Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “data center benchmarking values”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2003

Megawatt Electromagnetic Plasma Propulsion

The NASA Glenn Research Center program in megawatt level electric propulsion is centered on electromagnetic acceleration of quasi-neutral plasmas. Specific concepts currently being examined are the Magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster and the Pulsed Inductive Thruster (PIT). In the case of the MPD thruster, a multifaceted approach of experiments, computational modeling, and systems-level models of self field MPD thrusters is underway. The MPD thruster experimental research consists of a 1-10 MWe, 2 ms pulse-forming-network, a vacuum chamber with two 32 diffusion pumps, and voltage, current, mass flow rate, and thrust stand diagnostics. Current focus is on obtaining repeatable thrust measurements of a Princeton Benchmark type self field thruster operating at 0.5-1 gls of argon. Operation with hydrogen is the ultimate goal to realize the increased efficiency anticipated using the lighter gas. Computational modeling is done using the MACH2 MHD code, which can include real gas effects for propellants of interest to MPD operation. The MACH2 code has been benchmarked against other MPD thruster data, and has been used to create a point design for a 3000 second specific impulse (Isp) MPD thruster. This design is awaiting testing in the experimental facility. For the PIT, a computational investigation using MACH2 has been initiated, with experiments awaiting further funding. Although the calculated results have been found to be sensitive to the initial ionization assumptions, recent results have agreed well with experimental data. Finally, a systems level self-field MPD thruster model has been developed that allows for a mission planner or system designer to input Isp and power level into the model equations and obtain values for efficiency, mass flow rate, and input current and voltage. This model emphasizes algebraic simplicity to allow its incorporation into larger trajectory or system optimization codes. The systems level approach will be extended to the pulsed inductive thruster and other electrodeless thrusters at a future date.

Gilland, James↗
DOE OSTI2011

Sustainable LED Fluorescent Light Replacement Technology

Ilumisys and the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS) partnered on a three-year project awarded by the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE), to quantify the impacts of LED lamps, incandescent lamps and fluorescent benchmark lamps over a product lifecycle – i.e. to develop a sustainable design and manufacturing strategy that addresses product manufacturing, use, recycling and disposal scenarios for LED-based lighting. Based on the knowledge gained from extensive product tear-down studies of fluorescent and screw-in lighting products, lifecycle assessment tools, and accelerated lifecycle testing protocols, an interactive Sustainable LED Design Guide has been developed to aid architectural and lighting designers and engineers in making design decisions that consider three important environmental impacts (greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and mercury emission) across all phases of the life of an LED lighting product. Critical information developed for the lifecycle analysis and product feature comparisons is the useful life of the lighting product as well as its performance. The Design Guide is available at www.ncms.org, and was developed based on operational and durability testing of a variety of lighting products including power consumption, light output, and useful life of a lamp in order to allow a more realistic comparison of lamp designs. This report describes the main project tasks, results and innovative features of the lifecycle assessment (LCA)-based design tools, and the key considerations driving the sustainable design of LED lighting systems. The Design Guide incorporates the following three novel features for efficiently evaluating LED lighting features in value-chains: Bill-of-Materials (BOM) Builder – Designers may import process data for each component and supply functional data for the product, including power, consumption, lumen output and expected useful life: Environmental Impact Review – Designs are comparable across lifecycle phases, subsystems, and environmental impact category, and can be normalized to a user-defined functional unit: Drill-down Review – These provide an in-depth look at individual lamp designs with the ability to review across subsystem or lifecycle phase.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

Rossi-alpha Analysis of Thermal/Epithermal eXperiments Optimized for Polyethylene Thermal Neutron Scattering

Accurate nuclear data is the foundation for predictive simulations and design of new experimental in the nuclear community. The criticality safety community has particular interest in benchmarking assemblies with thermal neutron data. To address such needs the Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) funded the Thermal/Epithermal eXperiments (TEX) campaigns that were to be completed between Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Specifically, analysis of plutonium with a thermal neutron spectrum expands on previous work to help validate thermal scattering law data, which can have larger impacts in thermal applications. The first of these experiments were successfully conducted in 2018, but this paper will focus on the 2021 measurement focused on investigating the the thermal scattering law (TSL) for polyethylene. These experiments were successfully conducted at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC) using the Planet vertical lift critical assembly machine. Polethylene plates were layered with trays of Zero Power Physics Reactor (ZPPR) 24 plates in a 12" by 12" square. The ZPPR plates were 2" by 3" by 0.125" bearing weapons grade plutonium. The polyethylene moderator was either 2" or 1.6875" thick. This work builds on the Rossi-alpha calculations done by McKenzie et al. for the same detector-assembly system and will only focus on the Rossi-alpha neutron noise method. This work will aim to further validate the results of the experiment through a novel neutron noise python package. Following similar methodology to the previous analysis, analysis of TEX evaluated the prompt neutron decay constant at delayed critical, $α_{DC}$ using Rossi-alpha for different polyethylene moderator thicknesses. These results will help improve understanding of TSL in critical experiments. Alpha (α), is the prompt neutron decay constant of the measured system and allows for the evaluation of a systems propensity to sustain fission chains via prompt neutrons. The single value description of the assemblies allow for comparison between experiments regardless of composition, geometry, and reflectors/moderators. Rossi-alpha measurements were performed on the polyethylene moderated TEX experiments to estimate $α_{DC}$.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2010

Dose calculations using MARS for Bremsstrahlung beam stops and collimators in APS beamline stations.

The Monte Carlo radiation transport code MARS is used to model the generation of gas bremsstrahlung (GB) radiation from 7-GeV electrons which scatter from residual gas atoms in undulator straight sections within the Advanced Photon Source (APS) storage ring. Additionally, MARS is employed to model the interactions of the GB radiation with components along the x-ray beamlines and then determine the expected radiation dose-rates that result. In this manner, MARS can be used to assess the adequacy of existing shielding or the specifications for new shielding when required. The GB radiation generated in the 'thin-target' of an ID straight section will consist only of photons in a 1/E-distribution up to the full energy of the stored electron beam. Using this analytical model, the predicted GB power for a typical APS 15.38-m insertion device (ID) straight section is 4.59 x 10{sup -7} W/nTorr/mA, assuming a background gas composed of air (Z{sub eff} = 7.31) at room temperature (293K). The total GB power provides a useful benchmark for comparisons between analytical and numerical approaches. We find good agreement between MARS and analytical estimates for total GB power. The extended straight section 'target' creates a radial profile of GB, which is highly peaked centered on the electron beam. The GB distribution reflects the size of the electron beam that creates the radiation. Optimizing the performance of MARS in terms of CPU time per incident trajectory requires the use of a relatively short, high-density gas target (air); in this report, the target density is {rho}L = 2.89 x 10{sup -2} g/cm{sup 2} over a length of 24 cm. MARS results are compared with the contact dose levels reported in TB-20, which used EGS4 for radiation transport simulations. Maximum dose-rates in 1 cc of tissue phantom form the initial basis for comparison. MARS and EGS4 results are approximately the same for maximum 1-cc dose-rates and attenuation in the photon-dominated regions; for thicker targets, however, the dose-rate no longer depends only on photon attenuation, as photoneutrons (PNs) begin to dominate. The GB radiation-induced photoneutron measurements from four different metals (Fe, Cu, W, and Pb) are compared with MARS predictions. The simulated dose-rates for beamline 6-ID are approximately 3-5 times larger than the measured values, whereas those for beamline 11-ID are much closer. Given the uncertainty in local values of pressure and Z, the degree of agreement between MARS and the PN measurements is good. MARS simulations of GB-induced radiation in and around the FOE show the importance of using actual pressure and gas composition (Z{sub eff}) to obtain accurate PN dose. For a beam current of 300 mA, extrapolating pressure data measured in previously published studies predicts an average background gas pressure of 27 nTorr. An average atomic number of Z{sub eff} = 4.0 is obtained from the same studies. In addition, models of copper masks presently in use at the APS are included. Simulations show that inclusion of exit masks make significant differences in both the radiation spatial distribution within the FOE, as well as the peak intensity. Two studies have been conducted with MARS to assess shielding requirements. First, dose levels in contact with the outside wall of the FOE are examined when GB radiation strikes Pb or W beam stops of varying transverse size within the FOE. Four separate phantom regions are utilized to measure the dose, two at beam elevation and two at the horizontal beam position. The first two phantoms are used for scoring FOE dose along the outside and back walls, horizontally; the second two collect dose on the roof and vertically on the back wall. In all cases, the beam stop depth is maintained at 30 cm. Inclusion of front end (FE) exit masks typically cause a 1-2 order-of-magnitude increase in the dose-rates relative to the case with no masks. Masks place secondary bremsstrahlung sources inside the FOE, and therefore they must be shielded appropriately. The MARS model does not fully account for all shielding present in the hutches; localized shielding is employed in individual hutches. Typically, a collimator, placed downstream of the FE exit masks, mitigates the possible increase in dose. Regarding beam stop transverse size, a modest reduction in dose on the back wall is noted as the stop dimension (square cross section) is increased from 12 cm to 24 cm. In the second study, the thickness of Pb required to shield against the GB extremal ray is determined. In this study, we are interested in finding the thickness of material necessary to add at the edge of a stop to adequately block GB radiation; therefore, we look at the case of no masks in order to have a well-defined GB beam edge. Simulations show the separation between the extremal ray and the edge of the shielding should be 2R{sub m}, where R{sub m} is the Moliere radius.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Spectral line identification from a photoionised silicon plasma in emission

