Results for “Restructuring” — Page 12

DOE OSTI2011

THE REBOUND CONDITION OF DUST AGGREGATES REVEALED BY NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THEIR COLLISIONS

Collisional growth of dust aggregates is a plausible root of planetesimals forming in protoplanetary disks. However, a rebound of colliding dust aggregates prevents dust from growing into planetesimals. In fact, rebounding aggregates are observed in laboratory experiments but not in previous numerical simulations. Therefore, the condition of rebound between dust aggregates should be clarified to better understand the processes of dust growth and planetesimal formation. We have carried out numerical simulations of aggregate collisions for various types of aggregates and succeeded in reproducing a rebound of colliding aggregates under specific conditions. Our finding is that in the rebound process, the key factor of the aggregate structure is the coordination number, namely, the number of particles in contact with a particle. A rebound is governed by the energy dissipation along with restructuring of the aggregates and a large coordination number inhibits the restructuring at collisions. Results of our numerical simulation for various aggregates indicate that they stick to each other when the mean coordination number is less than 6, regardless of their materials and structures, as long as their collision velocity is less than the critical velocity for fragmentation. This criterion of the coordination number would correspond to a filling factor of {approx}0.3, which is somewhat larger than that reported in laboratory experiments. In protoplanetary disks, dust aggregates are expected to have low bulk densities (<0.1 g cm{sup -3}) during their growth, which would prevent dust aggregates from rebounding. This result supports the formation of planetesimals with direct dust growth in protoplanetary disks.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2018

A Trihelix Family Transcription Factor Is Associated with Key Genes in Mixed-Linkage Glucan Accumulation

Mixed-linkage glucan (MLG) is a polysaccharide that is highly abundant in grass endosperm cell walls and present at lower amounts in other tissues. Cellulose synthase-like F (CSLF) and cellulose synthase-like H genes synthesize MLG, but it is unknown if other genes participate in the production and restructuring of MLG. Using Brachypodium distachyon transcriptional profiling data, we identified a B. distachyon trihelix family transcription factor (BdTHX1) that is highly coexpressed with the B. distachyon CSLF6 gene (BdCSLF6), which suggests that BdTHX1 is involved in the regulation of MLG biosynthesis. To determine the genes regulated by this transcription factor, we conducted chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) experiments using immature B. distachyon seeds and an anti-BdTHX1 polyclonal antibody. The ChIP-seq experiment identified the second intron of BdCSLF6 as one of the most enriched sequences. The binding of BdTHX1 to the BdCSLF6 intron sequence was confirmed using electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSA). ChIP-seq also showed that a gene encoding a grass-specific glycoside hydrolase family 16 endotransglucosylase/hydrolase (BdXTH8) is bound by BdTHX1, and the binding was confirmed by EMSA. Radiochemical transglucanase assays showed that BdXTH8 exhibits predominantly MLG:xyloglucan endotransglucosylase activity, a hetero-transglycosylation reaction, and can thus produce MLG-xyloglucan covalent bonds; it also has a lower xyloglucan:xyloglucan endotransglucosylase activity. B. distachyon shoots regenerated from transformed calli overexpressing BdTHX1 showed an abnormal arrangement of vascular tissue and seedling-lethal phenotypes. Finally, these results indicate that the transcription factor BdTHX1 likely plays an important role in MLG biosynthesis and restructuring by regulating the expression of BdCSLF6 and BdXTH8.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

DOE OSTI2014

A nonvoxel-based dose convolution/superposition algorithm optimized for scalable GPU architectures

Purpose: Real-time adaptive planning and treatment has been infeasible due in part to its high computational complexity. There have been many recent efforts to utilize graphics processing units (GPUs) to accelerate the computational performance and dose accuracy in radiation therapy. Data structure and memory access patterns are the key GPU factors that determine the computational performance and accuracy. In this paper, the authors present a nonvoxel-based (NVB) approach to maximize computational and memory access efficiency and throughput on the GPU. Methods: The proposed algorithm employs a ray-tracing mechanism to restructure the 3D data sets computed from the CT anatomy into a nonvoxel-based framework. In a process that takes only a few milliseconds of computing time, the algorithm restructured the data sets by ray-tracing through precalculated CT volumes to realign the coordinate system along the convolution direction, as defined by zenithal and azimuthal angles. During the ray-tracing step, the data were resampled according to radial sampling and parallel ray-spacing parameters making the algorithm independent of the original CT resolution. The nonvoxel-based algorithm presented in this paper also demonstrated a trade-off in computational performance and dose accuracy for different coordinate system configurations. In order to find the best balance between the computed speedup and the accuracy, the authors employed an exhaustive parameter search on all sampling parameters that defined the coordinate system configuration: zenithal, azimuthal, and radial sampling of the convolution algorithm, as well as the parallel ray spacing during ray tracing. The angular sampling parameters were varied between 4 and 48 discrete angles, while both radial sampling and parallel ray spacing were varied from 0.5 to 10 mm. The gamma distribution analysis method (γ) was used to compare the dose distributions using 2% and 2 mm dose difference and distance-to-agreement criteria, respectively. Accuracy was investigated using three distinct phantoms with varied geometries and heterogeneities and on a series of 14 segmented lung CT data sets. Performance gains were calculated using three 256 mm cube homogenous water phantoms, with isotropic voxel dimensions of 1, 2, and 4 mm. Results: The nonvoxel-based GPU algorithm was independent of the data size and provided significant computational gains over the CPU algorithm for large CT data sizes. The parameter search analysis also showed that the ray combination of 8 zenithal and 8 azimuthal angles along with 1 mm radial sampling and 2 mm parallel ray spacing maintained dose accuracy with greater than 99% of voxels passing the γ test. Combining the acceleration obtained from GPU parallelization with the sampling optimization, the authors achieved a total performance improvement factor of >175 000 when compared to our voxel-based ground truth CPU benchmark and a factor of 20 compared with a voxel-based GPU dose convolution method. Conclusions: The nonvoxel-based convolution method yielded substantial performance improvements over a generic GPU implementation, while maintaining accuracy as compared to a CPU computed ground truth dose distribution. Such an algorithm can be a key contribution toward developing tools for adaptive radiation therapy systems.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-00: Medical Physics Workshop: An Update On the Journal’s Improvement Activities and Guidance On Writing and Reviewing Papers

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-01: Vision for Medical Physics and Status of Current Initiatives

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-02: Improving Manuscript Quality Via Structured Reviews, Enhanced Scientific Category Taxonomy, and Outreach

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-03: Writing Good Scientific Papers and Responding to Critiques

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

NEML2 - THE NEW ENGINEERING MATERIAL MODEL LIBRARY, VERSION 2

SF-22-157 NEML2 is an extension of an earlier open source code developed at ANL (SF-xxxx) called NEML. These libraries provide tools for constructing and using models of engineering materials, with a focus on high temperature materials for nuclear reactor applications. The software include tools for setting up material models, calibrating models, storing models for later use in other simulations, and running simple "material point" simulations of the material behavior. The main difference between NEML and NEML2 is the new software has been complete restructured to run on GPUs and other accelerators in order to improve the performance of methods used to train constitutive models against data and to improve the performance of the final models in production environments, like finite element software. While over time we expect NEML2 to become more-or-less feature complete with NEML we are filing a new software disclosure because (1) the library has been complete restructured and (2) we want to host NEML2 in a separate repository.

MESSNER, MARK↗

DOE OSTI2020

Reducing communication in algebraic multigrid with multi-step node aware communication

Algebraic multigrid (AMG) is often viewed as a scalable [Formula: see text] solver for sparse linear systems. Yet, AMG lacks parallel scalability due to increasingly large costs associated with communication, both in the initial construction of a multigrid hierarchy and in the iterative solve phase. This work introduces a parallel implementation of AMG that reduces the cost of communication, yielding improved parallel scalability. It is common in Message Passing Interface (MPI), particularly in the MPI-everywhere approach, to arrange inter-process communication, so that communication is transported regardless of the location of the send and receive processes. Performance tests show notable differences in the cost of intra- and internode communication, motivating a restructuring of communication. In this case, the communication schedule takes advantage of the less costly intra-node communication, reducing both the number and the size of internode messages. Node-centric communication extends to the range of components in both the setup and solve phase of AMG, yielding an increase in the weak and strong scaling of the entire method.

