Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Programming Practices”

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 973 records · Page 54
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2019

Grid Engineering for Accelerated Renewable Energy Deployment (GEARED): National Network Administrator (Final Report)

DOE developed the five-year, Grid Engineering for Accelerated Renewable Energy Deployment (GEARED) initiative and provided funding to create four Distributed Technology Training Consortia (DTTC) made up of universities, utilities, and organizations. These DTTCs supported the inclusion of power systems analysis, research and development, into training activities such as curriculum and short course development, internships & coops, and continuing education. Additionally, DOE aimed to build a national framework for power systems training and curriculum that accelerates the growth of power systems programs and human capacity. To that end, the GEARED initiative utilized a National Network Administrator (NNA) to manage and leverage the activities of the four DTTCs as well as that of others participating in distributed technology and engineering through research or practice. DOE chose the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) as the NNA.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Grid Engineering for Accelerated Renewable Energy Deployment (GEARED) - Topic 2: National Network Administrator (Final Report)

DOE developed the five-year, Grid Engineering for Accelerated Renewable Energy Deployment (GEARED) initiative and provided funding to create four Distributed Technology Training Consortia (DTTC) made up of universities, utilities, and organizations. These DTTCs supported the inclusion of power systems analysis, research and development, into training activities such as curriculum and short course development, internships & coops, and continuing education. Additionally, DOE aimed to build a national framework for power systems training and curriculum that accelerates the growth of power systems programs and human capacity. To that end, the GEARED initiative utilized a National Network Administrator (NNA) to manage and leverage the activities of the four DTTCs as well as that of others participating in distributed technology and engineering through research or practice. DOE chose the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) as the NNA.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

A Surety Engineering Framework and Process to Address Ethical Legal and Social Issues for Artificial Intelligence

The ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI) can have as great of an impact on the technologies’ success as technical issues such as safety, reliability, and security. Addressing these risks can counter potential program failures, legal and ethical battles, constraints to scientific research, and product vulnerabilities. This paper presents a surety engineering framework and process that can be applied to AI to identify and address technical, ethical, legal and societal risks. Extending sound engineering practices to incorporate a method to “engineer” ELSI can offer the scientific rigor required to significantly reduce the risk of AI vulnerabilities. Modeling the specification, design, evaluation and quality/risk indicators for AI provides a foundation for a risk-informed decision process that can benefit researchers and stakeholders alike as they use it to critically examine both substantial and intangible risks.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Microbiome to Function: Next Generation Eco-Microbiology Workshop Report

The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program champions the predictive understanding of complex biological systems to enable energy and infrastructure security. To support this challenging endeavor, BER began funding Science Focus Area (SFA) projects at the national labs a decade ago in order to foster scientific advances that are more easily achieved by sustained team research. BER has recently encouraged collaboration among SFAs as a means to accelerate innovation and scientific impact. To facilitate BER’s vision, the Bioscience Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) proposed an annual pan-SFA workshop that would rotate among the National Labs. LANL hosted the first workshop in September 2019 to explore a common challenge—understanding how microbiomes function—and to promote collaboration opportunities among SFAs in BER’s Microbial Genomics Program. The workshop comprised overview presentations of the eight SFAs and two SFA pilots and discussions of near- and midterm opportunities to foster collaboration. These opportunities include 1) sharing isolates, 2) sharing data and storage, 3) establishing common standards and best practices, and 4) fostering scientific exchanges.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2018

Data-parallel Python for High Energy Physics Analyses

In this paper, we explore features available in Python which are useful for data reduction tasks in High Energy Physics (HEP). Highlevel abstractions in Python are convenient for implementing data reduction tasks. However, in order for such abstractions to be practical, the efficiency of their performance must also be high. Because the data sets we process are typically large, we care about both I/O performance and in-memory processing speed. In particular, we evaluate the use of data-parallel programming, using MPI and numpy, to process a large experimental data set (42 TiB) stored in an HDF5 file. We measure the speed of processing of the data, distinguishing between the time spent reading data and the time spent processing the data in memory, and demonstrate the scalability of both, using up to 1200 KNL nodes (76800 cores) on Cori at NERSC

Paterno, Marc↗
DOE OSTI2019

Destructive and Non-Destructive Characterization of various LLW/ILW at NRG - 19078

The Nuclear Research and consultancy Group is located at Petten, the Netherlands, and operates the High Flux Reactor (HFR). The HFR is used for isotope production for medical purposes and material research. During its exploitation several types of radioactive waste are produced, which partly have accumulated at the reactor site. In addition, NRG operated the Low Flux Reactor (LFR), a small 30 kWmax Argonaut type reactor which was used for research and education purposes. Over the past decade several projects on waste management and decommissioning were carried out requiring various approaches, including the radiochemical characterisation of the different emerging waste streams as required by the Dutch regulator. This paper focuses on the practices and technical aspects of the destructive and non-destructive characterization of various types of low- and intermediate-level waste arising from a number of nuclear activities performed at the premises of NRG, i.e. the Dutch legacy waste management program, the treatment of ion exchange resins, and the decommission of the Low-Flux Reactor. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

