Results for “PHYSICS” — Page 22

DOE OSTI2015

WE-G-213-01: Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics

Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics – Perry Sprawls Wilhelm Roentgen is well known for his discovery of x-radiation. What is less known and appreciated is his intensive research following the discovery to determine the characteristics of the “new kind of radiation” and demonstrate its great value for medical purposes. In this presentation we will imagine ourselves in Roentgen’s mind and follow his thinking, including questions and doubts, as he designs and conducts a series of innovative experiments that provided the foundation for the rapid growth of medical physics. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the personal characteristics and work of Prof. Roentgen that establishes him as an inspiring model for the medical physics profession. Observe the thought process and experiments that determined and demonstrated the comprehensive characteristics of x-radiation. The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. Williams - Who were they and what did they do? – Lawrence N. Rothenberg William David Coolidge (1873–1975) William Coolidge was born in Hudson, NY in 1873. He obtained his BS at the Massacusetts Institute of Technology in 1896. Coolidge then went to the University of Leipzig, Germany for graduate study with physicists Paul Drude and Gustave Wiedemann and received a Ph.D. in 1899. While in Germany he met Wilhelm Roentgen. Coolidge returned to the US to teach at MIT where he was associated with Arthur A. Noyes of the Chemistry Department, working on the electrical conductivity of aqueous solutions. Willis R. Whitney, under whom Coolidge had worked before going to Germany, became head of the newly formed General Electric Research Laboratory and he invited Coolidge to work with him. In 1905, Coolidge joined the staff of the GE laboratory and was associated with it for the remainder of his life. He developed ductile tungsten filaments to replace fragile carbon filaments as the material for electric light bulb filaments. Until that innovation light bulbs had a notoriously short life. He later incorporated the ductile tungsten as a filament material for a hot cathode, fully evacuated x-ray tube, first described in 1912, which allowed higher current and x-ray output, and greater reliability than had previously been possible. These “Coolidge x-ray tubes” were far superior to the cold cathode, partial pressure gas x-ray tubes that had been in use since Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays in 1895. The Coolidge tube with incremental developments is now the key component for x-ray production in all of our modern x-ray imaging devices, such as CT scanners, interventional radiology systems, and mammography units. Coolidge was also involved in the development of sectional x-ray tubes for research and treatment that were initially designed to reach 800 kV. Additional improvements led to 1 MV and 2 MV devices. In 1932 Coolidge became director of the General Electric Research Laboratory, and in 1940, was made Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1945 he retired and was named Director Emeritus of the laboratory. Coolidge held 83 patents and was recognized for these and many other achievements by election to the National Academy of Engineers, a place in the Engineering Hall of Fame and the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. The AAPM’s highest honor, the Coolidge Award, was named after him. He accepted Honorary Membership in the AAPM and was the first recipient of the AAPM Coolidge Award, which was presented to him in a special ceremony in Schenectady, NY in 1972 when he was 100 years old. Edith Hinckley Quimby (1891–1982) Edith Quimby was born in Rockford, IL in 1891. She graduated from Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA with a B.S. in 1913, and then obtained a masters degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Later in her career, after many significant achievements, Quimby was awarded honorary doctorates by Whitman College and Rutgers University. Edith Quimby was hired by Giacchino Failla as a radiation physicist at Memorial Hospital for Cancer in New York City. Failla had studied with Madame Curie and obtained his doctoral degree in her laboratory. After many groundbreaking medical physics studies from 1919 until 1942, they both moved to Columbia University. Dr. Quimby developed a widely employed dosimetry system for single plane implants with radium and radon seeds, and a dosimetry methodology for internal radionuclides. She was author of more than 75 scientific publications, and of significant textbooks including the first comprehensive physics textbook for radiologists “Physical Foundations of Radiology”, which was co-authored with Otto Glasser, Lauriston Taylor and James Weatherwax in the first edition, with Russell Morgan added for the second edition and Paul Goodwin for the fourth edition. With Sergei Feitelberg, M.D. she published two editions of “Radioactive Isotopes in Medicine and Biology: Basic Physics and Instrumentation”. Quimby became a renowned examiner for the American Board of Radiology when the third ABR examination, given in 1936, added physics. She served as President of the American Radium Society, received the RSNA Gold Medal, and also numerous prestigious awards given to women in science. Edith Quimby was a Charter Member of AAPM. The AAPM Lifetime Achievement Award was renamed the Edith H. Quimby Lifetime Achievement Award in her honor in 2011. Marvin Martin Dixon Williams (1902–1981) Marvin Williams was born in Walla Walla, WA in 1902, and attended the same college as Edith Quimby, graduating from Whitman College in 1926. He was greatly influenced to go into medical physics by her accomplishments. During his early career, Williams worked with James Weatherwax in Philadelphia while he was working toward an M.S. from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1931 Williams was awarded a Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Minnesota, with the work actually performed at the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of the University. While completing his Ph.D. studies, Marvin met Dr. Paul Hodges who had returned from the Peiping Union Medical College in Peiping (now Beijing), China. Hodges suggested that a physicist be sent to Peiping to install x-ray therapy equipment and a radon plant. Williams accepted the position and, in 1931, he and his wife Orpha left for China. Before going to China, Williams had spent time with the physics group at Memorial Hospital to learn about the operation of a radon plant. In China, he constructed the radon plant, employing 0.25 g of radium, and also installed the x-ray therapy unit. Williams and his wife returned to the US in 1935, and he accepted a research position at the Mayo Clinic. In 1950, he became Professor of Biophysics at Mayo, where he taught physics and biophysics until his retirement in 1967. Williams was also very active in the American Board of Radiology where, from 1944 through 1977, he examined over 3000 radiologists and 250 physicists. Marvin Williams was a Charter member of AAPM, served as the fourth President of AAPM in 1963, and was the fourth recipient the AAPM Coolidge Award in 1975. The Marvin Williams Award was originally established as the highest award of the American College of Medical Physics. When various functions of the ACMP were absorbed into the AAPM in 2012, the Marvin M D Williams Professional Achievement Award became one of the AAPM’s highest honors. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the persons in whose honor the three major AAPM Award are named Learn about the achievements and activities which influenced the AAPM to name these awards in their honor.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-G-213-00: History Symposium: Radiological Physics Pioneers: Roentgen and the AAPM Award Eponyms - William Coolidge, Edith Quimby, and Marvin Williams - Who Were They and What Did They Do?

Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics – Perry Sprawls Wilhelm Roentgen is well known for his discovery of x-radiation. What is less known and appreciated is his intensive research following the discovery to determine the characteristics of the “new kind of radiation” and demonstrate its great value for medical purposes. In this presentation we will imagine ourselves in Roentgen’s mind and follow his thinking, including questions and doubts, as he designs and conducts a series of innovative experiments that provided the foundation for the rapid growth of medical physics. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the personal characteristics and work of Prof. Roentgen that establishes him as an inspiring model for the medical physics profession. Observe the thought process and experiments that determined and demonstrated the comprehensive characteristics of x-radiation. The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. Williams - Who were they and what did they do? – Lawrence N. Rothenberg William David Coolidge (1873–1975) William Coolidge was born in Hudson, NY in 1873. He obtained his BS at the Massacusetts Institute of Technology in 1896. Coolidge then went to the University of Leipzig, Germany for graduate study with physicists Paul Drude and Gustave Wiedemann and received a Ph.D. in 1899. While in Germany he met Wilhelm Roentgen. Coolidge returned to the US to teach at MIT where he was associated with Arthur A. Noyes of the Chemistry Department, working on the electrical conductivity of aqueous solutions. Willis R. Whitney, under whom Coolidge had worked before going to Germany, became head of the newly formed General Electric Research Laboratory and he invited Coolidge to work with him. In 1905, Coolidge joined the staff of the GE laboratory and was associated with it for the remainder of his life. He developed ductile tungsten filaments to replace fragile carbon filaments as the material for electric light bulb filaments. Until that innovation light bulbs had a notoriously short life. He later incorporated the ductile tungsten as a filament material for a hot cathode, fully evacuated x-ray tube, first described in 1912, which allowed higher current and x-ray output, and greater reliability than had previously been possible. These “Coolidge x-ray tubes” were far superior to the cold cathode, partial pressure gas x-ray tubes that had been in use since Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays in 1895. The Coolidge tube with incremental developments is now the key component for x-ray production in all of our modern x-ray imaging devices, such as CT scanners, interventional radiology systems, and mammography units. Coolidge was also involved in the development of sectional x-ray tubes for research and treatment that were initially designed to reach 800 kV. Additional improvements led to 1 MV and 2 MV devices. In 1932 Coolidge became director of the General Electric Research Laboratory, and in 1940, was made Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1945 he retired and was named Director Emeritus of the laboratory. Coolidge held 83 patents and was recognized for these and many other achievements by election to the National Academy of Engineers, a place in the Engineering Hall of Fame and the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. The AAPM’s highest honor, the Coolidge Award, was named after him. He accepted Honorary Membership in the AAPM and was the first recipient of the AAPM Coolidge Award, which was presented to him in a special ceremony in Schenectady, NY in 1972 when he was 100 years old. Edith Hinckley Quimby (1891–1982) Edith Quimby was born in Rockford, IL in 1891. She graduated from Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA with a B.S. in 1913, and then obtained a masters degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Later in her career, after many significant achievements, Quimby was awarded honorary doctorates by Whitman College and Rutgers University. Edith Quimby was hired by Giacchino Failla as a radiation physicist at Memorial Hospital for Cancer in New York City. Failla had studied with Madame Curie and obtained his doctoral degree in her laboratory. After many groundbreaking medical physics studies from 1919 until 1942, they both moved to Columbia University. Dr. Quimby developed a widely employed dosimetry system for single plane implants with radium and radon seeds, and a dosimetry methodology for internal radionuclides. She was author of more than 75 scientific publications, and of significant textbooks including the first comprehensive physics textbook for radiologists “Physical Foundations of Radiology”, which was co-authored with Otto Glasser, Lauriston Taylor and James Weatherwax in the first edition, with Russell Morgan added for the second edition and Paul Goodwin for the fourth edition. With Sergei Feitelberg, M.D. she published two editions of “Radioactive Isotopes in Medicine and Biology: Basic Physics and Instrumentation”. Quimby became a renowned examiner for the American Board of Radiology when the third ABR examination, given in 1936, added physics. She served as President of the American Radium Society, received the RSNA Gold Medal, and also numerous prestigious awards given to women in science. Edith Quimby was a Charter Member of AAPM. The AAPM Lifetime Achievement Award was renamed the Edith H. Quimby Lifetime Achievement Award in her honor in 2011. Marvin Martin Dixon Williams (1902–1981) Marvin Williams was born in Walla Walla, WA in 1902, and attended the same college as Edith Quimby, graduating from Whitman College in 1926. He was greatly influenced to go into medical physics by her accomplishments. During his early career, Williams worked with James Weatherwax in Philadelphia while he was working toward an M.S. from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1931 Williams was awarded a Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Minnesota, with the work actually performed at the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of the University. While completing his Ph.D. studies, Marvin met Dr. Paul Hodges who had returned from the Peiping Union Medical College in Peiping (now Beijing), China. Hodges suggested that a physicist be sent to Peiping to install x-ray therapy equipment and a radon plant. Williams accepted the position and, in 1931, he and his wife Orpha left for China. Before going to China, Williams had spent time with the physics group at Memorial Hospital to learn about the operation of a radon plant. In China, he constructed the radon plant, employing 0.25 g of radium, and also installed the x-ray therapy unit. Williams and his wife returned to the US in 1935, and he accepted a research position at the Mayo Clinic. In 1950, he became Professor of Biophysics at Mayo, where he taught physics and biophysics until his retirement in 1967. Williams was also very active in the American Board of Radiology where, from 1944 through 1977, he examined over 3000 radiologists and 250 physicists. Marvin Williams was a Charter member of AAPM, served as the fourth President of AAPM in 1963, and was the fourth recipient the AAPM Coolidge Award in 1975. The Marvin Williams Award was originally established as the highest award of the American College of Medical Physics. When various functions of the ACMP were absorbed into the AAPM in 2012, the Marvin M D Williams Professional Achievement Award became one of the AAPM’s highest honors. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the persons in whose honor the three major AAPM Award are named Learn about the achievements and activities which influenced the AAPM to name these awards in their honor.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

