Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “error of commission”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

A Review of Human Reliability Needs in the U.S. Nuclear Industry

In this survey, 34 subject matter experts from the U.S. nuclear industry were interviewed to determine specific needs for human reliability analysis (HRA). Conclusions from the interviews are detailed in this article. A summary of the findings includes: (1) The need for improved guidance on the use of HRA methods generally and for specific applications. (2) The need for additional training in HRA to provide more hands-on experience in the application of HRA methods. (3) Thedevelopment of HRA approaches suitable for advanced reactors, severe accident situations, and low-power and shutdown applications. (4) The refinement of HRA methods to account forfactors such as crew variability, latent errors, more sophisticated dependency modeling, and errors of commission. (5) The continued need for simplified HRA methods appropriate for field applications. (6) The need for tighter coupling of HRA and human factors. (7) The need for improvements in the quantitative basis of HRA methods. These findings suggest the field of HRA is mature but still benefits from refinements.

human reliability analysis↗
DOE OSTI2025

Optics tuning of the FCC-ee

The Future Circular Collider, FCC-ee, is a proposed next generation electron-positron collider aiming to provide large luminosities at beam energies from 45.6 up to 182.5 GeV. This collider faces a major challenge to deliver the design performance in the presence of realistic lattice errors. A commissioning strategy has been developed including dedicated optics designs, efficient beam-based alignment and optics corrections based on refined optics measurements. First specifications on main magnets, corrector circuits, and instrumentation have also been investigated. A summary of all these aspects is presented in this paper.

Tomas, Rogelio [CERN]↗
DOE OSTI2014

Automated detection of cloud and cloud-shadow in single-date Landsat imagery using neural networks and spatial post-processing

Use of Landsat data to answer ecological questions is contingent on the effective removal of cloud and cloud shadow from satellite images. We develop a novel algorithm to identify and classify clouds and cloud shadow, \textsc{sparcs}: Spacial Procedures for Automated Removal of Cloud and Shadow. The method uses neural networks to determine cloud, cloud-shadow, water, snow/ice, and clear-sky membership of each pixel in a Landsat scene, and then applies a set of procedures to enforce spatial rules. In a comparison to FMask, a high-quality cloud and cloud-shadow classification algorithm currently available, \textsc{sparcs} performs favorably, with similar omission errors for clouds (0.8% and 0.9%, respectively), substantially lower omission error for cloud-shadow (8.3% and 1.1%), and fewer errors of commission (7.8% and 5.0%). Additionally, textsc{sparcs} provides a measure of uncertainty in its classification that can be exploited by other processes that use the cloud and cloud-shadow detection. To illustrate this, we present an application that constructs obstruction-free composites of images acquired on different dates in support of algorithms detecting vegetation change.

cloud masking↗
NASA NTRS1977

Statistical separability and classification of land use classes using image-100

The author has identified the following significant results. The statistical separability of land use classes in the subsets of one to four spectral channels was investigated. Using ground observations and aerial photography, the MSS data of LANDSAT were analyzed with the Image-100. In the subsets of one to three spectral channels, channel 4, channel 4 & 7, and channels 4, 5, & 7 were found to be the best choices (ch.4 - 0.5 to 0.6 microns, ch. 5 - 0.6 to 0.7 microns, ch. 6 - 0.7 to 0.8 microns, and ch. 7 - 0.8 to 1.1 microns). For the single cell option of the Image-100, the errors of omission varied from 5% for the industrial class to 46% for the institutional class. The errors of commission varied from 11% for the commercial class to 39% for the industrial class. On the whole, the sample classifier gave considerably more accurate results compared to the single cell or multicell option.

Dejesusparada, N.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Application of the epidemiological model in studying human error in aviation

An epidemiological model is described in conjunction with the analytical process through which aviation occurrence reports are composed into the events and factors pertinent to it. The model represents a process in which disease, emanating from environmental conditions, manifests itself in symptoms that may lead to fatal illness, recoverable illness, or no illness depending on individual circumstances of patient vulnerability, preventive actions, and intervention. In the aviation system the analogy of the disease process is the predilection for error of human participants. This arises from factors in the operating or physical environment and results in errors of commission or omission that, again depending on the individual circumstances, may lead to accidents, system perturbations, or harmless corrections. A discussion of the previous investigations, each of which manifests the application of the epidemiological method, exemplifies its use and effectiveness.

Cheaney, E. S.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Comparison of wheat classification accuracy using different classifiers of the image-100 system

Classification results using single-cell and multi-cell signature acquisition options, a point-by-point Gaussian maximum-likelihood classifier, and K-means clustering of the Image-100 system are presented. Conclusions reached are that: a better indication of correct classification can be provided by using a test area which contains various cover types of the study area; classification accuracy should be evaluated considering both the percentages of correct classification and error of commission; supervised classification approaches are better than K-means clustering; Gaussian distribution maximum likelihood classifier is better than Single-cell and Multi-cell Signature Acquisition Options of the Image-100 system; and in order to obtain a high classification accuracy in a large and heterogeneous crop area, using Gaussian maximum-likelihood classifier, homogeneous spectral subclasses of the study crop should be created to derive training statistics.

Dejesusparada, N.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Land use surveys by means of automatic interpretation of LANDSAT system data

Analyses for seven land-use classes are presented. The classes are: urban area, industrial area, bare soil, cultivated area, pastureland, reforestation, and natural vegetation. The automatic classification of LANDSAT MSS data using a maximum likelihood algorithm shows a 39% average error of emission and a 3.45 error of commission for the seven classes.

Dejesusparada, N.↗
NASA NTRS1983

A computerized, procedural aid for flight crews

A computer program for detecting pilot error is described. The program observes pilot actions through the aircraft controls and state, and the actions are compared to those of a procedural script which can be considered a prescriptive model of the procedural aspects of flight. Pilot error is a discrepancy between the pilot actions and the script. The script has a hierarchical structure consisting of a single script at the highest level, scripts for the major phases of flight at the next level, scripts for procedures to be executed during these phases, and procedure step scripts at the bottom. The program interprets the aircraft data base in terms of the script, detecting errors of commission from a set of allowed and disallowed changes stored with each script element.

Hammer, J. M.↗
NASA NTRS2002

MODIS Snow-Cover Products

On December 18, 1999, the Terra satellite was launched with a complement of five instruments including the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). Many geophysical products are derived from MODIS data including global snow-cover products. MODIS snow and ice products have been available through the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) since September 13, 2000. MODIS snow-cover products represent potential improvement to or enhancement of the currently-available operational products mainly because the MODIS products are global and 500-m resolution, and have the capability to separate most snow and clouds. Also the snow-mapping algorithms are automated which means that a consistent data set may be generated for long-term climate studies that require snow-cover information. Extensive quality assurance (QA) information is stored with the products. The MODIS snow product suite begins with a 500-m resolution, 2330-km swath snow-cover map which is then gridded to an integerized sinusoidal grid to produce daily and 8-day composite tile products. The sequence proceeds to a climate-modeling grid (CMG) product at about 5.6-km spatial resolution, with both daily and 8-day composite products. Each pixel of the CMG contains fraction of snow cover from 40 - 100%. Measured errors of commission in the CMG are low, for example, on the continent of Australia in the spring, they vary from 0.02 - 0.10%. Near-term enhancements include daily snow albedo and fractional snow cover. A case study from March 6, 2000, involving MODIS data and field and aircraft measurements, is presented to show some early validation work.

Hall, Dorothy K.↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-186: Cloud-Based Quality Assurance Application for Linear Accelerator Commissioning

Purpose: To identify anomalies and safety issues during data collection and modeling for treatment planning systems Methods: A cloud-based quality assurance system (AQUIRE - Automated QUalIty REassurance) has been developed to allow the uploading and analysis of beam data aquired during the treatment planning system commissioning process. In addition to comparing and aggregating measured data, tools have also been developed to extract dose from the treatment planning system for end-to-end testing. A gamma index is perfomed on the data to give a dose difference and distance-to-agreement for validation that a beam model is generating plans consistent with the beam data collection. Results: Over 20 linear accelerators have been commissioning using this platform, and a variety of errors and potential saftey issues have been caught through the validation process. For example, the gamma index of 2% dose, 2mm DTA is quite sufficient to see curves not corrected for effective point of measurement. Also, data imported into the database is analyzed against an aggregate of similar linear accelerators to show data points that are outliers. The resulting curves in the database exhibit a very small standard deviation and imply that a preconfigured beam model based on aggregated linear accelerators will be sufficient in most cases. Conclusion: With the use of this new platform for beam data commissioning, errors in beam data collection and treatment planning system modeling are greatly reduced. With the reduction in errors during acquisition, the resulting beam models are quite similar, suggesting that a common beam model may be possible in the future. Development is ongoing to create routine quality assurance tools to compare back to the beam data acquired during commissioning. I am a medical physicist for Alzyen Medical Physics, and perform commissioning services.

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↗
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↗
NASA NTRS2010

Solar Array Disturbances to Spacecraft Pointing During the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Mission

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), the first spacecraft to support NASA s return to the Moon, launched on June 18, 2009 from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station aboard an Atlas V launch vehicle. It was initially inserted into a direct trans-lunar trajectory to the Moon. After a five day transit to the Moon, LRO was inserted into the Lunar orbit and successfully lowered to a low altitude elliptical polar orbit for spacecraft commissioning. Successful commissioning was completed in October 2009 when LRO was placed in its near circular mission orbit with an approximate altitude of 50km. LRO will spend at least one year orbiting the Moon, collecting lunar environment science and mapping data, utilizing a suite of seven instruments to enable future human exploration. The objective is to provide key science data necessary to facilitate human return to the Moon as well as identification of opportunities for future science missions. LRO's instrument suite will provide the high resolution imaging data with sub-meter accuracy, highly accurate lunar cartographic maps, mineralogy mapping, amongst other science data of interest. LRO employs a 3-axis stabilized attitude control system (ACS) whose primary control mode, the "Observing Mode", provides Lunar nadir, off-nadir, and inertial fine pointing for the science data collection and instrument calibration. This controller combines the capability of fine pointing with on-demand large angle full-sky attitude reorientation. It provides simplicity of spacecraft operation as well as additional flexibility for science data collection. A conventional suite of ACS components is employed in the Observing Mode to meet the pointing and control objectives. Actuation is provided by a set of four reaction wheels developed in-house at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Attitude feedback is provided by a six state Kalman filter which utilizes two SELEX Galileo Star Trackers for attitude updates, and a single Honeywell Miniature Inertial Measurement Unit (MIMU) to provide body rates for attitude propagation. Rate is computed by differentiating accumulated angle provided by the MIMU. The Observing Mode controller is required to maintain fine pointing while a large fully-articulated solar array (SA) maintains its panel normal to the solar incidence. This paper describes the disturbances to the attitude control resulting from the SA articulation. Observing Mode performance in the presence of this disturbance was assessed while the spacecraft was in an initial elliptical low altitude orbit during the commissioning phase, which started about two weeks after launch and lasted for 90 days. LRO demonstrated excellent pointing performance during Observing Mode nadir and inertial attitude target operations during this phase. Transient LRO attitude errors observed during commissioning resulted primarily from three sources, Diviner instrument calibrations, RW zero crossings, and SA articulation. Even during times of considerable disturbance from SA articulation, the attitude errors were maintained below the statistical attitude error requirement level of 15 arc-sec (3 sigma).

Calhoun, Philip↗
NASA NTRS2018

Smallholder Crop Area Mapped with Wall-To-Wall WorldView Sub-Meter Panchromatic Image Texture: A Test Case for Tigray, Ethiopia

Global food production in the developing world occurs within sub-hectare fields that are difficult to identify with moderate resolution satellite imagery. Knowledge about the distribution of these fields is critical in food security programs. We developed a semi-automated image segmentation approach using wall-to-wall sub-meter imagery with high-performance computing to map crop area (CA) throughout Tigray, Ethiopia that encompasses over 41,000 km (exp 2). Multiple processing streams were tested to minimize mapping error while applying five unique smoothing kernels to capture differences in land surface texture associated to CA. Typically, very-small fields (mean < 2 ha) have a smooth image roughness compared to natural scrub/shrub woody vegetation at the ~1m scale and these features can be segmented in panchromatic imagery with multi-level histogram thresholding. Multi-temporal very-high resolution (VHR) panchromatic imagery with multi-spectral VHR are sufficient in extracting critical CA information needed in food security programs. A 2011 to 2015 CA map was produced, using over 3000 WorldView-1 panchromatic images wall-to-wall in 1/2 deg mosaics for Tigray, Ethiopia. CA was evaluated with nearly 3000 WorldView-2 2m multispectral 250 X 250 m image subsets by seven expert interpretations, and with in-situ global positioning system photography. CA estimates ranged from 32 to 41% in sub regions of Tigray with median maximum per bin commission and omission errors of 11% and 1% respectively, with most of the error occurring in bins <15%. This empirical, simple, and low direct cost approach via U.S. government license agreement to access commercial VHR data, could be a viable big-data high-performance computing methodology to extract wall-to-wall CA for other regions of the world that have very-small agriculture fields with similar image texture."

Ethiopia↗
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↗
NASA NTRS1978

The accuracy of geopotential models

The accuracy of two recent geopotential models, GEM 7 and GEM 8, is evaluated and is found to be about 4.3 m with respect to the global geoid surface for GEM 7 and 3.9 m for GEM 8. The accuracies are root mean square values obtained by the use of 400 coefficients for GEM 7 and 706 coefficients for GEM 8. Independent observations used in the evaluation include 159 lumped coefficients from 35 resonant orbits, two sets of fields derived from optical-only and laser-only data, sets of zonal and resonant coefficients, and geoid undulations. The ratio of estimated commission to formal error in GEM 7 and GEM 8 ranges from 2 to 5. Several other recent geopotential models are examined.

Wagner, C. A.↗