Advantage of a broad focal zone in SWL

Synergism between squeezing and shear

Oleg A. Sapozhnikov, Michael R. Bailey, Adam D. Maxwell, Brian MacConaghy, Robin O. Cleveland, James A. McAteer, Lawrence A. Crum

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

Objective: The focal zone width appears to be a critical factor in lithotripsy. Narrow focus machines have a higher occurrence of adverse effects, and arguably no greater comminution efficiency. Manufacturers have introduced new machines and upgrades to broaden the focus. Still, little data exists on how focal width plays a role in stone fracture. Thus, our aim was to determine if focal width interacts with established mechanisms known to contribute to stone fracture. Method: A series of experiments were undertaken with changes made to the stone in an effort to determine which is most important, the shock wave (SW) reflected from the back end of the stone (spallation), the SW ringing the stone (squeezing), the shear wave generated at surface of the stone and concentrated in the bulk of it (shear), or SWs generated from bubble collapse (cavitation). Shock waves were generated by a Dornier HM3-style lithotripter, and stones were made from U30 cement. Baffles were used to block specific waves that contribute to spallation, shear, or squeezing, and glycerol was used to suppress cavitation. Numerical simulation and high-speed imaging allowed for visualization of specific waves as they traveled within the stone. Results: For brevity, one result is explained. A reflective baffle was placed around the front edge of a cylindrical stone. The proximal baffle prevented squeezing by preventing the SW from traveling over the stone, but permitted the SW entering the stone through the proximal face and did not affect the other mechanisms. The distal baffle behaved the same as no baffle. The proximal baffle dramatically reduced the stress, and the stone did not break (stone broke after 45±10 SWs without the baffle and did not break after 400 SWs when the experiment stopped). The result implies that since removing squeezing halted comminution, squeezing is dominant. However, there is much more to the story. For example, if the cylindrical stone was pointed, it broke with the point on the distal end but not with the point on the proximal end. In both cases, squeezing was the same, so if squeezing were dominant, both stones should have broken. But the pointed front edge prevents the shear wave. The squeezing wave and its product - the shear wave - are both needed and work synergistically in a way explained by the model. Conclusions: A broad focus enhances the synergism of squeezing and shear waves without altering cavitation's effects, and thus accelerates stone fracture in SWL.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationAIP Conference Proceedings
Pages351-355
Number of pages5
Volume900
StatePublished - 2007
Event1st Annual International Urolithiasis Research Symposium - Indianapolis, IN, United States
Duration: Nov 2 2006Nov 3 2006

Other

Other1st Annual International Urolithiasis Research Symposium
CountryUnited States
CityIndianapolis, IN
Period11/2/0611/3/06

Fingerprint

compressing
rocks
shear
baffles
shock waves
S waves
cavitation flow
comminution
spallation
cements
glycerols
bubbles

Keywords

  • Comminution
  • Fracture
  • Lithotripsy
  • Stress

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physics and Astronomy(all)

Cite this

Sapozhnikov, O. A., Bailey, M. R., Maxwell, A. D., MacConaghy, B., Cleveland, R. O., McAteer, J. A., & Crum, L. A. (2007). Advantage of a broad focal zone in SWL: Synergism between squeezing and shear. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 900, pp. 351-355)

Advantage of a broad focal zone in SWL : Synergism between squeezing and shear. / Sapozhnikov, Oleg A.; Bailey, Michael R.; Maxwell, Adam D.; MacConaghy, Brian; Cleveland, Robin O.; McAteer, James A.; Crum, Lawrence A.

AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 900 2007. p. 351-355.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Sapozhnikov, OA, Bailey, MR, Maxwell, AD, MacConaghy, B, Cleveland, RO, McAteer, JA & Crum, LA 2007, Advantage of a broad focal zone in SWL: Synergism between squeezing and shear. in AIP Conference Proceedings. vol. 900, pp. 351-355, 1st Annual International Urolithiasis Research Symposium, Indianapolis, IN, United States, 11/2/06.
Sapozhnikov OA, Bailey MR, Maxwell AD, MacConaghy B, Cleveland RO, McAteer JA et al. Advantage of a broad focal zone in SWL: Synergism between squeezing and shear. In AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 900. 2007. p. 351-355
Sapozhnikov, Oleg A. ; Bailey, Michael R. ; Maxwell, Adam D. ; MacConaghy, Brian ; Cleveland, Robin O. ; McAteer, James A. ; Crum, Lawrence A. / Advantage of a broad focal zone in SWL : Synergism between squeezing and shear. AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 900 2007. pp. 351-355
@inproceedings{1ad1e4b068f1472fb2e57c316799c80a,
title = "Advantage of a broad focal zone in SWL: Synergism between squeezing and shear",
abstract = "Objective: The focal zone width appears to be a critical factor in lithotripsy. Narrow focus machines have a higher occurrence of adverse effects, and arguably no greater comminution efficiency. Manufacturers have introduced new machines and upgrades to broaden the focus. Still, little data exists on how focal width plays a role in stone fracture. Thus, our aim was to determine if focal width interacts with established mechanisms known to contribute to stone fracture. Method: A series of experiments were undertaken with changes made to the stone in an effort to determine which is most important, the shock wave (SW) reflected from the back end of the stone (spallation), the SW ringing the stone (squeezing), the shear wave generated at surface of the stone and concentrated in the bulk of it (shear), or SWs generated from bubble collapse (cavitation). Shock waves were generated by a Dornier HM3-style lithotripter, and stones were made from U30 cement. Baffles were used to block specific waves that contribute to spallation, shear, or squeezing, and glycerol was used to suppress cavitation. Numerical simulation and high-speed imaging allowed for visualization of specific waves as they traveled within the stone. Results: For brevity, one result is explained. A reflective baffle was placed around the front edge of a cylindrical stone. The proximal baffle prevented squeezing by preventing the SW from traveling over the stone, but permitted the SW entering the stone through the proximal face and did not affect the other mechanisms. The distal baffle behaved the same as no baffle. The proximal baffle dramatically reduced the stress, and the stone did not break (stone broke after 45±10 SWs without the baffle and did not break after 400 SWs when the experiment stopped). The result implies that since removing squeezing halted comminution, squeezing is dominant. However, there is much more to the story. For example, if the cylindrical stone was pointed, it broke with the point on the distal end but not with the point on the proximal end. In both cases, squeezing was the same, so if squeezing were dominant, both stones should have broken. But the pointed front edge prevents the shear wave. The squeezing wave and its product - the shear wave - are both needed and work synergistically in a way explained by the model. Conclusions: A broad focus enhances the synergism of squeezing and shear waves without altering cavitation's effects, and thus accelerates stone fracture in SWL.",
keywords = "Comminution, Fracture, Lithotripsy, Stress",
author = "Sapozhnikov, {Oleg A.} and Bailey, {Michael R.} and Maxwell, {Adam D.} and Brian MacConaghy and Cleveland, {Robin O.} and McAteer, {James A.} and Crum, {Lawrence A.}",
year = "2007",
language = "English",
isbn = "0735404062",
volume = "900",
pages = "351--355",
booktitle = "AIP Conference Proceedings",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Advantage of a broad focal zone in SWL

T2 - Synergism between squeezing and shear

AU - Sapozhnikov, Oleg A.

AU - Bailey, Michael R.

AU - Maxwell, Adam D.

AU - MacConaghy, Brian

AU - Cleveland, Robin O.

AU - McAteer, James A.

AU - Crum, Lawrence A.