Computer Science↗

DOE OSTI2012

Energy Development Opportunities for Wyoming

The Wyoming Business Council, representing the state’s interests, is participating in a collaborative evaluation of energy development opportunities with the NGNP Industry Alliance (an industry consortium), the University of Wyoming, and the US Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory. Three important energy-related goals are being pursued by the State of Wyoming: Ensuring continued reliable and affordable sources of energy for Wyoming’s industries and people Restructuring the coal economy in Wyoming Restructuring the natural gas economy in Wyoming

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2013

Value of Energy Storage for Grid Applications

This analysis evaluates several operational benefits of electricity storage, including load-leveling, spinning contingency reserves, and regulation reserves. Storage devices were simulated in a utility system in the western United States, and the operational costs of generation was compared to the same system without the added storage. This operational value of storage was estimated for devices of various sizes, providing different services, and with several sensitivities to fuel price and other factors. Overall, the results followed previous analyses that demonstrate relatively low value for load-leveling but greater value for provision of reserve services. The value was estimated by taking the difference in operational costs between cases with and without energy storage and represents the operational cost savings from deploying storage by a traditional vertically integrated utility. The analysis also estimated the potential revenues derived from a merchant storage plant in a restructured market, based on marginal system prices. Due to suppression of on-/off-peak price differentials and incomplete capture of system benefits (such as the cost of power plant starts), the revenue obtained by storage in a market setting appears to be substantially less than the net benefit provided to the system. This demonstrates some of the additional challenges for storage deployed in restructured energy markets.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2015

Effects of Warming on Tree Species’ Recruitment in Deciduous Forests of the Eastern United States

Climate change is restructuring forests of the United States, although the details of this restructuring are currently uncertain. Rising temperatures of 2 to 8oC and associated changes in soil moisture will shift the competitive balance between species that compete for light and water, and so change their abilities to produce seed, germinate, grow, and survive. We have used large-scale experiments to determine the effects of warming on the most sensitive stage of species distributions, i.e., recruitment, in mixed deciduous forests in southern New England and in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. Two questions organized our research: (1) Might temperate tree species near the “warm” end of their range in the eastern United States decline in abundance during the coming century due to projected warming? and (2) Might trees near the “cool” end of their range in the eastern United States increase in abundance, or extend their range, during the coming 100 years because of projected warming? To explore these questions, we exposed seedlings to air and soil warming experiments in two eastern deciduous forest sites; one at the Harvard Forest (HF) in central Massachusetts, and the other at the Duke Forest (DF) in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. We focused on tree species common to both Harvard and Duke Forests (such as red, black, and white oaks), those near northern range limits (black oak, flowing dogwood, tulip poplar), and those near southern range limits (yellow birch, sugar maple, Virginia pine). At each site, we planted seeds and seedlings in common gardens established in temperature-controlled, open-top chambers. The experimental design was replicated and fully factorial and involved three temperature regimes (ambient, +3oC and +5oC) and two light regimes (closed forest canopy (low light) and gap conditions (high light)). Measured variables included Winter/Spring responses to temperature and mid-Summer responses to low soil moisture. This research will advance our understanding of how the abundances and geographic distributions of several important eastern tree species near the cool and warm ends of their ranges will change during the century because of projected warming. Warming-induced changes in eastern tree abundances and distributions have the potential to affect both the quality and quantity of goods and services provided by eastern forests, and will therefore be of importance to society.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2013

The Value of Energy Storage for Grid Applications

This analysis evaluates several operational benefits of electricity storage, including load-leveling, spinning contingency reserves, and regulation reserves. Storage devices were simulated in a utility system in the western United States, and the operational costs of generation was compared to the same system without the added storage. This operational value of storage was estimated for devices of various sizes, providing different services, and with several sensitivities to fuel price and other factors. Overall, the results followed previous analyses that demonstrate relatively low value for load-leveling but greater value for provision of reserve services. The value was estimated by taking the difference in operational costs between cases with and without energy storage and represents the operational cost savings from deploying storage by a traditional vertically integrated utility. The analysis also estimated the potential revenues derived from a merchant storage plant in a restructured market, based on marginal system prices. Due to suppression of on-/off-peak price differentials and incomplete capture of system benefits (such as the cost of power plant starts), the revenue obtained by storage in a market setting appears to be substantially less than the net benefit provided to the system. This demonstrates some of the additional challenges for storage deployed in restructured energy markets.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2017

Demonstrate Benchtop Measurement of Recrystallization

The Mechanical Property Microscope (MPM) was used to monitor grain restructuring (recrystallization) of a metallic fuel surrogate sample. The MPM is a laser ultrasonic instrument used to measure the elastic and anelastic response of a material. The MPM has been used previously to measure the elastic constants of UZr system both as a function of composition and temperature. In this study we extend the capability of the MPM to make measurements of the resonant response a small metallic fuel surrogate as function of temperature. The fuel surrogate consists of a highly textured copper sample. By tracking specific resonant modes as a function of temperature we demonstrate that the MPM is well suited to measure grain restructuring in metallic fuel surrogates.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Evaluation of the Effect of Burnup Acceleration on UO 2 Microstructure Evolution

Accelerated fuel qualification (AFQ) is a methodology by which new nuclear fuels are developed in an accelerated time frame compared with historical fuel qualification approaches. AFQ generally relies on high-fidelity physics-based modeling and simulation tools to adequately describe fuel performance as well as on revolutionary methods to accelerate burnup accumulation and collect relevant data more quickly. This report summarizes the use of advanced fuel modeling and simulation tools to evaluate microstructures from commercially irradiated fuel and microstructures from proposed MiniFuel irradiations, in which burnup accumulation is accelerated while prototypic temperature conditions are maintained. In this milestone, we used the mesoscale fuel performance code MARMOT to model the evolution of irradiated UO 2 microstructures and their potential restructuring at high burnup. The simulation conditions were informed by BISON models of both commercially irradiated fuel and MiniFuel. A first set of simulations investigated the recrystallization behavior of fully dense microstructures and showed full recrystallization at burnups as low as 52 MWd/kgU at 950°C. However, these simulations did not account for the presence of fission gas bubbles (predicted by BISON). Therefore, a second set of simulations including fission gas bubbles was performed and indicated that at the lowest temperature considered (650°C), the porous UO 2 microstructures have the highest total Gibbs free energies and are likely to recrystallize earlier than higher temperature cases (800 and 950°C), which agrees with high-burnup fuel characterization data. The results also showed that at lower temperature (650°C), the total free energies of the PWR fuel and MiniFuel microstructures are not significantly different. However, at the highest temperature (950°C), MiniFuel microstructures have a lower free energy than that of the PWR fuel microstructure. The competing effects between the temperature-dependent grain nucleation rate and the reduction of the free energy of the microstructure at higher temperature as a result of diffusion indicated that restructuring may occur at even higher temperatures than those considered in this study. In addition to the microstructure evolution modeling efforts, the burnup gradient across a single fuel specimen was also considered. This evaluation was for the VXF-15 position of the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) using the code suite HFIRCON, which was developed to automate the workflow for evaluating targets and fuel as they are irradiated in HFIR. The burnup gradient evaluation showed a dependence on both the axial and radial locations within the specimen, with a maximum difference of 1.7 between the inner and outermost radial layers. This relationship was further supported by considering the fission product speciation with respect to location within the specimen, which showed a higher concentration of 239 Pu, 240 Pu, and 241 Pu on the outer radial locations of the specimen than the center. The findings of the burnup and speciation evaluation show that some amount of self-shielding is occurring in the specimen when irradiated in the high-flux environment of HFIR; however, this impact is more pronounced for natural uranium when compared to 6% enrichment due to the higher ratio of 238 U in the specimen. Further analyses are required to understand the sensitivity of this gradient to spatial mesh and enrichment of the specimen.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Third-Party Aggregation Rulemaking in MISO and SPP Footprints

