ML19322B680

Power Distribution Comparison Status Rept.

ML19322B680
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	07/19/1974
From:	DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19322B675	List: ML19322B674 ML19322B680
References
NUDOCS 7912040697
Download: ML19322B680 (7)

Text

-

9 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 Power Distribution Comparison Status Report On May 1, 1974, Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1, was shut down with a core average burnup of 196 effective full power days (EFPD). During this shutdown, in accordance with design provisions, the control rod assemblies assigned to transient Control Rod Group 7 were reassigned as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

These figures present the control rod assembly group configurations for the inteivals 91.5-to-196 EFPD and 196-to-310 EFPD, respectively.

A comparison of measured and predicted radial power distributions, repre-sentative of the interval prior to the control rod group inte.rchange, is given in Figure 3. It can be seen that the measured and predicted peak radial power factors agree within 3.9 percent. Figure 4 presents a power distribution comparison for a core average burnup of 200 EFPD, i.e., after the control rod group interchange at 196 EFPD. For this case the difference between the measured and predicted peak radial power factors is less than 3.0 perc en t . The average absolute percent difference between the measured and I.

predicted radial power factors, for assemblies having radial power factors within five percent of the measured peak radial power factor, is shown as a function of burnup in Figure 5.

The measured cort power distributions were obtained using the fixed incore detectors. The location of these detectors is shown in Oconee FSAR Figure 7-18. The measured data were corrected, where possible, by replacing signals from inoperative detectors with values obtained by interpolation or ex-trapolation of signals from adjacent detectors. As indiceced in Figures 3 and 4, however, one detector string was completely inoperative and no measured value is available.

Predicted power distributions were obtained from two-dimensional PDQ thermal-hydraulic feedback calculations, using a standard two-zone representation for each fuel assembly in one-quarter core geometry.  ;

I l

l l

I

~

7912040 h 7 l

As can be seen in the attached figures, the measured and predicted core power distributions agree quite well. Particularly, it is apparent that the control rod group interchange at 196 EFPD did not adversely affect the validity of the PDQ predicted core power distributions.

l 5

~

i 1 s

C0!:Tn0L ROD CROUP 1,0 CAT 10N i (91.5 to 196 EFPD)

-w A

B (2) (6) (2)

C

( *,) ( 's) (3) (5) 7 D

(4) (d) (2) (8) (4)

E (S) (, i (1) (1) (7) (5) r- l l (2) (r .  ; G) ,

(3) l (4) (e) (2)

(3) tt) &) (( ) (1) (3) 0.) (a (3) (7) (3) (2) (6) n_ l (3)  :') 6. )  ; (6) (1) (3)

L~ I (2) (8) (4) ; (3) (4) (8) (2) i (5) G) (1) (1) (7) (5)

N (4) (8) (2) (E) (4)

I 0

(5) ( 1) (3) (5)

(2) (6) (2) l R ' I l t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

( X ) +-- Corit ml Rod Gr oup heber Figure 1 -

D

. .~

(.

CONTE 01. Ro;) CROUP LOCAT10'.

, (1% to 310 EFPD)

A .

I B

f s?) , (6) (2) ,

c g) g.g (3) (3)

D (7) ' (6) (2) (6) (7)

E

(:-) (<0 (1) (1) (4) (5) i F-(2) (h) l (7) O) (P) (2) l (3) l _

~

( s) (I) ("' l (f.) (1) (3)

H-(6) (2) 17) l') (7) (2) (6) i  : ,

~ I (3) i ri) (' ) (6) ,

(1) (3) i L_

(2) (6) ,

(3' ,7) O) (6) (2)

(5) (J- ) (1) (1) (4) (5)

(7) (S) (2) (8) (7)

(M D) (3) (5)

P (2) (6) (2)

R ' I l i

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l'

15 e

(x) +- contrei nre croup h b. r I i

i i

L i

i Finure 2 ,

t'

• t f

?

h

. s s

t I

1 COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED RADIAL CORE POWER D'STRIBUTIONS l 1

I

_...q..._ - . . . . . .

j

.90 1.19 1.25 1.29 1.26 1.17 1.13 .69 i

.89 1.15 l 1.24j 1.24, 1.22 1.20 1.05 .64  !

