Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “control simulation testing”

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 1,549 records · Page 86

Effect of compensatory immigration on the genetic structure of coyotes

Despite efforts to reduce their impacts on livestock and native ungulates within the southeastern United States, coyotes (Canis latrans) are able to recover from control programs. It is unknown how coyotes compensate for high mortality following trapping, so there is great interest to identify methods that can provide insight into coyote response to intensive trapping. To investigate if population genetic tools can decipher how coyotes recover from intensive trapping, we combined an empirical test of how genetic differentiation, diversity, and familial structure changed following trapping on the Savannah River Site (SRS), South Carolina with spatially explicit genetic simulations.The empirical dataset found that pre- and post-trapping periods had similar genetic diversities and were not genetically differentiated as expected by either compensatory reproduction or immigration from a single genetic source. The post-trapping coyote populations exhibited weaker signatures of philopatry with little evidence for increased dispersal distances of young coyotes, which suggests immigration caused a decrease in familial structure. Our simulations indicated that spatial autocorrelation coefficients and observed heterozygosities change as immigration increases while population differentiation, allelic richness, and displacement distances do not. Collectively, our results suggest that coyotes recover from intensive trapping via both reproduction and immigration, which likely makes preventing compensation difficult. Furthermore, monitoring post-trapping populations may offer more insight into maximizing the effectiveness of control efforts, and based on our simulations, population genetics can provide critical information about the amount of compensatory immigration following trapping.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

CO 2 -brine relative permeability and capillary pressure of Tuscaloosa sandstone: Effect of anisotropy

Relative permeability and capillary pressure are known as essential properties that have substantial impacts on the accuracy of reservoir simulations. The effect of small-scale heterogeneity and lamination in the rock structure is often ignored during the measurement of capillary pressure and relative permeability curves in core samples. This study highlights the remarkable impact of anisotropy on the multiphase flow properties of stratified formations. A series of steady-state CO 2 -brine drainage and imbibition tests are conducted at reservoir conditions in horizontal and vertical core samples of the Tuscaloosa sandstone from the Cranfield CO 2 injection site in Mississippi. The relative permeability curves represent an anisotropic behavior influenced by the heterogeneous and laminated structure of realistic rock samples. The CO 2 saturation profiles during drainage and imbibition cycles indicate that the phase distribution in the pore space is controlled by core-scale heterogeneity in the porosity distribution among the laminations that causes capillary pressure inhomogeneity. Using the saturation profile during the imbibition cycle, the trapping characteristic of the horizontal and vertical rock samples are compared and we found that the capillary trapping is less likely in the vertical direction. Furthermore, the centrifuge-measured capillary pressure demonstrates distinctive characteristics for horizontal and vertical core samples. Since the flooding experiments are performed under capillary controlled flow, the capillary pressure contrast in the laminated structure of the rock strongly affects the relative permeability. The presented results can potentially improve the accuracy of the large-scale simulations for the CO 2 post-injection period, in which the vertical displacement has an important role in the plume migration.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

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↗

Technetium and Iodine Getters to Improve Cast Stone Performance

To determine the effectiveness of the various getter materials prior to their solidification in Cast Stone, a series of batch sorption experiments was performed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. To quantify the effectiveness of the removal of Tc(VII) and I(I) from solution by getters, the distribution coefficient, K d (mL/g), was calculated. Testing involved placing getter material in contact with spiked waste solutions at a 1:100 solid-to-solution ratio for periods up to 45 days with periodic solution sampling. One Tc getter was also tested at a 1:10 solid-to-solution ratio. Two different solution media, 18.2 MΩ deionized water (DI H 2 O) and a 7.8 M Na LAW simulant, were used in the batch sorption tests. Each test was conducted at room temperature in an anoxic chamber containing N2 with a small amount of H 2 (0.7%) to maintain anoxic conditions. Each getter-solution combination was run in duplicate. Three Tc- and I-doping concentrations were used separately in aliquots of both the 18.2 MΩ DI H2O and a 7.8 M Na LAW waste simulant. The 1× concentration was developed based on Hanford Tank Waste Operations Simulator (HTWOS) model runs to support the River Protection Project System Plan Revision 6. The other two concentrations were 5× and 10× of the HTWOS values. The Tc and I tests were run separately (i.e., the solutions did not contain both solutes). Sampling of the solid-solution mixtures occurred nominally after 0.2, 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 days and ~35 to 45 days. Seven getter materials were tested for Tc and five materials were tested for I. The seven Tc getters were blast furnace slag 1 (BFS1) (northwest source), BFS2 (southeast source), Sn(II)-treated apatite, Sn(II) chloride, nano tin phosphate, KMS (a potassium-metal-sulfide), and tin hydroxapatite. The five iodine getters were layered bismuth hydroxide (LBH), argentite mineral, synthetic argentite, silver-treated carbon, and silver-treated zeolite. The Tc Kd values measured from experiments conducted using the 7.8 M Na LAW simulant (the simulant selected to represent LAW) for the first 15 days for four Tc getters (BFS1, BFS2, Sn(II)-treated apatite, and Sn(II) chloride) show no, to a very small, capacity to remove Tc from the LAW simulant. For the Tc-getter experiments in the 7.8 M LAW simulant, the majority of the effluent samples show very small drops in Tc concentrations for the 35-day compared to the 15-day samplings. However, the Tc concentration in the simulant blanks also dropped slightly during this period, so the effect of the getter contacting LAW simulant at 35 days compared to 15 days is minimal; except that the BFS1 1:10 test shows a slow but steady decrease in Tc concentration in the LAW simulant supernatant from the beginning to the 35 day contact at which point about 20% of the original Tc has been removed from solution. Lastly, the KMS getter gives the highest K d value for Tc at 35 days where K d values have increased to 104 mL/g. When considering the different I getters reacting with the 7.8 M LAW simulant, two getters are much more effective than the others: Ag zeolite and Syn Arg. The other getters have calculated iodide distribution coefficients that show very limited effectiveness in the caustic conditions created by the LAW simulant. These are preliminary results that will need more detailed analyses including both pre- and post-batch sorption getter solid-phase characterization using state-of-the-art instrumentation such as synchrotron X-ray absorption spectroscopy, which can delineate the oxidation state of the Tc and likely iodine species as well as some of the getters key major components, sulfur and iron in the BFS, and tin and sulfur in the tin-bearing and sulfur-bearing getters. This report also describes future experimental studies to be performed to better elucidate the mechanisms controlling the Tc and I sequestration processes in the various getters and leach tests of getter-bearing Cast Stone monoliths.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Numerical Simulation of Measurements during the Reactor Physical Startup at Unit 3 of Rostov NPP

The results of numerical calculations and measurements of some reactor parameters during the physical startup tests at unit 3 of Rostov NPP are presented. The following parameters are considered: the critical boron acid concentration and the currents from ionization chambers (IC) during the scram system efficiency evaluation. The scram system efficiency was determined using the inverse point kinetics equation with the measured and simulated IC currents. The results of steady-state calculations of relative power distribution and efficiency of the scram system and separate groups of control rods of the control and protection system are also presented. The calculations are performed using several codes, including precision ones.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Advanced Simulation and Computing Fiscal Year 2016 Implementation Plan, Version 0

The Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) is an integrated technical program for maintaining the safety, surety, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. The SSP uses nuclear test data, computational modeling and simulation, and experimental facilities to advance understanding of nuclear weapons. It includes stockpile surveillance, experimental research, development and engineering programs, and an appropriately scaled production capability to support stockpile requirements. This integrated national program requires the continued use of experimental facilities and programs, and the computational capabilities to support these programs. The purpose of this IP is to outline key work requirements to be performed and to control individual work activities within the scope of work. Contractors may not deviate from this plan without a revised WA or subsequent IP.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Gamma and Neutron Measurement and Modeling of Irradiated TRISO Fuel

Given the unique characteristics of the PBR fuel cycle, both gamma and neutron measurements are expected to play important roles in performing and maintaining nuclear material control and accounting for spent pebbles to safeguard the fuel cycle. Given the lack of irradiated pebbles in the US, a variety of irradiated TRISO fuel samples with wide ranges of burnups and cooling times available at ORNL were used in this work. A large number of gamma and neutron measurements have been performed on these samples to collect data to test the various detectors and to benchmark the computer models to simulate the depletion and decay of the fuel and the measurements themselves. Two neutron detectors, including a custom-made detector and the Very High-Performance Neutron Multiplicity Counting, were used to measure the neutrons emitted by these TRISO samples. Three gamma spectrometry detectors, including an HPGe and the M400 CZT detector, were used to measure gamma-ray emissions from these samples. The M400 was recently adopted by the IAEA for fresh uranium measurements, but it was tested for spent fuel measurements prior to this project. Detailed MCNP models were developed to simulate these neutron and gamma measurements. Some GADRAS models were also developed to cross check the MCNP models for the gamma measurements. It was found challenging to perform neutron measurements in the hot cell due to the high background counts. Close agreements were observed between the simulated and measured neutron count rates in both detectors’ measurements of californium calibration sources. Both the HPGe and M400 detectors were able to measure the 604 and 662 keV peaks from these samples, which are the two most important peaks used to infer fuel burnup. Although the M400 detector did not have nearly good energy resolution and did not detect some of the minor peaks as the HPGe detector, it was found to be capable of handling significantly higher dose rates than HPGe. Given the complexities in the TRISO samples (e.g., different samples sizes) and uncertainties in the alignments between the detector and the TRISO fuel inside the containers, large scatters were found between the peak area rates and the samples’ burnups. However, the 604/662 peak ratios were found to trend well with the samples’ burnups among most samples in both measured and simulated results.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Wind Power as a Virtual Synchronous Generator (WindVSG)

This project investigated the theory, implemented it in hardware, and validated the Wind as a Virtual Isochronous Generator (WindVSG) concept by combining the advantages of modern dynamic inverter technologies with static, dynamic, and transient electromechanical properties of synchronous machines. During this project we demonstrated how to control the inverters of wind turbine generators (wind alone or in parallel with other GFM sources, such battery energy storage) so that wind power behaves like a synchronous machine-based power plant with a conventional prime mover. For this purpose, testing was conducted at NLR ARIES facility with real 2.5 MW wind-turbine generator operating in GFM mode under dynamic and transient conditions. The team also developed models and conducted simulations for GFM wind power to evaluate stability impacts of GFM operation on power grid. This report describes efforts by the NLR team working in collaboration GE Vernova during 3-year project.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

Griffin Capability Improvements in Support of Ex-core Deep-Penetration Problems

Advanced reactor designs, especially portable reactors that are designed to be located closer to humans and operate autonomously, require the ability to accurately compute the ex-core neutron and gamma flux solutions in terms of shielding design optimization to reduce dose rates at the vessel boundary and detector signal prediction to drive the reactor control system. The Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation program has prioritized improvements to the Griffin discrete ordinates (SN) solver for deep-penetration problems in fiscal year 2025. Significant advancements have been made to the Griffin methodologies for solving ex-core deep-penetration problems for steady-state, fixed-source and transient calculations. This work presents the methodology improvements as well as a comprehensive demonstration with a Transient Test Reactor model and measurements.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Coupled land surface–subsurface hydrogeophysical inverse modeling to estimate soil organic carbon content and explore associated hydrological and thermal dynamics in the Arctic tundra

Quantitative characterization of soil organic carbon (OC) content is essential due to its significant impacts on surface–subsurface hydrological–thermal processes and microbial decomposition of OC, which both in turn are important for predicting carbon–climate feedbacks. While such quantification is particularly important in the vulnerable organic-rich Arctic region, it is challenging to achieve due to the general limitations of conventional core sampling and analysis methods, and to the extremely dynamic nature of hydrological–thermal processes associated with annual freeze–thaw events. In this study, we develop and test an inversion scheme that can flexibly use single or multiple datasets – including soil liquid water content, temperature and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) data – to estimate the vertical distribution of OC content. Our approach relies on the fact that OC content strongly influences soil hydrological–thermal parameters and, therefore, indirectly controls the spatiotemporal dynamics of soil liquid water content, temperature and their correlated electrical resistivity. We employ the Community Land Model to simulate nonisothermal surface–subsurface hydrological dynamics from the bedrock to the top of canopy, with consideration of land surface processes (e.g., solar radiation balance, evapotranspiration, snow accumulation and melting) and ice–liquid water phase transitions. For inversion, we combine a deterministic and an adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) optimization algorithm to estimate a posteriori distributions of desired model parameters. For hydrological–thermal-to-geophysical variable transformation, the simulated subsurface temperature, liquid water content and ice content are explicitly linked to soil electrical resistivity via petrophysical and geophysical models. We validate the developed scheme using different numerical experiments and evaluate the influence of measurement errors and benefit of joint inversion on the estimation of OC and other parameters. We also quantify the propagation of uncertainty from the estimated parameters to prediction of hydrological–thermal responses. We find that, compared to inversion of single dataset (temperature, liquid water content or apparent resistivity), joint inversion of these datasets significantly reduces parameter uncertainty. We find that the joint inversion approach is able to estimate OC and sand content within the shallow active layer (top 0.3 m of soil) with high reliability. Due to the small variations of temperature and moisture within the shallow permafrost (here at about 0.6 m depth), the approach is unable to estimate OC with confidence. However, if the soil porosity is functionally related to the OC and mineral content, which is often observed in organic-rich Arctic soil, the uncertainty of OC estimate at this depth remarkably decreases. Our study documents the value of the new surface–subsurface, deterministic–stochastic inversion approach, as well as the benefit of including multiple types of data to estimate OC and associated hydrological–thermal dynamics.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Explicit Dynamic Impact Analysis of the Building 3525 Packages

The safe transport and handling of radioactive material containers is critical to ensure the protection of personnel, facilities, and the environment. Accidental drops during handling pose a significant hazard, necessitating robust design and analysis to mitigate potential consequences. This study presents an explicit dynamic impact analysis of two container designs, the Baby Sugarman and the Core Conduction Cooldown Test Facility (CCCTF) Tall Boy, used in Building 3525 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The analysis employed nonlinear finite element modeling in LS-DYNA to simulate free-fall impacts from a height of 16.5 ft across eight critical orientations. The study evaluated deformation, strain failure, and shielding integrity under these extreme conditions. Results demonstrated that both designs maintain structural integrity, with no breaches or loss of shielding under specified administrative controls. Notably, a maximum shielding loss of 10 lbs was observed during a top-corner drop, highlighting the need to limit drop heights to less than 1 ft for certain orientations. These findings underscore the effectiveness of engineering controls and design measures in preventing containment breaches and ensuring compliance with safety requirements. This work provides a comprehensive methodology for impact analysis, contributing valuable insights to the field of radioactive materials packaging and transportation safety.

Martinez, Oscar [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000181814046)↗

Quality control for quantitative multicenter whole-body PET/MR studies: A NEMA image quality phantom study with three current PET/MR systems

Purpose: Integrated positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) systems derive the PET attenuation correction (AC) from dedicated MR sequences. While MR-AC performs reasonably well in clinical patient imaging, it may fail for phantom-based quality control (QC). The authors assess the applicability of different protocols for PET QC in multicenter PET/MR imaging. Methods: The National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2 2007 image quality phantom was imaged on three combined PET/MR systems: a Philips Ingenuity TF PET/MR, a Siemens Biograph mMR, and a GE SIGNA PET/MR (prototype) system. The phantom was filled according to the EANM FDG-PET/CT guideline 1.0 and scanned for 5 min over 1 bed. Two MR-AC imaging protocols were tested: standard clinical procedures and a dedicated protocol for phantom tests. Depending on the system, the dedicated phantom protocol employs a two-class (water and air) segmentation of the MR data or a CT-based template. Differences in attenuation- and SUV recovery coefficients (RC) are reported. PET/CT-based simulations were performed to simulate the various artifacts seen in the AC maps (μ-map) and their impact on the accuracy of phantom-based QC. Results: Clinical MR-AC protocols caused substantial errors and artifacts in the AC maps, resulting in underestimations of the reconstructed PET activity of up to 27%, depending on the PET/MR system. Using dedicated phantom MR-AC protocols, PET bias was reduced to −8%. Mean and max SUV RC met EARL multicenter PET performance specifications for most contrast objects, but only when using the dedicated phantom protocol. Simulations confirmed the bias in experimental data to be caused by incorrect AC maps resulting from the use of clinical MR-AC protocols. Conclusions: Phantom-based quality control of PET/MR systems in a multicenter, multivendor setting may be performed with sufficient accuracy, but only when dedicated phantom acquisition and processing protocols are used for attenuation correction.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

Multiscale Feature-feature Interactions Control Patterns of Hyporheic Exchange in a Simulated Headwater Mountain Stream

Recent predictions of hyporheic exchange at the basin-scale assume individual features control exchange independently of each other, which has been demonstrated in relatively uniform, low-gradient rivers. However, this assumption may not hold in steep catchments where both the type and size of individual features may vary over short distances, leading to irregular patterns of feature dominance on hyporheic exchange flows. Also, steep longitudinal gradients support substantial downvalley flows in the subsurface, which may create feedbacks between adjacent features. In this study, we test the extent to which features interact with one another and whether they can be aggregated to make reach-scale predictions in a headwater mountain stream. Using systematic manipulations of a 2-D stream centerline model and spectral analyses, we test for the presence of both feature-feature and multiscale interactions. Our results show that changing the height of individual step-pool features can alter hyporheic flow fields in neighboring, and sometimes distant, features. Spectral analyses revealed two scales of streambed topography—a local scale of single features and an intermediate scale that spanned multiple local-scale features. All features produced hyporheic exchange, but turnover of deeper hyporheic water only occurred at a few key locations where local- and intermediate-scale features amplified each other. Further, shallow bedrock increases the ratio of local- and intermediate-scale flowpaths to regional-scale flowpaths. Conceptual models portraying hyporheic exchange as a series of nested flowpaths should include the interactions among streambed topographic features in mountain streams. These results have implications for upscaling, field experiments, and stream restoration in steep catchments.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NWTC Controllable Grid Interface (Fact Sheet)

NREL's Controllable Grid Interface tests wind turbines off-line from the grid, verifies compliance with standards, and provides grid operators with the performance information they need for a faction of the time and cost it would take to test the turbine in the field.

17 WIND ENERGY↗