Lightning Protection System by Z.A. Hartono

Ministry of Health Malaysia
Knowledge Beyond Boundary Session 4/2018

Sama Sama Hotel, KLIA
April 2018
Lightning Protection System
Z. A. Hartono & I. Robiah

Lightning Research S/B, Malaysia
E-mail: zahartono@ieee.org
Lightning Research plc 1
INTRODUCTION
• Lightning is one of the most destructive natural
forces known to mankind
• Lightning was previously thought to be a form of fire
(from the sky) since it caused lightning struck objects
to burn
• Thousands of lives and billions of USD lost annually
worldwide due to lightning strikes
• Lightning is better understood nowadays due to
continuous research conducted worldwide since
Benjamin Franklin experiments in 18th century

Lightning flash density map
LFD Map for SEA

Types of lightning discharges
The lightning ground flash

• Basic mechanism of
lightning
discharge/interception
– Downward (Stepped) Leader
– Upward Streamer/Leader
– Lightning Channel
– Return Stroke
• Only the return stroke is
visible to naked eye

Lightning discharge process
• Source: Uman (1998)
Lightning flash components
Source: National Geographic (1995)


Lightning flash animation
Damaging Effects of Lightning

• Direct strikes
– Structures, buildings, land vehicles, ships,
aircrafts, trees
– People and animals in the open
• Indirect strikes
– Electrical & electronic systems
– People and animals within buildings/shelters

Effects of direct lightning strikes
• Electrical effects
– High voltage gradient & flashovers
– Electromagnetic effects
• Thermal effects
– Rise in conductor/material temperature
• Mechanical effects
– Mechanical forces
– Acoustic shock wave
– Explosive expansion
Effect on trees
• Lightning strikes to trees can cause the bark to be stripped off

• Some trees are totally damaged by lightning

Effect on vegetation
• Lightning strike to the ground can cause the grass and shrubs
to shrivel and die
Effect on animals
• Four legged animals usually die due to Ground Potential Rise

(GPR)
• Lightning current enters the body through potential difference
between the legs

Effects on humans
• Lightning can injure or kill people who do not take shelter in a

substantial building during a thunderstorm
Thermal effects
• Melting of metallic structures

• Bricks blown apart

Thermal effects
• Moisture in concrete vaporised by lightning current

• Explosion caused the concrete to break off
• Unreinforced concrete damage is bigger
Mechanical effects
• Lightning strike to the protection system

• Roof tiles, air terminal and lightning conductor dislodged

Mechanical effects
• Lightning strike to the roof

• Roof tiles and ceiling panels dislodged
Thermal, mechanical and electrical
• Lightning strike to the roof and flashover to the electrical

wiring
• Roof tiles and ceiling panels dislodged
• Fire from burnt insulation

Thermal and electrical effects
• Lightning strike to the air terminal and flashover to the electrical wiring
• Fire in electrical panels from burnt insulation
• Component damage due to transients
Ground potential rise (GPR)
• Unbalanced ground potential due to separate grounding

• Large transient current between grounding systems
• Flashover from cable to metal frame

Major disasters caused by lightning
• Improper or no protection against direct lightning
strikes have resulted in
– Major building structural damages and fires
– Explosions and fires at ordnance and petroleum facilities
– Aircraft crashes and shipboard explosions
• Improper or no protection against indirect lightning
strikes have resulted in
– Telecommunication and IT system failures
– Radar and aircraft control tower failures
High power lightning strikes
• High power lightning bolts may cause unusually major

damages to unprotected homes and large buildings

Oil tank fires
• Direct lightning strikes to oil tanks can result in fires and

explosions
– Pasir Gudang oil tank fire
LIGHTNING PROTECTION STANDARDS

• Lightning protection standards (code, guide etc.)
were introduced to assist in the design and
construction of lightning protection systems (LPS)
• LPS standard described here is for the conventional
air terminal (i.e. lightning rod)
• The LPS standards were periodically reviewed and
updated to include new knowledge obtained from
research and application

Recent developments in conventional
lightning protection standards
• International
– IEC1024
– IEC61024:1994
– IEC62305:2006
• British
– BS6651(1995-2004)
– BS-EN62305:2007
• Malaysia
– MS939:1984
– MS-IEC61024:2001
– MS-IEC62305:2007
MS-IEC62305
• Identical to the IEC62305: Protection against
lightning
• Available in four parts
– IEC62305-1: General Principles
– IEC62305-2: Risk Management
– IEC62305-3: Physical damage to structures and life hazard
– IEC62305-4: Electrical and electronic systems within
structures

