SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “software development framework”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 1,189 records · Page 66

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2026

Multibody for Everybody (M4E): A Symbolic Dynamics Modeling Tool with Applications in Simulation, Control, and Optimization

Developing the analytical model of a multibody system is often the initial step in control and optimization. The analytical model (equations of motion) describes a system’s time evolution under specified forcing conditions. Although developing these equations is easy for simple systems, this process becomes more complex for systems composed of multiple bodies. Deriving equations of motion for complex multibody systems requires specialized expertise in multibody dynamics, is time-consuming, and is susceptible to error. To address this issue, this paper presents an open-source, easy-to-use, systematic framework to derive symbolic equations of motion in both Python and MATLAB using the joint coordinate formulation. This formulation results in a set of ordinary differential equations that use the minimum set of coordinates needed to model a system. The symbolic representation provides better insight into the influence of design parameters on system performance, facilitates sensitivity analysis and parameter studies, and supports direct implementation of control and optimization routines. The tool enables numerical simulation for specified parameter sets, is modular for straightforward integration with other tools and libraries, and allows incorporation of hydrodynamics, mooring, and other external forces. The result is a reproducible, extensible pipeline for modeling, simulation, and design of complex multibody systems. The proposed tool is versatile and can be applied to domains such as robotics, control, and design. In addition, we integrated external libraries that provide capabilities for modeling offshore systems such as underwater robots and marine energy converters.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

DOE OSTI2013

National Geothermal Data System: Transforming the Discovery, Access, and Analytics of Data for Geothermal Exploration

Compendium of Papers from the 38th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, California February 11-13, 2013 The National Geothermal Data System (NGDS) is a distributed, interoperable network of data collected from state geological surveys across all fifty states and the nation’s leading academic geothermal centers. The system serves as a platform for sharing consistent, reliable, geothermal-relevant technical data with users of all types, while supplying tools relevant for their work. As aggregated data supports new scientific findings, this content-rich linked data ultimately broadens the pool of knowledge available to promote discovery and development of commercial-scale geothermal energy production. Most of the up-front risks associated with geothermal development stem from exploration and characterization of subsurface resources. Wider access to distributed data will, therefore, result in lower costs for geothermal development. NGDS is on track to become fully operational by 2014 and will provide a platform for custom applications for accessing geothermal relevant data in the U.S. and abroad. It is being built on the U.S. Geoscience Information Network (USGIN) data integration framework to promote interoperability across the Earth sciences community. The basic structure of the NGDS employs state-of-the art informatics to advance geothermal knowledge. The following four papers comprising this Open-File Report are a compendium of presentations, from the 38th Annual Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, taking place February 11-13, 2013 at Stanford University, Stanford, California. “NGDS Geothermal Data Domain: Assessment of Geothermal Community Data Needs,” outlines the efforts of a set of nationwide data providers to supply data for the NGDS. In particular, data acquisition, delivery, and methodology are discussed. The paper addresses the various types of data and metadata required and why simple links to existing data are insufficient for promoting geothermal exploration. Authors of this paper are Arlene Anderson, US DOE Geothermal Technologies Office, David Blackwell, Southern Methodist University (SMU), Cathy Chickering (SMU), Toni Boyd, Oregon Institute of Technology’s GeoHeat Center, Roland Horne, Stanford University, Matthew MacKenzie, Uberity, Joe Moore, University of Utah, Duane Nickull, Uberity, Stephen Richard, Arizona Geological Survey, and Lisa Shevenell, University of Nevada, Reno. “NGDS User Centered Design: Meeting the Needs of the Geothermal Community,” discusses the user- centered design approach taken in the development of a user interface solution for the NGDS. The development process is research based, highly collaborative, and incorporates state-of-the-art practices to ensure a quality user interface for the widest and greatest utility. Authors of this paper are Harold Blackman, Boise State University, Suzanne Boyd, Anthro-Tech, Kim Patten, Arizona Geological Survey, and Sam Zheng, Siemens Corporate Research. “Fueling Innovation and Adoption by Sharing Data on the DOE Geothermal Data Repository Node on the National Geothermal Data System,” describes the motivation behind the development of the Geothermal Data Repository (GDR) and its role in the NGDS. This includes the benefits of using the GDR to share geothermal data of all types and DOE’s data submission process. Authors of this paper are Jon Weers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Arlene Anderson, US DOE Geothermal Technologies Office. Finally, “Developing the NGDS Adoption of CKAN for Domestic & International Data Deployment,” provides an overview of the “Node-In-A-Box” software package designed to provide data consumers with a highly functional interface to access the system, and to ease the burden on data providers who wish to publish data in the system. It is important to note that this software package constitutes a reference implementation and that the NGDS architecture is based on open standards, which means other server software can make resources available, and other client applications can utilize NGDS data. Authors of this paper are Ryan Clark, Arizona Geological Survey (AZGS), Christoph Kuhmuench, Siemens Corporate Research, and Stephen Richard, AZGS.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2018

