Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “code modernization”

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.

808 records · Page 45
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

Electric Power quality Analysis in research reactor: Impacts on nuclear safety assessment and electrical distribution reliability

The increased requirements on supervision, control, and performance in modern power systems make power quality monitoring a common practise for utilities. Large databases are created and automatic processing of the data is required for fast and effective use of the available information. Aim of the work presented in this paper is the development of tools for analysis of monitoring power quality data and in particular measurements of voltage and currents in various level of electrical power distribution. The study is extended to evaluate the reliability of the electrical system in nuclear plant. Power Quality is a measure of how well a system supports reliable operation of its loads. A power disturbance or event can involve voltage, current, or frequency. Power disturbances can originate in consumer power systems, consumer loads, or the utility. The effect of power quality problems is the loss power supply leading to severe damage to equipments. So, we try to track and improve system reliability. The assessment can be focused on the study of impact of short circuits on the system, harmonics distortion, power factor improvement and effects of transient disturbances on the Electrical System during motor starting and power system fault conditions. We focus also on the review of the Electrical System design against the Nuclear Directorate Safety Assessment principles, including those extended during the last Fukushima nuclear accident. The simplified configuration of the required system can be extended from this simple scheme. To achieve these studies, we have used a demo ETAP power station software for several simulations. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Solute effects upon dislocation motion and recovery in Mg alloys (Final Report)

The objective the research was to develop a firmer understanding of the interactions between substitutional solute atoms and dislocations within Mg alloys. These interactions govern the absolute and relative mobilities of various types of dislocations in Mg (e.g., basal < a>, non-basal < a>, and pyramidal < c+a>). Furthermore, they have an impact on dislocation recovery processes (e.g., cross-glide, climb, rearrangement, and annihilation). Ultimately, solute-dislocation interactions strongly impact a) strain hardening, b) strain rate sensitivity, c) plastic anisotropy of textured polycrystals, d) texture evolution, e) dislocation substructures evolution, and even f) recrystallization behavior. It is broadly known that Mg alloys exhibit poor low temperature formability. Since formability is largely governed by properties (a) – (c) in this list, it is critical to develop a better understanding of solute-dislocation interactions, if one hopes to improve the situation. While the theory of static solute strengthening is well developed, especially for alloys with face centered cubic (FCC) crystal structures, there are outstanding questions related to applications to hexagonal close packed (HCP) crystal structures and dynamic strain aging (DSA) in materials of various structures. DSA has far-reaching implications for metal formability and, in the case of Mg alloys, appears to correlate with the so-called rare-earth (RE) texture which has been shown to benefit formability. The Portevin-Le Chatelier (PLC) effect, and associated negative strain rate sensitivity, occur at higher temperatures (>100℃) in Mg alloys as compared with similar Al alloys, even though they have similar melting points and solute diffusivities. Our preliminary research has shown that modern, physics-based models of DSA can be tuned to describe the behavior of Mg alloys if a rather higher activation enthalpy is assumed for cross-core diffusivity. While this partially explains the delay in DSA to higher temperatures, it is also hypothesized that this delay is due in part to the intrinsically more thermally activated (rate sensitive) nature of non-basal < a> dislocation motion which is required for macroscopic flow of Mg alloys, whereas octahedral slip in many FCC metals like aluminum is essentially athermal at room temperature. It was originally proposed to employ a combination of in-situ diffraction-based experimental characterization to validate existing theory. It was envisioned to perform in-situ transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to assess individual dislocation behavior and in-situ high-energy X-ray diffraction (HEXRD) techniques which were showing great promise for elucidating collective dislocation behavior, 2 including recovery, especially if the contributions to various forms of diffraction peak broadening (𝜂𝜂,𝜔𝜔,and 2𝜃𝜃) can be effectively integrated. Finally, it was envisioned to perform discrete dislocation dynamics (DDD) modeling approaches to aide in the interpretation of both TEM and HEXRD experiments. In the end, mechanical tests were performed on more complex Mg alloys which exhibited evidence of dynamic strain aging, and this led to the establishment of another project. Mechanical test data obtained at McMaster University served as the basis of an assessment of the applicability of Bazinski’s “stress equivalence” theory of solute strengthening to polycrystalline alloys of Mg. Although we did not succeed in applying the approach to Mg alloys, we did develop expertise with the HEXRD approach using a BCC, β-Ti alloy and demonstrated numerous new capabilities that may be applied to any polycrystalline material in collaboration with researchers at CHESS and around the world: (1) assessment of details of the elastoplastic transition (yielding) using a combination of HEXRD and full-field polycrystal plasticity modeling, (2) the first-ever experimental observation of strong stress rotation within the individual grains of a polycrystalline material, and (3) a comprehensive analysis of the grain-level dislocation density evolution based upon diffraction peak broadening along 𝜂𝜂,𝜔𝜔,and 2𝜃𝜃 directions. This final aspect allowed us to confirm that dislocations were gliding on multiple plane types and not restricted to {110} type planes, and it also provided clues as to why some grains were unloading during straining, with surprising implications for our understanding of the effects of geometrically necessary dislocations (GNDs). Finally, graduate student, Mohammed Shabana, developed a MATLAB code which confirmed the conclusions of Prof. Catalin Picu (Rensallear Polytechnic Institute, RPI) regarding the effect of solute-trapped, forest dislocations on the breaking stress of Lomer lock junctions in FCC metal alloys. He applied the same anisotropic line-tension model to a variety of dislocation junction configurations and found an inconsistency in the widely cited results of Dupuy and Fivel regarding the Hirth Lock, and he outlined an approach to extend these finding to HCP Mg alloys that we are still pursuing with discretionary fundings at UVA.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Reconstruction of beam parameters and betatron radiation spectra measured with a Compton spectrometer

