2014 International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), Shanghai, China

EMI Study on Down-conductors Spacing

Yoo Jaeseok Lee Jaewook, Park Hyunsung

KEPCO Engineering & Construction Company, Inc., KEPCO Engineering & Construction Company, Inc.,
2354 Yonggudaero, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 2354 Yonggudaero, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do,
446 -713, Republic of Korea 446 -713, Republic of Korea
engineer@kepco-enc.com mclee@kepco-enc.com, whybeme@kepco-enc.com

Abstract-The arrangement of down-conductors is essential in the
lightning protection system design. However, requirements for
down-conductors spacing is different between NFPA 780 and IEC
62305. This paper reviews what NFPA 780 and IEC 62305 require
for their spacing, simulates EMI for the two codes cases by the
software CDEGS, discusses the relationship between EMf and
down-conductors interval, and shows that distance of the down­
conductors on structures should be determined through EMf
analysis for the exact evaluation of the impact on electronic devices.
Keyword: lightning, EMf, down-conductor, CDEGS,
I. INTRODUCTION
As the global warming get worse, the abnormal weather
days have increased worldwide every year. The increase of
thunderstorm days caused by the global warming could affect
two codes cases by the software CDEGS 1, and discuss the
relationship between EMI and down-conductors interval.
11. SPACING REQUREMENTS
A. NFPA 780
NFPA 780 describes that at least two down-conductors
shall be provided on any kind of structure protected from a
lightning strike. In case that the general structure exceeds 76 m
in perimeter, a down-conductor shall be added for every 30 m.
If the structure has irregular shape, additional down-conductors
shall be added to provide a two-way path from each strike
termination device.
B. lEe 62305

the diverse lightning accidents. Especially, the damage to TEC 62305 describes that the spacing of down-conductors is
human and property induced by the lightning strikes is a in accordance with Lightning Protection Level(LPL) as shown
serious issue and considered as a challenge to be solved. in Table I below.
Moreover, the importance of protecting electronic devices used
in power industries from the lightning influences cannot but
TABLE I. DOWN-CONDUCTORS SPACING ACCORDING TO LPL
overemphasized.

The down-conductors which are one of the subsystem of LPL Typical Spacing (m)
lightning protection systems in protecting the structures from
I 10
lightning strikes, are designed to flow the lightning current to
ground as quickly as possible and reduce the effect of II 10
electromagnetic interference (EMI) on electronic devices. For
III 15
these reasons, deciding the spacing of down-conductors is
work of high importance when designing the lightning IV 20
protection system. However, there is a difference between
NFPA 780 and IEC 62305 in determining the spacing of
down-conductors. The requirement for the mmnnum number of down­
conductors descried in IEC 62305 is the same with NFPA 780.
This paper reviews requirements for down-conductors
spacing in NFPA 780 and IEC 62305, simulates EM! for the

1 CDEGS : an analyzer program on grounding and lightning

system developed by Safe Engineering Services &
technologies ltd.

978-1-4799-3544-4/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE 1189

C. Comparison TABLE IY. WAVESHAPE DATA

To compare NFPA 780 with IEC 62305 regarding the

Data Values
number of down-conductors, an example is shown in Table IT
and Table III such as Building A, Building B, Building C, Rise Time
1.2
Building D modeled to have each different perimeter sizes. [iJs]
Half-value Time
50
[iJs]

Maximum Magnitude 30,000

TABLE II. NUMBER OF DOWN-CONDUCTORS (NFPA 780)

------
Number of
Perimeter (m)
Down-conductors
Building A 50 2
TABLE V. INPUT DATA FOR SIMULATION
BuildingB 100 3
Input Data Values Remark
Building C 150 5
Soil Resistivity
Building D 200 7 100 Unifonn Layer
[O'm]
Building D
30X50X50 HXWXD
[m]
A ir Terminal
TABLE III. NUMBER OF DOWN-CONDUCTORS (TEC 62305) 5.842X 1000 <D X L
rmml
Conductor Including horizontal,

I�
Number of
# 4/0
Down-conductors [AWG] down-conductor
Perimeter
(ea)
(m)
LPL LPL LPL LPL
I II III IV A. NFPA 780
Building A 50 5 5 4 3 For easy modeling and obtaining obvious simulation results,

BuildingB 100 10 10 7 5 down-conductors are simulated to be arranged symmetrically

along the perimeter. The number of down-conductors that is
Building C 150 15 15 10 8 used in this model is 8, although 7 is the minimum requirement
Building D 200 20 20 14 10 for a perimeter of200 meter in this standard.

lightning Current
As shown in Table IT and Table TIT, the numbers of down­ Injection Point

conductors are significantly different according to the two

standards. These are expected to affect electronic devices in
EM! aspect when a lightning current flows through down­
conductors.

