Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “software training plan”

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 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↗
NASA NTRS1986

Software engineering environment tool set integration

Space Transportation System Division (STSD) Engineering has a program to promote excellence within the engineering function. This program resulted in a capital funded facility based on a VAX cluster called the Rockwell Operational Engineering System (ROSES). The second phase of a three phase plan to establish an integrated software engineering environment for ROSES is examined. It discusses briefly phase one which establishes the basic capability for a modern software development environment to include a tool set, training and standards. Phase two is a tool set integration. The tool set is primarily off-the-shelf tools acquired through vendors or government agencies (public domain). These tools were placed into categories of software development. These categories are: requirements, design, and construction support; verification and validation support; and software management support. The integration of the tool set is being performed through concept prototyping and development of tools specifically designed to support the life cycle and provide transition from one phase to the next.

Selfridge, William P.↗
DOE OSTI2023

ALTRIOS - Advanced Locomotive Technology and Rail Infrastructure Optimization System

The Advanced Locomotive Technology and Rail Infrastructure Optimization System (ALTRIOS) is a unique, fully integrated, open-source software tool to evaluate strategies for deploying advanced locomotive technologies and associated infrastructure for cost-effective decarbonization. ALTRIOS simulates energy conversion and storage dynamics, locomotive and train dynamics, meet-pass planning (detailed train timetabling), and freight-demand-driven train scheduling in a Pareto optimization. Because new locomotives represent a significant long-term capital investment and new technologies must be thoroughly demonstrated before deployment, this tool provides guidance on the risk/reward tradeoffs of different technology rollout strategies. An open, integrated simulation tool will be invaluable for identifying future research needs and making decisions on technology development, routes, and train selection. ALTRIOS development is a collaboration between NREL, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) RailTEC, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), and BNSF.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS,MATHEMATICS AND COMPUT↗
NASA NTRS2004

Using a Low Cost Flight Simulation Environment for Interdisciplinary Education

A multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary education is increasingly being emphasized for engineering undergraduates. However, often the focus is on interaction between engineering disciplines. This paper discusses the experience at Tuskegee University in providing interdisciplinary research experiences for undergraduate students in both Aerospace Engineering and Psychology through the utilization of a low cost flight simulation environment. The environment, which is pc-based, runs a low-cost of-the-shelf software and is configured for multiple out-of-the-window views and a synthetic heads down display with joystick, rudder and throttle controls. While the environment is being utilized to investigate and evaluate various strategies for training novice pilots, students were involved to provide them with experience in conducting such interdisciplinary research. On the global inter-disciplinary level these experiences included developing experimental designs and research protocols, consideration of human participant ethical issues, and planning and executing the research studies. During the planning phase students were apprised of the limitations of the software in its basic form and the enhancements desired to investigate human factors issues. A number of enhancements to the flight environment were then undertaken, from creating Excel macros for determining the performance of the 'pilots', to interacting with the software to provide various audio/video cues based on the experimental protocol. These enhancements involved understanding the flight model and performance, stability & control issues. Throughout this process, discussions of data analysis included a focus from a human factors perspective as well as an engineering point of view.

Khan, M. Javed↗
NASA NTRS1984

The role of simulation in the development and flight test of the HiMAT vehicle

Real time simulations have been essential in the flight test program of the highly maneuverable aircraft technology (HiMAT) remotely piloted research vehicle at NASA Ames Research Center's Dryden Flight Research Facility. The HiMAT project makes extensive use of simulations in design, development, and qualification for flight, pilot training, and flight planning. Four distinct simulations, each with varying amounts of hardware in the loop, were developed for the HiMAT project. The use of simulations in detecting anomalous behavior of the flight software and hardware at the various stages of development, verification, and validation has been the key to flight qualification of the HiMAT vehicle.

Evans, M. B.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Integrated Modeling, Mapping, and Simulation (IMMS) Framework for Exercise and Response Planning

EmergenCy management personnel at federal, stale, and local levels can benefit from the increased situational awareness and operational efficiency afforded by simulation and modeling for emergency preparedness, including planning, training and exercises. To support this goal, the Department of Homeland Security's Science & Technology Directorate is funding the Integrated Modeling, Mapping, and Simulation (IMMS) program to create an integrating framework that brings together diverse models for use by the emergency response community. SUMMIT, one piece of the IMMS program, is the initial software framework that connects users such as emergency planners and exercise developers with modeling resources, bridging the gap in expertise and technical skills between these two communities. SUMMIT was recently deployed to support exercise planning for National Level Exercise 2010. Threat, casualty. infrastructure, and medical surge models were combined within SUMMIT to estimate health care resource requirements for the exercise ground truth.

