i 4
I i i
i
}
l j
A-112 l
y --
4 6
0 s*
F197I 9-1 T4*IC CORC 19 Nomft!!CD ftaltf!YC MIN. $tfrCS FIED RC fom0LC CCTCCTOR LOCRf!ONS (YR192091 8.L o = F FC0 s3 o*F Kt0 et a.s . 4*F 100 e5
++F 100 e 2
- F N10 e i r}
p 1.4 - +=F NED e 2 a.4 <
E IJ-gJ 1.4 '
E SJ
.2-6.4 <
$2' SA O
as a
se e e.. e 79 e 3e em PUtCIXT F M ICIM t.s e e FCWELE e!
e *PCYfWLt e g4, a e POWOLC e's
+ . rovimi et, a =IC W R I of 34 *
- N C e10 1.t '
tJ-E i 84' 4 a<
0 6.e -
GJ-i GA m e am a
N te a a e e 75 PDCIXT F CDtC DCIDff i SA l e e PEMEI e'.1 i I
- PCY'WLE e I' 3.a . a e tcWeLI e
+ = M M ELE e 5
- m :A g
- s. ".< - I E
- tt+ % l u.
E e s.
9 9.e -/
$ 8' m
4.4 . .
m a a a e3 see es Po 4 w FM F C@f KIM A-ll3
4 e
.4
10.0 CONCLUSION
S The use of an Incore Detection System consisting of both movable fission chambers and fixed rhodium detectors has been qualified for the Yankee plant. It has been shown that the fixed detectors can provide equivalent movable data for the determination of power distribution and peaking factors in the Yankee core. Demonstration of the accuracy of the radial and axial components of measured power distributions has been provided via comparison to the present incore analysis with the movable data alone. The combination FIDS and MIDS has been shown to provide greater measurement observability, increased core coverage, and greater effectiveness for detection of core anomalies and mispositioned control rods than the MIDS alone. The operability of the fixed detector strings has also been defined based on the analysis of measured peaking factors with failed detectors. Finally, the combination Incore Detection System provides an enhancement over the MIDS alone due to the continuous monitoring capability of the fixed detectors. The fixed detectors can be used to provide data of previous core operation to establish a reference point for change or may be used to monitor core flux changes on a continuous basis.
A-114 e i
IIF , ,
o
11.0 REFERENCES
- 1. WCAP-7149, "The INCORE Code," W. D. Leggett and L. D. Eisenhart, December 1967.
t
1
- 6. "Calibration of Self-Powered Neutron Detectors " M. F. Sulcoski and ,
H. D. Warren, Nuclear Science and Engineering, 85, 245-250 (1983).
J 7. "CASMO-3 A Fuel Assembly Burnup Program." Malte Edenius, et al.,
j Studsvik Energiteknik A. B., November 1986.
- 8. Memorandum, P. Neogy and A. Prince (BKL) to J. Carew (BNL), "Impact of !
Failed Detectors on the Measurement of Anomalous Power Distributions "
August 8, 1986.
1 1
) 9. WCAP-7810. "Evaluation of Nuclear Hot Channel Factor Uncertainties,"
1 December 1971.
) 10. Babcock and Wilcox Technical Document 12-1137521 "Fixed Incore System Benefits," October 11, 1982.
i i A-115 I
i 1
l
'