Skip to content
KPI Science News
ISSN 2617-5509 · e‑ISSN 2663-7472 Open Access · CC BY 4.0
Vol. 143 · Issue 2 · 2026 Jun 29, 2026 Electronics, Telecommunications and Measurement Systems

METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING THE TRANSMISSION PATH STRUCTURE IN FUSION POWER PLANTS

PK
Pavlo Kost Corresponding Lviv Polytechnic National University Ukraine
LH
Larysa Hlinenko Lviv Polytechnic National University Ukraine
Pages27-35 PublishedJun 29, 2026 LicenseOpen Access
PDF
VOL 143 · ISS 2 · 2026 View issue

Abstract

Background. In fusion facilities, the transmission of measurement signals from sensors takes place under conditions of intense ionising radiation, high temperatures and significant electromagnetic interference, leading to the degradation of sensors and transmission lines, increased signal loss and a reduction in the signal-to-noise ratio. The transmission of weak signals over long distances is particularly critical, requiring a well-founded choice of transmission path structure based on a systematic consideration of the characteristics of the sensors and transmission lines, taking into account a range of influencing factors, including radiation exposure, temperature conditions, electromagnetic interference, signal loss and changes in the signal-to-noise ratio.

Objective. The paper aims to justify an approach to selecting the transmission path structure for long data transmission lines in thermonuclear facilities based on a systematic and multi-criteria analysis of sensor and transmission channel characteristics.

Methods. A systematic analysis of modern sensor solutions and transmission line types was employed, alongside a multi-criteria approach taking into account radiation immunity, temperature stability, noise immunity, signal-to-noise ratio and long-term parameter stability. The transmission path is considered as a set of interrelated elements: the sensor, local converter, transmission line and data acquisition module, which determine the efficiency of signal transmission. To compare alternatives, the characteristics were normalised and visualised using polar diagrams.

Results. It has been established that inductive sensors are characterised by high radiation resistance but are limited in measuring static fields, whereas Hall sensors provide direct measurement of static and alternating magnetic fields, yet are subject to radiation-induced drift. It has been shown that bismuth and ceramic Hall sensors exhibit enhanced long-term stability. It has been determined that coaxial cables are susceptible to radiation ageing and signal loss, whereas fibre-optic and mineral-insulated lines provide better noise immunity and parameter stability. The feasibility of local signal digitisation and the use of optical transmission channels is justified. Based on the analysis carried out, the structure of the transmission path has been established, whilst the merits of local signal digitisation and the use of fibre-optic transmission channels to improve reliability and noise immunity have been demonstrated.

Conclusions. An approach to selecting the structure of the transmission path is proposed, based on a comprehensive consideration of the characteristics of sensors and transmission lines. It is shown that the most effective solutions for constructing the transmission path are those involving a combination of radiation-resistant sensors, local signal processing and digitisation directly at the sensor, and the use of fibre-optic transmission channels. This approach ensures improved measurement accuracy and data transmission reliability in the long transmission lines of thermonuclear facilities under conditions of ionising radiation, high temperatures and electromagnetic interference.

Keywords

#thermonuclear installations #long transmission lines #radiation resistance #magnetic sensors #Hall sensors #fibre-optic lines #signal-to-noise ratio #degradation #transmission path

References

  1. A. J. H. Donné and A. E. Costley, “Key issues in diagnostics for burning plasma experiments,” IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 177–186, 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2004.823895
  2. G. Vayakis, E. R. Hodgson, V. Voitsenya and C. I. Walker, “Generic diagnostic issues for a burning plasma experiment,” Fusion Sci. Technol., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 699–750, 2008, https://w3.pppl.gov/~neumeyer/ITER_IVC/References/2008_Vayakis_ITER.pdf, doi: https://doi.org/10.13182/FST08-A1684
  3. R. Chavan, G. Chitarin, R. S. Delogu, A. Encheva, A. Gallo, E. R. Hodgson, L. C. Ingesson, A. Le-Luyer, J. B. Lister, Ph. Moreau, J.-M. Moret, S. Peruzzo, J. Roméro, D. S. Testa, M. Toussaint, G. Vayakis and R. Vila, “The magnetics diagnostic set for ITER,” Fusion Eng. Des., vol. 84, no. 2–6, pp. 295–299, 2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2008.12.103
  4. M. Decréton, T. Shikama and E. R. Hodgson, “Performance of functional materials and components in a fusion reactor: The issue of radiation effects in ceramics and glass materials for diagnostics,” J. Nucl. Mater., vol. 329, no. 1, pp. 125–132, 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2004.04.012
  5. N. Casal, P. Andrew, R. Barnsley, M. Bassan, J. L. Barbero, L. Bertalot, M. De Bock, B. Brichard, T. Giacomin, R. Juarez, M. Kocan, F. Le Guern, M. Loughlin, Y. Ma, F. Mackel, H. Meister, Ph. Maquet, V. Martin, R. Reichle, F. Seyvet, A. Sirinelli, P. Shigin, V. Udintsev, G. Vayakis, C. Vorpahl, C. Watts and M. Walsh, “Functional materials for ITER diagnostic systems – Radiation aspects,” Fusion Eng. Des., vol. 125, pp. 277–282, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.08.017
  6. S. Girard, J. Kuhnhenn, A. Gusarov, B. Brichard, M. Van Uffelen and Y. Ouerdane, “Radiation effects on silica-based optical fibers: Recent advances and future challenges,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 2015–2036, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2012.2235464
  7. I. Bolshakova, H. Barylo, R. Holiaka, T. Marusenkova and F. Shuryhin, “Structure and calibration of functionally integrated devices of magnetic diagnostics of thermonuclear reactors,” Infocommun. Technol. Electron. Eng., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 61–73, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.23939/ictee2022.01.061
  8. S. Entler, Z. Soban, I. Duran, K. Kovarik, K. Vyborny, J. Sebek, S. Tazlaru, J. Strelecek and P. Sladek, “Ceramic-chromium Hall sensors for environments with high temperatures and neutron radiation,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 3, p. 721, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/s21030721
  9. P. E. Stott, G. Gorini, P. Prandoni and E. Sindoni, Eds., Diagnostics for Experimental Thermonuclear Fusion Reactors 2. Dordrecht: Springer, 1998, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5353-3
  10. J. Kim, J. Kim, Y.-C. Ghim and J.-G. Bak, “Sensor fusion and magnetic drift estimation in magnetic measurements using Kalman filter for long-duration plasma operations,” Nucl. Fusion, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/adb599
  11. I. Ďuran, I. Bolshakova, L. Viererbl, J. Sentkerestiová, R. Holyaka, Z. Lahodová and P. Bém, “Irradiation tests of ITER candidate Hall sensors using two types of neutron spectra,” Rev. Sci. Instrum., vol. 81, no. 10, 2010, doi: 10. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3479115
  12. I. Ďuran, M. Hron, J. Stöckel, L. Viererbl, R. Všolák, V. Červa, I. Bolshakova, R. Holyaka and G. Vayakis, “Stability of the Hall sensors performance under neutron irradiation,” Hal open science, 2004, URL: https://hal.science/hal-00001781v1
  13. A. E. Costley, K. Ebisawa, P. Edmonds, G. Janeschitz, L. C. Johnson, S. Kasai, L. de Kock, V. Mukhovatov, P. E. Stott, G. Vayakis, C. Walker, S. Yamamoto, K. M. Young & V. Zaveriaev“Overview of the ITER Diagnostic System,” in Diagnostics for Experimental Thermonuclear Fusion Reactors 2, P. E. Stott, G. Gorini, P. Prandoni and E. Sindoni, Eds. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 41-56, 1998. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5353-3_3
  14. A. E. Costley, A. Malaquias, T. Sugie, G. Vayakis and C. Walker, “ITER Diagnostics: Design Choices and Solutions,” IAEA-2002-CT-5, pp. 1-8, 2002. URL: https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/csp_019c/pdf/ct_5.pdf
  15. K. M. Young and A. E. Costley, “An overview of ITER diagnostics,” Rev. Sci. Instrum., vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 862–867, 1997, doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1147710
  16. K. Y. Vukolov, E. N. Andreenko, R. S. Afanasenko, I. I. Orlovskiy and R. N. Rodionov, “Effect of Radiation Exposure on Optics in ITER,” Phys. At. Nucl., vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 829–847, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063778824070160
  17. I. Bolshakova, R. Holyaka, T. Marusenkova and F. Shurygin, Radiation-Resistant Hall Magnetic Field Sensors and Instrumentations. Lviv: Lviv Polytechnic National University; Dallas, USA: Primedia eLaunch LLC, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.36074/rrhmfsai-monograph.2022
  18. I. Ďuran, S. Entler, M. Kočan, M. Kohout, L. Viererbl, R. Mušálek, T. Chráska and G. Vayakis, “Development of bismuth Hall sensors for ITER steady state magnetic diagnostics,” Fusion Eng. Des., vol. 123, pp. 690–694, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.05.142
  19. Ph. Moreau, “IIS magnetic diagnostics: overview,” presented at the 13th ITER International School, 2024, URL: https://www.iter.org/sites/default/files/media/2024-12/l2_iis-magnetic-diagnostics-ph-moreau-v2-reduced.pdf
  20. N. Marconato, “The magnetic diagnostic set for ITER,” IEEE Trans. Plasma sci., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 284-294 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/tps.2009.2037226
  21. D. Testa, R. Chavan, G. Chitarin, R. S. Delogu, A. Encheva, A. Gallo, E. R. Hodgson, L. C. Ingesson, A. Le-Luyer, J. B. Lister, Ph. Moreau, J.-M. Moret, S. Peruzzo, J. Roméro, M. Toussaint, G. Vayakis, R. Vila, “The magnetic diagnostic set for ITER,” in Proc. 23rd IEEE/NPSS Symp. Fusion Engineering, San Diego, CA, USA, 2009, pp. 1–4, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/FUSION.2009.5226525
  22. Y. Ma, G. Vayakis, L. B. Begrambekov, J.-J. Cooper, I. Ďuran, M. Hirsch, H. P. Laqua, Ph. Moreau, J. W. Oosterbeek, P. Spuig, T. Stange, M. Walsh, “Design and development of ITER high-frequency magnetic sensor,” Fusion Eng. Des., vol. 112, pp. 594–612, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2016.05.002
  23. K. Yu. Vukolov, “Fiber optics for plasma diagnostics in ITER,” Fusion Eng. Des., vol. 123, pp. 919–922, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.03.075
  24. J. Li, Q. Chen, J. Zhou, Z. Cao, T. Li, F. Liu, Z. Yang, S. Chang, K. Zhou, Y. Ming, T. Yan, W. Zheng, “Radiation damage mechanisms and research status of radiation-resistant optical fibers: A review,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 10, p. 3235, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/s24103235
  25. F. Esposito, A. Stancalie, S. Campopiano, A. Iadicicco, “Editorial to the special issue optical fiber sensors in radiation environments,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 22, p. 9117, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/s23229117
  26. L. Anghelescu, A. Handra, B. Diaconu, “Degradation pathways of electrical cable insulation: A review of aging mechanisms and fire hazards,” Fire, vol. 8, no. 10, p. 397, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8100397
  27. M. Van Uffelen, A. F. Fernandez, B. Brichard, F. Berghmans, M. Decréton, “Radiation tolerance qualification for maintenance tasks in the future fusion reactors: From fibre-optic components to robust data links,” Fusion Eng. Des., vol. 69, no. 1–4, pp. 191–195, 2003, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-3796(03)00335-1
  28. K. Vukolov, E. Andreenko, I. Orlovskiy, V. Shikalov, “Irradiation tests of fiber optics for H-alpha diagnostics in ITER,” Fusion Eng. Des., vol. 146A, pp. 796–799, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2019.01.082
  29. R. Zhang et al., “Research on self-diagnosis and self-healing redundant optical fiber sensor network,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 6, p. 1641, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/s25061641
  30. V. Plaček, B. Bartonı́ček, V. Hnát, B. Otáhal. “Dose rate effects in radiation degradation of polymer-based cable materials,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B, vol. 208, pp. 448-453, 2003, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-583X(03)00626-8
  31. M. Decréton, T. Shikama and E. R. Hodgson, “Performance of functional materials and components in a fusion reactor: The issue of radiation effects in ceramics and glass materials for diagnostics”, J. Nucl. Mater., vol. 329-333, part. A, pp. 125-132, 2004. Retrieved from doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2004.04.012
  32. M. Van Uffelen; S. Girard; F. Goutaland; A. Gusarov; B. Brichard; F. Berghmans, “Gamma radiation effects in Er-doped silica fibers”, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., Vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 2763–2769, Oct. 2004. Retrieved from doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2004.835059
  33. N. Casal, P. Andrew, R. Barnsley, M. Bassan, J. L. Barbero, L. Bertalot, M. De Bock, B. Brichard, T. Giacomin, R. Juarez, M. Kocan, F. Le Guern, M. Loughlin, Y. Ma, F. Mackel, H. Meister, P. Maquet, V. Martin, R. Reichle, F. Seyvet, A. Sirinelli, P. Shigin, V. Udintsev, G. Vayakis, C. Vorpahl, C. Watts, M. Walsh, “Functional materials for ITER diagnostic systems – Radiation aspects”, Fusion Eng., vol. 125, pp. 277-282, 2017. Retrieved from doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.08.017
  34. Л. К. Гліненко та В. М. Фаст, “Системний вибір оптимального технологічного рішення 3D MID”, Вісн. НТУУ “КПІ”. Серія: Радіотехніка. Радіоапаратобудування, вип. 69, с. 56–61, 2017, URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/VKPI_rr_2017_69_11
  35. A. Stanciu, M. Stanciu, “Optical fiber sensors in nuclear plants,” EEA J., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 15–20, 2005, URL: https://eea-journal.ro/ro/2005/eea-2005-53-4-015-en.pdf
  36. A. Morana, E. Marin, L. Lablonde, T. Blanchet, T. Robin, G. Cheymol, G. Laffont, A. Boukenter, Y. Ouerdane, S. Girard, “Radiation effects on fiber Bragg gratings: Vulnerability up to MGy doses,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 21, p. 8175, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/s22218175
  37. M. A. S. Zaghloul, M. Wang, S. Huang, C. Hnatovsky, D. Grobnic, S. Mihailov, M.-J. Li, D. Carpenter, L.-W. Hu, J. Daw, G. Laffont, S. Nehr, K. P. Chen, “Radiation resistant fiber Bragg grating in random air-line fiber,” Opt. Express, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 11775–11786, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.26.011775

License

CCBY 4.0
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

This work is openly licensed — share and adapt freely with attribution to the authors and the journal. View license terms ↗

Copyright (c) 2026 Павло Кость, Лариса Гліненко (Автор)

§ 06 — Related

Similar articles in this journal

Related peer-reviewed studies published in this journal.
View all issues

MODIFICATION OF THE SEPARABLE PHYSICS-INFORMED NEURAL NETWORK METHOD FOR THE APPROXIMATE SOLUTION OF A MIXED PROBLEM FOR THE HEAT CONDUCTION EQUATION IN AN ELLIPTICAL DOMAIN

Valerii Los, Oleksandr Riakhin

Background. Parabolic differential equations are mathematical models in engineering designed to study wide range of applied models. This necessitates the development of…

#heat conduction equation #mixed parabolic problem #elliptical domain #physics-informed neural network
10.20535/kpisn.2026.3.367316

METHODOLOGY FOR THE PARAMETRIC SYNTHESIS OF ZOOM-AFOCAL SYSTEMS BASED ON FIXED VARIOFOCAL LENSES

Igor Chyzh

Background. Zoom optical systems utilising mechanically fixed, electrically controlled varifocal lenses cannot be regarded as having fixed optical components. The…

#zoom-afocal systems #principal points of varifocal lenses #synthesis of zoom-afocal systems #stable afocality of zoom systems
10.20535/kpisn.2026.3.351645

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

1-10 of 36

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.