Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “software testing”

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 469 records · Page 26
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Investigating Temperature Uniformity and Accuracy in PV Module Lamination: A Verification Study

This study investigates the temperature uniformity and accuracy of a photovoltaic (PV) module lamination process by addressing inconsistencies identified in 2017 data where irregular temperature changes were observed across setpoints. The 2017 data showed a notable drop in temperature upon bladder initiation, except for the 145 degrees Celsius profile. This inconsistency indicated potential inaccuracies in manual data recording methods. To address this concern, a verification experiment was conducted to evaluate temperature uniformity across the 2014 Bent River SPL2828 laminator platen and within test samples. Thermocouples, paired with Omega data acquisition software, were deployed to measure temperatures at multiple platen locations and within test samples. The experiment compared lamination temperatures of polyethylene-co-vinyl acetate (EVA) encapsulant when paired with solite glass or TPE backsheets. The methodology included verifying temperature uniformity directly on the platen and by using a large glass/EVA/glass sample using multiple thermocouples. Smaller samples were built with glass/EVA/glass and glass/EVA/backsheet configurations with one centered thermocouple to verify and compare sample temperatures. This verification aims to refine lamination temperature profiles, enhance data accuracy and provide insights into optimal process control for uniform module lamination. Ensuring consistent and uniform lamination may improve the accuracy and reliability of research outcomes.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Time cycle analysis and simulation of material flow in MOX process layout

The (U,Pu)O{sub 2} MOX fuel is the driver fuel for the upcoming PFBR (Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor). The fuel has around 30% PuO{sub 2}. The presence of high percentages of reprocessed PuO{sub 2} necessitates the design of optimized fuel fabrication process line which will address both production need as well as meet regulatory norms regarding radiological safety criteria. The powder pellet route has highly unbalanced time cycle. This difficulty can be overcome by optimizing process layout in terms of equipment redundancy and scheduling of input powder batches. Different schemes are tested before implementing in the process line with the help of a software. This software simulates the material movement through the optimized process layout. The different material processing schemes have been devised and validity of the schemes are tested with the software. Schemes in which production batches are meeting at any glove box location are considered invalid. A valid scheme ensures adequate spacing between the production batches and at the same time it meets the production target. This software can be further improved by accurately calculating material movement time through glove box train. One important factor is considering material handling time with automation systems in place.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2014

SU-F-BRE-16: VMAT Commissioning and Quality Assurance (QA) of An Elekta Synergy-STM Linac Using ICOM Test HarnessTM

Purpose: To establish a set of tests based on the iCOM software that can be used to commission and perform periodic QA of VMAT delivery on the Elekta Synergy-S, commonly known as the Beam Modulator (BM). Methods: iCOM is used to create and deliver customized treatment fields to characterize the system in terms of 1) MLC positioning accuracy under static and dynamic delivery with full gantry rotation, 2) MLC positioning with known errors, 3) Maximum dose rate, 4) Maximum MLC speed, 5) Maximum gantry speed, 6) Synchronization: gantry speed versus dose rate, and 7) Synchronization: MLC speed versus dose rate. The resulting images were captured on the iView GT and exported in DICOM format to Dosimetry Check™ system for visual and quantitative analysis. For the initial commissioning phase, the system tests described should be supplemented with extensive patient QAs covering all clinically relevant treatment sites. Results: The system performance test suite showed that on our Synergy-S, MLC positioning was accurate under both static and dynamic deliveries. Intentional errors of 1 mm were also easily identified on both static and dynamic picket fence tests. Maximum dose rate was verified with stop watch to be consistently between 475-480 MU/min. Maximum gantry speed and MLC speed were 5.5 degree/s and 2.5 cm/s respectively. After accounting for beam flatness, both synchronization tests, gantry versus dose rate and MLC speed versus dose rate, were successful as the fields were uniform across the strips and there were no obvious cold/hot spots. Conclusion: VMAT commissioning and quality assurance should include machine characterization tests in addition to patient QAs. Elekta iCOM is a valuable tool for the design of customized VMAT field with specific MU, MLC leaf positions, dose rate, and indirect control of MLC and gantry speed at each of its control points.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2013

Development of a Software Framework for System-Level Carbon Sequestration Risk Assessment

The overall purpose of this project was to identify, evaluate, select, develop, and test a suite of enhancements to the GoldSim software program, in order to make it a better tool for use in support of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) projects. The GoldSim software is a foundational tool used by scientists at NETL and at other laboratories and research institutions to evaluate system-level risks of proposed CCS projects. The primary product of the project was a series of successively improved versions of the GoldSim software, supported by an extensive User’s Guide. All of the enhancements were tested by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and several of the enhancements have already been incorporated into the CO 2 -PENS sequestration model.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

Task allocation in geo-distributed cyber-physical systems - 256

This paper studies the task allocation algorithm for a distributed test facility (DTF), which aims to assemble geo-distributed cyber (software) and physical (hardware in the loop) components into a prototype cyber-physical system (CPS). This allows low cost testing on an early conceptual prototype (ECP) of the ultimate CPS (UCPS) to be developed. The DTF provides an instrumentation interface for carrying out reliability experiments remotely such as fault propagation analysis and in-situ testing of hardware and software components in a simulated environment. Unfortunately, the geo-distribution introduces an overhead that is not inherent to the UCPS, i.e. a significant time delay in communication that threatens the stability of the ECP and is not an appropriate representation of the behavior of the UCPS. This can be mitigated by implementing a task allocation algorithm to find a suitable configuration and assign the software components to appropriate computational locations, dynamically. This would allow the ECP to operate more efficiently with less probability of being unstable due to the delays introduced by geo-distribution. The task allocation algorithm proposed in this work uses a Monte Carlo approach along with Dynamic Programming to identify the optimal network configuration to keep the time delays to a minimum. (authors)

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
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-201-02: 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-201-03: 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↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

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 OSTI2017

A streamlined build system foundation for developing HPC software

BLT bundles custom CMake macros, unit testing frameworks for C++ and Fortran, and a set of smoke tests for common HPC dependencies. The combination of these three provides a foundation for quickly bootstrapping a CMale-based system for developing HPC softward.

White, Chris↗
DOE OSTI2025

ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LLMS IN UNIT TEST GENERATION FOR STRUCTURED TEXT PROGRAMS

The reliability of industrial automation systems heavily depends on the correctness of Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) programs, which are often written in Structured Text (ST). While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating test generation for mainstream programming languages, their effectiveness for the syntactically strict ST language remains underexplored. This thesis presents a systematic empirical evaluation of three state-of-the-art LLMs—GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 4.5—for generating ST unit tests. We examine three prompting strategies: Natural Language (NL), Code Language (CL), and Chain-of-Thought (CoT), across a curated set of 11 ST function blocks. The quality of the generated tests is assessed using Compilation Success Rate (CSR), Statement Coverage (SC), and Branch Coverage (BC). In the zero-shot setting, Claude Sonnet 4.5 achieves the highest CSR, while Gemini 2.5 Pro consistently delivers the best statement and branch coverage, particularly under CL prompts. By incorporating a one-shot CL prompt, all models exhibit substantial improvements—most notably GPT-4o, whose CSR increases from 45.45% to 90.91%, with substantial gains in both SC and BC. To further contextualize these findings, we compare GPT-4o’s one-shot results with PLCAutoTester, a state-ofthe- art ST unit test generation tool, on an additional benchmark dataset. While LLMgenerated tests approach competitive coverage levels, PLCAutoTester maintains significantly higher and more stable coverage across programs. This study provides the first comprehensive benchmark of modern LLMs for ST unit testing, highlighting their strengths, limitations, and improvements through one-shot prompting, and positioning their performance relative to specialized automated testing tools in industrial automation.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2017

TASK ALLOCATION IN GEO-DISTRIBUTED CYBER-PHYSICAL SYSTEMS

This paper studies the task allocation algorithm for a distributed test facility (DTF), which aims to assemble geo-distributed cyber (software) and physical (hardware in the loop components into a prototype cyber-physical system (CPS). This allows low cost testing on an early conceptual prototype (ECP) of the ultimate CPS (UCPS) to be developed. The DTF provides an instrumentation interface for carrying out reliability experiments remotely such as fault propagation analysis and in-situ testing of hardware and software components in a simulated environment. Unfortunately, the geo-distribution introduces an overhead that is not inherent to the UCPS, i.e. a significant time delay in communication that threatens the stability of the ECP and is not an appropriate representation of the behavior of the UCPS. This can be mitigated by implementing a task allocation algorithm to find a suitable configuration and assign the software components to appropriate computational locations, dynamically. This would allow the ECP to operate more efficiently with less probability of being unstable due to the delays introduced by geo-distribution. The task allocation algorithm proposed in this work uses a Monte Carlo approach along with Dynamic Programming to identify the optimal network configuration to keep the time delays to a minimum.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2013

Field-Scale Geothermal Tracer Tests [Final CRADA Report]

The potential use of reactive tracers for estimating migration of a cold front between an injection well and a production well in a geothermal reservoir is studied to investigate application of reactive tracers to monitoring the thermal evolution of a geothermal reservoir. Aspects considered in this study include (1) mathematical investigation of the sensitivity of known and hypothetical reactive tracers, (2) laboratory testing of novel tracers that would improve method sensitivity, (3) a software tool for design and interpretation of reactive tracer tests and (4) field testing of the reactive tracer temperature monitoring concept at the Raft River geothermal field.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2025

Exploring the Nature of Neutrinos with the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE)

The Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) is a next-generation experimental program designed to study the behaviour of neutrino oscillation. DUNE will utilize a neutrino beam originating at Fermilab, near Chicago, and will leverage a detector at Fermilab (Near Detector) and a detector 1300 km away in South Dakota (Far Detector), south of Saskatchewan. In the first phase of DUNE, its Far Detector will comprise of two 10,000 ton (fiducial) liquid argon (LAr) time-projection chamber (TPC) modules – powerful tracking calorimeter detectors – placed nearly a mile underground. With this large, sensitive, underground detector, DUNE aims to collect a high statistics and pure sample of neutrinos at the Far Detector. This setup also offers the potential to study non-beam physical processes via e.g. neutrinos produced in the atmosphere, supernova neutrino bursts, and/or solar neutrinos, etc. A second phase will aim to add more detector mass and expand the program. The Near Detector will consist of a LAr TPC module as well: critical to constraining systematic uncertainties in the oscillation analysis. However, this LAr TPC will have a novel design using a pixel-based readout instead of the traditional wire-based readout. This and the segmentation of the LAr TPC into multiple units are crucial in mitigating the high multiplicity of neutrino interactions expected in any readout window given its proximity to the beam. The Near Detector will feature additional components and capability beyond the LAr TPC, allowing one to deeply characterize the neutrino flux. Due to the complexity of this experimental program, several smaller-scale prototype detectors have been operating to test, validate, and improve both the technical designs and software for processing and analyzing events. By operating in charged particle test beams or neutrino beams, several of the prototypes are also capable of producing valuable results. Canadian institutions are involved in the realization of the DUNE through efforts with both the Near and Far Detectors and prototypes. DUNE is anticipated to begin operating near the end of this decade/the beginning of the next. This talk will focus on the overall DUNE program, for example its ultimate plans, status, and the efforts with prototypes.

Howard, Bruce [York U., Canada; Fermilab]↗
DOE OSTI2017

Real-Time Digital Simulation of Inertial Response with Hardware-in-the-Loop Implementation on the CART3 Wind Turbine at the National Wind Technology Center

With increasing penetrations of wind power on electric grids, the stability and reliability of interconnected power systems may be impacted. In some countries that have developed renewable energy sources and systems, grid codes have been revised to require wind power plants (WPPs) to provide ancillary services to support the power system frequency in case of severe grid events. To do this, wind turbine generators (WTGs) should be deloaded to reserve a certain amount of active power for primary frequency response; however, deloading curtails annual energy production, and the market for this type of service needs to be further developed. In this report, we focus on the temporary frequency support provided by WTGs through inertial response. WTGs have potential to provide inertial response, but appropriate control methods should be implemented. With the implemented inertial control methods, wind turbines are capable of increasing their active power output by releasing some of their stored kinetic energy when a frequency excursion occurs. Active power can be temporarily boosted above the maximum power points, after which the rotor speed decelerates, and subsequently an active power output reduction restores the kinetic energy. In this report, we develop two types of models for wind power systems: the first is common, based on the wind power aerodynamic equation, and the power coefficient can be regressed using nonlinear functions; the second is much more complicated, wherein the wind turbine system is modeled using the Fatigue, Aerodynamics, Structures, and Turbulence Modeling (FAST) tool with several degrees of freedoms. A nine-bus test power system is built in Simulink and the Real-Time Digital Simulator, respectively, which are used to evaluate the frequency support performance of the WPPs. We implement two distinct types of inertial control methods in the modeled wind turbines: frequency-based inertial control (FBIC) and stepwise inertial control (SIC). We compare the performances of the two methods in terms of their frequency nadirs, rates of change of frequency, and recovery times. We conclude the results under various wind speeds and penetration cases, which provide insight into designing the inertial response of WTGs. Further, we discuss the impact of the parameters on the performance of the inertial control methods. We evaluate both the scaling factors for the FBIC method and the slope values for the TLIC methods. The simulation work shows the characteristics of different inertial responses compared to conventional synchronous generators. Based on the simulation results, we modify, improve, and test the inertial control methods under a more realistic wind turbine model based on FAST. We then validate the inertial responses under highly turbulent wind conditions generated by TurbSim, and we examine their influences on the turbine mechanical components. The extensive simulation proves the effectiveness of the proposed inertial control methods as well as the nine-bus test power system. We then reconsider the parameters. We rebuild the same test power system using Real time Simulator Computer Aided Design (RSCAD), and we implement the inertial control methods in the real Controls Advanced Research Turbine (CART3), which is prepared for the hardware-in-the-loop field-test simulation. After the setups for the hardware and software hybrid simulation platform are complete, the inertial response is further tested on a real wind turbine for the first time, in which CART3 release the controlled inertial response against the emulated frequency excursion, provided by the real-time simulated power system test bed in RTDS.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

A scalable real-time framework for Thomson scattering analysis: Application to NSTX-U

A detailed description of a prototype setup for real-time (RT) Thomson scattering (TS) analysis is presented and implemented in the multi-point Thomson scattering (MPTS) diagnostic system at the National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade (NSTX-U). The data acquisition hardware was upgraded with RT capable electronics (RT-analog digital converters and a RT server) that allow for fast digitization of the laser pulse signal of eight radial MPTS channels. In addition, a new TS spectrum analysis software for a rapid calculation of electron temperature ( T e ) and electron density ( n e ) was developed. Testing of the RT hardware and data analysis software was successfully completed and benchmarked against the standard, post-shot evaluation. Timing tests were performed showing that the end-to-end processing time was reproducibly below 17 ms for the duration of at least 5 s, meeting a 60 Hz deadline by the laser pulse repetition rate over the length of a NSTX-U discharge. The presented RT framework is designed to be scalable in system size, i.e., incorporation of additional radial channels by solely adding additional RT capable hardware. In conclusion, it is scalable in its operation duration and was continuously running for up to 30 min, making it an attractive solution for machines with long discharges such as advanced, non-inductive tokamaks or stellarators.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2024

DEReliction: A Cybersecurity Vulnerability Assessment Methodology for Distributed Energy Resources

With the increasing integration of Distributed Energy Resources (DER) into the electric grid, maintaining grid reliability and resilience requires that these devices remain secure. This paper discusses a cybersecurity vulnerability assessment methodology that incorporates best practices from Sandia National Laboratories, SANS Institute, OWASP Foundation, and other web and Internet of Things (IoT) penetration testing (“pen testing”) programs, courses, and frameworks for assessing the security posture of devices. The methodology involves five sequential steps: (1) Collect Public Information, (2) Extract Hardware Details, (3) Inventory Software Components, (4) Identify Vulnerabilities, and (5) Test Vulnerabilities. Each step uncovers potential weaknesses in both hardware and software components of DER devices, considering adversary tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), and potential attack vectors along the way. The results from the execution of this method on multiple residential- and small commercial-scale photovoltaic (PV) inverters reveled hardware and software vulnerabilities, which highlight the benefit of taking a methodical approach to discover vulnerabilities. While the specific vulnerability details are not shared here, a generalized overview of findings underscore the importance of robust security assessments for DER devices. Adoption of an assessment framework of this kind will identify and mitigate cybersecurity threats and bolster the resilience of DER-integrated electric grids.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