This article was downloaded by: [81.31.237.

3]
On: 17 November 2014, At: 07:31
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnst20

Prediction of SG Tube Support Plate Flow Area

Blockage Rate Using SG Wide Range Level
Measurements and Hydrodynamic Analysis
a

Jae Yong LEE , Hong Deok KIM & Duk Joo YOON

Korea Electric Power Research Institute , Munji-Dong, Yuseong, Daejeon , 305-380 ,

South Korea
Published online: 19 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Jae Yong LEE , Hong Deok KIM & Duk Joo YOON (2009) Prediction of SG Tube Support Plate Flow Area
Blockage Rate Using SG Wide Range Level Measurements and Hydrodynamic Analysis, Journal of Nuclear Science and
Technology, 46:7, 753-762, DOI: 10.1080/18811248.2007.9711582
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2007.9711582

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of NUCLEAR SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 46, No. 7, p. 753762 (2009)

ARTICLE

Prediction of SG Tube Support Plate Flow Area Blockage Rate Using SG Wide
Range Level Measurements and Hydrodynamic Analysis
Jae Yong LEE
,y, Hong Deok KIM and Duk Joo YOON
Korea Electric Power Research Institute, Munji-Dong, Yuseong, Daejeon 305-380, South Korea

Downloaded by [81.31.237.3] at 07:31 17 November 2014

(Received November 4, 2008 and accepted in revised form March 30, 2009)

Some nuclear power plants have recently experienced hydrodynamic instability in steam generators
(SGs). Instability, if present in the SG of a pressurized water reactor, results in the periodic oscillation of
the water level, steam ow, feedwater ow, and the ow through the circulation loop. In this instability
analysis, the major parameters are the power level and ow area of the tube support plate (TSP). The
threshold power above which instability may occur is generated by variations in TSP ow area. The
current method of estimating the blockage rate is the visual inspection of the SG interior. This type of
visual inspection, however, requires many resources. To improve this method, we focus on measurements
of the SG level. The measurements of the level change because the SG downcomer ow rate varies due to
the blockage of the TSP ow area. To quantify this eect, we calculate the circulation ratio in relation to
changes in TSP ow area. In addition, we evaluate the pressure drops that aect the SG water level.
Sensor drift analyses of the level measurements are performed to conrm that the level variance is derived
from system characteristics rather than sensor drift. Finally, the blockage rates of the TSP ow area are
generated by using measurements of the SG water level.
KEYWORDS: hydrodynamic instability, tube support plate ow blockage, wide range SG level,
threshold power, circulation ratio, sludge deposit, two-phase pressure drop, level uncertainty

I. Introduction
Hydrodynamic instability is a potential problem in any
uid system where boiling takes place. Instability, if present
in a steam generator (SG) of a pressurized water reactor,
results in the periodic oscillation of the water level, steam
ow, feedwater ow, and the ow through the circulation
loop. The most common types of instability encountered in
boiling heat exchangers are density wave and pressure drop
instabilities. They result from an unfavorable distribution of
the pressure drop through the circulation loop. There are two
major dierences between these types of instability: the
period of oscillation and the conditions of occurrence. The
periods of density wave oscillations are equal to one1) to
two2,3) times the uid transport time; the other periods are
related to the compressible volume of the systems. Tadrist
dened the oscillation period as the sum of two characteristic
times: the liquid drag time due to vapor recoil and the lling
time.4) Density wave instability usually occurs in a region
where the pressure drop increases when the mass ow rate
increases. However, pressure drop instability occurs in a
region where the pressure drop decreases when the mass
ow rate increases.1)


y

Corresponding author, E-mail: jylee@kepri.re.kr

Present address: Nuclear Power Lab., KEPRI 103-16 Munjidong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-380, Korea

As the operating history of SG increases, the ow

areas of the SG tube support plates (TSPs) become clogged
due to sludge deposition. The sludge deposition on the
upper support plates increases because of the high vapor
ratio and the two-phase pressure drop. Whenever the pressure drop in a two-phase ow is larger than the pressure
drop in a single-phase ow, the probability of hydrodynamic
instability increases. As noted in Ref. 1), density wave oscillation occurs if there is an unstable operating condition in
a region where the pressure drop increases when the mass
ow rate increases. These types of hydrodynamic instability,
which are caused by a blockage of the TSP ow area,
occurred at Bruce Unit 2 in 1988 and Surry Unit 2 in
1993; in both instances, the TSP ow blockage was attributed to sludge deposition. Figure 1 taken from Ref. 5)
shows a sample of the dynamic instability that occurred in
a model F SG. The narrow-range water level trend is the
same as the steam pressure trend according to Fig. 1. A
decrease in steam pressure implies an increase in
P
through heavily blocked upper TSPs, and a decrease in
narrow-range water level implies an increase in ow rate
through the tube bundles. This phenomenon leads to a positive slope of
P versus the ow rate. The oscillation
periods that were experienced are approximately 15 s, which
is one to two times the uid transport time in an SG.
On the basis of the above description, we can deduce that
the type of oscillation that occurs in an SG is a density wave
oscillation.

