Proceedings of the 14th International Middle East Power Systems Conference (MEPCON’10), Cairo University, Egypt, December 19-21,
2010, Paper ID 185.
New Concept for Lightning Protection of Ships:
The Leader Potential Concept Method
Ahmed A. Hossam-Eldin
hossamudn2009@yahoo.com
Department of Electrical Engineering
Alexandria University, Alexandria 21544 , Egypt
Abstract - The paper introduces the Leader Potential
Concept Method as a newly proposed criterion for lightning
protection of marine ships and structures. The design uses both
the Rolling Sphere Method (RSM) and the Line Charge Model.
This method will help for optimally placing the conventional
lightning protective system with maximum efficiency and
minimum cost. Throughout the paper, numerical results are
introduced for different methods to show the superiority of the
Leader Potential Concept Method 'LPCM' above the other
compared methods. A useful completely dedicated software has
been created for calculating the parameters for each method.
The software showed to be very effective in calculating the
parameters for most of ships by just giving the dimensions of a
particular ship, and it revealed that the LPCM method has the
lowest possible cost for a lightning protective scheme.
Keywords: lightning, protection, marine, structures and ships
I. INTRODUCTION
Marine vessels are often the tallest objects in a large space
(ocean). Lightning blows out the bottom of ships and causes
the loss of economy by damaging the navigational and
communication equipments [1]. Lightning protection
requirements for a ship are more stringent than those for most
of other buildings. Failure of lightning protection system may
cause the maloperation of navigational equipment which is
unacceptable on a ship midocean. There are different methods
for the placement of the lightning protectors on marine ships;
like the Cone Protection Method 'CPM', the Rolling Sphere
Method 'RSM' and the Collection Volume Method 'CVM'.
The Cone Protection Method will be excluded throughout the
paper, as it yields inaccurate results and has low protection
efficiency [2] [3] [4].
The concept of striking distance is essential in the design
of lightning protection system for earthed structures.
According to the basic idea of Electro Geometric Model, a
downward leader stroke is considered to propagate randomly
and uncontrollably at the beginning of lightning stroke. As a
charge of a cloud is transferred along the downward leader,
the electric field on the surface of a grounded object increases.
Finally, at a striking distance, the critical electric field for
breakdown of air at the surface of the grounded object is
reached, and an upward streamer starts from the object to
meet the leader stroke. Since the electric field at the tip of a
structure is mainly influenced by the downward leader
propagation and charge distribution in the leader channel, and
the charge is related to the return-stroke current, it was
392
Abdalla Badr Abdalla
abdallabadr@AOL.com
believed that the striking distance is a function of the lightning
current. Moreover, lightning current measurements are
obtained at selected ground installation (usually tall structure.)
that is frequently struck by lightning. These current
measurements are limited in number, and the current values
obtained are strongly affected by the dimensions of the
structure and also by climatologically and topographical
conditions that influence the nature of local thunderstorms.
Because of these factors, the data cannot characterize the
entire range of the lightning current. Using striking distance
formula by Mazur based on ‘Leader Potential Concept’, a
more reliable and economical protection system could be
designed [3].
II. THE CONCEPT
Striking distance based on “Leader Potential” was
developed by Mazur [5]. The concept is based on the
assumption that the leader is equivalent to a conducting wire
extended within the ambient electric field of a thundercloud,
and that the total charge of the bi-polar, bi-directional leader is
zero before touching the ground, the leader potential that was
equal to V before touching the ground shifts to zero upon
contact with the ground. This shift of potential is equivalent
to adding a constant charge-per-unit length, q, along the
leader channel during the return stroke process. The charge-
per-unit length, deposited by the return stroke in a leader
channel of capacitance-per-unit length, c, is calculated as:
q = −c * V (1)
One needs to know the capacitance-per-unit length of the
leader channel, in order to calculate the leader potential V
using (1). For a vertical, thin, long conductor perpendicular to
the ground (with diameter D and length Z), that approximates
a leader channel, the capacitance-per-unit length c is
calculated using the formula:
c = 2πε / ln(Z / D) (2)
The relationship between the diameter of the leader
channel D and its charges is based upon the assumption that
the charges are distributed in a corona sheath (with electric
field of ≤3 MV/m.) that is:
D = (q / 3 ∗ 10 6 πε ) (3)
Hence the leader potential V is calculated as:
V = −(q / 2πε ) ln(3 ∗ 10 6 Zπε / q ) (4)
And finally the striking distance which is the length of the
final step is calculated as [5]:
d s = V / 750 Meter (5) 70

