Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “control simulation testing”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,279 records · Page 71
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2019

Controller-Hardware-in-the-Loop Test Bed for Fast-Switching SiC-Based 50-kW PV Inverter

The recent advent of wideband gap power semiconductor devices will lay the path to the future power converters. These devices provide the advantage of high switching speed and lower losses. The high cost and high switching speeds of these devices provide a challenge in the development and validation of the fast switching inverter controls with accuracy of that of a hardware setup. In this paper an FPGA real-time simulator-based controller-hardware-in-the-loop (CHIL) testbed is used to verify the low-level and advanced inverter controls fast switching wide bandgap-based string photovoltaic inverter. The paper also includes development of the CHIL testbed, which is run at a time-step of 500 ns in order to implement 20 kHz switching frequency. The developed CHIL testbed is validated through experimental results from a three-phase, 50 kW, 480 VLLrms SiC devices based inverter.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

MPC4CLR (Model-Predictive-Control-for-Critical-Load-Restoration-in-Power-Distribution-Systems) [SWR-22-24]

Model predictive control (MPC) is a system or process control technique for making decisions under uncertainty via rolling look-ahead optimizations at each control step where only the current step decisions are applied, and the rest are discarded. In this work, we developed an MPC for a critical load restoration (CLR) in power distribution systems to recover system service (electricity delivery) following an extreme event-triggered substation outage. The method considers the problem of controlling distributed energy resources (DERs) of the distribution system with the objective of achieving maximum load pick up while satisfying distribution network flow and voltage constraints. A linearized optimal power flow (OPF) model is employed to represent the physics of the network. The problem formulation is augmented with a ramping (up) reserve product for the DERs to ensure improved and upward monotonic load restoration as time evolves. Simulation analysis and performance tests are performed using a modified IEEE 13-bus test feeder integrated with wind, solar, microturbine, and energy storage battery. The software is developed using various software packages in Julia and Python. The MPC model is implemented using the JuMP optimization language in Julia while the data analytics including renewable generation and load demand forecasts, running the MPC simulation and visualizations is performed in Python.

Eseye, Abinet Tesfaye↗
DOE OSTI2018

Implementation of a Grid Connected Battery-Inverter Fleet Model

Batteries are designed to store electrical energy. The increasing variation in time value of energy has driven the use of batteries as controllable distributed energy resources (DER). This is enabled though low-cost power electronic inverters that are able to precisely control charge and discharge. This paper describes the software implementation of an open-source battery inverter fleet models in python. The Sandia BatterylnverterFleet class model can be used by scientists, researchers, and engineers to perform simulations of one or more fleets of similar battery-inverter systems connected to the grid. The program tracks the state- of-charge of the simulated batteries and ensures that they stay within their limits while responding to separately generated service requests to charge or discharge. This can be used to analyze control and coordination, placement and sizing, and many other problems associated with the integration of batteries on the power grid. The development of these models along with their python implementation was funded by the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium (GMLC) project 1.4.2. Definitions, Standards and Test Procedures for Grid Services from Devices.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

BISON Capability, Validation and Demonstration for Reactivity-Initiated Accidents

Reactivity Initiated Accidents (RIA) are design basis accidents that could have adverse impacts on the core coolability. In the unlikely event that sufficient reactivity is inserted into the reactor core by the ejected/dropped control rod, prompt energy deposition into the fuel can occur, which when sufficiently high can lead to fuel rod failure or, at large energy deposition levels, expulsion of UO2 fragments or molten UO2 material from the fuel rod. This results in a release of fission product and fuel into the coolant and has the potential to compromise core coolability and threatening the pressure boundary of the primary coolant system. The design basis RIA is one of the industry challenging problems that the CASL aimed to address; the CASL RIA Challenge Problem Charter [1] states, ?The Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Rod Ejection Accident (REA) and Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Control Rod Drop Accident (CRDA) are postulated accidents with consequences that are important to nuclear safety (fuel rod integrity and core coolability). Currently each reload core design must be analyzed to meet regulatory acceptance criteria. The goal of CASLs ModSim capability for RIA is to model the event at a higher fidelity, with validation to existing tests, to better model the transient neutronics and the progression of the fuel and cladding thermal-mechanical behavior. These improved analytical capabilities can be used to better inform reload core design, limits on fuel assembly discharge burnup, restrictions on placement of fuel in the reactor, control rod insertion limits, operating margin, and performance sensitivities.? In support of that charter, BISON, the fuel performance code has been used to demonstrate the simulation of thermal-mechanical behavior of LWR fuels during a reactivity-initiated accident. The combination of mechanical, thermal, and thermal-hydraulic phenomena all present during an RIA makes a multi-physics code such as BISON a valuable tool for modeling these scenarios. This paper will highlight many of the activities associated with BISON relevant to reactivity-initiated accident capability development and validation efforts. These efforts have been performed under both CASL and the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) programs.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Effect of compensatory immigration on the genetic structure of coyotes

Despite efforts to reduce their impacts on livestock and native ungulates within the southeastern United States, coyotes (Canis latrans) are able to recover from control programs. It is unknown how coyotes compensate for high mortality following trapping, so there is great interest to identify methods that can provide insight into coyote response to intensive trapping. To investigate if population genetic tools can decipher how coyotes recover from intensive trapping, we combined an empirical test of how genetic differentiation, diversity, and familial structure changed following trapping on the Savannah River Site (SRS), South Carolina with spatially explicit genetic simulations.The empirical dataset found that pre- and post-trapping periods had similar genetic diversities and were not genetically differentiated as expected by either compensatory reproduction or immigration from a single genetic source. The post-trapping coyote populations exhibited weaker signatures of philopatry with little evidence for increased dispersal distances of young coyotes, which suggests immigration caused a decrease in familial structure. Our simulations indicated that spatial autocorrelation coefficients and observed heterozygosities change as immigration increases while population differentiation, allelic richness, and displacement distances do not. Collectively, our results suggest that coyotes recover from intensive trapping via both reproduction and immigration, which likely makes preventing compensation difficult. Furthermore, monitoring post-trapping populations may offer more insight into maximizing the effectiveness of control efforts, and based on our simulations, population genetics can provide critical information about the amount of compensatory immigration following trapping.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

CO 2 -brine relative permeability and capillary pressure of Tuscaloosa sandstone: Effect of anisotropy

Relative permeability and capillary pressure are known as essential properties that have substantial impacts on the accuracy of reservoir simulations. The effect of small-scale heterogeneity and lamination in the rock structure is often ignored during the measurement of capillary pressure and relative permeability curves in core samples. This study highlights the remarkable impact of anisotropy on the multiphase flow properties of stratified formations. A series of steady-state CO 2 -brine drainage and imbibition tests are conducted at reservoir conditions in horizontal and vertical core samples of the Tuscaloosa sandstone from the Cranfield CO 2 injection site in Mississippi. The relative permeability curves represent an anisotropic behavior influenced by the heterogeneous and laminated structure of realistic rock samples. The CO 2 saturation profiles during drainage and imbibition cycles indicate that the phase distribution in the pore space is controlled by core-scale heterogeneity in the porosity distribution among the laminations that causes capillary pressure inhomogeneity. Using the saturation profile during the imbibition cycle, the trapping characteristic of the horizontal and vertical rock samples are compared and we found that the capillary trapping is less likely in the vertical direction. Furthermore, the centrifuge-measured capillary pressure demonstrates distinctive characteristics for horizontal and vertical core samples. Since the flooding experiments are performed under capillary controlled flow, the capillary pressure contrast in the laminated structure of the rock strongly affects the relative permeability. The presented results can potentially improve the accuracy of the large-scale simulations for the CO 2 post-injection period, in which the vertical displacement has an important role in the plume migration.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

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

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

Numerical Simulation of Measurements during the Reactor Physical Startup at Unit 3 of Rostov NPP

