Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Modular Data Center”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

SuperLab 2.0 Showcase: Connecting Five Labs to Tackle Grid Complexity and Unlock Unique Grid Asset Potential

SuperLab 2.0 (5-Lab Demo) is a collaborative, national-scale experiment showcasing the coordination of geographically distributed energy assets in real time. The demonstration integrates 25 physical and digital assets, spanning wind, PV, batteries, electrolyzers, DC fast chargers, microgrid controllers, building automation systems, small modular reactor (SMR), control centers, and gas turbines, across five DOE national laboratories-NLR, INL, NETL, LBNL, and SNL. These assets are unified using Energy Sciences Network (ESnet), a low-latency, high-performance U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) network, and controlled via a centralized energy controller hosted at NLR's ARIES facility. The demonstration validates the ability to stress-test hybrid energy systems under dynamic scenarios to de-risk advanced control strategies for greater resilience and flexibility. SuperLab 2.0 (5-Lab Demo) showcased a major advancement in federated national laboratory collaboration, enabling real-time, cross-laboratory experimentation to coordinate geographically dispersed distributed energy resources (DERs) using various communication protocols and networks. SuperLab 2.0 (5-Lab Demo) built on previous demonstrations conducted between NLR-PNNL and NLR-INL connecting diverse assets including distant protection devices, a SMR simulator, and a high temperature electrolyzer (HTE). Previous demos were based on a single connection between two labs with minimal coordination challenges. The 5-Lab demo with a centralized controller, distributed testbeds across different geographical locations, and use of protocols-based communication represents a scenario closer to real-world grid operations that coordinate resources across a region to meet system needs. This experiment studied how local DER controllers interact with a centralized energy controller during normal and abnormal events to maintain reliability. The SuperLab team across the five labs implemented a notional power system model equivalent of transmission and distribution lines, represented by the data networks interconnecting the labs. Each lab continuously exchanged local parameters (such as P and Q) from its Hardware-In-Loop (CHIL) and Power Hardware-In-Loop (PHIL) assets through centralized energy controller at NLR, enabling real-time interaction and coordination across sites. By leveraging ESnet as the communication backbone, the team successfully operated the distributed assets as a unified power system, with each bus represented by a different laboratory. This setup mirrors how assets interact in real-world power systems across dispersed locations with various protocols and latencies. At each lab site, assets were operated using their own local controllers which were coordinated through an overarching operation and control layer of centralized energy controller, equivalent to how an energy management system (EMS) orchestrates assets across a regional or national grid. SuperLab's federated connectivity utilized a Digital Real-Time Simulators (DRTS)-type gateway to connect Controller Hardware-In-Loop (CHIL) and PHIL assets between labs. To enable this federated connection through ESnet, a deterministic network was established where latency variations were consistent. This consistency allowed the development of digital filters for the power system assets across CHIL and PHIL interfaces to avoid unstable and unreliable grid conditions. This report provides an overview of the cross-laboratory configuration and offers insights into interconnecting geographically distributed research assets to test them as if they were co-located. This experiment represents a step toward linking nine DOE national laboratories, enabling nation-wide simulations that can address utility-driven challenges with grid resilience, flexibility, and modernization.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Soft-Switching Solid-State Transformer With Reduced Conduction Loss

Solid-state transformers (SSTs) are a promising solution photovoltaic (PV), wind, traction, data center, battery energy storage system (BESS), and fast charging electric vehicle (EV) applications. The traditional SSTs are typically three-stage, i.e., hard-switching cascaded multilevel rectifiers and inverters with dual active bridge (DAB) converters, which leads to bulky passives, low efficiency, and high electromagnetic interference (EMI). This article proposes a new soft-switching solid-state transformer (S4T). The S4T has full-range zero-voltage switching (ZVS), electrolytic capacitor-less dc link, and controlled dv/dt, which reduces EMI. The S4T comprises two reverse-blocking current-source inverter (CSI) bridges, auxiliary branches for ZVS, and transformer magnetizing inductor as a reduced dc link with 60% ripple. Compared with the prior S4T, an effective change on the leakage inductance diode is made to reduce the number of the devices on the main power path by 20% for significant conduction loss saving and retain the same functionality of damping the resonance between the leakage and resonant capacitors and recycling trapped leakage energy. The conduction loss saving is crucial, being the dominating loss mechanism in SSTs. Importantly, the proposed single-stage SST not only holds the potential for high power density and high efficiency but also has full functionality, e.g., multiport dc loads integration, voltage regulation, and reactive power compensation, unlike the traditional single-stage matrix SST. The S4T can achieve single-stage isolated bidirectional dc–dc, ac–dc, dc–ac, or ac–ac conversion. It can also be configured input-series output-parallel (ISOP) in a modular way for medium-voltage (MV) grids. Hence, the S4T is a promising candidate for the SST. The full functionality, e.g., voltage buck–boost, multiport, etc., and the universality of the S4T for the dc–dc, dc–ac, and ac–ac conversion are verified through the simulations and experiments of two-port and three-port MV prototypes based on 3.3 kV SiC MOSFETs in dc–dc, dc–ac, and ac–ac modes at 2 kV.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Holistic energy analysis method for thermal management architectures of data centers