Based on the review above, this document shows the EMI 5m

14,,5
analysis according to down-conductors spacing requirements of m

•
l�l •

NFPA 780 and IEC 62305. observ<ltion

Points (6)

TIT. SIMULATION

To make an outstanding comparison, Building D with the

longest perimeter is modeled for each standard. The lightning
current is assumed to enter the center of roof. The lightning
wave is formulated as Double Exponential Waveshape [4].

i(t) = 30607.45 x (e- 1426 3 .87*t - e-4876269' � [A l

(1)
Figure 1. Model of Building D (NFPA 780)

Tn order to analyze the intensities of electric and magnetic

The data assumed in the simulations are shown in Table IV
and Table V.
fields inside Building D, six points for observation are selected
every 5 meter in horizontal interval at 14.5 meter in height, and
Building D is modeled as an exactly symmetrical shape.

1190
 10['

\ 15

leo 300
100 200 300
Time (Microsecond)
T ifflc (Microzccondl

Figure 2. Magnetic Field - 300l-is (NFPA 780) Figure 4. Electric Field - 300l-iS (NFPA 780)

txE+03J
IC�0
25
-- --

j20
t
20
+

90
15

>...:
GO
- x.

� :c
u -...
10
U. 2::
. ......
, .! v

3U (iJ
�� u::
0, t
5
r
.� +
I
D'

,}2
L

::l U
(])
U.U I.� I.b W

1.2 1.6 2.0

Time (Microsecond)

Figure 3. Magnetic Field - 2.01-ls (NFPA 780)

Figure 5. Electric Field - 2.01-ls (NFPA 780)

Fig. 2 shows the magnetic field intensity of six observation

points in time domain up to 300f..ls. Fig. 3 is for clearly

checking the maximum magnetic field strength by cutting the B. lEe 62305

time axis up to 2f..ls, and the maximum value of magnetic field Among the lightning protection levels, the most
conspicuous one, LPL T, is applied to Building D to make a
is about 145A/m.
comparison with NFPA 780. In this model, the required
In case of the electric field, the maximum value is about number of minimum down-conductors is 20 which are more
23,000VIm as shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. than 2.5 times when compared with that of NFPA 780.

1191
 Lightning Current
Inj�tion Point
The intensities of magnetic field are shown in Fig. 7 and
/ ·"V /' Fig. 8, and the maximum value is about 96 A1m.
� !
/ �------
���
r-����-.,-��.-
i ---+--- /
+---.-�---r
4
��1 In case of electric field, the maximum value is about
37,000Y/m, as depicted in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10.
Sm
14.Sm!

r
.

opserv.1
p,,?int (6)
on

Figure 6. Model of Building D (lEe 62305)

The observation points are the same with the case ofNFPA
780.

1"0
T lMC (l"ltcro'Zccond)

Figure 9. Electric Field - 300]JS (lEe 62305)

(XET03l

40

'\
�, 32

� .
- �
u
24
- -- ---. ---

HI. +

T jm" (M lcr o ,," ,," con d l

iC::'
15
2::
---

Figure 7. Magnetic Field - 300]JS (lEe 62305) -0

�
8
100 -So:
L

U
(jJ

:::;:;
80 lo2 lo6 2.0

Time (Microsecond)
50

iC::' Figure 10_ Electric Field - 2.0]JS (lEe 62305)

40
---

�
-u

�
LL

. So: 20
OJ
C
0'
(1J
= C. Comparison
0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.5 2.0
The simulated analysis results in the maximum values of
Time (Microsecond) electric and magnetic fields in Table VI according to the
requirement of NFPA 780 and lEe 62305.

Figure 8. Magnetic Field - 2.0]Js (IEe 62305)

1192
 TABLE VI. COMPARlS10N WITH COMPUTATION RESULTS with that of NFPA 780 but the maximum value of electric field
obtained from NFPA 780 model is lower than that lEC 62305.

-------
Number of
NFPA 780 lEe 62305
Since the analysis described above is for the virtual
building called Building D, it could not be applied to buildings
Down-conductors 8 20
of all shapes. However, it is able to confirm that there is no
real
Maximum direct relationship between the number of down-conductors
Magnetic Field 145 96 and EMT.
.
[A/ml
Maximum Therefore, it is suggested that the distance of the down­
Electric Field 23,000 37,000 conductors installed on structures should be determined
[V/ml through suitable EMI analysis for the proper function of
electronic devices installed in structures and the construction
economic efficiency.
Tn case of the magnetic field for Building D, the result of
lEC 62305 model is lower than the NFPA 780 model. In
contrast with the magnetic field, the electric field of NFPA 780
model is lower than the IEC 62305 model.

REFERENCES
TV. CONCLUSION
[I] SES, "Manual for Lightning Transient Study of a Communication
Tn determining the down-conductors spacing, there is a
Tower", 2012.
difference between NFPA 780 and lEC 62305 requirements.
[2] NFPA 780, "Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection
So, this paper analyzes EMT by changing the down-conductors Systems", 2014.
interval through an analyzer program. [3] IEC 62305-1-4, "Protection against Lightning", 2010.

It is concluded that in the case of the magnetic field, the [4] EPRI, "EPRI AC Transmission Line Reference Book-200 kV and
A bove", Third Edition, 2005.
model of lEC 62305 has a lower maximum value compared

1193