GROUND’2004 International Conference on Grounding and Earthing

&
st
And 1 International Conference on
Lightning Physics and Effects
1st LPE Belo Horizonte - Brazil November, 2004

IMPROVED PLACEMENT OF PROTECTIVE LIGHTNING RODS ON STRUCTURES

Franco D’Alessandro
ERICO Inc., USA

Abstract - An important consideration in the design of an air In other words, points with higher electric field
termination system is the maximum distance at which the intensification are more likely to be struck, confirming
terminations can be placed from the “vulnerable points” on that geometry plays an important role in the lightning
structures, i.e., typically those points that create the highest attachment process. This observation has been
degree of electric field intensification. Surprisingly, many confirmed by computer simulations of such strikes,
codes and standards provide very little, if any, guidance in taking into account the probabilistic aspects of the
this regard. This paper presents a preliminary analysis of
process [10].
the problem using numerical electric field computations
and two different criteria for determining whether the given
parameters are acceptable. The parameters include the
The motivation for the present paper came from the
type, height and distance of the air terminations, as well as regular observation of what can be considered “bad
the height of the structure on which they are installed. A practice” in the installation of standard air terminations
quantitative guideline is provided for the maximum on structures – the placement of those terminations at a
distance at which air terminations should be installed from considerable distance from the “vulnerable” points of
the vulnerable points of structures. structures. For example, Figure 1 shows a “bad”
installation – where a rod of height 0.3 m is placed too
far away from the pointed end of the roof. Figure 2 shows
1 - INTRODUCTION an example of lightning damage to a building which had
(short) rods installed beyond an effective distance.
Over its 250 year history, lightning protection has
evolved relatively slowly due to the: (i) stochastic nature
of lightning and the inherently long times needed to
gather field data, (ii) trial-and-error or empirical nature of
any investigation, and (iii) the difficulty of replicating the
effects of lightning under laboratory conditions.
Therefore, in recent times, we have seen the increasing
use of computer models and simulations of the lightning
phenomenon, its attachment to ground structures and
the direct and indirect effects on building contents once
lightning strikes a ground point.

The temporal and spatial variation of the electric field

during a lightning event is one of the most fundamental
parameters to be considered in any analysis of lightning
effects and hence is central to these computer studies.
Increasingly, such studies have utilised “macroscopic”,
iterative methods for making electrostatic field
computations on desktop computers. These studies help
to achieve a better understanding of lightning and its
effects in a manner that is fast, repeatable and allows a Figure 1 – Example of poor placement of lightning rods.
wide range of parameters values to be tested with
relatively little effort. Some of the authors that have The special, yet common, case of air terminations
recently carried out such studies include Izraeli & installed at zero height, i.e., mesh terminations placed
Braunstein [1], Rezinkina [2], Mazur et al [3], Kumar & directly on the structure, is an interesting one to study.
Ghosh [4], Almeida & Antunes [5], D’Alessandro [6,7], Field observations clearly shown that if the height
Buccella & Feliziani [8] and Farag et al [9]. difference between the air termination and the structure
is small, i.e., there is very little field intensification
The present paper describes the results of a preliminary advantage to the termination, then the positioning of the
series of lightning electric field calculations carried out termination is much more critical. In essence, if it is
with a commercial field computation package called placed even a small distance from the edge or corner of
“Maxwell EM”. Observations of lightning strikes to the structure, then the structure may be vulnerable to a
protected and unprotected structures show that lightning lightning strike.
is much more likely to strike the pointed or sharper
features of those structures, such as edges and corners.

Figure 2 – Example of damage to a structure as a result of poor
placement of lightning rods. The rods were positioned well
inside the outer edge of the building.
One of the problems with current standards on lightning
protection is that there is very little, if any, guidance
provided with regard to the maximum distance of air
terminations from the “vulnerable” points of structures. In
a recent comparative study [11], lightning protection
standards from North and South America, Great Britain
and Asia were compared on a number of key aspects
with respect to air terminations. One of the items
compared was on the issue of “reference to the building
edge”. Of the 7 standards compared, four of them had no
guidelines, and the remaining three specified a fixed,
maximum distance in the range 0.6 – 10 metres. This is
a very large range, so it is clear that more specific
quantitative guidelines are needed.
The aim of the present paper is to provide some
guidelines for the placement of air terminations near the
vulnerable features on structures. In particular, it
establishes some quantitative measure of the maximum
distance an air termination should be placed from a
vulnerable point before the protective effect of the
termination is lost. The present study focuses on two
variables – the air termination height, h, and the distance
of the termination from the vulnerable point on the
structure, d. Furthermore, two different air terminations
(horizontal and rod) and two structure heights are used in
the study. Section 2 of the paper describes the method
used to analyse the problem, Section 3 presents the
results and Sections 4 and 5 present a discussion and
conclusion of the study respectively.
2 – METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The overall procedure used to calculate the effectiveness
of each combination of the variables h (termination
height), d (distance of termination from the structure
edge), H (structure height) for the two types of air
terminations (horizontal and rod) was as follows:
• Compute the electric field distribution for each
scenario;
• Using two “shielding” or “protection criteria”,
• Calculate the ratio of the electric field at the
critical points specified by the criteria, and
• Determine whether the vulnerable point is
protected or not.
The specific details are now described.
2.1 – NUMERICAL ELECTRIC FIELD CALCULATIONS
The computation method was as follows. The problem
region was made at least five times the size of the model
of the air termination on the structure. Dirichlet boundary
conditions were applied to the grounded structure, air
termination and the lower plane boundary (the ground) in
the model. These boundaries were all assigned a zero
potential. The upper boundary of the problem region was
assigned a potential so that, in the absence of the
structure, an ambient field of known magnitude was
created throughout the model region. With the structure
present, Laplace’s equation was solved using the finite
element method with adaptive mesh refinement. The
solutions determined in this way provided contours of
potential over the problem region. The magnitude of the
voltage gradient was computed from the contour values.
Finally, the value of the electric field at the required
locations was determined.
Using the above methodology, a series of parametric
studies was carried out, i.e., all parameters were held
constant except for one, which was varied across a
range of values of practical interest. This procedure was
then repeated for other variables. In this way, values of
the electric field were calculated for different
configurations of air terminations on structures involving
the variables h and d. For horizontal conductors, the
value of h was 0.1, 0.5 and 1 m and for rods the heights
were 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 m. The value of d was varied in
four steps, namely one half, one, two and four times the
height of the air termination (for both horizontal
conductors and rods). Since the structure height, H, has
a considerable influence on the electric field distribution
around the air terminations on a structure, the parametric
analysis also considered two structure heights, namely 5
and 50 m. The structure width was held constant in both
cases at 50 m.
All of the calculations were carried out for the air
termination relative to the edge of the structure as the
primary vulnerable point. It is acknowledged that there
are many geometric features on structures that would
qualify as vulnerable points but, to get a basic
understanding of the problem, the study has focussed on
this primary point.
The choice of whether to model in 2D or 3D is
determined by the nature of the problem. For example,
for rods centrally-placed on cylindrical structures, a “2D-
RZ” or “axisymmetric” model can be used. On the other
hand, 2D XY-plane and 3D models are used in other
cases, e.g., to obtain information on edges and corners.
Finally, the effect of corona and space charge, which is
not well-known at this point in time for rods or horizontal
conductors installed on structures, was not taken into
account in the analysis. Hence, the radius of curvature of
the air termination is not an important consideration in
the present study. For rods, a vertical, cylindrical
conductor with a diameter of 25 mm and a flat tip was
used. For horizontal terminations, a round, cylindrical
conductor of diameter 15 mm was used.

2.2 – SHIELDING OR PROTECTION CRITERIA

After the electric field computations were carried out,

shielding protection criteria were applied to the data. For
any given configuration of air termination height and
distance from the edge of the structure, two criteria were
used to determine whether the vulnerable feature or the
lightning rod could be the effective point of lightning
attachment, namely:
1. The “electrostatic factor” method used by Rezinkina
[2], and
2. The “critical range of field intensification” (CRFI)
method first proposed by Petrov & Waters [12].

In the first method, Rezinkina [2] found that the ratio kd = (a)
Eterm/Eedge, where Eterm and Eedge represent the electric
field strength at the air termination and at the structure
edge or vulnerable point respectively, could be used to
define a 95% interception efficiency. The value of 95%
was based on comparisons with experimental studies of
lightning rod reliability and protection of adjacent objects.
Rezinkina [2] found that kd > 2.0 ensures that objects at
the nominated distance from the air termination are
protected with an efficiency of 95%. Hereafter, this
criterion shall be abbreviated EFR (“electric field ratio”).

The second method takes a different approach as it is a

means of determining leader inception. The CRFI
criterion requires that streamers initiated from an air
termination or other grounded structure must grow to a
critical length, Ls, before an upward leader can be
initiated. Furthermore, the (enhanced) electric field Es
must exceed a critical value over the streamer zone
length Ls. For a minimum charge per unit length of 20
C/m, the critical streamer length is ~ 0.7 metres. This
minimum condition has been verified experimentally [13-
15], as have the values Es ~ 500 kV/m and 1 MV/m for
positive and negative upward leaders respectively [16-
18]. This criterion was recently applied in [19]. The
difference in the present analysis is that a threshold
value of the ratio of the fields, kd, must be specified. In
theory, if the ratio is > 1, then the point will launch a
leader first and hence be able to “quench” the discharge
from a competing point. However, for the sake of
conservatism, a safety factor of 15% was applied in this
analysis, i.e., the ratio of the leader inception fields must
be ≥ 1.15 in favour of the air termination for the edge of
the structure to be considered as being effectively
protected.
In summary, the critical points for computation of the
electric field in the EFR criterion are directly on the
structure edge and at the air termination whilst, in the
CRFI criterion, the fields must be determined at distance
of at least 0.7 m above these points.
3 - RESULTS
Figure 3 shows typical equipotential plots that were used
to obtain the values of electric field at the required points
according to the criterion applied. Figures 4 – 6 display
the resulting electric field ratios as a function of d / h, for
horizontal conductors and rods and the two criteria that
were applied.
(b)
Figure 3 – Equipotential plot of the electric field distribution
around an air termination and the structure edge. (a) Horizontal
conductor, h = 0.1 m, placed 0.05 m away from the edge of a 5
m structure. (b) Rod, h = 1 m, placed 1.0 m away from the edge
of a 50 m structure.
4 – DISCUSSION
A number of immediate observations can be made from
the plots presented in Section 3. For example:
• The higher the air termination, the further it can be
away from the edge of the structure before it ceases
to provide appropriate shielding or protection;
• Very short or low air terminations (h ≤ 0.25 m) fail to
meet either criterion unless they are placed
extremely close to the edge of the structure, i.e.,
effectively right at the edge;
• The variation in the results with air termination
height is much greater for horizontal conductors
than for rods;
• Apart from the fundamental variation of Eterm/Eedge
with d / h, when using the EFR criterion there is
some dependence of the results on the structure
height, H;
• In the CRFI results, there is a remarkable similarity
for the two different structure heights (which enabled
the results to be combined).
 4
h = 0.1 m h = 0.1 m
h = 0.5 m 3 h = 0.5 m
h = 1.0 m h = 1.0 m
3

Eterm / Eedge
Eterm / Eedge

2
2

1
1

(a) (b)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

d/h d/h
Figure 4 – Plot of the electric field ratio (termination-to-structure edge) as a function of d / h for horizontal conductors according to the
EFR criterion. (a) Structure height of 5 m. (b) Structure height of 50 m.

3 3

2 2
Eterm / Eedge

Eterm / Eedge

1 1
h = 0.25 m h = 0.25 m
h = 0.5 m h = 0.5 m
(a) (b)
h = 1.0 m h = 1.0 m
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

d/h d/h

Figure 5 – Plot of the electric field ratio (termination-to-structure edge) as a function of d / h for rods according to the EFR criterion, for
structure heights (a) 5 m, (b) 50 m.

1.5 1.5
h = 0.1 m h = 0.25 m
(a) h = 0.5 m (b) h = 0.5 m
1.4 1.4
h = 1.0 m h = 1.0 m

1.3 1.3
Eterm / Eedge

Eterm / Eedge

1.2 1.2

1.1 1.1

1.0 1.0

0.9 0.9
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

d/h d/h
Figure 6 – Plot of the electric field ratio (termination-to-structure edge) as a function of d / h for (a) horizontal conductors and (b) rods,
according to the CRFI criterion. The data for the two structure heights were combined as there was very little difference in the results.
The last two points can be explained by the difference in
where the electric fields are calculated – EFR is
computed at the surface whilst CRFI is computed at a
distance of 0.7 m. In the latter case, the electric field
distribution is more uniform because it is being measured
further away from the structure, resulting in less
dependence on structure height.
Finally, bearing in mind that a wide-ranging parametric
study has not been carried out, a very rough, yet
generalised and quantitative relation can be obtained
from all of the results if they are combined into a single
plot. Figure 7 shows such a plot, where the absolute
maximum air termination distance that will satisfy both
criteria has been plotted for all the parameters studied.
5
Conductors, EFR criterion
Rods, CRFI criterion
Conductors, CRFI criterion
4 Rods, EFR criterion
3
dmax (m)
2 edges. The calculations took into account the height and
1
0
0 0.5 1.0
h (m)
Figure 7 – Plot of the maximum air termination distance that will
satisfy both criteria (EFR and CRFI), for all modelled values of
h, d, H and the type of air termination. The quadratic curve fit to
the data is also shown.
A non-linear regression fit to these data resulted in a
near-quadratic relation. Assuming a quadratic relation
and fitting for the co-efficient of the independent variable
(air termination height, h), the following relation was
obtained:
dmax ≈ (1.65 ± 0.16) h
2
(1)
This function is also shown in Figure 7. As a matter of
principle, this relation should only be applied across the
range of heights that were modelled, i.e., up to 1 m, as
the quadratic relation may not hold for large heights.
However, it does provide some insight into why the use
of “tall” rods in countries such as Korea and Japan has
been successful (see [11]).
It is worthwhile comparing some of these results with the
shielding predictions of the Rolling Sphere method
(RSM). The shielded zone, rz, according to the RSM is
given by
rz = √(2Rh – h ),
2
(2)
where R is the sphere radius. For a standard sphere
radius of 45 m, the protected zone for air terminations
heights of 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 m is 3, 4.7, 6.7 and 9.4
metres respectively. For the same air termination
heights, using Equation (1) gives corresponding
protected zones of 0.02, 0.1, 0.4 and 1.7 metres
respectively.
Hence, the RSM results in considerably larger assumed
shielding or protection zones than the present
calculations, which are based on electric field
calculations around the terminations and structures. This
is an example of an underlying weakness in the RSM,
namely that it does not make any allowance for
differences in electric field intensification. Note that this
comparison is applicable, for example, to a structure of
height 5 m, where H << R, but not, say, a 50 m structure,
where H ~ R.
5 – CONCLUSIONS
The motivation for the study presented in this paper
came from the common observation of poor placement
of air terminations and the lack of definitive guidelines in
codes and standards on lightning protection. In the
present work, a preliminary analysis was conducted on
this problem, using numerical computations of the
electric fields around the air termination and structure
distance of the termination from the edge, the structure
height and the type of air termination.
A more detailed analysis needs to be carried out, but the
preliminary results:
• confirm the old adage in lightning protection – tall,
well-exposed points and hence “height advantage” is
the dominant variable in providing effective
protection;
• show that short rods and mesh terminations of low
height must be placed right at the edge of the
structure to provide effective protection.
When all of the results were combined to obtain a
general, quantitative relation for the maximum, allowable
distance of the air termination from the vulnerable points
on a structure, the following approximate equation was
obtained,
dmax ≈ (1.65 ± 0.16) h ,
2
bearing in mind that it should be not be applied to air
termination heights outside the range of those modelled
in this study.
6 - REFERENCES
[1] Izraeli, I. & Braunstein, A., 1983, “Analysis and design of
protection systems for structures against direct lightning
strokes Part 1: Theory”, IEE Proceedings A, Vol.130, no.3
pp.140-144.
[2] Rezinkina, M., 1998, “Software for determination of 3D
electrical field distribution in the vicinity of special
installations and systems with lightning-rods during
thunderstorm”, Proc. 24th Internat. Conf. Lightn. Protect.,
Birmingham, UK, pp. 924-928.
[3] Mazur, V., Ruhnke, L.H., Bondiou-Clergerie, A. & Lalande,
P., 2000, “Computer simulation of a downward negative
stepped leader and its interaction with a ground structure”,
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 105, No. D7, pp.
22361-22369.
[4] Kumar, U. & Ghosh, G., 2001, “On the efficacy of the
lightning masts on structures”, Proc. 12th Internat. Symp.
High Voltage Engin., Bangalore, India, Paper 2-25.
[5] Almeida, T.R. & Antunes, C.F., 2002, “Influence of the
distance between buildings and their shape on the electric
field distribution”, Inf. Tecnol., Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 143-148.
[6] D’Alessandro, F., 2003a, “The use of ‘field intensification
factors’ in calculations for lightning protection of
structures”, J. Electrostat., Vol. 58, 17-43.
[7] D’Alessandro, F., 2003b, “Striking distance factors and
practical lightning rod installations: a quantitative study”,
J. Electrostat., Vol. 59, 25-41.
[8] Buccella, C. & Feliziani, M., 2003, “A hybrid model to
compute the effects of a direct lightning stroke on three-
dimensional structures”, IEEE Trans. Magn., Vol. 39, No.
3I, pp. 1586-1589.
[9] Farag, A.S., Shwehdi, M., Belhadj, C.A., Cheng, T.C. &
Penn, D., 1998, “Air terminations for lightning protection of
structures”, Proc. IEEE Conference on Electric Insulation
and Dielectric Phenomena, Vol. 1, pp. 67-71.
[10] Petrov, N.I., Petrova, G.N. & D’Alessandro, F., 2003,
“Quantification of the probability of lightning strikes to
structures using a fractal approach”, IEEE Trans. Dielectr.
Electr. Insulat., Vol. 10, pp. 641-654.
[11] D’Alessandro, F. & Caie, M., 2003, “Lightning protection
standards – a worldwide comparison”, Proc. of Sixth
International Symposium on Lightning Protection, Curitiba,
Brazil, pp. 356-361.
[12] Petrov, N.I. & Waters, R.T., 1995, “Determination of the
striking distance of lightning to earthed structures”, Proc.
R. Soc. Lond. A , Vol. 450, pp. 589-601.
[13] Chernov, E.N., Lupeiko, A.V. & Petrov, N.I., 1991,
“Investigation of spark discharge in long air gaps using
Pockel's device”, Proc.7th Int. Symp. on High Volt. Eng.,
Dresden, pp. 141-144.
[14] Petrov, N.I., Avanskii, V.R., Bombenkova, N.V., 1994,
“Measurement of the electric field in the streamer zone
and in the sheath of the channel of a leader discharge”,
Tech. Phys., Vol. 39, pp. 546-551.
[15] D’Alessandro, F., Kossmann, C.J., Gaivoronsky, A.S. &
Ovsyannikov, A.G., 2004, “Experimental study of lightning
rods using long sparks in air”, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr.
Insulat., in press.
[16] Bazelyan, E.M. & Raizer, Yu.P., 2000, Lightning physics
and lightning protection, IOP Publishing, Bristol, UK.
[17] Les Renardières Group, 1977, “Positive discharges in long
air gaps at les Renardières - 1975 results and
conclusions”, Electra, Vol. 53, pp. 31-153.
[18] Les Renardières Group, 1981, “Negative discharges in
long air gaps at Les Renardières”, Electra, Vol. 74, pp. 67-
216.
[19] Petrov, N.I. & D’Alessandro, F., 2002, “Theoretical
analysis of the processes involved in lightning attachment
to earthed structures”, J.Phys.D.:Appl. Phys., Vol. 35, pp.
1788-1795.

Main author
Dr Franco D’Alessandro
Senior Research Scientist
ERICO, Inc.
34600 Solon Road
Solon, OHIO. 44139. USA.
Tel - +1. 440 542 3965
Fax - +1. 440 542 7241
Email - fdalessandro@erico.com