Mapar, Jalal↗
DOE OSTI2025

Robust Dark Energy Constraints with the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Survey (Final Technical Report)

This project developed and applied advanced theoretical, computational, and data-analysis methodologies to extract robust and precise cosmological constraints from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI). The work focused on maximizing the scientific return of DESI through optimized survey strategy, novel higher-order clustering statistics, improved modeling of small-scale structure, and rigorous mitigation of observational systematics. Over the award period, the project made substantial contributions to DESI science planning, produced new methods for bispectrum and three-point correlation function analyses, advanced constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity, and delivered widely used software tools. The project also played a major role in training graduate students and a postdoctoral researcher who contributed directly to DESI key projects. The results have significantly enhanced the cosmological reach of DESI and provide a strong foundation for future surveys such as DESI-II and Stage-V experiments.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS1974

STARPAHC. Part 1: Final summary report

A ground-based demonstration of IMBLMS Space Technology was conducted in a remote geographical area of the U.S. The STARPAHC program, designed to improve the capability for delivering health care to the Papago Indians, is divided into three areas: (1) design and definition; (2) system assembly, test, installation, checkout, and training; and (3) operations and evaluation. The accomplishments achieved in the program are summarized emphasizing system requirements in the areas of communication, specialized medical equipment, display, and computer software. Budgetary history and future cost plans are presented and planned activities are summarized.

Riley, F. E.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Automating simulator operations

A set of requirements are defined for an operations support system for automating operations in the Space Station Training Facility (SSTF). An operations concept is described based on utilization studies and facility-operations plans with specific attention given to the SSTF components. The Operations Support System (OSS) is designed to have an integrated set of tools for system configuration and realtime data monitoring, analysis, and control. The concept relies on a system configuration tool for connecting and verifying hardware and software components, and a status-and-control monitor is envisaged to collect data. The SSTF OSS is expected to enhance the effectiveness of simulator training by configuring the components for training, monitoring and controlling components, and conducting all operations in real time.

Jacobs, Rebecca J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Full-Scaled Advanced Systems Testbed: Ensuring Success of Adaptive Control Research Through Project Lifecycle Risk Mitigation

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Dryden Flight Research Center completed flight testing of adaptive controls research on the Full-Scale Advance Systems Testbed (FAST) in January of 2011. The research addressed technical challenges involved with reducing risk in an increasingly complex and dynamic national airspace. Specific challenges lie with the development of validated, multidisciplinary, integrated aircraft control design tools and techniques to enable safe flight in the presence of adverse conditions such as structural damage, control surface failures, or aerodynamic upsets. The testbed is an F-18 aircraft serving as a full-scale vehicle to test and validate adaptive flight control research and lends a significant confidence to the development, maturation, and acceptance process of incorporating adaptive control laws into follow-on research and the operational environment. The experimental systems integrated into FAST were designed to allow for flexible yet safe flight test evaluation and validation of modern adaptive control technologies and revolve around two major hardware upgrades: the modification of Production Support Flight Control Computers (PSFCC) and integration of two, fourth-generation Airborne Research Test Systems (ARTS). Post-hardware integration verification and validation provided the foundation for safe flight test of Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion and Model Reference Aircraft Control adaptive control law experiments. To ensure success of flight in terms of cost, schedule, and test results, emphasis on risk management was incorporated into early stages of design and flight test planning and continued through the execution of each flight test mission. Specific consideration was made to incorporate safety features within the hardware and software to alleviate user demands as well as into test processes and training to reduce human factor impacts to safe and successful flight test. This paper describes the research configuration, experiment functionality, overall risk mitigation, flight test approach and results, and lessons learned of adaptive controls research of the Full-Scale Advanced Systems Testbed.

Pavlock, Kate M.↗
DOE OSTI2013

Incident Management Preparedness and Coordination Toolkit

As with many professions, safety planners and first responders tend to be specialists in certain areas. To be truly useful, tools should be tailored to meet their specific needs. Thus, general software suites aimed at the professional geographic information system (GIS) community might not be the best solution for a first responder with little training in GIS terminology and techniques. On the other hand, commonly used web-based map viewers may not have the capability to be customized for the planning, response, and recovery (PR&R) mission. Data formats should be open and foster easy information flow among local, state, and federal partners. Tools should be free or low-cost to address real-world budget constraints at the local level. They also need to work both with and without a network connection to be robust. The Incident Management Preparedness and Coordination Toolkit (IMPACT) can satisfy many of these needs while working in harmony with established systems at the local, state, and federal levels. The IMPACT software framework, termed the Geospatial Integrated Problem Solving Environment (GIPSE), organizes tasks, tools, and resources for the end user. It uses the concept of software wizards to both customize and extend its functionality. On the Tasks panel are a number of buttons used to initiate various operations. Similar to macros, these task buttons launch scripts that utilize the full functionality of the underlying foundational components such as the SQL spatial database and ORNL-developed map editor. The user is presented with a series of instruction pages which are implemented with HTML for interactivity. On each page are links which initiate specific actions such as creating a map showing various features. Additional tasks may be quickly programmed and added to the panel. The end user can customize the graphical interface to faciltate its use during an emergency. One of the major components of IMPACT is the ORNL Geospatial Viewer (OGV). It is used to provide various map displays for the Tasks and Maps panels. Unlike typical maps however, the OGV display is highly interactive and can be customized, automated, and animated to meet the needs of the user. It is also a means to both import and export geospatial data from or to existing GIS systems. The built-in simulation capability can be used as the basis of table-top exercises.

