JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 109, D06114, doi:10.

1029/2003JD004185, 2004

Electromagnetic field radiated by lightning to tall towers:

Treatment of the discontinuity at the return stroke
wave front
D. Pavanello,1 F. Rachidi,1 M. Rubinstein,2 J. L. Bermudez,1 and C. A. Nucci3
Received 25 September 2003; revised 12 January 2004; accepted 23 January 2004; published 27 March 2004.

[1] Recently, engineering return stroke models were extended to take into account the
presence of an elevated strike object, which was modeled as an ideal uniform transmission
line. We show in this paper that the current distribution associated with these extended
models exhibits a discontinuity at the return stroke wave front, which cannot be
considered to be physically plausible. This discontinuity arises from the fact that the
current injected into the tower from its top is reflected back and forth at its ends and
portions of it are transmitted into the channel; these transmitted pulses, which are
supposed to travel at the speed of light, catch up with the return stroke wave front traveling
at a lower speed, and no current is allowed to flow in the leader region above the front.
This discontinuity needs to be carefully treated when calculating the radiated
electromagnetic field through an additional term in the electromagnetic field equations, the
so-called ‘‘turn-on’’ term. We additionally derive a general analytical formula describing
the turn-on term associated with this discontinuity for various engineering models. We
present simulation results illustrating the effect of the turn-on term on the radiated electric
and magnetic fields for an elevated strike object of height h = 168 m, corresponding to the
Peissenberg tower in Germany. Finally, possible modifications to engineering models
are suggested in order to eliminate this discontinuity. INDEX TERMS: 0684 Electromagnetics:
Transient and time domain; 0689 Electromagnetics: Wave propagation (4275); 3324 Meteorology and
Atmospheric Dynamics: Lightning; KEYWORDS: lightning, tall towers, electromagnetic field
Citation: Pavanello, D., F. Rachidi, M. Rubinstein, J. L. Bermudez, and C. A. Nucci (2004), Electromagnetic field radiated by
lightning to tall towers: Treatment of the discontinuity at the return stroke wave front, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D06114,
doi:10.1029/2003JD004185.

1. Introduction review). In those cases, the presence of a discontinuity can

be associated with an additional radiation term, the so-called
[2] Some of the engineering return stroke models such as
‘‘turn-on’’ term, which has been thoroughly discussed by
the Bruce-Golde (BG) model [Bruce and Golde, 1941] or
Rubinstein and Uman [1990, 1991] and further developed
the traveling current source (TCS) model [Heidler, 1985]
by Le Vine and Willett [1992], Thottappillil and Rakov
predict a current discontinuity at the return stroke wave
[2001a, 2001b], and Thottappillil et al. [1997, 1998].
front. In other models, such as the transmission line (TL)
Recently, engineering return stroke models were extended
model [Uman and McLain, 1969], the modified transmis-
to take into account the presence of an elevated strike object
sion line model with linear current decay with height
(see Bermudez [2003], Rachidi et al. [2002], and Rakov
(MTLL) [Rakov and Dulzon, 1987], and the modified
[2001] for a review), which was modeled as an ideal,
transmission line model with exponential current decay
uniform transmission line.
with height (MTLE) [Nucci et al., 1988], such discontinuity
[3] We show in this paper that the current distribution
exists only when the channel base current is itself discon-
associated with these extended models exhibits a disconti-
tinuous. This is typically the case when it is described using
nuity at the return stroke wave front. This discontinuity
a unit step function (see Rakov and Uman [1998] for a
arises from the fact that the current injected into the tower
from its top is reflected back and forth at its ends and
1
EMC Group, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne,
portions of it are transmitted into the channel; these trans-
Switzerland. mitted pulses, which are assumed to travel at the speed of
2
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Uni- light, catch up with the return stroke wave front traveling at
versity of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland, Yverdon, Switzerland. a lower speed, providing there a nonzero current contribu-
3
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Bologna, tion. Since the engineering models do not consider any
Bologna, Italy.
current flow into the leader region, this means that the
Copyright 2004 by the American Geophysical Union. current profile, which is not zero at the return stroke wave
0148-0227/04/2003JD004185 front, must abruptly vanish above it. Note that this discon-

