Results for “sharp features” — Page 24

NASA NTRS2008

Figures of Merit for Control Verification

This paper proposes a methodology for evaluating a controller's ability to satisfy a set of closed-loop specifications when the plant has an arbitrary functional dependency on uncertain parameters. Control verification metrics applicable to deterministic and probabilistic uncertainty models are proposed. These metrics, which result from sizing the largest uncertainty set of a given class for which the specifications are satisfied, enable systematic assessment of competing control alternatives regardless of the methods used to derive them. A particularly attractive feature of the tools derived is that their efficiency and accuracy do not depend on the robustness of the controller. This is in sharp contrast to Monte Carlo based methods where the number of simulations required to accurately approximate the failure probability grows exponentially with its closeness to zero. This framework allows for the integration of complex, high-fidelity simulations of the integrated system and only requires standard optimization algorithms for its implementation.

Crespo, Luis G.↗

DOE OSTI2021

Spin and charge excitations in the correlated multiband metal Ca 3 Ru 2 O 7

We use Ru $L_3$-edge resonant inelastic x-ray scattering to study the full range of excitations in Ca 3 Ru 2 O 7 from meV-scale magnetic dynamics through to the eV-scale interband transitions. This bilayer 4d-electron correlated metal expresses a rich phase diagram, displaying long-range magnetic order below 56 K followed by a concomitant structural, magnetic, and electronic transition at 48 K. In the low-temperature phase, we observe a magnetic excitation with a bandwidth of ~30 meV and a gap of ~8 meV at the zone center, in excellent agreement with inelastic neutron scattering data. The dispersion can be modeled using a Heisenberg Hamiltonian for a bilayer S = 1 system with single-ion anisotropy terms. At a higher energy loss, dd-type excitations show heavy damping in the presence of itinerant electrons, giving rise to a fluorescencelike signal appearing between the $t_{2g}$ and $e_g$ bands. At the same time, we observe a resonance originating from localized $t_{2g}$ excitations, in analogy to the structurally related Mott insulator Ca 2 RuO 4 . But whereas Ca 2 RuO 4 shows sharp separate spin-orbit excitations and Hund’s-rule driven spin-state transitions, here we identify only a single broad asymmetric feature. These results indicate that local intraionic interactions underlie the correlated physics in Ca 3 Ru 2 O 7 , even as the excitations become strongly mixed in the presence of itinerant electrons.

75 CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND↗

DOE OSTI2017

Inflationary features and shifts in cosmological parameters from Planck 2015 data

We explore the relationship between features in the Planck 2015 temperature and polarization data, shifts in the cosmological parameters, and features from inflation. Residuals in the temperature data at low multipole &ell;, which are responsible for the high H 0 ≈ 70 km s –1 Mpc –1 and low σ 8 $Ω^{1/2}_{m}$ values from &ell; < 1000 in power-law ΛCDM models, are better fit to inflationary features with a 1.9σ preference for running of the running of the tilt or a stronger 99% CL local significance preference for a sharp drop in power around k = 0.004 Mpc –1 in generalized slow roll and a lower H 0 ≈ 67km s –1 Mpc –1 . The same in-phase acoustic residuals at &ell; >1000 that drive the global H 0 constraints and appear as a lensing anomaly also favor running parameters which allow even lower H 0 , but not once lensing reconstruction is considered. Polarization spectra are intrinsically highly sensitive to these parameter shifts, and even more so in the Planck 2015 TE data due to an outlier at &ell; ≈ 165,which disfavors the best fit H 0 ΛCDM solution by more than 2σ, and high H 0 value at almost 3σ. Current polarization data also slightly enhance the significance of a sharp suppression of large-scale power but leave room for large improvements in the future with cosmic variance limited E-mode measurements.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

NASA NTRS1972

Auroral spectrum between 1200 and 4000 angstroms.

Results of spectroscopic observations of an auroral event made simultaneously by airborne and satellite-borne scanning spectrometers in the wavelength region between 1200 and 4000 A. Photon emission rates of several vibrational bands of the N2, 2nd positive, Vegard-Kaplan, and Lyman-Birge-Hopfield systems, the N I lines at 1200 and 3466 A, and O I lines at 1304, 1356, and 2972 A were recorded. Model calculations of the emission rates of the observed features are found to be in reasonable agreement with the measurements. Electron impact excites the nitrogen band systems, as well as the O I 1356-A line. A spectral feature at 2150 A is tentatively identified as the (1, 0) gamma band of N O.

Sharp, W. E.↗

NASA NTRS1979

16-39 micron spectroscopy of oxygen-rich stars

Airborne observations of the 16-39-micron spectra of 10 oxygen-rich stars with excess emission in the infrared have been obtained. The stars show excess emission attributed to circumstellar dust grains in the 16-39-micron region in the form of a broad hump peaking near 18 microns and falling smoothly to longer wavelengths. The emission is similar in character to the emission from the Trapezium region of the Orion Nebula, indicating the grain materials are quite similar in these objects. The existence of a feature in the 20-micron region is consistent with the O-Si-O bending resonance expected for silicate material. The lack of any sharp structure in the spectra indicates the silicate is in an amorphous, disordered form. A simple model of small grains of carbonaceous chondrite silicate material in a diffuse circumstellar envelope is shown to give a good qualitative fit to the observed 8-39-micron circumstellar spectra. Comparison of the observed spectra with the model spectra indicates the grain emissivity falls as the inverse square of wavelength from 20 to 40 microns.

Forrest, W. J.↗

NASA NTRS1984

Dynamics of narrow rings

The ring models described here were developed to account for the dynamical problems posed by the narrow rings of Uranus. Some of these rings are now known to be eccentric, inclined, nonuniform in width, optically thick, and narrow, with very sharp edges. The eccentric rings have common pericenters and large, positive eccentricity gradients. The theory of shepherding satellites successfully accounts for most of these features and can also account for some features of the narrow Saturnian rings, in particular, waves, kinks, and periodic variations in brightness. Outstanding problems include the putative relation between eccentricity and inclination displayed by eight of the nine Uranian rings, and the magnitudes of the tidal torques acting on the shepherding satellites. The horseshoe-orbit model, although viable, probably has more application to the narrow rings from which the Saturnian coorbital satellites formed. The angular momentum flow rate due to particle collisions is a minimum at the Lagrangian equilibrium points L(4) and L(5), and one can expect accretion to be rapid at these points.

Dermott, S. F.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Modeling the double-trough structure observed in broad absorption line QSOs using radiative acceleration

We present a model explaining the double trough, separated by delta v approximately = 5900 km/s, observed in the C IV lambda-1549 broad absorption line (BAL) in a number of BALQSOs. The model is based on radiative acceleration of the BAL outflow, and the troughs result from modulations in the radiative force. Specifically, where the strong flux from the Lyman-alpha lambda-1215 broad emission line is redshifted to the frequency of the N V lambda-1240 resonance line, in the rest frame of the accelerating N V ions, the acceleration increases and the absorption is reduced. At higher velocities the Lyman-alpha emission is redshifted out of the resonance and the N V ions experience a declining flux which causes the second absorption trough. A strongly nonlinear relationship between changes in the flux and the optical depth in the lines is shown to amplify the expected effect. This model produces double troughs for which the shallowest absorption between the two troughs occurs at v approximately = 5900 km/s. Indeed, we find that a substantial number of the observed objects show this feature. A prediction of the model is that all BALQSOs that show a double-trough signature will be found to have an intrinsic sharp drop in their spectra shortward of approximately 1200 A.

Arav, Nahum↗

NASA NTRS1999

Heat Transfer and Flow on the First Stage Blade Tip of a Power Generation Gas Turbine: Simulation Results - Part 2

A combined experimental and computational study has been performed to investigate the detailed distribution of convective heat transfer coefficients on the first stage blade tip surface for a geometry typical of large power generation turbines (>1OOMW). This paper is concerned with the numerical prediction of the tip surface heat transfer. Good comparison with the experimental measured distribution was achieved through accurate modeling of the most important features of the blade passage and heating arrangement as well as the details of experimental rig likely to affect the tip heat transfer. A sharp edge and a radiused edge tip were considered. The results using the radiused edge tip agreed better with the experimental data. This improved agreement was attributed to the absence of edge separation on the tip of the radiused edge blade.

Ameri, A. A.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Vortex Shedding Characteristics of the Wake of a Thin Flat Plate with a Circular Trailing Edge

The near and very near wake of a thin flat plate with a circular trailing edge are investigated with direct numerical simulations (DNS). Data obtained for two different Reynolds numbers (based on plate thickness, D) are the main focus of this study. The separating boundary layers are turbulent in both cases. An earlier investigation of one of the cases (Case F) showed shed vortices in the wake that were about 1.0 D to 4.0 D in spanwise length. Considerable variation in both the strength and frequency of these shed vortices was observed. One objective of the present investigation is to determine the important contributors to this variability in strength and frequency of shed vortices and their finite spanwise extent. Analysis of the data shows that streamwise vortices in the separating boundary layer play an important role in strengthening/weakening of the shed vortices and that high/low-speed streaks in the boundary layer are important contributors to variability in shedding frequency. Both these features of the boundary layer contribute to the finite extent of the vortices in the spanwise direction. The second plate DNS (Case G, with 40 percent of the plate thickness of Case F) shows that while shedding intensity is weaker than obtained in Case F, many of the wake features are similar to that of Case F. This is important in understanding the path to the wake of the thin plate with a sharp trailing edge where shedding is absent. Here we also test the efficacy of a functional relationship between the shedding frequency and the Reynolds numbers based on the boundary layer momentum thickness (Re (sub theta) and D (Re (sub D)); data for developing this behavioral model is from Cases F & G and five earlier DNSs of the flat plate wake.

Turbulent wakes↗

DOE OSTI2021

X-ray phase contrast and absorption imaging for the quantification of transient cavitation in high-speed nozzle flows

In this work, high-flux synchrotron radiation has been employed in a time-resolved manner to characterise the distinct topology features and dynamics of different cavitation regimes arising in a throttle orifice with an abrupt flow-entry contraction. Radiographs obtained though both X-ray phase- contrast and absorption imaging have been captured at 67,890 frames per second. The flow lied in the turbulent regime (Re=35,500), while moderate (CN=2.0) to well-established (CN=6.0) cavitation conditions were examined encompassing the cloud and vortical cavitation regimes with pertinent transient features, such as cloud-cavity shedding. X-ray Phase-Contrast Imaging (XPCI), exploiting the shift in the X-ray wave phase during interactions with matter, offers sharp-refractive index gradients in the interface region. Hence, it is suitable for capturing fine morphological fluctuations of transient cavitation structures. Nevertheless, the technique cannot provide information on the quantity of vapour within the orifice. Such data have been obtained utilising absorption imaging, where beam attenuation is not associated with scattering and refraction events, and hence can be explicitly correlated with the projected vapour thickness in line-of-sight measurements. A combination of the two methods is proposed, as it has been found is capable of quantifying the vapour content arising in the complex nozzle flow, while also faithfully illustrating the dynamics of the highly-transient cavitation features.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2025

Cosmological quasiparticles and the cosmological collider

The interplay between cosmology and strongly coupled dynamics can yield transient spectral features that vanish at late times, but which may leave behind phenomenological signatures in the spectrum of primordial fluctuations. Of particular interest are strongly coupled extensions of the standard model featuring approximate conformal invariance. In flat space, the spectral density for a scalar operator in a conformal field theory is characterized by a continuum with scaling law governed by the dimension of the operator, and is otherwise featureless. Anti–de Sitter/conformal field theory arguments suggest that for large 𝑁, in an inflationary background with Hubble rate 𝐻, this continuum is gapped. We demonstrate that there can be additional peak structures that become sharp and particlelike at phenomenologically interesting regions in parameter space, and we estimate their contribution to cosmological observables. We find phenomena that are potentially observable in future experiments that are unique to these models, including displaced oscillatory features in the squeezed limit of the bispectrum. These particles can be either fundamental, and localized to a UV brane, or composite at the Hubble scale, 𝐻, and bound to a horizon in the bulk of the 5D geometry. We comment on how stabilization of conformal symmetry breaking vacua can be correlated with these spectral features and their phenomenology.

conformal field theory↗

DOE OSTI2014

Sharp inflaton potentials and bi-spectra: effects of smoothening the discontinuity

Sharp shapes in the inflaton potentials often lead to short departures from slow roll which, in turn, result in deviations from scale invariance in the scalar power spectrum. Typically, in such situations, the scalar power spectrum exhibits a burst of features associated with modes that leave the Hubble radius either immediately before or during the epoch of fast roll. Moreover, one also finds that the power spectrum turns scale invariant at smaller scales corresponding to modes that leave the Hubble radius at later stages, when slow roll has been restored. In other words, the imprints of brief departures from slow roll, arising out of sharp shapes in the inflaton potential, are usually of a finite width in the scalar power spectrum. Intuitively, one may imagine that the scalar bi-spectrum too may exhibit a similar behavior, i.e. a restoration of scale invariance at small scales, when slow roll has been reestablished. However, in the case of the Starobinsky model (viz. the model described by a linear inflaton potential with a sudden change in its slope) involving the canonical scalar field, it has been found that, a rather sharp, though short, departure from slow roll can leave a lasting and significant imprint on the bi-spectrum. The bi-spectrum in this case is found to grow linearly with the wavenumber at small scales, a behavior which is clearly unphysical. In this work, we study the effects of smoothening the discontinuity in the Starobinsky model on the scalar bi-spectrum. Focusing on the equilateral limit, we analytically show that, for smoother potentials, the bi-spectrum indeed turns scale invariant at suitably large wavenumbers. We also confirm the analytical results numerically using our newly developed code BINGO. We conclude with a few comments on certain related points.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Bragg glass signatures in Pd x ErTe 3 with X-ray diffraction temperature clustering

The Bragg glass phase is a nearly perfect crystal with glassy features predicted to occur in vortex lattices and charge-density-wave systems in the presence of disorder. Detecting it has been challenging, despite its sharp theoretical definition in terms of diverging correlation lengths. Here we present bulk probe evidence supporting a Bragg glass phase in the systematically disordered charge-density-wave material of Pd x ErTe 3 . We do this by using comprehensive X-ray data and a machine-learning-based analysis tool called X-ray diffraction temperature clustering (X-TEC). We establish a diverging correlation length in samples with moderate intercalation over a wide temperature range. To enable this analysis, we introduced a high-throughput measure of inverse correlation length that we call peak spread. The detection of Bragg glass order and the resulting phase diagram advance our understanding of the complex interplay between disorder and fluctuations. Moreover, the use of our analysis technique to target fluctuations through a high-throughput measure of peak spread can revolutionize the study of fluctuations in scattering experiments.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2019

Assessing Adaptive Mesh Refinement (AMR) in a Forced Shallow-Water Model with Moisture

Two forced shallow-water flow scenarios are explored in a 2D fourth-order finite-volume dynamical core with adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) to investigate AMR’s ability to track and resolve complex evolving features. Traditional shallow-water test cases are mainly characterized by large-scale smooth flows that do not effectively test the multiscale abilities of variable-resolution and AMR models to resolve sharp gradients and small-scale flow filaments. Therefore, adding forcing mechanisms to the shallow-water system to model key atmospheric processes adds complexity and creates small-scale phenomena. These can serve as foci for dynamic grid refinement while remaining simple enough to study the numerical design of a model’s dynamical core. The first shallow-water flow scenario represents a strengthening, tropical cyclone–like, vortex that is driven by a Betts–Miller-like convection scheme. The second shallow-water test is built upon a barotropically unstable jet with an added Kessler-like warm rain scheme that leads to precipitating frontal zones. The key feature of both tests is that there is significant sensitivity to the model grid while converging (structurally) at high resolution. Both test cases are investigated for a series of uniform resolutions and a variety of AMR tagging criteria. The AMR simulations demonstrate that grid refinement can resolve local features without requiring global high-resolution meshes. However, the results are sensitive to the refinement criteria. Criteria that trigger refinement early in a simulation reproduce the uniform-resolution reference solutions most reliably. Finally, in contrast, AMR criteria that delay refinement for several days require careful tuning of the AMR thresholds to improve results compared with uniform-resolution simulations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG # 5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