Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Virtual temperature”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Wind and Temperature Consensus at Horn Point, HU-Beltsville, Piney Run (Maryland) in support of CoURAGE

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) operates a ground-based atmospheric profiling network consisting of collocated radar wind profilers (RWP) and radio acoustic sounding systems (RASS) as part of its Ambient Air Monitoring Program. This network provides continuous observations of wind and temperature structure in the lower troposphere to support air quality forecasting, regulatory analysis, and atmospheric research. The network currently includes three fixed sites across Maryland: Horn Point (HP, lower eastern shore) [38.587525°,-76.141006°], Howard University-Beltsville (HUB, central Maryland) [39.055277°, -76.878632°], and Piney Run (PR, western Maryland) [39.705950°, -79.012000°] The network is designed to capture regional variability in atmospheric transport and boundary-layer processes. These systems measure vertical profiles of horizontal wind speed and direction using Doppler radar techniques, with observations typically spanning from ~100 m above ground level up to approximately 2.5–4 km. Measurements are derived from the Doppler shift of backscattered electromagnetic signals, enabling retrieval of wind vectors at multiple altitudes with high temporal resolution (e.g., 30-minute averages reported every 6 minutes). Each radar wind profiler is paired with a Radio Acoustic Sounding System (RASS) to provide profiles of virtual temperature in the lower atmosphere (~100–200 m AGL) by measuring the propagation speed of acoustic waves. Together, the RWP/RASS system yields a coupled data set of thermodynamic and kinematic atmospheric structure, including additional parameters such as vertical velocity, radial velocity, signal-to-noise ratio, and spectral width for advanced analysis. There are two types of files for each station: wind data (files with a "w" prefix) and virtual temperature RASS data (files with a "t" prefix). The wind data files are in the format wYYDDD.cns, where YY is the 2-digit year and DDD is the day of the year. The RASS virtual temperature data files are in the format tYYDDD.cns. Each record has the following header structure: Line 1 : Station Name RASS files Line 2 : RASS rev DeTect_2.0, WINDS files Line 2 : WINDS rev ATI 5.1 Line 3 : N latitude, W longitude, and site elevation (m) Line 4 : Date and begin time of consensus: yy mm dd hh mn ss plus # minutes to add to get UTC Line 5 : Consensus averaging time (minutes); number of beams; number of range gates Line 6 : Number of records required to make consensus (num) total number of records (tot) and the consensus window size (m/s) in the format: num:tot (window) RASS files Line 7 : no. of coded cells, no. of spec, pulse width (ns), and inter-pulse period (µs), WINDS files Line 7 : No. of coded cells, no. of spectra, pulse width (ns), and inter-pulse period (µs), each with a pair of values: first value is for oblique beams, second for vertical RASS files Line 8 : Full scale Doppler value (m/s) Delay to first gate (ns) Number of gates Spacing of gates (ns), WINDS files Line 8 : Full scale Doppler velocity (m/s), oblique and vertical Vertical correction applied to oblique beams? (0 = no, 1 = yes) Delay to first gate (ns), oblique and vertical Number of gates, oblique and vertical Spacing of gates (ns), oblique and vertical Line 9 : Azimuth and elevation (9s indicate vertical beam not used) RASS files Line 10, values : HT = Height above ground (km), T = Uncorrected virtual temperature consensus (deg C), Tc = Corrected virtual temperature consensus (deg C), W = Vertical wind consensus (9s indicate vertical beam not used, w-component, positive upward, m/s), CNT = Number of records that made consensus (for the 3 values in same order), SNR = Average signal to noise ratio (dB) of records in consensus (same order) WINDS files Line 10, values : HT = Height above ground (km), SPD = Wind speed (m/s), DIR = Wind direction (deg E of N from N), RAD = Radial velocities for each beam (m/s) in order given in azimuth and elevation line (positive toward radar; 9s indicate vertical beam not used, CNT = Number of records that made consensus, SNR = Average signal to noise ratio (dB) of records in consensus

{"wind speed and direction",temperature}↗
DOE OSTI2021

Combined Mesonet and Tracker

Title: Combined Mesonet and Trackers (UNL Mobile Mesonets) Authors University of Nebraska PI: Adam Houston, UNL Professor (ahouston2@unl.edu) Mailing Address: 126 Bessey Hall P.O. Box 880340 Lincoln, NE 68588-0340 CoMeT Overview The University of Nebraska-Lincoln operates three Combined Mesonet and Tracker (CoMeTs). CoMeTs are Ford Explorers (model years 2015, 2017, and 2019) with forward-mounted suites of meteorological sensors and dual moonroofs, combining the capability of a mobile mesonet to collect near-surface observations with the capability of an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) tracker vehicle, which enables an observer in the second row of seats to see the aircraft and maintain compliance with Federal Aviation Administration policies on UAS operation. The CoMeTs collect observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155A, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass (Barbieri et al. 2019). The HMP155A and 109SS-L thermistor are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). This list of sensors is also included in the CoMeT data file metadata. Manufacturer specifications for these instruments are given in Table 1 of Hanft and Houston (2018). The reported measured quantities are summarized below.CoMeT-3 was funded through an equipment allocation included in the NSF TORUS award (AGS-1824649). Instrument Description The specific sensors included on each CoMeT are summarized in the table at the end of this section. In general each CoMeT collects observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210 barometer with a Gill pressure port, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, position using a Garmin 19x HVS receiver, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass. The HMP155 and 109SS are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). Fast temperature and corrected RH measurements (using sensors housed within the U-tube) have a time constant of 10-12 s based on data collected across a temperature and RH shock during the CLOUD-MAP 2017 calibration/validation tests on June 26, 2017. Vehicle speed was < 10 kts for this test. CoMeT-1 CoMeT-2 CoMeT-3 Slow Temperature Slow RH Vaisala HMP155A-L20-PT Part #: 22280-7 Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Fast temperature Campbell Scientific 109SS-L20-PT Part #: 21448-3 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-109 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-150 Pressure Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Wind RM Young 05103-L20-PT Part #: 18435-310 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 GPS Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Compass KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 Logger Campbell Scientific CR6-NA-XT-SW Part #: 28385-9 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Data Collection and Real-Time Processing The reported measured quantities are summarized in the table below. Quantity Units Source Epoch time Seconds GPS Latitude and longitude Degrees GPS Altitude m GPS Pressure hPa PTB210 Temperature (fast) deg C 109SS-L Temperature (slow) deg C HMP155 RH (slow) % HMP155 Vehicle speed m/s GPS Vehicle heading deg C-100 and GPS In addition to the measured variables, several derived variables are calculated. Corrected/fast relative humidity (%) Relative humidity is adjusted to the fast temperature following Richardson et al. (1998) and Houston et al. (2016). Water vapor mixing ratio (g/kg) Dew point temperature (&deg;C) Potential temperature (Kelvin) Virtual potential temperature (Kelvin) Equivalent potential temperature (Kelvin) Regular intercomparisons between all three CoMeTs were performed during TORUS 2019. Comparisons were also conducted between CoMeT-1 and CoMeT-2 during LAPSE-RATE (2018) on 14 July. In these intercomparisons, the vehicles were parked adjacent to each other aligned perpendicular to (and facing into) the wind. To minimize engine heating effects, intercomparisons were only conducted when the wind speed was >10 kts. Data Format Original data files for each deployment are saved as text files and then converted to NetCDF. NetCDF versions have units that are CF compliant and may not match the original units in the txt files. The naming convention for the NetCDF files is as follows: UNL.CoMeT3.{deployment date YYYYMMDD}.{start time of observation collection in UTC HHMM}.L2.{post-processing codes}.cdf example: UNL.CoMeT3.20190627.1931.L2.g1.f1.cdf Post-processing codes are included to track modifications to the raw data. These codes are closely connected to error flags associated with each record. Each letter corresponds to a particular instrument: g: GPS p: Barometer tf: Fast temperature ts: Slow temperature rh: Relative humidity f: Compass w: Wind monitor a: All instruments Each number corresponds to a particular post-processing action described more below. Measured and derived variables are included in the following table. Variable Heading Standard Name Units time Time seconds since 00:00:00, 01-01-1970 Alt Altitude meters lat Latitude degrees north lon Longitude degrees east fast_temp Air Temperature kelvin slow_temp Air Temperature kelvin pressure Air Pressure pascals logger_RH Relative Humidity percent calc_corr_RH Relative Humidity percent wind_speed Wind Speed meters per second wind_dir Wind From Direction degrees vehicle_dir Vehicle Direction degrees dewpoint Dew Point Temperature kelvin mixing_ratio Humidity Mixing Ratio g/g theta Air Potential Temperature kelvin theta_v Virtual Potential Temperature kelvin theta_e Equivalent Potential Temperature Kelvin error_flag The error_flag variable is a string that matches the post-processing codes listed above. All instruments will have an associated code, but will have a &ldquo;0&rdquo; if the datum is unchanged from the initial processed value. Error Codes The following table summarizes the error codes for data collected before 2020: Error Code Relevant CoMeT Description g1 1,2,3 Exact correction. GPS position and time reprocessed from raw data g2 1 As far as we can tell this is an exact correction to an error in the GPS time. During the correct time periods the time suddenly went backwards ~250s and stayed at this offset for 750s when it corrected itself. The offset was applied to the &ldquo;time warp&rdquo; period. p1 2 Approximate correction. Hole in the pressure tube connecting the pressure port to the barometer. Resulted in erroneously low air pressure measurements when the vehicle was in motion. Derived variables recalculated (dew point temperature [e depends on qv and p], water vapor mixing ratio, potential temperature, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) a1 3 Exact correction. Missing data reprocessed from raw data a2 1 Bug fix to bias correction for ts1, ts2, and rh1: water vapor mixing ratio was off by a factor of 10 and virtual potential temperature was wrong because of this. f1 3 No correction, missing data. Fluxgate compass inoperable. Wind speed and direction calculated using GPS-derived vehicle heading instead. rh1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.7% removed from relative humidity. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +0.6 K removed from slow temperature. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts2 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.0 K removed. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) References Bolton, D., 1980: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1046&ndash;1053, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108<1046:TCOEPT>2.0.CO;2. Hanft, W., and A. L. Houston, 2018: An Observational and Modeling Study of Mesoscale Air Masses with High Theta-E. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 2503&ndash;2524, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0389.1.Wexler Houston, A. L., R. J. Laurence III, T. W. Nichols, S. Waugh, B. Argrow, and C. L. Ziegler, 2016: Intercomparison of unmanned aircraft-borne and mobile mesonet atmospheric sensors. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 33, 1569-1582, doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0178.1. Lowe, P. R., 1977: An Approximating Polynomial for the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. J. Applied Meteorology, 16, 100&ndash;103. Richardson, S. J., S. E. Frederickson, F. V. Brock, and J. A. Brotzge, 1998: Combination temperature and relative humidity probes: Avoiding large air temperature errors and associated relative humidity errors. Preprints, 10th Symp. On Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 278&ndash;283. Waugh, S., and S. E. Frederickson, 2010: An improved aspirated temperature system for mobile meteorological observations, especially in severe weather. 25th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Denver, CO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P5.2. [Available online at https://ams.confex.com/ams/25SLS/techprogram/paper_176205.htm.]

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

Assessing the accuracy of microwave radiometers and radio acoustic sounding systems for wind energy applications

To assess current remote-sensing capabilities for wind energy applications, a remote-sensing system evaluation study, called XPIA (eXperimental Planetary boundary layer Instrument Assessment), was held in the spring of 2015 at NOAA's Boulder Atmospheric Observatory (BAO) facility. Several remote-sensing platforms were evaluated to determine their suitability for the verification and validation processes used to test the accuracy of numerical weather prediction models. The evaluation of these platforms was performed with respect to well-defined reference systems: the BAO's 300 m tower equipped at six levels (50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 m) with 12 sonic anemometers and six temperature ( T ) and relative humidity (RH) sensors; and approximately 60 radiosonde launches. In this study we first employ these reference measurements to validate temperature profiles retrieved by two co-located microwave radiometers (MWRs) as well as virtual temperature ( T v ) measured by co-located wind profiling radars equipped with radio acoustic sounding systems (RASSs). Results indicate a mean absolute error (MAE) in the temperature retrieved by the microwave radiometers below 1.5 K in the lowest 5?km of the atmosphere and a mean absolute error in the virtual temperature measured by the radio acoustic sounding systems below 0.8 K in the layer of the atmosphere covered by these measurements (up to approximately 1.6-2 km). We also investigated the benefit of the vertical velocity correction applied to the speed of sound before computing the virtual temperature by the radio acoustic sounding systems. We find that using this correction frequently increases the RASS error, and that it should not be routinely applied to all data. Water vapor density (WVD) profiles measured by the MWRs were also compared with similar measurements from the soundings, showing the capability of MWRs to follow the vertical profile measured by the sounding and finding a mean absolute error below 0.5 g m -3 in the lowest 5 km of the atmosphere. However, the relative humidity profiles measured by the microwave radiometer lack the high-resolution details available from radiosonde profiles. Furthermore, an encouraging and significant finding of this study was that the coefficient of determination between the lapse rate measured by the microwave radiometer and the tower measurements over the tower levels between 50 and 300 m ranged from 0.76 to 0.91, proving that these remote-sensing instruments can provide accurate information on atmospheric stability conditions in the lower boundary layer.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Carbon Dioxide Flux Measurement System (CO2FLX) Instrument Handbook

The Southern Great Plains (SGP) carbon dioxide flux (CO2 flux) measurement systems provide half-hour average fluxes of CO2, H2O (latent heat), and sensible heat. The fluxes are obtained by the eddy covariance technique, which computes the flux as the mean product of the vertical wind component with CO2 and H2O densities, or estimated virtual temperature. A three-dimensional sonic anemometer is used to obtain the orthogonal wind components and the virtual (sonic) temperature. An infrared gas analyzer is used to obtain the CO2 and H2O densities. A separate sub-system also collects half-hour average measures of meteorological and soil variables from separate 4-m towers.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Sensitivity of thermodynamic profiles retrieved from ground-based microwave and infrared observations to additional input data from active remote sensing instruments and numerical weather prediction models

Accurate and continuous estimates of the thermodynamic structure of the lower atmosphere are highly beneficial to meteorological process understanding and its applications, such as weather forecasting. In this study, the Tropospheric Remotely Observed Profiling via Optimal Estimation (TROPoe) physical retrieval is used to retrieve temperature and humidity profiles from various combinations of input data collected by passive and active remote sensing instruments, in situ surface platforms, and numerical weather prediction models. Among the employed instruments are microwave radiometers (MWRs), infrared spectrometers (IRSs), radio acoustic sounding systems (RASSs), ceilometers, and surface sensors. TROPoe uses brightness temperatures and/or radiances from MWRs and IRSs, as well as other observational inputs (virtual temperature from the RASS, cloud-base height from the ceilometer, pressure, temperature, and humidity from the surface sensors) in a physical iterative retrieval approach. This starts from a climatologically reasonable profile of temperature and water vapor, with the radiative transfer model iteratively adjusting the assumed temperature and humidity profiles until the derived brightness temperatures and radiances match those observed by the MWR and/or IRS instruments within a specified uncertainty, as well as within the uncertainties of the other observations, if used as input. In this study, due to the uniqueness of the dataset that includes all the above-mentioned sensors, TROPoe is tested with different observational input combinations, some of which also include information higher than 4 km above ground level (a.g.l.) from the operational Rapid Refresh numerical weather prediction model. These temperature and humidity retrievals are assessed against independent collocated radiosonde profiles under non-cloudy conditions to assess the sensitivity of the TROPoe retrievals to different input combinations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

