Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “task programming”

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

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

At least 937 records · Page 52
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

Automated Work Packages Prototype: Initial Design, Development, and Evaluation. Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program

The goal of the Automated Work Packages (AWP) project is to demonstrate how to enhance work quality, cost management, and nuclear safety through the use of advanced technology. The work described in this report is part of the digital architecture for a highly automated plant project of the technical program plan for advanced instrumentation, information, and control (II&C) systems technologies. This report addresses the DOE Milestone M2LW-15IN0603112: Describe the outcomes of field evaluations/demonstrations of the AWP prototype system and plant surveillance and communication framework requirements at host utilities. A brief background to the need for AWP research is provided, then two human factors field evaluation studies are described. These studies focus on the user experience of conducting a task (in this case a preventive maintenance and a surveillance test) while using an AWP system. The remaining part of the report describes an II&C effort to provide real time status updates to the technician by wireless transfer of equipment indications and a dynamic user interface.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase III Overview of Accomplishments (SECARB Phase III Final Report)

The Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Program (SECARB) is a carbon management program established in 2003 and managed by the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB). SECARB is one of seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships formed by the Department of Energy (DOE). The seven partnerships form a national network of more than 400 organizations covering 43 states and four Canadian provinces with expertise in the areas of carbon capture, transportation, and storage. The SECARB program was funded by DOE and cost-sharing partners. The primary goal of SECARB was to identify major sources of carbon emissions, characterize the geology of a 13-state region, determine the most promising options for commercial deployment of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) sequestration technologies in the South, and validate the technology options through carefully executed field testing through 2017. This report summarizes significant Phase III accomplishments and is organized by task as established within the SECARB Phase III Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO). This document does not provide an exhaustive overview of individual tasks. Rather, this report provides an overview of programmatic accomplishments and a timeline of events. Where applicable, hyperlinks to specific project deliverables are provided.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Understanding How Organizations Handle Cybersecurity

If there is anything we can learn from the media, it is the frequency and severity of cyber-attacks is increasing and there are not enough qualified people to combat the risk organizations are facing. Current estimates say there are 3.5 million available cybersecurity related jobs globally and there has been a 350% growth in cybersecurity jobs since 2013 (Group, 2020). The Idaho Cyber Research Project (ICRP) is focused on finding an implementing solution to the problems in the workforce development pipeline. Our team consists of Cohort 2 of the ICRP, we are tasked with solving issues faced by organizations hiring new cyber personnel. To provide solutions to these issues we focused our research on four components of workforce availability and competency: resume and transcript analysis, apprenticeships, cyber incident response plan development, and adversarial mindset training. From this research we have produced the following focus areas and subsequent steps for each component of workforce capability: transcript and knowledge skills abilities (KSA) focused analysis, cybersecurity apprenticeships programs, the value of an adversarial mindset, and a guide to setting up cyber incident response plans for underprepared organizations. These solutions can be further developed and implemented to reduce the gap in workforce demand and talent.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Data Science Meets Physical Organic Chemistry

At the heart of synthetic chemistry is the holy grail of predictable catalyst design. In particular, researchers involved in reaction development in asymmetric catalysis have pursued a variety of strategies toward this goal. This is driven by both the pragmatic need to achieve high selectivities and the inability to readily identify why a certain catalyst is effective for a given reaction. While empiricism and intuition have dominated the field of asymmetric catalysis since its inception, enantioselectivity offers a mechanistically rich platform to interrogate catalyst-structure response patterns that explain the performance of a particular catalyst or substrate. In the early stages of an asymmetric reaction development campaign, the overarching mechanism of the reaction, catalyst speciation, the turnover limiting step, and many other details are unknown or posited based on related reactions. Considering the unclear details leading to a successful reaction, initial enantioselectivity data are often used to intuitively guide the ultimate direction of optimization. However, if the conditions of the Curtin-Hammett principle are satisfied, then measured enantioselectivity can be directly connected to the ensemble of diastereomeric transition states (TSs) that lead to the enantiomeric products, and the associated free energy difference between competing TSs (ΔΔ G ‡ = - RT ln[( S )/( R )], where ( S ) and ( R ) represent the concentrations of the enantiomeric products). We, and others, speculated that this important piece of information can be leveraged to guide reaction optimization in a quantitative way. Although traditional linear free energy relationships (LFERs), such as Hammett plots, have been used to illuminate important mechanistic features, we sought to develop data science derived tools to expand the power of LFERs in order to describe complex reactions frequently encountered in modern asymmetric catalysis. Specifically, we investigated whether enantioselectivity data from a reaction can be quantitatively connected to the attributes of reaction components, such as catalyst and substrate structural features, to harness data for asymmetric catalyst design. In this context, we developed a workflow to relate computationally derived features of reaction components to enantioselectivity using data science tools. The mathematical representation of molecules can incorporate many aspects of a transformation, such as molecular features from substrate, product, catalyst, and proposed transition states. Statistical models relating these features to reaction outputs can be used for various tasks, such as performance prediction of untested molecules. Perhaps most importantly, statistical models can guide the generation of mechanistic hypotheses that are embedded within complex patterns of reaction responses. Overall, merging traditional physical organic experiments with statistical modeling techniques creates a feedback loop that enables both evaluation of multiple mechanistic hypotheses and future catalyst design. In this Account, we highlight the evolution and application of this approach in the context of a collaborative program based on chiral phosphoric acid catalysts (CPAs) in asymmetric catalysis.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2020

Intermediate-Term Thermal Aging Effect Evaluation for Grade 92 and 316L at The LWR Relevant Temperature

Life extension of the existing nuclear reactors imposes accumulated damages, such as higher fluences and longer period of corrosion, to structural materials, which would result in significant challenges to the traditional reactor materials such as type 304 and 316 stainless steels. Advanced alloys with superior radiation resistance will increase safety margins, design flexibility, and economics for not only the life extension of the existing fleet but also new builds with advanced reactor designs. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) teamed up with Department of Energy (DOE) on the Advanced Radiation Resistant Materials (ARRM) program, aiming to develop and test degradation resistant alloys from current commercial alloy specifications by 2021 to a new advanced alloy with superior degradation resistance in light water reactor (LWR)-relevant environments by 2024. Based on a comprehensive microstructure and property screening performed in Phase-1 of the ARRM program, a total of five alloys, together with 316L and X-750 as references, were down-selected for Phase-2 neutron irradiation studies. Because thermal aging could exert a synergistic effect on neutron irradiation due to the low neutron damage rate on the order of 10 –7 displacements per atom per second (dpa/s), Grade 92 (one of the five down-selected alloys) and two heats of 316L were selected in this task to study the effect of aging at 350°C for 12.5–12.7 kh on microstructure and mechanical properties. The aging time is approximately corresponding to 5 dpa neutron irradiation, which can be served as a reference for the 5-dpa-irradiated samples of the alloys to help understand the independent neutron damage influence on microstructure and mechanical properties. Optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy were used for microstructural characterization. Hardness, tensile, Charpy impact toughness, and fracture toughness in the ductile regime of the aged samples were examined. The aging of Grade 92 led to the formation of many Laves phase in sizes of ~100–200 nm and resulted in some reduction in hardness and yield/ultimate tensile strength with some increases in uniform and total plastic elongations, which may have helped the enhancement of Charpy impact toughness, e.g., ~4 J increase in upper-shelf energy and 20.5°C reduction in ductile-brittle transition temperature compared with the unaged condition. The fracture toughness of the aged Grade 92 showed decent toughness of ~303 MPa√m (K Jq ) with ~87 tearing modulus at 22°C, which reduced to ~241 MPa√m (~20% reduction) with ~75 tearing modulus at 300°C. The two heats of 316L are differentiated by their amounts of δ-ferrite, i.e., ~1 vol% in heat T1103 and ~4 vol% in heat N5B8. The two heats of 316L were subjected to 15% cold work (CW) as this condition is often used in nuclear reactors to help trapping radiation-induced defects and thus postpone the steady state swelling stage. The aging did not result in any noticeable microstructure changes, except for possible segregations at grain boundaries that need to be further investigated. The aging resulted in slight reduction in hardness of 316L-T1103 and slight increase in hardness of 316L-N5B8, which is consistent with their tensile testing results. The 15%CW might have introduced some inhomogeneity, resulting in large standard deviations in hardness, which were reduced after the aging. The aged 316L followed the same trend as the unaged condition for the strength and elongation results from the tensile testing. Minimum elongations appeared within ~300–600°C, above which the elongations seem to increase. Unlike the negligible or minor changes in microstructure, hardness and tensile results of the two heats of 316L, their fracture toughness showed noticeable difference. The aged 316L-T1103 showed good toughness of ~350 MPa√m with ~80 tearing modulus at 22°C, which reduced to ~271 MPa√m (~23% reduction) with ~83 tearing modulus at 300°C. In contrast, the aged 316L-N5B8 showed lower toughness of ~244 MPa√m with ~53 tearing modulus at 22°C, which reduced to ~180 MPa√m (~26% reduction) with ~31 tearing modulus at 300°C. The preliminary results indicate that the presence of high volume of δ-ferrite would noticeable impair fracture toughness although it may not influence hardness and tensile properties.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2016