Atomic Energy Society of Japan

753

754

J. Y. LEE et al.
Table 1 Thermal-hydraulic conditions for stability analyses
Power
level (%)

Primary
temperature ( C)

Feedwater
temperature ( C)

10
30
50
70
100

293.3
296.7
300.0
303.3
308.3

136.1
175.0
196.4
211.1
229.9

- Thermal power: 2,912 MW

- RCS ow rate: 17,829 l/s
- Pressurizer pressure: 158.2 kg/cm2

turbation dies out, resulting in a stable SG. These SG instability phenomena are modeled in a computer code, which is
used to evaluate the results of hydrodynamic instability
analysis.7)

Downloaded by [81.31.237.3] at 07:31 17 November 2014

Fig. 1 Sample oscillation in a model F SG

The point at which hydrodynamic instability occurs is

referred to as the threshold TSP ow blockage. The sludge
that piles up and blocks the TSP ow holes needs to be
managed before the threshold is reached, and the amount of
TSP ow area blockage needs to be evaluated. The blockage
rate can be estimated by three methods: visual inspection
with a camera during a scheduled overhaul; an indirect
method based on an eddy current test; and, as proposed in
this work, estimation based on measurements of the wide
range (WR) SG level. The WR SG level may increase if the
TSP ow area blockage increases, causing a decrease in
downcomer ow rate and an increase in the density of downcomer ow. The main underlying concept of the proposed
approach is the process of evaluating the TSP ow area
blockage rate through a quantitative comparison with measurements of the WR SG level.

II. Hydrodynamic Instability Analysis

Density wave instability is a nonlinear phenomenon, as
indicated by the Navior-Stoke equation for momentum conservation as well as mass and energy conservation equations.
The phenomenon can also be described mathematically in a
linearized mode when consideration is given to the perturbation of uid ow parameters, such as velocity, density,
void fraction, and water level. Each perturbed parameter can
oscillate over its steady state value and can be given by an
exponential function as6)

Vt "est ;

where s is a complex number in the form

s a i!:

Thus, the real part a of the complex number, s, which we

refer to as the damping factor, gives the degree of amplication or attenuation of the oscillation mode of
V; in contrast, the imaginary part represents the angular frequency !.
Obviously, if the real part a is positive, the perturbation
V
grows without bound, resulting in an unstable SG. If the real
part is zero, the oscillation is persistent, also resulting in an
unstable SG. However, if the real part is negative, the per-

1. Eect of Stability Parameters

Many of the operating parameters that aect SG stability
were studied in Ref. 8). The following three basic parameters of density wave instability are evaluated because of their
signicant eect on SG stability:
. downcomer water subcooling
. power level
. TSP ow area
Table 1 shows the thermal hydraulic conditions for stability analyses. The feedwater ow rates are generated automatically on the basis of the energy conservation law.
(1) Inlet Subcooling
An increase in inlet subcooling tends to have a destabilizing eect if the subcooling is below the subcooling threshold. If the subcooling is above the threshold, any increase in
inlet subcooling has a stabilizing eect. There are two competing mechanisms: the length to boiling and single-phase
friction damping. The length to boiling or boiling length is
the length at which boiling occurs from the tube sheet;
friction damping, on the other hand, means that friction plays
a damping role under a single-phase condition. With zero
inlet subcooling, which occurs when water boils as soon as it
enters the tube bundle, there is no single-phase friction
damping and no boiling length. As a result, there is no time
delay in the single-phase region and no inherent uctuation
of the boiling boundary, and the system becomes more
stable. Any increase in inlet subcooling in this low subcooling range tends to have a destabilizing eect. However, if
the inlet subcooling is suciently large, the dominance of
friction damping tends to have a stabilizing eect.
An increase in feedwater temperature decreases the downcomer water subcooling, which results in a larger damping
factor (with a negative value). To determine the damping
factors at various feedwater temperatures, we performed the
calculations for a full power condition and a feedwater
temperature range of 226.7 to 254.4 C. Figure 2 taken from
Ref. 9) depicts the damping factor versus the feedwater
temperature. The larger the negative damping factor is, the
greater the stability of the system is. If the damping factor is
positive, the oscillation can diverge exponentially. For the
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

755

Prediction of SG Tube Support Plate Flow Area Blockage Rate Using SG Wide Range Level Measurements
-150

TSP 7
TSPs 6&7

Damping factor (h1)

50

Damping factor (1/h)

-200

-250

-300

100

150

200

250

300
-350
6

10

12

14

16

18

Downcomer subcooling (C)

Damping factor (1/h)

Downloaded by [81.31.237.3] at 07:31 17 November 2014

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Power level (%)

Fig. 3 Damping factor vs power level

SG conditions, the downcomer subcooling is apparently

below the subcooling threshold. Hence, a decrease in inlet
subcooling is desirable because it stabilizes the boiling ow.
(2) Power Level
Figure 3 taken from Ref. 9) depicts information similar to
that of the downcomer subcooling. An increase in power
level produces more vapor (or void fraction) in the tube
bundle, particularly in the upper tube bundle. The pressure
drop in a two-phase ow zone is therefore higher than that in
a single-phase water zone, such as the downcomer. Thus, the
stability margin (i.e., the negative damping factor) decreases
as the power level increases. There is, however, a turning
point along the power level curve, at about the 50% point.
An increase in power above this point reduces the stability
margin. The dominating factor in controlling the two-phase
pressure drop is the steam void fraction. As the power level
increases, the void fraction similarly increases and, as a
result, the pressure drop in the two-phase ow also increases.
(3) TSP Flow Area
A reduction in TSP ow area increases the pressure drop
within the two-phase ow zone, which destabilizes the boiling ow through the tube bundle. Although a pressure drop
in the two-phase zone is dissipative and therefore stabilizing,
the oscillation in incoming ow rate does not totally dissiVOL. 46, NO. 7, JULY 2009

30

40

50

60

70

80

Fig. 4 Damping factor vs TSP hole blockage

10

20

Blockage (%)

Fig. 2 Damping factor vs inlet subcooling

10

pate under a pressure drop. The pressure drop depends on the

ow rate and the void fraction. An increase in ow rate leads
to an increase in pressure drop and a decrease in void
fraction. If the void fraction remains the same, the oscillation
can fully dissipate through a complete pressure drop. A
decrease in void fraction reduces the pressure drop and, as
a result, the damping of the ow increase is incomplete. A
higher level of impedance in the two-phase ow zone yields
less damping and a smaller margin of stability. This feedback between the ow and the void can lead to a ow
oscillation. To determine the damping factors for various
reductions in ow area, we performed the calculations for a
full power condition. Figure 4 taken from Ref. 9) shows the
damping factor versus ow area reduction. The rectangular
marks represent the results of the TSP blockage that occurred at stages 6 and 7; the circular marks represent the results
of the TSP blockage that occurred at stage 7 only. The
reason why we concentrated on the TSP blockage occurred
at high TSP stages is that we expect the heavy blockage
because high temperature is experienced there.
2. Threshold Power of Instability
The threshold of instability power was assessed at Kori
Units 3 and 4 and Yonggwang Units 1 and 2. As shown in
Fig. 4, when there is less blockage, the damping factor curve
turns towards a more negative damping factor, which implies a greater margin of stability. Certain threshold values
for the damping factor can lead to instability. In one American nuclear power plant, these threshold values are a lower
bound of 120 h1 , a best estimate of 92 h1 , and an upper
bound of 54 h1 .6)
Figure 5 taken from Ref. 8) shows the range of blockage
that could lead to instability for a given power level. For
example, at 100% power, instability could occur when the
blockage is 62 (lower bound) or 68% (best estimate).

III. Evaluation of Measurements of the WR SG

Level
Figure 6 shows the trend of the WR SG level measurements of a Korean three-loop Westinghouse-type plant that

756

J. Y. LEE et al.

160
Lower
Best

120

25%

Upper
Probability density (%)

Threshold of instability power (%)

140

SG WR Transmitter Drift
[mean: 0.1%]

30%

100
80
60
40

20%

15%

10%

5%

68

62

20

0%

80

90

100

0.8

70

0.6

60

0.4

50

0.2

40

0.0

30

0.2

20

0.4

10

0.6

Drift (%)

Blockage (%)

Fig. 7 Model F WR SG transmitter drifts

Fig. 5 Threshold instability power vs blockage

70

68
67
WR level (%)

Downloaded by [81.31.237.3] at 07:31 17 November 2014

69

66
65
64
63
SG A
SG B
SG C

62
61
60
2002
0524

2002
1210

2003
0628

2004
0114

2004
0801

2005
0217

2005
0905

2006
0324

2006
1010

2007
0428

Fig. 6 WR SG levels for a model F SG plant

has a model F SG. The WR SG level increases as the fuel

burnup proceeds, though the SG narrow-range level remains
almost the same at a setpoint of 50%. There are two possible
reasons for these phenomena: the drift of the level transmitter and the TSP ow area blockage.
1. Evaluation of WR SG Level Transmitter Drift
The drift data of WR SG level transmitters are evaluated
in terms of the past four fuel cycles at two Westinghousetype Korean plants.10) The number of data sets is 128, and
the mean has a slightly biased value of 0.1%. Thus, a WR
level increase of 0.1% originates from a negligible drift
value. Figure 7 shows the probability density of the drift.
2. Evaluation of the SG TSP Flow Blockage Eect
Kori Units 3 and 4 have model F SGs supplied by Westinghouse. Figure 8 shows the locational data and a schematic diagram of the system for measuring the WR SG level.
The SG WR level is measured in terms of the dierential
pressure between the level of the reference leg, which has a
span of 14.173 m, and the downcomer water level. The
dierential pressure transmitter is calibrated under a normal
temperature condition of about 20 C and an atmospheric
condition of 1 atm. Thus, both the friction and form losses
increase when the plant starts up and reaches a high temper-

Fig. 8 Schematic diagram of a WR SG level measurement

ature and a high pressure. Even though the real level is

unchanged, the WR level indications change as a result of
changes in downcomer uid conditions.
Three major factors aect the WR level when the plant
operates under normal conditions:
. the subcooled water in the downcomer under the J-tube
outlet
. the friction pressure drop in the downcomer
. the uid velocity at the level of the WR level lower tap
(1) Eect of Downcomer Flow Subcooling
The eect of downcomer ow subcooling is evaluated, in
terms of dierent conditions, particularly the saturated condition for calibration and the subcooled water condition for
power operation in the downcomer under the J-tube outlet.
The evaluation is based on the assumption that subcooling
occurs from the center line of the feed ring to the lower tap.
The measurement uncertainty due to the downcomer ow
subcooling can be calculated as11)


DC  fc
Hs
"sub 

min
; LSG ;
3
fc  gc
H

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

757

Prediction of SG Tube Support Plate Flow Area Blockage Rate Using SG Wide Range Level Measurements
Table 2 Downcomer thermal-hydraulic variables for various circulation ratios under full power condition
Circulation ratio

hDC (kJ/kg)
TDC ( C)
DC (kg/m3 )
Level error (%span)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.05

3.5

990.75
229.94
830.97
13:6

1037.5
250.21
802.65
15:9

1130.7
259.20
787.57
17:1

1158.7
264.82
778.20
17:9

1177.3
268.52
771.81
18:4

1178.6
268.77
771.40
18:5

1190.7
271.14
767.18
18:8

Table 3 Eect of the friction pressure drop on the downcomer under full power condition
Circulation ratio

Downloaded by [81.31.237.3] at 07:31 17 November 2014

Square of relative downcomer ow rate

Normalization factor
Downcomer DP (kPa)
Level error (%span)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.05

3.5

1.0
0.108
1.13
0:8

2.25
0.244
2.55
1:8

4.0
0.433
4.53
3:3

6.25
0.676
7.07
5:1

9.0
0.974
10.20
7:4

9.25
1.000
10.47
7:5

12.25
1.326
13.88
10:0

where Hs is the maximum level of the downcomer water,

which is assumed to be subcooled from the lower tap.
Hs Hfeedring  Hlowtap
DC : density of downcomer water ow
fc : density of uid under calibration condition
gc : density of gas under calibration condition
LSG : SG operating water level
The downcomer water density DC is a function of the
temperature at the lower tap and the pressure at the side of
the SG shell. The downcomer water temperature at the lower
tap is calculated from the steam table by using the downcomer ow enthalpy and the saturation pressure at the side of
the SG shell. This calculation takes into consideration the
fact that the downcomer ow is the sum of the feedwater
ow and the recirculation ow, and that the recirculation
ow has some carry-under vapor.12) The downcomer enthalpy is then calculated as
hDC

mR hm mFW hFW
;
mFW mR

where hFW is the feedwater enthalpy at feedwater temperature and pressure at the side of the SG shell, mR the recirculation ow rate, mFW the feedwater ow rate, and hm
the recirculation ow enthalpy.
The recirculation ow enthalpy is calculated via the
following carry-under steam equation
hm v hs 1  v hl ;

where hs and hl are the enthalpies of the saturated steam and

saturated water, respectively, at the SG shell side pressure,
and v is the vapor fraction of the recirculation ow due to
carry-under vapor. Note also that v is based on an interpolation of the test data, which are generated by using a model
F SG with a 856.25 Mw heat load.12) Table 2 shows the
downcomer enthalpy (hDC ), the downcomer temperature
(TDC ), and the downcomer density (DC ) in relation to the
VOL. 46, NO. 7, JULY 2009

circulation rate. It also shows the errors of the SG WR

level, which are generated by using the calculated DC and
Eq. (1).
(2) Eect of the Friction Pressure Drop on the Downcomer
A computer code is used to calculate the friction pressure
drop on the downcomer at a full power condition.7) By
using this pressure drop and the normalization factors
corresponding to 1.0 under the full power condition, we
calculated the downcomer pressure drops. The WR level
errors are generated by using these downcomer pressure
drops and conversion factor. Table 3 shows a summary of
the results.
(3) Eect of the Fluid Velocity at Lower Tap
A pressure drop occurs as a result of the inuence of the
uid velocity at the WR level lower tap. The size of this
pressure drop can be calculated as
DC vDC 2
:
6
2
The water velocity at the lower tap, vDC , can be calculated
by using the circulation ratio and the ow area at the lower
tap. For this calculation, we use the full power condition; we
then use this value to calculate the pressure drop for the
other ow conditions. Table 4 shows the results of the
pressure drop caused by the inuence of the uid velocity.
Table 5 shows the summation of the three eects for various
circulation ratios. Figure 9, which is derived from Table 5,
shows the linearity between the level error and the circulation ratio. For example, a circulation ratio of 3.05 corresponds to a case where there is no TSP ow area blockage
rate. Note that even in this case, the observable level of
uncertainty was 28.4, which is reasonable given the dierence between the calibration and normal operating conditions. A linear relation corresponding to Eq. (7) can be
obtained by using the least-squares method as13)

pfv

y 6:802
x 7:833;

758

J. Y. LEE et al.
Table 4 Eect of the pressure drop caused by the uid velocity at the lower tap
Circulation ratio

Downcomer velocity (m/s)

Velocity head (kg/m.s2 )
Level error (%span)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.05

3.5

0.896
333.6
0:2

1.392
778.8
0:6

1.892
1410.9
1:0

2.392
2227.6
1:6

2.895
3235.7
2:3

2.935
3322.9
2:4

3.398
4430.4
3:2

Table 5 Total errors in the measurement of the level as a result of the pressure drop on the downcomer under full power
condition
Circulation ratio
1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.05

3.5

14:6

18:3

21:4

24:6

28:1

28:4

32:0

-5

WR level error (%)

Downloaded by [81.31.237.3] at 07:31 17 November 2014

Level error (%span)

1.0

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Circulation ratio

Fig. 9 WR SG level errors vs circulation ratios

where y is the WR level error (%) and x is the circulation

ratio. The correlation coecient of these variables is 0.9993,
which indicates a very linear relation.
(4) Eect on WR SG Level according to the TSP Flow Area
Blockage
The problem of TSP blockage due to sludge deposition

worsens over years of SG operation and the blockage

decreases the circulation ow rate. This trend results in
greater downcomer subcooling; furthermore, the downcomer
friction pressure loss and downcomer uid velocity head
become smaller. Tables 6 and 7 show the circulation ratios
for various TSP blockage rates. The results in Table 6 are
obtained based on the assumption that the TSP blockage
occurs at stages 6 and 7, whereas the results in Table 7 are
obtained based on the assumption that the TSP blockage
occurs at stage 7 only. Table 8 shows the calculation
results of the downcomer friction pressure loss versus the
TSP blockage rate, and Table 9 shows the calculation results
of the downcomer uid velocity versus the TSP blockage
rate. Using the data presented in Tables 6 and 7, we can
derive the circulation ratio versus the TSP blockage rate
under the full power condition. These results are presented
in Fig. 10.
To obtain the direct relationship between the SG WR level
and the TSP blockage rate, we need to eliminate the circulation ratio parameter, which can be done by considering
Fig. 10 and the linear relation in Eq. (7). Tables 10 and 11
and Fig. 11 show the direct relationship between the WR SG
level and the TSP blockage rate. Moreover, at the initial
stage of plant operation, the WR SG level instruments were

Table 6 Circulation ratios for various levels of TSP blockage and power (TSP 6 and 7 blockage)
Blockage rate

Power
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

26.25
15.54
11.09
8.54
6.86
5.68
4.78
4.08
3.52
3.05

25.8
15.2
10.8
8.28
6.62
5.47
4.58
3.89
3.34
2.88

25.42
14.91
10.56
8.07
6.43
5.29
4.42
3.74
3.20
2.75

24.85
14.48
10.19
7.74
6.14
5.03
4.18
3.51
2.99
2.56

23.95
13.82
9.63
7.25
5.71
4.64
3.82
3.19
2.69
2.28

22.49
12.76
8.75
6.5
5.05
4.06
3.29
2.71
2.26
1.91

20.06
11.01
7.35
5.35
4.07
3.19
2.53
2.05
1.70
1.41

15.93
8.19
5.24
3.65
2.65
2.01
1.57
1.26
1.01

9.02
4.08
2.32
1.50
1.04

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

759

Prediction of SG Tube Support Plate Flow Area Blockage Rate Using SG Wide Range Level Measurements
Table 7 Circulation ratios for various levels of TSP blockage and power (TSP 7 blockage)
Blockage rate

Power
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

26.25
15.54
11.09
8.54
6.86
5.68
4.78
4.08
3.52
3.05

26.00
15.34
10.92
8.39
6.72
5.56
4.66
3.97
3.42
2.95

25.78
15.18
10.78
8.26
6.60
5.45
4.56
3.87
3.33
2.87

25.44
14.92
10.55
8.06
6.42
5.29
4.41
3.73
3.19
2.74

24.89
14.50
10.19
7.74
6.14
5.03
4.18
3.51
2.99
2.55

23.93
13.78
9.59
7.22
5.67
4.61
3.79
3.15
2.66
2.26

22.16
12.47
8.50
6.30
4.87
3.90
3.14
2.57
2.14
1.81

18.66
9.98
6.55
4.70
3.50
2.70
2.12
1.72
1.41
1.18

11.53
5.47
3.26
2.13
1.52
5.68

Table 8 Downcomer friction pressure loss (kPa)

Blockage rate

Downloaded by [81.31.237.3] at 07:31 17 November 2014

Power
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

5.350
8.122
9.715
10.639
11.135
11.294
11.232
10.997
10.625
10.163

5.178
7.777
9.218
10.025
10.404
10.480
10.342
10.032
9.611
9.115

5.033
7.495
8.811
9.508
9.804
9.818
9.618
9.253
8.811
8.294

4.813
7.081
8.225
8.784
8.963
8.880
8.618
8.212
7.722
7.191

4.475
6.453
7.364
7.722
7.770
7.584
7.239
6.764
6.267
5.743

3.964
5.523
6.095
6.233
6.116
5.833
5.392
4.902
4.454
4.027

3.165
4.144
4.344
4.247
3.999
3.627
3.199
2.813
2.517
2.220

2.027
2.324
2.227
2.006
1.710
1.448
1.241
1.069
0.883

0.669
0.586
0.448
0.345
0.262

Table 9 Downcomer uid velocity (m/s)

Blockage rate

Power
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2.17
2.68
2.93
3.06
3.12
3.14
3.12
3.08
3.02
2.95

2.13
2.62
2.85
2.96
3.01
3.01
2.99
2.94
2.87
2.79

2.10
2.57
2.78
2.88
2.92
2.92
2.88
2.82
2.74
2.65

2.05
2.49
2.68
2.76
2.79
2.77
2.72
2.64
2.55
2.46

1.98
2.37
2.53
2.58
2.58
2.55
2.48
2.39
2.29
2.18

1.86
2.19
2.29
2.31
2.28
2.22
2.12
2.04
1.91
1.80

1.65
1.87
1.92
1.89
1.82
1.72
1.61
1.50
1.41
1.31

1.30
1.39
1.35
1.26
1.16
1.05
0.96
0.88
0.80

0.73
0.67
0.57
0.48
0.41

calibrated to 88.6% of indication under a cold operating

condition; accordingly, if we consider the 28.6% error in
Table 10, the normal WR level indicates 60% under the full
power condition. The relationship between the WR SG level
and the TSP blockage rate can therefore be obtained, as
shown in Fig. 12. The plant measurement data were taken
at the initial stage of operation, when there was presumably
very small SG TSP blockage.14) Accordingly, the measured
WR SG level of around 60.3% is very similar to the calculation results.
VOL. 46, NO. 7, JULY 2009

