Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “BRIEFING CHARTS”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2012

User's Guide to the Energy Charting and Metrics Tool (ECAM)

The intent of this user guide is to provide a brief description of the functionality of the Energy Charting and Metrics (ECAM) tool, including the expanded building re-tuning functionality developed for Pacific Northwest National laboratory (PNNL). This document describes the tool's general functions and features, and offers detailed instructions for PNNL building re-tuning charts, a feature in ECAM intended to help building owners and operators look at trend data (recommended 15-minute time intervals) in a series of charts (both time series and scatter) to analyze air-handler, zone, and central plant information gathered from a building automation system (BAS).

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Protecting Future Platforms: Modernization, Innovation, and Implementation

As a requested speaker regarding advances in materials and potential (notional) protection schemes for the Future Ground Combat Vehicles Symposium; I will talk about: 1. INL and its macro level missions and capabilities; 2. INLs Advanced Manufacturing Initiatives; 3. The specific lethality systems that need to be considered (open source JANES Defense); 4. Advances in material science that may be used to address the kinetic threat in the future. All materials in the briefing are for external use; the science charts are linked to INL LDRDs, not customer funded programs and the foundations are open source.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
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-201-00: 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-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2012

Integrating The Non-Electrical Worker Into The Electrical Safety Program

The intent of this paper is to demonstrate an electrical safety program that incorporates all workers into the program, not just the electrical workers. It is largely in response to a paper presented at the 2012 ESW by Lanny Floyd entitled "Facilitating Application of Electrical Safety Best Practices to "Other" Workers" which requested all attendees to review their electrical safety program to assure that non-electrical workers were protected as well as electrical workers. The referenced paper indicated that roughly 50% of electrical incidents involve workers whose primary function is not electrical in nature. It also encouraged all to "address electrical safety for all workers and not just workers whose job responsibilities involve working on or near energized electrical circuits." In this paper, a program which includes specific briefings to non-electrical workers as well as to workers who may need to perform their normal activities in proximity to energized electrical conductors is presented. The program uses a targeted approach to specific areas such as welding, excavating, rigging, chart reading, switching, cord and plug equipment and several other general areas to point out hazards that may exist and how to avoid them. NFPA 70E-2004 was incorporated into the program several years ago and with it the need to include the "other" workers became apparent. The site experience over the years supports the assertion that about half of the electrical incidents involve non-electrical workers and this prompted us to develop specific briefings to enhance the knowledge of the non-electrical worker regarding safe electrical practices. The promotion of "May is Electrical Safety Month" and the development of informative presentations which are delivered to the general site population as well as electrical workers have greatly improved the hazards awareness status of the general worker on site.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2018

LANL: Weapons Infrastructure Briefing to Naval Reactors, July 18, 2017

Presentation slides address: The Laboratory infrastructure supports hundreds of high hazard, complex operations daily; LANL’s unique science and engineering infrastructure is critical to delivering on our mission; LANL FY17 Budget & Workforce; Direct-Funded Infrastructure Accounts; LANL Org Chart; Weapons Infrastructure Program Office; The Laboratory’s infrastructure relies on both Direct and Indirect funding; NA-50’s Operating, Maintenance & Recapitalization funding is critical to the execution of the mission; Los Alamos is currently executing several concurrent Line Item projects; Maintenance @ LANL; NA-50 is helping us to address D&D needs; We are executing a CHAMP Pilot Project at LANL; G2 = Main Tool for Program Management; MDI: Future Investments are centered on facilities with a high Mission Dependency Index; Los Alamos hosted first “Deep Dive” in November 2016; Safety, Infrastructure & Operations is one of the most important programs at LANL, and is foundational for our mission success.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
DOE OSTI2025

APPLICATION OF INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA MASS SPECTROMETRY IN THE ANALYSIS OF PLUTONIUM CONTENT OF FAST CRITICAL ASSEMBLY FUEL DISPOSITION

Outline • Fast Critical Assembly (FCA) Plutonium Fuel Disposition • Brief campaign overview • Savannah River National Laboratory • Analytical capabilities and instrumentation • Typical FCA sample analysis process • Plutonium analysis by quadrupole-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (Q-ICP-MS) • Method description/development • Instrumentation • Data/control charts

Bonilla, Henry J. [Savannah River National Laborat↗
DOE OSTI2023

Microgrid Resource

Brief microgrid resource brochure describing the concept of a microgrid, its components, and operation. The value of a microgrid, important considerations for microgrid development, and microgrid challenges and potential solutions are described, followed by a gantt chart describing the microgrid design process.

Energy and Environment Directorate↗
DOE OSTI2017

FY16 Strategic Themes.

I am pleased to present this summary of the Division 1000 Science and Technology Strategic Plan. This plan was created with considerable participation from all levels of management in Division 1000, and is intended to chart our course as we strive to contribute our very best in service of the greater Laboratory strategy. The plan is characterized by four strategic themes: Mission Engagement, Bold Outcomes, Collaborative Environment, and the Safety Imperative. Each theme is accompanied by a brief vision statement, several goals, and planned actions to support those goals throughout FY16. I want to be clear that this is not a strategy to be pursued in tension with the Laboratory strategic plan. Rather, it is intended to describe “how” we intend to show up for the “what” described in Sandia’s Strategic Plan. I welcome your feedback and look forward to our dialogue about these strategic themes. Please join me as we move forward to implement the plan in the coming year.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2022

MPACT Programmer's Manual (V.4.3)

Figure 1 shows a high-level call chart for MPACT. The call chart uses the actual procedure names, starting with the main program name, MPACT. The only exception is the italicized names where the upstream procedure contains a number of subroutines calls. These calls are logically separated into blocks, such as setup basic info/inputs. Brief descriptions of what the procedure accomplishes are provided where needed. More detailed procedure information, including procedure arguments and definitions, can be found directly in the procedure header in the MPACT source code or Doxygen documentation (http://www.doxygen.nl/).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Evaluation of Digital Nautical Chart data for confirmation and expansion of GeoNames data

Here, this work examines how Digital Nautical Chart (DNC) data may contribute to the evolution and refinement of GeoNames data for near-shore features. GeoNames features are point data with one or more possible place names. DNC Earth Cover Text (ECRText) objects are map labels positioned nearby their real word counterpart. ECRText feature map position strikes a compromise between association with real features and cartographic readability. This work explores whether ECRText features can confirm (or expand names for) existing locations or contribute new locations through data conflation. Due to name variations and spatial position, conflating these data are nontrivial. Previous work engaged in a brief examination using the trigram string matching algorithm under coarse proximity constraints, indicating that ECRText could provide additional value to GeoNames. This work builds on that study, by engaging in a deeper examination of spatial proximity and exploring conflation agreement across an ensemble of string matching approaches. The result finds strong ensemble agreement about ECRText features which already exist in GeoNames but mixed results about which features contribute new information, as well as exploring why some of these matching techniques fail. With an eye toward automation, computational efficiency was found not to be a constraint in sustaining updates.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2014

Fast Responding Voltage Regulator and Dynamic VAR Compensator

The objectives of this project were to develop a dynamic VAR compensator (DVC) for voltage regulation through VAR support to demonstrate the ability to achieve greater levels of voltage control on electricity distribution networks, and faster response compared to existing grid technology. The goal of the project was to develop a prototype Fast Dynamic VAR Compensator (Fast DVC) hardware device, and this was achieved. In addition to developing the dynamic VAR compensator device, Varentec in partnership with researchers at North Carolina State University (NCSU) successfully met the objectives to model the potential positive impact of such DVCs on representative power networks. This modeling activity validated the ability of distributed dynamic VAR compensators to provide fast voltage regulation and reactive power control required to respond to grid disturbances under high penetration of fluctuating and intermittent distributed energy resources (DERs) through extensive simulation studies. Specifically the following tasks were set to be accomplished: 1) Development of dynamic VAR compensator to support dynamic voltage variations on the grid through VAR control 2) Extensive testing of the DVC in the lab environment 3) Present the operational DVC device to the DOE at Varentec’s lab 4) Formulation of a detailed specification sheet, unit assembly document, test setup document, unit bring-up plan, and test plan 5) Extensive simulations of the DVC in a system with high PV penetration. Understanding the operation with many DVC on a single distribution system 6) Creation and submittal of quarterly and final reports conveying the design documents, unit performance data, modeling simulation charts and diagrams, and summary explanations of the satisfaction of program goals. This report details the various efforts that led to the development of the Fast DVC as well as the modeling & simulation results. The report begins with the introduction in Section II which outlines the problems associated with increasing penetration of renewable resources on the grid and what are the challenges in solving these issues. Section III provides a brief summary of the initial concepts that were explored before the final Fast DVC prototype was developed. Section IV and V present the hardware, controls, communication, and mechanical architecture and features of the Fast DVC. Section VI presents the procedure for assembling the Fast DVC. The test plan and lab setup are expounded in Section VII and VIII. Section IX presents the results from testing the Fast DVC in the lab, several results are presented along with some pictures of the developed unit. Section X details the pilot demonstration activities. Finally, section XI showcases the efforts associated with the simulation and modeling of the Fast DVC in various scenarios with DERs and its impact in all these scenarios.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Clean Energy for the Battery-to-EV Supply Chain: A Roadmap for Indonesia - Summary Brief

Indonesia has a unique opportunity to support the clean energy transition, enhance energy security, and spur economic growth with local battery manufacturing, bridging from the material supply all the way to pack designs and, ultimately, the manufacturing of electric cars. Following the elevation of United States and Indonesia relations to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, leaders of both countries highlighted the importance of Net Zero World support for Indonesia's energy transition, including collaboration on low-carbon battery supply chains. In support of this agreement, Net Zero World has partnered with Indonesia's Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources and other Indonesian partners to chart actionable steps for establishing a clean, resilient battery supply chain and circular economy. This partnership aims to position Indonesia as a regional leader in clean energy and can help attract investment in the domestic battery and electric vehicle (EV) sectors.

batteries↗
DOE OSTI2017

Out Brief for the Structural Reliability Partnership Workshop

The Structural Reliability Partnership Workshop was held in Albuquerque, NM on August 29-30, 2017 and was hosted by Sandia National Laboratories. Attendees were present from academia, industry and several other national laboratories. The workshop kicked off with an introduction to the SRP to familiarize potential members with what the purpose, structure and benefits would be to their organization. Technical overviews were given on several topics by attendees from each sector – national labs, universities and industry – to provide a snapshot of the type of work that is currently being conducted on structural reliability. Attendees were then given the opportunity to suggest and discuss potential Challenge Scenario topics. Three were ultimately decided upon as being the most important: Additive Manufacturing, Hydrogen Pipeline Steels, and Bolted Joined Structures. These were then analyzed using Quad Charts to determine What, How, Who, and Why these areas would be further investigated. Rather than restricting future research to only one area, the option was left open to investigate both the top two, depending on interest and cost associated with hosting such an event. More informal collaboration may be undertaken for the third topic if members have time and interest. Other items discussed pertained to the organization, structure and policies of the Partnership. Topics including Data Management, IP, and mechanisms of partnering/information sharing were touched upon but final decisions were not made. Further action is needed before this can be done. Action items were outlined and assigned, where possible. The next workshop is to be held in early August 2018 in Boulder, CO and is to be hosted by NIST. In the interim, quarterly updates are to take place via WebEx to maintain a line of communication and to ensure progress on both the administrative and technical tasks.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Imaging the initial condition of heavy-ion collisions and nuclear structure across the nuclide chart

High-energy nuclear collisions encompass three key stages: the structure of the colliding nuclei, informed by low-energy nuclear physics, the initial condition , leading to the formation of quark–gluon plasma (QGP), and the hydrodynamic expansion and hadronization of the QGP, leading to final-state hadron distributions that are observed experimentally. Recent advances in both experimental and theoretical methods have ushered in a precision era of heavy-ion collisions, enabling an increasingly accurate understanding of these stages. However, most approaches involve simultaneously determining both QGP properties and initial conditions from a single collision system, creating complexity due to the coupled contributions of these stages to the final-state observables. To avoid this, we propose leveraging established knowledge of low-energy nuclear structures and hydrodynamic observables to independently constrain the QGP’s initial condition. By conducting comparative studies of collisions involving isobar-like nuclei—species with similar mass numbers but different ground-state geometries—we can disentangle the initial condition’s impacts from the QGP properties. This approach not only refines our understanding of the initial stages of the collisions but also turns high-energy nuclear experiments into a precision tool for imaging nuclear structures, offering insights that complement traditional low-energy approaches. Opportunities for carrying out such comparative experiments at the Large Hadron Collider and other facilities could significantly advance both high-energy and low-energy nuclear physics. Additionally, this approach has implications for the future electron-ion collider. While the possibilities are extensive, we focus on selected proposals that could benefit both the high-energy and low-energy nuclear physics communities. Originally prepared as input for the long-range plan of U.S. nuclear physics, this white paper reflects the status as of September 2022, with a brief update on developments since then.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