SeeSnake: Radiological Characterisation of Complex Nuclear Spaces - 16162

Decommissioning of retired nuclear plant can be a difficult task for many reasons. A number of locations around the world have active cells awaiting decommissioning without a clear understanding of the internal structure and possible locations of radiological sources. Furthermore, many nuclear plant drawings and models do not reflect the 'as built' dimensions, and precise data required for safe and cost effective decommissioning is not readily available. This presents decommissioning teams with significant challenges when attempting to plan and execute their decommissioning programs. Due to the complex nature and constrained environments typical of legacy nuclear plant, it is often not possible to deploy traditional remote handling/inspection technologies. Even where possible, identifying the correct sensor, or suite of sensors, to characterize the environment is problematic. To address this common issue Create Technologies Ltd (Createc) and OC Robotics collaborated on SeeSnake, a project aimed at leveraging radiometric source mapping with 3D scanning and confined space remote handling. Createc's imaging and sensing systems have strong capabilities in the nuclear industry, led by their N-Visage products, as do OC Robotics' snake-arm robots as a remote deployment platform for confined and hazardous spaces. The snake-arm robot enables access through small penetrations with the ability to navigate internal structures and other obstacles without support from the environment; whilst multiple re-positioning of the N-Visage sensor, integrated with the snake-arm system, enables a thorough 3D map to be created. The SeeSnake project demonstrates the integrated systems ability to capture valuable radiation, visual and positional data enabling the characterization of a complex active environment. To mature the concept into an integrated, functional technology the SeeSnake partners overcame a number of challenges before demonstrating to key stakeholders in the UK nuclear industry. This paper describes these challenges and the solutions implemented, along with the results from early system trials and stakeholder demonstrations. It also addresses the next steps for the SeeSnake technology and identifies a number of applications which will may benefit from its exploitation. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Artificial Intelligence Application to D and D - 20492

As aging facilities across the DOE complex await decommissioning, there is an ongoing need to understand any changes in the structural conditions. Many of these facilities were built over 50 years ago and, in some cases, these facilities have gone beyond the expected operational lifetime. Many facilities have been placed in a state of 'cold and dark,' sitting unused and awaiting decommissioning. Especially challenging are the aging facilities that provide unique operational/production capabilities to support critical DOE missions and cannot be shut down. In any of these scenarios, the structural integrity of these facilities may become compromised as time passes. It is critical that adequate inspections be performed on a continual basis and that the data collected undergoes sufficient analysis to support timely identification of any new or worsening structural issues as well as prompt needed maintenance and repairs to maintain the facilities in a safe condition. In recent days, Artificial Intelligence (AI) [1] and its application to various domains are growing at fast speed. FIU is performing research in this area and exploring the associated technologies to solve nuclear decommissioning problems. Artificial intelligence refers to the capability of a program to autonomously act, react and adapt to the working environment. AI enables the machine to behave like humans and perform the cognitive functions such as 'learning' and 'problem solving'. AI systems gradually moving from traditional approaches (algorithms and expert systems) towards more efficient and advanced technologies (machine learning [1] and deep learning [2] [3]). AI is the study of algorithms and statistical models that is being used by computers to perform specific tasks without using explicit instructions. FIU is working to develop a pilot-scale infrastructure to implement structural health monitoring using AI technologies with focus on machine learning, deep learning. This research is focused on Computer Vision/Image Classification area of AI applications. This can also be expanded to other areas of AI related to Object Recognition and Character Recognition in images. In addition to utilizing existing data sets, FIU will collect and investigate image and video data using FIU test-bed mockups to monitor structural health of the facility. Resulting data will be processed and analyzed using machine learning/deep learning technologies. The proposed pilot system is intended to serve as a starting point to engage the DOE field sites on related data sets and their decision making needs. It is anticipated that proposed machine learning/deep learning technologies can be effectively employed using anomaly detection to solve EM challenges in surveillance and maintenance of the D and D facilities. FIU will work with research stakeholders to identify applications at various sites and other DOE facilities. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Gains in operational flexibility, safety margins, and cost efficiencies via integrated Plant Reload Optimization platform

