Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “COMMISSION”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Bringing Fault Detection and Diagnostics (FDD) Tools into the Mainstream: Retro Commissioning and Continuous Commissioning of HVAC and Refrigeration Systems

HVAC systems in the commercial building sector consume about 3.4 quads of energy annually. Of all the HVAC systems, packaged rooftop air–conditioning units (RTUs) provide cooling and heating for over 60 percent of the commercial building floorspace (about 90 billion ft2) in the U.S. and they are a significant source of energy consumption and peak demand. All HVAC systems suffer from faults that impact thermal comfort and increase energy consumption. There are several commercially available Automated Fault Detection and Diagnostic (AFDD) tools on the market that can detect and diagnose faults, and if those faults are corrected, can save significant national energy. However, there are multiple market barriers for these tools including lack of independent verification of their performance in the field in terms of their technical capabilities, ease of use and installation.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2015

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

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

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

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

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

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

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

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-D-BRC-01: An Automatic Beam Model Commissioning Method for Monte Carlo Simulations in Pencil-Beam Scanning Proton Therapy

Purpose: Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is typically regarded as the most accurate dose calculation method for proton therapy. Yet for real clinical cases, the overall accuracy also depends on that of the MC beam model. Commissioning a beam model to faithfully represent a real beam requires finely tuning a set of model parameters, which could be tedious given the large number of pencil beams to commmission. This abstract reports an automatic beam-model commissioning method for pencil-beam scanning proton therapy via an optimization approach. Methods: We modeled a real pencil beam with energy and spatial spread following Gaussian distributions. Mean energy, and energy and spatial spread are model parameters. To commission against a real beam, we first performed MC simulations to calculate dose distributions of a set of ideal (monoenergetic, zero-size) pencil beams. Dose distribution for a real pencil beam is hence linear superposition of doses for those ideal pencil beams with weights in the Gaussian form. We formulated the commissioning task as an optimization problem, such that the calculated central axis depth dose and lateral profiles at several depths match corresponding measurements. An iterative algorithm combining conjugate gradient method and parameter fitting was employed to solve the optimization problem. We validated our method in simulation studies. Results: We calculated dose distributions for three real pencil beams with nominal energies 83, 147 and 199 MeV using realistic beam parameters. These data were regarded as measurements and used for commission. After commissioning, average difference in energy and beam spread between determined values and ground truth were 4.6% and 0.2%. With the commissioned model, we recomputed dose. Mean dose differences from measurements were 0.64%, 0.20% and 0.25%. Conclusion: The developed automatic MC beam-model commissioning method for pencil-beam scanning proton therapy can determine beam model parameters with satisfactory accuracy.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Building commissioning costs and savings across three decades and 1500 North American buildings

B.V. Building commissioning (Cx) is a process for assuring efficient building operations that can be applied to new construction and existing buildings, resulting in energy and non-energy benefits. Quantifying the benefits of commissioning is challenging, but a 2009 study of 643 commercial buildings provided a solid initial data set to which we added 839 additional buildings for a significantly expanded and updated meta-analysis representing 34.7 million square meters (373 million square feet) of floor area. Since 2009 the commissioning industry has continued to grow, driven by building codes, utility programs, and rising awareness of commissioning benefits. In parallel, building controls have become more sophisticated, and analytics software has emerged to assist with commissioning. We find that delivery mechanism and market segment are key determinants of outcomes, although significant and cost-effective savings are found across the spectrum. Median primary energy savings for Cx projects in existing buildings ranged from 5 percent for those conducted under utility programs, 9 percent for monitoring-based commissioning utility programs (i.e., augmented with submetering and diagnostics), and 14 percent for Cx projects outside of utility programs. Across all project types, median savings ranged from 3 percent for the lodging market segment to 16 percent for public order and safety facilities. Outcomes did not vary significantly by building size or by market segment. Energy savings are rarely estimated for new construction commissioning. We found that the median costs of Cx were lower for the 2018 sample than for the 2009 sample—$\$$2.85 per square meter ($\$$0.26 per square foot) for existing buildings (a 33 percent reduction) and $\$$8.78 per square meter ($\$$0.82 per square foot) for new construction (a reduction of almost 50 percent). The median simple payback time for existing buildings was 1.7 years, with a 25th–75th percentile range of 0.8–3.5 years. Overall, this article summarizes these and other key findings, and discusses how the 2018 data reflects shifts in commissioning practice and outcomes.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-160: Commissioning of a Single-Room Double-Scattering Proton Therapy System

