30th International Conference on Lightning Protection - ICLP 2010
(Cagliari, Italy - September 13th -17th, 2010)
ICLP 2010
A NEW SYSTEM TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF POSITIONING
THE AIR-TERMINATION COMPONENTS
Prof. Tibor Horvath
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Hungary
horvath.tibor@vet.bme.hu
ABSTRACT
According to IEC 62305-3 standard, there are three methods
for adequate positioning the air-termination components.
However, the protection angle method has undefined bases
and concludes to contradiction. The rolling sphere method is
correct; however here are also false applications. The mesh
method is related only to quadratic meshes on 100 years old
bases. These problems makes necessary to search new ways.
1. INTRODUCTION
According to IEC 62305-3 standard, there are three
methods for adequate positioning the air-termination
components, as follows:
– the protection angle method;
– the rolling sphere method;
– the mesh method.
These methods represent equivalent safety that means
equal interception efficiency on principle. In contrast, the
standardized protection angle method involves several
contradictions and undefined conditions, which has been
demonstrated in contributions [1] [2]. Therefore, this
method could be used in the practice only with limitation.
The rolling sphere method correctly functions; however,
its definition involves contradictions and some examples
for application demonstrate fundamental mistakes. The
mesh method is based on parameters that were defined
more than 100 years ago. The standardized sizes cannot be
generally applied, because they related only to quadratic
networks. The parameters have no connection with the
other methods; therefore, the equivalency is only a
supposition without any base. It is an editorial problem
that the main part of the standard determines only the
parameters of these construction methods, whose
definitions can be found only in Annex A.
The recited problems makes necessary to introduce a
new system, which eliminates the contradictions and
difficulties of application due to the standardized methods.
This paper aims to give a basis for this solution. Some
additional information is in another contribution [3].
2. PRINCIPLE OF A NEW SYSTEM
To produce a coherent system, the rolling sphere
method can give a base. This method is suitable in all
cases according to the present text of the standard too. The
mesh method can be derived from the rolling sphere
method that represents a harmonizing connection inside
the system. The protection angle method causes difficulty
in many cases, when the rolling sphere method offers a
proper solution. Therefore in such cases, using the
protection angle method would be inexpedient. However,
the protection angle method could give proper solution,
when the edge of a structure is in the height equal or
higher than the radius of the sphere.
2.1. The rolling sphere method
Concerning the rolling sphere method, the definition
should be put into the main part of the standard, instead of
Annex A. This is related to the other methods as well. The
existing definition of the rolling sphere method contains a
contradiction with itself [3]; therefore, the following form
should be introduced:
Applying this method, the positioning of the air-
termination system is adequate if it can prevent a
fictive sphere to intersect the structure to be protected
when approaches from any possible direction. In
extreme fall, the sphere may contact the structure to
be protected only at a point or along a line, while
rolling anyway on or around the air-termination
system.
Table 1. The radius r of the rolling sphere is depending on
the Class of LPS.
Class of LPS I II III IV
Radius r of 20 m 30 m 45 m 60 m
rolling sphere
These radii of sphere are the same as determined in
Table 2 of the existing standard.
1021 - 1
2.1.1. Problems of the standardized method
This definition eliminates the existing contradiction that
the sphere is “rolling around and on top of the structure”
while “it should touch only the ground and/or the air-
termination system”. Annex A and Annex E contain now
such examples that clearly demonstrate the mis-
understanding the application of the rolling sphere
method. Typical cases are: structures without any air-
termination system as shown in Fig.1 (IEC E.21). Its aim
would be to show, which parts need to be protected on a
structure! Considering the third view (failing in the
standard), the rolling sphere method demonstrates only the
evident result that the roof is exposed to lightning strike.
Figure 1. Rolling a sphere on the top and around a structure
without any air-termination system.
Fig. 2 shows an application of the rolling sphere
method according to the standard (IEC E.19). This figure
has been citied and reproduced by many publications. The
aim of this figure is only to show that the shaded areas are
exposed to lightning interception (?) and need protection
according to the standard. The lateral surfaces are exposed
to side flashes, thus they are above 60 m.
