Atmospheric Research 91 (2009) 564–573

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Research
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a t m o s

LINET—An international lightning detection network in Europe

Hans D. Betz a,⁎, Kersten Schmidt a,c, Pierre Laroche a, Patrice Blanchet b, Wolf P. Oettinger c,
Eric Defer d, Z. Dziewit e, J. Konarski e
a
University of Munich, Department of Physics, D-85748 Garching, Germany
b
ONERA, 92322 Chatillon, France
c
Nowcast GmbH, 81377 Munich, Germany
d
LERMA-Observatoire de Paris, 75014 Paris, France
e
Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: During the past years a VLF/LF lightning detection network (LINET) was developed at the
Received 30 November 2007 University of Munich, which provides continuous data for both research and operational
Accepted 10 June 2008 purposes. In particular, the network introduces five new features: a) total lightning capability:
both cloud-to-ground strokes (CG) and cloud lightning (IC) are measured; b) low-amplitude
Keywords: reporting: weak lightning events from discharge channel with currents well below 5 kA are
Lightning detection
detected within the central part of the network, whereby IC events dominate; c) new 3D-
Lightning location
discrimination: a time-of-arrival method is utilized to separate CG from IC with good reliability,
VLF/LF measurements
Total lightning provided that the sensor baseline does not exceed ~ 250 km; d) IC emission height: for each
cloud event a height is determined which is thought to reflect the central region of the involved
channel; and e) optimised location accuracy: due to precision and combined action of all
influential network components, complemented by site-error corrections, the position
accuracy of strokes reaches an average value as small as ~ 150 m, whereby false locations
(‘outliers’) rarely occur. During international co-operations LINET has been deployed in four
continents: Europe (initially Germany), South America (area of Bauru, Brazil), Australia (around
Darwin), and Central Africa (Benin). Since the features quoted above could be verified in the
tests, a 65-sensor network was established in Europe and started on May 1, 2006, in co-
operation with the service company nowcast. LINET covers a wide area approximately from
longitude −10° to 25° to latitude 35° to 66°; it is available for scientific projects and officially
utilized by the German Weather Service for operational purposes. Meanwhile, the network was
extended by deployment of additional sites so that it comprises about 90 sensors in 17
countries.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction available in southern Germany, the atmospheric research

In most European countries commercial lightning location
systems are operational on a national basis, which utilize the
VLF/LF band or make additional use of VHF techniques. While
VLF/LF networks report exclusively or dominantly cloud-to-
ground strokes (CG), VHF methods allow the detection of in-
cloud or cloud-to-cloud discharges (IC). Since lightning
detection systems for special scientific projects had not been
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hans-dieter.betz@physik.uni-muenchen.de (H.D. Betz).
group at the University of Munich developed an independent
solution, initially motivated by needs for improved early
recognition of thunderstorms and severe weather conditions.
Preliminary tests revealed a number of open questions and
differences to lightning data from other sources; for further
clarification both spatial and temporal resolution of the
initially constructed equipment was insufficient and it
appeared necessary to develop an improved system with
higher data quality so that comparisons with other networks
enable more reliable conclusions. The final version was
designed to exploit modern hardware components and

0169-8095/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2008.06.012
 H.D. Betz et al. / Atmospheric Research 91 (2009) 564–573 565

software procedures; it became ready in 2004 and underwent
a series of stringent practical tests in four continents. In
cooperation with DLR (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und
Raumfahrt, Institute for Physics of the Atmosphere, Oberpfaf-
fenhofen, Germany) a 6-sensor version of LINET was tempo-
rally set up in South America (area of Bauru, Brazil), Australia
(around Darwin), and Central Africa (Benin) for the study of
lightning in tropical and sub-tropical regions. LINET was
compared with the local lightning detection network ‘RINDAT’
in Brazil; it turned out that LINET located up to the 20-fold
number of strokes (CG + IC), whereby the difference arose
mainly in the low-amplitude range (Schmidt et al., 2005). A
further aim was to exploit LINET to obtain quantitative
estimates of lightning-produced NOx (Huntrieser et al., 2007,
2008). Although only relatively small areas could be covered,
these campaigns also served as stringent tests for the
usefulness of the acquired data and the performance of
LINET under different and partly adverse conditions.
In Germany the new lightning detection network was
completed in 2006 after deployment of 30 sensors. All
receivers are identical, utilize the VLF/LF frequency range,
and detect the magnetic flux of the lightning signal by means
of two orthogonal loops. The distance between neighboring
sensors is near 200 km or less. In the Munich area the number
of sensors is larger than required for standard operation of the
network, because continuous tests of the efficiency and
accuracy, as well as further optimization procedures are
performed. In order to achieve an international European