Real-Time Boundary-Layer Profiling at the Southern Great Plains Field Campaign Report

The National Research Council (NRC 2009, 2010) has argued that the nation needs to establish a boundary-layer profiling network across the conterminous United States (CONUS). These observations would benefit a wide range of applications including short-term severe weather forecasting by providing better initial conditions for weather prediction models (Wulfmeyer et al. 2015). While active remote sensors like Raman lidars (e.g., Turner et al. 2016) and differential absorption lidars (e.g., Spuler et al. 2015) are able to provide high-temporal-and-vertical-resolution profiles of water vapor and temperature from the ground, these systems are not yet available commercially. Passive remote-sensing systems, such as multi-channel microwave radiometers and infrared spectrometers, are commercially available and can provide retrieved profiles of temperature and humidity (e.g., Löhnert et al. 2009; Blumberg et al. 2015). These passive thermodynamic profiling systems are certainly a candidate for a possible boundary-layer network. Radio acoustic sounding systems (RASS), coupled with either a radar or sodar, can provide partial profiles of virtual temperature and are another option. However, the RASS signal is audible and considered by many to be annoying, and strong winds blow the acoustic signal away from the radar and greatly hamper its maximum vertical range. Three basic ground-based remote sensing technologies are used for wind profiling. All of these are active remote sensors that take advantage of a Doppler-shifted signal along different radial directions to determine the wind speed and direction. The three approaches are sodar (which uses pulses of sonic energy), radar (pulses of microwave energy), or lidar (pulses of laser energy). All three methods use either plane-parallel-indicator (PPI; constant elevation) scans that are analyzed with a velocity-azimuth display (VAD) technique or Doppler beam-swinging observing strategies, which are then analyzed to provide the horizontal wind speed and direction profiles as a function of range.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Atmospheric Variability Drives Anomalies in the Bering Sea Air–Sea Heat Exchange

Abstract High latitudes, including the Bering Sea, are experiencing unprecedented rates of change. Long-term Bering Sea warming trends have been identified, and marine heatwaves (MHWs), event-scale elevated sea surface temperature (SST) extremes, have also increased in frequency and longevity in recent years. Recent work has shown that variability in air–sea coupling plays a dominant role in driving Bering Sea upper-ocean thermal variability and that surface forcing has driven an increase in the occurrence of positive ocean temperature anomalies since 2010. In this work, we characterize the drivers of the anomalous surface air–sea heat fluxes in the Bering Sea over the period 2010–22 using ERA5 fields. We show that the surface turbulent heat flux dominates the net surface heat flux variability from September to April and is primarily a result of near-surface air temperature and specific humidity anomalies. The airmass anomalies that account for the majority of the turbulent heat flux variability are a function of wind direction, with southerly (northerly) wind advecting anomalously warm (cool), moist (dry) air over the Bering Sea, resulting in positive (negative) surface turbulent flux anomalies. During the remaining months of the year, anomalies in the surface radiative fluxes account for the majority of the net surface heat flux variability and are a result of anomalous cloud coverage, anomalous lower-tropospheric virtual temperature, and sea ice coverage variability. Our results indicate that atmospheric variability drives much of the Bering Sea upper-ocean temperature variability through the mediation of the surface heat fluxes during the analysis period. Significance Statement A long-term ocean warming trend and a recent increase in marine heatwaves in the Bering Sea have been identified. Previous work showed that anomalies in the exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere were the primary driver of Bering Sea temperature variability, but the processes responsible for the heat exchange anomalies were unknown. In this work, we show that the atmosphere is the primary driver of anomalies in the Bering Sea air–sea heat exchange and therefore plays an important role in altering the thermal state of the Bering Sea. Our results highlight the importance of understanding more about how the ocean and the atmosphere interact at high latitudes and how this relationship will be affected by future climate change.

Hayden, Emily E. [a College of Earth, Ocean, and A↗
DOE OSTI2023

High-resolution measurements of microphysics and entrainment in marine stratocumulus clouds

High-resolution measurements from the Airborne Cloud-Turbulence Observation System (ACTOS) during the Azores Stratocumulus Measurements of Radiation, Turbulence and Aerosols (ACORES) campaign are analysed for an investigation of the vertical profiles of microphysical properties and entrainment velocity ( W e ) in marine stratocumulus clouds. Here, the vertical profiles show the transition from the cloudy layer to free troposphere with nearly linear profiles of total water mixing ratio, liquid water potential temperature and virtual potential temperature, but the thickness of entrainment interfacial layer varies significantly. Sharp transitions of cloud microphysical and optical properties within a single horizontal flight leg are found in one stratocumulus cloud system. They seem to be related to the local environmental conditions, such as the wind shear and turbulent dissipation rate. W e values estimated by three methods show consistent tendencies in general and are clearly related to the local environmental conditions, such as vertical shear of the horizontal wind and turbulence intensity. However, the magnitudes of W e values differ by up to two orders of magnitude depending on the methods, which suggests that the estimation of W e from in situ measurements is still a challenge. Analysis of the microphysical response to entrainment suggests that inhomogeneous mixing occurs dominantly. On the other hand, the analysis results for the clouds under more humid conditions indicate a higher likelihood of homogeneous mixing.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-J-86: Method to Include Tissue Dose Response Effect in Deformable Image Registration

Purpose: Organ changes shape and size during radiation treatment due to both mechanical stress and radiation dose response. However, the dose response induced deformation has not been considered in conventional deformable image registration (DIR). A novel DIR approach is proposed to include both tissue elasticity and radiation dose induced organ deformation. Methods: Assuming that organ sub-volume shrinkage was proportional to the radiation dose induced cell killing/absorption, the dose induced organ volume change was simulated applying virtual temperature on each sub-volume. Hence, both stress and heterogeneity temperature induced organ deformation. Thermal stress finite element method with organ surface boundary condition was used to solve deformation. Initial boundary correspondence on organ surface was created from conventional DIR. Boundary condition was updated by an iterative optimization scheme to minimize elastic deformation energy. The registration was validated on a numerical phantom. Treatment dose was constructed applying both the conventional DIR and the proposed method using daily CBCT image obtained from HN treatment. Results: Phantom study showed 2.7% maximal discrepancy with respect to the actual displacement. Compared with conventional DIR, subvolume displacement difference in a right parotid had the mean±SD (Min, Max) to be 1.1±0.9(−0.4∼4.8), −0.1±0.9(−2.9∼2.4) and −0.1±0.9(−3.4∼1.9)mm in RL/PA/SI directions respectively. Mean parotid dose and V30 constructed including the dose response induced shrinkage were 6.3% and 12.0% higher than those from the conventional DIR. Conclusion: Heterogeneous dose distribution in normal organ causes non-uniform sub-volume shrinkage. Sub-volume in high dose region has a larger shrinkage than the one in low dose region, therefore causing more sub-volumes to move into the high dose area during the treatment course. This leads to an unfavorable dose-volume relationship for the normal organ. Without including this effect in DIR, treatment dose in normal organ could be underestimated affecting treatment evaluation and planning modification. Acknowledgement: Partially Supported by Elekta Research Grant.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