IEC62305-1 sample
• LPZ defined by an LPS

– LPZ OA Direct flash, full lightning current
– LPZ OB No direct flash, partial lightning or induced current
– LPZ 1 No direct flash, limited lightning or induced current
IEC62305-1 sample
• LPZ defined by protection measures against LEMP

– LPZ OA Direct flash, full lightning current, full magnetic field
– LPZ OB No direct flash, partial lightning or induced current, full magnetic field
– LPZ 1 No direct flash, limited lightning or induced current, damped magnetic field
– LPZ 2 No direct flash, induced currents, further damped magnetic field

IEC62305-2 sample
• Determination of the collection

area Ad
• For an isolated rectangular
structure with length L, width W,
and height H on a flat ground, the
collection area is then equal to
• Ad = L × W + 6 × H ×(L + W) + 9 ×
ð × (H)2
IEC62305-3 sample
• Air terminal design
concepts explained
• Protection Angle
Method (PAM)

IEC62305-4 sample
• Lightning protection zone concept is explained

• General principle for the division into different LPZ
• Protection against LEMP
– Examples of possible LEMP protection measures systems (LPMS)
Cost effective design

• Application of IEC62305 standard can lead to cost
effective design
• Existing air terminal (i.e. lightning rod) positioning
methods, if applied correctly, can lead to a very cost
effective lightning protection system
– Protection Angle Method (PAM)
– Mesh Method (MM)
– Rolling Sphere Method (RSM)
– Collection Surface Method (CSM)
• Positioning of air terminals at “high risk” locations

Protection Angle Method (PAM)
• Introduced by Gay Lussac in 1823

• Applicable to simple/low structures

Mesh Method (MM)

• Introduced by James
Clerk Maxwell in 1876
• To address the problem
of strikes to flat surfaces
• Very unpopular method
due to negative
aesthetic and cost
issues

Rolling Sphere Method (RSM)
• Introduced by Tibor Horvath in 1960s

• RSM method is based on studies of lightning strikes to HV
power transmission lines
• Sphere is rolled over and around the structure to determine
the shielded zones (shaded areas)
39
Rolling Sphere Method (RSM)
• RSM is applicable to both simple and complex structures

• However, the method does not reveal the high risk lightning
interception locations
40

Collection Surface Method (CSM)
• Introduced by Hartono and Robiah in 1995

• Air terminal position is based on studies of actual lightning
damaged buildings in Malaysia & Singapore
• CSM is based on the RSM, but inversed
41
• CSM reveals the high risk positions on structures

• Bigger collection surface leads to higher risk
42

• Accumulated bypass data corresponds closely with the CSM model

• High risk locations on structures
– A: >>90%
– B: <5%
– C: <2%
– D: <1%
– E: 0%
43
CSM in current LPS standards

• Accepted by Standards Australia (1999) and by IEC TC81
(2000)
• Principle of CSM has been included in
– Australian Standard AS1768 (2003)
– International Standard IEC62305 (2006)
– European Union Standard EN62305 (2006)
• Other standards bodies have converted their national
standards to IEC standards
– BS converted the BS6651 to BS-EN62305 (2007)
– SIRIM converted the MS939 to MS-IEC61024 (2001), MS-IEC62305
(2007)
44

CSM principle in AS1768:2003
45
CSM principle in IEC62305
46

Application of CSM (1)
• By Czech scientists Josef and Marek Dudas in 2008

• Software developed to determine the high risk locations
• Up to 98% lightning stroke interception possible
47
• By German scientist Professor Alexander Kern in 2010

• More advanced software developed to numerically determine
the interception levels
• Building corners intercept most of the lightning strokes
• Up to 99% stroke interception possible
48

• However, a single very tall
air terminal placed at the
center of the flat roof can
only intercept about 65% of
the strokes
• This can explain the high
number of bypasses to
centrally placed air
terminals, such as the ESE
air terminals
49
• CSM can also be applied to complex structures
50

Common errors in conventional
air terminal placements
• Study on conventional LPS
in Malaysia shows that
more than 90% of air
terminal placements did not
comply with past or current
standards
• This has resulted in a
significant number of
bypasses on buildings
installed with conventional
LPS
51

52

53
Failure of conventional LPS
• Incorrectly positioned Franklin rods (i.e. failure to comply with

standards) are the main cause of conventional LPS failures
observed in Malaysia

• Misconceptions about lightning and air terminal among
lightning protection engineers seem to contribute to
widespread LPS design errors
• Lightning
– Misconception: Lightning is attracted to metallic objects and
electromagnetic radiation (eg. from mobile phones)
– Fact: Lightning is not attracted to any object or radiation
• Conventional air terminal (eg. Franklin rod)
– Misconception: A conventional air terminal can attract lightning
– Fact: A conventional air terminal is just a passive receptor and does
not attract lightning at all
55
Misconceptions about lightning and air

terminals
• Misconceptions about lightning and air terminals were initially
spread by non-conventional LPS vendors to mislead/confuse
the general public so that they can easily sell their unproven
devices
• However, some local universities were found to have spread
the same misconceptions and some have even added new
ones
56

Examples of misconceptions about
lightning protection
• In a book published in 1998,
new misconceptions about
lightning protection were
introduced
– An air terminal can bend the
lightning path upwards
– Metal rebars in structures can
attract lightning and cause
more damages
– Air terminals must be
positioned away from the
corners and edges of the roof
instead of directly on top of
them
57

58

• Although Malaysian and
British standards
recommended the air
terminal be placed very
close to the ridge ends, the
book recommended that
the air terminal be placed
further from the ridge ends
59
Example of misconception about lightning

protection
• Misleading information about an air terminal “attracting” a lightning

channel was posted on the university website
60

Impact of misconceptions about lightning
protection
• Misconception
– Air terminals must be
positioned away from corners
and edges
– Air terminals can attract
lightning
• Lightning attachments still

occur at the usual high risk
locations even though there
is an air terminal nearby
61
No damage to facades if air terminal

placed correctly

Lightning damage to unprotected facades
Using “natural components” of LPS

• Modern construction methods use steel components
• IEC 62305 standard allows the use of conductive
components of the building as one or more parts of
the LPS
– Natural air termination
– Natural down conductor
– Natural earthing electrode
– Equipotential bonding (EB)

Natural air termination
• Conductive components
on the roof can be used
as air terminations
– Roof parapet
– Sheet metal roof
– Flag poles
– Telco poles
Natural down conductor 1

• Down conductors are
required when the
building is made of non-
conductive material
– Wood
– Bricks

Natural down conductor 2
• Conductive components can
be used as down
conductors
– Steel girders
– Reinforcement steel
• If a separate down
conductor is used, they
must be bonded to the steel
components at the top and
bottom of the building
Natural earthing electrode

• Reinforcing steel in the
foundation can also be
used as the earthing
electrode
– Steel bars
– Piles

Lightning equipotential bonding (EB)
• EB is required to reduce the
potential difference due to
lightning
• Must be done for
– Metallic installations
– Equipment
• Present method of
providing bonding bars
connected by long
conductors are very costly

• IEC62305 standard
allows the
interconnected
reinforcing steel to be
used for EB
• Metallic components or
equipment can be
bonded directly or via
bonding bars

• Example of bonding bar
connected to the
reinforcing steel of
concrete
Non-conventional LPS
• Public awareness on the non-
conventional LPS or air terminals
has been raised several times
since 1993 in the local media, in a
public forum [8] and in a a journal
[9]
• However, lack of action by the
authorities to stop the sale and
use have led to widespread use of
these non-scientific and
dangerous devices in the country
72

Types of non-conventional air terminals in
Malaysia
• Lightning attractor devices
– Early Streamer Emission (ESE)
– Collection Volume Terminals (CVT)
• Lightning eliminator/rejection devices
– Charge Transfer System (CTS), formerly known as Dissipation Array
System (DAS)
– Compound Air-Plasma Lightning Rejection system (CPLR)
• Lightning reduction devices
– Semiconductor Lightning Extender (SLE)
• So-called “conventional” devices with one of the above
properties
73
Some examples of ESE terminals
• L – R:
– Saint Elmo (France)
– Indelec 10 (France)
– Paratonnerres (France)
– Pulsar (France)
74

Some examples of ESE terminals
• L–R:
– Saint Elmo (Italy)
– EF (Swiss)
– SI Interceptor (Australia)
– DAT Controller (Spain)
75
Some examples of CVTs
• L – R:
– Dynasphere
– Dynasphere Mk IV
– Interceptor
– Guardian
76

