Intercomparison of induced fields in Japanese male model for ELF magnetic field exposures: effect of different computational methods and codes

Abstract

The present study provides an intercomparison of the induced quantities in a human model for uniform magnetic field exposures at extremely low frequency. A total of six research groups have cooperated in this joint intercomparison study. The computational conditions and numeric human phantom including the conductivity of tissue were set identically to focus on the uncertainty in computed fields. Differences in the maximal and 99th percentile value of the in situ electric field were less than 30 and 10 % except for the results of one group. Differences in the current density averaged over 1 cm(2) of the central nerve tissue are 10 % or less except for the results of one group. This comparison suggests that the computational uncertainty of the in situ electric field/current density due to different methods and coding is smaller than that caused by different human phantoms and the conductivitys of tissue, which was reported in a previous study.

On the Use of Conformal Models and Methods in Dosimetry for Nonuniform Field Exposure

“…Unlike previous intercomparisons [12], [13], nonuniform exposure was considered and several computational methods were used. We particularly discussed the differences attributable to the implementation of methods for nonuniform exposure.…”

“…In that study, different human body models with different sets of electrical conductivities were used, together with a discussion on sensitivity of the electrical conductivities. Hirata et al [13] coordinated the intercomparison using the same anatomical model named TARO with an identical set of electrical conductivities. The 99th percentile value of the induced electric field in the human body models, which is recommended in the ICNIRP guidelines [3] as the dosimetric quantity, is in good agreement for uniform magnetic field exposures.…”

“…Recent advancements in LF dosimetry have been reported by a number of researchers, e.g., Chan et al [24], De Santis et al [25], Hirata et al [26], Dimbylow and Findlay [27], Laakso et al [28], Neufeld et al [29], Kuster [15], [30], and others, in addition to sensitivity analysis [6], [22], [31]. In most of the studies, uniform field exposure was considered.…”

Performance comparison of three types of GPU‐accelerated indirect boundary element method for voxel model analysis

“…Eventually, R-M2L is composed of three O.p 3 / operations, that is, forward-rotation, Equation (13), and backward-rotation. D-M2L is composed of six O.p 3 / operations, that is, forward-rotation, Equations (14), (15), (17), (18), and backward-rotation, and one O(p 2 ) operation, Equation (16).…”

Assessment of the human exposure to transient and time-harmonic fields using the enhanced transmission line theory approach

“…In addition to accurate, but at the same time computationally demanding, three-dimensional anatomical body models [1,2], some simplified models for rapid engineering estimation of the phenomena are also available, e.g. cylindrical body representation [3], involving numerical solution of Pocklington integrodifferential equation using the Galerkin-Bubnov boundary element method (GB-BEM) [3,4].…”