Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Margin Guidlines PDF

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly
available in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in

accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration
Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to
only copyright protection and does not require any license agreement
from EPRI. This notice supersedes the export control restrictions and
any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in the document
prior to publication.
Heat Exchanger Thermal

Performance Margin Guidelines
WARNING:
Please read the Export Control
Agreement on the back cover.
Technical Report
Heat Exchanger Thermal
Performance Margin Guidelines
1012129
Final Report, November 2005
EPRI Project Manager

T. Eckert
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA
800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
Power Generation Technologies, a Division of ESC
NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2005 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Power Generation Technologies, a Division of ESC

200 Tech Center Drive
Knoxville, TN 37912
Principal Investigator
L. Philpot
This report describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Margin Guidelines. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005.
1012129.
iii
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
This report provides utility engineers with guidance on how to identify the thermal performance
margin that is available in a given heat exchanger by comparing the thermal performance
requirement at design limiting conditions to the thermal performance capability of the heat
exchanger under those same conditions.
Results and Findings

Depending on the circumstances of the systems being served, as well as the factors and
assumptions used in specifying and designing the heat exchangers, any one or more of several
thermal performance margin enhancement or recovery techniques can be used to provide greater
margin as part of an overall thermal performance monitoring program.
Challenges and Objectives

The design basis of many heat exchangers served by service water systems was established
during the original design of the plant. During the many years of service water system operation,
modifications that were never anticipated in the original design have necessitated changes in the
system requirements. Many of these changes inevitably encroached on the existing margin
designed into the original heat exchanger, making the job of thermal performance monitoring all
the more difficult. To further complicate matters, the use of thermal performance testing as a
method of monitoring thermal performance or meeting commitments to the regulator typically
involve test uncertainties that are significant with respect to the available margin and require
more rigorous testing methods to ensure that the test uncertainty does not completely
overshadow the available margin.
This report will be of value to nuclear power plant engineering personnel who are responsible for
monitoring service water heat exchanger thermal performance. This report provides the technical
basis for determining the available thermal performance margin in any given heat exchanger as
well as methods for enhancing this margin in support of thermal performance monitoring
objectives.
Applications, Value, and Use

The main reason for developing this guideline is to address the unique thermal performance
margin challenges presented by safety-related heat exchangers cooled by the open-loop service
water system. This is due to the high degree of regulatory attention focused on the thermal
performance monitoring practices that are used to ensure that the safety-related functions remain
viable throughout the operating cycle of the component.
v
In spite of the “best fit” with safety-related heat exchangers cooled by service water, however,
most heat exchangers in both safety-related and non-safety-related applications will benefit from
the application of the margin improvements suggested in this report, regardless of the cooling
water source.
EPRI Perspective
Since the issuance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Generic Letter 89-13 (GL 89-13),
“Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment,” EPRI has assisted the
industry in finding solutions to address all facets of the GL’s recommended actions. This is
evidenced by the amount of resources EPRI has expended and the number of technical reports
EPRI has issued on the subject of service water. This report is unique to the degree that it steps
away from GL 89-13 and deals with the larger problem of thermal performance margin in heat
exchangers throughout the plant. Caused by both regulatory and financial pressures, a great deal
of attention is focused on the thermal performance monitoring of heat exchangers at nuclear
power plant sites. Recognizing the unique challenges facing engineers tasked with developing
and implementing effective thermal performance monitoring programs for safety-related heat
exchangers, EPRI’s Heat Exchanger Performance User Group (HXPUG) embarked on this study
to highlight the principal issues and the best practices for identifying thermal performance
margin and making the best of it in day-to-day operations.
Approach
The EPRI HXPUG provided the foresight and funding for this project. HXPUG recognized that
industry knowledge on heat exchanger margin that has been gained from GL 89-13 issues over
the years could be consolidated. Several case studies are presented that offer examples of the
successful application of various margin enhancement techniques presented.
Keywords
Heat exchangers
Design margin
Thermal performance margin
Equipment reliability
Testing
Service water systems
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
EPRI acknowledges the following individuals as significant contributors in the Plant Support
Engineering’s Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Margin Guidelines Task Group. All of
them made significant contributions to the development of this guideline by attending a majority
of the task group meetings and reviewing various drafts, and several individuals wrote portions
of the report.
Ed Hosterman, Utility Chair Exelon Corporation

John Albert Bartholomew Energy Northwest
Kevin J. Burke Detroit Edison Co.
Micki Da Re Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Ashok Dave Arizona Public Service Co.
Brent Dunn Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.
John Hughey Arizona Public Service Co.
Iver J. Jacobson Entergy Operations, Inc.
Gregg Larson Exelon Corporation
David Lin Entergy Nuclear, Inc.
Gregory Lupia CSI Technologies, Inc.
John T. McDonald Joseph Oat Corp.
Jim A. Melchionna Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
Lloyd Philpot ESC
Barry W. Quigley Exelon Corporation
Terry Quinn CTI Industries, Inc.
Scott C. Weakland FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Corp.
Daniel Weyer Nebraska Public Power District
Gregory C. Wilson Southern Nuclear Operating Co.
vii
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Scope of Applicability ......................................................................................................1-2
1.3 Precautions and Limitations ............................................................................................1-3
1.4 Engineering Units ............................................................................................................1-3
2 DEFINING THERMAL PERFORMANCE MARGIN................................................................2-1

2.1 Performance Margin Versus Design Margin ...................................................................2-5
2.2 Heat Exchanger Design Overview ..................................................................................2-5
2.2.1 Process-Side System Design ..................................................................................2-6
2.2.2 Cooling-Side System Design...................................................................................2-6
2.2.2.1 Supply Temperature Requirements .................................................................2-6
2.2.2.2 Return Temperature Requirements .................................................................2-7
2.2.2.3 Flow Requirements ..........................................................................................2-7
2.2.2.4 Differential Pressure Considerations ...............................................................2-7
2.2.3 Component Design Constraints...............................................................................2-8
2.2.3.1 Thermal Performance Analysis Overview........................................................2-8
2.2.3.2 Shell-Side Design Considerations .................................................................2-11
2.2.3.3 Tube-Side Design Considerations .................................................................2-12
2.3 Component Design Margin............................................................................................2-15
2.4 Design Limiting Conditions............................................................................................2-15
2.5 Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Margin.............................................................2-16
3 IMPROVING THERMAL PERFORMANCE MARGIN ............................................................3-1

3.1 Margin Improvement Through Changes in Limiting Conditions ......................................3-1
3.1.1 Adjusting Limiting Condition Tube Plugging Allowance...........................................3-2
3.1.2 Adjusting Limiting Condition Cooling Water Flow Rate ...........................................3-4
3.1.3 Adjusting Limiting Condition Process-Side Flow Rate.............................................3-5
ix
3.1.4 Adjusting Limiting Condition Process-Side Temperature ........................................3-6
3.1.5 Adjusting Limiting Condition Cooling-Side Temperature .........................................3-8
3.1.6 Adjusting Design Fouling Resistance ......................................................................3-9
3.2 Margin Improvement Through Reduction in Performance Requirements .....................3-10
4 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS RELATED TO CHANGING LIMITING CONDITIONS ............4-1

4.1 Emergency Diesel Generator Jacket Water Heat Exchanger Tube Plugging
Margin Analysis .....................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Method.....................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.3 Evaluation................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.3.1 Heat Exchanger Design Details .......................................................................4-1
4.1.3.2 Other Inputs and Assumptions.........................................................................4-3
4.1.3.3 Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................4-4
4.1.3.4 Relevant Design Limits ....................................................................................4-4
4.1.3.5 Tube Plugging Calculation ...............................................................................4-5
4.1.4 Conclusion...............................................................................................................4-7
4.2 Room Cooler Performance Enhancement ......................................................................4-7
4.2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................4-7
4.2.2 Method.....................................................................................................................4-7
4.2.3 Evaluation................................................................................................................4-7
4.2.4 Conclusion...............................................................................................................4-9
4.3 Margin Improvement with Reevaluation of Design Limiting Conditions ..........................4-9
4.3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................4-9
4.3.2 Method.....................................................................................................................4-9
4.3.3 Evaluation..............................................................................................................4-10
4.3.3.1 Identification of Available Heat Exchanger Margin ........................................4-10
4.3.3.2 Revision of Design Basis Analysis.................................................................4-11
4.3.3.3 Operability Determination ..............................................................................4-12
4.3.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................4-12
4.4 Margin Improvement with Flow Correction to Inlet Conditions ......................................4-12
4.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................4-12
4.4.2 Method...................................................................................................................4-13
4.4.3 Evaluation..............................................................................................................4-13
4.4.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................4-17
x
4.5 Improving Flow Margin with Credit for Low Thermal Fouling ........................................4-17
4.5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................4-17
4.5.2 Method...................................................................................................................4-18
4.5.3 Evaluation..............................................................................................................4-18
4.5.3.1 Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................4-18
4.5.3.2 Required Service water Flow for Projected Level of Thermal Fouling ...........4-20
4.5.3.3 Maximum Heat Exchanger Differential Pressure ...........................................4-20
4.5.3.4 Validate Sufficient Flow for Limiting Loss-of-Offsite-Power Case..................4-21
4.5.3.5 Establishing Revised Biofouling Limits ..........................................................4-22
4.5.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................4-22
4.6 Emergency Diesel Generator Margin Improvement with Adjustment of Cooling
Water Temperature .............................................................................................................4-23
4.6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................4-23
4.6.2 Method...................................................................................................................4-23
4.6.3 Evaluation..............................................................................................................4-23
4.6.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................4-26
4.7 Emergency Diesel Generator Margin Improvement with Adjustment of Fouling
Resistance ..........................................................................................................................4-28
4.7.1 Introduction............................................................................................................4-28
4.7.2 Method...................................................................................................................4-28
4.7.3 Evaluation..............................................................................................................4-28
4.7.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................4-30
5 EXAMPLES RELATED TO REDUCTIONS IN PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS............5-1

5.1 Effect of Room Temperature on Room Cooler Heat Load ..............................................5-1
5.1.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 Method.....................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.3 Evaluation................................................................................................................5-2
5.1.3.1 Uninsulated Piping ...........................................................................................5-2
5.1.3.2 Insulated Plates and Piping .............................................................................5-3
5.1.4 Conclusion...............................................................................................................5-4
5.2 Reduction of Heat Loads by Evaluation of Conservatisms in the Original Design ..........5-7
5.2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................5-7
5.2.2 Method.....................................................................................................................5-7
5.2.3 Evaluation................................................................................................................5-7
5.2.3.1 Reducing the Required Heat Removal Rate....................................................5-7
xi
5.2.3.2 Electrical Heat Loads .......................................................................................5-8
5.2.3.3 Piping Heat Loads .........................................................................................5-10
5.2.3.4 Ventilation Heat Loads...................................................................................5-15
5.2.3.5 Transmission Loads from Other Compartments ............................................5-16
5.2.3.6 Results of Reanalysis ....................................................................................5-19
5.2.3.7 Revision of Maximum Room Temperature ....................................................5-19
5.2.3.8 Piping Heat Load Reductions at 140°F..........................................................5-19
5.2.3.9 Ventilation Heat Load Reductions at 140°F ...................................................5-21
5.2.3.10 Transmission Heat Load Reductions at 140°F ............................................5-22
5.2.3.11 Summary of Heat Load Changes at 140°F ..................................................5-22
5.2.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................5-23
5.3 Margin Derived with Reduction in Required Heat Load ................................................5-23
5.3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................5-23
5.3.2 Method...................................................................................................................5-23
5.3.3 Evaluation..............................................................................................................5-23
5.3.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................5-24
5.4 Margin Improvement by Demonstrating Actual Heat Load Less Than Limiting
Condition Heat Load ...........................................................................................................5-25
5.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................5-25
5.4.2 Method...................................................................................................................5-25
5.4.3 Evaluation..............................................................................................................5-26
5.4.3.1 Calculation of the Test Heat Load..................................................................5-26
5.4.3.2 Calculation of the Uncertainty in the Test Heat Load.....................................5-27
5.4.3.3 Maximum Demonstrated Heat Load ..............................................................5-30
5.4.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................5-30
6 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................6-1
A CONVERSIONS FROM ENGLISH UNITS TO THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF

UNITS (SI) ................................................................................................................................ A-1
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Margin Model for Typical Set-Point Basis.................................................................2-2

Figure 2-2 Heat Exchanger Margin Illustration ..........................................................................2-4
Figure 3-1 Performance as a Function of the Tube Plugging Allowance ...................................3-3
Figure 3-2 Performance as a Function of Cooling Water Flow Rate .........................................3-5
Figure 3-3 Performance as a Function of Process-Side Flow Rate ...........................................3-6
Figure 3-4 Performance as a Function of Process-Side Inlet Temperature...............................3-7
Figure 3-5 Performance as a Function of Cooling-Side Temperature .......................................3-9
Figure 3-6 Performance as a Function of Fouling Resistance.................................................3-10
Figure 3-7 The Effect of Embedded Margin on Overall Thermal Performance Margin............3-12
Figure 4-1 Typical Fan Cooling Unit Showing Fan on the Cooler Outlet .................................4-13
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Terms, Definitions, and Examples from Figure 2-1 ...................................................2-3
Table 3-1 Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger Analysis Model .........................................3-2
Table 4-1 Emergency Diesel Generator Jacket Water Heat Exchanger Design Details............4-2
Table 4-2 Summary of Analysis Results ....................................................................................4-6
Table 4-3 Original Versus Revised Analysis Inputs .................................................................4-11
Table 4-4 Results of Revised Analysis ....................................................................................4-12
Table 4-5 Summary of Results ................................................................................................4-21
Table 4-6 Summary of Results for Loss-of-Offsite-Power Case ..............................................4-21
Table 4-7 Design Inputs for Diesel Heat Exchangers ..............................................................4-24
Table 4-8 Diesel Heat Exchangers Thermal Margin Analysis..................................................4-27
Table 4-9 Reduced Fouling Yielding Increased Heat Transfer at Constant Flow ....................4-29
Table 4-10 Reduced Fouling Yielding Reduced Flow with Constant Heat Transfer Rate .......4-29
Table 5-1 Piping Heat Load Comparison at Two Room Temperatures .....................................5-5
Table 5-2 Original Residual Heat Removal Pump Motor Heat Load .........................................5-8
Table 5-3 Revised Residual Heat Removal Pump Motor Heat Load.........................................5-8
Table 5-4 Original Unit Cooler Fan Motor Heat Load ................................................................5-9
Table 5-5 Revised Lighting Heat Load.....................................................................................5-10
Table 5-6 Original Design Versus Revised Design Electrical Heat Loads ...............................5-10
Table 5-7 Residual Heat Removal Room Original Loss-of-Coolant-Accident Analysis ...........5-12
Table 5-8 Residual Heat Removal Room Revised Loss-of-Coolant-Accident Analysis...........5-14
Table 5-9 Transmission Loads in Original Analysis .................................................................5-16
Table 5-10 Convection Film Coefficients .................................................................................5-17
Table 5-11 Transmission Loads in Revised Analysis ..............................................................5-18
Table 5-12 Results of Reanalysis ............................................................................................5-19
Table 5-13 Piping Loads for Room Temperature of 140°F ......................................................5-20
Table 5-14 Transmission Loads for Residual Heat Removal Room Temperature of 140°F ....5-22
Table 5-15 Summary of Heat Load Changes at 140°F............................................................5-22
Table 5-16 Emergency Diesel Generator Postaccident Loading .............................................5-24
Table 5-17 Test Data Summary for Heat Load Calculation .....................................................5-26
Table 5-18 Test Data Summary for Jacket Water Heat Load Calculation ...............................5-27
Table 5-19 Test Parameter Average Values and Uncertainties...............................................5-28
Table A-1 Conversion Factors for Heat Transfer Terms .......................................................... A-1
xv
1
INTRODUCTION
The understanding of the thermal performance margin of a heat exchanger is a critical element of
any successful thermal performance monitoring program for that heat exchanger. The quantity of
the thermal performance margin is usually inversely related to the cost of thermal performance
monitoring and maintenance. Therefore, recovery of thermal performance margin results in
reduced costs.
This report provides utility engineers with guidance on how to identify the thermal performance
margin that is available in a given heat exchanger by comparing the thermal performance
requirement at design limiting conditions to the thermal performance capability of the heat
exchanger under those same conditions. Depending on the circumstances of the systems being
served, as well as the factors and assumptions used in specifying and designing the heat
exchangers, any one or more of several thermal performance margin enhancement or recovery
techniques can be used to provide greater margin as part of an overall thermal performance
monitoring program.
1.1 Background
The design basis of many heat exchangers served by service water systems was established
during the original design of the plant. During the many years of service water system operation,
modifications that were never anticipated in the original design have necessitated changes in the
system requirements. Many of these changes inevitably encroached on the existing margin
designed into the original heat exchanger, making the job of thermal performance monitoring all
the more difficult. To further complicate matters, the use of thermal performance testing as a
method for monitoring thermal performance [1–4] or for meeting commitments to the regulator
typically involve test uncertainties that are significant with respect to the available margin and
require more rigorous testing methods to ensure that the test uncertainty does not completely
overshadow the available margin.
As utilities recognize the value of proactive thermal performance monitoring of heat exchangers
as a means of ensuring long-term safe and reliable operation of the systems served by the heat
exchanger, a new assessment of heat exchanger thermal performance margin is appropriate. A
careful examination of the design basis of the heat exchanger itself as well as the cooling and
process sides of the heat exchanger, including a review of the as-constructed heat loads, is
absolutely essential as a starting point for identifying thermal performance margin and evaluating
options for its enhancement. The efforts required to document the basis for thermal performance
margin definition and enhancement will usually provide dividends toward the success of the
1-1
Introduction
overall thermal performance monitoring program, regardless of the magnitude of margin