Koch, Daniel B.↗
DOE OSTI2022

National Smart Manufacturing Strategic Plan: To Facilitate More Rapid Development, Deployment and Adoption of Smart Manufacturing Technologies

Smart manufacturing technologies provide real-time data and insight to improve the productivity, efficiency, and competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing, creating the potential for new jobs in the manufacturing sector. These technologies can support U.S. manufacturers’ ability to increase throughput and energy efficiency, and decrease waste, defects, and costs. A wide range of manufacturing and industrial subsectors, particularly energy-intensive and energy-dependent industries, have the potential to benefit from smart manufacturing technologies. There are technical improvements still needed to reduce the costs and barriers (trained workforce and upskilling, software-hardware integration, cost, and technical barriers to deployment of advanced sensors, computing, and communication technologies for existing manufacturing assets) to the adoption of smart manufacturing technologies, especially to small and medium-sized manufacturers, and subsequently, increase the overall adoption rate of smart manufacturing technologies. This report outlines the Department of Energy’s (DOE) strategic plan to accelerate the development and implementation of smart manufacturing technologies in the United States and the actions DOE has taken to use these technologies in smart manufacturing for the United States. DOE’s plan to facilitate more rapid development, deployment and widespread adoption of smart manufacturing technologies derive from the 2018 Strategy for American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing. The strategy outlines a vision for America’s leadership in advanced manufacturing including the development of intelligent manufacturing systems to optimize manufacturing facilities and support the manufacturing of transformative materials. DOE’s Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute (CESMII), a Manufacturing USA Institute, focuses on accelerating the development and adoption of advanced sensors, controls, platforms, and models needed for smart manufacturing. The objective is to enhance U.S. manufacturing productivity and global competitiveness through the research and development of these technologies. Smart manufacturing has the potential to improve the overall performance, energy productivity, and efficiency of manufacturing, fostering the economic competitiveness of the manufacturing sector.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Battery State of Health Estimator: Cooperative Research and Development Final Report

NREL has developed a software tool to enable Renewance to estimate the degradation of batteries from basic information such as the type of battery and the application of that battery during its first life, so that used batteries may be evaluated for potential repurposing at low cost. This software tool utilizes NREL's BLAST-Lite battery degradation modeling code, which was updated with additional models for commercially produced lithium-ion batteries as a part of this CRADA. The software tool enables users to input details such as battery type and application so that lifetime estimates can be made without any programming or expert battery knowledge. The application input loads in saved values for parameters such as cycles per year, depth-of-discharge, and other battery operating parameters from a file defined by Renewance. These parameters may be modified to refine simulations for specific batteries. The software tool also incorporates a degradation model optimization tool, whereby existing battery degradation models may be tuned according to measured battery health. This ensures that new models still predict degradation behaviors expected from a certain battery chemistry, but with the overall degradation rate tuned to a specific battery make and model. The new model can then be saved for estimating the degradation of other similar batteries. An additional task was planned to utilize machine-learning to enable battery health diagnosis from rapid EIS measurements to accelerate the screening of used batteries. This task was not completed due to lack of available data for training a machine-learning model. CRADA benefit to DOE, Participant, and US Taxpayer: Further development of open-source software tool BLAST-Lite for predicting the lifetime of commercially produced Lithium-ion batteries (NREL SWR-22-69).

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
NASA NTRS1989

Ada and software management in NASA: Symposium/forum

The promises of Ada to improve software productivity and quality, and the claims that a transition to Ada would require significant changes in NASA's training programs and ways of doing business were investigated. The study assesses the agency's ongoing and planned Ada activities. A series of industry representatives (Computer Sciences Corporation, General Electric Aerospace, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company, TRW, Lockheed, and Boeing) reviewed the recommendations and assessed their impact from the Company's perspective. The potential effects on NASA programs were then discussed.

Source record↗