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Objective: The focal zone width appears to be a critical factor in lithotripsy. Narrow focus machines have a higher occurrence of adverse effects, and arguably no greater comminution efficiency. Manufacturers have introduced new machines and upgrades to broaden the focus. Still, little data exists on how focal width plays a role in stone fracture. Thus, our aim was to determine if focal width interacts with established mechanisms known to contribute to stone fracture. Method: A series of experiments were undertaken with changes made to the stone in an effort to determine which is most important, the shock wave (SW) reflected from the back end of the stone (spallation), the SW ringing the stone (squeezing), the shear wave generated at surface of the stone and concentrated in the bulk of it (shear), or SWs generated from bubble collapse (cavitation). Shock waves were generated by a Dornier HM3-style lithotripter, and stones were made from U30 cement. Baffles were used to block specific waves that contribute to spallation, shear, or squeezing, and glycerol was used to suppress cavitation. Numerical simulation and high-speed imaging allowed for visualization of specific waves as they traveled within the stone. Results: For brevity, one result is explained. A reflective baffle was placed around the front edge of a cylindrical stone. The proximal baffle prevented squeezing by preventing the SW from traveling over the stone, but permitted the SW entering the stone through the proximal face and did not affect the other mechanisms. The distal baffle behaved the same as no baffle. The proximal baffle dramatically reduced the stress, and the stone did not break (stone broke after 45±10 SWs without the baffle and did not break after 400 SWs when the experiment stopped). The result implies that since removing squeezing halted comminution, squeezing is dominant. However, there is much more to the story. For example, if the cylindrical stone was pointed, it broke with the point on the distal end but not with the point on the proximal end. In both cases, squeezing was the same, so if squeezing were dominant, both stones should have broken. But the pointed front edge prevents the shear wave. The squeezing wave and its product - the shear wave - are both needed and work synergistically in a way explained by the model. Conclusions: A broad focus enhances the synergism of squeezing and shear waves without altering cavitation's effects, and thus accelerates stone fracture in SWL.

AB - Objective: The focal zone width appears to be a critical factor in lithotripsy. Narrow focus machines have a higher occurrence of adverse effects, and arguably no greater comminution efficiency. Manufacturers have introduced new machines and upgrades to broaden the focus. Still, little data exists on how focal width plays a role in stone fracture. Thus, our aim was to determine if focal width interacts with established mechanisms known to contribute to stone fracture. Method: A series of experiments were undertaken with changes made to the stone in an effort to determine which is most important, the shock wave (SW) reflected from the back end of the stone (spallation), the SW ringing the stone (squeezing), the shear wave generated at surface of the stone and concentrated in the bulk of it (shear), or SWs generated from bubble collapse (cavitation). Shock waves were generated by a Dornier HM3-style lithotripter, and stones were made from U30 cement. Baffles were used to block specific waves that contribute to spallation, shear, or squeezing, and glycerol was used to suppress cavitation. Numerical simulation and high-speed imaging allowed for visualization of specific waves as they traveled within the stone. Results: For brevity, one result is explained. A reflective baffle was placed around the front edge of a cylindrical stone. The proximal baffle prevented squeezing by preventing the SW from traveling over the stone, but permitted the SW entering the stone through the proximal face and did not affect the other mechanisms. The distal baffle behaved the same as no baffle. The proximal baffle dramatically reduced the stress, and the stone did not break (stone broke after 45±10 SWs without the baffle and did not break after 400 SWs when the experiment stopped). The result implies that since removing squeezing halted comminution, squeezing is dominant. However, there is much more to the story. For example, if the cylindrical stone was pointed, it broke with the point on the distal end but not with the point on the proximal end. In both cases, squeezing was the same, so if squeezing were dominant, both stones should have broken. But the pointed front edge prevents the shear wave. The squeezing wave and its product - the shear wave - are both needed and work synergistically in a way explained by the model. Conclusions: A broad focus enhances the synergism of squeezing and shear waves without altering cavitation's effects, and thus accelerates stone fracture in SWL.

KW - Comminution

KW - Fracture

KW - Lithotripsy

KW - Stress

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34248221242&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34248221242&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 0735404062

SN - 9780735404069

VL - 900

SP - 351

EP - 355

BT - AIP Conference Proceedings

ER -