SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “computer programming integrity”

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 1,549 records · Page 86

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2018

Final Report on CFD and Thermal-Mechanical Stress Analysis of PWR Surge Line under Transient Condition Thermal Stratification and an Evolutionary Cyclic Plasticity Based Transformative Fatigue Evaluation Approach without Using S~N Curve: Rev. 1

This report presents an evolutionary cyclic plasticity based transformative approach for fatigue evaluation of safety critical components. This approach is generic which can be used not only for the present generation light water reactor components (which is our focus) but also for advanced reactor components. The approach is based on the fundamental concept of time-evolution of progressive fatigue damage rather than the end-of-life data based conventional S~N curve approaches. Series of fatigue tests on 316 stainless steel uniaxial specimens were conducted under strain-controlled and stress-controlled cyclic loading in two different environment such as in-air at 300 °C and PWR coolant water condition at 300 °C. Material models are developed to capture the uniaxial test data and are subsequently programmed into commercially available ABAQUS code to transform the uniaxial material behavior to multiaxial loading domain. The developed evolutionary cyclic-plasticity approach is verified by both analytical and 3D-FE modeling of uniaxial fatigue test specimens. Results show that the developed material models can capture the time-dependence of material hardening and softening with great accuracy. In addition, results show that the material models not only can capture the material behavior under constant amplitude loading but also can capture the load-sequence effect under variable and random amplitude loading. The ANL developed approach is one of its kind, which shows first in the fatigue research community that fatigue evaluation of a component (in our case verified for laboratory scale fatigue test specimens with great accuracy) can be performed for its entire fatigue life, including the hardening and softening behavior, without using a conventional S~N curve based approach. Additionally results are presented related to fatigue evaluation of real reactor components such as of a pressurized water reactor (PWR) surge line (SL), under upset transient conditions. SLs of PWR experience complex thermal stratification due to the mixing of differential temperature flow from hot leg and pressurizer. A detailed parametric study of thermal stratification in SL is performed through both standalone computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis and fluid-structure-interaction based coupled CFD and heat transfer analysis. Results show that the mass flow rate in SL substantially affects the extent of its thermal stratification. The resulting thermal boundaries conditioned are used as inputs for thermal-mechanical stress analysis and component level fatigue evaluation. Fatigue evaluation of SL pipe under example loading conditions was performed using the above-mentioned evolutionary-plasticity based approach and ASME code (for in-air life) and NUREG-6909 (for PWR environment life) based approaches. Results show that the evolutionary plasticity based approach estimate substantially different life compared to the conventional ASME based approach. To show the entirety of the proposed evolutionary fatigue-modeling framework, this report includes the results presented in semi-annual March report (ANL/LWRS-17/01). Sections 2-5 of March report are directly included as Sections 2-5 in this report, without any significant changes. However, Sections 6-9 of this report present the work performed during March-September of 2017. Whereas, Sections 1 and 10 present the organization of this report and the summary and future work, respectively. This report (ANL/LWRS-17/03 Rev. 1) is a slightly revised version of the earlier published report (ANL/LWRS-17/03). In this revised version, some of the results and associated discussion have been corrected/updated.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2012

