Next Article in Journal
Use of Indicator Dilution Principle to Evaluate Accuracy of Arterial Input Function Measured With Low-Dose Ultrafast Prostate Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI
Previous Article in Journal
High Intrarenal Lactate Production Inhibits the Renal Pseudohypoxic Response to Acutely Induced Hypoxia in Diabetes
 
 
Tomography is published by MDPI from Volume 7 Issue 1 (2021). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Grapho, LLC.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Switching Circuit Optimization for Matrix Gradient Coils

by
Stefan Kroboth
1,*,
Kelvin J. Layton
2,
Feng Jia
1,
Sebastian Littin
1,
Huijun Yu
1,
Jürgen Hennig
1 and
Maxim Zaitsev
1
1
Department of Radiology, Medical Physics, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
2
Institute for Telecommunications Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Tomography 2019, 5(2), 248-259; https://doi.org/10.18383/j.tom.2018.00056
Submission received: 9 March 2019 / Revised: 3 April 2019 / Accepted: 3 May 2019 / Published: 1 June 2019

Abstract

Matrix gradient coils with up to 84 coil elements were recently introduced for magnetic resonance imaging. Ideally, each element is driven by a dedicated amplifier, which may be technically and financially infeasible. Instead, several elements can be connected in series (called a “cluster”) and driven by a single amplifier. In previous works, a set of clusters, called a “configuration,” was sought to approximate a target field shape. Because a magnetic resonance pulse sequence requires several distinct field shapes, a mechanism to switch between configurations is needed. This can be achieved by a hypothetical switching circuit connecting all terminals of all elements with each other and with the amplifiers. For a predefined set of configurations, a switching circuit can be designed to require only a limited amount of switches. Here we introduce an algorithm to minimize the number of switches without affecting the ability of the configurations to accurately create the desired fields. The problem is modeled using graph theory and split into 2 sequential combinatorial optimization problems that are solved using simulated annealing. For the investigated cases, the results show that compared to unoptimized switching circuits, the reduction of switches in optimized circuits ranges from 8% to up to 44% (average of 31%). This substantial reduction is achieved without impeding circuit functionality. This study shows how technical effort associated with implementation and operation of a matrix gradient coil is related to different hardware setups and how to reduce this effort.
Keywords: magnetic resonance imaging; matrix gradient coil; combinatorial optimization; switching circuit; nonlinear encoding magnetic resonance imaging; matrix gradient coil; combinatorial optimization; switching circuit; nonlinear encoding

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kroboth, S.; Layton, K.J.; Jia, F.; Littin, S.; Yu, H.; Hennig, J.; Zaitsev, M. Switching Circuit Optimization for Matrix Gradient Coils. Tomography 2019, 5, 248-259. https://doi.org/10.18383/j.tom.2018.00056

AMA Style

Kroboth S, Layton KJ, Jia F, Littin S, Yu H, Hennig J, Zaitsev M. Switching Circuit Optimization for Matrix Gradient Coils. Tomography. 2019; 5(2):248-259. https://doi.org/10.18383/j.tom.2018.00056

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kroboth, Stefan, Kelvin J. Layton, Feng Jia, Sebastian Littin, Huijun Yu, Jürgen Hennig, and Maxim Zaitsev. 2019. "Switching Circuit Optimization for Matrix Gradient Coils" Tomography 5, no. 2: 248-259. https://doi.org/10.18383/j.tom.2018.00056

APA Style

Kroboth, S., Layton, K. J., Jia, F., Littin, S., Yu, H., Hennig, J., & Zaitsev, M. (2019). Switching Circuit Optimization for Matrix Gradient Coils. Tomography, 5(2), 248-259. https://doi.org/10.18383/j.tom.2018.00056

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop