Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology

ISSN: 0022-3131 (Print) 1881-1248 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnst20

Analytical Method for Recalibration of Incore and

Excore Nuclear Instrumentation System of PWRs

Yoichiro SHIMAZU

To cite this article: Yoichiro SHIMAZU (1991) Analytical Method for Recalibration of Incore and
Excore Nuclear Instrumentation System of PWRs, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology,
28:4, 293-298, DOI: 10.1080/18811248.1991.9731358

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.1991.9731358

Published online: 15 Mar 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 489

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tnst20
journal of NuCLEAR SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, 28( 4], pp, 293-298 (April 1991), 293

Analytical Method for Recalibration

of lncore and Excore Nuclear
Instrumentation System of PWRs
Yoichiro SHIMAZU

Mitsubishi Atomic Power Industries, Inc.*

Received june 29, 1990

In pressurized water reactors (PWRs) of nuclear power plants, it is periodically required

to recalibrate the correlation between the incore and excore nuclear instruments, where the
recalibration guarantees the accurate monitoring of incore axial power distributions by excore
instrumentation. In order to obtain the correlation between incore power distribution and
excore detector response, however, it is necessary to perturb the axial power distribution of
the reactor by control rods or to introduce a xenon spatial oscillation.
In this paper a simplified analytical method that eliminates such perturbations is proposed
to evaluate the correlation between incore power distribution and excore detector currents which
is utilized to recalibrate the nuclear instrumentation system. This method provides as good an
accuracy as that obtained by conventional methods.
KEYWORDS: PWR type reactors, incore instruments, excore instruments, reactor
instrumentation, recalibration, accuracy, axial offset, xenon oscillation, Green's
function

we can evaluate the required correlation by

I. INTRODUCTION
In pressurized water reactor(, (PWRs) of
nuclear power plants, it is periodically required
to recalibrate the correlation between the in-
core and excore nuclear instruments. The
recalibration guarantees the accurate monitor-
ing of incore axial power distributions by
excore instrumentation. In order to obtain
the correlation between the incore power dis-
tribution and the excore detector response,
however, it is necessary to perturb the axial
power distribution of the reactor by control
rods or by introducing a Xe spatial oscil-
lation. To avoid excessive linear heat gener-
ation rate in the fuel, it is sometimes required
to reduce the operating power level during
this operation. As those procedures are of
no benefit for commercial operation, it is de-
sirable to eliminate such perturbations.
From this point of view, an analytical
method to evaluate the data required for the
recalibrations was studied. With this method
-19-
calculations, thus we can eliminate the pertur-
bations.
ll. EXCORE DETECTOR SYSTEM
AND RECALIBRATION
The power range monitoring system of
PWR is consisted of four independent power
range excore neutron detectors. Each detector
is composed of upper-half and lower-half long
ion chamber detectors. The concept is shown
in Fig. 1.
Axial power distribution is also monitored
by the excore detector in terms of axial offset,
AO defined as
AO= PT-PB_
PT+PB'
where PT : Reactor power in upper half core
PB: Reactor power in lower half core.
The signal of PT and PB are generated
using the upper and lower detector currents,
* Shibakouen, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105.
294
0 plex design such as those with partial length
0 In the following chapter we discuss an
0
0 power distributions calculated by design code.
Fig. 1 Conceptual diagram of
excore detector system
respectively. The calibration or recalibration
is required at this stage to guarantee the
accuracy of monitoring incore AO by excore
detectors. The data required for the recali-
bration is the correlation for each upper and
lower detector current with AO as shown in
Fig. 2.
NJ
Fig. 2 Fundamental data required
for recalibration
-20-
]. Nucl. Sci. Techno!.,
As described above, the data of various
AOs and the corresponding upper and lower
detector currents are acquired during a Xe
oscillation, which is intentionally introduced.
The AO is measured using incore movable neu-
tron detectors.
In order to eliminate such perturbation fol-
lowing the initial calibration at the startup
test after the refuling, the methodology called
one point calibration is developed by Blake< 1 J.
The method is based on the assumption that
the gradients of the current with AO is con-
stant during the core life. The acceptability
of this method is evaluated by Lacy et at. <2 '
However the assumption above is not rigorous-
ly correct, which is known through actual
measurements or analytical evaluations< 3 '. We
have to be more careful for reactors of com-
burnable absorber or strong burnable absorber,
for example, gadlinium (Gd).
analytical method which can evaluate the
correlation of the currents and AO based on
response matrix for excore detectors and
Thus we can eliminate perturbations to the
reactor or plant operation.
ill. SIMPLIFIED MODEL OF EXCORE
INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM
In order to investigate the basic character-
istics of incore and excore correlation, a
simplified model was considered as follows:
A general expression of a point detector
response of the length dl is written as
D(X, Y, Z)dl
=H~G(x, y, z-.X, Y, Z)
·P(x, y, z)dxdydz·dl, ( 1)
where D(X, Y, Z): Point detector response at
fixed excore position (X, Y, Z)
G (x, y, z->X, Y, Z) : Green's function for
detector response at (X, Y, Z)
produced by neutron emitted
at (x,y,z)
P(x, Y, z) : Incore power distribution.
As explained in Ref. (3) good results were
obtained based on two-dimensional calculations,
 Vol. 28, No. 4 (Apr. 1991) 295

which implicitly indicates that G(x, y, z->
X, Y, Z) is separable in variables as GR(x, y
-+X, Y)·Gz(z->Z). Assuming similar sepa-
rability of variables of power distribution,
Eq. ( 1) is rewritten as
Further, we simplified the model by assuming
that neutron source is concentrated at the
core surface. The model is shown in Fig. 3.
CORE SURFACE REACTOR VESSEL DETECTOR POSITION

