Vol. 14
Latest Volume
All Volumes
PIERM 115 [2023] PIERM 114 [2022] PIERM 113 [2022] PIERM 112 [2022] PIERM 111 [2022] PIERM 110 [2022] PIERM 109 [2022] PIERM 108 [2022] PIERM 107 [2022] PIERM 106 [2021] PIERM 105 [2021] PIERM 104 [2021] PIERM 103 [2021] PIERM 102 [2021] PIERM 101 [2021] PIERM 100 [2021] PIERM 99 [2021] PIERM 98 [2020] PIERM 97 [2020] PIERM 96 [2020] PIERM 95 [2020] PIERM 94 [2020] PIERM 93 [2020] PIERM 92 [2020] PIERM 91 [2020] PIERM 90 [2020] PIERM 89 [2020] PIERM 88 [2020] PIERM 87 [2019] PIERM 86 [2019] PIERM 85 [2019] PIERM 84 [2019] PIERM 83 [2019] PIERM 82 [2019] PIERM 81 [2019] PIERM 80 [2019] PIERM 79 [2019] PIERM 78 [2019] PIERM 77 [2019] PIERM 76 [2018] PIERM 75 [2018] PIERM 74 [2018] PIERM 73 [2018] PIERM 72 [2018] PIERM 71 [2018] PIERM 70 [2018] PIERM 69 [2018] PIERM 68 [2018] PIERM 67 [2018] PIERM 66 [2018] PIERM 65 [2018] PIERM 64 [2018] PIERM 63 [2018] PIERM 62 [2017] PIERM 61 [2017] PIERM 60 [2017] PIERM 59 [2017] PIERM 58 [2017] PIERM 57 [2017] PIERM 56 [2017] PIERM 55 [2017] PIERM 54 [2017] PIERM 53 [2017] PIERM 52 [2016] PIERM 51 [2016] PIERM 50 [2016] PIERM 49 [2016] PIERM 48 [2016] PIERM 47 [2016] PIERM 46 [2016] PIERM 45 [2016] PIERM 44 [2015] PIERM 43 [2015] PIERM 42 [2015] PIERM 41 [2015] PIERM 40 [2014] PIERM 39 [2014] PIERM 38 [2014] PIERM 37 [2014] PIERM 36 [2014] PIERM 35 [2014] PIERM 34 [2014] PIERM 33 [2013] PIERM 32 [2013] PIERM 31 [2013] PIERM 30 [2013] PIERM 29 [2013] PIERM 28 [2013] PIERM 27 [2012] PIERM 26 [2012] PIERM 25 [2012] PIERM 24 [2012] PIERM 23 [2012] PIERM 22 [2012] PIERM 21 [2011] PIERM 20 [2011] PIERM 19 [2011] PIERM 18 [2011] PIERM 17 [2011] PIERM 16 [2011] PIERM 14 [2010] PIERM 13 [2010] PIERM 12 [2010] PIERM 11 [2010] PIERM 10 [2009] PIERM 9 [2009] PIERM 8 [2009] PIERM 7 [2009] PIERM 6 [2009] PIERM 5 [2008] PIERM 4 [2008] PIERM 3 [2008] PIERM 2 [2008] PIERM 1 [2008]
2010-09-26
A Comparison of Spatial Interpolation Methods for Estimation of Average Electromagnetic Field Magnitude
By
Progress In Electromagnetics Research M, Vol. 14, 135-145, 2010
Abstract
Several georeferenced measurements of electric field were done in a pilot area of Caracas, Venezuela, to verify that the magnitude of radio frequency electromagnetic fields is below the human exposure limits, recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. The collected data were analyzed using geographical information systems, with the objective of using interpolation techniques to estimate the average electromagnetic field magnitude, to obtain a continuous dataset that could be represented over a map of the entire pilot area. This paper reviews the three methods of interpolation used: SPLINE, Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) and KRIGING. A statistical assessment of the resultant continuous surfaces indicates that there is substantial difference between the estimating ability of the three interpolation methods and IDW performing better overall.
Citation
Marco A. Azpurua K. Dos Ramos , "A Comparison of Spatial Interpolation Methods for Estimation of Average Electromagnetic Field Magnitude," Progress In Electromagnetics Research M, Vol. 14, 135-145, 2010.
doi:10.2528/PIERM10083103
http://www.jpier.org/PIERM/pier.php?paper=10083103
References

1. Legendre, P. and L. Legendre, Numerical Ecology, 2nd Ed., Elsevier, Canada, 1998.

2. Anderson, S., "An evaluation of spatial interpolation methods on air temperature in phoenix,", Department of Geography, Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-0104, 2001.

3. Magnus, E. and M. Clyde, "Control Theoretic Splines: Optimal Control, Statistics, and Path Planning," Princeton University Press, 2010.

4. Shepard, D., "A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly-spaced data," ACM Annual Conference/Annual Meet-ing, 517-524, 1968.

5. García, E., J. Cepeda, B. Melcón, G. Búrdalo, M. de Barrios, M. Fuentes, and A. Fernández, "Mapa de radiaciones no ionizantes en la ciudad de león,", Universidad de Leó, Spain, 2008.

6. IRPA/ICNIRP, "Guidelines for limiting exposure to time varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz)," Health Physics, Vol. 74, No. 4, 1998.

7. CCIR Report 239-7, "Propagation statistics required for broadcasting services using the frequency range 30 to 1000 MHz,", 1990.

8. CISPR 11, "Industrial, scientific and medical equipment --- Radio-frequency disturbance characteristics --- Limits and methods of measurement,", 2010-05, Annex D..