Some examples of lightning strike
prevention air terminals
• L to R:
– DAS/CTS (USA)
– Spline Ball Terminal or SBT (USA)
– CPLR (China)
77
SLE air terminal
• Inventor claims that the device can reduce the intercepted lightning
current by >99%
• However, rocket triggered lightning studies conducted by the Chinese
Academy of Science in 1999 saw no reduction in the intercepted lightning
current
78

Example of “conventional” air terminal
with “attractive power”
79
Failure of ESE air terminals

• More than 95% of
nonconventional air terminals
used in Malaysia are ESE air
terminals
• The ESE air terminals are usually
placed at the center of the roof
• Due to their unproven claimed
protection zones, one or more
bypasses have been observed on
most tall/big buildings installed
with the ESE air terminals
80

• Since the invention of the ESE air terminals more than 25
years ago, the inventors/manufacturers have failed to
published any reports that can scientifically support their
claims of enhanced protection zone
• On the other hand, many renowned lightning protection
experts have published reports on the failures of the ESE air
terminals in Malaysia
– While ESE inventors and local academics still disputed the reported
failures, some foreign academics and experts have regarded these
failures as “undisputable”
81
 “Lightning Protection”, Edited by V Cooray, The Institution of Engineering and

Technology, 2010, pg.241
82

 “Lightning Protection”, pg.242
– The building shown in the picture
is the Royal Selangor Club, Bukit
Kiara annexe.
83
Compliance to MS-IEC62305 standard

• In September 2011, the Energy
Commission (EC / Suruhanjaya
Tenaga) has published an
advertorial in the local media that
made it mandatory for all
consultants, engineers, building
owners and contractors to
comply with the MS-IEC62305 for
building LPS
84

Mandatory compliance to
MS-IEC62305 standard
• However, many new buildings
were still installed with the ESE
air terminals from 2012 onwards
• The EC and other relevant bodies
(eg. ACEM, BEM, CIDB, IEM and
SIRIM) needs to strictly enforce
this directive in order uphold
public safety
85
Non-compliance to
• Non-compliance by local university with lightning protection

expertise
86

Non-compliance to
• Non-compliance by local university with lightning protection

expertise
87
Non-compliance to
• Non-compliance by standards organisation
88

Non-compliance to
Public Works Dept Ministry of Works
89
Non-compliance to
• Non-compliance by public clinic
90

Non-compliance to
• Non-compliance by public hospital
91
Non-compliance to
• Non-compliance by public hospital
92

Non-compliance to
• Non-compliance by public hospital (before)
93
Non-compliance to
• Non-compliance by public hospital (before)
94

Non-compliance to
• Non-compliance by public hospital (after)
95
Lightning Scene Investigation
96

Lightning Scene Investigation
97
Non-compliance to
• Non-compliance by private hospital
98

Summary
• Air terminal positioning methods have been in continuous
development since 19th century
• Development of highrise buildings in the 20th century require
new methods of air terminal positioning
• RSM and CSM have been proven to be effective in positioning
air terminals on all types of buildings
• Errors in air terminal positioning are due to misconceptions
about nature of lightning and function of air terminals
• Nonconventional air terminals are still unproven and
dangerous to use
• Most nonconventional air terminals are widely used in
Malaysia due to support from some local universities
99
Summary
• Failure of ESE air terminals in Malaysia are well documented
in many international scientific studies
• Failure of ESE air terminals can lead to property/equipment
losses and injuries/fatalities
• MS-IEC62305 standard must be implemented in full to achieve
near total protection (98%)
• EC has made it mandatory for the full compliance to MS-
IEC62305 in building projects from 2011 but still not enforced
• Government agencies must stop using the nonconventional
air terminals in order not to mislead other agencies and the
public
100