Fuel Cycle Research & Development Technical Monthly – May 2012

Management and Integration LANL - Initial coordination meetings with NE and NA-20 were held the first week of May. Additional meetings, to include NA-82 and the new Proliferation and Terrorism Risk Assessment task are scheduled for June. Work package planning as part of the NTD transition is ongoing. Microcalorimetry LANL - Some parts to attempt repair of a malfunctioning water chiller that has been holding up work on the current detector array have arrived. We will attempt to begin running the compressor/cryostat next week to resume work on commissioning the detector array. We have also been working on a backup plan to temporarily move our system to a different lab space. Completed data analysis and prepared a paper summarizing Pu measurements for peer-review journal. Two members of our team presented work at the SORMA West 2012 conference. Completed data analysis and prepared a milestone report summarizing the development of Monte Carlo tools to study systematic errors. Electrochemical Sensor INL - The second sensor test was stopped short due to the work stand-down. Some activities related to this work have resumed, but not all. The sensor used during the second test was removed from the furnace and it showed cracks and later crumbled when being rinsed for sample preparation. The sensor material will be submitted to SEM analysis once work is resumed in the facilities where analysis is performed. A third sensor test has started. Tests with different arrangements will continue and will be oriented based on post-test analysis of the first three sensor tests. Materials with different annealing temperatures will also be prepared for analysis. Lead slowing down spectrometer LANL - Continued work on perturbation method for LSDS analysis. We are running simulations to delineate issues and are checking additional data libraries to see whether there are differences in simulation results. Electrochemical sensor INL - The second sensor test was stopped short due to the work stand-down. Some activities related to this work have resumed, but not all. The sensor used during the second test was removed from the furnace and it showed cracks and later crumbled when being rinsed for sample preparation. The sensor material will be submitted to SEM analysis once work is resumed in the facilities where analysis is performed. A third sensor test has started. Tests with different arrangements will continue and will be oriented based on post-test analysis of the first three sensor tests. Materials with different annealing temperatures will also be prepared for analysis. Fast Neutron Multiplicity analysis INL - The University of Michigan team continues its work on the post-experiment analysis of the validation data from JRC ISPRA, as well as scoping studies using the simulation tool MCNPX-PoliMi. At INL, our new staff member working on this project is now working to model performance capabilities for the fast-neutrons scintillator design concepts. At INL our primary analysis approach is focused on the Feynman mean-to-variance approach. At the University of Michigan, the primary analysis approach is multiplicity coincidence analysis. Fast Neutron Imaging to Quantify Nuclear Materials ORNL - Completed additional measurements of the two 'trainer' configurations as well as calibration measurements with sources on an x-y stage. The imager was shipped to Pantex for an NA-22 obligation at the end of May. Lead Slowing Down Spectrometer LANL - Continued to look into He4 detector. A Swiss company was located that makes He4 detectors and associated electronics. Had a teleconference with them to assess the possible help we can get from them. We are also looking in to constructing one locally. Ongoing perturbation calculations are providing information on the fundamental systematic error limits of LSDS. In order to achieve separating the contribution of Pu and 235U to the signal, there will need to be tight controls on systematic errors. Multi-isotope Process Monitor PNNL - Attended a training call in advanced multivariate classification and analysis methods. These methods were applied to the multivariate analysis of fuel characteristics based on simulated gamma. Work continued on a computational framework to quantify the impact of gamma-ray counting statistical precision on principal component regression (PCR) analysis of a multi-component (i.e. multi-isotope) gammaray spectrum. Tests of the simulation framework are anticipated to begin in early June. Development of a proposal to instrument H-Canyon is being prepared in conjunction with SRNL and the NNSA's NGSI program is ongoing.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2012

Using an operator training simulator in the undergraduate chemical engineering curriculim

An operator training simulator (OTS) is to the chemical engineer what a flight simulator is to the aerospace engineer. The basis of an OTS is a high-fidelity dynamic model of a chemical process that allows an engineer to simulate start-up, shut-down, and normal operation. It can also be used to test the skill and ability of an engineer or operator to respond and control some unforeseen situation(s) through the use of programmed malfunctions. West Virginia University (WVU) is a member of the National Energy Technology Laboratory’s Regional University Alliance (NETL-RUA). Working through the NETL-RUA, the authors have spent the last four years collaborating on the development of a high-fidelity OTS for an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant with CO{sub 2} capture that is the cornerstone of the AVESTARTM (Advanced Virtual Energy Simulation Training And Research) Center with sister facilities at NETL and WVU in Morgantown, WV. This OTS is capable of real-time dynamic simulation of IGCC plant operation, including start-up, shut-down, and power demand load following. The dynamic simulator and its human machine interfaces (HMIs) are based on the DYNSIM and InTouch software, respectively, from Invensys Operations Management. The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the authors’ experiences in using this sophisticated dynamic simulation-based OTS as a hands-on teaching tool in the undergraduate chemical engineering curriculum. At present, the OTS has been used in two separate courses: a new process simulation course and a traditional process control course. In the process simulation course, concepts of steady-state and dynamic simulations were covered prior to exposing the students to the OTS. Moreover, digital logic and the concept of equipment requiring one or more permissive states to be enabled prior to successful operation were also covered. Students were briefed about start-up procedures and the importance of following a predetermined sequence of actions in order to start-up the plant successfully. Student experience with the dynamic simulator consisted of a six-hour training session in which the Claus sulfur capture unit of the IGCC plant was started up. The students were able to operate the simulator through the InTouch-based HMI displays and study and understand the underlying dynamic modeling approach used in the DYNSIM-based simulator. The concepts learned during the training sessions were further reinforced when students developed their own DYNSIM models for a chemical process and wrote a detailed start-up procedure. In the process control course, students learned how the plant responds dynamically to changes in the manipulated inputs, as well as how the control system impacts plant performance, stability, robustness and disturbance rejection characteristics. The OTS provided the opportunity to study the dynamics of complicated, “real-life” process plants consisting of hundreds of pieces of equipment. Students implemented ideal forcing functions, tracked the time-delay through the entire plant, studied the response of open-loop unstable systems, and learned “good practices” in control system design by taking into account the real-world events where significant deviations from the “ideal” or “expected” response can occur. The theory of closed-loop stability was reinforced by implementing limiting proportional gain for stability limits of real plants. Finally, students were divided into several groups where each group was tasked to control a section of the plant within a set of operating limits in the face of disturbances and simulated process faults. At the end of this test, they suggested ways to improve the control system performance based on the theory they learned in class and the hands-on experience they earned while working on the OTS.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2025

