The present description relates generally to electromagnetic safety compliance via measurement of electromagnetic exposure metrics.
Beamforming and other multiple-antenna technologies that help close the link between the user equipment and an access point will become increasing popular to enable high uplink bandwidths. Portable devices with multiple transmitters operating at the same carrier frequency will mean the conventional procedures for electromagnetic safety compliance will be revisited as current testing methods are inadequate.
Commonly, wireless devices that are sold commercially and intended to be used or worn near the human body are subject to electromagnetic exposure compliance. Human exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from portable wireless devices is usually measured by “maximum permissible exposure” (MPE) or “specific absorption rate” (SAR). SAR is the representation of power dissipated per unit mass and is a commonly accepted safety metric for portable wireless devices operating below 6 GHz and within 20 cm of the user's body. The measurement of SAR is commonly spatially-averaged over a cube containing 1 gram (1 g) or 10 grams (10 g) of the tissue mass are seen in SAR standards IEEE-1528 and IEC-62209. Moreover, these and other standards require SAR measurement of the device with a variety of common operating positions, called “gestures”. For compliance, the worst-case measurement over all possible transmitted signals must be below a threshold.
As such, tests require that the device be tested in worst-case operating conditions, over all possible transmitted signals. Exposure monitoring in portable wireless devices has historically focused on establishing compliance for single-antenna devices, since mobile devices usually transmit with a single antenna for a given carrier frequency. When there are multiple transmitting antennas operating on a single carrier frequency, this can mean taking absorbed electromagnetic power measurements over all combinations of transmitted signals. The time required for this can be onerous when using a transmitter codebook or beamforming, for example, because each possible codeword or beam would then need to be tested separately, especially if the averaging duration of the SAR measurement is less than the average duration that each beam could be held constant.
Determining electromagnetic exposure compliance requires finding the transmitted excitation signal that gives the worst-case absorbed electromagnetic power, averaged over the duration of measurement, and comparing this measurement to a threshold. The process of determining compliance generally takes longer as transmitting antennas are added because the number of different possible transmitted signals generally grows and hence there are more signals to test. As an example, consider a beamforming system where the quantized phase resolution of any antenna is Δθ and N is the number of antennas; there are then
phase differences possible, which is exponential based on the number of antennas. If each of these phase combinations is allowed as a fixed transmitted beam, then the SAR of each should be evaluated against the limit. Thus, the time needed to measure SAR for all these phase combinations is exponential based on N. Compliance verification techniques that can be done quickly are needed.
The following description of example methods and apparatus is not intended to limit the scope of the description to the precise form or forms detailed herein. Instead the following description is intended to be illustrative so that others may follow its teachings.
The device of this disclosure provides rapid electromagnetic exposure metrics such as specific absorption rate to assess user safety of portable wireless devices under all transmitting conditions and provides testing to cover all possible combinations of transmissions from all antennas. To better understand the following discussion a flowchart 10 is shown in
At step 102, the tested device is made by the evaluation system to broadcast predetermined signals from the device. At block 104, the evaluation system measures the electromagnetic exposure values in response to predetermined signals sent by the device. Using the results of the initial exposure values, the system determines new signals adaptively at block 106. These adaptive signals are chosen to develop a fast but complete model of the total radiative exposure pattern. The tested devices produce these signals at block 108 and the exposure values are measured at block 110. Using the measured exposure values from both the adaptive and the predetermined signals, the total exposure is approximated at block 112.
To begin from a definition of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), SAR is the RF power absorption per unit mass of typically organic tissue, with units W/kg or equivalently mW/g SAR depends on the strength of the electric field and tissue properties, and is defined as
where Pdiss(E(t,d), d, σ, ρ, T, V)) is the power dissipated in a cube of volume V centered at a point d; m is the mass of tissue inside the cube, σ(d) is tissue conductivity, ρ(d) is the tissue mass density, and E(t,d) is the three-dimensional vector of the electric field phasor at location d and time t, and its Hermitian transpose is represented by EH(t,d). SAR is averaged over a time period of T usually chosen to adequately represent variations in the source signal that are customary for the type of device and modulation in typical use, but in the examples discussed herein is limited to a maximum of 30 minutes for general public exposure.
