Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Software Verification”

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 1,081 records · Page 60
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Rapid State Space Modeling Tool for Rectangular Wing Aeroservoelastic Studies

This paper introduces a modeling and simulation tool for aeroservoelastic analysis of rectangular wings with trailing-edge control surfaces. The inputs to the code are planform design parameters such as wing span, aspect ratio, and number of control surfaces. Using this information, the generalized forces are computed using the doublet-lattice method. Using Roger's approximation, a rational function approximation is computed. The output, computed in a few seconds, is a state space aeroservoelastic model which can be used for analysis and control design. The tool is fully parameterized with default information so there is little required interaction with the model developer. All parameters can be easily modified if desired. The focus of this paper is on tool presentation, verification, and validation. These processes are carried out in stages throughout the paper. The rational function approximation is verified against computed generalized forces for a plate model. A model composed of finite element plates is compared to a modal analysis from commercial software and an independently conducted experimental ground vibration test analysis. Aeroservoelastic analysis is the ultimate goal of this tool, therefore, the flutter speed and frequency for a clamped plate are computed using damping-versus-velocity and frequency-versus-velocity analysis. The computational results are compared to a previously published computational analysis and wind-tunnel results for the same structure. A case study of a generic wing model with a single control surface is presented. Verification of the state space model is presented in comparison to damping-versus-velocity and frequency-versus-velocity analysis, including the analysis of the model in response to a 1-cos gust.

Modeling and Simulation↗
NASA NTRS2015

Rapid State Space Modeling Tool for Rectangular Wing Aeroservoelastic Studies

This report introduces a modeling and simulation tool for aeroservoelastic analysis of rectangular wings with trailing-edge control surfaces. The inputs to the code are planform design parameters such as wing span, aspect ratio, and number of control surfaces. Using this information, the generalized forces are computed using the doublet-lattice method. Using Roger's approximation, a rational function approximation is computed. The output, computed in a few seconds, is a state space aeroservoelastic model which can be used for analysis and control design. The tool is fully parameterized with default information so there is little required interaction with the model developer. All parameters can be easily modified if desired. The focus of this report is on tool presentation, verification, and validation. These processes are carried out in stages throughout the report. The rational function approximation is verified against computed generalized forces for a plate model. A model composed of finite element plates is compared to a modal analysis from commercial software and an independently conducted experimental ground vibration test analysis. Aeroservoelastic analysis is the ultimate goal of this tool, therefore, the flutter speed and frequency for a clamped plate are computed using damping-versus-velocity and frequency-versus-velocity analysis. The computational results are compared to a previously published computational analysis and wind-tunnel results for the same structure. A case study of a generic wing model with a single control surface is presented. Verification of the state space model is presented in comparison to damping-versus-velocity and frequency-versus-velocity analysis, including the analysis of the model in response to a 1-cos gust.

Verification and Validation↗
DOE OSTI2018

Connectivity and functional verification for the LSST science raft towers

The LSST Camera focal plane will be constructed with 21 144-Mpixel modules (\Raft Tower Module", RTM). An extensive operational test is performed to confirm the integrity of all connections and to verify the basic functionality. Each RTM undergoes at least four connectivity tests. A python script communicates with Java- based control software and performs the test. A python script parses the test data and generates a PDF report. The report includes a summary PASS/FAIL table, several hundred current, voltage and temperature parameters, and images taken with the CCD array at room temperature.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS1991

Onboard navigation rendezvous expert system

The Onboard Navigation rendezvous expert system is designed to aid the ground flight controller in monitoring the shuttle onboard navigation system. The system is designed to keep track of the navigation sensors and relative state vectors. In addition, the system also keeps an event log and fills out forms usually handled by the flight controller. This expert system is one of the few rendezvous specific systems being developed for the Mission Control Center. The expert system has been in development for six years. Through these years the system has seen hardware, software, and personnel changes. Initial development was done by the Information Systems Directorate (ISD) and Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) at Johnson Space Center. As of October 1, 1991 the system has been turned over to MOD. The system is completely developed except for some minor adjustments to the user interface. The rule base is in the verification stage with total certification of the system due to be completed by May 1992. Test cases for verification are obtained by saving data used for flight controller integrated simulations. The actual data comes from both the shuttle mission simulator and the Mission Control Center Computer. So far no actual flight data has been available. This paper covers all aspects of the system from the development history to the current hardware, software, and use of the system.

Kocen, Michelle↗
NASA NTRS2020

Integrating the Science Opportunity Analyzer with a Reusable Opportunity Search Framework

In our interactions with the Science Opportunity Analyzer (SOA) software, we recognized how its ability to search for geometric events in space is a need for robotic space missions in general. To satisfy this need, we propose the Tychonis framework, which is built upon the principles of: (1) separations of concerns, (2) extensibility, (3) reusability, and (4) independent verification and validation. Tychonis’ separation of concerns results in the availability of different constructs to model geometric events and search for them. These constructs can be extended by users as needed and reused across missions without changes. Given the low coupling between concerns, and the fact Tychonis can be augmented in isolation, its constructs can be validated independently from other pieces of software. This paper elaborates on these topics and presents an integration case study between Tychonis and SOA that relies on the concept of dynamic integration. Dynamic integration entails that augmentations of the framework are reflected automatically in the host application without any changes to the host application’s code. The SOA-Tychonis integration case study can be extrapolated to other tools that need to search for geometric events as the pattern repeats across implementations: (i) the manipulation of a user interface to model opportunities, (ii) the execution of algorithms to search for opportunities, and (iii) the presentation of search results to users. Overall, Tychonis’ is a story about how the application of proven software principles and good design choices can reduce risk and cost to space missions

Soria, Manel↗
DOE OSTI2021

Simple, Secure, Internet Delivery of MOOSE-based Applications

Application packaging and distribution are the final steps for delivering software to end-users; both are frequently neglected when creating scientific software. Commercial businesses rely on electronic distribution systems that have rendered disk drives obsolete. Still, national laboratories continue to rely heavily on removable media to distribute and limit access to controlled applications. With increasing concerns of unauthorized copying of sensitive applications, a modern distribution system that utilizes cryptographically secure communication and authentication protocols has been developed. This new distribution system will secure the chain of custody for nuclear software while simultaneously simplifying access to these tools. This report summarizes four primary advancements made toward the secure distribution of Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS)-developed, Multiphysics Object Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE)-based applications: application installation, package distribution, automated package building, and distribution of documentation. NEAMS is currently developing more than ten separate applications based on the open-source MOOSE Framework. Distribution of these applications has primarily been accomplished by distributing source code, with end-users compiling the applications themselves. This work created a mechanism where MOOSE applications can be installed in a similar way to any other software. This allows both administrators and end-users simplified access to runnable executables. With this new installation capability, it was then possible to rethink distribution. A new, secure capability for delivering MOOSE-based applications over the internet has been created. This system requires unique cryptographic tokens for authentication, greatly securing the custody chain for software. Once granted access, installation of any NEAMS code can be accomplished with these terminal commands: "conda install ncrc" "ncrc install ncrc-bison." After these two commands (and authenticating) the BISON application will be securely down- loaded from Idaho National Laboratory (INL)’s servers, installed, and ready to use. To enable this new distribution capability to be successful, the open-source Continuous Integration, Verification, Enhancement, and Testing (CIVET) Continuous Integration (CI) capability was augmented to add Continuous Delivery (CD). CD enables the automated building and packaging of MOOSE-based applications as they are modified by development teams, ensuring that our customers can obtain up-to-date versions of the software at any time. The need for instruction on how to use these applications was addressed through modifications to the MOOSE documentation system. The MooseDocs capability, which enables robust documentation of MOOSE-based applications, has been extended to allow both for the installation of documentation and the packaging of documentation with installed applications. Together, these enhancements form the core of a new, secure distribution mechanism for nuclear simulation tools. In concert with the Nuclear Computational Resource Center (NCRC), NEAMS- developed applications will now be straightforward to obtain securely.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2015