Prefabricated High-Strength Rebar Systems with High-Performance Concrete for Accelerated Construction of Nuclear Concrete Structures

This project aimed to reduce the field construction times and fabrication costs of reinforced concrete (RC) nuclear structures through the use of: 1) high-strength steel deformed reinforcing bar (rebar); 2) prefabricated high-strength rebar (HSR) assemblies with headed anchorages; and 3) high-strength concrete (HSC). The focus of the project was not to develop new innovations on materials, but rather to fill a major knowledge gap on the effectiveness, code conformity, and viability (i.e., practicality, commercial availability) of existing high-strength materials in nuclear structures, especially in shear walls, their connections/joints, and around penetrations. These advances promote the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies Advanced Methods for Manufacturing (NEET-1) goals of accelerating deployment schedules by at least 6 months and reducing component fabrication costs by 20% or more. Toward this vision, the following objectives were identified and completed: Develop limit-benefit and cost-benefit analysis frameworks: The structural and economic limits and benefits of HSR and HSC in nuclear walls were evaluated. Importantly, it was found that modest increases in concrete strength up to 10.0 ksi and rebar yield strength up to 100 ksi result in the most economic designs and improved structural performance (Barbachyn et al., 2017a and Barbachyn et al., 2017b). Also, an industry survey was distributed to determine the cost benefits associated with prefabrication. Importantly, on-site worker-hours are significantly reduced, allowing for significantly accelerated construction schedules (Devine et al. 2018b). Develop an optimization methodology for structural design: An optimization study was deemed not necessary since the trivial solution with maximized use of high-strength materials and prefabrication always resulted in the largest cost and time savings. Instead, the benefits (and limits) of high-strength materials and prefabrication on construction costs and on-site construction time were investigated through a parametric study. Cost-reductions through the use of HSR and HSC were found to be greater than 40%. Also, on-site construction time of nuclear shear walls can be reduced by up to 83% through the use of prefabricated rebar assemblies. Conduct experimental evaluations of nuclear shear walls and wall-foundation joints: A large scale experimental program was completed on shear-critical RC cantilever deep beams. From these experiments, it was demonstrated that increasing rebar yield strength had a greater effect on increasing lateral strength than increasing the concrete compressive strength. Further, using HSR together with HSC resulted in the highest lateral strength and displacement ductility (Devine et al. 2018a). Additionally, large-scale reversed-cyclic lateral load tests were conducted on RC shear walls. It was demonstrated that through the utilization of HSR and HSC, a wall with 55% reduced vertical and horizontal rebar area was able to achieve 91% of the peak lateral strength of a conventional wall using state-of-practice materials with the same geometry. Further, trim reinforcement with headed anchorages around the penetrations proved to be effective. Develop validated numerical simulation models: Numerical modeling was completed in two phases during this project using 3 different finite element software packages. The first phase used existing measured data from previous experimental studies on stocky RC walls to validate simplified predictive models. Models using two different programs were validated based on a database of 38 stocky walls (Barbachyn et al., 2017a). The second phase occurred after experimental testing using a third and more detailed finite element package. Prediction improvements for the initial stiffness, lateral deformations, damage propagation, and failure mechanisms were targeted. The resulting detailed models more accurately predicted the peak lateral strength, initial and secant stiffnesses, lateral deformations, and cracking patterns of the wall test specimens subjected to reversed-cyclic lateral loading as compared to the simplified pretest models. Develop validated design procedures, tools, and criteria: This project evaluated the accuracy of existing closed-form design equations from U.S. building design standards and previous research (Barbachyn et al. 2017a and Devine et al. 2018a). It was shown that the current predictive equations for shear strength capacity need to be revisited as they provide significant scatter and gross overestimates, indicating the potential for unconservative designs. Further, for both the deep beam and shear wall specimens, the numerical models and flexural capacity predictions provided the most accurate strength predictions. Develop cost-effective field construction procedures: To promote the use of prefabricated rebar assemblies, the following construction conditions where prefabrication would be used instead of in-place rebar tying were identified from an industry survey: 1) to save on construction schedule; 2) to improve safety and/or quality control; 3) for areas with heavy rebar congestion; and 4) for structures with significant repetition in rebar layout. All of these conditions directly apply and benefit nuclear construction where construction costs and schedules are extensive, safety and quality are of utmost importance, the reinforcement is extremely dense, and the reinforcement layout is repetitive in many regions of the shear walls. Additionally, an experimental study was conducted to investigate the changes in bar spacing (with respect to code-required rebar spacing and placement tolerances) when a horizontally assembled prefabricated two-dimensional (2D) rebar mat or three-dimensional (3D) rebar cage is lifted (or tripped) to a vertical position. It was found that the bars involved in both the lateral translation of the rebar assemblies (i.e., movement of the assembly in its horizontal position) and the tripping process were most susceptible to large spacing changes, and thus, their positions within the assembly would need to be checked after the placement of the assembly in place within the formwork. Importantly, the spacings of all of the other bars in the assembly were not affected significantly by the lateral translation and tripping process, thereby eliminating the need to recheck their positions within the assembly (Devine et al. 2018b).

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2015

Non-equilibrium reaction and relaxation dynamics in a strongly interacting explicit solvent: F + CD{sub 3}CN treated with a parallel multi-state EVB model

We describe a parallelized linear-scaling computational framework developed to implement arbitrarily large multi-state empirical valence bond (MS-EVB) calculations within CHARMM and TINKER. Forces are obtained using the Hellmann-Feynman relationship, giving continuous gradients, and good energy conservation. Utilizing multi-dimensional Gaussian coupling elements fit to explicitly correlated coupled cluster theory, we built a 64-state MS-EVB model designed to study the F + CD{sub 3}CN → DF + CD{sub 2}CN reaction in CD{sub 3}CN solvent (recently reported in Dunning et al. [Science 347(6221), 530 (2015)]). This approach allows us to build a reactive potential energy surface whose balanced accuracy and efficiency considerably surpass what we could achieve otherwise. We ran molecular dynamics simulations to examine a range of observables which follow in the wake of the reactive event: energy deposition in the nascent reaction products, vibrational relaxation rates of excited DF in CD{sub 3}CN solvent, equilibrium power spectra of DF in CD{sub 3}CN, and time dependent spectral shifts associated with relaxation of the nascent DF. Many of our results are in good agreement with time-resolved experimental observations, providing evidence for the accuracy of our MS-EVB framework in treating both the solute and solute/solvent interactions. The simulations provide additional insight into the dynamics at sub-picosecond time scales that are difficult to resolve experimentally. In particular, the simulations show that (immediately following deuterium abstraction) the nascent DF finds itself in a non-equilibrium regime in two different respects: (1) it is highly vibrationally excited, with ∼23 kcal mol{sup −1} localized in the stretch and (2) its post-reaction solvation environment, in which it is not yet hydrogen-bonded to CD{sub 3}CN solvent molecules, is intermediate between the non-interacting gas-phase limit and the solution-phase equilibrium limit. Vibrational relaxation of the nascent DF results in a spectral blue shift, while relaxation of the post-reaction solvation environment results in a red shift. These two competing effects mean that the post-reaction relaxation profile is distinct from what is observed when Franck-Condon vibrational excitation of DF occurs within a microsolvation environment initially at equilibrium. Our conclusions, along with the theoretical and parallel software framework presented in this paper, should be more broadly applicable to a range of complex reactive systems.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

DOE OSTI2022

The False Dilemma: Rethinking AF Science and Technology Officer Talent Management

