Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “task programming”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 433 records · Page 24
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

A review of machine learning in building load prediction

The surge of machine learning in recent years has been empowering engineer modeling in various fields. The decreasing hardware cost, increasing data accessibility, and advances of building automation system (BAS) allow the collection and storage of a significant amount of building operation data. The two facts provide great opportunities of applying machine learning to building energy systems modeling and analysis. There are a great number of research papers on this topic but there lacks a comprehensive and general review to summarize the current development, limitations, gaps and future trend. In this review paper series, machine learning techniques in building energy system modeling and analysis are reviewed under the organization and logic of the machine learning definition by Tom M. Mitchell: a computer program is said to learn from experience E with respect to some class of tasks T and performance measure P if its performance at tasks in T, as measured by P, improves with experience E. This paper is the first part of the review paper series, which focuses on building load prediction. First, the applications of building load prediction model (task T) are reviewed. Then, the modeling algorithms improving machine learning performance and accuracy (performance P) are reviewed. At the same time, the literature on the data perspective for modeling (experience E), including data engineering from sensors level to data level, pre-processing, feature extraction and selection, is reviewed. Finally, what is well-studied and what is lacking but with great potential are concluded; the gaps between present and future utilization of machine learning techniques are identified; the future trend and development are also predicted. The target readers of this paper are not only researchers from the building side who can get exposed to cutting edge machine learning tools, but also those from machine learning side who can understand the potential and challenge to apply machine learning in buildings.

Liang, Zhang↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-01: Introduction

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-00: Education Council Symposium: Accreditation and Certification: Establishing Educational Standards and Evaluating Candidates Based on these Standards

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-02: Development of CAMPEP Standards

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-03: Evaluation of Graduate Programs

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-04: Evaluation of Residency Programs

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-05: Development of ABR Certification Standards

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-06: Development of ABR Examination Questions

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-B-213-07: Panel Discussion

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization. In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards. The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion. Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Appalachian Basin Play Fairway Analysis Analyses and Results

*This submission updates a 2015 submission for the utilization analysis (https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/623)* The files document the analysis of utilization potential in support of Phase 1 Low Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis for the Appalachian Basin. This 2016 submission includes data pertinent to the methods and results of an analysis of the Surface Levelized Cost of Heat (SLCOH) for US Census Bureau 'Places' within the study area. The SLCOHis was calculated using a modification of a program called GEOPHIRES, available at http://koenraadbeckers.net/geophires/index.php. In addition to calculating SLCOH, this task also identified many industrial sites that may be prospects for use of a geothermal district heating system, based on their size and industry, rather than on the SLCOH. An industry sorted listing and maps of the sites have been plotted as a layer onto different iterations of maps combining the three geologic risk factors (Thermal Quality, Natural Reservoir Quality, and Risk of Seismicity). In addition, a shapefile of the industrial sites is also included with 7 associated files. Supporting files are also supplied.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Implementing a lessons learned process at Sandia National Laboratories

The Lessons Learned Process Improvement Team was tasked to gain an understanding of the existing lessons learned environment within the major programs at Sandia National Laboratories, identify opportunities for improvement in that environment as compared to desired attributes, propose alternative implementations to address existing inefficiencies, perform qualitative evaluations of alternative implementations, and recommend one or more near-term activities for prototyping and/or implementation. This report documents the work and findings of the team.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Strange Particles and Heavy Ion Physics

This very long-running grant has supported many experiments in nuclear and particle physics by a group from the University of New Mexico. The gamut of these experiments runs from many aspects of Strangeness Nuclear Physics, to rare Kaon decays, to searches for exotic Hadrons such as Pentaquark or H-Dibaryon, and finally to Spin Physics within the PHENIX collaboration at RHIC. These experiments were performed at a number of laboratories worldwide: first and foremost at Brookhaven National Lab (BNL), but also at CERN, KEK, and most recently at J-PARC. In this Final Technical Report we summarize progress and achievements for this award since our last Progress Report, i.e. for the period of fall 2013 until the award’s termination on November 30, 2015. The report consists of two parts, representing our two most recent experimental efforts, participation in the Nucleon Spin Physics program of the PHENIX experiment at RHIC, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at BNL – Task 1, led by Douglas Fields; and participation in several Strangeness Nuclear Physics experiments at J-PARC, the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Center in Tokai-mura, Japan – Task 2, led by Bernd Bassalleck.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Scale-Up of Coal-Based Supercritical CO 2 cycle technology

The Allam Cycle is a transformational technology that enables a step change in the performance, efficiency, and cost of electricity for electrical generating units by using supercritical CO 2 (sCO 2 ) as the working fluid in the turbine for power generation. The objectives of this Phase I effort were to select a host site for a large pilot system through a process of down selection, develop a conceptual design, and conduct a pre-front-end engineering design (pre-FEED) study for a sCO 2 cycle pilot plant that uses domestic coal reserves as the primary feedstock, thereby furthering technology development of the coal-based Allam Cycle. The project was divided into four main tasks: 1) Project Management and Planning; 2) Conceptual Pilot Plant Definition and Host Site Selection; 3) Preliminary Design, Cost, and Schedule Development; and 4) Commitments and Environmental Information Volume (EIV). All project management activities occurred in Task 1. Host site selection was conducted in Task 2, while conceptual design and pre-FEED activities took place under Task 3. Task 4 enhanced the project by securing commitments for the next phase of the program and completing an initial EIV. The Great Plains Synfuels Plant (GPSP) has been selected as the host site for the large-scale pilot, and its owner, Dakota Gasification Company (DGC), is a committed partner. GPSP was compared to two other host site candidates during Phase I: the existing natural gas Allam Cycle facility in La Porte, Texas, and the Energy & Environmental Research Center’s (EERC) high-bay demonstration facility in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Costs for hosting the pilot plant were estimated for each facility, and those costs are shown in Table ES-1. Based on these estimates, the DGC site was clearly shown to be the lowest cost option and was selected as the host site for the project.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2023

Mo-99 Concentration and processing by Solvent Extraction and Ion Exchange

Normally derived from its transient-equilibrium parent molybdenum-99 ( 99 Mo) (t½ = 66 h), the short-lived isotope technetium-99m ( 99m Tc) (t ½ = 6.0 h) is the most widely used medical isotope in diagnostic imaging today. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA’s) Material Management and Minimization (M3) program—established under the auspices of the American Medical Isotope Production Act—has been tasked with facilitating the work of domestic 99 Mo suppliers that do not use highly enriched uranium (HEU). Superconducting electron linear accelerators that employ high-Z converter targets can generate bremsstrahlung photons and neutron fluxes that can induce photonuclear reactions and uranium (U) fission. Argonne, in collaboration with industrial partners, has been developing the process chemistry for superconducting linear accelerator (LINAC)-irradiated triuranium octoxide (U 3 O 8 ) targets to produce 99 Mo. In short, the process involves dissolving the irradiated targets in nitric acid, which simultaneously releases valuable fission products (xenon and iodine). After adjusting the acid concentration, producers process the feed using tri-n-butyl phosphate (TBP), then mix the raffinate derived from this extraction cycle with a phosphinic acid such as Cyanex 272 or di(2-ethylhexyl) phosphoric acid (HDEHP), which is selective for Mo (molybdenum liquid liquid extraction [MoLLE]). In the next step, a concentration column comprising an anion exchange platform is used to decontaminate the remaining fission products, generating a pure 99 Mo stream in sodium hydroxide (NaOH)/sodium chloride (NaCl).

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗
DOE OSTI2025

Robotic Assembly of SRF Cavity Pair

Superconducting Radio Frequency (SRF) cavities for particle accelerators require tight tolerances, ultrahigh vacuum, and strict cleanliness during assembly. As in the semiconductor industry, defects such as particles and residues are deleterious to performance, possibly rendering a cavity unfit for use. This problem is addressed primarily through cleanroom assembly during sensitive steps and rigorous chemical processing to prevent and remove such defects. Human workers are often the largest source of contamination, even with proper gowning and practices. The semiconductor industry has long integrated robots in cleanroom operation, but this has not occurred for SRF cavity production; SRF cavities, unlike wafers, are complex shapes, require more hands-on mechanical assembly, and are low-volume production items. At Jefferson Laboratory, a co-operative robot (cobot) has been setup to overcome these problems. Cobots are safe for use alongside human workers and can integrate new tools such as a 3D camera part detection and gripper for item manipulation. Therefore, cobots represent a promising avenue for reducing particulate generated during a variety of assembly tasks. A mockup of a cavity pair and coupler was setup and the cobot programmed to automatically pick up the coupler and place on the mating cavity flange. Particle counting methods were setup to measure human vs cobot assembly particulate generation inside a cavity mockup. Other potential uses will be discussed for further improving SRF cavity assembly steps, where a cobot can replace or assist a human operator, and what potential gains are expected.

Duzik, Adam [Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator↗
DOE OSTI2022

Process Modeling and Optimization of DAC Systems and Novel Sorbent Materials

This poster presents an overview of the general methodology to be implemented in Task 9.0, Advanced Modeling Support of CDR Pilot Projects, of the Carbon Dioxide Removal program (CDR FWP22). Specifically, the poster presents the multi-scale modelling framework and optimization approaches to develop DAC systems, and how this can support bench/pilot scale tests that improve data collection and minimize uncertainty for scale-up of DAC technologies.

Caballero, Daison↗