Next-generation X-ray satellite telescopes such as XRISM, NewAthena and Lynx will enable observations of exotic astrophysical sources at unprecedented spectral and spatial resolution. Proper interpretation of these data demands that the accuracy of the models is at least within the uncertainty of the observations. One set of quantities that might not currently meet this requirement is transition energies of various astrophysically relevant ions. Current databases are populated with many untested theoretical calculations. Accurate laboratory benchmarks are required to better understand the coming data. We obtained laboratory spectra of X-ray lines from a silicon plasma at an average spectral resolving power of ∼7500 with a spherically bent crystal spectrometer on the Z facility at Sandia National Laboratories. Many of the lines in the data are measured here for the first time. We report measurements of 53 transitions originating from the K-shells of He-like to B-like silicon in the energy range between ∼1795 and 1880 eV (6.6–6.9 Å). The lines were identified by qualitative comparison against a full synthetic spectrum calculated with ATOMIC. The average fractional uncertainty (uncertainty/energy) for all reported lines is ∼5.4 × 10 −5 . We compare the measured quantities against transition energies calculated with RATS and FAC as well as those reported in the NIST ASD and XSTAR’s uaDB. Average absolute differences relative to experimentally measured values are 0.20, 0.32, 0.17 and 0.38 eV, respectively. All calculations/databases show good agreement with the experimental values; NIST ASD shows the closest match overall.

astrophysical plasmas↗
DOE OSTI2026

Toward a Climate OSSE Framework for Satellite Mission Design

The rich history of observing system simulation experiments (OSSEs) does not yet include a well-established framework for using climate models. The need for a climate OSSE is triggered by the need to quantify the value of a particular measurement for reducing the uncertainty in climate predictions, which differ from numerical weather predictions in that they depend on future atmospheric composition rather than the current state of the weather. However, both weather and climate modeling communities share a need for motivating major observing system investments. Here, we outline a new framework for climate OSSEs that leverages the use of machine learning to calibrate climate model physics against existing satellite data. We demonstrate its application using NASA’s GISS-E3 model to objectively quantify the value of potential future improvements in spaceborne measurements of Earth’s planetary boundary layer. A mature climate OSSE framework should be able to quantitatively compare the ability of proposed observing system architectures to answer a climate-related question, thus offering added value throughout the mission design process, which is subject to increasingly rapid advances in instrument and satellite technology. Technical considerations include selection of observational benchmarks and climate projection metrics, approaches to pinpoint the sources of model physics uncertainty that dominate uncertainty in projections, and the use of instrument simulators. Community and policy-making considerations include the potential to interface with an established culture of model intercomparison projects and a growing need to economically assess the value-driven efficiency of social spending on Earth observations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2013

ABSOLUTE INTEGRAL CROSS SECTIONS AND PRODUCT BRANCHING RATIOS FOR THE VIBRATIONALLY SELECTED ION-MOLECULE REACTIONS: N{sub 2}{sup +}(X {sup 2}{Sigma}{sub g}{sup +}; v {sup +} = 0-2) + CH{sub 4}