IV. Estimation of the TSP Flow Blockage Rate and

Its Application to SG Management
1. Estimation of the TSP Flow Blockage Rate
We can estimate the TSP ow blockage rate by
using the data in Fig. 12. That is, at the initial stage of the
plant, when there is no TSP blockage, the WR level is 60%
of the span under a full power condition. As shown in
Fig. 12, years of operation leads to a TSP ow blockage
and an increase in WR level. The sample measurements

760

J. Y. LEE et al.
Table 10 TSP blockage rate vs level error under full power condition (TSP 6 and 7 blockage)
Circulation ratio

Level error (%span)

Blockage rate (%)

1.41

1.91

2.28

2.56

2.75

2.88

3.05

17:4
70

20:8
60

23:3
50

25:2
40

26:5
30

27:4
20

28:6
0

Table 11 TSP blockage rate vs level error under full power condition (TSP 7 blockage)
Circulation ratio

Level error (%span)

Blockage rate (%)

1.18

1.81

2.26

2.55

2.74

2.87

2.95

3.05

15:9
80

20:1
70

23:2
60

25:2
50

26:5
40

27:4
30

27:9
20

28:6
0

90

3.5

TSP 6&7
TSP 7

TSP flow blockage rate (%)

80

Circulation ratio

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

TSP 7
TSP 6&7

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

0.5

0.0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

TSP flow blockage rate (%)

90
80
70
60
50
40

TSP 7
TSP 6&7

30
20
10
0
10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

WR SG level (%)

Fig. 12 TSP blockage rates vs WR SG levels

Fig. 10 Circulation ratios vs TSP blockage rates

TSP flow blockage rate (%)

Downloaded by [81.31.237.3] at 07:31 17 November 2014

3.0

30

WRSG level error (%)

Fig. 11 TSP blockage rates vs WR SG level errors

of the WR level in Fig. 6 show an increase in WR level at

every cycle.
A TSP ow blockage generally occurs in the high temperature range of TSP stage 7. However, we assume the blockage occurs in TSP stages 6 and 7 for the sake of obtaining

more general results. As illustrated in Fig. 12, higher blockage rates are obtained if we assume that the blockage occurs
at TSP stage 7 blockage only. In Kori Unit 4, for example,
the WR level is about 88.6% under the calibration condition
and about 66.5% under the full power condition at the 17th
cycle.15) The corresponding SG TSP ow blockage rate can
be estimated in the range of 64 to 55%. At the 18th cycle,
after the cleaning of the SGs and the elimination of some
sludge, the WR level decreases to 61.4%. The corresponding
TSP ow blockage rate for this value is estimated to fall in
the range of 34 to 25%. This means that the amount of
elimination of TSP ow blockage is about 30%. According
to the information obtained from Kori Unit 4,15) the portion
of TSP blockage removed is estimated to be 15 to 20%,
which is slightly lower than the results shown in this paper.
However, the plant information may have a high level of
uncertainty because its estimation is based on the visual
inspection of a small part of the SG TSP hole. Nonetheless,
the calculation results can be used comparatively when an
SG management program is developed.
2. SG Management Plan
We developed an SG sludge deposit management plan
based on the measurements of the WR level. The plan has
four phases. In the rst phase, the threshold TSP ow blockJOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Prediction of SG Tube Support Plate Flow Area Blockage Rate Using SG Wide Range Level Measurements

761

Start

Generation of
Threshold Power per
Flow Blockage

Compensation of
Instrument Drift for
WR Level

Generation of Threshold
Flow Blockage at Threshold
Power of 100%

WR Level Measurement
at Power Operation

Calculation of
Circulation Flow Rate
per Flow Blockage

Calculation of Pressure
Drops due to the Downcomer
Density and Velocity Changes

Generation of Relationship
between Flow Blockage and
WR Level

Downloaded by [81.31.237.3] at 07:31 17 November 2014

Calculation of Flow Blockage

Rate Corresponding to WR
Level Measurements

Calculated Flow
Blockage Rate

Threshold Flow
Blockage Rate

Yes

Flow Blockage Rate under

the Significance Level

No

Flow Blockage Rate at which

Hydrodynamic Instability
May Occur

Stop

Fig. 13 SG TSP ow blockage management process

age is generated at a threshold power of 100%. In the second

phase, the WR levels are measured, with an appropriate
compensation for the instrument drift. In the third phase,
the relationship between the TSP ow blockage and the WR
level is determined with the aid of SG thermal-hydraulic
calculations. The nal phase entails a comparison of the
calculated TSP ow blockage rate with the threshold ow
blockage rate. If the calculated TSP ow blockage rate is
larger than the threshold ow blockage rate, the plant personnel remove the sludge deposit as protection against thermodynamic instability. Figure 13 shows a schematic of the
SG management plan.

V. Conclusion
According to the above analyses, we can draw the following conclusions. Water chemistry shows that the blockage of
the broached holes of a TSP reduces the ow area through
VOL. 46, NO. 7, JULY 2009

the plate, thereby increasing the pressure drop in the twophase ow zone and causing density wave instability to
develop. The results include oscillations in water level, feedwater ow, steam ow, and the circulating ow inside the
tube bundle. We recommend a reduction in power as an
interim way of restoring stable operation. However, the nal
solution for restoring stable operation at full power is to
remove the blockage of the broached holes. In particular, for
Kori Units 3 and 4 and Yonggwang Units 1 and 2, instability
may occur when the blockage is roughly 68% (best estimate)
at 100% power.
A novel method of estimating the SG TSP ow blockage
rate on the basis of the SG WR level is introduced in the
present study. This method obviates the need for a visual
inspection when evaluating the amount of TSP ow blockage. Moreover, if WR SG level measurements are taken at
the initial phase of plant operation, that is, when there is no
accumulation of sludge, it will be possible to give a more

762
accurate estimate of the SG TSP ow blockage rate on the
basis of the WR level.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr. M. H. Hu of Westinghouse
Electric Company for helpful comments on the preparation
of this paper.

Downloaded by [81.31.237.3] at 07:31 17 November 2014

References
1) S. Kakac, B. Bon, A review of two-phase ow dynamic
instabilities in tube boiling systems, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 51, 399433 (2008).
2) D. H. Hwang et al., Onset of ow instabilities in vertical
parallel channels under advanced PWR conditions,
NUTHOS-7: The 7th International Topical Meeting on
Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics, Operation and Safety,
Seoul, Korea, Oct. 59, 2008 (2008).
3) R. T. Lahey, Jr., M. Z. Podowski, On the analysis of various
instabilities in two phase ows, Multiphase Science and
Technology, 4, 183370 (1989).
4) L. Tadrist, Review on two-phase ow instabilities in narrow
spaces, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 28, 5462 (2007).
5) M. H. Hu, SG water level oscillations, KHNP Technical
Meeting, Daejeon, Korea, Sep. 16, 2008 (2008).
6) M. H. Hu, Steam Generator Intrinsic Stability, Westinghouse

J. Y. LEE et al.
Electric Company (1999).
7) GENF: A Steady State Performance or Sizing Evaluation Code
for Model F Type Steam Generators, Rev. 4, WTD-PE77-038, Westinghouse Electric Company (1985).
8) M. H. Hu, J. Y. Lee, Technical Consultation on Steam Generator Thermal Hydraulic Instability, KRD-ESS-5, Rev. 1,
Westinghouse Electric Company (2005).
9) J. Y. Lee, D. J. Yoon, H. S. Bae, Evaluation of SG hydraulic
instability for Kori Units 3 & 4 and Yonggwang Units 1 & 2,
KNS Conference, Kangchon, Korea, May 2426, 2006 (2006).
10) J. Y. Lee, D. J. Yoon, I. H. Kim, H. D. Kim, Relation
between SG wide range level measurement and TSP blockage
rate for Kori Units 3 & 4, KNS Conference, Kyungju, Korea,
Nov. 13, 2006 (2006).
11) S/G Water Level PMA Term Inaccuracies, PSE-92-106, Westinghouse Electric Company (1992).
12) T. F. Timmons et al., Steam Generator Level Uncertainties
Program, WCAP-16115-P, Westinghouse Electric Company
(2003).
13) J. Y. Lee, H. D. Kim, Prediction of SG tube support plate
ow area blockage from thermal-hydraulic analysis,
NTHAS6: Sixth Japan-Korea Symposium on Nuclear Thermal
Hydraulics and Safety, Okinawa, Japan, Nov. 2427, 2008
(2008).
14) SG wide range measurement data for Yonggwang Unit 2,
provided by J. H. Yang, Yonggwang Unit 1&2 (2009).
15) Experience on K4R17 SG ASCA cleaning, Chemical Technology Department, Kori Power Station 2 (2007).

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY