Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Programming Practices”

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 955 records · Page 53
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

JuTrack: A Julia package for auto-differentiable accelerator modeling and particle tracking

Efficient accelerator modeling and particle tracking are key for the design and configuration of modern particle accelerators. In this work, we present JuTrack, a nested accelerator modeling package developed in the Julia programming language and enhanced with compiler-level automatic differentiation (AD). With the aid of AD, JuTrack enables rapid derivative calculations in accelerator modeling, facilitating sensitivity analyses and optimization tasks. Here we demonstrate the effectiveness of AD-derived derivatives through several practical applications, including sensitivity analysis of space-charge-induced emittance growth, nonlinear beam dynamics analysis for a synchrotron light source, and lattice parameter tuning of the future Electron-Ion Collider (EIC). Through the incorporation of automatic differentiation, this package opens up new possibilities for accelerator physicists in beam physics studies and accelerator design optimization.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

A Novel Framework for Optimizing Ramping Capability of Hybrid Energy Storage Systems

Hybrid Energy Storage System has been widely applied in aerospace, electric vehicle, and microgrid applications. The advantages are that they include complimentary technologies with both high power and energy capabilities. HESS have the potential to be useful to the bulk power systems, for example to increase the value of energy produced by variable generation resource through enabling participation in ancillary service markets. Actualizing the benefits of HESSs requires optimizing the combined ramping capability of aggregated HESS resources. To provide quality ancillary service, source of HESSs locating at multiple sites of variable generation resource must be optimally sized and cohesively controlled. Optimizing aggregated resources can be formulated as an optimization problem. Successfully solving this problem not only requires using effective solution methods but also depends on accurately and rapidly setting the necessary parameters in the problem formula. This article proposes a novel framework with double-layer structure to solve the optimization problem of aggregating ramping capability. Program developed on the upper layer focuses on solving the optimization of aggregating ramping capability among multiple HESSs and is compatible with most existing optimization algorithms. Program on lower layer of the framework targets at optimizing the local control of a single HESS based on a thorough analytics of HESS operation strategy presented in this article. Result of local optimization is also provided to upper layer program for updating the parameters in formula of optimization problem. Real time hardware-in-the-loop test is conducted to verify the performance of the optimization framework developed. The work presented is expected to provide guidance for implementing this framework in practical operation.

Luo, Yushen↗
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 OSTI2016

Reliable, Practical Kilowatt-class Cryogenics for Superconducting Devices

Following the successful development of a Flexibly-Attached Remote cryocooler for ~200W at 80K under a Phase II DOE grant, Clever Fellows Innovation Consortium, Inc. (dba CFIC-Qdrive; acquired by Chart Industries in 2012) was invited by the DOE to scale up this technology to ~1000W/80K in a Phase III program. This target is responsive to the “Cryogenics Roadmap” developed by the DOE to accelerate the development of cryogenic cooling necessary to support the emerging superconducting power applications. Mirroring the Roadmap, our proposal included a capacity target (1000W at 80K) and a cost target (<$40/watt, at 80K), but unlike the Roadmap, we did not formally propose to meet a specific efficiency target. We achieved 75% of the capacity target, with a record-size coaxial “pulse-tube” coldfinger, but only by working on the project well beyond the original “period of performance” on unfunded extension. We believe 100% of the capacity target was within reach, but our own budget and time constraints forbade additional effort. We were less successful in meeting the cost targets. Ultimately, the specific configuration that was the subject of Phase III was not commercialized, largely because the market for superconducting devices has not been nearly as robust as was expected at the advent of the Roadmap.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Curating Carbon Storage Data for Reuse: Enabling Research and Modeling from Earth’s Surface to Subsurface

The volume of public geologic carbon storage (GCS) data resources has continued to increase in recent years as the result of an increase in funding from government, industry, and academia towards national, basin, regional and field scale studies to ensure carbon capture and storage becomes a commercially viable operation. Despite the increasing volume of data, GCS data applied towards analyses such as geologic, cost, and risk modeling continues to be multi-sourced and often disparate in nature, published across government agencies, websites, data repositories and buried in derivative reports and documents. Much of the time preparing for an analysis and derivative product development is spent collecting, aggregating, transforming and preparing input data. There have been significant efforts within the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory’s Carbon Storage Program to optimize multi-source, multi-scale subsurface geologic data curation and aggregation to support data discovery, interoperability, and reuse. Methods include the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data science techniques. This talk will discuss the workflows, best practices, and processes developed to support the aggregation and curation of data through the whole system – surface to subsurface data - that support multi-scale, multi-purpose analysis for carbon storage research.