Purpose: To report the detailed commissioning experience for a compact double-scattering Mevion S250 proton therapy system at a University Cancer Center site. Methods: The commissioning of the proton therapy system mainly consisted of ensuring integrity of mechanical and imaging system, beam data collection, and commissioning of a treatment planning system (TPS). First, mechanical alignment and imaging were tested including safety, interlocks, positional accuracy of couch and gantry, image quality, mechanical and imaging isocenter and so on. Second, extensive beam data (outputs, PDDs, and profiles) were collected and analyzed through effective sampling of range (R) and modulation width (M) from 24 beam options. Three different output (cGy/MU) prediction models were also commissioned as primary and secondary MU calculation tool. Third, the Varian Eclipse TPS was commissioned through five sets of data collections (in-water Bragg peak scans, in-air longitudinal fluence scans, in-air lateral profiles, in-air half-beam profiles, and an HU-to-stopping-power conversion curve) and accuracy of TPS calculation was tested using in-water scans and dose measurements with a 2D array detector with block and range compensator. Finally, an anthropomorphic phantom was scanned and heterogeneity effects were tested by inserting radiochromic films in the phantom and PET activation scans for range verification in conjunction with end-to-end test. Results: Beam characteristics agreed well with the vendor specifications; however, minor mismatches in R and M were found in some measurements during the beam data collection. These were reflected into the TPS commissioning such that the TPS could accurately predict the R and M within tolerance levels. The output models had a good agreement with measured outputs (<3% error). The end-to-end test using the film and PET showed reasonably the TPS predicted dose, R and M in heterogeneous medium. Conclusion: The proton therapy system was successfully commissioned and was released for clinical use.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-428: An Optimization-Based Commissioning Tool for Finite Size Pencil Beam Dose Calculations

Purpose: Finite size pencil beam (FSPB) algorithms are commonly used to pre-calculate the beamlet dose distribution for IMRT treatment planning. FSPB commissioning, which usually requires fine tuning of the FSPB kernel parameters, is crucial to the dose calculation accuracy and hence the plan quality. Yet due to the large number of beamlets, FSPB commissioning could be very tedious. This abstract reports an optimization-based FSPB commissioning tool we have developed in MatLab to facilitate the commissioning. Methods: A FSPB dose kernel generally contains two types of parameters: the profile parameters determining the dose kernel shape, and a 2D scaling factors accounting for the longitudinal and off-axis corrections. The former were fitted using the penumbra of a reference broad beam’s dose profile with Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. Since the dose distribution of a broad beam is simply a linear superposition of the dose kernel of each beamlet calculated with the fitted profile parameters and scaled using the scaling factors, these factors could be determined by solving an optimization problem which minimizes the discrepancies between the calculated dose of broad beams and the reference dose. Results: We have commissioned a FSPB algorithm for three linac photon beams (6MV, 15MV and 6MVFFF). Dose of four field sizes (6*6cm2, 10*10cm2, 15*15cm2 and 20*20cm2) were calculated and compared with the reference dose exported from Eclipse TPS system. For depth dose curves, the differences are less than 1% of maximum dose after maximum dose depth for most cases. For lateral dose profiles, the differences are less than 2% of central dose at inner-beam regions. The differences of the output factors are within 1% for all the three beams. Conclusion: We have developed an optimization-based commissioning tool for FSPB algorithms to facilitate the commissioning, providing sufficient accuracy of beamlet dose calculation for IMRT optimization.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-475: An Evaluation of the Overlap Between the Acceptance Testing and Commissioning Processes for Conventional Medical Linear Accelerators

Purpose: This work’s objective is to determine the overlap of processes, in terms of sub-processes and time, between acceptance testing and commissioning of a conventional medical linear accelerator and to evaluate the time saved by consolidating the two processes. Method: A process map for acceptance testing for medical linear accelerators was created from vendor documentation (Varian and Elekta). Using AAPM TG-106 and inhouse commissioning procedures, a process map was created for commissioning of said accelerators. The time to complete each sub-process in each process map was evaluated. Redundancies in the processes were found and the time spent on each were calculated. Results: Mechanical testing significantly overlaps between the two processes - redundant work here amounts to 9.5 hours. Many beam non-scanning dosimetry tests overlap resulting in another 6 hours of overlap. Beam scanning overlaps somewhat - acceptance tests include evaluating PDDs and multiple profiles but for only one field size while commissioning beam scanning includes multiple field sizes and depths of profiles. This overlap results in another 6 hours of rework. Absolute dosimetry, field outputs, and end to end tests are not done at all in acceptance testing. Finally, all imaging tests done in acceptance are repeated in commissioning, resulting in about 8 hours of rework. The total time overlap between the two processes is about 30 hours. Conclusion: The process mapping done in this study shows that there are no tests done in acceptance testing that are not also recommended to do for commissioning. This results in about 30 hours of redundant work when preparing a conventional linear accelerator for clinical use. Considering these findings in the context of the 5000 linacs in the United states, consolidating acceptance testing and commissioning would have allowed for the treatment of an additional 25000 patients using no additional resources.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2013

Procedures and Standards for Residential Ventilation System Commissioning: An Annotated Bibliography

Beginning with the 2008 version of Title 24, new homes in California must comply with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2007 requirements for residential ventilation. Where installed, the limited data available indicate that mechanical ventilation systems do not always perform optimally or even as many codes and forecasts predict. Commissioning such systems when they are installed or during subsequent building retrofits is a step towards eliminating deficiencies and optimizing the tradeoff between energy use and acceptable IAQ. Work funded by the California Energy Commission about a decade ago at Berkeley Lab documented procedures for residential commissioning, but did not focus on ventilation systems. Since then, standards and approaches for commissioning ventilation systems have been an active area of work in Europe. This report describes our efforts to collect new literature on commissioning procedures and to identify information that can be used to support the future development of residential-ventilation-specific procedures and standards. We recommend that a standardized commissioning process and a commissioning guide for practitioners be developed, along with a combined energy and IAQ benefit assessment standard and tool, and a diagnostic guide for estimating continuous pollutant emission rates of concern in residences (including a database that lists emission test data for commercially-available labeled products).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2018

Cold Commissioning Simulant Selection for the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment Plant LAW Facility - 18465

Commissioning the Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Facility of the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) will require large volumes (∼2,000,000 liters) of a non-radioactive, chemically analogous waste simulant. Cold commissioning will provide for operator training in an integrated facility, demonstration of mechanical process equipment capacity, environmental performance demonstration of emissions control systems, and process control systems shakedown and tuning. Selection of the cold commissioning simulant is following a structured four-phase process to arrive at the preferred composition and recipe. Phases I, II and III are complete. Phase I laid the framework for decision making with preparation of a Project Management Plan, an update to the Simulant Development, Approval, Validation, and Documentation procedure, and a kickoff meeting to gather stakeholder input into the simulant definition and selection criteria. Phase II consisted of a comprehensive literature search and compilation of LAW simulant recipes, followed by initial screening against the selection criteria identified in Phase I. This process identified 72 candidate simulant recipes and down-selected 9 for further study. Phase III studies involved a) statistical comparisons of the similarity of candidate simulant compositions to the tank waste feed vector, b) process modelling of the commissioning sequence with each simulant to estimate glass former and simulant material consumption, offgas and effluent volumes and compositions, and product glass volumes and compositions, and c) evaluation of simulants against the immobilized LAW glass composition algorithm to determine allo able waste loading to ensure compliance with product specifications and process constraints. The results of these studies identified two of the candidate recipes to be carried forward to full-scale testing. Phase IV consists of testing these two recipes at vendor facilities to determine scalability, fabricability, and stability of the simulants when produced at industrial scale. Scalability is the ability to take a recipe from bench scale (1 to 40 liters) batch size to full scale (>35,000 liters) batch size. Fabricability is the ability of a recipe to be prepared in large batches without the need for complex or expensive mechanical equipment, heating, or cooling systems. Stability is the ability of a simulant to withstand long term storage and variations in environmental conditions without unacceptable changes in key characteristics (the set of chemical, physical, and rheological parameters that the simulant is intended to exhibit during cold commissioning tests). Simulants will also be tested for compatibility with other startup material (i.e., frit), tuning simulants, and environmental performance demonstration test spiking solutions to ensure against unexpected situations. Using a structured process is essential when making high impact decisions such as waste simulant selection. Proper planning and a clear explanation of how the decision process will unfold is key to obtaining stakeholder buy-in as more information is gathered. The documentation resulting from this structured selection process will be compiled and summarized in a Cold Commissioning Simulant Definition deliverable due to the Department of Energy 24 months before the start of Cold Commissioning. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2013

Commissioning of the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator: A multi-institutional study

Purpose: Latest generation linear accelerators (linacs), i.e., TrueBeam (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) and its stereotactic counterpart, TrueBeam STx, have several unique features, including high-dose-rate flattening-filter-free (FFF) photon modes, reengineered electron modes with new scattering foil geometries, updated imaging hardware/software, and a novel control system. An evaluation of five TrueBeam linacs at three different institutions has been performed and this work reports on the commissioning experience. Methods: Acceptance and commissioning data were analyzed for five TrueBeam linacs equipped with 120 leaf (5 mm width) MLCs at three different institutions. Dosimetric data and mechanical parameters were compared. These included measurements of photon beam profiles (6X, 6XFFF, 10X, 10XFFF, 15X), photon and electron percent depth dose (PDD) curves (6, 9, 12 MeV), relative photon output factors (Scp), electron cone factors, mechanical isocenter accuracy, MLC transmission, and dosimetric leaf gap (DLG). End-to-end testing and IMRT commissioning were also conducted. Results: Gantry/collimator isocentricity measurements were similar (0.27-0.28 mm), with overall couch/gantry/collimator values of 0.46-0.68 mm across the three institutions. Dosimetric data showed good agreement between machines. The average MLC DLGs for 6, 10, and 15 MV photons were 1.33 {+-} 0.23, 1.57 {+-} 0.24, and 1.61 {+-} 0.26 mm, respectively. 6XFFF and 10XFFF modes had average DLGs of 1.16 {+-} 0.22 and 1.44 {+-} 0.30 mm, respectively. MLC transmission showed minimal variation across the three institutions, with the standard deviation <0.2% for all linacs. Photon and electron PDDs were comparable for all energies. 6, 10, and 15 MV photon beam quality, %dd(10){sub x} varied less than 0.3% for all linacs. Output factors (Scp) and electron cone factors agreed within 0.27%, on average; largest variations were observed for small field sizes (1.2% coefficient of variation, 10 MV, 2 Multiplication-Sign 2 cm{sup 2}) and small cone sizes (<1% coefficient of variation, 6 Multiplication-Sign 6 cm{sup 2} cone), respectively. Conclusions: Overall, excellent agreement was observed in TrueBeam commissioning data. This set of multi-institutional data can provide comparison data to others embarking on TrueBeam commissioning, ultimately improving the safety and quality of beam commissioning.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-190: Commissioning An Elekta VersaHD Linear Accelerator

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to report the dosimetric aspects of commissioning performed on an Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator with high dose rate flattening-filter-free (FFF) photon modes and electron modes. Methods: Acceptance and commissioning was performed on an Elekta VersaHD linac with 5 photon energies (6MV, 10MV, 18MV, 6FFF, 10FFF), 4 electron energies (6MeV, 9MeV, 12MeV, 15MeV) and 160 leaf (5mm wide) multi-leaf collimators (MLCs). Mechanical and dosimetric data was measured and evaluated. The measurements include percent depth doses (PDDs), inplane and crossplane profiles, head scatter factor (Sc), relative photon output factors (Scp), universal wedge transmission factor, MLC transmission factors, and electron cone factors. Results: Gantry, collimator, couch isocentricity measurements were within 1mm, 0.7mm and 0.7mm diameter respectively. The PDDs of 6FFF and 10FFF beams show deeper dmax and steeper fall-off with depth than the corresponding flattened beams. While flatness values of 6FFF and 10FFF normalized profiles were higher than the corresponding flattened beams, the symmetry values were almost identical. The crossplane penumbra values were higher than the inplane penumbra values for all the energies. The MLC transmission values were 0.5%, 0.6% and 0.6% for 6MV, 10MV, and 18MV photon beams. The electron PDDs, profiles and cone factors is validated by literature. Conclusion: The outcome of radiation treatment is directly related to the accuracy in the dose modeled in the treatment planning system which is based on the commissioned data. Commissioning data provided us a valuable insight into the dosimetric characteristics of the beam. This set of commissioning data can provide comparison data to others performing VersaHD commissioning thus improving patient safety.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2012

Commissioning and dosimetric characteristics of TrueBeam system: Composite data of three TrueBeam machines

Purpose: A TrueBeam linear accelerator (TB-LINAC) is designed to deliver traditionally flattened and flattening-filter-free (FFF) beams. Although it has been widely adopted in many clinics for patient treatment, limited information is available related to commissioning of this type of machine. In this work, commissioning data of three units were measured, and multiunit comparison was presented to provide valuable insights and reliable evaluations on the characteristics of the new treatment system. Methods: The TB-LINAC is equipped with newly designed waveguide, carousel assembly, monitoring control, and integrated imaging systems. Each machine in this study has 4, 6, 8, 10, 15 MV flattened photon beams, and 6 MV and 10 MV FFF photon beams as well as 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, and 22 MeV electron beams. Dosimetric characteristics of the three new TB-LINAC treatment units are systematically measured for commissioning. High-resolution diode detectors and ion chambers were used to measure dosimetric data for a range of field sizes from 10 Multiplication-Sign 10 to 400 Multiplication-Sign 400 mm{sup 2}. The composite dosimetric data of the three units are presented in this work. The commissioning of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), image-guided radiation therapy, and gating systems are also illustrated. Critical considerations of P{sub ion} of FFF photon beams and small field dosimetric measurements were investigated. Results: The authors found all PDDs and profiles matched well among the three machines. Beam data were quantitatively compared and combined through average to yield composite beam data. The discrepancies among the machines were quantified using standard deviation (SD). The mean SD of the PDDs among the three units is 0.12%, and the mean SD of the profiles is 0.40% for 10 MV FFF open fields. The variations of P{sub ion} of the chamber CC13 is 1.2 {+-} 0.1% under 6 MV FFF and 2.0 {+-} 0.5% under 10 MV FFF from dmax to the 18 cm-off-axis point at 35 cm depth under 40 Multiplication-Sign 40 cm{sup 2}. The mean penumbra of crossplane flattened photon beams at collimator angle of 0 Degree-Sign is measured from 5.88 {+-} 0.09 to 5.99 {+-} 0.13 mm from 4 to 15 MV at 10 cm depth of 100 Multiplication-Sign 100 mm{sup 2}. The mean penumbra of crossplane beams at collimator angle of 0 Degree-Sign is measured as 3.70 {+-} 0.21 and 4.83 {+-} 0.04 mm for 6 MV FFF and 10 MV FFF, respectively, at 10 cm depth with a field size of 5 Multiplication-Sign 5 cm{sup 2}. The end-to-end test procedures of both IMRT and VMAT were performed for various energy modes. The mean ion chamber measurements of three units showed less than 2% between measurement and calculation; the mean MultiCube ICA measurements demonstrated over 90% pixels passing gamma analysis (3%, 3 mm, 5% threshold). The imaging dosimetric data of KV planar imaging and CBCT demonstrated improved consistency with vendor specifications and dose reduction for certain imaging protocols. The gated output verification showed a discrepancy of 0.05% or less between gating radiation delivery and nongating radiation delivery. Conclusions: The commissioning data indicated good consistency among the three TB-LINAC units. The commissioning data provided us valuable insights and reliable evaluations on the characteristics of the new treatment system. The systematically measured data might be useful for future reference.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2012

Curriculum for Commissioning Energy Efficient Buildings

In July 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) awarded funding to PECI to develop training curriculum in commercial energy auditing and building commissioning. This program was created in response to the high demand for auditing and commissioning services in the U.S. commercial buildings market and to bridge gaps and barriers in existing training programs. Obstacles addressed included: lack of focus on entry level candidates; prohibitive cost and time required for training; lack of hands-on training; trainings that focus on certifications & process overviews; and lack of comprehensive training. PECI organized several other industry players to create a co-funded project sponsored by DOE, PECI, New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA), California Energy Commission (CEC), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and California Commissioning Collaborative (CCC). After awarded, PECI teamed with another DOE awardee, New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), to work collaboratively to create one comprehensive program featuring two training tracks. NJIT’s Center for Building Knowledge is a research and training institute affiliated with the College of Architecture and Design, and provided e-learning and video enhancements. This project designed and developed two training programs with a comprehensive, energy-focused curriculum to prepare new entrants to become energy auditors or commissioning authorities (CxAs). The following are the key elements of the developed trainings, which is depicted graphically in Figure 1: • Online classes are self-paced, and can be completed anywhere, any time • Commissioning Authority track includes 3 online modules made up of 24 courses delivered in 104 individual lessons, followed by a 40 hour hands-on lab. Total time required is between 75 and 100 hours, depending on the pace of the independent learner. • Energy Auditor track includes 3 online modules made up of 18 courses delivered in 72 individual lessons, followed by a 24 hour hands-on lab. Total time required is between 50 and 70 hours, depending on the pace of the independent learner. • Individual courses can be taken for continuing education credits. • Assessments are included for each course, and a score of at least 80% is required for completion. • Completion of Modules 1 through 3 is prerequisite for participating in the laboratory. More experienced participants have the option to test out of Modules 1 and 2 and complete Module 3 to progress to the laboratory.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2013

The Time Needed to Implement the Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendation on Interim Storage - 13124

The report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future [1] makes a number of important recommendations to be considered if Congress elects to redirect U.S. high-level radioactive waste disposal policy. Setting aside for the purposes of this discussion any issues related to political forces leading to stopping progress on the Yucca Mountain project and driving the creation of the Commission, an important recommendation of the Commission was to institute prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities. The Blue Ribbon Commission noted that this recommended strategy for future storage and disposal facilities and operations should be implemented regardless of what happens with Yucca Mountain. It is too easy, however, to focus on interim storage as an alternative to geologic disposal. The Blue Ribbon Commission report does not go far enough in addressing the magnitude of the contentious problems associated with reopening the issues of relative authorities of the states and federal government with which Congress wrestled in crafting the Nuclear Waste Policy Act [2]. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommendation for prompt adoption of an interim storage program does not appear to be fully informed about the actions that must be taken, the relative cost of the effort, or the realistic time line that would be involved. In essence, the recommendation leaves to others the details of the systems engineering analyses needed to understand the nature and details of all the operations required to reach an operational interim storage facility without derailing forever the true end goal of geologic disposal. The material presented identifies a number of impediments that must be overcome before the country could develop a centralized federal interim storage facility. In summary, and in the order presented, they are: 1. Change the law, HJR 87, PL 107-200, designating Yucca Mountain for the development of a repository. 2. Bring new nuclear waste legislation to the floor of the Senate, overcoming existing House support for Yucca Mountain; 3. Change the longstanding focus of Congress from disposal to storage; 4. Change the funding concepts embodied in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to allow the Nuclear Waste fund to be used to pay for interim storage; 5. Reverse the Congressional policy not to give states or tribes veto or consent authority, and to reserve to Congress the authority to override a state or tribal disapproval; 6. Promulgate interim storage facility siting regulations to reflect the new policies after such changes to policy and law; 7. Complete already underway changes to storage and transportation regulations, possibly incorporating changes to reflect changes to waste disposal law; 8. Promulgate new repository siting regulations if the interim storage facility is to support repository development; 9. Identify volunteer sites, negotiate agreements, and get Congressional approval for negotiated benefits packages; 10. Design, License and develop the interim storage facility. The time required to accomplish these ten items depends on many factors. The estimate developed assumes that certain of the items must be completed before other items are started; given past criticisms of the current program, such an assumption appears appropriate. Estimated times for completion of individual items are based on historical precedent. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2011

Beam commissioning and measurements validating the beam model in a new TPS that converts helical tomotherapy plans to step-and-shoot IMRT plans

Purpose: A new type of treatment planning system called SHAREPLAN has been studied, which enables the transfer of treatment plans generated for helical tomotherapy delivery to plans that can be delivered on C-arm linacs. The purpose is to ensure continuous patient treatment during periods of unscheduled downtime for the TomoTherapy unit, particularly in clinics without a backup unit. The purpose of this work was to verify that the plans generated in this novel planning system are deliverable and accurate. The work consists primarily of beam commissioning, verification of the beam model, and measurements verifying that generated plans are deliverable with sufficient accuracy. Methods: The beam commissioning process involves input of general geometric properties of the modeled linac, profiles and depth dose curves for a specific photon nominal energy (6 MV), and the automated modeling of other beam properties. Some manual tuning of the beam model is required. To evaluate its accuracy, the confidence limit concept [J. Venselaar et al., ''Tolerances for the accuracy of photon beam dose calculations of treatment planning systems,'' Radiother. Oncol. 60, 191-201 (2001)] was used, which is a method supported by ESTRO. Measurements were conducted with a 2D diode array at the commissioned linac as a final check of the beam model and to evaluate whether the generated plans were deliverable and accurate. Results: The comparison and evaluation of calculated data points and measured data according to the method applied confirmed the accuracy of the beam model. The profiles had a confidence limit of 1.1% and the depth dose curves had a confidence limit of 1.7%, both of which were well below the tolerance limit of 2%. Plan specific QC measurements and evaluation verified that different plans generated in the TPS were deliverable with sufficient accuracy at the commissioned linac, as none of the 160 beams for the 20 different plans evaluated had a fraction of approved data points below 90%, the local clinical approval criterion for delivery QA measurements. Conclusions: This study is a validation of the new TPS as it verifies that the generated plans are deliverable at a commissioned linac with adequate accuracy. A thorough investigation of the treatment plan quality will require a separate study. The TPS is proving to be a useful and time-saving complement, especially for clinics having a single unit for helical delivery among its conventional linacs.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