Fig. 1. a. Lightning map obtained on July 6, 2006, from 0:00 to 24:00 UTC. In total, some 500,000 strokes have been recorded and located, although the storms
mostly occurred in areas outside Germany. IC and CG are not identified separately. All shown locations have been obtained from at least 5 sensor reports. For this
reason, the location accuracy is quite good and allows reproducing relatively sharp contours of storm cells even when the sensor density is not as high as for an
ideal configuration. b. LINET sensor map as of May, 2008.
566 H.D. Betz et al. / Atmospheric Research 91 (2009) 564–573

Fig. 1 (continued).

network, an additional group of 60 sensors has been set up in
16 neighboring countries. With this, LINET achieves a basic
coverage of the lightning activity in large parts of Europe.
Fig. 1a displays a lightning map for the storms on July 6, 2006,
and Fig. 1b shows the locations of sensor sites as of May 2008.
While the sensor geometry in Germany allows locating very
weak lightning events with the inclusion of large numbers of
cloud lightning (IC), LINET reports in the surrounding areas
predominantly the stronger events, which are mainly return
strokes (CG). The ongoing step-wise addition of new sensors
will reduce the lower limit of detectable events and, thus,
enhance reporting of total lightning in increasing areas.
Several comparisons of LINET output with total-lightning
data from national networks operating in VHF and VLF/LF
domains have revealed that LINET detects storm cells as early
and with comparable efficiency as the considered other
systems. This finding proves that an appropriately applied
VLF/LF technique is suitable for the measurement of total
lightning. The realized quantitative performance is an indica-
tion that the possibility of locating a large number of low-
amplitude cloud lightning by means of VLF/LF methods has
been underestimated in the past. Unfortunately, only some of
the network comparisons will be published, because the
considered data from various national networks are not
openly available; this includes most of the VLF/LF networks
with a dominantly commercial character.
2. Network features
Since in many countries lightning location networks exist
for a long time, undergo frequent updates and serve different
purposes quite well, a new system needs some justification. In
 H.D. Betz et al. / Atmospheric Research 91 (2009) 564–573
the following, we explain five specific features (see Abstract
above), which render LINET different from other solutions,
apart from the fact that an international network solution
provides many general advantages such as one homogeneous
data source for large areas and easy access for many different
user groups.
2.1. Total lightning
According to generally forwarded understanding, efficient
reporting of total lightning on a continuous basis requires the
use of VHF and VLF/LF techniques for the measurement of IC
and CG discharges, respectively. This is the reason why
systems such as SAFIR (Richard et al., 1986; Richard, 1991)
have been developed and deployed in several countries.
Networks of this kind serve two goals that must be
distinguished: i) detailed scientific studies of discharge
processes by means of comprehensive mapping of lightning
channels, presumably formed by leader steps, and ii) detec-
tion of total lightning for practical applications in large areas
(e.g. for weather services). As regards i) there is no alternative
to sophisticated VHF systems; for this reason, at various
places successful research networks have been installed,
utilizing TOA (time-of-arrival) and DF (direction finding) for
localization of radio source points, suited for the desired high-
precision observations of electrical cloud activities (Shao and
Krehbiel, 1996; Thomas et al., 2004). Utilization of VHF
systems according to goal ii) represents a procedure, which–
despite the relatively large efforts for set-up and operation–
has been thought to be inevitable for representative and
quantitative IC detection. For example, in a recent contribu-
tion by Murphy et al. (2007) it is claimed that IC stroke
amplitudes from VLF/LF processes are much smaller than
those due to CG strokes and, thus, LF networks appear hardly
Fig. 2. Time dependence of a series of small and large IC events in a cloud flash (taken from Betz et al., 2007).
567
suited for the detection of IC activities, with the consequence
that systems such as the U.S. NLDN can reach only ~10% IC
flash detection efficiency. Interpretations of this kind empha-
sise the necessity for VHF techniques; nevertheless, contrast-
ing evidence will be explained below: VLF/LF systems can
provide an alternative for efficient detection and location of
IC-lightning.
VHF networks offer detailed information on the evolution,
geometry and branching of lightning channels, because IC
discharges may produce a large number of independent radio
source signals, which can be traced by locating a correspond-
ingly large number of sufficiently strong emission points. It is
generally accepted that VHF radiation occurs during forma-
tion of stepped leaders, which prepare channels for both CG
and IC strokes. As is well known from the study of ground
flashes, an actual return stroke occurs somewhat later in time,
typically 10–20 ms after the formation of leader channels.
Thus, VHF signals are not directly indicative of a CG stroke; for
example, the many branches that reflect leader activity must
not carry significant currents later on, a leader may end as an
attempted one and may not be followed by further strokes. By
contrast, when a comparatively large current flows within a
short time, it causes a direct VLF/LF signature not necessarily
accompanied by detectable VHF radiation. Provided that the
VHF system is run in the 3D mode and a leader channel can be
observed down to the ground connection, CG identification
becomes feasible. However, the required line-of-sight obser-
vation is not possible all the time, and most systems such as
SAFIR-type networks are usually operated in the 2D-mode so
that no CG–IC discrimination becomes realistic. This is why