The U.S. Department of Energy Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program Risk-Informed Systems Analysis Pathway Plant Reload Optimization Project aims to develop an integrated, comprehensive framework offering an all-in-one solution for reload evaluations with a special focus on optimizing core design. Optimizing the fuel loading pattern is one of the most important considerations in reducing the amount of new fuel used in the core. Due to thousands of possible core configuration options, finding optimal solutions is an unachievable task for a human. The Plant ReLoad Optimization platform, which supports artificial-intelligence-based reactor core designing, is now fully capable of handling realistic problems. The Plant ReLoad Optimization platform development project aims to build a reactor core design tool that includes reactor safety and fuel performance analyses and uses artificial intelligence to support the optimization of core design solutions. The NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II) optimizer was developed and tested within RAVEN (Risk Analysis and Virtual ENvironment) to handle many constraints by using an augmented objectives methodology. The demonstration was performed with constrained multiobjective optimization of a 17 × 17 pressurized-water reactor core loading patterns to minimize fuel cost and maximize fuel cycle length.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Northwest Combined Heat and Power Technical Assistance Partnership: Final Scientific/Technical Report

During the years of 2018 through 2023, The Washington State University Energy Program (WSU EP) operated the Northwest Combined Heat and Power Technical Assistance Partnership under contract to the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO), a part of DOE’s larger Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This contract provided direction and funding for providing technical outreach, information and technical/economic analysis services in support of expanding development of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) over a four state region in the Pacific Northwest. The states served included Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. During the duration of this contract, the WSU EP delivered performed specific assigned tasks and provided services of various generally prescribed types, with the overall goal of increasing adoption of CHP as an efficient heat and power supply in the region. Indications – though not formally evaluated to our knowledge – are that this goal was achieved. Over many years, the WSU team has provided support for CHP developments in these states under similar previous Department of Energy contracts, and many such projects have been built. While the early-phase outreach, education and techno-economic assessments that the NW CHP TAP provides rarely immediately result in project construction, there is no doubt that the WSU EP team has had substantial influence in the construction of a number of important CHP projects in the region. Examples of projects implemented directly under the current team’s guidance and services during this contract cycle include an 875 kilowatt biomass fueled CHP system installed at the University of Idaho, and 5 megawatt natural gas fueled CHP system at the University of Montana ( UM Breaks Ground on New Power Facility, Slashes Emissions 30% (umt.edu) ). Many other CHP systems recently installed are also either directly or at least partially the result of information and technical services provided by the team. Finally, though much more difficult to quantify and less glamorous, the team has helped countless organizations to understand CHP and determine whether and how CHP may be a fit for them, before they consider paying for engineering services. Whether the ultimate outcome has been to include CHP or not, the expert skills provided by the NW CHP TAP team have provided real value to these organizations considering this relatively complex technology. Over the duration of the contract our team provided 71 Initial Technical Assessments and 17 Advanced Technical Assessments; 53 End-User Engagements and 33 Stakeholder Engagements of various types; 42 Technical Profiles (Project Profiles, Program Profiles and Policy Profiles), and produced 14 technical articles for the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, these quantities provide no measure of the value that the team has provided. Only our clients can judge that, and we are confident that they are pleased with the benefits we have offered them.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

134 billion intersecting brane models

The landscape of string vacua is very large, but generally expected to be finite in size. Enumerating the number and properties of the vacua is an important task for both the landscape and the swampland, in part to gain a deeper understanding of what is possible and “generic”. We obtain an exact counting of distinct intersecting brane vacua of type IIA string theory on the T 6 /Z 2 × Z 2 orientifold. Care is taken to only count gauge-inequivalent brane configurations. Leveraging the recursive nature by which branes may be added together one-by-one, we use dynamic programming to efficiently count the number of solutions of the tadpole, K-theory and supersymmetry consistency conditions. The distributions of 4D gauge group rank and complex structure moduli for the entire ensemble of intersecting brane vacua are presented. The methods we developed here may be useful in obtaining sharp upper and lower bounds on other corners of the landscape.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Automation for Electric Vehicle Battery Pack Disassembly

