Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “error of commission”

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 OSTI2014

TU-C-BRE-05: Clinical Implications of AAA Commissioning Errors and Ability of Common Commissioning ' Credentialing Procedures to Detect Them

Purpose: To test the ability of the TG-119 commissioning process and RPC credentialing to detect errors in the commissioning process for a commercial Treatment Planning System (TPS). Methods: We introduced commissioning errors into the commissioning process for the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) within the Eclipse TPS. We included errors in Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG), electron contamination, flattening filter material, and beam profile measurement with an inappropriately large farmer chamber (simulated using sliding window smoothing of profiles). We then evaluated the clinical impact of these errors on clinical intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans (head and neck, low and intermediate risk prostate, mesothelioma, and scalp) by looking at PTV D99, and mean and max OAR dose. Finally, for errors with substantial clinical impact we determined sensitivity of the RPC IMRT film analysis at the midpoint between PTV and OAR using a 4mm distance to agreement metric, and of a 7% TLD dose comparison. We also determined sensitivity of the 3 dose planes of the TG-119 C-shape IMRT phantom using gamma criteria of 3% 3mm. Results: The largest clinical impact came from large changes in the DLG with a change of 1mm resulting in up to a 5% change in the primary PTV D99. This resulted in a discrepancy in the RPC TLDs in the PTVs and OARs of 7.1% and 13.6% respectively, which would have resulted in detection. While use of incorrect flattening filter caused only subtle errors (<1%) in clinical plans, the effect was most pronounced for the RPC TLDs in the OARs (>6%). Conclusion: The AAA commissioning process within the Eclipse TPS is surprisingly robust to user error. When errors do occur, the RPC and TG-119 commissioning credentialing criteria are effective at detecting them; however OAR TLDs are the most sensitive despite the RPC currently excluding them from analysis.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

Performance and properties of the first plasmas of Wendelstein 7-X

The optimized, superconducting stellarator Wendelstein 7-X went into operation and delivered first measurement data after 15 years of construction and one year commissioning. Errors in the magnet assembly were confirmend to be small. Plasma operation was started with 5 MW electron cyclotron resonance heating (ECRH) power and five inboard limiters. Core plasma values of ${{T}_{\text{e}}}>8$ keV, ${{T}_{\text{i}}}>2$ keV at line-integrated densities $n\approx 3\centerdot {{10}^{19}}~{{\text{m}}^{-2}}$ were achieved, exceeding the original expectations by about a factor of two. Indications for a core-electron-root were found. The energy confinement times are in line with the international stellarator scaling, despite unfavourable wall conditions, i.e. large areas of metal surfaces and particle sources from the limiter close to the plasma volume. Well controlled shorter hydrogen discharges at higher power (4 MW ECRH power for 1 s) and longer discharges at lower power (0.7 MW ECRH power for 6 s) could be routinely established after proper wall conditioning. Lastly, the fairly large set of diagnostic systems running in the end of the 10 weeks operation campaign provided first insights into expected and unexpected physics of optimized stellarators.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2015

A Review of Human Reliability Needs in the U.S. Nuclear Industry

In this survey, 34 subject matter experts from the U.S. nuclear industry were interviewed to determine specific needs for human reliability analysis (HRA). Conclusions from the interviews are detailed in this article. A summary of the findings includes: (1) The need for improved guidance on the use of HRA methods generally and for specific applications. (2) The need for additional training in HRA to provide more hands-on experience in the application of HRA methods. (3) Thedevelopment of HRA approaches suitable for advanced reactors, severe accident situations, and low-power and shutdown applications. (4) The refinement of HRA methods to account forfactors such as crew variability, latent errors, more sophisticated dependency modeling, and errors of commission. (5) The continued need for simplified HRA methods appropriate for field applications. (6) The need for tighter coupling of HRA and human factors. (7) The need for improvements in the quantitative basis of HRA methods. These findings suggest the field of HRA is mature but still benefits from refinements.

human reliability analysis↗
DOE OSTI2025

Optics tuning of the FCC-ee

The Future Circular Collider, FCC-ee, is a proposed next generation electron-positron collider aiming to provide large luminosities at beam energies from 45.6 up to 182.5 GeV. This collider faces a major challenge to deliver the design performance in the presence of realistic lattice errors. A commissioning strategy has been developed including dedicated optics designs, efficient beam-based alignment and optics corrections based on refined optics measurements. First specifications on main magnets, corrector circuits, and instrumentation have also been investigated. A summary of all these aspects is presented in this paper.

