IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 13, No.
4, October 1998
On the Influence of Elevated Strike Objects on Directly Measured and Indirectly
Estimated Lightning Currents
S. Guerrieri @.A.Nucci
Dip. di Ingegneria Elettrka, Lab. de Reseaux d'Energie Electrique,
University of Bologna, Swiss Federal Inst. of Technology, 1015
40136 Bologna, Italy. Eausanne, Switzerland.
nucci@eleibl .ing unibo.it rachidialre de epfl.ch
Abstract - The knowledge of lightning current parameters comes
essentially from direct measurements obtained using
instrumented towers or triggered lightning, and from meas-
urements of lightning electromagnetic fields assuming empirical
or theoretical relations between fields and currents (indirect
estimation). In this paper, the effects of an elevated strike object
on both the direct and indirect estimation of the current
parameters i s examined. We first give the expressions which
allow for what we Cali the gdecontamination' of measured
lightning currents from the tower reflections, assuming the
tower as a perfectly conducting strike object. We show that even
though the reflections might not be discernible in experimental
recordings for tower heights as those used in Berger et al's and
Garbagnati and Lo Piparo's investigations, the peak current
might be significantly affected. Then, we extend the
Transmission Line (TL) return-stroke model of Uman and
McLain, by taking into account the presence of an elevated
strike object and the multiple reflections at the bottom and at the
top of it. In general, radiated fields calculated considering and
neglecting the presence of the strike object differ. It is shown
that relatively short strike objects, such as triggered lightning
launching structures, may not appreciably affect the calculated
field peak values and overall wave shapes, but could affect the
field derivatives. This has to be taken into account when current
parameters are inferred from measured fields or field de-
rivatives. Our extension of the TL model is consistent with the
differences in the return-stroke velocities found by other authors
when inferring such a parameter from measured fields and
currents or from measured current and field derivatives. Our
results suggest that all statistics obtained so far on lightning
currents may have been 'affected' by the presence of the towers
and may have also an impact on the lightning locating system
industry.
Keywords - lightning current, return-stroke models, elevated
strike objects, lightning electromagnetic field
PE-986-PWRD-0-05-1997 A paper recommended and approved by
the IEEE Transmission and Distribution Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery. Manuscript submitted January 8, 1997; made available for
printing May 23, 1997.
0885-8977/98/$10.00 0 1997 IEEE
1543
F. Rachidi M. Rubinstein
Swiss Telecom PTT
KD-VD26-FE116
3000 Bern, Switzerland.
rubinstein-m@vptt.ch
I. INTRODUCTION
The knowledge of lightning current parameters (peak
value, front-steepness, duration) is of primary importance for
the appropriate design and coordination of power system
protection and insulation. Today, much of this knowledge
comes from direct measurements using instrumented towers
(e.g. [l-61) or triggered lightning (e.g. [7-101). Estimates of
various lightning current parameters can also be obtained
from measurements of lightning electromagnetic fields
assuming one or more enipirical [ S , 111 or theoretical [12]
relations between electromagnetic field and the lightning
current.
Berger et al. [l] used resistive shunts to measure natural
lightning currents at the tops of two 55-m high towers located
on the Monte San Salvatore in Lugano. Garbagnati and Lo
Piparo [2] have made similar measurements in Italy at the
tops of 40-m TV towers. Eriksson [3] in South Africa
measured lightning currents on a 60-m tower over a relatively
flat ground. Unlike other tower measurements, Eriksson
measured the lightning current at the bottom of the structure
and found faster current rise times than in [1,2]. More
recently, lightning current and current-derivative measure-
ments have been obtained at the tops of telecommunication
towers in Germany [4], Canada [ 5 ] , and Switzerland [6].
These recent data, contraly to prior measurements, clearly
show the presence of reflections at the top and at the bottom
of the tower on the measured current. Current data obtained
from triggered lightning, as discussed by Diendorfer and
Uman [13], can also be affected by reflections at the top and
bottom of the launching structure.
Willett et al. [7] have investigated the accuracy of the
simple transmission line i(TL) return-stroke current model
[14] for estimating return1 stroke current parameters &om
remote electromagnetic fields during triggered lightning
(Note that the TL model - which will be summarized in
Section 111of the paper - assumes that the return stroke starts
at the ground and propagates upward.) Eeteinturier et al. [9]
have made similar measurements, and both ([7] and [SI)have
pointed out that the observed fine structure of the electro-
magnetic field was not consistent with the single pulse
propagating upward assumed by the TL model; rather two
current waves, one propagating up the channel and the other
propagating down the stroke object (launching structure),
provided better agreement .with the measurements.
1544

In view of the above, one can conclude that meaningful instrumented towers of St. Chrischona [6] and of Berger et
statistics on lightning current parameters can only be obtained al. [I], respectively. We calculated the current i(h,t) starting
if from an assumed ‘non-contaminated’ current io(t) that was
- the directly measured currents are ‘decontaminated’ from reproduced by means of a sum of two Heidler’s functions [ 151
the reflections introduced by the tower (in case of natural
lightning) or by the launching structure (in case of
triggered lightning) and
- since lightning frequently strikes tall metallic objects such
as Franklin rods, radio towers, etc., the presence of such
elevated strike objects is to be taken into account when
inferring the current from lightning fields.
L A
In this paper, we will examine the effects of an elevated
where
strike object on both the direct and indirect evaluations of the
current parameters. Consequently, we will discuss and Io is the amplitude of the channel-base current
analyse the effect of the presence of an elevated strike object q is the front-time constant
on both the directly measured lightning currents and on the 22 is the decay-time constant
radiated fields. q is the amplitude correction factor
n is an exponent (2+-10)
%I.EFFECT OF THE PRESENCE OF AN ELEVATED STRIKE OBJECT with the parameters shown in Table I.
ON THE DIRECTLY MEASURED LIGHTNING CURRENTS

A. Expressions of the current along the elevated object Table 1. Parameters of two Heidler’s functions [14] that reproduce the ‘non-
contaminated’ current wave shapes io(i) at the top of the object.
The elevated strike object is assumed to be perfectly
conducting, uni-dimensional (namely its length h is much
greater than its transverse dimension), and characterized by
the reflection coefficients pt and pg at the top of it and at
ground, respectively. These reflection coefficients are
constant and independent of frequency, an approximation
made, to the best of our knowledge, in all prior works on the
subject. Now, a current pulse io(& which is the result of the
I ,
return-stroke process which occurs into the return-stroke 1 1

channel above the object, is injected into the object at its top. I 1

We assume that the current pulse travels downward,

undistorted, at the speed of light c. This pulse is reflected at
the ground and, as the reflection reaches the top of the strike
object, part of it is transmitted into the channel and part of it
is reflected back and travels down the strike object towards
the ground. This process repeats itself.