D(X, Y, Z)dt=HGR(x, y-+X, Y)·PR(x, y)

·dxdy· ~Gz(z-+Z)·Pz(z)dzdl. ( 2)

According to Ref. (3), the first integration part ze

by dxdy is expressed simply as

))cR(x, y-+X, Y)·PR(x, y)·dxdy

M
l r • 0 r • re
= J=l
~ WrP1 , ( 3)
Fig. 3 Simplified reactor-detector model
where W 1 : Weighting factor for assembly j
P 1 : Relative power of assembly j. Considering a unit neutron source at the
Among these weighting factors W/s are axial position z of the core periphery, the
dominant for peripheral assemblies which see function G,(z-4Z)dl is written as
the detector directly and also similar in
quantity. Therefore, the right-hand side of
Eq. ( 3) can be approximately written as
where F 1 (z->Zm) : Neutron transport kernel
M _ N in reactor vessel
~ WrP1 ~W · 2::: P;=K (constant), ( 4) F2(Zm->Ze): Neutron transport kernel
j=l i=l
outside reactor vessel
where W is a representative value for periph- Zm: Axial position at surface
eral assemblies. The W is determined only by of reactor vessel.
the geometrical relation between a reactor and
According to Ref. (3), these kernels are ex-
the detector. And P; is relative power of
pressed as follows :
the peripheral assembly i facing the detector.
Then Eq. ( 1 ) can be written as exp(-~,S)
( 7)
s
D(X, Y, Z)dl=K· ~Gz(z-+Z)Pz(z)dzdl. ( 5)

The function Gz(z-+Z)dl can be evaluated in

the analogy of the method described in Ref. where :r,: Effective removal cross section
(3). In Ref. (3), the neutron transport is treated in reactor vessel.
in two-dimensional geometry. However, we
Same value as Ref. (1) is assumed
apply the concept to one-dimensional neutron
transport. In the calculation, the following S=v'r;.+(z-zm) 2 , ( 9)
treatment are used :
LIG=Angle for neutron seeing detector
(1) Neutron distribution at the outer sur-
face of the pressure vessel is calculated dl cos 0
(10)
by a simple point kernel. R
(2) Neutrons are isotropically scattered at
R=.../(re-rm) 2 +(zm-Ze)2 •
the surface.
Thus we get the following equation:
-21-
 296
G z(z --+Z)dl=!!l_\ exp(-l'rS). (r.-rm)d
21r J S R2 Zm.
(11)
The integration by dzm of Eq. (11) can be
evaluated numerically, subdividing the reactor
model into axial nodes, for example, 4, 8, 20
and 40 nodes. Then the term is expressed as
a square matrix of the element Eu which
indicates the response of a point detector at
(r., zk) due to a unit source at (o, z 1). We
will refer to this matrix as the response
matrix hereafter.
Then D(X, Y, Z)dl is calculated as a
product of the response matrix, the constant
K, a vectorized power distribution P(z)dz.
Assuming that the excore detector consists of
two long ion chambers whose lengths is equal
to the length of a half core, the current
outputs of the upper and lower ion chambers
are calculated by summing the detector re-
sponse of each node for various axial power
distributions.
These calculations show that the correla-
tions obtained by the model become independ-
ent of the number of axial nodes if the num-
ber is more than 20. The results obtained
based on power distributions for beginning of
life (BOL) and end of life (EOL) were compared
to the corresponding measured results from
actual reactors.
The correlations between AO and the cur-
rents were very close to those of actual
reactors. These results show that our method,
described above, is practically enough for the
analysis of actual reactor systems.
IV. APPLICATION TO ANALYSIS
OF ACTUAL REACTOR DATA
Before applying this model to actual reac-
tor data analysis, some considerations must
be given. First of all, the actual detector
alignment is not so simple as the model.
Also the following parameters vary with
burnup, all of which affect excore detector
response:
• Boron concentration in
primary loop
• Radial power distribution
-22-
]. Nucl. Sci. Techno/.,
• Characteristics of axial power
distribution
• Neutron energy spectrum and
detector sensitivity.
However they can be treated analytically as
described below.
(1) Actual detector alignment
The effect of the actual detector alignment
is taken into account in two steps.
First, the response matrix is evaluated
according to the actual geometrical alignment.
In other words, the values of rm and re are
selected equal to the actual distance and the
summation of subdivided detector nodes are
carried out for the actual detector length.
On the other hand, a series of axial diffu-
sion calculations simulating "the initial" incore
and excore calibration procedures are per-
formed, obtaining various axial power distri-
butions. Here "the initial calibration" means
the one carried out at the start up after
refueling. Using these power distributions
and the response matrix, the correlation be-
tween the detector currents and the AOs is
evaluated. Then the each correlation of the
currents and AOs is fitted as follows :
I=a·AO+b, (12)
where I: Detector current in arbitrary unit
a, b: Constants.
Secondly, the above correlation is normal-
ized to that measured at the initial calibration
in the following manner. The measured cor-
relation is given by Eq. (13),
Im=A·AO+B, (13)
where Im: Measured current
A, B : Constants evaluated based
on measurement.
Equating as Im=al+f', we obtain the normal-
izing factors a, f' as
A
a=- (14)
a ,
A
f'=B-b- (15)
a
The physical meaning of these factors can
be understood to include the effects of both
 Vol. 28, No. 4 (Apr. 1991) 297

