A REVIEW OF THE LIGHTNING ATTACHMENT PROCESS
AND REQUIREMENTS TO ACHIEVE IMPROVED MODELLING
J.R. Gumley1, G. Berger2
1
ERICO Lightning Technologies, AUSTRALIA
2
Laboratoire de Physique des Gaz et des Plasmas, FRANCE
Abstract: In the study of lightning air terminals and
the attachment process there is an emerging
recognition that all terminal geometries cannot, and
do not respond similarly to the approach of a down
leader. In this paper the known parameters for leader
initiation and propagation are discussed. The authors
conclude that provided the median field exceeds that
for leader propagation, the main parameters for
streamer emission, development into a leader, and
subsequent lightning attachment can be determined
from electric field conditions in the first 2 metres
above an air terminal.
1. Review
In the field of practical lightning protection, there is a
wide spectrum of technologies currently being used.
To the left of this spectrum there are the air terminals
claiming enhanced or more consistent performance.
Whether these terminals enhance or retard corona
development, or whether they are blunt or sharp, they
have been broadly categorised under a generic term
“ESE” meaning Early Streamer Emission.
In the centre of the spectrum there is the conventional
practice widely specified in various Standards. This
practice used an electrogeometric model known as the
“rolling sphere” which was adapted from the electric
power transmission industry, and which is based on
no electric field enhancement irrespective of air
terminal location or configuration. The rolling sphere
is notable for gaining credence from measurements
taken on transmission lines. These lines are
remarkable for their essentially two dimensional
aspect and uniformity of height and conductor
diameter. It was from this restricted base that the
system was unilaterally adapted into the protection of
three dimensional and complex geometrical
structures.
Within the Standards there is permitted a widely
divergent practice. This may vary from clusters of 6
metre high so called Franklin rods to much shorter
terminals, sometimes called finials, spaced at closer
intervals. There are also the systems with no vertical
terminals, sometimes called the Faraday system, and
which comprises conductors laid horizontally on
exposed surfaces.
To the right of the spectrum are the systems that
claim to absolutely prevent lightning attachment by
the use of arrays of sharp points designed to produce
abundant corona. The corona is claimed to weaken
the strength of the near electric field and cause the
lightning to strike elsewhere.
It is a fact that none of the above techniques offer
perfection, and that there is room to improve
performance through better understanding of the
attachment process. This paper examines the various
technologies from basic concepts and brings forward
directions of future research to achieve this purpose.
2. The lightning attachment process in brief
There are four phases in the attachment process. The
first is the quasi-static phase where electric fields
build below a storm cloud. These fields cause ground
objects to be electrically stressed and, dependent on
their height and geometric shape, they will emit
corona. This creates a space charge in the near field
immediately above the object. In the longer term,
these ions ascend with typical velocities of 1 ms-1 in
fields of 10 kVm-1 and create non-linearity in the field
to heights of several hundred metres. Thus the
electric field strength observed at ground becomes
modified before any dynamic event occurs with
median values of 50 kVm-1 having been recorded as
reducing to values below 5 kVm-1 near ground.
The second phase relates to the approach of a down
leader, a filament discharge with average velocity of
105 ms-1 but with pauses of 20-50 µs. Inter-pause
velocities can exceed 106 ms-1. The conveyance of
charge toward ground causes an exponential increase
in the field strength observed by ground points. That
is, there is very small initial change in the ground
observed electric field strength when the leader is at
high altitude, but with near approach, values will be
escalating at the rate of 109 Vm-1s-1. There is
currently no ability in the laboratory to precisely
simulate this concave waveform, and this causes
some compromise in testing to occur.

The third phase is when electric field strengths reach

the critical value to create avalanche breakdown from
an initial corona , to streamer emission and finally
development of a propagating leader. At this time we
can dimension factors such as electric field
intensification arising from height and electrode
curvature. We can determine in laboratory the
streamer development fields, but up to now we have 1000 : 1
not been able to model the field in the 2 metres above
a terminal. This is where the critical transition from
streamer to leader occurs.

The fourth phase is the continuing propagation of the

up leader. The ratio of the velocities of the converging
up and down leaders is critical to the electrogeometric
modelling process. In simple terms, a fast down
leader can proceed past a slow up leader and
significantly reduce the interception capability of the
point launching the up leader. Therefore, the ratio of
converging leader velocities sets the effective
attractive range once propagation commences. A
competing leader can win the race to interception if it 6:1

lies within an equal probability locus whose

magnitude is set by the velocity ratio. Laboratory
figures of velocity are impossibly slow when
compared with nature, suggesting either incorrect
scaling from the laboratory to natural conditions or, a
highly non-linear velocity / time curve. It is relatively
easy to show that laboratory values of 2 cmµs-1 do not
occur in nature by examination of photographic
evidence of long non-intercepting up leaders. 1:1

