Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “hardware testing”

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 703 records · Page 39
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Real-time Implementation of a Dual-Active-Bridge Based Multi-Level Photovoltaic Converter

Silicon-carbide based, multi-level converters with dual-active-bridge (DAB) are getting attention for medium voltage, direct grid-connected, utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) applications due to their higher efficiency and power density. To de-risk complex control development for these high-voltage and high-power inverters, hardware-in-the-loop techniques are often required. Due to the high switching frequency and the large number of power electronic switches, off-the-shelf, real-time simulation tools are not yet fully developed for this application, even with FPGA-based simulators. To address this, a new co-simulation approach in FPGA is presented that utilizes Time-Stamped Bridge (TSB) for the higher frequency converters along with detailed fixed conductance based discrete device simulation of the rest of the circuit. A complex DAB-based PV converter with maximum switching frequency of 50 kHz is successfully simulated in real-time in the FPGA and the results are compared with offline simulation results. A controller hardware-in-the-loop (CHIL) platform is developed to demonstrate real-time, closed-loop test results for this DAB-based PV converter.

Dong, Zerui↗
DOE OSTI2024

Toward Automated Detection of Portability Bugs in Kokkos Parallel Programs

Performance-portable programming frameworks provide abstractions for parallel execution to allow easily porting an application to multiple backend programming models, such as CUDA, HIP, and OpenMP. However, programs may still have portability bugs that manifest only on specific backends. Traditional testing is ineffective in discovering these bugs, as it would require concrete execution on all supported hardware configurations for a potentially infinite set of inputs. To mitigate this issue, we focused on a specific programming framework, Kokkos, and identified several categories of common portability bugs. We then developed Klokkos, a static analysis approach based on symbolic execution that can run on commodity hardware, before execution on supercomputers. As a proof-of-concept, we ran Klokkos on examples encoding the identified bugs. Our results show that Klokkos is effective, efficient, and precise: it detected all the considered bugs, quickly, and without any false positives. Although preliminary, our results motivate further research and development in this direction.

Kale, Vivek↗
DOE OSTI2019

Optimal Operation of Grid-Tied Energy Storage Systems Considering Detailed Device-Level Battery Models

The current optimization-based algorithms to operate grid-tied battery energy storage systems (BESS) typically do not look much under the hood of the BESS, i.e., the device-level characteristics of the batteries. This is often due to modeling as well as optimization complexities. However, simplified models may significantly degrade the performance of BESS operation in practice. Therefore, in this article, we propose a new BESS scheduling optimization framework that accounts for features such as cell-to-cell variations in maximum capacity, charge level balance, and internal resistance. The proposed framework is in the form of tractable mixed integer linear programs. Our approach is to estimate and update the device-level battery model parameters continuously, without the need to interrupt BESS normal operation. We validate the performance compared to an offline approach, which is based on dedicated model testing and calibration. To assure accurate performance evaluation, this article also includes developing a power hardware-in-the-loop testbed that allows for flexible operation and detailed monitoring of BESS under different design scenarios.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Quantification of Variation in Combustion Instability Amplitude in a Multi-Nozzle Can Combustor

In this work, we quantify the level of variation in unstable combustion oscillation amplitudes and identify the source of this variation in a multi-nozzle can combustor. At conditions where pollutant emissions are reduced, lean-premixed combustors can undergo thermoacoustic instability when pressure and heat release rate oscillations couple. A commonly used method for suppressing instability is fuel staging, which is a method where fuel is unevenly distributed between nozzles in a multi-nozzle combustor. Our work follows others who have characterized the effect of fuel staging on combustion instability and the mechanisms by which it works during both steady-state and transient operation. One of the outcomes from our previous work was that certain instability operating points display a high level of pressure oscillation amplitude variation. Instead of oscillating at a constant limit-cycle amplitude, the pressure oscillation amplitude varies significantly in time. In this work, we use the concept of permutation entropy to quantify the level of variation in the pressure fluctuation amplitude. We correlate the level of variation with a number of state variables over a range of operating conditions, 291 test cases in all. These state variables include mixture equivalence ratio; transient timescale, amplitude, and direction; hardware temperatures; gas temperatures; and thermoacoustic damping and growth rates. Significant pressure oscillation amplitude variation occurs when the thermoacoustic damping rate is low. The damping and growth rates can be low for a number of reasons, but they are highly correlated with the metal temperature of the centerbody, where the flames are anchored; lower temperatures result in lower damping rates during stable operation and lower growth rates during unstable operation. These results show the importance of the thermal boundary condition on the time-dependent behavior of the thermoacoustic instability.

Westfall, Seth↗
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 OSTI2017

RAJA Performance Suite

The RAJA Performance Suite is designed to evaluate performance of the RAJA performance portability library on a wide variety of important high performance computing (HPC) algorithmic lulmels. These kernels assess compiler optimizations and various parallel programming model backends accessible through RAJA, such as OpenMP, CUDA, etc. The Initial version of the suite contains 25 computational kernels, each of which appears in 6 variants: Baseline SequcntiaJ, RAJA SequentiaJ, Baseline OpenMP, RAJA OpenMP, Baseline CUDA, RAJA CUDA. All variants of each kernel perform essentially the same mathematical operations and the loop body code for each kernel is identical across all variants. There are a few kernels, such as those that contain reduction operations, that require CUDA-specific coding for their CUDA variants. ActuaJ computer instructions executed and how they run in parallel differs depending on the parallel programming model backend used and which optimizations are perfonned by the compiler used to build the Perfonnance Suite executable. The Suite will be used primarily by RAJA developers to perform regular assessments of RAJA performance across a range of hardware platforms and compilers as RAJA features are being developed. It will also be used by LLNL hardware and software vendor panners for new defining requirements for future computing platform procurements and acceptance testing. In particular, the RAJA Performance Suite will be used for compiler acceptance testing of the upcoming CORAUSierra machine {initial LLNL delivery expected in late-2017/early 2018) and the CORAL-2 procurement. The Suite will aJso be used to generate concise source code reproducers of compiler and runtime issues we uncover so that we may provide them to relevant vendors to be fixed.

Hornung, RichardD.↗
DOE OSTI2016

Coordination and Control of Flexible Building Loads for Renewable Integration; Demonstrations using VOLTTRON

Renewable energy resources such as wind and solar power have a high degree of uncertainty. Large-scale integration of these variable generation sources into the grid is a big challenge for power system operators. Buildings, in which we live and work, consume about 75% of the total electricity in the United States. They also have a large capacity of power flexibility due to their massive thermal capacitance. Therefore, they present a great opportunity to help the grid to manage power balance. In this report, we study coordination and control of flexible building loads for renewable integration. We first present the motivation and background, and conduct a literature review on building-to-grid integration. We also compile a catalog of flexible building loads that have great potential for renewable integration, and discuss their characteristics. We next collect solar generation data from a photovoltaic panel on Pacific Northwest National Laboratory campus, and conduct data analysis to study their characteristics. We find that solar generation output has a strong uncertainty, and the uncertainty occurs at almost all time scales. Additional data from other sources are also used to verify our study. We propose two transactive coordination strategies to manage flexible building loads for renewable integration. We prove the theories that support the two transactive coordination strategies and discuss their pros and cons. In this report, we select three types of flexible building loads—air-handling unit, rooftop unit, and a population of WHs—for which we demonstrate control of the flexible load to track a dispatch signal (e.g., renewable generation fluctuation) using experiment, simulation, or hardware-in-the-loop study. More specifically, we present the system description, model identification, controller design, test bed setup, and experiment results for each demonstration. We show that coordination and control of flexible loads has a great potential to integrate variable generation sources. The flexible loads can successfully track a power dispatch signal from the coordinator, while having little impact on the quality of service to the end-users.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2020

5G Enabled Energy Innovation: Advanced Wireless Networks for Science (Workshop Report)