JRC-IRMM/ORNL Collaboration on Nuclear Data for Nuclear Criticality Safety - 14486

Concerns about using cross sections recommended in the main evaluated data libraries (i.e. ENDF/B, JEFF and JENDL) for nuclear criticality calculations have been a prime motivator for new cross section measurements. The measurements and evaluations discussed in this work are part of a collaboration between the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the Institute for Reference Material and Measurements of the Joint Research Center (JRC-IRMM) of the European Commission (EC). They are performed in response to the US Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) data needs. In particular, the NCSP five-year plan encompasses a listing of elements that have been identified for measurements and evaluations to address issues on criticality safety applications. This listing is based on data deficiency concerns in practical applications that are conveyed by criticality safety practitioners. In general these deficiencies are obtained through the analysis of benchmark calculations. A wealth of evaluations in the main libraries were derived from results of measurements made with poor time-of-flight resolution, and also the description of some data in the neutron energy range above several tens of keV is crude. This impacts both the resolved and unresolved resonance region, and leads to bias effects when resonance structures play an important role. As a consequence only average corrections can be applied in calculations for nuclear criticality calculations where self-shielding, multiple scattering, or Doppler broadening are important. This can lead to erroneous results. Furthermore, many evaluations for nuclides having small neutron-capture cross sections show erroneously high cross sections because the influence of the neutron sensitivity of the old measurement systems was underestimated. Although their neutron capture cross sections are small, these nuclides, if occurring in large amounts, can be important absorbers in criticality calculations, so an accurate determination of these cross sections is required. Over the last seven years the JRC-IRMM/ORNL collaboration has produced many neutron induced cross section data using the Geel Electron Linear Accelerator (GELINA) neutron time-of-flight facility. This facility is ideally suited to measure total, fission and capture cross sections in the energy range from 1 eV to ∼600 keV, which is important for nuclear criticality calculations. In this paper the facility and experimental set-ups at GELINA will be described together with the data reduction and analysis procedures which result in experimental observables including their full covariance information. The importance of combining transmission and partial cross section data will be emphasized. We will give a list of the measured nuclides and discuss the impact of the resulting data and evaluations. (authors)

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2019

The future of legume genetic data resources: Challenges, opportunities, and priorities

Abstract Legumes, comprising one of the largest, most diverse, and most economically important plant families, are the subject of vibrant research and development worldwide. Continued improvement of legume crops will benefit from the recent proliferation of genetic (including genomic) resources; but the diversity, scale, and complexity of these resources presents challenges to those managing and using them. A workshop held in March of 2019 addressed questions of data resources and priorities for the legumes. The workshop identified various needs and recommendations: (a) Develop strategies to effectively store, integrate, and relate genetic resources collected in different projects. (b) Leverage information collected across many legume species by standardizing data formats and ontologies, improving the state of metadata about datasets, and increasing use of the FAIR data principles. (c) Advocate for the critical role that curators exercise in integrating complex datasets into databases and adding high value metadata that enable downstream analytics and facilitate practical applications. (d) Implement standardized software and database development practices to best leverage limited developer time and expertise gained from the various legume (and other) species. (e) Develop tools and databases that can manage genetic information for the world's plant genetic resources, enabling efficient incorporation of important traits into breeding programs. (f) Centralize information on databases, tools, and training materials and establish funding streams to support training and outreach.

Bauchet, Guillaume J.↗
DOE OSTI2018

Resolving environmental effects of wind energy

Concerns for potential wildlife impacts resulting from land-based and offshore wind energy have created challenges for wind project development. Research is not always adequately supported, results are neither always readily accessible nor are they satisfactorily disseminated, and so decisions are often made based on the best available information, which may be missing key findings. The potential for high impacts to avian and bat species and marine mammals have been used by wind project opponents to stop, downsize, or severely delay project development. The global nature of the wind industry - combined with the understanding that many affected species cross-national boundaries, and in many cases migrate between continents - also points to the need to collaborate on an international level. The International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Technology Collaborative Programs facilitates coordination on key research issues. IEA Wind Task 34 - WREN: Working Together to Resolve Environmental Effects of Wind Energy-is a collaborative forum to share lessons gained from field research and modeling, including management methods, wildlife monitoring methods, best practices, study results, and successful approaches to mitigating impacts and addressing the cumulative effects of wind energy on wildlife.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

JuTrack: A Julia package for auto-differentiable accelerator modeling and particle tracking

Efficient accelerator modeling and particle tracking are key for the design and configuration of modern particle accelerators. In this work, we present JuTrack, a nested accelerator modeling package developed in the Julia programming language and enhanced with compiler-level automatic differentiation (AD). With the aid of AD, JuTrack enables rapid derivative calculations in accelerator modeling, facilitating sensitivity analyses and optimization tasks. Here we demonstrate the effectiveness of AD-derived derivatives through several practical applications, including sensitivity analysis of space-charge-induced emittance growth, nonlinear beam dynamics analysis for a synchrotron light source, and lattice parameter tuning of the future Electron-Ion Collider (EIC). Through the incorporation of automatic differentiation, this package opens up new possibilities for accelerator physicists in beam physics studies and accelerator design optimization.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2013

