
doi: 10.1002/jnm.470
handle: 11573/248794
AbstractIn this paper, the finite‐difference time‐domain (FDTD), multiple‐region/FDTD (MR/FDTD) and ray‐tracing/FDTD (RT/FDTD) techniques have been compared with reference to the study of the field scattered by and induced inside an exposed target. The three techniques have been validated on a free‐space radiation problem through a comparison with the MoM solution. Compression techniques have been implemented to obtain a reduction of the computational costs associated with MR/FDTD, performing an accurate evaluation of the associated errors. The applicability and accuracy of the three techniques have then been tested studying the exposure of a sphere to a half‐wavelength dipole. The obtained results have shown that the best computational performances are achieved employing RT/FDTD. However, this technique gives accurate results only in the radiative far‐field of the antenna. MR/FDTD, instead, gives accurate predictions of field distributions for a wide range of distances between the scatterer and the antenna and, thanks to the introduction of compression techniques, requires acceptable computational costs. Pure FDTD, finally, is the most suitable technique, among the three considered, when the scatterer is close to the antenna but its computational costs become prohibitive for large‐scale problems. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
electromagnetic scattering; fdtd; hybrid techniques; multiple-region/fdtd; ray-tracing/fdtd; specific absorption rate, Basic methods for problems in optics and electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic scattering, hybrid techniques, Diffraction, scattering
electromagnetic scattering; fdtd; hybrid techniques; multiple-region/fdtd; ray-tracing/fdtd; specific absorption rate, Basic methods for problems in optics and electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic scattering, hybrid techniques, Diffraction, scattering
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 14 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
