BNL-30269

DEMONSTRATION OF AN AUTOMATED ELECTROMANOMETER

FOR

MEASUREMENT OF SOLUTION VOLUME

IN

ACCOUNTABILITY VESSELS

Sylvester Suda, TSOBernard Keisch, TSOMakoto Hayashi, PNCTakayuki Onuma, PNC

Yoshihiro Fukuari, PNC

September, 1981 -DISCLAWKR .

Technical Support Organization (TSO)Brookhaven National LaboratoryUpton, New York 11973 USA'

Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC)Tokai-mura, Ibaraki-ken, 319-11 JAPAN

CUI".KNT IS IMU-.J

-t%^Research carried out under the auspices of the United States Department ofEnergy under Contract No. DE-AC02-76CH00016.

3

Tab It of Contents

Page

Abstract 5

1. Purpose of the Task 5

2. Description of Technology, Equipment, and Procedures 5

3. Description of Installation, Calibration, and Testing -. 7

3.1. Pre-calibration Test 73.2. Thermal Expansion Test...., 83.3. Tank Ca librat ion ' 3

4. System Evaluation H

5. Assessment of Results 17

6. Conclusions 17

References . 19

Appendix A: Volume Measurement in Daily Summary Report 20

Appendix B: Comparison of Load Cell and ElectromanometerMeasurements .' 22

Appendix C: Hourly Bubble Wave Pattern Analysis 24

4

Lilt of Tables

Page

1. PNC Thermal Expansion Test Experimental Data 9

2. Precision of Electromanometer Measurements 10

3. Comparison of Transfer Quantities 12

4. Analysis of Density Means (ANOVA) 13

5. Paired Sample Analysis (Multiple Comparisons) 15

6. Relationships of Outliers to Extreme Temperatures <*16

7. Summary of Density Measurement Methods 18

i

DEMONSTRATION OF AN AUTOMATED ELECTROMANOMETER FOR MEASUREMENT OFSOLUTION VOLUME IN ACCOUNTABILITY VESSELS

S. Suda and B. KeischBrookhaven National Laboratory

Upton, New York 11973

M. Hayashi, Y. Fukuari, and T. OnumaPower Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC)

Tokai-mura, Ibaraki-ken, 319-11 JAPAN

Abstract

A system for measuring the liquid volume in input and plutonium productaccountability vessels, based upon a desktop-computer-controlled electro-manometer, was installed at the Tokai-mura reprocessing plant. In-tanktemperatures, pressure measurements relating to volume and density, and load-cell weights are measured cyclically and recorded. The system feasibility wasdemonstrated through a series of tests including vessel calibration and the ef-fects of thermal expansion, and through use during thirteen months of on-lineplant operation. The value to the operator of the recording, display, replay,data handling, and report generation features of the system was demonstrated aswas the enhanced precision of the electroraanometer as compared to the conven-tional water-filled manometer system. The automated electromanometer system con-sists of a pneumatic scanner, a precision electromanometer, electronic scanner,a digital voltmeter, and a desktop computer with disc and tape mass storage,cathode-ray tube (CRT) graphics display, and printer output. The desktop com-puter is used to control the pneumatic and electronic scanners and the digitalvoltmeter and to log in the measurement data.

1. Purpose of the Task

The purpose of the program was to demonstrate the applicability of anautomated electromanometer system, with capability for on-line processing of cal-ibration and measurement data, for use with input and plutonium productaccountability vessels at the Tokai plant.

2. Description of Technology, Equipment and Procedures

The automated electromanometer system is designed to provide precise,automated, on-line volume and density measurements (for accountability purposes)of input and product solutions in a reprocessing plant. It consists of a pneu-matic scanner, a precision electromanometer, electronic scanner, a digital volt-meter, and a desktop computer with disc and tape mass storage, cathode-ray tube(CRT) graphics display, and printer output.'D The desktop computer is used tocontrol the pneumatic and electronic scanners and the digital voltmeter and tolog-in measurement data. The components of the system are given in Figure 1.

The system provides unattended, semi-continuraus (serial) measurement of theliquid level, temperature, and load cell weight ,jnd stores more than 24 hours ofdata on a flexible magnetic disc. Stored data miy be retrieved, examined on the

•8

to

Or>

IDOQi-l

rt

APII-1

(ftOfti-i

9O

rt(D

0)rti-t

fHP 59103ACOMMON CARRIER M-INTERFACE I

A

UP 10- IOO0 METERS-I

ICS ELECTRONICS4863 COUPLER

SCANCOCTLR IOP/S2-S6CONTROLLER

IIP 3455ADIGITAL VOLTMETER

IIP 349SA

ELECTRONIC SCANNER

SCANIVALVEW0662/ IP- I2T WAFERPNEUMATIC SCANNER

SOLENOK)VALVES

I

8

OirFERENIIALPRESSURE

0- IOVder1VESSELS.25IVIO.266V23

71I RIJ3KA OOR - 6 0 0 0

IELECTROMANOMETER

THERMOCOUPLE INPUTS Q-gmVdc

LOAD CELL INPUTS 4 - 2 0 m A d c

I

ISP 59-103ACOMMON CARRIEDINTERFACE

IIP 9865SFLEXIBLE DISC DRIVEIIP 9S8SM ~FLEXIBLE DISC DRIVE

HP 9645 T DESKTOP C0MPU1ER

-CRT 6RAPINCS WSPLAY• INTERNAL PRINTER• 2 CASSE1TE TAPE DRIVES• ROMS

GRAPHICSINPUT/OUTPUTMASS STORAGE

rt(A

CRT display, and run through a data reduction and sunmary program which rapidlycondenses one day's operating data, including all accountability transfers, toa several page sunaary report. The results thus obtained yield greatermeasurement accuracy than heretofore achieved, provide necessary plant operatorand inspector data, and are presented in a convenient form.

The tank aeasureaents in the Tokai reprocessing plant are the tank tem-perature, vapor head pressure relative to the process cell, liquid levelpressures , and five strain-gage voltages. Other pressure measurements madeeach data cycle are at the electromanometer "zero" and the pneumatic scanner"home" positions. The latter provides a leak check on the scanivalve liquidswitch wafer.

For each cycle, the latest calculated values for the density, volume, com-puted mass, and load cell mass are displayed on the CRT along with the measure-ment data. On-line, hard copy is available to the control room operator at anytime via function key request. In addition, visual displays of liquid leveldata for the system operation are available.

3. Description of Installation. Calibration and Testing

Demonstrations and acceptance testing of the automated electromanometer sys-tem were conducted at the Barnwell Nuclear Fuels Plant, Barnwell, SouthCarolina, in March 1979, for Japanese, IAEA, and French visitors. The systemwas installed in the Tokai reprocessing plant in August. Preoperational testrfand tank calibration involving vessel 251V10 were performed in September 1979.Hardware and software upgrading of the electromanometer system to includemeasurements in the plutonium product vessel, 266V23 were made in August 1980.

Operational tests of the electromanometer were performed during the pre-guarantee (PG) campaign of November and December 1979, during the guarantee (G)campaign of January and February 1980, and during campaigns C-l and C-2, Aprilthrough November 1980.

The following three pre-operational tests were successfully performed dur-ing the system checkout.

3.1. Pre-calibration Test.

This test involved the stepwise filling of the tank 251V1O, observing Chefull tank at steady state conditions, and the stepwise draining of the tank tothe jet transfer heel while collecting measurement data at a rate of one cyclein approximately 3 minutes. The increment steps were at quartile levels and thesparger was turned on at each filling and emptying step. Measurement data werecollected for 30 minutes prior to and after sparging. At the full tank step andafter the sparging data were collected, the recirculating sampler was turned onfor 20 minutes. This step was repeated prior to start of the emptying phase. Asimilar test was conducted after the connections to vessel 266V23 were made inAugust 1980.

*two and three dip-tube measurements are made, respectively, for vessels 266V23and 251V10.

The pre-operational test was used to obtain experimental data regard-ing the sparger system holdup, the evaporation due to sparging, sampler lineholdup, and line drain tines. The information was required to establishthe response characteristics of the measurement system.