The photon flux resulting from high-energy electron beam interactions with high-field systems, such as those found in the upcoming FACET-II experiments at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, yields deep insight into the electron beam’s underlying dynamics during the interaction. However, extracting this information is an intricate process. To demonstrate how to approach this challenge using modern methods, this paper utilizes simulated data that models plasma wakefield acceleration-derived betatron radiation in experiments to determine reliable methods of reconstructing key beam and beam-plasma interaction properties. For betatron radiation measurements, translating the observed 200⁢ keV to 30⁢ MeV photon double-differential energy-angle spectra obtained from an advanced Compton spectrometer requires testing multiple methods to optimize the pipeline from its response to incident electron beam information. The paper compares maximum likelihood estimation and machine learning to refine the translation of photon spectra into precise electron beam metrics, such as spot size, energy, and emittance, enhancing the understanding of beam behavior within these dense, high-field environments. We also introduce machine learning and the expected maximization algorithm to reconstruct the primary photon spectrum, employing a multilayer neural network for regression analysis of the energy and angle spectra. With appropriate modifications, the advanced methods reproduce relevant incident beam parameters with high accuracy, even for beam sizes in the <10 μ⁢m range. This capacity is critical to understanding intense beam propagation and its optimization in plasma.

Beam code development & simulation techniques↗
DOE OSTI2016

MO-FG-209-02: Development of a Virtual Breast Phantom From a Multi-Modality Perspective

This symposium will review recent advances in the simulation methods for evaluation of novel breast imaging systems – the subject of AAPM Task Group TG234. Our focus will be on the various approaches to development and validation of software anthropomorphic phantoms and their use in the statistical assessment of novel imaging systems using such phantoms along with computational models for the x-ray image formation process. Due to the dynamic development and complex design of modern medical imaging systems, the simulation of anatomical structures, image acquisition modalities, and the image perception and analysis offers substantial benefits of reduced cost, duration, and radiation exposure, as well as the known ground-truth and wide variability in simulated anatomies. For these reasons, Virtual Clinical Trials (VCTs) have been increasingly accepted as a viable tool for preclinical assessment of x-ray and other breast imaging methods. Activities of TG234 have encompassed the optimization of protocols for simulation studies, including phantom specifications, the simulated data representation, models of the imaging process, and statistical assessment of simulated images. The symposium will discuss the state-of-the-science of VCTs for novel breast imaging systems, emphasizing recent developments and future directions. Presentations will discuss virtual phantoms for intermodality breast imaging performance comparisons, extension of the breast anatomy simulation to the cellular level, optimized integration of the simulated imaging chain, and the novel directions in the observer models design. Learning Objectives: Review novel results in developing and applying virtual phantoms for inter-modality breast imaging performance comparisons; Discuss the efforts to extend the computer simulation of breast anatomy and pathology to the cellular level; Summarize the state of the science in optimized integration of modules in the simulated imaging chain; Compare novel directions in the design of observer models for task based validation of imaging systems. PB: Research funding support from the NIH, NSF, and Komen for the Cure; NIH funded collaboration with Barco, Inc. and Hologic, Inc.; Consultant to Delaware State Univ. and NCCPM, UK. AA: Employed at Barco Healthcare.; P. Bakic, NIH: (NIGMS P20 #GM103446, NCI R01 #CA154444); M. Das, NIH Research grants.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

MO-FG-209-05: Towards a Feature-Based Anthropomorphic Model Observer

This symposium will review recent advances in the simulation methods for evaluation of novel breast imaging systems – the subject of AAPM Task Group TG234. Our focus will be on the various approaches to development and validation of software anthropomorphic phantoms and their use in the statistical assessment of novel imaging systems using such phantoms along with computational models for the x-ray image formation process. Due to the dynamic development and complex design of modern medical imaging systems, the simulation of anatomical structures, image acquisition modalities, and the image perception and analysis offers substantial benefits of reduced cost, duration, and radiation exposure, as well as the known ground-truth and wide variability in simulated anatomies. For these reasons, Virtual Clinical Trials (VCTs) have been increasingly accepted as a viable tool for preclinical assessment of x-ray and other breast imaging methods. Activities of TG234 have encompassed the optimization of protocols for simulation studies, including phantom specifications, the simulated data representation, models of the imaging process, and statistical assessment of simulated images. The symposium will discuss the state-of-the-science of VCTs for novel breast imaging systems, emphasizing recent developments and future directions. Presentations will discuss virtual phantoms for intermodality breast imaging performance comparisons, extension of the breast anatomy simulation to the cellular level, optimized integration of the simulated imaging chain, and the novel directions in the observer models design. Learning Objectives: Review novel results in developing and applying virtual phantoms for inter-modality breast imaging performance comparisons; Discuss the efforts to extend the computer simulation of breast anatomy and pathology to the cellular level; Summarize the state of the science in optimized integration of modules in the simulated imaging chain; Compare novel directions in the design of observer models for task based validation of imaging systems. PB: Research funding support from the NIH, NSF, and Komen for the Cure; NIH funded collaboration with Barco, Inc. and Hologic, Inc.; Consultant to Delaware State Univ. and NCCPM, UK. AA: Employed at Barco Healthcare.; P. Bakic, NIH: (NIGMS P20 #GM103446, NCI R01 #CA154444); M. Das, NIH Research grants.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

Analysis of, and defense against, spurious actuations and other incorrect behaviors of digital control systems - 390

Modern digital instrumentation and control (I and C) systems offer nearly unlimited functional capability. However, the complexity of their design (including their system software and application software) is significantly higher than that of conventional, hardwired systems, to the point that it is generally impossible to demonstrate that there are no residual design errors, even when the best development and verification techniques have been applied. When activated by specific conditions, design errors could result in systematic failures, i.e., failures that occur deterministically each time and wherever an activating condition is present. Redundancy could be defeated when the same design error affects multiple channels or systems, and the activating condition affects several of these channels or systems. In the case of safety I and C systems, most of the functions are poised protection functions that must be actuated when and only when a demand situation occurs in the plant. In nuclear power plants, the most dangerous failure mode for such functions generally is failure to actuate, and many measures are taken to protect from such failure mode. This paper considers the other failure modes of safety I and C functions, and also the failure modes of the other I and C functions that are less important to safety. It is not limited to poised functions, and considers other types of functions such as regulation functions or human interface functions. It proposes a framework for analyzing and providing defense against spurious actuations and other incorrect behaviors from digital I and C systems directly interacting with the plant process or with operators: these might be useful for example to justify that design bases for reactor protection are adequate, or to ensure plant performance and availability. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-J-140: Using Handheld Stereo Depth Cameras to Extend Medical Imaging for Radiation Therapy Planning

Purpose: A correct body contour is essential for the accuracy of dose calculation in radiation therapy. While modern medical imaging technologies provide highly accurate representations of body contours, there are times when a patient’s anatomy cannot be fully captured or there is a lack of easy access to CT/MRI scanning. Recently, handheld cameras have emerged that are capable of performing three dimensional (3D) scans of patient surface anatomy. By combining 3D camera and medical imaging data, the patient’s surface contour can be fully captured. Methods: A proof-of-concept system matches a patient surface model, created using a handheld stereo depth camera (DC), to the available areas of a body contour segmented from a CT scan. The matched surface contour is then converted to a DICOM structure and added to the CT dataset to provide additional contour information. In order to evaluate the system, a 3D model of a patient was created by segmenting the body contour with a treatment planning system (TPS) and fabricated with a 3D printer. A DC and associated software were used to create a 3D scan of the printed phantom. The surface created by the camera was then registered to a CT model that had been cropped to simulate missing scan data. The aligned surface was then imported into the TPS and compared with the originally segmented contour. Results: The RMS error for the alignment between the camera and cropped CT models was 2.26 mm. Mean distance between the aligned camera surface and ground truth model was −1.23 +/−2.47 mm. Maximum deviations were < 1 cm and occurred in areas of high concavity or where anatomy was close to the couch. Conclusion: The proof-of-concept study shows an accurate, easy and affordable method to extend medical imaging for radiation therapy planning using 3D cameras without additional radiation. Intel provided the camera hardware used in this study.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

MO-FG-CAMPUS-TeP1-03: Pre-Treatment Surface Imaging Based Collision Detection

Purpose: Modern radiotherapy increasingly employs large immobilization devices, gantry attachments, and couch rotations for treatments. All of which raise the risk of collisions between the patient and the gantry / couch. Collision detection is often achieved by manually checking each couch position in the treatment room and sometimes results in extraneous imaging if collisions are detected after image based setup has begun. In the interest of improving efficiency and avoiding extra imaging, we explore the use of a surface imaging based collision detection model. Methods: Surfaces acquired from AlignRT (VisionRT, London, UK) were transferred in wavefront format to a custom Matlab (Mathworks, Natick, MA) software package (CCHECK). Computed tomography (CT) scans acquired at the same time were sent to CCHECK in DICOM format. In CCHECK, binary maps of the surfaces were created and overlaid on the CT images based on the fixed relationship of the AlignRT and CT coordinate systems. Isocenters were added through a graphical user interface (GUI). CCHECK then compares the inputted surfaces to a model of the linear accelerator (linac) to check for collisions at defined gantry and couch positions. Note, CCHECK may be used with or without a CT. Results: The nominal surface image field of view is 650 mm × 900 mm, with variance based on patient position and size. The accuracy of collision detections is primarily based on the linac model and the surface mapping process. The current linac model and mapping process yield detection accuracies on the order of 5 mm, assuming no change in patient posture between surface acquisition and treatment. Conclusions: CCHECK provides a non-ionizing method to check for collisions without the patient in the treatment room. Collision detection accuracy may be improved with more robust linac modeling. Additional gantry attachments (e.g. conical collimators) can be easily added to the model.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2018

FUSRAP Case Study - Benefits and Lessons Learned from Implementation of a Modern Data Solution at Maywood - 18399

This paper focuses on data production and management practices dating back to 1999 that continue to evolve to support the project today. In 2000, the FUSRAP Maywood Project began using a software environmental data management system and laboratory information management system, developed by a single database administrator (DA) and authored in Microsoft Access{sup TM} (MS Access). The original databases included basic functionality including sample number assignment and label generation, tracking of LIMS gamma spec QC and assignment of basic qualifiers and basic database queries. The DA continued over the next fifteen years to refine the EDMS/LIMS by integrating project-specific data evaluation guidance document processes and Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) charting and excursion warning tools. With the retirement of the original DA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-Cabrera Team procured and implemented a commercial-leaning solution using modern database tools and an established EDMS vendor. For the database transition process, the project team established and configured the new EDMS/LIMS with basic architecture and accessibility; evaluated existing workflows; established/revised LIMS and EDMS-related documentation (manuals and procedures); and conducted dry runs and validation testing. The overall team coordinated closely to facilitate a seamless transition from initial assessment and authoring, to data migration, and finally to resumption of normal ongoing operations. Key features of the new EDMS Subcontractor's software included lookup tables, an import wizard, data checking options and unique indexes. Since the database systems became operational, the technical staff gathered useful feedback from end users (e.g., lab staff, field engineers, task managers, and the third-party data validator) to refine the EDMS/LIMS operation. This feedback triggered improvements in the performance of onsite laboratory qualification forms, promoted consistency in sample ID numbers between the database sample planning screens and field chain-of-custodies, corrected bugs in the LIMS Duplicate Evaluation Report, eliminated data import issues such as blank, inconsistent or missing data from key fields. One of the advantages of the commercial database solution was that it allowed the project to cut cost over time due to the lower cost of database maintenance provided by the commercial database vendor versus the cost of an on-staff DA. Cost savings are estimated at $40,000 per year. There were also indirect cost savings resulting from implementation of the new database since it allowed better integration of the LIMS and EDMS. While there will always be challenges associated with long term records/data management for any old remediation site, the Maywood Team's approach to an upgraded EDMS/LIMS implementation serves as one element of the overall effort to enhance the integrity and reproducibility of critical data that supports the remediation program while at the same time, more effectively using available resources. These lessons-learned will enhance implementation of cost-effective solutions for similar environmental remediation sites. (authors)

