Fatigue cracks in shot peened and case hardened notched machine components and high-pressure vessels are subjected to the stress fields induced by the external load and the residual stress resulting from the surface treatment or autofrettage. Both stress fields are usually nonuniform and available handbook stress intensity factor solutions are in most cases unavailable for such configurations, especially in the case of two-dimensional surface breaking cracks such as semi-elliptical and quarter-elliptical cracks at notches. The method presented in the paper makes it possible to calculate stress intensity factors for such cracks and complex stress fields by using the generalized weight function technique. It is also shown that the generalized weight functions make it possible to calculate the crack opening displacement field often used in the determination of the critical load or the critical crack size.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study reviewed prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans after prostate IMRT technique was replaced by VMAT in an institution. Characterizations of dosimetry and radiobiological variation in prostate were determined based on treatment plans of 40 prostate IMRT patients (planning target volume = 77.8–335 cm3) and 50 VMAT patients (planning target volume = 120–351 cm3) treated before and after 2013, respectively. Both IMRT and VMAT plans used the same dose-volume criteria in the inverse planning optimization. Dose-volume histogram, mean doses of target and normal tissues (rectum, bladder and femoral heads), dose-volume points (D99% of planning target volume; D30%, D50%, V30 Gy and V35 Gy of rectum and bladder; D5%, V14 Gy, V22 Gy of femoral heads), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), prostate tumor control probability (TCP), and rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) based on the Lyman-Burman-Kutcher algorithm were calculated for each IMRT and VMAT plan. From our results, VMAT plan was found better due to its higher (1.05%) CI, lower (0.83%) HI and (0.75%) GI than IMRT. Comparing doses in normal tissues between IMRT and VMAT, it was found that IMRT mostly delivered higher doses of about 1.05% to the normal tissues than VMAT. Prostate TCP and rectal NTCP were found increased (1%) for VMAT than IMRT. It is seen that VMAT technique can decrease the dose-volume evaluation criteria for the normal tissues. Based on our dosimetric and radiobiological results in treatment plans, it is concluded that our VMAT implementation could produce comparable or slightly better target coverage and normal tissue sparing with a faster treatment time in prostate radiotherapy.