Embedded within the above four phases is another
spectrum based on the strength of electric field to
cause breakdown of air and a second value of the
minimum field strength required to ensure sufficient
energy to propagate an up leader. These values are
commonly quoted as 3 MVm-1 and 500 kVm-1
respectively. Consider a spectrum where at one
extreme there are terminals with very high field
intensification with values reducing to unity as we
proceed to the other extreme. This is illustrated in
Figure 1.
At one end of this spectrum is the so-called Franklin
rod. Should it produce a field intensification of 1000:1
then 3 MVm-1 at the tip is reached when the median
field is only 3 kVm-1. No propagation is possible but
a continuing corona emission provides an ascending
space charge in periods long before approach of a
down leader.
Figure 1: The spectrum of air terminal electric field
enhancement.
As the centre of the spectrum is approached, the field
intensification progressively reduces. The centre is
reached when a value of 6:1 is achieved. That is, the
field strength at the tip is 3 MVm-1 when the median
field reaches the leader propagation value of 500
kVm-1.
At the other extreme is the flat surface with unity field
intensification. In this case the down leader needs to
approach very close to produce 3 MVm-1 at the
surface, but when breakdown occurs, propagation
would not only be absolutely assured, but would most
likely be instantaneous.
This spectrum leads to a number of conclusions,
namely, that an elevated sharp point may become
unnecessarily active too early in the process, by
producing field-reducing corona. It suggests that a
rounded surface may provide a better performance,
and that a flat surface will have great difficulty in
competing with a point with slight intensification.
Importantly, the electric field intensification of an air
terminal is related to the height penetration into the
electric field and its radius of curvature. This suggests
that there is no universal air terminal. The degree of
roundness or radius of curvature of the tip will need to
increase with height. However, height may be
adjusted for a given radius of curvature. Modern
electric field studies of complex structures give
promise that optimum locations can be found on any
structure to set height and radius requirements to meet
the two critical field criteria.
3. The spectrum of threshold electric fields
We referred above to the commonly quoted critical
fields of 3 MVm-1 and 500 kVm-1, as the air
breakdown and leader propagation fields. We now
consider them in more detail.
First, we may define a corona onset field Es at which a
self-sustained streamer is emitted from a conductor.
This field is proportional to Eion, the critical field at
which ionisation is larger than attachment. For
example, a rod conductor with a tip radius of
curvature R will develop a corona streamer when the
surface local field is equal to
 k 
E s = E ion  1 + n  (1)
 R 
where, typically, k = 0.127 and n = 0.434. However,
these constants depend on atmospheric conditions and
Eion (the ionisation electric field). This relationship is
a more sophisticated variant of the so called Peek’s
Law.
Provided that the streamer onset field ES is lower than
the leader onset field Ei , then Ei may be found from
Rizk’s model:
Ei =
K1
(2)
h + K2
where K1 = 1556 kV and K2 = 3.89 m under natural
conditions. Note that Ei is the ambient or median field
at the leader onset, i.e., the field unperturbed by the
object from which it originates. K1 and K2 are known
constants and h is the total height of the terminal
above ground surface. Ei is thus strongly dependent
on the terminal height and weakly dependent on the
tip radius R.
Another critical threshold field is the leader
propagation field EL. When ambient fields are equal
to or higher than EL then stable propagation of the
leader is expected. From Lalande’s model,
K1
EL = + K3 (3)
1 + K2 h
where K1 = 240 kV/m, K2 = 0.1 m-1 and K3 = 12
kV/m. An important factor in field computation is the
field intensification factor, β, which expresses the
ratio between the local and ambient fields
respectively. So, using β, the lightning attachment
modelling debate moves to a discussion of ambient
field intensities.
Let us define the ambient field EFC needed to start a
corona discharge (streamer) at the surface of a
lightning conductor, where
ES
E FC = (4)
β
where
2h / R
β≈ (5)
 4h 
ln  − 2
 R
Two situations occur according to the relative values
of EFC and EL. When EFC < EL, a leader will only
propagate if the ambient field above the conductor,
Eo ≥ EL. If Eo < EL, the leader cannot propagate
further. In other words it is an unstable propagation.
When EFC < EL, two situations may in turn be
expected. Firstly, if EL ≥ Ei , then Eo must exceed EL
for a stable leader propagation. Secondly, if EL < Ei ,
Eo must then exceed Ei . These are the correct
conditions confirmed in the high voltage laboratory.
When EFC > EL , Eo must only exceed EFC (or Ei ) to
reach a stable leader propagation.
For example, a 10 metre high rod conductor
corresponds to EL = 132 kVm-1. Stable propagation
occurs when EFC = EL, or β = 23 (a critical radius of
30 cm). The achievement of EFC = EL shows that an
optimal rod conductor must have a given radius of
curvature if its height has been fixed.
Table 1 summarises the above discussion. It appears
that the previous approach has been a static one. A
better dynamic approach shows that an unstable
leader may become a stable one if Ei = EL is reached
at a minimal distance from the lightning conductor.
Table 1: Conditions for the ambient field Eo for
stable propagation of the upward leader.
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
EFC < EL EFC ≥ EL
EL ≥ Ei ⇒ Eo > EL Eo > EFC
EL < Ei ⇒ Eo > Ei
Figure 2 illustrates the importance of electric field
decay with distance for conductors with very different
field intensification factors. The electric field strength
ahead of the rod with highest intensification more
quickly reverts to the ambient field. This means that
any early formed streamer will find a rapidly
decreasing field strength at the leader tip, and will
probably not gain sufficient energy to progress.
Conversely, the blunt configuration with lower field
intensification produces a more linear fall, with field
strength remaining above ambient for much greater
distance. This shows that a blunt rod launching a
streamer has a greater probability of converting to a
stable, propagating leader.
20
Blunt air terminal
Sharp air terminal
15
E(max) / E(ambient)
10
5 terminal would have a programmable characteristic
0 criteria:
0 200 400 600 800
Distance from air terminal (mm)
Figure 2: The electric field decay with distance from
a spherical air terminal (h ≈ 2 m, r = 0.5 m) and a
slender rod (h = 3 m, r = 3 mm). The corresponding
field intensification factors are approximately 5 and
600 respectively.
The above discussion has described the conditions to
be satisfied for stable propagation of the upward
leader. In real conditions, the attachment process is a
competition between several upward leaders. These
competing leaders are not fully independent. Mutual
repulsion or quenching of a leader by earlier
propagating leaders is observable and predicted from
modelling. As a consequence, it is not correct to
design a protective radius for a single lightning
conductor when ignoring other potential sites for
upward leader initiation.
Finally, values of ambient field Eo required for stable
propagation have to be considered as a minimum
threshold. The random properties of all electrical
discharges lead to actual values which are above these
minimal conditions. Therefore, an optimal lightning
rod must exhibit a minimum scattering of its main
properties.
In the above discussion, no account has been taken of
the effect of space charge in the terminal near field.
Dimensioning this effect is extremely difficult, but
what is agreed is that presence of space charge can
only act to reduce the electric field strength observed
by a terminal. This comment is not to be seen in any
way as endorsing the principles of the so-called
dissipation array systems. The authors believe that
other factors will seriously affect claims that such
devices prevent lightning. Not least among these
factors is the effect of wind. In brief, the velocity of
positive ions in fields of 10 kV/m will be
approximately 1 ms-1, and so a wind speed as low as
5 km/hr would cause significant lateral displacement
of the ions. Hence, the ions would move both upwards
and away, leaving the upwind object surfaces without
the claimed space charge coverage.
4. Conclusions
In the current state of knowledge, an optimum air
whereby terminal height above ground or structure is
matched to the terminal radius to meet the following
1000
1. There should be minimal corona emission for the
longest possible time preceding the arrival of the
down leader. This requirement enables more
accurate information of the near field linearity to
be obtained for calculation purposes. The near
field decay from terminal surface to median
values can now be readily computed in a few
minutes, with results showing blunt rods have a
more linear transition from surface to ambient
field.
2. The leader inception field should be exceeded and
a leader launched only when the more distant
 field created by down leader approach can Address of Authors
support leader propagation.
3. The terminal height, radius and location on a J.R. (Rick) Gumley
structure should be set by electric field modelling Chief Research Engineer
with down leaders approaching both vertically ERICO Lightning Technologies
and obliquely. Technopark, Dowsings Point, TAS 7010
GPO Box 536, Hobart, Tasmania 7001
The authors would finally like to make a comment on Australia
the generic term ESE which has really come to be Tel: +61 3 6237 3200
known as anything non-conventional, whatever that Fax: +61 3 6273 0399
means. At the time that the ESE term was gaining email: rgumley@erico.com
popularity, there was confusion in the industry
between the terms “streamer” and “leader”. The Dr. G. Berger,
intervening period has seen a consolidation of Laboratoire de Physique des Gaz et des Plasmas,
meaning whereby a streamer is at the tip of a leader CNRS-UPS-SUPELEC,
and in simple terms, a cold discharge forming the root Plateau de Moulon,
for a subsequent hot (leader) discharge. Also, there is 91190 Gif sur Yvette, FRANCE.
an intermediate state where the streamer converts Tel.: +33 (01) 6985 1777
from cold, to semi-thermalised, to a fully thermalised FAX: +33 (01) 6941 0334
leader propagating into an ambient field of adequate Email: berger@lpd.supelec.fr
strength.

It is absolutely clear from field measurements that

points with excessive field intensification will create
streamers that cannot convert to leaders due to the
inadequate strength of the electric field ahead of them.
Therefore, if there is to be an early streamer, it must
be delayed to be the earliest emitted after the
conditions for streamer-to-leader conversion have
been met.

The authors consider that terminals meeting this

criteria can now be designed, and to differentiate them
as a class, volunteer a generic term for the concept -
“Controlled Streamer Emission”.