Research on Radiation Damage and Reinforcement of Control and Sensing Systems in Nuclear Robots

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Research on Radiation Damage and Reinforcement of Control and Sensing Systems in Nuclear Robots" provides an insightful study into the radiation effects on nuclear robots' control and sensing systems and explores innovative reinforcement strategies. The authors present a comprehensive analysis of radiation damage mechanisms, conduct detailed experiments on key electronic components, and propose shielding structures for enhanced radiation resistance. They utilize simulation tools to evaluate the effectiveness of different shielding materials and configurations, offering practical solutions for improving the durability and reliability of nuclear robots in high-radiation environments.

Comments:

1. Originality and Significance: The manuscript addresses a crucial challenge in the field of robotics and nuclear safety, presenting a novel approach to enhancing the radiation resistance of nuclear robots. The integration of experimental research and simulation-based analysis for developing shielding strategies is particularly commendable.

2. Methodology: The experimental setup and the use of simulation tools like Super MC for shielding analysis are well-explained. However, the manuscript could benefit from a more detailed discussion on the selection criteria for the electronic components and materials tested.

3. Results and Analysis: The findings are significant, demonstrating the vulnerability of certain electronic components to radiation and the potential of shielding to mitigate these effects. A clearer presentation of the statistical analysis and a comparison with existing technologies would further strengthen the manuscript.

4. Technical Depth and Clarity: While the manuscript is technically sound, some sections could be made more accessible to readers not familiar with radiation shielding or nuclear robotics. Simplifying complex explanations and adding explanatory figures or tables could enhance understanding.

5. Future Work and Applications: The manuscript briefly mentions future applications and improvements. Expanding on potential real-world applications, limitations, and future research directions would provide valuable context and show the broader impact of the work.

6. References and Literature Review: The literature review is thorough, but incorporating more recent studies could enrich the context. Additionally, discussing how this work fills gaps in existing research would highlight its contribution to the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors investigated the radiation damage and radiation reinforcement of the control and sensing systems of nuclear robots. Also, the authors validated the radiation resistance performance of various components within the control and sensing systems.

1.      Please, include the software used to produce your results in the manuscript. This will enable the interested readers to be able to reproduce the results.

2.      Based on your results that at doses exceeding 1300 Gy, Hall sensors, pressure transmitters, and temperature transmitters exhibit radiation damage, what are the possible application areas that the nuclear robots, with these characteristics, can perform effectively?

 

3.      In space exploration, the use of robots is dominant because of their abilities to explore outer space characterized with high radiation environment. Can the nuclear robots experimented with work in that environment? If not, include your future endeavor to develop nuclear robots with improved capability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Research on Radiation Damage and Reinforcement of Control 2 and Sensing Systems in Nuclear Robots,” by Chang et al.

The topic of this paper is very interesting as it provides some guidance on the practical radiation hardness of different commercial components that could be found in robots. Overall the results are useful but the authors need to improve the presentation of the experimental techniques, results, and conclusions.

I would suggest the use of pressure and temperature transducers instead of transmitters. The name transmitter implies RF signal transmission in most cases and can be confusing in this context.

Unclear sentence lines 21 – what does “marginal benefits” refer to? Please, clarify.

What is a Super MC simulation?

What is the “mechanical self-weight problem”?

Noun for verb in sentence starting in line 70.

The listed DW-AS-624-M8-001 is not a Hall Effect sensor, it is an inductive sensor. Please revise this analysis.

The captions of Figure 2 should have more detail. Also, an annotation indicating where the cylindrical radiation sources and the chemical dosimeters would be useful.

What are temperature transmitters relays in Table 2?

The “greater than 10” failure criteria for the temperature transmitter is unclear. Please, explain.

It may be beneficial to indicate the units for the failure criteria both in the text and table 2 when applicable.

The paragraph of line 120 is questionable. 1 out of 5 is a 20% failure rate but statistics cannot really be derived out of 5 samples. I suggest the “25% failure probability” statement be removed.

It is confusing to describe failures both in time and total irradiation dose. Perhaps listing the failure time in Table 3 next to the failure would help the reader understand the conclusions.

What is a “geographer layer” in line 141?

The paragraphs describing the failure mechanism for the Hall Effect and temperature and pressure sensors are not accurate. Radiation does not result in increased doping concentration, and oxide layers do not become conductive. I suggest the authors review the failure mechanisms under radiation and reconsider this discussion.

References [16] and [17-20] are irrelevant as currently presented, as they do not relate to the type of devices tested. On the other hand, references [17-20] are valid to indicate the general failure mechanisms of silicon-based devices.

[16] is in reference to a graphene Hall effect sensor. No such sensor is used in this study.

Pressure transmitter includes a piezo resistive sensor, which fails like a silicon IC would. The shown temperature sensor is a type K thermocouple, it does not have any silicon components in the sensor itself. It is possible that the electronics driving the thermocouple could have failed under radiation. These failures would be irrelevant to the sensor type itself but rather a failure of the silicon components.

Controllers are listed twice in Table 4. Is this a typo?

Please, add a space between number and units consistently in the entire paper.

Sentences need to be rewritten on pages 8 and 9.

Captions of Figure 6 are small – please enlarge.

Why is section 5 titled: “Patent”?

How was the data presented in Table 5 collected? Was it collected through Super MC simulation? Please, indicate this in the first sentences of section 5.

For Table 5, why would there be any differences based on components (controller vs transformer) on the shielding rate of Pb and W?

I would suggest a schematic indicating the direction of the radiation with reference to the position of the components, specifically, the location of the controller and transformer.

 

Figure 6 and Table 5 present the same data.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs to be slightly improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed all of this reviewer's concerns. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is fine. Only minor editing is needed.