Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
33
, TIFM 200.0 200.0
12
0.0 (10.0)
b)
0.0
13
5.0 5.0
Steam dump
a)
HILR1 6.1 6.9
control HILR2 14.2 12.4
system HILR3 18.4 15.3
HILR4 24.0 19.0
Deadband 2.0 4.0
a)
PB=HILRDeadband
b)
The value of
12
was changed from 10.0 to 0.0 to compensate the eect
of swelling and shrinking on the SG water level control during the per-
formance test of YGN 1&2.
Table 1 Major operating parameter at full power before and after power uprating
Parameter
Before power
uprating
After power
uprating
Analysis
results
NSSS power (MWt) 2,787 2,912 2,916.8
Thermal design ow (m
3
/s) 6.03 5.94 5.94
Reactor coolant pressure (MPa) 15.5 15.5 15.5
RCS coolant avg. temperature (
+
-
+
+
-
32
1
1 s +
30
31
1
1 K
s
+
31
33
1
1 K
s
+
Fig. 2 Functional block diagram of feedwater control system
YGN Nuclear Unit 1
0
50
S
G
L
e
v
e
l
(
%
)
100
YGN Nuclear Unit 2
0
50
S
G
L
e
v
e
l
(
%
)
60
Fig. 1 Measured SG level for 95% load rejection test in YGN 1&2
Optimization for Setpoints of SG Water Level Control Systems after Uprating 1069
VOL. 42, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2005
ing a sudden load decrease, T
REF
is decreased. And, an error
signal is rapidly created. This signal goes to four bistables
which, with their associated logic, determine the position
of the solenoids that bypass the dump valve positioners.
Each bistable trips open one bank of dump valves. The error
signal is also used to modulate the valves open and closed
through the valve positioners.
III. Analysis Method
1. Analysis Tools and Assumptions
We used the two computer codes of LOFTRAN
9)
and
ACSL
10)
in the performance analyses of FWCS and SDCS.
At rst, LOFTRAN was developed to simulate transient be-
havior in a multi-loop pressurized water reactor system by
Westinghouse Company. The code models the components
of primary system relatively in detail with the reactor core
and vessel, hot and cold leg piping, the multiple tube sec-
tions of SG, pressurizer, and reactor coolant pumps. The rec-
tor core model employs a lumped fuel heat transfer model
with point neutron kinetics and includes the reactivity eects
of variation in moderator density, fuel temperature, boron
concentration and control rod insertion and withdrawal. Al-
so, the code can model the reactor protection systems, the
engineered safeguards features, and the control systems.
On the other hand, the secondary side of SG is modeled rel-
atively simplistically by single volume model with a homo-
genous mixture of water and steam for thermal transients.
SDCS can be simulated but FWCS is not used in the code.
Since LOFTRAN models the primary system in detail and
SDCS of the secondary system as mentioned above, we used
this code to calculate the thermal hydraulic conditions of pri-
mary side such as OTT for the evaluation of the capacity
of SDVs.
In ACSL, which is developed by Aegis Technologies
Group Inc., the components of primary system have been
modeled in a simplistic manner in order to obtain represen-
tative, though not exact, behavior. On the other hand, it in-
cludes the detailed SG and feedwater system models so that
we can adjust the control setpoints of FWCS and SDCS. Al-
so, since a large amount of detail has been placed on the SG
modeling, it predicts SG level response accurately. Thus, we
used ACSL to determine the optimized control setpoints of
FWCS and SDCS through the performance analyses of these
systems.
The major analysis assumptions were used in both codes
as follows; we used the nominal operating values in model-
ing the plant. The fuel design parameters of Beginning of
Life (BOL) were used to cover the reactivity feedback char-
acteristics such as the OTT reactor trip calculation over the
whole fuel cycle.