The results of numerical calculations and measurements of some reactor parameters during the physical startup tests at unit 3 of Rostov NPP are presented. The following parameters are considered: the critical boron acid concentration and the currents from ionization chambers (IC) during the scram system efficiency evaluation. The scram system efficiency was determined using the inverse point kinetics equation with the measured and simulated IC currents. The results of steady-state calculations of relative power distribution and efficiency of the scram system and separate groups of control rods of the control and protection system are also presented. The calculations are performed using several codes, including precision ones.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2015

Advanced Simulation and Computing Fiscal Year 2016 Implementation Plan, Version 0

The Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) is an integrated technical program for maintaining the safety, surety, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. The SSP uses nuclear test data, computational modeling and simulation, and experimental facilities to advance understanding of nuclear weapons. It includes stockpile surveillance, experimental research, development and engineering programs, and an appropriately scaled production capability to support stockpile requirements. This integrated national program requires the continued use of experimental facilities and programs, and the computational capabilities to support these programs. The purpose of this IP is to outline key work requirements to be performed and to control individual work activities within the scope of work. Contractors may not deviate from this plan without a revised WA or subsequent IP.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Gamma and Neutron Measurement and Modeling of Irradiated TRISO Fuel

Given the unique characteristics of the PBR fuel cycle, both gamma and neutron measurements are expected to play important roles in performing and maintaining nuclear material control and accounting for spent pebbles to safeguard the fuel cycle. Given the lack of irradiated pebbles in the US, a variety of irradiated TRISO fuel samples with wide ranges of burnups and cooling times available at ORNL were used in this work. A large number of gamma and neutron measurements have been performed on these samples to collect data to test the various detectors and to benchmark the computer models to simulate the depletion and decay of the fuel and the measurements themselves. Two neutron detectors, including a custom-made detector and the Very High-Performance Neutron Multiplicity Counting, were used to measure the neutrons emitted by these TRISO samples. Three gamma spectrometry detectors, including an HPGe and the M400 CZT detector, were used to measure gamma-ray emissions from these samples. The M400 was recently adopted by the IAEA for fresh uranium measurements, but it was tested for spent fuel measurements prior to this project. Detailed MCNP models were developed to simulate these neutron and gamma measurements. Some GADRAS models were also developed to cross check the MCNP models for the gamma measurements. It was found challenging to perform neutron measurements in the hot cell due to the high background counts. Close agreements were observed between the simulated and measured neutron count rates in both detectors’ measurements of californium calibration sources. Both the HPGe and M400 detectors were able to measure the 604 and 662 keV peaks from these samples, which are the two most important peaks used to infer fuel burnup. Although the M400 detector did not have nearly good energy resolution and did not detect some of the minor peaks as the HPGe detector, it was found to be capable of handling significantly higher dose rates than HPGe. Given the complexities in the TRISO samples (e.g., different samples sizes) and uncertainties in the alignments between the detector and the TRISO fuel inside the containers, large scatters were found between the peak area rates and the samples’ burnups. However, the 604/662 peak ratios were found to trend well with the samples’ burnups among most samples in both measured and simulated results.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Wind Power as a Virtual Synchronous Generator (WindVSG)

This project investigated the theory, implemented it in hardware, and validated the Wind as a Virtual Isochronous Generator (WindVSG) concept by combining the advantages of modern dynamic inverter technologies with static, dynamic, and transient electromechanical properties of synchronous machines. During this project we demonstrated how to control the inverters of wind turbine generators (wind alone or in parallel with other GFM sources, such battery energy storage) so that wind power behaves like a synchronous machine-based power plant with a conventional prime mover. For this purpose, testing was conducted at NLR ARIES facility with real 2.5 MW wind-turbine generator operating in GFM mode under dynamic and transient conditions. The team also developed models and conducted simulations for GFM wind power to evaluate stability impacts of GFM operation on power grid. This report describes efforts by the NLR team working in collaboration GE Vernova during 3-year project.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Griffin Capability Improvements in Support of Ex-core Deep-Penetration Problems

