A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF STRIKE DATA FROM REAL INSTALLATIONS

WHICH DEMONSTRATES EFFECTIVE PROTECTION OF STRUCTURES

AGAINST LIGHTNING

F. D’Alessandro

ERICO Lightning Technologies

Hobart, Australia

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the performance of one type of air terminal installed on a wide range of
practical structures. With the procurement of reliable raw data from Hong Kong, it has been possible to collate
lightning strike statistics for almost 200 suitable installations over the period 1988-1996. Analysis of these data
shows that there is a highly significant positive correlation between the actual and expected strikes to the
terminal per annum. Furthermore, the data show that the “yield” of the air terminal is higher than the claimed
protection level. The result provides strong evidence that the air terminal being assessed, along with the
lightning protection design principle, is performing according to its specifications. The application of this
analysis and the design concept to the protection of power generation, transmission and distribution facilities is
also described.

1. INTRODUCTION
Lightning is an extremely variable phenomenon
which necessarily involves the use of statistics. For
example, the probability P(n) that a given area will be
struck by lightning exactly 0, 1, 2, 3 ..... n times over
a given period of time may be expressed by the
Poisson relation,
P(n) = e−µ µn / n! (1)
where µ is the average number of strikes to the area.
The same can be said about lightning protection and
risk assessment where, for example, one is interested
in the probability of a strike to a particular building or
other structure.
In general, two factors determine the probability of a
strike to a structure, namely the:
2
• Local ground flash density, GFD (strikes/km /yr)
• Attractive (or exposure) area of the structure, Aeq
(km2).
latter is called the keraunic level of the region and the
corresponding contour line plot of TSD is called an
isokeraunic map. Many empirical relationships have
been derived between TSD and GFD over the last
twenty years or so, e.g., see [1], [2]. Standards
organisations have adopted the more common ones.
The IEC 1024-1-1 states that the flash density may be
estimated using the relationship:
GFD = 0.04 (TSD)1.25 (3)
The GFD estimates from this relationship are very
much upper limits. Popolansky [3] recently obtained a
relationship using lightning flash counter data from
14 countries spanning 4 continents. After an
exhaustive analysis, the following relationship was
derived:
GFD = 0.0086 (TSD)1.45 (4)
The estimates obtained from this relationship are
close to the plotted lower limit found in
AS 1768-1991.

If these two parameters are known, then the average
strike frequency (ASF, strikes per annum) can be
computed using
ASF = GFD x Aeq
The average GFD for a particular region can be
obtained over a period of time (usually years) using
lightning flash counters or lightning detection and
location systems such as LPATS. In many countries,
this information is not available and only the number
of thunderstorm days per year (TSD) is known. The
On perfectly flat ground with uniform properties,
lightning will strike each square kilometre with equal
probability. However, an object that is taller than the
surrounding area has an “equivalent attractive area”
(2)
greater than the ground area it occupies, as shown in
Figure 1. Hence, the attractive area of a structure is
defined as the equivalent area on flat ground which
would be struck with the same frequency. It depends
on the structure height, the charge on the lightning
downward leader (which, in turn, is related to the
return stroke peak current) and to a lesser extent the
ground surface area occupied by the structure.

Req
Figure 1: Attractive area of two structures. The
structure on the right hand side is taller than the one
on the left.
Invariably, the attractive area is computed using the
equivalent attractive radius, Req, of the structure. For
free-standing structures, the area is approximated by
Aeq = πReq2 whilst for structures of significant extent
such as power lines the area is given by
Aeq = L (b + 2Req), where L is the line length and b is
the line effective width. In the present study, only the
former equation is needed.
A number of expressions have been derived for Req,
using electrogeometrical [4], statistical [5] and other
models such as those based on the streamer zone
method [6]. Electrogeometric models are based on the
concept of “striking distance”, Rs, defined as the
distance between the object to be struck and the tip of
the downward-moving leader at the instant that the
connecting (upward) leader is initiated from the
object [1]. The striking distance depends on the
charge in the downleader and hence return stroke
current. Some workers have extended this concept to
include a dependence on structure height and
atmospheric conditions [7]. As a very crude
approximation, the striking distance can be used in
place of the attractive radius although readers should
note that Rs is an overestimate of Req.
Bearing in mind that the older models have now been
superseded or improved, the most widely used model
equations relevant to the present study include:
Golde [8]: Rs = 2 h
Anderson
& Eriksson [2]: Rs = 16.3 h0.61
0.74 0.6
Eriksson [9]: Req = 0.84 Ip h (7)
Rakov
0.5
& Lutz [6]: Req = [h*(h* + 206] (8)
[where h*=h+16ln(h)−31]
Rizk [10]: Req = 27.1 h0.4
Petrov
& Waters [7]: Rs = 0.8 [(h + 15). Ip]2/3
Aeq
where h is the height of the structure in metres and Ip
is the return stroke peak current in kA.
In Equations (5), (6), (8) and (9), the dependence on
Ip is in-built whereas in (7) & (10) it is explicit. This
dependence makes the computation of Req more
involved because the lightning peak current varies
from 0 to 150 kA or more. The way the currents are
distributed (relative percentages of each) is a
controversial subject because there are differences
between the three main measurement techniques used
(shunts or Rogowski coils on tall structures, magnetic
induction on chimneys and power line towers, and
those deduced from remote electric and magnetic
field recordings, predominantly of strikes to ground).
The median peak current resulting from each
technique is 32, 26 and 23 kA respectively [3]. There
is also evidence that the distribution is latitude
dependent [11].
Standards committees have adopted an “average”
distribution taken from a number of sources. A
distribution typical of that found in IEC 1024-1-1 and
AS 1768-1991 is shown in Table 1. The
computational implications are clear - for a structure
of given height, there is a spectrum of attractive radii
according to the current distribution. A rough but
sufficient method of obtaining a single representative
value of Req for a particular structure using Equation
(7) or (10) involves a piecewise integration using
values such as those in Table 1. For example, from
Table 1 the weighted mean peak current is readily
computed to be ~ 31 kA.
Table 1: Typical cumulative frequency distribution of
the return stroke peak current. The first row gives the
percentage of strikes having a peak current greater
than the corresponding value in the second row.
% 99 90 75 50 25 10 1
Ip (kA) 5 12 20 30 50 80 130
The remainder of this paper describes a statistical
(5) analysis performed on the lightning strike data
obtained from air terminal installations in the Hong
(6) Kong region. This region was chosen as the case
study for a number of reasons, including a:
• reasonably high level of lightning activity (~ 80
thunderstorm days per year)
• large pool (> 500) of air terminal installations
from which to extract valid data
(9) • high percentage of maintenance contracts which
means that lightning event counters are installed
(10)
 and checked on a regular basis (hence, very
reliable data)
• large range of structure types, heights and
locations.
The particular lightning protection system being
assessed in this analysis is ERICO’s “System 3000”,
which comprises an active air terminal (the
“Dynasphere”), a screened downconductor
(“TRIAX”), a lightning event counter and an earthing
network. In addition, the placement of the air
terminal on a particular structure is determined by a
computer software package named “BENJI” which is
based on the “collection volume principle” [9] and
described by Equation (7). Hence, this analysis will
provide an accurate and objective indication of the
performance of the Dynasphere and BENJI software
as part of an overall lightning protection design
applied to a variety of structures.
2. ANALYSIS
A spreadsheet of suitable System 3000 installations in
Hong Kong was created, spanning the period 1988-
1996. Installation reports for 1997 were available but
could not be used because counter inspections had not