Morkner, Paige↗
DOE OSTI2022

Perspective on “code qualifying” new graphite grades for use in advanced nuclear reactors*

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) publishes the Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code, which include guidance for the safe development, construction, and operation of boilers and pressure vessels. ASME BPV Code Section III “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components” Division 5 focuses on “High Temperature Reactors”. Subsection HH, subpart A lists the different materials properties that are to be measured and how those properties change due to different environmental conditions (oxidation and irradiation damage) for a graphite to be accepted for use in a high temperature reactor core (i.e., “Code Qualified”). Currently there are no nuclear graphite grades that are “Code Qualified” (i.e., a reactor designer can select a graphite grade and build their reactor without any additional testing), which is due in part to development of new graphite grades in the last 20 years and the lack of comprehensive programs needed to produce the data for the code cases. This perspective is going to discuss the requirements, as called out in the ASME BPV Code, that are necessary to “code qualify” a nuclear graphite grade but will primarily focus on the practical and technical challenges associated with irradiation-induced property changes and how to address these to assist with getting graphite ready for use in advanced nuclear reactors. These same technical challenges can be expected to arise for other materials being developed for advanced reactor concepts.

advanced nuclear reactors↗
DOE OSTI2017

Identifying requisite changes to support modern maintenance practices - 294

Modern data science and processing require the use of modern maintenance records. With traditional record-keeping practices, the isolated nature of the data, as well as the presence of handwritten maintenance work orders and incomplete service logs, severely limit the amount of progress that can be made towards advanced condition-based maintenance. These condition-based methods of diagnostics, prognostics, and maintenance planning are a primary goal of next-generation plant operations and maintenance strategies, and are all dependent on the availability of quality plant data including maintenance data. By implementing changes to maintenance record-keeping practices, such as the use of a computerized maintenance management system, key data will become available to allow for implementation of state-of-the-art data analysis methods. This paper covers the benefits of utilizing digital record systems to increase maintenance data availability in terms of condition-based maintenance and asset management. The ability of these methods to enable state-of-the-art practices within industrial organizations is discussed to offer insight into ways that these improvements to operating strategy will contribute to improvements in world-class maintenance excellence. A discussion of the future of asset management in terms of data analytics, maintenance decision support, and data integration is provided to illustrate the changing landscape of plant management. The result is an examination of innovative maintenance strategies and discussion of challenges related to the future of asset management and implementing modern maintenance practices. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Elevated Temperature Graphite Mechanical Testing

High purity graphite will be used for core components within most High Temperature Reactor (HTR) designs. Several "high tech” industries currently utilize synthetic, high-purity, commercially available graphite components to fabricate photovoltaic cells, semi-conductors, optical fibers, and other high value electronic industry products. New advanced HTR designs are also interested in using these graphite grades for long-term, internal core component applications. Consequently, the US Department of Energy, Advanced Reactor Technologies (DOE-ART) program has spent several years testing different high purity graphite grades for potential use within these new nuclear reactor designs. A significant part of that effort has been in the development and improvement of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test standards specifically for nuclear graphite grades. Nearly all ASTM test standards have either been developed or improved by the DOE-ART program over the past 25 years. The ART program continues to assist in the development of new ASTM test standards in support of the future commercial HTR fleet currently being designed and built in the USA. The newest effort undertaken by ART is the development of high temperature mechanical testing practices that may be acceptable for a future ASTM test standard (or guide) for this critical material property measurement.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2015

Metering Best Practices: A Guide to Achieving Utility Resource Efficiency, Release 3.0

DOE FEMP guide for metering best practices aligned with the DOE Metering Guidance revision required by the 12/2013 Presidential Memo. The purpose of this guide is to provide information on effective energy and water metering strategies, relevant metering technologies and communications, how to collect and use metered data, and how to develop a metering plan. This guide is designed to serve as a resource for facility, energy, and water management and technical staff. It does not try to represent the universe of metering-related material. Rather, it attempts to: Provide background information on why metering is important, Provide guidance on the structure of an effective metering program, Provide information on metering and communications technologies, and Highlight common uses of metered data.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Facility Cybersecurity Framework Best Practices

