Lightning Protection according to IEC 62305

Diogo Filipe da Silva Santos

Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Supervisor: Prof. Maria Teresa Nunes Padilha de Castro Correia de Barros

Examination Committee

Chairperson: Prof. Rui Manuel Gameiro de Castro

Supervisor: Prof. Maria Teresa Nunes Padilha de Castro Correia de Barros
Members of the Committee: Prof. Maria Eduarda de Sampaio Pinto de Almeida
Pedro

November 2015
ii
Abstract

Protection of structures against lightning has been an area of study for a very long time. Since the
middle of the 18th century it began with the work of Benjamin Franklin by protecting structures against
the effects of direct lightning discharges with his famous invention, the lightning rod, which it is still
used today as an air-termination system.

More recently, with the increasing in technology and maintenance of electrical and electronic
equipment, the low operating voltage of that equipment and the increasing height of structures, the
necessity for better lightning protection risk evaluation and measures became a very urgent matter.
That is where the IEC 62305 enters.

The objectives of this thesis are to understand the Risk Management methodology created by the
international committee of IEC, translated in the standard IEC 62305 Lightning Protection, and apply
it to a computer program.

In order to accomplish that, it is crucial to dominate two subjects: (1) the characterization of the
lightning discharge, including the explanation of the phenomenon itself, which was very difficult to
describe until the 1950s, and the definition of the several current parameters; and (2) the lightning
incidence models adopted by the standard, including the description of the Electrogeometric Model
(EGM) and the Electrical Shadow Model.

Only when these subjects are fully understood, it is possible to take the standards risk management
methodology and create a user-friendly computer program, capable of supporting risk assessment and
elaborate effective solutions, according to IEC 62305.

Keywords
Lightning discharge, risk assessment, lightning protection system, IEC 62305

iii
iv
Resumo

A proteo de estruturas contra descargas atmosfricas tem sido uma rea de estudo h j muito
tempo. Desde meados do sculo 18 que comeou com o trabalho de Benjamin Franklin na proteo
de estruturas contra os efeitos de descargas atmosfricas diretas, usando a sua famosa inveno, o
para-raios, que ainda hoje utilizado como sistema de proteo areo.

Mais recentemente, com o aumento da tecnologia e manuteno de equipamentos eltricos e

eletrnicos, a baixa tenso a que estes operam e o aumento da altura mdia das estruturas, tornou a
necessidade de melhores avaliaes de risco e de medidas de proteo contra descargas
atmosfricas um assunto urgente.

Os objectivos desta dissertao so perceber a metodologia de Gesto do Risco criada pelo comit
internacional CEI, traduzida na norma CEI 62305 Proteo contra descargas atmosfricas, e aplic-
la a um programa computacional.

Para atingir isso, crucial dominar dois assuntos: (1) a caracterizao da descarga atmosfrica,
incluindo a descrio do fenmeno em si, o que foi em si bastante difcil de descrever at dcada
de 1950, e a definio dos vrios parmetros que compem a corrente da descarga; e (2) os modelos
de incidncia adotados pela norma, incluindo a explicao do Modelo Eletrogeomtrico e o Modelo de
Sombra Eltrica.

Apenas quando estas matrias esto completamente compreendidas possvel pegar na

metodologia de gesto do risco presente na norma e criar um programa computacional de utilizao
amigvel, capaz de servir de avaliao do risco e elaborar solues eficazes, segundo a norma CEI
62305.

Palavras Chave
Descarga atmosfrica, avaliao do risco, proteo contra descargas atmosfricas, CEI 62305

v
vi
Index

Abstract.................................................................................................................................................... iii
Resumo ....................................................................................................................................................v
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... xi
Terms, definitions, symbols and abbreviations ..................................................................................... xiii
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Outline ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Overview of international lightning protection standards..................................................................... 5
2.1. IEC standard 62305 ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1. Before IEC 62305 ................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2. New approach with IEC 62305............................................................................................... 7
2.2. Different approaches by national lightning protection standards .................................................. 8
2.2.1. Differences between national lightning protection standards and the IEC 62305 ................. 8
2.2.2. Conventional and un-conventional lightning air-termination systems .................................... 9
3. General characterization of lightning discharges .............................................................................. 11
3.1. The lightning discharge phenomenon......................................................................................... 11
3.2. Current parameters ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.1. Peak current, ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2. Maximum current steepness ................................................................................................ 14
3.2.3. Charge, ............................................................................................................................. 14
3.2.4. Specific energy, / ........................................................................................................... 14
3.3. Cumulative statistical distributions of lightning peak currents .................................................... 16
3.4. Recent work in direct peak current measurements .................................................................... 18
3.5. Other parameters derived from current measurements ............................................................. 19
4. Lightning incidence models adopted by IEC 62305 .......................................................................... 23
4.1. Historical overview ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.2. The Electrogeometric Model (EGM) ........................................................................................... 24
4.2.1. Model description ................................................................................................................. 24
4.2.2. The Rolling sphere method (RSM)....................................................................................... 26
4.3. The Electric Shadow Model ........................................................................................................ 28
4.4. Lightning protection level (LPL) according to IEC 62305 ........................................................... 29
4.5. Final considerations and comparison between EGM and other lightning incidence models ..... 30
5. Risk Management.............................................................................................................................. 35
5.1. Basic Concepts and Methodology .............................................................................................. 35
5.2. Risk Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 39

vii
 5.2.1. Number of dangerous events, ......................................................................................... 40
5.2.2. Probability of damage to a structure, ............................................................................... 43
5.2.3. Consequent loss from damage into the structure and/or its contents, ............................ 48
5.3. Risk mitigation measures ............................................................................................................ 52
5.3.1. M1: Installing an LPS of an appropriate class...................................................................... 53
5.3.2. M2: Installing SPDs of an appropriate LPL at the line entrance point ................................. 55
5.3.3. M3: Protection measures against the consequences of fire ................................................ 56
5.3.4. M4: Providing zone(s) with a coordinated SPD system for the internal power and telecom
systems .......................................................................................................................................... 56
5.3.5. M5: Providing zone(s) with an adequate spatial grid-like shield. ......................................... 56
6. Application of the computer program L.R.A. .................................................................................. 61
6.1. L.R.A. structure ........................................................................................................................... 61
6.2. Example 1: Hospital .................................................................................................................... 63
6.2.1. Structure: geometric and environmental characteristics ...................................................... 64
6.2.2. Connected lines: geometric and environmental characteristics ........................................... 65
6.2.3. Type of loss .......................................................................................................................... 68
6.2.4. Lightning protection zones ................................................................................................... 69
6.2.5. Results ................................................................................................................................. 72
6.2.6. Lightning protection measures ............................................................................................. 74
6.3. Example 2: South Tower in Instituto Superior Tcnico (IST), Alameda Campus ....................... 80
6.3.1. Evaluation 1, assuming a = 0 no risk of explosion ...................................................... 85
6.3.2. Evaluation 2: = 0.1 assuming risk of explosion ........................................................... 88
7. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 91
7.1. Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 91
7.2. Achievements ............................................................................................................................. 91
7.3. Future work ................................................................................................................................. 92
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 97
Appendix A: Informative tables .......................................................................................................... 97
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 93

viii
List of Figures

Figure 1: Organization of the four parts of IEC 62305 Protection against lightning (from IEC 62305-1

[1]) ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: (a) Types of cloud flashes: (i) intracloud; (ii) air discharges; (iii) intercloud; (b) Types of

ground flashes: (i) downward negative ground flashes; (ii) downward positive ground flashes; (iii)

upward positive ground flashes; (iv) upward negative ground flashes, from [19] ................................. 12

Figure 3: Impulse lightning current parameters (typically 2 < 2 ) from IEC 62305-1 [1] ................. 15

Figure 4: Cumulative statistical distributions of lightning peak currents, giving percent of cases

exceeding abscissa value (from [22]) ................................................................................................... 17

Figure 5: Cumulative frequency of the current peak of the negative first stroke according to CIGRE.. 18

Figure 6: Design of an air-termination system according to the rolling sphere method (from [3]) ........ 27

Figure 8: Cumulative frequency of the current peak of the negative first stroke according to CIGRE.. 31

Figure 9: Lightning attractive radii as predicted by EGM (crosses), SLIM (solid line) and CVM (dashed

line) as a function of return stroke peak current for several structure heights (from [41]) .................... 33

Figure 10: Types of damage and types of loss according to the striking point Source of damage.... 36

Figure 11: Types of loss and corresponding risks resulting from different types of damage ................ 37

Figure 12: Collection areas introduced in IEC 62305 [47] .................................................................... 42

Figure 13: Probabilities that a flash to or near a structure cause damage in the structure and/or its

contents ................................................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 14: Probabilities that a flash to or near a connected line cause damage in the structure and/or

its contents ............................................................................................................................................ 45

Figure 15: M1 measure organization chart of the probabilities and parameters influenced by upgrading

the LPL of the LPS, ........................................................................................................................... 54

Figure 16: M2 measure organization chart of the probabilities and parameters influenced by ...... 55

Figure 17: M4 measure organization chart of the probabilities and parameters influenced by ..... 57

Figure 18: M5 measure organization chart of the probabilities and parameters influenced by the mesh

widths, .............................................................................................................................................. 58

Figure 19: Flowchart of the L.R.A. structure.......................................................................................... 63

Figure 20: Inputs related to the geometric and environmental characteristics of the structure ............ 65

Figure 22: Number of lines (power + telecommunications) connected to the structure to be protected65

ix
Figure 21: Lightning ground flash density computation by the keraunic number and the world

map distribution [49] .............................................................................................................................. 66

Figure 23: Inputs related to characteristics of the connected lines to the structure .............................. 67

Figure 24: Type of loss in analysis ........................................................................................................ 69

Figure 25: Definition of the lightning protection zones .......................................................................... 70

Figure 26: Unlocking the buttons to enable the characterization of each zone .................................... 70

Figure 27: Parameters that describe the zone Rooms Block for the Hospital example .................... 72

Figure 28: Risk 1 result risk of loss of human life, for each zone, by risk component...................... 73

Figure 29: Selection of appropriate lightning protection measures according with the three most

influential risk components for the overall risk....................................................................................... 74

Figure 30: Re-calculated risk after taking the lightning protection measures of Solution 1 .................. 75

Figure 31: Re-calculated risk after taking the lightning protection measures of Solution 2 .................. 76

Figure 32: Calculated risk after taking the lightning protection measures of Solution 3 ....................... 77

Figure 33: Parameters that describe the zone Intensive Care Unit from the Hospital example........ 78

Figure 34: Calculated risk, 4 risk of loss of economic value, for each zone, by type of risk ............ 78

Figure 35: Simplified economic evaluation based on risk analysis ....................................................... 79

Figure 36: Annual savings, , for the three solutions presented ......................................................... 80

Figure 37: South tower in Instituto Superior Tcnico ............................................................................ 80

Figure 38: Parameters that describe the laboratory zones of the South Tower in IST ......................... 83

Figure 39: Calculated risk for evaluation 1: = 0................................................................................ 84

Figure 40: Calculated risk for evaluation 2: = 0.1 ............................................................................. 84

Figure 41: Data given by the Information button ................................................................................. 86

Figure 42: Approximately collection area of the structure to be protected: South Tower in IST ........... 86

Figure 43: Calculated risk when protection measure against fire is applied: = 0.5 = 0.2....... 87

Figure 44: Calculated risk when a lightning protection system of LPL III is installed in the structure to

be protected ........................................................................................................................................... 87

Figure 45: Calculated risk when a coordinated SPD system is installed in zone 3, Laboratories ...... 89

Figure 46: Calculated risk of a structure with a lightning protection system LPL II and the preventing

fire measures implemented ................................................................................................................... 89

x
List of Tables

Table 1: Definition of the different lightning current parameters ........................................................... 15

Table 2: Comparison of return peak currents for first negative downward leaders flashes, from [22] . 20

Table 3: Tabulated values of lightning current parameters taken from CIGRE [27], [28] and adopted

by IEC 62305-1 [1] ................................................................................................................................ 21

Table 4: Coefficients of the striking distance according to Equation (3) ............................................... 26

Table 5: Minimum and maximum values of lightning parameters according with the different class of

the LPS .................................................................................................................................................. 30

Table 6: Typical values of tolerable risk, .......................................................................................... 38

Table 7: Risk components to be considered for each type of loss in a structure .................................. 38

Table 8: Types of number of dangerous events and collection area according with the source of

lightning ................................................................................................................................................. 41

Table 9: Loss components relation with the type of damage and the factors , , ..................... 51

Table 10: Protection measures vs risk components ............................................................................. 59

Table 11: Characteristics of the structure or of the internal systems that influence the risk components

............................................................................................................................................................... 60

Table 12: Input parameters that describe the geometric and environmental characteristics of the

structure ................................................................................................................................................. 64

Table 13: Input parameters that describe the geometric and environmental characteristics of the

connected lines ...................................................................................................................................... 68

Table 14: Input parameters that describe the zone Rooms Block for the Hospital example............. 71

Table 15: The input parameters that describe the geometric and environmental characteristics of the

structure ................................................................................................................................................. 81

Table 16: Parameters of power and telecommunication lines .............................................................. 81

Table 17: Distribution of people inside each protection zone................................................................ 82

Table A. 1: Values of relative location factor of the structure, .......................................................... 97

Table A. 2: Values of installation factor, ............................................................................................. 97

Table A. 3: Values of line type factor, ............................................................................................... 97

Table A. 4: Values of environment factor, ........................................................................................ 98

xi
Table A. 5: Values of the parameter by implementation of measures against touch and step

voltage ................................................................................................................................................... 98

Table A. 6: Values of probability according to the class of the LPS installed................................... 98

Table A. 7: Values of the parameter in function of the LPL for which SPDs are designed ............ 99

Table A. 8: Values of the parameter in function of the LPL for which SPDs are designed ........... 99

Table A. 9: Values of the factors and ...................................................................................... 100

Table A. 10: Values of probability ................................................................................................. 100

Table A. 11: Values of probability .................................................................................................. 100

Table A. 12: Values of probability ................................................................................................. 101

Table A. 13: Values of the factor in function of the contact resistance of the surface ..................... 101

Table A. 14: Values of the factor ..................................................................................................... 101

Table A. 15: Value of the factor ....................................................................................................... 102

Table A. 16: Value of the factor ...................................................................................................... 102

Table A. 17: Values of the factor 3 ................................................................................................... 103

xii
Terms, definitions, symbols and abbreviations

For the purposes of this document, the following terms, definitions, symbols and abbreviations are
applied.

Terms and definitions

Structure to be protected Structure for which protection is required against the effects of lightning
in accordance with the standard IEC 62305;

Lightning protection level LPL: number related to a set of lightning current parameters values
relevant to the probability that the associated maximum and minimum design values will not be
exceeded in naturally occurring lightning;

Lightning protection system LPS: complete system used to reduce physical damage due to
lightning flashes to a structure;

Lightning electromagnetic impulse LEMP: all electromagnetic effects of lightning current via
resistive, inductive and capacitive coupling, which create surges and electromagnetic fields.

LEMP protection measures SPM: measures taken to protect internal systems against the effects of
LEMP;

Surge protective device SPD: device intended to limit transient overvoltages and divert surge
currents;

Lightning equipotential bonding EB: bonding to LPS of separated metallic parts, by direct
conductive connections or via surge protective devices, to reduce potential differences caused by
lightning current;

Dangerous event lightning flash to or near the structure to be protected, or to or near a line
connected to the structure to be protected that may cause damage;

Rated impulse withstand voltage level : impulse withstand voltage assigned by the
manufacturer to the equipment or to a part of it, characterizing the specified withstand capability of its
insulation against (transient) overvoltages.

xiii
Symbols and abbreviations

Amortization rate;
Collection area for flashes to an isolated structure;
Collection area for flashes to an adjacent structure;
Collection area attributed to an elevated roof protrusion;
Collection area for flashes near a line;
Collection area for flashes to a line;
Collection area for flashes striking near the structure;
Location factor;
Location factor of an adjacent structure;
Environmental factor;
Installation factor of the line;
Annual cost of total loss in absence of protection measures;
Factor depending on shielding, grounding and isolation conditions of the line for flashes to a line;
Factor depending on shielding, grounding and isolation conditions of the line for flashes near a
line;
Cost of loss in a zone;
Cost of protection measures;
Annual cost of selected protection measures;
Cost of residual loss in a zone;
Line type factor for a HV/LV transformer on the line;
Value of the animals in the zone, in currency;
Value of the building relevant to the zone, in currency;
Value of the content in the zone, in currency;
Value of the internal systems (including their activities) in the zone, in currency;
Total value of the structure, in currency;
Value of the cultural heritage in the zone, in currency;
1 Injury to living beings by electric shock;
2 Physical damage;
3 Failure of electrical and electronic systems;
Factor increasing the loss when a special hazard is present;
Height of the structure;
Height of the adjacent structure;
Interest rate;
1 Factor relevant to the screening effectiveness of the structure;
2 Factor relevant to the screening effectiveness of shields internal to the structure;
3 Factor relevant to the characteristics of internal wiring;
4 Factor relevant to the impulse withstand voltage of a system;
Length of structure;

xiv
 Loss consequent to damages relevant to structure;
Length of the adjacent structure;
Loss due to injury to living beings by electric shock (flashes to structure);
Loss in a structure related to physical damage (flashes to structure);
Length of line section;
Loss related to failure of internal systems (flashes to structure);
Loss related to failure of internal systems (flashes near structure);
Loss in a structure due to failure of internal systems;
Loss due to injury by electric shock;
Loss due to injury of living beings by electric shock (flashes to line);
Loss in a structure due to physical damage (flashes to line);
Loss related to failure of internal systems (flashes to line);
Loss related to failure of internal systems (flashes near a line);
1 Loss of human life;
2 Loss of service to the public;
3 Loss of cultural heritage;
4 Loss of economic value;
Maintenance rate;
Number of dangerous events per annum;
Number of dangerous events due to flashes to structure;
Number of dangerous events due to flashes to adjacent structure;
Lightning ground flash density;
Number of dangerous events due to flashes near a line;
Number of dangerous events due to flashes to a line;
Number of dangerous events due to flashes near a structure;
Number of possible endangered persons (victims or users not served);
Expected total number of persons (or users served);
Probability of damage;
Probability of injury to living beings by electric shock (flashes to a structure);
Probability of physical damage to a structure (flashes to a structure);
Probability of failure of internal systems (flashes to a structure);
Probability reducing and depending on line characteristics and withstand voltage of
equipment when EB is installed;
Probability reducing , and depending on line characteristics and withstand voltage of
equipment (flashes to connected line);
Probability reducing depending on line characteristics and withstand voltage of equipment
(flashes near a connected line);
Probability of failure of internal systems (flashes near a structure);
Probability reducing depending on shielding, wiring and withstand voltage of equipment;
Probability reducing , , and when a coordinated SPD system is installed;

xv
 Probability reducing depending on protection measures against touch and step voltages;
Probability of injury to living beings by electric shock (flashes to a connected line);
Probability of physical damage to a structure (flashes to a connected line);
Probability of failure of internal systems (flashes to connected line);
Probability of damage relevant to a structure;
Probability of failure of internal systems (flashes near a connected line);
Reduction factor associated with the type of surface;
Factor reducing loss depending on risk of fire;
Factor reducing the loss due to provisions against fire;
Risk;
Risk component (injury to living beings flashes to structure);
Risk component (physical damage to a structure flashes to a structure);
Risk component (failure of internal systems flashes to structure);
Risk component (failure of internal systems flashes near structure);
Shield resistance per unit length of a cable;
Tolerable risk;
Risk component (injury to living being flashes to connected line);
Risk component (physical damage to structure flashes to connected line);
Risk component (failure of internal systems flashes to connected line);
Risk component for a structure;
Risk component (failure of internal systems flashes near a line);
1 Risk of loss of human life in a structure;
2 Risk of loss of service to the public in a structure;
3 Risk of loss of cultural heritage in a structure;
4 Risk of loss of economic value in a structure;
4 Risk 4 when protection measures are adopted;
Structure;
Annual saving of money;
1 Source of damage: Flashes to a structure;
2 Source of damage: Flashes near a structure;
3 Source of damage: Flashes to a line;
4 Source of damage: Flashes near a line;
Time in hours per year that persons are present in a dangerous place;
Thunderstorm days per year;
Rated impulse withstand voltage of a system;
Mesh width;
Width of structure;
Width of the adjacent structure.

xvi
1. Introduction

1.1. Overview

The first concept of a lightning protection system (LPS) takes back to the middle of the 18th century
with Benjamin Franklin. His electrical experiences led to the invention of the lightning rod. He assumed
that this could help protect buildings from lightning by attaching "upright rods of iron made sharp as a
needle, and gilt to prevent rusting, and from the foot of those rods a wire down the outside of the
building into the ground [5].
Since then, the lightning protection system has evolved and today consists in 2 components an
internal and an external protective system.
The external protection is composed by 3 interconnected systems:

(1) Air-termination system;

(2) Down-conductor system;
(3) Earth-termination system.

So, over 250 years later, Franklins concept of an LPS is fundamentally the same as the todays
external LPS, which has the function to protect structures from direct lightning strikes.