yet been carried out. The criteria for entry of a
particular installation into the spreadsheet were: (i)
the length of TRIAX must be known, and (ii)
existence of a maintenance contract where regular
inspection of counters took place. The spreadsheet
entries were comprised of the:
• length of TRIAX downconductor in the
installation (range 15 − 535 metres)
• structure height, derived from the TRIAX length
(range 14 − 430 metres)
• structure attractive area, computed in a variety of
ways as described above (range from
< 0.01 km2 to > 1 km2)
• expected number of strikes to the structure per
annum, computed in a variety of ways as
described above (range 0.02 − 11 strikes per
annum)
• installation date and counter reading at that date
• last inspection date and counter reading at that
date
• actual number of strikes per annum
A total of 185 installations remained after the
application of the above criteria. Approximately one
third of these had non-zero annual strikes. The
retention of the remaining two thirds of zero-strike
data is important. Because of the statistical nature of
lightning, even if the expected strike rate is one per
annum and no strikes have been recorded in, say,
three years, it cannot be concluded that there is a
discrepancy. The expected strike rate of one per
annum is an average value where, for example, there
may be no strikes for three years and then three
strikes in one year. Furthermore, the time interval
over which many of the zero-strike data points are
derived is relatively short when compared with the
expected time interval between strikes. This is why a
reasonably large sample size is needed for the
analysis, where a general trend is established by
looking at the complete picture.
The sample size of 185 was further reduced after the
counter readings for a number of System 3000
installations were combined because of their relatively
close proximity (e.g., > 50% overlap of collection
volumes). This “overdesign” is needed in cases where
there are strongly competing features. A classic
example is the very tall Bank of China building,
where “East” and “West” Dynaspheres are installed
on long spires only about 30 metres apart. The
combination of the relevant readings reduced the
sample size to 161, with 58 non-zero points.
As in any analysis of this kind, there are a number of
assumptions that must be made. These can be
summarised as follows:
• GFD for Hong Kong is ~ 5 strikes/km2/yr, using
the relation in [3]
• Return stroke peak current distribution has an
integrated (median) value of 32 kA
• Building height is 10, 15 and 20 % less than the
TRIAX length for lengths 0-99, 100-299, and
300+ metres (this allows for the extra cabling
needed for taller structures)
• Attractive area is computed using Eqns (5) - (10)
(for comparative purposes)
• No discrimination between downward and
upward flashes (see refs [1], [10] & [12] for more
details on upward flashes)
• The lightning event counters recorded all
genuine strike events.
Two basic statistics were used to assess the
performance of the System 3000 in Hong Kong,
namely the:
• mean “yield” of the Dynasphere, derived from
the ratio of actual to expected strikes per annum
for each structure
• degree and significance of correlation between
the expected and actual strikes per annum.
The mean yield of the Dynasphere provides a direct
assessment of the capture ability of the Dynasphere in
real installations and a rough check on the claimed
protection level.
The correlation coefficient is a simple way of
confirming the relationship between the actual and
expected strikes. The most common estimator is
Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient, r, a definition
for which can be found in any standard statistics
textbook. Unfortunately, r is a rather poor statistic for
deciding whether an observed correlation is
statistically significant. The reason for this is that r is
ignorant of the individual distributions of the two
variables being correlated. However, a number of
statistical tests are available which take the value of r
and the number of data points and return the
probability that the two variables, if uncorrelated,
could produce a correlation coefficient greater than
that observed. Hence, a small probability means that
there is a significant correlation. These tests take a
variety of forms but the main ones use the
complementary error function, Student’s t-
distribution, or Fisher’s z-transformation, e.g., see
[13], [14].
GFD will average out the underestimates and
overestimates of the expected strikes. This can easily
reduce the degree of correlation found in the data
because the expected strikes in regions where there
were large numbers of zero-strike (actual) data would
have been lower than those computed using a
constant GFD, and hence closer to the actual data.
Therefore, the correlation coefficients shown in the
next section can be considered as lower limits.
3. RESULTS
3.1 Basic information
Number of Dynasphere installations used: 161
Total number of years in service: 640
Total number of strikes taken: 246

Although the details are beyond the scope of this 3.2 Yield of the Dynasphere
paper, it must be noted that the linear correlation
coefficient, and the test of its significance, is based on This was calculated using all of the attractive radius
the assumption that the data set has a bivariate models (Eqns 5−10). However, the real assessment of
normal distribution. In many cases, this assumption performance can only come from the model on which
cannot be made without casting serious doubt over the the lightning protection design is based, namely that
results. “Nonparametric” methods provide a much of Eriksson [9], summarised by Eqn (7). The yields,
more robust way of assessing the degree of correlation defined as the actual strikes per annum divided by the
between two variables, much like the median is more number expected in that time, are:
robust than the mean in some cases. These methods
Yield obtained using Equation (7): 1.21
correlate the rank of the data rather than the absolute
Yield averaged across all six models: 1.07
values, hence the term “rank correlation coefficient”.
The two most common are the Spearman (rs) and
This is a remarkable result, especially if one considers
Kendall (τ) coefficients. The correlation based on
that at least two of the models are based on striking
rank results in a slight loss of information (it
distance which overestimates the attractive radius
desensitizes the correlation) but this is a small price
(hence giving a greater number of expected strikes
to pay for a major advantage - when a correlation is
and a lower value of the yield ratio). It implies that
demonstrated nonparametrically, it is really there !
the Dynasphere has captured 20 % more strikes than
expected (or 7 % more if the averaged value from all
Hence, in the analysis of the Hong Kong data, all
six models is used). In other words, the Dynasphere
three correlation coefficients were computed
has an enhanced lightning capture ability. This result
(Pearson’s linear, Spearman’s rank and Tendall’s
also indicates that the BENJI lightning protection
rank) along with their respective probabilities. Also, a
designs are relatively conservative, i.e., the attractive
series of experiments were performed in order to
radii computed by BENJI may be smaller than the
assess the effect on the correlation coefficients of: (i)
actual ones.
using building heights derived from the length of
TRIAX according to the 10, 15 and 20% rule of
Hence, it can be confidently claimed that the
thumb, (ii) using different models for the equivalent
Dynasphere successfully captures more strikes than
attractive radius, (iii) combining counts from
would be expected for the unprotected structure. This
installations that are close together, (iv) changing the
claim is supported by the fact that there have been no
(constant) GFD figure used, and (v) changing the
documented bypasses of the Dynasphere on the 185
median peak current used.
installations that were suitable for this analysis.
The only parameter that could not be included in the
3.3 Correlations
correlation tests is the specific region-to-region GFD
within Hong Kong, where geographical features can
Both the linear and rank correlation coefficients were
result in considerable departures from the average
computed along with their respective probabilities. As
strike density. This detailed information was not
mentioned earlier, the usual way of expressing the
available at the time of writing. Using a constant
latter is by stating the percentage probability that the
computed correlation coefficient is exceeded if the
two variables are uncorrelated. Hence, a small
probability such as 1 % indicates that the correlation
is highly significant. This logic can be reversed by
stating that the “probability the correlation is
significant is 99 %”. The latter is the manner in
which the probabilities are expressed in Table 2,
along with the correlation coefficients. The results
quoted in this table were based on equivalent radii
computed with Equation (7) which, as stated earlier,
is used in the BENJI computer designs.
Figure 2(a) shows a BENJI lightning protection
design for a power plant in the Philippines [Fig.
2(b)]. In this design, a single Dynasphere is mounted
on an appropriate structure in the complex and its
attractive area (16,300 m2) is such that it protects the
whole facility. The smaller circles in Fig. 2(a) show
the attractive area of the “competing features” in the
complex.

Table 2: Correlation coefficients for “expected vs

actual strikes per annum” using linear and rank
correlation methods, and the probability that the
correlation is significant. The Tendall rank method
gives a similar significance to that obtained using the
Spearman method.

Technique Correl. coeff. Probability

Pearson linear, r 0.43 > 99.9 %
Spearman rank, rs 0.65 99.7 %
(a)

As mentioned in the analysis section, a final check on

the robustness of the correlation found in the “raw”
data was undertaken in the form a series of realistic
changes to the variables that could bias the result,
such as the method of calculation of building height,
attractive radius model, GFD estimate, median
current, etc. The results shown in Table 2 were found
to be remarkably insensitive to these changes, with
only minor variations in the coefficients. The linear
correlation coefficient was in the range 0.39 − 0.55
and, importantly, always with a significance > 99 %.

4. APPLICATION TO POWER FACILITY
PROTECTION
Whilst the data described and analysed above do not
relate directly to power facility lightning protection,
exactly the same principles will apply. ERICO has a
large portfolio of BENJI designs compiled for
customers which cover a wide range of power
stations, substations and control buildings housing
switchgear, communications and control cabling. In
the case of control buildings, the technique would be
identical to that applied to the structures in Hong
Kong, i.e., an evaluation of the attractive area of the
building and the substation area to be protected. In a
typical installation for substation protection, a
Dynasphere would be mounted on a mast of a given
height so that its attractive area encompassed the
matrix of transformers and HV transmission lines.
The mast is simply a very slender structure and so
similar principles would once again apply.
(b)
Figure 2: BENJI lightning protection design for a
power plant in the Visayas region of the Philippines.
(a) Plan view of the protection or attractive area
provided by the Dynasphere. (b) 3D view of the site.
Dynasphere installations such as the one shown in
Figure 2 are providing effective protection against
lightning strikes for a wide variety of power utility
customers both in Australia and throughout Asia,
from hydro, geothermal and steam, to photovoltaic
systems. Just a few of the customers that are protected
with ERICO’s System 3000 include:
In Australia: Pine Creek, Standwell and Collie power
stations; Hasper and Primrose substations in
Tasmania.
In Asia: Coloane (Macau), PLN steam (Indonesia),
Hydrolic (Taiwan), Visayas region (Philippines),
Pontianak gas turbine/Darajat geothermal/Wayang
Windu geothermal (Indonesia) power plants.
5. CONCLUSIONS
A statistical analysis of lightning strikes to
Dynasphere air terminal installations on structures in
Hong Kong has been carried out. The mean yield of
the Dynasphere is effectively 100% and there is a
highly significant positive correlation between the
actual and expected strikes over a wide range of
structure heights and locations. In fact, the
correlation is significant at a level of at least 99.7%,
and it persists even when the assumptions are put to
the test.
These results strongly suggest, if not conclusively
prove, that the design principle behind the
Dynasphere is sound and the collection volume
concept employed for the placement of air terminals
on structures is an effective tool in BENJI lightning
protection designs. This conclusion is further
strengthened if one considers that there are no
documented cases of bypasses to the Dynasphere.
Hence, it can be claimed with a high degree of
confidence that ERICO’s System 3000 designs offer a
protection level of at least I (98%) according to the
IEC 1024-1-1 scheme.
It has also been demonstrated that these basic
principles are easily extended (and are applicable) to
the protection of a wide variety of power stations,
substations and control buildings operated by power
utilities throughout Australasia.
Finally, to the author’s knowledge, such a study has
never been carried out by any other lightning
protection company or manufacturer of air terminals,
be they passive systems or other active systems. This
is another example of ERICO’s leadership in air
terminal research and, in particular, the assessment of
air terminal performance.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Uman, M.A., “The Lightning Discharge”,
Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1987.
[2] Anderson, R.B. & Eriksson, A.J., “Lightning
parameters for engineering application”, Electra,
Vol. 69, 1980, pp. 65-102.
[3] Popolansky, F., “Relationship between the
number of thunderstorm days and the lightning
flash density registered by LFC in the world
scale”, 21st ICLP, Berlin, 1992, Paper 6.10.
[4] Mousa, A.M. & Srivastava, K.D., “The
implications of the electrogeometrical model
regarding the effect of height of structure on the
median amplitude of collected lightning strokes”,
IEEE Trans. Pow. Del., Vol. 4, 1989, pp. 1450-
1460.
[5] Bazelian, E.M., Gorin, B.N. & Levitov, V.I.,
“Physical and engineering foundations of
protection against lightning”, Leningrad,
Gidrometeoizdat, 1978.
[6] Rakov, V.A. & Lutz, A.O., “A new technique for
estimating equivalent attractive radius for
downward lightning flashes”, 20th ICLP,
Switzerland, 1990, Paper 2.2.
[7] Petrov, N.I. & Waters, R.T., “Determination of
the striking distance of lightning to earthed
structures”, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, Vol. 450,
1995, pp. 589-601.
[8] Golde, R.H. (editor), “Lightning”, Academic
Press, London, 1977.
[9] Eriksson, A.J., “The incidence of lightning
strikes to power lines”, IEEE Trans. Pow. Del.,
PWRD-2, 1987, pp. 859-870.
[10] Rizk, F.A.M., “Modelling of lightning incidence
to tall structures. Part II: Application”, IEEE
Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 9, 1994, pp. 172-
193.
[11] Torres, H., Rondon, D., Briceno, W. & Barreto,
L., “Lightning peak current estimation analysis
from field measurements in tropical zones”, 23rd
ICLP, Florence, 1996, pp. 181-185.
[12] Rizk, F.A.M., “Modelling of lightning incidence
to tall structures. Part I: Theory”, IEEE Trans. on
Power Delivery, Vol. 9, 1994, pp. 162-171.
[13] Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A. &
Vetterling, W.T., “Numerical Recipes: The Art
of Scientific Computing”, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1989.
[14] Neave, H.R., “Elementary Statistical Tables”,
George Allen & Unwin, London, 1979.