Numerical and experimental analysis of e-field scattering from the ground for base station antennae.

Radiation protection dosimetry · 2001 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 3892

Study snapshot

PublicationRadiation protection dosimetry · 2001

Study typeengineering

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Based on the numerical determination of the complete irradiation volume of a commercial RBS antenna--performed using the FDTD method and the Kirchhoff integral formula for near to far field transformation--open site estimations of the electric field are made and compared with experimentally measured values. To describe the actual behaviour of the radiation field, the inherently complex phasic nature of plane waves is taken into account, together with their two independent states of polarisation. This information is contained in the radiation pattern previously deduced. Moreover, a reflected contribution from flat ground is introduced, along with the line-of-sight ray. Amplitude and phase of the reflected wave are calculated using Fresnel formulae for stratified ground and two polarisation states, i.e. normal and parallel to the plane of incidence. Good agreement with measured values is achieved only by using such assumptions.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeengineering

Effect directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Numerical open-site electric-field estimations for a commercial base station antenna (using FDTD and near-to-far field transformation) were compared with experimental measurements. The authors report good agreement with measured values only when the complex phase of plane waves, two independent polarization states, and a ground-reflected contribution (computed with Fresnel formulae for stratified ground) are included.

Outcomes measured

Electric field (E-field) estimates in open site conditions
E-field scattering/reflection from flat ground
Agreement between numerical predictions and experimental measurements

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "engineering",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "base station",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Electric field (E-field) estimates in open site conditions",
    "E-field scattering/reflection from flat ground",
    "Agreement between numerical predictions and experimental measurements"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Numerical open-site electric-field estimations for a commercial base station antenna (using FDTD and near-to-far field transformation) were compared with experimental measurements. The authors report good agreement with measured values only when the complex phase of plane waves, two independent polarization states, and a ground-reflected contribution (computed with Fresnel formulae for stratified ground) are included.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "base station antenna",
    "RBS antenna",
    "FDTD",
    "Kirchhoff integral",
    "near-to-far field transformation",
    "electric field",
    "ground reflection",
    "Fresnel formulae",
    "polarization",
    "radiation pattern"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Involves base station antenna field characterization; occupational relevance is possible but not stated."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a006698
PubMed: 11878429

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library