30th International Conference on Lightning Protection - ICLP 2010

(Cagliari, Italy - September 13th -17th, 2010)

0
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTION OF UTILIZING
THE PROTECTION ANGLE METHOD
Prof. Tibor Horvath

Budapest University of Technology and Economics

Hungary
horvath.tibor@vet.bme.hu

ABSTRACT allows the conclusion that no general value of protection

angle can be found on the base of observed lightning
The protection angle proved to be suitable for high voltage
strokes because of their divergent conditions.
lines up to now. The standardized method involves much
problems and contradictions applying to three-dimensional
2. APPLICATION TO TRANSMISSION LINES
structures. Therefore, it should be restrictively used as an
additional method for design air-termination systems. The protection angle method found the application first
for the high voltage lines at the beginning of the 20 th
1. INTRODUCTION century. The protection angle could simply define the
The protection angle method is the oldest one to relative positions of the earth wire (as air-termination) and
express the protective effect of air-terminations. Many the conductors to be protected. These lines were about 10–
scientists tried to estimate the horizontal extension of a 15 m high and a protection angle of 45° proved to be
Franklin rod during the 18 th and 19th century, based on the suitable for the reliability of service. The height of the
observed lightning strokes. The protection angle ( ) has transmission lines reached 20–30 m about 1930, when the
been derived from the ratio of the horizontal distance (r) to operation voltage exceeded 100 kV. That time, the advised
the height (h) of the rod, which is equal to tan ( ). protection angle decreased to 30°-35° [2]. This value
seemed to be generally sufficient until 1958, when
Table 1. Estimated values of the protection effect around a lightning strokes produced many shielding failures in USA
lightning rod in the 18th- 19th century on UHV lines above 300 kV. Thought, other phenomena
Year Author r/h were suspected first as their cause, finally became evident
1777 Franklin 1,7 59,53 ° that the protection angle should be decreased to 20° or
1779 Lord Mahon 1,5 56,31 ° smaller [3], [4]. There were publications advising negative
1798 Achard 2,0 63,43 °
protection angle too. According to this experience the
1807 Charles 2,5 protection angle must be decreased with increasing height
68,2°
1809 Böckmann
of the lines [5], similarly as shown in Table 2.
>9,0 >83,66 °
1816 Imhof 1,65 58,75 ° Table 2 – Assumed protection angles based on HV lines
1823 Gay-Lussac 2,0 63,43 ° Height 10 m 25 m 40 m 50 m
1823 Pouillet <2,0 <63,43 ° Protection angle 45° 30° 20° 15°
1827 Hehl 3,3 73,14 °
Nevertheless, the protection angle method proved to be
1854 Arago 2,0 63,43 °
suitable for high voltage lines up to now. However, there
1867 Eisenlohr 2,0 63,43 ° are some problems with application in the zone between
1872 Wilde 4,0 75,96 ° two earth wires.
1878 Bequerel 1,75 60,25 °
1878 Holtz 1,0 45° 3. APPLICATION TO 3D STRUCTURES
1883 Zenger 0,125 7,125 °
In contrast to transmission lines, which can practically
1884 Weber 1,5 56,31 °
taken as two-dimensional arrangements, the buildings and
1885 Anderson 1,0 45°
similar structures represent three-dimensional shapes. This
The experience of about 150 years had no success is relevant to the open-air high voltage stations too. In
according to Table 1, collected by Schwaiger [1]. The these cases, the application of the protection angle method
highlighted extreme values varied from 7° to 83° and no was very divergent in several countries in the first half of
trend can be found during the time. These contradictions 20th century. There were countries, where the network type

1018 - 1
air-termination system became dominant, which did not
need the protection angle method. Other countries used
several types of air-termination rods, which involve the
application of the protection angle. This caused no
problem at the edge of roof; however, special solution has
to be found in the area among several rods. While different
angle can be used in zones inside and outside of earth
wires, these zones cannot be defined at 3D structures. The
rolling sphere method gave finally a method to solve this
difficulty.