The introduction and constant improving of the internal lightning protective system is mainly due to the
advance of technology that includes equipment operating at very low voltages which can be easily
damaged with an overvoltage. As these equipment are internally connected and ultimately connected
with exterior line(s), the internal LPS has the goal to prevent dangerous sparking from happening
within the structure, protecting both equipment and more importantly, human beings.

Taking these concepts (internal and external LPS), the International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) Standard 62305 ed. 2.0 (2010) Protection against lightning [1],[2],[3],[4] uses the following
definitions:
- An external LPS is intended to intercept a lightning flash to the structure with an air-termination
system (1); conduct the lightning current safely towards earth using a down-conductor system (2); and
disperse the lightning current into the earth using an earth-termination system (3).
- An internal LPS prevents dangerous sparking within the structure using either equipotential bonding
or a separation distance (providing electrical insulation) between the external LPS components and
other electrically conducting elements internal to the structure.

Also, the distinction between direct and indirect lightning flashes also occurred much later. An indirect
flash near the structure to be protected has lightning current that induces high voltage and a strong
electromagnetic field that generate powerful electric pulses that can damage sensitive electronic
devices.

1
The knowledge of the nature of lightning and understanding the physical phenomena is a crucial step
in trying to find efficient protection systems against the hazardous effects of lightning strokes. Based
on that knowledge, experience and field experiments turn lightning protection systems in a very
important measure that should be implemented in every structure.
As the aim of this work is to develop a computer program that makes the risk assessment of a
structure based on IEC 62305, it is important, on a first approach, to analyze this standard.

It is a four part standard prepared by the IEC technical committee 81: Lightning protection.
The first part provides general principles to be followed for protection of structures against lightning,
including their installations and contents, as well as persons [1].
The need for protection, the economic benefits of installing protective measures and the selection of
adequate measures should be determined in terms of risk management.
So, risk management is the subject of IEC 62305-2 [2] and the suggested protection measures
considered in the standard are proved to be effective in risk reduction.
All measures for protection against lightning form the overall lightning protection. For practical
reasons, the standard is divided in two separated parts according to the criteria for design, installation
and maintenance of lightning protection measures:
the first part, concerning protection measures to reduce physical damage and life hazard in a
structure is given in IEC 62305-3 [3];
the second part, concerning the system protective measures (SPM) for reduction of failures of
electrical and electronic systems in a structure is given in IEC 62305-4 [4].

Figure 1 demonstrates schematically this selection and separation of criteria over the four parts of the
standard.

Figure 1: Organization of the four parts of IEC 62305 Protection against lightning (from IEC 62305-1 [1])

2
1.2. Objectives

The need of lightning protection is becoming an imperative requisite for the protection of structures
and its contents. A possible response for this rising of case studies projects is the development of a
practical and intuitive program for risk assessment of structures.
So, the main objective of this work is to develop a user-friendly computer program that supports the
lightning protection engineer by making a risk assessment of the structure to be protected, based on
IEC 62305. By accomplishing this, the process of protecting a structure from the effects of lightning
becomes much faster and intuitive.

It allows a simple and practical input of the various parameters that characterize the structure, its
contents, and its surroundings according with the standard IEC 62305-2 [2]. With these inputs the
program calculates, in final instance, the value of the annual average probability of occuring a loss in
the structure to be protected, also called Risk.
As it will be explained later, this value of the risk will be higher or lower than a tolerable value of risk
associated with the mentioned loss. Being higher, the program gives a series of possible protective
measures in order to lower the value of the risk to tolerable values.

All these parameters that compose the calculation of the risk value are characterized in the standard.
For that reason it is essential to understand the standard and how its application in the design of
lightning protection measures leads to safer structures against the hazardous effects of lightning
discharges.

1.3. Outline

The outline of this work follows the steps to achieve the main objective of this work the computer
program. To accomplish that, it is imperative to comprehend the IEC standard for lightning protection,
the IEC 62305, how it evolved and what brought new and finally compare it with similar standards
applied all around the world. Then characterize the lightning discharge phenomenon, which was very
difficult for the scientific community to fully understand until the middle of the 20th century. After that,
present the methodology that the IEC 62305 uses to calculate the value of the risk and finally apply it
to the program, leading to fast and easy answers. The features of the program are shown in two
different examples.

Chapter 1. Introduction: introduction of the work with a brief presentation of the standard IEC
62305. It is explained the need of lightning protection systems and two kinds of solutions according to
the type of damage: an LPS for reducing physical damage and life hazard in a structure and SPM to
reduce failures of electrical and electronic systems in a structure.
It is introduced also the objectives and this outline of the work.

3
 Chapter 2. Overview of international lightning protection standards: before and after the
lightning protection standard IEC 62305. The new approaches with the introduction of the two parts
referring to the effects of indirect lightning discharges and mainly the new methodology for risk
assessment, are discussed. Then, it is made an overview of some international lightning protection
standards by mainly locating the differences and understand some of the choices adopted by the
standard IEC 62305 technical committee.

Chapter 3. General characterization of lightning discharges: Four topics are presented: the
lightning discharge phenomenon itself; the description of the lightning current parameters; the used
cumulative statistical distributions of the lightning peak current; the recent work developed in direct
current measurements.

Chapter 4. Lightning incidence models adopted by IEC 62305: in this chapter the main subject
is the characterization of the lightning incidence models adopted by the standard the
Electrogeometric Model (EGM) and the Electrical Shadow Model. The motivation, the choice and the
implementation of these models in lightning protection are the main points of this chapter.

These three last chapters are preceded of a short historic overview for better understanding the
present results and conclusions related with these subjects.

Chapter 5. Risk Management: source, damage, loss and risk are some of the concepts that
are essential to evaluate the structures risk. The relation between them results in a methodology that
gives ultimately the value of risk.
This methodology is based on various risk components that composes the calculation of the risk of the
structure. So, in this chapter is performed a risk assessment where these components are extensively
explained.
Finally, a series of risk mitigation measures are introduced based on their effectiveness in the
reduction of the risk value.

Chapter 6. Application of the computer program : using the developed program L.R.A.
Lightning Risk Assessment two examples, a Hospital and the South Tower of Instituto Superior
Tcnico, are shown to verify the results presented in the standard IEC 62305. They were chosen due
to its complexity which will illustrate most of the features of the program.

4
2. Overview of international lightning protection standards

In this chapter the goal is to understand the worldwide role of the IEC standard and what it brought
new to lightning protection of structures.
Then, in order to understand a few of the different choices implemented by some countries, examples
of national lightning protection standards are given.
Finally, a few insights and possible explanations are discussed about the differences between IEC
62305 and some nationals lightning protection standards.

2.1. IEC standard 62305

The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) is a worldwide organization for standardization,

comprising all national electrotechnical committees with the objective of trying to harmonize the
different national standards.
So, first of all, it is to accept that the guidelines in an international standard cannot be perfectly
accurate for all the regions around the world and for that reason there is space for national committees
to change some parameters for their benefit and, in that way, obtain better and more efficient lightning
protection in their countries.

The IEC 62305, firstly elaborated in 2006 and then revised in 2010, is the standard intended to
address the subject of Protection against lightning.

2.1.1. Before IEC 62305

Before IEC 62305, lightning protection was made based on the standard IEC 61024 Protection of
structures against lightning. In this standard the lighting protection measures were intended to protect
structures and its contents against direct lightning flashes. So, only injuries to living beings by electric
shock and physical damages to the structure were taken in account IEC 61024 [6],[7],[8].
Moreover, the only real implemented measure against the hazardous effects of lightning that the
standard IEC 61024 predicted was the design and construction of a lightning protection system (LPS)
and it was ruled by a set of construction rules according to a desired lightning protection level (LPL)
.
So, according to IEC 61024 [6], the goal of the LPS consisted on the protection of the structure and its
contents against direct lightning flashes, which are the requirements of the, nowadays known, external
LPS. Also, the effects of indirect flashes were not taken into account.

The challenge then was to determine an appropriate lightning protection level (LPL) for the structure to
be protected. So, a lightning risk assessment was needed to be created. According to IEC 61024 [7],

5
the method for determining the LPL of the LPS was based on an efficiency factor, , firstly introduced
by this standard. It was defined to show the percentage of possible flashes, which could be controlled
by the LPS without resulting in damage. For example, an LPS with an LPL I had an efficiency of 98%
of controlling direct lightning to the structure without resulting in damage (table 3 from [7]).
The procedure for obtaining the efficiency, , was based in two concepts: - expected direct
lightning strikes at the structure; and - acceptable damage frequency. The first is related with the
local flash density ( ) and geometric measures of the structure and its surroundings; and the second
in five coefficients that ultimately describes the structures vulnerabilities, according to IEC 61024: the
revetment material of the facade and roof; the content of the structure; the number of people inside the
structure; the consequences of lightning in the service and the environment; and the emergency
service response.
If < then no protection is needed or the protection is optional. Otherwise, if , protection
is required. The protection levels will be determined by the ratio between and (i.e., calculation of
effectiveness). Equation (1) shows how to obtain the efficiency :

= 1 / (1)

So, at the time, the big achievement was the creation of LPS classes the lightning protection levels
(LPL) through the new concept, the efficiency factor. This helped in the standardization of the LPSs,
leading to cheaper solutions. In the end, the lightning risk assessment made in IEC 61024 was only
the determination of the lightning protection level of the lightning protection system, which is today just
a part of the risk assessment presented in IEC 62305, the standard that followed IEC 61024.

For the particular case of Portugal, the Direo Geral de Geologia e Energia (DGE) made a guide for
the design, construction and maintenance of LPSs installed in structures up to 60 , with the same
bases as the standard IEC 61024 the Guia Tcnico de Pra-Raios [9]. However, instead of using
the lightning risk assessment present in the IEC 61024, this guide bases the need of a lightning
protection system in a structure on a table (table 1 from [9]). According to this table, with the height
and the type of construction of the structure in one hand, and the structures susceptibility for damage
on the other hand, it is possible to determine the necessity for the installation of an LPS. It is only
applicable to the so-called conventional systems: Faraday cages and Franklin rods.

So in the end, before IEC 62305, if the structure had an appropriate LPS installed, it was considered
sufficient to secure the lightning protection of a structure. In most of the cases, this premise was valid
because the simplified risk calculations shown above gave overestimated solutions.

6
2.1.2. New approach with IEC 62305

As it was said, the standard IEC 62305 is formed by 4 parts for protection against lightning, covering
the external and internal structure and direct and indirect effects of lightning structure and its content
and electrical and electronic systems.
The introduction of the third and fourth parts related to Physical damage to structures and life hazard
IEC 62305-3 [3] and Electrical and electronic systems within structures IEC 62305-4 [4],
respectively, permit to appear a wide range of lightning protection measures, each one very focused to
a particular gap in lightning protection of the structure.
With those measures, the engineers had the tools to protect any structure. Then, the problem was to
know which measures were the most adequate to implement in a specific structure.
To determine the right lightning protection measures to use, the IEC 62305 created a new
management method presented in Risk Management IEC 62305-2 [2]. It is used to find the value
of the risk of a structure against lightning; compare that value of risk to a risk tolerable value; and to
select precise protection measures in the cases that the calculated risk is bigger than the tolerable
value.

In the process, the concept of lightning protection zones, LPZs, turned the risk evaluation much more
efficient, because they permit to divide the structure to be protected into a number of zones according
to the level of threat posed by Lightning Electromagnetic Pulses (LEMP). The general idea is to
identify or create zones within the structure where there is less exposure to some or all of the effects
of lightning and to coordinate them with the immunity characteristics of the electrical or electronic
equipment installed within the zone.
So, the IEC 62305 permits to analyze the structure as a whole or by zones, which can turn the
lightning protection process more efficient, and ultimately, cheaper to implement.

This methodology is going to be extensively debated in chapter 5, Risk Management.

Recapping the upsides of the newer standard, it can be said that the great advantages of the IEC
62305 can be summarized in two big upgrades.
(1) Unlike the previous standard, that only assesses the structures overall lightning risk, by installing
an external LPS of an appropriate LPL, with IEC 62305, in addition to that, the internal part of the
structure is also analyzed. So, it permits to separate the LPS design in two different approaches:
external and internal LPS.
The main responsible for this achievement is the introduction of the two separated parts 3 and 4 of
IEC 62305 with a wide set of measures for lightning protection; and the new concept of lightning
protection zones, LPZs.
(2) The second big upgrade is the risk management methodology described in the second part of the
standard. As it going to be seen on the next sections, the weighting factors and probabilities that
translate the characteristics of the structure and its contents were open to a very subjective reasoning

7
by the different national committees. So, the IEC 62305 standardized these values and a methodology
which always gives a safe solution for lightning protection.
It is to remind again that the guidelines on IEC 62305 are general guidelines which still give a margin
to nationals lightning protection committees to alter some of the factors and probabilities values in
order to better translate its national requirements.

2.2. Different approaches by national lightning protection standards

The lightning is a non-predictable phenomenon and for that reason there is no possibility to develop a
model in laboratory and apply that model to structures everywhere. Therefore, the national standards
from country to country are not the same due to the changing requirements of the different regions.

There are two things that must be in mind when looking to worldwide lightning protection standards.
First the differences between the many national standards that adopted the methodology presented in
IEC 62305; and second the discussion regarding conventional and un-conventional lightning air-
terminal systems.

2.2.1. Differences between national lightning protection standards and the IEC 62305

The acceptance of most of the scientific community of the new methodologies introduced by the
standard IEC 62305 was not immediate.
For some years, some national standards maintained its methods. Some standards didnt even
include the approach of the concept so-called as collection area. This area can be defined as the
ground area (around and including the structure) that have the same yearly direct lightning flash
probability as the structure. Also, the analysis of failure of electrical and electronic systems was still
non-existent. Therefore, the effects of indirect flashes were not taken into account.
With this risk analysis, the resultant values of the overall risk were many times inaccurate and over
dimensioned.
An example of those standards was the American standard NFPA 780 [10], that consisted its risk
analysis in weighting factors as the ones discussed in section 2.1.1. for IEC 61024. The American
standard only adopted the detailed risk assessment implemented by IEC 62305 on the upgrade
edition of 2011 [11], five years after the first edition of the IEC 62305 in 2006.

The big differences that can be found are present in the weighting factors that characterize the
structure and its contents. Depending on the country needs and priorities the factors can assume
different weights in the risk calculation.

8
For example, if some standards are compared, like the British and American standards, they give
special importance to public health, children and historic structures while in the Spanish and Turkish
standards, priority is given to the environmental effects of lightning such as explosions [10].

2.2.2. Conventional and un-conventional lightning air-termination systems

Besides the differences in the weighting factors values between some national lightning standards and
the IEC 62305, there is a big controversy around the lightning air-termination systems used for
lightning protection.
First of all, as it was said in the introductory section, an air-termination system is an integrated part of
an LPS responsible to intercept lightning flashes using metallic elements such as rods, mesh
conductors or catenary wires that considerably decrease the probability of the structure being directly
hit by lightning.
This is the conventional lightning protection air-termination system approved by IEC 62305-3 [3].

In the 1970s, two types of un-conventional air terminals had been commercially reinvented and
introduced in the world market. They are the lightning prevention air terminal and the lightning
attracting air terminal.
As their names imply, the lightning prevention systems are claimed to be able to prevent lightning from
occurring, hence protect the building and the lightning attracting air terminals which claimed to be able
to attract the lightning to it, hence away from the structure and so, protect the structure where it was
installed on.
The following two examples represent a lightning attracting and lightning prevention air-termination
systems, respectively:
Early Streamer Emission (ESE): More similar to the conventional lightning rod, ESE systems are
lightning attractors. According to their manufacturers, they are designed to trigger the early initiation of
upward streamers, which increases the efficiency of lightning attraction as a way to extend the
effective range of protection far beyond that of lightning rods. ESE air terminals can typically be
distinguished from ordinary lightning rods due to the presence of a small object near the top, a
discharge trigger, and they also can be more geometrically complex. This discharge trigger increases
the probability for initiating an upward streamer discharge at or near the tip of the rod when an
downward leader approaches. Increasing the probability of streamers and leaders meeting is how
ESE systems serve as improved lightning attractors.
However, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, it is difficult to judge ESE
performance: It is nearly impossible to make quantitatively meaningful statements on the relative
performance of ESE devices and conventional Franklin rods. [12].
Charge Transfer System (CTS): Unlike lightning attractors, CTS is specifically designed to prevent a
lightning strike from terminating where it is not wanted in a designated area of protection. This is the

9
only system in which lightning strikes are actively discouraged, rather than encouraged. CTS
technology is based on existing physics and mathematical principles.
In order to prevent lightning from striking within a specified zone, a CTS collects the induced charge
from thunderstorm clouds within this area and transfers it through an ionizer into the surrounding air,
thus reducing the electric field strength in the protected zone. The resulting reduced electrical potential
difference between the site and the cloud suppresses the formation of an upward streamer. With no
leader-streamer connection, the strike is prevented.
Even NASA conducted a series of studies using this concept in a variety of towers in the 1970s
decade to ultimately protect space shuttles. These studies found that the frequency of lightning to the
towers with CTSs was not significantly different than to those without CTSs. In short, the studies
demonstrated that a CTS did not prevent or significantly reduce the probability of lightning strikes to a
tower [13].

So in the end, the inventors of these un-conventional air terminals, ESE and CTS, have never been
capable to provide any sustainable scientific basis for their inventions. For this reason, these inventors
and manufacturers have not been able to get their un-conventional air terminals approved by the
general scientific community. So, a standard that uses LPS with these air terminals have been
classified as non-standard and the air-termination systems have the tag of un-conventional by
academics, scientists and the various standards bodies around the world.

However, despite of the rejection of these systems, there are several national standards [14], as
France [15], Spain [16], Portugal [17], Argentina, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Serbia that
adopt one of the mentioned un-conventional lightning air-termination system the Early Streamer
Emission air-termination system ESE system.
The result is that the experience is dictating that the ESE concept does not give additional protection
than the conventional lightning rod and there are cases where its installation resulted in damage to the
structure under lightning conditions. For example, in Malaysia, the use of the un-conventional air
terminals has led to many buildings being damaged by direct lightning strikes [18]. Some of these
reported damages were found to be life threatening since they occur in buildings used to mass
occupation eg. a school building.

10
3. General characterization of lightning discharges

Since lightning has been seen by virtually everyone, one might think that lightning is very well
understood. That is not the case. Lightnings seemingly random occurrence in space and time and the
wide range of its significant time variation, from tens of nanoseconds for many individual processes to
almost a second for the total discharge, and its obscuration by the thundercloud producing it makes
lightning particularly difficult to study. Nevertheless, more than a century of measurement has
produced a relatively complete picture of the phenomenology of lightning.

This chapter is related with the characterization of lightning discharges. There are 2 subjects that have
to be addressed to accomplish this:
1. The lightning discharge phenomenon, addressed in section 3.1.;
2. The characterization of the lightning discharge current, which includes the definition of the lightning
current parameters by recent works, addressed in section 3.2..

3.1. The lightning discharge phenomenon

There are various lightning discharges generated in Earths atmosphere such as the ones originated in
cumulonimbus clouds, volcanic eruptions, dust storms and snow storms [19]. In this work, the study of
the lightning discharges is confined to the ones produced by cumulonimbus clouds.
These clouds can extend by 14 in altitude from its base, normally at 2 in altitude [20]. Due to its
great extension, high currents of ascending air are formed, making the water droplets turn into ice
crystals with the increasing altitude which, by colliding with each other, create positive and negative
charges. The classification of lightning discharges is based on the observed polarity of the charge it
brings to ground and the direction of propagation of the initial leader.
So, first it is important to distinguish the different types of discharges [19]: flashes that make contact
with the ground are referred as ground flashes and flashes that do not make contact with the ground
are referred as cloud flashes.
The cloud flashes are divided in three categories: intracloud flashes, air discharges and intercloud
flashes, as are illustrated in Figure 2 (a). These flashes do not have any interaction with the ground
and by that will not be discussed any further.
The ground flashes are divided in four categories according with the polarity of the charge it brings to
the ground (from the cloud) and its point of initiation. So, there are downward negative ground flashes,
downward positive ground flashes, upward positive ground flashes and upward negative ground
flashes, as illustrated in Figure 2 (b).

The form of lightning discharge most frequently examined is the negative cloud-to-ground
lightning (negative downward lightning), as more than 90 % of all flashes meet this type of discharge
[21], [22].

11
Figure 2: (a) Types of cloud flashes: (i) intracloud; (ii) air discharges; (iii) intercloud; (b) Types of ground flashes:
(i) downward negative ground flashes; (ii) downward positive ground flashes; (iii) upward positive ground flashes;
(iv) upward negative ground flashes, from [19]

Therefore it is of fundamental importance for the design of lightning protection systems and the only
type of lightning discharge studied in this work.
So, it is important to explain this type of lightning discharge - negative downward lightning:
1. A downward negative lightning flash is initiated by a negative charged leader that travels from cloud
to ground in a stepped manner. As the distance between the ground and the downward stepped
leader becomes smaller, the opposite of charges enhances the strength of the electric field at ground
level leading its value to a steady increase. Due to the ground field enhancement, the electric field at
the pointed tips of a grounded structure may reach values which are several times the magnitude of
the electric field produced by the stepped leader [23];
2. When the stepped leader reaches a height of about a few hundred of meters or less above ground,
an upward positive leader discharge is incepted from the structure. This leader, created by the action
of the electric field generated by the stepped leader is called a connecting leader [24]. According with
[25], Golde assumed that upward streamers from the ground are produced when the electric field due
to the descending leader space charge reaches 300 /, assuming an average peak current of
25 . Later, with Bergers measurements, the average value of the peak current was defined in
30 , and so the needed induced electric field reached the value of 500 /.
Once incepted, the connecting leader starts to grow toward the down coming stepped leader.
3. The moment a connection is made between the stepped leader and ground (via connecting leader),
a wave of near ground potential (or zero potential) travels at a very high speed along the channel
towards the cloud. The current associated with this wave heats the channel to several tens of

12
thousands of degrees Kelvin, making the channel luminous. This event is called the return stroke. The
point of attachment of the downward negative lightning flash on the structure is the point of initiation of
the connecting leader that made the final connection with the stepped leader.
4. Subsequent discharges are likely to occur as well. About 80% of the lightning discharges have
subsequent discharges (two or more stokes), where 90% does not overcome 8 discharges and the
mean value is 3 to 5 [22].

The detailed mechanisms of downward positive ground flashes are outside the scope of this work
because their main features are qualitatively similar to those of downward negative ground flashes,
mentioned above, with differences in the finer details.

Upward lightning is typically object initiated. It primarily occurs when there is a nearby cloud to ground
flash. The electric field change caused by the preceding flash causes an upward positive leader to
initiate from a tall object such as a building, tower or wind turbine.

3.2. Current parameters

The knowledge of the current parameters is of primary importance for lightning protection for a number
of reasons. In particular, for a better understanding of the physics of the lightning discharge, for
evaluating its electromagnetic effects, for an effective protection design of electric and electronic
systems and for the risk evaluation related to lightning damages and consequential losses.
It is well known that most of the hazardous lightning effects are caused fundamentally by the return
stroke current. Therefore, the knowledge of the parameters of this current has major interest for
lightning protection. So, in accordance with various researchers and standards, the most important
properties of lightning current that cause damage on the structure to be protected and/or its contents
are: the peak current, the maximum current steepness, the charge and the specific energy, all derived
from direct current measurements (measurements realized in instrumented towers) [1], [19], [22],
[26].
The concepts of protection and damage will be extensively debated along the work.

3.2.1. Peak current,

As it was said, the current associated with the return stroke has large values (~), that potentially
can be very dangerous to various systems both outside and inside of the structure. The name of this
current is peak return stroke currents, or simply peak current.
The value of the peak current is even more important in cases where the struck object essentially
presents a resistive load because the voltage of the object or system will be proportional to the current
( = . ). Examples of those objects can be the surge impedance of a long power line, a tree, ground
rods driven into earth, and so on. In a case when a lightning return stroke with a peak current of 30
strikes a power line with a surge impedance of 400 , it can produce a prospective overvoltage of
6000 , assuming division of current. This large voltage can cause flashover across insulators, from

13
line to ground, to adjacent lines and to other objects nearby, leading to possible loss of service of
these lines and ultimately of services in the structure.
As it will become clear on section 4.2., the discovery of the relation between the peak current and the
striking distance dictated a revolution in lightning protection systems effectiveness.

3.2.2. Maximum current steepness,

The occurrence of damage of internal systems due to indirect effect of lightning discharges, has
assumed a lot of importance in recent times, essentially due to the increasing sensitive electric and
electronic equipment which are highly vulnerable to such electromagnetic effects. These electronic
devices are normally connected to different electrical services such as the mains supply and the data
link which, depending on the line routing and grounding inside the structures, can built up large open-
loop networks.
The maximum current steepness is responsible for the maximum of the magnetically induced voltages
in such open loops. Just need to see the following example: for objects that present an essentially
inductive impedance, such as, under some circumstances, wires in an electronic system, the peak
voltage will be proportional to the maximum rate-of-change of the lightning current ( = /,
where is the inductance of the length of wire and is the voltage difference between the two ends of
the wire). So, the higher the current steepness is, the greater the induced voltages are going to be
main responsible for electric and electronic systems failure, which is one of the focuses present in the
risk management chapter.

3.2.3. Charge, = .
The charge is responsible for melting effects at the attachment points of the lightning channel.
Charge is the integral of the current over time, so most of the charge induced damages in structures or
lines are due to the so-called long continuing current that follows some of return strokes. Even a big
return stroke that lasts perhaps a few tens of microsecond may not transfer as much charge
transferred as a low-level (100 1000 ) continuing current that lasts a few tens to hundred
milliseconds [26].
So, for example, if a lightning discharge hits a roof structure with a thin metal sheet or a combustible
surface material (e.g. a wooden roof; a thatched roof), fire hazards and melting effects are very real
possibilities.
For this parameter there are some relevant distinctions that need to be made. There is the charge
referent to the entire lightning flash duration, , which includes almost every time numerous
impulses; and the charge for the duration of a single impulse, .

3.2.4. Specific energy, / = .

The specific energy is represented as the time integral of the square of the current. Also known as the
action integral, the specific energy is a measure of the heat generated by a lightning strike in an object
of resistance . So, it is responsible for the heating and melting effects arising when the lightning
current flows through a metallic conductor of a certain cross-section and material. These two

14
parameters (material and cross-section of the conductor) are the ones that need more attention when
dimensioning the conductors subjected to lightning strikes effects.
For example, in a case where a conductor is poorly dimensioned (bad conducting materials and/or
with thin cross-section), the heat generated by the lightning strike can vaporize the internal material,
as aluminum or copper, resulting in gas pressure that causes damages on the conductor.

In Table 1 and Figure 3 it can be seen the definition and representation of the different lightning
current waveform parameters, respectively.

Table 1: Definition of the different lightning current parameters

[] Current peak value: Maximum value of the lightning current

[/] Maximum current steepness

/ [/] Specific energy for the duration of the impulse
Flash charge: Value resulting from the time integral of the lightning
[]
current for the entire lightning flash duration
Impulse charge: Value resulting from the time integral of the
[]
lightning current in an impulse
Flash duration: Time for which the lightning current flows at the point
[]
of strike
1 [] Front time of impulse current
2 [] Time to half value on the tail of impulse current
Virtual origin of impulse current: Point of intersection with time axis
1 of a straight line drawn through the 10 % and the 90 % reference
points on the stroke current front.

Figure 3: Impulse lightning current parameters (typically < ) from IEC 62305-1 [1]

15
3.3. Cumulative statistical distributions of lightning peak currents

Analyzing the above four parameters allows to say that the value of the current is the common
parameter among the four and for that, the main one. So, since early time in lightning current studies,
became clear the need to characterize this current. And that was part of the legacy of K. Berger. His
direct current measurements made on the lightning measurement station tower on Monte San
Salvatore, in Switzerland (1975) [27] still remain today the primary reference for both lightning
research and lightning protection studies. Also, recommended lightning current waveform parameters
are based on Berger data, although the current rate-of-rise parameters estimated by Anderson and
Eriksson (1980) [28] from Bergers oscillograms are likely to be significantly underestimated, due to
limitations of the used instrumentation [22].

Figure 4 introduces the cumulative statistical distributions of lightning peak currents, giving percent of
cases exceeding abscissa value, from direct measurements in Switzerland (Berger - 1975). The
distributions are assumed to be log-normal and given for (blue) negative first strokes = 101,
(red) positive first strokes = 26, and (green) negative subsequent strokes = 135
[27]. The log-normal nature is due to the distributions being positively skewed, meaning that they
show long tails extending toward higher values.
In relation with the negative subsequent strokes, if additional negative charge is immediately available
in the cloud in the vicinity of the first return stroke, the additional charge may start to move toward
ground in the conductive path left by the first return stroke. These subsequent leaders are called dart
leaders. Because the channel is already established, the charge can move down the main channel in
a much smoother manner than the stepped leader, and at a much greater speed .
First stroke current peaks are typically a factor of 2 to 3 larger than subsequent stroke current peaks.
However, about one third of cloud-to-ground flashes contain at least one subsequent stroke with
electric field peak, and, by theory, current peak, greater than the first-stroke peak [22].

By observation of Figure 4 it can be seen that only a few percent of negative first strokes exceed
100 , while about 20% of positive strokes have been observed to do so. On the other hand, it is
thought that less than 10% of global cloud to ground lightning (ground flashes) has positive charge.
So, generally only downward negative first strokes flashes are taken into account in lightning
performance studies considering that [1], [28]: i) upward flashes occur mainly from very tall structures
or mountain-top installations; ii) the majority of downward flashes are of negative polarity, which in IEC
62305 assumes a polarity ratio of 10 % positive and 90 % negative flashes and iii) subsequent stroke
peak current is much less severe in terms of peak current.

16
 Figure 4: Cumulative
statistical distributions of lightning peak currents, giving percent of cases exceeding abscissa value (from [22])

About 95% of negative first strokes are expected to exceed 14 , 50% exceed 30 , and 5% exceed
80 . The corresponding values for negative subsequent strokes are 4.6, 12, and 35 , and 4.6, 35,
and 250 for positive strokes. Subsequent strokes are typically less severe in terms of peak current
and therefore often neglected in lightning protection studies.

There are two main distributions of lightning peak currents for negative first stroke adopted by lightning
protection standards: the International Council on Large Electrical Systems (CIGRE) distribution and
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) distribution. Figure 5 shows the comparison
between the negative first stroke lightning current distributions adopted by CIGRE and IEEE.

For the CIGRE distribution (see Figure 5) 98% of peak currents exceed 4 , 80% exceed 20 , and
5% exceed 90 .
For the IEEE distribution (see Figure 5), the probability to exceed a certain value of current between 5
and 200 is ruled by Equation (2):

1 (2)
() =
2.6
1+
31

Where () is in per unit and is in .

17
 Figure 5: Cumulative frequency of the current peak of the negative first stroke according to CIGRE
(from CIGRE WG 33.01 [29])

In IEC 62305, the CIGRE distribution is the one adopted. Between the two distributions presented
there is not much difference in the range of 10 100 . For higher peak current values, IEEE Std.
1243 1997 recommends the use of the CIGRE distribution [22]. Outside this range, due to data
insufficiency, it is not clear which distribution is better fitted to describe this phenomenon.

3.4. Recent work in direct peak current measurements

Bergers measurements are still the most reliable measurements ever done. However, in his study,
neither the zones of very low and very high peak current values are well defined mostly because the
lack of data. So, in the following years after Berger measurements, the goal was to complement his
work by adding more samples of return peak current measurements. These studies were made
throughout the world and the results helped to verify and consolidate Bergers measurements.
The revision made by CIGRE in 1991, which permitted the realization of the two above mentioned
distributions of lightning peak current for negative downward first stroke, included the measurements
made in Switzerland ( = 125), Australia ( = 18), Czechoslovakia ( = 123), Poland ( = 3),
South Africa ( = 81), Sweden ( = 14) and USA ( = 44) , resulting in a total sample size of 408
return peak current values.

18
Since then, direct current measurements on instrumented towers were made in Russia, South Africa,
Canada, Germany, Brazil, Japan, Austria, and again in Switzerland (on a different tower).
The results from some of these studies [22] are presented and compared with oldest measurements in
Table 2.

Looking at the mean peak current value, it can be seen that most of the measurements are consistent
with the data from Bergers study, around 30 [27], [28].
However, there are differences that should be mentioned:
- The Brazilian study presents a 45 mean peak current value. There are some possible reasons to
explain the differences between Berger and the Brazilian studies, including: the relative small sample
size (38 samples) and the geographical location of Brazil, which can influence certain lightning
parameters. One way to maybe lower this value is to continue the measurements. In some studies,
the mean peak current value became smaller with the increasing of the overall sample size.
- The Japanese study is presently the study with the largest sample size of negative first strokes with
= 120. The average peak current value was 29 , which is very similar with the 30 from
Bergers measurements.
Also, there were return peak current values, in both studies, higher than 100 , which helped
compensate the lack of data problem in this range of current values.

3.5. Other parameters derived from current measurements

As it was already said early in the work, there are various parameters that characterize the lightning
discharge current.
Besides lightning peak current, there are other lightning parameters that can be measure from the
studies above described, including the maximum current derivative (maximum current steepness), the
charge transfer, the specific energy and the current rise time.

Similar to the case of the peak current measurements, the most reliable and complete information on
these parameters is based on direct current measurements of K. Berger and co-workers in
Switzerland.
Table 3 shows the tabulated values (from CIGRE) of lightning current parameters which comprises the
negative and positive first stroke current and the subsequent short strokes current.
So, these parameters are the ones based on Berger data (1975), reviewed by CIGRE [27], [28] and
later adopted by the standard IEC 62305.
Also, these are the adopted parameters of the CIGRE log-normal distribution for the characterization
of the lightning current waveform parameters.

19
20
Table 2: Comparison of return peak currents for first negative downward leaders flashes, from [22]

Sample Percent exceeding tabulated value

References Location Remarks
size

Berger et al. (1975) Switzerland

% % %

towers
Direct measurements on 70
101 14 30 (~30) 80

Anderon and Eriksson (1980) Switzerland

towers
Direct measurements on 70
80 14 31 69

Dellera et al. (1985) Italy

towers
Direct measurements on 40
42 33

Geldenhuys et al. (1989) South Africa

mast
Direct measurements on 60

Direct measurements on
29 7 33 (43) 162

Takami and Okabe (2007) Japan

towers
120 10 29 85 40 to 140 transmission line

Visacro et al. (2012) Brazil

mast
Direct measurements on 60
38 21 45 94

Switzerland ( = 125),

Combined direct and indirect

Australia ( = 18),

Anderson and Eriksson (1980)

measurements
Czechoslovakia ( = 123),
Poland ( = 3), South 338 9 30 (34) 101
Africa ( = 11), Sweden
( = 14), and USA
( = 44)

Same as Anderson and

Switzerland ( = 125),

Erikssons (1980) sample plus

Australia ( = 18),

CIGRE Report 63 (1991)

70 additional measurements
Czechoslovakia ( = 123),

from South Africa

Poland ( = 3), South 408 31 (33)
Africa ( = 81), Sweden
( = 14), and USA
( = 44)
The values between parentheses are related to the actual data. The values outside the parentheses
are the ones calculated with the log-normal distribution.

Table 3: Tabulated values of lightning current parameters taken from CIGRE [27], [28] and adopted by IEC
62305-1 [1]

Values
Parameter Type of stroke
95% 50% 5%
4 20 90 Negative first stroke
[] 4.9 11.8 28.6 Subsequent negative short
4.6 35 250 Positive first short (single)
1.3 7.5 40 Negative flash
[]
20 80 350 Positive flash
1.1 4.5 20 Negative first stroke
[] 0.22 0.95 4 Subsequent negative short
2 16 150 Positive first short (single)
6 55 550 Negative first stroke
/ [/] 0.55 6 52 Subsequent negative short
25 650 15000 Positive first short (single)
9.1 24.3 65 Negative first stroke

[/] 9.9 39.9 161.5 Subsequent negative short

0.2 2.4 32 Positive first short (single)
1.8 5.5 18 Negative first stroke
1 [] 0.22 1.1 4.5 Subsequent negative short
3.5 22 200 Positive first short (single)
30 75 200 Negative first stroke
Stroke duration [] 6.5 32 140 Subsequent negative short
25 230 2000 Positive first short (single)
Time interval [] 7 33 150 Multiple negative strokes
0.15 13 1100 Negative flashes (all)
Total flash
31 180 900 Negative flash (without single)
duration []
14 85 500 Positive flash

The values of = 4 and = 20 correspond to a probability of 98% and 80%,
respectively

Parameters and relevant values reported in Electra No. 69

21
22
4. Lightning incidence models adopted by IEC 62305

In order to start this chapter and understand the need of a lightning incidence model, a historical
overview should be taken.

4.1. Historical overview

The first concept of lightning protection system takes back to the middle of the 18th century with
Benjamin Franklin. His electrical experiences led to the first draft of what it is now called as air-
termination system. The protective effect of a lightning vertical conductor (rod) was expressed by a
protected area around it, whose radius is related to the height of rod. If a line is traced from the tip of
the rod towards the ground in all directions, which must include the structure to be protected, with a
certain angle, the protection volume given by this vertical conductor can be viewed as a cone.

Later based on Franklins approach, the interception method known today as protective angle method
based on the Electric Shadow model was formulated. The tangent of the protection angle the apex
angle of the cone equals to the ratio of the base radius of the cone and the rod height. This method
considers that any object located inside a zone limited by the envelope surface generated from a
lightning rod or a shielding wire to the ground, at a fixed angle to the vertical, is protected against a
direct lightning strike.

The protected space concept became particularly interesting with the spreading of the power
transmission lines at the beginning of 20th century. The lightning protection of these lines could be
favorably handled with the protection angle, because of their simple two-dimensional arrangement and
the fairly well statistical data available. Allying that to the lack of knowledge related to the physics of
the lightning discharge at the time, the Electric Shadow model, which depends only on the geometry of
the object to be protected, was the implemented model to design the interception systems used until
the decade of 1940.
However, in the middle of the 20th century, the increase of the power grid and the appearance of the
new 345 transmission lines, led to recurrently flashovers across insulators, from line to ground, to
adjacent lines and to other objects nearby.
This led to a rush for a better understanding of the lightning discharge phenomenon.

Also, as it was the main problem at the time, the hazardous effects of lightning strikes were mainly
recorded in power transmission lines, so the studies of lightning protection of grounded structures
were brought to the fore by the implementation of these incidence models on power transmission
lines. Therefore, it is no surprise to see that the lightning incidence models applied to grounded
structures had its origin in the protection of power transmission lines.

23
F.S. Wagner et al [30], in 1941, was one of the pioneers of these studies. He started the study of
shielding failures in transmission lines. One of the reasons was that, by this time, the first 345
transmission line systems began to appear in North America [31] and with that the need of lightning
protection of transmission lines gained a renewed importance.
Wagners experiences led to a better understanding of the lightning discharge phenomenon and in
1945, Golde determined for the first time the relation between the new concept called striking distance
and the lightning current, which concluded in the proposition of an incidence model called
Electrogeometric Model (EGM) [25].
Many researchers, including Wagner (in 1961 and in 1963), have studied and applied the EGM to
power systems: Young et al. (1963), Armstrong and Whitehead (1968), Brown and Whitehead (1969)
and later the IEEE working groups (1985 and 1997), have contributed to the EGM.

After more than 50 years the EGM and the Electric Shadow model are still the adopted models by
international standards in lightning protection of power transmission lines and (after) of grounded
structures and used all around the world.

4.2. The Electrogeometric Model (EGM)

4.2.1. Model description

The EGM describes the attachment of the downward leader to the grounded object and its core is the
concept of striking distance. The striking distance can be defined as the distance from the tip of the
downward leader to the object to be struck at the instant the upward connecting leader is initiated from
this object.
As it was mentioned in chapter 3, as the distance between the ground and the downward stepped
leader becomes smaller, the electric field at the top of the grounded structure increases steadily and
when it reaches a critical value an upward connecting leader arises from the structure.
With that, if a critical value of electric field is defined, the striking distance increases with the electric
charge of the downward leader, which is related with the return peak current value. Therefore, it can
be found a relation between the striking distance and the return peak current.

So, based on the electrogeometric model, to each lightning current peak value , a length of the final
jump can be linked. Enormous research work on this subject was performed, for instance again in
the frame of CIGRE and IEEE. Nowadays, the most popular striking distance expression and
especially used in international lightning protection standards is represented by Equation (3).

= (3)

where is the first stroke peak current, in , and is in meters [1]. The constants and are
empirical constants.

24
The procedure to obtain such expression typically involves assumptions of leader geometry, total
leader charge, distribution of charge along the leader channel, velocity of propagation of the leaders
and critical average electric field between the leader tip and the strike object at the time of the initiation
of upward connecting leader from this object [26].

One of the discrepancies among the researchers for the value of the two above mentioned constants,
and , is the value of the electric field that leads to the inception of the upward connecting leader,
which ultimately leads to different values of the distance between the downward leader and the
grounded structure for various values of the lightning charge.
Firstly, Golde in 1945 determined that the electric field at ground level that causes the inception of the
upward leader should have a value around 1000 / and around 300 / close to the lightning
protection systems of the transmission lines. In this assumptions, the adopted value of the average
peak current was 20 25 .
Later, in 1963 (according to [25]) Wagner determined that the value of the electric field that defines the
final jump condition was 600 /. This difference was due to the improving knowledge of the
lightning phenomenon and to the better definition of the ratio between the velocity of both downward
and upward leaders and the average peak current value, which were also considered a struggle to
accurately define.
These and other constant alterations provided by several researchers of the values of velocity of
propagation of the leaders, electric field value and average peak current value, allied with the lack of
information of the lightning discharge phenomenon and insufficient data from field experiences,
resulted in different assumptions, which led to very distinct results, which not helped for a consensus
method accepted by the general scientific community.

When the results from the Bergers measurements [27] appeared, they cleared doubts. With his
measurements the average peak current value was finally defined around ~30 and permitted to
gather information that resulted in a standardized value of electric field in 500 /, [23], [32], [33],
[34] critical condition for the inception of the upward leader.
Also, by evaluating the charge dissipated by the first return strokes studied by Berger [27], the charge
stored on the stepped leader channel was estimated and a relation between the return stroke peak
current and the charge was found.
Then, by knowing the distribution of the charge along the leader channel and assuming an electric
field of 500 / in the final gap, it was possible to estimate the striking distance of the stepped
leader to flat ground as a function of the prospective return stroke peak current Equation (4).

This permitted to speed up the process of standardizing the model and improve the lightning
protection.

In Table 4 it can be seen the values of the constants and .

25
 Table 4: Coefficients of the striking distance according to Equation (3)

Source
Wagner 11.25 0.49
Armstrong and Whitehead 6.72 0.8
Brown and Whitehead 7.1 0.75
Whitehead CIGRE survey 9.4 0.67
IEEE Working Group (1985) 8 0.65
IEEE Working Group (1997) 10 0.65

The values adopted by the IEC 62305 standard are the values referenced from the IEEE Working
Group (1997), = 10 and = 0.65, which contains the most recent information about the lightning
discharge stages (referred in section 3.1., page 11) and the lightning discharge current parameters
(referred in section 3.2., page 13). Equation (4) is the result:

= 10 0.65 (4)

It is important to remember that the EGM was firstly introduced for the protection of power
transmission lines. With the need for protection of structures against lightning discharges becoming
more and more a necessity it was fundamental to create a response for this problem. So, as EGM was
so successful for power transmission lines protection, the obvious solution was to use its concept of
striking distance and apply it to structures. The rolling sphere method is the resulting solution.

4.2.2. The Rolling sphere method (RSM)

In the early 1960s, based on the concept of protected spaces boarded by circular arcs it was proposed
the use of a fictitious sphere for the location of lightning conductors on structures. The Hungarian
standard was the first to apply this theory.
The concept of the rolling sphere is directly related to the electrogeometric model in that it is based on
the assumption that a stepped leader has to approach to a critical distance, i.e. striking distance,
before it will be attracted to the structure. In other words, this concept assumes that there is a
spherical region with radius equal to the striking distance and located around the tip of the stepped
leader, with the property such that the first point of a grounded structure that enters into this spherical
volume will be the point of attachment of the stepped leader.
It was born the rolling sphere method (RSM).
So, the main application of the RSM is the positioning of air terminals on an ordinary structure, so that
one of the terminals, rather than a roof edge or other part of the structure, initiates the upward leader
that intercepts the downward leader and, hence, becomes the lightning attachment point.

26
For that reason, the rolling sphere method is suggested in IEC 62305-3 [3] to be used for the
positioning of air-termination systems. This is a method suitable in any case regarding the structure to
be protected. Figure 6 shows an example how to apply this method.

Figure 6: Design of an air-termination system according to the rolling sphere method (from [3])

So, in the IEC standard it is assumed that the critical distance of approach of the tip of the stepped
leader to a given structure so that the attachment becomes imminent is independent of the height of
the structure. This assumption is only valid in the case when a connecting leader is absent. In reality,
there will be a connecting leader issued from the structure. So unfortunately, the adopted values of the
sphere radius are only result of compromises in standardization committees, and cannot be used as
basis to perform theoretical studies or to get scientific conclusions [35] due to the fact that most of the
physics associated with the attachment process of lightning flashes with structures are neglected, as it
was firstly introduced.

The reference, in Figure 6, to the height = 60 (the highest value that the rolling sphere radius can
assume) is due to the fact that until this height, the standard predicts that the occurrence of side
flashes is negligible. Above 60 consideration should be given to install a lateral air-termination
system on the upper part of tall structures (typically the top 20 % of the height of the structure).

27
4.3. The Electric Shadow Model

Since the early years of lightning protection studies that the Electric Shadow Model is used in the
lightning protection of grounded structures. Its first application was the protection of transmission and
distribution lines and its supporting structures.
In order to protect them, two main parameters were considered to influence the incidence of direct
lightning strikes on these lines: the annual average ground flash density [2 . 1 ] (the
number of flashes per square kilometer and per year), and the collection area of the line.
This area refers to the ground area (including the structure or line) that has the same yearly direct
lightning flash probability as the structure or line and so, it is sometimes called as the attractiveness
of the line and/or its supporting structures.
The common practice dictated that an electrical shadow is traced from the line to the earth and the
lightning strikes that normally would hit this shadowed zone are instead intercepted by the line.
According to Wagner [30], the width of this attractiveness distance was considered to be height
dependent and so, the width distance from the line was usually a multiple of the height of the line or
the supporting structure. Typically, it was considered twice the line height.
Since then, many researchers have developed estimations of this attractive width.

As the consensus in the general scientific community was not reached, the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Working Group (1991) [29] realized a study that related the
attractiveness distance with the height of the structure (not just for lines). With this study the attractive
width from the structure to be protected became to be typically the triple of the structure height.

So, when the standard IEC 62305 was made in 2006 and revised in 2010 the collection area concept
was maintained and it is now used to calculate the average annual number of dangerous events due
to lightning flashes influencing a structure.
Following the study conducted by IEEE, the IEC 62305 states that the collection area for isolated
structures on flat ground, is the area defined by the intersection between the ground surface and a
straight line with 1/3 slope which passes from the upper parts of the structure (touching it there) and
rotating around it.
If the structure has a complex shape such as elevated roof protrusions, a graphical method should be
used to evaluate the collection area. An acceptable approximate value of the collection area for these
kind of structures (complex) is the greater between the collection area evaluated above (using the
height 1:3 ratio) and the collection area attributed to the elevated roof protrusion, where this area is a
circle with its center in the protrusion with a radius of 3 times the height of the protrusion of the
structure.
These calculations (and more) will be later detailed in the section 5.2.1., dedicated to the computation
of the number of dangerous events.

28
Still, it is important to remember that the Electric Shadow Model is also used, not only to calculate the
number of dangerous events that can affect a structure, but also in the positioning of air-termination
systems for simple-shaped structures and protrusions in more complex structures.
It uses the concept of striking distance to positioning vertical rods in order to place the structure
and/protrusions to be protected inside the circular cone shape the vertical rod attracts the lightning
strikes to itself, protecting the structure and/or protrusions from direct lightning strikes.

4.4. Lightning protection level (LPL) according to IEC 62305

With the general equation established (see Equation (4)), the IEC standard assumes that for different
requirements for lightning protection systems (LPS), four lightning protection levels (LPL) are defined,
resulting in four classes of LPS [1], [3].
For each one, a set of maximum and minimum lightning current parameters is fixed (see Table 5):
- The maximum values of lightning current parameters (section 3.2., page 13) relevant to
will not be exceeded with a probability of 99 % ; they are reduced to 75 % for and to 50 % for
and . With these values it can be made a correct design of various lightning components,
like the cross-section of conductors, thickness of metal sheets, current capability of SPDs and
separation distance for preventing dangerous sparking.
- The minimum values of lightning current amplitude for the different are used to derive the
rolling sphere radius , which is fixed between 20 and 60 .
Hence, planning with the rolling sphere leads to the possible point of strikes where the air terminals
have to be placed.

This strategy to standardize levels of protection turn the process of lightning protection of structures
much more simple, faster and cheaper in most of cases. Even more, with IEC 62305 the protection of
internal systems can be made independently of the external protection, giving more accuracy in the
safety of structures.

For better understanding, consider the following:

Consider a lightning protection system design using a rolling sphere with a given radius. This radius,
being the striking distance, is associated with a certain peak return stroke current. Any stepped leader
associated with a prospective peak return stroke current larger than the critical current (mentioned
above) will be associated with a rolling sphere of larger radius, such that a stepped leader will not be
able to penetrate the lightning protection system. On the other hand, a stepped leader associated with
a current smaller than the designated critical current is going to have a smaller rolling sphere radius
and such strokes may be able to penetrate through the lightning protection system and strike the
structure. Thus, for a more sensitive structure to the effects of lightning, a smaller sphere radius
should be used when creating the lightning protection system.

29
 Table 5: Minimum and maximum values of lightning parameters according with the different class of the LPS

Maximum values Dimensioning

Minimum values Interception criteria
criteria
Critical Probabilities for Critical Probabilities for
Lightning
maximum the limits of the minimum the limits of the Rolling
protection
prospective lightning current prospective lightning current sphere
level
return stroke are smaller than return stroke are greater than radius
peak current the maximum peak current the minimum []
[] values [] values
200 99% 3 99% 20
150 98% 5 97% 30
100 97% 10 91% 45
100 97% 16 84% 60

That is why, as higher the level of protection of the LPS, the lower is the value of rolling sphere radius
and hence the lower will be the return peak current that can penetrate the LPS. So, it can be said that,
according with the definition of the level of protection of the LPS, the flashes with a return peak current
lower than the minimum values established in Table 5 should no longer be considered to be
significantly dangerous to the structure and/or its contents.
Also, recalling from previous section 3.2.1., it is from the cumulative statistical distribution of lightning
peak currents (Figure 4) that these probabilities have meaning. For example, for , the rolling
sphere radius equals = , which corresponds to the lightning peak current of . According
with the distribution of lightning peak currents, there is a percent probability that a flash has a
return peak current higher than , hence, a radius with higher value. So, that flash will not be able
to penetrate the lightning protection system. The same reasoning is valid for the other LPS levels of
protection and it can be seen in Figure 7.
The marked points are the fixed values proposed by IEC 62305-1 [1] for , presented above
in Table 5.

4.5. Final considerations and comparison between EGM and other lightning incidence models

There are some considerations regarding the use of the electrogeometric model (EGM) as the
lightning incidence model adopted by the IEC 62305.

30
 Figure 7: Cumulative frequency of the current peak of the negative first stroke according to CIGRE
(based on CIGRE WG 33.01 [29])

First of all, in order to understand the choice of the EGM, it is important to know that the physics
behind the lightning attachment to a grounded object is a very complex one and that until the middle of
the 20th century was a very grey area for the general scientific community. Now, using the latest data
from experimental field measurements and the newest simulation tools, it is possible to reasonably
model the attachment process including its physic considerations.

The first to attempt to create a solution that included the lightning attachment process was Eriksson. In
his paper [36], Eriksson presented an expression, derived from empirical data and an analytical
model, and compared with transmission line observations. Nevertheless, the observed data showed
dispersion because of recorded uncertainties. Later, Eriksson introduced an improved
electrogeometric model [39]. Still, firstly applied to power transmission lines, it was more recently
adapted for protection of structures with the designation of Collection Volume Method (CVM).
This method, unlike the classic EGM explained above, suggested that the successful attachment of a
downward stepped leader depends not only on the initiation of the upward leader but also on the
relative velocity of the both leaders. The first condition, defined by the striking distance, determines the
starting point of the propagation of the connecting leader. The later determines the upward connecting
leader propagation length and defines a parabolic interception locus. Hence, Eriksson considered that
the connection of the downward leader with the newly initiated upward leader is only possible within a
volume defined by the surface generated by the striking distance and the parabolic locus. The lateral
extension of this volume, called the collection volume, defines the lateral attractive distance. Eriksson

31
used the critical radius concept to evaluate the striking distance and assumed a unitary value for the
velocity ratio between the downward and the upward leader.
With these assumptions, the calculations of Eriksson permitted him to found that the lightning
attractive distance does not only depend upon the prospective return stroke current (as the classical
electrogeometric model suggests) but also upon the height of the analyzed object.

Then, with the appearance of new technology, computerized solutions became an option to determine
lightning incidence. Rizk introduced a new model for assessing the exposure of horizontal conductors
to lightning strokes [34]. His model started from a developed criterion for positive leaders initiated from
a conductor under a negative descending lightning. Dellera and Garbagnati also introduced a
simulation of lightning strokes to transmission lines by means of the leader progression model based
on the physics of discharge on long air gaps [37],[38].

More recently, in 2012, Becerra and Cooray [40], following the previous work of Rizk, Dellera and
Garbagnati, updated the Self Consistent Leader Inception and Propagation Model (SLIM).
As the CVM, this method uses the concept of attractive radius but in this case the attractive radius is
defined as the first lateral distance from the structure for which the downward leader strikes the
ground instead of the grounded structure. so it is not attracted to the structure to be protected.
The big difference between this method and the previous leader propagation models is that the
parameters such as the downward leader average velocity, the prospective return stroke peak current,
the lateral distance of the downward leader channel to the structure and the electric field are
considered to influence the velocity of upward connecting leaders. This clearly shows that the velocity
of connecting leaders changes from one flash to another due to the variations of these parameters.
Thus, it is not appropriate to use generalized ratios between the velocity of the downward and upward
leaders, as assumed by the existing leader propagation models. Instead, the upward leader velocity
has to be self-consistently computed for each case.

Before proceeding further, the EGM should be remembered. As mentioned previously, according to
the EGM, a stepped leader will terminate on a point on a structure if the potential gradient between the
tip of the stepped leader and the point of the structure reaches a critical value. In general it is assumed
that this critical potential gradient is 500 /.
Also with SLIM the final attachment of the stepped leader to the structure takes place when the
potential gradient between the tip of the connecting leader and the tip of the stepped leader reaches
500 /.
So, since EGM neglects the presence of a connecting leader, for a given leader potential, EGM
provides a lower limit to the attractive radius. As the length of the connecting leader increases the
attractive radius increases. Therefore, the attractive radii obtained by SLIM will be longer than the
attractive radii predicted by EGM and for that reason, the SLIM solutions require more protection and
so, safer solutions than the EGM solutions.

32
In [41], Cooray compares the three models, EGM, CVM and SLIM. The goal is to understand how
much the lightning attachment process affects the attractive radii as a function of the return peak
current, for several structure heights. The results are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Lightning attractive radii as predicted by EGM (crosses), SLIM (solid line) and CVM (dashed line) as a
function of return stroke peak current for several structure heights (from [41])

The main conclusion that can be extracted from Figure 8 is that the connecting leader does not play a
significant role in the case of lightning attachment to normal (average height) structures. Cooray
stated that, for structures with height less than 30 , the lightning attachment process predicted by
SLIM does not deviates significantly from the results given by EGM.
However, the importance of the connecting leader increases with increasing structure height.
Comparing the attractive radii predicted by CVM with the ones predicted by EGM and SLIM shows
that CVM, as applied in engineering practice of today, exaggerates the effect of the connecting leader
leading to unreasonably large attractive radii.

33
In 2006 the first edition of the IEC 62305 was created and the lightning incidence model adopted was
the EGM that although neglects the physics of the lightning attachment process, allows the engineer
to work with a friendly and easy model designed to give safe solutions to protection against lightning.
For the lightning interception system, planning with the rolling sphere method leads to the possible
striking points where air-terminations have to be placed. However, the RSM doesnt give any
information related with the probability of a lightning discharge strikes these individual different points.
To complement that lack in RSM, in [42] a numerical method is implemented using existing and
internationally accepted data, relations and investigations and based on that gives the probabilities of
the lightning strikes to different points on the surface of a structure as a result.
As expected, the edges and corners of the structures are more exposed than flat surfaces [42], [43].
The tips of slim roof protrusions are even more endangered.
It is also shown in [42] that, with a comparatively small number of rods, a highly efficient air-
termination system can be installed. Compared with the standardized procedure of placing rods on
roofs (and walls) described in IEC 62305-3 [3], the number of rods can be smaller, hence the lightning
protective system becomes cheaper.
The reason for this to happen is that the rolling sphere method is very conservative, giving the LPS
designer all possible striking points without providing direct information about the probability of such a
strike. This means in the end that planning air-termination rods with the standardized rolling sphere
method maintains the designer on the safe side.

Concluding this chapter of incidence models, it can be said that the lightning protection technique
introduced by Benjamin Franklin has proven its effectiveness, as evidenced by the comparative
statistics of damage caused by lightning to protected and unprotected structures.
The rolling sphere method, based on the EGM concept of striking distance, commonly used in the
design of LPS is relatively crude, in part because of its neglecting nature regarding the lightning
attachment process and its overestimated dimension of the air-termination systems, but in the end it
does represent a useful engineering tool for determining the number and positions of air terminals. For
that reason, since it was first introduced by the Hungarians in the 1960s it has been a worldwide used
method for designing lightning interception systems.

Still, mainly due to more recent studies (CVM, but particularly SLIM), there are evidences that there is
still room for improvement.

34
5. Risk Management

5.1. Basic Concepts and Methodology

There are a few concepts that should be mentioned in order to understand the following parameters
that compose the value of the risk present in a structure to be protected.

The beginning of this study is the flash striking point. Depending on the striking point, the lightning
current can cause different type of damage to a structure. Then, this damage can result in
consequential loss in the structure. This loss is translated in a relative value of probable annual loss,
which it calls risk, . Finally, the risk is compared with a tolerable value depending on the type of loss
and either the risk value is higher or lower than the tolerable risk value, so protection measures should
be implemented or not, respectively.

Since the flash striking point is the entry point of the lightning current in the structure it can be called
the source () of possible damage:

1 : flashes to a structure;
2 : flashes near a structure;
3 : flashes to a line;
4 : flashes near a line.

Then, as it was said, the lightning current may cause damage to the structure. The types of damage
() can be:

1 : injury to living beings by electric shock;

2 : physical damage;
3 : failure of electrical and electronic systems.

As these different types of damage occur, they can result in consequential loss () in the structure to
be protected which may be on the structure itself or its contents as it can be seen:

1 : loss of human life (including permanent injury);

2 : loss of service to the public;
3 : loss of cultural heritage;
4 : loss of economic value (structure, content, and loss of activity).

At this point, it is already important to establish the relations between the source of damage and
consequent damage and loss. Figure 9 helps to understand these relations.

35

Only for properties where animals may be lost.

Only for structures with risk of explosion and for hospitals or other structures where failures of internal systems
immediately endangers human life.

Figure 9: Types of damage and types of loss according to the striking point Source of damage

Two things can be observed in Figure 9:

- Direct flashes, either to a structure (1 ) or to a line (3 ), can originate the three types of damage in
the structure, 1 , 2 , 3 .
As these flashes are related very often with their destructive effects due to the high value of the
lightning current, it seems appropriate that they are associated with all three types of damage;
- Indirect flashes, either near a structure (2 ) or near a line (4 ), originate only the type of damage
related with the failure of internal systems, 3 .

36
Induced overvoltages are a danger to the electronic equipment. More and more often electronic
equipment are a crucial and needed part of the society and because of that the need of its protection
has now, more than ever, a very high importance.

With the source and type of damage characterized and as well its consequential loss it remains to
conceptualize the risk.
The risk is evaluated by the type of loss which may appear in the structure, consequent from damage.
It is the annual average value of the probability to occur the considered loss. As there are four types of
loss, so the risk has also four types.

1 : risk of loss of a human life (including permanent injury);

2 : risk of loss of service to the public;
3 : risk of loss of cultural heritage;
4 : risk of loss of economic value.

For better understanding, Figure 10 outlines these relations.

1)
Only for hospitals or other structures where failure of internal systems immediately endanger human life.
2)
Only for properties where animals may be lost.

Figure 10: Types of loss and corresponding risks resulting from different types of damage

With the risk calculated it is time to compare its value with a tolerable risk value, .
If , lightning protection is not necessary;
If the opposite happens, > , protection measures should be implemented in order to reduce
to tolerable values.
Typical values of tolerable risk, , can be observed in Table 6. As the type of risk, these values are
associated with the type of loss.

37
 Table 6: Typical values of tolerable risk,

Types of Loss ( )
1 Loss of human life or permanent injuries 105
2 Loss of service to the public 103
3 Loss of cultural heritage 104

By principle, for loss of economic value (4 ), the route to be followed is an evaluation of cost/benefit
comparison. If the data for this analysis are not available the representative value of tolerable risk
= 103 may be used.

So, it can be drawn a sequence of steps which results in the final value of risk:
Source (flash striking point) Damage (caused by lightning current) Loss (consequential loss
derived by the types of damage) Risk (value of probable annual loss) Comparison with a
tolerable risk value, Implementation of protective measures if > Re-calculate risk.

After this conceptualization, it is time to describe the components that compose each type of risk.
Each type of risk has its components (partial risks) and the sum of them gives the total value of risk, .
It can be seen in Table 7 that these risk components result from the source and type of damage of
each type of risk.

Table 7: Risk components to be considered for each type of loss in a structure

(according to IEC 62305-2 [2], table 2, page 22)

Flash to a line Flash near a line

Flash to a Flash near a
connected to connected to the
Source of damage structure structure
the structure structure


Risk Component
Risk for each type of loss
1 * * * * * * * *
2 * * * * *
3 * * *

4 * * * * * * *

Only for structures with risk of explosion, and for hospitals or other structures where failure of internal
systems immediately endangers human life.

Only for properties where animals may be lost.

