Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Learning control”

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 631 records · Page 35
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2012

Virtually simulating the next generation of clean energy technologies: NETL's AVESTAR Center is dedicated to the safe, reliable and efficient operation of advanced energy plants with carbon capture

Imagine using a real-time virtual simulator to learn to fly a space shuttle or rebuild your car's transmission without touching a piece of equipment or getting your hands dirty. Now, apply this concept to learning how to operate and control a state-of-the-art, electricity-producing power plant capable of carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) capture. That's what the National Energy Technology Laboratory's (NETL) Advanced Virtual Energy Simulation Training and Research (AVESTAR) Center (www.netl.doe.gov/avestar) is designed to do. Established as part of the Department of Energy's (DOE) initiative to advance new clean energy technology for power generation, the AVESTAR Center focuses primarily on providing simulation-based training for process engineers and energy plant operators, starting with the deployment of a first-of-a-kind operator training simulator for an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant with CO{sub 2} capture. The IGCC dynamic simulator builds on, and reaches beyond, conventional power plant simulators to merge, for the first time, a 'gasification with CO{sub 2} capture' process simulator with a 'combined-cycle' power simulator. Based on Invensys Operations Management's SimSci-Esscor DYNSIM software, the high-fidelity dynamic simulator provides realistic training on IGCC plant operations, including normal and faulted operations, as well as plant start-up, shutdown and power demand load changes. The highly flexible simulator also allows for testing of different types of fuel sources, such as petcoke and biomass, as well as co-firing fuel mixtures. The IGCC dynamic simulator is available at AVESTAR's two locations, NETL (Figure 1) and West Virginia University's National Research Center for Coal and Energy (www.nrcce.wvu.edu), both in Morgantown, W.Va. By offering a comprehensive IGCC training program, AVESTAR aims to develop a workforce well prepared to operate, control and manage commercial-scale gasification-based power plants with CO{sub 2} capture. The facility and simulator at West Virginia University promotes NETL's outreach mission by offering hands-on simulator training and education to researchers and university students.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2023

Reinforcement Learning-based Output Structured Feedback for Distributed Multi-Area Power System Frequency Control

Load frequency control (LFC) is a key factor to maintain the stable frequency in multi-area power systems. As the modern power systems evolve from centralized to decentralized paradigm, LFC needs to consider the decentralized scheme that considers limited information from the information-exchange graph for the generator control of each interconnected area. This paper aims to solve a data-driven constrained LQR problem with mean-variance risk constraints and output structured feedback, and applies this framework to solve the LFC problem in multi-area power systems. By reformulating the constrained optimization problem into a minimax problem, the stochastic gradient descent max-oracle (SGDmax) algorithm with zero-order policy gradient (ZOPG) is adopted to find the optimal feedback gain from the learning, while guaranteeing the convergence. In addition, to improve the adaptation of the proposed learning method to new or varying models, we construct an emulator grid that approximates the dynamics of a physical grid and performs training based on this model. Once the feedback gain is obtained from the emulator grid, it is applied to the physical grid with a robustness test to check whether the controller from the approximated emulator applies to the actual system. Numerical tests show that the obtained feedback controller can successfully control the frequency of each area, while mitigating the uncertainty from the loads, with reliable robustness that ensures the adaptability of the obtained feedback gain to the actual physical grid.

Kwon, Kyung-bin↗
DOE OSTI2026

Real-time plasma monitoring framework for advanced plasma control and ML-research in DIII-D

Real-time and adaptive plasma control is crucial for robust tokamak operation, requiring sensitivity and tolerance measurements of the plasma state. This paper presents the implementation of an integrated real-time plasma monitoring framework on the DIII-D tokamak to support advanced control approaches, including machine-learning (ML) methods. The system is built on the SHIELD framework, a high-performance modular architecture that provides a unified pipeline for integrating diverse diagnostics. The framework leverages high-bandwidth digitizers, fast numerical processing, and deterministic, low-latency interconnects to stream high-fidelity data from diagnostics such as electron cyclotron emission (ECE), beam emission spectroscopy (BES), CO interferometers, and a visible tangential divertor camera (TangTV). The system’s validity is demonstrated through direct comparisons of real-time and offline data. Furthermore, we present two key applications of the developed plasma monitoring system with ML-based plasma control strategies, including real-time divertor detachment and active Alfvén Eigenmode control. As a result, this work presents a robust and scalable approach for integrating high-frequency, multidimensional diagnostics into advanced control algorithms for future fusion devices.

AI/ML↗
DOE OSTI2021

Safe Reinforcement Learning for Emergency Load Shedding of Power Systems

The paradigm shift in the electric power grid necessitates a revisit of existing control methods to ensure the grid’s security and resilience. In particular, the increased uncertainties and rapidly changing operational conditions in power systems have revealed outstanding issues in terms of either speed, adaptiveness, or scalability of the existing control methods for power systems. On the other hand, the availability of massive real-time data can provide a clearer picture of what is happening in the grid. Recently, deep reinforcement learning (RL) has been regarded and adopted as a promising approach leveraging massive data for fast and adaptive grid control. However, like most existing machine learning (ML)- based control techniques, RL control usually cannot guarantee the safety of the power systems. In this paper, we introduce a novel method for safe RL-based load shedding of power systems that can enhance the safe voltage recovery of the electric power grid after experiencing faults. Numerical simulation on the IEEE 39-bus testcase is performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed safe RL emergency control, as well as its adaptive capability to faults not seen in the training.

reinforcement learning, emergency control, power g↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hardware-in-the-loop Testing of Signal Temporal Logic Frequency Control in a Microgrid

This paper presents a hardware-in-the-loop (HITL) testing and lessons learned for a signal temporal logic (STL) frequency control in a microgrid setting. In contrast to most, if not all, traditional control mechanisms, the STL control allows for including temporal constraints in the control formulation to handle sophisticated specifications from grid codes and protection relays. This feature provides richer descriptions of control specifications to address both magnitude and time simultaneously, hence a valuable tool for power system operation and control. An ultra-low voltage (24V) HITL microgrid platform consisting of two type-3 wind turbine generators and one diesel generator is used to test the proposed STL frequency control. In experimental case studies, we demonstrate that the HITL frequency responses closely match the simulated ones and strictly satisfy the designed STL control specifications.

Ferrari Maglia, Max↗
DOE OSTI2021

Machine‐learning‐based construction of barrier functions and models for safe model predictive control

Abstract In this paper, we propose a control Lyapunov‐barrier function‐based model predictive control method utilizing a feed‐forward neural network specified control barrier function (CBF) and a recurrent neural network (RNN) predictive model to stabilize nonlinear processes with input constraints, and to guarantee that safety requirements are met for all times. The nonlinear system is first modeled using RNN techniques, and a CBF is characterized by constructing a feed‐forward neural network (FNN) model with unique structures and properties. The FNN model for the CBF is trained based on data samples collected from safe and unsafe operating regions, and the resulting FNN model is verified to demonstrate that the safety properties of the CBF are satisfied. Given sufficiently small bounded modeling errors for both the FNN and the RNN models, the proposed control system is able to guarantee closed‐loop stability while preventing the closed‐loop states from entering unsafe regions in state‐space under sample‐and‐hold control action implementation. We provide the theoretical analysis for bounded unsafe sets in state‐space, and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed control strategy using a nonlinear chemical process example with a bounded unsafe region.

Chen, Scarlett↗
DOE OSTI2025

Learning error distribution kernel‐enhanced neural network methodology for multi‐intersection signal control optimization

Traffic congestion has substantially induced significant mobility and energy inefficiency. Many research challenges are identified in traffic signal control and management associated with artificial intelligence (AI)-based models. For example, developing AI-driven dynamic traffic system models that accurately capture high-resolution traffic attributes and formulate robust control algorithms for traffic signal optimization is difficult. Additionally, uncertainties in traffic system modeling and control processes can further complicate traffic signal system controllability. To partially address these challenges, this study presents a novel, hybrid neural network model enhanced with a probability density function kernel shaping technique to formulate traffic system dynamics better and improve comprehensive traffic network modeling and control. The numerical experimental tests were conducted, and the results demonstrate that the proposed control approach outperforms the baseline control strategies and reduces overall average delays by 11.64% on average. By leveraging the capabilities of this innovative model, this study aims to address major challenges related to traffic congestion and energy inefficiency toward more effective and adaptable AI-based traffic control systems.

Wang, Hong [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), ↗
DOE OSTI2018

Lessons Learned from Performing a Human Factors Engineering Validation of an Upgraded Digital Control System in a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room

The United States' fleet of nuclear power plants (NPPs) have exceeded their original 40-year licenses and many are seeking license renewals to continue operations into the future. To support continued operation the Department of Energy's (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program (LWRS) provides support for utilities to maintain and upgrade their power production capabilities. Control room modernization is one focus area, which aims to modernization the analog control rooms with digital controls and human-system interfaces (HSIs). The Turbine Control System (TCS) is a non-safety related system undergoing modernization efforts at multiple plants and utilities. Considerable human factors research efforts, comprised of expert reviews and operator in the loop studies were performed to develop human factors compliant and usable TCS. This report documents the final phase of the human factors engineering program used to design and validate the new digital TCS. According to the NUREG-0711 review guide, one of the last steps of human factors engineering program prior to implementation is human factors validation. This report details the method, results and conclusions from the human factors validation study of a collaborating utilities TCS slated to be implemented in one of their plants. One control room team consisting of two control room supervisors and two reactor operators participated in the validation. All team members had participated in the BNP TCS training program foregoing the TCS validation. Performance measures included task performance, situation awareness and workload, expert observation of any negative influences of human-system interface features on control room team performance, and interviews with the participating operators. Performance criteria were based on the performance scores and the topics identified by interviews and expert observations. The results showed that the crew using the new TCS clearly could achieve their overall objectives in the test scenarios with sufficient situation awareness. The new TCS compared to the old system provided clear improvements of the control room work regarding shell and chest warming and regarding valve and other system testing. However, a number of Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) were identified. HEDs were prioritized (level 1, 2 or 3) according to potential safety, plant availability, operability or personnel performance consequences. Since no priority 1 HEDs were identified there is no HFE reason not to continue implementation of the TCS. The TCS upgrade is acceptable if the Priority 2 HEDs are resolved and dispositioned in a satisfactory way. Priority 3 HEDs should be noted and considered for future modifications.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Applications of Digital Twin System in a Smart City System with Multi-Energy

With the increasing number of electric vehicles (EV), the smart transportation system is becoming more closely related to the smart energy system in a smart city. However, because of the high complexity, dynamics, and large-scale of these two systems, it is challenging to study their operation problems systematically, especially in severe conditions, e.g., the 2021 winter Texas power traffic crisis. With artificial intelligence, federated learning, edge computing, and automatic control, a digital twin based smart city is proposed in this paper and it focuses on two applications: smart transportation and smart energy grid. Both systems are presented in a structured design manner with several components in the digital twin system, which also contains many real-implementations of different scenarios. The proposed digital twin of a smart city provides a potential clue for the problems mentioned above.

artificial intelligence↗
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 OSTI2015

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

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Explosively driven Richtmyer–Meshkov instability jet suppression and enhancement via coupling machine learning and additive manufacturing

The ability to control the behavior of fluid instabilities at material interfaces, such as the shock-driven Richtmyer–Meshkov instability, is a grand technological challenge with a broad number of applications ranging from inertial confinement fusion experiments to explosively driven shaped charges. In this work, we use a linear-geometry shaped charge as a means of studying methods for controlling material jetting that results from the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. A shaped charge produces a high-velocity jet by focusing the energy from the detonation of high explosives. The interaction of the resulting detonation wave with a hollowed cavity lined with a thin metal layer produces the unstable jetting effect. By modifying the characteristics of the detonation wave prior to striking the lined cavity, the kinetic energy of the jet can be enhanced or reduced. Modifying the geometry of the liner material can also be used to alter jetting properties. We apply optimization methods to investigate several design parameterizations for both enhancing or suppressing the shaped-charge jet. This is accomplished using 2D and 3D hydrodynamic simulations to investigate the design space that we consider. We also apply new additive manufacturing methods for producing the shaped-charge assemblies, which allow for the experimental testing of complicated design geometries obtained through computational optimization. We present a direct comparison of our optimized designs with experimental results carried out at the High Explosives Application Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