Peak 10g SAR Values for Layered and Homogeneous Phantoms
8.00
7.00
20mmFat, 1mmSkin
6.00
30mmFat, 1mmSkin
40mmFat, 1mmSkin
5.00
50mmFat, 1mmSkin
20mmFat, 2mmSkin
30mmFat, 2mmSkin
4.00
40mmFat, 2mmSkin
50mmFat, 2mmSkin
3.00
20mmFat, 3mmSkin
30mmFat, 3mmSkin
2.00
40mmFat, 3mmSkin
50mmFat, 3mmSkin
Homogeneous
1.00
0.00
10
25
50
100
200
Dipole Separation (mm)
Figure 4: Peak 10g SAR Averaged SAR vs dipole separation
for half-wave dipole at 900MHz above homogeneous and
Figure 2: View of the layered phantom showing the skin,
layered phantoms
fat, and muscle layers above the dipole.
Normalized Peak 1g SAR Values for Layered and Homogeneous Phantoms
1.60
IV. RESULTS
1.40
20mmFat, 1mmSkin
Plots are shown for comparison of SAR (1g averaged, and
30mmFat, 1mmSkin
1.20
40mmFat, 1mmSkin
10g averaged) in the homogeneous phantom and layered
50mmFat, 1mmSkin
1.00
20mmFat, 2mmSkin
(skin/fat/muscle) phantom cases. The results are intended to
30mmFat, 2mmSkin
40mmFat, 2mmSkin
0.80
identify any effect that may result from an increase to
50mmFat, 2mmSkin
20mmFat, 3mmSkin
0.60
antenna separation. It has been previously presented in other
30mmFat, 3mmSkin
40mmFat, 3mmSkin
0.40
scientific studies that the layered phantom is more
50mmFat, 3mmSkin
0.20
conservative than the homogeneous phantom as distances
0.00
between the dipole to the boundary are increased.
10
25
50
100
200
Dipole Separation (mm)
The details of the phantom models in the previous work are
unknown at this time with regards to the skin thickness and
Figure 5: Normalized (Layered/Homogeneous) Peak 1g
the overall phantom size and as such direct comparisons can
Averaged SAR vs dipole separation for half-wave dipole at
not be made. It has been observed within this study that the
900MHz above homogeneous and layered phantoms
skin thickness has a significant effect on the calculated SAR
values. Figures 3 and 4 show the actual calculated SAR
Normalized Peak 10g SAR Values for Layered and Homogeneous Phantoms
values (normalized, W/kg) for various antenna separations.
1.20
Figures 5 and 6 show the layered phantom SAR normalized
20mmFat, 1mmSkin
1.00
to the homogeneous phantom SAR (peak layered SAR/peak
30mmFat, 1mmSkin
40mmFat, 1mmSkin
homogeneous SAR).
0.80
50mmFat, 1mmSkin
20mmFat, 2mmSkin
30mmFat, 2mmSkin
0.60
40mmFat, 2mmSkin
Peak 1g SAR Values for Layered and Homogeneous Phantoms
50mmFat, 2mmSkin
20mmFat, 3mmSkin
0.40
14.00
30mmFat, 3mmSkin
40mmFat, 3mmSkin
12.00
0.20
50mmFat, 3mmSkin
20mmFat, 1mmSkin
30mmFat, 1mmSkin
10.00
40mmFat, 1mmSkin
0.00
50mmFat, 1mmSkin
10
25
50
100
200
20mmFat, 2mmSkin
8.00
Dipole Separation (mm)
30mmFat, 2mmSkin
40mmFat, 2mmSkin
50mmFat, 2mmSkin
6.00
20mmFat, 3mmSkin
30mmFat, 3mmSkin
Figure 6: Normalized (Layered/Homogeneous) Peak 10g
4.00
40mmFat, 3mmSkin
50mmFat, 3mmSkin
Averaged SAR vs dipole separation for half-wave dipole at
Homogeneous
2.00
900MHz above homogeneous and layered phantoms.
0.00
10
25
50
100
200
Dipole Separation (mm)
In most cases the homogeneous model has yielded the
highest averaged SAR when comparing against the
Figure 3: Peak 1g SAR vs dipole separation for half-wave
conservative heterogeneous model.
dipole at 900MHz above homogeneous and layered
phantoms.
It has been observed from the results of this study some
averaged SAR data with 20mm fat thickness show a more
conservative assessed SAR value compared to the
conservative homogeneous model. Where the SAR within
the heterogeneous model becomes greater, it can be assumed
2
Submitted to Asia Pacific EMC Taipei City, Taiwan 2005