D06114 1 of 7
D06114 PAVANELLO ET AL.: LIGHTNING TO TALL TOWERS—DISCONTINUITY D06114

Table 1. P(z0) and v* for Different Return Stroke Modelsa
Model P(z0)
Bruce-Golde 1 1
Traveling current source 1 c
TL 1 v
MTLL 1  z0/Htot
MTLE Exp(z0/l)
a
Models adapted from Rakov and Uman [1998].
tinuity appears equally in the case of ground-initiated
lightning when the reflection at the channel base resulting
from the grounding conditions is taken into account
[Bermudez, 2003; Heidler and Hopf, 1994].
[4] Until a new model without the discontinuity at the
return stroke front is developed, this discontinuity needs to
be carefully treated when calculating the radiated electro-
magnetic field. However, to the best of our knowledge, the
effect of this discontinuity has been disregarded in most
studies dealing with the calculation of electromagnetic
fields radiated by lightning to tall towers [e.g., Diendorfer,
1991; Guerrieri et al., 1996, 1998; Janischewskyj et al.,
1998; Motoyama et al., 1996; Rachidi et al., 1992; Rusan et
al., 1996]. Indeed, the discontinuity needs to be represented
by an additional term [Le Vine and Willett, 1992; Rubinstein
and Uman, 1990, 1991; Thottappillil and Rakov, 2001a,
2001b; Thottappillil et al., 1997, 1998], the so-called turn-
on term, in the well-known electromagnetic field equations.
[5] Additionally, we derive a general analytical formula
describing the turn-on term associated with this discontinu-
ity for various engineering models. Simulation results
illustrating the effect of the turn-on term on the radiated
electric and magnetic fields will also be presented.
2. Models of Return Strokes to Elevated Strike
Objects
[6] Many of the so-called engineering models for ground-
initiated strokes [Rakov and Uman, 1998] can be expressed by


iðz0 ; t Þ ¼ Pðz0 Þ i 0; t  z0 =v* uðt  z0 =vÞ;
X 1   
h  z0 2nh
iðz0 ; t Þ ¼ ð1  rt Þ rnt rng io h; t  
v* n¼0
c c
 0

h þ z 2nh
þ rnt rnþ1
g io h; t  
c c
 
v h þ z0 2nh
v u t  0 z0 h: ð3Þ
c c
As shown in Figure 1, h is the height of the tower, rt and rg
are the top and bottom current reflection coefficients,
respectively, H0 is the height of the extending return stroke
channel, c is the speed of light, and io is the so-called
‘‘undisturbed’’ current, namely, the current that would be
measured at the tower top if the current reflection
coefficients at its extremities were equal to zero.
[8] It is assumed that the current reflection coefficients rt
and rg are constant. In addition, any upward connecting
leader and any reflections at the return stroke wave front
[Shostak et al., 2000] are disregarded.
3. Current Distribution and Discontinuity
at the Return Stroke Wave Front
[9] According to equation (2), at a generic height z0,
many current components contribute to the lightning
channel current. The first one, moving upward at constant
speed v, represents the return stroke wave front which
activates the lightning path by progressively turning on the
distributed current sources [Rakov, 2001] by which the
channel is modeled. Assuming that no current flow is
possible before the transit of this contribution, the current
distribution has to be abruptly cut off at this front. This is
mathematically expressed by the Heaviside function pres-
ent in equation (2).
[10] All other contributions travel at the speed of light and
are originated by the injection, at time t = 0, of an
undisturbed current io into the top of the tower-ground
system. Because of their higher speed, they rapidly catch
up with the return stroke wave front, providing a nonzero
ð1Þ contribution which leads back to a discontinuity if no

where P(z0) is a model-dependent attenuation function, u(t)

is the Heaviside unit step function, v is the return stroke
front speed, and v* is the current wave speed. Expressions
for P(z0) and v* for some of the most commonly used return
stroke models are summarized in Table 1, in which l is the
attenuation height for the MTLE model and Htot is the total
height of the lightning channel.
[7] Equation (1) has been recently extended to tower-
initiated strokes by Rachidi et al. [2002], who, adopting a
distributed source representation along the channel [Rachidi
and Nucci, 1990], derived the following general equations
for the spatial-temporal distribution of the current along the
lightning channel and along the strike object:
    
0 0 z0  h z0  h
iðz ; t Þ ¼ Pðz  hÞ io h; t   rt io h; t 
v* c
X1  0

h þ z 2nh
þ ð1  rt Þð1 þ rt Þ rnþ1
g rn
t i o h; t  
n¼0
c c
 0

z h
u t h < z0 < H0 ð2Þ
v Figure 1. Geometry of the adopted model.