3.2. Thermal Expansion Test.

This test involved the filling of tank 251V10 to the normal input batchlevel and steam heating the water to 55° C using the spray decontamination line.The temperature and bubbler probe data were collected at a rate of one cycle in2.3 minutes during the tank cool down to 25° C.

The thermal expansion test was used to establish a temperature correctionequation for each of the bubbler probes. An earlier test using heated UNH atthe Barnwell Nuclear Fuels plant indicated that the effect of tempetsture is afunction of the thermal expansion of the separation of the probe and of thetank, the volume below the effective tip of the probe, the total volume, andtank geometry. The results of these two tests which represent important newfindings lead to a better understanding of temperature effects on liquid levelmeasurements.^) xhe results of the 251V10 thermal expansion test, summarizedin Table 1, indicate that a temperature change of three degrees centigrade hasan effect of about 0.12 at a volume of about 2000 liters.

3.3. Tank Calibration.

Checkout and testing of the calibration software were made using vessel251V10 in September 1979. Three calibration runs were made. The calibrationprogram collects data, makes the temperature-density calculations and performsdata comparisons during the run. Statistical analyses were performed on thethree sets of data using the calibration playback and polynomial regressionprograms after the calibration runs were completed.

The results of the 1979 calibration are summarized in Table 2. The Ruska-DVM system accuracy is based on electrical and pneumatic "Deadweight" pistongage calibrations and represents the overall error for the system. The vesselcalibration results represent the random procedural measurement, and curvefitting errors. The vessel calibration results do not include bias that mayexist due to inappropriate computational coefficients and procedural errors thatare constant throughout the exercise and therefore not estimatable without an ex-ternal reference point.

Computer averaging, over approximately 15 seconds, of the Ruska readings ofthe fluctuating pressures that are measured on the bubbler probes results invery stable liquid level and density measurement data and is a significantimprovement over the data based on visual reading of the water manometer.

PNC Thermal Expansion

Experimental Results:

Temperature (°C)

Pressure Readings (P)*Major ProbeMinor Probe

Major Probe DataLiquid Level (on)Volume (liters)

Sunmarv of Effects:* Level Change" Volume Change% Volume Change Per °C

••'• A Pascal (P) • 1 newton/meter2

Table 1

Test Experimental

Heated Tank

54.3

6569.62563.7

708.792231.66

+ 0+ 1+ 0

» 0.101974 ran H,0

Data, Tank

Reference

25

65872544

7032208

.79

.04

.03549

(3 4°

.6

.9

.20

.69

C.

251V10

Difference

29

-1818

522

.3

.0

.8

.58

.97

10

Table 2

Summary of Calibration Results

CalibratinnMeasurement Errors (One standard deviation)

Absolute %

1. Ruska-DVM System Accuracy

Direct Reading

2. Vessel Calibration (251V10)

Probe separation

Combined runs(includes random procedural errors)

1.0 Pascal

0.03 ran H20

1.2 liters

3. Measurement Cycle Precision

Liquid level

Dens i t y. water. UNH

**

0.003 Full Scale

0.0007

0.03

0

00

.lOran

.0002

.0002

H20

g/'cm3

g/cm3

0.

0 .0.

017

020014

* 5 psi (34474 Pascal) at 10 Volts d .c .** 0.1 ran H2O @ 4°C is approximately 1 pascal (newton/meter-)

11

4. System Evaluation

During the period November 1979 through November 1980, routine measurementsof the solution volumes in the input accountability tank, 251V10, were madeusing the automated electro-manometer system. Connections of the pneumaticlines and thermocouple cable were made to the plutonium product tank, vessel266V23, in August 1980 at which time the computer programs were correspondinglymodified.

The automated electromanometer provides the operator with an improved capa-bility of record-ing the measurement data. The system capability of collectingdata, as they are generated, on a quasi-continuous basis, proved to be particu-larly useful on those occasions when the accountability sampling and transferout operations overlapped and therefore the quiescent conditions foraccountability measurements were not present. When this occurred, transfervalues based on earlier recorded data during a steady state period were far supe-rior to those based on die PNC control room strip chart data.

The value of the data processing and summary reporting capabilities pro-vided by the playback program, on a daily basis, was demonstrated. Numericalvalues at any chosen point in time are quickly retrieved and hard copies of Chegraphs and measurement data are provided. In addition, the playback programsignificantly improved and simplified the analysis of load cell data. The timesaving of the playback program to the PNC was significant.

Data routinely collected, analyzed, and presentsd in summary reports in-clude:

1. volume measurements2. load cell versus electromanometer comparisons3. hourly bubble pattern data

Examples of such summary reports are attached (Appendices).

Comparisons of the uranium input quantities to the process as measured bythe water manometer and electromanometer for four campaigns are summarized inTable 3. A trend is observed in ths differences between the quantities over thethirteen month period. This may be caused in part by different approaches Cocalculating temperature corrections for the two systems starting with the C-lcampaign. A close examination of changes made in Che computational constants ofChe two systems might uncover the cause of Che bias trends.

The agreement in che plutonium product quantities is considered good inview of the incomplete information on tank characteristics available when Chemeasurement calculations for the electromanometer system were programmed.

Comparisons analysis of the density values for the C-l and C-2 campaigns be-tween the different density values are given in Table 4. Density measurementsmade by che laboratory, water manometer and electromanometer (Meas 1) are inde-pendent, the calculated density and Meas 2 are, respectively, functionallycorrelated with the laboratory and Meas 1 measurements. In general, looking atthe individual density measurements for a batch, it appeared that there was goodagreement between the density values, given the different reference

12

Table 3

Coaparision of Transfer Quantities

Campa ign Differences*Before Transfer Out After Net

Vessel 251V10-Uranium(Kg)

1. Pre-Guarantee

2. Guarantee

3. C-l**

4. C-2**

Vessel 266V23-Pititonimn(g)

5. C-2**

-17.1

-3.7

162.8

109.2

-147

-1.4 -15.7 (-0.33%)

-1.4 -2.3 (-0.042)

15.5 147.3 (0.542)

6.0 103.2 (0.782)

59 -206 (0.24%)

* Water Manometer - Electromanometer

** Measured values are based on different equations and temperature correctiontechniques

TABLE 4

Analysis of Density Means (ANOVA)

Campaign/ Number of Lab Water CalcVessel Batches Density Man Density

Elect romanome t e rMeas 1 Meas 2 F-Value F(.99)

C-l251V10 76 X

s1.3496.0329

1.3495.0290

1.3516.0327

1.3558.0293

1.3558.0291

27.95* 13.7

C-2251V10

266V23

42

12

X

s

X

s

I

1

.3351

.0156

.5047

.0466

I

1

.3403

.0145

.5043

.0465

1

1

.3391

.0153

. 5008

.0433

.J401

.0151

1.4975.0449

1.3485.0161

___

44.66* 13.7

21.92 27.1

* F test for equality of liomoscedastic means was rejected at thecampaigns.

.01 level for vessel 251V10 for both

14

temperatures, although some exceptions were noted.

The calculated (Calc) density is the laboratory density corrected to thetemperature of the solution in the vessel. The equation is an empirical formuladeveloped at the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant in 1978 and involves values of theacid molarity and uranium concentration. The formula also includes the labora-tory density which is assumed to be measured at 25°C. The PNC laboratory den-sity is measured at 31°C. However, the laboratory density and the calculateddensity are in very close agreement at 28°C, which suggests that there is a 3°Cbias in the equation or in the way it is being used at the computer program orin the tank temperature mesurements. The calculated density values at < 28°Cand > 28°C have the approximate expected magnitudes and the correct directionrelative to the laboratory density.

The electromanometer densities Meas 1 and Meas 2 for vessel 251V10 are de-terminations made on two lower probes relative to the same upper probe. Meas 1is made using the shaped and special cut tip density probes installed in vessel251V10. The initial inspection of the data suggested that this design featureyielded more stable results than an ordinary blunt cut tip used in Meas 2. Theconjecture is not supported by statistical analysis.

Table 4 summarizes the results of the analysis of variance on the densitymeasurements. The hypothesis of equal means for the five measurements made oneach batch was rejected for both the C-l and C-2 campaign for vessel 251V10. Todiscover which combination of means are significantly different, a paired sampleanalysis was performed. The results of the multiple comparison test of signifi-cance on the differences of the mass are given in Table 5. The significantpaired mean differences ara indicated with an asterisk.

An examination of the top rows of Parts I and II of Table 5 shows that thewater manometer has shifted relative to the laboratory measurements. This isalso the case for the calculated (Calc) density, a rather surprising resultsince none of the computational constants had changed. An analysis of thepaired sample residuals shows that the differences are temperature related andthat the temperatures were lower for the C-l campaign than for the C-2 campaignin vessel 251V10. A tabulation of the large residuals observed in the inter-comparisons made are given in Table 6. Note that the large residuals wereassociated with tank temperatures that are either less than 25°C or greater than38°C with the exception of several values where the batch data show other fac-tors effected the observations (e.g., C-l,4 and C-2,35). Table 5 and 6 showthat the relationship between Meas 1 and Meas 2 also changed from one campaignto the next.

It is recognized that until the development of the Automated Electro-manometer system, detailed analyses such as the above were not possible for lackof precise data and computer programs. Further validation of the computationalconstants and refinement of the data normalization techniques are suggestedincluding a study of the validity and/or accuracy of in-tank temperaturemeasurements at extreme ambients.

Because of the small data sample for vessel 266V23, the sensitivity of thetests were limited and no conclusion on biases or trends on the density is possi-ble at this time.

15

Table 5

Paired Sample Analysis (Multiple Comparisons)

WM CD EM-1 EM-2 Q - q.99(k,df)S /2/ra

Part I

C-l

251V10

Lab

WM

CD

EM-i

.0001

-.0052*

-.0020

-.0021

-.0042*

-.0012

-.0049*

-.0050*

-.0029*

-.0050*

.0003

.0010

-.0062*

-.0063*

-.0042*

-.0012

-.0134*

-.0081*

-.0094*

-.0084*

M

S2

q-

Q

M

S2

q-

Q

- 152

« 2.21746E-5

99(5,300) » 4.60

* .0025

» 152

* 2.21405E-5

99(5,164) - 4.71

» .0034

Part II

C-2

251V1O

Lab

WM

CD

EM-1

Part III Lab

C-2 WM

266V23 CD

.0004 .0038

.0034

.0072

.0067

.0033

denotes differences of means that are rejected at the a • .01 level

16

Table 6

Relationships of Outliers to Extreme Temperatures

Obs NO.

C-1 416212930405254566773

C-2 123456789101112141618193032354041

Temp

26.223.221.524.624.622.538.142.749.224.624.4

24.025.927.223.621.423.823.322.325.124.023.021.222.920.124.120.921.121.022.521.921.3

Laboratory DensitiesWater Man Calc Dens

-.0580-.0170-.0200

.0110 .0074

.0160 .0116

.0220 .0163

-.0127-.0177

all<.OO5

-.0100

-.0101-.0110-.0100

-.0110

Differences

<a 3l°cMeas 1

-.0614-.0257-.0278-.0128-.0147-.0108

.0121

.0162-.0096-.0106

-.0132-.0175

-.0137

-.0125

.0394

BetweenMeas 1 atCalc Dens

-.0602.0225.0234.0101.0123

.0134

-.0452

Tank TempMeas 2

all<-005

-.0127-.0139-.0117-.0125-.0134-.0122-.0124-.0109-.0103-.0100-.0105-.0109-.0108

-.0130

-.0123

17

A summary of the density measurement methods with their errors is given inTable 7. With a few exceptions, the differences between the various densitymeasurements are within the limits of error of the methods.

5. Assessment of Result?

The objective of the program was to demonstrate the applicability of theelectromanometer technique to volumetric measurements in the input and plutoniumproduct accountability vessels in the Tokai reprocessing plant. Because of theinherent uncertainties in the present-day technique that involves water-filledmanometers which are read by eye and data that are recorded by hand, developmentof instrumentation that provides digital readings and computerized recording andprocessing of the measurement data represents a significant breakthrough interms of improved measurements and documented control of special nuclearmaterials for accountability purposes.

The advantages of the automated electro-manometer system are:

1. Digital data readout of the dip-tube pressure measurements

2. Overall measurement error on the order of 0.1% in the liquid density andvolume.

3. On-line computerized acquisition, processing, storage, and analysis ofthe measurement data.

4. Visual (CRT) displays of current measurement values and time-responsestatus plots.

5. Prompt and accurate hard-copy summary reports of the input and plutoniumproduct volumes.

Transfer of technology to PNC was achieved with respect to the operationand maintenance of the instruments and with respect to the measurement andplayback programs. Hardware and software were modified to pick up the load cellsignals and playback of the load cell data is a routine operation.

6. Conclusions

Determination of the volume in the input accountability and plutonium prod-uct account-ability vessels can be made with greater ease and accuracy using theautomated electro-manometer system than by using water-filled manometers.

It was demonstrated that the PNC control room operators were capable of run-ning the electromanompter after about one week of hands-on instruction.

TABLE 7

Summary of Density Measurement Methods

Density(Average D = 1.365) Method

OtherMeasured Components

Method error (2 st.D)Absolute %

1. Laboratory densityat 31°C

2. Water manometerat 31°C

3. Calculated at 31°C

4. Measured density 1at t°C

5. Measured density 2at t°C

precise weighingof precisely knownsample volume

direct read

BNFP formula*

liquid level 1liquid level 2

liquid level 1liquid level 2

Sample temperature

Manometer temperatureVessel temperature (t)Probe separation

Laboratory densityLaboratory temperatureAcid molarityUranium concentrationVessel temperature (t)

Vessel temperature (t)Probe separat ion

Vessel temperature (t)Probe separation

0.001 g/cm3 0.07

0.007 g/cm3 0.5

0.005 g/cm3 0.37

0.0004 g/cm3 0.03

0.001 g/cm3 0.07

ao

* Assumes a laboratory density at 25°C.

19

References

1. Suda, S., "An Automated Electromanometer System for Volume Measurement in Ac-countancy Tanks", Proceedings of the First ESARDA Symposium, April 1979, pp.325-29.

2. Keisch, B. and Suda, S., "Temperature Effects in Dip-Tube Manoraetry",presented at the 21st Annual INMM Meeting, Palm Beach, Florida, June 30-July2, 1980.

3. Nakajima, K., Koizumi, T., Yamanouchi, T., Watanabe, S. and Suyama, N.,"Development and Demonstration of Safeguards Techniques in the Tokai FuelReprocessing Plant", Proceedings of IAEA Symposium on Nuclear SafeguardsTechnology, 1978, Vol. II, Vienna, Austria, pp. 701-732.

20

Appendix A LIQUID LEVEL DATA

14G0I-

12GG

* teeo

SO0

400

200

STRTUS DISPLRY GPRPHTRNK 25 IV10

%? 39 11 13

i Date

5 17 19 2: 23 31 03 05 07

TIME IN HCUPS

STHTUS - • OF HLflRME - 1

Figure A-l Input Tank 251V10 Status Plot. Liquid Level Monitoring

21

Appendix A LIQUID LEVEL DATA

DATA SUMMARY REPORT < D a t e

POINT 41 POINT »2 POINT »3 POINT #4

TIMETEMI>

RUSK*VflPOR

na.LIO.LIQ.LOfOLO(*5LOfl)LOA:JLO«:J

CfiLC

»EA-3

< '3*9. C >

0 (MM)HEAD <»•

LEVEL 1 <LEVEL 2 iLEVEL 3 'CELL R'DCELL R'DCELL R'DCELL R'DCELL R'D

D DENS, iD DENS. 1D OEMS, *

VOLUME O u i r iLOAJ CSLL MASS

;.

