Already a subscriber? 
MADCAD.com Free Trial
Sign up for a 3 day free trial to explore the MADCAD.com interface, PLUS access the
2009 International Building Code to see how it all works.
If you like to setup a quick demo, let us know at support@madcad.com
or +1 800.798.9296 and we will be happy to schedule a webinar for you.
Security check
Please login to your personal account to use this feature.
Please login to your authorized staff account to use this feature.
Are you sure you want to empty the cart?
PD IEC/IEEE TR 63572:2026 Evaluation of absorbed power density related to human exposure to radio frequency fields from wireless communication devices operating between 6 GHz and 300 GHz, 2026
- undefined
- CONTENTS
- FOREWORD
- INTRODUCTION
- 1 Scope
- 2 Normative references
- 3 Terms and definitions
- 4 Symbols and abbreviated terms [Go to Page]
- 4.1 Physical quantities
- 4.2 Constants
- 4.3 Abbreviated terms
- 5 Absorbed power density (epithelial power density) [Go to Page]
- 5.1 General
- 5.2 Specification of the spatial-average absorbed power density
- 5.3 Alternative definitions
- 6 Fundamentals of evaluating APD [Go to Page]
- 6.1 General
- 6.2 Relevant characteristics of the human body
- 6.3 Evaluation of the APD
- 7 Measurement and computational phantoms and body models [Go to Page]
- 7.1 Measurement phantom
- 7.2 Computational phantom models
- 7.3 Anatomical models of the human body
- 8 Measurement methods [Go to Page]
- 8.1 General
- Figures [Go to Page]
- Figure 1 – Minimum size of the planar APD evaluation surface
- 8.2 Measurement evaluation procedures
- 8.3 DUT position and testing configurations
- 8.4 System check and validation [Go to Page]
- 8.4.1 System check
- 8.4.2 System validation
- 9 Computational methods [Go to Page]
- 9.1 General
- 9.2 Model validation
- 9.3 Evaluation of the averaged APD [Go to Page]
- 9.3.1 Planar surfaces
- 9.3.2 Non-planar surfaces
- 10 Uncertainty evaluation [Go to Page]
- 10.1 Measurement uncertainty [Go to Page]
- 10.1.1 General
- 10.1.2 Calibration uncertainty
- Tables [Go to Page]
- Table 1 – An example of budget of the uncertainty contributions of measurement evaluations [Go to Page]
- 10.1.3 Probe/scanning uncertainty
- 10.1.4 Phantom uncertainty
- 10.1.5 Postprocessing uncertainty
- 10.1.6 DUT uncertainty
- 10.2 Computational uncertainty [Go to Page]
- 10.2.1 General
- 10.2.2 Uncertainty contributions due to the computational parameters
- Table 2 – Budget of the uncertainty contributions of the computational algorithm for the validation setup or testing setup [Go to Page]
- 10.2.3 Uncertainty contribution of the computational representation of the DUT model
- 10.2.4 Uncertainty contribution of the computational representation of the phantom model
- 10.2.5 Uncertainty of the maximum exposure evaluation
- 10.2.6 Uncertainty budget
- Table 3 – Budget of the uncertainty of the developed model of the setup
- 10.3 Combined measurement and computational uncertainty
- Table 4 – Computational uncertainty budget
- 11 Reporting [Go to Page]
- 11.1 General
- 11.2 Items to be recorded in measurement exposure evaluation reports
- Table 5 – Example of uncertainty budget of the exposure assessment combining measurements and computational methods
- 11.3 Items recorded in computational exposure evaluation reports
- Annexes [Go to Page]
- Annex A (informative) Human skin from EMF exposure perspective [Go to Page]
- A.1 Structure of the human skin from the perspective of EMF exposure
- A.2 Dielectric properties of the skin tissues
- A.3 Tissue-equivalent and reflectivity-based human models
- Figure A.1 – Reflection and transmission of an electromagnetic wave from the human body and phantoms above 6 GHz
- Annex B (informative) Exposure in terms of the absorbed power density [Go to Page]
- B.1 Previous work [Go to Page]
- B.1.1 Incident and transmitted power density in one-dimensional skin models
- B.1.2 Three-dimensional modelling of the absorbed power density
- B.1.3 Heating factor
- B.1.4 Measurement studies
- B.2 Relationship with incident power density
- Annex C (informative) Review of the metrics relevant to the absorbed power density [Go to Page]
- C.1 General
- C.2 Physical metrics [Go to Page]
- C.2.1 Absorbed power
- C.2.2 Transmitted power
- C.2.3 Reflected power
- Figure C.1 – Incident power density as a function of separation distance d and an antenna input power of 23 dBm
- Figure C.2 – Absorbed power density as a function of separation distance d and an antenna input power of 23 dBm
- Figure C.3 – Distribution of the psAPD at a separation distance d = 10 mm [Go to Page]
- [Go to Page]
- C.2.4 Temperature
- Figure C.4 – Power transmission coefficients as a function of antenna to skin separation distance d [Go to Page]
- C.3 Averaging metrics [Go to Page]
- C.3.1 Evaluation surface
- C.3.2 Spatial averaging
- C.3.3 Temporal averaging
- Annex D (informative) Absorbed power density for modulated signals
- Figure D.1 – Measurement results in time domain and converted to frequency domain
- Figure D.2 – Sine wave associated with a waveform CW vs modulated signal
- Figure D.3 – Waveform power density integrated over the bandwidth
- Table D.1 – 5G bands
- Figure D.4 – Signal-to-noise ratio for same waveform with different measurement settings: 40 dB (top), 20 dB (centre), and 10 dB (bottom)
- Annex E (informative) APD assessment using conventional SAR measurement systems
- Annex F (informative) APD assessment using E-field probes and band-limited phantoms [Go to Page]
- F.1 General
- F.2 Phantom design
- Figure F.1 – Cross-section of the phantom for assessing APD in the skin and skin model
- Table F.1 – Thickness and dielectric properties (30 GHz) of the skin tissue layer model used to estimate APD in the skin
- Figure F.2 – Comparison of the APD in the phantom and the layered skin surface using plane-waves versus normalized x component of wave vector (kx/k0 where k0 is the free space wave vector)
- Table F.2 – Properties of the optimized dosimetric phantom emulating the APD in the human skin from 24 GHz to 33 GHz [Go to Page]
- F.3 Probe design
- Figure F.3 – psAPD in dB (0 dB [1,0 times] corresponding to 1 W/m2) averaged over 1 cm2 of the skin surface as well as in the phantom as a function of the separation between the dipole antenna and the phantom surface
- Table F.3 – Changes in the mean value of the ratio of APD in the phantom and the layered skin model for all angles of incidence [Go to Page]
- F.4 Probe calibration
- Figure F.4 – Measurement validation of the APD probe axial receiving pattern
- Figure F.5 – Calibration setup using an open-ended waveguide radiating into the TSL [Go to Page]
- F.5 Induced E-field scanning and APD reconstruction
- F.6 Uncertainty
- Figure F.6 – Decay of the APD probe signal inside the calibration setup matched to the computational and analytical target by the probe sensitivity factor; the sensitivity limit (noise floor) of the APD probe is also shown
- Table F.4 – APD bandlimited phantom uncertainty budget [Go to Page]
- F.7 Validation
- Figure F.7 – Cosine similarity of the reflection coefficient of a standard gain horn computed and measured at varied distances in front of the APD phantom
- Figure F.8 – Comparison of the measured and computationally determined APD of a standard gain horn at 30 GHz in touch against the APD phantom
- Annex G (informative) APD evaluation based on free-space E-field measurement and reflectivity-based phantom [Go to Page]
- G.1 General
- Figure G.1 – Schematic representation of the APD assessment method based on free-space E-field vector measurement, using a reflectivity-based phantom [Go to Page]
- G.2 Reflectivity-based phantoms with enhanced transmission
- Figure G.2 – Reflectivity-based phantom characteristics vs incidence angle at 60 GHz for TM and TE polarizations [Go to Page]
- G.3 Reconstruction of APD from the measured E-field
- G.4 Measurement system
- G.5 Validation using reference antennas
- Figure G.3 – Schematic representation of the measurement setup
- Figure G.4 – Reference antennas (see IEC/IEEE 63195-1) used for validation
- Figure G.5 – Dielectric loading of DUT by reflectivity-based phantom and skin
- Figure G.6 – APD distribution for the reference slotted horn antenna at 60 GHz
- Figure G.7 – APD as a function of the evaluation distance d for the horn antenna [Go to Page]
- G.6 Uncertainty
- Table G.1 – Δj(i) [%] for free space E-field method
- Table G.2 – APD uncertainty budget for free-space E-field method
- Annex H (informative) APD evaluation from infrared-based temperature measurements using reflectivity-based phantoms [Go to Page]
- H.1 General
- H.2 Infrared imaging
- H.3 Reflectivity-based phantoms optimised for infrared measurements
- Figure H.1 – Schematic representation of the APD assessment method based on IR-based heat dynamics measurement of a phantom of thickness w at distance d [Go to Page]
