A comparison of

NFPA 780 and IEC 62305

White Paper

Contents
Rigorous Calculations
Strike Level and Design
Parameters
Risk Analysis
Separation Distance
Air Terminal Selection
Down Conductor Design
Earthing Design
Test and Maintenance
Surge Protection Devices
Actual Lightning Discharge Testing

www.dehn-usa.com
A comparison of
NFPA 780 and IEC 62305
White Paper

Introduction ¨¨ Surge Protection Devices

The objective of this article is to present why the IEC 62305
Certified Master Label Compliant Lightning Protection Systems
(LPS) are comparable and useful as an alternative to NFPA 780
designs for North American markets.
This article promotes the acceptance and utilization of
IEC 62305 certification as a more thorough approach, produc-
ing a superior LPS design, than NFPA 780 for UL96A master
label for LPS installations by showing that IEC accomplishes
all safety and best practice requirements for North American
installations.
Per UL announcement, they will grant their Master Label to a
LPS that is compliant with UL 96A. This means that UL will pro-
vide their Master Label for a LPS designed to meet IEC 62305 if
installed by a UL certified installer and passing a UL inspection
by a UL LPS inspector.
To show that the IEC 62305 is a more thorough approach pro-
ducing a superior LPS design this article will first provide some
background. After this background, the following sections will
illustrate how the IEC standard produces a more detailed and
superior LPS implimentation:
¨¨ Design philosophy & calculations methods
¨¨ Rigorous calculation
¨¨ Strike Levels and Design Parameters
¨¨ Risk analysis required vs optional
¨¨ Separation distance calculations methods
¨¨ Air terminals selection
¨¨ Down conductor design
¨¨ Earthing design
¨¨ Test and maintenance
¨¨ Actual lightning discharge testing
Background
Both the IEC and NFPA documents are peer reviewed on a
regular basis by subject matter experts.
As of the date of this report, the IEC 62305 standard is pub-
lished as Edition 2:2010 and is updated by committee TC81
under the regular maintenance process with new versions ex-
pected in 2017 and 2018.
The IEC 62305 suite of standards is ilustrated as a systematic
approach in Figure 1.
The NFPA 780 standard is currently published under the 2014
edition, with public input for consideration of the Technical
Committee for the next 2017 edition (Figure 2).
Design Theory and Philosophy
The basic requirements of IEC 62305 cover a detailed risk fac-
tor assessment which then guides the air terminal design,
down conductors, bondiong and application of SPD‘s to reduce
the risk below a tolerable threshold. This risk assessment re-
quires a fairly detailed knowledge of the structure and end use,
and software is almost always used to perform the calculation.

Part 1
General principles

Part 2
Risk management
Protection
against lightning
IEC 62305 Part 3
Physical damage to
structures and life hazard

Part 4
Electrical and electronic
systems within structures

Figure 1 The IEC 62305 suite of standards is divided into four use- Figure 2 The NFPA 780 standard is presently under 2014 revision.
ful segments.

