Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “software failure”

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 1,387 records · Page 77

Full-scale Demonstration of Multi-process Sensor at a Cycling PC-fired Boiler

The main objective of this research program is to design, manufacture, and demonstrate a miniaturized, multi-process, monitoring system (mMPMS) for boiler condition management and easy system deployment to obtain a higher spatial resolution. This system will facilitate a Condition-Based Maintenance (CBM) philosophy that actively monitors the health of assets to predict and prevent failures and maximize availability and generating capacity at a reduced cost. CBM systems can provide boiler data that the advanced process control (APC) system can utilize for plant performance optimization, which is increasingly relevant as coal power plants shift from predominantly base-load operation to predominantly transient operation involving large load swings. The mMPMS is based on an electrochemical sensor that provides a real-time indication of the risk of damage to key locations in the radiant or convective section of a coal-fired boiler such as metal loss rates, heat flux, metal surface temperature, and deposit thickness. These indications can be utilized to optimize boiler performance as well as improve boiler availability in conjunction with corresponding operating conditions. This monitoring system was developed and tested in the high-temperature regions of coal-fired utility boilers in this project but can be applied to many other industries and applications as well. This project leveraged the existing electrochemical noise-based monitoring system and the new sensor design is small enough to be installed through the webbing of the waterwalls without the need for long shut-downs to bend tubes and to make it feasible to obtain high spatial resolution in the boiler. Data is transferred to the plant distributed control system (DCS) and any other control system. The sensor body that houses the sensor assembly was designed to ensure good conductive contact with boiler tubes to ensure the sensor is held at an identical temperature to the tube surface temperature. The data acquisition and signal conditioning modules were redesigned into a small footprint with optimized cooling of the module. System software was developed specifically for the new signal conditioning module and is compatible with plant PLCs. After the preliminary testing at a pilot-scale facility, the three mMPMS were installed at a full-scale pulverized coal-fired plant, PacifiCorp’s Hunter 3. The systems were demonstrated over 20,000 hours at the plant during regular operation. Also, the sensor data was fed to the plant’s advanced process control system to evaluate the corrosion control by the operation changes and utilized to understand the impacts of load cycling with different ramping up and down speeds. At the end of the project, the systems were converted to the permanent installation at the power plant to be used with the advanced process control system installed at the plant.

Advanced Sensors, Corrosion, Ash Deposition, Optim↗

Fast Paced, Low Cost Projects at MSFC

What does an orbiting microsatellite, a robotic lander and a ruggedized camera and telescope have in common? They are all fast paced, low cost projects managed by Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) teamed with successful industry partners. MSFC has long been synonymous with human space flight large propulsion programs, engineering acumen and risk intolerance. However, there is a growing portfolio/product line within MSFC that focuses on these smaller, fast paced projects. While launching anything into space is expensive, using a managed risk posture, holding to schedule and keeping costs low by stopping at egood enough f were key elements to their success. Risk is defined as the possibility of loss or failure per Merriam Webster. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) defines risk using procedural requirement 8705.4 and establishes eclasses f to discern the acceptable risk per a project. It states a Class D risk has a medium to significant risk of not achieving mission success. MSFC, along with industry partners, has created a niche in Class D efforts. How did the big, cautious MSFC succeed on these projects that embodied the antithesis of its heritage in human space flight? A key factor toward these successful projects was innovative industry partners such as Dynetics Corporation, University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAHuntsville), Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU APL), Teledyne Brown Engineering (TBE), Von Braun Center for Science and Innovation (VCSI), SAIC, and Jacobs. Fast Affordable Satellite Technology (FastSat HSV01) is a low earth orbit microsatellite that houses six instruments with the primary scientific objective of earth observation and technology demonstration. The team was comprised of Dynetics, UAHuntsvile, SAIC, Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and VCSI with the United States Air Force Space Test Program as the customer. The team completed design, development, manufacturing, environmental test and integration in one year. FastSat HSV01 also deployed a Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer (PPOD) for a separate nano ]satellite class spacecraft (Cubesat: Nano Sail Demonstration) in partnership with Ames Research Center. The Robotic lunar lander is a MSFC JHU APL partnership that led to the development of a flexible architecture for landers to support robotic missions to a wide range of lunar and asteroid destinations. The team started with the goal of meeting NASA agency directives that led to the creation of a test bed focusing on GN&C and software to demonstrate the descent and landing on any airless body for the final 30 to 60 meters. The team created a complex technology demonstration as well as Guidance Control and Navigation (GN&C) algorithms providing autonomous control of the lander. The team uses a green propellant of 90% hydrogen peroxide and has completed 18 successful test flights. The International Space Station (ISS) SERVIR Environmental Research and Visualization System (ISERV) is a technology demonstration payload to assist the SERVIR project with environmental monitoring for disaster relief and humanitarian efforts. The ISERV project was a partnership with TBE. The ISERV payload consists of a commercial off the shelf camera, telescope, and MSFC developed power distribution box and interfaces on ISS with the Window Observational Research Facility in the US Lab. MSFC has identified three key areas that enabled the low cost mission success to include culture, partnering, and cost/schedule control. This paper will briefly discuss these three Class D efforts, FastSat HSV-01, the Robotic Lunar Lander and the ISERV camera system, the lessons learned, their successes and challenges.

