X International Symposium on

Lightning Protection
9th-13th November, 2009 Curitiba, Brazil

NECESSARY SEPARATION DISTANCES FOR LIGHTNING

PROTECTION SYSTEMS - IEC 62305-3 REVISITED
Fridolin H. Heidler1, Wolfgang J. Zischank2
1
2

University of Federal Armed Forces, Munich, Germany E-mail: fridolin.heidler@unibw.de

University of Federal Armed Forces, Munich, Germany E-mail: wolfgang.zischank@unibw.de

Abstract - In case of direct lightning strike to a building dangerous sparking may occur between the external lightning
protection system and conductive installations inside the building. To avoid such side flashes a minimum separation distance
between conductive parts inside the building and the air termination or down conductor system is required. The standard
IEC 62305-3 provides formulae to determine the necessary separation distance. Objective of the paper is to re-visit the
determination of separation distances. The international standard IEC 62305-3 recommends using electrically conductive
parts of a building or structure as so-called natural components of the lightning protection system. The use of such
extended metal parts can lead to significant reduction of the necessary separation distances. Objective of the paper is also to
study the necessary separation distances for buildings using metal roofs, walls or attics as integral part of the lightning
protection system. Such configurations are not yet covered by the IEC-standards.

1 INTRODUCTION
According to the standard IEC 62305 part 1 [1] and part 2 [2] the lightning protection system (LPS) consists of the
external and the internal LPS. Components of the external LPS are the air termination system, the down conductor
system and the earth termination system. The functions of the external LPS are to intercept the lightning flash, to
conduct the lightning current safely to earth and to disperse it into the ground.
In case of direct lightning strike, dangerous sparking may occur between the external LPS and metal installations inside
the building. The function of the internal lightning protection is to prevent such dangerous sparking either by lightning
equipotential bonding or by keeping the separation distance. The separation distance is the minimum clearance required
at the proximity of conductive parts inside the building and the external LPS to avoid side flashes. According to the
standard IEC 62305-3 [2] the necessary separation distance is given by the following equation

s = ki

kc
l
km

(1)

The induction coefficient ki takes into account the highest voltage expected at the proximity considering the behaviour
of the dielectric strength of air for sub-microsecond impulse voltages [3, 4]. With the steepness (di/dt) of the lightning
current, the induced voltage is given by

u = M (di / dt )

(2)

The mutual inductance M is given by the loop structure resulting from the wiring of the external LPS and of
installations inside the building. Because the subsequent strokes have much higher current steepness than the first
strokes, in IEC 62305 3 [2] only the subsequent strokes are considered as short stroke current with the waveform
0.25/100 s (front time T1 = 0.25 s, decay time to half value T2 = 0.25 s) [1]. Four lightning protection levels (LPL)
are defined, the highest level being LPL I and the lowest level LPL IV. According to that classification, the current
peak (50 kA) is highest for LPL I and reduced to 37,5 kA for LPL II and to 25 kA for LPL III and LPL IV. With the
reduction of the current amplitude, the average front steepness imax/T1 is lowered from 200 kA/s for LPL I to 150
kA/s for LPL II and to 100 kA/s for LPL III/IV, seen in Table 1.

91

Corresponding to the four lightning protection levels, in IEC 62305 3 [2] four classes of LPS (I, II, III, IV) are
defined. In the highest class of LPS I the induction coefficient is fixed to ki = 0,08 and reduced to ki = 0,06 and ki =
0,04 for LPS II and LPS III/IV considering the reduction of the current steepness (see Table 1).
The configuration coefficient kc takes into account the percental current share to the individual down conductors being
the same for all classes of LPS. Fig. 1 visualizes the configuration coefficient kc for three basic arrangements. The
arrangements apply for simple structures with earth termination systems consisting of horizontal or vertical earth
electrodes [2]. For a direct strike to a Franklin rod, the total current flows through that rod and thus the configuration
coefficient results in kc = 1 (Fig. 1a). For the 2-dimensional arrangement in Fig. 1b, approximately 66 % of the
lightning current flows through the outer down conductor. That current share gives the value kc = 0,66. For the 3dimensional arrangement in Fig. 1c, the fraction of current flowing through the corner down conductor becomes about
44 % resulting in kc = 0,44.
Table 1: Peak current imax, average front steepness imax/T1 of the subsequent short stroke [1] and the configuration coefficient ki [2]

LPL/LPS
I
II
III and IV

a)

imax
50 kA
37,5 kA
25 kA

ki
0,08
0,06
0,04

metallic/electric
installation

io(t)

Franklin
rod

imax/T1
200 kA/s
150 kA/s
100 kA/s

down
conductor
l

loop

io(t)

kc = 1

b)

io(t)

air termination wire

outer down
conductor

w
loop

w
down
conductor

0,66 io(t)

kc = 0,66

c)

air termination mesh

corner
down
conductor
0,44 io(t)

io(t)
w
s
loop

w
down
conductor

down
conductor

kc = 0,44

Fig. 1 Separation distance s and coefficient kc

(a) Franklin rod (1-dimensional)
(b) Air termination wire with down conductors (2-dimensional)
(c) Meshed air termination and down conductor system (3-dimensional)

92

For 3-dimensional grid-like structures using ring earth electrodes or foundation earth electrodes, in IEC 62305-3 annex
C [2] the following formula is given

kc =

1
c
+ 0,1 + 0,2 3
2n
h

(3)

with the spacing between the down-conductors c, the total number of down-conductors n and the height of structure h.
The coefficient km finally considers the dielectric strength of materials other than air present at the location of the
proximity. Table 2 contains the values of the coefficient km. For air km = 1 applies. For construction materials (e.g.
brick) this coefficient is reduced to the half.
Table 2: Values of the coefficient km.

Material
Air
Concrete, bricks

km
1
0,5

2 MOTIVATION TO REVISIT IEC 62305-3

Originally, Eq. (1) was developed using the vertical distance between the point, where the separation distance is to be
considered, to the nearest equipotential bonding point for the length l. Meanwhile the length has been re-defined in the
IEC 62305-3 standard as the total length along the air termination and the down conductors from the point, where the
separation distance is to be considered to the nearest equipotential bonding point. The formula for kc later on was
refined taking into account the height of the structure and the distance between the down conductors [2]. Furthermore,
the original values of ki were reduced by 20 %. The ki-values (see Table 1) were originally fixed to 0,1 for LPS I, to
0,075 for LPS II and to 0,05 for LPS III and LPS IV [5].
Eq. (1) and the values for the parameters are based on calculations published in the mid 1980s [3]. Due to the limited
computer capacity available at that time, the modeling was limited to simple one-, two-, and three dimensional (cubic)
lightning protection systems consisting of only stretched wires. Objective of the paper is to test the IEC equation for
separation distances with state of the art computer codes solving the complete Maxwell equations.
The international standard IEC 62305-3 [2] further recommends using electrically conductive parts of a building or
structure as so-called natural components of the lightning protection system. Suited as natural components of the air
termination and down conductor system are e.g. the reinforcement of concrete, metal roofs, metal facades or attics as
long as they are electrically continuously interconnected and provide a sufficient cross sectional area to conduct the
lightning current without undue heating.
The use of such extended metal parts as natural components of the lightning protection system can result in a
significant reduction of the necessary separation distances between conductive parts inside the building and the air
termination or down conductor system. However, formulae to determine the necessary separation distance for such
natural components are not yet contained in the IEC 62305 standard series.
In this paper the influence of metal roofs, metal facades and attics on the separation distance is studied. The calculations
were performed with the software CONCEPT II, which solves the Maxwell equations in the frequency domain using
the method of moments (MoM). Exemplarily, the structures studied were all equipped with a lightning protection
system according to class II of IEC 62305-3 [2].
The dimensions of the structures were varied in a wide range. In each case the induced voltages were calculated for
three different points of strike on the roof and for two different induction loops inside the structure. From the induced
voltages the necessary separation distances were determined using the constant-area-criterion.

93

3 CONSTANT-AREA-CRITERION
Fig. 2 shows the spark-over behavior of an air gap when exposed to impulse voltages of different steepness. The static
onset voltage Uo is the threshold below which no spark-over occurs. The voltage-time characteristic shows that the
dielectric strength is a function of the voltage waveshape. For fast rising voltages, the air gap sparks over at higher
voltage levels than Uo. That behaviour is addressed to the fact that a certain period of time is needed to built up the arc
between the electrodes of the air gap.
The time characteristic of the dielectric strength is taken into account by the well established constant-area-criterion [6].
For unipolar impulse voltages of arbitrary wave shape the following equation applies:
t2

[u ( t ) U

] dt = A

(4)

t1

The definitions used in Eq. (4) are illustrated in Fig. 3. The voltage-time area A is a constant value for a particular air
gap. If the air gap is altered by varying the distance s between the electrodes, both the static onset voltage Uo and the
voltage-time area A are changed. For rod-rod gaps exposed to negative impulse voltages the following values apply [7]:

Uo
s
= 0,63
[ MV ]
[ m]

(5)

A
s
= 0,59
[Vs ]
[ m]

(6)

Eqs. (46) are used to evaluate the separation distance s between the wiring of the electrical installations inside the
building and the external LPS.

u(t)
u
Voltage-time characteristic
of an air gap

A
Uo
Uo

t
t1
t

Fig. 2 Spark-over behavior of an air gap stressed by

impulse voltages with different steepness

t2

Fig. 3 Illustration of the constant-area-criterion

4 COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH
The fast rising current of the subsequent stroke induces very short voltage impulses in the considered installation loops.
Fig. 4 gives two examples of the induced voltage waveshapes: Almost any waveshape may occur, from a dominant
peak at the beginning followed by only minor oscillations up to only slightly damped oscillations. The oscillations
originate from the resonant effects of the considered loop. The resonances are due to the fact, that the loop dimensions
are not small enough compared to the corresponding wave lengths of the fast rising current. These resonance effects are
not covered by the simple formula of Eq. (2).

94

More precise computation of the voltage requires the solution of the complete Maxwells equations. Therefore, the
electromagnetic computations are carried out using the computer code CONCEPT, which has been developed during
the last two decades by the Technical University Hamburg-Harburg [8]. This computer code is based on the so-called
Method of Moments (MOM) [9] and is written in FORTRAN 77. It is a well-known computer code in the area of
electromagnetic computations, and has been validated by several tests [8,10]. This computer code solves the complete
Maxwells equations in the frequency domain. Therefore, the time-domain solutions of currents and voltages are
obtained from the inverse Fourier transformation. The fundamental assumptions of the computer code are given in
[8,11] and the handling of the program package is described in [11].
2
1,5

(a)

1,5
(MV)

(MV)

1
u

0,5

0,5

0
-0,5

(b)

0,5

1,5

-0,5

2
t

0
0,5

1,5

(s)

-1

(s)

Fig. 4 Examples of voltage shapes induced by the subsequent return stroke current (waveform 0.25/100s)
(a) LPS type a (Fig. 6), Air termination: mesh, Point of strike: corner, Induction: Corner loop
(b) LPS type b (Fig. 7 ), Air termination: metal roof, Point of strike: center, Induction: Center wire

In the computer code CONCEPT, the return stroke process is simulated with the transmission-line (TL)-model
introduced by Uman [12]. Using this model, the return stroke channel is assumed to be straight and perpendicular to the
earth surface. The return stroke channel is considered to increase along the z-coordinate with the constant return stroke
velocity chosen to v = 100 m/s. The TL-model only describes the interferences due to the return stroke process. This
involves that the coupling of the lightning channel to the structure under study is taken into account, while the coupling
from the structure back to the lightning channel is ignored. The TL model uses a pre-defined current source iB(t) at
the channel-base, from where the time-varying current waveform propagates upwards in z-direction (Fig. 5). The
current along the lightning channel as a function of time t and coordinate z is given by

i ( z , t ) = iB (t z / v)

(7)

i(z,t)
v

Lightning
channel

iB(t)

striking point

Fig. 5 Propagation of the lightning current along the return stroke channel according to the TL-model

95

This behavior is transferred to the frequency domain using the time shifting theorem of the Fourier analysis. The
propagation of the current wave is simulated by means of the following equation

I ( z) = B e

z
v

(8)

(z) denotes the current on the lightning channel at the coordinate z and B is the channel-base current [13]. According
to the IEC 62305-1 standard [1], the channel-base current iB(t) of subsequent stroke is simulated with a front time of T1
= 250 ns. The following channel-base current it considered in the paper:

iB / max
t,

iB (t ) = T1
iB / max ,

for 0 t T1

for t T1

(9)

Eq. (9) defines a lightning current with a constant steepness during the current rise. After the current rise the current is
kept constant at the peak value iB/max.
The so-called thin wire approach is used to simulate the cylindrical conductors. The cylindrical conductors of the air
termination system and of the down conductor system are taken into account with the radius of 4 mm and with the
conductivity of 56,2 106 S/m. These values are typical for an external lightning protection system consisting of copper.
Metal sheets are simulated by rectangular and triangular patches assumed as ideal conductors. The segmentation of the
patches can be seen in the Figs. 7-9. The ground is considered as plane also with ideal conductivity. Isolating materials
other than air are disregarded (km = 1).
Three different frequency regimes are chosen in order to minimize the number of frequencies. Starting with a lowest
frequency of 1 kHz, the frequency is increased in steps of f = 2 kHz up to 99 kHz. Then in the second frequency
regime, the frequency step is increased to f = 3 kHz up to 2 MHz. In the highest frequency regime between 2 MHz
and 20 MHz, the frequency step is further increased to f = 4 kHz.
As a general rule, the dimensions of the wires and of the patches should not exceed about /8, where is the
wavelength of the highest frequency considered. In the paper, the highest considered frequency of 20 MHz corresponds
to the wavelength of 15 m. Consequently, the wires and patches were subdivided into segments with maximum
dimensions of 2 m.

5 EXAMINED STRUCTURES
Various structures simulating the dimensions of typical buildings were selected for this study. Four structures had a
base area of 20 m x 20 m with different heights of 10 m, 20 m, 40 m and 60 m, seen in Figs. 6-9. Further, a fifth
structure with a large base area of 60 m x 60 m and a height of 10 m was included, seen in Figs. 11,12 [14,15]. The
mesh size of the wire air termination system was 10 m x 10 m and the interspacing between the down conductors was
10 m, corresponding to a LPS of class II in IEC 62305-3 [2]. Whenever applicable, ring conductors, horizontally
interconnecting the down conductors, were installed every 10 m of structure height.
Four basic types of lightning protection systems (LPS) were considered for these five structures, as shown in Table 3.
The LPS type a comprises stretched wires used for the air termination and the down conductors, as shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show the LPS of the types b and c. Compared to the LPS of the type a, in the LPS of the types
b and c the stretched wires are substituted by flat metal plates in order to simulate the metal roof and the metal
walls, respectively. LPS type d shown in Fig. 9 considers the typical case of a circumferential metal attic at the roof.
Three different lightning attachment points are considered, as shown in the Figs. 6-9: to the corner of the roof, to the
middle of the roof side and to the center of the roof. In the following, they are denoted as corner strike, side strike and
center strike. For calculation purposes, at these locations short lightning rods of 1 m length are placed and connected to
the air termination system. The vertical lightning channel is attached to the tops of the rods. The channel-base current is
injected at these attachment points corresponding to the TL-model (see Fig. 5). According to LPL II of IEC 62305-1 [1]
the peak value of a subsequent stroke is iB/max = 37,5 kA, the front time being T1 = 250 ns (see Table 1).

96

For the evaluation of the necessary separation distances two induction loops were installed inside each structure. They
are denoted as corner loop and center wire and shown as dashed lines in the Figs. 6-9. The corner loop starts from
the roof corner of the structure with a 10 m long horizontal section pointing diagonally to the center. Following, a
vertical section leads to ground. Of course, in case of the metal roof the horizontal section is missing. The center wire
connects the air termination system and ground vertically in the center of the structure. Each loop is loaded by a high
resistance of 1 M in order to simulate open loop conditions at the proximity between the lightning protection system
and internal conductive parts.
Table 3: Types of lightning protection systems

Type of
LPS

Air termination

Down conductors

meshed wires

wires

metal roof

wires

meshed wires

metal walls

meshed wires
with metal attic

Wires

center strike
corner strike

corner strike

side strike

corner
loop

corner
loop

center
wire

Fig. 6 LPS type a

corner strike
corner
loop

side strike

center
wire

Fig. 7 LPS type b

center strike
side strike

center strike

corner strike

side strike

corner
loop

Fig. 8 LPS type c

Fig. 9 LPS type d

97

center
wire

6 CURRENTS
6.1 Current distribution to the down conductors
The share of the injected current to the down conductors is determined for the asymmetric case of a lightning strike to
the corner of the roof. Of special interest is the current through the corner down conductor located directly beneath the
point of strike: The ratio of the peak current through this down conductor, i1/max, to the peak of the incident lightning
current, iB/max, equals to the parameter kc of Eq. (1). Table 4 gives the ratios of the corner down conductor peak current
i1/max to the incident lightning current peak iB/max for the meshed air termination system (LPS type a) and the flat metal
roof (LPS type b). In comparison to the meshed wire air termination also the values of kc according to Eq. (3) are
listed in Table 4. In case of the structures with meshed air termination systems the values for kc according to IEC are in
good agreement to the values calculated, the maximum deviation being 18 % in case of the large 60 m x 60 m structure.
Fig. 10 shows the percentage current share p = in/max / iB/max to the down conductors for the large 60 m x 60 m base
structure. The numbering n of the down conductors can be seen from Figs. 11 and 12.
Table 4: Ratio of the corner down conductor current to the incident lightning current for strikes to the corner

20m x 20m x 10m

Meshed wire
0,40

i1/max / iB/max
kc acc. to Eq. (3)
0,36

flat metal roof

0,25

20m x 20m x 20m

0,33

0,32

0,22

60m x 60m x 10m

0,39

0,32

0,22

Structure size

40
p

35
a

30
[%] 25
20
15
b

10
5
0
0

10

12

14

Fig. 10 Percentage current distribution to the down conductors for the 60 m x 60 m x 10 m structure in case of corner strike.
a) LPS type a with meshed air termination
b) LPS typ b with flat metal roof
Corner
strike

Center
strike

Side
strike

Corner
strike

Meshed air
termination
system

12
1

Corner
loop

9
6

Center
wire

Center
strike

Flat metal roof

13

11
3

Side
strike

10

12
1 2

Corner loop
Down
conductor

Fig. 11 LPS type a (60 m x 60 m x 10 m) with meshed air

termination system of 10 m x 10 m mesh size and
down conductors with 10 m interspacing

13

11
5

10
Down
conductors

Fig. 12 LPS typ b (60 m x 60 m x 10 m) with metal roof and

down conductors with 10 m interspacing

98

Obviously, the down conductor at the corner and its immediate neighbours carry the bulk of the current, while the rest
of the down conductor diverts only 5 % or less of the incident lightning current to ground. It should be noted that also
in the case of the metal roof a remarkable part of the incident current flows through the corner down conductor (about
22 %), although it is clearly less compared to the case of a meshed wire air termination (about 40 %).
6.2 Influence of the lightning current waveform
For comparison, calculations were also performed using lightning current waveforms other than the linear rise
according to Eq. (9). In these cases, the injected negative subsequent stroke (iB/max = 37,5 kA, T1 = 250 ns) was
simulated using the standardized lightning waveform of IEC 62305-1 annex B [1] given with Eq. (10) as well as a
double exponential current waveform given with (11):

(t / 1 )10
e t / 2 , with 1 = 0.454 s, 2 = 143 s and = 0.993
10
1 + (t / 1 )

iB (t ) =

iB / max

iB (t ) =

iB / max

et / 1 et / 2 ,

(10)

with 1 = 0.092 s, 2 = 143 s and = 0.995

(11)

The comparison was performed for the 20m x 20m x 10m LPS typ a structure and with lightning current injection to
the roof corner. The maximum voltages induced to the corner loop are quite similar for the linear rising current
waveform of Eq. (9) and the IEC current given in Eq. (10). Differences here are less than 25 %. Compared to the linear
rising current waveform, the double exponential current waveform given by Eq. (11), however, produces maximum
voltages about twice as high. This is due to the significantly higher maximum current steepness at t = 0 inherent to a
double exponential current waveform.