Federal facilities are increasingly adopting automation and connecting to the Internet creating an energy-internet-of-things environment that converges operational technology (OT) and information technology (IT). Today's buildings increasingly weave together networked sensors and cyber and physical systems that enable data to be collected, aggregated, exchanged, stored and monetized in new ways. Building technological advances have created new energy technology, services, markets and value creation opportunities (e.g. transactive energy, two-way grid communications, machine learning, and increased use of renewable and distributed energy resources). But as larger data sets are being exchanged at faster speeds between an increasing number of OT systems, it becomes more difficult to protect the security of the data lifecycle and the physical equipment it interacts with. These challenges are especially difficult to overcome because the economic and environmental gain (interoperability, big data, social networks and ubiquitous information sharing) are driving these prominent trends in the digital age. Often cybersecurity is an afterthought. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) funded the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to develop various cybersecurity tools, trainings, and reports to aid federal facility managers – and other building owners and operators – in better applying frameworks and lessons learned from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), risk management framework (RMF), DOE’s cybersecurity capability maturity model (C2M2), and a wide variety of industry best practices and guidance documents (i.e., NIST 800 series, Department of Defense United Facilities Criteria). This set of tools, collectively known as the FEMP Facility-Related Control System Cyber Toolkit (FRCS Cyber Toolkit)2, is focused on cybersecurity concerns from facility-related control systems and other operational technology (OT), such as industrial control systems (ICS). The FRCS Cyber Toolkit can be applied across six of the sixteen critical infrastructure sectors designated by the Department of Homeland Security, including government facilities, healthcare and public health, commercial facilities (e.g., public assembly, offices, lodging), financial services (e.g., banking and insurance), emergency services (e.g., fire and police stations), and information technology. With increasingly converged IT and OT systems, it is crucial to address OT cybersecurity considerations and assess how the seam of these two systems could impact the overall cybersecurity posture of a facility. The objective of this report is to provide an overview of the best possible method to use FRCS Cyber Toolkit (section 2.0) and distilled cybersecurity best practices for the federal facilities to address growing non-linear cyber threats (section 3.0). Recommendations in this document are aggregated from several NIST and other documents (see Appendix A for additional details).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2019

An MINLP formulation for the optimization of multicomponent distillation configurations

Designing configurations for multicomponent distillation, a ubiquitous process in chemical and petrochemical industries, is often challenging. This is because, as the number of components increases, the number of admissible distillation configurations grows rapidly and these configurations vary substantially in their energy needs. Consequently, if a method could identify a few energy-efficient choices from this large set of alternatives, it would be extremely attractive to process designers. This paper develops here such a method by solving a Mixed Integer Nonlinear Program (MINLP) that is formulated to pick, among the regular-column configurations of Shah and Agrawal (2010b), those configurations that have a low vapor-duty requirement. To compute the minimum vapor-duty requirement for each column within the configuration, we use techniques that rely on the Underwood’s method. The combined difficulty arising from the nonlinearity of Underwood equations and the combinatorial explosion of the choice-set of alternatives poses unmistakable challenges for the branch-and-bound algorithm, the current method of choice to globally solve MINLPs. To address this difficulty, we exploit the structure of Underwood equations and derive valid cuts that expedite the convergence of branch-and-bound by enabling global solvers, such as BARON, infer tighter bounds on Underwood roots. This provides a quick way to identify a few lucrative alternative configurations for separation of a given non-azeotropic mixture. We illustrate the practicality of our approach on a case-study concerning heavy-crude distillation and on various other examples from the literature.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2020

FPDetect: Efficient Reasoning About Stencil Programs Using Selective Direct Evaluation

We present FPDetect, a low-overhead approach for detecting logical errors and soft errors affecting stencil computations without generating false positives. We develop an offline analysis that tightly estimates the number of floating-point bits preserved across stencil applications. This estimate rigorously bounds the values expected in the data space of the computation. Violations of this bound can be attributed with certainty to errors. FPDetect helps synthesize error detectors customized for user-specified levels of accuracy and coverage. FPDetect also enables overhead reduction techniques based on deploying these detectors coarsely in space and time. Experimental evaluations demonstrate the practicality of our approach.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Zero-Emission Vehicle Adoption Resource Guide for Government Fleets in Jackson County, Illinois