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
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 OSTI2015

TGLF Recalibration for ITER Standard Case Parameters FY2015: Theory and Simulation Performance Target Final Report

This work was motivated by the observation, as early as 2008, that GYRO simulations of some ITER operating scenarios exhibited nonlinear zonal-flow generation large enough to effectively quench turbulence inside r /a ~ 0.5. This observation of flow-dominated, low-transport states persisted even as more accurate and comprehensive predictions of ITER profiles were made using the state-of-the-art TGLF transport model. This core stabilization is in stark contrast to GYRO-TGLF comparisons for modern-day tokamaks, for which GYRO and TGLF are typically in very close agreement. So, we began to suspect that TGLF needed to be generalized to include the effect of zonal-flow stabilization in order to be more accurate for the conditions of reactor simulations. While the precise cause of the GYRO-TGLF discrepancy for ITER parameters was not known, it was speculated that closeness to threshold in the absence of driven rotation, as well as electromagnetic stabilization, created conditions more sensitive the self-generated zonal-flow stabilization than in modern tokamaks. Need for nonlinear zonal-flow stabilization: To explore the inclusion of a zonal-flow stabilization mechanism in TGLF, we started with a nominal ITER profile predicted by TGLF, and then performed linear and nonlinear GYRO simulations to characterize the behavior at and slightly above the nominal temperature gradients for finite levels of energy transport. Then, we ran TGLF on these cases to see where the discrepancies were largest. The predicted ITER profiles were indeed near to the TGLF threshold over most of the plasma core in the hybrid discharge studied (weak magnetic shear, q > 1). Scanning temperature gradients above the TGLF power balance values also showed that TGLF overpredicted the electron energy transport in the low-collisionality ITER plasma. At first (in Q3), a model of only the zonal-flow stabilization (Dimits shift) was attempted. Although we were able to construct an ad hoc model of the zonal flows that fit the GYRO simulations, the parameters of the model had to be tuned to each case. A physics basis for the zonal flow model was lacking. Electron energy transport at short wavelength: A secondary issue – the high-k electron energy flux – was initially assumed to be independent of the zonal flow effect. However, detailed studies of the fluctuation spectra from recent multiscale (electron and ion scale) GYRO simulations provided a critical new insight into the role of zonal flows. The multiscale simulations suggested that advection by the zonal flows strongly suppressed electron-scale turbulence. Radial shear of the zonal E×B fluctuation could not compete with the large electron-scale linear growth rate, but the k x -mixing rate of the E×B advection could. This insight led to a preliminary new model for the way zonal flows saturate both electron- and ion-scale turbulence. It was also discovered that the strength of the zonal E×B velocity could be computed from the linear growth rate spectrum. The new saturation model (SAT1), which replaces the original model (SAT0), was fit to the multiscale GYRO simulations as well as the ion-scale GYRO simulations used to calibrate the original SAT0 model. Thus, SAT1 captures the physics of both multiscale electron transport and zonal-flow stabilization. In future work, the SAT1 model will require significant further testing and (expensive) calibration with nonlinear multiscale gyrokinetic simulations over a wider variety of plasma conditions – certainly more than the small set of scans about a single C-Mod L-mode discharge. We believe the SAT1 model holds great promise as a physics-based model of the multiscale turbulent transport in fusion devices. Correction to ITER performance predictions: Finally, the impact of the SAT1model on the ITER hybrid case is mixed. Without the electron-scale contribution to the fluxes, the Dimits shift makes a significant improvement in the predicted fusion power as originally posited. Alas, including the high-k electron transport reduces the improvement, yielding a modest net increase in predicted fusion power compared to the TGLF prediction with the original SAT0 model.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Final Technical Report on Quantifying Dependability Attributes of Software Based Safety Critical Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants

With the current transition from analog to digital instrumentation and control systems in nuclear power plants, the number and variety of software-based systems have significantly increased. The sophisticated nature and increasing complexity of software raises trust in these systems as a significant challenge. The trust placed in a software system is typically termed software dependability. Software dependability analysis faces uncommon challenges since software systems’ characteristics differ from those of hardware systems. The lack of systematic science-based methods for quantifying the dependability attributes in software-based instrumentation as well as control systems in safety critical applications has proved itself to be a significant inhibitor to the expanded use of modern digital technology in the nuclear industry. Dependability refers to the ability of a system to deliver a service that can be trusted. Dependability is commonly considered as a general concept that encompasses different attributes, e.g., reliability, safety, security, availability and maintainability. Dependability research has progressed significantly over the last few decades. For example, various assessment models and/or design approaches have been proposed for software reliability, software availability and software maintainability. Advances have also been made to integrate multiple dependability attributes, e.g., integrating security with other dependability attributes, measuring availability and maintainability, modeling reliability and availability, quantifying reliability and security, exploring the dependencies between security and safety and developing integrated analysis models. However, there is still a lack of understanding of the dependencies between various dependability attributes as a whole and of how such dependencies are formed. To address the need for quantification and give a more objective basis to the review process -- therefore reducing regulatory uncertainty -- measures and methods are needed to assess dependability attributes early on, as well as throughout the life-cycle process of software development. In this research, extensive expert opinion elicitation is used to identify the measures and methods for assessing software dependability. Semi-structured questionnaires were designed to elicit expert knowledge. A new notation system, Causal Mechanism Graphing, was developed to extract and represent such knowledge. The Causal Mechanism Graphs were merged, thus, obtaining the consensus knowledge shared by the domain experts. In this report, we focus on how software contributes to dependability. However, software dependability is not discussed separately from the context of systems or socio-technical systems. Specifically, this report focuses on software dependability, reliability, safety, security, availability, and maintainability. Our research was conducted in the sequence of stages found below. Each stage is further examined in its corresponding chapter. Stage 1 (Chapter 2): Elicitation of causal maps describing the dependencies between dependability attributes. These causal maps were constructed using expert opinion elicitation. This chapter describes the expert opinion elicitation process, the questionnaire design, the causal map construction method and the causal maps obtained. Stage 2 (Chapter 3): Elicitation of the causal map describing the occurrence of the event of interest for each dependability attribute. The causal mechanisms for the “event of interest” were extracted for each of the software dependability attributes. The “event of interest” for a dependability attribute is generally considered to be the “attribute failure”, e.g. security failure. The extraction was based on the analysis of expert elicitation results obtained in Stage 1. Stage 3 (Chapter 4): Identification of relevant measurements. Measures for the “events of interest” and their causal mechanisms were obtained from expert opinion elicitation for each of the software dependability attributes. The measures extracted are presented in this chapter. Stage 4 (Chapter 5): Assessment of the coverage of the causal maps via measures. Coverage was assessed to determine whether the measures obtained were sufficient to quantify software dependability, and what measures are further required. Stage 5 (Chapter 6): Identification of “missing” measures and measurement approaches for concepts not covered. New measures, for concepts that had not been covered sufficiently as determined in Stage 4, were identified using supplementary expert opinion elicitation as well as literature reviews. Stage 6 (Chapter 7): Building of a detailed quantification model based on the causal maps and measurements obtained. Ability to derive such a quantification model shows that the causal models and measurements derived from the previous stages (Stage 1 to Stage 5) can form the technical basis for developing dependability quantification models. Scope restrictions have led us to prioritize this demonstration effort. The demonstration was focused on a critical system, i.e. the reactor protection system. For this system, a ranking of the software dependability attributes by nuclear stakeholders was developed. As expected for this application, the stakeholder ranking identified safety as the most critical attribute to be quantified. A safety quantification model limited to the requirements phase of development was built. Two case studies were conducted for verification. A preliminary control gate for software safety for the requirements stage was proposed and applied to the first case study. The control gate allows a cost effective selection of the duration of the requirements phase.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