Absolute vibrationally selected integral cross sections ({sigma}{sub v+}'s) for the ion-molecule reaction N{sub 2}{sup +}(X {sup 2}{Sigma}{sub g}{sup +}; v {sup +} = 0-2) + CH{sub 4} have been measured by using the newly developed vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) laser pulsed field ionization-photoion (PFI-PI) double-quadrupole-double-octopole ion guide apparatus. By employing a novel electric field pulsing scheme to the VUV laser PFI-PI source, we have been able to prepare reactant N{sub 2}{sup +} ions in single-vibrational quantum states with not only high intensity and high purity but also high kinetic energy resolution, allowing integral cross section measurements to be conducted in the center-of-mass kinetic energies (E{sub cm}'s) from 0.05 to 10.00 eV. Three primary product channels corresponding to the formations of CH{sub 3}{sup +}, CH{sub 2}{sup +}, and N{sub 2}H{sup +} were identified. After correcting for the secondary reactions involving CH{sub 3}{sup +} and CH{sub 2}{sup +}, we have determined the {sigma}{sub v+} values of the formation of these primary product ions, {sigma}{sub v+}(CH{sub 3}{sup +}), {sigma}{sub v+}(CH{sub 2}{sup +}), and {sigma}{sub v+}(N{sub 2}H{sup +}), and their branching ratios, [{sigma}{sub v+}(CH{sub 3}{sup +}): {sigma}{sub v+}(CH{sub 2}{sup +}): {sigma}{sub v+}(N{sub 2}H{sup +})]/{sigma}{sub v+}(CH{sub 3}{sup +} + CH{sub 2}{sup +} + N{sub 2}H{sup +}), v {sup +} = 0-2, in the E{sub cm} range of 0.05-10.00 eV, where {sigma}{sub v+}(CH{sub 3}{sup +} + CH{sub 2}{sup +} + N{sub 2}H{sup +}) = {sigma}{sub v+}(CH{sub 3}{sup +}) + {sigma}{sub v+}(CH{sub 2}{sup +}) + {sigma}{sub v+}(N{sub 2}H{sup +}). The branching ratios are found to be nearly independent of the v {sup +} state and E{sub cm}. Complex v {sup +}-state and E{sub cm} dependences for {sigma}{sub v+}(CH{sub 3}{sup +}), {sigma}{sub v+}(CH{sub 2}{sup +}), and {sigma}{sub v+}(N{sub 2}H{sup +}) along with vibrational inhibition for the formation of these product ions are observed. The vibrational effects on the {sigma}{sub v+} values are sufficiently large to warrant the inclusion of the vibrationally excited reactions N{sub 2}{sup +}(X {sup 2}{Sigma}{sub g}{sup +}; v {sup +} {>=} 1) + CH{sub 4} for a more realistic modeling of the ion and neutral densities observed in the atmosphere of Titan. The cross-sectional data obtained in the present study are also useful for benchmarking theoretical calculations on ion-neutral collision dynamics.

74 ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR PHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS2006

High-Resolution Analysis Products to Support Severe Weather and Cloud-to-Ground Lightning Threat Assessments over Florida

The Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) located at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC)/Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) implemented an operational configuration of the Advanced Regional Prediction System (ARPS) Data Analysis System (ADAS), as well as the ARPS numerical weather prediction (NWP) model. Operational, high-resolution ADAS analyses have been produced from this configuration at the National Weather Service in Melbourne, FL (NWS MLB) and the Spaceflight Meteorology Group (SMG) over the past several years. Since that time, ADAS fields have become an integral part of forecast operations at both NWS MLB and SMG. To continue providing additional utility, the AMU has been tasked to implement visualization products to assess the potential for supercell thunderstorms and significant tornadoes, and to improve assessments of short-term cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning potential. This paper and presentation focuses on the visualization products developed by the AMU for the operational high-resolution ADAS and AR.PS at the NWS MLB and SMG. The two severe weather threat graphics implemented within ADAS/ARPS are the Supercell Composite Parameter (SCP) and Significant Tornado Parameter (SIP). The SCP was designed to identify areas with supercell thunderstorm potential through a combination of several instability and shear parameters. The SIP was designed to identify areas that favor supercells producing significant tornadoes (F2 or greater intensity) versus non-tornadic supercells. Both indices were developed by the NOAAINWS Storm Prediction Center (SPC) and were normalized by key threshold values based on previous studies. The indices apply only to discrete storms, not other convective modes. In a post-analysis mode, the AMU calculated SCP and SIP for graphical output using an ADAS configuration similar to the operational set-ups at NWS MLB and SMG. Graphical images from ADAS were generated every 15 minutes for 13 August 2004, the day that Hurricane Charley approached and made landfall on the Florida peninsula. Several tornadoes struck the interior of the Florida peninsula in advance of Hurricane Charley's landfall during the daylight hours of 13 August. Since SPC had previously examined this case using SCP and SIP graphics generated from output of the Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) model, this day served as a good benchmark to compare and validate the high-resolution ADAS graphics against the smoother RUC analyses, which serves as background fields to the ADAS analyses. The ADAS-generated SCP and STP graphics have been integrated into the suite of products examined operationally by NWS MLB forecasters and are used to provide additional guidance for assessment of the near-storm environment during convective situations.

Case, Jonathan↗
DOE OSTI2016

Dynamic Multi-Sensor Multi-Mission Optimal Planning Tool

Remote sensing systems have firmly established a role in providing immense value to commercial industry, scientific exploration, and national security. Continued maturation of sensing technology has reduced the cost of deploying highly-capable sensors while at the same time increased reliance on the information these sensors can provide. The demand for time on these sensors is unlikely to diminish. Coordination of next-generation sensor systems, larger constellations of satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles, ground telescopes, etc. is prohibitively complex for existing heuristics-based scheduling techniques. The project was a two-year collaboration spanning multiple Sandia centers and included a partnership with Texas A&M University. We have developed algorithms and software for collection scheduling, remote sensor field-of-view pointing models, and bandwidth-constrained prioritization of sensor data. Our approach followed best practices from the operations research and computational geometry communities. These models provide several advantages over state of the art techniques. In particular, our approach is more flexible compared to heuristics that tightly couple models and solution techniques. First, our mixed-integer linear models afford a rigorous analysis so that sensor planners can quantitatively describe a schedule relative to the best possible. Optimal or near-optimal schedules can be produced with commercial solvers in operational run-times. These models can be modified and extended to incorporate different scheduling and resource constraints and objective function definitions. Further, we have extended these models to proactively schedule sensors under weather and ad hoc collection uncertainty. This approach stands in contrast to existing deterministic schedulers which assume a single future weather or ad hoc collection scenario. The field-of-view pointing algorithm produces a mosaic with the fewest number of images required to fully cover a region of interest. The bandwidth-constrained algorithms find the highest priority information that can be transmitted. All of these are based on mixed-integer linear programs so that, in the future, collection scheduling, field-of-view, and bandwidth prioritization can be combined into a single problem. Experiments conducted using the developed models, commercial solvers, and benchmark datasets have demonstrated that proactively scheduling against uncertainty regularly and significantly outperforms deterministic schedulers.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2015

Consideration for the application of artificial neural networks to criticality code validation - 14270

The artificial neural network (ANN) is a consistent example for non-parametric parameter estimation and regression, with powerful universal approximation properties, that is distribution independent. ANN application to criticality code validation centers on aligning mathematical relationships between code validation parameters and neural network prediction for those parameter values. Two specific goals are: (1) an appropriate ANN architecture to determine validation parameter values, and (2) bootstrapping individual ANNs as a 'Prediction Interval' (PI) technique to estimate the Calculation Margin and Upper Subcritical Limit. The individual ANN workflow is segregated into Training, Validation (network), and Testing Sets, where the network predictive properties and performance are expressed in the latter set. The Bootstrap ANN replicates a large set of individual ANNs (taken from the original data distribution) where (1-α/2)100% PI estimates can be determined. Results from the ANN method are compared to a variety of validation examples: a 'toy example' from ANSI/ANS-8.24, Appendix D, a variety of methods noted in a Nuclear Criticality Safety Division 2009 paper, and several validation campaigns for highly enriched uranium and plutonium systems. The ANN method is robust and can be applied to single or multivariate inputs. A trained ANN can provide both an average estimate (e.g., single value) and an estimate over a range of independent variable values where the kUSL can be formed in a regression relationship suitable for extrapolation. The input dependence has been tested, ranging from 15 to over 400 sample size distributions. An expanded Shapiro-Wilk test (for sample sizes up to 5000) was implemented to confirm that the ANN method is transparent to distribution function. The Principle Component Analysis method was applied as an input preprocessing step embedded within the ANN in order to reduce dimensionality and correlation for multivariable inputs. This can potentially aid in determining accurate margins over applying arbitrary margins. The automatic optimization of the Bootstrap ANN PI is left for future consideration. (authors)

