1.5T vs 3T

Comparing 1.5T vs 3T MRI systems identifies a number of differences; a 3T system has

Theoretically, signal is proportional to the square of the static field strength (B0) whereas noise increases linearly. This implies that, in a perfect system, SNR of a 3.0T system would be twice as good as at 1.5T. In reality, due to increase in susceptibility effects in most tissues, the actual improvement is only in the 30-60% range (instead of 100%). With this increased SNR, the spatial resolution and/or acquisition time can be improved, depending on which is more important for the particular case.

SAR is defined as the amount of radiofrequency energy (joules) deposited in tissues (kg). The limit set by the FDA is an amount which results in an increase of 1 degree centigrade in any tissue 2. SAR is proportional to the static field (B0) squared, meaning that a 3.0T system deposits 4 times as much energy within tissue as a 1.5T system. Additionally, SAR is proportional to

  • pulse duration and length
  • pulse number
  • slice number
  • flip angle

The dependence of SAR on flip angle results in a relatively large amounts of energy deposition for standard spin echo sequences, since they use 90-degree flip angles. As a result, there is increased use of gradient echo sequences, which use smaller flip angles. Unfortunately, these latter sequences image T2* and not T2, and are therefore more susceptible to local field artefacts. These problems have largely been overcome with modern units.

Rapid gradient switching leads to an increase in the intensity of the acoustic noise, which requires better insulation of both the unit itself and the containing room.

MRI physics
Share article

Article Information

rID: 801
Section: Physics
Tag: mri
Synonyms or Alternate Spellings:

Support Radiopaedia and see fewer ads

Updating… Please wait.

Alert accept

Error Unable to process the form. Check for errors and try again.

Alert accept Thank you for updating your details.