The report highlights key considerations for retail regulators in the footprints of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) or Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) in states that previously opted out of allowing third-party aggregation participation under FERC Order 719 and that may want to explore reversing the decision due to a changing policy environment under new FERC orders (i.e., 2222) and/or tightening resource adequacy constraints. Through a document review and a series of 27 interviews with regulators, aggregators, and other industry professionals, this document provides a high-level policy overview of the retail regulator’s role in a selection of processes, rules, and regulations to better understand how states have treated and/or integrated aggregators into wholesale markets. The report summarizes findings in two sections: General Findings and Specific Policy Findings. The General Findings offer high level takeaways such as the fact that 17 of the 20 states in MISO and SPP footprints opted out of third party aggregations following Order 719. Additionally, there is only one state that is fully restructured in the MISO and SPP footprints whereas the rest are vertically integrated, and the majority of third-party aggregations in the U.S. take place in restructured states outside of these footprints. Even so, third-party aggregations do take place in MISO and SPP albeit in small numbers and in an ad hoc regulatory environment. The specific policy findings delve deeper into specific examples of state actions on the topics of jurisdiction, registration and licensing, data governance, dual participation, and dispute resolution. Tables in each category organize state actions into Tiers I-III, which roughly correspond to the possible level of involvement or possible change necessary by state regulators and/or legislators to implement these actions. The tier level does not indicate any value judgement, as each state has respective regulatory limitations and each decision comes with various tradeoffs. One main tradeoff is between simplicity and quick implementation versus comprehensive and prolonged implementation. In many cases, actions in Tier I could be implemented without significant changes by relying on the use of existing processes for an aggregator context. On the other hand, many actions in Tier III are more narrowly designed to address aggregators specifically, but often require more significant changes including the involvement of additional parties through stakeholder engagement or legislative action. In some cases, these tiers are discrete. However, state regulators may also choose to progress through these various tiers sequentially as they phase in aggregators while learning from their experience. With the ability to stack bulk system level services, distributed energy resource aggregations in MISO and SPP could provide various private benefits (e.g., increased value streams to the owner) as well as societally beneficial grid services (e.g., peaking capacity, ancillary services, and other services that increase the grid’s overall operational efficiency). In deciding how to best to enable these benefits, states and retail regulators must weigh various tradeoffs if considering reversing a previous opt out.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Multiscale Microscopy Characterization of High Burnup LWR UO 2 Before and After LOCA Testing

Previous microscopy work within the campaign has observed increased porosity coupled with subgrain formation in the mid-radial region of the fuel. However, examinations of high burnup fuel taken from multiple reactors with different operating conditions have shown that this structure can move radially inward depending on the fuel operating conditions. It is currently theorized that inter- and intragranular fission gas bubble nucleation is precursory to the grain subdivision observed in the mid-radial and central regions of the fuel. Characterization of samples after loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) testing has revealed that these restructured regions with a high density of bubbles and subgrains pulverize during the transient test. It appears that the increase in fission gas bubbles coupled with grain subdivision renders the fuel mechanically weaker during a LOCA transient and thus susceptible to fuel fragmentation relocation and dispersal (FFRD). Work this past fiscal year has prioritized understanding this behavior by using advanced microscopy to investigate fission gas behavior in the as-irradiated and post-LOCA state. Additional work has been performed to verify the theory described above by analyzing multiple post-LOCA optical micrographs and comparing that to as-irradiated microstructural data. This document reports progress in the post-irradiation characterization of high burnup nuclear fuel with emphasis on the restructured fuel regions, particularly how microstructural features influence FFRD and fission gas release behavior in LOCA conditions.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2023

MOSCATO Development and Integration in Fiscal Year 2023

In FY23, significant developments were made to the MOSCATO code package, enhancing its capabilities in many aspects. The improvements and advancements can be summarized as follows: Code Restructuring: The MOSCATO code underwent a restructuring process, enabling both Nek5000 and NekRS to share the same interface when using MOSCATO. This integration facilitates smoother interactions between the different modules and streamlines the overall simulation process. Automatic Domain Extension: To allow simulations to propagate over longer time frames, an automatic domain extension capability was added to the metal diffusion module. This enhancement enables more accurate and reliable simulations of diffusion processes, especially in scenarios with extended time requirements. Expanded Corrosion Reactions: The updated MOSCATO package now includes additional reactions that contribute to corrosion. This addition enhances the code’s ability to model corrosion effects more comprehensively, providing a more realistic representation of the systems being studied. Example Case Setup: To assist users and showcase MOSCATO’s capabilities, we developed example cases for various applications. Notably, we created example cases for thermal cells and corrosion loops. These pre-configured cases allow users to get started quickly and effectively with their simulations.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