B. %ontamination’ofthe current due to the presence ofthe

tower

The ‘contaminate8 current at the tower top i(h,t) (that is,

the current that would be measured) can be expressed as

We have applied Equation (I) to theoretically assess the

effects of the reflections at both object ends on the cuqent
wave shapes at the top of the tower. We considered two Fig. 1. Geometry of the problem.
different tower heights: 248 and 55 m corresponding to the
 1545

The results are shown in Figs. 2a, 2b, and 2c for the 248
m tower and in Figs. 3a, 3b, and 3c for the 55 m tower. We
have chosen three different combinations of reflection
coefficients, namely a) Pt=O and pg=0.74; b) pt=-0.5 and
p - 1; c) pt=O and p -0.3. The choice of these reflection
g- g-
coefficient values is based a) on the results of Willett et al.
[7], b) on the results of Beierl [4], and c) on our own estimate
of the reflection coefficient at the bottom of the Swiss
Telecom PTT St. Chrischona tower obtained ftom the wave
shape of current derivatives recently measured there [ 6 ] .Note
that many authors have used indirect methods to evaluate the
reflection coefficients. Beierl [4], for instance, used an
idealized current wave form to estimate the reflection
coefficient expressions at the ground and at the top of the
strike object. Willett et al. [7], on the other hand, used electric
field wave forms displaying unusually sharp initial peaks to
estimate the reflection coefficient at the ground. For case c)
we have used the current derivatives published in [6] because
the derivative decays to zero much faster than the current
does, thus allowing for a more reliable identification of the
peaks. Since the third current derivatives peak was practically
absent in the recordings we examined, we assumed equal to
zero the reflection coefficient at the top of the structure and
calculated the reflection coefficient at ground from the ratio
of the amplitudes of the first two principal peaks. The above
justifies the choice of the various combinations of reflection
coefficients.
Figure 2 shows how sensitive the current along the tower
is to the values of the reflection coefficients pt and pg that
have, therefore, to be carefully evaluated.
Figure 3 shows that, although a 55-m tower is not tall
enough for the different reflections to be discerned, the
current amplitude is still appreciably affected. This might
render questionable the statistics obtained by Berger et al. [l]
and Garbagnati and Lo Piparo [2], at least regarding the peak
value of the lightning current, although the effect might be
minor in their cases since their towers were built on dry, low
conductivity terrain. Additilonally, Fig. 3 suggests that one
cannot neglect a priori the reflection effects based on the fact
that the elevated object size is small, as mentioned by other
authors (e.g. [4]).
Comparison of Figs. 2 and 3 explains the fact that data
obtained on tall instrumented towers clearly show, contrarily
to measurements on short towers, the presence of multiple
reflections.
In light of the results presented above, it can be concluded
that many or all of the current measurements made to present
may have been 'contaminated' by the above mentioned
reflections.
C. 'Decontamination'of the measured current
From (I), the expression of the 'decontaminated' current
io(t) can be obtained as follows.

20 16 I

18
16
14

- 8 -
i
6
6 - \
4 - lO(t)
4
2 a) b)
2;
0 " " " " '
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time in us
Time in us

Fig. 2. Effect of the reflections at the top and the bottom of a 248 m tower on the current at the top of the tower for three different combinations.of
reflection coefficients. Fig 2a: pf=O and pg=0.74; Fig 2b: pt=-0.5 and pg=l; Fig. 2.c: pt=O and p =0.3. Solid line: 'contaminated'current i(h,t); dashed
g
line 'non-contaminated current io(t).

Time in us
Time in us Time in us

Fig. 3 Same as in Fig 2 but for a tower height of 55 m

1546
For times such that the first reflection fiom the bottom of
the object has not yet arrived at the top (t < 2 h / c ), Equation
(I) can be written as
i,(t> = f ( h , t ) (4)
For times such that 2h / c I t < 4h / c , Equation (1) becomes
i,(t> = i(h,t)- p , ( ~ +pt>io(t
-2h/c) (5)
where i0(t-2h/c)is now a known quantity from (4). The
procedure can in turn be generalized and one obtains
'i,(t)=i(h,t)
for t < ( 2 h / c )
I k
i,(t)=i(h,t)- Cpgnp:-'(l+pt)i,(f-2nhlc) (6)
I
n=l
I for 2khlc 5 k < 2(k + l ) h / c
with k = 1,2,.."
Note that the above procedure i s general, in that it can be
applied whatever spatial-temporal current distribution along
the lightning channel is assumed to describe the return-stroke
process, or, in other words, whatever return-stroke current
model is assumed to describe the return-stroke process above
the object.
111. EFFECTOF THE PRESENCE OF AN ELEVATED OBJECT
ON THE RADIATED FIELDS
A. Extension of the Transmission Line model to the case of an
elevated strike object
To account for the presence of the elevated strike object,
some of the available return stroke models [16], which in
their original form assumed the return-stroke to start at
ground level, have been modified [7,9,13,17,18]. However,
most of the work on this subject assumes that the reflection of
the lightning current at the bottom of the strike object is zero
[13,17,18]. Willet et al. [7] introduced a reflection at the ob-
ject bottom, but they disregarded reflections at the top of it.
More recently, Motoyama et al. [I91 have presented a return
stroke-tower model and have compared their theoretical. re-
aulta to experimental data obtained from lightning hitting the
CN Tower in Toronto. In their model, the return stroke cur-
rent distribution along the channel was approximated as uni-
form and, additionally, they disregarded the electrostatic
component of the electric field, a field component which
contributes significantly to the total field for distances up to a
few kilometers [20]. Their calculated electric fields were
found to be in partial agreement with the measured wave-
forms. In [21] Guerrieri et al. presented some comparison
using the extension of two popular return-stroke models,
namely the Travelling Current source (TCS) model [22] and
the Modified Transmission Line (MTL) model [23,24] and
found a reasonably good agreement between theoretical and
experimental data for both extended retum-stroke models.
In this Section, we prefer to use the earlier mentioned
Transmission Line (TL) return-stroke model by Uman and
McLain [14], to take into account the presence of an elevated
strike object with reflections at the top and at the bottom of it,
and this for three reasons. First, for observation points at
ground level, for the early-time prediction, the object model
plays a role which is probably more important than that of the
return-stroke model. Second, because for the early-time gre-
diction the TL model has been shown to give reasonably good
results [16,25].Third, because we feel that the TL model is
still the most popular one among power engineers. The origi-
nal formulation of the TL model assumes that a current pulse
i(0,t) starts at ground-level and propagates up the channel at
the return-stroke velocity v, as described by
i(z',t)=i(O,t-z'/v)
The extension of the TL model we use in this paper can be
described as follows: As the leader descends towards the
ground, its tip carries with it the cloud potential. When the
(7)
leader reaches and attaches to an elevated object, an abrupt
potential change generates a wave front that propagates to-
wards the cloud. The current pulse associated with the return-
stroke phase starts at the top of the elevated object and
propagates upward at the return stroke velocity v in accor-
dance with the TL model. (We neglect here upward connect-
ing discharges and we assume, as implicitly assumed in the
original TL model, that all the charges carried downward by
the leader while descending from the cloud are concentrated
in its tip.) Simultaneously, a similar current pulse starts from
the top of the object, assumed a perfect conductor'. This cur-
rent pulse is, indeed, the 'non-contaminated' current io(t) of
the previous section: it travels downward, undistorted, at the
speed of light c, it is reflected at the ground and, as the re-
flection reaches the top of the strike object, part of it is trans-
mitted into the channel, and part is reflected back down the
strike object towards the ground, according to the same pat-
tern described in Section 11. As a first approximation, we ig-
nore reflections of the upward propagating current pulses at
the return stroke wave-front. We assume that all the current
pulses transmitted into the channel after the initial return
stroke pulse follow the TL model at the speed v* so that no
net charge removal from the leader channel is associated with
these current pulses. Though the above simple model is only a
first-approximation of a complex problem, most of the work
on the subject have proposed models which are simpler and
less accurate than ours.
The mathematical expressions to describe the above
process are:
Rigorously, the two pulses are identical only if the object and the channel
are characterized by the same surge impedance.
 1547

h - z 2nh B. 'Contamination' of the field due to the presence of the

i(z,t)= f[p?p;i,(t -- -- elevated strike object.
n=oL
n=O C C

We now illustrate the effects of the current reflections at

+ p;+lp:i,( h+z
t - --
C
-)]
2nh
C
for0 I z I h the object top and bottom on the far vertical electric field
following the model presented above. The current i,(t) is
assumed to be a s u m of two Heidler's functions with the
parameters shown in Table I. The return stroke velocity v is
(
i(z,t)=i, t - -
z;h)
(9) chosen equal to 1.9x108 d s above the top of the strike object

n=l
p;p;-y1+ ( 'Vh
p,)i, t - 7-- '")I
C
for z 2 h
where io(t),the 'non-contaminated' return-stroke current at the
top of the object, is to be considered equal to zero for
negative times.
In Fig. 4 we show a comparison between a lightning
electromagnetic field measured at the Peissenberg tower in
Germany and the field calculated using the above described
extension of the TL model. The current io(t) injected at the
tower top is reproduced in the numerical simulation by the
Heidler's current function; the parameters of it and the
reflection coefficients at the tower top and bottom were
chosen in order to obtain the best fit between the current
experimental data and the current given by (1). For the sake
of brevity we do not reproduce here these current wave-
shapes, which are reported in [21], where details of the
experiment are also given. Within the limit of the above
assumptions, the field wave shapes exhibit a reasonable
agreement. Note that a better agreement, as earlier mentioned,
could be obtained using, for instance, the TCS and MTL
extended models [21], namely the ramp increasing of the field
is closely reproduced.
(g) 7
as well as the velocity v* of the pulses which are transmitted
upward into the channel. The field is calculated at ground
level and 100 km from the elevated strike object for the same
three different combinations of reflection coefficients, a), b),
and c) considered in Section I1 for the calculation of the
contaminated current. The calculation of the vertical electric
field has been performed assuming the ground conductivity to
be infinite, since, for the frequency range of interest, such a
field component is practically not affected by ground
resistivity [26].
Fig. 5 shows the calculated field for a 55 m tall strike
object. As can be seen from it, the peak amplitude and the
wave shape of the electric field at 100 km are significantly
affected by reflections at the object's ends.
E
5-
.-C
W
2H
0-'
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
"

2.5 3
'
3.5 4
' "
4.5 5
Time in us
Fig. 5. Comparison of vertical electric field calculated following the model
presented in Section 111for three different combinations of reflection
coefficients. a): pt=O and p =0.74; b): pt=-O 5 and pg=l; c): pt=O and
g
p =0.3. Observation point at ground level and at 100 km from a 55 m high
l i g
elevated strike object.