3.1. Principle of balancing areas
The development turned to a false way concerning the
protection angle method at the end of the 20th century.
This was caused by an idea, which tried to define a
protection angle equivalent to a rolling sphere of given
radius. The first origin of this idea could not be found, but
many publications, papers and books referred to it [6].
Figure. 2. The protection angle plotted against the height,
according to IEC 62305-3 standard.
3.2. Problems with the standardized values of
protection angle
The application of the diagram in Fig. 2 also produces
interesting contradictions, apart from the fact that it totally
devoid any rational basis [7], [8].
According to the diagram, the protection angle moves
from 23° to 70°–79° in function of the height above an
undefined reference plane. In contrast, the experience
supports only acceptable protection angles under 45°
decreasing with the height (see Table 2). Nothing has
proved the efficiency of protection angles greater than 70°,
which also may be applied according to the diagram.

Figure 1. The idea of balancing areas.

According to this idea, the protective effects of the
protection angle and the rolling sphere should be
equivalent, if areas A 1 and A2 balance each other as shown
in Fig. 1. The main problem is that these areas have no
physical meaning! In one case, the edge of a high building
is exposed to direct stroke according to the rolling sphere
but the protection angle method shows as protected; in
other case, a low structure (e.g. a doghouse) seems to be
protected with the rolling sphere, while the protection
angle method shows it as exposed. In contrast, the
exposition of the building can be hardly taken as
equivalent to that of the doghouse; therefore, these two
cases cannot represent a balance.
Although, this idea is completely baseless, the diagram
of Fig. 2 is world wide citied and applied [7]. Beside them,
the IEC 62305-3 and the EN 62305-3 standards also Figure 3. Protection angles beside 60 m and 30 high masts.
contain this diagram at Table 2. Whereas, it is not declared Using the curve IV of the diagram Fig. 2, the protected
the diagram is based on the idea of balancing areas as area extends farther on the ground level around a 30 m
shown by Fig. 1 [7]. high than around a 60 m high mast, as demonstrated by
Fig.3. This is not a special case, because the standardized

1018 - 2
procedure always results in the smallest protected area on 3.3. Horizontal extension of protected area in function
the ground produced by the highest air-termination mast, of the height above the ground
as demonstrated by Table 3. Such values could not be
The IEC 62305-3 standard contains only the diagram
accepted as rational results!
reproduced in Fig. 2 here. This doesn’t give any overview
Table 3. Calculated results of the protection angle method about the horizontal extension of the protected area. Fig 4
according to the international standard shows the construction method around a mast of 60 m that
defines this extension at some reference planes.
Height Class of LPS
Figure 4 shows the construction relating to a 60 m high
of mast I II III IV
air-termination mast. This value determines the position of
m Protection angle
the tip of the air-termination above the ground. When the
60 – – – 23,23°
45 – – 23,23° 33,78°
reference plane is in 50 m above the ground, the physical
30 – 23,23° 37,45° 45,21° height of the air-termination is 10 m above the roof. Using
20 23,23° 37,45° 47,98° 53,97° the diagram of standard IEC 62305-3 below Table 2 (here
m Radius of protected area on the ground (m) in Fig.2), the previous conditions determine 64,87° as
60 – – – 25,75 protection angle. Assuming the reference plane in 30 m
45 – – 19,31 30,11 above the ground, the height of the air-termination is also
30 – 12,88 22,98 30,22 30 m above the roof. The protection angle is 45,21°
20 8,58 15,32 22,20 27,49 according to the diagram. Relating to the ground level, the
protection angle decreases to 23,23°.
Here and later in this paper, the protection angles are Figure 5 shows the shapes of the protected areas in a
always calculated on the base of the principle shown by vertical plane that turns around the air-termination rods or
Fig. 1. This is necessary because precise values cannot be masts. Their heights are 20 m, 30 m 45 m and 60 m above
read from the diagram printed in IEC 62305-3 standard the ground. Figure 4 and Figure 5 mark with red arrows
and reproduced in Fig. 2. At the end of this paper, the the points, which belong together. Both Figures are related
Annex gives a better diagram for this purpose. the Class IV of Lightning Protection System. Figure 5
It is astonishing that these contradictions have never exactly corresponds to IEC 62305-3 standard; although, it
been recognized though the diagram of Fig. 2 has been is an unusual interpretation of changing the standardized
known for twenty years at least. It has been probably protection angles.
referred many times, without using it in the practice before
that it was standardized.

Figure 5. The shapes of the protected areas in a vertical plane

Figure 4. Construction of the horizontal extension op protected that turns around the air-termination rods or masts of Class IV.
area at several heights of reference planes.

1018 - 3
 Figure 7. The shapes of the protected areas in a vertical plane
that turns around the air-termination rods or masts of Class II.

Figure 6. The shapes of the protected areas in a vertical plane

that turns around the air-termination rods or masts of Class III.
Figures 6–8 illustrate the shapes of the protected areas
related to several Classes of LPS. It is a surprising result
that some curves turn back near the ground, thus the
extension of the protected area is smaller at the ground
level than in the height of a roof! The crossing the curves
caused the contradiction that a lower air-termination Figure 8. The shapes of the protected areas in a vertical plane
would produce a larger protected area than a higher one, as that turns around the air-termination rods or masts
related to several Classes of LPS.
illustrated by Fig. 3.
The most important advantage of this new 1. What is the value of the protection angle 1 and what
interpretation is that clearly demonstrates the is the belonging reference plane according to the
contradictions due to the standardized protection angle standard IEC 62305-3? Which Section (Point) of the
method. This is not a new recognition, why separated standard should be considered?
diagrams also contained all necessary information in 2. What is the shape of protected area in the height of the
previous contributions. However, the contradictions are eaves (10 m above the ground)?
not visible without the possibility of comparison. 3. What is the cross-section of the protected space in the
vertical plane at the middle (marked with X in Fig. 9)?
3.4. Application of the IEC standard in the practice 4. How join the conical protection spaces belonging to
The indicated problems do not represent only a matter 1 and 2 at the place where they meet together?
of principle, but they cause difficulties for application in
the practice. This can be demonstrated by a concrete
example of a structure equipped with two air-termination
rods on the ridge of double inclined roof.
In accordance with IEC 62305-3 standard, Fig. 9 shows
the protection angles 1 and 2 those determine the
protected space. To estimate them, the related reference
planes have to be found. In the case of 2 this is evidently
the surface of the ground and so the relevant height of the
air-termination is 16+2 = 18 m. Taking LPS Class IV into
account, the protection angle 2 = 56° according to the
diagram of standard IEC 62305-3 below Table 2 (or the
Annex of this paper).
In the case of 1 the reference plane is undetermined, Figure 9. A building with two air-termination rods
because there is no horizontal plane on the structure. It The standardized protection angle method cannot be
would be interesting to answer the following questions: used in the practice without answering these questions.

