See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273392210

Magnetic Field Exposure Assessment in Electric Vehicles

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility · February 2015

DOI: 10.1109/TEMC.2014.2359687

CITATIONS READS
21 3,298

6 authors, including:

Andrea Vassilev Alain Ferber

Cea Leti SINTEF
13 PUBLICATIONS   160 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   161 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Christof Jan Wehrmann Olivier Pinaud

Technische Universität Braunschweig G2Elab
4 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EC - FAR View project

Flexible pipes subsea monitoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alain Ferber on 06 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
Magnetic Field Exposure Assessment
in Electric Vehicles
Andrea Vassilev, Alain Ferber, Christof Wehrmann, Olivier Pinaud, Meinhard Schilling,
and Alastair R. Ruddle, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This article describes a study of magnetic field expo-
sure in electric vehicles (EVs). The magnetic field inside eight dif-
ferent EVs (including battery, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell
types) with different motor technologies (brushed direct current,
permanent magnet synchronous, and induction) were measured
at frequencies up to 10 MHz. Three vehicles with conventional
powertrains were also investigated for comparison. The measure-
ment protocol and the results of the measurement campaign are
described, and various magnetic field sources are identified. As the
measurements show a complex broadband frequency spectrum, an
exposure calculation was performed using the ICNIRP “weighted
peak” approach. Results for the measured EVs showed that the
exposure reached 20% of the ICNIRP 2010 reference levels for
general public exposure near to the battery and in the vicinity of
the feet during vehicle start-up, but was less than 2% at head height
for the front passenger position. Maximum exposures of the order
of 10% of the ICNIRP 2010 reference levels were obtained for the
cars with conventional powertrains.
Index Terms—Electric vehicle, human exposure, hybrid vehicle,
magnetic field.
I. INTRODUCTION
UBLIC expectations to move toward the electrification of
P road transport are driven by a multitude of factors and con-
cerns, which include climate change, primary energy depen-
dence, and public health. On the other hand, there is widespread
public concern regarding the possible adverse effects of elec-
tromagnetic fields (EMF), particularly low-frequency magnetic
fields. The occupants of vehicles with electric powertrains will
be exposed to low-frequency magnetic fields arising from cur-
rents flowing in the high-voltage power network, traction bat-
teries, and associated devices such as inverters and electrical
machines. Thus, there is a need to properly assess the level
of magnetic field exposure that may result in electric vehicles
Manuscript received September 2, 2013; revised April 14, 2014; accepted
August 29, 2014. This work was supported in part by the European Commu-
nity’s Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement number
265772.
A. Vassilev is with the CEA LETI, Grenoble 38054, France (e-mail: andrea.
vassilev@cea.fr).
A. Ferber is with the SINTEF, Oslo 0314, Norway (e-mail: alain.ferber@
sintef.no).
C. Wehrmann and M. Schilling are with the Technische Universität
Braunschweig, Braunschweig 38106, Germany (e-mail: c.wehrmann@tu-bs.de;
m.schilling@tu-bs.de).
O. Pinaud is with the G2ELAB, Grenoble 38402, France (e-mail: olivier.
Pinaud@g2elab.grenoble-inp.fr).
A. R. Ruddle is with the MIRA Limited, Nuneaton CV10 0TU, U.K. (e-mail:
alastair.ruddle@mira.co.uk).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEMC.2014.2359687
0018-9375 © 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
(EVs), which include battery powered, hybrid, and fuel cell
variants.
The International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) has recommended limits for exposure to
static [1] and time-varying [2] EMFs. These limits aim to pro-
vide protection from well-established acute physiological ef-
fects of EMF exposure, which include electro-stimulation of
nerves (relevant for frequencies from 1 Hz to 10 MHz) and heat-
ing of body tissues (for frequencies from 100 kHz to 300 GHz).
The recommendations relating to electro-stimulation effects,
which are the primary interest in this study, were revised by
ICNIRP in 2010 [3].
The exposure limits are actually specified in terms of in-body
quantities that are not easy to determine. Consequently, ICNIRP
has derived more readily measureable field reference levels from
the exposure limits. It is considered that if the exposure envi-
ronment complies with the field reference levels then it can be
assumed that the exposure limits will not be breached. Exceed-
ing the field reference levels does not necessarily mean that the
exposure limits are also breached, but it is deemed that more de-
tailed investigation is required in order to establish compliance
with the exposure limits.
In situations of simultaneous exposure to fields of differ-
ent frequencies, these exposures are considered to be additive
in their effects [2], [3]. Thus, the more frequencies that are
present, the lower the levels that can be tolerated for any of
them relative to the field reference levels. Furthermore, the in-
fluence of other fields that may be present in the environment
also impact on what can be tolerated from equipment generating
fields that people may be exposed to. This is very different to
the evaluation of electromagnetic emissions against equipment
EMC requirements, where compliance with the limits at each
frequency is considered independently of all other frequencies,
and independently of the other equipment that may be present
in the intended operating environment.
The field reference levels vary with respect to frequency and
are valid only for pure sinusoidal signals. In the case of nonsinu-
soidal exposures, ICNIRP has proposed two exposure criteria
that should remain below 100% to avoid undesirable electro-
stimulation effects. The first one (which also applies in the case
of separate sinusoidal sources at multiple frequencies) consists
in adding the ratios of the different spectral component (SC)
magnitudes of the field in the environment to the field refer-
ence levels. A similar approach is also described in the IEEE
standards relating to human exposure [4], [5], although in these
documents the frequency range for the evaluation of electro-
stimulation threats is up to 5 MHz.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY

The main drawback of this criterion for nonsinusoidal signals TABLE I

SUMMARY OF MEASURED VEHICLES
is that it assumes that all frequency components add in phase.
This assumption is acceptable for signals with a limited number
Car code Powertrain type Electric motor technology Power (kW) Energy (kWh)
of SC, but for broadband signals this procedure could lead to
an unnecessarily conservative exposure assessment. In [6] it is EV#1 Battery Brushed dc 11 10
shown that for a measured field spectrum with SC that are all EV#2 Plug-in hybrid Permanent magnet 30 5
EV#3 Small hybrid Induction 10 0.7
less than 1% of the ICNIRP 1998 [2] reference levels for the EV#4 Battery Permanent magnet 10 14
general public, the first criterion would suggest that the exposure EV#5 Battery 3-phase asynchronous 34 24.5
is 634%. Relative to the ICNIRP 2010 reference levels the SC EV#6 Battery Permanent magnet 40 24
EV#7 Fuel cell Permanent magnet 100 1.4
are all less than 0.1% of the general public recommendations, EV#8 Battery Permanent magnet 35 16
but the first criterion would suggest that the exposure reaches CV#1 Gasoline – 75 –
99% of the general public recommendations. CV#2 Gasoline – 66 –
CV#3 Diesel – 125 –
For these reasons a second criterion is defined by ICNIRP
(the “weighted peak” approach [3]) in which a time-varying
exposure measure is derived from an inverse Fourier transform
that take into account the phase of each SC. This approach is
more general and can be applied for every kind of magnetic field weighted peak approach). Section II outlines the measurement
waveform. Using this approach, [6] indicates that the maximum protocol and Section III summarizes the main sources of mag-
value of the time-varying exposure measure is less than 20% of netic field in vehicles. The exposure calculations are presented in
the ICNIRP 1998 reference levels for the general public, and Section IV, and Section V summarizes the conclusions.
less than 5% of the ICNIRP 2010 field reference levels.
Published data concerning field exposure in EVs is somewhat
scarce, and not always appropriate for assessment against the II. MEASUREMENT PROTOCOL
ICNIRP field reference levels. For example, the research con-
ducted in [7] characterized the magnetic fields associated with A. Measurement Setup
various form of transportation. The results showed that EVs have 1) Sensors: Four kinds of sensors were used:
a magnetic field spectrum roughly similar to conventional ve- 1) Low-frequency (LF) 3-axis magnetic field sensors (Flux-
hicles (CVs), but no exposure assessment was calculated. This gate magnetometers):
study also found no evidence for measureable electric fields a) Bartington MAG-03 (bandwidth 0–3 kHz; range:
associated with vehicles in the band 5 Hz to 3 kHz. ±100, ±250 or ± 500 μT; noise < 10 pT/Hz);
In a more recent paper [8], it is reported that magnetic fields b) Sensys FGM 3-D/100 (0–1.2 kHz).
measured in a hybrid car are much lower than the ICNIRP 1998 2) High-frequency (HF) 3-axis magnetic field sensors:
field reference levels, but no results taking into account addi- a) Narda EHP-50D (5 Hz to 100 kHz);
tive effects were presented. Maximum fields of 15 μT (in the b) Spectran NF-5035 (1 Hz to 10 MHz).
band 0.01–5 kHz) were recorded in a hybrid bus at the seat lo- 3) Current sensor Fluke i310s (range 0–300 A, 0–20 kHz)
cated closest to power cables during acceleration, deceleration, used to establish the correlation between the magnetic
and driving at 25 km/h [9], but no information regarding the field and the current flowing in the high-voltage power
time variation of the magnetic field is provided. network.
Two hybrid cars were measured in [10], which indicates that 4) Acceleration sensor (STMicroelectronics, model
the exposure could reach 80% of the ICNIRP 1998 reference LIS3LV02DL, range ±6 g), used to establish the
levels for the general public in the vicinity of the passenger’s feet relationship between acceleration and power flow.
during braking and acceleration. In [11] the second criterion was 2) Acquisition system: The LF sensors and the current sen-
employed to evaluate measurements at 12 points that represent sor were connected to an OROS analyzer (model name OR36)
various body parts from head to foot for front and rear occupant whose main functions were to:
location in five cars with motor powers ranging from 15 to 1) low-pass filter the signals (cut-off frequency 2 kHz);
147 kW. Time-domain measurements were carried out over 1 s 2) sample the signals (sampling frequency 5.12 kHz);
periods under constant drive conditions for frequencies from 3) provide concurrent recording of the signals.
1 Hz to 100 kHz. Exposure relative to the ICNIRP 1998 general The HF sensors had their own sampling and recording system.
public reference levels was reported to reach a maximum value 3) Mannequin and Sensor Positions: In order to mount the
of around 15% in the vicinity of the front occupants’ feet. These different magnetic sensors and to ensure reproducible position-
authors also report maximum exposure measures approaching ing, a nonmagnetic mannequin was developed (see Fig. 1), in-
20% of ICNIRP 1998 general public levels at head height in a spired by [7] and [13]. As tests were made while driving the cars,
hybrid bus [12]. the mannequin was installed on the front passenger seat. The
This paper describes the measurement of eight different EVs mannequin was equipped with three LF and three HF sensors
and three CVs, with characteristics as outlined in Table I, as located near the head, seat, and foot regions. A fourth LF mag-
well as the calculation of realistic exposure measures from netic field sensor was placed above the main battery in the trunk.
these measurements using the second criterion (i.e., the ICNIRP The current sensor was placed on one of the battery cables.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
VASSILEV et al.: MAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES
Fig. 1. In-vehicle measurement setup.
Fig. 2. Magnetic flux density spectrum due to steering pump of EV#1.
B. Laboratory Tests
For some of the EVs, laboratory tests were carried out in
order to characterize the magnetic field emissions of all of the
on-board electrical equipment. The car was raised on a lift in
order to be able to place sensors below the car; everything was
switched off except for the item under test. The magnetic field
was then measured and this process repeated for every other
item of equipment. This procedure is quite time consuming but
very informative. For example, it revealed that a very specific
harmonic spectrum is due to the steering pump of EV#1. This is
illustrated in Fig. 2, which shows the root sum square (RSS) of
the Fourier transforms obtained from the waveforms recorded
for each of the three orthogonal components of the magnetic
field.
C. Outside Tests
Outside tests are the most important because they are the most
representative of real-world driving conditions. The main prob-
3
Fig. 3. Spectrogram showing evidence of two 50 Hz high-voltage power lines.
lem with these tests is that there are several external magnetic
perturbations that could influence the results. The approaches
used for identifying these perturbations, and then performing
the tests, are described later.
1) Identifying external magnetic perturbations: There are
several sources of external magnetic perturbation in the en-
vironment, such as stationary or moving ferromagnetic masses
(e.g., manhole covers, railway lines, other cars), as well as 50 Hz
power distribution equipment (high-voltage transmission lines,
power transformers etc.).
These initial tests were carried out within a specific area with
restricted access (for example the CEA complex in Grenoble)
because the number of other cars was then limited. A specific
driving route was defined in this controlled area and the car
repeated the journey several times under different driving con-
ditions (low and high speed, acceleration and deceleration). If
the results contained a magnetic field feature that occurred ev-
ery time at the same place, it was concluded that this field was
due to an external perturbation. For example, a spectrogram ob-
tained from a sensor located on the floor of EV#1 is illustrated
in Fig. 3, which shows a clear permanent 50 Hz signal with two
strong features located at around 30 and 100 s (on the vertical
time axis). These features are probably due to two high-voltage
50 Hz power lines passing under the driving route.
Once the external magnetic perturbations were identified, fur-
ther tests were performed on a normal road.
2) On Road Tests: On road tests were performed which in-
volved driving with maximum acceleration and deceleration in
order to ensure maximum positive (traction) and negative (re-
generative brake) currents. A straight road is better because in
this case the magnetic fields due to the earth and due to the in-
duced magnetization of the car are constant during the test. For
the first few cars, measurements were also carried out on a steep
slope and at high speed on a highway. However, it appeared
that these two driving conditions did not generate higher fields
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
Fig. 4. Correlation between current and vertical magnetic flux density mea-
sured above rear pack battery on EV#1.
than for acceleration and deceleration on the flat road. For the
remaining cars, therefore, the on road tests were performed only
on a flat road and at moderate speeds (0–60 km/h).
III. IDENTIFICATION OF MAIN SOURCES OF MAGNETIC FIELD
In this section, the main sources of magnetic field are listed,
grouped by frequency content and presented in order of increas-
ing frequency.
A. Traction Currents
It is well known that a current flowing through a wire or a
loop generates magnetic field. Our measurements show that,
for most of the cars, the high-voltage power network acts as a
current loop. Moreover, the magnetic field close to the battery
could be important: the ratio between the induced magnetic
field and the traction current was found to be in the range 0.2–
1 μT/A, depending on the car. Therefore, if the traction current
has variations up to ±300 A, the magnetic field could also have
variations of up to ±300 μT. An example is shown in Fig. 4,
where the vertical component of the magnetic field at each point
in time is plotted versus the corresponding current. In this case,
the traction current varies from −100 A to + 200 A whereas
the magnetic flux density is in the range −40 μT to +100 μT;
hence the field–current ratio is of the order of 0.5 μT/A.
The magnetic field due to traction currents also presents a
high spatial variability. In EV#1, for example, the magnetic
field in the vicinity of the passenger’s foot ranges from 30 to
130 μT within distances of a few tens of cm. This is due to
the fact that when two cables carrying opposite currents are
close together (as is the case in the central tunnel of EV#1),
the resulting magnetic field is minimized. But when the cables
diverge (as is the case in the engine bay of EV#1), the field can
increase significantly.
Although this field is important, it is far below the ICNIRP
general public limit of 40 mT for static fields [1] and below the
Fig. 5. Spectrogram (0.4–20 Hz) from a sensor close to a wheel of EV#1.
ICNIRP general public limits for frequencies below 1 Hz [2].
Nonetheless, traction current transients with SC above 1 Hz may
contribute significantly to the in-vehicle magnetic field exposure
[6].
B. Wheels
The permanent magnetization of steel belted tires is a well-
known source of in-vehicle magnetic fields (see [14], [15]). Our
measurements show that this phenomenon is responsible for a
magnetic field inside the car of up to 2 μT at the wheel frequency
fw (which ranges from 0 to 20 Hz for speeds ranging from 0
to 130 km/h). There are also several harmonics present at lower
intensities. The spectrogram shown in Fig. 5 (in dBμT) was
obtained from a sensor placed near the passenger’s foot location
in EV#1, close to the front right-hand wheel. The electric motor
was switched off and the car was manually pushed at low speed
(4–5 km/h) corresponding to fw 1 Hz. This clearly shows a
fundamental signal 1μT at fw as well as the higher harmonics
f2 , f3 , f4 , f8 , and f16 with decreasing magnitudes. As the
ground was not flat, it was difficult to maintain a constant speed,
which is why the fundamental frequency fluctuates over time.
C. Internal Combustion Engine
Measurements on the hybrid car EV#2 show that there is a
correlation between the rotational frequency fm (varying up
to 100 Hz) of the internal combustion and the magnetic field
signals. This could be due to the motion of the pistons. The
magnitude of the associated magnetic signal was 150 nT at
frequency 2fm in this case.
D. Specific Equipment
Specific equipment of the car may also generate magnetic
fields. The magnetic field emissions from the power steering
pump (500 W, 12 V) of EV#1 have already been reported
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

VASSILEV et al.: MAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES 5

Fig. 7. Magnetic flux density spectrum (0–100 kHz) measured from EV#3.

TABLE II
SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED SOURCES

Fig. 6. Spectrogram (0.5–1 kHz) due to the steering pump of EV#1. Sources Maximum field Frequency range Cars involved

Traction currents 100–300 μT 0–10 kHz EV#1 to EV#8

Wheels 0.1–2 μT 0–20 Hz All EVs and CVs
(see Fig. 2). This equipment can generate fields up to 1 μT Internal combustion engine 50–150 nT 0–200 Hz EV#2, CV#1 to CV#3
inside the car at frequencies in the range 0.5–1 kHz (see Fig. 6). Steering pump 1 μT 0.5–1 kHz EV#1
Regenerative brake 1 μT 0–400 Hz EV#2
For EV#2, just after an accelerator pedal release, a wide-band Electrical coupling 0.5 μT 0–600 Hz EV#3
magnetic signal of 1μT at frequencies up to 400 Hz was ob- Inverter 20 nT 7–9 kHz EV#1 to EV#4
served on the sensor above the battery. It is believed that this Inverter 60 nT 0.2–10 MHz EV#1 to EV#4
signal may be due to the regenerative brake. On EV#3, an un-
explained coupling between an equipment working at constant
frequencies (50 and 100 Hz) and the motor (whose fundamental
frequency f1 is proportional to the wheel frequency, such that
f1 = 4fw ) was found to lead to fields of the order of 0.5 μT at
frequencies up to 600 Hz.

E. Inverter
A power inverter is an electrical device that converts direct
current (dc) to alternating current (ac). In EV, it is typically
characterized by a switching frequency of around 10 kHz. To
deal with these frequencies, it is necessary to use the HF sensors.
These measurements were carried out for only four of the cars
(EV#1–EV#4). Below 200 kHz, the field level was less than
20 nT; the maximum values observed in this frequency range
(see Fig. 7) were at
1) 7–9 kHz, probably due to the inverter;
2) 16 kHz, due to the LF sensor electronics.
Between 200 kHz and 10 MHz, the field level is a little
Fig. 8. Summary of magnetic sources and ICNIRP 2010 [3] reference levels
higher but still low (less than 60 nT). A harmonic spectrum can for magnetic flux density.
be observed, but it is difficult to establish its origin.

F. Summary this envelope is decreasing with increasing frequency. Most of

The contributions from the different sources above 1 Hz that
were identified are summarized in Table II and in Fig. 8. In this
figure, each source is represented by a horizontal solid (blue or
black) colored line. The vertical position indicates the maximum
field measured, while the length indicates the frequency range.
The dotted red line connects the different sources and forms
a spectral envelope of the measurements. It can be seen that
the magnetic field sources (wheels, brake, and steering pump)
produce frequencies ranging between a few Hz and 1 kHz, with
magnitudes of 0.1–2 μT. At frequencies above a few kHz, the
magnetic field is less than 100 nT and only the inverter was
identified as a source from the vehicles.
Compared to the ICNIRP 2010 reference levels defined for
the general public and for pure sinusoidal signals [3], which
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY

related to the frequency dependence of BR (f ):

W F (f, fr ) = BR (fr )/BR (f ). (2)

The weighted magnetic field waveform can then be calculated

as

n
√
Bw e,f r (t) = W Fj 2Bj . cos (2πtfj + θj + ϕj ) (3)
j =p

where W Fj represent the peak amplitude of weighting func-

Fig. 9. Amplitude and phase of weighting function, WF.
is plotted in Fig. 8 using dashed red line, the envelope of the
magnetic field emissions is roughly two decades lower than the
general public levels. However, this does not mean that the order
of magnitude of the exposure is 1% of the reference levels. As
already noted in Section I), it is necessary to take into account
the additive effects of all frequencies from all sources in order
to assess the exposure (see Section IV).
IV. EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS
A. Weighted Peak Approach for Nonsinusoidal Exposures
The weighted peak exposure criterion defined by ICNIRP in
the case of nonsinusoidal exposures (see [3] and [16]) is appli-
cable for arbitrary magnetic field waveforms B(t). The general
idea is:
1) defining a reference frequency fr ;
2) computing from B(t) a weighted signal Bw e,f r (t) that
takes into account the frequency dependence of the mag-
netic field reference level BR (f );
3) comparing this weighting signal to the reference level
BR (fr ) at reference frequency.
If it is assumed that B(t) is periodic on the measured interval
[t1 ; t2 ], then B(t) may be approximated by the n spectral com-
ponents (SC) derived from B(t) by means of a discrete Fourier
transform. Thus,

n
√
B(t) = 2Bj . cos (2πtfj + θj )
j =1
where j is the summation index of the SC (including the dc
component), Bj represent the RMS amplitudes of the SC at
frequency fj , and θj correspond to the phases of the SC.
The weighting function WF is defined (see Fig. 9) such that
the gain is inversely proportional to the chosen magnetic field
reference levels BR (f ) and the corresponding phase values are
tion at frequency fj and the terms ϕj represent the corre-
sponding phase values. The parameters ϕj are specified as zero
when BR (fj ) is constant, π/2 when BR (fj ) ∝ 1/f , π when
BR (fj ) ∝ 1/f 2 , and −π/2 when BR (fj ) ∝ f (see Appendix
A of [3]).
ICNIRP recommends that the summation goes from 1 Hz
(corresponding to j = p) to 10 MHz (corresponding to j = n).
In this paper it was found that the magnetic field levels decreased
rapidly for frequencies above 1 kHz. Therefore, the exposure
sum ranges from 1 Hz to 2 kHz, and only the signals from
the LF sensors are used. The weighted signal is then simply
compared to the reference level at frequency fr .
√
Bw e,f r (t) < 2BR (fr ), for t ∈ [t1 ; t2 ] . (4)
Dividing by the right term of the inequality, we obtain a
time-varying exposure function c(t), independent of fr that is
required to be <1 in order to guarantee compliance with the
basic restrictions:
 
f j =2 kHz 
  B 
c(t) =   j
. cos(2πtfj + θj + ϕj ) ≤ 1,
B
 f j =1 Hz R ,j 
for t ∈ [t1 ; t2 ] . (5)
Electro-stimulation effects are instantaneous, with the result
that ICNIRP recommend that the basic restrictions (and by im-
plication, the field reference levels) should not be time averaged.
For convenience, therefore, the time-varying exposure measure
can be summarized in terms of its maximum instantaneous value
EC (for exposure criterion):
EC = max {c(t)} , for t ∈ [t1 ; t2 ] . (6)
B. Practical Implementation
The ICNIRP recommendations give very few details con-
cerning the practical implementation of this calculation. For
example, it is not clear how to:
1) choose t1 and t2 ;
(1) 2) compute the SC in case of a nonperiodic signal;
3) deal with the three components of a magnetic field;
4) select a sampling rate for digitizing the signals.
For the first point, the criterion has been calculated with dif-
ferent bounds t1 and t2 in order to verify that the criterion does
not change.
For the second point, the fact that the signal may not be peri-
odic can lead to spectrum leakage, i.e., signal energy smearing
out in the frequency domain. Another consequence is that the
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

VASSILEV et al.: MAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES 7

TABLE III
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE RESULTS

Car code Maximum exposure Position

EV#1 14.3% Front passenger foot

EV#2 17.8% Above rear battery
EV#3 7.9% Above rear battery
EV#4 5.9% Rear passenger foot
EV#5 4% Front passenger seat
EV#6 3.2% Front passenger seat
EV#7 2.1% Front passenger seat
EV#8 2.7% Front passenger foot
CV#1 2.7% Front passenger seat
CV#2 9% Left rear passenger seat
CV#3 10% Left rear passenger seat

temporal function c(t) is perturbed near its bounds (at t1 and t2 ).

One way to deal with this problem is to use short-time Fourier
transform (STFT) instead of a simple FFT. This solution has
been successfully tested, but it is quite time consuming. A sim- Fig. 10. Example of 3-D magnetic field signal from EV#1.
pler solution is to discard a small region around each bound
(e.g., q = 2% of signal length l) when calculating the exposure
measure:

EC = max {c(t)} , for t ∈ [t1 + ql; t2 − ql] . (7)

For the third point, it is assumed that for each of the M

sampled field component the weighted field waveforms and their
associated time-varying exposure measures ci (tk ) are computed
according to (3) and (5), respectively. For each time sample tk ,
the root sum square (RSS) value then is calculated from the three
orthogonal components in order to obtain the multidimensional
exposure C(tk ), where

M

C(tk ) =  (ci (tk ))2 . (8)
i=1

Finally, the worst case instantaneous exposure for the entire

magnetic field is obtained by applying (7) to C(tk ) to obtain the
maximum value. Fig. 11. Component and combined exposure measures, based on ICNIRP
2010 magnetic field reference levels for the general public.

C. Results
For each car, simple drive cycles were investigated includ-
ing acceleration and deceleration phases. The exposure was
computed as outlined earlier from measurements at the four
positions: head, seat, foot, and above the battery. The maxi-
mum exposure levels and locations results are summarized in
Table III.
The main results for the EV examples are as follows.
1) The highest values, between 14% and 18% of the ICNIRP
2010 general public reference levels, appear on EV#1 and
EV#2, when the engine is switched on.
2) For every EV, the highest values were reached near the
battery and the foot of the driver or passenger.
3) The maximum exposure at head-height for the front pas-
senger was found to be 1.5% of the ICNIRP 2010 general
public reference levels.
For the CV examples, the highest values were around 10% of
the ICNIRP 2010 general public reference levels, and were also
linked with vehicle start-up and braking events.
As an example, Fig. 10 shows the whole magnetic field wave-
form for a short journey with EV#1, as recorded by a sensor
located in in the vicinity of the passenger’s foot. It can be seen
that there is a sharp peak in the magnetic field waveforms on
the X and Z axes when the vehicle is switched on (around time
15 s).
The exposure measures ci (tk ) obtained from the three orthog-
onal field component waveforms are shown in Fig. 11, along
with the corresponding RSS value C(tk ). A sharp peak can also
be seen at the same time (at around 15 s) and the peak exposure
reaches almost 15%. Finally, Fig. 12 shows the detail around
the peak of the X component of the field and the corresponding
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
Fig. 12. Detail of X component of magnetic field waveform and the corre-
sponding exposure measure.
exposure measure cX (tk ). It can be seen that the rapidly ris-
ing edge in the X component of the magnetic field waveform
is a major contributor (at 10%) to the overall exposure (see
Fig. 11).
V. CONCLUSION
The magnetic field of eight different EVs (including battery
powered, hybrid, and fuel cell variants) with different types of
motor technology (brushed dc, permanent magnet synchronous,
and induction) were measured in the frequency range from dc
to 10 MHz. Three vehicles with conventional powertrains were
also investigated for comparison purposes. A suitable measure-
ment protocol was developed, based on the use of a mannequin
to ensure reproducible positioning of the field sensors.
The main magnetic sources of the EV were identified: at very
low frequency (<1 Hz), magnetic fields of several hundreds
of μT can be encountered mainly due to traction currents and
induced magnetization effects. Most of the magnetic sources
(wheels, regenerative brake, steering pump, and combustion en-
gine) are found at frequencies between a few Hz and 1 kHz, with
magnitudes between 0.1 and 2 μT. Above 1 kHz, the magnetic
field is less than 100 nT and only the inverter was identified as
a source from the vehicle.
As the measurements showed a complex broadband fre-
quency spectrum, an exposure calculation was performed ac-
cording to the ICNIRP 2010 recommendations [3]. It was found
that the highest exposure for the EVs that were tested was less
than 20% of the field reference levels for general public expo-
sure, and corresponded to vehicle start-up. For all of the cars in
the EV sample, the highest values were found near the battery
and in the vicinity of the feet of the driver or front passenger.
The maximum exposure at head height for the front passenger
head was found to be less than 2% of the ICNIRP 2010 field
reference levels for general public exposure.
For the cars with conventional powertrains, maximum expo-
sures of the order 10% were obtained, depending on the position
of the sensor.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful for the support and contribu-
tions of other members of the EM-Safety project consor-
tium, from Centro Ricerche Fiat (Italy), Leibniz University
of Hanover (Germany), IPM (Italy), MIRA (UK), Prysmian
(Italy), TAMAG Iberica (Spain), and the University of Torino
(Italy). Further information can be found on the project website
(www.sintef.no/Projectweb/EM-Safety).
REFERENCES
[1] ICNIRP, “Guidelines on limits for exposure to static magnetic fields,”
Health Phys., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 504–514, Apr. 2009.
[2] ICNIRP, “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, mag-
netic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz),” Health Phys., vol. 74,
no. 4, pp. 494–522, Apr. 1998.
[3] ICNIRP, “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric and
magnetic fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz),” Health Phys., vol. 99, no. 6,
pp. 818–836, Dec. 2010.
[4] IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to elec-
tromagnetic fields, 0–3 kHz, IEEE Standard C95.6-2002, Oct. 23, 2002.
[5] IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to electro-
magnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Standard C95.1-2005 Apr. 19,
2005.
[6] A. R. Ruddle, L. Low, and A. Vassilev, “Evaluating low frequency mag-
netic field exposure from traction current transients in electric vehicles,”
in Proc. 12th Int. Eur. Symp. Electromagn. Compat., Brugge, Belgium,
Sep. 2013, pp. 78–83.
[7] F. M. Dietrich and W. L. Jacobs, “Survey and assessment of electric
and magnetic field public exposure in the transportation environment,”
US Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Rep.
PB99-130908, Mar. 1999.
[8] M. N. Halgamuge, C. D. Abeyrathne, and P. Mendis, “Measurement and
analysis of electromagnetic fields from trams, trains and hybrid cars,”
Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol. 141, no. 3, pp. 255–268, 2010.
[9] M. Pous, A. Atienza, and F. Silva, “EMI radiated characterization of an
hybrid bus,” in Proc. 10th Int. Eur. Electromagn. Compat. Symp., York,
U.K., Sep. 2011, pp. 208–213.
[10] E. Karabetsos, E. Kalampaliki, G. Tsanidis, D. Koutounidis, N. Skam-
nakis, T. Kyritsi, A. Yalofas, “EMF measurements in hybrid technology
cars”, presented at 6th Int. Workshop Biol. Effects Electromagn. Fields,
Bodrum, Turkey, Oct. 2010.
[11] G. Schmid, R. Überbacher, and P. Göth, “ELF and LF magnetic field
exposure in hybrid- and electric cars,” in Proc. Bioelectromagnetics Conf.,
Davos, Switzerland, Jun. 2009, pp. 9–3.
[12] R. Überbacher, G. Schmid, and P. Göth, “ELF magnetic field exposure
during an inner-city hybrid bus ride,” in Proc. Bioelectromagnetics Conf.,
Davos, Switzerland, Jun. 2009, pp. P–23.
[13] A. Brecher, D. R. Disk, D. Fugate, W. Jacobs, A. Joshi, A. Kupferman, R.
Mauri, and P. Valihura, “Electromagnetic field characteristics of the tran-
srapid TR08 maglev system,” US Department of Transportation, Federal
Railroad Administration, Rep. DOT-VNTSC-FRA-02-11, May 2002.
[14] S. Milham, J. B. Hatfield, and R. Tell, “Magnetic fields from steel-belted
radial tires: Implications for epidemiologic studies,” Bioelectromagnetics,
vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 440–445, 1999.
[15] S. Stankowski, A. Kessi, O. Bécheiraz, K. Meier-Engel, M. Meie, “Low
frequency magnetic fields induced by car tire magnetization,” Health
Phys., vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 148–153, Feb. 2006.
[16] K. Jokela, “Restricting exposure to pulsed and broadband magnetic fields,”
Health Phys., vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 373–388, 2000.
Andrea Vassilev received the mechanical engineering degree, in 1996, from
Ecole Centrale de Lyon, France.
From 1996 to 2001, he was with PSA Peugeot Citroen, as a Mechanical Sim-
ulation Engineer. Since 2001, he has been with CEA-LETI, Grenoble, France,
a research institute for electronics and information technologies.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
VASSILEV et al.: MAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES
Alain Ferber received the M. Sc. degree in Cybernetics from The Norwegian
Institute of Technology, in 1976.
He is currently a Senior Scientist in the Department of Optical Measurement
Systems and Data Analysis at SINTEF, Oslo, Norway.
Christof Wehrmann received the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering, from
the Technische Universität (TU) Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, in
2011. He is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree at Institut für Elektrische
Messtechnik und Grundlagen der Elektrotechnik at the TU Braunschweig.
Since 2011, he has been with the Institut für Elektrische Messtechnik und
Grundlagen der Elektrotechnik at the TU Braunschweig as a Research Assistant.
Olivier Pinaud received the electrical engineering degree from the Grenoble
Institute of Technology, Grenoble, France, in 2010. Since 2011, he has been
working toward the Ph.D. degree on electromagnetic computation at Grenoble
Electrical Engineering Laboratory (G2ELAB), France.
View publication stats
9
Meinhard Schilling received the diploma in physics, in 1989, and the Ph.D.
degree (Dr. rer. nat), in 1992, both from the Universität Hamburg, Hamburg,
Germany.
In 1998 after habilitation he was with the University Hamburg as Privat-
dozent. Since 2001, he has been a Full Professor and Head of the Institut für
Elektrische Messtechnik und Grundlagen der Elektrotechnik, at the Technische
Universität Braunschweig.
Alastair R. Ruddle (M’10) received the B.Sc. degree in physics from the Uni-
versity of Bristol, Bristol, U.K. and the Ph.D. degree in electronic and electrical
engineering from the University of Loughborough, Loughborough, U.K.
Since 1996 he has been a computational electromagnetics specialist with
MIRA Limited, Nuneaton, U.K., an automotive research and technology orga-
nization. Prior to this he carried out research in the defense and power industries.