As part of Communities LEAP (Local Energy Action Program), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) provided technical assistance to Jackson County, Illinois to help develop their clean energy transition roadmap. Fleet electrification was identified as a potential pathway that could address the environmental injustices, high energy burden, and local pollution experienced by this former coal community. NREL worked with Jackson County, Illinois to develop a resource guide that can assist fleet managers considering a transition to electric light-duty fleet vehicles. To further understand the unique challenges of fleet electrification in Jackson County, NREL met with three leaders within the county who either managed current fleets or were responsible for fleet purchases. This resource guide includes best practices and resources that address many of the frequently asked questions that arose during these discussions. Interested fleets can then use this resource guide to help identify the initial steps needed to plan for vehicle electrification. The resource guide summarizes the basics of electric vehicle (EV) adoption for fleets, funding and incentive pathways, total cost of ownership in comparison to conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, charging infrastructure, and pilot programs.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Development and Evaluation of Velocity Predictive Optimal Energy Management Strategies in Intelligent and Connected Hybrid Electric Vehicles

In this study, a thorough and definitive evaluation of Predictive Optimal Energy Management Strategy (POEMS) applications in connected vehicles using 10 to 20 s predicted velocity is conducted for a Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV). The presented methodology includes synchronous datasets gathered in Fort Collins, Colorado using a test vehicle equipped with sensors to measure ego vehicle position and motion and that of surrounding objects as well as receive Infrastructure to Vehicle (I2V) information. These datasets are utilized to compare the effect of different signal categories on prediction fidelity for different prediction horizons within a POEMS framework. Multiple artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) algorithms use the collected data to output future vehicle velocity prediction models. The effects of different combinations of signals and different models on prediction fidelity in various prediction windows are explored. All of these combinations are ultimately addressed where the rubber meets the road: fuel economy (FE) enabled from POEMS. FE optimization is performed using Model Predictive Control (MPC) with a Dynamic Programming (DP) optimizer. FE improvements from MPC control at various prediction time horizons are compared to that of full-cycle DP. All FE results are determined using high-fidelity simulations of an Autonomie 2010 Toyota Prius model. The full-cycle DP POEMS provides the theoretical upper limit on fuel economy (FE) improvement achievable with POEMS but is not currently practical for real-world implementation. Perfect prediction MPC (PP-MPC) represents the upper limit of FE improvement practically achievable with POEMS. Real-Prediction MPC (RP-MPC) can provide nearly equivalent FE improvement when used with high-fidelity predictions. Constant-Velocity MPC (CV-MPC) uses a constant speed prediction and serves as a “null” POEMS. Results showed that RP-MPC, enabled by high-fidelity ego future speed prediction, led to significant FE improvement over baseline nearly matching that of PP-MPC.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

A scalable planning framework of energy storage systems under frequency dynamics constraints

As the penetration of renewables increases in power systems, the declining system inertia can cause frequency stability issues. Battery energy storage systems (BESSs) respond fast and therefore can relieve the low inertia difficulty but need to be appropriately sized considering the associated cost. This paper presents a novel stochastic optimization model for economically planning BESS capacity while considering the spatial–temporal correlation of wind generation and generator outages under frequency stability constraints, which include the rate-of-change of frequency (RoCoF), frequency nadir (FN), and quasi-steady-state (QSS) frequency. A set of new FN constraints that can be easily linearized is developed. To account for renewable uncertainties, a realistic uncertainty modeling approach, Random Field, is adopted to generate wind generation scenarios by considering both spatial and temporal evolutions of wind speed profiles. The ESS sizing is formulated as a mixed-integer linear programming problem and solved by using a scalable decomposition-and-coordination approach, Surrogate Absolute Value Lagrangian Relaxation (SAVLR). To further improve the scalability and reduce computational burdens, a rolling-horizon-based update is developed and incorporated into SAVLR for providing a practical solution to the long-term planning of very large-scale power systems. Finally, a modified IEEE 118-bus system and the Polish system are used to validate the effectiveness and scalability of the model and solution methodology.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