Human Exposure Influence Analysis for Wireless Electric Vehicle Battery Charging

PAPER manual 2022 Engineering / measurement Effect: unclear Evidence: Low

Read original paper → DOI: 10.3390/cleantechnol4030048 Evidence Lab

Abstract

Human Exposure Influence Analysis for Wireless Electric Vehicle Battery Charging El-Shahat A, Danjuma J, Abdelaziz AY, Abdel Aleem SHE. Human Exposure Influence Analysis for Wireless Electric Vehicle Battery Charging. Clean Technologies. 2022; 4(3):785-805. doi.org Abstract Wireless charging schemes aim to counter some drawbacks of electric vehicles’ wired charging, such as the fact that it does not encourage mobility, leads to safety issues regarding high voltage cables, power adapters high cost, and has more battery waste by companies. In this paper, a comparative study of wireless power transfer multiple coil geometries is performed to analyze the efficiency, coupling coefficient, mutual inductance, and magnetic flux density production for each geometry. Results show that coil geometry, current excitation, and shielding techniques within the Wireless Electric Vehicle Charging (WEVC) system substantially influence magnetic flux leakage. In addition, the paper proposes an analytical framework for a WEVC scheme via electromagnetic resonance coupling. Safety considerations of the WEVC system, including the effects on humans, are investigated in several scenarios based on the relative location of the human while EV charging is conducted as the leading paper’s goal. The exposure measurements are performed across various radial distances from the coils using 3-D FEA ANSYS Maxwell Software (American technology company, Pennsylvania, United States). The analysis shows that WEVC systems can achieve high power transfer, resulting in increased magnetic flux leakage around the coils. The safe distance for humans and animals during the charging sequence is attained from research results. For instance, in the 120 mm spiral coil, 120 mm square coil, and 600 mm spiral coil operating at 1 A, excitation, the SAR levels are under the threshold of 700 mm away from the coils. For the 600 mm spiral coil excited at 8 A, the SAR levels fall under the threshold at 900 mm away from the coils. When shielding is utilized, the safe distance is improved by up to 350 mm. Considering the regulations of the Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) standards, 600 mm is a safe distance away from the coils, and, vertically, anywhere past 300 mm is safe for humans. Open access paper: mdpi.com

AI evidence extraction

At a glance

Study type

Engineering / measurement

Effect direction

unclear

Population

Humans and animals (safety distance scenarios during EV charging; modeled)

Sample size

—

Exposure

ELF wireless electric vehicle charging (wireless power transfer coils)

Evidence strength

Low

Confidence: 74% · Peer-reviewed: yes

Main findings

Finite-element simulations (ANSYS Maxwell) indicate that coil geometry, excitation current, and shielding substantially influence magnetic flux leakage in wireless EV charging. Reported scenarios suggest SAR falls below a stated threshold at about 700 mm from 120 mm spiral/square coils and a 600 mm spiral coil at 1 A, and at about 900 mm for a 600 mm spiral coil at 8 A; shielding can improve safe distance by up to 350 mm. The paper states that, considering ICNIRP regulations, 600 mm is a safe horizontal distance and >300 mm vertically is safe for humans.

Outcomes measured

Magnetic flux density / magnetic flux leakage
Specific absorption rate (SAR) relative to threshold
Safe distance estimates relative to ICNIRP standards
Power transfer efficiency / coupling coefficient / mutual inductance (by coil geometry)

Limitations

Exposure assessment appears to be based on 3-D finite element analysis (simulation) rather than measurements in human participants
Frequency and the specific SAR threshold value are not provided in the abstract
Details of human model assumptions (anatomy, posture, tissue properties) and scenario definitions are not described in the abstract
No sample size or empirical validation information is provided in the abstract

Suggested hubs

occupational-exposure (0.32)
Assesses human safety distances around wireless EV charging equipment, potentially relevant to bystanders/workers near charging systems.
who-icnirp (0.6)
Explicitly references ICNIRP standards for non-ionizing radiation protection and derives safe distances accordingly.

View raw extracted JSON

{
    "study_type": "engineering",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "ELF",
        "source": "wireless electric vehicle charging (wireless power transfer coils)",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": "Humans and animals (safety distance scenarios during EV charging; modeled)",
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Magnetic flux density / magnetic flux leakage",
        "Specific absorption rate (SAR) relative to threshold",
        "Safe distance estimates relative to ICNIRP standards",
        "Power transfer efficiency / coupling coefficient / mutual inductance (by coil geometry)"
    ],
    "main_findings": "Finite-element simulations (ANSYS Maxwell) indicate that coil geometry, excitation current, and shielding substantially influence magnetic flux leakage in wireless EV charging. Reported scenarios suggest SAR falls below a stated threshold at about 700 mm from 120 mm spiral/square coils and a 600 mm spiral coil at 1 A, and at about 900 mm for a 600 mm spiral coil at 8 A; shielding can improve safe distance by up to 350 mm. The paper states that, considering ICNIRP regulations, 600 mm is a safe horizontal distance and >300 mm vertically is safe for humans.",
    "effect_direction": "unclear",
    "limitations": [
        "Exposure assessment appears to be based on 3-D finite element analysis (simulation) rather than measurements in human participants",
        "Frequency and the specific SAR threshold value are not provided in the abstract",
        "Details of human model assumptions (anatomy, posture, tissue properties) and scenario definitions are not described in the abstract",
        "No sample size or empirical validation information is provided in the abstract"
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "low",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "wireless electric vehicle charging",
        "wireless power transfer",
        "electromagnetic resonance coupling",
        "coil geometry",
        "magnetic flux leakage",
        "magnetic flux density",
        "SAR",
        "shielding",
        "ANSYS Maxwell",
        "ICNIRP",
        "safe distance"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "occupational-exposure",
            "weight": 0.320000000000000006661338147750939242541790008544921875,
            "reason": "Assesses human safety distances around wireless EV charging equipment, potentially relevant to bystanders/workers near charging systems."
        },
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.59999999999999997779553950749686919152736663818359375,
            "reason": "Explicitly references ICNIRP standards for non-ionizing radiation protection and derives safe distances accordingly."
        }
    ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

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

Comments

No comments yet.