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Airfoil Computational Fluid Dynamics - 2k shapes, 25 AoA's, 3 Re numbers

This dataset contains aerodynamic quantities - including flow field values (momentum, energy, and vorticity) and summary values (coefficients of lift, drag, and momentum) - for 1,830 airfoil shapes computed using the HAM2D CFD (computational fluid dynamics) model. The airfoil shapes were designed using the separable shape tensor parameterization that encodes two-dimensional shapes as elements of the Grassmann manifold. This data-driven approach learns two independent spaces of parameter from a collection of sample airfoils. The first captures large-scale, linear perturbations, and the second defines small-scale, higher-order perturbations. For this dataset, we used the G2Aero database of over 19,000 airfoil shapes to learn a parameter space that captured a wide array of shape characteristics. We sampled airfoil designs over both parameter spaces to explore the full range of possible shape variations. The aerodynamic quantities for the generated airfoil were obtained using the HAM2D code, which is a finite-volume Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) flow solver. We employ a fifth-order WENO scheme for spatial reconstruction with Roe's flux difference scheme for inviscid flux and second-order central differencing for viscous flux. A preconditioned GMRES method is applied for implicit integration. The Spalart-Allmaras 1-eq turbulence model is used for the turbulence closure, and the Medida-Baeder 2-eq transition model is applied to account for the effects of laminar turbulent transition. The airfoil grid is generated with a total of 400 points on the airfoil surface, the initial wall-normal spacing of y+ = 1, and an outer boundary located at 300 chord lengths away from the wall. The CFD simulations are performed at a freestream Mach number of 0.1, for or three different Reynolds' numbers (3M, 6M, and 9M), and for 25 angles of attack from -4 deg. to 20 deg. with 1 degree increments. Across all these various parameters, this dataset includes the results from over 250,000 CFD simulations. The simulations were performed using the Bridges-2 system at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center in February 2023 as part of the INTEGRATE project funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy, in the U.S. Department of Energy. The data was collected, reformatted, and preprocessed for this OEDI submission in July 2023 under the Foundational AI for Wind Energy project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Wind Energy Technologies Office. This dataset is intended to serve as a benchmark against which new artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) tools may be tested. Baseline AI/ML methods for analyzing this dataset have been implemented, and a link to their repository containing those models has been provided. The .h5 data file structure can be found in the GitHub Repository resource under explore_airfoil_2k_data.ipynb.

2k↗
DOE OSTI2023

Airfoil Computational Fluid Dynamics - 9k shapes, 2 AoA's

This dataset contains aerodynamic quantities - including flow field values (momentum, energy, and vorticity) and summary values (coefficients of lift, drag, and momentum) - for 8,996 airfoil shapes, computed using the HAM2D CFD (computational fluid dynamics) model. The airfoil shapes were designed using the separable shape tensor parameterization that encodes two-dimensional shapes as elements of the Grassmann manifold. This data-driven approach learns two independent spaces of parameter from a collection of sample airfoils. The first captures large-scale, linear perturbations, and the second defines small-scale, higher-order perturbations. For this data, we used the G2Aero database of over 19,000 airfoil shapes to learn a parameter space that captured a wide array of shape characteristics. We fixed the linear deformations to be the mean over the database and sampled new shapes over a four-dimensional parameter space of higher-order perturbation. This sampling approaches allows for isolated analysis of non-linear airfoil shape deformations while holding other aspects (e.g., airfoil thickness) approximately constant. The aerodynamic quantities for the generated airfoil were obtained using the HAM2D code, which is a finite-volume Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) flow solver. We employ a fifth-order WENO scheme for spatial reconstruction with Roe's flux difference scheme for inviscid flux and second-order central differencing for viscous flux. A preconditioned GMRES method is applied for implicit integration. The Spalart-Allmaras 1-eq turbulence model is used for the turbulence closure, and the Medida-Baeder 2-eq transition model is applied to account for the effects of laminar turbulent transition. The airfoil grid is generated with a total of 400 points on the airfoil surface, the initial wall-normal spacing of y+ = 1, and an outer boundary located at 300 chord lengths away from the wall. The CFD simulations are performed at a freestream Mach number of 0.1, Reynolds number of 9M, and at two angles of attack, 4 deg. and 12 deg. The simulations were performed using the Bridges-2 system at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center in February 2023 as part of the INTEGRATE project funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy in the U.S. Department of Energy. The data was collected, reformatted, and preprocessed for this OEDI submission in July 2023 under the Foundational AI for Wind Energy project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Wind Energy Technologies Office. This dataset is intended to serve as a benchmark against which new artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) tools may be tested. Baseline AI/ML methods for analyzing this dataset have been implemented, and a link to their repository containing those models has been provided. The .h5 data file structure can be found in the GitHub Repository resource under explore_airfoil_9k_data.ipynb.