Modern high-performance computing (HPC) data centers (DCs), particularly those supporting energy-intensive artificial intelligence (AI) workloads, face escalating thermal management challenges that degrade performance through thermal throttling and drive up cooling power consumption and operational costs. To address this challenge, many have developed a wide variety of thermal management solutions (single-phase, two-phase, direct, indirect, hybrid, and more) which attempt to cool HPC DCs effectively while attempting to minimize overall system power consumption. However, the analysis of these solutions and methods to effectively compare one with another is lacking. Overall power usage effectiveness (PUE) and total-power usage effectiveness (TUE) provide a metric to quantify power consumption but fail to identify components in the system which require further optimization. To address this, we propose a holistic analytical framework – the waterfall diagram (WFD) – which leverages a waterfall chart methodology, offering a comprehensive visualization of both the thermal management system loop and heat flow pathways from individual server components to the outdoor ambient. Use of the WFD enables graphical estimations of power efficiency and cooling performance across each component of a DC cooling system and complements Sankey-style energy flow visualizations by additionally resolving stage-wise temperature changes and incremental TUE contributions. The framework is used in conjunction with simulation-based approaches, to conduct a detailed pressure drop and flow distribution analysis aimed at identifying the optimal coolant distribution architecture for a single-phase direct-to-chip water-cooled DC, which serves as the baseline for subsequent WFD analysis. Among the evaluated architectures, the 3 U modular coolant distribution architecture is found to demonstrate the best performance, considering minimal pressure drop and uniform flow distribution. In addition, TUE is calculated for each cooling loop component based on its associated pressure drop and corresponding pumping power, which are integrated into the WFD. This correlation between TUE and local temperature offers immediate insight into the power efficiency and thermal performance contributions of individual components, facilitating further development and optimization. Examples of WFD applications are presented under varying thermal loads and ambient conditions, demonstrating reasonable cooling strategies. Notably, the 3 U modular architecture maintains a consistent chip case temperature of 85°C, achieving a TUE of 1.016 at ambient temperature of 47°C, and a TUE of 1.026 at ambient temperature of 52°C. The WFD methodology provides an efficient, holistic, and streamlined framework for DC thermal management architecture assessment and enables design optimization which is important for addressing the thermal-fluidic energy challenges of current and next-generation DCs.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

RAVIS: Resource Forecast and Ramp Visualization for Situational Awareness - An Introduction to the Open-Source Tool and Use Cases

The Resource Forecast and Ramp Visualization for Situational Awareness (RAVIS) is an open-source tool for visualizing variable renewable resource forecasts and ramp alerts for significant up/down ramps in renewable resource and the consequent net-load. The modular dashboard of RAVIS contains configurable panes for viewing- probabilistic time series forecasts, ramp event alerts on the look-ahead timeline, spatially resolved resource sites and forecasts, and system simulation and market clearing data such as transmission lines utilization, nodal prices and available generation flexibility. RAVIS uses a technology suite that is assembled to provide optimum visualization facility while maintaining a wide pool of potential deployment and client environments. The tool is designed to take advantage of web application technologies, open source visualization libraries and tooling. Utilizing this technology will enable deployment in any environment, using any operating system, and is scalable to much higher spatial and temporal scales of visualization. As a prototype of the tool and demonstrating a use case of variable renewable integration, RAVIS currently integrates site-specific solar power forecasts in the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and Mid-continent ISO (MISO) footprint from the IBM WattSun forecasting platform, and also superimposes market simulation data for CAISO footprint from as in-house NREL market clearing tool. The tool has the ability to alert the viewer for excessive up or down ramps for both individual solar sites as well as regionally aggregated net-load ramps, and alerts can also be qualified with respect to available flexible generation. This report will provide an introduction to the RAVIS tool, and summarize the above mentioned capabilities, typical use cases and possible extensions of the tool. The RAVIS development team believes there are likely to be high economic and reliability benefits of integrating probabilistic forecasts of variable renewables into control center visualizations and improved ramp events situational awareness for system operators and forecasting teams in the ISOs and electric utilities in comparison with their business as usual practices.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Microchannel-based Membrane-less Extraction of Li from Unconventional Lithium Sources & the Separation of REE