In 2019, Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Heather Wilson launched the 2030 Science and Technology (S&T) Strategy by stating, “The advantage will go to those who create the best technologies and who integrate and field them in creative operational ways that provide military advantages.” In 2021, 15% of Air Force general officers responsible for creating and integrating this technological edge had a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) graduate degree, and less than 1% of generals had a STEM doctorate. As one point of comparison, at least 32% and 13% of founding CEOs of Fortune 500 technology companies had a master’s and doctoral STEM degree, respectively. The gulf is larger when you consider that these CEOs used their technical degrees throughout their careers whereas most general officers do not. In large organizations, if the leader does not possess technical knowledge, it is difficult to drive innovation systems and connect ideas to reality. The evidence for this disconnect is abundant in acquisition challenges for high-tech systems, significant pushback to the “revolution in military affairs”, and failure of the “Third Offset” to take hold and deliver capabilities to offset Chinese and Russian capabilities. Indeed, when the former Air Force and Space Force Chief Software Officer, Nicolas M. Chaillan, offered his resignation, one of the main reasons for leaving was “the failure of OSD and the Joint Staff to deliver on their own alleged top ‘priority’, JADC2 – they couldn’t ‘walk the walk.’” Senior leaders have recognized this disconnect, and several inquiries and studies regarding STEM competency have been conducted. Many have posed a false dilemma: a large, STEM-cognizant or small, STEM-expert force. However, current and future STEM human capital needs are managed at the unit and functional area level. This leads to “silos” and the tactical “needs of the present” dominating the strategic “needs of the future”, highlighted by only two functional areas systematically tracking future STEM needs. Therefore, the decision on force structure appears to have been historically made by default through these and other perceived structural realities, and a vast majority of recommendations have focused on the small STEM community – an exercise in diminishing returns. In essence, the solution often boils down to finding unicorns – officers that have chartered the unforgiving pathway through the traditional “gates” to general officer while obtaining sufficient STEM proficiency along the way. Fortunately for the Air Force, these officers exist, albeit at a rate below what the evidence would suggest is necessary. However, this approach fundamentally limits the ability to develop a deep pool of officers with the ability to create and integrate technologies and ensures the Dunning-Kruger effect is prevalent. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where those with limited knowledge in an area lack the expertise necessary to recognize their lack of expertise and consequently are prone to overestimate their knowledge and performance. In short, we need less leaders overestimating their STEM knowledge and more with hard-earned STEM competency required to “walk the walk” to create and integrate technologies for military advantage. This will not be accomplished by restricting the emphasis to the traditional scientists and engineering (S&E) career fields – the pool, only 10% of line officers, and general officer progression is just too small. Fortunately, the recent SECAF’s Management Initiatives and Chief of Staff’s (CSAF) Action Orders, both containing emphasis on organic expertise to “accrue advantage in military-technological competition,” present an opportunity to truly develop a framework for the force of the future.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

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 OSTI2026

Leveraging Qubit Loss Detection in Fault-Tolerant Quantum Algorithms

Qubit loss errors constitute a dominant source of noise in many quantum hardware systems, particularly in neutral-atom quantum computers. We develop a theoretical framework to effectively detect and correct loss errors in logical algorithms and leverage such loss information in decoding. Considering general quantum error correction codes and logical circuits, we introduce a delayed-erasure decoder for experimentally motivated error models which leverages information from delayed loss detection to accurately correct loss errors, even when the precise moment of the error is unknown. Using this decoder, we identify strategies for detecting and correcting loss errors based on the logical circuit structure. For deep circuits prior to logical measurement, we explore methods to integrate loss detection into syndrome extraction with minimal overhead, identifying optimal strategies depending on the qubit loss fraction in the noise and hardware capabilities. In contrast, we find that many key algorithmic subroutines involve frequent gate teleportation, shortening the circuit depth before logical measurement and naturally replacing qubits with no additional experimental overhead. We simulate this setting using a toy model algorithm for small-angle synthesis and find a significant performance improvement as the loss fraction increases. These results provide a path forward for advancing large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computation in systems with loss error detection.

atoms↗

DOE OSTI2023

Enhancement of operational Flexibility of Power Plants Using IN740

Headers are crucial components within diverse industries, especially in the energy sector, as they enable the efficient transfer of fluids. The selection of materials for headers is determined by their specific applications; for example, Grade 91 and Grade 92 steels are commonly utilized. In our research, we recommend the adoption of INCONEL alloy 740 due to its exceptional robustness and heat-resistant characteristics. One critical parameter in header systems is the heat transfer coefficient, which directly influences the efficiency of heat exchange processes and can thereby impact the structural integrity of the headers. This coefficient is closely linked with factors such as the Nusselt number, which is influenced by fluid flow characteristics and thermal properties. The flow direction within headers, whether unidirectional or multidirectional—significantly affects the overall dynamics of heat transfer. This research focuses on exploring the behavior of headers, a specific pipeline system component, using ANSYS simulation software. The study aims to predict heat transfer and mechanical behavior within headers under various conditions through steady-state and transient simulations (parts 1 and 2 of the report). Key parameters such as heat transfer coefficient, velocity, and temperature are examined with the goal of optimizing header design. Part 3 of the report addresses the critical yet underexplored relationship between pressure drop and heat transfer coefficients in the transient flow regime within headers, specifically focusing on smooth horizontal circular tubes. Limited experimental work has been conducted in this area, prompting the need for comprehensive analysis. By leveraging machine learning techniques, this research aims to establish a correlation between pressure drop and heat transfer across various flow conditions, including laminar, transient, quasi-turbulent, and turbulent regimes. The data utilized for this analysis were meticulously gathered from existing literature, capturing simultaneous measurements of pressure drops and heat transfer. Part 4: In the context of power plants, header pipes are essential components that significantly influence system performance by facilitating the collection and distribution of steam. This report highlights the critical role of header pipes in enhancing reliability, efficiency, and overall power plant performance. A key aspect of this investigation is shape optimization, which aims to maximize performance while minimizing material usage. By focusing on shape optimization, this research contributes to improved efficiency and a reduced environmental footprint for power plant installations. The methodology developed in this study emphasizes optimizing header shapes to decrease reliance on expensive alloy materials and lower maintenance costs. Furthermore, a case study was conducted using a header from an operational power plant to validate the proposed optimization techniques. Finally, part 5 addresses the challenges associated with flexible operations in boiler systems, the study outlines several strategies for enhancing the durability and reliability of steam headers. Key approaches include material selection, which involves utilizing advanced materials with superior high-temperature properties and enhanced fatigue resistance to extend the lifespan of steam headers. Design modifications are also recommended, focusing on implementing changes that mitigate thermal stress and cyclic loading to reduce the likelihood of failures under varying operating conditions. Additionally, the study emphasizes the importance of regular inspection and monitoring by establishing rigorous protocols to detect early signs of damage, allowing for timely maintenance and minimizing the risks of catastrophic failures. Furthermore, operational guidelines are developed to minimize the frequency and severity of thermal transients, ensuring stable and efficient operations. Collectively, these strategies provide a robust framework for overcoming the unique challenges posed by flexible operation in boiler systems, ultimately contributing to improved reliability and performance in power plant operations. Through this comprehensive approach, the study not only enhances the understanding of pressure drop and heat transfer relationships but also promotes advancements in design and operation that will benefit the entire power generation industry.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2013

Closeout of CRADA JSA 2012S004: Chapter 5, Integrated Control System, of the document of the ESS Conceptual Design Report, publicly available at https://europeanspallationsource.se/accelerator-documents

The integrated control system (ICS) is responsible for the whole ESS machine and facility: accelerator, target, neutron scattering instruments and conventional facilities. This unified approach keeps the costs of development, maintenance and support relatively low. ESS has selected a standardised, field-proven controls framework, the Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System (EPICS), which was originally developed jointly by Argonne and Los Alamos National Laboratories. Complementing this selection are best practices and experience from similar facilities regarding platform standardisation, control system development and device integration and commissioning. The components of ICS include the control system core, the control boxes, the BLED database management system, and the human machine interface. The control system core is a set of systems and tools that make it possible for the control system to provide required data, information and services to engineers, operators, physicists and the facility itself. The core components are the timing system that makes possible clock synchronisation across the facility, the machine protection system (MPS) and the personnel protection system (PPS) that prevent damage to the machine and personnel, and a set of control system services. Control boxes are servers that control a collection of equipment (for example a radio frequency cavity). The integrated control system will include many control boxes that can be assigned to one supplier, such as an internal team, a collaborating institute or a commercial vendor. This approach facilitates a clear division of responsibilities and makes integration much easier. A control box is composed of a standardised hardware platform, components, development tools and services. On the top level, it interfaces with the core control system components (timing, MPS, PPS) and with the human-machine interface. At the bottom, it interfaces with the equipment and parts of the facility through a set of analog and digital signals, real-time control loops and other communication buses. The ICS central data management system is named BLED (beam line element databases). BLED is a set of databases, tools and services that is used to store, manage and access data. It holds vital control system configuration and physics-related (lattice) information about the accelerator, target and instruments. It facilitates control system configuration by bringing together direct input-output controller (IOC) con guration and real-time data from proton and neutron beam line models. BLED also simplifies development and speeds up the code-test-debug cycle. The set of tools that access BLED will be tailored to the needs of different categories of users, such as ESS staff physicists, engineers, and operators; external partner laboratories; and visiting experimental instrument users. The human-machine interface is vital to providing a high-quality experience to ICS users. It encompasses a wide array of devices and software tools, from control room screens to engineer terminal windows; from beam physics data tools to post-mortem data analysis tools. It serves users with a wide range of skills from widely varied backgrounds. The Controls Group is developing a set of user profiles to accommodate this diverse range of use-cases and users.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

DOE OSTI2024

Test and Validate Distributed Coaxial Cable Sensors for in situ Condition Monitoring of Coal-Fired Boiler Tubes

This project aims to test, validate, and advance the technology readiness level (from TRL5 to TRL7) of a novel low-cost distributed stainless-steel/ceramic coaxial cable sensing (SSC-CCS) technology for in situ monitoring of the boiler tube temperature in existing coal-fired power plants. The novel SSC-CCS sensing technology and associated condition-based monitoring (CBM) software to be demonstrated in this project will lead to an improved understanding of the boiler tube failure mechanisms and a prognostic system to improve the overall performance, reliability, and flexibility of the nation’s coal-fired power plant fleet. A boiler tube monitoring system with distributed coaxial cable temperature sensors and a sensor acquisition system was constructed. The high-temperature coaxial cable sensor with a length of 1.3m was made by using a quartz tube (1mm inner diameter (ID) and 6mm outer diameter (OD)) to concentrically separate a 304 stainless-steel (SS) rod (1mm OD) and SS tube (7.94mm OD and 6.16mm ID). The sensor acquisition system includes a vector network analyzer (VNA), a radio frequency (RF) power amplifier, multiple switches and a USB hub. The distributed stainless-steel quartz coaxial cable sensor (SSQ-CCS) had a linear response to temperature with a resolution uncertainty of σ = 0.77℃. To withstand the harsh conditions of 3,300 steam pressures and 800℃ high temperatures, the sensor was shielded by a protective tube made of the same material as the boiler tube. The protection tube had an OD of 1.5 inches and a thickness of 0.25 inches. In the laboratory tests, the sensor showed good sensitivity and fast response. The drift was bounded between +0.33% and -0.67% during a test at 600℃ for 350 hours, indicating good stability of the sensor. A field test was conducted where four sensors were welded on four superheat tubes (SH-Ts) at a coal-fired power station over 400 days. Conventional thermocouples were welded to the superheater tubes alongside the coaxial cable sensors for the purpose of comparison. Two sensors were capable of distributed sensing, with three multiplexed sensing sections. The other two sensors were single section. During the 400-day test period, the power plant experienced startups and shutdowns. At the steady state operations, the temperature of the boiler tube is about 600℃ (1112°F). The sensors recorded the entire coal-firing processes (start-up, steady state, and shut-down) and the glitch event. A GSM modem and a Watchdog were added to the system to ensure reliable data recording. The GSM modem sent daily messages to plant managers and Clemson team to inform the status of the sensor system. If the system was not normally working, the Watchdog would reboot the system automatically. The new coaxial cable based distributed sensing technology has been proven to be successful in both laboratory and field tests. A comprehensive four-stage multi-physics computational framework has been developed to assist the design, optimization, installation, and operation of SSQ-CCS. With the consideration of various operation conditions, we predict the distributions of flue gas temperatures within coal-fired boilers, the temperature correlation between the boiler tube and SSQ-CCS, and the safety of SSQ-CCS. A conditional-based monitoring system is implemented as well. The computational framework developed in this work can guide the future operation of coal-fired plants and other power plants for the safety prediction of boiler operations.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2026

Hydrogeological assessment of CO2 containment assurance and wellbore integrity at a Gulf Coast storage site

Abstract A large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) initiative on the Texas Gulf Coast serves as a premier demonstration of the U.S. Department of Energy’s CarbonSAFE program. Targeting deep saline formations, specifically Oligo-Miocene deltaic sequences, the project aims to establish technical and commercial viability for geologic CO2 storage within a major industrial corridor. This study provides a rigorous hydrogeological assessment to support Class VI permitting by quantifying the high degree of containment security. Utilizing a compositional reservoir simulator, we developed a suite of 27 distinct simulation cases to evaluate vertical plume dynamics near both planned injection wells and proximal legacy infrastructure. To ensure numerical accuracy near wellbores, we implemented a refined mesh strategy, determining that a 5.6 ft × 5.6 ft grid refinement offered the optimal balance between computational efficiency and descriptive precision. The modeling framework utilized a systematic sensitivity-based approach to evaluate the mechanical redundancy of the subsurface system by performing a bounding analysis of wellbore interfaces against hypothetical high-permeability microannuli. By systematically isolating competing physical drivers, including permeability, porosity, gas hysteresis, thermal gradients, salinity, and solubility trapping (quantified via Henry’s law with dynamically adjusted coefficients), this work moves beyond binary assessments to establish a nuanced hierarchy of containment factors. The results confirm that primary trapping mechanisms (e.g., gas hysteresis and solubility), combined with the site's unique geomechanical stratigraphy, significantly restrict vertical mobility and reinforce the robust containment security of the reservoir. Baseline results demonstrate substantial vertical separation between the CO2 plume and the upper confining system, ensuring robust containment. Sensitivity analysis reveals that even under highly conservative bounding scenarios—assuming theoretical 10-Darcy pathways at specific wellbore locations—the 2,900-ft thick multi-layered confining zone remains a reliable barrier. In these hypothetical upper-bound cases, peak upward fluxes of CO2 and saltwater after 15 years of injection remain localized and dissipate rapidly within the lower sections of the confining interval, leaving the integrity of the seal uncompromised. Furthermore, the study identifies that while localized wellbore pathways define theoretical upper bounds of vertical migration, the Area of Review (AoR) is primarily sensitive to regional thermal gradients and hysteresis, which can influence the AoR by over 3,000 acres in pessimistic configurations. Also, primary trapping mechanisms, specifically gas hysteresis and solubility, work in tandem with the Gulf Coast’s unique geomechanical stratigraphy to significantly restrict vertical mobility. Ductile, smectite-rich mudstones facilitate natural borehole convergence and the self-healing of potential conduits, creating a natural geomechanical bridge that effectively mitigates migration potential at both current injection points and legacy-well locations. This comprehensive modeling effort demonstrates that the integration of high-resolution wellbore simulations and regional geomechanical observations confirms the long-term storage security of the studied site, providing a physics-based foundation for industrial-scale CCS deployments. This modeling framework establishes a baseline for future research into coupled geomechanical effects, such as time-dependent borehole convergence, to further refine long-term containment projections. Acknowledgements We thank the Gulf Coast Carbon Center (GCCC) at the Bureau of Economic Geology for foundational research support. We appreciate Alex Bump for technical guidance and David Hoffman for model mesh generation. This work used TACC’s Frontera cluster for simulations and CMG Ltd. software licenses provided to UT-Austin. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FE0032338. Disclaimer This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Office under the CarbonSAFE program, award Number DE-FE0032338. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

Hydrogeological assessment of CO2 containment assurance and wellbore integrity at a Gulf Coast storage site

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Marine Algae Industrialization Consortium (MAGIC): Combining biofuel and high-value bioproducts to meet the RFS

The Marine Algae Industrialization Consortium (MAGIC) was formed to address pressing challenges in the commercialization of microalgae as a source of biofuel. The “Marine Algae Industrialization Consortium (MAGIC): Combining biofuel and high-value bioproducts to meet the RFS” project formally addressed two US Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) goals: (1) Model the sustainable supply of 1 million metric tonnes ash free dry weight (AFDW) cultivated algal biomass and (2) Demonstrate valuable co-products produced along with biofuel intermediates to increase value of algal biomass by 30%. To achieve these goals, the project demonstrated and validated high-value co-products to drive down the cost of biofuel by increasing the value of algae “co-products” towards increasing the selling price of total algae biomass as one of the key drivers of economics and adoption. This was accomplished through five core, interdependent tasks including: (1) strain selection to identify and deliver strains for mass culture, (2) mass culture using a hybrid cultivation system and following key operating parameters for downstream applications to provide algae feedstock, (3) recovery and conversion to evaluate two alternative methods to separate dry algae biomass into oil and residuals for downstream testing, (4) product assessment to determine biofuel, aquafeed or poultry feed product efficacy using algae biomass fractions as well as to provide critical performance data for valuation and (5) commercialization to use technoeconomic and life cycle assessments (TEA/LCA) as iterative design and assessment tools including consideration of target markets, competitors, and distribution channels to guide product assessment, development and valuation. A total of 46 peer-review publications, many open-access, provide detail of much of the work carried out and the results of the tasks. Additional reports and presentations provide other technical and public engagement material. At a high level, using a variety of approaches, more than 1000 marine microalgae strains were evaluated to ultimately identify the seven winners that were down-selected to be grown in mass culture. Strain selection demonstrated that there were no ‘super strains’ and that each candidate had strengths and limitations for specific products, growth conditions or operational considerations. Mass culture growth of these seven strains at >5000 L / 29 m 2 scale found that four them were suitable for product assessment. More than 250 kg of biomass was produced across hundreds of pond runs along with thousands of cultivation entries on the growth and biomass characteristics as well as environmental parameters. In the process, dozens of standard operating procedures were generated as was custom software to process and analyze cultivation data. Recovery and conversion of algae biomass demonstrated that a hexane solvent based extraction protocol was most effective at recovering oil (biocrude) from algae and four strains were processed to produce oil and lipid extracted algae (residuals) for downstream testing. Membrane-based oil separation was less successful, but may still be applicable to other commercial applications in the future. Product testing demonstrated that algae biocrude is of high quality and hydrotreating generated numerous fractions of high quality composition for fuel and lubricate based applications. Aquafeed studies performed at a variety of scales showed that both whole and defatted (lipid extracted algae) microalgae were suitable as a feed ingredient, but that the specifics of the fed animal and biochemical composition of the algae are critical factors when determining formulation. Similarly, poultry studies on whole and defatted microalgae generally showed positive outcomes on animal growth and health, with some microalgae providing enhanced nutritional composition of the animal product. Economic and life cycle assessments covered a wide range of possible commercialization and sustainability scenarios. Replacement value, improved product value added, consumer values marketing added valuation and improved animal health were considered as alternatives for microalgae valuation. Using the open pond system, algae productivity was identified as the key driver of commercialization economics, but combination of co-products (e.g. animal feed) with biofuel production substantially increased the total selling price of algae. Modeled microalgae selling price exceeded $\$$1500/tonne and could generate competitive biofuel selling prices below $\$$5 gallon gas equivalents using realistic algal productivities. Short (process scale) and longer (decadal trends) sustainability assessments show that marine microalgae can enhance the sustainability of energy production and lead to other realized benefits in water, fertilizer and land use for other sectors (e.g. agriculture). This project successfully demonstrated all of the components of an end-to-end process from mass microalgae cultivation and dewatering, to recovery and conversion of algae biomass components, to final product demonstration and process valuation; the combined results provide a framework for future commercialization of algae based biofuels.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

DOE OSTI2019

Deep learning and radiomics: the utility of Google TensorFlow™ Inception in classifying clear cell renal cell carcinoma and oncocytoma on multiphasic CT

Purpose: Currently, all solid enhancing renal masses without microscopic fat are considered malignant until proven otherwise and there is substantial overlap in the imaging findings of benign and malignant renal masses, particularly between clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and benign oncocytoma (ONC). Radiomics has attracted increased attention for its utility in pre-operative work-up on routine clinical images. Radiomics based approaches have converted medical images into mineable data and identified prognostic imaging signatures that machine learning algorithms can use to construct predictive models by learning the decision boundaries of the underlying data distribution. The TensorFlow™ framework from Google is a state-of-the-art open-source software library that can be used for training deep learning neural networks for performing machine learning tasks. The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value and feasibility of a deep learning-based renal lesion classifier using open-source Google TensorFlow™ Inception in differentiating ccRCC from ONC on routine four-phase MDCT in patients with pathologically confirmed renal masses. Methods: With institutional review board approval for this 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant retrospective study and a waiver of informed consent, we queried our institution’s pathology, clinical, and radiology databases for histologically proven cases of ccRCC and ONC obtained between January 2000 and January 2016 scanned with a an intravenous contrast-enhanced four-phase renal mass protocol (unenhanced (UN), corticomedullary (CM), nephrographic (NP), and excretory (EX) phases). To extract features to be used for the machine learning model, the entire renal mass was contoured in the axial plane in each of the four phases, resulting in a 3D volume of interest (VOI) representative of the entire renal mass. We investigated thirteen different approaches to convert the acquired VOI data into a set of images that adequately represented each tumor which was used to train the final layer of the neural network model. Training was performed over 4000 iterations. In each iteration, 90% of the data were designated as training data and the remaining 10% served as validation data and a leave-one-out cross-validation scheme was implemented. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive (NPV) values, and CIs were calculated for the classification of the thirteen processing modes. Results: We analyzed 179 consecutive patients with 179 lesions (128 ccRCC and 51 ONC). The ccRCC cohort had a mean size of 3.8 cm (range 0.8–14.6 cm) and the ONC cohort had a mean lesion size of 3.9 cm (range 1.0–13.1 cm). The highest specificity and PPV (52.9% and 80.3%, respectively) were achieved in the EX phase when we analyzed the single mid-slice of the tumor in the axial, coronal and sagittal plane, and when we increased the number of mid-slices of the tumor to three, with an accuracy of 75.4%, which also increased the sensitivity to 88.3% and the PPV to 79.6%. Using the entire tumor volume also showed that classification performance was best in the EX phase with an accuracy of 74.4%, a sensitivity of 85.8% and a PPV of 80.1%. When the entire tumor volume, plus mid-slices from all phases and all planes presented as tiled images, were submitted to the final layer of the neural network we achieved a PPV of 82.5%. Conclusions: The best classification result was obtained in the EX phase among the thirteen classification methods tested. Our proof of concept study is the first step towards understanding the utility of machine learning in the differentiation of ccRCC from ONC on routine CT images. We hope this could lead to future investigation into the development of a multivariate machine learning model which may augment our ability to accurately predict renal lesion histology on imaging.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