9k↗
DOE OSTI2019

Criticality Accident Alarm System Shielding Benchmark: Integral Experiment Request 498, Critical Engineering Decision 1 Report

This report supports Critical/Subcritical Experiment Decision 1 (CED-1) for Integral Experiment Request (IER) 498, a shielding benchmark produced using the Godiva IV critical assembly at the National Critical Experiments Research Center (NCERC). Shielding benchmarks are datasets collected to provide a comparison for computer models that simulate the effect of shielding on radiation transmission from a source to a detector. The purpose of a CED-1 report is to produce a conceptual design for an integral experiment and to identify the long lead-time items. The design presented in this report favors certain detailed design options such as material selections. However, alternative options can be selected as the project evolves. Dimensions are specified only as needed to evaluate feasibility and performance. Development of Criticality Accident Alarm System (CAAS) shielding benchmarks supports two main programmatic needs. The first need is to improve confidence in models of facilities that house nuclear material handling operations. Better models can support effective CAAS detector placement when criticality may result in dose, and it enables more accurate analysis of criticality accident impacts at various locations in a facility. A key quantity that can be verified is the secondary gamma production caused by neutron interactions with various materials. The second programmatic need supported by shielding benchmarks is the ongoing development of methods being integrated into nuclear simulation codes such as the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) transport code and the SCALE code system used in efforts funded by the Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP). Previous work performed under the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Experimental Program (ICSBEP) to produce shielding benchmark data is primarily limited to a set of measurements at the SILENE critical assembly at the Valduc facility in France. The experiment used an open configuration and a burst mode operation, which limited detector options to thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and activation foils. Because TLDs do not record gamma spectra, it was difficult to verify the gamma energy spectrum from the experiment. In this work, the Godiva IV assembly will be used because it is a fast system capable of producing a wide range of source strengths, including super-prompt critical bursts. The room return for the facility is expected to be substantial and challenging to characterize, so a more closed, shielded experimental configuration is considered. Furthermore, because the physics of radiation transport outside the assembly does not change between the burst mode and the delayed critical mode, it is anticipated that most measurements will be made with the Godiva IV assembly in delayed critical mode, operating within a range that will allow electronic counters to collect accurate data. Scoping calculations concluded that a workable room return shield is comprised of 40 cm of 5% borated polyethylene backed by 7 cm of lead. This configuration was shown to produce a ratio of signal–to–room return of over 100 for up to 2 mean free paths of shield sample material, and over 10 for up to 4 mean free paths of shield sample material, ensuring that useful results can be obtained. With no shielding sample in the room return shield, it was shown that the neutron and gamma spectra do not appreciably change with a change in room size. This scoping calculation does not preclude the use of tungsten powder in a binder, some other effective gamma shielding material, or a hybrid design. Dose rates for various source intensities at an unshielded detector are listed herein to inform detector selection during CED-2, and calibration chains are identified. Preliminary estimates of costs and schedules are outlined but remain to be verified. Values could double or triple as estimates become more accurate and are principally included here to demonstrate feasibility. Preliminary estimates indicate that the apparatus can be installed within a feasible schedule and budget. Two measurements per day are assumed. Producing a shielding benchmark at NCERC using the Godiva IV assembly has been shown to be feasible, with manageable uncertainties and risks. A clear, continuing need for shielding benchmark data remains present, and this report identifies and evaluates a method for creating integrated shielding benchmark datasets.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
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↗