III.THE DESIGN 60

50
The Leader Potential is calculated using (4) where, q is

ds, meter
40 RSM

charge per unit of the leader channel in milliCoulomb per 30

CVM

meter (mC/m), Z is the height from thundercloud base to the LPCM

20
ground in meters. Z can be obtained by measurement but
10
generally it is taken as 5000 meters, and finally the estimated
0
striking distance is a function of both the leader potential in 0 10 20 30 40 50
kV, and a constant electric field along the negative streamer Rod height, meter
head of the leader tip, which is 750kV/m, thus the striking
Fig. 1 Striking Distance, meter vs Rod Height, meter at Ip=5.4kA and
distance was obtained
Z=5000m
from both (4) and (5) and simplified as:
d s = (q / 41.7 ∗ 10 −3 ) ln((q / 41.7 ∗ 10 −3 )(1 / 2Z )) m (6) methods and it is in the range of >2.5 times other methods.
For RSM, the striking distance is: The leader peak current selected was 5.4kA which
0.65 corresponds to a protection level number II, 97% interception
d s = 10 I p m (7) efficiency and 0.38mC/m value for the charge per unit length.
Where Ip is the leader peak current in kA The cloud base altitude is 5000 m. The heights were selected
For CVM, the striking distance is: between 10 to 50 m since most of naval and merchant ships
mast heights will be in the specified range [3] [6].
d s = 0.8[(15 + h) I p ] 2 / 3 m (8)
Fig. 2, shows the striking distance for the three methods,
Where h is the height of the protector from zero ground, m. but for different cloud base altitudes with a mast height of 30
From (7) and (8) it is obvious that both RSM and CVM meters and a leader peak current of 5.4 kA. This shows that
depend on the leader current while the LPCM depends on the the striking distance varies with the change of the cloud base
leader potential. Moreover, for a charge corresponding to a altitude, a parameter which is not present for both the other
given current value, the LPCM will yield greater striking two methods. The cloud altitude according to LPCM
distance. The total horizontal protected distance 2d for one method refers to the leader channel length.
protector can be calculated as
d = h( 2d s − h) m (9)
80
70
60
A computer program was developed to simulate the naval and
50
ds, meter

RSM
marine ships, the program showed to be very effective in 40
calculating the striking distance, the horizontal protected 30
CVM

distance, the number of rods and the total cost in EGP for the 20 LPCM
10
three methods.
0

IV. THE RESULTS

0

0
0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
1,

2,

3,

4,

5,

6,

7,

8,

The developed software was aimed to create an easy Z, m eter

graphical interface to the user, it was made originally for Fig. 2 Striking Fi 2 S meter
Distance, iki vsDi
Thundercloud Height, meter at Ip=5.4kA
ships, and it can be used for calculating the striking distance, and h=30m
horizontal protected distance, number of rods needed for full
coverage of the ship, and finally the cost of the installed rods 250

based on a price of one rod. The rod price can be varied 200
easily. The results obtained showed that if the LPCM method RSM
ds, meter

150
is implemented for lightning protection of ships, the cost of
CVM
the lightning protection system will be greatly reduced, hence 100
LPCM
the new proposed method has a great economical aspect.
50
The developed computer program was used to compare
between the three methods. Fig. 1, shows the striking distance 0
0.0 2.9 5.4 10.1 15.7
for the above three methods in relation with the protector
Ip, kA
height (installed above the highest point on ship mast), from
which it is clear that the LPCM greatly enhances the striking Fig. 3 Striking Distance, meter vs Ip, kA at h=30m and Z=5000m
distance of a protector compared to the other two
Fig. 3, shows the relation between the striking distance and
the leader peak current for the three mentioned methods at a
mast height of 30 meters and a cloud base altitude of 5000 m.
The values selected for the leader peak current are those