Figure 2. Shaded areas need lightning protection.
Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 illustrate structures of unreal sizes.
The radius of the rolling sphere is 20 m at least but it may
be 60 m too. On Fig. 1, the building of two stages is hardly
higher than 20 m or just than 60 m. The lateral surfaces
exposed to side flash determine the scale of Fig. 2. The
radius of sphere is 60 m. Therefore; the higher structure is
about 240 m and the lower about 195 m high in the
background. The width of the total group is more that 420
m, and the air-termination rod is 60 m high. Neglecting
these irrational assumptions, both figures represent a
contrast to the definition of the rolling sphere method,
because there is no air-termination on Fig. 1 and only a
rod on Fig. 2. Therefore, the sphere contacts the structures
almost everywhere, though it is strictly excluded by
definition of the rolling sphere method. At the same time,
they represent only evident statements.
Figure 3. Design of an air-termination system according to the
rolling sphere method
Fig. 3 is shown in Annex A of the standard with the
same caption as here. However, the thick lines represent
the surfaces to be protected and never the air-termination
system. The ratio is h/r = 1,67 on the figure in contrast to
the written legend of h < 60 m.
The previously referred examples are only irrational,
but they not cause danger by false application for design
of air-termination. More dangerous is the false application
of the rolling sphere method so that it is rolling on the
surface to be protected. Such a situation can be found in
Fig. 2, where a sphere rotates around an air termination
rod while it is rolling on the roof. This is based on the
definition of the rolling sphere method by IEC 62305-3
standard Annex A, which writes: “rolling around and on
top of the structure”. This is the cause of the often
1021 - 2
occurring mistake that the rolling sphere is similar to the
protection angle only a circular arc should be used instead
of a straight line. Fig. 4 demonstrates the difference
between the applications of the rolling sphere method.
a) b)
Figure 4. False (a) and correct application of the rolling sphere.
These examples demonstrate that the application of the
rolling sphere method is interpreted false, because it has
been completely misunderstood. The contradictions in the
definition and these examples misguide the user, who
cannot use the rolling sphere method or who uses it false.
2.1.2. Critical positions of the rolling sphere
The rolling of the sphere is not an important thing;
therefore, the attention should be turn to the critical
positions of the rolling sphere.
Figure 5. Rolling the sphere around a rod.
Figure 6. Rolling the sphere along horizontal conductors.
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show the sphere that continuously
contacts the ground while it is rolling around a rod or
along horizontal conductors. In these cases, the center of
sphere is always in the height equal to its radius. The
distance of the center is the radius of the horizontal cross
section of the sphere in the height of the air-termination
components. This can be calculated by:
rh = h 2r h) (1)
in which r is the radius of the sphere and h is the height of
the air-termination.
Fig 7 shows a fix position of the sphere that contacts
the ground and the rods. This is a more general position
that occurs, when the sphere contacts the air-termination at
two points. The height of its center is equal to the radius
and its distances can be calculated with formula (1) from
both rods.
Fig. 8 shows also fix position of the sphere. Relating to
the position of its center, an equation of three unknown
can be set up as follows:
(xo – x1)2 + (yo – y1)2 +(zo – z1)2 = r2
(xo – x2)2 + (yo – y2)2 +(zo – z2) 2 = r2 (2)
2 2 2 2
(xo – x3) + (yo – y3) +(zo – z2) = r
Here, xo, yo, zo, mean the coordinates of the center and the
other those of the tip of each rod. The quadratic equation
can be easy reduced to a linear one.
Figure 7. The sphere contacts the ground and two rods.
Figure 8. The sphere contacts three rods.
1021 - 3

Figure 9. Rolling the sphere along two parallel lines.
Fig. 9 shows the sphere that continuously contacts two
parallel conductors in two points. The center moves
always in the plane of symmetry; therefore, equation (2)
can be reduced to two unknown coordinates.