Since, in general, one his access to the measured current

3~ at the top or at the bottom of the strike object only, we now
study the implications of using the measured current directly,
with no regard for the reflections, for the calculation of the
electromagnetic field using a return-stroke model. We have
investigated this by calculaling the fields at 100 km 1) using
the 'measured' (contaminated) current i(h,t) as the channel-
base current in the TL model, disregarding the elevated strike
object, and 2 ) according to the model described in Section 111.
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 The current io(t)we have chosen is the same as in Fig. 5, and
b) Time [us] the reflection coefficients are equal to pt=-0.5 and p =1, the
Fig. 4.Comparison between electromagnetic field a) measured and b) values for which we obtained the most significant differences
calculated using the extended-TL model. between the 'contaminated' and the 'non-contaminated'
Experimental data provided by Dr. Fridolin Heidler.
1548

currents. In Fig. 6, we show both fields calculated neglecting, used to calculate the electric field of Fig. 7, curve 1).
and fields calculated including the presence of a strike object
of 55 m height. It can be seen that the field peak calculated 140
neglecting the presence of the object is smaller than the one
calculated taking into account the presence of it. We repeated 120
this calculation for h=248 m and for h=10 m, and at various 100
distances, ranging fkom 2 h to 100 h. The results for the
248 m tower show the same trend as those shown in Fig. 6, --.
>
E80
for each distance considered.
.E 60
W

I 40

20

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Time in us

Fig. 7. Comparison of vertical electric field calculated 1) disregarding and 2)

including the presence of the object. Observation point: 5 km from the
object; strike object height of 10 m; reflection coefficients pt=-0.5 and
p =l.
g
"
0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 45 600
Time in us 500
Fig 6 Comparison of vertical electric field calculated 1) disregarding
and 2) including the presence of the object Observation point and height of
the strike object as in Fig 5 , reflection coefficients pt=-O 5 and pg=l

The results for a 10 m tall object, on the other hand, (see

Fig. 7) show that, for the considered case, the field obtained
using the 'contaminated' current and obviating the presence of
the strike object is essentially identical to that calculated
considering the presence of the object. The 'contaminated'
current we have used for the calculation of Fig. 7 is the
current at the obJect bottom, since several triggered-lightning
current data have been recorded at that point [7,8]. For
similar reasons, the results of Fig. 7 refer to an observation
point 5 km from the object [7,8]. Thottappillil and Uman [25]
compared, as mentioned earlier, different return stroke
models on the basis of simultaneously measured channel-base
currents, return stroke speeds, and electric fields at about 5
km from triggered lightning in Florida. Although in their
calculations Thottappillil and Uman did not consider the
presence of the elevated strike object (they used the TL
model in its original form), they found good agreement
between the first rise to peak of the experimentally measured
vertical electric field wave forms and those predicted by the
TL model. Our results of Fig. 7 support the validity of their
test procedure.
The derivatives ofthe fields calculated disregarding or not
the elevated strike object are shown in Fig. 8 for the same
case of Fig. 7. Interestingly, they display significant differ-
ences in the peak. The current and current-derivatives
corresponding to the fields and the field derivatives of Figs. 7
and 8, are shown in Fig. 9 and 10 respectively. Note that the
'contaminated' current at z=O m in Fig. 9 is the current that we
0
-1 00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 6.5
Time in us
Fig. 8. Comparison of vertical electric field derivatives calculated 1)
disregarding and 2) including the presence of the object. Observation point,
strike object height, and reflection coefficients as in Fig. 6.
C. On the 'decontamination' of the current indirectly inferred
from measured far electromagneticJields
We now discuss how the results of Figs. 7 and 8 may have
important implications when lightning electromagnetic fields
are used to infer lightning current parameters.
As mentioned in the Introduction, to infer lightning
current parameters from measured fields one needs an
empirical or a theoretical relationship which links measured
fields to the current. This is a complex problem that has been
thoroughly studied in the literature. We will only mention
here that, to accomplish that, one needs to assume a certain
return-stroke model and, additionally, to assume the value of
the return stroke velocity, in case no measurements of it are
available.
 1549

18 measured fields at aboiut 5 km fiom the channel and

'Contaminated'at z = 0 m measured currents at the bottom of the triggering object
16
(about 10 m high), and the return stroke speed determined
14
using (1 1) starting from the measured time-derivatives of
12 fields and form currents at the same points. Willet et al.
9 10 [7,8] mentioned that a modification of the TL model
.-= a
- involving two wave fronts travelling upward and
downward away from the junction point a short distance
6
Contaminated'at z = 10 m above the ground, substantially improved the agreement
4 between measured and inferred propagation speeds using
2 the original TL model. Note that the fact that a return
0 stroke (not necessarily artificially triggered) may initiate
0 0.5 a 1.5 2 2.5 3 some distance above ground at the 'junction point'
between the downward coming leader and an upward
Time in us
connecting discharge has been also reported by other
Fig. 9. 'Uncontaminated'and 'Contaminated'currents at three different authors (e.g. [28-3I]). Note, further, that to the extent that
position of the object ( ~ 05,and 10 m) for the case of Fig. 7. Note that the
field of curve 1) of Fig. 7 has been calculated using the 'contaminated' an upward connecting discharge can be assumed as an
current at z=O m. elevated conducting object, our results may have some
implications also on natural lightning;
70 1 even assuming that a given return-stroke model predicts
with reasonable accuracy the lightning electromagnetic
field, it seems that to infer lightning current parameters
from measured fields just applying (10) and (11) and a
reasonable value of return-stroke velocity may result in an
inaccurate estimation.
The indirect estimation of lightning current parameters
from measured fields has grown in importance in the last
years due to the widespread diffkion of the so-called
Lightning Locating Systems (LLS). These systems (e.g. [32])
I
consist of a group of electric field sensors gathering data
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 which are processed by a central unit in order to estimate
lightning stroke locations. Besides providing flash-density
Time in us maps within their working area, these systems use the field
Fig. 10. Current time-derivatives corresponding to the curves of Fig. 9. data to estimate peak currents and to provide relevant
statistics. It is believed that LES will become more and more
In what follows we will focus only on the TL return-stroke important in the future also in the last respect, and this
model. For the TL model, the theoretical relation between because of the enormous amount of data they can provide.
the channel-base current and the distant vertical We feel that the results of this section, if taken into account,
electromagnetic field E,f"' is given by [27] might help in improving 1,LS lightning current parameter
estimation.
IV. CONCLUSIONS

where r is the distance between the observation point and the
channel base, v is the return stroke velocity and is the
dielectric permittivity. The same relation holds also for the
derivatives [27]
di(0,t)
--
_-- 27r&,,c2r d E , f a r ( r , z = O , t + r / c )
dt v dt
Examination of Figs. 7-10 and of Equations (10) and (1 1)
allows us to conclude that:
- our results are consistent with those published by Willet et
al [7,8], who observed differences between the return
stroke speed determined using (10) starting from
In this paper we have examined the effects of an elevated
strike object on the directly measured and indirectly estimated
lightning return-stroke currents.
The height of the strike object as well as the values of the
reflection coefficients at the object ends do affect the current
distribution and, consequently, the radiated electric fields.
(1 1) This is particularly evident for object heights of some
hundreds of meters. Our results show that, even though the
various reflections might nut be discernible in measurement
records from relatively short instrumented towers (around 50
m), the current amplitude can be appreciably affected. This
might render questionable the statistics obtained from short
instrumented towers, at least regarding the peak value of the
1550
lightning current. The simple model we have illustrated in the
paper allows for what we have called the 'decontamination' of
the measured currents. The accurate evaluation of tower
reflection coefficients remains, in this respect, of fundamental
importance.
Further, we have compared the vertical electric field
calculated by using the original TL retum-stroke model
starting from the 'contaminated' current, assumed as channel-
base current, and the field predicted by OUT extension of the
TE model. Our calculations show that, in general,
disregarding the presence of the strike object could affect
significantly the computed electromagnetic field. Very short
object heights (IQ m, typical o f triggered lightning launching
structures) may lead to similar overall field wave shapes.
However, the time-derivatives of the two electric fields
display significant differences also for short object heights, in
agreement with experimental results published by Willett et
al. 671 and Leteinturier et al. [9]. This means that the presence
of the object has to be taken into account when return stroke
velocities are inferred from simultaneously measured current
and field andor current and field derivatives, or when,
starting from a reasonable value of retum stroke velocity,
current parameters are inferred from measured fields or field
derivatives. To the extent that an upward leader can be
assumed as an elevated strike object the above results apply
also to the case of natural lightning.
The above may have important implications in the
lightning locating system industry since, besides providing
detailed maps of flash densities, these systems are nowadays
used also for estimating current parameters from field
measurements.
Work is in progress to include in the model possible
reflections o f the upward propagating current pulses at the
return stroke wave-front and to obtain further experimental
results.
V.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are indebted to Prof, E. Philip Krider for the many
iheighul discussions had with him which improved the
manuscript, and for his support in writing this paper. Dr.
Fridolin Heidler is warmly acknowledged for providing the
experimental data measured at the Peissenberg tower. We
thank Prof Vlad A. Rakov who helped us in clarifying the
assumptions at the basis o f the extended 'FE model. Thanks
are due also to Emilio Garbagnati for the helpful discussions
had with him and to M ~ K OLameras who helped in
performing the calculations. The paper is based on a
contribution presented by the authors at the International
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility EMC'94,
September 13-16, B 994 Rome, Italy. Financial support from
the Italian Ministry of University and Scientific Research, the
Swisscom, and the Swiss National Science Foundation is
acknowledged.
VI. REFERENCES
K. Berger, R.B. Anderson, H. Kroninger, "Parameters of
lightning flashes", Electra, no. 41, 1975.
E. Garbagnati, G.B. Lo Piparo, "Parameter von Blitzstromen",
ETZ a), vol. 103, no. 2, 1982.
A.J. Eriksson, "Lightning and tall structures", Trans. South
Af.. IEE, 69 (Pt. 8): 238-252, 1978.
0.Beierl, "Front shape parameters of negative subsequent
strokes measured at the Peissenberg tower", Proceedings of
the 21st Znt. Cony? on Lightning Protection, Berlin, September
21-25, 1992.
A.M. Hussein, W. Janischewskyj, J-S. Chang, V. Shostak,
W.A. Chisolm, P.DzurevycR, Z-I. Kawasaki, "Simultaneous
measurement of lightning parameters for strokes to the
Toronto CN Tower", 9. Geophys. Res., vol. 100, 1995, pp.
8853-8861.
E. Montandon, B. Beyeler, "The lightning measuring
equipment on the Swiss PTT telecommunications tower at St.
Chrischona, Switzerland", Proceedings ofthe 22nd Int. Cony?
on Lightning Protection, Budapest 19-23 September, 1994.
J.C. Willett, V.P. Idone, R E . Orville, C. Leteinturier, A.
Eybert-Berard, L. Barret, E.P. Krider, "An experimental test of
the "Transmission-Line Model" of electromagnetic radiation
from triggered lightning return stroke", J. Geophys. Res., vol.
93, no. D4, April 20, 1988, pp. 3867-3878.
J.C. Willett, J.C. Bailey, V.P. Idone, R.E. Orville, A. Eybert-
Berard, L. Barret, "Submicrosecond intercomparison of
radiation fields and currents in triggered lightning return
strokes based on the "transmission-line model"", J. of
Geophys. Res., 94, 13,27513,286, 1989.
C. Leteinturier, C. Wideman, J. Hamelin, "Current and electric
field derivatives in triggered lightning return strokes", 9.
Geophys. Res., vol. 95, no. D1, January 1990, pp. 89 1-828.
[IO] E.P: Krider, C. Eeteinturier, J.C. Willet, "Sibmicrosecond
fields radiated during the onset of first return strokes in cloud-
to-ground lightning", J. of Geophys. Res., vol 101, no D1,
January 20, 1996, pp. 1589-1597.
I l l ] V.A. Rakov, R. Thottappillil, M.A. Uman, "On the empirical
formula of Willett et al. relating lightning return-stroke peak
current and peak electric field", J. of Geophy. Res., VOL 97,
no. D11, July 20, 1992, pp. 11,527-11,533.
1121 F. Rachidi, R. Thottapillil, "Determination of lightning
currents from far electromagnetic fields", J. of Geophys. Res.,
vol. 89, no. D10, October 1993, pp. 18 315-18 321.
E131 G. Diendorfer, M.A. Uman, "An improved return stroke
model with specified channel-base current", J. Geophys. Res. .)
vol. 95, no. D9, August 20, 1990, pp. 13621-13644.
[14] MA. Uman and D.K. McLain, "Magnetic field of lightning
return stroke", 9. Geophys. Res., vol. 74, 1969.
151 F. Heidler, "halytische Blitzstromfunktion zur &EM$-
Berechnung", Proceedings ofthe 18th Int. Conf on Lightning
Protection, paper 1.9, Munich, September 16-20, 1985, pp.
63-66.
161 CA. Nucci, G. Diendorfer, M.A. Uman, F. Rachidi, M. Ianoz,
C. Mazzetti, "Lightning return-stroke models with channel-
base specified current: a review and comparison", J. Geophys.
Res., vol. 95, no. D12, November 1990, pp. 20395-20408.
171 G. Diendorfer, "Effect of an elevated strike object on the
lightning electromagnetic fields", Proceedings of the 9th Int
Symp. on Electromagnetic Compatibiliy, Zurich, March
1991, pp. 235-238.

[18] F. Rachidi, M. Ianoz, C.A. Nucci, C. Mazzetti, "Modified
Transmission Line Model for LEMP calculations. Effect of
the return stroke velocity decreasing and elevated strike
objects on close fields", Proceedings of the 9th Int. Conf on
Atmospheric electricity, St. Petersburg, June 1992.
[19] H. Motoyama, W. Janischewskyj, A.M. Hussein, R. Rusan,
W.A. Chisholm, J-S. Chang, "Electromagnetic field radiation
model for lightning strokes to tall structures", IEEEIPES 1996
Winter Meeting, paper 96WM075-2 PWRD, Baltimore, MD,
.Tan.21-25, 1996.
[20] C.A. Nucci, C. Mazzetti, F. Rachidi, M. Ianoz, "Analyse du
champ Clectromagnttique dfi ii une dCcharge de foudre dans
les domaines temporel et frCquentiel", Annales des
Te'le'communications,43, no. 11-12, 1988, pp. 625-637.
[21] S. Guerrieri, F. Heidler, C.A. Nucci, F. Rachidi, M.
Rubinstein, "Extension of two return stroke models to
consider the influence of elevated strike objects on the
lightning return stroke current and the radiated electric field",
Proceedings of the Int. Con$ Rome 96 EMC, 1996.
[22] F. Heidler, "Traveling current source model for LEMP
calculation", Proceedings of the 6th Symp. on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, Zurich, March 5-7, 1985.
[23] C.A. Nucci, C. Mazzetti, F. Rachidi, M. Ianoz, "On lightning
return stroke models for LEMP calculations", Proceedings
19th Int. Conf on Lightning Protection, Graz, April 1988.
[24] C.A. Nucci, F. Rachidi, "Experimental validation of a
modification to the Transmission Line model for LEMP
calculations", Proceedings of the 8th Inter. Symp. on
Electromagnetic Compatibilty, Zurich, 7-9 March 1989, pp.
389-394.
1251 R. Thottappillil, M.A. Uman, "Comparison of lightning
return-stroke models", J. Geophys. Res, vol. 98, no. D12,
December 20, 1993, pp. 22,903-22,914.
1261 A. Zeddam, P. Degauque, "Current and voltages induced on
telecommunication cables by a lightning stroke", Elec-
tromagnetics, 1987, pp. 541-564.
[27] M.A. Uman, D.K. McLain, E.P. Krider, "The electromagnetic
radiation from a finite antenna", Am. 9. of Physics, vol. 43,
1975, pp. 33-38.
[28] M.A. Uman, D.K. Mc Lain, R.J. Fisher, E.P. Krider, "Currents
in Florida lightning return strokes", 9. of Geophys. Res., vol.
78, 1973.
[29] C.D Weidman and E.P. Krider, "The fine structure of
lightning return stroke wave forms", J. of Geophys. Res.,
83:6239- 6247, 1978. ("Correction", J. of Geophys. Res.,
87:7351, 1982).
[30] P. Hubert, "A new model of lightning subsequent stroke-
confrontation with triggered lightning observations",
Proceedings of the 10th Int. Aerospace and Ground Conf on
Lightning and Static Electricity (ICOLSE), pp. 21 1-215,
Reference Les Editions de Physique, Les Ulis, France, 1985.
[31] C.D. Weidman, J. Hamelin, C. Leteinturier, L. Nicot,
"Correlated current-derivative (dI/dt) and electric field
derivative (dE/dt) emitted by thriggered lightning",
Proceedings of fhe Int. Aerospace and ground Conference on
Lightning and Static Electricity (ICOLSE), Natl. Interagency
Coord. Group, Natl. Atmos. Electric. Hazards Prot. Agency,
Dayton, Ohio, June 1986.
[32] M.A. Uman, The Zightning discharge, Academic press Inc.,
Orlando, Florida, 1987.
1551
VII. B~OGRAPHIES
Silvia Guerrieri was born in Modena, Italy, in 1968. Received a degree
with honors in Electrical engineering in 1993 from the University of
Bologna and the Ph.D degree in 1997 from the same University. Dr.
Guerrieri has worked as post-graduated student at the Power Systems
Laboratory of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne and has
participate at the 1995 Triggered lightning campaign at Camp Blanding,
Florida co-ordinated by the University of Florida in the framework of an
International research collaboration involving several foreigner Universities
and Institutions. Her main scientific interest concerns lightning
electromagneticpulse effects on power systems. She is author or co-author
of about IO scientific papers.
Carlo Albert0 Nucci was born in Bologna, Italy, in 1956. Received a
degree in electrical engineering in 1981 from the University of Bologna.
Joined the same university in 1982 as researcher in the Power Electrical
Engineering Institute, where he is now Associate Professor of Power
Systems. His research interests concern lightning and nuclear EMP impact
on power lines, power systems dynamics, and the study of power
components including medium voltage capacitors and traction batteries. He
is the responsible member of the Task Force 33.01.01 "Lightning-induced
overvoltages"of the CERE Working Group 33.01 "Lightning",member of
the IEEE Working Group on the Lightning Performances of Distribution
Lines, and member of the Joint Task Force CIRED/CIGRE on "Protection of
distribution networks against lightning".He is author or coauthor of about
70 scientificpapers presented at international conferences and published on
reviewed journals.
Farhad Rachidi (M'93) was born in Geneva in 1962. He received the M.S.
degree in electrical engineering and the Ph.D. degree from the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Lausannc, in 1986 and 1991. He is currently
working at the Power Systems laboratory of the same institute. His research
interests concern lightning and EMP interactions with transmission lines. He
is a member of the Task Force 33.01.01 "Lightning-inducedovervoltages"of
the CERE Working Group 33.01 "Lightning", member of the IEEE
Working Group on the Lightning Performances of Distribution Lines, and of
the Joint Task Force CIRED/CIGRE "Protection of distribution networks
against lightning". Farhad Rachidi is author or coauthor of more than 40
scientific papers published on reviewed journals and presented at
international conferences.
Marcos Rubinstein was born in San Cristobal, Venezuela, in 1960. He
graduated as an Electronics Engineer from Universidad Simon Bolivar,
Caracas, in 1982. AAer a two-year stay in charge of the Hybrid Circuit
Laboratory at the Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research, Dr.
Rubinstein moved to the University of Florida, where he received his
Master's and Ph.D. degrees in 1986 and 1991, respectively, under the
direction of Prof. Martin Uman. From 1992 to 1995, Dr. Rubinstein worked
at the Swiss Federal Institute of 'Technology in Lausanne where he was
involved in research on lightning location systems, electromagnetic
compatibility, lightning physics research, and undergraduate teaching. In
1995, he moved to the Swiss PTT Telecom where he is currently involved
with numerical electromagnetics and EMC. Dr. Rubinstein is a member of
three Task Forces in CIGRE's lightning working group 33.01. Dr.
Rubinstein received the Outstanding Master's Thesis award from the
University of Florida in 1986 and the Creative Research Award from NASA
in 1990. He is a member of the Eta Kappa Nu Honor society.He is author or
co-author of more than 30 scientificpublications.
1552

