Various ESE&DAS Terminals

Harger Lightning & Grounding 2005
Harger Lightning & Grounding

Harger Lightning & Grounding
2005
2005
Lightning Protection Systems
I. What is Lightning/Lightning Protection?
II. Basic Principles of Lightning Protection
III. Risk Assessment
IV. Applicable Codes/Standards
V. Basic Components
VI. Typical Roof Top Detail
I. What is Lightning?
Consider Lightning a Gigantic Electrical Spark traveling between Consider Lightning a Gigantic Electrical Spark traveling between
Cloud to Cloud or Cloud to Earth containing an average Charge of Cloud to Cloud or Cloud to Earth containing an average Charge of
30 to 50 Million Volts and a Current of 18,000 Amps. 30 to 50 Million Volts and a Current of 18,000 Amps.
What is Lightning Protection?
NFPA 780 -
A Complete System of Air Terminals,
Conductors, Ground Terminals,
Interconnecting Conductors, Surge
Suppression Devices, and other Connectors or
Fittings required to complete the System.
Li ght ni ng Damage Can Be
Tr ac ed To :
Inadequate (or no) direct strike protection
Risks Posed from a Direct Strike
Risks Posed from a Direct Strike
Risks Posed from an Indirect Strike
Risks Posed from an Indirect Strike
What i s
not
not Li ght ni ng Pr ot ec t i on?
Early Streamer Emission ESE
Radioactive
Pulsed Voltage
Sparking Controlled Leader Trigger (CLT)
Lightning Elimination
Dissipation Array Systems (DAS)
Charge Transfer Systems (CTS)
What i s
not
ESE Early Streamer Emission
Manufacturers claim that the ESE launch an upward
streamer faster than conventional Franklin Rods or the
features on the structures to be protected.
Claim streamer speeds of 10
6
m/s to provide this
advantage
Actual field measures from multiple investigators have
documented streamer speeds ranging from
McEachron - 5.2 x 10
4
to 6.4 x 10
5
m/s
Yokoyama - 0.8 to 2.7 x 10
5
m/s
Laboratory propagation speeds 10
4
m/s
Striking distance directly proportional to Leader charge.
Reference: M.A. Uman& V.A Rakov (University of Florida)
American Meteorological Society Paper 2002
What i s
not
ESE Early Streamer Emission
Heary Bros Preventor
Indelec - Prevectron
Erico Dynasphere
Franklin France Saint Elmo
Ingesco
Duval Messien Satelit
Helita
1999 ByranReport commissioned by
NFPA found no technical basis for the
claims of enhanced performance
Prevectron
Dynasphere
19mm Blunt
Franklin Rod
Seven year period - air terminals on 6 m masts
Neither ESE or Sharp Franklin Rods struck
12 Blunt Franklin Rods were struck (12.7 to 25.4 mm)
Charles Moore - Principal Investigator - New Mexico Tech
French Made - Duval Messien Satelit
ESE 30m from damaged wall
Photos courtesy Hartono & Robiah
Malaysia Apartment Building
One of numerous such cases in
Malaysia where ESE have failed to
protect structures where the ESE
was located at a distance well
within the claimed radius of
protection.
Hi gh Vol t age Lab Test
Mississippi State University
Dynaspher e Damaged
ESE Lawsuit
In connection with the NFPAs rejection of ESE draft standard 781, three ESE
companies (Heary Bros. Lightning Protection Co., Inc., Lightning Preventor of America,
Inc., and the National Lightning Protection Corp., of which the two first mentioned have
merged) filed a law suit against the Lightning Protection Institute, Thompson Lightning
Protection Inc., and East Coast Lightning Equipment, Inc.
The lawsuit, which was initiated in 1996, contained allegations of conspiracy, false
advertising and product defamation regarding the advertised improved efficiency of
ESE terminals compared to conventional Franklin rods.
In October, 2003, the Federal District Court of Arizona dismissed the lawsuit.
The dismissal was largely based on the fact that the ESE vendors presented no admissible
evidence at all to support their claims. Additionally, the Court granted a favorable ruling to a
counterclaim against the ESE vendors. The ESE vendors were convicted of falsely advertising
the claimed increase in efficiency of ESE rods in comparison to conventional Franklin rods.
Significantly, the verdict rejected the ESE vendors claims that their ESE terminals
compliance with various ESE standards justified the advertised expanded zones of
protection for ESE devices. The Court found that the conformance with foreign ESE
standards failed to prove claimed increased zones of protection for ESE rods. The
Court found that the ESE vendors claims are not supported by tests sufficiently reliable
to support those claims and are therefore in violation of American truth-in-advertising
laws.
What i s
not
According to proponents the charge released via corona
discharge at the sharp points will either:
1. Discharge the overhead thundercloud thereby eliminating any
possibility of lightning (Dissipation Array)
2. Discourage a downward-moving leader from attaching to the
array or structure by reducing the electric field near the array
and, hence, suppress the initiation of an upward streamer.
What i s
not
Dissipation / Charge Transfer System)
Splineball
Lightning Master
LEC Dissipation Array System DAS
LEC Charge Transfer System CTS
Lightning Prevention Systems ALS Static
Dissipater
What i s
not
Devices have failed to perform as claimed by manufacturers.
US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Banned after towers and DAS struck
National Aeronautical Space Administration
Banned after towers struck at Kennedy Space Center
US Military
Banned towers at military bases struck
J apan - field test showed statistical distribution of peak
current unchanged. (Kuwabara et al.)
Trees & grass often generate more corona discharge
than dissipation arrays without apparently inhibiting
lightning.
Non Convent i onal Li ght ni ng
Pr ot ec t i on Syst ems
These systems are not allowed by:
US National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
IEEE
IEC
US Military
Underwriters Laboratory (UL)
II. Basic Principles of
Lightning Protection
Intercept the Lightning Discharge
Safely Conduct the Lightning Currents
Minimize the Effects of Lightning Currents
Dissipate the Lightning Currents in the Earth
Zone of Protection- space adjacent to LPS substantially
immune to direct lightning discharges. Determined using
Rolling Sphere Method.
III. Risk Assessment*
The Lightning Risk Assessment Methodology
is provided to assist the building owner or
architect/engineer in determining the risk of
damage due to lightning. The methodology
considers only the damage caused by a direct
strike to the structure.
* NFPA 780 revised in 2004
Lightning Strike Probability
The probability that a structure will be
struck by lightning is the product of the
equivalent collection area of the
structure times the flash density for the
area that the structure is located.
Risk Assessment Formula
If N
d
> N
c
Lightning Protection Should be Installed
N
d
= The Yearly Lightning Strike Frequency
N
c
= Tolerable Lightning Frequency
N
d
N
d
= (N
g
)(A
g
)(C
1
)
Where:
N
g
=The yearly average flash density in the
region where the structure is located.
A
g
= The equivalent collective area of the
structure in km
2
.
C
1
= The environmental coefficient.
10-year Fl ash Densi t y
Map - U.S.
)
0.1
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
N
g
= The Yearly Average Flash Density
Units: flashes/km
2
/yr
Lightning Density Map provided by Global Atmospherics, Inc. Tucson Arizona.
A
g
= The Equivalent Collective Area
Refers to the ground area having the
same yearly direct lighting flash
probability as the structure. It is an
increase area for the structure that
includes the effect of the height and
location of the structure.
There are 3 models:
Rectangular
Model
Model 2
Model 3
C
1
= The Environmental Coefficient
The Environmental Coefficient accounts
for the topography of the site of the
structure and any object located with
the distance 3H from the structure that
can affect the collection area.
They are as follows:
C
1
= The Environmental Coefficient
Relative Structure Location C
1
Structure located within a space containing
structures or trees of the same height or taller
with a distance of 3H
0.25
Structure surrounded by smaller structures
within a distance of 3H
0.5
Isolated structure, no other structures located
with a distance of 3H
1
Isolated structure on a hilltop 2
Tolerable Lightning Frequency (N
c
)
The Tolerable Lightning Frequency is a
measure of the damage risk to the
structure including factors affecting
risks to the structure, environment and
monetary loss.
It is calculated as follows:
Tolerable Lightning Frequency (N
c
)
N
c
= 1.5 x 10
-3
C
Where:
C = (C
2
)(C
3
)(C
4
)(C
5
)
C
2
Structural Coefficient
Roof
Structure Metal Nonmetallic Flammable
Metal 0.5 1.0 2.0
Nonmetallic 1.0 1.0 2.5
Flammable 2.0 2.5 3.0
C
3
Structural Contents Coefficient
Structure Contents C
3
Low value and nonflammable 0.5
Standard value and nonflammable 1.0
High value, moderate flammability 2.0
Exceptional value, flammable, computer or
electronics
3.0
Exceptional value, irreplaceable cultural items 4.0
C
4
Structural Occupancy Coefficient
Structure Occupancy C
4
Unoccupied 0.5
Normally occupied 1.0
Difficult to evacuate or risk of panic 3.0
C
5
Lightning Consequence
Coefficient
Lightning Consequence C
5
Continuity of facility service not required, no
environmental impact
1.0
Continuity of facility service required, no
environmental impact
5.0
Consequences to the environment 10.0
Risk Assessment Formula
If N
d
> N
c
Lightning Protection Should be Installed
N
d
N
c
= Tolerable Lightning Frequency
Lightning Risk Assessment for Rectangular Structure
Lightning Flash Density (Fig. H.2) Ng = 4
Relative Structure Location (Table H.4.3) C1 = 2
Rectangular Structure Length (ft) : L = 80 ft
Width (ft) : W = 50 ft
Height (ft) : H = 30 ft
Equivalent Collective Area: Ae = 4.91E-03 km^2
Lightning Strike Frequency: Nd = 3.93E-02
Structural Coefficients (Table H.5.a) C2 = 3
Structural Contents Coefficients (Table H.5.b) C3 = 3
Structural Occupancy Coefficient (Table H.5.c) C4 = 1
Lightning Consequence Coefficient (Table H.5.d) C5 = 5
Tolerable Lightning Frequency: Nc = 3.33E-05
Lightning Protection System Should Be Installed
Based on NFPA780-2000
Rectangular
Model
Example
Ouch!!
IV. Applicable Codes/Standards
NFPA 780
UL 96A
UL 96
NFPA 780
Standard for the Installation of
Lightning Protection Systems (2004)
Most Active Standard Available
Not a Code, (not enforced)
UL 96 & 96A
96A - Installation Standard
Master Label
Independent Third Party Testing
96 - Manufacturing Standard for Listed
LP Components
UL Master Label Program
Must be UL Listed to be Eligible
Materials must be UL Listed
System will be subjected to Inspection
by UL
VII. Basic Components
Air Terminals
Lightning Conductors
Ground Terminals
Connectors/Fittings
Surge Suppression Devices
Types of
Air Terminals
Plain Air Terminals
Safety Air Terminals
Flexible Air Terminals
New Mex i c o Test s
19mm (3/4) blunt rod was most effective
Types of Lightning Conductors
UL Listed Lightning Conductors
Copper
Aluminum
Class I
Class II
Structural Steel
Framework
Types of Ground Terminals
Ground Rods
Plain/Sectional Copper-Clad Steel,
Copper, Galvanized Steel,
Stainless Steel
Enhanced Ground Rods
Types of Ground Terminals
Continued...
Ground Plates
Ground Mesh
Concrete Encased
Electrodes
Reinforcing Steel
Copper Conductors
Connectors/Fittings
Functions
Bonds Conductors to Strike
Terminals and Ground
Terminals
Bond Metal Bodies to Provide
a Path to Ground
Alleviates Potential
Differences between System
and Metal Bodies
Helps Prevent Flashover
Potentials
Surge Suppression Devices
Helps Prevent Surge Currents from
Entering the Structure via
Electrical, Data, Phone, Cable
Lines, etc.
Integral Part of Total Protection
Package
UL96A & NFPA Surge Suppression
Requirements vague
Roof Top
Detail
VIII.
Details
Thank You

Various ESE&DAS Terminals

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Various ESE&DAS Terminals

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Harger Lightning & Grounding 2005

Harger Lightning & Grounding

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen