Calibration of Clamp On Flow Meter using a Computer Model

Transcription

1 Calibration of Clamp On Flow Meter using a Computer Model Managing Plant Assets and Performance Clearwater Florida - August 6-9, 2013 Slide 1

2 True North Company Overview Donald R. Horn, P.E. President Ronald C. Lippy Manager Engineering Programs Staff 22 Senior Program Engineers Specialization Inservice Testing Check Valves ( App II- CMP) MOV S (APP III OMN-1) AOV S (OMN-12) Snubber Programs Relief Valve Programs Inservice Inspection Pressure Testing Programs Containment Inspection Repair / Replacement Flow Accelerated Corrosion Buried Piping Heat Exchanger / Welding Programs Containment Integrity -- APPJ Equipment Qualification Boric Acid Control Frank D. Todd Manager Thermal Performance Staff 5 Senior Engineers 3 Engineers Specialization Thermal Analysis / Modeling Secondary Leakage Analysis High Accuracy Flow Solutions Thermal Performance Testing Affiliations Advanced Measurement & Analysis Group (AMAG) R. T. Moore, Sr. Manager Power Services Staff 4 Senior Engineers 2 External Consultants Specialization Major Secondary Upgrades --Project Management --Engineering Oversight --Utility / OEM Liaison Jeffrey A. Neyhard Manager Software Services Staff 2 Senior Engineer 2 Programmers Specialization Custom Software Solutions -- Engineering Programs Software Suite (EP Plus) -- Thermal Performance Software Suite (TP Plus) -- Cycle Isolation -- Thermal Monitoring Affiliations Endevor / Engage Platform Axis Inspect, LLC. Page 1 Slide 2

3 Thermal Performance True North utilizes various tools along with significant thermal performance experience to analyze a plants total ability to produce reliable and efficient electricity Thermal Performance Modeling Turbine Testing Support Nuclear/ Fossil / Combined Cycle Thermal Component Analysis Power Calculation Evaluation Secondary Valve Leakage Plant / Component Evaluations Heat Balance Analysis Thermal Performance Monitoring Power Uprate Turbine Cycle Evaluation Plant Modification Studies Megawatt Loss Evaluations Turbine Retrofit Evaluations Major Component Warranty Validations Program Assessments Slide 3

4 Introduction True North Consulting LLC. BWR Plant 3339 MWt Uprated from 3295 with Margin Uncertainty Uprate 1140 MWe 14.4 MB/hr Steam Flow 965 psia Main Steam Pressure GE Turbines No Reheat Slide 4

5 Feed Flow Measurement Feed Flow Nozzles Ultrasonic Crossflow Meter The CROSSFLOW measurement is compared to the Venturi measured feed flow and a correction factor is developed for input to the core thermal power calculation The feed water piping employs three strings (18 inch diameter) of heater outlet piping with a bypass (16 inch diameter). The three heater strings and the bypass join in a common header (30 inch diameter) Two lines branch off the common header to provide feed water to the reactor pressure vessel The CROSSFLOW meter is located on the 30 inch diameter common header Slide 5

6 CROSSFLOW Slide 6

7 Slide 7

8 The Problem The initial uncertainty calculation for the CROSSFLOW meter assumed a normal plant line up with all three #6 Feedwater Heaters in service. One of the high pressure Feedwater Heaters was removed from service by plant personnel due to flow induced vibration of the heater drain line. With the 6A Feedwater Heater removed from service the original assumptions of the flow uncertainty calculation are no longer valid. The changes to the correction factor indicate that the hydraulic conditions had changed at the location of the CROSSFLOW meter. Slide 8

9 Removal of Feed Water Heater From Service Causes changes to hydraulic conditions at location of Crossflow Meter This results in a change to the meter performance. Causes changes of plant parameters Overall feedwater flow Final feed temperature Extraction flow & pressure to feedwater heaters Flow through feedwater heaters First Stage pressure HP Exhaust pressure Results in power reduction due to Crossflow meter being removed from service. Slide 9

10 PI CORF Feed Flow Correction Factor (Crossflow/Venturi flow) ratio /1/1900 3/3/1900 5/4/1900 7/5/1900 9/5/ /6/1900 1/7/1901 3/10/1901 5/11/1901 7/12/1901 9/12/ /13/1901 1/14/1902 Slide 10

11 Gross Electrical Generation (Corrected for Condenser Pressure) Slide 11 MWe 10/1/ /1/ /2/ /3/ /4/ /4/ /5/ /6/ /7/ /8/ /8/ /9/ /10/ /11/ /12/ /12/ /13/ /14/ /15/ /16/ /16/ /17/ /18/ /19/ /20/ /20/ /21/ /22/ /23/ /23/ /24/ /25/ /26/ /27/ /27/ /28/ /29/ /30/ /31/ /31/2005 correct gen

12 Final Feed Temperature Slide 12 Temp 10/1/ /1/ /2/ /3/ /29/ /4/ /4/ /5/ /6/ /7/ /8/ /8/ /9/ /10/ /11/ /12/ /12/ /13/ /14/ /15/ /16/ /16/ /17/ /18/ /19/ /20/ /20/ /21/ /22/ /23/ /23/ /24/ /25/ /26/ /27/ /27/ /28/ /30/ /31/ /31/2005 RX FW Line A Temp1 RX FW Line A Temp2 RX FW Line B Temp1 RX FW Line B Temp2

13 102.00% % 98.00% 96.00% 94.00% 92.00% 90.00% Reactor Power Slide 13 RX Power 10/1/ /2/ /3/ /4/ /4/ /5/ /6/ /1/ /7/ /8/ /8/ /9/ /10/ /11/ /12/ /12/ /13/ /14/ /15/ /16/ /16/ /17/ /18/ /19/ /20/ /20/ /21/ /22/ /23/ /23/ /24/ /25/ /26/ /27/ /27/ /28/ /29/ /30/ /31/ /31/2005 6A FWH OOS 6A FWH OOS 6A FWH OOS Deep Shallow Rod Swap

14 The Solution Quantify the impact of the removal of the feedwater heater on the UFM meter. Apply correction to UFM based on the quantified impact Determine method to validate results of analysis (validate assumptions) Predict important plant parameters at power ascension plateaus Develop hold points with specific criteria for limits on plant parameters indicative of power Slide 14

15 Feed Flow Instrumentation Methodology Evaluate response of Feed Flow Differential Pressure calculated flow to ensure repeatability and correlation with other plant parameters. Plant Design Data (PEPSE, Thermal Kit, Balance of Plant Systems) The plant design data will provide the basis for determination of plant parameter changes relative to cycle flow changes and impact of Feedwater Heater configuration Historical Plant Data In conjunction with Plant Design Data calculations to determine if plant parameter changes correlate with expected values. PEPSE Analysis of Plant Data Perform analysis of plant data using the PEPSE model to compare observed changes to expected changes. Calculate a new C 0 using the feed flow nozzle flow and PEPSE results. W fw = C o * A p * fw * L/ t Slide 15

16 Heat Balance Diagram Slide 16

17 Slide 17

18 Slide 18

19 Slide 19

20 Slide 20

21 Slide 21

22 Model Evaluation Start with Baseline model The model was reviewed to insure all schedules, Controls or fixed inputs which could invalidate anticipated changes were removed. The model was compared to the vendor thermal kit to validate its use as a baseline. The model was compared to actual plant configuration to ensure all differences between the vendor thermal kit and actual plant configuration were accounted for. The model was tuned to reliable plant data based on turbine test results No Model Tuning occurred once the model was validated Slide 22

23 Model Changes The model was reconfigured to remove a #6 Feedwater Heater from service. The Feedwater Heaters were placed in design mode which allows the heater performance to be calculated. This analysis provides anticipated plant conditions with the #6 Feedwater Heater removed from service with the plant at 100% power. The model was reconfigured to reduce power to 98.6%. The model was reconfigured to account for the power change resulting form removing the CROSSFLOW from service. At this point the model results were compared to plant data observed when the feed water heater was removed from service. Based on information provided from the Flow Meter Vendor the model was reconfigured to account for the calibration of the CROSSFLOW meter. This PEPSE analysis provided information regarding the expected plant parameters with the current plant conditions and the projected recalibration applied with the CROSSFLOW in service at 100% indicated power. Slide 23

24 Table 1 Plant Parameters Change Analysis Parameter Units 6A FWH IN 6A FWH OUT Plant Change Rx Pwr % 99.91% 98.50% 1.4% TPI % 99.97% 97.96% 2.0% First Stage Press Psig % Predicted First Stage Press Psig % Feed Flow Uncorrected B Mlbm/hr % Feed Flow Uncorrected A Mlbm/hr % Total Feed Flow (uncorrected) Mlbm/hr % Feed Flow XFLOW Klbm/hr % Final Feed Temp (DEG F) Deg F xflow Corr F % Corrected Gen (CND PRS) Mwe % Total Steam Flow Mlbm/hr % Heater 6 Shell Press Psig % HP Exhaust Press Psig % Average Heater 5 Shell Press Psig % Average MS Shell Press Psig % 3A Heater Drain Flow Klbm/hr % 3B Heater Drain Flow Klbm/hr % 3C Heater Drain Flow Klbm/hr % Heater 6 Temperature Rise Deg F % Heater 6 TTD Deg F Feed Temp Affect on Flow % 1.2% xflow + Power % 2.9% Total Flow Reduction % 4.1% Slide 24

25 Table 2 PEPSE Comparison to Plant Changes Parameter Plant Change PEPSE Change First Stage Press 4.0% 4.0% Total Feed Flow (uncorrected) 4.1% 4.0% Final Feed Temp (DEG F) Corrected Gen (CND PRS) 3.4% 3.5% Total Steam Flow 4.1% 4.0% Heater 6 Shell Press 4.8% 4.4% HP Exhaust Press 3.1% 2.9% Heater 5 Shell Press 3.0% 2.9% MS Shell Press 3.1% 2.9% 3A Heater Drain Flow 22.2% 22.2% 3B Heater Drain Flow 1.3% 1.0% 3C Heater Drain Flow 0.9% 1.0% Heater 6 Temperature Rise 13.1% 13.2% Slide 25

26 Power Ascension Limits Using the validated PEPSE model predict plant parameters for conditions during power ascension Conservatism applied to meter correction Base plant parameter selection on reliable instruments Determine hold points and limits based on PEPSE analysis Evaluate Plant Data during Power ascension and correct to postulated power for limit determination. Slide 26

27 Suspension Criteria and Results Projected Values Expected Values % Difference Plant Parameter Plant Data Value Suspension Criteria A-B C/A A/MCP From Calculations (G-H)/G A B C D E F G Main Turbine First Stage Pressure (psig) Total Feedwater % % Flow, venturi flow w/o XFCF applied (lbm/hr x 10^6) % % Average HP Exhaust Press (psig) % % Average MS Shell Press (psig) % % Measured Core Power: MCP 99.93% Slide 27

28 Conclusion Computer models can be used to validate changes to plant conditions. Plants can safely evaluate changes to ultrasonic flow meter correction factors. Three factors are essential to this type of analysis A computer model based on first principal calculations and sufficient fidelity to simulate abnormal plant conditions. A complete understanding of the computer model with regard to the actual power plant. The knowledge of all plant changes with regard to the analysis of the condition. Slide 28