2 of 7
D06114 PAVANELLO ET AL.: LIGHTNING TO TALL TOWERS—DISCONTINUITY D06114

Table 2. Parameters of the Two Heidler Functions Used to with the usual expressions [e.g., Rubinstein and Uman,
Reproduce the Considered Undisturbed Channel Base Current 1991]
" Zt
Waveshapes dz0 2ð z  z0 Þ2 r2
0
dEz ðr; z; z ; t Þ ¼ iðz0 ; t  R=cÞdt
Io1, t11, t21, Io2, t12, t22, 4peo R5
kA h1 ms ms N1 kA h2 ms ms N2 R=c
0 2 2
Slow front 28 0.823 1.8 95 2 - - - - - 2ð z  z Þ r r2
stroke þ 4
iðz0 ; t  R=cÞ  2 3
Fast front 10.7 0.639 0.25 2.5 2 6.5 0.876 2 230 2 cR # c R
stroke @iðz0 ; t  R=cÞ
 ð5Þ
@t
" Zt
current is admitted above the front. Notice that this trunca- 0 dz0 3rð z  z0 Þ
tion already produces a discontinuity at time t = 0+ since the dEr ðr; z; z ; t Þ ¼ iðz0 ; t  R=cÞdt
4peo R5
contribution of the very first distributed current source in R=c
the channel is reflected from the tower top and propagates 3rð z  z0 Þ 0 rð z  z0 Þ
upward at the speed of light. Although such a discontinuity þ iðz ; t  R=cÞ þ 2 3
cR4 # c R
may not be conceivable from a physical point of view, it 0
@iðz ; t  R=cÞ
must still be considered in the analysis for the sake of  ð6Þ
consistency with the adopted engineering models. @t
[11] The presence of a discontinuous wave front will now
be illustrated for an elevated strike object of height h =
168 m, corresponding to the Peissenberg tower in Germany,
characterized by reflection coefficients rt = 0.53 and rg =
0.7 [Heidler et al., 2001]. Two different undisturbed channel
base currents are used in the analysis, each one being
reproduced by means of a sum of two Heidler functions
[Heidler, 1985] as expressed by

Io1 ðt=t11 ÞN1 ðt=t21 Þ Io2 ðt=t12 ÞN2

io ðh; t Þ ¼ N e þ eðt=t22 Þ ;
h1 1 þ ðt=t11 Þ 1 h2 1 þ ðt=t12 ÞN2
ð4Þ

where Io1 and Io2 are the current peaks and h1 and h2 are
the peak correction factors, t11 and t12 determine the rise
time, and t21 and t22 determine the decay time of the
Heidler functions. The first waveform (a slow front
current) is characterized by a peak value of 30 kA and a
maximum steepness of 12 kA/ms, whereas the second one
(a fast front current) has a peak value of 12 kA and a
maximum steepness of 40 kA/ms. The same value of the
return stroke speed, v = 150 m/ms, is assumed for both
cases. The parameters of the Heidler functions are given
in Table 2. It is worth noting that, by definition, the
undisturbed current io does not depend on the height h of
the strike object. Nevertheless, the height appears as an
argument of the current (io(h, t)) simply to make it clear
that the current io is measured at the top of the tower
and that the time reference t = 0 corresponds to the onset
of io.
[12] Figure 2 presents the distribution of the current
along the lightning channel at different times. The dashed
line marks the height of the tower. A discontinuity at the
return stroke wave front can be clearly distinguished, in
particular for the ‘‘slow front’’ current waveform.

4. Electromagnetic Field and Turn-on

Term Contribution
[13] The electromagnetic field contributions from an Figure 2. Current as a function of z0 at different times for
elemental dipole of current i(z0, t) of length dz0 located (a) slow front and (b) fast front strokes. The dashed line
along the vertical axis at z0 (see Figure 1) are calculated corresponds to the height of the tower.