Watson-Morgan, Lisa↗

High-Temperature Multi-Process Sensor Development and Demonstration at a Full-scale PC Combustion System

The main objective of this research program is to design, manufacture, and demonstrate a miniaturized, multi-process, monitoring system (mMPMS) for boiler condition management and easy system deployment to obtain a higher spatial resolution. This system will facilitate a Condition-Based Maintenance (CBM) philosophy that actively monitors the health of assets to predict and prevent failures and maximize availability and generating capacity at a reduced cost. CBM systems can provide boiler data that the advanced process control (APC) system can utilize for plant performance optimization, which is increasingly relevant as coal power plants shift from predominantly base-load operation to predominantly transient operation involving large load swings. The mMPMS is based on an electrochemical sensor that provides a real-time indication of the risk of damage to key locations in the radiant or convective section of a coal-fired boiler such as metal loss rates, heat flux, metal surface temperature, and deposit thickness. These indications can be utilized to optimize boiler performance as well as improve boiler availability in conjunction with corresponding operating conditions. This monitoring system was developed and tested in the high-temperature regions of coal-fired utility boilers in this project but can be applied to many other industries and applications as well. This project leveraged the existing electrochemical noise-based monitoring system and the new sensor design is small enough to be installed through the webbing of the waterwalls without the need for long shut-downs to bend tubes and to make it feasible to obtain high spatial resolution in the boiler. Data is transferred to the plant distributed control system (DCS) and any other control system. The sensor body that houses the sensor assembly was designed to ensure good conductive contact with boiler tubes to ensure the sensor is held at an identical temperature to the tube surface temperature. The data acquisition and signal conditioning modules were redesigned into a small footprint with optimized cooling of the module. System software was developed specifically for the new signal conditioning module and is compatible with plant PLCs. After the preliminary testing at a pilot-scale facility, the three mMPMS were installed at a full-scale pulverized coal-fired plant, PacifiCorp’s Hunter 3. The systems were demonstrated over 20,000 hours at the plant during regular operation. Also, the sensor data was fed to the plant’s advanced process control system to evaluate the corrosion control by the operation changes and utilized to understand the impacts of load cycling with different ramping up and down speeds. At the end of the project, the systems were converted to the permanent installation at the power plant to be used with the advanced process control system installed at the plant.

Advanced Sensors, Corrosion, Ash Deposition, Optim↗

On a Thermodynamic Approach to Material Selection for Service in Aggressive Multi-Component Gaseous and/or Vapor Environments

