SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
One of the basic conditions of high quality manufacture of instruments is the error free developed design documentation. A procedure is described for organizing the design check of the drawings.
Large scale HPC applications are becoming increasingly data intensive. At Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF), we are observing the number of files curated under individual project are reaching as high as 200 millions and project data size is exceeding petabytes. These simulation datasets, once validated, often needs to be transferred to archival system for long term storage or shared with the rest of the research community. Ensuring the data integrity of the full dataset at this scale is paramount important but also a daunting task. This is especially true considering that most conventional tools are serial and file-based, unwieldy to use and/or can't scale to meet user's demand.To tackle this particular challenge, this paper presents the design, implementation and evaluation of a scalable parallel checksumming tool, fsum, which we developed at OLCF. It is built upon the principle of parallel tree walk and work-stealing pattern to maximize parallelism and is capable of generating a single, consistent signature for the entire dataset at extreme scale. We also applied a novel bloom-filter based technique in aggregating signatures to overcome the signature ordering requirement. Given the probabilistic nature of bloom filter, we provided a detailed error and trade-off analysis. Using multiple datasets from production environment, we demonstrated that our tool can efficiently handle both very large files as well as many small-file based datasets. Our preliminary test showed that on the same hardware, it outperforms conventional tool by as much as 4×. It also exhibited near-linear scaling properties when provisioned with more compute resources.
The results of an empirical study of software error detection using self checks and N-version voting are presented. Working independently, each of 24 programmers first prepared a set of self checks using just the requirements specification of an aerospace application, and then each added self checks to an existing implementation of that specification. The modified programs were executed to measure the error-detection performance of the checks and to compare this with error detection using simple voting among multiple versions. The analysis of the checks revealed that there are great differences in the ability of individual programmers to design effective checks. It was found that some checks that might have been effective failed to detect an error because they were badly placed, and there were numerous instances of checks signaling nonexistent errors. In general, specification-based checks alone were not as effective as specification-based checks combined with code-based checks. Self checks made it possible to identify faults that had not been detected previously by voting 28 versions of the program over a million randomly generated inputs. This appeared to result from the fact that the self checks could examine the internal state of the executing program, whereas voting examines only final results of computations. If internal states had to be identical in N-version voting systems, then there would be no reason to write multiple versions.
Software is playing increasingly important roles in avionics systems. It is widely used in navigation and, in some cases, in control loops that maintain aircraft stability. To guarantee the safety of flight systems, the FAA requires that critical components have a probability of failure no greater than 10(exp -9) per hour of flight. Software is being used to diagnose system components for failure. SIFT (Software Implemented Fault Tolerance) was a computer system developed to study the use of software to check for failure and manage processor reconfiguration. To guarantee that software satisfies its specifications, formal verification can be used. With this a program and its specification are viewed as mathematical objects, and a mathematical proof is used to show that the program and its specification are equivalent. In previous research, a theory of checking was developed to offer assistance in analyzing specifications and designing run-time checks. In the theory, checking is considered abstractly in terms of n-ary relations much like those of relational database theory. Within the theory check are categorized, checks on input and checks on results are considered, and formal attention is given to the minimization and logical combination of checks. The focus is upon input checks and the obstacles in checking input to critical systems. A central concern is with a property referred to as independence. The concern is with circumstances under which it is possible to apply isolated, independent checks to separate sensor inputs and be assure that all illegal input will be properly detected. Presently, independence is being investigated and checked in the context of the GCS (Guidance and Control System). The GCS simulator is intended for testing software that implements control laws for landing spacecraft. The large number of inputs and their complex interrelationships provide an exciting context in which to investigate independence and the difficulties of supplying input checks.
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of an automated plan check tool to improve first-time plan quality as well as standardize and document performance of physics plan checks. Methods: The Plan Checker Tool (PCT) uses the Eclipse Scripting API to check and compare data from the treatment planning system (TPS) and treatment management system (TMS). PCT was created to improve first-time plan quality, reduce patient delays, increase efficiency of our electronic workflow, and to standardize and partially automate plan checks in the TPS. A framework was developed which can be configured with different reference values and types of checks. One example is the prescribed dose check where PCT flags the user when the planned dose and the prescribed dose disagree. PCT includes a comprehensive checklist of automated and manual checks that are documented when performed by the user. A PDF report is created and automatically uploaded into the TMS. Prior to and during PCT development, errors caught during plan checks and also patient delays were tracked in order to prioritize which checks should be automated. The most common and significant errors were determined. Results: Nineteen of 33 checklist items were automated with data extracted with the PCT. These include checks for prescription, reference point and machine scheduling errors which are three of the top six causes of patient delays related to physics and dosimetry. Since the clinical roll-out, no delays have been due to errors that are automatically flagged by the PCT. Development continues to automate the remaining checks. Conclusion: With PCT, 57% of the physics plan checklist has been partially or fully automated. Treatment delays have declined since release of the PCT for clinical use. By tracking delays and errors, we have been able to measure the effectiveness of automating checks and are using this information to prioritize future development. This project was supported in part by P01CA059827.
Purpose: The physics plan check verifies various aspects of a treatment plan after dosimetrists have finished creating the plan. Some errors in the plan which are caught by the physics check could be caught earlier in the departmental workflow. The purpose of this project was to evaluate a plan checking script that can be run within the treatment planning system (TPS) by the dosimetrists prior to plan approval and export to the record and verify system. Methods: A script was created in the Pinnacle TPS to automatically check 15 aspects of a plan for clinical practice conformity. The script outputs a list of checks which the plan has passed and a list of checks which the plan has failed so that appropriate adjustments can be made. For this study, the script was run on a total of 108 plans: IMRT (46/108), VMAT (35/108) and SBRT (27/108). Results: Of the plans checked by the script, 77/108 (71%) failed at least one of the fifteen checks. IMRT plans resulted in more failed checks (91%) than VMAT (51%) or SBRT (63%), due to the high failure rate of an IMRT-specific check, which checks that no IMRT segment < 5 MU. The dose grid size and couch removal checks caught errors in 10% and 14% of all plans – errors that ultimately may have resulted in harm to the patient. Conclusion: Approximately three-fourths of the plans being examined contain errors that could be caught by dosimetrists running an automated script embedded in the TPS. The results of this study will improve the departmental workflow by cutting down on the number of plans that, due to these types of errors, necessitate re-planning and re-approval of plans, increase dosimetrist and physician workload and, in urgent cases, inconvenience patients by causing treatment delays.
Purpose: To put forth an innovative clinical paradigm for weekly chart checking so that treatment status is periodically checked accurately and efficiently. This study also aims to help optimize the chart checking clinical workflow in a busy radiation therapy clinic. Methods: It is mandated by the Texas Administrative code to check patient charts of radiation therapy once a week or every five fractions, however it varies drastically among institutions in terms of when and how it is done. Some do it every day, but a lot of efforts are wasted on opening ineligible charts; some do it on a fixed day but the distribution of intervals between subsequent checks is not optimal. To establish an optimal chart checking procedure, a new paradigm was developed to achieve 1) charts are checked more accurately and more efficiently; 2) charts are checked on optimal days without any miss; 3) workload is evened out throughout a week when multiple physicists are involved. All active charts will be accessed by querying the R&V system. Priority is assigned to each chart based on the number of days before the next due date followed by sorting and workload distribution steps. New charts are also taken into account when distributing the workload so it is reasonably even throughout the week. Results: Our clinical workflow became more streamlined and smooth. In addition, charts get checked in a more timely fashion so that errors would get caught earlier should they occur. Conclusion: We developed a new weekly chart checking diagram. It helps physicists check charts in a timely manner, saves their time in busy clinics, and consequently reduces possible errors.
The MRO Sequence Checking Tool program, mro_check, automates significant portions of the MRO (Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) sequence checking procedure. Though MRO has similar checks to the ODY s (Mars Odyssey) Mega Check tool, the checks needed for MRO are unique to the MRO spacecraft. The MRO sequence checking tool automates the majority of the sequence validation procedure and check lists that are used to validate the sequences generated by MRO MPST (mission planning and sequencing team). The tool performs more than 50 different checks on the sequence. The automation varies from summarizing data about the sequence needed for visual verification of the sequence, to performing automated checks on the sequence and providing a report for each step. To allow for the addition of new checks as needed, this tool is built in a modular fashion.
Purpose: A software tool was developed in this study to perform automatic weekly physics chart check on the patient data in ARIA. The tool accesses the electronic patient data directly from ARIA server and checks the accuracy of treatment deliveries, and generates reports which summarize the delivery history and highlight the errors. Methods: The tool has four modules. 1) The database interface is designed to directly access treatment delivery data from the ARIA database before reorganizing the data into the patient chart tree (PCT). 2) PCT is a core data structure designed to store and organize the data in logical hierarchies, and to be passed among functions. 3) The treatment data check module analyzes the organized data in PCT and stores the checking results into PCT. 4) Report generation module generates reports containing the treatment delivery summary, chart checking results and plots of daily treatment setup parameters (couch table positions, shifts of image guidance). The errors that are found by the tool are highlighted with colors. Results: The weekly check tool has been implemented in MATLAB and clinically tested at two major cancer centers. Javascript, cascading style sheets (CSS) and dynamic HTML were employed to create the user-interactive reports. It takes 0.06 second to search the delivery records of one beam with PCT and compare the delivery records with beam plan. The reports, saved in the HTML files on shared network folder, can be accessed by web browser on computers and mobile devices. Conclusion: The presented weekly check tool is useful to check the electronic patient treatment data in Varian ARIA system. It could be more efficient and reliable than the manually check by physicists. The work was partially supported by a research grant from Varian Medical System.
A simple design concept for check valves has been adopted for microfluidic devices that consist mostly of (1) deformable fluorocarbon polymer membranes sandwiched between (2) borosilicate float glass wafers into which channels, valve seats, and holes have been etched. The first microfluidic devices in which these check valves are intended to be used are micro-capillary electrophoresis (microCE) devices undergoing development for use on Mars in detecting compounds indicative of life. In this application, it will be necessary to store some liquid samples in reservoirs in the devices for subsequent laboratory analysis, and check valves are needed to prevent cross-contamination of the samples. The simple check-valve design concept is also applicable to other microfluidic devices and to fluidic devices in general. These check valves are simplified microscopic versions of conventional rubber- flap check valves that are parts of numerous industrial and consumer products. These check valves are fabricated, not as separate components, but as integral parts of microfluidic devices. A check valve according to this concept consists of suitably shaped portions of a deformable membrane and the two glass wafers between which the membrane is sandwiched (see figure). The valve flap is formed by making an approximately semicircular cut in the membrane. The flap is centered over a hole in the lower glass wafer, through which hole the liquid in question is intended to flow upward into a wider hole, channel, or reservoir in the upper glass wafer. The radius of the cut exceeds the radius of the hole by an amount large enough to prevent settling of the flap into the hole. As in a conventional rubber-flap check valve, back pressure in the liquid pushes the flap against the valve seat (in this case, the valve seat is the adjacent surface of the lower glass wafer), thereby forming a seal that prevents backflow.
Purpose: Radiation therapy has evolved to become not only more precise and potent, but also more complicated to monitor and deliver. More rigorous and comprehensive quality assurance is needed to safeguard ever advancing radiation therapy. ICRU standards dictate that an ever growing set of treatment parameters are manually checked weekly by medical physicists. This “weekly chart check” procedure is laborious and subject to human errors or other factors. A computer-assisted chart checking process will enable more complete and accurate human review of critical parameters, reduce the risk of medical errors, and improve the efficiency. Methods: We developed a web-based software system that enables a thorough weekly quality assurance checks. In the backend, the software retrieves all machine parameters from a Treatment Management System (TMS) and compares them against the corresponding ones from the treatment planning system. They are also checked for validity against preset rules. The results are displayed as a web page in the front-end for physicists to review. Then a summary report is generated and uploaded automatically to the TMS as a record for weekly chart checking. Results: The software system has been deployed on a web server in our department’s intranet, and has been tested thoroughly by our clinical physicists. A plan parameter would be highlighted when it is off the preset limit. The developed system has changed the way of checking charts with significantly improved accuracy, efficiency, and completeness. It has been shown to be robust, fast, and easy to use. Conclusion: A computer-assisted system has been developed for efficient, accurate, and comprehensive weekly chart checking. The system has been extensively validated and is being implemented for routine clinical use.
Radioactive check sources are often used for source checking calibrated instruments to confirm accurate readings are obtained from radiological monitoring instruments. Because of the importance of check sources and their application, PNNL conducted a study to evaluate the effectiveness and accuracy of active sources produced using different construction methods. Eleven, randomly selected check sources of both anodized (five) and electroplated (six) construction were evaluated, along with their calculated decay curves, to determine how well they withstand consistent, multi-year use in the field. Results show that the anodized and electroplated check sources evaluated hold up well enough to continue their use, regardless of wear and tear sustained over years of use. This report provides the source information, empirical data for the 11 anodized and electroplated check sources and their representative decay curves, and it documents the conclusion that anodized and electroplated check sources are reliable for routine use in the field over multiple years.
Purpose: To develop an online framework that tracks a patient’s plan from initial simulation to treatment and that helps automate elements of the physics plan checks usually performed in the record and verify (RV) system and treatment planning system. Methods: We have developed PlanTracker, an online plan tracking system that automatically imports new patients tasks and follows it through treatment planning, physics checks, therapy check, and chart rounds. A survey was designed to collect information about the amount of time spent by medical physicists in non-physics related tasks. We then assessed these non-physics tasks for automation. Using these surveys, we directed our PlanTracker software development towards the automation of intra-plan physics review. We then conducted a systematic evaluation of PlanTracker’s accuracy by generating test plans in the RV system software designed to mimic real plans, in order to test its efficacy in catching errors both real and theoretical. Results: PlanTracker has proven to be an effective improvement to the clinical workflow in a radiotherapy clinic. We present data indicating that roughly 1/3 of the physics plan check can be automated, and the workflow optimized, and show the functionality of PlanTracker. When the full system is in clinical use we will present data on improvement of time use in comparison to survey data prior to PlanTracker implementation. Conclusion: We have developed a framework for plan tracking and automatic checks in radiation therapy. We anticipate using PlanTracker as a basis for further development in clinical/research software. We hope that by eliminating the most simple and time consuming checks, medical physicists may be able to spend their time on plan quality and other physics tasks rather than in arithmetic and logic checks. We see this development as part of a broader initiative to advance the clinical/research informatics infrastructure surrounding the radiotherapy clinic. This research project has been financially supported by Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, through a Varian MRA.
Purpose: Physics second-checks for external beam radiation therapy are performed, in-part, to verify that the machine parameters in the Record-and-Verify (R&V) system that will ultimately be sent to the LINAC exactly match the values initially calculated by the Treatment Planning System (TPS). While performing the second-check, a large portion of the physicists’ time is spent navigating and arranging display windows to locate and compare the relevant numerical values (MLC position, collimator rotation, field size, MU, etc.). Here, we describe the development of a software tool that guides the physicist by aggregating and succinctly displaying machine parameter data relevant to the physics second-check process. Methods: A data retrieval software tool was developed using Python to aggregate data and generate a list of machine parameters that are commonly verified during the physics second-check process. This software tool imported values from (i) the TPS RT Plan DICOM file and (ii) the MOSAIQ (R&V) Structured Query Language (SQL) database. The machine parameters aggregated for this study included: MLC positions, X&Y jaw positions, collimator rotation, gantry rotation, MU, dose rate, wedges and accessories, cumulative dose, energy, machine name, couch angle, and more. Results: A GUI interface was developed to generate a side-by-side display of the aggregated machine parameter values for each field, and presented to the physicist for direct visual comparison. This software tool was tested for 3D conformal, static IMRT, sliding window IMRT, and VMAT treatment plans. Conclusion: This software tool facilitated the data collection process needed in order for the physicist to conduct a second-check, thus yielding an optimized second-check workflow that was both more user friendly and time-efficient. Utilizing this software tool, the physicist was able to spend less time searching through the TPS PDF plan document and the R&V system and focus the second-check efforts on assessing the patient-specific plan-quality.
In Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) model checking, we check LTL formulas representing desired behaviors against a formal model of the system designed to exhibit these behaviors. To accomplish this task, the LTL formulas must be translated into automata [21]. We focus on LTL compilation by investigating LTL satisfiability checking via a reduction to model checking. Having shown that symbolic LTL compilation algorithms are superior to explicit automata construction algorithms for this task [16], we concentrate here on seeking a better symbolic algorithm.We present experimental data comparing algorithmic variations such as normal forms, encoding methods, and variable ordering and examine their effects on performance metrics including processing time and scalability. Safety critical systems, such as air traffic control, life support systems, hazardous environment controls, and automotive control systems, pervade our daily lives, yet testing and simulation alone cannot adequately verify their reliability [3]. Model checking is a promising approach to formal verification for safety critical systems which involves creating a formal mathematical model of the system and translating desired safety properties into a formal specification for this model. The complement of the specification is then checked against the system model. When the model does not satisfy the specification, model-checking tools accompany this negative answer with a counterexample, which points to an inconsistency between the system and the desired behaviors and aids debugging efforts.
This innovation is a tool used to verify and validate spacecraft sequences at the predicted events file (PEF) level for the GRAIL (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory, see http://www.nasa. gov/mission_pages/grail/main/index. html) mission as part of the Multi-Mission Planning and Sequencing Team (MPST) operations process to reduce the possibility for errors. This tool is used to catch any sequence related errors or issues immediately after the seqgen modeling to streamline downstream processes. This script verifies and validates the seqgen modeling for the GRAIL MPST process. A PEF is provided as input, and dozens of checks are performed on it to verify and validate the command products including command content, command ordering, flight-rule violations, modeling boundary consistency, resource limits, and ground commanding consistency. By performing as many checks as early in the process as possible, grl_pef_check streamlines the MPST task of generating GRAIL command and modeled products on an aggressive schedule. By enumerating each check being performed, and clearly stating the criteria and assumptions made at each step, grl_pef_check can be used as a manual checklist as well as an automated tool. This helper script was written with a focus on enabling the user with the information they need in order to evaluate a sequence quickly and efficiently, while still keeping them informed and active in the overall sequencing process. grl_pef_check verifies and validates the modeling and sequence content prior to investing any more effort into the build. There are dozens of various items in the modeling run that need to be checked, which is a time-consuming and errorprone task. Currently, no software exists that provides this functionality. Compared to a manual process, this script reduces human error and saves considerable man-hours by automating and streamlining the mission planning and sequencing task for the GRAIL mission.
Abstract We describe and analyze an error mitigation technique that uses multiple pairs of parity checks to detect the presence of errors. Each pair of checks uses one ancilla qubit to detect a component of the error operator and represents one layer of the technique. We build on the results on extended flag gadgets and put it on a firm theoretical foundation. We prove that this technique can recover the noiseless state under the assumption of noise not affecting the checks. The method does not incur any encoding overhead and instead chooses the checks based on the input circuit. We provide an algorithm for obtaining such checks for an arbitrary target circuit. Since the method applies to any circuit and input state, it can be easily combined with other error mitigation techniques. We evaluate the performance of the proposed methods using extensive numerical simulations on 1850 random input circuits composed of Clifford gates and non-Clifford single-qubit rotations, a class of circuits encompassing most commonly considered variational algorithm circuits. We observe average improvements in fidelity of 34 percentage points with six layers of checks.
Fault-tolerant-microcomputer concept based on enhancing "simple" computer with redundancy and self-checking logic circuits detect hardware faults. Interface and checking logic and redundant processors confer on 16-bit microcomputer ability to check itself for hardware faults. Checking circuitry also checks itself. Concept of self-checking complementary pairs (SCCP's) employed throughout ICL unit.