TU-C-18C-01: Medical Physics 1.0 to 2.0: Introduction and Panel Discussion

Medical Physics 2.0, a new frontier in clinical imaging physics: Diagnostic imaging has always been a technological highlight of modern medicine. Imaging systems, with their ever-expanding advancement in terms of technology and application, increasingly require skilled expertise to understand the delicacy of their operation, monitor their performance, design their effective use, and ensure their overall quality and safety, scientifically and in quantitative terms. Physicists can play a crucial role in that process. But that role has largely remained a severely untapped resource. Many imaging centers fail to appreciate this potential, with medical physics groups either nonexistent or highly understaffed and their services poorly integrated into the patient care process. As a field, we have yet to define and enact how the clinical physicist can engage as an active, effective, and integral member of the clinical team, and how the services that she/he provides can be financially accounted for. Physicists do and will always contribute to research and development. However, their indispensible contribution to clinical imaging operations is something that has not been adequately established. That, in conjunction with new realities of healthcare practice, indicates a growing need to establish an updated approach to clinical medical imaging physics. This presentation aims to describe a vision as how clinical imaging physics can expand beyond traditional insular models of inspection and acceptance testing, oriented toward compliance, towards team-based models of operational engagement addressing topics such as new non-classical challenges of new technologies, quantitative imaging, and operational optimization. The Medical Physics 2.0 paradigm extends clinical medical physics from isolated characterization of inherent properties of the equipment to effective use of the equipment and to retrospective evaluation of clinical performance. This is an existential transition of the field that speaks to the new paradigms of value-based and evidence-based medicine, comparative effectiveness, and meaningful use. The panel discussion that follows includes prominent practitioners, thinkers, and leaders that would lead the discussion on how Medical Physics 2.0 can be actualized. Topics of discussion will include the administrative, financial, regulatory, and accreditation requirements of the new paradigm, effective models of practice, and the steps that we need to take to make MP 2.0 a reality. Learning Objectives: To understand the new paradigm of clinical medical physics practice extending from traditional insular models of compliance towards teambased models of operational engagement. To understand how clinical physics can most effectively contribute to clinical care. Learn to identify strengths and weaknesses in studies designed to measure the effect of low doses of ionizing radiation To recognize the impediments to Medical Physics 2.0 paradigm.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

TH-D-16A-01: Medical Physics Workshop: Editorial Vision and Guidance On Writing and Reviewing Papers

On January 1, 2014, editorial leadership of Medical Physics passed from esteemed long-time Editor Bill Hendee to a collective editorial group composed of the three presenters listed above. In this presentation, we would like to 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. Vision for Medical Physics and current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief We cannot improve on Dr. Hendee's succinct vision statement “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 s the preeminent forum for electronic 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; or (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities we face are: are electronic-only and open access publishing; 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. To address these issues over the next 3 years, we have reduced the size of our Editorial Board and focused its efforts on improving the Journal's impact through 4 working groups (WGs): WG-1: Review process quality and selectivity Creation of 120 member Board of Associate Editors to improve review uniformity by placing Ms. management in fewer hands New reviewer guidelines and templates Answer: “what is the scope of medical physics research?” Recursive taxonomy for tagging review expertise and article contents WG-2 Improving reader experience Redesigning http://MedPhys.org to host interactive features and gateway to electronic issue archive Experimentation with interactive features beginning with “Point/Counterpoint” Data mining and Journal quality evaluation Find out who are audiences are Identify characteristics of high impact articles Measure effectiveness of innovations Outreach to related communities Special issues presenting high-impact work in designated subcommunities Addressing the needs of new research constituencies: engineers, biophysicists, clinicians Guidelines and templates for reviewers and associate editors: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor We will discuss the Med. Phys. review process and a new initiative to create review templates that attempts to address current shortcomings. Template design is informed by the literature on of the review process effectiveness and practices of other journals. Its goals are to provide authors more constructive criticism to improve the manuscript; quantifying perceived importance and potential impact; and providing structured sections that prompt the reviewer to addresses important technical and editorial elements. While the template is recommended to be used, reviewers could alternatively enter their comments in the older free-form style. The expectations of the template are that it will enable consistently thorough, high quality reviews that accurately separate acceptable vs. substandard submissions but continue our tradition of helping authors to enhance papers with high potential. Ultimately, the goal is to reduce variability and subjectivity in the peer-review process, in turn leading to articles with higher research and clinical impact. We will also discuss interesting perspectives from several journals on aspects of the peer-review process such as public input via comments, influence of author-suggested reviewers, and bias in reviewer selection. 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, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics Ms. must include a clear and concise statement of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of their work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; or first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Authors must also include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail that the work can be reproduced by others; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate their hypothesis, how it compares to; is distinct from, and improves upon others' work; and the limitations of their study. When the authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-bypoint response to each comment. We now ask that the authors' rebuttal include the text of the original criticism, the authors' response, and the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. We also ask that the new text be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. These changes and others will be discussed. Their purpose is to facilitate the review process.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-E-201-01: Diagnostic Radiology Residents Physics Curriculum and Updates

The ABR Core Examination stresses integrating physics into real-world clinical practice and, accordingly, has shifted its focus from passive recall of facts to active application of physics principles. Physics education of radiology residents poses a challenge. The traditional method of didactic lectures alone is insufficient, yet it is difficult to incorporate physics teaching consistently into clinical rotations due to time constraints. Faced with this challenge, diagnostic medical physicists who teach radiology residents, have been thinking about how to adapt their teaching to the new paradigm, what to teach and meet expectation of the radiology resident and the radiology residency program. The proposed lecture attempts to discuss above questions. Newly developed diagnostic radiology residents physics curriculum by the AAPM Imaging Physics Curricula Subcommittee will be reviewed. Initial experience on hands-on physics teaching will be discussed. Radiology resident who will have taken the BAR Core Examination will share the expectation of physics teaching from a resident perspective. The lecture will help develop robust educational approaches to prepare radiology residents for safer and more effective lifelong practice. Learning Objectives: Learn updated physics requirements for radiology residents Pursue effective approaches to teach physics to radiology residents Learn expectation of physics teaching from resident perspective J. Zhang, This topic is partially supported by RSNA Education Scholar Grant.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-E-201-02: Hands-On Physics Teaching of Residents in Diagnostic Radiology

The ABR Core Examination stresses integrating physics into real-world clinical practice and, accordingly, has shifted its focus from passive recall of facts to active application of physics principles. Physics education of radiology residents poses a challenge. The traditional method of didactic lectures alone is insufficient, yet it is difficult to incorporate physics teaching consistently into clinical rotations due to time constraints. Faced with this challenge, diagnostic medical physicists who teach radiology residents, have been thinking about how to adapt their teaching to the new paradigm, what to teach and meet expectation of the radiology resident and the radiology residency program. The proposed lecture attempts to discuss above questions. Newly developed diagnostic radiology residents physics curriculum by the AAPM Imaging Physics Curricula Subcommittee will be reviewed. Initial experience on hands-on physics teaching will be discussed. Radiology resident who will have taken the BAR Core Examination will share the expectation of physics teaching from a resident perspective. The lecture will help develop robust educational approaches to prepare radiology residents for safer and more effective lifelong practice. Learning Objectives: Learn updated physics requirements for radiology residents Pursue effective approaches to teach physics to radiology residents Learn expectation of physics teaching from resident perspective J. Zhang, This topic is partially supported by RSNA Education Scholar Grant.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-E-201-03: A Radiology Resident’s Perspectives of Physics Teaching

The ABR Core Examination stresses integrating physics into real-world clinical practice and, accordingly, has shifted its focus from passive recall of facts to active application of physics principles. Physics education of radiology residents poses a challenge. The traditional method of didactic lectures alone is insufficient, yet it is difficult to incorporate physics teaching consistently into clinical rotations due to time constraints. Faced with this challenge, diagnostic medical physicists who teach radiology residents, have been thinking about how to adapt their teaching to the new paradigm, what to teach and meet expectation of the radiology resident and the radiology residency program. The proposed lecture attempts to discuss above questions. Newly developed diagnostic radiology residents physics curriculum by the AAPM Imaging Physics Curricula Subcommittee will be reviewed. Initial experience on hands-on physics teaching will be discussed. Radiology resident who will have taken the BAR Core Examination will share the expectation of physics teaching from a resident perspective. The lecture will help develop robust educational approaches to prepare radiology residents for safer and more effective lifelong practice. Learning Objectives: Learn updated physics requirements for radiology residents Pursue effective approaches to teach physics to radiology residents Learn expectation of physics teaching from resident perspective J. Zhang, This topic is partially supported by RSNA Education Scholar Grant.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2017

OECD/NEA EGMPEBV Activities in Multi-Physics Verification and Validation

The Expert Group on Multi-Physics Experimental Data, Benchmarks and Validation (EGMPEBV) was established in 2014 by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to establish processes for certification of experimental data and development of benchmark models for validation of Multi-Physics (MP) Modeling and Simulation (M and S) computational systems. The aim of the group is to provide member countries with guidelines and recommendations for validating and improving their novel multi-physics simulations, and with an access to key experimental data. To be used to their full potential, these novel tools will require a more complex suite of validation experiments due to the multiple energy, spatial and temporal scales, as well as the number of physical phenomena being simulated. They will also require accurate measurements of all terms, including coupling terms representing the feedback effects, in situations where the appropriate experimental techniques and facilities might not exist today. However, the ability to conduct validation experiments has for certain applications progressed at a slower pace than for computational methods, or in some cases it has significantly regressed (through shutdown of facilities, or through retirement of experts). In addition, as modelling capabilities are reaching deeper levels in single physics phenomena and in coupled behaviors, appropriate experimental techniques may not yet exist. Validation of multiple physics models requires a wide variety of experimental data, which emphasizes the importance of maximizing the use of historically accumulated data to avoid the significant cost of performing similar experiments today. Moreover, the pedigree and quality of this data as it pertains to modern day simulation methods may be insufficient for rigorous validation of high fidelity modeling and simulation tools. Thus, these data can often exhibit limitations including a lack of measurement accuracy or a lack of knowledge of the measurement uncertainty in the experimental techniques; an absence of measurements for some critical parameters; an obscuring of relationships between individual physics phenomena owing to the output data resolution; or simply an inability to allow for a detailed reinterpretation of the experiments based on the documented information. The organization of the EGMPEBV relies on three Task Forces, focused on 1) Experimental Data Qualification and Benchmark Evaluation; 2) Methods and Standards, and 3) Specific Applications. Task Force 1 is focused on providing better and more accurate experimental datasets, which support validation of high-fidelity multi-physics modelling and simulation (M and S) tools. At the same time it has to consider the incompleteness of past experimental data sets (in terms of data, documentation, or uncertainties) and with the limited number of available multi-physics experimental facilities. Task Force 2 is designed to develop validation methods and guidelines, and uncertainty qualification for the new family of multi-physics, multi-scale codes in the context of emerging demands such as longer fuel cycles and power uprate. Task Force 3 is focused on applications of validation experiments and has the objective to organize multi-physics M and S benchmarks involving validation experiments.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Anomaly detection for cyber-physical systems

An anomaly detector is configured to construct cyber and/or physical features comprising information configured to characterize the cyber and/or physical state of a cyber-physical system. The physical features may be based on physical and/or physics-based relationships between a plurality of physical state attributes. A health of the cyber-physical system may be based on an error between estimates of one or more of the physical state attributes and measurements of the one or more physical state attributes. The relationships may be incorporated into machine learning membership functions used to classify cyber and/or physical behavior of the system.

Rieger, Craig G.↗

DOE OSTI2017

New Theories for Physics beyond the Standard Model

The theoretical particle physics and cosmology group at Case Western Reserve University has a great tradition in this field of research. The PI is a new professor at CWRU, and his main goal is to establish a new theoretical effort in particle physics and cosmology. The PI has been working on physics beyond the Standard Model for more than 12 years and have published more than 75 publications in this field. The proposed research project will be crucial for the postdocs and students to understand the different theories for physics beyond the Standard Model and become world experts in this field of research. The main goal of this project is to investigate new theories for physics beyond the Standard Model. The Standard Model of Particle Physics is one of the most successful theories of nature, but it cannot explain many open issues in particle physics and cosmology. In this proposal we propose to investigate new ideas which could lead to a more complete theory. The PI has proposed new theories for physics beyond the Standard Model where the baryon and lepton numbers can be defined as local gauge symmetries spontaneously broken at the low scale. In these theories one can understand the proton stability and one have some interesting predictions for cosmology. These theories have the potential to change the standard paradigm for physics beyond the Standard Model, where one assumes a great desert between the electroweak scale and the scale where one has the possible unification of fundamental forces. In this context one does not need to postulate the great desert, the proton is stable, and one can have the unification of the gauge forces at the low scale. We propose to investigate theoretical, cosmological and phenomenological aspects of the theories where the baryon and lepton numbers are local gauge symmetries. We plan to investigate new possible baryogenesis mechanisms in the case where the local baryon number is spontaneously broken at the low scale. In this case there could be a relation between the baryon asymmetry and the asymmetry in the dark matter sector. In the context of these theories, one has different candidates for the cold dark matter in the Universe and we plan to investigate all predictions for direct detection experiments and the possible signals at gamma-ray telescopes. The different signatures at the Large Hadron Collider will be investigated in great detail. In these theories one predicts the existence of new particle with baryon and lepton numbers called lepto- baryons which can give rise to exotic signatures at the Large Hadron Collider. One of the most interesting aspects to study in this context is the unification of gauge forces. Since the proton is stable in this theory one can realized the unification at the low scale and understand the embedding of these theories in grand unified theories. These studies could define a new way to think about physics beyond the Standard Model.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2023

SCALE 6.2 Lattice Physics Performance Assessment

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission relies on the lattice physics analysis capabilities of the SCALE code system to perform confirmatory licensing analyses. Either SCALE lattice physics code—TRITON/NEWT or Polaris—can be used to generate cross section data used by the PARCS nodal core simulator for full-core neutronics calculations. This report presents an assessment of the accuracy of SCALE lattice physics codes for preparation of lattice physics data that are used to support simulator codes such as the NRC’s PARCS, for UO 2 -mixed oxide (MOX)/Zr fueled light water reactor (LWR) analyses. Due to the nature of lattice physics calculations, critical reactor experiment benchmarks cannot be modeled in explicit detail in a lattice physics code. However, this limitation does not mean that these measurement data are not usable for lattice physics studies. Therefore, either geometry approximations or axial buckling must be implemented to determine the critical water height. These modeling limitations have led to development of a three-phase assessment strategy. In the first phase, selected critical experiment benchmarks are modeled using the SCALE 3D continuous-energy (CE) Monte Carlo (MC) code KENO, which is the most rigorous neutron transport method available in SCALE, with no approximations in the spatial, angle, or energy treatments. Biases and statistical uncertainties in quantities of interest such as k eff and pin power distributions are determined by comparing CE KENO results to experimental data. This first phase in the accuracy assessment is to demonstrate and establish the use of CE KENO as a reference solution for the second phase. In the second phase, 14 numerical test suites are used to compare SCALE lattice physics calculations with CE KENO as a reference solution. In the third phase, SCALE lattice physics depletion calculations are performed, and the spent fuel isotopic results are compared with available radiochemical assay measurements. Isotopic measurement comparisons provide quantitative assessment of isotopic density distribution predictions with the depletion models in SCALE lattice physics codes. This report documents results for all test suites. The assessment was performed using standard production techniques unless otherwise noted. Both TRITON/NEWT and Polaris exhibited acceptable accuracy for most test cases. For the few test cases in which acceptable accuracy criteria were not met, further code and data development are planned. The computer codes used in this assessment are as follows: SCALE 6.2 rev19189 (pre-release of 6.2.1) was used for CE KENO, TRITON/NEWT and Polaris (PWR only) calculations; SCALE 6.2.2 was used for Polaris calculations to address several updates in support of support boiling water reactor (BWR) lattice geometries. For this work, there is no difference between SCALE 6.2.1 and SCALE 6.2.2 beyond the inclusion of the Polaris BWR analysis capability; The ENDF/B-VII.1 continuous energy and 252 group libraries deployed in SCALE 6.2 were generated with AMPX 6.2 that is distributed with SCALE.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Floor and ceiling effects in the EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning subscale among patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 Physical Functioning subscale is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure that quantifies cancer patients' physical functioning. Strong floor/ceiling effects can affect a scale's sensitivity to change. The aim of this study was to characterize floor/ceiling effects of the physical functioning domain in patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer enrolled in commercial clinical trials and a community-based trial. The clinical trial cohort comprised patients from 5 registrational trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for review (2010-2017). The community cohort comprised a subgroup of patients from the Alliance Patient Reported Outcomes to Enhance Cancer Treatment (PRO-TECT) trial. The distribution of patient responses to Physical Functioning items and the summed score were assessed at the baseline and 3-month follow-up for both cohorts. Descriptive statistics were used to determine floor/ceiling effects at the item and scale levels. The clinical trial cohort and the community cohort consisted of 2407 and 178 patients, respectively. Twenty-four percent or more of the respondents reported “not at all” for having trouble/needing help with each Physical Functioning item across both cohorts and measurement time points. Fourteen to twenty percent of the patients scored perfectly (100 of 100) on the Physical Functioning subscale summary measure (where higher scores indicated better physical functioning) across both cohorts and time points. Minor floor effects and notable ceiling effects were found at the item and scale levels of the Physical Functioning subscale, regardless of cohort, and this creates some uncertainty about its ability to detect changes in physical functioning among high-functioning patients. In conclusion, investigators may consider adding additional high-functioning items from the EORTC's item library to more accurately describe the impact of anticancer treatment on patients' physical functioning.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Emulation and detection of physical faults and cyber-attacks on building energy systems through real-time hardware-in-the-loop experiments

The increasing use of remote or mobile access, integrated wearable technologies, data exchange, and cloud-based data analytics in modern smart buildings is steering the building industry towards open communication technologies. The increased connectivity and accessibility could lead to more cyber-attacks in smart buildings. On the other hand, physical faults (e.g., HVAC -heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning faults) may have similar adverse impacts as those from the cyber-attacks on building energy systems, such as occupant discomfort, energy wastage, and equipment downtime. However, current physical behavior-based anomaly detection methods fail to differentiate between cyber-attacks and physical faults in building energy systems. Moreover, the challenge in collecting real-world threat data with ground truth has led researchers to rely on numerical models with user-defined assumptions, which may not accurately reflect real-world conditions due to the lack of in-situ experimental datasets. To address these challenges and gaps, this paper presents a flexible hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) testbed for generating cyber-attack and physical fault datasets and demonstrating threat detection algorithms in a real building automation system (BAS) environment. This testbed combines hardware (i.e., real BAS with local HVAC controllers and a physical network) with software (i.e., high-fidelity models to represent behaviors of building envelope and HVAC energy systems), enabling emulations of realistic threats. Five HIL experiments, including one baseline without any threats, two with physical faults, and two with cyber-attacks, were conducted to generate datasets containing detailed network traffic and system states. A joint classification framework, incorporating a network analyzer and a physical HVAC fault detector, was proposed to automatically detect cyber-physical abnormalities on BAS at both the network and the physical HVAC levels. The network analyzer comprises a conditional random fields (CRF) based command validator and a statistics-based detection strategy. The fault detector employs a weather and schedule-based pattern matching and feature-based principal component analysis (WPM-FPCA) method. Evaluation of the classification using four metrics from the multi-class confusion matrix revealed an average accuracy of 90.2%, recall of 89.7%, precision of 88.5% and F1-score of 89.2%. Finally, these results demonstrate that the proposed joint classification framework can effectively differentiate between specific types of cyber-attacks (e.g., device reinitialization attack, network Denial-of-Service attack) and physical faults (e.g., air handling unit operational fault, cooling coil valve stuck) in real time for improved building energy management.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2014

UPR/Mayaguez High Energy Physics

This year the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez (UPRM) High Energy Physics (HEP) group continued with the ongoing research program outlined in the grant proposal. The program is centered on the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment at the proton-proton (pp) collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. The main research focus is on data analysis and on the preparation for the High Luminosity (HL) LHC or experiment detector upgrade. The physics data analysis included Higgs Doublet Search and measurement of the (1) Λ 0 b branching fraction, (2) B meson mass, and (3) hyperon θ - b lifetime. The detector upgrade included work on the preparations for the Forward Pixel (FPIX) detector Silicon Sensor Testing in a production run at Fermilab. In addition, the group has taken responsibilities on the Software Release through our former research associate Dr. Eric Brownson who acted until last December as a Level Two Offline Manager for the CMS Upgrade. In support of the CMS data analysis activities carried out locally, the UPRM group has built and maintains an excellent Tier3 analysis center in Mayaguez. This allowed us to analyze large data samples and to continue the development of algorithms for the upgrade tracking robustness we started several years ago, and we plan to resume in the near future. This project involves computer simulation of the radiation damage to be suffered at the higher luminosities of the upgraded LHC. This year we continued to serve as a source of outstanding students for the field of high energy physics. Three of our graduate students finished their MS work in May, 2014, Their theses research were on data analysis of heavy quark b-physics. All of them are currently enrolled at Ph.D. physics program across the nation. One of them (Hector Moreno) at New Mexico University (Hector Moreno), one at University of New Hampshire (Sandra Santiesteban) and one at University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras (Carlos Malca). The students H. Moreno and C. Malca has been directly supervised by Dr. Mendez and S. Santiesteban supervised by Dr. Ramirez. During the last 13 years, our group have graduated 23 MS students on experimental High Energy Physics data analysis and applied hardware techniques. Most of the students have been supported by DOE grants, included this grant. Since 2001, Dr. Mendez have directly supervised eleven students, Dr. Ramirez three students and the former PI (Dr. Lopez) nine students. These theses work are fully documented in the group web page (http://charma.uprm.edu). The High Energy Physics group at Mayaguez is small and presently consists of three Physics faculty members, the Senior Investigators Dr. Hector Mendez (Professor) and Dr. Juan Eduardo Ramirez (Professor), and Dr. Sudhir Malik who was just hired in July 2014. Dr. Ramirez is in charge of the UPRM Tier-3 computing and will be building the network bandwidth infrastructure for the campus, while Dr. Mendez will continues his effort in finishing the heavy quark physics data analysis and moving to work on SUSY analysis for the 2015 data. Our last grant application in 2012 was awarded only for 2013-2014. As a result our postdoc position was lost last month of March. Since then, we have hired Dr. Malik as a new faculty in order to reinforce the group and to continue our efforts with the CMS experiment. Our plan is to hire another junior faculty in the next two years to strengthen the HEP group even further. Dr. Mendez continues with QuarkNet activities involving an ever larger group of high school physics teachers from all around Puerto Rico.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2021

The Wonders of Physics -- Public Outreach (Final Technical Report)

The mission of The Wonders of Physics (TWoP) outreach program is to generate interest in physics among people of all ages and backgrounds. The objective is to generate interest in physics, increase appreciation for the significance of physics in our lives, and encourage children to consider careers in science and plasma physics. The primary means for achieving that objective is to make entertaining presentations to audiences that would not normally be motivated to attend a lecture on physics or plasmas, while at the same time introducing some of the fundamental concepts and applications. During this reporting period, the students Michael Hall, Megan Tabbutt and Connor Sullivan, Director of Communications Sarah Perdue, Director of Undergraduate Program Jim Reardon, and Senior Information Processing Consultant Paul Wilhite worked to make outreach programs a success and prepare for the future of The Wonders of Physics, which will continue. Because of the curtailment of public events due to Covid-19, there will not be an in person Annual Show or Physics Fair in 2021, but a video competition has already been announced and planning continues for The Wonders of Physics in 2022 and beyond. The annual shows and Physics Fair are scheduled for February 12-13 and February 19-20, 2022. These continue to be our premier outreach events, engaging diverse audiences in real hands-on science. Further shows and exploration stations are planned.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Physics Guided Simulation of Electrostatic Discharge: Technical Report

Triboelectrically-charged objects may create threshold sparks, electrostatic discharge (ESD) events, to equilibrate charge between themselves and other relatively charged objects. ESD events exhibit many complex physical phenomena. They are a nexus of several fields of physics with disparate characteristic scales: plasma physics, chemical kinetics, hydrodynamics, circuit models, etc. These scales can span many orders of magnitude from the varied collisions thermalizing information within a plasma on the $\mathcal{O}(fs/ps)$ to the physical size of the plasma channel on the $\mathcal{O}(100µm)$, to the speed of a nonlinear hydrodynamic wave propagating at $\mathcal{O}(µm, ns)$. These threshold ESD events may occur in situations of programmatic importance, delivering energy and power profiles to a “victim load” generating deleterious consequences. To predict and mitigate these consequences we must answer questions about the spark’s energy budget: how much energy goes into producing the spark channel; how much gets radiated away; how much energy is advected away into the hydrodynamics; and how much energy is delivered to a victim load. An ESD simulation toolset has been created and evolved in order to answer these questions. An appropriate, physics guided implementation for simulation can be done by gaining insight into its constituent physics and leveraging that intuition to choose a suitable numerical operator. We examine in detail the chemical kinetics, circuit discharge, and hydrodynamics to deter mine dominant regimes, values, timescales, and interactions to uncover the underlying physical dynamics. We also examine and propose model reduction schemes for high-dimensional chemical kinetics. We use past and current work with experimentally validated and theoretically-verified hydrodynamics to calculate applicability limits of the non-ionizing strong shock limit. We quantify the energy budget from a hydrodynamic perspective and demonstrate that a significant fraction of the stored energy is “earmarked” for hydrodynamic advection as an energy terminus. Lastly, we combine the constituent physics of an ESD event (chemical kinetics, circuit model, and hydrodynamics) into a cohesive, actionable toolset and obtain promising results from an isothermal test case. We then propose a viable, modular evolution of the ESD toolset based upon the performed examination of the physics uncovering dominant physical scales and the stiffness of the compositional differential system.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Deep Cyber-Physical Situational Awareness for Energy Systems: A Secure Foundation for Next-Generation Energy Management

This document provides the final report for the CYPRES project. The purpose is (1) to highlight and summarize its major accomplishments and (2) to provide guidance on how its outcomes have informed and can inform important additional research and technology transfer. The goal of CYPRES was the research, development, and demonstration of a security-oriented next generation cyber-physical EMS for electric power systems that detects malicious and abnormal events through the fusion of cyber and physical data. To achieve this, the CYPRES project team researched, developed, and built a prototype of the solution, referred to as the CYPRES EMS. The CYPRES EMS is a proof-of-concept cyber-physical platform that demonstrates the management of the energy system, communications, security, and cyber-physical grid modeling and analytics. As part of the capabilities of the CYPRES EMS, the team designed and developed a suite of power system applications for monitoring, risk analyses, detection, and control that are inherently cyberaware. At its core, the project aimed to research, develop, and demonstrate a security-oriented next-generation cyber-physical Energy Management System (EMS) capable of detecting malicious and abnormal events through the innovative fusion of cyber and physical data. This approach represents a fundamental shift from traditional EMS, reimagining how critical infrastructure can be protected through unified cyber-aware and physics-aware secure data flow pipelines. The project’s cornerstone deliverable, the CYPRES EMS, serves as a proof-of-concept cyber-physical platform that revolutionizes the management of energy systems, communications, security, and cyber-physical grid modeling and analytics. This prototype implements a comprehensive suite of power system applications for monitoring, risk analyses, detection, and control, all designed with inherent cyber awareness. The system’s architecture extends from end-devices in the field through to control center applications, establishing a secure and resilient control framework that addresses the challenges posed by diverse devices of unknown trustworthiness connecting to modern power systems. Through this innovative approach to deep cyber-physical situational awareness, the CYPRES project not only advances the state-of-the-art in energy infrastructure protection but also establishes a new paradigm for how EMS can be designed, deployed, and operated in an increasingly complex threat landscape. The findings and developments from this project provide crucial insights for stakeholders across the energy sector, offering a blueprint for enhancing the reliability and resilience of our nation’s critical energy infrastructure in the face of evolving cyber threats.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2016

2016 Final Reports from the Los Alamos National Laboratory Computational Physics Student Summer Workshop

The two primary purposes of LANL’s Computational Physics Student Summer Workshop are (1) To educate graduate and exceptional undergraduate students in the challenges and applications of computational physics of interest to LANL, and (2) Entice their interest toward those challenges. Computational physics is emerging as a discipline in its own right, combining expertise in mathematics, physics, and computer science. The mathematical aspects focus on numerical methods for solving equations on the computer as well as developing test problems with analytical solutions. The physics aspects are very broad, ranging from low-temperature material modeling to extremely high temperature plasma physics, radiation transport and neutron transport. The computer science issues are concerned with matching numerical algorithms to emerging architectures and maintaining the quality of extremely large codes built to perform multi-physics calculations. Although graduate programs associated with computational physics are emerging, it is apparent that the pool of U.S. citizens in this multi-disciplinary field is relatively small and is typically not focused on the aspects that are of primary interest to LANL. Furthermore, more structured foundations for LANL interaction with universities in computational physics is needed; historically interactions rely heavily on individuals’ personalities and personal contacts. Thus a tertiary purpose of the Summer Workshop is to build an educational network of LANL researchers, university professors, and emerging students to advance the field and LANL’s involvement in it.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