2 WP045/USA/1016 © Copyright 2016 DEHN, Inc.

A comparison of
NFPA 780 and IEC 62305
White Paper

The calculation includes, Human Life, Public Services, Cultural
Heritage, Economic risk, and penalties for denial of service. This
risk assessment is both good and bad in that pole barns will
have fewer requirements than would be found in NFPA 780,
but high value assets will have greater requirements.
The basic approach to lightning protection is to work within
the accepted step leader behavior of lightning strikes. Imagine
the final lightning strike distance of a bolt seeking any path to
ground as a radius of a sphere that could touch anywhere. The
more stringent the class of lightning protection, the smaller the
radius and more risk the bolt can find the building.
The IEC risk mitigation offered by virtue LPS installation of-
fers tiered criteria structure with more sensitive applications
requireing more stringent LPS protection coverege. LPS IEC
Class III (45 m radius sphere) meets the demand of most typi-
cal commercial buildings and is most similar to the standard
NFPA (150 ft sphere) . This IEC LPL class III implies a protection
system capable of intercepting lightning strikes with currents
as low as 10 kA and as high as 100 kA 10/350 μs (see lightning
strike figure). Based on these parameters, the rolling sphere
method can been employed to develop a safety canopy con-
structed with a geometry of a 45 m (146.25 ft) radius using air
terminals, down conductors tested and earthing system capa-
ble of handling 100 kA direct lightning currents.
NFPA 780 Design Theory and Philosophy
The NFPA LPS design does not include a mandatory risk review
but instead is based on the standard NFPA Class I lightning
protection system for lower height ordinary building not more
than 75 ft (23 m) tall. For this class of structure there is no
requirement for a rolling sphere, so the basic air termination
placement, down conductor cross section design and earth-
ing rod matching system are employed per relevant NFPA 780
clauses. To meet the standard, each rod height can be selected
at 24 in (61 cm) tall, with interconnection along the roof and
down conductors terminating into a dedicated ground elec-
trode earthing rod.
NFPA 780 provides guidelines for how often to place air termi-
nals, spacing’s for cross and down conductors, ground rod and
NFPA  780-2011
loop requirements, surge-protection requirements, and how to
install protection for trees, towers and similar structures. The
standard however has two primary short falls in that it does
not require a detailed analytic calculation of the integrity of
the installed systems ability to handle direct lightning strike
events, nor does it take into consideration what asset the LPS
is protecting. In other words, NFPA 780 has the same require-
ments for a pole barn as it does for a high value asset.
Table 1 defines the basic NFPA classes of lightning protec-
tion and the mechanical difference in materials for structures
above 75 ft (23 m) in height.
Rigorous Calculations
The IEC 62305:2006 standard requires an actual assessment
of the lightning protection system to insure that it is capable
of handling a lightning strike. The lightning strike calculations
are far more significant for both the time domain parameter
(10/350 μs vs 8/20 μs) and the actual strike amperages (100 kA
to 200 kA) than the US industry standard (often only 20 kA for
UL 1449 and UL 467). IEC 62305:2006 calculations that are re-
quired include:
¨¨ The peak lightning strike current to be carried on individual
conductors in DC amps to ensure that current carrying ca-
pacity is not exceeded.
¨¨ Time-domain analysis of the lightning strike on the specific
structure. This is critical to understanding the amperage
carrying capacity of the conductors.
¨¨ The application of the rolling-ball theory of lightning pro-
tection tested against 3D computer models of the structure
and surrounding area.
¨¨ Spark gap and arc-flash calculations to allow for flashes
from the lightning protection system to adjacent conduc-
tive utilities.
¨¨ Separation distance to avoid flashover from down conduc-
tors to electrical aparatus.
LPL
3 kA 200 kA
I
(99 %) (99 %)

Item Less than 75-ft More than 75-ft 5 kA 150 kA e.g. for LPL II:
II
(97 %) (98 %) 97 % of all light-
Name Class I Class II ning currents
10 kA 100 kA
Air terminal min 3/8-in dia min 1/2-in dia III > 5 kA and
(91 %) (97 %)
(9.5 mm) (12.7 mm) 98 % < 150 kA
16 kA 100 kA
IV
Main / 57 kcmil (between 115 kcmil (between (84 %) (97 %) Ipeak/kA
downcomer #2 and #3 AWG) 1/0 and 2/0)
05 50 100 150 200
Earthing Rods Rods and loop
Table 1 The NFPA 780 standard divides applications into two Figure 3 The IEC 62305 standard divides applications by likely hood
broad categories by height. of capturing both the high and low severity lightning events.

WP045/USA/1016 © Copyright 2016 DEHN, Inc. 3

A comparison of
NFPA 780 and IEC 62305
White Paper

DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Equivalent Collective Area Probability of Damage

Ae = LW+6H(L+W)+9�H2 L= Ae = Injury Due to a Direct Strike – PA

(for rectangular structure) W= See Table L.6.7.3 PA =

(substitute formula for

other structures) H=
Physical Damage Due to a Direct Strike – Pn
See Table L.6.7.4 Pn =
Annual Threat of Occurence

Direct Strikes to Structure Failure of Internal Systems Due to a Direct Strike – PC

Ng = See Table L.6.7.5 PC =
Nd = (Ng)(Ae)(Cl)(10-6) Ae = Nd =

See Table L.4.2. Cl = Failure of Internal Systems Due to a Direct Strike – PM

PM = See Table
L.6.7.6
Strikes Near Structure
KS = (KS1)(KS2)(KS3)(KS4) KS1 = KS =
NM = (Ng)(Am - Ae)(Cl)(10-6) Ng = Nm =
KS1 = KS2 = 0.12ω KS2 =
Am =
See Table L.6.7.7 KS3 =
Ae =
KS4 = 1.5/UW KS4 = UW is the
See Table L.4.2. Cl = lowest
withstand
voltage of
protected
Strikes to an Incoming Service equipment
NL = (Ng)(Al )(Cl)(Cl)(10-6) Ng = NL = Without coordinated surge
protective devices – PM = 1.0
See Table L.6.7.1 Al =

See Table L.4.2. Cl =

Figure 4 An excerpt of Annex L risk assessment shows it is well suited for the user to create their own work sheet.

Strike Levels and Design Parameters
Additional advantages of the IEC methods show up in strike
levels and design parameters.
In the IEC 62305 standards, the frequency spectrum of the
lightning strike on the specific structure leads to a higher
charge transfer than seen in NFPA strike levels. This forms the
basis for both surge-protection and for timing of circuit break-
ers to prevent power outages.
Figure 3 shows the Lightning strike levels suggested under IEC
to select the LPL measures leading to suggested rolling sphere
diameter (lower strike likelyhood implies a smaller diameter).
Risk Analysis
The IEC requirements imply a normative risk analysis. It is re-
quired, and through this excerise the mitigation measures are
selected and possibly drive the Lightning Protection Level from
a default LPL III to a higher more sever level with smaller roll-
ing sphere diameter and higher density of lightning rod air ter-
minals. The analysis takes into account the physical structure,
hazard location level and occupency to build the un –protected
risk level and then allows selection of features to reduce the
risk. The final rolling sphere coverage result will confirm the
structure is protected.
NFPA 780 annex L describes the informative (suggested but
not required) risk review procedure. It does include many of
the features of the IEC review, but does not actually help deter-
mine the LPL severity as in the IEC method. The designer does
not actually select a more rigorous approach as a result of the
NFPA risk review.
It is important to note the NEC does require critical operations
providers to conduct the annex L risk assesment. The final LPS
design may incorporate these findings but the system does not
drive improvement.
The review from NFPA annex L is shown in Figure 4 and lends
itself to a spreadhseet calculation.
The IEC risk review walks through the structure to develop a
fully exposed base line and prompts the designer to increase
mitigation levels until a tolerable risk level has been estab-
lished. These features and lightning strike levels then guide the
designer to a suitable LPS for the specific structure and use.

4 WP045/USA/1016 © Copyright 2016 DEHN, Inc.

A comparison of
NFPA 780 and IEC 62305
White Paper

Figure 5 The DEHN Support Toolbox helps calculate the direct and
indirect strike collection area.

The direct (solid lines) and indirect (dashed lines) expo-
sure area calculations for IEC risk analysis are shown in
Figure 5.
The calculations for intolerable risk, and then mitigated and
tolerable risk levels can be illustrated like in Figure 6.
The final protected state using the LPL rolling sphere diameter
determined through risk mitigation selection will then be il-
lustrated to show coverage like in Figure 7.
Seperation Distance
Any electrical component or wire will be influenced by the EMP
from the down conductor as it diverts lightning to ground. The
Figure 6 The DEHN software helps the user through the whole
process to derive the protection measures needed to
reduce risk below the tolerable thresholds and drive
continuous improvement.
NFPA has only a loose discussion on allowing sufficient sep-
eration between the LPS conductors and unbonded electrical
systems.
A sample calculation from NFPA 780 is shown in Figure 8.
But the IEC involes a detailed review of the separation
of down conductors from electrical aparatus and wiring

Figure 7 Water cooling towers and electrical distribution centers are illustrated in 3D with the overlay of the theoretical blanket of protection.