One of ordinary skill will understand that SAR is measured as a “spatial average” over a volume. In the USA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) specifies that V should correspond to one gram cube of tissue (so-called 1 g SAR) as discussed below. Since human tissue density is approximately the same as water, this can be estimated at 1 cm3. Many countries calculate SAR with a 10 g cube volume based on the mass of human eyeball.
For a multiple antenna transmitter with N antennas, the electric field E(t,d) is a linear superposition of the N electric fields and can be written as
E(t,d)=E(d)X(t), (2)
where E(d)=[E1(d) E2(d) . . . EN(d)] is a 3×N complex valued matrix and each Ei(d), i=1, . . . , N is a 3×1 vector representing the three-dimensional electric field at a point d generated by an excitation for each of the N antenna individually. X(t)=[x1(t), x2(t), . . . , xN(t)]T represents baseband complex-valued input signals at the antenna ports 1, . . . , N.
where tr{.} denotes the trace of a matrix, and one of ordinary skill will recognize the fact that bHAb=tr{bHAb}=tr{AbbH} for any vector and matrix with compatible dimensions. The time average covariance of X(t), Rx, is defined as an N×N matrix:
The local SAR matrix, Rd, is defined as
where d is the location of measurement, for example the location of a probe measuring the electric field. Volume averaging this yields:
The influence of the transmitted signal X(t) on SAR is solely through the covariance Rx as averaged over the measurement interval T. In particular, two different X(t) have the same SAR if they have the same Rx. The volume average SAR, RV(d), matrix can then be defined as
The volume integral can be brought inside utilizing the trace of equation (6):
SAR=SAR(RV(d),Rx)=tr{RV(d),Rx}. (8)
A non-volume averaged, local SAR can further be defined as
SARL=SAR(Rd,Rx)=tr{RdRX}. (9)
The peak spatial average SAR for a given excitation signal can be defined as
To determine compliance, SAR*(Rx) shown in equation (10) is compared to a prescribed SAR threshold:
SAR*(Rx)≤SAR0∀X(t) (11)
where SAR0=1.6 W/kg in the US. SAR*(Rx) is typically evaluated for a variety of typical holding or wearing positions or “gestures” of the device near the face and body, and RV(d) is a function of the gesture.
A brute force measurement of SAR*(Rx) for any excitation requires measurement time per probe location equal to the number of possible distinct excitations. The methods of the present disclosure established that using measurement time per probe location that is at most linear, no matter how many distinct possible transmitted signals there are.
Generally, volume-average SAR, as shown in equation (8), is computed by measuring local SAR, see equation (9), and integrating or averaging numerically over a volume. Therefore, local SAR measurements, denoted by (d, Rx), using a probe or array of sensors, form the heart of any SAR compliance process. As shown by equations (7) and (8), knowledge of the local SAR matrix, Rd, is needed to evaluate the SAR for any excitation X(t). To determine compliance of a device, the SAR for all X(t) must either be the measured (d, Rx), or evaluated in the form shown equation (8) for all X(t). Unless the number of distinct possible transmitted signals is smaller than the number of measurements needed to estimate Rd, it is advantageous to use equation (8) to determine compliance. Further using an estimation of Rd requires only computer time, as opposed to measurement and laboratory time.
Some properties of Rd can be exploited to simplify estimation of Rd. For example, Rd derives from the local electric field E(d), which is 3×N complex matrix. Hence, the Rd obeys rank(Rd)≤3. The process of estimating Rd therefore first involves determining the number of degrees of freedom it contains. Any N×N positive semi-definite Hermitian matrix with rank three, like Rd, can be parameterized by 6N-9 independent parameters. Therefore, 6N-9 is a lower boundary for the number of measurements needed to estimate local SAR matrix. Generally, the elements of Rd cannot be directly measured. (d, eieiT) where ei is an N×1 vector that has one in the ith entry and zeros otherwise yields rd
As a final preliminary matter, a few defined features of the signals, X(t), are examined. If uncorrelated or non-coherent signals are transmitted, as when the averaging time is long compared with the variation of the relative phases and amplitudes of the entries of X(t), then Rx=diag(rx
X(t)=xθ,p·u(t), (12)
Where u(t) represents the modulated data signal with unit power (u(t)|2T=1), and xθ,p=[√{square root over (p1)}ejθ
Referring now to
For each measurement point, the first excitations are determined in advance but the remaining excitations are adaptive in that they are determined in response to previous measurements. At a high-level view, this makes up the two-stage analysis shown in the flowchart 20. The first stage (blocks 210-216) is to measure electromagnetic exposure values from transmitting a set of excitation signals, such signals chosen in advance of any measurement. The second stage (blocks 220-236) finds a set of excitation signals, such signals adaptively chosen based on the result of previous measurements, and measures the electromagnetic exposure values of those signals.
At block 210, the predetermined signals are looped through to develop a baseline of the radiative exposure generated by each signal transmitter separately. In this example, the initial predetermined signal loop is a loop turning each of the antennas on, one at a time transmitting a constant value while the remaining antennas are off. To do so, each transmitter broadcasts a predetermined signal at block 212. In this example, the tested device can be controlled to individually set signal content and quality. In the example method, these signals are all initiated at maximum power as this should create the highest SAR results. At block 214, each resulting radiative exposure result is measured by the measurement device. At block 216, initial exposure values are stored by a controller in data storage. These steps 212 to 216 are repeated for each transmitter on the tested device, so that a baseline of exposure values for each signal is understood.
At block 230, the adaptive measurement phase begins to efficiently find a maximum exposure signal. The adaptive loop uses the baseline data to drive the method toward a maximum exposure signal faster. At block 222, the previous signal or combination of signals with the highest exposure result is selected in order to pivot around this data point for more efficient results. In the initial adaptive loop of the example shown, this is the single signal with the highest radiative exposure measurement. In the later adaptive loops in this example, these are combinations of signals that have produced high signals.
In this example, the adaptive measurements are performed in two parts. At block 232, each transmitter is measured in phase with the maximum transmit chain. Following this, at block 234, each transmitter is measured out of phase with the maximum transmit chain. This is repeated for each transmitter. The signals are constant during the measurement interval, and that turn the antennas on individually and in pairs. The device must therefore have the ability to transmit such predetermined signals during testing, even if it does not use such signals during normal operation. As one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate, the basic methods of the algorithm are not constrained to only these types of signals and could be used with other combinations of signals. These adaptive measurement steps are repeated for each transmitter or antenna on the tested device. At block 236, an exposure vector is generated based on these measurements and at block 224, the stored exposure values updated with new measurements. The exposure vector therefore is the combination of signals with the highest exposure pattern. These adaptive measurement steps are repeated several times on the tested device until the limit is reached. In the example shown, the adaptive loop is repeated three times. As discussed in more detail below, this is necessary and sufficient to satisfy compliance requirements.
When the limit for the adaptive signal loop is reached, the local exposure is estimated at block 240. In the example shown, the generated exposure vectors are used to estimate the local exposure for any signal from the antennas of the tested device. The two-stage measurement is repeated for each measurement point, and the local exposure data is combined into the total exposure information at block 250. This step may also include a compliance checking step to make sure the tested device satisfies the governmental standards at issue.
A specific implementation of the method shown in
In algorithm 1, the corresponding electromagnetic exposure measure (SAR) is stored as ci. The vector c=[c1, c2, . . . , cN] stores all of the SAR values. These SAR measurements are in response to “signals or excitations chosen in advance of any measurement”. The example algorithm sets k=0, and f1=f2=f3=[0,0, . . . ,0]. As shown in
After each transmitter is measured in the algorithm's initial loop using the predetermined signals, an adaptive signal loop is initiated. In algorithm 1, k is a loop variable that takes on the values 0, 1, 2 through the loop. At the beginning of the adaptive loop, the algorithm selects a transmit chain that has produced the maximum exposure value and called lk. In the first iteration of the loop, the transmit chain with the maximum value of SAR is found. In algorithm 1, the SAR of transmit chain lk, which is also ql
A series of SAR measurements is now performed, shown highlighted in
Finally, the vector fk is used to update the vector q=[q1, q2, . . . , qN], thereby updating the exposure vectors that provide the algorithm with the information about the resulting exposure data from each of the tested transmit chains. In algorithm 1, the vector fk is normalized. Once k=3, the vectors f1, f2, f3 are used to calculate the local SAR matrix {circumflex over (R)}d, which is the output of the algorithm. Proof that this algorithm determines Rd with 7N-12 local SAR measurements is included at the end of this disclosure.
Once the covariance of SAR has been determined the local SAR can be estimated for any signal. Using equations (4) and (9):
=SAR({circumflex over (R)}d,Rx)=tr{{circumflex over (R)}dRX} (13)
To evaluate volume-average SAR, Rv(d) is computed in equation (7) numerically. Such averaging is commonly done to convert local SAR measurements to a volume-average measurement. Let G′(d)=G ∩ V(d) be the grid points in either the 1 g or 10 g volume V centered at d. Then the approximation of equation (7) is
For a regular lattice grid,
where the spacing along the axes are Δx, Δy and Δz, and the number of averaging points inside V(d) are 2n+1, 2m+1 and 2l+1 along x, y and z. In general, the examples shown herein are Δx=Δy=Δz≈1 mm. The volume-average SAR estimate is then:
=SAR({circumflex over (R)}V(d),Rx)=tr{{circumflex over (R)}V(d),Rx} (16)
The peak spatial average SAR estimate
Similarly, the measured peak spatial average SAR
An upper bound for PSA SAR shown in equation (10) of beamforming transmitters is presented in equation (19) that requires a number of measurements per probe location equal to the number of antennas. Since the bound is easy to compute, it is an easy compliance check on a device—if the bound is less than the SAR limit, then the device is compliant. The bound is:
In some examples of the method, a compliance check occurs after block 340. Device compliance check using equation (17) for other excitations are possible without additional measurements.
Other variants of the method shown in the flowchart 20, include algorithm 2 shown at
The excitations with two antennas used in the first example, algorithm 1, can instead be replaced by time-varying excitations, for which Rx, with rank greater than one are possible. Useful signals include those for which Rx is proportional to the identity matrix, such as
where 1{.} indicates unity when the condition inside the braces is met, and zero otherwise. This signal turns the antennas on one at a time, and obtains
A signal that has all of the antennas on at the same time is
This signal keeps the first antenna at zero phase while alternating the phases of the remaining antennas between 0 and π. This process ensures that the signals appear “uncorrelated” across the antennas, and thus obtains Rx=1. This has the benefit of yielding an N-fold higher SAR value than equation (20), and hence a correspondingly higher signal to noise ratio (SNR). Even though this appears more complicated than equation (20), a transmitter's beamforming signal set or codebook often contains signals where phases of 0 and π are possible, with all of the antennas turned on.
More generally, let signals be chosen from a codebook such that the following covariances are possible:
Rx
Rx
Rx
for some positive semi-definite N×N matrix Λ, where denotes a matrix that is zero everywhere except it has a one in the (i,i) element. For example, by modifying equation (21) to hold the phase of the lth and ith antennas constant while the remaining antennas/transmitters are alternated between 0 and π, equation (22) is obtained with Λ=1. Therefore, algorithm 2 is a modified version of algorithm 1.
The performance of the methods of the present teachings can be evaluated by an analysis of the signal in the presence of additive measurement noise.
For the following figures, some simple antenna and gesture arrangements are used to validate the methods and evaluating the performance of the algorithm versus brute force measurement of SAR.
The device shown in
Average and maximum error magnitude are, respectively 0.047 and 0.17 W/kg likely due to phase differences resulting from the testing equipment. The results for an example set of phases,
are also shown graphically in
The four-antenna device comprises four IFAs as shown in
For a device like that shown in
Proof that this algorithm determines Rd with 7N−12 local SAR measurements is included at the end of this disclosure. for N≥3 in the absence of noise relies on the assumptions that Rd is a positive semi-definite complex Hermitian matrix with rank three and that the rank of Rx
The number of measurements is sufficient because Algorithm 1 essentially computes a modified Cholesky decomposition of the rank-three matrix Rd. The algorithm first evaluates all diagonal elements of Rd by the excitations xi=ei for i=1, . . . , N, yielding rd
xN+2i−3=e1+ei,i=2, . . . ,N,
xN+2i−2=e1−jei,i=2, . . . ,N. (23)
Yielding the local SAR measurements
(d,xN+2i−1xN+2i−1H)=rd
(d,xN+2ixN+2iH)=rd
Since there are estimates of rd
The form q=diag(rd
each step needs two fewer measurements in the form of equation (24). Therefore, N+2(N−1)+2(N−2)+2(N−3)=7N−12. Finally, Rd=Σk=13fkfkH.
The number of measurements is shown to be necessary by parsing Rd into a rank-one matrix and a rank-two matrix. The Cholesky decomposition can be used to denote Rd=FFH=Σk=13fkfkH, where
Such that (d, Rx
Although certain example methods and apparatus have been described herein, the scope of coverage of this patent is not limited thereto. On the contrary, this patent covers all methods, apparatus, and articles of manufacture fairly falling within the scope of the appended claims either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
This application is a 371 National Stage application of International PCT Application No. PCT/US2019/013238, filed Jan. 11, 2019, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/616,594, filed Jan. 12, 2018, entitled “Antenna”, the entire contents of each of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
This invention was made with government support under CCF-1403458 awarded by the National Science Foundation. The government has certain rights in the invention.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2019/013238 | 1/11/2019 | WO |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2019/140225 | 7/18/2019 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4255750 | Riley | Mar 1981 | A |
6525657 | Wojcik | Feb 2003 | B1 |
7268564 | Ozaki et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7583089 | Onishi et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7688246 | Hirata | Mar 2010 | B2 |
8929828 | Hochwald | Jan 2015 | B2 |
9330555 | Tesanovic | May 2016 | B2 |
10085162 | Foegelle | Sep 2018 | B2 |
10447413 | Nadakuduti | Oct 2019 | B1 |
20090198502 | Williams | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20110309904 | Hyde et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120184215 | Malinen | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120270519 | Ngai et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20170322247 | Lu | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170338550 | Alon et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
cSAR3d manufacturer's website—https://speag.swiss/products/csar3d/csar3d-overview. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2019/1013238, dated Apr. 12, 2019, 10 pages. |
Dongarra et al., LINPACK users' guide. SIAM, 1979, 20 pp. |
“Code of federal regulations,” Federal Communications Commission, Telecommunications 47CFR2.1093, 2011.(2010), 2 pp. |
“Keysight N5182A MXG Vector Signal Generator.” [Online]. Available: http://www.keysight.com/en/pd-797248-pn-N5182A/mxg-rfvector-signal-generator?cc=US&Ic=eng, retrieved Oct. 17, 2023, 2 pp. |
Ahlbom et al., “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz),” Health physics, vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 494-521, 1998. |
Alon et al., “Prospects for millimeter-wave compliance measurement technologies [measurements corner],” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 115-125, Apr. 2017. |
Andrews et al., “What will 5G be?” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 1065-1082, Jun. 2014. |
Barnes et al., “Biological and Medical Aspects of Electromagnetic Fields,” Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, 3rd ed. CRC Press, 2007, 47 pp. |
Bolomey, “Overview of fast SAR assessment techniques,” in Antenna Technology: Small Antennas and Novel Metamaterials, 2008. iWAT 2008. International Workshop on, Mar. 2008, pp. 47-50. |
Brishoual et al., “Methodology to interpolate and extrapolate SAR measurements in a volume in dosimetric experiment,” IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 382-389, Aug. 2001. |
Castellanos et al., “Hybrid precoding for millimeter wave systems with a constraint on user electromagnetic radiation exposure,” in 2016 50th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Nov. 2016, pp. 296-300. |
Colombi et al., “Implications of EMF exposure limits on output power levels for 5G devices above 6 GHz,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 14, pp. 1247-1249, 2015. |
Douglas et al, “Accurate and fast estimation of volumetric SAR from planar scans from 30 MHz to 6 GHz,” in Bioelectromagnetics Society 29th Annual Meeting, Jun. 2007. http://www.proceedings.com/01634.html (Uploading Table of Contents only), 16 pp. |
Douglas et al., “Comprehensive validation and uncertainty evaluation of new SAR measurement technologies,” in 2016 10th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP), Apr. 2016, pp. 1-4. |
Douglas et al., “Past, present, and future of SAR evaluations,” in 2016 URSI Asia-Pacific Radio Science Conference (URSI AP-RASC), Aug. 2016, pp. 426-428. |
Ebadi-Shahrivar, “Mixed Quadratic Model for Peak Spatial-average SAR of Coherent Multiple Antenna Devices,” in 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation USNC/URSI National Radio Science Meeting, Jul. 2017, 2 pp. |