Mt;Mt)

AVG<»>* <«;•t < u.)C 1"J

0 ..-JO

'«'•"••

ikgy

13:0821.0

.54-74.41233.71781.41798.39

3.494*3.9**32.9?S33.34133.93*4

1.35531.373©1.3570

1338.72474.9

t*:ae29.5

.54-74.75233.79781.54798.48

3.45953.9958£.95823.05773.9988

I.35501. 37401. 3571

1333.32470.5

29:3120.5

.53-74.01233.9*791.55798.38

3.4*003.99262.97883.05023.»8SS

1.35511.37331.3555

133*.5245*.3

21:3721.5

.59-74.40-1.0?1.20

13.511.83331.233!• 3222.5013

1.2543

1.35540.00000.00*0

-44. i

TIMIi7EMI5 '.«fl. C>

RUSKfl 0 <»»,'

LIO.LIQ.LIQ.LOS :•LOP JLGft.JL0A.3LCPO

CALO 'MEfi:jME A'I

> HEnD '..-ii».'

LEVEL 1 »»;LEVEL 2 <»m>LEVEL 3 <.M»>C E L L P D SVC•••'.•C E L L P D A • ••>,•

C S L L R - D 3 '•>.<C E L L R D C ••>•C E L L R - D D ••••'

D D E H S . tg. •:>:.•

D D E N S . 1 '•>-•:•:'

D D E N S . Z '3-•:•:.:•

VOLUME • ! j tin •LCA'J CELL MASS kg,

POINT

23:4e22.

-75.-1.1.1*.1.1.

0.0.

10.-45.

11

*

5053a*51250345305731 33737-:271?

354500000000

53

POINT

04:2':23.

-70.251.905.322.

3.4.3.3.4.

1.1.

1*28.25*1.

*2

1

5

533532222450*10*15145?208205 31

353535733517

53

POINT

05:.5122.

-73!251.•583.

320.3.4.3.3.4.

1.1.1.

1*22.25* 1.

*3

*

553054445450*2as 5 ?1415200*0751

354?35333443

-̂

9

POINT

07: ;20

-742* 3S3 3J50342

4

1;t

«. -. : "i2.-05

*4

.3

. 53

.'52

.02

. 75

.59

. 7 1 ?S

.204!

.222*

. :0:J5

.20*5

. 33"t«

.3511

.3452

-,

Figure A-2 Accountability Transfers. Density, Volume and LoadCell measurements for selected points.

22

Appendix B LOAD CELL DATA

LORD CELL DIFFERENCES PND LIQUIDTRNK 25 IV 10

liOO

.- 503 -•i ..n

5

t'7 09 It ii != IT 19 21i Date ' T-;-'- I" ^''J'jfS

fiRH STRfUb1 - + :.F ^LrtPHS - Ve i n Di - ' - '

— — — — - Z a r c D ! » T

Figure B-l Input tank 251V10 status plot:

Comparison of solution mass (kilograms) based on loadcell measurements and solution volume (l i ters) basedon liquid level measurements.

23

Appendix B LOAD CELL DATA

S COMPARISON

it. i i - r in . j d4t« fir d i T i - ( d a t e )

Hunilo<ir ot* ^ i l i d >34t i p o i n t i - ip:

M« ill Of* d l f f '?. 5S

30 r

•;•» -

iu

isl-

DISTPIBUTION OF MHSS-I_0HD CI~~EPEM - E i

l

I ii

! !

liI I i

41 47 53

MflSS REalDUfiLS n.

59 63 "1

;. ii-Mnj nit* li (date)

TnNl; ».X51V10i

Figure B-2 Frequency plot of kilograms solution:

Differences between load cell and liquid levelmeasurements.

Appendix C BUBBLE PATTERN DATA

SAMPLE NUMliK « M«*n LiquiO L l u t l 34C.229*

33 : i ON Date

Lou*r Prob*

I . I I

.1) -

»•>> S

aonniN mm cNMOQM-* TO l . H H K « « l

u1

r\-UL.

.?« 3.7! 4.48 •3.M

9.1!

INTCSIWICO

7OT1IL

1.44 J.M

Figure C-l Bubble Wave Fora Pattern Analysis'

Upper Plot: Raw Bubble Data

Middle Plot: Frequency plot using Fast Fourier tranaforaations.

Lower Plot: Cumulative frequency