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

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

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

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-571: Objective Assessment of 3D Dosimetry for Flattened and Flattened Filter Free Stereotactic Rotational Delivery Using 729-Array Detector with Octavius 4D Phantom

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the potential of 3D dosimetry for flattened and flattened filter free stereotactic rotational delivery in high definition MLC using 729-detector array with Octavius 4D phantom Methods: Twenty rapid arc plans were assessed for this study. For each patient two plans for 6X and 6FFF photon beams were generated with same prescription and critical organ constraints in Eclipse TPS version 13.0 using high definition MLC. Verification plans were generated in scanned Octavius 4D phantom in TPS. 3D dose measurements were collected from 729-ion chamber detector array in Octavius 4D phantom using verisoft software v 6.0. TPS calculated dose was compared with measured 3D dose in verisoft using the following gamma analysis parameters such as 3D volumetric, 3D planar and 2D global gamma in transverse, sagittal and coronal planes for 3mm/3% and 2mm/2% distance to agreement criteria.Passing rate and arithmetic mean of global gamma were analysed for 2D and 3D global gamma in all planes. Results: The average number of dose points passing rate for 2D global gamma with 3mm/3% criteria in transverse, sagittal and coronal planes was 99.06%±2.89%, 98.8%±0.88% and 99.06%±91%, respectively. For 2mm/2% criteria 97.86%±2.26%, 94.49± 2.64% and 94.34%±2.9% was observed. In 3D planar global gamma with 3mm/3% was 99.53%±0.49%, 98.93%±1.03% and 99.29%±1.29%, for 2mm 2% criteria was 97.50%±2.24%, 94.5%±2.5% and 95.38%±4.5%. The maximum arithmetic mean gamma deviation of 0.505%±0.13% was observed in coronal plane for 2D global gamma with 2mm/2% criteria. The 3D volumetric gamma passing rate was observed as 99.61%±0.433% for 3mm /3% and 95.91%±2.51% for 2mm/2%. Conclusion: The objective assessment of 3D dosimetry have demonstrated that the rotational delivery accuracy for flattened and flattened filter free stereotactic plans can be verified by using Octavius system comprising with 729 ion chamber array and Octavius 4D phantom.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

Analyses of Field Test Data at the Atucha-1 Spent Fuel Pools

A field test was conducted at the Atucha-1 spent nuclear fuel pools to validate a software package for gross defect detection that is used in conjunction with the inspection tool, Spent Fuel Neutron Counter (SFNC). A set of measurements was taken with the SFNC and the software predictions were compared with these data and analyzed. The data spanned a wide range of cooling times and a set of burnup levels leading to count rates from the several hundreds to around twenty per second. The current calibration in the software using linear fitting required the use of multiple calibration factors to cover the entire range of count rates recorded. The solution to this was to use power regression data fitting to normalize the predicted response and derive one calibration factor that can be applied to the entire set of data. The resulting comparisons between the predicted and measured responses were generally good and provided a quantitative method of detecting missing fuel in virtually all situations. Since the current version of the software uses the linear calibration method, it would need to be updated with the new power regression method to make it more user-friendly for real time verification and fieldable for the range of responses that will be encountered.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2025

Code Coverage Status of the ARC Code PERSENT

The Argonne Reactor Code (ARC) software system supports users in their fast reactor design goals by providing neutronic, thermal-hydraulic, and structural analysis capabilities. PERSENT fulfills the role of generating reactivity coefficients for a given time point of a REBUS calculation usable in a point kinetics based safety analysis capability. PERSENT also provides a sensitivity coefficient capability on eigenvalue, reactivity worth, and several other key coefficients that are used in the follow-on safety analysis. Given a co-variance matrix, PERSENT can carry out the uncertainty quantification to indicate the amount of error in the reactivity coefficients derived from the errors in the cross section measurements. With continued improvement of computational resources, many of the geometry modeling capabilities in DIF3D that were primarily used in low order schemes are not really needed anymore. Today, the diffusion and transport capabilities of DIF3D-VARIANT are primarily used in the reactor design process with some scattered usage of DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-Nodal. PERSENT is part of the ARC code system and is built around DIF3D-VARIANT and the flux solution it provides. The purpose of the present work is to identify a set of test problems for PERSENT and assess the code coverage of PERSENT for those test problems. PERSENT treats the DIF3D executable as an external executable and thus the code coverage considerations only need to focus on the PERSENT source code and only a fraction of the connected modules in the existing ARC software library. The goal is to document what parts of the existing PERSENT code are touched by the set of test problems and which are not. Because the verification work done on PERSENT was focused on the most common uses of PERSENT for fast reactor analysis, the code coverage assessment of those capabilities is the highest priority. This will ensure that nothing is being missed by the existing verification test problems that users of PERSENT rely upon. The code coverage analysis of PERSENT was performed with the Code Coverage Tool of the Intel Fortran compiler which requires modifications to the compilation of PERSENT. The detailed coverage tables are given for each submodule of PERSENT. Most of the uncovered parts/files could be easily ignored because they are either for error message and debugging output or not needed by PERSENT today. Only a few uncovered parts of PERSENT deserve extending the verification test suite.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS1986

Ada(R) Test and Verification System (ATVS)

The Ada Test and Verification System (ATVS) functional description and high level design are completed and summarized. The ATVS will provide a comprehensive set of test and verification capabilities specifically addressing the features of the Ada language, support for embedded system development, distributed environments, and advanced user interface capabilities. Its design emphasis was on effective software development environment integration and flexibility to ensure its long-term use in the Ada software development community.

Strelich, Tom↗
NASA NTRS1990

Next generation VLSI tools

This paper focuses on what features would be useful in VLSI Computer Aided Design Tools and Systems to be used in the next five to ten years. Examples of current design tasks will be used to emphasize the areas where new or expanded VLSI CAD tools are needed. To provide a basis for projecting the future of VLSI tools, a brief history of the evolution of VLSI design software and hardware platforms is presented. The role of design methodology is considered with respect to the anticipated scale of future VLSI design projects. Future requirements of design verification and manufacturing testing are projected based on the challenge of surviving in a competitive market. Examples of VLSI tools reflect the author's involvement on VLSI design teams developing integrated circuits for disk memory and other computer peripherals for the last eight years.

Gibson, J.↗
NASA NTRS2012

HVI Ballistic Performance Characterization of Non-Parallel Walls

The Double-Wall, "Whipple" Shield [1] has been the subject of many hypervelocity impact studies and has proven to be an effective shield system for Micro-Meteoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) impacts for spacecraft. The US modules of the International Space Station (ISS), with their "bumper shields" offset from their pressure holding rear walls provide good examples of effective on-orbit use of the double wall shield. The concentric cylinder shield configuration with its large radius of curvature relative to separation distance is easily and effectively represented for testing and analysis as a system of two parallel plates. The parallel plate double wall configuration has been heavily tested and characterized for shield performance for normal and oblique impacts for the ISS and other programs. The double wall shield and principally similar Stuffed Whipple Shield are very common shield types for MMOD protection. However, in some locations with many spacecraft designs, the rear wall cannot be modeled as being parallel or concentric with the outer bumper wall. As represented in Figure 1, there is an included angle between the two walls. And, with a cylindrical outer wall, the effective included angle constantly changes. This complicates assessment of critical spacecraft components located within outer spacecraft walls when using software tools such as NASA's BumperII. In addition, the validity of the risk assessment comes into question when using the standard double wall shield equations, especially since verification testing of every set of double wall included angles is impossible.

Bohl, William↗