This final report provides an overview of the Project's entire duration, covering July 1, 2021 to December 31, 2023. It primarily focuses on the achievements, technological developments, and unique challenges the team faced while working on separating and extracting Lithium from produced waters. The project's primary aim was to create an integrated, high-throughput, membrane-less, and modular microfluidic platform that could extract Lithium from unconventional sources. We have successfully met all goals and milestones envisioned in the SOPO document. The most critical primary milestones, including the Go-No-Go milestone (refer to the Gantt chart in the Appendices), were successfully accomplished. We demonstrated phase separation (>90%) and extraction (>85%) performance in the MPSE using synthetic, and representative produced water composition feed at 50 ml/min total flow through MPSE 36. We have also performed a parametric study of the MPSE operations, beyond the scope of SOPO, exploring operating conditions of current and broader interest. The extended investigation of operational parameters is concurrent with our efforts to seek further development of the MPSE technology beyond the scope of the Project. Along these lines of development, we have made efforts to be responsive to DOE calls for technological developments of other types of resources (beyond PW) for the recovery of Critical Materials and higher TRL development (beyond TRL 4). During the work on this Project, we developed and implemented three innovative technical approaches that emerged from our efforts to successfully meet the Project milestones. The innovative & original technical approaches developed and implemented in this Project are now the contributions to process engineering that could be clearly credited to the Project. First, Convergent Design Approach is a comprehensive feedforward & feedback loop of four design phases: i) design for functionality, ii) design for manufacturing, iii) design for sustainability, and iv) design for market. Next was Process Intensification. A major aim of this Project was to create an innovative phase separation & extraction microscale-based technology for Li separation – thus the words microchannel-based in the Project title. A microscale-based technology is intrinsically in the center of the Process Intensification domain as defined by its unique principles. Therefore, Process Intensification was implicitly envisioned in the Project’s SOPO. Lastly, Time Scale Analysis is a novel tool for discovering the needs and directions of Process Intensification implementations in any process technology. This Project is fully credited for developing and implementing the three novel technical approaches mentioned above. These are general contributions to process engineering that emerged from this Project. Beyond the original SOPO scope, the OSU-U.Pitt research group utilized a Convergent Design methodology, integrating first-principles mathematical modeling with experimental validation on the Minimum Development Vehicle. By creating these Digital Twins, the team rapidly assessed manufacturing iterations to support TEA analysis. This framework further enabled the development of advanced Surface Modification Techniques, where hydrophobic and oleophobic coating strategies were optimized via Digital Twin tools and validated through rigorous 100-hour longevity testing. TEA Analysis: The closing efforts of this Project were focused on the TEA analysis. TEA analysis had two primary functions: i) enabling critical assessments of design variations withing 10 the Concurrent Design Approach, thus enabling evolution of the MPSE design to reach faster- better-cheaper alternatives; and ii) to create a bridge between the accomplishments of this Project and future projects of higher TRL, beyond TRL 6 level. It is important to note that the TEA model created in the Project stirred the technological solutions for the recovery of critical materials toward a vision of a very profitable modular plant that has unique zero-waste water discharge signature. More importantly, thanks to our experimental performance data and conservative assumptions, the TEA model predicts minimal technological and investment risks. Low cost of a modular unit of a nominal capacity of [1000 tons of Li 2 CO 3 /year] positions the MPSE based technology within the reach of community investors, thus offering a paradigm shift in the development of critical technologies. The project successfully navigated two primary challenges: solvent selection and manufacturing adaptation. Restricted by the SOPO to existing literature for lithium recovery, the team identified a critical need for a "material excellence program" to develop next-generation solvents, eventually concluding with a preliminary investigation into promising Ionic Liquids (ILs). Simultaneously, COVID-19 supply chain disruptions forced a pivot from traditional manufacturing to advanced additive methods at ATAMI-OSU. By transitioning from stainless steel to 3D-printed polymer substrates, the team achieved a transformative three-order-of- magnitude reduction in manufacturing costs and compressed prototyping timelines from several months to just two days. The MPSE technology offers significant energy, environmental, and economic advantages by overcoming the traditional bottlenecks of phase-separation hardware and contactor size. Unlike conventional mixer-settlers or membrane-based systems, MPSE operates without moving parts or fouling-prone membranes, achieving robust performance even with challenging, viscous, or particulate-heavy feeds. Key performance metrics include an energy intensity reduction of 5–50x (3–40 kJ/m 3 ) compared to incumbent technologies and a dramatic reduction of processing time to under 60 seconds, which drastically reduces the physical plant footprint. These technical efficiencies translate into superior economic outcomes; for a 100 t/year Li 2 CO 3 facility, implementing MPSE is projected to nearly halve contactor CAPEX (from $\$$6.08M to $\$$3.01M) and significantly increase the project's Net Present Value (NPV), derisking new investment and enabling distributed critical-mineral processing configurations. The commercialization of MPSE technology is being spearheaded by Vigsur Dynamics Inc., which has adopted a structured, parallel approach to technical and business development since its formation in January 2026. Following extensive customer discovery and engagement with the Oregon State University accelerator, Vigsur Dynamics is working to establish a business model that transitions from pilot demonstrations to modular hardware sales, ultimately aiming for a "build-own-operate" service strategy. Current technical milestones—including 100 hours of continuous operation, superior energy efficiency, and successful 6-unit modular scale-up— provide a foundation for this transition. Backed by ongoing IP licensing and a growing network of industrial and venture advisors, the company is actively de-risking the platform to replace conventional mixer-settler systems in the critical minerals market.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2023