SAFIR systems require additional information for discrimina-
tion with respect to the subsequently produced CG and IC
strokes. Consequently, additional VLF/LF sensors are added,
which are thought to be sensitive only to CG strokes: when a
568 H.D. Betz et al. / Atmospheric Research 91 (2009) 564–573
sensor of this kind detects no signal, registered VHF source
points are typed as steps indicative of an IC discharge.
Altogether, the highly complex grouping of extracted and
associated source points allows quite accurate mapping of
lightning channels or branches. For many applications,
however, this feature is too powerful and technically not
necessary when it suffices to detect major cloud flashes or
significant emission of radiation from IC processes. It will be
demonstrated below that VLF/LF systems can serve this
purpose.
In Fig. 2 we display a series of VLF/LF signals that turn out
to result from IC events and represent a typical cloud flash,
containing events with both small and large amplitudes. It
can be seen that among the many individual pulses in the
flash with a total duration of 180 ms, only 16 exhibit
amplitudes above 1.5 kA, which relate to IC events with
range-normalized currents, and, thus, are readily recorded at
a sufficiently large number of sensors to allow locating and
complete reporting. A quantitative evaluation of this kind of
LINET pulses reveals that the number of located IC events is
comparable with or exceeds the amount of data retrieved
from the studied SAFIR-type VHF systems. Fig. 3 displays the
total lightning activity recorded with LINET and the SAFIR-
type network PERUN for a storm that moved over most parts
of Poland from the West towards East. In line with the above,
LINET counts all time-isolated VLF/LF pulses from CG and IC
lightning strokes, while the shown PERUN counts represent
the number of leader channels derived from the located VHF
source points. Presumably, the individual radio source points
are produced during leader steps that are mostly associated
with subsequent CG or IC strokes, though isolated radio
signals or short signal groups also occur. PERUN operates with
9 sensor sites in Poland; details have been described by
Maciazek and Bartosik (2004), and Loboda et al. (2006).
Obviously, copious amounts of VLF/LF signals exist that
can be exploited for comprehensive reporting of total light-
ning activity, just as one is used to from VHF systems. This
finding updates common descriptions of possibilities pro-
vided by VLF/LF techniques and leads to some modifications
and additions in the understanding of cloud discharges (Betz
et al., 2007); it must be admitted, though, that it is not quite
Fig. 3. Time evolution of total lightning, recorded with both LINET (VLF/LF
events) and PERUN (VHF channels + LF strokes) in Poland, on June 21, 2006. It
becomes obvious that both networks detect convective storms in a similar
manner, with respect to early recognition of storms and amount of located
lightning signals (taken from Loboda et al., 2006).
clear which stages of the entire discharge process produce the
large number of IC events clearly observed in the VLF/LF
range. One interesting observation is that up to about half the
VHF discharges produce a first radio source point at a time,
which is coincident with a LINET report of an IC stroke; most
likely, these signals represent the preliminary breakdown
that may be followed by a subsequently produced CG or IC
stroke. In principle, coincidences of this kind are well known
(Shao and Krehbiel, 1996), but quantitative occurrence has
been studied less intensively. As regards the results from
Fig. 3, it must be added that at the time of measurement
(summer 2006) only 5 LINET sensors had been deployed in
Poland, implying rather large distances between the sensors,
not adequate for the size of the country. Meanwhile, this
shortcoming has been remedied and a first, most recent
comparison indicates an increase of located lightning events
relative to PERUN reports. In order to achieve a more
comprehensive statistics, the present data will be analysed
in future work, in cooperation with the Polish Weather
Service (IMGW), and with the inclusion of additional data
from 2007 and 2008.
To some extent it is remarkable that LINET measurements
of VLF/LF signals do contain large amounts of IC events. On the
one hand, this conclusion is well confirmed by the results
reported for the recently presented LASA sferics array from
the Los Alamos group, where IC events are also detected and
located in relatively large numbers (Smith et al., 2002; Shao
et al., 2006). On the other hand, though, it is also claimed that
because of alleged small amplitudes of IC events VLF/LF
systems exhibit an IC flash detection efficiency of only 10%
(Murphy et al., 2007). In any case, the reported LINET
observations are in line with qualitative expectations, because
it is longstanding knowledge that lightning data from VLF/LF
systems do contain IC events. For decades it is customary to
measure CG and IC signals in so-called slow or fast EM-field
records and to analyse characteristic features of prominent
signatures, such as breakdown sequences, streamers, K-
processes and return strokes. In most cases, though, the
lightning discharges that correspond to the field records have
not been located and, thus, the associated channel currents
have not been determined, and no comprehensive statistics
about the frequency of occurrence have become available. As
a quantitative novelty, LINET contributes to fill this gap by
locating the well-known IC signatures in an efficient way so
that it produces more IC observations than customary large
VLF/LF networks.
The ability to cover a storm over large areas in terms of
both CG and IC events without data loss in real time renders
LINET a useful tool for a variety of research purposes, ranging
from cell-tracking, recognition of severe weather conditions,
and study of lightning-induced chemical processes, to input
data for modelling of convective processes. A particular future
research project is aimed at a more sophisticated simulta-
neous measurement of VLF/LF events and VHF signals,
