Transient Analysis for Simulator Validation. Jeffrey A. Borkowski 2008 US Users Group Meeting Tempe, Arizona October

Transcription

1 Transient Analysis for Simulator Validation Jeffrey A. Borkowski 2008 US Users Group Meeting Tempe, Arizona October

2 Advanced Training Simulator Models Engineering-grade model core model S3R Same numerical methods as SIMULATE-3 and SIMULATE-3K Uses the same nuclear data library as SIMULATE-3 and reads SIMULATE-3 restart file directly, anywhere in the cycle Easy to compare to core design results No need for external data manipulation or collapsing No nuclear data compatibility issues Automatic cycle update Large user base

3 S3R Installations S3R has been installed to date at 45 sites around the World: 26 PWRs, 19 BWRs 33 in USA, 9 in Europe, 3 in Japan S3R has been implemented with most of the major vendor system and thermal-hydraulic models available Thunder, GSE, L3-MAPPS, SAIC S3R, THOR, ATHENA, RELAP5-RT, ANTHEM, RETACT, SMABRE, SIMARC, THEATRE

4 ANO-2 Beaver Valley 1 Entergy FENOC McGuire Monticello Duke NMC Beaver Valley 2 FENOC Nine Mile Point 1 Constellation Beznau NOK Nine Mile Point 2 Constellation Catawba Cooper Crystal River Davis Besse DC Cook Duane Arnold Farley Fermi-2 Forsmark-1 Forsmark-3 Ginna Grand Gulf Harris Hatch Indian Point 2 Indian Point 3 Kewaunee Limerick Duke Entergy Northeast Progress First Energy AEP NMC Southern Detroit Edison Vattenfall (via KSU) Vattenfall (via KSU) Constellation Entergy Progress Southern Entergy Northeast Entergy Northeast Dominion Exelon (Mid-Atlantic) North Anna Oconee Olkiluoto-1/2 Oskarshamn-2 Oskarshamn-3 Oyster Creek Palisades Perry Prairie Island Ringhals-3 Ringhals-3 (replica) River Bend Robinson Surry Tokai-2 (compact) Tsuruga-1 (compact) Tsuruga-2 (compact) Vermont Yankee Vogtle Dominion Duke TVO OKG (via KSU) Vattenfall (via KSU) Exelon (Mid-Atlantic) NMC FENOC NMC Vattenfall (via KSU) Halden Entergy Progress Dominion JAPC JAPC JAPC Entergy Northeast Southern

5 Prescribed Simulator Transients Manual scram Simultaneous trip of all feedwater pumps Simultaneous closure of all MSIVs Simultaneous trip of all recirculation pumps Trip of a single recirculation pump Main turbine trip from maximum power that does not result in an immediate scram Maximum rate power ramp from 100% to 75% and back to 100% Large break LOCA with loss of all offsite power Main steam line break Simultaneous closure of all MSIVs with a single stuck open safety valve (BWR) Slow primary system depressurization to saturated conditions with stuck open PORV (PWR) Load rejection (PWR) S3R does all these right now for every delivery. S3K can as well, plus evaluate pin powers and thermal margins.

6 Simulator Benchmark Except for measured data from the reference unit, engineering-grade transient analysis is the preferred way to benchmark the simulator No real-time constraint Design grade methods Cycle specific More realistic than FSAR S3K & RELAP5

7 Simulator Benchmark Calculations Nuclear plant training simulators in the US are required by the NRC to benchmark the transient response of the simulators to plant data or best-estimate calculations for a set of prescribed transients Limited plant data for a few transients, i.e. reactor scram, turbine trip, load rejection, pump trip, pump runback Some available plant data is old and occurred before control system upgrades to feedwater and turbine and are incompatible with the current simulator and plant configurations S3K with RELAP5 can generate best-estimate results for each of the prescribed transients for the current core cycle

8 Representative BWR-6 Model

9 Flow (lbm/sec) ` Measured Pump Downshift Reference Calculation Premise: Match plant data first, then use the same model for more severe transients. River Bend Station Special Test 2 Total Feedwater Flow Time (sec) Flow (lbm/sec) River Bend Station Special Test 2 Total Steam Flow Time (sec) Plant Simulator S3K/RELAP5 Plant Simulator S3K/RELAP5

10 Recirc. Loop Rupture (No Off-Site Power) River Bend Station Transient Test 8 Reactor Pressure River Bend Station Transient Test 8 Total Feedwater Flow Pressure (psia) ` Time (sec) Flow (lbm/sec) ` Time (sec) Simulator S3K/RELAP5 Simulator S3K/RELAP5

11 Single Pump Trip River Bend Station Transient Test 5 Reactor Power River Bend Station Transient Test 5 Total Core Flow Power (%) ` Time (sec) Flow (lbm/sec) ` Time (sec) Simulator S3K/RELAP5 Simulator S3K/RELAP5

12 Conclusions Results indicate good agreement among the measured data, simulator results and the benchmark Results demonstrate the value and feasibility of engineering grade models on a training simulator Models may be benchmarked against measured data and design codes to demonstrate their performance

13 title PROPRIETARY