Investigation of thermal hydraulic behavior of the High Temperature Test Facility's lower plenum via large eddy simulation

A high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis was performed using the Large Eddy Simulation (LES) model for the lower plenum of the High–Temperature Test Facility (HTTF), a ¼ scale test facility of the modular high temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR) managed by Oregon State University. In most next–generation nuclear reactors, thermal stress due to thermal striping is one of the risks to be curiously considered. This is also true for HTGRs, especially since the exhaust helium gas temperature is high. In order to evaluate these risks and performance, organizations in the United States led by the OECD NEA are conducting a thermal hydraulic code benchmark for HTGR, and the test facility used for this benchmark is HTTF. HTTF can perform experiments in both normal and accident situations and provide high-quality experimental data. However, it is difficult to provide sufficient data for benchmarking through experiments, and there is a problem with the reliability of CFD analysis results based on Reynolds–averaged Navier–Stokes to analyze thermal hydraulic behavior without verification. To solve this problem, high-fidelity 3-D CFD analysis was performed using the LES model for HTTF. It was also verified that the LES model can properly simulate this jet mixing phenomenon via a unit cell test that provides experimental information. As a result of CFD analysis, the lower the dependency of the sub-grid scale model, the closer to the actual analysis result. In the case of unit cell test CFD analysis and HTTF CFD analysis, the volume-averaged sub-grid scale model dependency was calculated to be 13.0% and 9.16%, respectively. As a result of HTTF analysis, quantitative data of the fluid inside the HTTF lower plenum was provided in this paper. As a result of qualitative analysis, the temperature was highest at the center of the lower plenum, while the temperature fluctuation was highest near the edge of the lower plenum wall. The power spectral density of temperature was analyzed via fast Fourier transform (FFT) for specific points on the center and side of the lower plenum. FFT results did not reveal specific frequency-dominant temperature fluctuations in the center part. It was confirmed that the temperature power spectral density (PSD) at the top increased from the center to the wake. The vortex was visualized using the well-known scalar Q-criterion, and as a result, the closer to the outlet duct, the greater the influence of the mainstream, so that the inflow jet vortex was dissipated and mixed at the top of the lower plenum. Additionally, FFT analysis was performed on the support structure near the corner of the lower plenum with large temperature fluctuations, and as a result, it was confirmed that the temperature fluctuation of the flow did not have a significant effect near the corner wall. In addition, the vortices generated from the lower plenum to the outlet duct were identified in this paper. It is considered that the quantitative and qualitative results presented in this paper will serve as reference data for the benchmark.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2014