I 1.25 ' 1.28 ' 1.24 1.22 1.21 1.00 .63 i 1.21 1.25j 1.23 1.21 1.17 ;1.02 ,

.62 i I  !

I i

i

!' i 1.28 1.17 1.11 1.14 .90 .*6  !

I l1.26 l 1.17' 1.09 1.11

.92 .47

i '

j  :  ! .85 1.13 1.05

• i t,

.90, 1.11 1.07 .73 l j y

l l ,

! I .94 .56 i

I l 1.161.14 h .93 .49 5  ; ,

l i

.57 .

t i .57 e i

• Inoperative Detector  ;

t l l 1 i

r .

l I i t

I l

l I i .

I x.xx Measured ,

y.yy Calculated (PDQ) $

t 6

I CONDITIONS Measured Calculated  ;

< Core Average Burnup (EFPD) lt G 196  :

Power Level (%FP) 100 100 l

Boron Concentration (ppm) 527 527 Control Rod Group Position (%wd)

+,

, Group 1-5 100 100  ;

Group 6 100 100 ['

Group 7 27 27 l Group 8 1 37.5 t

Figure 3 .l f

-r . . -- =

. . - , . < , . . , . --.----m-----.e,- ,v v +- -

.. r (m. l

(  !

i COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED j RADIAL CORE PO'4ER DISTRIBUTIONS p ,

i 1.20 1.10 .75 1.29 1.30 1.23 1.16 .74.

[ 1.16 1.06 .76 l_ . . ..J.. 1.13l1.25 1.27,1.12l.70 .J-- ,

i

! 1.11' l.17 1.22 '1.19 1.28l1.07* .68 l1.09 1.12 1.21 1.26 1.24 l' -1.09

.67 I i I j i l 1.33 1.33 1.22 1.21 .96 .49

{ l I1.30j1.32 1.18 1.16I .96 .51 e .... .... . . - - . . . . . . - - - - . . . . -

l *

} j 'l 1. 28 l 1.17 1.04

• i  ; j 1.35 1.14 1.04 .73 i

! i' l  ! , .72 .80 .47

,! .77 .46 I. .

i .73 :

i a

I i

a

.48 ;i i l j l .4

• Inoperative Detector l

i

! l

+

i i . . t $

l 1  : e l

i . I  ;

i i .

W i

x.xx Measured y.yy Calculated (PDQ) i CONDITIONS i Measured Calculated Core Average Burnup (EFPD) 200 200 Power Level (%FP) 99 100 Boron Concentration (ppm) 449 449 Control Rod Group Position (%wd)

Groups 1-5 100 100 Group 6 90 100 Group 7 16 16 F Group 8 4.5 37.5 t I

s Figure 4

~

/

j1 0

e 2 l k l g a a on i e ra d ep t h av

• nc ;0 rid O or C e 0

2 f e g r O t nnu d n nI ii sr vh ao o y 0

at et cd 9 hi mc eo 1 w a SR s ef esh S i rt r g 0

R l o e 8 1

O b t f w T mcoo C ea p A sf t s 0 F

R area eci nl e y 7 1

E rwrd D W ooea P O F ppr F P * ,

0 E 6

l 1 -

A p I

D u A 0 n R j 5 r 1 u D B E

T e C 0 g I

4 a D 1 r E e R v P A 0

D y 3 e N 1 r A o C

D E G  ; 2 0

R 1

U S

A E

M 0 g 1 F 1 O e N l g O on 0 S ra y 0 t h 1 I

R G nc A or P C e M t O t n , 0 C sI 9 r

id F o R 0 8

ql - - _ -

0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 3 2 1 0

, g 3 E" eg" EuO?uN ] 1Yae cg3$

,E8a aeE2

• e o#tM -

mnyg n s

- ',' 1