Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “software 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 1,567 records · Page 87
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

The TSO Logic and G2 Software Product

This internship assignment for spring 2014 was at John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC), in NASAs Engineering and Technology (NE) group in support of the Control and Data Systems Division (NE-C) within the Systems Hardware Engineering Branch. (NEC-4) The primary focus was in system integration and benchmarking utilizing two separate computer software products. The first half of this 2014 internship is spent in assisting NE-C4s Electronics and Embedded Systems Engineer, Kelvin Ruiz and fellow intern Scott Ditto with the evaluation of a newly piece of software, called G2. Its developed by the Gensym Corporation and introduced to the group as a tool used in monitoring launch environments. All fellow interns and employees of the G2 group have been working together in order to better understand the significance of the G2 application and how KSC can benefit from its capabilities. The second stage of this Spring project is to assist with an ongoing integration of a benchmarking tool, developed by a group of engineers from a Canadian based organization known as TSO Logic. Guided by NE-C4s Computer Engineer, Allen Villorin, NASA 2014 interns put forth great effort in helping to integrate TSOs software into the Spaceport Processing Systems Development Laboratory (SPSDL) for further testing and evaluating. The TSO Logic group claims that their software is designed for, monitoring and reducing energy consumption at in-house server farms and large data centers, allows data centers to control the power state of servers, without impacting availability or performance and without changes to infrastructure and the focus of the assignment is to test this theory. TSOs Aaron Rallo Founder and CEO, and Chris Tivel CTO, both came to KSC to assist with the installation of their software in the SPSDL laboratory. TSOs software is installed onto 24 individual workstations running three different operating systems. The workstations were divided into three groups of 8 with each group having its own operating system. The first group is comprised of Ubuntus Debian -based Linux the second group is windows 7 Professional and the third group ran Red Hat Linux. The highlight of this portion of the assignment is to compose documentation expressing the overall impression of the software and its capabilities.

TSO Logic↗
NASA NTRS2005

Failure Assessment

Three questions to which software developers want accurate, precise answers are "How can the software system fail?", "mat bad things will happen if the software fails?t', and "How many failures will the software experience?". Numerous techniques have been devised to answer these questions; three of the best known are: 1) Software Fault Tree Analysis (SFTA) 2) Software Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (SFMECA 3) Software Fault/Failure Modeling. SFTA and SFMECA have been successfully used to analyze the flight software for a number of robotic planetary exploration missions, including Galileo, Cassini, and Deep Space 1. Given the increasing interest in reusing software components from mission to mission, one of us has developed techniques for reusing the corresponding portions of the SFTA and SFMECA, reducing the effort required to conduct these analyses. SFTA has also been shown to be effective in analyzing the security aspects of software systems; intrusion mechanisms and effects can easily be modeled using these techniques. The Bi- Directional Safety Analysis (BDSA) method combines a forward search (similar to SFMECA) from potential failure modes to their effects, with a backward search (similar to SFTA) from feasible hazards to the contributing causes of each hazard. BDSA offers an efficient way to identify latent failures. Recent work has extended BDSA to product-line applications such as flight-instrumentation displays and developed tool support for the reuse of the failure-analysis artifacts within a product line. BDSA has also been streamlined to support those projects having tight cost and/or schedule constraints for their failure analysis efforts. We discuss lessons learned from practice, describe available tools, and identi@ some future directions for the topic. A substantial amount of research has been devoted to estimating the number of failures that a software system will experience during test and operations, as well as the number of faults that have been inserted into that system during its development. One of us has found that the amount of structural change to a system during its development is strongly related to the number of faults inserted into it. Using techniques requiring no additional effort on the part of the development organization, the required measurements of structural evolution can be easily obtained from a development effort's configuration management system and readily transformed into an estimate of fault content. So far, structure-fault relationships have been identified for source code; current work seeks to examine artifacts available earlier in the lifecycle to determine if similar relationships between structure and fault content can be found. In particular, relationships between requirements change requests and the number of faults inserted into the implemented system would provide a significant improvement in our ability to control software quality during the early development phases.

fault tree↗
DOE OSTI2013

Development of a Software Framework for System-Level Carbon Sequestration Risk Assessment

The overall purpose of this project was to identify, evaluate, select, develop, and test a suite of enhancements to the GoldSim software program, in order to make it a better tool for use in support of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) projects. The GoldSim software is a foundational tool used by scientists at NETL and at other laboratories and research institutions to evaluate system-level risks of proposed CCS projects. The primary product of the project was a series of successively improved versions of the GoldSim software, supported by an extensive User’s Guide. All of the enhancements were tested by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and several of the enhancements have already been incorporated into the CO 2 -PENS sequestration model.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2007

Analysis of Complex Valve and Feed Systems

A numerical framework for analysis of complex valve systems supports testing of propulsive systems by simulating key valve and control system components in the test loop. In particular, it is designed to enhance the analysis capability in terms of identifying system transients and quantifying the valve response to these transients. This system has analysis capability for simulating valve motion in complex systems operating in diverse flow regimes ranging from compressible gases to cryogenic liquids. A key feature is the hybrid, unstructured framework with sub-models for grid movement and phase change including cryogenic cavitations. The multi-element unstructured framework offers improved predictions of valve performance characteristics under steady conditions for structurally complex valves such as pressure regulator valve. Unsteady simulations of valve motion using this computational approach have been carried out for various valves in operation at Stennis Space Center such as the split-body valve and the 10-in. (approx.25.4-cm) LOX (liquid oxygen) valve and the 4-in. (approx.10 cm) Y-pattern valve (liquid nitrogen). Such simulations make use of variable grid topologies, thereby permitting solution accuracy and resolving important flow physics in the seat region of the moving valve. An advantage to this software includes possible reduction in testing costs incurred due to disruptions relating to unexpected flow transients or functioning of valve/flow control systems. Prediction of the flow anomalies leading to system vibrations, flow resonance, and valve stall can help in valve scheduling and significantly reduce the need for activation tests. This framework has been evaluated for its ability to predict performance metrics like flow coefficient for cavitating venturis and valve coefficient curves, and could be a valuable tool in predicting and understanding anomalous behavior of system components at rocket propulsion testing and design sites.

Ahuja, Vineet↗
DOE OSTI2017

Task allocation in geo-distributed cyber-physical systems - 256

This paper studies the task allocation algorithm for a distributed test facility (DTF), which aims to assemble geo-distributed cyber (software) and physical (hardware in the loop) components into a prototype cyber-physical system (CPS). This allows low cost testing on an early conceptual prototype (ECP) of the ultimate CPS (UCPS) to be developed. The DTF provides an instrumentation interface for carrying out reliability experiments remotely such as fault propagation analysis and in-situ testing of hardware and software components in a simulated environment. Unfortunately, the geo-distribution introduces an overhead that is not inherent to the UCPS, i.e. a significant time delay in communication that threatens the stability of the ECP and is not an appropriate representation of the behavior of the UCPS. This can be mitigated by implementing a task allocation algorithm to find a suitable configuration and assign the software components to appropriate computational locations, dynamically. This would allow the ECP to operate more efficiently with less probability of being unstable due to the delays introduced by geo-distribution. The task allocation algorithm proposed in this work uses a Monte Carlo approach along with Dynamic Programming to identify the optimal network configuration to keep the time delays to a minimum. (authors)

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS2017

Spaceport Command and Control System Automated Verification Software Development

For as long as we have walked the Earth, humans have always been explorers. We have visited our nearest celestial body and sent Voyager 1 beyond our solar system1 out into interstellar space. Now it is finally time for us to step beyond our home and onto another planet. The Spaceport Command and Control System (SCCS) is being developed along with the Space Launch System (SLS) to take us on a journey further than ever attempted. Within SCCS are separate subsystems and system level software, each of which have to be tested and verified. Testing is a long and tedious process, so automating it will be much more efficient and also helps to remove the possibility of human error from mission operations. I was part of a team of interns and full-time engineers who automated tests for the requirements on SCCS, and with that was able to help verify that the software systems are performing as expected.

Automation↗
NASA NTRS2017

Autonomous Inspection of Electrical Transmission Structures with Airborne UV Sensors - NASA Report on Dominion Virginia Power Flights of November 2016

The report details test and measurement flights to demonstrate autonomous UAV inspection of high voltage electrical transmission structures. A UAV built with commercial, off-the-shelf hardware and software, supplemented with custom sensor logging software, measured ultraviolet emissions from a test generator placed on a low-altitude substation and a medium-altitude switching tower. Since corona discharge precedes catastrophic electrical faults on high-voltage structures, detection and geolocation of ultraviolet emissions is needed to develop a UAV-based self-diagnosing power grid. Signal readings from an onboard ultraviolet sensor were validated during flight with a commercial corona camera. Geolocation was accomplished with onboard GPS; the UAV position was logged to a local ground station and transmitted in real time to a NASA server for tracking in the national airspace.

Moore, Andrew J.↗
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↗
NASA NTRS2008

REVEAL: Software Documentation and Platform Migration

The Research Environment for Vehicle Embedded Analysis on Linux (REVEAL) is reconfigurable data acquisition software designed for network-distributed test and measurement applications. In development since 2001, it has been successfully demonstrated in support of a number of actual missions within NASA s Suborbital Science Program. Improvements to software configuration control were needed to properly support both an ongoing transition to operational status and continued evolution of REVEAL capabilities. For this reason the project described in this report targets REVEAL software source documentation and deployment of the software on a small set of hardware platforms different from what is currently used in the baseline system implementation. This report specifically describes the actions taken over a ten week period by two undergraduate student interns and serves as a final report for that internship. The topics discussed include: the documentation of REVEAL source code; the migration of REVEAL to other platforms; and an end-to-end field test that successfully validates the efforts.

Wilson, Michael A.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Impeller leakage flow modeling for mechanical vibration control

HPOTP and HPFTP vibration test results have exhibited transient and steady characteristics which may be due to impeller leakage path (ILP) related forces. For example, an axial shift in the rotor could suddenly change the ILP clearances and lengths yielding dynamic coefficient and subsequent vibration changes. ILP models are more complicated than conventional-single component-annular seal models due to their radial flow component (coriolis and centrifugal acceleration), complex geometry (axial/radial clearance coupling), internal boundary (transition) flow conditions between mechanical components along the ILP and longer length, requiring moment as well as force coefficients. Flow coupling between mechanical components results from mass and energy conservation applied at their interfaces. Typical components along the ILP include an inlet seal, curved shroud, and an exit seal, which may be a stepped labyrinth type. Von Pragenau (MSFC) has modeled labyrinth seals as a series of plain annular seals for leakage and dynamic coefficient prediction. These multi-tooth components increase the total number of 'flow coupled' components in the ILP. Childs developed an analysis for an ILP consisting of a single, constant clearance shroud with an exit seal represented by a lumped flow-loss coefficient. This same geometry was later extended to include compressible flow. The objective of the current work is to: supply ILP leakage-force impedance-dynamic coefficient modeling software to MSFC engineers, base on incompressible/compressible bulk flow theory; design the software to model a generic geometry ILP described by a series of components lying along an arbitrarily directed path; validate the software by comparison to available test data, CFD and bulk models; and develop a hybrid CFD-bulk flow model of an ILP to improve modeling accuracy within practical run time constraints.

Palazzolo, Alan B.↗
NASA NTRS1983

Flight test trajectory control analysis

Recent extensions to optimal control theory applied to meaningful linear models with sufficiently flexible software tools provide powerful techniques for designing flight test trajectory controllers (FTTCs). This report describes the principal steps for systematic development of flight trajectory controllers, which can be summarized as planning, modeling, designing, and validating a trajectory controller. The techniques have been kept as general as possible and should apply to a wide range of problems where quantities must be computed and displayed to a pilot to improve pilot effectiveness and to reduce workload and fatigue. To illustrate the approach, a detailed trajectory guidance law is developed and demonstrated for the F-15 aircraft flying the zoom-and-pushover maneuver.

Walker, R.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Incorporating Test Data for Small UAS at the Conceptual Design Level

Increasing demand for improved capabilities of small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) has generated interest in improving the design techniques for these vehicles. sUAS have typically been designed using iterative methods with multiple prototypes, but advancements in aircraft design software will make it possible to generate conceptual designs of very small VTOL aircraft with reduced hardware prototyping. This paper describes a research effort to generate a conceptual design of an approximately 6-lb quadcopter using the NASA rotorcraft design software NDARC. Wind tunnel and hover test data are used to validate and refine the conceptual design results. The effects of parametric design variations on vehicle scale are shown. The design study described herein shows that the NDARC software, which was designed for full-scale rotorcraft, can be used to design and evaluate sUAS vehicles.

Russell, Carl R.↗
DOE OSTI2017

A streamlined build system foundation for developing HPC software

BLT bundles custom CMake macros, unit testing frameworks for C++ and Fortran, and a set of smoke tests for common HPC dependencies. The combination of these three provides a foundation for quickly bootstrapping a CMale-based system for developing HPC softward.

White, Chris↗
NASA NTRS2005

A Method for Assessing the Accuracy of a Photogrammetry System for Precision Deployable Structures

The measurement techniques used to validate analytical models of large deployable structures are an integral Part of the technology development process and must be precise and accurate. Photogrammetry and videogrammetry are viable, accurate, and unobtrusive methods for measuring such large Structures. Photogrammetry uses Software to determine the three-dimensional position of a target using camera images. Videogrammetry is based on the same principle, except a series of timed images are analyzed. This work addresses the accuracy of a digital photogrammetry system used for measurement of large, deployable space structures at JPL. First, photogrammetry tests are performed on a precision space truss test article, and the images are processed using Photomodeler software. The accuracy of the Photomodeler results is determined through, comparison with measurements of the test article taken by an external testing group using the VSTARS photogrammetry system. These two measurements are then compared with Australis photogrammetry software that simulates a measurement test to predict its accuracy. The software is then used to study how particular factors, such as camera resolution and placement, affect the system accuracy to help design the setup for the videogrammetry system that will offer the highest level of accuracy for measurement of deploying structures.

Moore, Ashley↗