This report fulfills the M4 milestone, M4FT-15IN08020110 UNF Analysis Support, under Work Package Number FT-15IN080201. The issue of materials selection for many engineering applications represents an important problem, particularly in cases where material failure is possible as a result of corrosive environments. For example, 304 dual purpose or 316 stainless steel is used in the construction of many used nuclear fuel storage canisters. Deployed all over the world, these canisters are housed inside shielded enclosures and cooled passively by convective airflow. When located along seaboards or particular industrial areas, salt, other corrosive chemicals, and moisture can become entrained in the air that cools the canisters. It is important to develop an understanding of what impact, if any, that chemical environment will have on those canisters. In many cases of corrosion in aggressive gaseous environments, the material selection process is based on some general recommendations, anecdotal evidence, and/or the past experience of that particular project’s participants. For gaseous mixtures, the theoretical basis is practically limited to the construction of the so-called “Ellingham diagrams” for pure metals. These plots predict the equilibrium temperature between different individual metals, their respective oxides, and oxygen gas. Similar diagrams can be constructed for the reactions with sulfur, nitrogen, carbon, etc. In the generalization of this approach by Richardson and Jeffes, additional scales can be superimposed upon an Ellingham diagram that would correspond to different gaseous mixtures, e.g. CO/CO 2 , or H 2 /H 2 O. However, while the general approach to predicting the stability of a multi-component heterogeneous alloy (e.g., steel or a superalloy) in a multi-component aggressive gaseous environment was developed in very general form, actual examples of its applications to concrete real-life problems are practically absent. This is related to alloy design, corrosion protection, and material selection for different applications. In this work, an effort was made to advance in that direction using modern computational thermodynamics methodology, software, and databases by Thermo-Calc Inc. The developed methodology is illustrated by the case study – a process of nuclear waste immobilization using a chemical engineering approach described below. The developed methodology can be considered a practical illustration of the Ellingham approach generalization and could be used for obtaining thermodynamic guidance on a given process’ feasibility using equipment/sensors made of a particular multicomponent heterogeneous metallic alloy.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

Exploration Technologies for Operations

Although the International Space Station (ISS) assembly has been completed, the Operations support teams continue to seek more efficient and effective ways to prepare for and conduct the ISS operations and future exploration missions beyond low earth orbit. This search for improvement has led to a significant collaboration between the NASA research and advanced software development community at NASA Ames Research Center and the Mission Operations community at NASA Johnson Space Center. Since 2001, NASA Ames Research Center has been developing and applying its advanced intelligent systems and human systems integration research to mission operations tools for several of the unmanned Mars missions operations. Since 2006, NASA Ames Research Center has also been developing and applying its advanced intelligent systems and human systems integration research to mission operations tools for manned operations support with the Mission Operations Directorate at NASA Johnson Space Center. This paper discusses the completion of the development and deployment of a variety of intelligent and human systems technologies adopted for manned mission operations. The technologies associated with the projects include advanced software systems for operations and human-centered computing. Human-centered computing looks to the processes and procedures that people do to perform any given job, then attempts to identify opportunities to improve these processes and procedures. In particular, for mission operations, improvements are quantified by specifically identifying how a tool can increase a persons efficiency, enhance a persons functional capability, andor improve the assurance of a persons decisions. The Ames development team has collaborated with the Mission Operations team to identify areas of efficiencies through technology infusion applications in support of the Plan, Train, and Fly activities of human-spaceflight mission operations. The specific applications discussed in this paper are in the areas of mission planning systems, mission operations design modeling and workflow automation, advanced systems monitoring, mission control technologies, search tools, training management tools, spacecraft solar array management, spacecraft power management, and spacecraft attitude planning. We discuss these specific projects between the Ames Research Center and the Johnson Space Centers Mission Operations Directorate, and how these technologies and projects are enhancing the mission operations support for the International Space Station. We also discuss the challenges, problems, and successes associated with long-distance and multi-year development projects between the research team at Ames and the Mission Operations customers at Johnson Space center. Finally, we discuss how these technology infusion applications and underlying technologies might be used in the future to support on-board operations of the crew and spacecraft systems as human exploration expands beyond low earth orbit to destinations in the solar system where communications delays will require more on-board autonomy and planning by the crew. Longer communications delays will require that the ground mission operations support will be primarily strategic in nature, while the tactical level of planning, systems monitoring and control, and failure analysisisolationrecovery will be the responsibility of both the spacecraft autonomous systems and the crew. Our expectation is that the technologies

mission operations↗

Communication Research in Aviation and Space Operations: Symptoms and Strategies of Crew Coordination

The day-to-day operators of today's aerospace systems work under increasing pressures to accomplish more with less. They work in operational systems which are complex, technology-based, and high-risk; in which incidents and accidents have far-reaching and costly consequences. For these and other reasons, there is concern that the safety net formerly built upon redundant systems and abundant resources may become overburdened. Although we know that human ingenuity can overcome incredible odds, human nature can also fail in unpredictable ways. Over the last 20 years, a large percentage of aviation accidents and incidents have been attributed to human errors rather than hardware or environmental factors alone. A class of errors have been identified which are not due to a lack of individual, technical competencies. Rather, they are due to the failure of teams to utilize readily available resources or information in a timely fashion. These insights began a training revolution in the aviation industry called Cockpit Resource Management, which later became known as Crew Resource Management (CRM) as its concepts and applications extended to teams beyond the flightdeck. Then, as now, communication has been a cornerstone in CRM training since crew coordination and resource management largely resides within information transfer processes--both within flightcrews, and between flightcrews and the ground operations teams that support them. The research I will describe takes its roots in CRM history as we began to study communication processes in order to discover symptoms of crew coordination problems, as well as strategies of effective crew management. On the one hand, communication is often the means or the tool by which team members manage their resources, solve problems, maintain situational awareness and procedural discipline. Conversely, it is the lack of planning and resource management, loss of vigilance and situational awareness, and non-standard communications that are implicated in accidents and incidents. NASA/Ames Crew Factors researchers have been developing a model of effective crew coordination in order to understand the sources of performance breakdowns, and to develop effective solutions and interventions. Because communication is a primary mechanism by which information is received and transmitted, and because it is observable behavior, we focus on these group processes in order to identify patterns of communication that distinguish effective from less effective crew performance. Since a prime objective is to develop training recommendations for enhancing communication skills, we interpret our findings in the context of relevant task and environmental conditions, role and procedural constraints, and the normal real-time parameters of flight operations. Another research objective is to consider how communication and coordination can be enhanced through design. For example, flight deck and hardware design as well as procedural and software design may greatly influence the efficiency with which crews communicate and coordinate their work. In addition, teams and tasks may be designed, organized, and trained so that team interactions with each other are based upon appropriately shared knowledge, procedures and situation awareness. In short, we are interested in enhancing communication practices through (1) the training of specific communication skills, and (2) the design of equipment, tasks, procedures, and teams that optimize smooth, unambiguous communication processes. Two examples of communication research will be described; one in aviation and one in space operations. The first example is a high-fidelity full mission simulation study which investigates the affect of flightdeck automation on crew coordination and communication (contrasting crew performance in the DC-9 vs. MD88). Additional information is contained in the original extended abstract.

Kanki, Barbara G.↗

Recent Advancements in the PATO Material Response Code

Introduction: Predicting the complicated multiphysics phenomena during atmospheric entry requires high-fidelity modeling tools to refine estimates of mission risks during entry. To this end, new capabilities are being added to the Porous-material Analysis Toolbox based on OpenFOAM (PATO). PATO is an open-source software for Computational Material Response (CMR) of reactive porous materials submitted to high-temperature environments. The objective of this work is to highlight current efforts to add to and improve upon the modeling capabilities of PATO. These include efforts to loosely couple PATO with other discipline specialized codes including hypersonic Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), to assess the interaction effects between pyrolysis gas blowing and the boundary layer, and Computational Solid Mechanics (CSM), to address modeling of mechanical erosion. Other refinements include surface phenomena modeling capabilities to address the effects of silicone-based coatings applied to the TPS during flight preparation, and a unified multiphase solver for a mixed porous-material and plain-fluid domain. Coupling CMR with CFD (CMR/CFD): A loose coupling between PATO and the Data Parallel Line Relaxation (DPLR) CFD code has been achieved by making use of a blowing boundary condition at the heatshield surface available in DPLR. Starting with heat flux estimates with no pyrolysis gas blowing at the surface, blowing gases are computed by the CMR and passed to the CFD such that aerothermal properties of the environment can be recomputed for a new CMR computation. This leads to an iterative process which is supplemented with an estimate of the radiative heat flux using the Nonequilibrium air radiation (NEQAIR) program. The entire iterative process is illustrated in Figure 1. This coupling strategy has been utilized in computing the MSL material response. The goal is to compare the coupled CMR/CFD results with material response results obtained using traditional blowing corrections. Coupling CMS with CMR: A mechanical erosion model is currently being implemented in PATO to account for the additional mass removal induced by high shear conditions. The modeling process at each timestep consists of updating the mechanical properties as a function of temperature and computing the stress tensor and displacement fields of the material. Then, a failure criteria model determines the regions in which the stress exceeds the ultimate strength values resulting in mesh movement to account for mass removal. This model allows the material response simulation to compute the recession due to both oxidation and shear-induced erosion. The model is demonstrated by computing material response of sphere-cone arc jet samples. Surface Modeling Capabilities: NuSil, a silicone-based coating, was sprayed onto the MSL and Mars 2020 heatshields to mitigate shedding of phenolic dust. To better understand the effects of the NuSil coating on the material response, a novel model has been implemented in PATO. In this model, the equilibrium of the charred NuSil surface is modeled as pure silica, and a constant offset, inspired by the classical spallation model, is added to the the char blowing rate and wall enthalpy to reproduce HyMETS experimental results. The model has also been used to estimate the 3D material response of the MSL heatshield. Unified Solver: In addition to the iterative loose coupling approach mentioned above, a multiphase unified solver is being developed to couple the environment (plain-fluid phase) and the porous-material phase. The solver is based on the volume averaged conservation of mass, momentum, and energy for the macroscale with closure models which include microscale effects through effective physicochemical properties. The unified solver has been used to compute flow through a porous plug and solve the Beavers and Joseph problem. Since the strong coupling between phases is inherent to this solver, modeling assumptions present in other coupling methods of material response are mitigated. This strategy also makes it feasible to capture the competition between surface and volume ablation in the same computational domain, which is usually not possible with other coupling approaches.

Material Response↗

Highly Reliable, High-Speed, Unidirectional Serial Data Links

Highly reliable, high-speed, unidirectional serial data-communication subsystems have been proposed to be installed in an upgrade of the computing systems aboard the space shuttles. The basic design concept of these serial data links is also adaptable to terrestrial use in applications in which there are requirements for highly reliable serial data communications. The hardware and software aspects of the architecture of the data links are dictated largely by a requirement, in the original space-shuttle application, for one computer to monitor the memory transactions and memory contents of other computers in real time with high reliability and without reliance on requests for retransmission. To minimize weight while affording a capability to transfer data at a required rate of 2.56 x 10(exp 8) bits per second, it was decided that the links would be serial ones of the fiber-channel type. [Fiber channel denotes a type of serial computer bus that is used to connect a computer (usually a supercomputer) with a high-speed data storage device. Depending on the specific application, the physical connection between the transmitter and receiver could be made via an optical fiber or a twisted pair of wires.] Heretofore, fiber-channel links have ordinarily been bidirectional and have operated under protocols that provide for receiving stations to detect errors and request retransmission when necessary. In the present case, the time taken by processing to request retransmission would conflict with the requirement for real-time transfer of data. To ensure reliability without retransmission, a link according to the proposal would utilize a modified version of the normal fiberchannel character set in conjunction with forward error correction by means of a Reed-Solomon code (see figure). The Reed-Solomon encoding and decoding and the translations between the normal and modified character sets would be effected by logic circuitry external to the fiber-channel transmitter and receiver, which would be commercial off-the-shelf units. The receiving end of the link could detect and correct errors at a rate as high as 4 million times per second, if necessary. The receiver detects uncorrectable double-byte errors. It has been estimated that uncorrectable-error rate would amount to one failure in about 10(exp 19) characters.

Cole, Robert M.↗

Recent Advancements in the PATO Material Response Code

Introduction: Predicting the complicated multiphysics phenomena during atmospheric entry requires high-fidelity modeling tools to refine estimates of mission risks during entry. To this end, new capabilities are being added to the Porous-material Analysis Toolbox based on OpenFOAM (PATO) [1,2,3]. PATO is an open-source software for Computational Material Response (CMR) of reactive porous materials submitted to high-temperature environments. The objective of this work is to highlight current efforts to add to and improve upon the modeling capabilities of PATO. These include efforts to loosely couple PATO with other discipline specialized codes including hypersonic Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), to assess the interaction effects between pyrolysis gas blowing and the boundary layer, and Computational Solid Mechanics (CSM), to address modeling of mechanical erosion. Other refinements include surface phenomena modeling capabilities to address the effects of silicone-based coatings applied to the TPS during flight preparation, and a unified multiphase solver for a mixed porous-material and plain-fluid domain. Coupling CMR with CFD (CMR/CFD): A loose coupling between PATO and the Data Parallel Line Relaxation (DPLR) [4] CFD code has been achieved by making use of a blowing boundary condition at the heatshield surface available in DPLR. Starting with heat flux estimates with no pyrolysis gas blowing at the surface, blowing gases are computed by the CMR and passed to the CFD such that aerothermal properties of the environment can be recomputed for a new CMR computation. This leads to an iterative process which is supplemented with an estimate of the radiative heat flux using the Nonequilibrium air radiation (NEQAIR) [5] program. The entire iterative process is illustrated in Figure 1. This coupling strategy has been utilized in computing the MSL material response. The goal is to compare the coupled CMR/CFD results with material response results obtained using traditional blowing corrections. Coupling CMS with CMR: A mechanical erosion model is currently being implemented in PATO to account for the additional mass removal induced by high shear conditions. The modeling process at each timestep consists of updating the mechanical properties as a function of temperature and computing the stress tensor and displacement fields of the material. Then, a failure criteria model determines the regions in which the stress exceeds the ultimate strength values resulting in mesh movement to account for mass removal. This model allows the material response simulation to compute the recession due to both oxidation and shear-induced erosion. The model is demonstrated by computing material response of sphere-cone arc jet samples. Surface Modeling Capabilities: NuSil, a silicone-based coating, was sprayed onto the MSL and Mars 2020 heatshields to mitigate shedding of phenolic dust. To better understand the effects of the NuSil coating on the material response, a novel model has been implemented in PATO. In this model, the equilibrium of the charred NuSil surface is modeled as pure silica, and a constant offset, inspired by the classical spallation model, is added to the the char blowing rate and wall enthalpy to reproduce HyMETS experimental results. The model has also been used to estimate the 3D material response of the MSL heatshield [6]. Unified Solver: In addition to the iterative loose coupling approach mentioned above, a multiphase unified solver is being developed to couple the environment (plain-fluid phase) and the porous-material phase. The solver is based on the volume averaged conservation of mass, momentum, and energy for the macroscale with closure models which include microscale effects through effective physicochemical properties. The unified solver has been used to compute flow through a porous plug and solve the Beavers and Joseph problem [7]. Since the strong coupling between phases is inherent to this solver, modeling assumptions present in other coupling methods of material response are mitigated. This strategy also makes it feasible to capture the competition between surface and volume ablation in the same computational domain, which is usually not possible with other coupling approaches.

Thermal Protection Systems↗

Archetype-based Redshift Estimation for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument Survey

We present a computationally efficient galaxy archetype-based redshift estimation and spectral classification method for the Dark Energy Survey Instrument (DESI) survey. The DESI survey currently relies on a redshift fitter and spectral classifier using a linear combination of principal component analysis–derived templates, which is very efficient in processing large volumes of DESI spectra within a short time frame. However, this method occasionally yields unphysical model fits for galaxies and fails to adequately absorb calibration errors that may still be occasionally visible in the reduced spectra. Our proposed approach improves upon this existing method by refitting the spectra with carefully generated physical galaxy archetypes combined with additional terms designed to absorb data reduction defects and provide more physical models to the DESI spectra. We test our method on an extensive data set derived from the survey validation (SV) and Year 1 (Y1) data of DESI. Our findings indicate that the new method delivers marginally better redshift success for SV tiles while reducing catastrophic redshift failure by 10%–30%. At the same time, results from millions of targets from the main survey show that our model has relatively higher redshift success and purity rates (0.5%–0.8% higher) for galaxy targets while having similar success for QSOs. These improvements also demonstrate that the main DESI redshift pipeline is generally robust. Additionally, it reduces the false-positive redshift estimation by 5%–40% for sky fibers. We also discuss the generic nature of our method and how it can be extended to other large spectroscopic surveys, along with possible future improvements.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

Autonomous Ocean World Exploration: Advancement of a Virtual Testbed

The search for life (extinct or extant) and potentially habitable bodies in our solar system and beyond is one of the 12 priority science questions outlined in the National Acadamies’ 2022 decadal survey [5]. Extraterrestrial destinations containing liquid water present an opportunity to search for life as we know it, and in recent years an increasing number of such locations have been discovered within our solar system. Several Jovian moons—Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto [10]—and the Saturnian moons Enceladus [8] and Titan [9] are known or suspected to harbor massive subsurface oceans. Of these "ocean worlds", Europa is the focus of at least one planned NASA orbiter mission, Europa Clipper [4], and an early lander mission concept, the Europa Lander [2, 3]. Whereas most robotic missions to the Moon and Mars (e.g. orbiters, rovers, landers) to date have had ground controllers on Earth tightly involved in mission operations, missions to more distant worlds will require a high degree of onboard autonomy due to long communication lags and blackouts, harsh environments (radiation, cold), and more limited battery and hardware life. The past decade has seen great advances in both AI technologies and computing scalability and performance that offer promising solutions for spacecraft autonomy and motivate the software system and research programs described in this paper. The Ocean Worlds Autonomy Testbed for Exploration, Research, and Simulation (OceanWATERS) [1], which has been in development at the NASA Ames Research Center since 2018, is a virtual environment for testing lander autonomy solutions. It is built on the Robot Operating System (ROS), runs on consumer-grade Linux workstations, and was released as open source in 2020. OceanWATERS provides a physical and visual simulation of a prototypical lander in a Europa-like environment (Figure 1). The lander was modeled after requirements and specifications made in JPL’s Europa Lander Study of 2016 [3]. Simulated lander systems include stereo cameras and spotlights mounted on an antenna mast that pans and tilts, a 6 degrees of freedom (DoF) robotic arm with a force-torque sensor and two interchangeable end effectors, and a battery pack power system. The environment consists of multiple terrain models including a highly detailed model sourced from the FROST dataset [11], simulation of surrounding planetary bodies based on an ephemeris model, and lighting from the sun with associated surface illumination, reflectance, and shadows. Operations supported by OceanWATERS include panoramic and directed imaging of the environment and lander workspace, Cartesian and joint-level arm commanding, grinding of the terrain surface (e.g. digging a trench), and scooping of ground material (Figure 2) which can be discarded or collected as science samples in a receptacle that can be emptied (science operations themselves are not simulated). These operations are realized as ROS Actions and are complimented by a wide selection of telemetry that is continually produced by each lander subsystem. The power system model is driven by the open-source Generic Software Architecture for Prognostics (GSAP) [11] that predicts the battery’s remaining useful life and other characteristics. As a testbed for high-level autonomy, OceanWATERS provides an execution framework based on PLEXIL [12], an open-source plan specification language and execution engine developed largely at Ames. NASA's initial development of OceanWATERS, as well the Ocean Worlds Lander Autonomy Testbed (OWLAT) [6], a complimentary physical testbed developed at JPL, was the first step in a plan for realizing candidate onboard autonomy solutions for such planetary landers. In 2020 NASA solicited applications for its Autonomous Robotics Research for Ocean Worlds (ARROW) program, and in 2021 the similar Concepts for Ocean worlds Life Detection Technology (COLDTech) program. Collectively six research teams, based in universities and companies across the United States, were awarded grants to develop and demonstrate autonomy solutions on OceanWATERS and OWLAT. These 1–2-year projects have now finished or are nearing completion, and a wide variety of autonomy challenges in ocean world surface missions were addressed. Prototyped and demonstrated solutions have included autonomous discovery, response and adaptation to system faults and unexpected environmental events, world model synthesis through perception, plan synthesis using learned models, methods to optimize sample target selection and prioritize science data transmission, extension of PLEXIL for stochastic decision-making, and an integration of a model of JPL’s mission-ready COLDArm [7]. Technologies used in these projects include many forms of machine learning, causal reasoning, automated planning, Markov decision processes, formal methods, and other advanced techniques. A more detailed summary of the ARROW and COLDTech projects is given herein. OceanWATERS has had significant enhancements since its open-source release in 2020. Many of its new features were driven or shaped by feedback from the ARROW and COLDTech teams and requirements of their projects. In support of enabling autonomous adaptation to spacecraft faults (a specific capability solicited by both programs), a fault injection and detection framework was developed that supports a wide and growing range of fault types such as locked joints, image loss, and battery failures. The power system model was completed and integrated into the simulator, starting as a single-cell battery model and later upgraded to a multi-cell model with associated faults such as cell disconnection. Arm/terrain interaction was improved by adding a force-torque sensor and associated faults, and an analytic dig force model based on the Balovnev bucket force equations. Environment fidelity was increased by modeling terrain deformation resulting from digging and scooping; visual improvements were made in textures, lighting, and shadows. To facilitate interoperation with OWLAT, a unified command and telemetry interface between the testbeds was developed at the ROS level, along with a PLEXIL interface. The number of lander operations was greatly expanded (e.g. with Cartesian-based arm and antenna movement), and a framework was designed for users to build their own lander actions. A GUI for PLEXIL plan selection was created (Figure 3), and an expansive set of plans were added, such as those that illustrate patterns for fault handling. This paper provides a self-contained high-level description of OceanWATERS, focusing on more detailed coverage of the aforementioned enhancements. It provides a high-level summary of the projects undertaken by participants in the ARROW and COLDTech programs and how these efforts have helped shape OceanWATERS. Finally, potential future work and directions for the testbed are listed, as likely informed by the recent planetary science decadal survey [5].

K Michael Dalal↗

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↗

MO-E-BRB-04: Real-Time Exit-Fluence Delivery Validation

Recent high profile reports of technical failures and human errors causing severe radiation- induced injuries and deaths come in support of the sustained efforts to ensure patient safety in the delivery of radiation treatments. In addition, highly conformal radiation therapies and escalated fraction doses mandate increased and sustained accuracy of the entire radiotherapy process. Consequently, and as a Result of AAPM and ASTRO led efforts patient specific quality assurance for specialized radiation treatments such as IMRT, SRS/SBRT and Arc Therapy had become a three-tier process: Pre-treatment, during treatment, and post treatment patient specific QA. Traditional patient QA consists of pre-treatment data transfer integrity dosimetric verifications and during-treatment geometric verifications. However, as treatment adaptation becomes closer to deployment in the clinics, during treatment validation via exit detectors had become a realistic QA option, permitting plan assessment in near real time. Post-treatment, machine logs allow comparisons of a range of mechanical parameters. A combination of these techniques could be used in evaluating inter-fraction, and intra-fraction delivery over a long time period such as an year, to evaluate the significant errors per site, per treatment technique. This type of data mining over longer periods of time provides the potential to recognize suboptimal radiation treatments, while allowing to identify systematic, possibly significant errors. This would allow creation of a data base of realized errors, small and large in dosimetry that could be for process or equipment improvement. This educational symposium will describe and review patient QA techniques, results, and strategies for patient specific quality assurance. Learning Objectives: review the goals of pre-treatment QA for various specialized procedures review methods and means for pre-treatment QA, limitations and tolerances review the scenarios where Varian/Tomo Log files could be used. review error detection via log file analysis Learn how exit detector signal recorded in log file could be used to improve patient safety understand real-time EPID-based transmission dosimetry methods understand the goals of real-time delivery monitoring CMS Innovation grant. Rapid response supportive and palliative care program for patients with advanced cancer, starts July, 2012; Accuray Inc. Exit detector based QA software evaluation, Sept, 2012-Sept, 2013; ROI GRant from ASTRO “Safety and Quality: IMRT treatment delivery accuracy”.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