Tomas, Rogelio [CERN]↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-186: Cloud-Based Quality Assurance Application for Linear Accelerator Commissioning

Purpose: To identify anomalies and safety issues during data collection and modeling for treatment planning systems Methods: A cloud-based quality assurance system (AQUIRE - Automated QUalIty REassurance) has been developed to allow the uploading and analysis of beam data aquired during the treatment planning system commissioning process. In addition to comparing and aggregating measured data, tools have also been developed to extract dose from the treatment planning system for end-to-end testing. A gamma index is perfomed on the data to give a dose difference and distance-to-agreement for validation that a beam model is generating plans consistent with the beam data collection. Results: Over 20 linear accelerators have been commissioning using this platform, and a variety of errors and potential saftey issues have been caught through the validation process. For example, the gamma index of 2% dose, 2mm DTA is quite sufficient to see curves not corrected for effective point of measurement. Also, data imported into the database is analyzed against an aggregate of similar linear accelerators to show data points that are outliers. The resulting curves in the database exhibit a very small standard deviation and imply that a preconfigured beam model based on aggregated linear accelerators will be sufficient in most cases. Conclusion: With the use of this new platform for beam data commissioning, errors in beam data collection and treatment planning system modeling are greatly reduced. With the reduction in errors during acquisition, the resulting beam models are quite similar, suggesting that a common beam model may be possible in the future. Development is ongoing to create routine quality assurance tools to compare back to the beam data acquired during commissioning. I am a medical physicist for Alzyen Medical Physics, and perform commissioning services.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
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-201-03: 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-201-02: 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-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

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

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

Challenges in leveraging existing human performance data for quantifying the IDHEAS HRA method

Our article documents an exploratory study for collecting and using human performance data to inform human error probability (HEP) estimates for a new human reliability analysis (HRA) method, the IntegrateD Human Event Analysis System (IDHEAS). The method was based on cognitive models and mechanisms underlying human behaviour and employs a framework of 14 crew failure modes (CFMs) to represent human failures typical for human performance in nuclear power plant (NPP) internal, at-power events [1]. A decision tree (DT) was constructed for each CFM to assess the probability of the CFM occurring in different contexts. Data needs for IDHEAS quantification are discussed. Then, the data collection framework and process is described and how the collected data were used to inform HEP estimation is illustrated with two examples. Next, five major technical challenges are identified for leveraging human performance data for IDHEAS quantification. Furthermore, these challenges reflect the data needs specific to IDHEAS. More importantly, they also represent the general issues with current human performance data and can provide insight for a path forward to support HRA data collection, use, and exchange for HRA method development, implementation, and validation.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2014

Task Decomposition in Human Reliability Analysis

In the probabilistic safety assessments (PSAs) used in the nuclear industry, human failure events (HFEs) are determined as a subset of hardware failures, namely those hardware failures that could be triggered by human action or inaction. This approach is top-down, starting with hardware faults and deducing human contributions to those faults. Elsewhere, more traditionally human factors driven approaches would tend to look at opportunities for human errors first in a task analysis and then identify which of those errors is risk significant. The intersection of top-down and bottom-up approaches to defining HFEs has not been carefully studied. Ideally, both approaches should arrive at the same set of HFEs. This question remains central as human reliability analysis (HRA) methods are generalized to new domains like oil and gas. The HFEs used in nuclear PSAs tend to be top-down— defined as a subset of the PSA—whereas the HFEs used in petroleum quantitative risk assessments (QRAs) are more likely to be bottom-up—derived from a task analysis conducted by human factors experts. The marriage of these approaches is necessary in order to ensure that HRA methods developed for top-down HFEs are also sufficient for bottom-up applications.

error of commission↗
DOE OSTI2024

Estimating the Contributions to Human Error Probability from the Convolution of the Distribution of Time Available and Time Required

As part of their duties, Human Reliability Analysis must often evaluate if crews in nuclear power plants (NPPs) can complete tasks associated with a human-failure event within time limits. For example, the time required in NPP scenarios is determined by systematic and structured walkthroughs, feasibility studies, recorded times from training exercises, and interviews with experienced operators and experts. Typically, a point estimate is derived for the estimate (mean, maximum, or 95th percentile of time required). Using point-estimate values can mask the risk associated with variability among crews, plant conditions and set-up, environmental conditions, and other impact factors under which these actions are executed. While point estimates for time required and time available have served the industry well, without considering the uncertainty they could lead to biased understanding about the risk. The Integrated Human Event Analysis System - General Methodology (IDHEAS-G) model (developed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC) for human error probability calculates human error probability by summing two probabilities: insufficient time and cognitive error. As such, the model takes a more holistic approach by considering the full distributions for time required and time available to calculate the human error probability because the time available to complete the task is insufficient. In this study, we expand on the work of the NRC and discuss methods for estimating these time considerations. For example, for the time required, the impact of Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs) on the distribution was divided into impacts that are aleatory in nature, such as crew-to-crew variability, and those that are epistemic (i.e., the PIFs). Starting with the factors that introduce aleatory uncertainty, a first-order distribution was developed from a large set of time required (i.e., NPP task completion times) data for the range of operator actions that occur in the NPP control room under simulated accident conditions. The first-order distribution can then be adjusted to account for epistemic uncertainty using research associated with the impact of applicable PIFs on the time required. We also develop guidance for analysts to address the probability distributions for the time available. The guidance we developed on how to estimate time required and time available distributions is based on the identification of pertinent research and data, data analyses, and expert knowledge elicitation.

human error probability, human performance, time e↗
DOE OSTI2016

I'll take that to go: Big data bags and minimal identifiers for exchange of large, complex datasets

Big data workflows often require the assembly and exchange of complex, multi-element datasets. For example, in biomedical applications, the input to an analytic pipeline can be a dataset consisting thousands of images and genome sequences assembled from diverse repositories, requiring a description of the contents of the dataset in a concise and unambiguous form. Typical approaches to creating datasets for big data workflows assume that all data reside in a single location, requiring costly data marshaling and permitting errors of omission and commission because dataset members are not explicitly specified. We address these issues by proposing simple methods and tools for assembling, sharing, and analyzing large and complex datasets that scientists can easily integrate into their daily workflows. These tools combine a simple and robust method for describing data collections (BDBags), data descriptions (Research Objects), and simple persistent identifiers (Minids) to create a powerful ecosystem of tools and services for big data analysis and sharing. We present these tools and use biomedical case studies to illustrate their use for the rapid assembly, sharing, and analysis of large datasets.

Chard, Kyle↗
DOE OSTI2024

Optimizing Residential HVAC Systems: Evaluating How the Usage of Smart Diagnostic Tools for Quality Installation and Commissioning Impacts System Performance and HVAC Contractor Businesses

The adoption of digital quality installation and fault detection tools has the potential to transform the $14 billon residential heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) service and installation industry. Increased market penetration can be accelerated by providing an increased understanding of the energy and economic value proposition of the usage of these tools. In tandem with energy and HVAC system performance impact research and analysis, the Southface Team investigated the economic business implications for HVAC service and installation contractors adopting the use of measureQuick (mQ), a smart diagnostic app that aids in quality installation and fault detection and works agnostically with Bluetooth-enabled HVAC technician tools.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

SU-E-T-367: Optimization of DLG Using TG-119 Test Cases and a Weighted Mean Approach

Purpose: Optimization of the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) is an important step in commissioning the Eclipse treatment planning system for sliding window intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SW-IMRT) and RapidArc. Often the values needed for optimal dose delivery differ markedly from those measured at commissioning. We present a method to optimize this value using the AAPM TG-119 test cases. Methods: For SW-IMRT and RapidArc, TG-119 based test plans were created using a water-equivalent phantom. Dose distributions measured on film and ion chamber (IC) readings taken in low-gradient regions within the targets were analyzed separately. Since DLG is a single value per energy, SW-IMRT and RapidArc must be considered simultaneously. Plans were recalculated using a linear sweep from 0.02cm (the minimum DLG) to 0.3 cm. The calculated point doses were compared to the measured doses for each plan, and based on these comparisons an optimal DLG value was computed for each plan. TG-119 cases are designed to push the system in various ways, thus, a weighted mean of the DLG was computed where the relative importance of each type of plan was given a score from 0.0 to 1.0. Finally, SW-IMRT and RapidArc are assigned an overall weight based on clinical utilization. Our routine patient-QA (PQA) process was performed as independent validation. Results: For a Varian TrueBeam, the optimized DLG varied with σ = 0.044cm for SW-IMRT and σ = 0.035cm for RapidArc. The difference between the weighted mean SW-IMRT and RapidArc value was 0.038cm. We predicted utilization of 25% SW-IMRT and 75% RapidArc. The resulting DLG was ~1mm different than that found by commissioning and produced an average error of <1% for SW-IMRT and RapidArc PQA test cases separately. Conclusion: The weighted mean method presented is a useful tool for determining an optimal DLG value for commissioning Eclipse.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Rapid Commissioning of Large Machine Tools Using Finite Element-Based Correction of Geometric Errors

Large computer numerical control (CNC) machine tools derive their stiffness from monolithic cast iron bases or weldments that are sometimes integral to machine motion systems like box ways or guideways. However, the sheer size of castings and even floor flatness deviations result in dimensional errors in these systems, which manifest as machine motion errors. Typical geometric alignment processes rely on an iterative approach, where measurements are taken to assess alignment (straightness, squareness, and parallelism), followed by adjustment of the machine supports (fixators or leveling pads), which can take weeks even for an experienced operator. Conversely, a novel method is proposed to shorten the correction time by eliminating the trial-and-error process in favor of a more deterministic approach guided by a finite element (FE) method. A feasibility study is conducted on a CNC polymer hybrid machine, with a steel weldment frame, supported by six leveling pads. An FE model of the frame is utilized to obtain recommended leveling pad adjustments, based on measurement of machine errors taken using a laser tracker. After a single adjustment cycle, measurements reveal that geometric errors of the machine tool are reduced from 2.22 mm of flatness deviation to 0.32 mm, achieving an 85.6% reduction. Furthermore, the entire process including measurement, adjustment, and assessment is completed in just 6 h by two operators who are not professional service engineers. In conclusion, this methodology demonstrates feasibility for scaling up, especially to large, high-precision CNC machine tools with bases mounted by fixators, offering the capability for bidirectional adjustment.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2014

SU-E-J-45: Design and Study of An In-House Respiratory Gating Phantom Platform for Gated Radiotherapy

Purpose: The main purpose of this work was to develop an in-house low cost respiratory motion phantom platform for testing the accuracy of the gated radiotherapy system and analyze the dosimetric difference during gated radiotherapy. Methods: An in-house respiratory motion platform(RMP) was designed and constructed for testing the targeting accuracy of respiratory tracking system. The RMP consist of acrylic Chest Wall Platform, 2 DC motors, 4 IR sensors, speed controller circuit, 2 LED and 2 moving rods inside the RMP. The velocity of the movement can be varied from 0 to 30 cycles per minute. The platform mounted to a base using precision linear bearings. The base and platform are made of clear, 15mm thick polycarbonate plastic and the linear ball bearings are oriented to restrict the platform to a movement of approximately 50mm up and down with very little friction. Results: The targeting accuracy of the respiratory tracking system was evaluated using phantom with and without respiratory movement with varied amplitude. We have found the 5% dose difference to the PTV during the movement in comparison with stable PTV. The RMP can perform sinusoidal motion in 1D with fixed peak to peak motion of 5 to 50mm and cycle interval from 2 to 6 seconds. The RMP was designed to be able to simulate the gross anatomical anterior posterior motion attributable to respiration-induced motion of the thoracic region. Conclusion: The unique RMP simulates breathing providing the means to create a comprehensive program for commissioning, training, quality assurance and dose verification of gated radiotherapy treatments. Create the anterior/posterior movement of a target over a 5 to 50 mm distance to replicate tumor movement. The targeting error of the respiratory tracking system is less than 1.0 mm which shows suitable for clinical treatment with highly performance.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