observed with LINET and research-oriented VHF systems
operating in the 3D-mode and utilizing both TOA and DF
techniques (PROFEO, see Section 3). One of the goals is to
study the question of which steps of a discharge give rise to
what kind of emission; in particular, it remains to become
enlightened why so many relatively distinct IC strokes can be
measured, e.g. with LINET, and in what way they are related to
 H.D. Betz et al. / Atmospheric Research 91 (2009) 564–573
initial breakdown, run-away electrons, leaders, streamers and
K-processes.
2.2. Low-amplitude reporting
A decisive point of interest refers to the possibilities for
comprehensive measurements of IC events by means of VLF/
LF equipment. The detection efficiency of lightning location
networks depends on a variety of parameters, such as
sensitivity of antennae, amplitude thresholds, dead-times,
handling of signals in the receiver, sensor baselines, and
treatment in the central data processing unit. In LINET, these
influential components and software algorithms have been
optimised so that all signals can be treated that exceed the
noise level at a specified minimum number of sensors (see
below). Thus, channel currents well below 5 kA are reliably
detected and localized, provided that sensor baselines are less
than approximately 250 km. It is important to point out that
at the sensor level all incoming signals are analysed as soon as
a certain amplitude threshold is exceeded. No signal is
eliminated, except when a Fourier-based evaluation recog-
nizes an artefact of technical origin within a very small
frequency band. Of course, not all noise-related pulses are
filtered and some false signals are transmitted to the central
processing unit; however, there is hardly a chance to find
correlated signals from other sensors matching in time and,
thus, to produce so-called outlier-locations. In total, the
chosen procedures enable very complete measurements of
incoming signals and extraction of a maximum of localized
events.
It must be realized, though, that a flash often includes
weaker IC signals that cannot be located with a given
network. As shown in Fig. 2 of the preceding Section 2.1,
only the larger signals in the flash that relate to IC events with
currents above 1.5 kA are recorded at a sufficient number of
sensors to allow locating and reporting. All other pulses,
though above threshold and well isolated from preceding or
subsequent field changes, are too small to be detected at the
necessary number of sensors for further processing and
locating. It must be concluded that the number of IC
emissions, discernible as distinct fast field records, is much
larger than located with present arrays.
Measurement and location of IC events with VLF/LF
techniques require that the used network be capable of
detecting small pulses, irrespective of the pulse shapes. Cloud
discharges produce a variety of signal types, ranging from
very narrow pulses, which last a few microseconds (NBE,
narrow bipolar events, see Smith et al., 1999; Eack, 2004;
Jacobson and Heavner, 2005), to long signal trains extending
over several milliseconds (Gomes et al., 2004; Betz et al.,
2007). Fig. 4 shows that a network with a very small baseline,
partly as low as 25 km, produces a wealth of events with
different pulse shapes and also with exceedingly low
amplitudes down to ~ 2 kA. Extending the comments from
above, the trend of the amplitude distribution suggests that
still smaller IC currents exist so that, in fact, the 100%-level of
individual IC strokes remains unknown and any attempt to fix
total stroke numbers runs into problems of defining a lowest
accepted current. As a consequence, quotations of IC-stroke
detection efficiency are meaningful only when a lower
amplitude limit is explicitly specified. Less problematic is
569
Fig. 4. Amplitude distribution of IC events measured with LINET in Germany,
using a network configuration with small baseline (taken from Betz et al.,
2007). While the IC− events peak near 3 kA, the IC+ events continue to
become more abundant at lower currents and the drop below 2 kA reflects
the limitations of the network efficiency (bin size 0.5 kA).
the counting of complete IC flashes; since cloud activity
within a flash is abundant and produces both small and large
signals, most systems will detect at least one of the many
signals, thereby establishing occurrence of an IC flash. Of
course, simple flash counting is not necessarily a very
meaningful undertaking when the entire electrical activity
in large convective clouds is the target of interest.
With the use of TOA a minimum of four sensor reports is
required for location, but more reports are included when
available. It is important to note that direction finding (DF) is
not routinely applied as it leads to large location errors even
after having applied site-error corrections. In principle, since
TOA and DF values are available, 2D-locations could be
extracted from two or three reports, allowing locating strokes
with somewhat smaller currents than indicated above; in this
case, however, the locating accuracy suffers substantially
because of a small degree of freedom and imperfect site error
corrections of the bearing angles.
A further point of interest concerns the question of how
realistic amplitude distributions of CG strokes are reported by
lightning location networks. When strokes are measured in
the VLF or LF range the signal amplitude can be used to infer
the current flowing in the lightning channel. It is well
documented that range-normalized currents vary within a
large range and extend up to several 100 kA with both
negative and positive polarity; less is known about the lower
part of the distribution because measurements become more
difficult. For example, the lightning detection network in
the U.S. (NLDN) reports stroke distributions with a peak Î near
15 kA, starting at a lower threshold of ~5 kA, whereby the
detection efficiency near 5 kA is limited to some 20% (Jerauld
et al., 2004). For a long time, no systematic information was
available about still smaller currents. In contrast to the quoted
peak of 15 kA, many other networks report much higher
current peak-values for Î (~30 kA), but in several countries
in Europe Î amounts to only ~ 10 kA. These discrepancies have
never been convincingly commented upon or explained,
especially when one takes into account that detection
efficiencies of 80–90% are attributed to each of the networks.
Very recently, Krider et al. (2006) carried out careful video
observations of weak strokes and added these data
to the NLDN reports: as a result the Î peak moved down to
570 H.D. Betz et al. / Atmospheric Research 91 (2009) 564–573
Fig. 5. Amplitude distribution of CG strokes from PERUN (LF part) and total
lightning from LINET (CG + IC from VLF/LF) obtained in Poland on June 21,
2006, 00:00–24:00 UTC. Above ~30 kA good agreement is found (taken from
Loboda et al., 2006).
about −6 kA, in excellent agreement with LINET observations
in many different regions.
It is undisputed that cloud lightning generates a larger
number of events with amplitudes lower as compared to CG
strokes, but the distributions for the two types of lightning
overlap significantly with respect to signal amplitudes. For
two reasons LINET observations of amplitude distributions
extend down to small values mostly well below 5 kA. First, the
LINET sensor measures the magnetic flux of the lightning
signal directly as a function of time, rather than the time
derivative with subsequent integration. This feature is helpful
for the treatment of small signals close to the noise level and it
is achieved by measuring the induced current rather than the
induced voltage, whereby the antenna circuit parameters are
appropriately dimensioned. Second, all signals are treated
irrespective of their waveform; this is possible because IC–CG
discrimination is performed not by means of wave-form
criteria at the sensor, but by a specially adopted 3D-algorithm
in the central processing unit. This LINET feature circumvents
problems related to the finding that shape differences
between IC and CG signals become less pronounced when
the amplitude decreases (see also Krider et al., 2006).
Fig. 5 shows a comparison of amplitude distributions
acquired with LINET and PERUN in Poland. It becomes obvious
that the two networks agree with respect to the reporting of
CG strokes with large amplitudes. At small currents, the
excess of LINET events is due to both the increasing number of
IC events and, to a non-negligible extent, to the low detection
efficiency of the PERUN LF-sensor used for the CG identifica-
tion. A number of parameters such as peak current estimates
and detection efficiency that determine the quality of PERUN
data have been described by Loboda et al. (2006). Compar-
isons of LINET data acquired in four different continents listed
above have revealed that absolute Î-values were always below
10 kA. Of course, specific storms may differ and can produce
higher-peaked distributions; for example, winter storms in
Germany sometimes show current distributions with Î twice
as large as for summer storms.
2.3. Discrimination of IC events and CG strokes
CG and IC signals from VLF/LF measurements tend to
dominate for high and low currents, respectively, but due to
the considerable overlap reliable discrimination between IC and
CG cannot be based on amplitude considerations, so that other
methods must be used. Traditionally, pulse shape has been
utilized for this purpose (wave-form discrimination, see
Cummins et al., 1998), though shortcomings have been noticed
for some time (Krider et al., 2006). Accordingly, the lower the
current, the more probable becomes misclassification of
positive IC events as positive-polarity CG strokes (Orville et al.,
2002). Recently, it was also found that a certain fraction of
negative IC strokes is readily misclassified as negative-polarity
CG strokes (Nag and Rakov, 2008). This means that a VLF/LF
network with total lightning capability, namely with reporting
of low-current IC events, must adopt other procedures. This is
the reason why LINET exploits a geometrical 3D-version newly
developed for VLF/LF networks, which is largely independent of
pulse shapes and relies on TOA analysis (Betz et al., 2004).
Let us briefly review the new discrimination method: it is
based on the well-known fact that CG strokes emit VLF/LF
radiation dominantly from channel parts close to ground
level, while IC emission originates necessarily from channel
segments inside the clouds and well above ground level (let
us disregard the special case of very mountainous areas and
low-lying clouds). The corresponding differences in travel
time from high- and low-lying emission centers are exploited
within the TOA locating algorithm. This method works well as
long as two conditions are fulfilled: first, the distance
between a flash and the closest sensor does not exceed
some 125 km (corresponding to sensor baselines of ~ 250 km);
otherwise, the TOA differences become too small to be
discernible. Second, the location accuracy must be better
than the difference of the two relevant travel distances; this
condition implies correction of systematic site errors.
Fig. 6 reproduces the discrimination scheme: in a typical
example, the IC emission may originate from a height of 8 km
above ground level and the closest sensor may be positioned
at a distance of 100 km. Then, the arrival time difference for
the two assumed emissions amounts to ~ 1 μs, or a path
difference of ~ 320 m. The corresponding requirements for
effective discrimination are signal-time precision of better
than ~1 μs and location accuracy of better than ~ 300 m. Both
conditions can be met because LINET exhibits an effective
time accuracy of ~0.2 μs (60 m signal travel path) in the
central parts of the network. It may be noted that for smaller
distances between lightning and a sensor the requirements
on the network performance relax considerably. For control
purposes, an independent method can be employed in some
Fig. 6. Principle of IC recognition: IC and CG signals from the same 2D-
location arrive with a time difference dT = TP − TH (P = center of VLF emission;
S = sensor site; H = emission source height).
 H.D. Betz et al. / Atmospheric Research 91 (2009) 564–573 571

Due to the adopted algorithm, practically no location

Fig. 7. Emission height distribution of IC events (storm in Germany, taken
from Betz et al., 2007).
solutions result with heights close to ground, but problema-
tically large heights above the usual cloud top level are not
rare. On the one hand, a reason may be traced to inadequacies
of the discrimination algorithm, with possible connections to
near-field effects, resulting in overestimates for the height. On
the other hand, indications substantiate that charged layers
develop above thunderstorm clouds that allow lightning at
high altitudes. The height determinations by the Los Alamos
group (Smith et al., 2004) also show a strong tail in the
distributions of heights, determined from ionospheric reflec-
tions, which extends up to ~ 30 km. Still, the relative large
number of high-altitude events raises suspicion and must be
investigated further.

cases for the identification of IC events, namely the analysis of

multiple reflections at ground and at the ionosphere (Smith et
al., 2004). Occasionally, such reflections have been found in
LINET data and the corresponding evaluation verified the IC
nature of the event.
In the majority of cases the described discrimination
works quite well, but in some instances ambiguities arise so
that a word of caution must be added. We mention three
reasons: first, complex and long signal trains may cause
selection of non-compatible pulse-peaks at the participating
sensors, giving rise to unusually large residual errors. Second,
signal transmission may lead to pulse alterations and time
delays, which are not sufficiently identical for different
regions between lightning and sensors. Third, systematic
data shifts must be removed that cause locating errors larger
than ~ 300 m. In the first two cases, the TOA values to be used
in the central processing unit lead to location solutions with
errors larger than the acceptable limit. The first case is not
always problematic because long signals are indicative of IC
events (Gomes et al., 2004); thus, classification is possible but
the extracted emission height may have a large error. Still, in a
small fraction of cases choice of a wrong signal feature can
cause an erroneous height or a misclassification of the stroke
type. In the second case the problem can be remedied by
means of special compensation procedures, which are
presently tested. This includes ‘salt-water’ corrections,
which turn out to be necessary for areas where the signals
travel significant parts of the path over water, as noticed from
the project campaign in northern Australia and analysis of
lightning data from Mediterranean storms. The third case can
be remedied by, for example, utilization of ground truth such
as known strikes to towers (see Section 2.5).