enhancement or recovery, because it will serve to solidify the plant’s understanding of the
performance requirements of the affected heat exchangers.
1.2 Scope of Applicability
The main reason for developing this guideline is to address the unique thermal performance
margin challenges presented by safety-related heat exchangers cooled by the open-loop service
water system. This is due to the high degree of regulatory attention focused on the thermal
performance monitoring practices that are used to ensure that the safety-related functions remain
viable throughout the operating cycle of the component [5–9]. Safety-related heat exchangers
also offer the best opportunities for margin improvement, as will be illustrated, because they
typically have a wide range of conditions for which they are designed to operate. The conditions
of most significance with respect to thermal performance monitoring are typically of a
hypothetical worst-case nature and merit adjustment when actual conditions differ from the
conditions on which the design was based. Also, heat exchangers cooled by open-loop service
water systems are typically forced into more frequent cleaning intervals because of the fouling
effect of the cooling water. Typical examples of nuclear plant heat exchangers cooled by
safety-related service water systems include (but are not limited to) the following:
• Component cooling water (CCW) heat exchangers
• Containment spray (CS) heat exchangers
• Residual heat removal (RHR) heat exchangers
• Decay heat removal heat exchangers
• Containment coolers
• Emergency diesel generator (EDG) heat exchangers
• Room coolers
• Pump and pump motor oil coolers
• Control room chiller condensers
Despite the “best fit” with safety-related heat exchangers cooled by service water, most heat
exchangers in both safety-related and non-safety-related applications will benefit from the
application of the margin improvements suggested in this report, regardless of the cooling water
source. However, the thermal margin improvement methods suggested in this guideline generally
do not apply to power-cycle heat exchangers—such as condensers and feedwater heaters—
because the operating conditions of power-cycle heat exchangers are essentially the same as their
design conditions. Conversely, the operating conditions of heat exchangers that are cooled by
service water differ significantly from their design conditions.
1-2
Introduction
1.3 Precautions and Limitations
When reevaluating the design performance requirements of any component or the conditions
under which they must be met, extreme care should be given to the process by which the original
design constraints are identified and evaluated. Properly implemented, this process ensures that
no original design requirement that remains valid for the component is invalidated or exceeded.
In this regard, changing the conditions under which a heat exchanger will operate must be done
with caution and should not take the component outside its original design basis. The margin
improvement recommendations described in this report do not generally involve changes to
operating conditions that take the component outside the original vendor’s mechanical design
limits. Instead, when expected operating conditions exceed the safety-related (post-accident)
requirements, the expected conditions are credited but remain within the design basis limits of
the component. The resulting recommendations offer margin that can contribute to the
component’s overall thermal performance margin.
Many of the thermal performance margin enhancement recommendations are likely to involve
some modification to the component’s licensing basis. Care should be taken to ensure that the
process of reevaluating the component’s performance requirement and conditions take into
account all of the licensing basis change processes. Such changes can be temporary, as well. For
example, a plant might find that a margin enhancement initiative is a viable means of providing a
solid basis for a justification for continued operation (JCO) to address a temporary loss in
capability under normal design basis conditions.
Care should be taken not to recover all margin from any given heat exchanger because it is the
expectation of regulators that some margin remains available in safety-related heat exchangers to
maintain an appropriate level of conservatism. Generic Letter 91-18 [10] specifically states that
“…SSCs … are designed and operated, as described in the current licensing basis (CLB), to
include design margins and engineering margins of safety to ensure, among other things, that
some loss of quality does not mean immediate failure.”
Finally, a heat exchanger is an integral part of two intersecting systems. Accordingly, any
changes to the way the heat exchanger’s performance requirements and conditions are to be
characterized or accounted for should take the individual system design requirements into
account as well.
1.4 Engineering Units
The quantitative evaluations presented in the body of this report use the English system of units
throughout. Appendix A presents the factors that can be used to convert the English units found
in the text to the equivalent units used in the International System of Units, also known as
SI units.
1-3
2
DEFINING THERMAL PERFORMANCE MARGIN
The main focus of this report is the thermal performance margin that exists in any given heat
exchanger. There are many possible definitions for margin, and they all depend on a comparison
between two points related to thermal performance.
A pump room cooler, for example, can be designed to remove the heat load necessary to
maintain the pump room at a temperature of 140°F (assuming a specified heat load, cooling
water flow and temperature, fouling factor, and air flow). Specification of a design temperature
ensures that all subcomponents installed in the pump room will be able to withstand a
temperature of 140°F. However, the components installed in the pump room will not necessarily
fail at 140°F because these components can be environmentally qualified to substantially higher
temperatures. So, one definition of thermal performance margin could be expressed as the
difference between the two points consisting of design temperature and environmental
qualification temperature. Additional margin is added to the component by the conditions under
which it operates. Continuing with the room cooler example, if the actual cooling water
temperature is lower than the value assumed in the design, then there is even more temperature
margin inherent in the design and operation of the heat exchanger. The latter case compares the
operating point to the design point.
The case for determining actual thermal performance margin is a little more complex than the
example given, due to the nature of heat exchanger design and the many considerations that
factor into heat exchanger sizing and selection. The problem is that a heat exchanger is nothing
more than a conduit through which thermal energy flows. Because the flow of thermal energy
depends on the conditions under which it is flowing (that is, the temperatures and mass flow
rates on either side of the conduit), it is sometimes difficult to understand why certain conditions
are more difficult to achieve than others. For example, a given heat exchanger can exhibit a heat
rate in the millions of Btu/hr under one operating condition but be incapable of removing a small
fraction of that heat rate under a different set of conditions. (Lower flow rates or lower
temperature differences between the two flow streams reduce the heat removal capacity of the
component.) This makes the determination of thermal performance margin in a heat exchanger
and its distinction from the original design margins all the more challenging.
Figure 2-1 illustrates the typical margin model used for defining margin in terms related to
nuclear power plant operations. These terms and their definitions are oriented to the operator’s
view of a specific parameter, the set point within which that parameter must be maintained, and
how that set point relates to the design of the system or component. Definitions and examples of
terms that appear in Figure 2-1 are provided in Table 2-1.
2-1
Defining Thermal Performance Margin
Figure 2-1
Margin Model for Typical Set-Point Basis
2-2
Table 2-1
Terms, Definitions, and Examples from Figure 2-1
Term Definition Examples
Operating The difference between an The difference between the normal steam generator
margin operating condition, including level swings and the trip set points
normally occurring transients, and
the trip set points or limiting The difference between a measured primary system
conditions leakage and a technical specification (tech spec)
limit
The difference between the number of operable
components of a safety system and tech spec
limiting conditions
The difference between actual 4-kV bus voltage and
undervoltage protective relay setting
Design The difference between established The difference between a tech spec set point
margin operating limits and the analytical allowable value and an analytical limit
limits
The difference between safety valve set points and
ASME III reactor coolant system limits
Analytical The difference between an The difference between ANSI pipe class pressure
margin analytical limit and a physical failure rating and actual burst pressure
point
The difference between NEC cable ampacity rating
Normally determined by applicable and actual failure point
codes and standards (ASME, ANSI,
IEEE, and NEC)
Not necessarily a quantifiable value
in some cases and unlikely to be
available for “recapture”
When considering the margin-related terms presented in Figure 2-1, one must recognize the
existence of uncertainties because they reduce the available margin. The effect can be on either
the design margin or the operating margin. Historically, the definition of uncertainties and the
method by which they are assigned to either design or operating margin has been inconsistent in
the nuclear industry. Although treatment of uncertainty as it relates to assessments of heat
exchanger thermal performance is a complicated exercise, it has been thoroughly described [1].
Heat exchanger thermal performance is often described in terms of margin. Some understanding
of margin, including specific meanings unique to the nuclear industry, is necessary to quantify
heat exchanger performance. Margin is usually expressed as the difference between the
capability of the heat exchanger and the required capability. It is helpful to think of margin as the
“distance” between specific conditions along the continuum between the heat exchanger’s
designed capability and the minimum capability below which the heat exchanger is no longer
functional. All of these comparisons, however, are most useful only when the thermal
performance is assessed at the same set of conditions (that is, inlet temperatures and flow rates).
Figure 2-2 illustrates an example of heat exchanger thermal performance margin as it relates to
projected heat transfer capability as a function of fouling resistance accumulations.
2-3
Figure 2-2
Heat Exchanger Margin Illustration
2-4
2.1 Performance Margin Versus Design Margin
For the purpose of this guideline, heat exchanger thermal performance margin is defined as the
difference between the thermal performance that a heat exchanger is required to achieve at
design limiting conditions and the thermal performance that the heat exchanger is capable of
achieving under those same conditions. This is different from the design margin that a heat
exchanger vendor might have included in the design of the heat exchanger because the vendor
was usually focused on demonstrating compliance with one or more sets of operating conditions
while keeping the mechanical integrity of the component within specifications.
Although the vendor data sheet might have represented an original statement of the heat
exchanger’s required performance, it is well known that the actual performance requirement of
any given safety-related heat exchanger is subject to change as power plants continue to refine
and optimize the system design and licensing basis to deal with emergent issues. These issues
often require them to evaluate original design considerations versus as-found conditions,
substituting excess margin in one area (component) of the system to bolster a margin shortfall in
another area (component). This condition is further complicated by the fact that many heat
exchangers perform a multitude of design functions, ranging from non-safety-related to
safety-related, that encompass a wide range of temperatures and flow rates on both sides.
The performance margin of interest with respect to this report is the safety-related performance
margin because that is the margin that plays most heavily into thermal performance monitoring
used to meet regulatory commitments and it is often the most difficult to define, particularly for
those heat exchangers that have many functions with varying sets of conditions.
Before delving into the process of defining and enhancing the heat exchanger’s thermal
performance margin, it is worthwhile to review some of the key design basis or licensing basis
issues associated with heat exchanger design and operation. This will ensure that any attempt to
change the way the heat exchanger is operated remains well within all applicable constraints. It
cannot be stressed enough that efforts to enhance the thermal performance margin of a given heat
exchanger must be conducted in a manner that ensures the heat exchanger continues to be
operated within all constraints of the original design basis requirements. If it is found that any of
these constraints need to be changed, the associated impact should be thoroughly evaluated,
preferably by the original equipment vendor. It is also likely that thermal performance margin
enhancement will encroach on system or component licensing basis so that any changes to this
basis will have to be completed in accordance with site processes governing control of the
licensing basis.
2.2 Heat Exchanger Design Overview
For purposes of illustration, the explanation of component design considerations is presented

from the perspective of a heat exchanger that removes heat from a closed-loop system (such as a
CCW system) and transfers the heat to an open-loop service water system. These concepts will
have general applicability among most other heat exchanger applications as well.
2-5
2.2.1 Process-Side System Design
The design of a heat exchanger typically begins with the process-side (or hot-side) system
design. Closed-loop cooling system design typically results in the establishment of a specific
number of heat sources (components generating heat) that need cooling. Next is a specific
quantity of closed-loop cooling flow to ensure an adequate distribution of the cooling water to
each component being served. Each component needs to receive adequate flow to meet
individual vendor requirements for adequate heat removal and to ensure acceptable outlet
temperatures downstream of each component. The temperature of the cooling water that is
delivered to each component is a critical input into the process because it relates to the amount of
cooling water that is needed for each component. This establishes the heat exchanger outlet
temperature, which becomes the supply header temperature. Totaling all of the heat loads in the
system along with the total system flow rate that will pass through the heat exchanger provides
the designer with an estimate of the cooling water return header temperature using a mass and
energy balance. This provides the heat exchanger process-side inlet temperature. The thermal
specification of the process-side of the heat exchanger is complete with an outlet temperature, a
flow rate, and a required heat load at that temperature and flow rate. Multiple system functions
and associated alignments that significantly change either of these inputs typically end up as
different modes of heat exchanger operation represented by their own thermal analysis (vendor
data sheet). Maximum process-side temperatures and pressures factor into the heat exchanger’s
design pressure and temperature from a mechanical design perspective.
Other system design considerations include issues such as temperature control, use of multiple
components performing the same function (that is, two 50% capacity heat exchangers in
parallel), or redundancy in components (that is, two 100% capacity heat exchangers in parallel).
Hydraulic design of the system takes into account pressure loss across the heat exchanger(s)
as well.
2.2.2 Cooling-Side System Design
When the total process-side parameters for the heat exchanger are known, the cooling water
side of the heat exchanger can be specified. Several thermal and hydraulic design considerations
are involved.
2.2.2.1 Supply Temperature Requirements
Cooling water supply temperature is one of the most significant thermal properties for heat
exchanger design in that it drives the thermal capacity of the heat exchanger based on the
terminal temperature difference created with respect to the process-side temperature. The cooling
water inlet temperature is intimately tied to the design and licensing basis of the plant by the
temperature ranges of the ultimate heat sink. Depending on the type of ultimate heat sink (such
as a lake, river, ocean, or pond), the cooling water temperature has a range of values that can be
driven by the seasons of the year as well as the time of day. The maximum expected temperature
of the ultimate heat sink serves as the design and licensing basis for the plant and typically
2-6
becomes the design value for the heat exchanger cooling water inlet temperature. The fact that
there can be such wide swings in inlet temperature can create the need for a means of flow
control to regulate the cooling capacity of the heat exchanger consistent with the process-side
temperature requirements.
2.2.2.2 Return Temperature Requirements
For a given heat load, the range of outlet temperatures can be estimated based on the range of
inlet temperatures and possible flow rates. The maximum allowable outlet temperature includes
such considerations as the prevention of two-phase flow (that is, boiling water) and discharge
piping mechanical design considerations (for example, thermal expansion, design pressure, and
design temperature). Outlet temperature can be regulated to some degree by the selected range of
cooling water flow rates as described in the following sections.
2.2.2.3 Flow Requirements
Flow requirements are driven by the cooling water maximum possible inlet temperature, the
constraints on the cooling water discharge temperature as described previously, and the required
heat removal rate. From a hydraulic perspective, the system designer must balance the
distribution of cooling water flow to all components served and must account for the specified
minimum flow rate with variations in the driving head of the cooling water pumps. Issues to
consider are worst-case hydraulic alignments of the system (including undesirable bypass flows),
pump degradation, variations in ultimate heat sink level, and the pressure loss across the heat
exchanger itself. The system designer typically balances the size (and therefore the cost) of
pumps and motors with system hydraulic demands to select the smallest pump or motor to get
the job done. The advent of more sophisticated computer modeling capabilities that allow for
more complex system thermal hydraulic analyses has identified system flow under the wide
variety of normal and postaccident scenarios as being one of the most challenging parameters to
maintain. System hydraulics are further complicated by maintenance and inspection issues such
as silting and macrofouling to become near-constant problems.
2.2.2.4 Differential Pressure Considerations
System design and licensing basis frequently include a requirement to keep the cooling water
side of the heat exchanger at a higher pressure than that of the process side. Such requirements
ensure that any leakage from one system to the other will be from the cooling water side to the
process side of the heat exchanger. This is of particular importance when the process side has the
potential to become radioactively contaminated and the cooling system must not allow a
discharge path to the environment. A minimum differential pressure (∆p) requirement
complicates the flow control and ultimately limits the range of possible flow rates and must be
accounted for in the hydraulic analysis of the cooling water system.
2-7
Although it is not a specified ∆p limit, tube plugging margin is a frequent design consideration in
the specification of the heat exchanger. The addition of tube plugs to a heat exchanger increases
the hydraulic resistance of the heat exchanger, causing a higher ∆p for a given flow rate. The
hydraulic effects of tube plugs should be taken into account in the cooling system hydraulic
analyses.
2.2.3 Component Design Constraints
Given the specified pressure and temperature of the cooling water and process sides of the heat
exchanger, the flow rates, inlet temperatures, and required heat transfer rate, the heat exchanger
vendor sets out to design a component that meets all customer thermal specifications as well as
applicable code requirements. Several design considerations are involved in the process of
creating a heat exchanger that meets the required performance. Although they are described
separately in the sections that follow, they are typically considered together and, at times, in an
iterative process to match the best design characteristics with the performance specifications.
In some cases, the heat exchanger “design” process can be little more than the vendor selecting a
standard design that meets the requirements without requiring a detailed design. This tends to be
true most frequently with the smaller heat exchangers (for example, lube oil coolers or seal
coolers). The Tubular Heat Exchanger Manufacturers Association (TEMA) data sheet
performance represents the guaranteed minimum performance. The actual performance might
exceed this minimum.
The following explanation of heat exchanger design is intended to provide a general overview of
design considerations and not to serve as a guide for heat exchanger design. For greater detail on
heat exchanger design, consult Standards of the Tubular Heat Exchanger Manufacturers
Association and Heat Exchanger Design Handbook [11, 12]. Analysis of heat exchanger design
from a thermal performance perspective is addressed in the EPRI report Service Water Heat
Exchanger Testing Guidelines (TR-107397) and in Heat Transfer—Professional Version [1, 13]
as well as other heat transfer textbooks.
2.2.3.1 Thermal Performance Analysis Overview
Pertinent equations for understanding the effects of the various design considerations are
presented in this subsection. The basic heat transfer analysis is described by eight equations,
Equations 2-1 through 2-8, which were previously published in EPRI report TR-107397 [1].
However, detailed analysis of specific geometries and the actual heat transfer film coefficients
over a wide variety of flow regimes requires additional equations that are not included here but
can be found in EPRI report TR-107397 and in Heat Transfer—Professional Version [1, 13].
2-8
The equations describing the rate of heat transfer from the hot-side fluid and the rate of heat
transfer to the cold-side fluid are as follows:
& h c p, h (Th,i − Th, o )

Qh = m Eq. 2-1
& cc p ,c (Tc ,o − Tc ,i )
Qc = m Eq. 2-2
where:
Qh and Qc = the hot- and cold-side fluid heat transfer rates (Btu/hr)
m& h and m
&c = the hot- and cold-side fluid mass flow rates (lbm/hr)
cp,h and cp,c = the hot- and cold-side fluid constant pressure specific heats (Btu/lbm-°F)
Th,i and Tc,i = the hot- and cold-side fluid inlet temperatures (°F)
Th,o and Tc,o = the hot- and cold-side fluid outlet temperatures (°F)
By introducing the concept of an overall heat transfer coefficient, the heat transfer rate between
the hot- and cold-side fluids is:
Q = U ⋅ A ⋅ EMTD Eq. 2-3
where:
Q = the heat transfer rate (Btu/hr)

U = the overall heat transfer coefficient for the heat exchanger (Btu/hr-°F-ft2)
A = the reference heat transfer surface area associated with the overall heat transfer
coefficient (ft2)
EMTD = the effective mean temperature difference (°F)
The overall heat transfer coefficient associated with the heat exchanger can be evaluated in terms
of the component heat transfer coefficients or resistances as:
1 A A A A A
= + R f ,h + Rw + R f ,c + Eq. 2-4
U A h ηh h h ηh A h Aw ηc A c A c ηc h c
where:
Ah and Ac = the surface areas associated with hot- and cold-side heat transfer
coefficients (ft2)
Aw = the surface area associated with the wall resistance (ft2)
hh and hc = the hot- and cold-side film heat transfer coefficients (Btu/hr-°F-ft2)
ηh and ηc = the hot- and cold-side surface efficiencies (dimensionless)
Rf,h and Rf,c = the hot-side and cold-side fouling resistances (hr-°F-ft2/Btu)
Rw = the conductive heat transfer resistance of the wall separating the
hot and cold fluids (hr-°F-ft2/Btu)
2-9
The effective mean temperature difference term is used in the basic heat transfer relationships
defined in the EPRI report Service Water Heat Exchanger Testing Guidelines (TR-107397) [1].
For simple heat exchangers consisting of two fluids in pure counter flow, the effective mean
temperature difference is defined as the logarithmic average:
∆T1 −∆T2
LMTD = Eq. 2-5
∆T
ln 1
∆T2
where:
∆T1 = Th ,i − Tc,o
Eq. 2-6
∆T2 = Th ,o − Tc,i
Because the flow rate in most heat exchangers more closely approximates cross flow than
counter flow, it is usually necessary to use a correction factor, F, to correct the log mean
temperature difference (LMTD):
EMTD = F ⋅ LMTD Eq. 2-7
The thermal performance analysis of any given heat exchanger starts with Equations 2-1 through
2-3. The analysis process is based on the conservation of energy where, at steady state operating
conditions, the heat transfer rate from the hot side is equal to the heat transfer rate to the cold
side so that all three equations can be equated:
Q h = Qc = Q Eq. 2-8
Frequently, a heat exchanger vendor specifies a clean heat transfer coefficient in addition to a
service or fouled heat transfer coefficient. These coefficients are related as follows:
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
f = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Eq. 2-9
⎝ service ⎠ ⎝ clean ⎠
U U
where:
f = the design fouling resistance (hr-°F-ft2/Btu)

