Search

Deep-buried tunnels with weak surrounding rock are frequently encountered issues in traffic engineering. It plays an important role in the excavation process and the project operation. This paper applies the theoretical analysis and laboratory test related to four different conditions in terms of their thickness to determine the mechanical response of deep-buried tunnel lining. Then, the energy dissipative structure theory is employed to explain the experimental results. This paper has made the following achievements: firstly, it is found that the toughness of the secondary lining was found to be often the most important indicator of tunnel safety, with better-toughness linings having higher tensile strength and crack resistance. Secondly, it suggests that the inclusion of steel reinforcement in the concrete lining can effectively improve the secondary lining toughness. Finally, it proves that the more ductile liner had more energy, higher load-carrying capacity, and was better able to maintain the overall stability of the structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to predict the outcome of patient specific quality assurance (PSQA) in IMRT for breast cancer using complexity metrics, such as MU factor, MAD, CAS, MCS. Several breast cancer plans were considered, including LBCS, RBCS, LBCM, RBCM, left breast, right breast and the whole breast for both Edge and TrueBeam LINACS. Dose verification was completed by Portal Dosimetry (PD). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was employed to determine whether the treatment plans pass or failed. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to assess the classification performance. The correlation of PSQA and complexity metrics was examined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Rs). For LINACS, the most suitable complexity metric was found to be the MU factor (Edge Rs = − 0.608, p < 0.01; TrueBeam Rs = − 0.739, p < 0.01). Regarding the specific breast cancer categories, the optimal complexity metrics were as follows: MAD (AUC = 0.917) for LBCS, MCS (AUC = 0.681) for RBCS, MU factor (AUC = 0.854) for LBCM and MAD (AUC = 0.731) for RBCM. On the Edge LINAC, the preferable method for breast cancers was MCS (left breast, AUC = 0.938; right breast, AUC = 0.813), while on the TrueBeam LINAC, it became MU factor (left breast, AUC = 0.950) and MCS (right breast, AUC = 0.806), respectively. Overall, there was no universally suitable complexity metric for all types of breast cancers. The choice of complexity metric depended on different cancer types, locations and treatment LINACs. Therefore, when utilizing complexity metrics to predict PSQA outcomes in IMRT for breast cancer, it was essential to select the appropriate metric based on the specific circumstances and characteristics of the treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]