3 of 7
D06114 PAVANELLO ET AL.: LIGHTNING TO TALL TOWERS—DISCONTINUITY
Figure 3. Treatment of the discontinuity at the return stroke wave front, as seen by the observer
(adapted from Rubinstein and Uman [1991]).
 
dz0 r r @iðz0 ; t  R=cÞ
dHf ðr; z; z0 ; t Þ ¼ i ðz0
; t  R=cÞþ
4p R3 cR2 @t
in which r, z are the cylindrical coordinates of the
observation point, R is the distance between the dipole
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
and the observation point, R = r2 þ ðz0  zÞ2 , i(z0, t) is the
dipole current, c is the speed of light, and eo is the
permittivity of free space. The total electromagnetic fields
are calculated by integrating equations (5) – (7) along the
tower channel and its image, assuming a perfectly
conducting ground.
[14] The first term in equations (5) and (6) is known as
the electrostatic field; the second is known as the electric
induction or intermediate field; and the third is known as
the electric radiation field. In equation (7), the first term is
the magnetic induction field, and the second is the
radiation field. In the presence of a current discontinuity
the radiation term, namely, the last term in each equation,
which is proportional to the current time derivative,
introduces a singularity that needs to be treated separately
[Le Vine and Willett, 1992; Rubinstein and Uman, 1990,
1991; Thottappillil and Rakov, 2001a, 2001b; Thottappillil
et al., 1997, 1998].
[15] The complete expression of the electromagnetic field
is obtained by integrating equations (5) through (7) along z0
from ground level to the wave front and then adding the
corrective turn-on term across the discontinuity in H,
expressed as
Z As a consequence of the different distances covered along
@iðz0 ; t  R=cÞ 0
f ðz0 ; z; rÞ dz ;
H @t
where f(z0, z, r) can be r2/c2R3, r(z  z0)/c2R3, or r/cR2,
depending on which component of the field is being
calculated. It is important to notice here that the position of
the wave front H0 and the position of its image H0,
mentioned in equation (2) and indicated in Figure 1, are the
D06114
actual positions at the generic time instant t. Because of
; ð7Þ
the propagation time delay, the observer is perceiving at the
same instant t different positions of these wave fronts, in
particular, H instead of H0, obtained from
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H h 1
t¼ þ r2 þ ð H  zÞ2 ð9aÞ
v c
and H0 instead of H0, obtained from
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H 0  h 1
t¼ þ r2 þ ðH 0 þ zÞ2 : ð9bÞ
v c
The reason for which an additional turn-on term must be
introduced in the field equations is that the presence of
the Heaviside function in equation (2) cannot be
disregarded when the time derivative of the current is
calculated. Its derivative, namely, a delta function,
multiplied by the amplitude of the current at the wave
front, needs to be added to the radiation term. In the case
when the current distribution presents no discontinuity at
the return stroke wave front, this turn-on term contribu-
tion vanishes.
[16] The discontinuity can be treated by considering a
nondiscontinuous current wave front of length Dz00 which
reaches the level Ifront linearly in a time Dt and expressing
the radiation integral across H, taking the limit when the
front duration tends to zero [Rubinstein and Uman, 1991].
ð8Þ the channel by the top and bottom of the front during the
propagation time from the wave front to the observation
point, the front has a shorter apparent length Dz0 [Rubinstein
and Uman, 1990, 1991] (see Figure 3). Dz0 and Dz0 are
related by
v
Dz0 ¼ Dz00  ðR2  R1 Þ : ð10Þ
c
4 of 7
D06114 PAVANELLO ET AL.: LIGHTNING TO TALL TOWERS—DISCONTINUITY D06114

coordinates and after straightforward mathematical manip-

ulations, we find the final expressions for the turn-on term
fields, in which the apparent front speed appears as the
reciprocal of the term between brackets:
Ifront ð H Þr 1 I ðH 0 Þr 1
HF=turn-on ¼   þ front 02  
4pcR 2 1 ðz  H Þ 4pcR 1 ðz  H 0 Þ
 
v cR v cR0
ð13Þ

Ifront ð H Þrð z  H Þ 1
Er=turn-on ¼  
4pe0 c2 R3 1 ðz  H Þ

v cR
0 0
Ifront ðH Þrð z  H Þ 1
   ð14Þ
4pe0 c2 R03 1 ðz  H 0 Þ

v cR0

Figure 4. Current at the return stroke wave front as a

function of time for (a) slow front and (b) fast front strokes.