Uservice = the service heat transfer coefficient (that is, with design fouling resistance)
(Btu/hr-°F-ft2)
Uclean = the clean heat transfer coefficient (that is, zero fouling resistance) (Btu/hr-°F-ft2)
2-10
Using the process-side and cooling-side system parameters along with the desired heat transfer
rate, the heat exchanger thermal performance can be quantitatively evaluated. A key
consideration is the establishment of the desired heat transfer area, which can be derived from
Equations 2-3 and 2-4. This comes from a detailed accounting of the various resistances to heat
transfer included in the overall heat transfer coefficient, U. All of these inputs into the analysis
become considerations for the heat exchanger design process.
2.2.3.2 Shell-Side Design Considerations
The designer must balance the various design considerations in order to cost-effectively meet
performance requirements while keeping the heat exchanger size and cost within reasonable (or
specified) bounds. A few of the more significant considerations are described in this section.
Selection of Shell Side as Process Side or Cooling Side
Typically, the shell side is connected to the system with the cleanest fluid because the shell side
is the most difficult to clean. In some cases, the fluid can be from the raw water system in a
nuclear plant application if the designer determines that the process water (for example,
containment sump water) has the potential to become even more prone to fouling than the raw
water system.
Design Temperature and Pressure
The shell-side design temperature and pressure are derived from the process-side system design
temperature and pressure. The main outcomes of these inputs are the thickness of the shell and
the attached nozzles. Ample margin in addition to worst-case operating scenarios ensures that
stresses and strains remain within those allowed by applicable codes and standards.
Shell Size
The size of the shell depends on the number of tubes and the type of baffling that is selected to
create the cross flow circuit. Size selection takes into account space constraints as well as cost.
Efficiency of geometry generally results in longer and narrower heat exchangers taking
precedence over shorter and wider heat exchangers. This results in a smaller tube sheet, which
can be the most expensive part of the heat exchanger.
Baffle Spacing
Baffling is necessary to direct the shell-side flow over the tubes to create thermally efficient
cross flow. Regardless of whether there are tubes in the baffle cut windows, tighter baffling
(closer spacing) usually results in better overall cross flow effect. Other benefits of close spacing
are higher velocity across the tubes for a given flow rate, which then enhances the heat transfer
2-11
film coefficient (that is, hh in Equation 2-4 for U, assuming the process side is the hot side).
Mechanically, baffles offer lateral support of the tubes. On the down side, baffling increases
hydraulic resistance that increases the ∆p across the heat exchanger. Such effects must be
accounted for in the shell-side system thermal hydraulics analysis.
Vibration
The heat exchanger is a complex compilation of many parts that are subject to a variety of forces.
The inherent looseness of the tubes in the tube bundle makes them susceptible to
vibration-induced damage if the heat exchanger is subjected to flows outside the design
constraints. The use of support plates at predetermined distances ensures a measure of protection
against damaging vibration. However, flow-induced vibration at flows beyond what the designer
considered could create problems as tubes vibrate in their supports, causing tube fretting at
support points, tube erosion at flow points, or baffle plate deformation.
Component Differential Pressure (∆p)
As mentioned in Section 2.2.2.4, Differential Pressure Considerations, the need to maintain the
shell-side fluid pressure less than the tube-side fluid pressure dictates a hydraulic constraint for
the component in terms of its hydraulic resistance at the design flows being considered for the
shell side of the component in conjunction with those considered for the tube side.
2.2.3.3 Tube-Side Design Considerations
As with the shell side of the heat exchanger, the tube-side design includes many features that
must be iterated to achieve a desired level of performance efficiency balanced with size and cost
constraints. A few of the more significant considerations are described in the following
paragraphs.
Design Temperature and Pressure
The tube-side design temperature and pressure are derived from the cooling system design
temperature and pressure. The main outcome of these inputs will be specifications for the
thickness of the tubing and the channel connections to the shell. Ample margin in addition to
worst-case operating scenarios ensures that stresses and strains will remain within those allowed
by applicable codes and standards.
Tube Material
The tube material is selected for its corrosion resistance as well as its thermal conductivity and
strength. Principal in the corrosion resistance consideration are the types of water that will exist
on both sides of the tube and the kind of service the component will be subjected to. When
finalizing the number of tubes with respect to desired surface area, another consideration is the
resulting tube velocity for a given tube-side flow rate. The erosion resistance of the tube material
can limit the allowable velocity.
2-12
Tube Wall Thickness
For a given material selection, the wall thickness becomes a consideration with respect to the
desired level of strength. Again, considering the type of service and the amount of corrosion as
well as the type of corrosion mechanisms (thinning, cracking, or pitting), a wall thickness is
selected that will provide an appropriate level of service life.
Tube Size
Tube outer diameter specifies the tube size. In conjunction with the specified wall thickness, the
outside diameter specifies the inside diameter. The outside diameter is a key input into the
calculation of the heat transfer surface area, and the inside diameter is a key consideration in
keeping tube velocity within appropriate limits based on the selected tube material. Tube velocity
will be fixed based on the inside diameter and number of tubes for a given flow rate. A tradeoff
on tube size becomes apparent as the designer balances area effectiveness (smaller tubes provide
greater surface area for a given heat exchanger size) against hydraulic resistance (larger tubes
provide less hydraulic resistance on both the tube and shell side of the heat exchanger).
Tube Pitch
Tube pitch refers to the geometric arrangement of the tubes in the tube bundle as well as the
spacing between tubes in the bundle. A compromise between minimizing hydraulic resistance
and maximizing surface area in a given heat exchanger shell size drives selection of an optimum
arrangement and spacing.
Number of Tubes
Combined with tube size, the number of tubes drives both the available heat transfer area and the
tube velocity. As will be described later, the number of tubes can be a source of thermal
performance margin if tube plugging has been anticipated. The tube plugging allowance is
determined by the purchase specification and can account for 5–10% of additional area.
Tube Length
Tube length is the primary variable for achieving the desired heat transfer area when all other
tube geometry and tube bundle considerations have been addressed.
Tube Passes
Frequently, the need for multiple passes on the tube side stems from the need to keep the tube
velocity above minimum acceptable levels for a given number of tubes. In other words, if the
desired heat transfer area requires a specific number of tubes in a specified length, the given tube
flow rate can be too low. By forcing the given flow rate through half as many tubes and passing
2-13
it back through the other half, the tube velocity can be doubled and put into a more efficient flow
regime. The passes can be achieved with either straight tubes or U-bend tubes. The selection of
pass configuration must be weighed against the loss of efficiency as noted in the reduction in the
LMTD correction factor, F, of Equation 2-7.
Divider Plate Differential Pressure (∆p)
The divider plate separates inlet flow from outlet flow in a two-tube-pass heat exchanger. The
plate must be strong enough to withstand the ∆p created by the pressure drop across the heat
exchanger, which is a function of the flow rate and number of available tubes. Plate failure will
result in bypass of the heat exchanger and corresponding reduction in heat exchanger thermal
performance.
Component Differential Pressure (∆p)
As mentioned in Section 2.2.2.4, Differential Pressure Considerations, the need to maintain the
shell-side fluid pressure less than the tube-side fluid pressure dictates a hydraulic constraint for
the component in terms of its hydraulic resistance at the design flows being considered for the
shell side of the component in conjunction with those considered for the tube side.
Enhanced Surface Tubing
A heat-transfer surface can be enhanced in a variety of ways. These enhancement methods are
generally used to accomplish one of two things for a given tube geometry: (1) increase surface
area available for heat transfer or (2) increase the surface film heat transfer coefficient by
creating greater turbulence near the tube surface.
Either of these options can involve machining or altering the tube surfaces or attaching separate
pieces (for example, attaching external fins or inserting an internal turbulator made from coiled
wire or metal strips).
Summary
The designer usually enters into the heat exchanger design process with some idea of the amount
of surface area required to achieve the desired level of thermal performance. He or she then
performs the required analysis to select the specific geometry that achieves the desired surface
area in a cost-effective manner.
2-14
2.3 Component Design Margin
After its size has been established, the main design consideration for a heat exchanger is
mechanical integrity. Factors that influence mechanical integrity include the following:
• Pressures
• Differential pressures (∆p)
• Temperatures
• Differential temperatures
• Stress cycles
• Expansions and contractions
• Velocities
• Vibrations
• Corrosion protection
• Corrosion allowance
The size of a heat exchanger in terms of heat transfer surface area is the most significant design
consideration when addressing the thermal performance requirements. Thermal performance
margin is typically included in the heat exchanger design by the specification of a fouling
resistance that allows an accumulation of a reasonable amount of thermal resistance before the
performance requirement is threatened. The inclusion of fouling resistance ultimately leads to the
inclusion of more heat transfer surface area to offset the extra thermal resistance of the fouling. It
can be said, therefore, that the original design margin for thermal performance at the specified
performance conditions is the specified fouling resistance. This margin is generally derived from
the recommended fouling resistance values provided in the TEMA standards [11].
Another important source of margin in the original design of a heat exchanger is the inclusion of
a tube plugging allowance. This is a way in which the heat exchanger vendor provides extra heat
transfer surface area to compensate for the loss of heat transfer surface area when a tube is
plugged due to premature or pending failure of the tube wall. The tube plugging allowance
represents thermal margin in the sense that greater area allows for a greater potential for heat
transfer under any given set of conditions.
2.4 Design Limiting Conditions
The first step in defining the thermal performance margin is to establish the required level of
thermal performance. This requires the definition of the heat exchanger’s limiting conditions [1].
A heat exchanger’s limiting conditions consist of the single most thermally restrictive, yet
consistent, set of operating conditions that must be satisfied by each heat exchanger in the
performance of its safety-related functions. Limiting conditions should be defined in terms of the
external constraints imposed on the heat exchanger by the systems to which the heat exchanger is
2-15
connected. When defined in this manner, limiting conditions are independent of the heat
exchanger itself (that is, they are not dependent on heat exchanger design, fouling factor, tube
plugging allowance, and so on) [1].
Limiting conditions should be expressed in terms of a single heat exchanger inlet flow and inlet
(or outlet) temperature for both the process and cooling water sides and the associated (assumed
or credited) heat transfer coefficient, U, or heat transfer rate, Q, at those conditions. A key
consideration in all of this is that the limiting conditions do not always correspond to the
conditions that produce the highest heat transfer rate. For example, if continued heat transfer out
of containment is necessary as process temperature drops, the heat exchanger might need to be
even more efficient (or cleaner) to continue to meet required (credited) heat transfer consistent
with performance assumptions in safety-related analyses (that is, a constant U × A throughout a
transient of interest). Another way of expressing the limiting conditions is to define the set of
conditions that require the heat exchanger to be in its cleanest condition.
Limiting conditions for a shell and tube heat exchanger are best described with the following
information:
• Cooling water inlet (or outlet) temperature
• Cooling water mass flow rate
• Process (hot) water inlet (or outlet) temperature
• Process (hot) mass flow rate
• Required heat transfer rate (or heat transfer coefficient) at the given temperatures and flow
rates
An air cooler would add the air pressure and air moisture content to allow full accounting of air
and moisture mass transfer. The first four inputs are system constraints, whereas the final
condition can be considered an acceptance criterion for thermal performance given the first four
system constraints. In fact, when conducting thermal performance testing as described in the
EPRI report Service Water Heat Exchanger Testing Guidelines (TR-107397), the limiting
conditions become the extrapolation conditions at which heat exchanger performance is
evaluated after the current condition of the heat exchanger has been identified with test data [1].
The required heat transfer rate (or overall heat transfer coefficient for a given surface area) at the
defined limiting conditions serves as the overall test acceptance criterion (that is, the
determination of whether the heat exchanger is capable of performing its safety-related function).
2.5 Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Margin
The next step in defining the thermal performance margin is to determine the heat exchanger
capability. The key consideration for this step is to assess the heat exchanger capability at the
exact conditions defined for the required performance (that is, at the limiting conditions). The
heat exchanger thermal performance margin is then derived as the difference between the two
(that is, the difference between thermal performance capability versus thermal performance
requirement).
2-16
A wide variety of methods exist for quantifying thermal performance margin. It can be defined in
terms of the following characteristics of the heat exchanger’s thermal performance at limiting
conditions:
• The heat transfer rate at limiting conditions. This margin is derived by subtracting the heat
transfer rate that the heat exchanger is required to achieve at limiting conditions from the
heat transfer rate that it is capable of achieving at limiting conditions.
• The heat transfer coefficient at limiting conditions. This margin is derived by subtracting the
heat transfer coefficient that the heat exchanger is required to achieve at limiting conditions
from the heat transfer coefficient that it is capable of achieving at limiting conditions.
• The tube plugging margin at limiting conditions. This margin is derived by subtracting the
current number of plugged tubes from the number of plugs that could be allowed while still
allowing the heat exchanger to achieve its required level of thermal performance at limiting
conditions.
• The cooling water inlet temperature margin at limiting conditions. This margin is derived by
subtracting the current cooling water inlet temperature limit (ultimate heat sink limiting
temperature) from the cooling water inlet temperature that the heat exchanger can accept
while still allowing the heat exchanger to achieve its required level of thermal performance at
the remaining limiting conditions. This margin is hypothetical in that the cooling water inlet
temperature would never be allowed to go over the ultimate heat sink limit, but it expresses
the capability of the heat exchanger in terms of that limiting condition parameter: as the
temperature is thermally able to go above the ultimate heat sink limiting temperature and still
fulfill thermal performance requirements, the heat exchanger is exhibiting thermal
performance margin.
• The cooling water flow margin at limiting conditions. This margin is derived by subtracting
the minimum flow that the heat exchanger can accept (while still allowing the heat exchanger
to achieve its required level of thermal performance at the remaining limiting conditions)
from the current demonstrated flow capability of the cooling system. This margin stems from
the fact that the cleaner the heat exchanger, the less cooling flow is needed to remove the
required heat load. This margin is hypothetical in that the cooling water flow would never be
allowed to go below the limiting condition value, but it expresses the capability of the heat
exchanger in terms of that limiting condition parameter: the lower the cooling water flow can
go while still allowing the heat exchanger to fulfill its thermal performance requirements, the
more thermal performance margin it is exhibiting. This margin is further improved when
cooling water flow exceeds the minimum required by system/component design basis to meet
the heat exchanger limiting condition thermal performance.
• The heat exchanger fouling resistance margin at limiting conditions. This margin is derived
by subtracting the as-found fouling resistance from the maximum allowable fouling
resistance (that is, the fouling resistance limit that would still allow the heat exchanger to
achieve its required level of thermal performance at the limiting conditions).
2-17
Typically, a plant will focus on margin in terms of the weakest link that must be managed
relative to the heat exchanger and the systems it supports. The following examples illustrate
these possible situations:
• Plants that have tube plugging problems—caused by either tube wall degradation that
requires intentional tube plugging or macrofouling that results in unintentional tube
plugging—might choose to consider thermal performance margin in terms of how many
tubes can be plugged as compared to how many are currently plugged (allowed plugs greater
than existing plugs represents positive margin). Quantitatively, if a heat exchanger has been
analyzed as able to remove the required amount of heat at design limiting conditions with a
maximum of 50 tubes plugged and it currently has 40 plugged (or routine visual inspections
show no more than 40 plugged with macrofouling), then the heat exchanger could be
described as having a thermal performance margin that is equivalent to 10 tubes.
• Plants whose operation is continually challenged by the limits of the allowed ultimate heat
sink temperatures during the summer might choose to consider thermal performance margin
in terms of the maximum (thermally allowable) cooling water temperature relative to the
technical specification limit (numbers in excess of the limit represent positive margin).
Quantitatively, if a heat exchanger has been analyzed as able to remove the required amount
of heat at design limiting conditions with a maximum cooling water temperature of 94°F
with an ultimate heat sink temperature limit of 90°F, then the heat exchanger could be
described as having a thermal performance margin equivalent to 4°F.
• Plants that routinely encounter flow degradation problems might choose to consider thermal
performance margin in terms of the minimum (thermally allowable) cooling water flow
relative to the limiting condition value (a quantity that is below the limiting condition value
that is demonstrated acceptable represents positive margin). This margin can also be based on
a comparison to the available flow. Quantitatively, if a heat exchanger has been analyzed as
able to remove the required amount of heat at design limiting conditions with a minimum
cooling water flow rate of 800 gallons per minute (gpm) with a system or component design
minimum of 1000 gpm, then the heat exchanger could be described as having a thermal
performance margin equivalent to 200 gpm. This margin extends to 400 gpm if the
demonstrated capability of the cooling water system (through rigorous flow balance testing)
shows 1200 gpm are available in the applicable limiting condition alignment.
However, thermal performance margin is routinely reported in terms of the heat transfer rate or
heat transfer coefficient at design limiting conditions.
2-18
3
IMPROVING THERMAL PERFORMANCE MARGIN
Thermal performance margin has been defined as the difference between the thermal
performance that a heat exchanger is capable of achieving under the design limiting conditions
and the thermal performance that the heat exchanger is required to achieve under those same
conditions. There are two components of this definition: (1) what the heat exchanger is capable
of achieving and (2) what the heat exchanger is required to achieve. These two aspects of the
definition give us the two approaches that can be used to improve heat exchanger thermal
performance margin: (1) enhance what the heat exchanger is capable of achieving and (2) reduce
what the heat exchanger is required to achieve.
In the first approach, the thermal performance of the heat exchanger is enhanced by changing the
conditions at which it operates. Invariably, this method of margin enhancement entails redefining
the limiting conditions for the heat exchanger and, for a safety-related heat exchanger, will likely
involve revisiting the licensing basis for the component and the connecting systems.
Furthermore, any change to the operating conditions must be made with full consideration of the
original design and licensing basis considerations described in Section 2, Defining Thermal
Performance Margin.
In the second approach, the thermal performance requirement for the heat exchanger is reduced
by carefully reexamining the design basis for the originally specified thermal performance
requirement. This method also requires revisiting the component or system design basis and
usually entails the removal of excess design conservatism.
3.1 Margin Improvement Through Changes in Limiting Conditions
The first approach to thermal performance margin enhancement involves changes in system
operating parameters as they relate to the design limiting conditions of the heat exchanger (that
is, changing the conditions at which the heat exchanger will perform in a way that improves
thermal performance). If the thermal performance margin of a shell and tube heat exchanger is
defined by two inlet temperatures, two flow rates, a specified number of available tubes (surface
area), and the requirement to provide a specific heat transfer rate, then clearly any change in a
defining parameter will result in a change in the available thermal performance margin.
However, any change in the operating condition of the heat exchanger should be demonstrated to
keep the component within the original design constraints described in Section 2, Defining
Thermal Performance Margin. Some practical examples of this approach are described in the
subsections that follow, and case studies are presented in Section 4, Example Calculations
Related to Changing Limiting Conditions.
3-1
Improving Thermal Performance Margin
To illustrate the concepts of thermal performance margin enhancement by changing limiting

conditions, a generic shell and tube heat exchanger will be analyzed. A heat exchanger model
will be used that represents a typical RHR heat exchanger for a boiling water reactor (BWR).
The heat exchanger has the physical characteristics and limiting conditions specified in
Table 3-1.
Table 3-1
Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger Analysis Model
Parameter Value
Shell type TEMA E
Shell fluid Fresh water
Tube outside diameter 0.750 in.
Tube inside diameter 0.652 in.
Tube length 29.764 ft
Number of tubes 800
Number of tube passes 2
U-Tubes Yes
Tube fluid Fresh water
Tube pitch 1 in.
Tube orientation Triangular
Tube plugging allowance 10%
Limiting condition tube flow (cooling side) 4000 gpm
Limiting condition tube inlet temperature 90°F

(cooling side)
Limiting condition shell flow (process side) 6500 gpm
Limiting condition shell inlet temperature 200°F

(process side)
Required heat transfer rate 92,500,000 Btu/hr
3.1.1 Adjusting Limiting Condition Tube Plugging Allowance
Perhaps the easiest way to achieve an improvement in the thermal performance margin of a heat
exchanger is to adjust (reduce) the tube plugging allowance. This provides an increase in heat
transfer area that can be credited to thermal performance at the design limiting conditions
proportional to the amount of area added. This method of margin enhancement is practical only
if the following conditions exist for the heat exchanger: (1) the heat exchanger design included a
tube plugging margin (typically included only if specified by the owner), and (2) tube wall
integrity problems do not exist to the extent of challenging the available allowance.
3-2
As a practical example of this approach, consider a shell and tube heat exchanger with a tube
plugging margin of 10%. If there are no known tube integrity problems and an eddy current
testing (ECT) program continues to monitor tube wall integrity and adds confidence to the
expectation that there will not be tube integrity problems in the future, the heat exchanger
engineer might wish to consider reducing the tube plugging margin to 3% or 5% to add thermal
performance margin.
As shown by Equation 2-3, the achievable heat transfer rate is directly related to the available
heat transfer area. An 8% increase in this area brought by a reduction in the tube plugging
margin (for example, from a 10% plugging allowance to a 2% plugging allowance) will produce
an improvement in the heat transfer capability of the heat exchanger of ≤8%. The percentage of
improvement typically will be less than the percentage of area increase due to changes in the heat
transfer coefficient, U, and the effective mean temperature difference, EMTD, as a result of the
change in heat transfer area. The actual improvement to be gained depends on the heat exchanger
geometry and the limiting conditions at which the heat exchanger is analyzed.
Analyzing the design limiting condition heat transfer rate as a function of the available tube
count is illustrated in Figure 3-1 using the RHR heat exchanger model described in Table 3-1.
Figure 3-1
Performance as a Function of the Tube Plugging Allowance
3-3
3.1.2 Adjusting Limiting Condition Cooling Water Flow Rate
Increasing the cooling water flow provides immediate thermal performance enhancement for a
given inlet temperature. This is not always possible, however. For example, it is not a simple
matter to simply increase the flow to the heat exchanger. There are system flow limitations
driven by the system pumping capacity and overall system balance, and there are component
design limitations to be taken into account as described in Section 2, Defining Thermal
Performance Margin. Assuming the cooling water is on the tube side, tube velocity will need to
be kept within limits and, if there are two tube-side passes, the divider plate ∆p will require
special attention.
Perhaps the simplest way to increase the limiting condition cooling water flow rate is to deal
with flow rates that are clearly within the original heat exchanger design. This is possible for a
limited number of safety-related heat exchangers where the safety-related limiting condition
involves an off-normal alignment of the cooling water system (that is, a postaccident alignment)
that delivers a lower flow rate to the heat exchanger. As an example, consider a heat exchanger
that serves a non-safety function on a routine basis and is supplied with 6000 gpm of cooling
water flow to complete that function. The same heat exchanger is called on to perform a
safety-related function in a different system alignment that is designed to provide 4000 gpm but
actually provides 4500 gpm as verified by rigorous flow balance testing. If the heat exchanger
design limiting condition stipulates a cooling water flow of 4000 gpm for the safety-related
function, it can be seen that there is ample margin available in what appears to be excess flow
capacity of the cooling water system. Capturing this margin is a simple matter of shifting it to the
limiting condition and ensuring that the flow balance procedure now adequately verifies the new
(higher) flow rate demand of the subject heat exchanger. In this example, the heat exchanger
engineer simply credits the flow that is available by increasing the limiting condition flow rate
from 4000 gpm to 4500 gpm.
Analyzing the design limiting condition heat transfer rate as a function of the available cooling
water flow rate is illustrated in Figure 3-2 using the RHR heat exchanger model described in
Table 3-1.
3-4
Figure 3-2
Performance as a Function of Cooling Water Flow Rate
3.1.3 Adjusting Limiting Condition Process-Side Flow Rate
Increasing the process-side flow provides immediate thermal performance enhancement for a
given inlet temperature. As with the cooling water side, there are likely to be system flow
limitations driven by the process-side system pumping capacity and overall system flow balance,
and there are component design limitations to be taken into account as described in Section 2,
Defining Thermal Performance Margin. Of particular concern on the shell side of a heat
exchanger are the ∆p across impingement plates and the baffle plates as well as the added
vibration that comes with the increased cross-flow velocity. In some cases, there is also the
concern over maintaining an appropriate ∆p between the process side and the cooling side of the
component, which must be adhered to as well.
As with the cooling water side, the simplest way to increase the limiting condition process-side
flow rate is to deal with flow rates that are clearly within the original heat exchanger design. This
is possible for a limited number of safety-related heat exchangers where the safety-related
limiting condition involves a system alignment that involves less flow than what the heat
exchanger has been designed for relative to other operational alignments. As an example,
consider a heat exchanger that serves a non-safety function on a routine basis and is supplied
with 10,000 gpm of shell-side flow to complete that function. The same heat exchanger is called
on to perform a safety-related function in a different system alignment that was designed to
provide 6500 gpm but actually provides 7000 gpm as confirmed by rigorous flow balance
testing. If the heat exchanger design limiting condition stipulates a shell-side flow of 6500 gpm
for the safety-related function, it can be seen that there is ample margin available in what appears
to be excess flow capacity of the process-side system. Capturing this margin is a simple matter of
3-5
shifting it to the limiting condition and ensuring that the flow balance procedure now adequately
verifies the new (higher) flow rate demand of the subject heat exchanger. In this example, the
heat exchanger engineer simply credits the flow that is available by increasing the limiting
condition flow rate from 6500 gpm to 7000 gpm. It should be recognized that “shifting” margin
in this manner must be accompanied by appropriate changes to design basis and licensing basis
documentation using applicable site procedures.
Another example of this type of margin recapture occurs when the heat exchanger vendor
provides a component designed to rounded or nominal flow values instead of realistic values and
these then become locked in as the design basis of the component despite having no connection
to the actual system design capability.
Analyzing the design limiting condition heat transfer rate as a function of the available process
water flow rate is illustrated in Figure 3-3 using the RHR heat exchanger model described in
Table 3-1.
Figure 3-3
Performance as a Function of Process-Side Flow Rate
3.1.4 Adjusting Limiting Condition Process-Side Temperature
Increasing the process-side temperature provides immediate thermal performance enhancement.