2. Analysis Matrix
The power uprating of 4.5% changes the plant operating
parameters such as the steam dump capacity and SG pressure
as shown in Table 1. According to the reduction of the steam
dump capacity, we shall evaluate whether the reduced steam
dump capacity can sustain the value of OTT below its limit
for a reactor trip and maintain SG pressure below the open
setpoint of safety valve for a bounding transient. Also, under
these modied plant conditions, we shall estimate whether
FWCS and SDCS automatically control SG water level to
Load Rejection
Controller
T
REF
Auctioneered T
AVG
+
-
12
13
1
1
s
s
+
+
Load Rejection
Load Rejection
Load Rejection
Load Rejection
Load Rejection
Turbine Trip
Turbine Trip
Turbine Trip
Turbine Trip
Turbine Trip
+
-
Trip Bank A
Condenser
Valves
Trip Bank B
Condenser
Valves
Trip Bank C
Atmoshperic
Valves
Trip Bank D
Atmoshperic
Valves
Auto
Manual
Reset
Modulate
Open/Close
Dump Valves T
No Load
H1-1
H1-2
H1-3
H1-4
Turbine Trip
Controller
Turbine Impulse
Chamber Pressure
11
11
1
s
s +
H1-1
H1-2
Loss of Load
Interlock
Loss of Load
Interlock
Condenser pressure interlock
Circulating water pump interlock
Allow condenser
steam dump valves
to be either tripped
open or modulated
Turbine not
tripped interlock
Condenser Available Signal
Turbine Trip
Allow condenser
steam dump valves
to be either tripped
open or modulated
Fig. 3 Functional block diagram of steam dump control system
1070 D. J. YOON et al.
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
satisfy these acceptance criteria as aforementioned for the
required transients.
The 95% load rejection is the maximum design load de-
crease for FWCS and SDCS without a reactor trip. Also, it
leads to a higher feedwater ow uctuation than the other
transients due to the shrinking and swelling. Thus, as shown
in Table 3, we selected the 95% load rejection as a bounding
case to evaluate whether the steam dump capacity was su-
cient to accommodate the increased thermal load without the
modication of component. Also, in order to determine the
optimized setpoints of FWCS and SDCS which minimized
the uctuation of SG water level in the bounding case, we
performed the sensitivity studies for various parameters such
as a proportional band (PB) of SDCS and KPFM (K
31
) of
FWCS as listed in Table 4. In the preliminary evaluations,
we performed the sensitivity study for all control parameters
of FWCS and SDCS. However, the other ones except PB and
KPFM did not make a signicant dierence in the plant be-
havior. Thus, in this paper, we described only the results of
sensitivity study for KPFM and PB.
In order to conrm the appropriateness of the pre-deter-
mined setpoints of FWCS and SDCS from the bounding case
analyses, we performed the verication analyses for the oth-
er transients as listed in Table 3. Each transient has the fol-
lowing characteristics. The 5% step change of SG level
setpoint veries the robustness of the control systems after
modifying the major control parameters of FWCS and
SDCS. And, the 5%/min ramp change between 15 and
100% of full power evaluates the control capability of these
systems all over the plant normal operation range.
IV. Analysis Results
1. Steady State Analysis
The initial conditions for transients were calculated based
on the plant nominal operating values at full power of the
power uprated YGN 1&2. Table 1 shows the major operat-
ing parameters at a steady state with full power and the cal-
culated ones by code. The results showed that all of the plant
operating parameters agrees well with the calculated ones.
2. Bounding Case
(1) Evaluation of Steam Dump Capacity
We evaluated whether the reduced steam dump capacity
can accommodate the thermal load of 95% load rejection
as a function of PB as listed in Table 4. The physical mean-
ing of PB is the open setpoint of each SDV bank. That is,
when the dierence between T
AVG
and T
REF
is larger than
each PB, the SDVs of corresponding bank are open.
At rst, we described the thermal hydraulic behaviors of
secondary side calculated by ACSL code. Just after turbine
power decreased by 95 from 100% at 50.0 s as presented
in Fig. 4, RCS T
AVG
and SG pressure increased due to the
larger primary thermal power than the secondary as present-
ed in Figs. 5 and 6. And, all SDVs were simultaneously open
to remove excess steam due to the large dierence between
T
AVG
and T
REF
. Thereby, RCS T
AVG
and SG pressure were
drastically reduced. On the other hand, the feedwater ow
decreased gradually with oscillating due to the mismatch be-
tween steam ow and feedwater ow and the error signal be-
tween actual SG water level and the programmed level of
Table 3 Analysis matrix
Cases Transients Sensitivity study parameters
SDCAP(SDCS)
Bounding case 95% load rejection KPFM(FWCS)
PB(SDCS)
Verication case
5% level setpoint step change KPFM(FWCS)
Turbine power 5%/min ramp change KPFM(FWCS)
Table 4 Sensitivity study matrix for bounding case (95% load rejection)
Input values
Parameters FWCS SDCS
KPLM KPFM
TILM
/TIFM
12
13
HILR1 HILR2 HILR3 HILR4
Dead
band
SDCAP
1
a)
3.3 1.0 200.0 0.0 5.0 6.1 14.2 18.4 24.0 2.0
PB
b)
2 3.3 1.0 200.0 0.0 5.0 7.2 13.5 16.8 21.0 4.0
3 3.3 1.0 200.0 0.0 5.0 6.9 12.4 15.3 19.0 4.0
4 3.3 1.0 200.0 0.0 5.0 6.2 10.4 12.6 15.5 4.0
59.1
1
a)
3.3 1.0 200.0 0.0 5.0 6.1 14.2 18.4 24.0 2.0
KPFM
2 3.3 0.3 200.0 0.0 5.0 6.1 14.2 18.4 24.0 2.0
3 3.3 0.6 200.0 0.0 5.0 6.1 14.2 18.4 24.0 2.0
4 3.3 3.0 200.0 0.0 5.0 6.1 14.2 18.4 24.0 2.0
a)
Current setting,
b)
PB=HILRDeadband
Optimization for Setpoints of SG Water Level Control Systems after Uprating 1071
VOL. 42, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2005
50% as depicted in Figs. 7 and 8. Thereby, SG water level
was uctuated. Except case 4 in which PB was set to 11.5,
FWCS and SDCS properly dampened these oscillations to
modulate SG level and pressure within the operating limits
as shown in Figs. 6 and 8. Finally, SG level was steadily
maintained on the programmed level of 50%. From this eval-
uation, we reached the conclusions that the reduced steam
dump capacity of 59.1% could accommodate the swelling
and shrinking caused by pressure oscillation without the di-
vergence of SG water level above the PB of 15.0 and partic-
ularly SG water level was controlled most stable at the PB of
15.0 as shown in Fig. 8.
On the other hand, in order to evaluate whether the re-
duced steam dump capacity was sucient to keep the value
of OTT below its reactor trip setpoint, we simulated the
95% load rejection as a function of PB as listed in Table 4
using LOFTRAN code. As shown in Figs. 9 and 10, after
turbine power decreased by 95 from 100% at 50.0 s, in the
case 1 in which PB was set to 22.0, the plant was tripped
at about 74.0 s due to the excess of OTT limit. In the other
cases, the minimum OTT margin was about 0.9
C at 80.0 s
and this margin gradually increased according to the de-
crease of core power. From both analyses results of ACSL
for SG water level and SG pressure and LOFTRAN for
OTT margin as summarized in Table 5, we could con-
clude that the PB of 15.0 was most appropriate in the SDCS
of power uprated YGN 1&2.
Fig. 4 Core power (SDCAP, ACSL)
Fig. 5 RCS average coolant temperature (SDCAP, ACSL)
Fig. 6 SG pressure (SDCAP, ACSL)
Fig. 7 Feedwater ow (SDCAP, ACSL)
Fig. 8 SG narrow range level (SDCAP, ACSL)
1072 D. J. YOON et al.
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(2) Sensitivity Analyses for KPFM
We performed the sensitivity analyses for KPFM (K
31
) of
FWCS for the bounding case as listed in Table 4. KPFM
(K
31
) changed the position of feedwater control valve de-
pending on the dierence between feedwater ow and the
sum of steam ow and SG level error signal as shown in
Fig. 3.
Since KPFM (K
31
) mainly aected the thermal hydraulic
conditions of the secondary side, we simulated the 95% load
rejection by ACSL code as a function of KPFM (K
31
). Just
after turbine power decreased by 95 from 100% at 50.0 s,
as shown in Figs. 11, 12 and 13, the overall thermal hydraul-
ic behaviors of primary and secondary side showed similar
to the analyses results for PB as previously mentioned. In
the behaviors of feedwater ow and SG water level depend-
ing on KPFM as shown in Figs. 14 and 15, during the rst
period from 50.0 to 500.0 s, the SG water level at KPFM
of 0.3 was oscillated larger than the other cases did. In the
middle duration from 500.0 to 1,500.0 s, the feedwater ows
and the SG water levels were uctuated higher in the both
cases of KPFM of 1.0 and 3.0 than the case of KPFM of
0.6 did. At the low power level, SG water level was very un-
stable because of the zero indication of ow signals due to
low-cut function of instrumentation system. Thus, the
KPFMs of 1.0 and 3.0 were not appropriate in actual plant
to control feedwater ow over such low ow rate region.