Electronics for a Picosecond Time-of-flight Measurement

TITLE: Electronics for a Picosecond Time-of-flight Measurement ABSTRACT: Time-of-flight (TOF) detectors have historically been used as part of the particle identification capability of multi-purpose particle physics detectors. An accurate time measurement, combined with a momentum measurement based on the curvature of the track in a magnetic field, is often sufficient to determine the particle's mass, and thus its identity. Such detectors typically have measured the particle flight time extremely precisely, with an uncertainty of one hundred trillionths of a second (also referred to as 100 picoseconds). To put this in perspective it would be like counting all the people on the Earth and getting it right within 1 person! Another use of TOFs is to measure the vertex of the event, which is the location along the beam line where the incoming particles (typically protons) collide. This vertex positon is a well measured quantity for events where the protons collide “head on” as the outgoing particles produced when you blast the proton apart can be used to trace back to a vertex point from which they originated. More frequently the protons just strike a glancing blow and remain intact—in this case they are nearly parallel to the beam and you cannot tell their vertex without this ability to precisely measure the time of flight of the protons. Occasionally both happen in the same event, that is, a central system and two protons are produced. But are they from the same collision, or just a boring background where more than one collision in the same bunch crossing conspire to fake the signal of interest? That’s where the timing of the protons comes into play. The main idea is to measure the time it takes for the two protons to reach TOF detectors positioned equidistant from the center of the main detector. If the vertex is displaced to one side than that detector will measure a shorter time while the other side detector will measure a correspondingly longer time. Taking into account the speed of the particles, which is very close to the speed of light, an accuracy of 100 ps gives a vertex measurement of a few cm or a little more than an inch. At the Large Hadron Collider, where there are up to a hundred billion protons per bunch, and the collision region is compressed to a few inches, that is just not good enough. A higher level of precision is needed to determine whether the vertex of the protons and that of the central system are the same. A factor 10 improvement in the timing measurement to the 10 trillionths of a second level, for example would give the requisite 10 times improvement in the vertex measurement. An accurate measurement of the flight time depends on three key elements: the radiator that produces light when the proton passes through it, the photo-sensor that converts the light to an electrical signal, and the electronics that convert this electrical signal into a time measurement with a compact recordable format. With recent improvements in detector design featuring a series of quartz radiators connected to a micro-channel plate photomultiplier tube, this superior measurement capability is within reach if the readout electronics are sufficiently performant. As a result of the funding of this proposal, we have achieved our primary goals. 1) We have developed from scratch or improved upon existing designs of the full chain of electronics that can maintain the performance of a TOF detector from the output of the photo-sensor to the recording of a compressed data packet containing the timing information. We have accomplished this with a cost effective modular approach such that some or all of the components in the chain could easily be adapted for use in diverse particle physics experiments or in other areas where precise timing is required, such as medical and homeland security devices.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Preliminary Analysis of Nuclear-Powered Data Center Scenarios

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential for nuclear energy to meet the growing energy demands of data centers (DCs). It evaluates the technical, economic, and socio-environmental implications of coupling Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) with DCs, providing initial responses to several key research questions: What is the potential increased energy demand from DCs in the U.S., in the short, medium and long term? The U.S. is experiencing a rapid increase in energy demand from DCs, with projections indicating a total increase of 24-74 GWy(e) by 2028. Meeting this demand with nuclear energy would require 27–85 GWe of installed capacity. While this surge is expected to slow in the long term, the DC industry needs reliable, scalable, and clean energy sources. How much nuclear capacity can be deployed to meet DC demand and in which timeframe? Several pathways for increasing nuclear capacity were identified, including uprates, restarts of recently retired reactors, power purchase agreements with existing fleet, and new construction. Approximately 20‒28 GWe of nuclear capacity could be dedicated to DCs by the early 2030s. How much High Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) would be needed to support some nuclear deployment scenarios for DCs? Meeting the deployment targets announced by Google and Amazon for the Kairos Power Fluoride-Salt-Cooled High-Temperature Reactor or KP-FHR (~500 MWe by 2035) and the Xe-100 (~1 GWe by 2040), respectively, requires ramping up 19.75% enriched HALEU production to ~6 t/yr by 2040. What types of nuclear energy/DC coupling options exist, and what are the different benefits/challenges? Five coupling options were analyzed, ranging from grid-connected configurations to colocated, behind-the-meter setups. Key design considerations include the proximity to high- and/or medium-voltage transmission lines, the desired internal fault tolerance, and the sources of alternative/backup power during outages. Each coupling option offers unique benefits and challenges in terms of reliability, system costs, regulation, timeline, etc. A list of NPP/DC deployment scenarios was developed, considering existing or newly built NPP or DC projects. Colocated DCs with new small modular reactors or large reactors on greenfield and brownfield sites are the focus of this report. What types of reactors, especially what size, may be incentivized by DCs? Reactor sizing optimization revealed that the ideal reactor size and number of units depend on DC demand, coupling configurations defined in this report, and other economic factors. Larger reactors are preferred for high-demand DCs and grid-connected systems, while larger number of smaller reactors are better suited for DC configurations without grid backup. Which sites may be compatible with co-located nuclear-powered DCs? Siting those projects is a complicated evaluation factoring local water resources, grid connection availability and reliability, IT infrastructure, local work force, proximity to population zones, etc. For this effort greenfield and brownfield sites such as retired coal-fired plants were used to evaluate this question. This evaluation is not meant to recommend any particular site but it highlights key siting criteria and demonstrates large-scale site availability. What are the socio-economic impacts of co-located nuclear-powered DCs? Those projects generate substantial economic benefits to the local economy, particularly in urban settings. Hyperscale DCs colocated with nuclear power plants (sized around 1 GW of power) can create nearly 1,700 jobs for annual operations and more than 7,300 jobs among the supply chain and local businesses as a result of increased household spending. Rural projects also provide significant benefits, but at lower magnitudes compared to urban deployments.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Differential Power Processing for Ultra-Efficient Data Storage

Here this paper presents the hardware, software, and power codesign of an ultra-efficient data storage server with differential power processing (DPP). DPP can reduce the power conversion stress, improve the efficiency, and enhance the functionality of modular power electronics systems. The power inputs of a large number of hard disk drives (HDDs) were connected in series and supported by a multiport ac-coupled differential power processing (MAC-DPP) converter through a multiwinding transformer. Methods for controlling the multi-input multi-output power flow in the multiwinding transformer while avoiding core saturation were investigated. A ten-port MAC-DPP prototype with 700-W/in 3 power density was built to support a 450-W HDD storage system with ten series-stacked voltage domains. The prototype was tested on a 50-HDD server testbench, and the overall system loss is below 1 W (99.77% system efficiency). The server was able to maintain high-speed reading and writing operation of all 50 HDDs against the worst hot-swapping scenarios. A variety of hardware/software configurations and many cloud storage techniques were tested on the fully functioning server. Experimental results show that the energy efficiency of large-scale information systems (CPU/GPU clusters, memory banks, HDD arrays, etc.) can be greatly improved by software, hardware, and power codesign.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2013

Crowder College MARET Center (Final Scientific Technical Report)

Following decades of success in solar energy projects, the Missouri Legislature designated Crowder College in 1992 as the State's renewable energy education center. The resulting Missouri Alternative and Renewable Energy Technology (MARET) Center is recognized internationally for its contributions to the energy field. The mission of the MARET Center is to expand renewable energy throughout the region with education, applied research, and economic development. Educational programs include certification and transfer degrees encompassing green construction, solar thermal energy, solar electricity, and wind. The MARET Center also assists in new product development and other business support services in renewable energy. The Missouri Alternative and Renewable Energy Technology (MARET) Center at Crowder College hopes to eventually develop a 27,500 ft 2 facility as a living laboratory to support solar and other renewable and sustainable energy development through professional degrees, new product development and commercialization, renewable energy business incubation, and consumer education. The primary objective of the current project was to complete Stage One of this building, with solar, wind, and geothermal technologies installed to power its 9,216 ft 2 office, classroom, and research spaces. This MARET Center includes a modular roof structure that permits both solar module mounting and daylighting, PV/thermal hybrid modules pioneered in Crowder Solar Decathlon homes, modular electrical management subsystems; and modular delivery systems for heating and cooling the structure. The MARET Facility will operate as a Net Positive energy building, consistently producing surplus energy for distributed generation on the utility grid. The modular design of the energy systems within the building is to serve as a scalable and repeatable model for a wide variety of building applications and climate zones. As a living laboratory of renewable energy, exploring and validating new applications of solar and other renewable technologies, the MARET Facility will house a wide variety of programs which will advance implementation of renewable energy throughout the region. These program goals include; Curriculum in renewable energy for pre-engineering transfer programs; Certification and degree programs for technical degrees for Energy Efficiency, Wind, Photovoltaic and Solar Thermal professionals; Short courses and workshops for building management and design professionals; Public education and demonstration projects in renewable energy through conferences and K-12 educational outreach; Technical degree offering in building construction incorporating “best practices” for energy efficiency and renewables; and Business incubators for new renewable energy businesses and new product development. The new MARET facility will support the mission of the US Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Program, “to improve America’s security, environmental quality, and economic prosperity through public-private partnerships that bring reliable and affordable solar energy technologies to the marketplace,” through a variety of educational and business assistance programs. Further, technical innovations planned for the MARET facility and its applied research activities will advance the Solar Program strategic goals to “reduce the cost of solar energy to the point it becomes competitive in relevant energy markets (e.g., buildings, power plants) and for solar technology to enable a sustainable solar industry.” Overarching Goals relative to program needs, future expansion, flexibility, quality of materials, and construction and operational costs:; Experimental: The structure and systems of the building operate as an educational resource. The systems are meant to be a source for data collection and study for building users and instructors; Educational: Part of the evolution of this building and its ongoing goals is to use the building as an educational tool, one where new ideas developed in the world and especially at Crowder can be tested further as part of MARET's curriculum; LEED Platinum: achieve highest level of LEED certification; Net Zero: The building will utilize existing wind and alternate energy sources on campus and add solar PVT panels and achieve as close as possible to a net zero energy usage; and Phase II: The phase II portion of this project will expand the Internet student area, additional classrooms, and labs, as well as an auditorium and exhibit area.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Renewable Firming EnergyFarm Final Report

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with funds to modernize the electric power grid. One program under this initiative is the Smart Grid Demonstration program (SGDP). The SGDP mandate is to demonstrate how a suite of existing and emerging smart grid technologies can be innovatively applied and integrated to prove technical, operational, and business-model feasibility. Primus Power is a provider of low cost, long life and long duration energy storage systems. The Company’s flow batteries are shipping to US and international microgrid, utility, military, commercial and industrial customers. Primus Power’s EnergyPod® is a modular battery system for grid scale applications available in configurations ranging from 25 kW to more than 25 MW. The EnergyPod provides nameplate power for 5 hours. This long duration unlocks economic benefits on both sides of the electric meter. It allows commercial and industrial customers to shift low cost electricity purchased at night to offset afternoon electrical peaks to reduce utility demand charges. It also allows utilities to economically reduce power peaks and defer costly upgrades to distribution infrastructure. An EnergyPod contains one or more EnergyCells-a highly engineered flow battery core made from low cost, readily available materials. An EnergyCell includes a membrane-free stack of titanium electrodes located above a novel liquid electrolyte management system. This patented design enables reliable, low maintenance operation for decades. It is safe and robust, featuring non-flammable aqueous electrolyte, sophisticated fault detection and built-in secondary containment. Unlike Li Ion batteries, the EnergyCell is not susceptible to thermal runaway. This cooperative agreement project was started in Feb 2010. The objectives of the project are: 1. Trigger rapid adoption of grid storage systems in the US by demonstrating a low cost, robust and flexible EnergyFarm®. 2. Accelerate adoption of renewable energy and enhance grid stability by firming the output of wind & solar farms. 3. Demonstrate improved grid asset utilization by storing energy during off-peak periods for dispatch during local load peaks. 4. Establish an advanced battery manufacturing industry in the U.S. 5. Reduce CO2 emissions from utilities. This report summarizes the key milestones, data, results and lessons learned from the project. The desired goals and benefits of the cooperative agreement with the DOE have all been achieved. The project has contributed to reducing power costs, accelerating adoption of renewable energy resources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and establishing advanced battery manufacturing in the U.S. The Recovery Act funds provided thru the DOE have been leveraged multiple times by additional private equity investment. Primus Power continues to ship low cost, long life and long duration EnergyPod® flow battery systems to utilities, commercial/industrial, microgrid and data center customers. After the conclusion of this project, Primus Power has modified the EnergyPod® design to optimize around energy performance. Primus Power has moved to a prefabricated enclosure instead of multiple EnergyCells in a container. This lowers capital and maintenance costs and can optimize site design. Utilities are starting to adopt energy storage for a variety of functions. The market will grow as the technology is proven and profitable applications expand.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
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 OSTI2024

SUBTASK 1.6 – BASIN ELECTRIC CARBON STORAGE RESEARCH PROJECT: NOVEL MONITORING TECHNIQUES

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) conducted baseline activities associated with an applied research project at Basin Electric Power Cooperative’s (Basin’s) carbon capture and storage (CCS) site in Beulah, North Dakota, to establish novel carbon storage-monitoring techniques as commercial methods under Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233, Subtask 1.6. The following report summarizes the baseline activities performed and briefly describes the subsequent (operational monitoring) activities that have been proposed to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the overall project to develop and demonstrate novel monitoring techniques at North America’s largest permitted CCS operation. Dakota Gasification Company (DGC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Basin, owns and operates the Great Plains Synfuels Plant (GPSP) approximately 5 miles northwest of the town of Beulah, North Dakota (Figure 1). In 2023, DGC received approval from the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) to develop a storage facility on-site for injecting a stream of carbon dioxide (CO2) captured from GPSP. DGC will transport the captured CO2 stream with approximately 6.8 miles of transmission lines that extend north of GPSP and inject >1 million tonnes (MMt) of CO2 annually (>1 MMt/yr) over a 12-year period with up to six underground injection control (UIC) Class VI-compliant injection wells completed in the Broom Creek Formation, a predominantly sandstone reservoir and saline aquifer underlying GPSP. The Broom Creek Formation lies approximately 5900 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs) at GPSP. The commercial scale (i.e., >1 MMt/yr) of DGC’s permitted carbon storage project is ideal for developing and testing the novel monitoring techniques included within Subtask 1.6. The goals of this project are to demonstrate 1) the cost-effectiveness of novel monitoring technologies included as part of this research, 2) technology capability for tracking the CO2 plume and/or associated pressure response in the subsurface and monitoring out-of-zone migration, and 3) compliance with UIC Class VI program requirements. The research activities proposed for the overall project include 1) design of an automated, integrated, modular (AIM) monitoring station; 2) time-lapse electromagnetic (EM) field surveys; 3) drone-based surveillance studies; 4) time-lapse monitoring with seismic methods; 5) advanced wellbore-monitoring methods; 6) deployment of an AIM monitoring network; 7) EM monitoring of CO2 with real-time data processing; 8) continued seasonal drone-based surveillance studies; 9) seismic monitoring with passive and active surveys; and 10) wellbore monitoring with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) for near-surface characterization. Completion of Activities 1.0–5.0 (baseline activities) are described in this report. Upon authorization of funding by DOE, the EERC will initiate Activities 6.0– 10.0 (operational monitoring activities). Current state-of-the-art (SOA) carbon storage-monitoring techniques require countless labor hours dedicated to the acquisition of data. Once data are gathered, these SOA techniques often rely on commercial facilities to process raw data from the field. However, it is anticipated that next-generation monitoring techniques, such as those being demonstrated, will lower acquisition footprints, be less operationally intensive, and improve data acquisition efficiencies. These new techniques are more conducive to the application of machine learning, artificial intelligence, and automation, thus providing a pathway for integration into active control systems, informing site operability, and improving the integration of data for future CCS projects across the United States. Additionally, reclaimed and active mining lands are present within the project site, creating a unique opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of remote sensing and surface-based geophysics monitoring techniques at similar project sites that may include disturbed, unconsolidated, or actively excavated near-surface environments. The efforts included in the overall project will produce necessary designs, learnings, and data acquired during the baseline and operational monitoring periods that are necessary for time-lapse demonstration and validation of the described monitoring techniques. In addition, it is anticipated that the monitoring technologies included in this study will be compliant with UIC Class VI requirements to enable the potential for implementation at other CCS sites across the United States.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2012

DOE Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Test Platform

Based on the contract NT-42790 to the Department of Energy, “Plug-in Hybrid Ethanol Research Platform”, Advanced Vehicle Research Center (AVRC) Virginia has successfully developed the phase I electric drive train research platform which has been named as Laboratory Rapid Application Testbed (LabRAT). In phase II, LabRAT is to be upgraded into plug-in hybrid research platform, which will be capable of testing power systems for electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles running on conventional as well as alternative fuels. LabRAT is configured as a rolling testbed with plentiful space for installing various component configurations. Component connections are modularized for flexibility and are easily replaced for testing various mechanisms. LabRAT is designed and built as a full functional vehicle chassis with a steering system, brake system and four wheel suspension. The rear drive axle offers maximum flexibility with a quickly changeable gear ratio final drive to accommodate different motor speed requirements. The electric drive system includes an electric motor which is mechanically connected to the rear axle through an integrated speed/torque sensor. Initially, a 100 kW UQM motor and corresponding UQM motor controller is used which can be easily replaced with another motor/controller combination. A lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery pack is installed, which consists of 108 cells of 100 AH capacity, giving the total energy capacity of 32.5 kWh. Correspondingly, a fully functional battery management system (BMS) is installed to perform battery cell operation monitoring, cell voltage balancing, and reporting battery real time operating parameters to vehicle controller. An advanced vehicle controller ECU is installed for controlling the drive train. The vehicle controller ECU receives traction or braking torque command from driver through accelerator and brake pedal position sensors and battery operating signals from the BMS through CAN BUS, and then generates motor torque command (traction or braking) to the motor controller based on the control algorithm software embedded in the vehicle controller ECU. The vehicle controller ECU is a re-programmable electronic control unit. Any control algorithm software developed can be easily downloaded to vehicle controller ECU to test any newly developed control strategy. The flexibility of the control system significantly enhances the practical applicability of the LabRAT. A new test methodology has been developed for the LabRAT simulating any vehicles running on road with different weights from compact passenger car to light duty truck on an AC or eddy current dynamometers without much effort for modification of the system. LabRAT is equipped with a fully functional data acquisition system supplied by CyberMetrix. The measurement points along the drive train are DC electric power between battery pack and motor controller input, AC electric power between motor controller and electric motor, mechanical power between motor and rear axle. The data acquisition system is designed with more capability than current requirements in order to meet the requirements for phase II.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