The integral in equation (8) across the discontinuity

therefore reads
Z
@ ðz0 ; t  R=cÞ 0 Ifront ð H Þ 0
f ðz0 ; z; rÞ dz ¼ f ð H; z; rÞ Dz
H @t Dt
¼ f ð H; z; rÞIfront ð H ÞV ; ð11Þ

where Ifront is the amplitude of the discontinuity at the return

stroke wave front and V can be viewed as the apparent front
speed as seen by the observer, which is related to the actual
speed v through the following expression:
 
Dz00 Dz0 ðR2  R1 Þ v
¼ 1þ : ð12Þ
Dt Dt Dz0 c

When we reduce the front length, taking the limit as Dz0

goes to zero,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi both R2 and R1 converge toward R =
r2 þ ð H  zÞ2 , the distance between the discontinuity and the Figure 5. Vertical electric field at 2 km from the tower for
observation point. Expressing the distances in Cartesian (a) slow front and (b) fast front strokes.

5 of 7
D06114 PAVANELLO ET AL.: LIGHTNING TO TALL TOWERS—DISCONTINUITY D06114

Ifront ð H Þr2 1
Ez=turn-on ¼   
4pe0 c2 R3 1 ð z  H Þ

v cR
Ifront ðH 0 Þr2 1
  : ð15Þ
4pe0 c2 R03 1 ð z  H 0 Þ

v cR0

In equations (13) –(15), the two terms on the right-hand side

represent the turn-on term due to the discontinuity at the
wave front and at its image, respectively.
[17] The general expression for the current at the wave
front is simply obtained from equation (2), in which the
time variable t appears implicitly through H according to
equation (9a):
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
H h 1 H h
Ifront ð H Þ ¼ Pð H  hÞ io h; þ r2 þ ð H  zÞ2 
v c v*
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
H h 1 2 H h
 rt io h; þ r þ ð H  zÞ2 
v c c
X1
nþ1 n
þ ð1  rt Þð1 þ rt Þ r g r t io
n¼0
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
H h 1 2 2 H þh 2nh
 h; þ r þ ð H  zÞ   :
v c c c
ð16Þ
It is worth observing that the first term on the right-hand
side of equation (16) is nonzero only for the BG and TCS
models, and it corresponds to the inherent discontinuity
predicted by these two models.
[18] Figure 4 shows the current at the return stroke wave
front (amplitude of the current discontinuity) as a function
of time. In Figure 4 we have also represented with a dotted
line the current as seen by an observer located at a distance
r = 2 km.
[19] If a very simple channel current distribution is
considered, namely, a constant step of magnitude Io prop-
agating upward at constant speed v, then the radiation
components of the electromagnetic field will arise only
from the discontinuity, and this leads back to the analysis
provided by Rubinstein and Uman [1991]. Figure 6. Magnetic field at 2 km from the tower for
(a) slow front and (b) fast front strokes.
5. Influence of the Turn-on Term on the Radiated
Electromagnetic Field [22] The contribution of the turn-on term to the total field
[20] Adopting the MTLE model [Nucci et al., 1988; depends on many factors, such as the height of the tower,
Rachidi and Nucci, 1990], two examples of simulation for the reflection coefficients at the tower’s extremities, the
the case of a 168-m-tall structure (corresponding to the return stroke speed, and the position of the observation
Peissenberg tower, Germany) are presented in Figures 5 point (distance and elevation). A thorough analysis of the
and 6. The structure is characterized by reflection errors introduced by ignoring the turn-on term is beyond the
coefficients of 0.53 at the top and 0.7 at the bottom scope of this paper.
[Heidler et al., 2001]. Other parameters used in the compu- [23] Possible modifications to engineering models could
tations are the same as those described in section 3. be suggested in order to eliminate this discontinuity,
[21] Figures 5 and 6 show the vertical electric and which cannot be considered to be physically plausible.
azimuthal magnetic fields produced by the two considered Introducing, for example, an exponential decay of the
slow and fast front return stroke currents, observed at current in the leader region, modeled as a lossy line,
ground level 2 km away from the tower. In Figures 5 and could introduce a better behaved transition between the
6 the contribution of the turn-on terms to the total fields is growing channel and the leader. Another possible solution
also emphasized. As can be seen, although the contribution to avoid the presence of such discontinuity is to assume a
to the field peak is only
5%, it becomes more important reflection coefficient at the return stroke wave front set to
for intermediate times. 1. In this case the value of the current at the return

6 of 7
D06114 PAVANELLO ET AL.: LIGHTNING TO TALL TOWERS—DISCONTINUITY
stroke wave front is forced to zero, therefore avoiding
any discontinuity.
6. Summary and Conclusions
[24] Recently, engineering return stroke models were
extended to take into account the presence of an elevated
strike object, which was modeled as an ideal uniform
transmission line. We have shown in this paper that the
current distribution associated with these extended models
exhibits a discontinuity at the return stroke wave front that
needs to be represented by an additional term, the so-called
turn-on term, in the well-known field equations.
[25] We derived a general analytical formula describing
the turn-on term associated with this discontinuity for
various engineering models. We presented simulation
results illustrating the effect of the turn-on term on the
radiated electric and magnetic fields for an elevated strike
object of height h = 168 m, corresponding to the Peissen-
berg tower in Germany.
[26] Such a current discontinuity at the return stroke wave
front predicted by the engineering models cannot be con-
sidered to be physically conceivable. Possible modifications
to engineering models have been suggested in order to
eliminate this discontinuity. Further work is needed in this
respect.
[27] Acknowledgments. Financial support from the Swiss National
Science Foundation (grant 2000-068147) is acknowledged. Special thanks
are due to V. Rakov, V. Shostak, and the three formal reviewers for their
valuable comments on the manuscript.
References
Bermudez, J. L. (2003), Lightning currents and electromagnetic fields as-
sociated with return strokes to elevated strike objects, Ph.D. thesis, École
Polytech. Fédérale, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Bruce, C. E. R., and R. H. Golde (1941), The lightning discharge, J. Inst.
Electr. Eng. part 2, 88(6), 487 – 520.
Diendorfer, G. (1991), Effect of an elevated strike object on the lightning
electromagnetic fields, paper presented at 9th International Zurich Sym-
posium and Technical Exhibition on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Inst.
of Electr. and Electron. Eng., Zurich, Switzerland, 12 – 14 Mar.
Guerrieri, S., F. Heidler, C. A. Nucci, F. Rachidi, and M. Rubinstein (1996),
Extension of two return stroke models to consider the influence of ele-
vated strike objects on the lightning return stroke current and the radiated
electromagnetic field: Comparison with experimental results, paper pre-
sented at EMC ’96 (International Symposium on Electromagnetic Com-
patibility), Univ. of Rome ‘‘La Sapienze,’’Rome.
Guerrieri, S., C. A. Nucci, F. Rachidi, and M. Rubinstein (1998), On the
influence of elevated strike objects on directly measured and indirectly
estimated lightning currents, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, 13(4), 1543 –
1555.
Heidler, F. (1985), Traveling current source model for LEMP calculation,
paper presented at 6th Symposium and Technical Exhibition on Electro-
magnetic Compatibility, Zurich, Switzerland, 5 – 7 Mar.
Heidler, F., and C. Hopf (1994), Lightning current and lightning electro-
magnetic impulse considering current reflection at the Earth’s surface,
paper presented at 22nd International Conference on Lightning Protec-
tion, Tech. Univ. of Budapest, Budapest.
Heidler, F., J. Wiesinger, and W. Zischank (2001), Lightning currents mea-
sured at a telecommunication tower from 1992 to 1998, paper presented
at 14th International Zurich Symposium and Technical Exhibition on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, Inst. of Electr. and Electron. Eng., Zurich,
Switzerland, 20 – 22 Feb.
Janischewskyj, W., V. Shostak, and A. M. Hussein (1998), Comparison of
lightning electromagnetic field characteristics of first and subsequent
return strokes to a tall tower: 1. Magnetic field, paper presented at 24th
7 of 7
D06114
International Conference on Lightning Protection, Staffordshire Univ.,
Birmingham, UK.
Le Vine, D. M., and J. C. Willett (1992), Comment on the transmission line
model for computing radiation from lightning, J. Geophys. Res., 97,
2601 – 2610.
Motoyama, H., W. Janischewskyj, A. M. Hussein, R. Rusan, W. A.
Chisholm, and J. S. Chang (1996), Electromagnetic field radiation model
for lightning strokes to tall structures, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, 11(3),
1624 – 1632.
Nucci, C. A., C. Mazzetti, F. Rachidi, and M. Ianoz (1988), On lightning
return stroke models for LEMP calculations, paper presented at 19th
International Conference on Lightning Protection, Assoc. of Austrian
Electr. Eng., Graz, Austria.
Rachidi, F., and C. A. Nucci (1990), On the Master, Uman, Lin, Standler
and the modified transmission line lightning return stroke current models,
J. Geophys. Res., 95, 20,389 – 20,394.
Rachidi, F., M. Ianoz, C. A. Nucci, and C. Mazzetti (1992), Modified
transmission line model for LEMP calculations: Effect of the return
stroke velocity decreasing and elevated strike objects on close fields,
paper presented at 9th International Conference on Atmospheric Electri-
city, A. I. Voeikov Main Geophys. Obs., St. Petersburg, Russia.
Rachidi, F., V. A. Rakov, C. A. Nucci, and J. L. Bermudez (2002), Effect of
vertically extended strike object on the distribution of current along the
lightning channel, J. Geophys. Res., 107(D23), 4699, doi:10.1029/
2002JD002119.
Rakov, V. A. (2001), Transient response of a tall object to lightning, IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat., 43(4), 654 – 661.
Rakov, V. A., and A. A. Dulzon (1987), Calculated electromagnetic fields
of lightning return strokes, Tekh. Elektr., 1, 87 – 89.
Rakov, V. A., and M. A. Uman (1998), Review and evaluation of lightning
return stroke models including some aspects of their application, IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat., 40(4), 403 – 426.
Rubinstein, M., and M. A. Uman (1990), On the radiation field turn-on term
associated with traveling current discontinuities in lightning, J. Geophys.
Res., 95, 3711 – 3713.
Rubinstein, M., and M. A. Uman (1991), Transient electric and magnetic
fields associated with establishing a finite electrostatic dipole, revisited,
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., 33(4), 312 – 320.
Rusan, R., W. Janischewskyj, A. M. Hussein, and J. S. Chang (1996),
Comparison of measured and computed electromagnetic fields radiated
from lightning strikes to the Toronto CN tower, paper presented at 23rd
International Conference on Lightning Protection, Italian Assoc. of
Electr. and Electron. Eng., Florence, Italy.
Shostak, V., W. Janischewskyj, A. Hussein, and B. Kordi (2000), Electro-
magnetic fields of lightning strikes to a tall tower: A model that accounts
for upward-connecting discharges, paper presented at 25th International
Conference on Lightning Protection, Univ. of Patras, Rhodes, Greece.
Thottappillil, R., and V. A. Rakov (2001a), On different approaches to
calculating lightning electric fields, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 14,191 –
14,205.
Thottappillil, R., and V. A. Rakov (2001b), On the computation of electric
fields from a lightning discharge in time domain, paper presented at 2001
IEEE EMC International Symposium, Montreal, Que., Canada, 13 – 17
Aug.
Thottappillil, R., V. A. Rakov, and M. A. Uman (1997), Distribution of
charge along the lightning channel: Relation to remote electric and mag-
netic fields and to return-stroke models, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6987 –
7006.
Thottappillil, R., M. A. Uman, and V. A. Rakov (1998), Treatment of
retardation effects in calculating the radiated electromagnetic fields from
the lightning discharge, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 9003 – 9013.
Uman, M. A., and D. K. McLain (1969), Magnetic field of the lightning
return stroke, J. Geophys. Res., 74, 6899 – 6910.

J. L. Bermudez, D. Pavanello, and F. Rachidi, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, EPFL-LRE, Lausanne CH-1015, Switzerland. (farhad.rachidi@
epfl.ch; davide.pavanello@epfl.ch; jose-luis.bermudez@epfl.ch)
C. A. Nucci, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
Bologna, viale Risorgimento 2, I-40136 Bologna, Italy. (carloalberto.
nucci@mail.ing.unibo.it)
M. Rubinstein, Telecommunications Institute, University of Western
Switzerland (EIVD), CH-1401 Yverdon, Switzerland. (marcos.rubinstein@
eivd.ch)