actual structural materials and the sensitivity
of the detectors at the initial calibration.
The former can be independent of core burnup
but the latter is not. However the latter
effect can be corrected by taking into account
the variation of the sensitivity at each burnup
step.
(2) Boron concentration effect
The change in boron concentration in the
primary loop could affect the response matrix
through the change of 2:, for the neutron
kernel. However, a two-dimensional transport
calculation proved that the change in the
boron concentration has negligible effect on
the detector current. Thus, the response
matrix evaluated for BOL can be used.
(3) Radial power distribution change
Radial power distributions are taken into
account by multiplying the response matrix
by a factor C which is defined as
C=(A verage power of peripheral assemblies
facing to the detector at respective
burnup)/(Average power of the same
assemblies at startup).
Design values or measured values of the
assembly powers can be used to calculate the
value C. This is reasonable because of our
analytical model described in Chap. ill.
(4) Axial power distribution change
The characteristics of the axial power
distributions are evaluated based on a series
of one-dimensional calculations of different
AOs at the burnup step under consideration.
These power distributions are discretized and
multiplied by the response matrix to obtain
the correlation of AO and detector response.
Thus this correlation includes the effect of
the change in the axial power distribution
due to burn up. This correlation is then nor-
malized by procedure (1) using a and fi.
(5) Neutron energy spectrum
and detector sensitivity
The effects of neutron energy spectrum
and detector sensitivity which are dependent
on burnup are taken into account by normal-
ization of the detector response obtained by
the above procedures to the actual detector
reading at the measured AO of normal opera-
tion, these measurements being performed
periodically however only at one steady state.
The normalization is to find a correction
factor to adjust the calculated current to the
measured current corresponding to the meas-
ured AO. Using the procedures (l)rv(5) a
new correlation between AO and detector
response is obtained at any burnup step with
no Xe oscillation or power reduction.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As an example, results obtained by this
method are compared with measurements and
are listed in Table 1. The differences between
the AOs of incore measurements and those
predicted are about the same level of accuracy
as for the conventional method.

Table 1 Comparison of measured and predicted AO

Measured Predicted by this method (%)

(%) N4lt 1 N42t 1 N43t 1 N44t 1
-~ -·----- - - -----------
-4.08 -4.08t 4 -4. 08t• -4.08t4 -4. o8t•
-15.38 -15.23 -14.51 -15.84 -16.04
-13.26 -13.12 -12.54 -13.66 -13.76
-9.58 -9.36 -9.29 -9.51 -9.71
-7.18 -6.80 -6.91 -7.18 -7.25
-4.01 -3.95 -3.74 -3.99 -3.86
-0.46 -0.32 -0.35 -0.54 -0.26
3.27 3.26 2.48 3. 12 3.30
6.68 5. 78 5.45 6.48 6. 70
Errort2 0.02 0.06 -0.13 -0.11
uta 0.36 0.67 0.19 0.29
t 1 Channel 1-4, t• Average error; error=AOpred.- AOmeas.
t 3 Standard deviation of errors, t 4 Normalized at this AO

-23-
298
Although the cost saving for the replace-
ment energy, for example, fossil fuel is not
so large, such efforts to keep a high load
factor and operational safety are important
to both utilities and reactor designers. From
this point of view, this method can be used
as an improved procedure for incore-excore
recalibration.
V. CONCLUSION
A simplified analytical method is presented
that evaluates the correlation between incore
axial offset and excore detector currents which
is utilized to recalibrate nuclear instrumenta-
tion system. This method has an accuracy
-24-
]. Nucl. Sci. Techno{.,
which is similar to that obtained by the con-
ventional method. But the new method does
not require a perturbation in the normal
operation. Thus the present method could be
of practical use in PWR plants.
---REFERENCEs---
(!) BLAKE, R.: One Point Calibration Work Shop,
Nov., 1986.
(2) LACY, P. S., RAPP, ]. S., KAPITZ, ]. : Ex-core
to in-core flux map calibration, Proc. ANS 1989
Winter Mtg., p. 587 (1989).
(3) TocHIHARA, H., OcHIAI, E., HASEGAWA, T.:
Re-evaluation of spacial weighting factors for
excore neutron detectors, Nucl. Technol., 58,
310-317 (1982).