The numbers mean in Fig. 5 – Fig. 9 as follows:
1 The rolling sphere 4 Rolling way
2 Air-termination conductors 5 Rolling direction
3 Air-termination rods
When the center has been determined, the contours of
the protected volume can be estimated in several planes. A
comparison shows whether the structure to be protected
fits into the protected volume or protrudes out of it.
2.2. The mesh method
The mesh method needs a new definition, which can be
generally used independent of the form of the mesh. This
is an important difference against the existing rule related
only to quadratic meshes. According to the new definition:
Applying this method, the positioning of the air-
termination system is adequate if no point of surface
Figure 10. Applying the rolling sphere method to construct the mesh width.
of the structure to be protected is farther removed
from the air-termination than distance d depending on
the Class of LPS. This method can be applied if the
roof is made of insulating material and contains no
metal component inside 0,6 m below its surface.
The size of the mesh can be determined using the
rolling sphere method, with supposition that the surface to
be protected is sunk down with 1% of the sphere radius
below the physical surface of the roof as shown by Fig. 10.
In this case the mesh method will harmonize with the
rolling sphere method and result in distances of Table 2.
Table 2. The limited distance from the mesh sides
Class of LPS I II III IV
Distance d from 3m 4m 6,5 m 8,5 m
air-termination
As illustrated in Fig. 11, the sizes of quadratic meshes
are defined as before. In another case, a circle may not be
put into the mesh, whose radius is distance d.. The shape
of a mesh can be any polygon also with curved sides.
a) b)
Figure 11. Application of the protection angle method
consisting of quadratic (a) or irregular (b) meshes
1021 - 4

2.3. The protection angle method
2.3.1. Problem with the standardized method
IEC 62305-3 and EN 62305-3 standards contain a
diagram below Table 2 that is reproduced here as Fig. 11.
Figure. 11. The protection angle plotted against the height,
according to IEC 62305-3 standard.
Although, it is not declared, this is based upon a
completely baseless idea. According to this idea, the
protective effects of the protection angle and the rolling
sphere should be equivalent, if areas A1 and A2 balance
each other as shown in Fig. 12.
Using the standardized diagram, Table 3 indicates the
extension of protected area on the ground around air-
termination masts of several heights. These data
demonstrate that the standardized procedure always results
in the smallest protected area in the case of the highest air-
termination mast. Such values could not be accepted as
rational results!
The standardized diagram gives protection angles in the
range 70° – 79°, when H is less than 2 m. According to a
Note: H is the height of air-termination above the
reference plain of the area to be protected. Although, the
definition of reference plain is failing, the standard often
takes it identical with the flat roof independent from its
height above the ground. This is in contradiction to the
long time experience of high voltage lines, which resulted
in about 20° degree above 40 m and 15° above 50 m.
Observed lightning strokes also demonstrated in Malaysia
that large protection angles are irrational [4]. The ESE
argumentation abuses such protection angles for promising
the extreme large protection effects.
Because of the contradictions and the irrational values
of the standardized protection angle method, its complete
emission came also into question. However, it can be
properly applied in special cases.
2.3.2. Special application of the protection angle
The protection angle method is an additional manner,
which can be applied anywhere except of the lateral
surfaces of tall structures, which should be protected
against side flashes.

Figure 12. The idea of balancing areas.

The main problem is that these areas have no physical
meaning! The author deals with the contradictions of this
idea in another contribution on ICLP in Cagliari [2].
Table 3. Calculated results of the protection angle method
according to the international standard
Height Class of LPS
of mast I II III IV
m Radius of protected area on the ground (m)
60 – – – 25,75
45 – – 19,31 30,11
30 – 12,88 22,98 30,22
20 8,58 15,32 22,20 27,49
Figure 13. The principle of special applying
the protection angle method

1021 - 5
 The special application of the protection angle method
would be defined as follows:
Applying this method, the positioning of the air-
termination system is adequate if all part of the
structure is below a surface generated by straight line
of angle related to vertical.
The horizontal width of the protected area should be
limited to b depending on the Class of LPS.
The protection angle can be assumed on the base of
the long time experience related to transmission lines.
Considering LPS Class IV the radius of sphere is 60 m,
and the relating protection angle is = 15° (see 2.3.1). The
height of air-termination could be lower in the case of
Classes I – III; however these should represent increased
requirement of safety. Therefore, taking a greater
protection angle would not be rational decision. The best
solution would be generally using = 15°.
This method would be usually applied on tall structures,
where side flashes also occur. In this region, the protection
angle would produce extended protected volume; therefore
a limitation is necessary. When the width of the protected
space is limited to the tenth of the rolling sphere radius,
the protection of small lateral protrusions could be solved,
and the several requirements of the LPS Classes are also
considered.
a) b)
Figure 14. Special applying the protection angle method,
moving along a horizontal air-termination conductor;
a) straight line; b) forming an arc.
The vertical plane of the generatrix is always
perpendicular to the horizontal air-termination conductor
while moves along it. Fig. 14 shows two typical examples
for this case. In case a) this plane is shifted along a straight
line. In case b) the plane turns to perpendicular while
moves along the curved air-termination conductor.
In another typical case, the plane of the generatrix is
rotated around a vertical axis. Fig. 15 shows two typical
examples for such rotation. In case a) the tip of a vertical
air-termination rod determines the axis of rotation. In case
b) this axis is at a corner of horizontal air-termination
conductor. The green marked upper part is a conical
surface whose bevel angle is equal to the protection angle.
The green marked upper part is a cylindrical surface
whose radius is equal to the limited horizontal extension of
the protected area.
a) b)
Figure 15. Special applying the protection angle method,
rotating around a vertical axis;
a) at an air-termination rod, b) at a corner of conductor.
This application of the protection angle method gives a
solution to construct air-termination of structures higher
than the radius of the rolling sphere. The application of
this rule is detailed in another paper by the same author
with examples of high structures [2].
3. CONCLUSION
The IEC 62305-3 standard determines three methods
for adequate positioning the air-termination components,
which don’t harmonize among themselves, and represent
different safety.
A better harmonizing system could be created, if the
rolling sphere method is taken a basis, while the protection
angle and the mesh size methods are defined on this base.
The rolling sphere method is principally in order, but
the definition involves contradictions with itself and there
are false applications in the practical examples of the IEC
standard. These failures could be corrected.
1021 - 6
 The protection angle method proved good for the
transmission lines, but it cannot suitably applied for three-
dimensional structures. The standardized procedure is
based on a false idea, results in irrational solutions and it
cannot applied sometimes at all. It is generally unusable;
therefore, it should be omitted. However, the protection
angle method can be used as an additional manner to solve
some problems of tall structures, higher than the radius of
rolling sphere.
The IEC standard deals only with square meshes, which
can be easily generalized. The standardized mesh sizes
have no relation to the rolling sphere radius. With
consideration that the surface to be protected is usually
free of metal elements, a relation was found to the rolling
sphere method.
4. REFERENCES
[1] Horváth T.: “Problems with application of the protection
angle method at three-dimensional structures”.
29th International Conference on Lightning Protection,
Paper 4-5, Pp. 1-9.Uppsala, Sweden, June 2008..
[2] Horváth T.: “Problems and solution of utilizing the
protection angle method.” 30 th International Conference on
Lightning Protection, Cagliari, Italy, September 2010.
[3] T. Horváth, “False application of the rolling sphere method
in the international standards.” 29 th International
Conference on Lightning Protection, Paper 10-03,
Uppsala, Sweden, June 2008.
[4] Darveniza, M., Hartono, Z. A., and Robiah, I.: “A
Database of Lightning Damage caused by Bypasses of Air
terminals on Buildings in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia”,
6th SIPDA, Santos, Brazil, 2001.
1021 - 7