38
Considering that direct flashes to a structure (1 ) can originate the three types of damage in the
structure (1 , 2 , 3 ), in terms of risk components, it translates in the three risk components:
, , , (respectively).
Still for direct flashes, the ones striking a line (3 ) can originate as well the three types of damage in
the structure, 1 , 2 , 3 , which result, in this case, in the three risk components: , , ,
respectively.
For indirect flashes only the type of damage related with the failure of internal systems, 3 is
originated. So, if the flash striking point is near a structure (2 ), the risk component resultant is and
if the flash striking point is near a line (4 ) the risk component resultant is .

So, here are the eight risk components derived by the relation of the source and type of damage for
each type of risk:

Risk component related to injury to living beings flashes to a structure;

Risk component related to physical damage to a structure flashes to a structure;
Risk component related to failure of internal systems flashes to a structure;
Risk component related to failure of internal systems flashes near a structure;
Risk component related to injury to living being flashes to a connected line;
Risk component related to physical damage to a structure flashes to a connected line;
Risk component related to failure of internal systems flashes to a connected line;
Risk component related to failure of internal systems flashes near a line.

With this introduction of Basic Concepts and Methodology, it can begin the characterization of each
component of the risk.
Each component has a series of parameters, factors and probabilities, which condition it respective
value. This section has the objective of explaining them.

5.2. Risk Evaluation

Each risk component , , , , , , and may be expressed by Equation (5):

= (5)

Where
is the number of dangerous events per year;
is the probability of damage;
is the consequent loss.

39
These are the three pillars that characterize the value of risk. If a dangerous event occurs, there is a
probability that it causes damage to the structure or its contents and consequently originates a loss.
The risk is the annual average value of the probability of occurring the loss considered.

5.2.1. Number of dangerous events,

The concept of dangerous events is associated with the source of damage the striking point.
And the number of dangerous events per year is evaluated by Equation (6):

= 106
(6)
=1

Where
is the lightning ground flash density. It is the number of lightning flashes per square quilometer per
year [2 1 ];
is the collection area according to the source of damage [2 ];
are the parameters (structure and lines characteristics) that turn the total events into
dangerous events.

The value of the ground flash density is available from lightning location networks in many areas of the
world. According with the standard [2], if a map of is not available, in temperate regions it may be
estimated by Equation (7):

0.1 (7)

Where is the thunderstorm days per year (which can be obtained from isokeraunic maps).

The factor 106 corresponds to converting 2 into 2 of the collection area.

Multiplying the lightning ground flash density by the relevant collection area gives the total number of
events that can occur in that area.
Remind the following: there are 4 sources of lightning flashes to a structure (1 ), flashes near a
structure (2 ), flashes to a line (3 ) and flashes near a line (4 ). So, each of these sources requires a
different collection area and, by consequence, results in a different number of events occurring in the
corresponding area.

On Table 8 and Figure 11 it can be seen the different types of collection areas where can occur the
corresponding number of dangerous events, according with the source of the striking point.

40
 Table 8: Types of number of dangerous events and collection area according with the source of lightning

Source of Type of number of N. of

Equation
lightning dangerous events Equation
Structure = ( ) 106 (8)
6
Adjacent structure = 10 (9)
Near a structure = 106 (10)
Line = ( ) 106 (11)
6
Near a line = ( ) 10 (12)
Source of Type of collection N. of
Equation
lightning area Equation
For rectangular structures:
Structure and = + 2 (3 ) ( + ) + (3 )2
(13)
Adjacent structure For complex structures (e.g. elevated protrusions):
= (3 )2
Near a structure = 2 500 ( + ) + 5002 (14)
Line = 40 (15)
Near a line = 4000 (16)

The collection area of a structure (or line), as it was said, refers to the ground area having the same
yearly direct lightning flash probability as the structure (or line).

Depending on the source of the striking point, the standard IEC 62305-2 [2], established a set of
general equations for calculating the collection areas:
- For isolated structures (on flat ground) the IEC standard determines the collection area of the
structure as an area defined by the intersection between the ground surface and a straight line with
1/3 slope which passes from the upper parts of the structure (touching it there) and rotating around it.
In effect the collection area reaches out from the perimeter of the roofline three times the height of the
structure.
- For flashes striking near the structure, the collection area extends to a line at a distance of
500 from the perimeter of the structure.
Again, the value of 500 is a compromise made by the committee in order to result in a much safer
solution.
- For direct and indirect flashes to a connected line the important parameters are the average
earth resistivity (), the threshold voltage level ( ) and the length of the line (). Using the reference
values given in the standard, the resultant collection areas are (approximately) translated in Equation
(15) and Equation (16), according respectively with [45], [46].

41
As it was said in section 2.2.1. (in page 8) there are some differences between parameters during the
risk assessment. The computation of the different collections is an example: the British version of the
IEC standard [44] BS IEC 62305 for flashes striking near the structure, the collection area
instead of extending to a line at a distance of 500 from the perimeter of the structure, it only extends
to a line at a distance of 250 . The same happens in the Portuguese standard NP 4426 [17].
Also, before the standard IEC 62305, some countries including England, considered that an
appropriate collection area for direct strikes to a structure is an area defined by the intersection
between the ground surface and a straight line with 1/1 slope which passes from the upper parts of the
structure (touching it there) and rotating around it, instead of the later standardized 1/3 slope, resulting
in a collection area much smaller.

Figure 11: Collection areas introduced in IEC 62305 (from [47])

The parameters are the ones who restrict the total number of events to the number of dangerous
events according to structure and connected lines geometric characteristics. The concept of
dangerous is important because it is the one who indicates what type of event contributes to the
value of risk that the structure is in.

The above mentioned parameters are factors which characterize the structure, , adjacent
structures, , and connected lines to the structure, , and .

The relative location of the structure, compensating for surrounding structures or an exposed location
will be taken into account by a location factor . Its value range from 0.25 (Structure surrounded by

42
higher objects) to 2 (Isolated structure on a hilltop or a knoll). For detail analysis consult Table A.1 in
the Appendix A section.
From its analysis, it can be seen that the value of the factor is higher as the structure to be
protected is more isolated from surrounding structures. As the factor gets higher so risk
components, , , (related to flashes to the structure to be protected, as expected), get higher,
meaning in this case that an isolated structure (e.g. rural areas) is likely to be more at risk than a
surrounded structure (e.g. urban areas).
( as the same concept as but the is related to an adjacent structure of the structure to be
protected)
This factor is the which multiplied by the collection area of the structure (or the adjacent structure)
and the lightning ground flash density give the number of dangerous events due to flashes to a
structure, .

Note: for flashes to an adjacent structure, , besides the parameter, as the adjacent structure it is assumed
to be connected to the structure to be protected by a power or telecommunication line, the parameter line
factor must be taken into account as well, as expected.

In order to characterize the dangerous events cause by flashes to or near a line, three factors must be
taken into evaluation:
The installation factor takes into account the reduction in the coupling between the lightning flash and
the line due to the installation of the line underground, when compared with an aerial installation.
So, gives that an aerial line is more at risk than a buried line, as expected.
The line type factor, , gives that a LV power, telecom or data line is more at risk than a HV power
line with a HV/LV transformer.
And environment factor of a line, , gives that, just as the factor is influenced by objects that
surrounds the structure to be protected, objects that surrounds a line connected to the structure to be
protected influence the value of .
For more information see Table A.2, Table A.3 and Table A.4 in the Appendix A section.

These three factors are directly proportional to the value of risk components, , , , - related to
flashes to or near a line connected to the structure to be protected, as it was expected.
So, , , are the factors which multiplied by the collection area of the structure (or the adjacent
structure) and the lightning ground flash density give the number of dangerous events due to flashes
to a line, , and the number of dangerous events due to flashes near a line, .

5.2.2. Probability of damage to a structure,

Each value of is a combination of various parameters. It can almost be said that is a factorization

43
composed by these parameters. They translate the characteristics of the structure and connected
lines that are relevant for the risk calculation.
Following the same reasoning as the risk components ( , , , , , , , ), there are
eight components of probabilities, , and they are also grouped according to the source and type of
damage. These are the probabilities of a dangerous event occurs causing a type of damage:

probability that a flash to a structure will cause injury to living beings by electric shock;
probability that a flash to a structure will cause physical damage;
probability that a flash to a structure will cause failure of internal systems;
probability that a flash near a structure will cause failure of internal systems;
probability that a flash to a line will cause injury to living beings by electric shock;
probability that a flash to a line will cause physical damage;
probability that a flash to a line will cause failure of internal systems;
probability that a flash near a line will cause failure of internal systems.

One more time it can be seen that direct flashes to a structure or to a line can lead to the three types
of damage and indirect flashes (near a structure or near a line) can lead to damage of internal
systems (induced overvoltages).

On the following Figure 12 and Figure 13 it can be observed the relations and dependencies between
the probabilities and the parameters that compose them.

Figure 12: Probabilities that a flash to or near a structure cause damage in the structure and/or its contents

44
Figure 13: Probabilities that a flash to or near a connected line cause damage in the structure and/or its contents

With that said, it can begin the characterization of each parameter that composes these probabilities.

is the probability that a flash to a structure will cause electric shock to living beings due to
dangerous touch and step voltages. is one of the parameters that reduces this probability by
implementing additional protection measures against step and touch voltages.

When a fault occurs in the structure, in this case, caused by a lightning, the current will pass through
any metallic object and enter the earth.
Step voltage is the voltage between the feet of a person standing near an energized grounded object.
So, a person could be at risk of injury during a fault simply by standing near the grounding point.
Touch voltage is the voltage between the energized object and the feet of a person in contact with the
object.
So, by the definition of step and touch voltages, there are two things that should be improved:
- Grounding resistance;
- Safe distance between points of danger and public areas in the structure.

ranges from 1 (No protection measures) to 0 (Physical restrictions or building framework used as a
down-conductor system). Table A.5 shows that the protection measures mentioned in it are indeed
very suitable in reducing the risk of dangerous events due to touch and step voltages to occur.

One important parameter is the probability that a flash hits a structure and causes physical
damage, .
The value of the probability is one of the most difficult to lower because implies the
construction/upgrade of a lightning protection system, an LPS. These alterations by lowering , in
some cases, results in changes in the structure at structural level. So, the construction of a lightning

45
protection system, LPS, can be very expensive, even more, as the lightning protection level, LPL, gets
higher.
In light of that, the LPS designer should be aware that other measures can reduce the risk to tolerable
values without the construction or improvement of a LPS in the structure.
ranges from 1 to 0.02 according with the class of the installed LPS. For better consultation see
Table A.6, in the Appendix A section.

To understand the influence of an LPS in the calculation of the risk it is important to know that an LPS
can be of two kinds: External and Internal.
- An external LPS is intended to intercept direct lightning flashes to the structure, including flashes to
the side of the structure, and conduct the lightning current from the striking point to the ground. The
external LPS is also intended to disperse this current into the earth without causing thermal or
mechanical damage, or dangerous sparking which may trigger fire or explosions.
- An internal LPS shall prevent the occurrence of dangerous sparking within the structure to be
protected due to lightning current flowing in the external LPS or in other conductive parts of the
structure. These dangerous sparking may occur between the external LPS and other components
such as:
metal installations: requires Lightning equipotential bonding for metal installations;
internal systems: requires Lightning equipotential bonding for internal systems;
external conductive parts and lines connected to the structure: requires Lightning equipotential
bonding for external conductive parts and lines connected to the structure to be protected.

So, changing the class of the LPS ( ) acts on both external and internal LPS. Knowing this, there are
two parameters that are influenced by altering the internal LPS class: and .

depends on the lightning equipotential bonding for connected electrical and

telecommunication lines. It ranges from 1 to 0.01, depending on the lightning protection level, LPL, for
which its SPDs are designed (see Table A.7 in the Appendix A section for more detail in values).
Analyzing Figure 13, it can be observed that the parameter influences the probabilities and :
probability that a direct flash to a line will cause injury to living beings by electric shock and probability
that a flash to a line will cause physical damage, respectively.
An interesting fact that already can be observed is that the probability influences the corresponding
probabilities but for the case of direct flashes to a structure: and itself.
So, it is no surprise when the standard says that altering the LPS class, in order to reduce the
probability that a flash to a structure causes physical damage, , includes a mandatory lightning
equipotential bonding of the connected power and telecommunication lines by installation of SPDs of
equal or higher class.

46
In resume, lowering the value of the probability imposes a lowering on the parameter . Later on
it will be seen how important these parameters are to the calculation of the final value of the risk and
how to reduce its potential hazardous effects if protective measures are not implemented.

The other parameter influenced by altering the internal LPS is . It depends on the
coordinated SPD system installed and, as , it ranges from 1 to 0.01, depending on the lightning
protection level, LPL, for which its SPDs are designed (see Table A.8 in the Appendix A section for
more detail in values).
In this case, unlike the probability , the probability does not depend on the value of
(provided that an LPS is installed, regardless of its class). This is valid because value changes by
installing a coordinated SPD protection system in order to reduce the risk components directly related
to the protection of internal power and telecommunication systems from its failure, , , and ,
through the reduction of the corresponding probabilities, , , and .
In section 5.3. (risk mitigation measures), this parameter will be better explained.
The previous parameter is related to specific characteristics of the structure that influences the
probabilities that a failure of internal systems may occur when a direct or indirect flash hits the
structure. The following two factors are the ones related with specific characteristics of lines connected
to the structure to be protected: shielding, grounding and isolation.

is a factor depending on shielding, grounding and isolation conditions of the line for
flashes to a line.
is a factor depending on shielding, grounding and isolation conditions of the line for flashes
near a line.
For these factors it is important to notice the differences between the two of them.
is always equal or higher than . This is explained by looking at the definitions of the factors.
One depends on flashes in a line and the other on flashes near a line. So, as direct flashes are
significantly more likely to be hazardous to the structure and its contents, is the factor that will
contribute more in increasing the value of the risk.
Another interesting fact that these two parameters give is what probabilities they influence: the
probabilities that a direct flash to a structure and direct or indirect flashes to a line cause failure to
internal systems , , for direct flashes and for indirect flashes.
To see in detail the relations between the two factors see the Table A.9 in the Appendix A section.

Still in the factors that influence the probabilities of damage to the structure derived by flashes to or
near a connected line, the factors and are introduced.

47
 The probabilities and (Table A.10 and Table A.11 respectively, present in the Appendix
A section) are the components of the probabilities that takes into account the effects of failure of
internal systems within the structure due to a flash to ( , , ) or near ( ) a line.

Modern equipment is particularly vulnerable and may be damaged by milijoules of energy. Where
there are connections using long cables, any discharge into the area around these cables is likely to
induce currents in the cables. Against a direct strike of lightning, there is very little chance that any
protection measure results in avoiding partial or even total destruction of the equipment. But if the
strike of lightning is near the cable, the likely induced currents that will occur in the cables can be
managed and reduced to safer values if some measures have been applied. This effect of induced
currents can be greatly reduced if the impedance through which flows is small, that is, if the resistance
of the circuits is small. This keeps the voltages low.
In this case, the resistance of the cable screen is the parameter under revision. The probability of the
impulse withstand voltage of an equipment is reached increases as the resistance of the cable screen
increases.
For the withstand voltage of the equipment, it is observed for both factors that increasing its value, the
probability of a flash to or near a line damage the structure or its contents decreases, as expected.
Furthermore, the different geometrical characteristics between the two lines, power and
telecommunication results in different conduction of induced currents and so on different values of the
probability of failure of internal systems due to a flash near a line, .

Finally, in order to fully characterize , the probability that a flash to a line will cause injury to living
beings by electric shock, as it was done for , protective measures against touch voltages must be
taken care of. So, the parameter is presented.
depends on protection measures against touch voltages, such as physical restrictions or
warning notices. In this case, if it wants to reduce the probability , the value of must be
reduced. Table A.12, present in the Appendix A section, shows the different values that can
assume depending on protective measures against the dangerous of touch voltages.

So, , , , , , , , , are the parameters that characterize the probabilities of

occurring damage in the structure. There is another parameter ( ) that it will be discussed later on
this chapter. It relates to the probability that a flash near a structure will cause failure of internal
systems, .

5.2.3. Consequent loss from damage into the structure and/or its contents,

The loss refers to the mean relative amount of a particular type of damage for one dangerous event
caused by a lightning flash, considering both its extent and effects.

48
The loss value varies with the type of loss considered, as it was already said:
1 (Loss of human life, including permanent injury): the endangered number of persons (victims);
2 (Loss of public service): the number of users not served;
3 (Loss of cultural heritage): the endangered economic value of structure and content;
4 (Loss of economic values): the endangered economic value of animals, the structure (including its
activities), content and internal systems,
and, for each type of loss, it varies with the type of damage (1 , 2 and 3 ) causing the loss.
So, as the risk components, the losses are grouped according to the source and type of damage.
Moreover, the loss should be determined for each zone of the structure into which it is divided, in
order to make the process more effective and keep the cost at lower values.

The factors that influence the consequent loss are:

Factor can reduce the loss of human life, 1 , and the economic loss, 4 , depending on the
type of soil or floor.

The resistance of a conductor depends on the atomic structure of the material or its resistivity
(measured in . ), which is the material property that measures its ability to conduct electricity. A
material with a low resistivity will behave as a good conductor and one with a high resistivity will
behave as a bad conductor.
That is why the value of the factor decreases when the contact resistance of the surface is higher.
For more detail, see Table A.13 in the Appendix A section.

The factor gives the information about the measures applied in the structure in order to
reduce the consequences of fire. Applying any of these measures reduces, by consequence, physical
damage in the structure and its contents.

Once again, it should be done an economic viability study when reducing the value of the factor . For
example, installing manual alarms and extinguishers maybe has a significant reduction in the value of
the risk (reduction by 50 % of ) and it is relatively cheap instead of a reduction of the factor to 0.2 by
installing automatic equipment with a much higher investment.

As the consequence of fire can be very hazardous for the structure and its contents, , influences all
four types of loss and so it is a very important factor for the value of the risk (see Table A.14).

The next factor is related with the risk of fire or the risk of explosion in the structure (as a
whole or by zones) .

49
According to the amount of risk present in a zone, assumes a value between 1 and 0, where 1 is for
zones with continuously explosive atmosphere and 0 is for zones with no risk of explosion or fire.
These values are better presented in Table A.15 in the Appendix A section.
Usually this factor is associated with because with the structure at more risk of fire or explosion
(higher ) comes a higher need of protection measures (smaller ). So, as factor , influences all
four types of loss.

, by definition, is the parameter that translates the possible presence of special hazards in
the structure (as a whole or by zone).
Its value is translated in the level of panic and the evacuation difficulties present in the zone (or in the
entire structure) in study. It depends on the characteristics of the zone and on the number of persons.
ranges from 1 (No special hazard ) to 10 (High level of panic number of people greater than 1000
persons). For more detail see Table A.16 in the Appendix A section.
This parameter is directly related to risk components that characterize the risk of physical damage,
and , through the components of loss of human life, and .
So, as higher is the level of panic or the difficulties of evacuation in the structure or in a zone in the
structure, higher is the value of and consequently the value of the loss of human life, 1 .

Finally, as it was said, the components of loss are related with the source and type of damage that can
occur in a structure. These are the factors that restrict its effects in each loss component:
- For 1 , loss of human life:
: factor increasing factor due to physical damage, 2 , depending on the presence of a special
hazard in the zone;
: typical mean relative numbers of victims injured by electric shock (1 ) due to one dangerous event;
: typical mean relative numbers of victims by physical damage (2 ) due to one dangerous event;
: typical mean relative numbers of victims by failure of internal systems (3 ) due to one dangerous
event.
- For 2 , loss of public service:
: typical mean relative number of users not served, resulting from physical damage (2 ) due to one
dangerous event;
: typical mean relative numbers of users not served resulting from failure of internal systems (3 )
due to one dangerous event.
- For 3 , loss of cultural heritage:
: typical mean relative value of all goods damaged by physical damage (2 ) due to one dangerous
event.
- For 4 , loss of cultural heritage:
: typical mean relative value of all goods damaged by electric shock (1 ) due to one dangerous
event;
: typical mean relative value of all goods damaged by physical damage (2 ) due to one dangerous
event;

50
 : typical mean relative value of all goods damaged by failure of internal systems (3 ) due to one
dangerous event;

To reinforce that, Table 9 shows the relation between the loss components with the type of damage
1 , 2 , 3 , and with that associate the loss components with the factors , , , respectively.

Table 9: Loss components relation with the type of damage and the factors , ,
Type of Damage Type of Damage Type of Damage
X
X
Loss Components

X
X
X
X
X
X

Typical mean relative number of victims according to the Type of Damage

There are still some parameters that can restrict the value of loss.
- Time of permanency of people in a zone:
is the number of persons in the zone;
is the total number of persons in the structure;
is the time in hours per year for which the persons are present in the zone.
If the structure is considered as a whole zone, = .

- Cost of the loss:

: is the value of animals in the zone;
: is the value of building relevant to the zone;
: is the value of content in the zone;
: is the value of internal systems including their activities in the zone.

The introduction of these parameters in the calculation of the loss can lower the value of the risk, in
some cases, very significantly.

With this revision of the parameters that comprise the calculation of the components of the risk, it is
interesting to see how which and each one of these factors and probabilities influence the value of
risk.

51
By analysis of the data in [48], an article that discusses the sensitivity of the parameters in risk
calculations, it shows for two examples (present in the standard) the order of importance of these
parameters in respect to the risk of loss of human life.
The examples are for a Country House and for an Office Building.
For these studied cases the results demonstrate that , the lightning ground flash density, is the most
sensitive parameter. That can be explained by the influence of this parameter in the calculation of
every risk component. Next in the list in the most sensitive parameters, come the ones regarding
physical damage, , , , and . Beyond these, factors that give information about the location
of the structure and the lines connected to it are relevant in the risk calculation.
For results more accurate these parameters should be investigated in more detail. But even though
they are not 100% precise, they already give an idea in how and where it should be done the
interventions so the risk reduces to tolerable values. This evaluation it will be taken into consideration
in the next section of risk mitigation measures.

5.3. Risk mitigation measures

This section assumes great importance because, after the characterization of the structure to be
protected, it must be implemented measures in order to reduce the risk to tolerable values and confirm
that the structure is finally protected against direct and indirect lightning strikes and its effects.
First of all, lets remind the risk components:

Risk component related to injury to living beings flashes to structure;

Risk component related to physical damage to a structure flashes to a structure;
Risk component related to failure of internal systems flashes to structure;
Risk component related to failure of internal systems flashes near structure;
Risk component related to injury to living being flashes to connected line;
Risk component related to physical damage to structure flashes to connected line;
Risk component related to failure of internal systems flashes to connected line;
Risk component related to failure of internal systems flashes near a line.

As it was already said, the risk components are associated with the source and types of damage that
can occur in the structure and its contents. Therefore, possible measures to reduce these risk
components should be such that these damages are less probable to occur and, in the case of they
occur, decrease their consequences on the structure and its contents.
So, in order to accomplish this, there is a consideration to be made.
Not all of the factors listed and tabled in the previous section can be changed, meaning, not all
parameters are suitable or economically viable to modify.
For example, the dimensions of the building; the lightning ground flash density (number of lightning
flashes per 2 per year, a parameter that depends on the region where the structure is in); the

52
structure location factor, ; the factor that increases with the level of panic and the difficulty of
evacuation present in a zone of the structure, according to the number of people present in the zone in
study, . These are some parameters that cant be change.
And there are some examples of parameters that may not be economically viable to alter in an already
built structure. Like the value of the probability of a lightning strike to the structure results in physical
damage, ; the parameter the depends on lightning equipotential bonding (EB) conforming on the
lightning protection level (LPL) for which its SPDs are designed, ; the value of the rated impulse
withstand voltage, , of some equipment present in the structure, among others. These parameters
are rated like this mainly because changing their values may implicate structural modifications in the
structure to be protected, or very expensive modifications.

With this in mind and with all the information that the standard gives mentioned in the previous
section, a list of measures can be done in order to reduce these risk components values:

5.3.1. M1: Installing an LPS of an appropriate class

This measure is directly related in the reduction of the probability of a flash to a structure to cause
physical damage to the structure, .
This probability is determined by the class of the lightning protection system, LPS, installed.
Upgrading the LPS implicates sometimes structural changes in order to protect both external and
internal structure, as it was said before. So, acts directly in both changes introduced by the upgrade
of the LPS.
With the alteration of the class of the LPS (both external and internal - ) it is time to look more
carefully at the internal LPS. This one is influenced by altering the value of the parameters , related
to lightning equipotential bonding.
There are three ways to achieve lightning equipotential bonding according to the IEC 62305-3 [3]. By
interconnecting the LPS with:
metal installations;
internal systems;
external conductive parts and lines connected to the structure.

The parameter, , relates to the third way to achieve lightning equipotential bonding, more specific,
the equipotentialization of the lines connected to the structure.
With this in mind, two probabilities should be reminded: is the probability that a flash to a line
entering the structure will cause injury to living beings by electric shock due to touch voltage and is
the probability that a flash to a line entering the structure will cause physical damage to the structure.
is the parameter common to these two probabilities which sometimes can significantly influence
the value of the risk. As higher as this level is, less probable is a flash to a line to cause injury to living

53
beings by electric shock ( ) and less probable is a flash to a line to cause physical damage ( ), by
the same factor.
And as it was already said, the probability influences the corresponding probabilities but for the
case of direct flashes to a structure: and itself.

As a result, upgrading the class of the LPS (M1 measure), the class of the surge protective devices,
SPDs, installed at the point of entrance of the lines connected to the structure, should be upgraded as
well with the same (or higher) LPL.
So, it can be said that the value of depends on when measures are taken to upgrade the LPS.
But, in the case of the surge protective devices should be of a higher class than the class of the LPS
installed, there is no mandatory requirement to upgrade the LPS in question. Therefore, it can be
implemented a measure only for upgrading the SPDs class (M2 measure). This can happen when, for
example, the function of the structure takes very serious the protection of the equipment inside the
structure, or the information flowing in the telecommunication lines are of greatly importance Banks,
data centers, server storages, hospitals, etc.

Figure 14 shows an organization chart can make these relations more obvious.

Figure 14: M1 measure organization chart of the probabilities and parameters influenced by upgrading the LPL of
the LPS,

To sum up, a decrease in the value of the probability of a flash to a structure to cause physical
damage to the structure, , implicates a direct reduction in the probability of a flash to a structure to
cause injury to living beings by electric shock, .

54
Also, changing the value of , implicates a mandatory change in the value of . By reducing ,
the probability of a flash to a line to cause injury to living beings by electric shock ( ) and the
probability of a flash to a line to cause physical damage ( ) decreases by the same factor, as it was
said before.
So, in terms of the reduction on the value of the risk, has a significant impact.

5.3.2. M2: Installing SPDs of an appropriate LPL at the line entrance point

As it was said, there are a number of situations when the surge protective devices should be of a
higher class than the class of the LPS installed.

Some rules for SPDs installation must be respected:

For external conductive parts, lightning equipotential bonding shall be established as near as possible
to the point of entry into the structure to be protected and all the conductors of each line should be
bonded directly or with an SPD. This will increase the level of effectiveness of these devices.
More over SPDs shall have the following characteristics:
tested with where is the withstand current of the SPD, and is the lightning current
flowing along the lines;
the protection level lower than the impulse withstand level of insulation between parts.
If these conditions are fulfilled the value of decreases the values of the probability of a flash to a
line to cause injury to living beings by electric shock ( ) and the probability of a flash to a line to
cause physical damage ( ) decreases by the same factor. Using the same reasoning as before for
measure M1 the figure (Figure 15) below shows better these relations.

Figure 15: M2 measure organization chart of the probabilities and parameters influenced by

55
5.3.3. M3: Protection measures against the consequences of fire

Providing zone(s) with protection measures against the consequences of fire (such as extinguishers,
automatic fire detection system etc.). This will reduce ultimately the components and via the
reduction factor .

In this case, , the factor that reduces the loss due to provisions against fire influences the
components of loss in a structure related to physical damage, (flashes to structure) and (flashes
to line). As and decreases so the value of the risk components related to physical damage,
and decreases (remind Equation (5)).

5.3.4. M4: Providing zone(s) with a coordinated SPD system for the internal power and telecom
systems

Lightning flashes to a structure (source of damage 1 ), near the structure (2 ), to a service connected
to the structure (3 ) and near a service connected to the structure (4 ) can cause failures or
malfunction of internal systems.
An equipment is protected if its rated impulse withstand voltage at its terminals is greater than the
surge overvoltage between the live conductors and earth. If not, an SPD must be installed.
SPDs properly selected, coordinated and installed result in a system intended to reduce failures of
electrical and electronic systems a coordinated SPD system. It should be designed to protect the
cables crossing borders of the different lightning protection zones, LPZs, and possibly at the
equipment to be protected in order to limit conducted surges due to lightning on electrical lines.

The probability that an SPD does not adequately protect the equipment for which it is intended, is
equal to the probability that the discharge current at the point of installation of this SPD exceeds the
current at which the protection level was determined. That is where the probability takes its value.
As higher as the level of protection provided by the coordinated SPD system, less probable is the
discharge current exceeds the current at which the protection level was determined.
So, changing the value of implicates changes in the risk components influenced by failure of
internal systems , (through and , respectively) and , (through and ,
respectively), as shown in Figure 16 .

5.3.5. M5: Providing zone(s) with an adequate spatial grid-like shield.

This measure was chosen to reinforce the protection against negative consequences of current surges
in electrical equipment.

56
 Figure 16: M4 measure organization chart of the probabilities and parameters influenced by

Spatial shields define protected zones, which may cover the whole structure, a part of it, a single room
or the equipment enclosure only. These may be grid-like, or continuous metal shields, or comprise the
"natural components" of the structure itself.
So, there are three ways to ensure effectiveness in attenuation of the magnetic field effects in internal
systems.
The parameters that characterize spatial shields are 1 and 2 : mesh widths of grid-like spatial
shields, or of mesh type LPS down-conductors or the spacing between the structure metal columns, or
the spacing between a reinforced concrete framework acting as a natural LPS.
The indexes 1 and 2 in corresponds to the factor relevant to the screening effectiveness of the
structure, 1 , and the factor relevant to the screening effectiveness of shields internal to the structure,
2 , respectively.
Inside a lightning protection zone, LPZ, at a safety distance from the boundary screen at least equal to
the mesh width, , factors 1 and 2 for LPS or spatial grid-like shields may be evaluated as:

1 = 0.12 1 (17)
2 = 0.12 2 (18)

For continuous metal shields with thicknesses not lower than 0.1 , 1 = 2 = 104 .

Ultimately, in order to reduce the probability that a flash near a structure cause failure of internal
systems, , a grid-like LPS, screening, routing precautions, increased withstand voltage, isolating
interfaces and coordinated SPD systems are suitable as protection measures.
So, the mesh widths , affect the value of the factors that changes the value of that alters the
value of the probability by the same factor (see Figure 17).

57
At last, the reduction of the probability results, as well, in the reduction of the value of the risk
component (related to failure of internal systems flashes near structure).

In top of all this, there are yet two other parameter that can be help on the reduction of the risk
component .
3 takes into account the characteristics of internal wiring: shielded or unshielded cables; cables
with or without routing precautions to avoid large loops; cables protected inside metal conduits or not.
Reducing this parameter can decrease the value of the risk component related to failure of internal
systems, , by the same or even higher factor than 1 and 2 .
Its value ranges from 1 (Unshielded cable no routing precaution in order to avoid loops) to 0.0001
(Shielded cables and cables running in metal conduits). Consult Table A.17 in the Appendix A section
for more information.
4 takes into account the impulse withstand voltage of the system to be protected.

1 (19)
4 =

So, there are two sub-measures that can also be taken into account:

M5.1: Check the internal wiring and upgrading the level of protection of the cables by shielding them
and take routing precautions;
M5.2: Upgrade the electrical and the telecommunication equipment with higher values of withstand
voltage.
These two sub-measures will decrease the probability that a flash near a structure cause failure of
internal systems, , and consequently, the equivalent risk component, .
In Figure 17, the relations between these parameters can be better understood.

Figure 17: M5 measure organization chart of the probabilities and parameters influenced by the mesh widths,

58
Table 10 reminds which protection measures influences each risk components.

Table 10: Protection measures vs risk components

Protection Measures

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M5.1 M5.2

Risk Components
X
X X
X X
X X X
X
X X X X
X
X

By analyzing Table 10 it can be found some relations:

M1 is an important measure because it reduces the values of risk components related to injury
(caused by electric shock) and physical damage (caused by fire or explosion) to living beings.
Applying M1 it is on the best interests of everyone in the structure;
M4 is the measure that must be applied if failure of internal systems is the number one priority by
designing a coordinated SPD system. In association with M5 measure that accounts the effects of
LEMP, the risk component becomes of great relevancy. As is a risk component important to the
good functioning of the structure, reducing it implicates a significantly reduction in the value of risk.

As physical damage and failure of internal systems are usually the mainly consequences that
influenced the value of the risk, these measures are adequate and effective in the reduction of the risk.

Moreover, Table 11, present in the standard, relates various characteristics with the respective risk
component.

59
 Table 11: Characteristics of the structure or of the internal systems that influence the risk components
(according to IEC 62305-2 [2], table 3, page 23)
Characteristics of structure
or of internal systems
Protection measures
Collection area X X X X X X X X
Surface soil resistivity X
Floor resistivity X X
Physical restrictions,
insulation, warning notices, X X
soil equipotentialization
LPS X X X X X X
Bonding SPD X X X X
Isolating interfaces X X X X X X
Coordinated SPD system X X X X
Spatial shied X X
Shielding external lines X X X X
Shielding internal lines X X
Routing precaution X X
Bonding network X
Fire precaution X X
Fire sensitivity X X
Special hazard X X
Impulse withstand voltage X X X X X X

Only for grid-like external LPS

Due to equipotential bonding

Only if they belong to equipment

60
6. Application of the computer program L.R.A.

As it was stated in the beginning of the work, the objective of this work is to develop a computer
program that supports lightning protection projects for structures based on the standard IEC 62305.
The program has the goal to make project analysis of risk management of lightning protection systems
a process much faster and intuitive.

The aim of this chapter is to show how the program works.

6.1. L.R.A. structure

Take Equation (5), in 5.2. (Risk Evaluation, page 39) section = as a reference to
describe the methodology adopted in the program to calculate the risk components and consequently,
the overall risk (sum of the risk components).
In order to accomplish that, the program is divided in 6 tabs.

The first step is to determine the number of dangerous events per year (section 5.2.1. Number of
dangerous events, page 40), given by Equation (6). According to this equation, depends on the
lightning ground flash density, the collection area and on parameters that depend on the structure and
connected lines environmental and geometric characteristics. Conclusion, number of dangerous
events, is directly related with the source of the lightning (see Table 8).
So, in the program, the first two tabs are related to, (1) the structure and (2) the connected lines
characteristics and its environmental surroundings. These tabs allow to calculate directly all the
collection areas and all the number of dangerous events per year, just as Table 8 describes.

Then, the type of loss is analyzed (section 5.2.2., page 43), meaning, the mean relative amount of a
particular type of damage for one dangerous event caused by a lightning discharge, considering both
its extent and effects.
Taking this definition, it is obvious that the structure internal characteristics are dependent on the type
of loss. So, only after choosing the type of loss it can begin the study of the structure internal
characteristics. This defines the third and fourth tab in the program, respectively.
For this evaluation, as it was already said, the structure can be considered as a whole or divided by
zones. Either way, for each zone, a set of parameters must be associated with it in order to
characterize the internal composition of the structure to be protected. In terms of lightning protection
system, this evaluation describes the internal component of the LPS, as the first two tabs generally
describe the conditions of the structure regarding to the external LPS.

61
To calculate the risk components still remain to describe the probability of damage to the structure to
be protected. According to section 5.2.3. (page 48), as there are eight risk components, there are
eight probability components, , and they are grouped according to the source and type of damage.
With that said and reminding that the previous parameters are also dependent on the source and type
of damage of lightning, it is safe to say that these probabilities components are either present in the
external and in the internal components of the LPS. So, for example, the and probabilities are
defined in the first tab (related to the structure external characteristics) and , and
probabilities are defined in the fourth tab (related to the structure internal characteristics).

With all the dangerous events, probabilities and losses characterized, it only remains to calculate the
risk. The fifth tab is where the risk calculations are presented. In the form of a table, the eight risk
components and the overall risk are shown and finally the overall risk is compared with the value of
tolerable risk (according with the type of loss chosen) in order to conclude that the structure is at risk
or not.

Also, if the risk evaluated is 4 (risk of loss of economic value of a structure), the program permits an
economic evaluation, in which compares the cost of loss based on the risk of the structure without
taking any protective measures and the sum between the cost of loss based on the risk of the
structure calculated when protective measures are taken and the cost of construction and
maintenance of those measures. All these are calculations made in per year.
This comparison gives the annual savings which can be a very useful indicator for the engineer when
designing the lightning protection measures.

For last, with the value of the risk calculated, it is required to determine the need of protection
measures against lightning: if the value of the overall risk, , is higher than the tolerable value defined
by the standard, , by definition, and more importantly, for security reasons, protection measures
against lightning must be taken. The program provides the user with a set of protective measures and
they are given according with the three higher risk components, for each zone.
For example, if the risk components related to physical damage ( , ) are the ones that most
influence the overall risk value, suitable protective measures are the construction/upgrade of an LPS
and equipotential bonding at the entrance of the connected lines to the structure.

The following flowchart shows the structure of the computer program L.R.A.. As it can be seen, it
follows the 6 tabs of the program (see Figure 18):
(1) Structure: geometric and environmental characteristics;
(2) Connected lines: geometric and environmental characteristics;
(3) Type of loss;
(4) Lightning protection zones characteristics;
(5) Results;
(6) Lightning protection measures.

62
 Figure 18: Flowchart of the L.R.A. structure

6.2. Example 1: Hospital

The case studies examples presented in IEC 62305-2 [2] are a good reference for demonstrating its
risk management approach. For that reason, the goal of this section is to validate the results that the
developed program gives by comparing the resultant risk values with the ones presented in the
standard 62305. The chosen example of application is the standards case study of an Hospital. This
case study is very complex because:
- The structure is divided in 4 different zones;
- Takes into account the effect of an adjacent structure connected by a line;
- Calculates the risk 1 risk of loss of human life in a structure and the risk 4 risk of loss of
economic value in a structure, which includes an economic evaluation;
- Presents 3 solutions using different protective measures in order to reduce the value of the risk.

Implementing this example will permit to describe almost all the features of the program, which are:
- Calculate the risk and determine the need for protection Primary objective;
- Show the contribution of the different risk components to the overall risk, ;

63
- According with these risk components suggest appropriate lightning protective measures, and re-
calculate the risk including them;
- Provide additional information data regarding the collection areas and the number of dangerous
events, which can help in the design of the lightning protection system;
- Make a (basic) economic evaluation when requested.

The following sections are related with the computation of the value of the risk of loss of human life in
a structure 1 and the value of risk of loss of economic value in the structure, 4 .

6.2.1. Structure: geometric and environmental characteristics

This is the tab where the structures geometric and environmental characteristics are defined. The
parameters that translate those characteristics are presented in Table 12:

Table 12: Input parameters that describe the geometric and environmental characteristics of the structure

Input Parameter Symbol Value Description

Lightning ground flash density 4 -
[2 . 1 ]
, ,
Length, Width, Height 50, 150, 10 -
[]
Location factor 1 Isolated structure
Probability that a flash to a structure will cause
1 No LPS installed
physical damage
Parameter that relates the lightning equipotential
bonding with the lightning protection level for 1 No SPD installed
which SPDs are designed
Parameter that takes into account the screening No spatial shielding
1 1
effectiveness of the structure, of the LPS considered

Figure 19 shows how the input of these parameters can be made. It can be made manually by tipping
a valid number 1, or automatically by pressing the corresponding button with the tag Hint. These
buttons open a dialog box where it is explained what the respective parameter translates, which
values can assume and choose the desired value.

1
NOTE: By valid number it means a value according to the standard 62305-2 [2]. Besides the standard predicts
that some of the values here presented can be modify by national committees to better translate the national
conditions. At the present form, the program does not allow the introduction of new values.

64
 Figure 19: Inputs related to the geometric and environmental characteristics of the structure

For example, in the case of the Hint button for the parameter it permits the calculation of the
lightning flash density by the keraunic number (number of thunderstorm days per year) (see Equation
(7)) or by the visualization of a world map of lightning flash density [2 . 1 ], as it can be seen
next in Figure 21.

6.2.2. Connected lines: geometric and environmental characteristics

The first question to be made is:

Figure 20: Number of lines (power + telecommunications) connected to the structure to be protected

65
 Figure 21: Lightning ground flash density computation by the keraunic number and the world map
distribution [49]

66
Although the number of lines could be any one, there are going to be just two lines of interest: one
power line and one telecommunication line. The program processes as many lines as the user wants
but to the calculation of the risk it only goes the values that correspond to the lines (one for power and
one for telecommunication) that translate the higher risk to the structure, meaning, the lines that result
in a higher number of dangerous events, (number of dangerous events due to flashes to a line) and
(number of dangerous events due to flashes near a line).
The parameters under scrutiny are presented in Table 13.

In this example two lines are considered, one of power and one of telecommunication. As it can be
seen from Figure 22 the line of telecommunication is connected to another structure, the so-called
adjacent structure.

Figure 22: Inputs related to characteristics of the connected lines to the structure

It is important to remember that by including the characterization of the lines connected to the
structure to be protected, it permits to quantify the effects of lightning strikes to and near a line, which
influences 4 of the 8 risk components.

67
Table 13: Input parameters that describe the geometric and environmental characteristics of the connected lines

Input Parameter Power line Telecommunication line

Length of line section [] = 500 = 300
Installation factor = 0.5 : Buried line = 0.5 : Buried line
= 1 : LV
Line type factor = 0.2 : HV power line
telecommunication line
= 0.5 : Suburban = 0.5 : Suburban
Environment factor
environment environment
Factor depending on shielding, = 1 : Shielded buried line = 1 : Shielded buried line
grounding and isolation conditions of
= 0 : Shielded buried line = 0 : Shielded buried line
the line for flashes to or near a line
Length, width and height of an = 20 ;
= ; = ; =
adjacent structure [] = 30 ; = 5
Location factor of an adjacent
= = 1 : Isolated structure
structure
Rated impulse withstand voltage of
= 2.5 = 1.5
a system []
Shield resistance per unit length of a
1 / 1 / < 5 /
cable [/]
Probability of failure of internal = 0.2 = 0.8
systems due to a flash to or near the
connected line depending on the = 0.5 :
= 0.3 : Power line
line and equipment characteristics Telecommunication line

6.2.3. Type of loss

In this tab the goal is to choose the type of loss see Figure 23.
Each type of damage, alone or in combination with others, may produce a different consequential loss
in the structure to be protected and in this tab the user can choice which type of loss it wants to be
analyzed. As it was said earlier in the work, there are 4 types of loss that the standard considers to be
relevant (see section 5.1., page 35):

L1: loss of human life (including permanent injury);

L2: loss of service to the public;
L3: loss of cultural heritage;
L4: loss of economic value (structure, content, and loss of activity).

68
For each type of loss, a set of zone parameters are assigned. For the Hospital example it will be
made the evaluation for the loss of human life, 1 , and for the loss of economic value, 4 .

Figure 23: Type of loss in analysis

6.2.4. Lightning protection zones

This tab permits the selection of several zones (up to ten), which can be considered in detail. Normally
these zones are distinguished because there is some kind on particularity that can significantly
increase or decrease the value of the risk.
The program gives some example of zones that usually fulfill those particularities.
Also, the user must input the total number of people that are regularly present in the structure .

Figure 24 shows that for the Hospital example the chosen zones are the Operating room; Rooms
block; Outside of the building and Other (in this case is the Intensive Care unit) and that there are
regularly 1000 persons inside the structure.
Then, each zone is described by a set of parameters that, according with the chosen type of loss, will
contribute more or less to the value of the risk. It can be accessed by defining the number of people
that are regularly in each chosen zone, , and pressing the button Ok see Figure 25.

69
 Figure 24: Definition of the lightning protection zones

Figure 25: Unlocking the buttons to enable the characterization of each zone

70
 The parameter is important for the loss of human life, 1 , because it translates the weight of the
zone, meaning that the percentage given by the relation / represents the contribution of the zone
for the loss of human life in the structure and by consequence, the overall risk 1 .

Pressing the button Ok unlocks the zone and the parameters can now be inserted Figure 26. The
button Hint shows a table with a summary description of these parameters (see section 5.2.3., page
48). In Table 14 the input parameters of the zone Rooms Block are presented.

Table 14: Input parameters that describe the zone Rooms Block for the Hospital example

Input Parameter Symbol Value Comment

Type of floor = 1 105 Linoleum floor
Protection against shock (flash to
= 1 None
a structure)
Protection against shock (flash to
= 1 None
a line)
Risk of fire = 1 102 Ordinary
Fire protection = 1 None
Internal spatial shield 2 2 = 1 None
Unshielded (loop
Internal wiring 3 3 = 0.2 conductors in the same
Power line
conduit)
Coordinated SPDs = 1 None
Unshielded (loop
Telecom Internal wiring 3 3 = 0.01 conductors in the same
line cable)
Coordinated SPDs = 1 None
= 5 Difficult to evacuation
1 : due to touch and
= 1 102
step voltage
1 : Loss of human life 2 : due to physical
= 1 101
damage
3 : due to failure of
= 1 103
internal systems
( / )
Factor for persons in the zone 0.95 Weight of the zone
( /8760)

71
Figure 26 show the input of above parameters made for the zone Rooms Block, in the case of the
type of loss 1 is chosen. The tolerable risk value associated with this type of loss is = 1 105
(see Table 6).

Figure 26: Parameters that describe the zone Rooms Block for the Hospital example

6.2.5. Results

Finally, the results tab, where the values of all the components of the risk are shown. With this, it is
possible to reach to the value of the overall risk, , which by comparison with the value of the tolerable
risk, , enables the user to respond to the most important question: Is the structure in study at risk
from lightning?
- If the answer is negative, the program reaches its final step. This happens when the overall
risk is smaller than the value of the tolerable risk imposed by the type of loss in analyzes.
However, if the user wants to pursuit a smaller value than , it can go to the final tab of the program
and select appropriate protective measures.
- If the answer is affirmative, the program gives two choices: go to the final tab and select
protective measures; or go to the previous tabs and alter values of some parameters and re-calculate
the risk.

Also, in this tab, it is possible to visualize the resultant values of the different collection areas and
annual dangerous events, by pressing the button Additional Information.

72
So, for the Hospital example, the value of the risk is shown in Figure 27. Observing this figure, it can
be seen that the overall risk has a very high value, in relation with the associated tolerable risk value
= 1 105 . So, lightning protection is needed for this structure.

The overall risk is 1 = 69.9585 105 ( ). Analyzing the results in Figure 27, it can be seen that
the zone denominated by 2 - the Room Block zone, has a substantially contribution to 1 . Still in 2 ,
the risk component with the higher value is related to physical damage to the structure caused by
direct lightning discharges to the structure. The reason can be explained by remembering Table 11
that dictates that fire precautions, fire sensitivity and special hazards are the factors that more
influence this risk component, which in this case, assume the values = 1, = 102 (high value) and
= 5 (high value), respectively. Finally, in 2 , = 950 (number of persons in the zone 1 ) of
= 1000 (total number of persons in the structure): the zone has the higher weight in the overall
value of the risk.

Figure 27: Risk result risk of loss of human life, for each zone, by risk component

73
6.2.6. Lightning protection measures

Further to evaluating the need of lightning protection, the program suggests adequate protective
measures and allows to anticipate the decrease on the risk value that can be achieved by each of the
selected ones.
So, the program gives to the user the set of protective measures that are more likely to decrease the
value of the three higher risk components of each zone, as it can be seen in Figure 28.

The user selects the desired protective measures and by pressing the button Apply measures, the
value of the risk is re-calculated and the tab of Results re-appear with the new values provided by
the introduction of protective measures.

Figure 28: Selection of appropriate lightning protection measures according with the three most influential risk
components for the overall risk

In the example of the Hospital, the standard gives 3 solutions:

74
Solution 1)
Protect the building with a Class I LPS ( = 0.02, including also = 0.01);
Install coordinated SPD protection on internal power and telecom systems for (1.5 ) better than
( = 0.005) in zones 1 , 2 , 4 ;
Provide zone 2 with an automatic fire protection system ( = 0.2, for zone 2 only);
Provide zone 1 and 4 with a meshed shield with = 0.5 .

Figure 29 shows the results for Solution 1: 1 = 0.3377 105 .

As the risk component (physical damage to the structure) in the zone 2 (Rooms Block) has the
higher value, the construction of a LPS in the structure and the installation of an automatic fire
protection system in zone 2 are the measures that theoretically more contribute to its reduction
(remember Table 11) and by consequence, the value of the overall risk.
It is now when the computer program L.R.A. can be very useful. It permits to analyze measure by
measure and let the user conclude what lightning protection measure is more effective in risk
reduction.
So, analyzing the effectiveness of the first two measures, if only one is selected the decrease in the
risk 1 is around ~73% and 59%, respectively. But when both measures are implemented the
reduction does not increase substantially (~74%). This happens because both measures actuated in
the same risk component and so, the effectiveness of the reduction decreases. This information is
very important because, in this case, instead of implementing both measures, the substantial
reduction of the risk can be achieve by only using one of the measures cheaper solution.

Figure 29: Re-calculated risk after taking the lightning protection measures of Solution 1

75
In the end, Solution 1 gives a reduction of 99.52% in relation with the value of the risk when the
structure is not protected. The increase of the reduction of the risk is due to the introduction of the
measures that actuates in preventing the failures of internal systems , , and , which in this
case is achieved by installing a coordinated SPD protection on internal power and telecom systems
and by installing a meshed shield with = 0.5 . The same effectiveness analysis can be made for
these two measures and the conclusion is that implementing the coordinated system is much more
effective than constructing a mesh shield in terms of reducing the risk: 98% and 5.5% decrease in the
overall risk value 1 , respectively (with the LPS of class I and the fire protection system also installed).

Solution 2)
Protect the building with a Class I LPS ( = 0.02, including also = 0.01);
Install coordinated SPD protection on internal power and telecom systems for (3 ) better than
( = 0.001) in zones 1 , 2 , 4 ;
Provide zone 2 with an automatic fire protection system ( = 0.2, for zone 2 only).

In this case, as in Solution 1, the construction of the LPS and the improved fire protection system give
the same reduction of the value of the risk.
As, in this case of the Hospital example, constructing the mesh shield is not very effective in reducing
the risk, to have better protection, meaning, lower even more the risk 1 , the coordinated SPD
systems can be improved. Figure 30 shows the results for Solution 2: 1 = 0.2224 105 .

Figure 30: Re-calculated risk after taking the lightning protection measures of Solution 2

76
Solution 3)
Protect the building with a Class I LPS ( = 0.02, including also = 0.01);
Install coordinated SPD protection on internal power and telecom systems for (2 ) better than
( = 0.002) in zones 1 , 2 , 4 ;
Provide zone 2 with an automatic fire protection system ( = 0.2, for zone 2 only);
Provide zone 1 and 4 with a meshed shield with = 0.1 .
This solution reinforces the conclusion made in Solution 2 as the installation of the coordinated SPD
protection on internal power and telecom systems reduces much more the value of the overall risk
than the construction of a mesh shield.
The results for Solution 3 can be seen in Figure 31: 1 = 0.2505 105 .

Figure 31: Calculated risk after taking the lightning protection measures of Solution 3

Looking at the new values of the overall risk 1 , the differences between them are not very big. So,
how to choose between the three solutions? This is when the assessment of the risk 4 can be very
helpful.
The process is identical to the previous presented. The only differences occurs when choosing the
type of loss, in this case, 4 and when the input of the zone parameters associated with the loss 4 -
, , and the costs , , , (remember from 5.2.3., page 48).

Figure 32 illustrates that better, using for example the Intensive care unit zone.

77
 Figure 32: Parameters that describe the zone Intensive Care Unit from the Hospital example

With the risk 4 calculated for Solution 1: 4 = 0.3012 105 (see Figure 33), an economic evaluation
can be made. As this subject is outside of the scope of the work, the program only allows the user to
better choose from the 3 solutions by giving the annual savings for each of the solutions presented.

Figure 33: Calculated risk, 4 risk of loss of economic value, for each zone, by type of risk

78
Figure 34 shows the process for Solution 1 the program requires the input of the (approximate)
overall cost of the protective measures for each solution in study and the relevant rates that will
applied: interest rate; amortization rate; maintenance rate.

Figure 34: Simplified economic evaluation based on risk analysis

Finally, the program takes the previous inputs and calculates four parameters: the cost of loss when
the structure is unprotected, ; the cost of loss when the structure is protected, ; the annual cost of
the measures including the relevant rates, ; and finally the value of annual savings , which
provides the value for comparison between the different solutions. Remember the designation:
overall cost.
In the case of this practical example of the Hospital the best solution is Solution 2, because it has the
set of lightning protection measures that provides the highest value of annual savings with the lowest
annual investment of the three solutions, as it can be seen in Figure 35.
As the measure for the construction of a mesh shield is the common element in Solutions 1 and 3, the
conclusion is that it must be more expensive in relation with the installation of a coordinated SPD
system.
It is important to remind that this example has the goal to validate the developed program, which it
has. All the reached values using the L.R.A. program are exactly the same as the ones presented in
the examples from standard IEC 62305 [2]. That is why the values in Figure 34 and Figure 35 are in
dollars.

Solution 1)

79
 Solution 2)

Solution 3)

Figure 35: Annual savings, , for the three solutions presented

6.3. Example 2: South Tower in Instituto Superior Tcnico (IST), Alameda Campus

In the following example, the south tower of IST is going to be evaluated. Figure 36 shows the
structure.

Figure 36: South tower in Instituto Superior Tcnico

80
The input parameters that describe the geometric and environmental characteristics of the structure
and assuming that the tower does not have installed any lightning protection system, surge protective
devices or special screening, the following parameters are presented in Table 15.

Table 15: The input parameters that describe the geometric and environmental characteristics of the structure
Input Parameter Symbol Value Description

Lightning ground flash density 1.2 -
[2 . 1 ]
, ,
Length, Width, Height 30, 30, 50 -
[]
Location factor 1 Isolated structure
Probability that a flash to a structure will cause
1 No LPS installed
physical damage
Parameter that relates the lightning equipotential
bonding with the lightning protection level for 1 No SPD installed
which SPDs are designed
Parameter that takes into account the screening No spatial shielding
1 1
effectiveness of the structure, of the LPS considered

Then, the input parameters that characterize the connected lines: one for power and other for
telecommunication that lead to the higher values of dangerous events are presented in Table 16.

Table 16: Parameters of power and telecommunication lines

Power line Telecommunication line

= 250 = 150
= 0.5 : Buried line = 0.5 : Buried line
= 1 : LV power line = 1: LV telecommunication line
= 0.1 : Urban environment = 0.1 : Urban environment
= 1 : Shielded buried line = 1 : Shielded buried line
= 0 : Shielded buried line = 0 : Shielded buried line
= =
= =
= =
= =
= 2.5 = 1.5
1/ 1/ < 5/
= 0.2 = 0.8
= 0.3 : Power line = 0.5 : Telecommunication line

81
With the structure and lines geometric and environmental characteristics taken care of, it is possible to
calculate the collections areas and the number of dangerous events, following the equations in Table
8.
As the type of loss under study is the loss of human life (1 ) the distinctive zone parameters are
, , and . Also, the tolerable risk value associated with this type of loss is once again
= 1 105 .

In this case, there are several zones that deserve special attention due to some features that define
them:
- Offices: due to the its high number (80!); it can turn the evacuation of these zones specially
difficult;
- Library: zone always associated with a high level of risk of fire;
- Chemical laboratory: due to the high level of electric and electronic equipment that operate at very
low voltages (possible damage due to overvoltages) and the chemical components that may
cause explosions;
- Multimedia room: again, the high level of electric and electronic equipment is a serious risk to
failure of internal systems;
- Classroom / Auditorium / Study room: due to the regularly high number of people present in these
zones.

According to the IST website [50], Table 17 is created:

Table 17: Distribution of people inside each protection zone

Number of
Zone Description
people
1 Offices 73 offices 80
2 Library 2 library 20
3 Chemical laboratory 7 chemical laboratory 35
4 Multimedia room 6 multimedia room 15
Classroom / 4 auditoriums /
5 Auditorium / 4 classroom / 200
Study room 2 study room
TOTAL 350

So, 5 zones are defined and for each one, the following parameters are the ones that describe them:
- The floor is made of wood or linoleum = 1 105 ;
- No special measures are taken against shock = = 1 ;
- Zones with low risk of fire and with no provisions for fire protection = 0.001 and = 1, except
in the library and chemical laboratories zones where the risk of fire is considered high = 0.1,
and with the last with fire protection system = 0.5;

82
- It is assumed no internal spatial shielding and no SPD system installed for internal systems
2 = 1, = 1, respectively. For the internal wiring, 3 = 0.2 for power wiring (with routing
precautions) and 3 = 1 for telecommunication wiring (with no routing precautions), except in the
zone of laboratories and multimedia room where routing precautions are taken for both wiring,
3 = 0.01;
- Although the average number of people in some zones and the number of floors makes the overall
structure to be considered difficult to evacuate ( = 5), the structure in question provides its
occupants double escape routes by stairs, double average high speed elevators and well
distributed, in every floors, security illumination and evacuation maps providing efficient escape
routes. So, in a case of an evacuation situation it is considered a low level of panic = 2;
- Damage 1 : considered injuries due to shock = 0.01 ;
- Damage 2 : accounts physical damage considering the structure as a school = 0.1 ;
- Damage 3 : failure of internal systems this type of damage it only makes sense to be different
from 0 on the laboratory zones, where the high number of electric and electronic systems can be
affect by an overvoltage or spark that can result in an explosion and/or initiate a fire. So, it is
interesting to make two evaluations, one considering a risk of explosion when lightning affects the
internal systems of the zone of the laboratories and another considering no additional risk to
failure of these internal systems:
= 0, assuming no risk of explosion (1);
= 0.1, assuming risk of explosion (2).

Figure 37 show the input of the parameters for the laboratory zones:

Figure 37: Parameters that describe the laboratory zones of the South Tower in IST

83
The results for the two evaluations are shown in Figure 38, for = 0 and Figure 39, for = 0.1.

Figure 38: Calculated risk for evaluation (): =

Figure 39: Calculated risk for evaluation (2): = 0.1

84
Clearly, the value of the risk components are significantly higher when the risk of explosion is
accounted for (2), than the evaluation where the risk of explosion is not assumed (1). In the end, both
cases need lightning protection. Remember that is the loss in the structure due to failure of internal
systems. Therefore directly influence the risk components related to failure of internal systems,
, , , . That explained why the these risk components are equal to 0 and different from 0 in the
evaluation (1): = 0 and evaluation (2): = 0.1, respectively.

Before evaluate the best set of lightning protection measures there is some information that can be
useful to analyze. For example, the button Additional Information gives the value of the number of
dangerous events that can happen in the respective collection area. This area is calculated through
the geometric measures of the structure and connected lines. These collection areas are also given in
the table generated by the mentioned button, as Figure 40 shows.

In Figure 41, it can be seen (approximately) the collection area of the South Tower in IST. As the
structure to be protected has = 50 , = 30 and = 30 , its the collection area is
approximately a circle which covers an area of 92095 2 (it is not an exact circle, but the difference
can be neglected, less than 3%).
As it can be seen from the figure, the area can be considerate as overestimated with the 1:3 ratio
adopted by the standard.

6.3.1. Evaluation (), assuming a = no risk of explosion

First of all, the risk components related to failure of internal systems, , , , are equal to 0.
Then, as it was said, the risk of fire in the library and the laboratories is considered high. So, the
obvious protective measure is to upgrade the fire protection system, by implementing fixed
automatically operated extinguishing installations and/or automatic alarm installations: = 0.5 =
0.2 in zones 2 and 3 .
Applying this measure, the overall risk is reduced significantly but the value of the risk, = 8.6030
105 as it can be seen in Figure 42, still remains higher than the tolerable risk value, : 1 > .

So, more protective measures are needed. For this example, where the critical risk components are
related to physical damage, and (see Figure 38), the measure that most affects these risk
components, is the construction of a lightning protection system, an LPS.
Starting with an LPS of class III: = 1 = 0.1 and = 1 = 0.05 , the results are
significant in the reduction of the value of the overall risk, 1 . The down side of this measure is the
costly investment that can be around a few thousands of euros.

The re-calculated values of the risk are presented in Figure 43. For this evaluation (), the overall risk
becomes smaller than the tolerable risk objective achieved: = . < =
.

85
 Figure 40: Data given by the Information button

Figure 41: Approximately collection area of the structure to be protected: South Tower in IST

86
 Figure 42: Calculated risk when protection measure against fire is applied: = 0.5 = 0.2

Figure 43: Calculated risk when a lightning protection system of LPL III is installed in the structure to be protected

87
Recapping the lightning protective measures adopted:
- Protect the building with a Class III LPS ( = 0.1, including also = 0.05);
- Provide zone 2 (library) and zone 3 (laboratories) with an automatic fire protection system
( = 0.2 for zone 2 only).

Obviously, the user may not be still satisfied and desire more protection against lightning or even alter
his choices and select different measures to reach other risk values.

The economic evaluation can be helpful in this matter. Different set of lightning protective measures
can give similar risk values, so the necessary investment on these measures must be revised.

6.3.2. Evaluation (): = . assuming risk of explosion

In this case, the critical risk components of the laboratory zones are the ones related with failure of
internal systems, , , , ( 0). So, the most effective lightning protection measure to
implement in this zone is the reinforcement of the security of the internal wiring.
The measure that better translates that is:
- Install a coordinated SPD protection system on internal power and telecom systems for (3 )
better than LPL I ( = 0.001) in zone 3 (laboratories).

This measure consists in a coordinated system where a surge protective device, SPD, shall be located
at the line entrance (both power and telecommunication lines) in each protection zone. This device will
protect the equipment (which operates at very low voltages) inside the zone from overvoltages created
by lightning surges.
With this measure the overall risk decreases significantly (see Figure 44).
However, the risk is still higher than the tolerable risk value: 1 = 18.9930 105 < = 1 105 .

The critical zone is still the one referent to the laboratories, but the higher risk components are the
ones related to physical damage, and , with the lead on the zones with high risk of fire: 2
(library) and 3 (laboratories).
So, constructing an LPS is again the most suitable lightning protection measure along with the fire
protection measure providing zone 2 and 3 with an automatic fire protection system ( = 0.2).
With some tries in the program, the lightning protection level (LPL) that the LPS should be so that
< is LPL of II: = 0.05 and = 0.02.

The construction of an LPS of class II together with the automatic fire protection system lead to an
overall risk of:
1 = 0.6445 105 < = 1 105 . Confirmed in Figure 45.

88
 Figure 44: Calculated risk when a coordinated SPD system is installed in zone 3, Laboratories

Figure 45: Calculated risk of a structure with a lightning protection system LPL II and the preventing fire measures
implemented

As before, the user has the chance to continue to reduce the value of the risk or choose to adopt
another approach with a different set of combination of measures. It all depends on the budget and the
practicality of applying those measures.

89
90
7. Conclusions

7.1. Summary

The International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) has created a very good and reliable lightning
protection standard the IEC 62305. Mostly thanks to the introduction of the analysis of the
hazardous effects in electrical and electronic failure due to lightning, the analysis of the effects of
indirect lightning and to the detailed risk management methodology.
It is important to realize that the results obtained with this methodology are purposely overestimated,
which results in a higher level of lightning protection and so, in a safer solution. The down side is that,
with a higher level of lightning protection, the higher can be the cost of the needed set of lightning
protective measures.
That is why IEC allows that the factors and probabilities values that compose the risk analysis can be
altered by national committees for better suit their countries characteristics and result in an overall
more cost effective lightning protection. Therefore, the goal of every national committee is to take the
IEC 62305 risk management methodology [2] (which is debated in chapter 5, Risk Management), and
apply it accordingly to each country requirements.

Regarding the un-conventional technology products, the discussion has dragged itself for over 30
years, which according with the scientific community, was considered a sufficient amount of time for
the manufactures of these systems to deliver acceptable data results that definitely proven the
efficiency and effectiveness of these systems. As the data is not conclusive in favor of the
manufactures, the standards that use LPS with this technology have been classified as non-standard
and the air-termination systems have been tagged as un-conventional, accordingly with several
international standardization committees and researchers [51], [52], [53].

On the other hand, it is surprising that the air-termination system used in modern days is essentially
the same system invented by Franklin in middle of the 18th century, when the average structures were
much smaller and had much less electrical and electronic requirements from todays structures to
protect. Nevertheless, with the increasing height of structures and higher levels of lightning protection
needed, it is crucial to constantly analyze if the risk assessment and lightning protection measures
adopted by IEC 62305 are the most suitable to carry on the lightning protection all around the world.
That is the main role of the IEC, to guarantee a safe and reliable solution that can be adopted
internationally.

7.2. Achievements

Regarding the computer program, L.R.A., it was created to assess the value of the risk of a structure
being affected by lightning discharges. As it was demonstrated, it follows the IEC 62305 risk
computation methodology.

91
The L.R.A. gives three big advantages to its user:
(1) It is easy to navigate between the tabs that compose the program and has an intuitive way of
input the parameters;
- Just by analyzing the table of results, where every risk component is discriminated with its value
and by zone, it is possible to see what are the types of damage (1 : injury to living beings by
electric shock, 2 : physical damage, 3 : failure of electrical and electronic systems) that more
contribute to increase the overall risk value. With that information, the user narrows down where
he should invest more to reduce the risk. Even more, being these risk components calculated by
zone, the user has that additional information and can direct its efforts to a particular zone
resulting in a less costly and effective investment;
(2) The above advantage is translated on the program when it gives a set of lightning protection
measures for each zone according with the 3 higher risk components, resulting in effective
solutions and with that becoming the process much faster the user doesnt need to make any
analysis or calculations;
(3) It allows an economic evaluation for all four types of risk: for 1 , 2 and 3 allows comparing the
different solutions based on the cost of the lightning protective measures; for 4 allows to
calculate the cost of loss when the structure is unprotected and when the structure is protected.
With those and with the annual cost of the lightning protective measures, the program calculates
the annual savings by applying the measures. Being able to know the annual savings, the user
can compare between the different solutions and see which one has the higher annual savings,
as it was seen in the South Tower in IST example.

7.3. Future work

For the developed program, the L.R.A., the next step in its improvement is the introduction of new
features: a tab dedicated to the design of the lightning protection system, LPS: the air-termination
system; the down-conductor system; and the earth-termination system, using the IEC 62305 concepts
and methodologies.
As it was seen in the application of the examples in chapter 6, an economic evaluation can be an
important tool to the design engineer as the cost of the selected solution is always a crucial parameter.
So, improve this evaluation could be, for example, by elaborating a data base with the most recent
prices of the protective measures and the user could choose from a list; or even associate the L.R.A.
program with a company or companies that make budgets for lightning protection.
This tool could help in the decision making between different solutions and complement the risk
management methodology.

92
Bibliography

[1] IEC 62305, Protection against lightning - Part 1: General Principles, 2nd ed., 2010.

[2] IEC 62305, Protection against lightning - Part 2: Risk management, 2nd ed., 2010.

[3] IEC 62305, Protection against lightning - Part 3: Physical damage to structures and life hazard,
2nd ed., 2010.

[4] IEC 62305, Protection against lightning - Part 4: Electrical and electronic systems within
structures, 2nd ed., 2010.

[5] Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of Benjamin Franklin.: M' Carty & Davis, 1840, vol. 2.

[6] IEC 61024, Protection of structure against lightning - Part 1: General Principles, 1st ed., 2006.

[7] IEC 61024, Protection of structures against lightning: Part 1, Section 1: Guide A , 1st ed., 2006.

[8] IEC 61024, Protection of structures against lightning: Part 1, Section 2: Guide B, 1st ed., 2006.

[9] Direo Geral de Geologia e Energia, Guia Tcnico de Pra-Raios, 5th ed. Lisboa, Portugal,
2005.

[10] Ufuk Candar Foya, Protection of structures against lightning., 2004, MS thesis, Middle East
Technical University.

[11] American standard NFPA 780, Standard for the installation of lightning protection systems.
U.S.A., 2011.

[12] R.J.Brunt, K.L.Stricklett, and T.L.Nelson, "Early Streamer Emission Lightning Protection
Systems: An Overview," IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, vol. 16, pp. 5-24, 2000.

[13] W. Rison, "There Is No Magic To Lightning Protection: Charge Transfer Systems Do Not Prevent
Lightning Strikes," Report for New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 2002.

[14] Gimlec. Lightning Protection System. [Online]. http://earlystreameremission.com/en/the-world-

of-lightning-protection/eseat-standardization-in-the-world/

[15] French standard NF C 17-102, Lightning Protection: Protection of structures and open areas
against lightning using early streamer emission air terminals. France, 1995.

[16] Spanish standard UNE 21.186, Protteccin de estructuras, edificaciones y zonas abiertas
mediante pararrayos con dispositivo de cebado. Spain, 1996.

[17] Portuguese standard, Proteo contra descargas atmosfricas - Sistemas com dispositivo de
ionizao no radioativo. Portugal, 2013.

[18] Z. A. Hartono and I. Robiah, "A review of studies on early streamer emission and charge transfer
system conducted in Malaysia," in International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
Zurich, 2006.

[19] Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lightning Protection, Vernon Cooray, Ed., 2010, Power
and Energy Series 58.

[20] M. T. Correia de Barros, "Folhas de Apoio Disciplina de Alta Tenso do Curso de Mestrado

93
 Integrado em Engenharia Electrotcnica e de Computadores," IST, Lisboa, 2010.

[21] Vladimir Rakov, "The Physics of Lightning," Surveys in Geophysics, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 701-729,
November 2013.

[22] CIGRE WG C4.407, "Lightning Parameters for Engineering Applications," CIGRE Technical
Brochure 549, August 2013.

[23] Vernon Cooray et al., "On the possible variation of the lightning striking distance as assumed in
the IEC lightning protection standard as a function of structure height," Electric Power Systems
Research, vol. 113, pp. 79-87, August 2014.

[24] Vernon Cooray, C. Cooray, and C.J. Andrews, "Lightning caused injuries in humans," Journal of
Electrostatics, vol. 65, pp. 386-394, 2007.

[25] Andr Miguel Passarinho Jorge, Avaliao da eficcia de sistemas de intercepo de descargas
atmosfricas em linhas de transmisso de energia elctrica., 2011, MS Thesis, Instituto Superior
Tcnico.

[26] Vladimir Rakov, "Lightning Discharge and Fundamentals of Lightning Protection," Journal of
Lightning Research, vol. 4, pp. 3-11, 2012.

[27] K. Berger, R.B. Anderson, and H. Kroninger, "Parameters of lightning flashes," CIGRE Electra No
41, pp. 23-27, 1975.

[28] R.B. Anderson and A.J. Eriksson, "Lightning Parameters for Engineering Application," CIGRE
Electra No 69, pp. 65-102, 1980.

[29] CIGRE WG 33.01, "Guide to Procedures for Estimating the Lightning Performance of
Transmission Lines," CIGRE Tecnnical Brochure 63, October 1991.

[30] C.F.Wagner, G.D.McCann, and Jr G.L.MacLane, "Shielding of Transmission Lines," Electrical

Engineering, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 313-328, June 1941.

[31] Mohamed Nayel, Zhao Jie, and Jinliang He, "Analysis of shielding failure parameters of high
voltage direct current transmission lines," Journal of Electrostatics, vol. 70, pp. 505-511, 2012.

[32] Vernon Cooray, Vladimir Rakov, and Nelson Theetha, "The lightning striking distance -
Revisited," Journal of Electrostatics, vol. 65, pp. 296-306, 2007.

[33] M. Becerra, On the Attachment of Lightning Flashes to Grounded Structures, 2008, MS Thesis,
Uppsala University.

[34] Farouk Rizk, "Modeling of Transmission Line Exposure to Direct Lightning Strokes," IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery , vol. 5, no. 4, November 1990.

[35] Tibor Horvath, "Standardization of lightning protection based on the physics or on the tradition?,"
Journal of Electrostatics, vol. 60, pp. 265-275, 2004.

[36] A.J.Eriksson, "The Incidence of Lightning Strikes to Power Lines," IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, vol. PWRD-2, no. 3, July 1987.

[37] L.Dellera and E.Garbagnati, "Lightning Stroke Simulation by means of the Leader Progression
Model, Part I," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 2009-2022, October 1990.

94
[38] L.Dellera and E.Garbagnati, "Lightning Stroke Simulation by means of the Leader Progression
Model, Part II," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 2023-2029, October
1990.

[39] A.J.Eriksson, "An Improved Electrogeometric Model for Transmission Line Shielding Analysis,"
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. PWRD-2, no. 3, July 1987.

[40] Vernon Cooray and M. Becerra, "Attractive radii of vertical and horizontal conductors evaluated
using a self consistent leader inception and propagation model - SLIM," Atmospheric Research,
vol. 117, pp. 64-70, 2012.

[41] Vernon Cooray, "On the attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures with special
attention to the comparison of SLIM with CVM and EGM," Journal of Electrostatics, vol. 71, pp.
577-581, 2013.

[42] Alexander Kern, Christof Schelthoff, and Moritz Mathieu, "Probability of lightning strikes to air-
terminations of structures using the electro-geometrical model theory and the statistics of
lightning current parameters," Atmospheric Research, vol. 117, pp. 2-11, 2012.

[43] M. Becerra, V. Cooray, and Z. A. Hartono, "Identification of lightning vulnerability points on

complex grounded structures," Journal of Electrostatics, vol. 65, pp. 562-570, 2007.

[44] Furse, A guide to BS EN 62305: 2006 - Protection against lightning. England.

[45] ITU-T Recommendation K.46, "Protection of telecommunication lines using metallic symmetric
conductors against lightning-induced surges," 2012.

[46] ITU-T Recommendation K.47, "Protection of telecommunication lines against direct lightning
flashes," 2012.

[47] Electrical Knowhow. (2013) Design Calculations of Lightning Protection Systems Part Four.
[Online]. http://www.electrical-knowhow.com/2014/03/Calculations-Of-Number-Of-Dangerous-
Lightning-Events.html

[48] Tekla D. Farkas, Norbert Szedenik, and Istvn Kiss, "Sensitivity analysis in lightning protection
risk management," Journal of Electrostatics, vol. 71, pp. 582-585, 2013.

[49] NASA. (2014) [Online].

ftp://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/pub/lis/climatology/HRFC/browse/HRFC_COM_FR_V2.3.2014.png

[50] Instituto Superior Tcnico. (2015) Espao. [Online].

https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/publico/findSpaces.do?spaceID=2448131361074&method=viewSp
ace&_request_checksum_=3786805f384a5418a88666e1566aebc76509e056

[51] M. Becerra and Vernon Cooray, "Laboratory experiments cannot be utilized to justify the action of
early streamer emission terminals," Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, vol. 41, no. 8, 2008.

[52] Vernon Cooray, "The striking distance of lightning flashes and the early streamer emission (ESE)
hypothesis," Journal of Electrostatics, vol. 65, pp. 336-341, 2007.

[53] M. A. Uman and Vladimir Rakov, "A critical review of non-conventional approaches to lightning
protection," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 83, pp. 1809-1820, 2002.

95
96
Appendices

Appendix A: Informative tables

The next tables are related to parameters and factors that characterize the structure to be protected
as well the lines connected to it.

A.1. The relative location of the structure, :

Table A.1: Values of relative location factor of the structure,

Relative Location
Structure surrounded by higher objects 0.25
Structure surrounded by objects of the same height or smaller 0.5
Isolated structure: no other objects in the vicinity 1
Isolated structure on a hilltop or a knoll 2

A.2. Installation factor of a line, : power or telecom line

Table A.2: Values of installation factor,

Routing
Aerial 1
Buried 0.5
Buried cables running entirely within a meshed earth termination 0.01

A.3. Line type factor, :

Table A.3: Values of line type factor,

Installation
LV power, telecommunication or data line 1
HV power (with HV/LV transformer) 0.2

97
A.4. Environment factor of a line, : power or telecom line

Table A.4: Values of environment factor,

Environment
Rural 1
Suburban 0.5
Urban 0.1
Urban with tall buildings 0.01

Buildings higher than 20

A.5. : parameter that reduces the probability that a flash to a structure will cause injury to living
beings by electric shock, , through the implementation of the measures tabled below against touch
and step voltage.

Table A.5: Values of the parameter by implementation of measures against touch and step voltage
Additional protection measure
No protection measures 1
Warning notices 0.1
Electrical insulation (e.g. at least 3 mm cross-linked polyethylene) of exposed parts
0.01
(e.g. down-conductors)
Effective soil equipotentialization 0.01
Physical restrictions or building framework used as a down-conductor system 0

A.6. Probability that a flash to a structure will cause physical damage, .

Table A.6: Values of probability according to the class of the LPS installed
Characteristics of structure Class of LPS
Structure not protected by LPS - 1
Structure protected by LPS 0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
Structure with an air-termination system conforming to LPS I and a continuous 0.01
metal or reinforced concrete framework acting as a natural down-conductor system
Structure with a metal roof and an air-termination system, possibly including natural 0.001
components, with complete protection of any roof installations against direct
lightning strikes and a continuous metal or reinforced concrete framework acting as
a natural down-conductor system

98
A.7. : depends on the lightning equipotential bonding for connected electrical and
telecommunication lines and on the lightning protection level, LPL, for which its SPDs are designed

Table A.7: Values of the parameter in function of the LPL for which SPDs are designed

No SPD 1
0.05
0.02
0.01
The values of may be reduced for SPDs having better protection characteristics 0.005 0.001
(higher nominal current , lower protective level , etc.) compared with the
requirements defined for LPL I at the relevant installation locations.

A.8. : depends on the coordinated SPD system and to the lightning protection level (LPL) for
which its SPDs are designed.

Table A.8: Values of the parameter in function of the LPL for which SPDs are designed

LPL
No coordinated SPD system 1
0.05
0.02
0.01
The values of may be reduced for SPDs having better protection 0.005 0.001
characteristics (higher nominal current , lower protective level , etc.)
compared with the requirements defined for LPL I at the relevant installation
locations.

A.9. and : Factors related with specific characteristics of lines connected to the structure to be
protected: shielding, grounding and isolation, when a flash to or near a connected line occurs,
respectively.

99
 Table A.9: Values of the factors and
External line type Connection at entrance
Aerial line unshielded Undefined 1 1
Buried line unshielded Undefined 1 1
Multi grounded neutral power line None 1 0.2
Shielded buried line (power or TLC) Shield not bonded to the same bonding bar as equipment 1 0.3
Shielded aerial line (power or TLC) Shield not bonded to the same bonding bar as equipment 1 0.1
Shielded buried line(power or TLC) Shield bonded to the same bonding bar as equipment 1 0
Shielded aerial line (power or TLC) Shield bonded to the same bonding bar as equipment 1 0
Lightning protective cable or wiring
in lightning protective cable ducts, Shield bonded to the same bonding bar as equipment 0 0
metallic conduit, or metallic tubes
(No external line) No connection to external lines (stand-alone systems) 0 0
Any type Isolating interface according to IEC 62305-4 0 0

A.10. and A.11. The probabilities and are the components of the probabilities that takes into
account the effects of failure of internal systems within the structure due to a flash to ( , , ) or
near ( ) a line.

Table A.10: Values of probability

Line Withstand voltage in
Routing, shielding and bonding conditions
type . .
Power Aerial or buried line, unshielded or shielded whose
Lines shield is not bonded to the same bonding bar as 1 1 1 1 1
equipment
or Shielded aerial or buried 5 / < 20 / 1 1 0.95 0.9 0.8
whose shield bonded to 1 / < 5 / 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.1
Telecom the same bonding bar
1 / 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.04 0.02
lines as equipment

Table A.11: Values of probability

Withstand voltage in
Line type
. .
Power lines 1 0.6 0.3 0.16 0.1
TLC lines 1 0.5 0.2 0.08 0.04

100
A.12. : parameter that reduces the probability that that a flash to a line will cause injury to living
beings by electric shock, , through the implementation of the measures tabled below against touch
voltage.
Table A.12: Values of probability

Protection measure
No protection measures 1
Warning notices 0.1
Electrical insulation 0.01
Physical restrictions 0.005 0.001

A.13. : Factor that reduces the loss of human life, 1 , and the economic loss, 4 , depending on the
type of soil or floor.

Table A.13: Values of the factor in function of the contact resistance of the surface

Type of surface Contact resistance
Agricultural, concrete 1 102
Marble, ceramic 1 10 103
Gravel, moquette, carpets 10 100 104
Asphalt, linoleum, wood 100 105

Values measured between a 400 2 electrode compressed with a uniform force of 500 and
a point of infinity.

A layer of insulating material, e.g. asphalt, of 5 thickness (or a layer of gravel 15 thick)
generally reduces the hazard to a tolerable level.

A.14. : Factor translated in measures, applied in the structure, in order to reduce the consequences
of fire.

Table A.14: Values of the factor

Provisions
No provisions 1
One of the following provisions: extinguishers; fixed manually operated extinguishing
0.5
installations; manual alarm installations; hydrants; fire compartments; escape routes
One of the following provisions: fixed automatically operated extinguishing installations;

0.2
automatic alarm installations

Only if protected against overvoltages and other damages and if firemen can arrive in less than 10 min.

101
A.15. : Factor related with the risk of fire or the risk of explosion in the structure (as a whole or by
zones).

Table A.15: Value of the factor

Risk Amount of risk

Zones 0, 20 and solid explosive 1
Explosion Zones 1, 21 101
Zones 2, 22 103
High 101
Fire Ordinary 102
Low 103
Explosion or fire None 0

Reminding the zone definition: place in which an explosive atmosphere consisting of a mixture of air
and flammable substances in the form of gas, vapour or mist:
- Zone 0: is present continuously or for long periods or frequently;
- Zone 1: is likely to occur in normal operation occasionally;
- Zone 2: is not likely to occur in normal operation but, if it does occur, will persist for a short period
only;
And: place in which an explosive atmosphere, in the form of a cloud of combustible dust in air:
- Zone 20: is present continuously, or for long periods, or frequently;
- Zone 21: is likely to occur in normal operation occasionally;
- Zone 22: is not likely to occur in normal operation but, if it does occur, will persist for a short period
only.

A.16. : Factor that translates the level of panic and the evacuation difficulties present in the zone (or
in the entire structure) in study. It depends on the characteristics of the zone and on the number of
persons.

Table A.16: Value of the factor

Kind of special hazard
No special hazard 1
Low level of panic (e.g. a structure limited to two floors and the number of persons
2
not greater than 100)
Average level of panic (e.g. structures designed for cultural or sport events with a
5
number of participants between 100 and 1 000 persons)
Difficulty of evacuation (e.g. structures with immobile persons, hospitals) 5
High level of panic (e.g. structures designed for cultural or sport events with a
10
number of participants greater than 1 000 persons)

102
A.17. 3 takes into account the characteristics of internal wiring.

Table A.17: Values of the factor

Type of internal wiring

Unshielded cable no routing precaution in order to avoid loops 1

Unshielded cable routing precaution in order to avoid large loops 0.2

Unshielded cable routing precaution in order to avoid loops 0.01

Shielded cables and cables running in metal conduits 0.0001

Loop conductors with different routing in large buildings (loop area in the order of 50 2 ).

Loop conductors routed in the same conduit or loop conductors with different routing in
small buildings (loop area in the order of 10 2 ).

Loop conductors routed in the same cable (loop area in the order of 0.5 2 ).

Shields and the metal conduits bonded to an equipotential bonding bar at both ends and
equipment is connected to the same bonding bar.

103