Discussion changes in the shape of the structure [A-C]. Fig. B

shows the current derivative of a lightning stroke
W. Janischewskyj, A. M. Hussein (University of captured on July 13, 1995 at 8:21:22 pm, while
Toronto): The authors are to be congratulated for Fig. C presents the current waveshape obtained by
the penetrating investigation of the effects exerted numerical integration of the waveform in Fig. B.
by characteristics of the object struck by lightning Reflections from various discontinuities in the
upon measured currents and fields. Their study tower structure are much more clearly discernible in
includes the important analysis of current the waveshape of the current derivative. The
oscillations within the object as well as their FIRST PEAK in Fig. B represents the undistorted
refractions back into the lightning channel. The
important conclusion made by the authors
emphasizes the fact that observed waveforms of the
radiated field and especially of its derivative are
affected by the structure hit by lightning even when
the structure is as short as 10 m.

Studies at the 553 m-tall CN Tower in Toronto

(Fig. A) indicate the profound effect, upon the
observed waves of current and of current derivative
associated with a lightning strike, caused by the
Tower Top -
553m

l i m e @SI

/ RogowskiCoil Fig. B Current Derivative waveform of a stroke

474m
recorded at the CN Tower on July 13, 1995 at
Top of Skypod \ Space Deck 8:21:22 pm.
365 444m
-1
[-\ ..............
.
.
..
.
..
.
..
..
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
; .. ..:........_......:.... . . . . . . ..: . .... ......