All over the analysis period, the thermal hydraulic condi-
tions at the KPFM of 0.6 were maintained more stable than
the other cases did. Even though all case of KPFM satised
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Case 1 (PB=22.0)
Case 2 (PB=17.0)
Case 3 (PB=15.0)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
r
e
P
o
w
e
r
Time (sec)
Fig. 9 Core power (SDCAP, LOFTRAN)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0
10
20
30
40
50
Case 1 (PB=22.0)
Case 2 (PB=17.0)
Case 3 (PB=15.0)
O
T
D
T
M
a
r
g
i
n
(
C
)
Time (sec)
Fig. 10 OTT margin (SDCAP, LOFTRAN)
Table 5 Analysis results for bounding case (95% load rejection)
Parameters
ACSL LOFTRAN
Max/Min SG
level (%)
Accept
Max SG
pressure (MPa)
Accept
OTT margin
(
C)
Accept
22.0
a)
71.8/30.0 O 7.01 O 0.0 X
PB
17.0 70.0/29.3 O 7.73 O 0.9 O
15.0
b)
62.2/29.9 O 7.74 O 0.9 O
11.5 82.4/22.0 X 7.87 O
1.0
a)
71.8/30.0 O 7.02 O
KPFM
0.3 71.3/29.5 O 8.20 O
0.6
b)
61.5/30.5 O 7.58 O
3.0 73.8/28.1 O 7.47 O
a)
Current setting,
b)
Revised setting
Fig. 11 Core power (KPFM)
Optimization for Setpoints of SG Water Level Control Systems after Uprating 1073
VOL. 42, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2005
the acceptance criteria for SG pressure and level, we could
conclude from this evaluation that the KPFM of 0.6 was
most appropriate in the FWCS of power uprated YGN 1&2.
From the analyses by ACSL and LOFTRAN for the
bounding case, in order to satisfy the acceptance criteria
and to modulate SG water level stable in power uprated
YGN 1&2, it was appropriate that PB was set to 15.0 and
KPFM to 0.6 in SDCS and FWCS, respectively as summa-
rized in Table 5.
3. Verication Analysis
In order to verify the appropriateness of the pre-deter-
mined setpoints from the analyses for the bounding case,
we evaluated other transients of level setpoint step change
and ramp load change using these setpoints in FWCS and
SDCS.
(1) Level Setpoint Step Change Transients
In order to conrm the robustness of SG water level con-
trol systems after modifying the major control parameters of
FWCS and SDCS, we simulated 5% step changes of SG
level setpoint at the 100% of reactor power as shown in
Fig. 16. After SG water level setpoint was changed by
5% from 50% of level span at 300.0 s, FWCS changed
the feedwater ow rapidly as represented in Fig. 17. Thus,
the actual SG water level gradually approached the revised
setpoint without excessive overshooting or undershooting.
And the settling time of SG water level was less than three
times the reset time constant value of 600.0 s as represented
Fig. 12 RCS average coolant temperature (KPFM)
Fig. 13 SG pressure (KPFM)
Fig. 14 Feedwater ow (KPFM)
Fig. 15 SG narrow range level (KPFM)
Fig. 16 Core power (5% level setpoint step change)
1074 D. J. YOON et al.
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
in Fig. 18. Thus, the acceptance criteria of FWCS for this
transient were satised.
(2) Ramp Increase and Decrease
In order to evaluate the control capability of SG water lev-
el control systems using the revised setpoints all over the
plant normal operation range, the 5%/min ramp change
between 15 and 100% of full power was simulated by ACSL
code. After turbine power was changed at 5%/min at
50.0 s as represented in Fig. 19, FWCS modulated gradually
the feedwater ow to match the steam ow as depicted in
Fig. 20. Thus, during the duration of turbine power change,
SG water level was controlled stable within 5% of level
span without excessive oscillation as shown in Fig. 21.
These results showed that the revised value of 0.6 for KPFM
was appropriate in power uprated YGN 1&2.