Evaluating compliance with FCC guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, Federal Communications Commission, Tech. Rep. OET Bull 65, Suppl. C, ed. 01-01, Jun. 2001, 57 pp. |
Finkelstein, “Pure-state informationally complete and really complete measurements,” Physical Review A, vol. 70, No. 5, p. 052107, Nov. 2004. |
Hochwald et al., “Incorporating specific absorption rate constraints into wireless signal design,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 52, No. 9, pp. 126-133, Sep. 2014. |
Hochwald et al., “SAR codes,” in Information Theory and Applications Workshop (ITA), 2013, Feb. 2013, pp. 1-9. |
IEC/TR 62630, “Guidance for evaluating exposure from multiple electromagnetic sources,” IEC, Tech. Rep., 2010 (Uploading table of contents only), 7 pp. |
IEEE Recommended Practice for Determining the Peak Spatial-Average Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in the Human Head From Wireless Communications Devices: Measurement Techniques, IEEE Std. 1528-2013 (Revision of IEEE Std 1528-2003), Sep. 2013, 246 pp. |
IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3kHz to 300GHz, IEEE Std. C95.1-2005, 250 pp. |
Kanezaki et al., “Theoretical analysis for temperature elevation of human body due to millimeter wave exposure,” in 2008 Cairo International Biomedical Engineering Conference, Dec. 2008, pp. 1-4. |
Karmokar et al., “Analysis of inverted-F and loaded inverted-F antennas for 2.4 GHz ISM band applications,” Journal of Electrical Engineering, vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 4-9, Dec. 2009. |
Keysight Technologies, “Keysight E8267D PSG Vector Signal Generator.” [Online]. Available: http://www.keysight.com/en/pdx-x202238-pn-E8267D/psg-vector-signal-generator-100-khz-to-44-ghz?cc=US&Ic=eng, retrieved Oct. 17, 2023, 3 pp. |
Le et al., “A method in determination of the specific absorption rate of multi-antenna devices,” in Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium (APSURSI), 2014 IEEE, Jul. 2014, pp. 1196-1197. |
Le et al., “Measurement procedure to determine SAR of multiple antenna transmitters using scalar electric field probes,” in 2014 International Conference on Advanced Technologies for Communications, Oct. 2014, pp. 54-59. |
Li et al., “Efficient evaluation of specific absorption rate for MIMO terminals,” Electronics Letters, vol. 50, No. 22, pp. 1561-1562, Oct. 2014. |
Nicholas, “Analysis of the cholesky decomposition of a semidefinite matrix,” in Reliable Numerical Computation. Oxford University Press, 1990, pp. 161-185. |
Park et al., “Evolution of uplink MIMO for LTE-advanced,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 112-121, Feb. 2011. |
Perentos et al., “Exposure compliance methodologies for multiple input multiple output (MIMO) enabled networks and terminals,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 644-653, Feb. 2012. |
Rappaport et al., “Millimeter wave mobile communications for 5G cellular: It will work!” IEEE Access, vol. 1, pp. 335-349, May 2013. |
Renka, “Multivariate interpolation of large sets of scattered data,” ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 139-148, 1988. |
RF exposure procedures and equipment authorization policies for mobile and portable devices, Federal Communications Commission, Tech. Rep. KDB447498, Oct. 2015, 34 pp. |
Rowell et al., “Mobile-Phone Antenna Design,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 14-34, Aug. 2012. |
Schmid & Partner Engineering AG, “cSAR3D.” [Online]. Available: https://www.speag.com/products/csar3d, 4 pp., retrieved Oct. 9, 2023. |
Schmid & Partner Engineering AG, “SEMCAD-X.” [Online]. Available: http://www.speag.com/products/semcad/, retrieved Oct. 17, 2023, 2 pp. |
Soras et al., “Analysis and design of an inverted-F antenna printed on a PCMCIA card for the 2.4 GHz ISM band,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 37-44, Feb. 2002. |
Xu et al., “Power density measurements at 15 GHz for RF EMF compliance assessments of 5G user equipment,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. PP, No. 99, pp. 1-1, Jun. 2017. |
Ying et al., “Closed-loop precoding and capacity analysis for multiple-antenna wireless systems with user radiation exposure constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 14, No. 10, pp. 5859-5870, Oct. 2015. |
Zhadobov et al., “Millimeter-wave interactions with the human body: State of knowledge and recent advances,” International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies, vol. 3, No. 02, pp. 237-247, Apr. 2011. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200371146 A1 | Nov 2020 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62616594 | Jan 2018 | US |