Nikolai I Avdievich1, Andreas Pfrommer1, Ioannis Giapitzakis1, and Anke Henning1,2
1High-field Magnetic Resonance, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany, 2Institute for Biomedical Engineering, UZH and ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Synopsis
Decoupling of multi-channel ultra-high field (>7T)
transmit and transceiver arrays is a major issue. Analytical modeling of the
coupling can facilitate the array optimization. We developed an analytical
model describing the impedance matrix for two rectangular loops placed on a
cylindrical surface and mimicking the human head array geometry. The developed
model was comprehensively validated and allows for the optimization of the
geometry and positioning of the loops. The latter enabled simultaneous
cancellation of resistive and inductive coupling without additional decoupling
circuits. The resulting overlapped array element arrangement improves both
transmit and receive performance in comparison to conventional gapped arrays.Introduction
Ultra-high field (UHF) (
>7T) transmit
(Tx) (1) and transceiver (2) human head surface loop phased arrays in
combination with RF shimming or parallel transmission allow improving Tx-efficiency
(B
1+/√P) and homogeneity in comparison to
single-channel volume coils. Further enhancement in performance with regard to Tx-
and receive (Rx) parallel imaging and SNR can be achieved by increasing the
number of elements. However, construction of such densely populated arrays is very
difficult due to the requirement of a very large number of decoupling circuits.
An analytical model providing a quick evaluation of the coupling within a
multi-channel Tx-array is thus the enabling step towards array optimization. Previously
full-wave analytical models using dyadic Green’s functions have been utilized
to investigate SNR at various frequencies (3,4) and the impedance, Z, between a pair of planar loops at 63MHz
(5). In this work, we developed an
analytical model allowing for impedance analysis of two loops arranged in a cylindrical
geometry and cross-validated the approach against experiments and numerical
simulations. It is furthermore demonstrated that the geometry and relative
positioning of loops can be optimized such that simultaneous resistive and
inductive decoupling can be achieved at UHFs (9.4T) without need for additional
decoupling circuits.
Methods
The analytical model was developed using the same
concepts as in (5), i.e. the Z-matrix was calculated using the reaction theorem
and the framework of dyadic Green’s functions in the spectral domain. The model
included two rectangular wire loops placed on a cylindrical surface (Fig.1) thus
mimicking a pair of loops within a human head Tx-array. Then, the magnetic, k
m, and electric, k
e, coupling between the
loops were evaluated. To validate the modeling we experimentally measured the S-parameter
matrix at 64,124,300, and 400 MHz using a network analyzer and then extracted
the Z-matrix. Loops were constructed of a 1.5 mm copper wire and placed on a
cylindrical FR4 holder (OD-215 mm). Each loop measured 100 mm in length (along the holder's
axis) and 80 mm in width (42.5º coverage), which is similar
to what has previously been used in UHF head transceiver arrays (2). A
cylindrical phantom (ID - 170 mm), constructed to mimic tissue properties at 400MHz
(1), was placed inside. To further cross validate analytical model and
experimental measurements we simulated the same setup using the CST microwave
studio 2015 frequency domain solver (Darmstadt, Germany). Based on optimization
results obtained from the validated analytical modeling approach 9.4T (400 MHz)
overlapped 2-loop array with perfectly decoupled (-40 dB) loops was constructed without
need of additional decoupling circuits and compared to a gapped array (1,2) of
similar coverage based on conventional transformer decoupling (TD). Data were
acquired on a Siemens Magnetom 9.4T human imaging system. In transmission
arrays were driven with 45º phase shift.
Results
and Discussion
Fig.2 displays
calculated and measured k
m
and k
e dependences on the angle,
α, between the centers
of the loops. Comparison of the analytical, simulated and experimentally
measured data (Fig.2) shows that our analytical model provides a good match
with measured and simulated k
m
and k
e at lower
frequencies (64,124 MHz, Fig.2A). At UHFs (300,400 MHz, Fig.2B) analytical
results for k
e match the
CST and experimental data only when k
m<
0.02 (α>70º). However, all
three k
e plots matched
each other well (Fig.2C), when the magnetic coupling was cancelled. This fact,
however, does not impair the validity of our results since compensation of the
mutual inductance is a critical requirement in most Tx-arrays. Furthermore,
analytical analysis (Fig.2D) shows that while k
m does not significantly vary with frequency, k
e changes substantially. The
higher the frequency the closer are the first zero-crossing points (α
m, α
e) that correspond to
perfect inductive (k
m~0) and resistive (k
e~0) decoupling
respectively. Thus, a loop overlap can be found that minimizes inductive and
resistive coupling simultaneously at UHFs. In contrast at 64 and 124 MHz (for α=α
m) k
e measured 0.5÷0.6, which corresponds to S
12 of -12÷-10dB. Decoupling at
400 MHz was further optimized analytically by varying the loop width (Fig.2E). For
10.5 cm loop width both k
m
and k
e are perfectly cancelled
at the same time. Compared to the common gapped 2-loop array overlapping improves
both B
1+ and
SNR (Sum-of-Square) maps by eliminating the void between the loops and increasing the penetration
depth (Fig.3).
Conclusions
The developed analytical model was
comprehensively validated and allows for the optimization of the geometry and
relative positioning of transmit array elements. The latter enabled
simultaneous cancellation of resistive and inductive coupling without
additional decoupling circuits at UHFs. The resulting overlapped array element
arrangement improves both Tx- and Rx-performance in comparison to conventional
gapped arrays.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1) Shajan G et al, MRM, 71:870, 2014. 2)
Avdievich NI et al, Proc. ISMRM 22, 2014, 622. 3) Lattanzi R et al, MRM,
68:286, 2012. 4) Pfrommer et al, Pros. ISMRM 23, 2015, 856. 5) Wright SM, Conc Magn Res, 15:2, 2002.