Fiscal Year 2025 Software Quality Assurance Activities for the ARC Software

The continued goal of the ARC SQA project in the Advanced Reactor Technologies program of DOE is to resolve the QA gaps for the ARC software that limit, or prevent, commercialization of the software for industry users. This project started in earnest in fiscal year 2023 which saw the entire code system moved from a SVN repository to a GitLab repository and an associated software quality assurance plan (SQAP) developed and ratified. Most of the QA gaps in the ARC software were identified in collaboration with industry partners and work begin in fiscal year 2023 and continued through 2024 and 2025. The continuous integration testing was extended to RCT, DASSH, and SE2ANL. Minor changes were required to the original continuous integration methodology to make this happen. When full confidence in the methodology is complete, a report will be created to detail the automated regression testing methodology and minor reports will be created to detail the tolerance settings that have been applied to the output for each ARC code. The primary documentation that is missing includes user manuals, user guides, software verification reports, and code coverage assessments. The DASSH, SE2ANL, and SE2RCT manuals were completed this fiscal year. A review of the SE2ANL software identified that it is unrealistic to include updated correlations or different geometry models and it was scheduled for deprecation in favor of DASSH. The SE2ANL manual is essential for SE2RCT as they are similar but quite different in purpose. The only piece of software missing a manual consistent with the source code is NUBOW-3D which is a focus of the coming year. The code coverage report for DIF3D was updated and code coverage reports were created for REBUS, RCT, PERSENT, GAMSRC, and DASSH. Minor coverage issues were identified for all of these pieces of software which did not prevent the work done to transition them to the OneAPI compiler. Because SE2ANL was scheduled for deprecation, it was not transitioned, but it was successfully tested with the OneAPI compiler. This leaves SE2RCT and NUBOW-3D as the only pieces of software not transitioned to OneAPI and further work is required to get SE2RCT to work properly. The SE2RCT software transition will begin early next year while the NUBOW-3D software requires a manual before it can begin. Software verification work has been completed for DIF3D, REBUS, GAMSOR, GAMSRC, VARPOW, EvaluateFlux, and SUMMAR. The PERSENT software verification work was completed this year which was somewhat delayed because of unexpected bugs in the software. The PERSENT manual was updated to detail some of the issues and discuss the bowing reactivity worth feature added in the previous fiscal year. The RCT, DASSH, SE2RCT, and NUBOW-3D software are the only maintained pieces of software without verification reports. The software verification work for DASSH will be a focus in the upcoming fiscal year and it is hoped that some of the test cases created can serve as verification tests for SE2RCT. The NUBOW-3D work will begin when the manual and requirements report are completed. Only minor industry partner software development funds were provided this year. The DASSH software was updated to handle general axial geometry for each assembly and the NUBOW-3D software was updated to incorporate a new input format and better output. Overall progress on resolving the QA gaps has been good this year.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Impact of Thermal Scattering Law on Similarity Assessment in Light-Water or Polyethylene-Moderated Systems

A collaborative effort between Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is underway to provide a technical basis and methodology for the criticality safety community to use the sum of fractions (SoF) method for generating limits for mixtures of “selected actinide nuclides” included in the ANSI/ANS 8.15 standard. The PNNL scope in this project is to define a range of mixtures of 233 U, 235 U, and 239 Pu moderated with either light water or polyethylene and to examine the critical masses for these mixtures. The ORNL scope is primarily to provide validation support for these studies. More complete discussion of the project and its validation aspects will be presented at the upcoming International Conference on Nuclear Criticality Safety (ICNC) this Fall in Sendai, Japan. Clear differences in benchmark similarity to application systems as assessed by the integral parameter ck are noted in the validation studies performed as part of this project as a function of moderator. The c k value is a correlation coefficient that represents that amount of shared uncertainty in k eff due to cross sections between two systems. Individual nuclide-reaction contributions between the two systems can be simply summed to arrive at the total c k value. Specifically, the c k values for light-water–moderated solution experiments are higher for a water-moderated application than for a polyethylene-moderated application. This result is neither totally unexpected nor surprising, but the magnitude of the difference was difficult to anticipate. The TSUNAMI sequence, in the SCALE 6.2.4 code package developed by ORNL, was used to generate eigenvalues and reactivity effects with perturbation-theory based approach through sensitivity coefficients for all nuclides in the system with all reactions and energy groups. The TSUNAMI-Indices and Parameters (IP) sequence then uses the sensitivity data generated through TSUNAMI to generate relational parameters (i.e., c k ) to determine the degree of similarity between systems. One detail of the SCALE material and data implementation must be discussed at this point. Several thermal scattering laws (TSLs) are available for 1 H. SCALE uses a different nuclide ID number for each TSL; essentially, each version of 1 H is treated as a unique nuclide. For example, 1 H bound in water ( 1 H-H2O) is assigned the nuclide ID 1001, whereas 1 H bound in polyethylene (h-poly) is assigned the nuclide ID 9001001. The same cross section data are used for all reactions in 1 H, regardless of TSL, except for scattering below the TSL cutoff energy. TSUNAMI-IP treats different nuclide IDs as different nuclides; thus, no uncertainty is shared between 1 H-H2O and h-poly, despite much of the same data, including covariance data, being used for both nuclides. This presents a question: how much of the difference in assessed similarity between water- and polyethylene-moderated systems is due to the moderators, and how much is caused by the treatment of 1 H-H2O and h poly with cross section and covariance data. The extended edits generated by TSUANMI-IP allow for an investigation of this issue specifically, as well as a demonstration of the general techniques available within TSUNAMI to understand the results of the similarity assessment. This paper presents and analyzes the similarity assessment of both water- and polyethylene-moderated systems for a single benchmark: PST-002-001.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Fiscal Year 2025 Software Quality Assurance Activities for the ARC Software

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2019

Improving Energy Efficiency of Air Separation via Hollow Fiber Sorbents

This report summarizes the work performed under the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE-NETL) Advanced Energy Systems Program award number DE-FE0026163 Improving Energy Efficiency of Air Separation via Hollow Fiber Sorbents. The overall objective of the project was to develop technology to produce oxygen for use in coal gasification processes at a significantly lower cost than that of the commercial state-of-the-art technology. The focus of the project was development and optimization of hollow fiber sorbents for use in a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) process for producing oxygen from air. The key technical advancement under this program was the development of a hollow fiber sorbent capable of producing oxygen in a PSA process. PSAs produce oxygen by using a beaded zeolite material (typically lithium exchanged zeolites or LiX) that selectively adsorb nitrogen over oxygen. For a fiber to adsorb nitrogen, LiX needed to be integrated into a polymer fiber and then activated at over 350C to remove residual moisture. After screening multiple materials and process techniques, Matrimid/LiX hollow fibers were produced that were able to withstand the activation and had crystalline nitrogen capacity close to pure LiX crystals. The fibers were dual layer fibers with a barrier layer isolating the hollow bore from the LiX embedded layer. The barrier layer was formed from an Ultem® based solution. The hollow bore was intended for encapsulating phase change materials to ensure isothermal PSA operation. Modeling work from the project suggested that the benefits of this additional complexity were marginal, thus the team fabricated non-hollow fibers comprised of Matrimid and LiX. The Matrimid/LiX fibers were loaded into a module and tested on a bench scale PSA unit. The fibers were able to separate oxygen from air, but the purity and recovery were lower than expected and lower than traditional beaded LiX zeolites, although modeling results suggested that the bed sizes for fiber sorbents could be half the size of a beaded LiX bed. Additional work will be needed to understand the shortfall and to produce fiber sorbent modules with performance equal to the targets set for this program. In addition to producing fibers, modeling work was carried out at both the fiber level and process level to guide both fiber sorbent development and to determine the optimal process conditions for a PSA using fiber sorbents. A 2D hollow fiber model was developed in gPROMS Model Builder. This model was based on literature data for mass transfer and other parameters. This model used a basic single bed PSA process to determine important fiber properties and process conditions for achieving high oxygen recovery. The preliminary 2D fiber model was a valuable tool, however, for step-out technologies, such as a PSA process with fiber sorbents, intelligent optimization and plant control was needed to effectively determine minimum power designs. Therefore, a gPROMS Process Builder-based optimization tool was developed with an “Automated Cycle Optimizer” model that was able to determine optimal cycle conditions for a fiber sorbent PSA. The results from the optimizer were used in the final power analysis. Flow sheet analysis and techno-economic analysis (TEA) was carried out to determine a lower power solution versus the baseline case. The original project scope suggested that the fiber sorbent PSA could be used to debottleneck a cryogenic air separation plant (cryo-ASU) with the combined plant having lower power than a standalone cryo-ASU. However, early flowsheet analysis showed that the PSA/cryo-ASU concept would not lead to a lower power solution. However, further flowsheet analysis suggested that an oxygen PSA combined with a nitrogen PSA could have lower power versus state-of-the-art air separation technology. Work concluded with the TEA showing a fiber sorbent oxygen PSA combined with an advanced nitrogen PSA could be up to 8% lower power versus the base case cryo-ASU. Overall, there is significant potential remaining for the zeolite hollow fiber sorbent concept, and this project successfully identified -- and ultimately remedied -- many technical challenges associated with scale-up.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2023

An Integrated Framework for Risk Assessment of Safety-related Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants: Methodology Refinement and Exploration

This report documents activities performed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) during Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, Risk Informed Systems Analysis (RISA) Pathway, digital instrumentation and control (DI&C) risk assessment project. In FY 2019, the RISA Pathway initiated a project to develop a risk assessment strategy for delivering a technical basis to support effective, and secure DI&C technologies for digital upgrades/designs. A risk assessment-informed framework was proposed for this strategy, which aims to (1) provide a best-estimate, risk informed capability to quantitatively estimate the safety margin obtained from plant modernization, especially for safety-related DI&C systems, (2) support and supplement existing risk informed DI&C design guides by providing quantitative risk information and evidence, (3) offer a capability of design architecture evaluation of various DI&C systems, (4) assure the long-term safety and reliability of safety-related DI&C systems, and (5) reduce uncertainty in costs and support integration of DI&C systems in the plant. To achieve these technical goals, the LWRS-developed framework provides a means to address relevant technical issues by: (1) defining a risk informed analysis process for DI&C upgrade that integrates hazard analysis, reliability analysis, and consequence analysis, (2) applying risk informed tools to address common cause failures (CCFs) and quantify corresponding failure probabilities for DI&C technologies, particularly software CCFs, (3) evaluating the impact of digital failures at the component level, system level, and plant level, and (4) providing insights and suggestions on designs to manage the risks, thus to support the development and deployment of advanced DI&C technologies in nuclear power plants (NPPs). Adding diversity within a system or components is the primary means to eliminate and mitigate CCFs, but diversity also increases system complexity and may not address all sources of systematic failures. Optimization of diversity and redundancy applications for the safety-critical DI&C systems remains a challenge. To deal with the technical issues in addressing potential software CCFs in safety-related DI&C systems of NPPs and supporting relevant design optimization, the proposed framework provides: (a) A best-estimate, risk informed capability to address new technical digital issues quantitatively, focusing on software CCFs in safety-related DI&C systems of NPPs; (b) A common and a modularized platform for DI&C designers, software developers, cybersecurity analysts, and plant engineers to predict and prevent risk in the early design stage of DI&C systems; (c) Technical bases and risk informed insights to assist users address the risk informed alternatives for evaluation of CCFs in safety-related DI&C systems of NPPs; and (d) A risk informed tool that offers a capability of design architecture evaluation of various DI&C systems to support system design decisions in diversity and redundancy applications. The research and development efforts of this project in FY 2023 are focused on refining current methods on software CCF modeling and estimation and exploring additional innovative approaches to risk assessment of DI&C systems to enable a more comprehensive and complete assessment of various safety-related DI&C design architectures. The primary audience of this report are DI&C designers, engineers, and probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) practitioners. This includes stakeholders, such as the nuclear utilities and regulators who consider the deployment and upgrade of DI&C systems, DI&C software developers and reviewers, and cybersecurity specialists. It should be noted that all the analyses are performed for the demonstration of the methodology, not for the evaluation of an actual digital control system. Results are obtained based on limited design information and testing data.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2016

Exe-Guard Project

The exe-Guard Project is an alliance between Dominion Virginia Power (DVP), Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Dartmouth University, and Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories (SEL). SEL is primary recipient on this project. The exe-Guard project was selected for award under DE-FOA-0000359 with CFDA number 81.122 to address Topic Area of Interest 4: Hardened platforms and Systems. The exe-Guard project developed an antivirus solution for control system embedded devices to prevent the execution of unauthorized code and maintain settings and configuration integrity. This project created a white list antivirus solution for control systems capable of running on embedded Linux® operating systems. White list antivirus methods allow only credible programs to run through the use of digital signatures and hash functions. Once a system’s secure state is baselined, white list antivirus software denies deviations from that state because of the installation of malicious code as this changes hash results. Black list antivirus software has been effective in traditional IT environments but has negative implications for control systems. Black list antivirus uses pattern matching and behavioral analysis to identify system threats while relying on regular updates to the signature file and recurrent system scanning. Black list antivirus is vulnerable to zero day exploits which have not yet been incorporated into a signature file update. System scans hamper the performance of high availability applications, as revealed in NIST special publication 1058 which summarizes the impact of blacklist antivirus on control systems: Manual or “on-demand” scanning has a major effect on control processes in that they take CPU time needed by the control process (Sometimes close to 100% of CPU time). Minimizing the antivirus software throttle setting will reduce but not eliminate this effect. Signature updates can also take up to 100% of CPU time, but for a much shorter period than a typical manual scanning process. Control systems are vulnerable to performance losses if off-the-shelf blacklist antivirus solutions aren’t implemented with care. This investment in configuration in addition to constant decommissioning to perform manual signature file updates is unprecedented and impractical. Additionally, control systems are often disconnected or islanded from the network making the delivery of signature updates difficult. Exe-Guard project developed a white list antivirus solution that mitigated the above drawbacks and allows control systems to cost-effectively apply malware protection while maintaining high reliability. The application of security patches can also be minimized since white listing maintains constant defense against unauthorized code execution. Security patches can instead be applied in less frequent intervals where system decommissioning can be scheduled and planned for. Since control systems are less dynamic than IT environments, the feasibility of maintaining a secure baselined state is more practical. Because upgrades are performed in infrequent, calculated intervals, it allows a new security baseline to be established before the system is returned to service. Exe-Guard built on the efforts of SNL under the Code Seal project. SNL demonstrated prototype Trust Anchors on the project which are independent monitoring and control devices that can be integrated into untrustworthy components. The exe-Guard team started with the lessons learned under this project then designed commercial solution for white list malware protection. Malware is a real threat, even on islanded or un-networked installations, since operators can unintentionally install infected files, plug in infected mass storage devices, or infect a piece of equipment on the islanded local area network that can then spread to other connected equipment. Protection at the device level is one of the last layers of defense in a security-in-depth defense model before an asset becomes compromised. This project provided non-destructive intrusion, isolation and automated response solution, achieving a goal of the Department of Energy (DOE) Roadmap to Secure Control Systems. It also addressed CIP-007-R4 which requires asset owners to employ malicious software prevention tools on assets within the electronic security perimeter. In addition, the CIP-007-R3 requirement for security patch management is minimized because white listing narrows the impact of vulnerabilities and patch releases. The exe-Guard Project completed all tasks identified in the statement of project objective and identified additional tasks within scope that were performed and completed within the original budget. The cost share was met and all deliverables were successfully completed and submitted on time. Most importantly the technology developed and commercialized under this project has been adopted by the Energy sector and thousands of devices with exe-Guard technology integrated in them have now been deployed and are protecting our power systems today

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2016

Lattice QCD Calculation of Nucleon Structure

It is emphasized in the 2015 NSAC Long Range Plan that "understanding the structure of hadrons in terms of QCD's quarks and gluons is one of the central goals of modern nuclear physics." Over the last three decades, lattice QCD has developed into a powerful tool for ab initio calculations of strong-interaction physics. Up until now, it is the only theoretical approach to solving QCD with controlled statistical and systematic errors. Since 1985, we have proposed and carried out first-principles calculations of nucleon structure and hadron spectroscopy using lattice QCD which entails both algorithmic development and large-scale computer simulation. We started out by calculating the nucleon form factors -- electromagnetic, axial-vector, πNN, and scalar form factors, the quark spin contribution to the proton spin, the strangeness magnetic moment, the quark orbital angular momentum, the quark momentum fraction, and the quark and glue decomposition of the proton momentum and angular momentum. The first round of calculations were done with Wilson fermions in the `quenched' approximation where the dynamical effects of the quarks in the sea are not taken into account in the Monte Carlo simulation to generate the background gauge configurations. Beginning in 2000, we have started implementing the overlap fermion formulation into the spectroscopy and structure calculations. This is mainly because the overlap fermion honors chiral symmetry as in the continuum. It is going to be more and more important to take the symmetry into account as the simulations move closer to the physical point where the u and d quark masses are as light as a few MeV only. We began with lattices which have quark masses in the sea corresponding to a pion mass at ~ 300 MeV and obtained the strange form factors, charm and strange quark masses, the charmonium spectrum and the D s meson decay constant f D s , the strangeness and charmness, the meson mass decomposition and the strange quark spin from the anomalous Ward identity. Recently, we have started to include multiple lattices with different lattice spacings and different volumes including large lattices at the physical pion mass point. We are getting quite close to being able to calculate the hadron structure at the physical point and to do the continuum and large volume extrapolations, which is our ultimate aim. We have now finished several projects which have included these systematic corrections. They include the leptonic decay width of the ρ, the πN sigma and strange sigma terms, and the strange quark magnetic moment. Over the years, we have also studied hadron spectroscopy with lattice calculations and in phenomenology. These include Roper resonance, pentaquark state, charmonium spectrum, glueballs, scalar mesons a 0 (1450) and σ(600) and other scalar mesons, and the 1 -+ meson. In addition, we have employed the canonical approach to explore the first-order phase transition and the critical point at finite density and finite temperature. We have also discovered a new parton degree of freedom -- the connected sea partons, from the path-integral formulation of the hadronic tensor, which explains the experimentally observed Gottfried sum rule violation. Combining experimental result on the strange parton distribution, the CT10 global fitting results of the total u and d anti-partons and the lattice result of the ratio of the momentum fraction of the strange vs that of u or d in the disconnected insertion, we have shown that the connected sea partons can be isolated. In this final technical report, we shall present a few representative highlights that have been achieved in the project.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2019

The Next Generation System Analysis Model: Capabilities for Simulating a Waste Management System - 19131

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition's Integrated Waste Management System (IWMS) program is applying integrated waste management system architecture analysis, system engineering, and decision analysis principles to inform potential future decisions regarding potential nuclear waste management system architectures. Architecture analyses of the IWMS are being conducted to support the future deployment of a comprehensive system for managing nuclear waste that considers all major aspects of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle (i.e., transportation, storage, and disposal). The system architecture analyses consider alternative disposition pathways for commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) being stored dry in at-reactor Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs) or wet in spent-fuel pools. One method for evaluating these alternatives is simulating the movement of SNF throughout the system components. Successfully simulating a system on the scale of a national waste management system requires - accurate baseline information (e.g., historic fuel discharges from reactors and dry storage loadings at reactor sites), - modeling all logistic interactions between components of the proposed system, and - tracking and reporting all relevant details regarding the simulation's execution. The Next Generation System Analysis Model (NGSAM) is an agent-based simulation software tool designed for the express purpose of modeling the IWMS. It is based on the Performance Analysis Tool, a simulation platform that has been used to model logistics for the Department of Defense and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Using existing, government-owned software allows NGSAM developers to modify the software at the level of source code and to develop flexible usability and modeling solutions for developing and running simulations of the IWMS. NGSAM imports data from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Unified Database (e.g., historic assembly information, thermal profiles for assembly heat, at-reactor dry storage loadings) to ensure that the simulation initializes with a realistic representation of the state of commercial SNF in the United States. NGSAM is designed with the flexibility to model and track the behavior of virtually any IWMS architecture assumptions or design considerations. For example, NGSAM can model multiple interim storage facilities or repositories or none at all. Similarly, all assumptions regarding shipment schedules, operating schedules, and reactor operation assumptions can be modeled and adjusted in NGSAM with relative ease. The development of NGSAM was targeted to waste management system analysts as the primary users. With that in mind, analysts from ORNL, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) were intimately involved in the development process. That involvement extended beyond merely defining requirements. System analysts have been involved with design decisions and software benchmarking and tests, and they have provided subject-matter expertise where necessary. The result is a high degree of interaction between professional software developers and system analysts, with a multitude of benefits to both groups. This paper explores some of the underlying methodology of the agile software development process used in the creation of NGSAM. It illustrates the capabilities of NGSAM. Some example use cases are discussed as well, with relevant results providing context for how NGSAM is used by system analysts to gain a greater understanding of alternative waste management system architectures. This is a technical paper that does not take into account the contractual limitations under the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste (Standard Contract) (10 CFR Part 961). Under the provisions of the Standard Contract, DOE does not consider spent nuclear fuel in multi-assembly canisters to be an acceptable waste form, absent a mutually agreed-to contract amendment. To the extent discussions or recommendations in this paper conflict with the provisions of the Standard Contract, the Standard Contract provisions prevail. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2016

Final Technical Report on Quantifying Dependability Attributes of Software Based Safety Critical Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants

With the current transition from analog to digital instrumentation and control systems in nuclear power plants, the number and variety of software-based systems have significantly increased. The sophisticated nature and increasing complexity of software raises trust in these systems as a significant challenge. The trust placed in a software system is typically termed software dependability. Software dependability analysis faces uncommon challenges since software systems’ characteristics differ from those of hardware systems. The lack of systematic science-based methods for quantifying the dependability attributes in software-based instrumentation as well as control systems in safety critical applications has proved itself to be a significant inhibitor to the expanded use of modern digital technology in the nuclear industry. Dependability refers to the ability of a system to deliver a service that can be trusted. Dependability is commonly considered as a general concept that encompasses different attributes, e.g., reliability, safety, security, availability and maintainability. Dependability research has progressed significantly over the last few decades. For example, various assessment models and/or design approaches have been proposed for software reliability, software availability and software maintainability. Advances have also been made to integrate multiple dependability attributes, e.g., integrating security with other dependability attributes, measuring availability and maintainability, modeling reliability and availability, quantifying reliability and security, exploring the dependencies between security and safety and developing integrated analysis models. However, there is still a lack of understanding of the dependencies between various dependability attributes as a whole and of how such dependencies are formed. To address the need for quantification and give a more objective basis to the review process -- therefore reducing regulatory uncertainty -- measures and methods are needed to assess dependability attributes early on, as well as throughout the life-cycle process of software development. In this research, extensive expert opinion elicitation is used to identify the measures and methods for assessing software dependability. Semi-structured questionnaires were designed to elicit expert knowledge. A new notation system, Causal Mechanism Graphing, was developed to extract and represent such knowledge. The Causal Mechanism Graphs were merged, thus, obtaining the consensus knowledge shared by the domain experts. In this report, we focus on how software contributes to dependability. However, software dependability is not discussed separately from the context of systems or socio-technical systems. Specifically, this report focuses on software dependability, reliability, safety, security, availability, and maintainability. Our research was conducted in the sequence of stages found below. Each stage is further examined in its corresponding chapter. Stage 1 (Chapter 2): Elicitation of causal maps describing the dependencies between dependability attributes. These causal maps were constructed using expert opinion elicitation. This chapter describes the expert opinion elicitation process, the questionnaire design, the causal map construction method and the causal maps obtained. Stage 2 (Chapter 3): Elicitation of the causal map describing the occurrence of the event of interest for each dependability attribute. The causal mechanisms for the “event of interest” were extracted for each of the software dependability attributes. The “event of interest” for a dependability attribute is generally considered to be the “attribute failure”, e.g. security failure. The extraction was based on the analysis of expert elicitation results obtained in Stage 1. Stage 3 (Chapter 4): Identification of relevant measurements. Measures for the “events of interest” and their causal mechanisms were obtained from expert opinion elicitation for each of the software dependability attributes. The measures extracted are presented in this chapter. Stage 4 (Chapter 5): Assessment of the coverage of the causal maps via measures. Coverage was assessed to determine whether the measures obtained were sufficient to quantify software dependability, and what measures are further required. Stage 5 (Chapter 6): Identification of “missing” measures and measurement approaches for concepts not covered. New measures, for concepts that had not been covered sufficiently as determined in Stage 4, were identified using supplementary expert opinion elicitation as well as literature reviews. Stage 6 (Chapter 7): Building of a detailed quantification model based on the causal maps and measurements obtained. Ability to derive such a quantification model shows that the causal models and measurements derived from the previous stages (Stage 1 to Stage 5) can form the technical basis for developing dependability quantification models. Scope restrictions have led us to prioritize this demonstration effort. The demonstration was focused on a critical system, i.e. the reactor protection system. For this system, a ranking of the software dependability attributes by nuclear stakeholders was developed. As expected for this application, the stakeholder ranking identified safety as the most critical attribute to be quantified. A safety quantification model limited to the requirements phase of development was built. Two case studies were conducted for verification. A preliminary control gate for software safety for the requirements stage was proposed and applied to the first case study. The control gate allows a cost effective selection of the duration of the requirements phase.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

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

Spatially resolved polarization swings in the supermassive binary black hole candidate OJ 287 with first Event Horizon Telescope observations

We present the first Event Horizon Telescope 1.3 mm observations of the supermassive binary black hole candidate OJ 287. The observations achieved an unprecedented angular resolution of 18 μas and reveal significant structural and polarization variability over just five days, marking the shortest timescale on which such changes have been directly imaged in this source. The inner jet exhibits a twisted ridgeline structure, with features displaying apparent superluminal motions up to about 22 c. The linear polarization maps reveal three main polarized features whose electric-vector position angles (EVPAs) change substantially over the time span of our observations, including a component with a radial polarization consistent with being produced by a recollimation shock. Most notably, we directly resolved two innermost jet components whose EVPAs rotate in opposite directions. The faster component, moving at 2.4 ± 0.9 μas/day (17.4 ± 6.5 c), exhibits counterclockwise EVPA swings of roughly 3.7° per day, while the slower component, with a proper motion of 1.4 ± 0.3 μas/day (10.2 ± 2.2 c), rotates clockwise at approximately 2.5° per day. Previous studies inferred helical magnetic fields in AGN jets from time-resolved or integrated polarization variability but lacked the angular resolution to directly image this effect. Our results provide spatially resolved evidence that a helical magnetic field threads the jet’s collimation and acceleration zone, ruling out models based on the superposition of unresolved components. Our analysis suggests that propagating shocks interact with a Kelvin–Helmholtz plasma instability, illuminating different phases of the helical magnetic field and producing the observed polarization spatial and temporal variability. Moreover, our model naturally accounts for the more rapid polarization rotation observed in the faster moving component. Our model predicts even more rapid swings in polarization, which could be tested with future observations featuring a more densely sampled time coverage.

OJ 287↗