Advanced reactor designs, especially portable reactors that are designed to be located closer to humans and operate autonomously, require the ability to accurately compute the ex-core neutron and gamma flux solutions in terms of shielding design optimization to reduce dose rates at the vessel boundary and detector signal prediction to drive the reactor control system. The Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation program has prioritized improvements to the Griffin discrete ordinates (SN) solver for deep-penetration problems in fiscal year 2025. Significant advancements have been made to the Griffin methodologies for solving ex-core deep-penetration problems for steady-state, fixed-source and transient calculations. This work presents the methodology improvements as well as a comprehensive demonstration with a Transient Test Reactor model and measurements.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Coupled land surface–subsurface hydrogeophysical inverse modeling to estimate soil organic carbon content and explore associated hydrological and thermal dynamics in the Arctic tundra

Quantitative characterization of soil organic carbon (OC) content is essential due to its significant impacts on surface–subsurface hydrological–thermal processes and microbial decomposition of OC, which both in turn are important for predicting carbon–climate feedbacks. While such quantification is particularly important in the vulnerable organic-rich Arctic region, it is challenging to achieve due to the general limitations of conventional core sampling and analysis methods, and to the extremely dynamic nature of hydrological–thermal processes associated with annual freeze–thaw events. In this study, we develop and test an inversion scheme that can flexibly use single or multiple datasets – including soil liquid water content, temperature and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) data – to estimate the vertical distribution of OC content. Our approach relies on the fact that OC content strongly influences soil hydrological–thermal parameters and, therefore, indirectly controls the spatiotemporal dynamics of soil liquid water content, temperature and their correlated electrical resistivity. We employ the Community Land Model to simulate nonisothermal surface–subsurface hydrological dynamics from the bedrock to the top of canopy, with consideration of land surface processes (e.g., solar radiation balance, evapotranspiration, snow accumulation and melting) and ice–liquid water phase transitions. For inversion, we combine a deterministic and an adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) optimization algorithm to estimate a posteriori distributions of desired model parameters. For hydrological–thermal-to-geophysical variable transformation, the simulated subsurface temperature, liquid water content and ice content are explicitly linked to soil electrical resistivity via petrophysical and geophysical models. We validate the developed scheme using different numerical experiments and evaluate the influence of measurement errors and benefit of joint inversion on the estimation of OC and other parameters. We also quantify the propagation of uncertainty from the estimated parameters to prediction of hydrological–thermal responses. We find that, compared to inversion of single dataset (temperature, liquid water content or apparent resistivity), joint inversion of these datasets significantly reduces parameter uncertainty. We find that the joint inversion approach is able to estimate OC and sand content within the shallow active layer (top 0.3 m of soil) with high reliability. Due to the small variations of temperature and moisture within the shallow permafrost (here at about 0.6 m depth), the approach is unable to estimate OC with confidence. However, if the soil porosity is functionally related to the OC and mineral content, which is often observed in organic-rich Arctic soil, the uncertainty of OC estimate at this depth remarkably decreases. Our study documents the value of the new surface–subsurface, deterministic–stochastic inversion approach, as well as the benefit of including multiple types of data to estimate OC and associated hydrological–thermal dynamics.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Explicit Dynamic Impact Analysis of the Building 3525 Packages

The safe transport and handling of radioactive material containers is critical to ensure the protection of personnel, facilities, and the environment. Accidental drops during handling pose a significant hazard, necessitating robust design and analysis to mitigate potential consequences. This study presents an explicit dynamic impact analysis of two container designs, the Baby Sugarman and the Core Conduction Cooldown Test Facility (CCCTF) Tall Boy, used in Building 3525 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The analysis employed nonlinear finite element modeling in LS-DYNA to simulate free-fall impacts from a height of 16.5 ft across eight critical orientations. The study evaluated deformation, strain failure, and shielding integrity under these extreme conditions. Results demonstrated that both designs maintain structural integrity, with no breaches or loss of shielding under specified administrative controls. Notably, a maximum shielding loss of 10 lbs was observed during a top-corner drop, highlighting the need to limit drop heights to less than 1 ft for certain orientations. These findings underscore the effectiveness of engineering controls and design measures in preventing containment breaches and ensuring compliance with safety requirements. This work provides a comprehensive methodology for impact analysis, contributing valuable insights to the field of radioactive materials packaging and transportation safety.

Martinez, Oscar [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000181814046)↗