References
1. ZA Hartono and I Robiah, “A method of identifying the lightning strike location on a
structure”, International Conference on EMC, Kuala Lumpur, 1995.
2. ZA Hartono and I Robiah, “The collection surface concept as a reliable method for
predicting the lightning strike location”, International Conference on Lightning Protection
(ICLP), Rhodes, Greece, 2000.
3. J Dudas and M Dudas, “Software for lightning protection system diagnosis according to IEC
62305”, ICLP, Uppsala, Sweden, 2008 (http://www.lpsdesigner.cz/data/ICLP2008Paper10-3.pdf)
4. A Kern et al, “Probability of lightning strikes to air termination of structures using the
electro-geometrical model theory and the statistics of lightning current parameters”, 2012
(http://www.elab-juelich.de/Kern/Veroefentlichungen/Paper%20750_Strike%20probability.pdf)
5. ZA Hartono and I Robiah, “Misconceptions about lightning and its relation to air terminal
design errors”, Invited Paper, CIGRE C4 Colloquium on Lightning and Power Systems, Kuala
Lumpur, 2010 (http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/misconceptions-about-lightning.pdf)
101
References
6) “Kilat dan perlindungan”, Hussein Ahmad, Penerbitan UTM, 1998
7) The Star Online, 28 April 2006, “Cellphones draw bolts of risk”
8) ZA Hartono and I Robiah, “Conventional and un-conventional lightning air terminals: An
overview”, ACEM Forum on Lightning Protection, Petaling Jaya, 2004
(http://www.lightningsafetyalliance.org/documents/acem_air_terminals.pdf )
9) ZA Hartono and I Robiah, “Conventional and un-conventional lightning air terminals: An
update”, Journal of the Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia, 1Q 2007
(http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/ACEM_Journal_Q1_2007.pdf )
10) D Makerras, M Darveniza and AC Liew, “Review of claimed enhanced protection of buildings
by early streamer emission air terminals”, IEE Proceedings – Science Measurement
Technology, Vol. 44, No. 1, 1997.
11) MA Uman and VA Rakov, “A critical review of nonconventional approaches to lightning
protection”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2002
(http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/Uman_Rakov.pdf )
102

References
12) V Cooray et al, “Lightning interception: Nonconventional lightning protection systems”,
Report of CIGRE Working Group C4.405, Elektra, October 2011 (http://www.iclp-
centre.org/pdf/Cooray-CIGRE-2011.pdf)
13) “Lightning: Physics and Effects”, MA Uman and VA Rakov, Cambridge University Press, 2003
14) “Lightning Protection”, Edited by V Cooray, The Institution of Engineering and Technology,
2010
15) ZA Hartono and I Robiah, “Death at the stadium” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/87557964/Death-
at-the-Stadium)
103
Thank You
for your attention

Lightning Protection System by Z.A. Hartono

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lightning Protection System by Z.A. Hartono

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ministry of Health Malaysia

Knowledge Beyond Boundary Session 4/2018

Lightning Protection System

Z. A. Hartono & I. Robiah

Lightning Research plc 1

Lightning Research plc 2

Lightning Research plc 1

Lightning Research plc 3

LFD Map for SEA

Lightning Research plc 4

Lightning Research plc 2

Lightning Research plc 5

The lightning ground flash

Lightning Research plc 6

Lightning Research plc 3

• Source: Uman (1998)

Lightning Research plc 7

Lightning flash components

Source: National Geographic (1995)

Lightning Research plc 4

Lightning Research plc 9

Damaging Effects of Lightning

Lightning Research plc 10

Lightning Research plc 5

Lightning Research plc 11

• Lightning strikes to trees can cause the bark to be stripped off

Lightning Research plc 12

Lightning Research plc 6

• Four legged animals usually die due to Ground Potential Rise

Lightning Research plc 14

Lightning Research plc 7

• Lightning can injure or kill people who do not take shelter in a

• Melting of metallic structures

Lightning Research plc 16

Lightning Research plc 8

• Moisture in concrete vaporised by lightning current

Lightning Research plc 17

• Lightning strike to the protection system

Lightning Research plc 18

Lightning Research plc 9

• Lightning strike to the roof

Lightning Research plc 19

Thermal, mechanical and electrical

• Lightning strike to the roof and flashover to the electrical

Lightning Research plc 10

Lightning Research plc 21

Ground potential rise (GPR)

• Unbalanced ground potential due to separate grounding

Lightning Research plc 22

Lightning Research plc 11

Lightning Research plc 23

High power lightning strikes

• High power lightning bolts may cause unusually major

Lightning Research plc 24

Lightning Research plc 12

• Direct lightning strikes to oil tanks can result in fires and

Lightning Research plc 25

LIGHTNING PROTECTION STANDARDS

Lightning Research plc 26

Lightning Research plc 13

Lightning Research plc 27

Lightning Research plc 28

Lightning Research plc 14