2.4. Report of IC emission height

The discrimination of IC and CG is based on the 3D-

analysis noted above and, thus, yields characteristic emission
heights of IC events (Betz et al., 2004). Fig. 7 gives an example
for the distribution of determined emission heights. Pro-
nounced VLF/LF radiation requires the flow of current through
a reasonably long channel (kilometer range), but it is not yet
known which part the observed signals identify. While the
main source centres agree with radar observations, the Fig. 8. Example for LINET 2D-accuracy, demonstrated by means of located
heights above the top cloud level deserve future attention. strokes to two towers.
572 H.D. Betz et al. / Atmospheric Research 91 (2009) 564–573
2.5. Location accuracy
Particular efforts have been made to attain high location
accuracy everywhere in the network area. It was possible to
achieve a statistical average accuracy of approximately 150 m.
This could be verified by means of strikes to towers: when
numerous lightning locations concentrate closely around a
tower it may be assumed that the tower is either struck or
induces a lightning event in the cloud right above the tower
(upward-initiated lightning); then, the corresponding loca-
tions reflect the precision of the network. Fig. 8 presents two
examples where the average error was less than 100 m as
deduced from a large number of independent strikes, and
after correction of systematic data shifts (site-error correc-
tions). The storms shown in Fig. 8a and b occurred during
wintertime and the towers reached into the clouds; interest-
ingly, one of the storms did not produce any other flashes
around or anywhere in the country (Fig. 8a, in Slovenia). This
particular case continues to be analysed in detail along with
similar tower-induced strokes that either hit towers or appear
to initiate IC discharges exactly above a tower.
The many influential procedures that allow pinpointing of
strokes will be published in a separate paper. Here, it suffices
to explain that the high level of location accuracy is attained
only when careful network fine-tuning is applied. Clearly, this
touches the limits of VLF/LF techniques, but we consider it as
important to be able to demonstrate that this unusual level of
accuracy can be attained. In particular, an average 2D-error of
less than ~300 m can be achieved, which is required for the
discrimination between CG strokes and IC events by means of
the described TOA technique.
3. Conclusion and Future Projects
A spatially extended and continuously operating lightning
detection network such as LINET in Europe allows the analysis
of large-scale thunderstorms even when they move across
many countries. At present, several scientific research groups
utilize LINET data for a variety of purposes. Both the high
detection efficiency with the inclusion of IC events and the
improved location accuracy represent interesting features
that can be exploited by numerous projects in atmospheric
electricity. One particular application concerns the study of
different physical processes during a discharge. For example,
detailed comparisons with the output of VHF systems
facilitate attempts for clarification of the breakdown and
emission sequences; the availability of having two indepen-
dent efficient data sources as given by VHF and VLF/LF arrays
allows better understanding of the lightning process than one
source alone. Besides the comparisons with SAFIR systems it
is intended to use the upcoming PROFEO network, presently
set up by ONERA in the area around Paris (Blanchet et al.,
2006; Laroche et al., 2006). A preliminary comparison
between PROFEO and LINET data confirmed the time-
coincidence between first flash signals from both systems,
enabling insight into the production mechanisms. Occurrence
of low-currents from both IC events and CG strokes can be
studied, and statistical evaluations of various lightning
parameters are facilitated. A presently ongoing analysis
concerns the question how often subsequent CG strokes of a
multi-stroke flash touch ground at the same contact point as
the first stroke. Investigation of correlations between light-
ning activity and sprite production, study of quasi-coincident
lightning in well-separated storm cells, and determination of
lightning-induced NOx production are some of the projects
that utilize the described LINET features. It is planned to
develop the network further and to participate in the
investigation of open questions in lightning production,
especially with respect to cloud lightning.
Acknowledgement
This work was partially supported by Deutsche For-
schungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and Bundesministerium für
Bildung und Forschung (project RegioExAKT by BMBF).
References
Betz, H.-D., Schmidt, K., Oettinger, P., Wirz, M., 2004. Lightning detection with
3D-discrimination of intracloud and cloud-to-ground discharges. J. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 31, L11108. doi:10.1029/2004GL019821.
Betz, H.-D., Schmidt, K., Fuchs, B., Oettinger, W.P., Höller, H., 2007. Cloud
lightning: detection and utilization for total lightning measured in the
VLF/LF regime. J. Light. Rese. 2, 1–17.
Blanchet, P., Lalande, P., Laroche, P., 2006. PROFEO: PROGRAMME FRANCILIEN
D'ETUDES DES ORAGES. 19th Int. Lightning Detection Conference, 24–25
April, Tucson, USA, #38.
Cummins, K.L., Murphy, M.J., Bardo, E.A., Hiscox, W.L., Pyle, R.B., Pifer, A.E.,
1998. A combined TOA/MDF technology upgrade of the U.S. National
Lightning Detection Network. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 9035–9044.
Eack, K.B., 2004. Electrical characteristics of narrow bipolar events. J. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 31, L20102. doi:10.1029/ 2004GL021117.
Gomes, Ch., Cooray, V., Fernando, M., Montano, R., Sonnadara, U., 2004.
Characteristics of chaotic pulse trains generated by lightning flashes. J. Atmos.
Sol.-Terr. Phys. 66, 1733–1743.
Huntrieser, H., Schumann, U., Schlager, H., Höller, H., Giez, A., Betz, H.-D., et al.,
2007. Lightning activity in Brazilian thunderstorms during TROCCINOX:
implications for NO x production. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 7,
14813–14894.
Huntrieser, H., Schumann, U., Schlager, H., Höller, H., Giez, A., Betz, H.-D., et al.,
2008. Lightning activity in Brazilian thunderstorms during TROCCINOX:
implications for NOx production. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 8, 921–953.
Jacobson, A.R., Heavner, M.J., 2005. Comparison of narrow bipolar events
with ordinary lightning as proxies for severe convection. Mon. Weather
Rev. 133, 1144–1154.
Jerauld, J., Rakov, V.A., Uman, M.A., Rambo, K.J., Jordan, D.M., 2004. An
evaluation of the performance characteristics of the NLDN using
triggered lightning. 18th Int. Lightning Detection Conf., Helsinki.
Krider, E.P., Biagi, Ch.J., Cummins, K.L., Kehoe, K.E., 2006. NLDN performance
in Southern Arizona, Texas and Oklahoma in 2003–2004. Int. Conf. on
Grounding and Earthing, GROUND 2006, pp. 471–486. Maceió, Brazil.
Laroche, P., Lalande, P., Blanchet, P., 2006. Lightning physics processes derived
from a lightning mapper system. COST P18–Int. Symp. on Lightning
Physics & Effects, Vienna.
Loboda, M., Maslowski, G., Dziewit, Z., Betz, H.-D., Fuchs, B., Oettinger, P., et al.,
2006. A new lightning detection network in Poland. Int. Conf. on
Grounding and Earthing, Maceió, Brazil.
Maciazek, A., Bartosik, B., 2004. Availability of lightning data in Poland from
the lightning detection system SAFIR 3000–IMGW. 18th Int. Lightning
Detection Conf. (ILDC), 41, Helsinki.
Murphy, M.J., Demetriades, N.W., Cummins, K.L., Holle, R.L., 2007. Cloud
lightning from the U.S. National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN).
13th Int. Conf. on Atmospheric Electricity, August 13–17, Beijing.
Nag, A., Rakov, V.A., 2008. Pulse trains that are characteristic of preliminary
breakdown in cloud-to-ground lightning but not followed by return
stroke pulses. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D01102. doi:10.1029/2007 JD008489.
Orville, R.E., Huffines, G.R., Burrows, W.R., Holle, R.L., Cummins, K.L., 2002.
The North American Lightning Detection Network (NALDN)—first
results: 1998–2000. Mon. Weather Rev. 133, 2098–2109.
Richard, P., 1991. Operational applications of the SAFIR system. International
Aerospace and Ground Conference on Lightning and Static Electricity,
KSC Florida, April 16–19.
Richard, P., Delannoy, A., Labaune, G., Laroche, P., 1986. Results of spatial and
temporal characterization of the VHF–UHF radiation of lightning. J.
Geophys. Res. 91 (D1), 1248–1260.
 H.D. Betz et al. / Atmospheric Research 91 (2009) 564–573
Schmidt, K., Betz, H.-D., Oettinger, W.P., Wirz, M., Pinto, O., Naccarato, K.P.,
Höller, H., Fehr, Th., Held, G., 2005. A comparative analysis of lightning
data during the EU TROCCINOX / TroCCiBras campaign. VIIIth Interna-
tional Symposium on Lightning Protection, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Shao, X.M., Krehbiel, P.R., 1996. The spatial and temporal development of
intracloud lightning. J. Geophys. Res. 101 (D21), 26641–26668.
Shao, X.M., Stanley, M., Regan, A., Harlin, J., Pongratz, M., Stock, M., 2006. Total
lightning observations with new and improved Los Alamos Sferic Array
(LASA). J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 23 (10), 1273–1288.
Smith, D.A., Shao, X.M., Holden, D.N., Rhodes, C.T., 1999. A distinct class of
isolated intracloud lightning discharges. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 4189–4212.
573
Smith, D.A., Eack, K.B., Harlin, J., Heavner, M.J., Jacobson, A.R., Masse, R.S.,
Shao, X.M., Wiens, K.C., 2002. The Los Alamos Sferic Array: a research tool
for lightning investigations. J. Geophys. Res. 107 (D13) 10.1029/2001
DJ000502.
Smith, D.A., Heavner, M.J., Jacobson, A.R., Shao, X.M., Massey, R.S., Sheldon, R.
J., Wiens, K.C., 2004. A method for determining intracloud lightning and
ionospheric height from VF/LF electric field records. Radio Sci. 39,
RS1010. doi:10.1029/2002RS002790.
Thomas, R.J., Krehbiel, P.R., Rison, W., Hunyady, S.J., Winn, W.P., Hamlin, T.,
Harlin, J., 2004. Accuracy of the lightning mapping array. J. Geophys. Res.
109, D14207. doi:10.1029/2004JD004549.