In fact, gains in performance margin in terms of percentage of improvement in heat exchanger
performance tend to be greatest with a process-side temperature increase when compared to the
performance improvements achievable with changes in the other limiting condition parameters.
3-6
This is due to the significant increase in the thermal driving potential created by the higher
differential temperature between the cooling water (set at its limiting condition value) and the
process water.
Analyzing the design limiting condition heat transfer rate as a function of an increased
process-side inlet temperature is illustrated in Figure 3-4 using the RHR heat exchanger model
described in Table 3-1.
Figure 3-4
Performance as a Function of Process-Side Inlet Temperature
Although there is substantial margin improvement available through this method, the method
will likely be one of the most difficult to achieve because of the significant impact on the
process-side system. The process side of the heat exchanger (shell and nozzles) must be capable
of withstanding the increased temperature of both inlet water and outlet water. Furthermore, the
entire system being served by the heat exchanger must be able to withstand the higher
temperature. In the case of the RHR heat exchanger removing heat from a BWR suppression
pool in the postaccident mode, a higher process-side temperature results in a higher suppression
pool temperature which generally leads to lower energy release from the containment and higher
pressures inside the containment. In the case of a closed cooling water system heat exchanger,
the heat transfer rate from the closed-loop system to the open-loop system is increased
substantially with higher closed-loop system temperatures. However, the effect of these
temperatures must be evaluated on all components cooled by the closed-loop system.
3-7
Environmental qualification (EQ) program analysis and implementation methods can vary
widely among utilities. Some stations qualify equipment to the peak analyzed temperature,
taking no credit for heat removal from the area. Other stations require area coolers and CCW
systems to remove heat and mitigate peak area temperatures to maintain components operable.
The mission duration can also vary significantly across stations, ranging from a few minutes to
many days.
Heat exchangers associated with closed-loop cooling water systems; heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems; area cooling systems, and so on might have design requirements
based on area temperature assumptions in EQ program analyses. These assumptions can include
event duration and peak temperature profiles that place significant demands on associated heat
exchange equipment.
Overly conservative assumptions or requirements in the EQ analyses can reduce available

margin in heat exchange equipment, particularly if equipment aging or degradation cause
thermal performance to approach limiting design values.
Thermal performance margin recovery might be available through reanalysis of EQ assumptions

or requirements.
3.1.5 Adjusting Limiting Condition Cooling-Side Temperature
Decreasing the cooling-side temperature provides substantial thermal performance enhancement

similar to that achievable with increases in the process-side temperature. However, reducing the
limiting temperature associated with the ultimate heat sink is not something that would typically
be done for the long term because it inevitably places greater restriction on the available window
of safe operation for the plant. However, reducing the limiting condition cooling water
temperature for the sake of improving thermal performance margin of heat exchangers can be an
effective means of dealing with short-term operability issues. This is because the cooling water
temperature is seldom at or near the limiting condition value which occurs, at most, only a few
weeks out of the year for most plants. For the rest of the year, the cooling water temperature is
substantially below the limiting condition value and provides a significant amount of thermal
performance margin for all heat exchangers cooled by this water. The heat exchanger engineer
simply credits the lower water temperatures and gains the temporary benefit of the increased
thermal performance margin.
3-8
Analyzing the design limiting condition heat transfer rate as a function of a decreased
cooling-side inlet temperature is illustrated in Figure 3-5 using the RHR heat exchanger model
described in Table 3-1.
Figure 3-5
Performance as a Function of Cooling-Side Temperature
3.1.6 Adjusting Design Fouling Resistance
Thermal performance margin is typically included in the heat exchanger design by the
specification of a fouling resistance that will allow an accumulation of a reasonable amount of
thermal resistance before the performance requirement is threatened. The inclusion of fouling
resistance by the heat exchanger designer ultimately leads to the inclusion of more heat transfer
surface area to offset the extra thermal resistance of the accumulations of tube-side or shell-side
fouling deposits. The heat exchanger designer assumes values consistent with the type of service
the heat exchanger is to be designed for with principal consideration given to the shell-side and
tube-side environments (fluid type, chemistry, propensity for fouling, and so on). Standards of
the Tubular Heat Exchanger Manufacturers Association provides guidance for the proper
selection of fouling resistance values to be used in conjunction with specific fluid and service
types [11].
Analysis of the heat removal capability of any given heat exchanger typically involves
assumptions of the thermal resistance created by accumulations of microfouling on the tube
surfaces (both tube-side and shell-side surfaces). Utility analysis typically continues the use of
the original heat exchanger vendor’s fouling assumptions for consistency with the component
design. However, the value used to represent the accumulation of fouling deposits can be
changed to more adequately reflect actual plant conditions if it is found that the original
3-9
assumption on fouling accumulations were excessive. Care should be taken, however, not to
underestimate the revised fouling assumptions so as to over-predict the thermal capacity of the
heat exchanger under limiting conditions. Also, any reductions in the design fouling resistance
should be well supported by evidence that suggests the original assumptions on fouling
resistance were excessively conservative. The EPRI report Alternative to Thermal Performance
Testing and/or Tube-Side Inspections of Air-to-Water Heat Exchangers (1007248) provides
guidance on how site-specific and component-specific considerations and operating history can
support revised assumptions with regard to fouling accumulations [14].
Analyzing the design limiting condition heat transfer rate as a function of the overall fouling
resistance is illustrated in Figure 3-6 using the RHR heat exchanger model described in
Table 3-1.
Figure 3-6
Performance as a Function of Fouling Resistance
3.2 Margin Improvement Through Reduction in Performance Requirements
The second approach to thermal performance margin enhancement is unrelated to the heat
exchanger itself and involves no changes to its limiting conditions of tube plugging, flow, or
temperature. Instead, this margin increase can be derived from what can be characterized as
overly conservative design considerations when specifying the original thermal performance
requirement of the heat exchanger (that is, when specifying the heat load of the process system)
at the limiting conditions. This margin is referred to as embedded margin. There are many ways
3-10
that this margin can be enhanced, and practically all of them require a reevaluation of the
original design basis of the heat exchanger and the systems to which it is connected. Examples
include the following:
• Heat loads assigned to the individual components cooled by a closed-loop cooling system are
overly conservative and can be reduced based on more accurate information or updated
analysis.
• Room heat load analysis that defines the room cooler thermal performance requirements
might have calculated heat sources in an overly conservative way.
– Piping heat transfer into the room is based on piping design temperature versus analyzed
process temperature.
– Piping heat transfer into the room is based on continuous exposure at the maximum
temperature as opposed to a timed or alignment-oriented exposure.
– Piping heat transfer into the room is based on a lower temperature in the room than would
exist at the limiting condition for the room cooler.
– Operating equipment heat transfer into the room is based on continuous operation of
equipment as opposed to a timed or alignment-oriented operating profile.
• Heat loads on a closed-loop cooling system can be a function of the operating alignment or
the time after an accident so that a phased approach to heat removal requirements produces
net loads that are significantly lower than the sum total of all loads.
• Excess conservatisms in the containment transient analysis require greater heat transfer from
the subject heat exchanger at its design limiting conditions.
3-11
As a point of illustration of how embedded margin relates to the overall thermal performance
margin, Figure 3-1 is repeated as Figure 3-7. In this case, the required heat transfer rate has been
reduced by a careful reexamination of the process-side thermal conditions.
Figure 3-7
The Effect of Embedded Margin on Overall Thermal Performance Margin
Case studies documenting scenarios in which embedded margin has been found and recaptured
to enhance thermal performance margin are described in Section 5, Examples Related to
Reductions in Performance Requirements.
3-12
4
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS RELATED TO CHANGING
LIMITING CONDITIONS
This section provides actual case studies of implementation of the margin enhancement
techniques described in Section 3.1, Margin Enhancement Through Changes in Limiting
Conditions.
4.1 Emergency Diesel Generator Jacket Water Heat Exchanger Tube

Plugging Margin Analysis
4.1.1 Introduction
This case study determines the maximum number of tubes of an EDG jacket water heat
exchanger that can be plugged and still maintain design basis heat removal at the design service
water inlet temperature. The results can be used to allow plugging of defective tubes or to
evaluate as-found conditions such as tube blockage due to debris. The minimum allowed service
water flow is also determined for each instance of allowed tube plugging.
4.1.2 Method
This example illustrates the changes in thermal performance margin achieved by adjusting the
tube plugging margin as described Section 3.1.1, Adjusting Limiting Condition Tube Plugging
Allowance.
4.1.3 Evaluation
4.1.3.1 Heat Exchanger Design Details
Each EDG jacket water heat exchanger is a stacked pair of TEMA Type E heat exchangers.
Jacket water flows on the shell side, and service water flows on the tube side. Details of the heat
exchanger under evaluation were obtained from the vendor data sheet and vendor drawings and
are summarized in Table 4-1.
4-1
Example Calculations Related to Changing Limiting Conditions
Table 4-1
Emergency Diesel Generator Jacket Water Heat Exchanger Design Details
Parameter Value
Shell-side flow 443.92 gpm
Shell-side inlet temp 170°F
Shell-side outlet temp 115°F
Shell-side fouling factor 0.001
Tube-side flow 1630.97 gpm
Tube-side inlet temp 100°F
Tube-side outlet temp 115°F
Tube-side fouling 0.0015
Design Q 12,214,000 Btu/hr
Design U 230.5 Btu/hr-ft2-°F
Heat exchanger type TEMA-E
Total effective area 1792 ft2
Number of shells 2
Tube pitch 13/16 in. = 0.8125 in.
Tube pitch type Triangular
Number of tube passes 2
U-tube No
Total number of tubes 644
Tube length 102 in. = 8.5 ft
Tube ID 5/8 in. - 18 BWG = 0.527 in.
Tube OD 5/8 in. = 0.625 in.
Tube wall K 26 Btu/hr-ft-°F
Central baffle spacing 6 in.
Tube circle diameter 21.859 in.
Shell ID 23.250 in.
Tube sheet divider plate ∆p 8 psid
4-2
4.1.3.2 Other Inputs and Assumptions
Other inputs and assumptions pertinent to the margin analysis are summarized as follows:
• The jacket water off-normal and high-temperature alarm set points are 190°F and 205°F.
• The service water maximum temperature is 100°F.
• The service water piping is 10-in. SCH 40 with a design temperature of 100°F.
• Tube-side flow should be maintained at a minimum velocity of 3 ft/sec to minimize
biofouling and silting.
• A maximum jacket water heat exchanger shell-side inlet temperature of 175°F (as opposed to
the design of 170°F) and shell-side outlet temperature of 120°F (as opposed to the design of
115°F) is acceptable. The selected temperatures are 5°F higher than shown on the heat
exchanger data sheet, but are within the capability of the temperature control system
associated with the jacket water system. The vendor manual states that the engine is designed
to operate with water temperatures of 165–175°F. This slightly higher jacket water outlet
temperature results in higher intercooler, fuel oil cooler, lube oil cooler, and engine governor
jacket water inlet temperatures. The higher intake air temperature results in a slightly lower
air density in the intake manifold. Because the engine is turbocharged, the resulting change in
air-to-fuel ratio is insignificant. The fuel oil cooler is designed to cool fuel oil during
extended periods when the engine is running unloaded. During engine operation at full load,
little fuel is flowing through the cooler, minimizing the impact of it returning to the day tank
at a slightly higher temperature. The higher lube oil temperature is within the capability of
the temperature control system for the lube oil system. Therefore, slightly higher intake air,
fuel oil, and lube oil temperatures associated with higher jacket water temperatures do not
impact engine operation. For the higher service water outlet temperatures, no downstream
components rely on the outlet from the tube side of the jacket water heat exchanger for
cooling because all loads are in parallel.
• In addition to the above justification, margin can be inferred by the set point of the jacket
water temperature off-normal set point alarm of 190°F and the test mode engine trip set point
of 205°F. The inference is that engine operation up to these values is not detrimental to the
engine. Additionally, the shell-side temperature limit chosen (175°F) has a 15°F margin to
the lower alarm set point.
• A 10% reduction in the overall heat transfer coefficient is adequate to account for heat
exchanger degradation and uncertainties in flow measurements.
• The heat added to the jacket water due to pump heat in the engine-driven main jacket water
pump is minimal compared to the 110% design heat load.
4-3
• Tube plugging will increase the ∆p of the jacket water heat exchanger tube side for a given
flow. The increased ∆p across the tube-side divider plate in the stationary heads could cause
excessive stresses. Table 4-1 gives the total tube side ∆p as 8 psid. Given that this ∆p is split
between two divider plates, most of the ∆p occurs across the tubes, and the maximum
number of tubes plugged is small (0.5% of the total), engineering judgment was used to
conclude that the minimal divider plate ∆p increase is acceptable.
• The minimum cooling water flow rate is 1300 gpm.
4.1.3.3 Analysis Methodology
Heat exchanger performance was calculated using a computer model of the jacket water heat
exchanger. A base model was developed using the vendor-supplied heat exchanger data sheet.
After the heat exchanger model was created, the number of active tubes and tube-side flow rate
were varied to establish the maximum number of tubes that could be plugged or blocked for a
given flow rate while still meeting tube-side velocity limits and system temperature limits. For
the calculations of allowable tube plugging, it was desired to provide output from the calculation
that could be read on the installed instrumentation. Thus 1650 gpm was used as the starting
point, and flow was decreased in 25-gpm increments.
4.1.3.4 Relevant Design Limits
The following design limits provided the constraints that had to be met for the margin analysis to
be considered successful.
Maximum Tube Velocity
The maximum velocity for 90-10 CuNi tubes is 9 ft/sec to minimize tube erosion. Plant
experience has shown that when the service water system is in its engineered safeguards
alignment, cooling flow to the tube side is slightly higher than the nominal value of 1650 gpm,
which could result in increased velocity as tubes are plugged. Thus 1850 gpm was chosen as a
bounding value for this higher flow. To account for this higher flow, the tube velocity for a given
flow obtained from the analytical software was compared with 1850 gpm in the form of a ratio to
find the tube velocity that would exist during the engineered safeguards alignment.
⎛ 1850 gpm ⎞
v' = v min ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Eq. 4-1
⎝ Vmin ⎠
where:
v' = desired tube velocity (fps)

vmin = minimum specified velocity (fps)
Vmin = minimum specified flow for service water system (gpm)
4-4
For example, at 1300 gpm and a tube velocity of 7 ft/sec (for a given number of plugged tubes),
the actual velocity at 1850 gpm can be found as:
⎛ 1850 gpm ⎞
v' = 7 fps⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 9.96 fps
⎝ 1300 gpm ⎠
Because the result exceeds the allowable 9 ft/sec, the number of allowed plugged tubes would be
reduced until the adjusted value is less than 9 ft/sec.
Tube-Side Outlet
The piping maximum operating temperature of 115°F is used as an input to piping thermal
analysis. However, thermal analysis is not required for piping systems operating at less than
150°F. Therefore temperatures in excess of 115°F but less than the design temperature of 125°F
are acceptable without further thermal analysis. An additional constraint of 120°F is based on the
long-term temperature limit of 120°F for epoxy coatings on jacket water heat exchanger
tube-side components.
Minimum Tube Velocity
The minimum velocity to prevent silting in the tubes is 3 ft/sec.
Inlet and Outlet Piping Minimum Velocity
The minimum velocity to prevent silting in the heat exchanger service water inlet or outlet piping
is 3 ft/sec. From Section 4.1.3.2, Other Inputs and Assumptions, the minimum flow rate is
1300 gpm. Based on 10-in. SCH 40 piping, this corresponds to a velocity of 5.29 ft/sec. Because
this is greater than the 3 ft/sec silting limit, silting in the service water inlet or outlet piping is not
a concern.
4.1.3.5 Tube Plugging Calculation
The following method was used to calculate the tube plugging and associated flow limit:
1. The baseline model was conservatively modified by reducing the overall heat transfer
coefficient, U, by 10%.
2. The heat load rejected by the engine was maintained at 12.214 x 106 Btu/hr.
3. The service water inlet temperature was maintained at 100°F.
4-5
4. Model runs were done with service water flow changed in 25-gpm decrements from its
design flow of 1650 gpm. For each flow decrement, the number of tubes plugged was
increased until one or more of the following events occurred:
• Velocity in the remaining tubes exceeded 9 ft/sec at the service water flow adjusted to
1850 gpm.
• Shell-side inlet temperature exceeded 175°F.
• Tube-side temperature outlet exceeded 120°F at the flow decrement being used for the
current model run.
• Tube velocity decreased to less than 3 ft/sec.
The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2
Summary of Analysis Results
Number of Minimum Shell-Side Tube-Side Tube Velocity Tube Velocity

Tubes Allowed Inlet Temp Outlet Temp (ft/sec) at 1850 gpm
Plugged Service Water (°F) (°F) (ft/sec)
Flow
(gpm)
Design Limits 175°F max 120°F max 3 ft/sec min 9 ft/sec max
30 1650 174.0 114.8 8.00 8.97
30 1625 174.1 115.0 7.88 8.97
30 1600 174.1 115.3 7.72 8.93
30 1575 174.4 115.5 7.64 8.97
30 1550 174.4 115.8 7.48 8.93
30 1525 174.7 116.0 7.40 8.98
30 1500 174.7 116.3 7.24 8.93
30 1475 175.0 116.6 7.16 8.98
30 1450 175.0 116.9 7.00 8.93
26 1425 175.0 117.2 6.84 8.88
22 1400 175.0 117.5 6.67 8.81
18 1375 175.0 117.8 6.51 8.76
14 1350 175.0 118.1 6.35 8.70
9 1325 175.0 118.4 6.19 8.64
0–4 1300 175.0 118.8 6.02 8.57
N/A 1275 175.1 119.2 5.87 8.52
4-6
4.1.4 Conclusion
Analysis of the thermal performance of the EDG jacket water heat exchanger indicated the
ability to shift margin between cooling water flow and heat exchanger area by demonstrating the
capability of the heat exchanger to remove the required heat rate using higher flow rates
whenever a higher number of tubes were plugged. Such an analysis gives a ready reference for
identifying at what point the heat exchanger will go outside of its design basis with regard to
thermal performance.
4.2 Room Cooler Performance Enhancement
4.2.1 Introduction
One of the most effective ways to increase heat transfer margin is to allow the process
temperature to increase above the value specified for the heat exchanger vendor. This can be
accomplished by reanalyzing components cooled by the process fluid for higher temperatures.
This is particularly applicable to room coolers. Typically, the minimum qualified (most
restrictive) room temperature chosen by the architectural engineer is conservative compared to
the maximum EQ temperature for the components in the room. Increasing the maximum room
temperature can provide substantial heat transfer margin by both increasing the capacity of the
room coolers (described in this section) and decreasing the heat load contribution from hot
piping in the room (described in Section 5.1, Effect of Room Temperature on Room Cooler Heat
Load). The following example from “Reclaiming Heat Exchanger Design Margin, an Analytical
Approach” illustrates the effects of increasing room temperature on room cooler performance
[15].
4.2.2 Method
This example illustrates the improvement in thermal performance margin achieved by adjusting
limiting condition process-side temperature as described in Section 3.1.4, Adjusting Limiting
Condition Process-Side Temperature.
4.2.3 Evaluation
In an East Coast BWR, the maximum room temperature specified for the high-pressure coolant
injection (HPCI) pump room was 115°F. The design parameters for the HPCI pump room
coolers were as follows:
Tair = maximum room air temperature = 115°F

Tci = cooling water inlet temperature = 95°F
Vair = air volumetric flow rate = 19,100 cubic feet per minute (cfm)
Vwater = cooling water volumetric flow rate = 100 gpm
rf = design cooler fouling resistance = 0.0025 hr-°F-ft2/Btu
Qdesign = design heat load = 282,000 Btu/hr
4-7
A review of the EQ data for the safety-related components in the room found that all components
were qualified for a room temperature of 140°F. Therefore, the maximum room temperature was
raised to 140°F. Assuming the design fouling resistance, air flow, and water flow to the cooler
remain constant, the new room cooler capacity can be calculated as follows:
Q actual
ε= Eq. 4-2
Q max
where:
ε = cooler effectiveness or efficiency (dimensionless)

Q actual = actual heat transfer rate for a given set of conditions (Btu/hr)
Q max = theoretical maximum heat transfer rate (Btu/hr)
The theoretical maximum heat transfer rate for a room cooler is given by the following:
Q max = 60Vρc pmin (Th i − Tci ) Eq. 4-3
where:
60 = time conversion factor (60min/hr)

V = volumetric flow rate of air (ft3/min)
ρ = density of air (lbm/ft3)
c pmin = specific heat of air (Btu/lbm-°F)
Th i = air inlet temperature (°F)
Tci = cooling water inlet temperature (°F)
Rearranging Equation 4-2 yields the following:
Qactual = εQmax Eq. 4-4
Therefore, when evaluating two different sets of inlet conditions, the expected change in heat
transfer rate can be estimated by using a ratio of the two separate heat transfer expressions given
in Equation 4-4 as follows:
Q actual-1 = εQ max-1
Q actual-2 = εQ max-2
4-8
Given the small change in inlet temperatures, the cooler efficiency is assumed constant and the
cooler capacity for the new room temperature is given as follows:
Q140 air (140 − 95) 45

≈ = = 2.25
Q115air (115 − 95) 20
4.2.4 Conclusion
Increasing the maximum room temperature from 115 to 140°F increased the capacity of the room
cooler by 225%, adding 352,500 Btu/hr margin.
4.3 Margin Improvement with Reevaluation of Design Limiting Conditions
4.3.1 Introduction
Thermal performance testing of the component cooling water (CCW) heat exchanger is
performed during each refueling outage while plant cooldown is occurring. The latest test results
demonstrated a heat transfer coefficient, U, that was 22% below the test acceptance criteria.
Given this result, analysis of available heat exchanger thermal performance margin was required
to support a past-operability determination regarding the performance capability of the heat
exchanger during the last operating cycle. The required and predicted thermal performance of the
CCW heat exchanger is determined by a computer code that uses the heat transfer coefficient as
an input.
4.3.2 Method
This example illustrates the improvement in thermal performance margin using the following
methods from Section 3.1, Margin Improvements Through Changes in Limiting Conditions:
• Adjusting limiting condition tube plugging allowance (see Section 3.1.1, Adjusting Limiting
Condition Tube Plugging Allowance)
• Adjusting limiting condition cooling-side temperature (see Section 3.1.5, Adjusting Limiting
Condition Cooling-Side Temperature)
In addition, margin improvement was obtained through the use of a reduced heat load
requirement in accordance with Section 3.2, Margin Improvement Through Reduction in
Performance Requirements.
4-9
4.3.3 Evaluation
The evaluation was completed in three steps as follows:

1. Identification of available heat exchanger margin
2. Revision of design basis analysis
3. Operability determination
Each step is described in further detail in the subsections that follow.
4.3.3.1 Identification of Available Heat Exchanger Margin
The thermal performance design basis analysis for the CCW heat exchanger included the
following input parameters:
CCW Heat Exchanger Tube Plugging
The total heat exchanger heat transfer area with no tubes plugged is 19,907.9 ft2. The existing
analysis permits tube plugging up to 10%. Thus, a heat transfer area of 17,917.11 ft2 is used in
the existing analysis:
A = 19,907.9 – 19,907.9(0.1) = 17,917.11 ft2
Current documentation confirms that 2.3% of the CCW heat exchanger tubes are plugged. This
equates to an available heat transfer area of 19,450 ft2:
A = 19,907.9 – 19,907.9(0.023) = 19,450 ft2
The existing thermal performance analysis can be revised using the actual heat transfer area
currently available in the CCW heat exchanger to increase the predicted heat removal at limiting
design basis conditions.
Initial Service water Supply Temperature
The existing analysis uses an initial service water (SW) temperature of 97°F. Control room
surveillance logs during the past operating cycle record a maximum SW water temperature of
91°F. The existing thermal performance analysis can be revised using the actual (lower) initial
SW water temperature to increase the predicted CCW heat exchanger heat removal at limiting
design basis conditions. Note that the use of history for ultimate heat sink temperature is valid
for an evaluation of past operability but not future operability.
4-10
Decay Heat Load from the Spent Fuel Pool
The CCW heat exchanger is also used to remove decay heat from the spent fuel pool (SFP). The
existing analysis assumes a maximum SFP decay heat load of 4.0E6 Btu/hr and a corresponding
maximum SFP water temperature of 180°F. Plant documentation shows that the current number
of spent fuel assemblies in the SFP results in a maximum decay heat load of 3.47E6 Btu/hr and a
corresponding maximum SFP water temperature of 167°F. The existing thermal performance
analysis can be revised using the actual (lower) SFP decay heat load and water temperature to
reduce the heat removal requirement for the CCW heat exchanger at limiting design basis
conditions.
4.3.3.2 Revision of Design Basis Analysis.
The existing analysis assumes a CCW heat exchanger heat transfer coefficient of
U = 316 Btu/hr-ft2-°F. The actual heat transfer coefficient determined by thermal performance
testing is 246.5 Btu/hr-ft2-°F, or 22% below the assumed value:
U = 316 – 316(0.22) = 246.5 Btu/hr-ft2-°F
The thermal performance design basis analysis for the CCW heat exchanger can now be
reassessed using the reduced heat transfer coefficient and the revised input parameters identified
in Section 4.3.3.1, Identification of Available Heat Exchanger Margin, as summarized in
Table 4-3.
Table 4-3
Original Versus Revised Analysis Inputs
Original Analysis Values Revised Analysis Values
A = 17,917.11 ft2 A = 19,450 ft2
TSW = 97°F TSW = 91°F
QSPF = 4.0E6 Btu/hr QSPF = 3.47E6 Btu/hr
TSPF = 180°F TSPF = 167°F
U = 316 Btu/hr-ft2-°F U = 246.5 Btu/hr-ft2-°F
4-11
4.3.3.3 Operability Determination
Heat exchanger thermal performance analysis was performed with the revised inputs. A
comparison of the revised design basis analysis with the original analysis is summarized in
Table 4-4.
Table 4-4
Results of Revised Analysis
Original Analysis Requirements Revised Analysis Results
Peak CCW heat exchanger outlet temp = 135.0°F Peak CCW heat exchanger outlet temp = 134.5°F
4.3.4 Conclusion
The revised analysis demonstrates that the peak CCW heat exchanger outlet temperature remains
below the maximum temperature required by the design basis analysis at limiting conditions.
This confirms that the reduced heat transfer capability of the CCW heat exchanger, discovered
through thermal performance testing, is adequate given the actual conditions during the previous
operating cycle.
This example will help to establish past operability for the as-found condition, but such an
as-found condition should trigger significant corrective actions to the monitoring program to
prevent the recurrence of such a significant decrease in performance between tests.
4.4 Margin Improvement with Flow Correction to Inlet Conditions
4.4.1 Introduction
Margin improvement is available in typical room coolers based on a simple conversion of outlet
air flow rate measurements or fan flow specifications to coil inlet air conditions. The application
of this technique is unique to room coolers due to the nature of their arrangement and how air
flow is typically specified for the unit. Figure 4-1 illustrates this arrangement where the fan is
located on the outlet side of the cooler. The fan and cooler are typically provided as a package,
and air flow is typically specified as a standard volumetric flow rate (that is, an air flow rate at
standard atmospheric conditions or 14.7 psia and 68°F, with a resulting air density of
0.075 lbm/ft3).
4-12
Figure 4-1
Typical Fan Cooling Unit Showing Fan on the Cooler Outlet
4.4.2 Method
limiting condition process-side flow rates when analyzing thermal performance as described in
Section 3.1.3, Adjusting Limiting Condition Process-Side Flow Rate.
4.4.3 Evaluation
Because fans are constant-volume devices, the mass flow rate through the fan and the cooling
coil will be a strong function of the density of the air passing through the fan, which in turn is a
strong function of the air temperature at the fan location. Placing the fan on the cool side of the
air coil enables the fan to move the maximum amount of air through the coil. The problem lies in
the fact that the air flow rate specified by the fan vendor or the air measurements made at the fan
outlet are seldom converted to the coil inlet conditions when analyzing the coil thermal
performance. This conservatively underestimates the air mass flow rate when these flow rates are
entered into a thermal performance analysis tool as inlet air flow rates. If extra margin in the
thermal performance capability of the fan coil unit is more desirable than maintaining this level
of conservatism, then a simple air flow rate conversion can be performed to provide an
immediate and justifiable boost in thermal performance. However, the enhancement might
improve thermal performance by only a few percent.
4-13
Air flow rate conversions are accomplished by using the ideal gas law that relates changes in a
gas volume to changes in the gas temperature and pressure. The same holds true for volumetric
flow rates.
For conversion from standard to actual air conditions, the equation as adapted from the ideal gas
law [16] is given as:
⎛ P ⎞⎛ T ⎞
Vair inlet = ⎜ std ⎟⎜ inlet ⎟ Vstd Eq. 4-5
⎝ Pinlet ⎠⎝ Tstd ⎠
where:
Vair inlet = the volumetric flow rate at the coil inlet (actual cfm [acfm])
Vstd = the volumetric flow rate capacity of the fan (standard cfm [scfm])
Pinlet = the coil air inlet absolute pressure (psia)
Pstd = the standard air absolute pressure (14.696 psia)
Tinlet = the average air inlet temperature (°R)
Tstd = the standard air temperature (°R)
A note regarding standard conditions is appropriate. The temperature of 68°F at a pressure of

14.696 psia yields a dry air density of 0.075 lbm/ft3. This density has been reported by many fan
cooling unit (FCU) vendors as the conditions related to the specified fan capacity. Other
temperatures (for example, 60°F) have been used as standard conditions, making it worthwhile to
review the vendor data carefully when making this air flow conversion.
Any power plant not located at sea level will likely need to address the atmospheric pressure
changes relative to the standard pressure when evaluating air flow rate at accident conditions. It
is always best to enter into thermal performance analysis calculations with a solid understanding
of the actual mass flow rates being used as opposed to volumetric flow rates. In doing so, all
influences on mass flow (the most notable being temperature and pressure influences on air
density) should be taken into account.
4-14
For air flow conversions from a measured air flow rate at fan outlet air conditions to the coil inlet
air conditions, the applicable equation is taken from Equation 4-5 and is given as:
⎛P ⎞⎛ T ⎞
Vair inlet = ⎜ outlet ⎟⎜ inlet ⎟ Vair outlet Eq. 4-6
⎝ Pinlet ⎠⎝ Toutlet ⎠
where:
Vair inlet = the volumetric flow rate at the coil inlet (acfm)
Vair outlet = the volumetric flow rate at the fan outlet (acfm)
Pinlet = the coil air inlet absolute pressure (psia)
Poutlet = the coil outlet absolute pressure (psia, computed as the outlet pressure
minus the fan differential pressure)
Tinlet = the average air inlet temperature (°R)
Toutlet = the average air outlet temperature (°R)
An additional correction can be made to derive a coil outlet temperature from a fan outlet
temperature that will yield additional improvement in the measured performance of the coil.
As an example of the benefit to be derived, consider the following flow conditions:
Fan flow specification: 10,000 scfm (at a dry air density of 0.075 lbm/ft3)
Coil outlet (fan) temperature: 68°F
Room temperature limit: 120°F
Coil differential pressure: 0.15 psia
Room pressure: 14.696 psia
The flow rate conversion is obtained using Equation 4-6 as follows:
⎛P ⎞⎛ T ⎞
Vair inlet = ⎜ outlet ⎟⎜ inlet ⎟ Vair outlet
⎝ Pinlet ⎠⎝ Toutlet ⎠
⎛ (14.696 − 0.15) ⎞⎛ (120 + 460) ⎞

Vair inlet = ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟(10,000)
⎝ 14.696 ⎠⎝ (68 + 460) ⎠
⎛ 14.546 ⎞⎛ 580 ⎞
Vair inlet = ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟(10,000)
⎝ 14.696 ⎠⎝ 528 ⎠
4-15
Vair inlet = (1.0873)(10,000)
Vair inlet = 10,873 acfm
Air mass flow rate is determined with the following:
( )
& = Vair inlet (ρ a )(60 )
m Eq. 4-7
where:
&
m = air mass flow rate (lbm/hr)
Vair inlet = air volumetric flow rate (ft3/min)
ρa = air density (lbm/ft3)
60 = conversion of minutes to hours (min/hr)
In the given example, the flow conversion results in an 8.73% improvement in the mass flow
calculation performed by the thermal performance analysis tool when using the actual flow rate
of 10,873 acfm as input rather than the specified fan flow rate of 10,000 scfm.
Heat rate improvement is illustrated with Equation 4-8 (for dry air) and Equation 4-9 (for moist
air) as follows:
& c p,a (Tinlet − Toutlet )

Q air = m Eq. 4-8
Equation 4-8 is modified to account for heat loss from the water vapor passing through the cooler
(for non-condensing operation) as follows:
[
& (c p ,a + c p , v ω )(Tinlet − Toutlet
Q air = m )] Eq. 4-9
where:
Qair = heat transfer rate (Btu/hr)

m& = air mass flow rate (lbma/hr)
cp,a = air specific heat (Btu/lbma-°F)
cp,v = vapor specific heat (Btu/lbmv-°F)
ω = air stream specific humidity (lbmv/lbma)
Tinlet = air inlet temperature (°F)
Toutlet = air outlet temperature (°F)
An increase in inlet volumetric flow rate is directly proportional to an increase in air mass flow
rate (see Equation 4-7), which in turn is directly proportional to the heat transfer rate (see
Equation 4-8 or 4-9). Accordingly, an increase in heat transfer rate will be achieved at the
4-16
corrected inlet conditions. However, the increase in heat transfer rate will not be identical to the
increase in mass flow rate due to the changes in outlet temperatures that will also result. The
amount of heat transfer rate gain will be a function of the other parameters of the analysis but can
be expected, in this example, to be ≤8.73%.
4.4.4 Conclusion
Proper accounting of mass flow rate at limiting conditions can add thermal performance
margin by providing a boost in the theoretical performance capability of the heat exchanger.
This technique highlights the need to understand the limitations of the thermal performance
software that might be used to ensure that inputs are derived consistent with the analytical
tool’s design intent.
4.5 Improving Flow Margin with Credit for Low Thermal Fouling
4.5.1 Introduction
Biofouling at a PWR is monitored for all the safety-related heat exchangers cooled by service
water as part of the Generic Letter 89-13 program. The tube-side ∆p is measured at a given flow
rate, corrected to a specified target flow rate, and compared to the maximum ∆p limit derived for
each heat exchanger at the target flow rate. This is referred to as the biofouling limit. Keeping
components within their defined biofouling limit ensures that the cooling system hydraulic
resistances remain consistent with the analysis of record for postaccident flow distributions to
safety-related components.
The CCW heat exchanger—a plate-and-frame heat exchanger with two halves—has been
experiencing high ∆p. It was suspected that the high ∆p was caused by debris lodged between
the plates. A series of high-flow flushes had been performed to reduce the ∆p and provide some
margin below the current biofouling limit; however, the ∆p was still higher than desired. The
long-term plan was to replace the plate pack with clean, refurbished plates. Until that could be
done, however, there was a concern that the ∆p during the current operating cycle might exceed
its current biofouling limit, allowing the flow distribution to this component in a postaccident
scenario to be negatively affected.
Thermal performance is also monitored for the CCW heat exchanger as part of the Generic
Letter 89-13 program. The fouling resistance for the heat exchanger has been determined through
testing and compared to the maximum allowable fouling resistance. Testing for this particular
heat exchanger demonstrated that the level of fouling resistance was less than the maximum
allowable fouling.
It was evident that the high ∆p problem was being caused by macrofouling of the heat
exchanger, which was threatening the cooling system hydraulics. Because thermal performance
remained acceptable based on demonstrated low fouling resistance, a means of justifying
continued operation pending a heat exchanger cleaning was needed. The JCO was based on
4-17
crediting the relatively low fouling resistance to reduce the minimum acceptable flow for the
heat exchanger to support accident conditions. This lower required flow resulted in an
increase in the biofouling limit for the heat exchanger (that is, it allowed a higher ∆p at the
target flow value).
4.5.2 Method
This example illustrates the codependence of heat exchanger thermal performance margin and
the flow margins of the connecting systems. In this example, flow margin was improved by
recognizing and crediting the low fouling resistance that had been consistently measured for a
particular heat exchanger. This approach is related to the concept of improvement in thermal
performance margin achieved by adjusting fouling resistance assumptions as described in
Section 3.1.6, Adjusting Design Fouling Resistance. The approach presented here is an example
of margin trade-off in the context of a JCO pending correction of the root cause of
the problem.
4.5.3 Evaluation
4.5.3.1 Analysis Methodology
The approach of this analysis was to first determine the required service water flow to the heat
exchanger for the projected level of fouling resistance at the end of the remaining fuel cycle (that
is, at the projected accumulated fouling), and then to insert this required flow into the biofouling
trending case contained in the system hydraulic analysis model to determine the maximum
allowable ∆p. This approach involved a combination of heat exchanger thermal performance
analysis and system thermal–hydraulic analysis.
The following inputs were pertinent to the analysis:

• The current minimum service water flow rate for the heat exchanger is 8000 gpm (4000 gpm
for each half of the heat exchanger).
• The maximum allowable fouling resistance is based on the limiting system alignments:
– Loss-of-offsite-power (LOOP) cooldown alignment. Two pumps are aligned to a single
heat exchanger and various critical cooldown loads.
– Loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) alignment. One pump is aligned to a single heat
exchanger and various critical postaccident loads.
• The maximum allowable fouling resistance for each half of the heat exchanger for the LOOP
is 0.001 hr-ft2-°F/Btu.
• The maximum allowable fouling resistance for each half of the heat exchanger for the LOCA
is 0.002 hr-ft2-°F/Btu.
• The overall maximum allowable fouling resistance for each half of the heat exchanger is
0.001 hr-ft2-°F/Btu (limited by the LOOP alignment).
4-18
• The minimum service water flow of 4000 gpm per half is conservatively assumed to be
associated with the overall maximum allowable fouling resistance of 0.001 hr-ft2-°F/Btu (for
example, the higher flow requirement associated with the higher fouling resistance is used in
conjunction with the lower fouling limit).
• The minimum required service water flow for the projected fouling resistance at the end of
the cycle is determined based on the design limiting conditions.
• The minimum service water flow rate of 8000 gpm for the heat exchanger is based on a
single heat exchanger train.
• The current level of fouling resistance for the heat exchanger is 0.000262 hr-ft2-°F/Btu and
0.000542 hr-ft2-°F/Btu for the “A” and “B” heat exchanger, respectively, as determined by
recent heat transfer testing. An additional margin is added to allow for potential increases in
fouling resistance over the remaining fuel cycle. Trending of heat transfer test data back
several fuel cycles finds the biggest increase in fouling resistance over a fuel cycle to be
about 0.00012. As such, a fouling resistance of 0.0004 and 0.0007 will be assumed,
respectively (henceforth known as the “projected fouling”).
• A 2.5% margin will be added to the minimum flows associated with the current fouling
levels, for consistency with current methodology. The resultant value is designated as the
“target flow.”
• The biofouling limit (maximum allowable ∆p) for the heat exchangers is based on the
limiting service water system accident alignment—a LOCA with a single failure of the heat
exchanger control valves with both heat exchanger trains aligned.
In reviewing these factors, the biofouling limit had to satisfy both the limiting LOCA and LOOP
alignments. As such, the required service water flows for the projected level of fouling resistance
at the end of the cycle were determined for both LOCA and LOOP based on the limiting single
train system alignments. Note that although the limiting service water LOCA alignment has both
heat exchanger trains aligned, the required service water flow for a single train alignment was
conservatively applied, consistent with the current methodology contained in plant records.
The following summarizes the general approach used in the evaluation:

1. The required service water flow rate for the projected level of fouling resistance at the end of
the remaining fuel cycle for both the limiting component cooling water LOCA and LOOP
alignments was determined.
2. The required flow rate for the heat exchanger, determined in Step 1, was used as an input to
the biofouling case in the system hydraulic model based on the limiting component cooling
water LOCA alignment. The maximum ∆p and corresponding K value (that is, hydraulic
resistance) associated with this flow condition were determined.
3. A service water LOOP alignment case was created in the system hydraulic model
corresponding to the limiting component cooling water system LOOP alignment that
included the addition of the added hydraulic resistance (K value from Step 2). Analysis with
the revised hydraulic mode confirmed that the required flow for the limiting component
cooling water system LOOP alignment from Step 1 was satisfied.
4-19
Each of these three steps is described further in the remaining sections.
4.5.3.2 Required Service water Flow for Projected Level of Thermal Fouling
Loss-of-Coolant-Accident Case
The LOCA cases were all run with a fouling resistance of 0.002 hr-ft2-°F/Btu. The minimum
service water flow rate of 4000 gpm per half was conservatively assumed to be associated with
the overall maximum allowable fouling resistance of 0.001 hr-ft2-°F/Btu. As such, the limiting
LOCA case was first rerun with a fouling resistance of 0.001 hr-ft2-°F/Btu and a service water
flow of 4000 gpm per half to establish a baseline condition. Then, by maintaining the heat
transfer rate, Q, constant, the required service water flow for the projected level of fouling
resistance was determined:
• The baseline case with 0.001 thermal fouling. The system hydraulic analysis tool could not
model plate heat exchangers. Consequently, the heat exchanger was modeled as a constant
UA counter-flow heat exchanger. The U value was determined using a separate plate heat
exchanger spreadsheet model and was inserted into the system hydraulic analysis model. The
U value was further iterated by varying the input temperatures and flows until the
spreadsheet model agreed with the hydraulic analysis output.
• The required service water flow. Using the final spreadsheet results for the heat exchanger,
the thermal fouling was changed to the projected values for the end of cycle. Holding Q,
component cooling water flow, and input temperatures constant, the required service water
flow was determined using the spreadsheet. The resultant service water flow was 3075 gpm
per half.
LOOP Case
The limiting LOOP case served as the baseline condition. As with the LOCA case, the thermal
fouling was changed to the projected values for the end of cycle. Again, holding Q, component
cooling water flow and input temperatures constant, the required service water flow was
determined using the spreadsheet.
4.5.3.3 Maximum Heat Exchanger Differential Pressure
The following is a summary of the process for determining the maximum allowable heat
exchanger biofouling limit:
1. The service water system hydraulic model was run in the limiting service water alignment.
2. A “clean” run was completed first to determine the ∆p across the heat exchanger with no
biofouling.
3. A “dirty” run was completed with flow controls inserted into the heat exchanger flow paths
set to the target flow. The target service water flow was set to 2.5% above the flow
determined for the limiting system alignments. Thus, the target flow was 3152 gpm per half
(3075 x 1.025) rounded to 3150 gpm.
4-20
4. The hydraulic analysis output included the ∆p associated with the flow control feature
and represented the additional allowable ∆p attributed to biofouling. This ∆p was
converted into a K value, and a maximum ∆p limit across the pressure taps was used
for biofouling trending.
The following is a summary of the results. The pressure tap ∆p and biofouling K were
determined based on the flow control ∆p technique of the system hydraulic analysis model.
Table 4-5
Summary of Results
Component Flow Without Target Flow Pressure Biofouling K

Biofouling Flow Control ∆p Tap ∆p
(gpm) (gpm) (psid) (psid)
“A” heat exchanger 4333 3150 39.29 41.2 105.6
“B” heat exchanger 4413 3150 40.36 42.3 108.5
4.5.3.4 Validate Sufficient Flow for Limiting Loss-of-Offsite-Power Case
The biofouling K values from Table 4-5 were inserted into the system hydraulic model and the
appropriate LOOP alignment was run. A new lineup case was created in the hydraulic analysis
model to be associated with the limiting component cooling water system LOOP for a heat
exchanger out-of-service. Table 4-6 provides a summary of the results.
Table 4-6
Summary of Results for Loss-of-Offsite-Power Case
Component Required Flow for Actual Flow from

Limiting LOOP Case Corresponding LOOP Case
(gpm) (gpm)
“A” heat exchanger 3722 4138
“B” heat exchanger 3722 4138
Because the actual service water flow in the limiting LOOP alignment is greater than the
required flow, the biofouling limits are acceptable.
4-21
4.5.3.5 Establishing Revised Biofouling Limits
It was desired to maintain the current target flow in the biofouling trending procedure at the
current value of 4100 gpm. The biofouling limit determined previously was correlated to the
current procedural reference flow as follows:
Q1 = new target flow = 3150 gpm
Q2 = current target flow = 4100 gpm
∆p1 = ∆p limit at new target flow = 41.2 psid (12A); 42.3 psid (12B)
∆p 2 = ∆p limit at current target flow

2
⎛Q ⎞
2
⎛ 4100 ⎞
DP2 = DP limit at current target flow = DP1 * ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ = DP1 * ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Q1 ⎠ ⎝ 3150 ⎠
= 69.8 psid (12A); 71.7 psid (12B)
These results were about 49 psid above the current limits of 21.0 psid (12A) and 22.9 psid (12B).
A biofouling limit increase of this amount is very high, and the amount of debris required to raise
the ∆p across the heat exchanger by this much would most likely block off much of the heat
transfer surface area, thereby affecting thermal performance beyond what was identified for the
current flow blockage issue. Therefore, the maximum allowable ∆p limits were increased by
approximately one third of the difference between the current and new values (16 psid). Taking
the average between the two halves (37 psid and 39 psid), the maximum allowable ∆p limit for
each half of the heat exchanger, based on the projected level of thermal fouling at the end of the
remaining fuel cycle, was set at 38 psid.
4.5.4 Conclusion
Based on the projected level of thermal fouling in the heat exchanger at the end of the remaining
fuel cycle, which was based on the current level of thermal fouling identified through heat
transfer testing, the maximum ∆p limit at the current target flow of 4100 gpm was identified as
38.0 psid for each half of the heat exchanger. This limit was then available to support operability
determinations and JCOs should the current ∆p limits be exceeded.
It must be emphasized that this method applies only to situations where a high ∆p is known to be
caused by macrofouling as opposed to microfouling. As demonstrated in this example, a clear
understanding of the thermal performance of the heat exchanger, as provided by thermal
performance testing, is absolutely necessary to provide the technical basis for the margin
trade-off illustrated.
4-22
4.6 Emergency Diesel Generator Margin Improvement with Adjustment of

