Gamma radiation resistant Fabry–Perot fiber optic sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 1998 completed a study of emerging technologies that could be applicable to measurement systems in nuclear power plants [H. M. Hashemian et al., “Advanced Instrumentation and Maintenance Technologies for Nuclear Power Plants,” NUREG/CR-5501 (1998)]. This study concluded that advanced fiber optic sensing technology is an emerging technology that should be investigated. It also indicated that there had been very little research related to performance evaluation of fiber optic sensors in nuclear plant harsh environments, although substantial research has been performed on nuclear radiation effects on optical fibers in the last two decades. A type of Fabry–Perot fiber optic temperature sensor, which is manufactured by Fiso Technologies in Canada, is qualified to be a candidate for potential applications in nuclear radiation environment due to its unique signal processing technique and its resistance to power loss. The gamma irradiation effects on this type of sensors are investigated in this article. Two sensors were irradiated in a gamma irradiation field and one of them was irradiated up to a total gamma dose of 133 Mrad. The sensor on-line performance was monitored during each gamma irradiation test. Furthermore, the sensor static and dynamic performance before and after each irradiation test were evaluated according to the Standard ISA-dS67.06.01 (“Performance Monitoring for Nuclear Safety-Related Instrument Channels in Nuclear Power Plants”, Standard ISA-dS67.06.01, Draft 7, Instrument Society of America, 1999). Although several abnormal phenomena were observed, analysis shows that gamma irradiation is not accredited to the abnormal behavior, which implies that this type of sensor is suitable to a gamma irradiation environment with a high gamma dose.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".