393
correspond to the protection levels I, II, III and IV with the
values 2.9, 5.4, 10.1 and 15.7 kA respectively [3].
It is shown that for almost all values of protection levels
the LPCM shows an extensive increase of the striking distance
compared to both RSM and CVM methods. Apparently all
Fig. 1, 2 and 3 show how much the striking distance is
enhanced for a protector if the LPCM method is applied. The
increase of striking distance results in less number of
protectors for the same given area. This will reflect on the
economics of a reliable ship protection against lightning.
V. CASES STUDIED
The LPCM method was applied on a selected number of
naval and merchant ships, namely: The missile boat as a
medium warship, frigate, destroyer, aircraft carrier and a
cargo ship as a merchant ship [3] [6]. Length, (L), width, (W)
and mast height, (h) of each are used. Then, through the use of
LPCM, the total horizontal protected distance is calculated
and the number of needed rods, N will be calculated as:
N = L / 2d (10)
A. Dimensions
The selected vessels have the following dimensions (L *
W * h) m:
1) Missile boat: (90 * 15 * 20)
2) Frigate: (145 * 20 * 26)
3) Destroyer: (194 * 27 * 32)
4) Cargo Ship; (130 * 22 * 25)
5) Aircraft Carrier: (270 * 44 * 51)
B. Risk Assessment
The risk assessment will be based on the following [7]:
1) Equivalent collective area, Ae which is calculated as:
Ae = LW + 6h( L + W ) + 9πh 2
(11)
2) Lightning strike frequency, Nd and calculated as:
N d = Ae * N g * C1
(12)
3) Tolerable lightning frequency, Nc and calculated as:
N C = 1.5 *10 −3 /(C 2 * C 3 * C 4 * C 5 ) (13)
4) Lightning flash density, Ng
5) Environmental coefficient, C1
6) Structural coefficient, C2
7) Structural contents coefficient, C3
8) Structural occupancy coefficient, C4
9) Lightning consequence coefficient, C5
Lightning protection should be installed if Nd > Nc. Otherwise,
lightning protection is not needed.
In case of a marine ship the above coefficients will be selected
as follows:
C1=2, isolated structure on a hilltop
C2=2; flammable structure with a metallic roof
C3=3; exceptional value, flammable, computer or electronics
C4=3; difficult to evacuate or risk of panic
C5=10; consequences to the environment
And Ng = 7 [4] [7] [8].
394
The risk assessment factor, for all the above vessels,
showed that lightning protection is needed. Moreover the
price in EGP was calculated, based on a 0.5 m air terminal.
The leader peak current is 5.4 kA and the thundercloud base is
at height of 5000 m.
The striking distances for the three methods at each vessel
are calculated from (6), (7) and (9) and all the results are
summarized in the next few figures. Fig. 4, shows the results
obtained for the striking distances for each ship. Obviously,
the striking distance obtained from both RSM and CVM
methods for all types of ships are almost equal, except for the
aircraft carrier, since the CVM method is related to the mast
height and the aircraft carrier has the tallest mast among the
above vessels. The striking distance obtained from the LPCM
method for all the studied ships is extremely greater than those
obtained from the other two methods, even for the aircraft
carrier. The difference is about 20 to 30 meters for all vessel
types which is a considerable figure when compared to vessel
length. The maximum differences between the results from
RSM and CVM for almost all vessel types are only ±10%,
while the results from LPCM have differences that range
between +60% to +140% when compared to both RSM and
CVM.
Fig. 5, shows the results obtained for the horizontal
protected distance for the three methods for each vessel type.
Similarly, the values of the horizontal protected distance
obtained from both RSM and CVM methods for any of the
vessel types above are almost equal and are widely different
70
60
50
ds, meter
40
RSM
30 CVM
LPCM
20
10
0
Missile Boat Frigate Destroyer Cargo Ship Aircraft Carrier
Vessel
Fig. 4 Striking Distance, meter vs Vessel Type at Ip=5.4kA, Z=5000 m
from those obtained from the LPCM method. The maximum
differences between the results from RSM and CVM for
almost all vessel types are only ±10% also, while the results
from LPCM have differences that range between +65% to
+200% when compared to both RSM and CVM.
Fig. 6 shows the results obtained for the number of rods
for the three methods for each vessel type.
The number of rods for each of the vessels is almost the same
if RSM or CVM is used while for the LPCM, the number of
rods is almost about one half that of the above numbers, and
consequently the total price for the installed rods is greatly
reduced as shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 shows the results obtained for the cost in EGP for
the three methods for each vessel type.
 The reduction in total cost of the installed rod(s) for -The line charge model uses the leader potential instead of the
almost all vessels, if the LPCM is applied, will range return stroke current.
between30% to 60% when compared to either RSM or CVM -The leader potential concept method combines both the line
methods. The cost of the lightning system will be greatly less. charge model and the rolling sphere concept in the design
-Ships and marine structures being the highest points
protruding out of the seas which are highly exposed to danger
from lightning strikes.
70 - The evaluation of lightning risk for a structure as well as the
60
striking distance parameters leads to numerous calculations.
Useful complete software had to be created. We constructed
50
this LPCM program which offers much better results than the
40
simplified calculations as well as plotting the striking distance.
d, meter

RSM
30 CVM It is not only useful as a training tool, but can be effectively
20
LPCM used for evaluating the protection system parameters and the
10
total price of the system. We verified also that our proposed
method has the best economical sound among the three given
0
Missile Boat Frigate Destroyer Cargo Ship Aircraft Carrier methods for almost all ships.
Vessel -A design uses the Leader Potential Concept Method shows
superiority above the other protection methods.
Fig. 5 Horizontal Protected Distance, meter vs Vessel Type at Ip=5.4kA, -The Leader Potential Concept Method can be used to design
Z=5000 m one of the most efficient and reliable ship protections against
lightning with minimum cost.
-Any comprehensive approach for protection should be site-
8 specific to attain maximum efficiencies.
7

6
No. of Rods

4 RSM
CVM
3
LPCM
2

0
Missile Boat Frigate Destroyer Cargo Ship Aircraft Carrier
Vessel
Fig. 8 Medium War Ship
Fig. 6 No. of Rods vs Vessel Type at Ip=5.4kA, Z=5000 m

800

700

600

500
Cost, EGP

400
RSM
300 CVM
LPCM
200

100

0
Missile Boat Frigate Destroyer Cargo Ship Aircraft Carrier
Vessel

Fig. 7 Cost, EGP vs Vessel Type at Ip=5.4kA, Z=5000 m

Fig. 9 Frigate

VI. CONCLUSIONS
395
Fig. 10 Merchant Ship

Fig. 13 Graphical Interface of the LPCM computer program, step (1)

Fig. 11 Destroyer

Fig. 14 Graphical Interface of the LPCM computer program, step (2)

Fig. 12 Aircraft Carrier Fig. 15 Graphical Interface of the LPCM computer program, step (3)

396
 Fig. 16 Graphical Interface of the LPCM computer program, step (4)

Fig. 17 Graphical Interface of the LPCM computer program, step (5)

REFERENCES
[1] NOOA, "Facts about Lightning, Safety Tips for the Mariners", Fact sheet
Vol. 1, May 16, 2001.
[2] Ewen M. Thomson, Member, IEEE, "A Critical Assessment of the US
Code for Lightning Protection of Boats ", IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 33, No. 2, May 1991.
[3] P.Y. Okyere, PhD and George Eduful, "Evaluation of Rolling Sphere
Method Using Leader Potential Concept: A Case Study", Proceedings of The
2006 IJME – INTERTECH Conference, Session: IT P501-124.
[4] Ahmed A. Hossam Eldin, Hesham B. Elrefaie and Ehab A.M. Omran,
"The Collection Volume Method for Lightning Protectors placement on Naval
Ships", IEEE-CEIDP Conference Oct., 2007, Canada
[5] Vladislav Mazur and Lothar H. Ruhnke "Determining Leader Potential in
Cloud-to-Ground Flashes", Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 29, 1601, 4
pp., 2002.
[6]Marine ship blueprints, http://www.theblueprints.com/blueprints/ships
[7] Harger Lightning Protection, "Lightning Protection
Systems",http://www.harger.com/library/slides.cfm?maingroupnbr=184
[8]The World lightning Level Map, http://www.africa.hager.com/

397