Cooling Water Temperature
4.6.1 Introduction
During testing of the diesel generator heat exchangers at a BWR, it was discovered that the
warming system installed on the diesel generator heat exchangers for winter operations was
allowing cross-flow between the shell side of the jacket water heat exchanger and the air coolant
cooler. This was allowing the air coolant cooler to pick up part of the load of the jacket water
system, potentially limiting the heat removed from the air-cooling system. For these particular
diesels, the air-cooling system is the limiting cooling system on the diesels. Therefore, any
increase in heat load could potentially affect operability of the diesels. Because the warming
system is required for winter operations, the system could not be removed. Rigorous analysis of
the diesel operations indicated that the air coolant cooler had sufficient margin and that
approximately 14.4% of the jacket water cooling heat load could be accommodated at technical
specification limiting service water temperatures. It was also determined that valves could be
installed to isolate several flow paths in the warming system that could limit the cross flow to the
limiting loads. However, because these warming system flow paths had to be restored to support
winter operations, a river temperature limit had to be established at which the isolation valves
could be closed.
4.6.2 Method
the limiting condition cooling-side inlet temperature as described in Section 3.1.5, Adjusting
Limiting Condition Cooling-Side Temperature.
4.6.3 Evaluation
The method used to calculate this temperature limit was to calculate the cooling water
temperature required to provide sufficient margin in the capacity of the air coolant coolers to
accommodate the additional heat load imposed by cross-flow from the jacket water system
through the cross flow paths. (This heat load was determined to be approximately 40.8% of the
jacket water heat load during heat transfer testing of the diesels.)
To perform the required analysis, a spreadsheet was prepared to model the performance of each
heat exchanger on the diesel skid. The diesel skid contains three heat exchangers—the air
coolant cooler, the lube oil cooler, and the jacket water heat exchanger—that transfer heat from
the diesel cooling systems to the emergency service water system. The process sides of the heat
exchangers are connected to the diesel generator in parallel, while the cooling sides of the three
heat exchangers are piped in series, with the ESW outlet of each heat exchanger as the inlet to
the next heat exchanger.
4-23
In calculating heat exchanger performance, design values are used for heat exchanger duty,
process inlet temperatures, and tube- and shell-side flow rates. The clean heat transfer
coefficients for the heat exchangers were developed in a proprietary analysis of the diesel heat
exchangers and are inputs to the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet calculates heat exchanger outlet
temperatures and fouling for the heat loads, process, and cooling parameters provided as input.
The air design inputs for the diesel heat exchangers are shown in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7
Design Inputs for Diesel Heat Exchangers
Design Input Air Coolant Cooler Lube Oil Cooler Jacket Water
Heat Exchanger
Heat load 2.62 x106 Btu/hr 2.71 x 106 Btu/hr 3.17 x 106 Btu/hr
Process (shell-side) inlet 140°F 215°F 185°F

temperature
Cooling (tube-side) flow 700 gpm 700 gpm 700 gpm

rate
Process (shell-side) flow 500 gpm 500 gpm 400 gpm

rate
Allowable fouling 0.0006 hr-ft2-°F/Btu Not given Not given
Heat transfer surface 221.5 ft2 298 ft2 167 ft2

area
Outlet temperatures are calculated using the following formula:
Shell-Side Outlet Temperature
The shell-side outlet temperature is found using a variation of Equation 2-1 as follows:
& h c p ,h (Th ,i − Th ,o )
Qh = m
Qh
Th ,o = Th ,i −
& h c p,h
m
where:
Qh = the hot-side fluid heat transfer rates (Btu/hr)

m&h = the hot-side fluid mass flow rates (lbm/hr)
cp,h = the hot-side fluid constant pressure specific heats (Btu/lbm-°F)
Th,I = the hot-side fluid inlet temperatures (°F)
Th,o = the hot-side fluid outlet temperatures (°F)
4-24
Tube-Side Outlet Temperature
The tube-side outlet temperature is found using a variation of Equation 2-2 as follows:
& cc p ,c (Tc ,o − Tc ,i )
Qc = m
Qc
Tc,o = Tc,i +
& c c p,c
m
where:
Qc = the cold-side fluid heat transfer rates (Btu/hr)

m&c = the cold-side fluid mass flow rates (lbm/hr)
cp,c = the cold-side fluid constant pressure specific heats (Btu/lbm-°F)
Tc,i = the cold-side fluid inlet temperatures (°F)
Tc,o = the cold-side fluid outlet temperatures (°F)
Because the clean heat transfer coefficient is an input, the service heat transfer coefficient is
calculated using this and the associated design heat load, area, and terminal temperatures using
Equation 2-3. To calculate EMTD, see Equations 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7.
Q = U ⋅ A ⋅ EMTD
where:
Q = the heat load of the heat exchanger (Btu/hr)

U = the overall heat transfer coefficient for the heat exchanger (Btu/hr- ft2-°F)
A = the reference heat transfer surface area associated with the overall heat transfer
coefficient (ft2)
EMTD = the effective mean temperature difference (°F)
(Qdesign )
U service =
( A design )( EMTD design )
4-25
The service fouling resistance is calculated using Equation 2-9 as follows:
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
f = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ U service ⎠ ⎝ U clean ⎠
where:
f = the design fouling resistance

Uservice = the service heat transfer coefficient (that is, with design fouling resistance)
Uclean = the clean heat transfer coefficient (that is, with zero fouling resistance)
Because the air coolant cooler is the limiting heat exchanger, and the first heat exchanger in the
series, the limiting cooling water temperature was calculated by iterating cooling water
temperatures until the fouling resistance calculated was equal to the design limiting fouling for
the air coolant cooler. Table 4-8 shows the results of this analysis.
4.6.4 Conclusion
Reducing the cooling inlet temperature from 92 to 78.5°F increases the heat removal rate for the
air coolant cooler from 2.62 x106 to 3.91 x106 Btu/hr, which is sufficient to accommodate 40.8%
of the heat load of the jacket water heat exchanger. Therefore, when river temperatures reach
78.5°F, the summer valve alignment is required.
4-26
Table 4-8
Diesel Heat Exchangers Thermal Margin Analysis
Parameter Air Coolant Lube Oil Jacket Water
Tube Shell Tube Shell Tube Shell
Vendor heat load 2.61909 2.70836 3.16798

(MBtu/hr)
Adjustment (MBtu/hr) 1.29222 -1.29222
Net heat load (°F) 3.91131 2.70836 1.87576
Inlet temp (°F) 78.5 140 89.712 215 97.478 185
Density (lbm/ft3) 62.2305 61.4003 53.0114 60.4413
Cp (Btu/lbm-°F) 0.9988 0.9987 0.9981 0.5102 0.9978 1.0043
Flow (gpm) 700 500 700 500 700 400
349398.2 246240.9 349398.2 212597.7 349398.2 193915.8
Outlet temp (°F) 89.712 124.096 97.478 190.030 102.858 175.369
Heat exchanger 0.18225 0.25862 0.06199 0.19930 0.06147 0.11005

effectiveness
Heat capacity ratio 1.4190 3.2152 1.7902
LMTD (°F) 47.9016 108.6934 79.9974
Heat Transfer 0.99852 0.99480 1.00041

Research, Inc. (HTRI)
correction
Corrected LMTD (°F) 47.8306 108.1281 80.0302
U (Btu/hr-°F-ft2) 369.2294 0.00271 84.0526 0.01190 140.3485 0.00713
U clean 474.3168 0.00211 109.7926 0.00911 725.1629 0.00138

(Btu/hr-°F-ft2)
Permitted fouling 0.0006 0.00279 0.00575

(hr-ft2-°F/Btu)
Note:
Diesel cross-flow limit: LOCA/LOOP 2992 kW, 4178 hp
New heat duty: HV-10022D closed and standby keep warm system return isolated
Adjustment: 40.79%
Minimum ESW flow, 0.0006 fouling
4-27
4.7 Emergency Diesel Generator Margin Improvement with Adjustment of

Fouling Resistance
4.7.1 Introduction
Design flows to EDG heat exchangers were not met during system flow testing due to increased
hydraulic resistance in the system piping from corrosion.
4.7.2 Method
fouling resistance assumptions as described in Section 3.1.6, Adjusting Design Fouling
Resistance.
4.7.3 Evaluation
Fouling resistance values are used during heat exchanger design primarily to provide adequate
surface area to ensure performance with generalized assumptions on bounding cleanliness
values. Fouling resistance values are rarely tailored to plant-specific water chemistry conditions,
but are generic values from sources such as the TEMA standards that are applied to general
classes of water types [11]. Thus, considerable conservatism can exist in the design fouling
resistance selected for a specific application depending on the actual water chemistry present.
Data from component testing can provide the basis for the selection of more realistic, but still
bounding, fouling resistances to use in design analysis calculations. This can allow the
considerable performance margin inherent with an overly conservative fouling resistance to be
credited to the component or—as in the case of this example—used to justify lower required
cooling water flow.
The subject heat exchanger was shown to have acceptable margin to operability by calculating
the required service water flow using a lower than design but still bounding fouling resistance.
The use of a lower fouling resistance to calculate the required cooling water flow was justified
by the results of multiple cycles of thermal performance testing.
Thermal performance testing of the heat exchanger had been performed for over 10 years. Test
results were relatively stable and indicated that asymptotic fouling values were considerably
below the design fouling even when the data was adjusted for test instrument uncertainty. The
development of consistent thermal performance test cleanliness results without the need to clean
the tubes indicated that asymptotic or stable fouling values had been reached. The cooling water
system is continuously treated with biocides to prevent biological growth and the water is not
scale forming. Thus, unused margin exists in the design fouling resistance term because it
represented a condition significantly beyond the stable cleanliness condition of the heat
exchanger tubes.
The combination of design flow (900 gpm), design maximum ultimate heat sink temperature,
and design fouling (0.0015 ft2-°F-hr/Btu) had been used in performance calculations. Thermal
4-28
performance test results from multiple cycles were used to show that considerable margin existed
in the design fouling resistance number for this application. The maximum allowed fouling was
reduced from 0.0015 to 0.0012 ft2-°F-hr/Btu, which remained bounding for the historical test
values. The required flow was reduced from 900 gpm to 750 gpm (even though 725 gpm was
justified by the analysis) while maintaining the required heat rejection capability at the peak
ultimate heat sink temperature. The heat exchanger capacity with the lower fouling resistance
was determined using a qualified heat exchanger model as shown in Table 4-9 and Table 4-10.
Table 4-9
Reduced Fouling Yielding Increased Heat Transfer at Constant Flow
Cooling Water Flow Fouling Resistance Heat Removal Capacity*

(gpm) (ft2-°F-hr/Btu) (106 Btu/hr)
900 0.0015 1.363
900 0.0012 1.455
900 0.0010 1.523
900 0.0008 1.598
* Based on fixed process flow, process inlet temperature, and cooling water inlet temperature.
Table 4-10
Reduced Fouling Yielding Reduced Flow with Constant Heat Transfer Rate
Cooling Water Flow Fouling Resistance Heat Removal Capacity*

(gpm) (ft2-°F-hr/Btu) (106 Btu/hr)
900 0.0015 1.363
725 0.0012 1.369
630 0.0010 1.364
560 0.0008 1.363
* Based on fixed process flow, process inlet temperature, and cooling water inlet temperature.
Some cautions regarding the use of fouling resistance in this manner are worthy of note. In
particular, fouling resistance is a relative term that establishes the difference in efficiency or
performance of the heat exchanger from the clean condition. The impact on thermal performance
of a selected value of fouling resistance or the value of fouling resistance calculated from test
data is a strong function of the analytical methods used in the thermal performance calculations
and the assumptions and inputs built into the heat exchanger model. Accordingly, it can be
difficult to compare the thermal performance results or fouling resistance values derived from
different heat exchanger computer models.
The use of more conservative modeling techniques (that is, less accurate assumptions that result
in under-predicting thermal capability) for a heat exchanger will result in a low fouling resistance
when that model is used to evaluate test results. Thermal performance tests of a perfectly clean
heat exchanger would result in a negative fouling resistance if the thermal model used to
4-29
evaluate the test results had conservatively modeled (that is, underestimated) the heat
exchanger’s capability, and the greater the conservatism or deviation from actual capability, the
more negative the fouling resistance would be to compensate. A fouled heat exchanger would
likewise indicate a lower fouling number if the heat exchanger model under predicts the heat
exchanger capability.
These differences in heat exchanger models make it important that the same software that is used
to analyze thermal test data be used to predict thermal capability at design conditions if fouling
resistances are used as inputs. Provided the fouling resistance is reused in that same model to
predict heat transfer capability, the ultimate value of the fouling resistance is of little
consequence because the resultant heat transfer will be a conservative number based on the
model under-predicting the heat exchanger capability. Caution should be used, however, when
comparing fouling resistances derived from test analysis software with fouling resistances
derived from the models used by equipment manufacturers or other analysis. Comparisons of
predicted performance at consistent conditions can be used as an indication of which software is
more conservatively modeling the heat exchanger capability. Both models can be conservative
relative to actual performance. Fouling resistances derived from field performance data by one
analysis model are suitable for trending, but might not be suitable for comparison to original
design fouling resistances derived from a different analysis model.
4.7.4 Conclusion
Thermal performance margin was found to exist in the design fouling resistance value. The
excess margin in the fouling resistance was used to justify lower flows for the heat exchanger
and show operability with degraded system flow capability. The fouling resistance for relatively
clean, non-scale-forming water sources that are chemically treated to control biological fouling
(micro and macro) can contain significant excess margin. The fouling resistance for more
aggressive water environments might not have similar margin or be nonconservative in severe
cases, and limitations include the following:
• Stations with scale forming water, biological fouling, or other issues that result in poor
cleanliness might not have adequate margin available in their design fouling resistance. If
cleaning is performed to maintain the required performance of the heat exchanger, the
frequency of the cleaning and thermal testing might need to be adjusted to support a lower
fouling resistance.
• Stations that do not run thermal performance tests are not likely to have an adequate basis to
support reduction in their design fouling resistance.
• In this example, the utility elected to declare the equipment “degraded but operable” and
tracked restoration of the design flow per the guidance in GL 91-18 [10]. The design flow of
900 gpm and fouling resistance of 0.0015 were not changed, with the lower fouling
resistance of 0.0012 and lower associated required flow of 750 gpm only used to justify
operability until the system degradation that caused the flow reduction was resolved. It might
be overly conservative to treat the original design fouling resistance as design margin
intended by the plant designer. As noted above, these values were used primarily to ensure
adequate surface area with generalized assumptions on bounding cleanliness values. The fact
4-30
that a fouling resistance assumed during plant design is found to be significantly conservative
based on field testing and measurements should not prevent the utility from adjusting the
originally assumed value and the associated flow. The use of a more realistic but still
bounding fouling resistance in design calculations should be an acceptable practice for
reanalysis of required flows to meet heat removal requirements.
Consideration should be given to GL 91-18 when making changes to design values [10].
Changes to design conditions should determine whether the margin above operability was
intentionally applied by the original system designer to provide for operational safety between
operability requirements and normal operation or if the difference was primarily due to a best
guess or a standard value widely applied without specific consideration to the application.
4-31
5
EXAMPLES RELATED TO REDUCTIONS IN
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
This section provide case studies of the actual implementation of margin enhancement using the
techniques described in Section 3.2, Margin Improvement Through Reduction in Performance
Requirements.
5.1 Effect of Room Temperature on Room Cooler Heat Load
5.1.1 Introduction
One of the most effective ways to increase heat transfer margin is to allow the process
temperature to increase above the value assumed by the heat exchanger vendor. This can be
accomplished by re-analyzing components cooled by the process fluid for higher temperatures.
This is particularly applicable to room coolers. Typically, the maximum room temperature
chosen by the architectural engineer is conservative compared to the minimum qualified (most
restrictive) EQ temperature for the components in the room. Increasing the maximum room
temperature can provide substantial heat transfer margin by both increasing the capacity of the
room coolers (as described in Section 4.2, Room Cooler Performance Enhancement) and
decreasing the heat load contribution from hot piping in the room (as described in this section).
The following example illustrates the effects of increasing room temperature on the subsequent
piping heat loads in the room.
Piping loads for the HPCI room consisted of several pipes and heat exchangers that were
modeled as a combination of insulated and uninsulated piping and insulated plates (heat
exchanger ends).
5.1.2 Method
This method illustrates an increase in thermal performance margin achieved by reducing the
required heat removal rate. This is accomplished by reducing the heat load in the subject room
by adjusting limiting condition process-side (air) temperature. (See Section 3.1.4, Adjusting
Limiting Condition Process-Side Temperature, and Section 3.2, Margin Improvement Through
Reduction in Performance Requirements.)
5-1
Examples Related to Reductions in Performance Requirements
5.1.3 Evaluation
The evaluation considers the heat losses from two sources inside the room under evaluation:
uninsulated piping, and insulated plates and piping. Each source is evaluated separately in the
following subsections.
5.1.3.1 Uninsulated Piping
Heat losses from uninsulated piping consist of convective and radiation losses. The total heat
transfer can be expressed as the sum of the two, as shown in Equations 5-1 through 5-3:
Qcv = hcv A(Ts - Ta) Eq. 5-1
Qrad = hrad A(Ts - Ta) Eq. 5-2
Q = Qcv + Qrad Eq. 5-3
where:
Qcv = convection heat transfer rate (Btu/hr)

Qrad = radiation heat transfer rate (Btu/hr)
hcv = convection surface coefficient (Btu/hr-ft2-°F)
A = heat transfer surface area (ft2)
hrad = radiation surface coefficient (Btu/hr-ft2-°F)
Ta = air temperature (°F)
Ts = pipe surface temperature (°F) (conservatively assumed to be the fluid
temperature)
The equation for the convective surface coefficient, hcv, is given in Equation 5-4:
0.181
⎛1⎞
0.2
⎛ 1 ⎞
h cv =C⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (∆ T)
0.266
[1 + 1.277(v air )] Eq. 5-4
⎝d⎠ ⎜T ⎟
⎝ avg ⎠
where:
C = constant depending on shape and heat flow condition (1.394 was used for vertical
plates as a conservative value for all cases)
d = diameter for cylinder (in.) (for flat surfaces and large cylinders [d > 24 in.], use
d = 24)
Tavg = average temperature of air film (°F) (assumed to be room temperature)
∆T = surface-to-air temperature difference (°F)
vair = air velocity (mph)
5-2
Assuming zero air velocity, the convection surface coefficient (Equation 5-4) is simplified to the
expression shown in Equation 5-5:
0.181
⎛1⎞
0.2
⎛ 1 ⎞
h cv = C ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ( ∆ T )0.266 Eq. 5-5
⎝d⎠ ⎜T ⎟
⎝ avg ⎠
The equation for the radiation surface coefficient, hrad, is given in Equation 5-6:
ε (0.1713x 10-8) [(Ts + 459.6 )4 - (Ta + 459.6 )4 ]

h rad = Eq. 5-6
( Ts - T a )
where:
ε = surface emittance
Ta = air temperature (°F)
Ts = pipe surface temperature (°F) (conservatively assumed to be the fluid
temperature)
5.1.3.2 Insulated Plates and Piping
Heat losses for insulated piping and plates are calculated using the following formulas (assuming
a single layer of insulation and neglecting the thermal resistance of the pipe wall).
The equation for heat transfer from plate surfaces is given in Equation 5-7:
Tis - T os
qs = Eq. 5-7
t/k
where:
qs = rate of heat transfer per unit area of outer surface of insulation (Btu/hr-ft2)
t = insulation thickness (in.)
k = thermal conductivity of insulation (a value of 0.4 Btu-in/hr-ft2-°F is used)
Tis = pipe surface temperature (°F) (conservatively assumed to be the fluid
temperature)
Tos = insulation outer surface temperature (°F) (conservatively assumed to be room
temperature)
5-3
The equation for heat transfer from piping surfaces is given in Equation 5-8:
Tis - Tos
qs = Eq. 5-8
rs ln( rs / r p ) / k
where:
qs = rate of heat transfer per unit area of outer surface of insulation (Btu/hr-ft2)
k = thermal conductivity of insulation (a value of 0.4 Btu-in/hr-ft2-°F is used)
Tis = pipe surface temperature (°F) (conservatively assumed to be the fluid
temperature)
Tos = insulation outer surface temperature (°F) (conservatively assumed to be room
temperature)
rp = pipe outer surface radius (in.)
rs = insulation outer surface radius (in.)
The calculated piping loads for the HPCI room at temperatures of 115 and 140°F are shown in
Table 5-1.
5.1.4 Conclusion
Increasing the room temperature decreased the piping heat load from 72,849.8 Btu/hr to
34,295.6 Btu/hr, resulting in an increase in heat exchanger margin of 38,554.3 Btu/hr.
5-4
Table 5-1
Piping Heat Load Comparison at Two Room Temperatures
Line No. Outside Emissivity Insulation Thermal Length Fluid Surface Heat Load (Btu/hr) for
Diameter Thickness Conductivity (ft) Temperature Area Room Temperature
(in.) (in.) (Btu-in./hr-ft2-°F) (°F) (ft2)
115°F 140°F
14 - EBB - 129 14.00 0.97 0.0 0.400 46 140 168.6 9140.3 0.0
4 - EBB - 130 4.50 0.97 0.0 0.400 43 140 50.7 3011.0 0.0
14 - HBB - 110 14.00 0.97 0.0 0.400 4 140 14.7 794.8 0.0
16 - HBB - 109 16.00 0.97 0.0 0.400 46 140 192.7 10,342.0 0.0
16 - HBB - 110 16.00 0.97 0.0 0.400 30 140 125.7 6744.8 0.0
12 - EBB - 108 12.75 0.97 3.0 0.545 67 552 328.9 21,664.3 20,424.9
16 - HBB - 113 16.00 0.97 2.5 0.425 4 249 22.0 438.6 356.8
20 - HBB - 108 20.00 0.97 2.5 0.425 84 249 549.8 11,225.0 9130.8
Barometric
condenser 6.63 0.97 2.5 0.416 6 225 18.3 255.7 197.6
Barometric
condenser ends 6.63 0.97 2.5 0.416 0 225 0.5 8.8 6.8
Barometric
condenser tank 0.97 2.5 0.416 2.2 205 13.7 204.7 147.9
HPCI turbine oil

cooler 8.125 0.61 0.0 0.400 4.53 170 9.6 1083.2 549.0
Oil cooler ends 8.125 0.61 0.0 0.400 0 170 0.7 72.3 37.1
HPCI turbine 53.5 0.97 3.5 0.480 3.77 402 59.7 2211.5 2018.9
HPCI turbine ends 53.5 0.97 3.5 0.480 0 402 31.2 1228.9 1121.9
5-5
Table 5-1 (cont.)

