| Literature DB >> 28617353 |
Juan Melchor1, Rafael Muñoz2, Guillermo Rus3.
Abstract
Torsion mechanical waves have the capability to characterize shear stiffness moduli of soft tissue. Under this hypothesis, a computational methodology is proposed to design and optimize a piezoelectrics-based transmitter and receiver to generate and measure the response of torsional ultrasonic waves. The procedure employed is divided into two steps: (i) a finite element method (FEM) is developed to obtain a transmitted and received waveform as well as a resonance frequency of a previous geometry validated with a semi-analytical simplified model and (ii) a probabilistic optimality criteria of the design based on inverse problem from the estimation of robust probability of detection (RPOD) to maximize the detection of the pathology defined in terms of changes of shear stiffness. This study collects different options of design in two separated models, in transmission and contact, respectively. The main contribution of this work describes a framework to establish such as forward, inverse and optimization procedures to choose a set of appropriate parameters of a transducer. This methodological framework may be generalizable for other different applications.Entities:
Keywords: finite element method; inverse problem; optimization; probability of detection; soft tissue mechanics; torsional ultrasound
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28617353 PMCID: PMC5492724 DOI: 10.3390/s17061402
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Left: geometry, layers, transducers and mesh. Following pictures: three instants of torsional propagation t= 280, 460 and 680 μs, using a simpler mesh.
Figure 2Torsional transducer at instants t = 9, 18, 117, 135 μs. Tissue is the soil.
Methodology of phase 1.
| Step | Target | Outcome | Tools or Inputs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Problem configuration | Problem geometry, boundary conditions, configuration, sets of excitation parameters | Problem definition. | |
| 2. Forward physical model selection | Simulate propagation with the excitation parameters | Physical model: differential equations | Outcome from step 1: geometry, materials, etc. |
| 3. Finite element model (FEM) | Computational implementation of the physical model | Computational code of the model | Outcomes from steps 1 and 2. |
| 4. Discretization study and FEM test | Convergence study
| Spatial element | Forward model (FEM) |
| 5. Inverse problem with genetic algorithm (GA) | Design and implementation | Observed right behaviour and identification on the mechanical properties of the tissue | FEM |
| 6. POD evaluation of the winner | POD estimator evaluation
| Graphics of POD on modifications of mechanical parameters of tissue | Forward model |
Figure 3Calculation method for phase 1.
Sets of excitation parameters under test.
| Transducer | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Design 1 | 6.32 | 6.32 | 10 |
| Design 2 | 20 | 20 | 10 |
| Design 3 | 2 | 1 | 10 |
| Design 4 | 6.32 | 3.16 | 20 |
Parameters of the layered soft tissue. Poisson’s ratio depends on E.
| Material | Young Modulus | Poisson Ratio | Density | Thickness | Attenuation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Layer 1 | 20 | 0.48 | 1070 | 10 | 1836.07 |
| Layer 2 |
|
| 920 | 10 |
|
| Layer 3 |
|
| 1070 | 10 |
|
| Layer 4 | 20 | 0.48 | 1070 | 10 | 1836.07 |
Figure 4Transducer geometry. Piezoelectric elements in dark gray. Emitters at the inner disk.
Methodology of phase 2.
| Step | Target | Results | Tools or Inputs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Selection of the forward model | Simulate generation, propagation, and reception of waves | Physical model: differential equations | Initial transducer design: geometry, materials, etc. |
| 2. Finite element model (FEM) | Computational implementation of the physical model | Computational code of the model | Physical model |
| 3. Discretization analysis | Convergence enhancement | Spatial element | FEM |
| 4. Validation of FEM results | Check accuracy on simulations | Test discrepancies using simplified models | Approximated analytic model of torsional waves for comparison ([ |
| 5. Sensitivity test on mechanical properties of tissue and parameters of the transducer geometry ([ | To know the response to transducer geometry and tissue propagation | Material influence | FEM |
| 6. Inverse problem as a new test of the forward problem | New check of the FEM | Valid identification of mechanical properties | FEM |
| 7. Evaluation of RPOD for best sensor in step 5 ([ | Test RPOD estimator | POD graphics ( | FEM |
| 8. Transducer optimization with best RPOD criterion | Find transducer design (geometry) with maximum RPOD | Select the optimal geometric design with the worst response to mechanical properties | FEM |
Figure 6RPOD evaluation (Step 7) of phase 2, for different shear modulus values of reference.
Figure 7Optimization process maximizing RPOD with the genetic algorithm.
Adjusted parameter for each set of excitation conditions including the relative error against reference values. Thus, Number 3 is the optimal design.
| IP Results |
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference Values | 27.3861 | 5.4772 | 2.2361 | 2.2361 | |||
| Design 1 | 30.4330 (11%) | 5.3381 (3%) | 1.6567 (26%) | 3.3893 (52%) | 6.32 | 6.32 | 10 |
| Design 2 | 25.2412 (8%) | 5.9172 (8%) | 1.7507 (22%) | 3.2839 (47%) | 20 | 20 | 10 |
| Design 3 | 29.1313 (6%) | 5.1269 (6%) | 2.4648 (10%) | 1.7845 (20%) | 2 | 1 | 10 |
| Design 4 | 30.6323 (12%) | 5.0484 (8%) | 2.5155 (12%) | 1.7478 (22%) | 6.32 | 3.16 | 20 |
Figure 8Results of phase 1. (a) POD dependency on mechanical properties; (b) convergence evolution of Design 1.
Optimized transducer, along with assumed ranges and the initial values of reference.
| Design Parameters (mm) | Range | Initial Value | Optimal Value | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Piezoelectric Length | (0.5, 2) | 1 | 0.8 | pl |
| Piezoelectric Width | (0.75, 2) | 1 | 1.9 | pw |
| Piezoelectric Thickness | (0.4, 4) | 2 | 2.8 | pt |
| Disc Radius | (1.75, 5.75) | 4.25 | 5.1 | dr |
| Disc Piezoelectric Eccentricity | (1.5, 3.5) | 2.5 | 2.7 | dpe |
| Ring Width | (1.5, 2.5) | 2 | 1.6 | rw |
| Ring Piezoelectric Eccentricity | (5.75, 8.5) | 7.5 | 5.9 | rpe |
| Disc-Ring Thickness | (3, 13) | 8 | 4.6 | drt |
Figure 5Result of the RPOD optimization process in phase 2. (a) RPOD functions of the optimized transducer design and the reference design; (b) evolution through generations; best design captured in 27th generation.