## 4 Results
### Assessment with Spatial Averaged Magnetic Field Inside the Vehicle  
Table 4 presents the magnetic field strength inside the vehicle at the measurement points and \(H_{\text{ave}}\) for different materials (\(y_{\text{s}}=0\)). As shown in Table 4, the magnetic field strength within the iron body was two orders of magnitude lower than that within the CFRP body. Figure 11 shows the conformity assessment in each definition for the ICNIRP guidelines and IEEE standard in terms of \(a_{c}\) inside the vehicle (\(y_{\text{s}}=0\)). As shown in the figure, all definitions in the case of the iron body exhibited a conservativeness with more than a margin of a factor of four with respect to the ICNIRP guidelines, whereas they were either comparable or unconservative with respect to the IEEE standard. In contrast, for the CFRP body, Definition 1 provided a level of protection equivalent to the ICNIRP guidelines. Definitions 2 and 3 displayed a conservativeness with more than a margin of a factor of 3.4 with respect to the ICNIRP guidelines. In the IEEE standard, Definitions 1 and 2 were unconservative, whereas Definition 3 exhibited a conservativeness with more than a margin of a factor of 1.2. Figure 10: Correlation between the maximum internal electric field and magnetic field strength for different vehicle seat positions: (**a**) whole-body \(H_{\text{ave}}\), (**b**) 1-Point \(H\), and (**c**) 3 or 4-Point \(H_{\text{ave}}\). R\({}^{2}\) represents the coefficient of determination. (**a**) was evaluated in the volume where the human body model exists in realistic posture (the number of voxels was 8,193,397). Figure 12 shows the assessment of each definition for compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines and IEEE standard using \(a_{c}\) when the vehicle seat position was changed in the front-back direction (\(y_{s}=\pm 100\) mm). As shown in Figure 12, the variation in \(a_{c}\) in the case of the iron body remained relatively insignificant due to the weak nonuniformity of the magnetic field distribution. In contrast, for the CFRP body, \(a_{c}\) varied from approximately \(-0.1\%\) to \(3\%\), \(-27\%\) to \(36\%\), and \(-21\%\) to \(18\%\) in Definitions 1, 2, and 3, respectively, regardless of the target guidelines. The variability in Definitions 2 and 3 is influenced by the observation that the variation in \(H_{\text{ave}}\) considering the measurement point at the lower limb is larger than that of \(E_{\text{max}}\) appearing at the buttocks. However, by adding a reduction factor smaller than two, such an effect of variations is sufficiently avoided. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**(a)**} \\ \cline{2-6}
**Setting** & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Magnetic Field Strength [A/m]**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Measurement Points**} & \(\boldsymbol{H_{\text{ave}}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Definition 1} & 0.5 m & 1.0 m & 1.2 m & - & 0.015 \\  & 0.015 & 0.017 & 0.013 & - & 0.013 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Definition 2} & 0.1 m & 0.5 m & 1.0 m & 1.2 m & 0.013 \\  & 0.009 & 0.015 & 0.017 & 0.013 & 0.013 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Definition 3} & 0.1 m & 0.35 m & 0.6 m & - & 0.012 \\  & 0.009 & 0.011 & 0.016 & - & 0.012 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Setting**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**(b)**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Magnetic Field Strength [A/m]**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Measurement Points**} & \(\boldsymbol{H_{\text{ave}}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Definition 1} & 0.5 m & 1.0 m & 1.2 m & - & 0.40 \\  & 0.94 & 0.15 & 0.11 & - & 0.40 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Definition 2} & 0.1 m & 0.5 m & 1.0 m & 1.2 m & 1.25 \\  & 3.81 & 0.94 & 0.15 & 0.11 & 1.25 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Definition 3} & 0.1 m & 0.35 m & 0.6 m & - & 2.14 \\  & 3.81 & 2.03 & 0.60 & - & 2.14 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Heights of magnetic field strength measurement points and average magnetic field strength averaged for each definition with inside the vehicle body made of (**a**) iron and (**b**) CFRP.