Piping Heat Load Comparison at Two Room Temperatures
Line No. Outside Emissivity Insulation Thermal Length Fluid Surface Heat Load (Btu/hr) for
(in.) (in.) (Btu-in./hr-ft2-°F) (°F) (ft2)
115°F 140°F
Turbine stop valve 19.125 0.97 3.5 0.480 1.44 402 9.8 333.0 304.0
HPCI main pump 24 0.97 0 0.400 3.33 140 20.9 1090.5 0.0
HPCI main pump

ends 24 0.97 0 0.400 0 140 6.3 327.5 0.0
HPCI booster pump 24 0.97 0 0.400 2 140 12.6 654.9 0.0
HPCI booster pump

ends 24 0.97 0 0.400 0 140 6.3 327.5 0.0
HPCI cross around

pipe 12.00 0.97 0.0 0.400 9.81 140 30.8 1690.6 0.0
Total Heat Load (Btu/hr) 72,849.9 34,295.7
5-6
5.2 Reduction of Heat Loads by Evaluation of Conservatisms in the Original

Design
5.2.1 Introduction
To provide an example of the type of heat load reductions that might be found in a room heat
load analysis, we will examine the analysis of the heat loads originally calculated for the RHR
pump room of an East Coast BWR.
The heat loads for this room consisted of heat loads from pump motors, fan motors, lighting,
cable loads, piping, ventilation air, and heat transmission from adjacent rooms. The original
analysis used to size the room coolers incorporated several design assumptions, which overstated
the heat loads in the room, when compared to the final actual design. A comparison of the
original design analysis and the current analysis follows.
5.2.2 Method
This method first illustrates an increase in thermal performance margin achieved by reducing the
required heat removal rate. (See Section 3.2, Margin Improvement Through Reduction in
Performance Requirements.). Further margin improvement was achieved by increasing room
temperature, which had the side benefit of significantly reducing room heat load even further.
This latter case is an example of improving margin by adjusting limiting condition process-side
temperature. (See Section 3.1.4, Adjusting Limiting Condition Process-Side Temperature.)
5.2.3 Evaluation
5.2.3.1 Reducing the Required Heat Removal Rate
The evaluation considers heat loads from the following sources:

• Electrical heat loads
• Piping heat loads
• Ventilation heat loads
• Transmission loads from other compartments
Each of these heat loads is evaluated individually in the subsections that follow.
5-7
5.2.3.2 Electrical Heat Loads
Residual Heat Removal Pump Motors
The heat load for a pump motor is expressed as shown in Equation 5-9:
2545 P (1.0 - E M )
Q pump = x F UM x F LM Eq. 5-9
EM
where:
Qpump = heat load from pump motor (Btu/hr)

P = motor horsepower (Hp) (typically, the pump brake horsepower should be
substituted for the motor nameplate)
EM = motor efficiency (fraction)
FUM = motor use factor
FLM = motor load factor (assumed to be 1.0)
The original heat load data were given for each pump motor as shown in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2
Original Residual Heat Removal Pump Motor Heat Load
Pump Horsepower Efficiency Motor Use Motor Load Heat Load

Factor Factor (Btu/hr)
RHR pump 1250 0.93 1.0 1.0 239,449
From a review of pump test data, it was determined that the brake horsepower for these pumps at
accident conditions was 1196. The efficiency was verified as 93%, yielding the revised heat load
per pump shown in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3
Revised Residual Heat Removal Pump Motor Heat Load

RHR pump 1190 0.93 1.0 1.0 227,955
Therefore, the heat load was overstated by 11,494 Btu/hr per pump. Because the analysis
assumes two pumps running for the design basis scenario, the total pump heat load was
overstated by 22,988 Btu/hr.
5-8
Unit Cooler Fan Motor
The heat load for a unit cooler fan motor is expressed as shown in Equation 5-10:
2545 P
Q fan = x F UM x F LM Eq. 5-10
EM
where:
Qfan = heat load from fan motor (Btu/hr)

P = motor horsepower (hp)
EM = motor efficiency
FUM = motor use factor
FLM = motor load factor (assumed to be 1.0)
The original design calculation assumed the data for each unit cooler fan motor as shown in
Table 5-4.
Table 5-4
Original Unit Cooler Fan Motor Heat Load

Unit cooler fan 20 0.73 1.0 1.0 69,726
These data were verified as correct during the final analysis. Because the analysis assumes two
unit coolers running, the total heat load is 139,452 Btu/hr.
Lighting
Lighting heat loads are calculated using the formula shown in Equation 5-11:
Q lighting = 3.413 x W x F x F Eq. 5-11

ul sa
where:
Qlighting = heat gain from electric lighting (Btu/hr.)

W = total light wattage
Ful = lighting use factor (assumed to be 1.0)
Fsa = lighting special allowance factor (assumed as 1.25 for fluorescent fixtures and 1.0
for incandescent fixtures
The original design analysis assumed 3800 watts of lighting, all incandescent, yielding a heat
load of 12,969 Btu/hr.
5-9
A review of the final lighting drawings for this room provided a revised lighting heat load as
shown in Table 5-5. Therefore, the lighting load was overstated by 1542 Btu/hr.
Table 5-5
Revised Lighting Heat Load
Fixture Type Wattage Ful Fsa Number of Heat Load

Fixtures (Btu/hr)
Fluorescent 80 1.0 1.25 32 10,922
Incandescent 24 1.0 1.0 2 164
Incandescent 100 1.0 1.0 1 341
Total heat load 11,427
Electrical Cable
The original design analysis assumed a heat load of 2984 Btu/hr from electrical cable installed in
the room. A review of the final electrical calculations for this room showed that the final cable
design heat load was 2608 Btu/hr. Therefore, the heat load from cable was overstated by
376 Btu/hr.
Electrical Heat Load Summary Comparison
A summary of the original design electrical heat loads versus the current design is provided in
Table 5-6.
Table 5-6
Original Design Versus Revised Design Electrical Heat Loads
RHR Pumps Unit Cooler Lighting Electric Cable Total Heat

Fans Load
Original design 478,898 139,452 12,969 2984 634,303

heat loads
Refined design 455,910 139,452 11,427 2608 609,397

heat loads
Difference 24,906
5.2.3.3 Piping Heat Loads
The piping heat loads in the RHR room come from a combination of insulated and uninsulated
piping and the RHR heat exchanger. The RHR heat exchanger is modeled as a combination of
insulated piping (shell) and uninsulated piping (waterbox and waterbox end). The equations used
to derive the heat loads from both insulated and uninsulated piping were defined in Section 5.1.3,
Evaluation, Equations 5-1 through 5-8.
The original room heat load analysis contained the following assumptions:
5-10
• The RHR inlet temperature to the heat exchanger was assumed to be 212°F (the design
temperature limit for the suppression pool).
• The RHR outlet temperature from the heat exchanger was assumed to be 187.7°F, based on a
rudimentary heat exchanger model used in the original LOCA analysis.
• The average surface temperature for the RHR heat exchanger was assumed to be 200°F.
• The surface area of the RHR heat exchanger was assumed to be 475 ft2.
• RHR service water piping and the RHR heat exchanger waterbox were not modeled.
• The original room design temperature was assumed to be 115°F.
Table 5-7 shows the results of the original piping analysis. The original heat loads from piping
were calculated to be 142,626 Btu/hr.
5-11
Table 5-7
Residual Heat Removal Room Original Loss-of-Coolant-Accident Analysis
Line No. Outside Emissivity Insulation Thermal Length Fluid Surface Heat Load for
(in.) (in.) (Btu-in./hr-ft2-°F) (°F) (ft2) of 115°F
(Btu/hr)
24 - HBB - 117 24.000 0.97 0.0 0.4 73 212 458.7 107,223.2
30 - HBB - 118 30.000 0.97 2.5 0.4 24 212 219.9 3163.0
18 - GBB - 101 18.000 0.97 2.0 0.4 66 212 380.1 6681.8
18 - GBB - 102 18.000 0.97 2.5 0.4 26 212 156.6 2154.9
4 - GBB - 109 4.500 0.97 1.5 0.4 166 212 325.9 6601.9
4 - GBB - 101 4.500 0.97 1.5 0.4 13 212 25.5 517.0
18 - GBB - 117 18.000 0.97 1.5 0.4 29 187.7 159.4 2864.5
8 - GBB - 117 8.625 0.97 1.5 0.4 10 187.7 30.4 510.1
18 - GBB - 118 18.000 0.97 1.5 0.4 7 187.7 38.5 691.4
8 - GBB - 118 8.625 0.97 1.5 0.4 13 187.7 39.6 663.1
18 - GBB - 119 18.000 0.97 2.0 0.4 46 212 264.9 4657.0
4 - GBB - 119 4.500 0.97 1.5 0.4 45 212 88.4 1789.7
RHR HX 54.125 0.97 3.0 0.4 30.2 200 474.9 5108.9
Total Heat Load (Btu/hr) 142,626.4
5-12
The revised analysis was based on the following data:

• The RHR inlet temperature to the heat exchanger is assumed to be 204°F, based on the most
recent LOCA analysis.
• The RHR outlet temperature from the heat exchanger is assumed to be 178.5°F, based on a
limiting analysis for the RHR heat exchanger considering both limiting tube plugging and
fouling.
• The average surface temperature for the RHR heat exchanger channel is assumed to be
191°F, based on the average temperature of the inlet and outlet.
• The RHR heat exchanger surface area is revised and divided into segments.
• The RHR service water inlet temperature is assumed to be 95°F, based on the design
temperature of ultimate heat sink.
• The RHR service water outlet temperature is assumed to be 121.8°F, based on the RHR heat
exchanger analysis presented in this section.
• The room design temperature is assumed to be 115°F (presented only for direct comparison).
Table 5-8 shows the results of the revised piping analysis. The piping heat load is calculated to
be 113,417 Btu/hr, which represents a reduction of 29,209 Btu/hr.
5-13
Table 5-8
Residual Heat Removal Room Revised Loss-of-Coolant-Accident Analysis
(Btu/hr)
24 - HBB - 117 24.000 0.97 0.0 0.4 73 204 458.7 96,328.1
20 - HBC - 181 20.000 0.97 0.0 0.4 8 121.8 41.9 477.2
20 - HBC - 183 20.000 0.97 0.0 0.4 29 95 151.8 -5216.4
20 - GBC - 110 20.000 0.97 0.0 0.4 40 121.8 209.4 2386.0
20 - GBC - 104 20.000 0.97 0.0 0.4 61 95 319.4 -10,972.5
30 - HBB - 118 30.000 0.97 2.5 0.4 24 204 219.9 2902.1
18 - GBB - 101 18.000 0.97 2.0 0.4 66 204 380.1 6130.7
18 - GBB - 102 18.000 0.97 2.5 0.4 26 204 156.6 1977.1
4 - GBB - 109 4.500 0.97 1.5 0.4 166 204 325.9 6057.4
4 - GBB - 101 4.500 0.97 1.5 0.4 13 204 25.5 474.4
18 - GBB - 117 18.000 0.97 1.5 0.39 29 178.5 159.4 2439.4
8 - GBB - 117 8.625 0.97 1.5 0.39 10 178.5 30.4 434.4
18 - GBB - 118 18.000 0.97 1.5 0.39 7 178.5 38.5 588.8
8 - GBB - 118 8.625 0.97 1.5 0.39 13 178.5 39.6 564.7
18 - GBB - 119 18.000 0.97 2.0 0.4 46 204 264.9 4272.9
4 - GBB - 119 4.500 0.97 1.5 0.4 45 204 88.4 1642.1
RHR HX 54.125 0.97 3.0 0.4 25.1 191 395.1 3800.3
RHR HX end 54.125 0.97 3.0 0.4 0 191 32.0 323.8
5-14
Table 5-8 (cont.)

Residual Heat Removal Room Revised Loss-of-Coolant-Accident Analysis
(Btu/hr)
RHR HX water box 54.125 0.97 0.0 0.4 5 108.4 70.8 -822.4
RHR HX WB end 54.125 0.97 0.0 0.4 0 108.4 32.0 -370.9
5.2.3.4 Ventilation Heat Loads
After an accident, the ventilation for the reactor building provides 275 acfm of uncooled recirculated air to the RHR pump rooms. The
original analysis calculated a reactor building bulk air temperature of 127.7°F. Therefore, the heat load from the recirculated air is
represented by the heat removal required to cool the incoming air from the inlet temperature of 127.7°F to the room temperature of
115°F. This heat load is derived using Equations 4-7 and 4-8 and is given as shown in Equation 5-12:
Q = (V )(ρ )(60 ) (c p )(Trecirc − Tamb ) Eq. 5-12
where:
V = volumetric flow rate of air (acfm)

ρ = air density (lbm/ft3)
60 = conversion of minutes to hours (60 min/hr)
cp = specific heat of air (Btu/lbm-°F)
Trecirc = recirculation air temperature (°F)
Tamb = ambient air temperature (°F)
5-15
Substituting the standard value for air density (0.075 lbm/ft3), converting the actual volumetric
air flow rate of 275 acfm to the equivalent standard volumetric air flow (scfm) using equation
4-5, and substituting other known terms, the heat load is calculated as follows:
⎡ ( 460 + 65) ⎤
Q = (275)(0.075)(60)(0.24 ) (127.7° F − 115° F) ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ( 460 + 127.7) ⎦
Q = 3369 Btu/hr
In this particular analysis, a standard temperature of 65°F was used for consistency with previous
design analysis.
The final reactor building temperature analysis calculated a reactor building bulk air temperature
of 120°F. Therefore, the revised ventilation heat load is given as follows:
⎡ ( 460 + 65) ⎤
Q = (275)(0.075)(60)(0.24 ) (120° F − 115°F) ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ( 460 + 120) ⎦
Q = 1344 Btu/hr.
This represents a reduction of 2025 Btu/hr in the room heat load.
5.2.3.5 Transmission Loads from Other Compartments
The original analysis considered heat gain by conduction from other compartments as shown in
Table 5-9.
Table 5-9
Transmission Loads in Original Analysis
Slab No. U Area Ti To Q

(Btu/hr-°-ft2) (ft2) (°F) (°F) (Btu/hr)
1 0.15 1600 115 212 23,280
2 0.192 820 115 123 1260
3 0.231 520 115 120 598
4 0.231 370 115 120 426
5 0.27 910 115 120 1229
6 0.27 830 115 120 1120
7 0.08 1740 115 60 -7656
8 0.08 1000 115 60 -4400
Total (Btu/hr) 15,857
5-16
Heat loads were calculated from the relationship shown in Equation 5-13:
Q = UA(To - Ti) Eq. 5-13
where:
U = heat transfer co-efficient (Btu/hr-ft2-°F)

A = slab area (ft2)
To = outside temperature (°F)
Ti = RHR room temperature (°F)
The basis for the U-values used in the original analysis was not given. The U-values for the
revised analysis were calculated as shown in Equation 5-14 (as derived from Equation 2-4):
U = 1/RT Eq. 5-14
RT = 1/hi + x/λ + 1/ho Eq. 5-15
where:
RT = total resistance to heat flow (hr-ft2-°F/Btu)

hi = inside convection film coefficient (Btu/hr-ft2-°F)
x = slab thickness (ft)
λ = slab thermal conductivity (Btu-ft/h-ft2-°F) (a value of 0.75 Btu-ft/h-ft2-°F was
used for concrete slabs)
ho = outside convection film coefficient (Btu/hr-ft2-°F).
Values of hi and ho were taken from the 1989 ASHRAE Handbook [17] as shown in Table 5-10.
These values are based on a surface emittance of 0.9 and still air.
Table 5-10
Convection Film Coefficients
Position of Surface Direction of Heat Flow h
Horizontal Upward 1.63
Vertical Horizontal 1.46
Horizontal Downward 1.08
Where the outside of the slab was in contact with water or earth, the outside film coefficient was
ignored because the outside slab temperature was assumed to be at the same temperature as the
water or earth.
The revised transmission loads are shown in Table 5-11.
5-17
Table 5-11
Transmission Loads in Revised Analysis
Slab Number Ti To hi k t ho RT U A Q
(°F) (°F) (Btu/hr-ft2-°F) (Btu-ft/h-ft2-°F) (ft) (Btu/hr-ft2-°F) (hr-ft2-°F/Btu (Btu/hr-ft2-°F) (ft2) (Btu/hr)
1 115 105 1.46 0.75 3 1.46 5.36986301 0.18622449 1323 -2463.8
2 115 110 1.46 0.75 3 1.46 5.36986301 0.18622449 241 -224.4
3 115 55 1.46 0.75 5 NA 7.35159817 0.13602484 1097 -8953.2
4 115 115 1.46 0.75 3 1.46 5.36986301 0.18622449 989 0.0
5 115 204.5 1.46 0.75 6.2 NA 8.95159817 0.11171190 1314 13,137.7
6 115 55 1.08 0.75 3 NA 4.92592593 0.20300752 1725 -21,011.3
7 115 120 1.08 0.75 2 1.08 4.51851852 0.22131148 1696 1876.7
8 115 110 1.46 0.75 4 1.46 6.70319635 0.14918256 714 -532.6
9 115 111 1.46 0.75 3 1.46 5.36986301 0.18622449 505 -376.2
Total (Btu/hr) -18,547.0
5-18
The revised analysis resulted in a decrease of 34,404 Btu/hr.
5.2.3.6 Results of Reanalysis
A summary of the results of the reanalysis of heat loads for the RHR pump room is presented in
Table 5-12.
Table 5-12
Results of Reanalysis
Heat Load Original Analysis Revised Analysis Heat Load Change

(Btu/hr) (Btu/hr) (Btu/hr)
Electrical heat loads 634,303 609,397 -24,906
Piping loads 142,626 113,417 -29,209
Ventilation loads 3369 1344 -2025
Transmission loads 15,857 -18,547 -34,404
Total 796,155 705,611 -90,544
5.2.3.7 Revision of Maximum Room Temperature
The final step in the reanalysis of the RHR pump room was to increase the maximum allowed
room temperature from 115 to 140°F.
5.2.3.8 Piping Heat Load Reductions at 140°F
The effect of increasing the maximum allowable room temperature was to decrease the piping
heat loads to the values shown in Table 5-13.
5-19
Table 5-13
Piping Loads for Room Temperature of 140°F
(Btu/hr)
24 - HBB - 117 24.000 0.97 0.0 0.4 73 204 458.7 69,960.8
20 - HBC - 181 20.000 0.97 0.0 0.4 8 121.8 41.9 -1428.2
20 - HBC - 183 20.000 0.97 0.0 0.4 29 95 151.8 -13,122.7
20 - GBC - 110 20.000 0.97 0.0 0.4 40 121.8 209.4 -7141.2
20 - GBC - 104 20.000 0.97 0.0 0.4 61 95 319.4 -27,602.9
30 - HBB - 118 30.000 0.97 2.5 0.4 24 204 219.9 2086.9
18 - GBB - 101 18.000 0.97 2.0 0.4 66 204 380.1 4408.6
18 - GBB - 102 18.000 0.97 2.5 0.4 26 204 156.6 1421.8
4 - GBB - 109 4.500 0.97 1.5 0.4 166 204 325.9 4355.9
4 - GBB - 101 4.500 0.97 1.5 0.4 13 204 25.5 341.1
18 - GBB - 117 18.000 0.97 1.5 0.39 29 178.5 159.4 1479.0
8 - GBB - 117 8.625 0.97 1.5 0.39 10 178.5 30.4 263.4
18 - GBB - 118 18.000 0.97 1.5 0.39 7 178.5 38.5 357.0
8 - GBB - 118 8.625 0.97 1.5 0.39 13 178.5 39.6 342.4
18 - GBB - 119 18.000 0.97 2.0 0.4 46 204 264.9 3072.6
4 - GBB - 119 4.500 0.97 1.5 0.4 45 204 88.4 1180.8
RHR HX 54.125 0.97 3.0 0.4 25.1 191 395.1 2550.2
5-20
Table 5-13 (cont.)

Piping Loads for Room Temperature of 140°F
(Btu/hr)
RHR HX end 54.125 0.97 3.0 0.4 0 191 32.0 217.3
RHR HX water
54.125 0.97 0.0 0.4 5 108.4 70.8 4662.2
box
RHR HX WB end 54.125 0.97 0.0 0.4 0 108.4 32.0 2102.9
5.2.3.9 Ventilation Heat Load Reductions at 140°F
The 275 acfm or recirculation air flow entering the warmer room is found to provide a cooling effect as follows:
⎡ ( 460 + 65) ⎤
Q = (V )(0.075)(60)(0.24 ) (120° F − 140°F) ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ( 460 + 120) ⎦
Q = -5377 Btu/hr
5-21
5.2.3.10 Transmission Heat Load Reductions at 140°F
The warmer room is found to lose greater amounts of heat through transmission losses to
surrounding rooms with reanalysis of transmission loads. The results of the reanalysis are
presented in Table 5-14.
Table 5-14
Transmission Loads for Residual Heat Removal Room Temperature of 140°F
Slab No. U A Ti To Q
(Btu/hr-ft2-°F) (ft2) (°F) (°F) (Btu/hr)
1 0.19 1323 140 105 -8623.1
2 0.19 241 140 110 -1346.4
3 0.14 1097 140 55 -12,683.6
4 0.19 989 140 140 0.0
5 0.11 1314 140 204.5 9467.9
6 0.20 1725 140 55 -29,766.0
7 0.22 1696 140 120 -7506.9
8 0.15 714 140 110 -3195.5
9 0.19 505 140 111 -2727.3
Total -56,380.9
5.2.3.11 Summary of Heat Load Changes at 140°F
A summary of the heat load reductions that were achieved by increasing the allowable room
temperature from 115 to 140°F is provided in Table 5-15.
Table 5-15
Summary of Heat Load Changes at 140°F
Heat Load Original Analysis Revised Analysis 140°F Room

Temperature
Electrical heat loads 634,303 609,397 609,397
Piping loads 142,626 113,417 35,978
Ventilation loads 3369 1344 -5377
Transmission loads 15,857 -18,547 -56,381
Total 796,155 705,611 583,617
5-22
5.2.4 Conclusion
In summary, the combined effects of eliminating conservatisms in the original heat load analysis
and increasing the room temperature decreased the required room cooler duty by 26.7% or
212,538 Btu/hr.
5.3 Margin Derived with Reduction in Required Heat Load
5.3.1 Introduction
EDG heat exchanger thermal performance margin was limited and difficult to maintain. Service
water system flow test results and thermal performance test data indicated that minimal margin
existed for the EDG heat exchangers.
5.3.2 Method
required heat removal rate as described in Section 3.2, Margin Improvement Through Reduction
in Performance Requirements.
5.3.3 Evaluation
The design heat load for the EDG heat exchangers was reduced because it was shown that the
limiting condition was not a concurrent maximum kW load and maximum ultimate heat sink
(UHS) temperature.
The EDG’s thermal performance requirement was previously based on the kW loading heat
rejection limit applied with peak cooling water temperatures. The station relies on its UHS,
which is a relatively small reservoir, as its ensured source of postaccident cooling. The
temperature of the UHS is impacted significantly by postaccident heat loads. The EDG heat load
rejection requirements were reanalyzed, considering the temperature response profile of the UHS
and the EDG load profile in the limiting accident condition. The peak EDG loading occurs
earlier in the postaccident period than do the peak UHS temperatures because some loads have a
short operating period. The heat exchanger heat rejection capacity was plotted as a function of
time with the varying UHS temperatures accounted for in the time plot. This curve was
compared to the EDG kW loading demand as a function of time. From these two plots, the point
of closest approach represented the limiting condition for the EDG heat exchangers. In this
example, the limiting condition was not the period when peak kW load on the engine was present
but the period when peak UHS temperature was present. Selected data points from these plots are
shown in Table 5-16.
5-23
Table 5-16
Emergency Diesel Generator Postaccident Loading
Time Load Heat Rejected UHS Temp. Heat Margin

