Ruben Pellicer-Guridi1, Michael Vogel1, David Reutens1, and Viktor Vegh1
1Centre for Advanced Imaging, UQ, Brisbane, Australia
Synopsis
Superconducting quantum
interference devices (SQUIDs) are highly sensitive magnetometers and they have
found application in ultra-low field MRI. However, they require cryogenics and
their noise performance is hindered by external noise sources and the strong
fields employed in pre-polarised MRI experiments. Air-core magnetometers
provide an attractive alternative, as they are highly sensitive, robust and
relatively cheap to manufacture. Our goal is to provide of a method to
optimise the sensitivity of these devices. In this work we propose an accurate
numerical model and the use of a genetic algorithm to consider previously
unexplored coil configurations.
Introduction
The
inherently low signal-to-noise ratio in ultra-low field MRI necessitates the
need for highly sensitive magnetometers for signal detection.1
Superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) have been used in ultra-low
field MRI, however they require cryogenics, are relatively large, and their
noise performance is hindered by external noise sources and the strong fields
employed in pre-polarised MRI experiments.2 In comparison, air-core
magnetometers are robust and can be produced at a comparatively low cost.
Additionally, their sensitivity can dramatically be improved by changing their layout.3
We thereby aim to investigate how air-core magnetometer sensitivity can be
improved. Existing methods used for the design of air-core magnetometers are
based on equations wherein limiting assumptions have been made to reduce the
number of design variables, the consequence of which is a compromise in
sensitivity. To improve air-core magnetometer sensitivity in the
ultra-low field MRI regime (kHz range), we formulate the problem such that the
number of assumptions made are reduced at the cost of increasing the number of
design variables. The additional complexity introduced using a more complicated
model requires the use of a genetic algorithm to optimally resolve air-core
magnetometer design variables.Methods
For
the coil in Fig 1, AC resistance, inductance, parasitic capacitance and magnetic
field to voltage conversion of the coil are obtained by knowing conductor
location and diameter.4-6 Assuming wires are equally distributed
within the coil winding, individual locations are estimated based on coil outer
diameter ($$$r_{out}$$$), number of layers ($$$n_l$$$), turns per layer ($$$n_v$$$),
conductor diameter ($$$d_i$$$) and wire spacing ($$$d_0$$$). Multi-strand Litz-wire
is considered as well. For the pre-amplifiers, the non-tuned current-to-voltage
(Fig 2a) and the tuned voltage-to-voltage (Fig 2b) configurations are
evaluated. The losses introduced by capacitors are dependent on their capacitance and
the frequency of operation, and are interpolated from a look-up
table containing the equivalent series resistance for
the specific type of capacitor used. The noise floor is calculated by considering
the thermal noise of the coil ($$$e_s$$$), the noise from the pre-amplifier ($$$e_n$$$,
$$$i_n$$$, and $$$e_{on}$$$),
and the noise due to lumped circuit elements connected to the input of the
pre-amplifier, namely tuning capacitors ($$$e_{C1}$$$ and $$$e_{C2}$$$). Body
noise is negligible in the kHz range.1 Using the genetic algorithm
available in MATLAB® we solve optimally for the following design variables: $$$n_l$$$,
$$$n_v$$$, $$$d_i$$$ and $$$d_0$$$. Other parameters such as $$$r_{out}$$$,
$$$l_{c-max}$$$, $$$e_n$$$, $$$i_n$$$, $$$e_{on}$$$, and the equivalent series resistance look up table for the tuning&matching ($$$C_1$$$ and $$$C_2$$$) capacitors are user defined. The tuned voltage-to-voltage design has an extra optimisation
step to adjust the optimal transformation ratio of the tuning&matching
network. Solutions using the self-resonance effect are avoided due to the difficulty
associated with producing consistent coil stray capacitances during the
manufacturing process.Results
Table
1 provides the error between simulated and
measured electrical properties of the prototype coils (see Fig 1b and Fig 1c)
and magnetic field sensitivity is shown in Fig 3. Fig
3a plots the sensitivity in the case of the non-tuned
current-to-voltage amplifier setup, and Fig
3b is the tuned voltage-to-voltage configuration.
We also evaluated reproducibility of results obtained using the optimisation
algorithm, see Fig 4. The coefficient of variation for the optimally resolved
design sensitivity in the case of the non-tuned current-to-voltage configuration
is 0.6%, and the best solution has 2.4% better sensitivity than the average
across all solutions. For the tuned voltage-to-voltage configuration the values
are 0.5% and 1.5%, respectively.Discussion
Experimental
validation of the numerical model has been performed on non-tuned
current-to-voltage and tuned voltage-to-voltage air-core magnetometer
configurations. Accounting for the losses and noise introduced by the
capacitors assure reliable sensitivity estimation and feasible capacitor choice.
Besides, the optimisation algorithm appears robust against getting caught in local
minima and show good convergence irrespective of values used to initialise design
variables. With respect to the optimised average sensitivity achievable with proposed amplification modes, the non-tuned current-to-voltage design only outperforms
the tuned voltage-to-voltage counterpart at frequencies below 100 Hz. We were able
to predict that an air-core magnetometer design with average sensitivity below 7 fT√Hz
at 3.3 kHz (bandwidth = 2 kHz and $$$r_{out}$$$ = 45mm) can be achieved. This is close to the
sensitivity of SQUIDs.2Conclusion
Our
experimental validation confirms accuracy of the numerical model used for
air-core magnetometer design. The results of the optimisation algorithm confer
the suitability of a genetic algorithm to solve this complex problem. The optimisation
method will be made available via our webpage as open source. We envisage that
our method can provide air-core magnetometer designs with unprecedented
sensitivity across a range of ULF-MRI applications.Acknowledgements
Alan Pringle and Don Maillet for the technical support, Xiaoyong Xu for the coil winding machine and the The University Of Queensland for granting this study.References
1Edelstein WA, Glover GH,
Hardy CJ, Redington RW. The intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio in NMR imaging. Magn.
Reson. Med., 1986;3(4):604-18.
2A. N. Matlashov, L. J.
Schultz, M. A. Espy, R. H. Kraus, I. M. Savukov, P. L. Volegov, et al., "SQUIDs vs. induction
coils for ultra-low field nuclear magnetic resonance: experimental and
simulation comparison," IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 21, pp. 465-468, 2011.
3Matlashov AN, Schultz LJ,
Espy MA, Kraus RH, Savukov IM, Volegov PL, Wurden CJ. SQUIDs vs. induction
coils for ultra-low field nuclear magnetic resonance: experimental and
simulation comparison. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., 2011;21(3):465-8.
4Martínez J, Babic S, Akyel C. On Evaluation of Inductance,
DC Resistance, and Capacitance of Coaxial Inductors at Low Frequencies. IEEE
Trans. Magn., 2014;50(7):1-2.
5Savukov IM, Seltzer SJ,
Romalis MV. Detection of NMR signals with a radio-frequency atomic
magnetometer. J. Magn. Reson., 2007;185(2):214-20.
6Sullivan CR. Optimal choice for number of
strands in a litz-wire transformer winding. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
1999;14(2):283-91.