WP045/USA/1016 © Copyright 2016 DEHN, Inc. 5

A comparison of
NFPA 780 and IEC 62305
White Paper
Figure 8 Separation distance is calculated in NFPA 780.
Figure 9 The DEHN support tool helps show the flashover distance
(cm) to guide designers in spacing and separation dis-
tance.
(Figure 9). Software modling allows the designer to see how
many cm spacing would be required around the LPS based on
the suggested maximum surge likely to be introduced per the
strike level chart. This allows a designer to take flashover into
account systematically through the structure and not neglect
these effects accidentally.
Isolation spacing and insulation materials are suggested under
the IEC methods to prevent touch and step voltages next to
the down conductors and earthing electrodes.
Figure 10 illustrates the 3 m (9.75 ft) limit for touch and step
insulation as recommened by IEC. This is a key issue in select-
ing LPS components with intrinsic safety insulation features.
This allows the designer to minimize spacing and cost to
achieve the safest effective control of risk.
6 WP045/USA/1016
Figure 10 Both IEC and NFPA indicate where insulation must be
installed on the down conductors near public access
areas.
Air Terminal Selection
NFPA 780 for Class I designs allows the spacing of the air ter-
minals to be placed at intervals of 25 feet (7.6 m) instead of
the 20 foot (6 m) spacing required for air terminals of less than
24-inches (61 cm) in height.
According to the IEC 62305 standard, longer rod designs are
allowed that have been tested to show the integrity to han-
dle real lightning strike energies. These longer rods can also
reduces the total number of rods needed to avoid any strikes
to the building or any roof top mounted electrical systems. Be-
cause there can be unknown features on the roof, these rods
assure lightning will not seek weaker metal structures and still
provide a minimal impact to the aesthetic view of the building.
Down Conductor Design
The IEC 62305 indicates the down conductors vary from
10-meter to 20-meter (32.5 ft to 65 ft) spacing, where as in
the NFPA 780 a one-size-fits-all 30-meter (76 ft) spacing is em-
ployed.
The material for higher Class II roofs does double in diameter
over 75 ft (23 m) from 57 to 115 kcmil to account for higher
weight and a more extreme environment.
Earthing System Design
If there are adjacent structures between which electrical pow-
er supply lines and measuring/control lines are installed, the
earth-termination systems have to connect between reinforce-
ment, down conductor and earthing systems for equipotential
bonding. It is advantageous to reduce the currents in the lines
via many parallel paths. This aim is fulfilled by means of an
intermeshed earth termination system.
Concrete columns that are used for down conductors must be
tested a 0.2 ohms or less continuity, and rebar must be welded
with 20 x diameter overlaps. These must be bonded to the floor
slab according to IEC 62305.
Ground rings are required for all non-conductive buildings,
buildings housing electronic systems, and certain risk factors
© Copyright 2016 DEHN, Inc.
A comparison of
NFPA 780 and IEC 62305
White Paper

Figure 11 Typical test joints and inspection boxes.

in the IEC 62305 guidelines. Individual rod installations (before

attachement into the ground ring) must be tested so that each
electrode is at the same resistance to ground as in the NFPA. Figure 12 Here is an example of extreme wear and tear of the down
conductor. (Photo courtesy MHD)

Test and Maintenance

The IEC specifies that a LPS will inlcude test points for future may also be required to have protection systems installed,
measurements of the LPS connections and earthing integrety based on the risk assessment.
(Figure 11). Both internal SPD’s and external lightning protection systems
The implementation of a long term preventative maintenance are mandatory in the IEC 62305 suite of standards.
program is required to uphold the integrity of the LPS system The IEC 62305:2006 has stringent requirements for annual test-
components. The IEC standards identifies this to be impera- ing and inspection of the lightning protection systems. This of
tive in order to sustain safe AC electrical power reference, the course, goes along with mandatory maintenance requirements.
diversion of lightning and the return on investment of both the The NEC does require SPD’s to be installed at emergency panels,
LPS and customer equipment. critical operation providers and where wind generation facilties
The key inspections include: connect back into the grid, but this requirement does not extend
to the prevention of loss at industrial or commercial facilities.
¨¨ Inspection at the design stage Figure 13 shows a diagram depicting all of these IEC best
¨¨ Inspections during the construction phase practice concepts to achieve a system level solution with high-
¨¨ Acceptance test est withstand and safe, noise free operation.
¨¨ Visual inspections
MEB
¨¨ On-site inspections
¨¨ Measurements
DNO
¨¨ Documentation
¨¨ Maintenance Telecontrol /
telecommunication
¨¨ Final Inspection and UL Master Label Certification Ex i Measuring and control equipment

In Figure 12 we see the short term degeneration of the PROFI

BUS
down conductor portion of the LPS due to local wear and heater
tear effects.
gas

Surge Protection Devices

The application of spark gaps between lightning conductors foundation earth electrode external LPS

and other metallic objects must be considered. In addition, the Figure 13 Here, the equipotential bonding of incoming metal pipes
IEC 62305 standards suggests that incoming utility services and the application of SPD’s are illustrated with connec-
(such as overhead power lines) and adjoining public spaces tions to the Master Earthing Bar (MEB).

WP045/USA/1016 © Copyright 2016 DEHN, Inc. 7

A comparison of
NFPA 780 and IEC 62305
White Paper
Figure 14 All DEHN products are 100% tested to show they with-
stand lightning events.
(Photo courtesy DEHN)
Actual lightning discharge testing
The IEC standards dictate that all lightning protection rods,
down conductors and clamps must meet the extreme direct
lightning currents.
All SPD’s are tested to assure they can withstand both the
indirect strike 8/20 μs testing seen in UL 1449 standards, but
also the extreme 100 kA 10/350 μs withstand associated direct
lightning strikes. Both the NFPA 780 and UL standards advise
testing to 20 kA 8/20 μs.
The IEC establishes a higher energy transfer mechanism,
shows the mathematical relationships for charge transfer. This
assures mechanical integrity of the components through labo-
ratory proof testing.
In Figure 14 we see the IEC accredited, DEHN laboratory fa-
cilities in Germany which accommodate the leading surge test
equipment and safety practices.
Summary
In summary, the IEC 62305 certification for achievement of
UL 96A master label requirements meet best practice installa-
8 WP045/USA/1016
tion and protection of the value of the building asset. UL will
now offer a UL Master Label for IEC 62305 compliant lightning
protection systems.
An important limitation of NFPA 780 is that each building
that is part of a complex LPS system must be endowed with
all of its own LPS lightning rods, down conductors and earth-
ing, with no consideration of the benefit of the rolling sphere
coverage offered by adjacent, taller structures. IEC 62305 risk
assessment is normative while the NFPA less detailed risk as-
sessment is informative. IEC 62305 risk assessment drives im-
provement and results in four LPS classes, with air termination,
down conductor, and earth termination systems dependent on
LPS class. NFPA 780 risk assessment results in a go / no go one
size fits all LPS, with a rolling sphere equivalent to IEC LPS
Class III. NEC requires risk assessment for critical operations
power systems (COPS).
The IEC suite of standards provides a more comprehensive and
thorough set of design tools for the creation of effective light-
ning protection systems.
Acknowledgements:
DEHN protects. For the past 105 years we’ve led the way in
Lightning and Surge protection solutions for people, industry
and electrical / electronic systems against the effects of light-
ning and surges.
About the author:
Mark Hendricks – Mark has contributed to various IEC and
IEEE standards groups and has served the power quality in-
dustry for over 19 years.
References:
NFPA 780:2014, IEC 62305:2010, UL 1449 4th edition, UL 467
© Copyright 2016 DEHN, Inc.
 www.dehn-international.com/partners

DEHN, Inc. Office 772 460 9315

851 South Kings Highway Fax 772 460 9316
Fort Pierce, FL 34945 info@dehn-usa.com
www.dehn-usa.com

Surge Protection DEHN + SÖHNE Hans-Dehn-Str. 1 Tel. +49 9181 906-0

Lightning Protection GmbH + Co.KG. Postfach 1640 Fax +49 9181 906-1100
Safety Equipment 92306 Neumarkt info@dehn.de
DEHN protects. Germany www.dehn-international.com

www.dehn-international.com/partners

Type designations of products mentioned in the white paper being at the same time registered trademarks are not especially marked. So if there is no marking of ™ or ® this does not
mean that the type designation is a free trade name. Neither it can be seen whether patents or utility models and other intellectual and industrial property rights are available. We reserve
the right to introduce changes in performance, configuration and technology, dimensions, weights and materials in the course of technical progress. The figures are shown without obligation.
Misprints, errors and modifications excepted. Reproduction in any form whatsoever is forbidden without our authorisation.
For information on our registered trademarks, please visit www.dehn-international.com/en/our-registered-trademarks.

WP045/USA/1016 © Copyright 2016 DEHN, Inc.