Porovnání anténních elementů s použitím virtuálního modelu reálného pacienta

Abstract

In this bachelor work, a virtual model of a real patient which was previously created by Materilize Mimmics software was used to compare different hyperthermic applicators (Dipole, wave guide and metamaterial) in terms of electrical efficiency, sensitivity of adaptation to changes in the dielectric properties and ability to focus electromagnetic power to the treated area. All the simulations were made with an aid of COMSOL Multiphysics software, where the models of the applicators were made. The first task was done by changing relative permittivity of muscle layer of the model and comparing S11 parameter values and the second one was done by applying 1400 W to the model and measuring resulting specific absorption rate (SAR) value. The result of the experiment showed us that tumor cell absorbed the highest energy in the simulation with wave guide and metamaterial applicators, the resulting SAR values were the highest. The difference in between these two applicators is barely noticeable. Whereas the relative permittivity did not have much of an impact on S11 parameter value in any of simulations of applicators.In this bachelor work, a virtual model of a real patient which was previously created by Materilize Mimmics software was used to compare different hyperthermic applicators (Dipole, wave guide and metamaterial) in terms of electrical efficiency, sensitivity of adaptation to changes in the dielectric properties and ability to focus electromagnetic power to the treated area. All the simulations were made with an aid of COMSOL Multiphysics software, where the models of the applicators were made. The first task was done by changing relative permittivity of muscle layer of the model and comparing S11 parameter values and the second one was done by applying 1400 W to the model and measuring resulting specific absorption rate (SAR) value. The result of the experiment showed us that tumor cell absorbed the highest energy in the simulation with wave guide and metamaterial applicators, the resulting SAR values were the highest. The difference in between these two applicators is barely noticeable. Whereas the relative permittivity did not have much of an impact on S11 parameter value in any of simulations of applicators.