(kW) (106 Btu/hr) (°F) Exchanger Available
Capacity*
(106 Btu/hr)
0–2 hrs 3001 2.13 101 2.75 29.1%
2–21 hrs 2560 1.36 117 1.64 20.6%
>21 hrs 2421 1.15 121 1.36 18.3%
Peak condition** 3001 2.13 121 1.36 -36.2%
* Heat exchanger capacity based on fixed SW flow, process flow, and inlet temperature.
** Peak conditions are hypothetical concurrent max kW loading and peak UHS temperature.
In Table 5-16, note the capacity margins that are available when peak loads and actual peak UHS
temperatures are evaluated concurrently. Compare those to the significant negative margin
(-36.2%) when making the simplistic assumption of the maximum heat rejection rate of
2.13 x 106 Btu/hr concurrent with the peak UHS temperature of 121°F.
The EDG heat exchanger capacity with design flow and fouling conditions exceeds the credited
heat rejection for the kW loading at each of the UHS temperature ranges. The condition with the
closest approach of EDG capability and loading requirement occurs at the peak UHS
temperature; therefore, it was established as the limiting design condition. Because the peak kW
load does not coincide with the peak UHS temperature, it is not necessary to apply both
conditions to determine required EDG flows and/or maximum permissible fouling.
5.3.4 Conclusion
Because significant excess performance capability margin exists in many components, it is

common practice in analysis to start with conservative bounding input assumptions for the
design conditions. These assumptions can exceed the accident condition requirements or include
unrealistic but bounding combinations of conditions. Provided the component being analyzed
passes the analysis with these bounding input assumptions, they are left as the performance
requirements. Often it is only when analysis fails or has unacceptably low margin with these
simplistic bounding input assumptions that a more rigorous or realistic evaluation is performed.
Because the more detailed evaluation of the input requirements requires additional analysis time,
it is justified only when there are margin issues.
In this example, margin existed in the design limiting performance requirements applied to the
heat exchanger for postaccident response. The application of concurrent maximum heat
exchanger thermal loading and maximum cooling water temperature was found to be overly
conservative. Correction of this overly conservative approach yielded an improvement in the
5-24
available margin between heat exchanger thermal capacity and required heat removal at design
limiting conditions. Reanalysis of the performance requirements with more accurate or more
detailed assumptions can often yield significant improvements in available margin; however,
limitations include the following:
• This example is limited to facilities with an on-site UHS that is impacted by the postaccident
heat rejection loading. Other performance requirement assumptions can contain similar
margin opportunities in other applications.
• Crediting lower loading of the EDG during later periods of the accident can require the
acknowledgement of multiple design limiting conditions in various design documents and
operations procedures. For generator output capability, the peak kW loading period is the
limiting condition, while for EDG cooling, the limiting case is at a lower load but at peak
UHS temperature conditions. It might be necessary to have maximum allowed kW loading
tables in operations procedures for the EDG as a function of cooling water temperature to
prevent operations from applying nonessential (unanalyzed) loads to the EDG in this
postaccident window, based on the assumption that as long as the peak loading limit is
preserved, the condition is acceptable.
5.4 Margin Improvement by Demonstrating Actual Heat Load Less Than

Limiting Condition Heat Load
5.4.1 Introduction
The initial design heat load for an EDG jacket-water heat exchanger was estimated to be
4,880,000 Btu/hr for the diesel running at 4400 kW. This load was derived from information
provided by the diesel vendor at lower loadings and then linearly extrapolated to the 4400-kW
load. The 4400-kW load was selected because it exceeds the required design basis accident
condition loading for the EDG. Thermal performance testing of the jacket water heat exchanger
during operation of the EDG at loads equal to or greater than 4400 kW demonstrated actual heat
loads that were substantially lower than the design heat load. This suggested the availability of
inherent thermal margin.
5.4.2 Method
required heat removal rate as described in Section 3.2, Margin Improvement Through Reduction
in Performance Requirements. The basis for reduction of the required heat removal rate is actual
observation of equipment operation at limiting conditions of EDG electric loading.
5-25
5.4.3 Evaluation
Because the EDG jacket water heat exchanger was tested with the diesel running at a load greater
than or equal to 4400 kW, the maximum demonstrated heat load removed by the heat exchanger
during the test became the limiting condition heat load required at the design limiting conditions.
The evaluation is accomplished in three steps as follows:
1. Calculation of the test heat load
2. Calculation of the uncertainty in the test heat load
3. Calculation of the maximum demonstrated heat load
Each step is described in further detail in the subsections that follow.
5.4.3.1 Calculation of the Test Heat Load
The test heat load can be found using Equation 2-3. This equation is restated in Equation 5-16
using terms related to the service water side (tube-side) of the subject heat exchanger:
& SW c p (TSW,o - TSW,i )

QSW = m Eq. 5-16
where:
QSW = service water heat transfer rate (Btu/hr)

m& SW = service water mass flow rate of the system (lbm/hr)
cp = service water constant pressure specific heat (Btu/lbm-°F)
TSW,i = service water inlet temperature (°F)
TSW,o = service water outlet temperature (°F)
The service water side (tube side) of the cooler was chosen for the accuracy of the flow
measurement available during thermal performance testing. Service water flow and temperature
data were collected during an official thermal performance test and summarized in Table 5-17.
Table 5-17
Test Data Summary for Heat Load Calculation
TSW,i TSW,o & SW

m cp QSW
(°F) (°F) (Btu/lbm-°F) (Btu/hr)
(lbm/hr)
66.65 88.09 180,890 0.998 3,870,000
The measured heat load of 3,870,000 Btu/hr is substantially (21%) less than the 4,880,000 Btu/hr
calculated based on the data provided by the EDG vendor. However, there is uncertainty in the
measurements that make up the test heat load calculation, and these must be accounted for in
5-26
determining the maximum heat load that might have actually existed during the thermal
performance test. Test measurements made for the jacket water side of the heat exchanger
yielded the values shown in Table 5-18 and used for a heat balance comparison:
Table 5-18
Test Data Summary for Jacket Water Heat Load Calculation
TJW,i TJW,o & JW

m cp QJW
(°F) (°F) (Btu/lbm-°F) (Btu/hr)
(lbm/hr)
173.24 94.62 44.810 0.999 3,519,000
The resulting heat balance error was the following:
3,870,000 Btu/hr − 3,519,000 Btu/hr

HBE = 100 = 9.1%
3,870,000 Btu/hr
5.4.3.2 Calculation of the Uncertainty in the Test Heat Load
Calculation of the uncertainty in the test heat load is based on the methods presented in
Measurement Uncertainty: Instruments and Apparatus [18]. Two sources of error are addressed:
• Analytical uncertainty. Uncertainties associated with the analytical method used in the
calculation of the heat load.
• Measurement uncertainty. Uncertainties in the measurement of the flow rate and temperature
data used in the calculation of the heat load. Included in this category are both bias and
precision uncertainties.
Each of these is described in greater detail in the subsections that follow.
Analytical Uncertainty
Analytical uncertainty approximates the calculation errors associated with the misrepresentation,
or lack of fit, by equations or subroutines used in the interim data reduction and analysis.
Because the equations used in the heat load calculation are fundamental, well established, and
well documented, these errors are assumed to be negligible.
Measurement Uncertainty
Table 5-19 presents the test parameter average values and their associated uncertainties derived
from the thermal performance test and associated supporting measurement uncertainty
calculations. Note that the uncertainty in the specific heat constitutes a 1% uncertainty as
recommended by Appendix I of Single Phase Heat Exchangers [4]. While not a measured
parameter during the test, the uncertainty in the fluid property is treated as one for the purpose of
accounting for its effect on the calculation of test heat load and the associated uncertainty in the
calculated test heat load.
5-27
Table 5-19
Test Parameter Average Values and Uncertainties
Parameter Average Value Uncertainty ( U meas )
Service water inlet temperature 66.65°F 0.22°F
Service water outlet temperature 88.09°F 0.60°F
Service water mass flow 180,890 lbm/hr 21,010 lbm/hr
Service water specific heat 0.998 Btu/lbm-°F 0.00998 Btu/lbm-°F
The uncertainty in the calculated test heat load is determined using sensitivity coefficients that
relate the change in a measured parameter to the corresponding change in the calculated test heat
load. The product of a sensitivity factor and the corresponding measured parameter uncertainty
provides the uncertainty in the test result attributable to the uncertainty in that measurement
parameter. The individual measurement uncertainties are then combined using the techniques
covered by Measurement Uncertainty: Instruments and Apparatus [18] as follows:
UR = ∑(θ
k =1
k ⋅ Uk) 2 Eq. 5-17
where:
UR = the uncertainty in the test result

Uk = the uncertainty in the measured test parameter k
θk = the sensitivity factor relating the test result to the measured test parameter k
p = the number of test parameters
The sensitivity coefficients for each parameter of interest are found by taking the partial
derivative of Equation 5-18 with respect to each parameter. The analysis is performed for each
parameter as follows:
Service water Inlet Temperature
The sensitivity coefficient for the service water inlet temperature is calculated by Equation 5-18.
∂ Q SW
θQSW ,TSW ,i = & SW )
= (cp )( m Eq. 5-18
∂ TSW ,i
θQ,TSW ,i = (0.998)(180,890) = 180,500Btu / hr ° F
Service water Outlet Temperature
The sensitivity coefficient for the service water outlet temperature is calculated by
Equation 5-19.
5-28
∂ Q SW
θQSW ,TSW ,o = & SW )
= (cp )( m Eq. 5-19
∂ TSW ,o
θQ,TSW ,o = (0.998)(180,890) = 180,500 Btu / hr ° F
ESW Mass Flow Rate
The sensitivity coefficient for the service water mass flow rate is calculated by Equation 5-20.
∂ Q SW
θQSW ,m& SW = = (cp )(TSW ,o - TSW ,i ) Eq. 5-20
∂m& SW
Btu / hr
θQSW ,m& SW = (0.998)(88.09 − 66.65) = 21.4
lbm / hr
Specific Heat
The sensitivity coefficient for the service water specific heat is calculated by Equation 5-21.
∂ QSW
θQSW ,cp = & SW (TSW,o - TSW,i )
=m Eq. 5-21
∂c p
Btu / hr
θQSW ,cp = (180,890)(88.09 − 66.65) = 3,878,000
lbm / hr
Total Uncertainty
The total uncertainty for the heat load is represented as a combination of the sensitivity
coefficients and the individual uncertainties for each measured parameter, as illustrated in
Equation 5-19. Substituting the known parameter uncertainties and their corresponding
sensitivity coefficients, the following result is obtained:
UR = ∑(θ
k =1
k ⋅ Uk) 2
UR = [(180,500)(0.22)]2 + [(180,500)(0.60)]2 + [(21.4)(21,010)]2 + [(3,878,000)(0.00998)]2
U R = 466,000 Btu / hr
5-29
5.4.3.3 Maximum Demonstrated Heat Load
The maximum demonstrated heat load carried by the EDG jacket water heat exchanger is the
calculated heat load plus the calculated uncertainty in the test heat load.
Qmax = 3,870,000 Btu/hr + 466,000 Btu/hr = 4,336,000 Btu/hr
Because the EDG was run at a load that actually exceeded the accident condition load
requirements, the limiting condition heat load is the same as the test heat load. Therefore, Qmax
represents the maximum design limiting heat transfer rate, Qaccept, based on the test data.
5.4.4 Conclusion
Test data with the EDG at 4400 kW indicated that the actual load on the jacket water heat
exchanger was 3,870,000 Btu/hr with an uncertainty of 466,000 Btu/hr. Therefore, the
demonstrated heat removal rate for the jacket water heat exchanger at 4400 kW was 4,336,000
Btu/hr. Compared to the calculated heat load of 4,880,000 Btu/hr from the vendor data, this
represents a reduction of 544,000 Btu/hr or approximately 11%. Additional margin could be
recovered by optimizing the test conditions in order to reduce the measurement uncertainties
even further.
This approach is particularly useful for applications in which the design heat load is readily
available as in EDGs, bearing coolers, or room coolers. However, care should be taken to ensure
that the system is indeed operating at or greater than maximum loading conditions. For example,
EDGs with intercoolers on the jacket water system might not achieve maximum heat removal
under normal testing conditions due to lower air intake temperatures (that is, lower than design
basis limiting conditions of diesel operation). In addition, tests conducted at design basis loading
should take into account uncertainties associated with the load measurement to ensure that the
load encountered will duplicate the conditions under which the component will be operated
under accident conditions.
5-30
6
REFERENCES
1. Service Water Heat Exchanger Testing Guidelines. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1998. TR-107397.
2. Heat Exchanger Performance Monitoring Guidelines. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1991. NP-7552.
3. “In-Service Performance Testing of Heat Exchangers in Light-Water Reactor Power Plants,”
American Society of Mechanical Engineering, New York. Standards and Guides for
Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Part 21, ASME OM-S/G.
4. Single Phase Heat Exchangers. 2001. ANSI/ASME PTC 12.5-2000.
5. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Service Water System Problems Affecting
Safety-Related Equipment (Generic Letter 89-13),” July 18, 1989.
6. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Service Water System Problems Affecting
Safety-Related Equipment (Generic Letter 89-13, Supplement 1),” April 4, 1990.
7. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Inspection Procedure 93810, Service Water
System Operational Performance Inspection (SWSOPI),” 09/14/98, 98-013.
8. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Inspection Procedure 71111.HS, Heat Sink
Performance,” 05/06/03, 03-015.
9. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Temporary Instruction 2515/159, Review of
Generic Letter 89-13: Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment,”
04-021.
10. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Information to Licensees Regarding Two
NRC Inspection Manual Sections on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions
and on Operability (Generic Letter 91-18),” November 7, 1991.
11. Tubular Heat Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Inc., Standards of the Tubular Heat
Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Eighth Edition, 1999.
12. Heat Exchanger Design Handbook. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1998.
13. Lindon C. Thomas, Heat Transfer—Professional Version, Second Edition, Capstone
Publishing Corporation, 1999.
14. Alternative to Thermal Performance Testing and/or Tube-Side Inspections of Air-to-Water
Heat Exchangers. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2002. 1007248.
15. Edwin Hosterman, “Reclaiming Heat Exchanger Design Margin, an Analytical Approach,”
presented at the 1994 Service Water System Reliability Improvement Seminar.
16. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Handbook,
Fundamentals, 1993.
6-1
References
17. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineer Handbook,
Fundamentals, 1989.
18. Measurement Uncertainty: Instruments and Apparatus. 1998. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.1-1998,
Part 1.
19. Standard for Power Plant Heat Exchangers, Heat Exchanger Institute (HEI), 2nd Edition,
Appendix K.
20. Schaums Outline Series, Heat Transfer, 1977, Appendix A.
21. Mechanical Engineering Reference Manual (PE), 10th Edition, Table 24.7.
6-2
A
CONVERSIONS FROM ENGLISH UNITS TO THE
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF UNITS (SI)
This report is intended to define margins as they are related to heat exchanger thermal
performance and to identify the heat transfer parameters that can be revised or recalculated to
improve the existing thermal performance margin. Example calculations are presented in order to
detail typical methodologies for recalculating heat exchanger thermal performance and the
associated design heat loads. In order to focus on the methods for increasing margin, it was
decided not to convert from English to the International System of Units (SI units) in the
equations for each example calculation. Instead, Table A-1 is provided to allow for conversions
of the heat transfer parameters used throughout this report from English to SI units.
Table A-1
Conversion Factors for Heat Transfer Terms
Term English Conversion SI Reference*
Temperature F C = (F - 32) / 1.8 C 19
F K = (F + 459.67) / 1.8 K 19
R K = (5 / 9) R K 20
Power hp x 746 W 19
Length ft x 3.048 x 10-1 m 19
Mass lbm x 4.535924 x 10-1 kg 19
Area ft2 x 9.290304 x 10-2 m2 19
Pressure lb/in2 x 6.894757 x 103 Pa 19
Density lbm/ft3 x 1.601846 x 101 kg/m3 19
Flow rate lbm/hr x 4.535924 x 10-1 kg/hr 19
Heat quantity Btu x 1.055056 x 103 J 19
Btu x 2.519958 x 10-1 kcal 19
Heat transfer rate Btu/hr x 2.930711 x 10-1 W 19
A-1
Conversions from English Units to the International System of Units (SI)
Table A-1 (cont.)

Conversion Factors for Heat Transfer Terms
Term English Conversion SI Reference*
Thermal conductivity Btu-ft/hr-ft2-°F x 1.730735 W/m-K 19
Btu-ft/hr-ft2-°F x 1.488164 kcal-m/hr-m2-K 19
Overall heat transfer coefficient Btu/hr-ft2-°F x 5.678263 W/m2-K 19
Btu/hr-ft2-°F x 4.882428 kcal/hr-m2-K 19
Fouling resistance hr-ft2-°F/Btu x 1.761102 x 10-1 m2-K/W 19
hr-ft2-°F/Btu x 2.048161 x 10-1 hr-m2-K/kcal 19
Enthalpy Btu/lbm x 2.326 x 103 J/kg 19
Btu/lbm x 2.326 kJ/kg 19
Dynamic viscosity lbm/hr-ft x 4.133789 x 10-4 Pa-sec 19
lbm/hr-ft x 4.133789 x 10-1 cp 19
lbm/sec-ft x 1.488164 Pa-sec 19
Specific heat Btu/lbm-°F x 4.1868 kJ/kg-K 19
Specific gas constant ft-lbf/lbm-°R x 5.3803 J/kg-K 21
* See Section 6, “References,” for complete information.
A-2
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
WARNING: This Document contains
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with major locations in
information classified under U.S. Export
Palo Alto, California, and Charlotte, North Carolina, was established
Control regulations as restricted from export
in 1973 as an independent, nonprofit center for public interest
outside the United States. You are under an
energy and environmental research. EPRI brings together members,
obligation to ensure that you have a legal right
participants, the Institute’s scientists and engineers, and other leading
to obtain access to this information and to
experts to work collaboratively on solutions to the challenges of electric
ensure that you obtain an export license prior
power. These solutions span nearly every area of electricity generation,
to any re-export of this information. Special
delivery, and use, including health, safety, and environment. EPRI’s
restrictions apply to access by anyone that is
members represent over 90% of the electricity generated in the
not a United States citizen or a permanent
United States. International participation represents nearly 15% of
United States resident. For further information
EPRI’s total research, development, and demonstration program.
regarding your obligations, please see the
information contained below in the section titled
Together...Shaping the Future of Electricity
“Export Control Restrictions.”
Export Control Restrictions

Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with
the specific understanding and requirement that responsibility
for ensuring full compliance with all applicable U.S. and
foreign export laws and regulations is being undertaken by
you and your company. This includes an obligation to ensure
that any individual receiving access hereunder who is not a
U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted access
under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and
regulations. In the event you are uncertain whether you or
your company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI
Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it is your
obligation to consult with your company’s legal counsel to
determine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may
make available on a case-by-case basis an informal
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification for
specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your company
acknowledge that this assessment is solely for informational
purposes and not for reliance purposes. You and your
company acknowledge that it is still the obligation of you and
your company to make your own assessment of the applicable
U.S. export classification and ensure compliance accordingly.
You and your company understand and acknowledge your
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI
Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in violation of
applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or regulations.
Program:
© 2005 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.
Nuclear Power
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of
the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America 1012129
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com

Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Margin Guidlines PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Margin Guidlines PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly

available in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in

Heat Exchanger Thermal

Final Report, November 2005

EPRI Project Manager

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Power Generation Technologies, a Division of ESC

This report was prepared by

Power Generation Technologies, a Division of ESC

Results and Findings

Challenges and Objectives

Applications, Value, and Use

Ed Hosterman, Utility Chair Exelon Corporation

2 DEFINING THERMAL PERFORMANCE MARGIN................................................................2-1

3 IMPROVING THERMAL PERFORMANCE MARGIN ............................................................3-1

4 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS RELATED TO CHANGING LIMITING CONDITIONS ............4-1

5 EXAMPLES RELATED TO REDUCTIONS IN PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS............5-1

A CONVERSIONS FROM ENGLISH UNITS TO THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF

Figure 2-1 Margin Model for Typical Set-Point Basis.................................................................2-2

overall thermal performance monitoring program, regardless of the magnitude of margin

1.2 Scope of Applicability

1.3 Precautions and Limitations

1.4 Engineering Units

Term Definition Examples

2.1 Performance Margin Versus Design Margin

2.2 Heat Exchanger Design Overview

For purposes of illustration, the explanation of component design considerations is presented

2.2.1 Process-Side System Design

2.2.2 Cooling-Side System Design

2.2.2.1 Supply Temperature Requirements

2.2.2.2 Return Temperature Requirements

2.2.2.3 Flow Requirements

2.2.2.4 Differential Pressure Considerations

2.2.3 Component Design Constraints

2.2.3.1 Thermal Performance Analysis Overview

& h c p, h (Th,i − Th, o )

Q = U ⋅ A ⋅ EMTD Eq. 2-3

Q = the heat transfer rate (Btu/hr)

EMTD = F ⋅ LMTD Eq. 2-7

f = the design fouling resistance (hr-°F-ft2/Btu)

2.2.3.2 Shell-Side Design Considerations

Selection of Shell Side as Process Side or Cooling Side

Design Temperature and Pressure

Component Differential Pressure (∆p)

2.2.3.3 Tube-Side Design Considerations

Design Temperature and Pressure

Tube Wall Thickness

Divider Plate Differential Pressure (∆p)

Component Differential Pressure (∆p)

Enhanced Surface Tubing

2.3 Component Design Margin

2.4 Design Limiting Conditions

2.5 Heat Exchanger Thermal Performance Margin

3.1 Margin Improvement Through Changes in Limiting Conditions

To illustrate the concepts of thermal performance margin enhancement by changing limiting

Shell type TEMA E

Shell fluid Fresh water

Tube outside diameter 0.750 in.

Tube inside diameter 0.652 in.

Tube length 29.764 ft