Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Modulating”

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 379 records · Page 21
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

Novel hard, tough HfAlSiN multilayers, defined by alternating Si bond structure, deposited using modulated high-flux, low-energy ion irradiation of the growing film

Hf{sub 1−x−y}Al{sub x}Si{sub y}N (0 ≤ x ≤ 0.14, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.12) single layer and multilayer films are grown on Si(001) at 250 °C using ultrahigh vacuum magnetically unbalanced reactive magnetron sputtering from a single Hf{sub 0.6}Al{sub 0.2}Si{sub 0.2} target in mixed 5%-N{sub 2}/Ar atmospheres at a total pressure of 20 mTorr (2.67 Pa). The composition and nanostructure of Hf{sub 1−x−y}Al{sub x}Si{sub y}N films are controlled by varying the energy E{sub i} of the ions incident at the film growth surface while maintaining the ion-to-metal flux ratio constant at eight. Switching E{sub i} between 10 and 40 eV allows the growth of Hf{sub 0.78}Al{sub 0.10}Si{sub 0.12}N/Hf{sub 0.78}Al{sub 0.14}Si{sub 0.08}N multilayers with similar layer compositions, but in which the Si bonding state changes from predominantly Si–Si/Si–Hf for films grown with E{sub i} = 10 eV, to primarily Si–N with E{sub i} = 40 eV. Multilayer hardness values, which vary inversely with bilayer period Λ, range from 20 GPa with Λ = 20 nm to 27 GPa with Λ = 2 nm, while fracture toughness increases directly with Λ. Multilayers with Λ = 10 nm combine relatively high hardness, H ∼ 24 GPa, with good fracture toughness.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-539: Dosimetric Comparison of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Whole Brain Hippocampal Sparing Radiation Therapy Treatments

Purpose: To compare the treatment plan quality and dose gradient near the hippocampus between VMAT (RapidArc) and IMRT delivery techniques for whole brain radiation therapy. Methods: Fifteen patients were evaluated in this retrospective study. All treatments were planned on Varian Eclipse TPS, using 3-Arc VMAT and 9-Field IMRT, following NRG Oncology protocol NRG-CC001 guidelines evaluated by a single radiation oncologist. Prescribed doses in all plans were 30 Gy delivered over 10 fractions normalized to a minimum of 100% of the dose covering 95% of the target volume. Identical contour sets and dose-volume constraints following protocol guidelines were also applied in all plans. A paired t-test analysis was used to compare VMAT and IMRT plans. Results: NRG-CC001 protocol dose-volume constraints were met for all VMAT and IMRT plans. For the planning target volume (PTV), the average values for D2% and D98% were 6% lower and 4% higher in VMAT than in IMRT, respectively. The average mean and maximum hippocampus doses in Gy for VMAT vs IMRT plans were (11.85±0.81 vs. 12.24±0.56, p=0.10) and (16.27±0.78 vs. 16.59±0.71, p=0.24), respectively. In VMAT, the average mean and maximum chiasm doses were 3% and 1% higher than in IMRT plans, respectively. For the left optic nerve, the average mean and maximum doses were 10% and 5% higher in VMAT than in IMRT plans, respectively. These values were 12% and 3% for the right optic nerve. The average percentage of dose gradient around the hippocampus in the 0–5mm and 5–10mm abutted regions for VMAT vs. IMRT were (4.42%±2.22% /mm vs. 3.95%±2.61% /mm, p=0.43) and (4.54%±1.50% /mm vs. 4.39%±1.28% /mm, p=0.73), respectively. Conclusion: VMAT plans can achieve higher hippocampus sparing with a faster dose fall-off than IMRT plans. Though statistically insignificant, VMAT offers better PTV coverage with slightly higher doses to OARs.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Module D-PR Fuel Fabrication Preface to the D-Modules

Generic Technical Factors Affecting Fuel Fabrication. Many in-reactor physical, chemical, metallurgical, mechanical, thermodynamic, and nucleonic factors influence the design and functionality of nuclear fuel. Detailed discussion of these technical factors is beyond the scope of this cost-oriented preface document; however, the following three references are suggested for a more comprehensive discussion of fuel design requirements for both commercial and special use (military and remote location) reactors: IAEA-TECDOC-1686 (IAEA 2012), the World Nuclear Association webpage “Nuclear Fuel and its Fabrication (WNA 2020a), and INL/EXT-20-54641 (Mariani 2020). To aid the reader’s understanding of how design affects life cycle costs, a few technical factors are also briefly discussed in the sections below.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