Sensitivity of blackbody effective emissivity to wavelength and temperature: By genetic algorithm

A variable-temperature blackbody (VTBB) is used to calibrate an infrared radiation thermometer (pyrometer). The effective emissivity (ε{sub eff}) of a VTBB is dependent on temperature and wavelength other than the geometry of the VTBB. In the calibration process the effective emissivity is often assumed to be constant within the wavelength and temperature range. There are practical situations where the sensitivity of the effective emissivity needs to be known and correction has to be applied. We present a method using a genetic algorithm to investigate the sensitivity of the effective emissivity to wavelength and temperature variation. Two matlab® programs are generated: the first to model the radiance temperature calculation and the second to connect the model to the genetic algorithm optimization toolbox. The effective emissivity parameter is taken as a chromosome and optimized at each wavelength and temperature point. The difference between the contact temperature (reading from a platinum resistance thermometer or liquid in glass thermometer) and radiance temperature (calculated from the ε{sub eff} values) is used as an objective function where merit values are calculated and best fit ε{sub eff} values selected. The best fit ε{sub eff} values obtained as a solution show how sensitive they are to temperature and wavelength parameter variation. Uncertainty components that arise from wavelength and temperature variation are determined based on the sensitivity analysis. Numerical examples are considered for illustration.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2021

A Novel Framework for Optimizing Ramping Capability of Hybrid Energy Storage Systems

Hybrid Energy Storage System has been widely applied in aerospace, electric vehicle, and microgrid applications. The advantages are that they include complimentary technologies with both high power and energy capabilities. HESS have the potential to be useful to the bulk power systems, for example to increase the value of energy produced by variable generation resource through enabling participation in ancillary service markets. Actualizing the benefits of HESSs requires optimizing the combined ramping capability of aggregated HESS resources. To provide quality ancillary service, source of HESSs locating at multiple sites of variable generation resource must be optimally sized and cohesively controlled. Optimizing aggregated resources can be formulated as an optimization problem. Successfully solving this problem not only requires using effective solution methods but also depends on accurately and rapidly setting the necessary parameters in the problem formula. This article proposes a novel framework with double-layer structure to solve the optimization problem of aggregating ramping capability. Program developed on the upper layer focuses on solving the optimization of aggregating ramping capability among multiple HESSs and is compatible with most existing optimization algorithms. Program on lower layer of the framework targets at optimizing the local control of a single HESS based on a thorough analytics of HESS operation strategy presented in this article. Result of local optimization is also provided to upper layer program for updating the parameters in formula of optimization problem. Real time hardware-in-the-loop test is conducted to verify the performance of the optimization framework developed. The work presented is expected to provide guidance for implementing this framework in practical operation.

Luo, Yushen↗
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 OSTI2016

Reliable, Practical Kilowatt-class Cryogenics for Superconducting Devices

Following the successful development of a Flexibly-Attached Remote cryocooler for ~200W at 80K under a Phase II DOE grant, Clever Fellows Innovation Consortium, Inc. (dba CFIC-Qdrive; acquired by Chart Industries in 2012) was invited by the DOE to scale up this technology to ~1000W/80K in a Phase III program. This target is responsive to the “Cryogenics Roadmap” developed by the DOE to accelerate the development of cryogenic cooling necessary to support the emerging superconducting power applications. Mirroring the Roadmap, our proposal included a capacity target (1000W at 80K) and a cost target (<$40/watt, at 80K), but unlike the Roadmap, we did not formally propose to meet a specific efficiency target. We achieved 75% of the capacity target, with a record-size coaxial “pulse-tube” coldfinger, but only by working on the project well beyond the original “period of performance” on unfunded extension. We believe 100% of the capacity target was within reach, but our own budget and time constraints forbade additional effort. We were less successful in meeting the cost targets. Ultimately, the specific configuration that was the subject of Phase III was not commercialized, largely because the market for superconducting devices has not been nearly as robust as was expected at the advent of the Roadmap.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Curating Carbon Storage Data for Reuse: Enabling Research and Modeling from Earth’s Surface to Subsurface

The volume of public geologic carbon storage (GCS) data resources has continued to increase in recent years as the result of an increase in funding from government, industry, and academia towards national, basin, regional and field scale studies to ensure carbon capture and storage becomes a commercially viable operation. Despite the increasing volume of data, GCS data applied towards analyses such as geologic, cost, and risk modeling continues to be multi-sourced and often disparate in nature, published across government agencies, websites, data repositories and buried in derivative reports and documents. Much of the time preparing for an analysis and derivative product development is spent collecting, aggregating, transforming and preparing input data. There have been significant efforts within the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory’s Carbon Storage Program to optimize multi-source, multi-scale subsurface geologic data curation and aggregation to support data discovery, interoperability, and reuse. Methods include the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data science techniques. This talk will discuss the workflows, best practices, and processes developed to support the aggregation and curation of data through the whole system – surface to subsurface data - that support multi-scale, multi-purpose analysis for carbon storage research.

Morkner, Paige↗