V. Conclusions
The availability factor of nuclear power plants is especial-
ly important in ensuring economic viability. When the power
transmission lines have a trouble not to transmit the electric-
ity generated in nuclear power plant, that plant have to re-
duce its turbine power to a house load without a plant trip.
In this large load rejection, SG water level control system
largely inuences a plant status if a plant is tripped or not.
Recently, Korean nuclear industry has performed power up-
rating project for YGN 1&2 and Kori 3&4 to increase the
plant licensed power by 4.5%. It changes the major operating
Fig. 17 Feedwater ow (5% level setpoint step change)
Fig. 18 SG narrow range level (5% level setpoint step change)
Fig. 19 Core power (turbine power 5%/min change)
Fig. 20 Feedwater ow (Turbine power 5%/min change)
Fig. 21 SG narrow range level (Turbine power 5%/min
change)
Optimization for Setpoints of SG Water Level Control Systems after Uprating 1075
VOL. 42, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2005
parameters and particularly reduces the capacity of steam
dump valves from 70 to 59.1% of the total full-load turbine
steam ow. As a part of this project, we analyzed the 95%
load rejection from full power to evaluate the steam capacity
of SDCS and the control ability of FWCS. Thereby, we de-
termined the optimized setpoints of these systems which pre-
vented a plant trip by removing core residual heat properly
and mitigating the uctuation of SG water level. In order
to satisfy the acceptance criteria and to modulate SG water
level stable in power uprated YGN 1&2, it was concluded
from the analyses results of ACSL and LOFTRAN for the
95% load rejection that the PB of 15.0 and the KPFM of
0.6 were appropriate in SDCS and FWCS, respectively. Al-
so, we veried the appropriateness of these setpoints through
analyzing SG level setpoint step change and turbine power
ramp change. These verication analyses showed that the re-
vised control setpoints of SDCS and FWCS were appropriate
all over the plant normal operation range in power uprated
YGN 1&2.
Thus, if the control setpoints of SDCS and FWCS in the
power uprated YGN 1&2 and Kori 3&4 would be replaced
with those determined in the this study, these plants would
be appropriately controlled within the allowable operating
limits not to trigger a plant trip for an external perturbation
less than large load rejection of 95%.
Acknowledgment
This research was funded by the Korea Hydro & Nuclear
Power Company (KHNP) and by Electric Power Industry
Technology Evaluation & Planning (ETEP) of the Ministry
of Commerce, Industry, and Energy.
References
1) Jae Yong Lee, Joo Sung Kim, Duk Joo Yoon, Determination
of the optimal steam dump control system set-points after
power uprate of Kori 3/4 and Yonggwang 1/2 Units, Proc.
ICAPP05, Seoul, Korea, May 1519, 2005, (2005).
2) E. Irving, C. Miossec, J. Tassart, Towards an ecient, fully
automatic operation of the PWR steam generator with water
level adaptive control, Proc. Int. Conf. on Boiler Dynamics
and Control in Nuclear Power Stations, England: British
Nuclear Energy Soc., London, 309329 (1980).
3) E. Irving, C. Bihoreaux, Adaptive control of the non-mini-
mum phase system: Application to PWR steam generator
water level control, 19th IEEE Conf. on Control and Deci-
sion, 1980, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 675680 (1980).
4) B. C. Ahn, Test Report for Net Load Rejection, Ygn NPP MD-
001, MD002, CH-007, S. Korea, (1987).
5) Byung Hak Cho, Hee Cheon No, Design of stability-guaran-
teed neurofuzzy logic controller for nuclear steam generators,
Nucl. Eng. Des., 166[1], p. 1729 (1996).
6) Byung Hak Cho, Hee Cheon No, Design of stability and
performance robust fuzzy logic gain scheduler for nuclear
steam generators, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 44[3], 14311441
(1997).
7) Byung Hak Cho, Hee Cheon No, Design of stability-guaran-
teed fuzzy logic controller for nuclear steam generators,
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 43[2], 716730 (1996).
8) L. E. Engelhardt, G. E. Campbell, Setpoint Study of Kori Units
374 and Ygn 1&2, WCAP-10348, Westinghouse Co., 74
(1983).
9) T. W. T. Burnett, LOFTRAN Code Description, WCAP-7907-
P-A, (1984).
10) The Aegis Technologies Group Inc., ACSLXtreme Users
Manual, U.S.A, (2003).
1076 D. J. YOON et al.
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY