Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “code verification, physics validation”

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.

266 records · Page 15

Towards a NEAMS-based high-fidelity model of the MARVEL reactor

This report outlines the progress of Idaho National Laboratory in developing a high-fidelity and high-resolution model of the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation reactor. The model was developed under the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation microreactor application driver at Idaho National Laboratory. The overarching objective of this activity is the development of a high-fidelity multiphysics MARVEL model using NEAMS tools, and to verify and validate NEAMS tools against MARVEL reference simulation and experimental data, respectively. This is a unique opportunity to conduct multiphysics analysis on a soon-to-be-deployed microreactor. This multiphysics model developed under the NEAMS-funded INL microreactor application driver leverages three single-physics models coupled via the MOOSE’s MultiApp and Transfer systems. The latter systems enable in-memory data transfer between MOOSE-based and MOOSE-wrapped applications. The first single-physics model, that functions as main application, leverages Griffin to model the neutron transport in the core through the discontinuous finite element (DFEM) discrete ordinates solver (SN). Several optimization flags that were developed by the Griffin developer team were beta-tested to enhance the solver’s performance. These include the combined use of using_average_xs and update_averaged_xs_on that enable to avoid expensive on-the-fly cross sections evaluations at each linear iterations in favor of evaluations of the macroscopic cross sections at each Picard iteration. The second single-physics model uses BISON to handle solid heat transfer and asymptotic hydrogen redistribution analysis in the fuel. While the model returns consistent results for the temperature and hydrogen distribution in the fuel, a mismatch was noticed in the calculated temperature in the reflector due to the value of the gap conductance used in our model. Ongoing investigations are being performed to assess the origin of this discrepancy. Finally, the System Analysis Module (SAM) was used to model the flow of the sodium-potassium eutectic in the primary loop. A first verification was also performed showing good agreement in terms of mass flow rate and inlet temperature. All mesh files were generated using the MOOSE Reactor module, removing the need for external meshing tools. Notably, this workscope represents one of the initial applications of the MOOSE Reactor module for modeling highly irregular geometries. The use of the reactor module significantly streamlined the mesh generation process. The full multiphysics mode, that combines all the single physics models, was leveraged to conduct initial steady-state multiphysics simulations to compute power, and temperature distribution in the reactor. Initial testing was performed for transient simulations as well. In this case, the new checkpoint restart capability for eigenvalue calculations was tested showing the capability for streamlined restart of transient calculations. Future work will focus on improving the fidelity of the model by performing comprehensive code-to-code comparisons. For instance, the full-core Griffin neutronics model will be benchmarked against MCNP reference results, that were provided by the MARVEL design team. Additionally, the SAM T/H model will be verified against reference RELAP-5 results for selected accident scenarios. Besides code-to-code verification exercises, the model fidelity will be improved by replacing the single-channel SAM model with a more complex SAM-Pronghorn coupled model, in which the sub-channel capability is deployed to obtain radial temperature resolution in the coolant. This model will be developed in synergy with the NEAMS thermal hydraulics team.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Validation of ORIGEN for VVER-440 Spent Fuel with Application to Fork Detector Safeguards Measurements

The US Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) are collaborating with the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland to assess spent fuel verification methods for potential application to measurements at the planned spent fuel encapsulation plant and geological repository prior to final disposal in Finland. The fork detector (FDET) used to measure the neutron and gamma radiation from a given spent fuel assembly is an existing technology widely used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Euratom for the safeguards verification of spent fuel operator declaration. Recently, an FDET data analysis software, referred to as the ORIGEN module, was developed and incorporated into the IAEA/Euratom Integrated Review and Analysis Program. This module uses the ORIGEN burnup code to calculate the nuclide concentrations and the neutron and gamma source terms in the spent fuel based on operator declarations. Then, to predict the expected FDET signals for a given fuel assembly, the module combines the source terms calculated by ORIGEN with FDET response functions that were pre-generated using MCNP models. The inspector can compare the calculated signals to the measured values in real time to identify possible anomalies in fuel assembly’s operator declaration, integrity, or measurement. In this work, the capability of the ORIGEN module was extended from application to typical light water reactor fuels to use for VVER-440 assembly types. The accuracy of ORIGEN for this type of fuel assembly calculations was assessed by comparing calculated nuclide concentrations against destructive assay measurements for VVER-440 spent fuel. The performance of the ORIGEN module for FDET safeguards verification in routine inspections was assessed using FDET measurement data for 13 spent VVER-440 assemblies that were measured at the Loviisa Nuclear Power Plant in Finland, by comparing the calculated signals to the measured quantities. The results show that the calculated FDET neutron and gamma detector signals are generally within 12% of the measurements except for one assembly. Thus, these results are applicable to future safeguards verification in the planned Finland encapsulation plant, such as for passive neutron albedo reactivity safeguards measurements.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

SILENE Benchmark Critical Experiments for Criticality Accident Alarm Systems

In October 2010 a series of benchmark experiments was conducted at the Commissariat a Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives (CEA) Valduc SILENE [1] facility. These experiments were a joint effort between the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the French CEA. The purpose of these experiments was to create three benchmarks for the verification and validation of radiation transport codes and evaluated nuclear data used in the analysis of criticality accident alarm systems (CAASs). This presentation will discuss the geometric configuration of these experiments and the quantities that were measured and will present some preliminary comparisons between the measured data and calculations. This series consisted of three single-pulsed experiments with the SILENE reactor. During the first experiment the reactor was bare (unshielded), but during the second and third experiments it was shielded by lead and polyethylene, respectively. During each experiment several neutron activation foils and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were placed around the reactor, and some of these detectors were themselves shielded from the reactor by high-density magnetite and barite concrete, standard concrete, and/or BoroBond. All the concrete was provided by CEA Saclay, and the BoroBond was provided by Y-12 National Security Complex. Figure 1 is a picture of the SILENE reactor cell configured for pulse 1. Also included in these experiments were measurements of the neutron and photon spectra with two BICRON BC-501A liquid scintillators. These two detectors were provided and operated by CEA Valduc. They were set up just outside the SILENE reactor cell with additional lead shielding to prevent the detectors from being saturated. The final detectors involved in the experiments were two different types of CAAS detectors. The Babcock International Group provided three CIDAS CAAS detectors, which measured photon dose and dose rate with a Geiger-Mueller tube. CIDAS detectors are currently in use at Y-12 in the newly constructed Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility. The second CAAS detector used a 6 LiF TLD to absorb neutrons and a silicon detector to count the charge particles released by these absorption events. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory provided four of these detectors, which had formerly been used at the Rocky Flats facility in the United States.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

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

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

Validation of transport models using additive flux minimization technique

A new additive flux minimization technique is proposed for carrying out the verification and validation (V and V) of anomalous transport models. In this approach, the plasma profiles are computed in time dependent predictive simulations in which an additional effective diffusivity is varied. The goal is to obtain an optimal match between the computed and experimental profile. This new technique has several advantages over traditional V and V methods for transport models in tokamaks and takes advantage of uncertainty quantification methods developed by the applied math community. As a demonstration of its efficiency, the technique is applied to the hypothesis that the paleoclassical density transport dominates in the plasma edge region in DIII-D tokamak discharges. A simplified version of the paleoclassical model that utilizes the Spitzer resistivity for the parallel neoclassical resistivity and neglects the trapped particle effects is tested in this paper. It is shown that a contribution to density transport, in addition to the paleoclassical density transport, is needed in order to describe the experimental profiles. It is found that more additional diffusivity is needed at the top of the H-mode pedestal, and almost no additional diffusivity is needed at the pedestal bottom. The implementation of this V and V technique uses the FACETS::Core transport solver and the DAKOTA toolkit for design optimization and uncertainty quantification. The FACETS::Core solver is used for advancing the plasma density profiles. The DAKOTA toolkit is used for the optimization of plasma profiles and the computation of the additional diffusivity that is required for the predicted density profile to match the experimental profile.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

OECD/NEA EGMPEBV Activities in Multi-Physics Verification and Validation

The Expert Group on Multi-Physics Experimental Data, Benchmarks and Validation (EGMPEBV) was established in 2014 by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to establish processes for certification of experimental data and development of benchmark models for validation of Multi-Physics (MP) Modeling and Simulation (M and S) computational systems. The aim of the group is to provide member countries with guidelines and recommendations for validating and improving their novel multi-physics simulations, and with an access to key experimental data. To be used to their full potential, these novel tools will require a more complex suite of validation experiments due to the multiple energy, spatial and temporal scales, as well as the number of physical phenomena being simulated. They will also require accurate measurements of all terms, including coupling terms representing the feedback effects, in situations where the appropriate experimental techniques and facilities might not exist today. However, the ability to conduct validation experiments has for certain applications progressed at a slower pace than for computational methods, or in some cases it has significantly regressed (through shutdown of facilities, or through retirement of experts). In addition, as modelling capabilities are reaching deeper levels in single physics phenomena and in coupled behaviors, appropriate experimental techniques may not yet exist. Validation of multiple physics models requires a wide variety of experimental data, which emphasizes the importance of maximizing the use of historically accumulated data to avoid the significant cost of performing similar experiments today. Moreover, the pedigree and quality of this data as it pertains to modern day simulation methods may be insufficient for rigorous validation of high fidelity modeling and simulation tools. Thus, these data can often exhibit limitations including a lack of measurement accuracy or a lack of knowledge of the measurement uncertainty in the experimental techniques; an absence of measurements for some critical parameters; an obscuring of relationships between individual physics phenomena owing to the output data resolution; or simply an inability to allow for a detailed reinterpretation of the experiments based on the documented information. The organization of the EGMPEBV relies on three Task Forces, focused on 1) Experimental Data Qualification and Benchmark Evaluation; 2) Methods and Standards, and 3) Specific Applications. Task Force 1 is focused on providing better and more accurate experimental datasets, which support validation of high-fidelity multi-physics modelling and simulation (M and S) tools. At the same time it has to consider the incompleteness of past experimental data sets (in terms of data, documentation, or uncertainties) and with the limited number of available multi-physics experimental facilities. Task Force 2 is designed to develop validation methods and guidelines, and uncertainty qualification for the new family of multi-physics, multi-scale codes in the context of emerging demands such as longer fuel cycles and power uprate. Task Force 3 is focused on applications of validation experiments and has the objective to organize multi-physics M and S benchmarks involving validation experiments.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Validation of the single-event method for low-energy electron transport via stopping power calculations with $\mathrm{MCNP}$

Monte Carlo simulations of low-energy ( <50 keV) electron transport in matter are essential for a broad range of application fields. Several Monte Carlo codes have developed specialized treatments for this case, but a comprehensive validation of low-energy electron transport for general-purpose simulations remains lacking in the literature. One approach to accomplish this validation is calculation of stopping power using low-energy electron transport physics, as stopping power is a fundamental radiation transport quantity which must be simulated accurately for nearly any application. Here in this work, we use the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) radiation transport code with the single-event method for electron transport to calculate stopping powers of low-energy electrons (50 eV to 30 keV) in 41 elemental solids, 14 compound solids, and five rare gas solids, comparing simulation results to published semi-empirical stopping power calculations from optical measurements. In general, the simulations give good agreement (typically within ±10%) with semi-empirical stopping power values at higher energies: 300 eV and above for most elemental solids, 1 keV and above for compound solids, and 400 eV and above for rare gas solids. Agreement between MCNP and semi-empirical values is worse below these energies. The most significant source of error is the EPRDATA14 cross section data, which does not account for changes in electronic structure due to solid-state bonding, particularly in compound materials. The simplistic model of atomic excitation used to generate the EPRDATA14 cross sections is another key source of error. Additionally, the breakdown of the continuous slowing-down approximation introduces significant uncertainty at low energies, although this is a limitation of the calculation method and not of the simulation procedure. Accounting for these and other uncertainty sources, the single event method in MCNP is robust and able to give good accuracy for a variety of low-energy electron transport problems through diverse kinds of materials.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗

Performance of the Initial Implementation of the Shift Monte Carlo Code in SCALE 6.3

The Shift Monte Carlo code will be introduced in SCALE 6.3 as an alternative to the KENO V.a, KENO-VI, and Monaco codes. Calculations were performed to establish the performance of Shift for criticality safety analyses within the criticality safety analyses sequence (CSAS) based on models in the Verified, Archived Library of Inputs and Data (VALID). This test suite contains over 600 critical experiment models covering a broad range of fissile materials and neutron energy spectra. The comparisons presented include calculated k eff values and runtime performance for serial calculations and a selection of parallel calculations. Comparisons are presented for multigroup (MG) and continuous-energy (CE) calculations for KENO V.a and KENO-VI models. Results generated with a beta version of SCALE 6.3 indicate excellent agreement in k eff values between KENO and Shift. The largest differences in the average k eff value calculated for the 15 categories of KENO V.a models are 0.00020 ± 0.00011 Δ k for MG calculations and 0.00011 ± 0.00005 Δ k for CE calculations. Similar comparisons in three categories using KENO-VI result in the largest differences for MG calculations: as 0.00004 ± 0.00003 Δ k , and -0.00002 ± 0.00003 Δ k for CE. The preliminary results also indicate that Shift is faster than KENO on a per particle basis, especially for fast spectrum systems. The uncertainty per history is also higher, however, so the Monte Carlo figure of merit is higher for KENO for thermal and intermediate spectrum systems. As expected, Shift generally has better speedup than KENO for parallel calculations, regardless of neutron energy spectrum.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

A Verification of Flux Sensitivity Estimates Using the MCNP Tally Perturbation Tool

Nuclear data is commonly used in applications such as nuclear nonproliferation, safeguards, and criticality safety. More specifically, nuclear data is used in predictive simulation codes like the Monte-Carlo N-Particle (MCNP ® ) transport code, Serpent, and similar radiation transport codes. The improvement of nuclear data enables more precise and accurate simulations, which result in higher fidelity designs and reduced operational/procedural costs. Therefore, the improvement of nuclear data is of paramount importance across the nuclear community. Nuclear data is improved and validated through integral benchmark experiments. The design of benchmark experiments is an extensive process; therefore, these experiments are often optimized on multiple characteristics, including sensitivity to the nuclear data, during the design process. Sensitivity is a measure of how much a quantity changes due to changes in independent variables such as experimental configuration. An experimental design that has a larger sensitivity to the nuclear data of interest will have a larger impact on the accuracy and precision of the validated data. Past integral benchmark experiments have primarily used the effective multiplication factor ($k_{eff}$) as the predominant measured quantity; however, experiments designed with other quantities in mind would be able to optimize on validating different areas of the nuclear data. A primary goal of the EUCLID project is to design, constrain, and reduce compensating errors in experiments focused on quantities other than $k_{eff}$ to better validate nuclear data across the board. Currently, there is a capability in MCNP to easily calculate the sensitivity of $k_{eff}$ to specific nuclear data of numerous reactions types and isotopes (KSEN card); however, the sensitivity of other quantities must be estimated in more strenuous manners. For example, the perturbation feature (PERT card) of MCNP can be used to estimate first-order sensitivities of some response in fixed source simulations. A recent announcement revealed that the first- and second-order perturbation features in previous releases of MCNP contained a bug. It was identified that particles were being scored into the wrong energy bin. The bug is in the most recent public release (MCNP6.2); however, a patch has been added to the most up to date version (MCNP6.2.2) that has not been released publicly. A direct comparison of the PERT card results for an F4 (neutron flux averaged over a cell) tally before and after the patch are shown in figure 1. All simulations used in the sensitivity estimates in this report were performed with MCNP6.2.2. This work verifies the patched MCNP perturbation tool by comparing first order sensitivities made using the PERT card to estimates made using manual perturbation of the compact ENDF (ACE) files.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

Strategy and gaps for modeling, simulation, and control of hybrid systems

The purpose of this report is to establish a strategy for modeling and simulation of candidate hybrid energy systems. Modeling and simulation is necessary to design, evaluate, and optimize the system technical and economic performance. Accordingly, this report first establishes the simulation requirements to analysis candidate hybrid systems. Simulation fidelity levels are established based on the temporal scale, real and synthetic data availability or needs, solution accuracy, and output parameters needed to evaluate case-specific figures of merit. Accordingly, the associated computational and co-simulation resources needed are established; including physical models when needed, code assembly and integrated solutions platforms, mathematical solvers, and data processing. This report first attempts to describe the figures of merit, systems requirements, and constraints that are necessary and sufficient to characterize the grid and hybrid systems behavior and market interactions. Loss of Load Probability (LOLP) and effective cost of Effective Cost of Energy (ECE), as opposed to the standard Levelized Cost of Electricty (LCOE), are introduced as technical and economical indices for integrated energy system evaluations. Financial assessment methods are subsequently introduced for evaluation of non-traditional, hybrid energy systems. Algorithms for coupled and iterative evaluation of the technical and economic performance are subsequently discussed. This report further defines modeling objectives, computational tools, solution approaches, and real-time data collection and processing (in some cases using real test units) that will be required to model, co-simulate, and optimize; (a) an energy system components (e.g., power generation unit, chemical process, electricity management unit), (b) system domains (e.g., thermal, electrical or chemical energy generation, conversion, and transport), and (c) systems control modules. Co-simulation of complex, tightly coupled, dynamic energy systems requires multiple simulation tools, potentially developed in several programming languages and resolved on separate time scales. Whereas further investigation and development of hybrid concepts will provide a more complete understanding of the joint computational and physical modeling needs, this report highlights areas in which co-simulation capabilities are warranted. The current development status, quality assurance, availability and maintainability of simulation tools that are currently available for hybrid systems modeling is presented. Existing gaps in the modeling and simulation toolsets and development needs are subsequently discussed. This effort will feed into a broader Roadmap activity for designing, developing, and demonstrating hybrid energy systems.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