7 INDUCED VOLTAGE AND SEPARATION DISTANCE

7.1 LPS type a consisting only of stretched wires
Table 5 contains the peak values of the induced voltages for the five examined structures of LPS type a consisting of
only stretched wires. The corresponding separation distances are summarized in Table 6 for air (km = 1). For all
structures the corner strike represents the worst case, because it produces the highest peak values of the induced voltage
in the corner loop. On the other hand, the induced voltages in the center wire are also very high in case of the center
strike.
Table 5: Induced voltages for LPS type a (km = 1)

Structure
Base area
Height

Induction
loops

Table 6: Separation distance for LPS type a (km = 1)

Peak voltage [kV]

Structure

Lightning attachment point

Base area
Height

Corner

Side

Center

20 m x 20 m Corner loop
10 m
Center wire

1770
471

628
426

506
1030

20 m x 20 m Corner loop
20 m
Center wire

2150
711

974
678

1060
1440

20 m x 20 m Corner loop
40 m
Center wire

2530
1380

1670
1190

1660
1470

20 m x 20 m Corner loop
60 m
Center wire

2870
1820

2010
1580

2160
1930

60 m x 60 m Corner loop
10 m
Center wire

1780
257

155
247

243
1120

99

Induction
Loop

Separation distance [cm]

Lightning attachment point
Corner Side

Center

20 m x 20 m Corner loop
10 m
Center wire

29
6,1

9,6
8,9

7,3
23

20 m x 20 m Corner loop
20 m
Center wire

44
17

22
19

19
34

20 m x 20 m Corner loop
40 m
Center wire

65
37

43
37

44
44

20 m x 20 m Corner loop
60 m
Center wire

78
54

60
51

62
52

60 m x 60 m Corner loop
10 m
Center wire

28
2,5

2,1
3,7

3,2
32

In the following, the CONCEPT calculation results are compared to the calculation results according to IEC 62305-3,
clause 6.3 and annex C (Eq. (1,3) in section 1). Fig. 13 illustrates the separation distances for the cases of corner strike
and center strike. For the corner strike, the calculations with CONCEPT reveal separation distances being about 15 %
to 30 % higher compared to IEC 62305-3. The deviations are due to the fact that in IEC 62305-3 the ki - values were
reduced by 20 % compared to the original calculation results [3-5].

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

CONCEPT

Concept strike
VDE 0185
Corner
s [cm]

s [cm]

Center
Concept strike
VDE 0185
IEC 62305-3

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

20m x 20m 20m x 20m 20m x 20m 20m x 20m 60m x 60m
10m
20m
40m
60m
10m

CONCEPT

IEC 62305-3

20m x 20m 20m x 20m 20m x 20m 20m x 20m 60m x 60m
10m
20m
40m
60m
10m

Fig. 13 Comparison of the separation distances resulting from the CONCEPT computer code and from IEC 62305-3 (eq. (3)) for
the cases of corner strike and center strike to LPS type a

For the center strike, the deviations are much higher between the CONCEPT computation and IEC 62305-3: The values
determined according to the formula of IEC are higher by a factor of about 1,5 2,5. These high separation distances
are due to the modified calculation method of IEC 62305-3. Whereas originally [3,4] only the height between the
equipotential plane bonding point and the location of the proximity is considered, according to IEC 62305-3 now the
total length of the path along the air termination and the down conductors is to consider for the length l in Eq. (1).
7.2 LPS type b with flat metal roof
Table 7 summarizes the separation distances for the LPS type b using flat metal roofs (km = 1). For the structure with
20 m x 20 m of base area, the separation distances are fairly independent on the location of the striking points and of
the induction loop. On contrast, the structure with the large base area of 60 m x 60 m has a somewhat different trend.
Anyhow, the highest value of the separation distance (6,1 cm) is very low and 30 % less compared to the 20 m x 20 m
structure of the same height of 10 m.
Table 7: Separation distance for LPS type b (km = 1)

Structure
Base area
Height

Separation distance [cm]

Induction loop

Lightning attachment point

Corner

Side

Center

20 m x 20 m
10 m

Corner loop
Center wire

8,4
7,6

8,1
7,8

7,8
7,8

20 m x 20 m
20 m

Corner loop
Center wire

17
17

17
17

17
17

20 m x 20 m
40 m

Corner loop
Center wire

34
34

34
34

34
34

20 m x 20 m
60 m

Corner loop
Center wire

49
48

49
49

49
49

60 m x 60 m
10 m

Corner loop
Center wire

6,1
2,4

2,8
2,6

2,2
2,6

100

Compared to LPS type a, the use of a metal roof reduces the separation distances significantly, especially for low
structures of 10 m or 20 m of height. For these low structures the reduction factors vary from about 2 to 4. For higher
structures the reduction is less pronounced. Fig. 14 shows the separation distances for the structures with 20 m x 20 m
base area as function of the structure height. The following linear relation is found for the separation distance s and the
structure height h (for a class II LPS):

s = k h 0,0083 h

(12)

An approach for structures with a metal roof and classical down conductors with rounded up figures, also allowing
for some safety margin, could be:

s=k

h
km

(13)

s [cm]

The constants k could be 0,012 for a class I LPS, 0,009 for a class II LPS and 0,006 for a class III/IV LPS. The
coefficient km denotes the material factor as in Eq. (1).
60
40
20
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60
h [m]

Fig. 14 Separation distance s for the 20 m x 20 m base area structures of LPS type b (metal roof) as function of the structure
height h.

7.3 LPS type c with metal walls

The LPS type c uses metal walls as down conductor system and meshed metal wires for the air termination system.
The calculations revealed induced voltages typically strongly oscillating. Because the constant-area-criterion given by
Eq. (4-6) applies only for unipolar impulse voltages, the separation distance cannot be specified in detail. Therefore,
only the peak values of the induced voltages are summarized in Table 8. For the induced voltages the following two
cases are found distinguishing between the locations of the lightning attachment point:
1. In case of the corner and side strike, the attachment point is directly at the top of the metal walls (see Fig. 8). In
these cases the induced voltages are always less than 500 kV, irrespective of the structure height. Due to these low
voltage level, a separation distance of s 15 cm seems to be adequate concerning the class II lightning protection
system according to IEC 62305-3.
2. In the case of center strike, the peak values of the induced voltages (in the center wire) are close to the values found
for LPS type a, seen in Table 5. Obviously, in case of the center strike use of metal walls does not reduce the
separation distances significantly.
The values given in Table 8 are based on ideal metal walls directly connected to the equipotential plane. In reality,
however, short metal wires are used to connect the metal facades to the earth termination system. The influence of 1 m
long connecting wires is examined for the structure with the base area of 20 m x 20 m and the height of 10 m. The
interspacing between the connecting wires is taken into account with 5 m and 10 m, respectively. Table 9 summarizes
the results in comparison to the ideal case of the walls directly connected to the equipotential plane. Only the values of
the worst-case combinations corner strike/corner loop and center strike/center wire are given. The results reveal
that the use of such connecting wires increases the induced voltages only marginally by less than 10 %.

101

Table 8: Induced voltage for LPS type c (km = 1)

Structure

Peak voltage [kV]

Base area
Height

Induction loop

20 m x 20 m
10 m

Lightning attachment point

Corner

Side

Center

Corner loop
Center wire

441
99

167
60

395
1010

20 m x 20 m
20 m

Corner loop
Center wire

440
160

110
75

500
1430

60 m x 60 m
10 m

Corner loop
Center wire

430
100

85
110

190
1120

Table 9: Influence of the wires connecting the metal walls to the equipotential plane on the induced voltages for LPS type c
(km = 1). The connecting wires are 1 m long and the 10 m high structure has the base area of 20 m x 20 m.

Interspacing between the

connecting wires

Induction
loop

Walls directly connected to

ground plane
5 m - Interspacing
10 m - Interspacing

Peak voltage
[kV]
Lightning attachment point
Corner

Center

Corner loop

441

Center wire

1010

Corner loop

441

Center wire

1070

Corner loop

476

Center wire

1070

7.4 LPS type d with circumferential metal attic at the roof

The influence of the circumferential metal attic (see Fig. 9) is examined for the structure with the dimensions of 20 m x
20 m x 20 m and for two flat attic sheets having a width of 0,5 m and 1 m. Table 10 summarizes the resulting
separation distances in comparison to the LPS type a configuration without attic. For the cases of side strike and
center strike no significant reduction of the separation distance is found, irrespective of the sheet width. Only for the
worst-case combination of corner strike/corner loop the separation distance is reduced by about 30 % for the sheets
width of 0,5 m and by about 40 % for the sheets width of 1 m.
Table 10: Separation distance for LPS type d (km = 1) with the base area of 20 m x 20 m and the height of 20 m

Separation distance [cm]

circumferential metal
attic at the roof

Induction loop

Without attic
0,5 m
1,0 m

Lightning attachment point

Corner loop
Center wire

Corner
44
17

Side
22
19

Center
19
34

Corner loop
Center wire
Corner loop
Center wire

32
18
29
17

22
18
21
17

19
33
18
32

102

8 CONCLUSION
Extensive sheet metal plates used as natural components of lightning protection systems may reduce the separation
distances considerably. In the present paper the influence of metal roofs, of metal facades and of metal circumferential
attics is analyzed. The calculations are based on the CONCEPT II computer code which solves the Maxwells
Equations with the Method of Moments in the frequency domain.
The use of metal roofs can reduce the separation distances significantly by the factor of about 2 ... 4. Here, the
separation distance is proportional to the height of the proximity over the equipotential plane.
For metal walls two different cases are found depending on the location of the point of strike: If the point strike is at the
top of the metal wall as is the case of the corner strike and the side strike, the separation distances are relatively small.
For instance, about 15 cm are sufficient to keep the required separation distances for class II lightning protection
system according to IEC 62305-3. In case of center strike, however, the use of a metal facade gives only marginal
reduction of the separation distances. In this case the induction resulting from the air termination wires on the roof
dominate.
The use of a circumferential metal attic is of minor influence, whereat the separation distance is reduced by some tens
of percents, at best.

9 REFERENCES
[1] IEC 62305-1:2006-01, Protection against lightning - Part 1: General principles, Jan. 2006.
[2] IEC 62305-3:2006-01, Protection against lightning-Part 3: Physical damage to structures and life hazard, Jan. 2006.
[3] O. Beierl, H. Steinbigler, "Induced over-voltages at lightning protection systems with meshed air termination conductors, Proc.
of the 18th International Conference on Lightning Protection ICLP, Munich, paper 4.1, Sep. 1985 (in German).
[4] W. Zischank, Isolated lightning protection systems for buildings with flammable content, Proc. of the 19th International
Conference on Lightning Protection ICLP, paper 6.8, Graz, April 1988 (in German).
[5] IEC 61024-1, Protection of structures against lightning, Ed. 2.0, 1998.
[6] D. Kind, The constant-area-criterion for impuls voltages at electrodes in air, Ph. D. Thesis, Technical University Munich, 1957
(in German)
[7] L. Thione, The Dielectric Strength of Large Air Insulation in K. Ragaller: Surges in High-Voltage Networks, Plenum Press,
New York, 1980.
[8] H. Bruens, Pulse generated electromagnetic response in three-dimensional wire structures, Ph. D. Thesis, University of the
Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Germany, 1985 (in German).
[9] R.F. Harrington, Field Calculations by Moment Methods, New York, The MacMillan Company, 1968.
[10]H. Bruens, D. Koenigstein, Calculation and measurements of transient electromagnetic fields in EMP simulators, Proc. of the
6th Symposium on Electromagnetic Compati-bility, Zurich, paper 66L2, pp. 365-370, March 1985.
[11]H. Singer, H. Brns, T. Mader, A. Freiberg, CONCEPT II Manual of the program system, University Hamburg-Harburg,
Germany, 2003.
[12]M.A. Uman, R.D. Brantley, Y.T. Lin, J.A. Tiller, E.P. Krider, D.K. McLain, Correlated electric and magnetic fields from
lightning return strokes, J. Geophysical. Res., vol. 80, pp. 373-376, Jan. 1975.
[13]H. Bruens, H. Singer, F. Demmel, Calculation of transient processes at direct lightning stroke into thin wire structures, Proc.
of the 7th Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Zurich, paper 17D5, pp. 85-90, March 1987.
[14]W. Zischank, F. Heidler, Reduction of separation distances by using extensive metal parts as natural components of the external
lightning protection system, Proc. of the 29th International Conference on Lightning Protection ICLP, Uppsala, Sweden, paper
1-1, June 2008.
[15]F. Heidler, W. Zischank, A. Kern, Analysis of necessary separation distances for lightning protection systems including natural
components, Proc. of the 28th Intern. Conf. on Lightning Protection ICLP, Kanazawa, Japan, vol. II, report X-1, pp. 1418 1423, Sep. 2006.

103