30th International Conference on Lightning Protection - ICLP 2010
(Cagliari, Italy - September 13th -17th, 2010)
EVALUATION OF 45 NEGATIVE FLASHES BASED ON E-FIELD
MEASUREMENTS, VIDEO DATA AND
LIGHTNING LOCATION DATA IN AUSTRIA
Schulz W., Pichler H., Diendorfer G.
Austrian Lightning Detection and Information System (ALDIS)
Kahlenberger Str. 2A, 1190 Vienna, Austria,
w.schulz@ove.at; h.pichler@ove.at; g.diendorfer@ove.at
ABSTRACT
In this paper we present an analysis of 45 negative flashes
based on video and field measurement data. The analysis
based on video and E-field measurement data is an ideal
method to check lightning location data in terms of cloud-
to-cloud or cloud-to-ground classification. We will show that
the flash and stroke detection efficiency determined by this
analysis is quite similar to the result from measurements at
the Gaisberg Tower. We further present some lightning
parameters for negative flashes and compare them to values
available in the literature.
1 INTRODUCTION
During the last years data from the Austrian Lightning
Location System (LLS) ALDIS were presented at several
conferences. For negative flashes statistics on
multiplicity, percentage of single stroke flashes and the
ratio of first to subsequent stroke electric field peaks in
Austria differ significantly from measurements in other
regions of the world [1].
To be able to validate the LLS data a field
measurement system (FM-System) was developed which
records E-Field data continuously [3-4]. When evaluating
field measurement data only, there is still an uncertainty
of about 10% regarding flash categorization (cloud-to-
ground or cloud-to-cloud). To reduce this uncertainty the
measurement system was recently extended by a GPS
time synchronized digital video camera.
2 MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
The used FM-System was already described in detail
in several papers [3-5]. The monochrome video camera
system integrated to the previously used FM-System is
able to record up to 200 frames per second with VGA
resolution (640x480 pixels). This frame rate is equivalent
to an exposure time of 5 ms per frame and should be
sufficient to detect almost all the individual strokes in a
flash.
At the maximum frame rate of 200 frames per second
this monochrome camera (8 bit per pixel) produces a data
stream of 60 Mbytes per second. The camera is strictly
time synchronized to the FM system and therefore also
the camera data is GPS time stamped. A red filter type 29
(dark red) was used in front of the camera lens in order to
achieve better image contrast during daytime recordings.
3 DATA AND METHODOLOGY
In summer 2009 a total of 45 negative flashes were
recorded during two thunderstorms. One thunderstorm
occurred on the 29th of June and one on the 3rd of
August. Both measurements were done at the same
location in the south of Vienna (48.0798° N/13.0096° E).
This recording site was chosen because of the low
electromagnetic noise level and it was already used for
other lightning studies in Austria (see e.g. [3] or [4]). The
closest flashes occurred at a distance of 300 m and the
most distant flash at a distance of 28 km.
The video and E-Field data sets are complementing
each other because sometimes we could identify strokes
only either on the video or in the E-field data and
sometimes the strokes could be clearly identified in both
data sets. As an example record #57 is shown in Fig. 1.
This flash contained three strokes and each stroke
exhibits a separated ground strike point. According to the
LLS data the distance of the individual ground strike
points from the measurement system were in the range
from 5 to 7 km.
4 RESULTS
4.1 Lightning parameters
The mean multiplicity for the 45 flashes determined
from the FM system and the video camera data is 3.0. For
this dataset the LLS determined a mean multiplicity of
2.7. A percentage of single stroke flashes of 20% was
determined from the FM system and the video camera
data. This value is significantly smaller compared to
previous studies made in Austria (e.g. 33% [3] or 50%
[4]). From the LLS data we determined 25% single
strokes.
1011-1
 1st Stroke 2nd Stroke
Figure1. Video images and correlated electric field data (in V/m) for flash #57 (03.08.2009, 13:05:54)
The mean number of ground strike points per flash is
1.93. This number was determined from 40 flashes
because in five cases no video data were available. 53%
of the flashes had more than one ground contact point.
Due to the reason that the time resolution for video
recordings with 200 fps is only 5 ms continuing current
parameter analysis is limited to the so called long
continuing current (CC). According to [7] or [8] a long
CC is defined as a CC with a duration of more than 40
ms. In our data set we found 10 strokes in eight flashes
(out of 45) with long CC. The mean CC duration of these
10 CCs was 197 ms. The longest CC we found in our
dataset lasted for 445 ms.
The stroke peak current is determined from the LLS
data because for several close flashes the FM-system was
saturated and therefore it is impossible to determine the
peak field. Median peak current of the 114 correctly
detected strokes is -13 kA. The median peak current of all
first strokes is -14.5 kA and the median peak current of
all first strokes in multiple-stroke flashes is -16.5 kA. The
median peak current of all subsequent strokes,
independent whether it is from a stroke in the same
channel or a stroke in a new channel to ground, is -12.1
kA. It is interesting to note that the ratio of peak currents
from first and subsequent strokes is much smaller than 2
(for a review of publications related to this ratio see [2])
although the data set is too small for a more
comprehensive statistical analysis. Percentage of flashes
with subsequent stroke peak current greater than the first
stroke peak current in this study was 37% (35 flashes
analyzed).
3rd Stroke
4.2 LLS performance
Detection efficiency (DE) and location accuracy are
the most important performance parameters of LLSs and
therefore we tried to determine those performance
parameters from the data recorded during this
measurement campaign. During the measurement
camping on the two days the LLS detected 44 out of 45
negative flashes (Flash DE 98%). The one flash that was
not detected was a single stroke flash. This single stroke
flash was actually located by the LLS but was finally
rejected by the applied quality criteria of the location
algorithm. The peak current of this stroke was about -3
kA according to the LLS data.
The LLS detected 114 strokes out of 135 strokes
completely correct (Stroke DE 84%). It is important to
note that all real negative CG strokes were categorized by
the LLS correctly as CG lightning. We have never seen
that a CG stroke was erroneously categorized as cloud-to-
cloud discharge. On the other hand we found in the LLS
data some initial breakdowns or cloud processes
erroneously categorized as CG strokes (8 strokes not
included in the 135 strokes mentioned above and
categorized as CG were cloud discharges).
In order to be able to asses the location accuracy of the
LLS we searched in the video data for strokes using the
same channel as the previous stroke and therefore striking
to the same ground strike point. Similar to the procedure
described in [6] the differences between the stroke
positions within a flash have been computed from the
position distances in the LLS data by scaling them by (1
/ 2 ). This scaling is necessary because both positions
1011-2
used are subject to random errors [6]. As stated in [6]
there is a possibility that the channel geometry and/or the
actual ground contact varied slightly from stroke to stroke
and were not resolved by the video camera. Therefore the
differences determined by this method should be regarded
as upper bounds of the actual position differences.
For 20 subsequent strokes we determined a median
value of 440 m and a standard deviation of 1000 m. The
median value is slightly larger as determined from strokes
to the Gaisberg tower (median 368m, STD 768m [13]).
This indicates that the argument mentioned above about
the limitation of this type of analyses seems to be correct.
The significantly greater standard deviation in these
measurements is probably related to the small sample
size. Further the large standard deviations prevent to see
any significant differences of the distributions from the
Gaisberg Tower and the video measurements (according
to the Mann-Whitney-U-test).
5 DISCUSSION/SUMMARY
Some lightning parameters determined with the
Austrian LLS and presented in the past are significantly
different from what is published in the literature for other
regions (e.g. Florida). Therefore a lot of efforts have been
made in the past to clarify whether these differences are
real or a result of the used LLS technology and its
performance.
In this paper we have shown that for flashes in two
thunderstorms we can determine parameters which are
more similar to what is known from the literature (e.g. the
percentage of single stroke flashes or the percentage of
flashes with subsequent stroke peak current greater than
the first stroke peak current) but nevertheless the ratio of
first stroke to subsequent stroke peak currents seems to be
still far from what is reported in the literature (although
the sample size is too small to give a final answer to this
topic). It is interesting to note that for the data from the
video and FM system used in this paper and which are
more similar to the values in the literature also the ALDIS
LLS reported values in the same range for the particular
storms. A possible reason that the results still differ is that
the data used in this study are from two thunderstorms
only (two convective storms) and therefore the results are
probably not representative for the overall lightning
activity in Austria
The mean number of ground strike points determined
in this study is 1.93 and high compared to the values for
the number of ground strike points available in the
literature [9-12] ranging from 1.45 to 1.7.
Statistics about long CC from other studies are given
by M. Saba (arithmetic mean CC duration is 151 ms from
40 events in 27 storms [personnel communication]) or
Kitagawa et al. [8] (arithmetic mean 181 ms – 94 flashes
in 3 storms). In this study we determined an arithmetic
mean of 197 ms for 10 long CC events captured during
the two storms.
Evaluation of the LLS performance revealed a high
flash and stroke DE of the Austrian LLS ALDIS. Flash
DE of 98% (for peak currents greater 2 kA) [13] at the
Gaisberg tower for flashes containing at least one
subsequent stroke (or β pulse) is probably an
overestimation because the upward initiated flashes from
the tower exhibit an overall higher multiplicity compared
to natural downward flashes. Nevertheless the Flash DE
determined in this paper is the same and interestingly the
only missed flash in this analysis is a single stroke flash.
Stroke DE of 84% determined from video and FM data
(smallest peak current in this study determined from LLS
data is -3.5 kA) and a DE for subsequent strokes at the
Gaisberg Tower (I>2kA) of 85% [13] are in the same
range.
The location accuracy determined in this study is
somewhat greater as determined for strokes to the
Gaisberg tower. As stated in [6] we also think that the
location differences determined by the method used in
this paper are somehow upper bounds because it is not
clear that we see always the true ground contact of the
channel.
6 REFERENCES
[1] Schulz, W., K. Cummins, G. Diendorfer, and M. Dorninger
(2005), Cloud-to-ground lightning in Austria: A 10-year
study using data from a lightning location system, J.
Geophys. Res., 110, D09101, doi:10.1029/2004JD005332.
[2] Nag A., V. A. Rakov, W. Schulz, M. M. F. Saba, R.
Thottappillil, C. J. Biagi, A. O. Filho, A. Kafri, N.
Theethayi, T. Gotschl (2008), First versus subsequent
return-stroke current and field peaks in negative cloud-to-
ground lightning discharges. Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol. 113, D19112, doi:10.1029/2007JD009729.
[3] Schulz W., Lackenbauer B., Diendorfer G., Pichler H.
(2005), LLS data and correlated continuous field
measurements. SIPDA, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
[4] Schulz W. and Diendorfer G. (2006), Flash Multiplicity
and Interstroke Intervals in Austria. ICLP, Kanazawa,
Japan.
[5] Schulz W., Sindelar S., Kafri A., Götschl T., Theethayi N.,
Thottappillil R. (2008), The ratio between first and
subsequent lightning return stroke electric field peaks in
Sweden, ICLP, Uppsala, Sweden.
[6] Biagi, C. J., K. L. Cummins, K. E. Kehoe, and E. P. Krider
(2007), National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN)
performance in southern Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma in
2003–2004, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D05208,
doi:10.1029/2006JD007341.
[7] Brook, M., N. Kitagawa, and E. J. Workman (1962),
Quantitative study of strokes and continuing currents in
lightning discharges to ground, J. Geophys. Res., 67, 649–
659.
[8] Kitagawa, N., M. Brook, and E. J. Workman (1962),
Continuing current in cloud-to-ground lightning
discharges, J. Geophys. Res., 67, 637– 647.
[9] Hermant, A. (2000), Traqueur d’Orages, Nathan/HER,
1011-3
[10] Rakov, V.A., Uman, M.A., and Thottappillil, R. (1994),
Review of lightning properties from electric field and TV
observations. J. Geophys. Res. 99: 10,745-50.
[11] Saba M. M. F., M. G. Ballarotti, and O. Pinto Jr. (2006),
Negative cloud-to-ground lightning properties from high-
speed video observations, J. Geophys. Res., 111, D03101,
doi:10.1029/2005JD006415.
[12] Valine W. and Krider E.P. (2002), Statistics and
characteristics of cloud-to-ground lightning with multiple
ground contacts. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D20), 4441,
doi:10.1029/2001JD001360.
[13] CIGRE WG C4.404A (2009), Cloud-to-Ground Lightning
Parameters Derived from Lightning Location Systems -
The Effects of System Performance. Brochure No. 376,
CIGRE.

1011-4