Bottom of

i
Skypod 335m

-9
-10'
-1
t ---, v /- I
Grood 2
Tme LIS] ' \ " 5

Fig. C Current obtained by numerical integration of

Fig. A The Canadian National Tower in Toronto the waveshape in Fig. B.
 1553

waveshape of the incident lightning, observed at the by reflections (compare with Fig. C). In order to
474 m level, while other discontinuities relate to recover the incident waveshape from such records,
reflections at changes in the structure of the Tower. detailed information about reflections at various
The point marked DISTORTION represents a tower discontinuities rnust be known and complex
small amount of reflection at the Space Deck (444 computation must be performed.
m level of the Tower), SECOND PEAK is caused
by the bulging of the Tower at the Top of the In general, reflection #characteristicsof the struck
Skypod (365 m level), THIRD PEAK is the structure are not known and it is the recorded
consequence of the reduction in Tower diameter at waveshape that may be used to find them. In that
the BQttom of the Skypod (335 m level), and respect, location of the sensing element is very
FOURTH PEAK is the result of the ground important. In particular, current shunts placed at
reflection at the base of the Tower. the bottom of a tower include not only the incident
wave but also the ground reflections from the very
Detailed analysis of instances at which these start of the recording. This should be suspected as
reflections occur indicates that the lightning current the primary reason wky Eriksson’s steepnesses [3],
wave propagates within the Tower at practically measured at the bottom of his tower, are larger than
the speed of light [A]. Furthermore, the shape of those obtained by Berger [l] in Switzerland and by
the incident wave remains unaffected until the investigators in Italy [%I,using sensors at the tops
reflections from the closest discontinuity arrive at of their towers. At the same time, the waveshape
the observation point. For CN Tower data, that obtained at the bottorn of a tower provides no
time is about 200 ns, corresponding to the travel of explicit information about the ground reflection as
the wave from the observation point to the Space such. Consequently, it is not possible to recover
Deck and back. Consequently, in case of the CN the incident wave from measurements at ground
Tower, current wavefronts shorter than 200 ns are level unless the exact value of the ground reflection
correctly reproduced while wavefronts that peak coefficient is known from other sources. Similarly,
after 200 ns, such as shown in Fig. D, are distorted it is not possible to determine the reflection
coefficient at the top of a tower when only the
waveshape at its top is available. Fig. 2b of the
paper is an ideal example of that situation. The
absolute peak of the computed current wave is the
result of reflections at both the bottom and the top
of the considered 248-m tower. If this were the
measured wave, the ratio of the absolute to first
peak would represent the combined effect of both
reflection coefficients but would not provide
information on their individual values. In that
respect, the location of the Rogowski Coil at the
CN Tower avoids these difficulties.
I
-7‘
-1-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time bs] The discussers would like to express their
Fig. D Current waveform of a stroke agreement with the authors’ suggestion that
recorded at the CN Tower on July 13, 1995 at lightning statistics, especially the probabilities for
8:15:18 pm occurrence of current peak values, be re-evaluated.
1554
It was already in a 1993 paper [D] that the
discussers, with others, drew the attention to the
need to collect “primary data on lightning,
undisturbed by the characteristics of the struck
object”. There are two aspects associated with that
recommendation. For one, having the undisturbed
incident lightning current waveform available, and
knowing the reflection characteristics of any
specified tall structure, actual values of lightning
current within that specific object can be readily
determined, as for instance was accomplished by
the authors in the paper under discussion. On the
other hand, lightning statistics should reflect the
characteristics of lightning rather than those of a
specific tall structure at which lightning data have
been collected. In that respect, there is a need to re-
visit even the classical information of such
exceptionally distinguished pioneers as Berger and
re-evaluate their findings. It is a major task.
Responses of respective towers should be re-
established and collected waveforms re-examined
with the knowledge of changes in incident waves
caused by relevant reflection coefficients. If
needed, corrections to “recorded peak values”
should be made, and it should be studied how these
findings might affect such statistical distributions as
“current peak values” and “current front
steepnesses”, presently used as the basis for
evaluation of transmission-line lightning
performance [E].
It is conceivable that lightning characteristics
depend not only on the geographical latitude, but
also on regional climatic peculiarities. Usefulness of
local lightning information for power line routing
has been demonstrated in a previous paper [F]. In
his lectures and personal conversations, the first
discusser has already in the past expressed his
reservation on pulling information from around the
globe without regard to where it would be applied
to and he has advocated that local statistics be
developed and used whenever available. We are
doing it with lightning ground flash density data,
and we should extend that approach also at least to
peak-current statistics. As the authors confirm,
lightning location systems are expected to become
eventually the sources for such local statistical data.
And in this regard, the study of the authors on the
recovery of lightning current peak values from
measured maxima of the electromagnetic field, is
extremely important. Studies performed at the CN
Tower showed critical dependence of the
surrounding field upon the way the CN Tower is
modeled [B, C]. Those studies indicate that the
recovery process should not disregard, as is
normally done, the presence of the object struck by
lightning. Investigations conducted at the
University of Toronto also confirm the findings of
the authors made on the basis of calculations that
alternately include and exclude the struck object [B,
61-
Indeed, additional studies are needed before the
inference of currents from measured fields can be
unequivocally accepted. Equations (10) and (1 1) in
the paper are approximations that do not take many
aspects of the actual situation into account. The
authors have mentioned the possible effect of the
final jump. In case of the CN Tower, as
documented by video records and the measurement
of return stroke velocity [GI, final jump often
occurs tens of meters above the structure. In such
cases, the return stroke charge is observed to move
from the fmal jump point in both directions,
towards the cloud as well as towards the tower.
This latter motion is normally not considered
in field calculations. Also, one-dimensional
measurements at the CN Tower [GI have shown
variations in the return-stroke velocity which is not
accounted for in equations (10) and (11) of the
paper. In addition, the tortuosity of the lightning
trajectory is not taken into consideration, a factor
that, for any specified lightning current, would
change the value of the resultant electromagnetic
field [HI. The discussers hope that considerable
amount of effort will be placed by investigators
around the globe to improve the process by which
 1555

information on lightning current could be of Transmission Lines”, IEEE Transactions

derived from measured values of the radiated on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-
electromagnetic field. Alternatively, the least that is 104, No. 4, April 1985, pp. 919-932.
needed, is to derive statistical bounds on the
expected validity of probabilities obtained with the [F] N. Herodotou, W.A. Chisholm, and W.
use of simplified formulae. Janischewskyj, “Distribution of Lightning
Peak Stroke Currents in Ontario using an LLP
System”, IEEE Transactions on Power
REFERENCES Delivery, Vol. 8, No. 3, July 1993, pp. 1331-
1339.
W. Janischewskyj, A.M. Hussein, and V.
Shostak, “Propagation of Lightning Current [GI D. Wang, Z.-I. Kawasaki, K. Yamamoto, K.
within the CN Tower”, CIGRE SC 33 Matsura, J.-S. Chang, and W. Janischewskyj,
Colloquium, Toronto, Canada, September 2-3, “Luminous Propagation of lightning
1997. Attachment to the CN Tower”, Journal of
R. Rusan, W. Janischewskyj, A.M. Hussein, Geophysical Research (Atmosphere), Vol.
and J.-S. Chang, “Comparison of Measured 100, No. 6, June 1995, pp. 11,661-11,667.
and Computed Electromagnetic Fields
Radiated from Lightning Strikes to the [HI W. Janischewskyj, V. Shostak, A.M.
Toronto CN Tower”, The 23rd International Hussein, and W. Chisholm, “Estimation of
Conference on Lightning Protection, Florence, Lightning Location System Accuracy Using
Italy, Sept. 23-27, 1996, pp. 297-301. CN Tower Lightning Data”, The 23rd
International Conference on Lightning
R. Rusan, “Computation of Electromagmetic Protection, Florence, Italy, Sept. 23-27, 1996,
Fields Radiated by Lightning Strikes to the pp. 215-223.
Toronto CN Tower”, M.A.Sc. Thesis,
Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Toronto, 1997.
S. Guerrieri, C A . Nucci, F. Rachidi, M. Rubinstein. The
W. Janischewskyj, A.M. Hussein, P. authors wish to thank the discussers for their words of
Dziurewich, V. Shostak, W.A. Chisholm, appreciation and for the technical information that they
provided which certainly add to the value of the paper.
“Characterization of the Current Wavefiont We share all their comments which, indeed, support our
Parameters of Lightning Strikes to the CN model and our conclusions concerning the need of re-
Tower in Toronto”, The 8th International examining all statistics on lightning current measured by
instrumented towers and that concerning the inherent
Symposium on High Voltage Engineering difficulty in extracting reliable current statistics by LLS data.
(ISH), Yokohama, Japan, Paper No. 70a, We feel worth repeating, however, that due to the enormous
August 23-27, 1993. amount of data which can be gathered by means of LLSs,
such systems represent one of the most promising source of
experimental data to be used for the development of
IEEE Committee Report, “A Simplified standards in view of power systems protection against
Method for Estimating Lightning Performance lightning.