Rapidly expanding, new telecommunications infrastructure based on 5G technologies will disrupt and transform how we design, build, operate, and optimize scientific infrastructure and the experiments and services enabled by that infrastructure, from continental-scale sensor networks to centralized scientific user facilities, from intelligent Internet of Things devices to supercomputers. Concurrently, 5G will introduce, or exacerbate, challenges related to protecting infrastructure and associated scientific data as well as to fully leveraging opportunities related to expanded infrastructure scale and complexity. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science operates scientific infrastructure, supporting some of the nation’s most advanced intellectual discoveries, spanning the country and including 30 world-class user facilities from supercomputers to accelerators. Along with field experiments and remote observatories, every aspect of DOE’s scientific enterprise will be affected by 5G, which amounts to a complete renovation of the underpinnings of the nation’s information infrastructure. In this report we explore the scientific opportunities and new research challenges associated with 5G, ranging from scalability to heterogeneity to cybersecurity. The rapid commercial deployment of 5G opens the opportunity to rethink and reinvent DOE’s scientific infrastructure and experimentation, from intelligent sensor networks at unprecedented scales to a digital continuum of cyberinfrastructure spanning low-power sensors, high-performance computing embedded within and at the edge of the network, and DOE’s large-scale user instrument and computing facilities. New programming paradigms, workflow and data frameworks, and AI-based system design, operation, and autonomous adaptation and optimization will be necessary in order to exploit these new opportunities. Field deployments and centralized scientific instruments can also be revolutionized, moving (without traditional performance penalties) from wired to wireless connectivity for data and control systems, improving flexibility, and opening new sensing modalities, including the use of the 5G electromagnetic spectrum itself as an environmental probe. For DOE science, in contrast to commercial 5G applications and settings, devices will be deployed in extreme environments such as cryogenically cooled instrument control systems and in remote settings with harsh conditions, requiring the design of new materials for RF communication and edge processing to operate in these regimes. Concurrently, 5G infrastructure comprises both hardware and sophisticated software systems - currently closed and proprietary. The cybersecurity challenges to 5G-empowered reinvention mirror the complexity and variety of new 5G features, from virtualization to private network slices to ubiquitous access. Research is also needed in order to accelerate the development of secure and open 5G software infrastructure, reducing reliance on hardware and software produced outside the United States and providing the transparency and rigorous evaluation and testing afforded through open software. Twelve broad research thrusts are laid out in four chapters, with a companion fifth chapter (and three additional research thrusts) underscoring the needs and opportunities for an aggressive testbed program co-designed by networking experts and scientists involved in the 15 research thrusts. The urgency of undertaking this research is fueled by a global, accelerating deployment of new telecommunications infrastructure that is designed for entertainment and commercial applications - barely scratching the surface of what 5G can do to extend U.S. leadership in scientific discovery.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Integration of sensors through additive manufacturing leading to increased efficiencies of gas turbines for power generation and propulsion

To realize the full capability of additively manufactured components in complex energy systems, it is imperative to minimize early component failures during development phases and during operation. Traditional field feedback timelines and offline inspection protocols significantly reduce the design-manufacturing iteration times. To address this specific question, the project developed and demonstrated a method for the integration of sensors into complex components through additive manufacturing. The team used gas turbine engines as a platform, which meets the need of both power generation and propulsion and offer opportunities for cost reductions and efficiency increases. The innovation of this intelligent integration of sensors into complex components uniquely customized to address questions of integrity and durability for additively manufactured components. With real-time sensing data from additively manufactured components, turbine manufacturers will realize higher efficiencies, reduced component failures, and a 30-50% acceleration in product deployment of high efficiency gas turbine components due to a faster reduction in component risk assessment under actual operating conditions. This is a transformative shift towards a data-driven design and qualification of additively manufactured gas turbine components. To directly integrate sensors into additively manufactured components with all the complexities of actual hardware, powder bed fusion (direct metal laser sintering) and laser metal deposition technologies was developed. Validation took take place in two university laboratories both of which contain actual engine hardware and closely simulate a gas turbine prior to demonstrating the technology in a turbine development test. Indeed, two major technologies from this research cold impact turbine systems in the near future: (1) higher efficiency materials and designs enabled by additive manufacturing with 50% faster design to manufacturing cycle time, to enable faster time-to-market targets; and (2) integration of sensors into additively manufactured components enabling broad health and condition based prognostics for faster component and engine risk reduction.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2026

PLC Integration for the Horn A Magnetic Field Mapping Device

This presentation summarizes the integration of a programmable logic controller (PLC) into the Horn A magnetic field mapping device for the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF). The device is used to position magnetic field probes along the centerline of the Horn A inner conductor to verify that the magnetic field within this region is approximately zero. The presentation covers the PLC hardware and electrical integration, stepper motor and encoder control, ladder logic development, mechanical integration, and system testing. Results include successful bidirectional motion and encoder feedback for the translation and rotation axes, as well as characterization of translational motion for repeatable probe positioning.

Bitakis, Kayla [Unlisted, US, IL]↗
DOE OSTI2023

Development of a hardware-in-the-loop testbed for laboratory performance verification of flexible building equipment in typical commercial buildings

The goals of reducing energy costs, shifting electricity peaks, increasing the use of renewable energy, and enhancing the stability of the electric grid can be met in part by fully exploiting the energy flexibility potential of buildings and building equipment. The development of strategies that exploit these flexibilities could be facilitated by publicly available high-resolution datasets illustrating how control of HVAC systems in commercial buildings can be used in different climate zones to shape the energy use profile of a building for grid needs. This article presents the development and integration of a Hardware-In-the-Loop Flexible load Testbed (HILFT) that integrates physical HVAC systems with a simulated building model and simulated occupants with the goal of generating datasets to verify load flexibility of typical commercial buildings. Compared to simulation-only experiments, the hardware-in-the-loop approach captures the dynamics of the physical systems while also allowing efficient testing of various boundary conditions. The HILFT integration in this article is achieved through the co-simulation among various software environments including LabVIEW, MATLAB, and EnergyPlus. Although theoretically viable, such integration has encountered many real-world challenges, such as: 1) how to design the overall data infrastructure to ensure effective, robust, and efficient integration; 2) how to avoid closed-loop hunting between simulated and emulated variables; 3) how to quantify system response times and minimize system delays; and 4) how to assess the overall integration quality. Lessons-learned using the examples of an AHU-VAV system, an air-source heat pump system, and a water-source heat pump system are presented.

Chen, zhelun↗
DOE OSTI2020

Flexible, Multipurpose Laboratory Advances Building and Thermal Energy Systems: Expanding Evaluation and Development of Grid-Interactive Buildings

Robust hardware and controls are necessary to ensure results match their intent before they can be used broadly. However, this often requires multiple field experiments in a variety of climate zones. In the field, it is more difficult to obtain information on other important factors, such as thermal, grid, and occupant interaction. Gaps also exist in understanding the performance degradation and life cycle of thermal energy systems as they relate to buildings. There is a lack of robust, high-quality performance data for projects at scale; this data can be expensive to produce and often remain proprietary.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Event-driven readout development: testing of the EDWARD65P1 chip with integrated event generators

Building on a prototype readout integrated circuit for segmented silicon sensors with the EDWARD event-driven readout architecture, the front-end in each pixel was replaced by a hardware generator to verify readout performance, ensuring no data loss, consistent priority handling, and speed verification. Here, this generator produces Poisson-distributed readout requests with individually tunable rates per pixel via a digitally controlled oscillator. The resulting EDWARD65P1 test ASIC is a 32×32 pixel matrix with a 100 μm pitch, equipped with digital event generators simulating radiation hits at user-defined rates. Test results for this new design are presented.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Assessing Energy Infrastructure Devices for Vulnerabilities

Industrial control systems prove to be vital to the health and security of the nation in our critical infrastructure. Critical infrastructure includes the most foundational systems to support modern civilization which includes water and wastewater systems, communications, and the electricity we use to name a few sectors. However, these devices' overall composition remains largely unknown and are untested from a cyber security perspective. As part of the Cyber Testing for Resilient Industrial Control Systems (CyTRICS) program, I analyzed one such energy infrastructure device to better understand how it functions, what hardware and software components are present within it, and assess it for security vulnerabilities. To achieve this, I reverse engineered binary files using Ghidra to understand system functionality and learned more about how to collaborate with other researchers on a shared Ghidra project. I learned more about how web sockets function and how to interact with them through Python to test if they are secure or not. This work led me to assess possible vulnerabilities in this device and provide a better understanding of its composition and function, which are essential to INL's mission of securing our nation's energy infrastructure.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