Abstract

With further applications of AI, IoT, and digital twin technology to plant operation and maintenance, it is becoming increasingly important to ensure data reliability. Data validation and reconciliation (DVR) represents one promising technique to ensure data reliability by minimizing the uncertainty of measurements based on statistics. DVR has been widely applied to nuclear power electrical generation plants in Europe and the U.S. in recent years. The most important input for DVR analysis is measurement uncertainty. In Japan, performance management of nuclear power plants is often done by measuring condensate flowrate. While the uncertainty of other flowmeters is handled by the JIS standard, the condensate flowmeter is specially calibrated every few cycles. This leads to reduction of effectiveness of DVR analysis due to variations in measurement uncertainty management. To overcome this issue, we propose an estimation method for measurement uncertainty by utilizing process data, an incidence matrix between sensors, and a reference instrument. The conventional method proposed in the previous study only treats the random error. The proposed method quantitatively estimates not only random error but also bias error by considering the uncertainty of the reference instrument. Using several benchmark problems, we found that the proposed method was applicable to various flow conditions, including physically fluctuating flow such as that observed in the feedwater flow in nuclear power plants. We anticipate that the proposed method will promote use of DVR analysis in nuclear power plants in Japan.

References

1.
Narasimhan
,
S.
, and
Jordache
,
C.
,
1999
,
Data Reconciliation and Gross Error Detection: An Intelligent Use of Process Data
,
Gulf Professional Publishing
,
Houston, TX
.
2.
Özyurt
,
D. B.
, and
Pike
,
R. W.
,
2004
, “
Theory and Practice of Simultaneous Data Reconciliation and Gross Error Detection for Chemical Processes
,”
Comput. Chem. Eng.
,
28
(
3
), pp.
381
402
.10.1016/j.compchemeng.2003.07.001
3.
Tamhane
,
A. C.
, and
Mah
,
R. S. H.
,
1985
, “
Data Reconciliation and Gross Error Detection in Chemical Process Networks
,”
Technometrics
,
27
(
4
), pp.
409
422
.10.1080/00401706.1985.10488080
4.
Crowe
,
C. M.
,
1996
, “
Data Reconciliation—Progress and Challenges
,”
J. Process Control
,
6
(
2–3
), pp.
89
98
.10.1016/0959-1524(96)00012-1
5.
Mah
,
R. S.
,
1990
,
Chemical Process Structures and Information Flows
,
Butterworth-Heinemann
,
Oxford, UK
.
6.
Madron
,
F.
,
1992
,
Process Plant Performance: Measurement and Data Processing for Optimization and Retrofits
,
Ellis Horwood
,
New York
.
7.
Veverka
,
V. V.
, and
Madron
,
F.
,
1997
,
Material and Energy Balancing in the Process Industries: From Microscopic Balances to Large Plants
,
Elsevier
,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
.
8.
Romagnoli
,
J. A.
, and
Sánchez
,
M. C.
,
2000
,
Data Processing and Reconciliation for Chemical Process Operations
,
Academic Press
,
Cambridge, MA
.
9.
Kim
,
I. W.
,
Kang
,
M. S.
,
Park
,
S.
, and
Edgar
,
T. F.
,
1997
, “
Robust Data Reconciliation and Gross Error Detection: The Modified MIMT Using NLP
,”
Comput. Chem. Eng.
,
21
(
7
), pp.
775
782
.10.1016/S0098-1354(96)00304-3
10.
Guo
,
S.
,
Liu
,
P.
, and
Li
,
Z.
,
2016
, “
Data Reconciliation for the Overall Thermal System of a Steam Turbine Power Plant
,”
Appl. Energy
,
165
, pp.
1037
1051
.10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.01.002
11.
Langenstein
,
M.
,
Jansky
,
J.
, and
Laipple
,
B.
,
2004
, “
Finding Megawatts in Nuclear Power Plants With Process Data Reconciliation
,”
ASME
Paper No. ICONE12-49152.10.1115/ICONE12-49152
12.
Quang
,
A. T. T.
,
Azola
,
E.
,
Closon
,
H.
, and
Chares
,
R.
,
2011
, “
Nuclear Power Plant Performance Monitoring Using Data Validation and Reconciliation—Application at the Brazilian Angra 2 PWR Plant
,” Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, ICONE19, Makuhari, Chiba, Japan, May 16–19, Paper No.
ICONE19-44012
.10.1299/jsmeicone.2011.19._ICONE1944_6
13.
Valdetaro
,
E. D.
, and
Schirru
,
R.
,
2009
, “
Particle Swarm Optimization Applied to Data Reconciliation in Nuclear Power Plant
,”
Proceedings of INAC2009
, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Sept. 27–Oct. 2, No. INIS-BR--7469.
14.
Valdetaro
,
E. D.
, and
Schirru
,
R.
,
2011
, “
Simultaneous Model Selection, Robust Data Reconciliation and Outlier Detection With Swarm Intelligence in a Thermal Reactor Power Calculation
,”
Ann. Nucl. Energy
,
38
(
9
), pp.
1820
1832
.10.1016/j.anucene.2011.06.001
15.
Jansky
,
A.
, and
Langenstein
,
M.
,
2022
, “
Nuclear Regulatory Acceptance of Certified Process Data Reconciliation
,” ASME
J. Nucl. Eng. Radiat. Sci.
,
8
(
2
), p.
022101
.10.1115/1.4051619
16.
Almasy
,
G. A.
, and
Mah
,
R. S. H.
,
1984
, “
Estimation of Measurement Error Variances From Process Data
,”
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev.
,
23
(
4
), pp.
779
784
.10.1021/i200027a026
17.
Keller
,
J. Y.
,
Zasadzinski
,
M.
, and
Darouach
,
M.
,
1992
, “
Analytical Estimator of Measurement Error Variances in Data Reconciliation
,”
Comput. Chem. Eng.
,
16
(
3
), pp.
185
188
.10.1016/0098-1354(92)85005-S
You do not currently have access to this content.