Battery‐electric vehicles (EVs) are growing exponentially. The demand for these batteries is expected to increase sevenfold by 2035. The EV batteries reach their end of life when the capacity fades to 70%–80% of new, with some being removed from the primary applications with even lower levels of degradation. These batteries can be used in less demanding applications. The disassembly process is currently manual, slow, unsafe, and expensive. Automation is needed to increase the throughput. EV battery packs feature various continually changing designs and form factors, which limit the usefulness of deterministically programmed robotic solutions. The conceptual robotic disassembly of EV batteries has attracted the attention of researchers. However, while many approaches have been proposed, practical implementations are lacking. Here, we review proposed concepts for EV battery disassembly and describe the selected approach, with elements of partial solutions validated in a laboratory setting, including the selection of commercial solutions, the development of custom end effectors, and methodologies for detection, localization, and classification of fasteners. The computer vision tasks employed an overhead 2D camera to detect the type of battery pack and approximate localization of fasteners, and a 3D camera mounted on the robotic arm for precise localization (position and tilt) and classification.

Islam, Abu [Rochester Inst. of Technology, Rochest↗
DOE OSTI2019

Wootz: a compiler-based framework for fast CNN pruning via composability

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) are widely used for Deep Learning tasks. CNN pruning is an important method to adapt a large CNN model trained on general datasets to fit a more specialized task or a smaller device. The key challenge is on deciding which filters to remove in order to maximize the quality of the pruned networks while satisfying the constraints. It is time-consuming due to the enormous configuration space and the slowness of CNN training.The problem has drawn many efforts from the machine learning field, which try to reduce the set of network configurations to explore. This work tackles the problem distinctively from a programming systems perspective, trying to speed up the evaluations of the remaining configurations through computation reuse via a compiler-based framework. We empirically uncover the existence of composability in the training of a collection of pruned CNN models, and point out the opportunities for computation reuse. We then propose composability-based CNN pruning, and design a compression-based algorithm to efficiently identify the set of CNN layers to pre-train for maximizing their reuse benefits in CNN pruning. We further develop a compiler-based framework named Wootz, which, for an arbitrary CNN, automatically generates code that builds a Teacher-Student scheme to materialize composability-based pruning. Experiments show that network pruning enabled by Wootz shortens the state-of-art pruning process by up to 186X while producing significantly better pruning results.

Guan, Hui↗
DOE OSTI2018

Utilization of Renewable Energy to Meet New National Challenges in Energy and Climate Change

The project aims to design a microgrid system to promote utilization of renewable energy resources such as wind and solar to address the national challenges in energy and climate change. Different optimization techniques and simulation software are used to study the performance of the renewable energy system under study. A series of research works performed under the grant Department of Energy (DOE) is presented. This grant opportunity affords Howard faculty, students, graduates, undergraduates, K-12, postdocs and visiting scholars to benefit state of the art research work. The research work has led to improve or advance understanding of new hardware technologies, software development and engineering optimization methods necessary and sufficient for handling probabilistic models and real-time computation and functions necessary for development of microgrid system. Consistent with State of Project Objective Howard University has partitioned the task into the following integrated activities: 1. Stochastic Model for RER and Load • Development of modeling Renewable Energy Resources (RER) and load which is used to perform distribution power flow study which leads to publication in refereed journals and conferences. The work was also published at the IEEE conference. 2. Stochastic optimization for voltage/Var • The development of voltage VAr optimization based on a review of existing knowledge in optimization led to the use of stochastic program and evolution of programming optimization method for V/VAr optimization. Papers were presented at the North America Power Systems Conference and the IEEE PES general meeting. 3. Modeling RER and Storage • Extending the concept of optimization method an RER with storage, such as the development of microgrid V/VAr and storage is performed. Several papers were published at the North America Power Systems Conference and the IEEE PES general meeting. 4. Power Game • Development of power game experiment using Labvolt to allow for hands on understanding of design and development of microgrid functions is performed. Publication were done by students at the end of their summer program. 5. Designing Microgrid Testbed • Example microgrid test bed is developed. In addition, function of the test bed are developed. The papers were presented at the North America Power Systems Conference and the IEEE general meeting. 6. Outreach Program • From the outreach program, topics from the project have been included in the revision of courses at Howard University, new book called Energy Processing and Smartgrid has being developed. • Hosted masters students from University of Denver to complete their projects with us. • Hosted high school students for early exposure for careers in STEM • Representations made in IEEE conferences to share the lessons learned in the use of micro grid to expose students to STEM education and research.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG # 5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-02: 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↗