- H.4 Reconstruction of APD from thermal measurements
- Figure H.2 – The power reflection coefficient of the phantom for TM and TE polarizations at 60 GHz [Go to Page]
- H.5 Measurement system
- H.6 Application examples
- Figure H.3 – Schematic representation of the measurement setup [Go to Page]
- H.7 Validation using reference antennas
- Figure H.4 – Example of APD spatial distributions at z = 0 plane retrieved from IR measurements for a 2 × 2 patch antenna array
- Figure H.5 – Example of spatial distributions of APD in the z = 0 mm plane retrieved from IR measurements for a conical horn antenna
- Figure H.6 – APD distribution for the horn antenna at 60 GHz; the accepted power is 20 mW [Go to Page]
- H.8 Uncertainty
- Figure H.7 – APD as a function of d for the reference horn antenna: The results are normalized to the antenna input power of 10 mW
- Table H.1 – Δj(i) [%] for infrared-based temperature method
- Table H.2 – APD uncertainty budget for infrared-based temperature method
- Annex I (informative) APD assessment by backward transformation from the measured E-field behind the low-loss phantom [Go to Page]
- I.1 General
- I.2 Low-loss phantom
- I.3 Reconstruction of the APD by backward transformation
- Annex J (informative) APD assessment using hybrid electromagnetic and thermal measurements
- Annex K (informative) Probe technologies [Go to Page]
- K.1 General
- K.2 Temperature-based probes
- K.3 Radio-frequency electromagnetic probes
- Annex L (informative) APD assessment using measurements of incident electric field with source and phantom modelling [Go to Page]
- L.1 Methodology
- L.2 Validation of OTAA for incident power density measurements
- Figure L.1 – Flowchart of the procedure for measurements of the absorbed power density by means of an OTA augmented approach
- Figure L.2 – OTA spherical scanning measurement setups used in [85]
- Table L.1 – psIPD values for the 30 GHz HSA as defined in IEC/IEEE 63195-1 [Go to Page]
- L.3 Validation of the OTAA for APD measurements
- Table L.2 – psIPD values for the 60 GHz HSA as defined in IEC/IEEE 63195-1
- Table L.3 – psIPD values for the 30 GHz CDA as defined in IEC/IEEE 63195-1
- Table L.4 – psIPD values for the 60 GHz CDA as defined in IEC/IEEE 63195-1
- Table L.5 – Dielectric phantom parameters for the evaluation of the absorbed power density with the OTA augmented approach [Go to Page]
- L.4 Practical use case application
- Figure L.3 – Comparison of the psAPD for the cavity-fed dipole array (IEC/IEEE 63195-1) at 30 GHz obtained by means of the OTAA approach compared with full-wave computations
- Figure L.4 – Comparison of the psAPD for the slotted-horn array (IEC/IEEE 63195-1) at 30 GHz obtained by means of the OTAA approach compared with full-wave computations
- Figure L.5 – Model of a portable millimetre-wave device and example of far-field directivity
- Table L.6 – Comparison psIPD values obtained for the portable device mock-up based on full-wave computations and OTA augmented approach
- Figure L.6 – Comparison of the psAPD for a mmW portable device obtained by means of the OTAA approach compared to full-wave computations
- Figure L.7 – Comparison of the psAPD for a mmW portable device obtained by means of the OTAA approach compared to full-wave computations
- Figure L.8 – Comparison of the spatial averaged absorbed power density distribution (1 cm2) on the phantom surface for the portable device at 1,25 mm distance [Go to Page]
- L.5 Measurement of devices using digitally modulated signals
- Annex M (informative) Validation of the measurement methods [Go to Page]
- M.1 General
- M.2 Validation sources and target values [Go to Page]
- M.2.1 Cavity-fed dipole arrays
- Table M.1 – Target values for the cavity-fed dipole array at 10 GHz, 30 GHz, 60 GHz, and 90 GHz computed at a distance of 2 mm in front of the reference skin model normalized to a TRP of 0 dBm [Go to Page]
- [Go to Page]
- M.2.2 Pyramidal horns with slot arrays
- Table M.2 – Target values for the pyramidal horns with slot arrays at 10 GHz, 30 GHz, 60 GHz and 90 GHz computed at a distance of 2 mm in front of the reference skin model normalized to a TRP of 0 dBm
- Annex N (informative) Computational algorithms for the calculation of the APD [Go to Page]
- N.1 FDTD
- N.2 FEM
- Annex O (informative) Code verification
- Bibliography [Go to Page]