1018 - 4
 4. HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS?
There is a question: Should be generally omitted the
application of protection angle method for 3D structures or
what is its proper application? The protection angle
method causes much difficulty in many cases, when the
rolling sphere method offers a proper solution. Therefore,
introducing another method would be inexpedient beside
the rolling sphere method. However, the application of
rolling sphere method also could cause problems, when
the height of a structure is similar to the radius of the
rolling sphere.
4.1. When no side flashes have to be expected
In this case the air-termination elements should be
posed exactly above the edge of roof, which corresponds
to protection angle of zero grad. However, a small
protection angle could be accepted above the previously
mentioned height up to the height, above which side
flashes have to be expected (e.g. 60 m). Depending from a
decision in the future, this angle could be either constant
or decreasing as a function of height. This should be based
on the experience obtained with long time operation of
transmission lines [5].
The following proposal assumed 15° as constant value
of the protection angle.
Fig. 10 illustrates the principle of this method, if the
height of air-termination is equal to the radius of rolling
sphere, with consideration of Class IV of LPS. The upper
part of the protected volume is determined with the
Figure 10. Construction of protected volume with the protection angle method,
when the height is equal to the radius of sphere
constant angle of 15°, but its width is limited to one tenth
of the sphere radius on the lower part. This is illustrated on
Fig. 10 to right with enlarged scale. The green marked part
represents an additional protected volume due to the
protection angle method, which would not taken protected
according to the rolling sphere. It is important for the
practice, because the air-termination components should
be installed exactly above the edge of roof without this
additional part of the protected volume. Referring to the
experience with EHV lines, an air-termination presumably
produces a sufficient protection for the edge under the
angle of 15°. This protection extends over the small
protrusions on lateral sides too. In contrast, the limited
width aims to prevent an unreasonable extension of the
protection volume against the rolling sphere method.
Thought, the protection angle is independent of the Class
of LPS, the limited width depends on that.
When the height of structure exceeds the radius of
rolling sphere, Fig. 11 illustrates how the protection angle
method supplements the protected volume with the green
marked components. The protection angle method is
suitable until the structure reaches the height (marked 1),
above that side flashes should be expected. According to
the standard this begins at the height of 60 m. The
influence of several Classes of LPS is also demonstrated.
Number 2 marks the additional part of protected volume,
which allows shifting the air-termination from the edge
towards inside of roof. Number 3 marks that part, which
can be used for protection of small protrusions on the side
of structure.
1018 - 5
 Figure 11. Application of protection angle method, when the height of air-termination is 60 m.
1. Tip of air-termination; 2. Protection volume due to the protection angle; 3. Protection volume with limited width.
4.2. When side flashes have to be expected
The protection angle method cannot be used on lateral
surface exposed to side flashes. According to IEC 62305-3
standard this is above the 80% height of structure.
However, all lateral surfaces are always exposed above the
height of 120 m.
Figure 12. Protection angle at tall structure considering
the exposition to side flash
Red line marks such a surface in Fig. 12. If at bottom of
this section (at 80 m above the ground) a protruding
horizontal conductor is installed on the wall, this produces
the green marked protected volume according to the
proposed protection angle method. Installing a similar
conductor at 60 m, the protection extends onto low
structures in the neighborhoods according to the rolling
sphere method.
The air- termination system should be constructed for
the roof and the exposed lateral surface only with the
rolling sphere or the mesh method.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Utilizing the protection angle method according to the
IEC 62305-3 standard causes difficult problems in the
practice during the construction of air termination systems
in the case of 3D structures. This is the consequence of the
false idea of balancing areas, which has no physical basis
and leads to contradictions and irrational results. The
application of this idea came to an impasse; therefore, the
standardized form of the protection angle method should
be omitted.
In contrast, the protection angle has been successfully
used in operation of high voltage transmission lines since a
century. This long time experience gives a base for
estimating the suitable values of the protection angle, if it
is necessary. However, the protection angle is principally
connected to the transmission lines.
In the case of 3D structures, the air-termination system
can be constructed without any problem with the rolling
sphere method, while the height of the structure is smaller
than the radius of sphere. Therefore, it would be redundant
to create a complicated method for using the protection
angle beside the rolling sphere for the same purpose. Two
different methods could conclude to contrary results that
would be unfeasible.
Nevertheless, the rolling sphere method involves
problems, when the height of air-termination is equal or
higher than the radius of sphere. In this case, the
protection angle method would be a useful supplementary
means for designing air termination of structures.
1018 - 6
 6. REFERENCES
[1] A. Schwaiger, “Der Schutzbereich von Blitzableitern.”
Oldenbourg Verlag, München, 1938.
[2] D. Müller Hillebrand, “Probleme der Gewiterforschung
und des Blitzschutzes.” Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift –
ETZ-B, Vol. 16, Pp. 9-10,1964.
[3] F. S. Young, J. M. Clayton, A. R. Hileman, “Shielding of
transmission lines” Trans. of IIIE, Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol. 82, Pp. 132-154.,1963.
[4] G. W. Brown, E. R. Whitehead, “Field and analytical
studies of transmission lines shielding.” Trans. AIEE, Vol.
88, Pp. 614-626, 1969.
[5] R. H. Golde, “Lightning protection.” Edward Arnold
Press, London, 1973.
[6] P. Hasse, J. Wieseinger, “Handbuch für Blitzschutz und
Erdung.” 3 th edition. Pflaum Verlag, München; VDE-
Verlag, Berlin. 1989.
[7] P. Hasse, “Overvoltage protection of low voltage
systems”. The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London.
2000.
[8] T. Horváth, “Standardization of lightning protection based
on the physics or on the tradition?” Journal of
Electrostatics. Vol.60, Pp. 265-275, 2004.
[9] T. Horváth, “Problems with application of the protection
angle method at three-dimensional structures.”
29th International Conference on Lightning Protection,
Paper 4-5, Uppsala, Sweden, June 2008.

ANNEX
The value of the protection angle can be calculated as function of the height of air-termination above the surface to be
protected, on the base of principle of balancing areas (see 3.1 section). Using a computer, a more precise diagram can be
produced than that is in IEC 62305-3 standard at Table 2 (reproduced here as Figure 2). This diagram is shown below that
makes possible to read such values of the protection angles, which are similar to the calculated ones citied in the paper.

1018 - 7