Lightning Research

at
the University of Florida
Shreeharsh Mallick
 The content of this presentation are for
educational purpose. You are welcome to
use these materials as long as you
acknowledge the source.

2
The phenomenon of lightning occurs through a set of
complex processes. In the subsequent slides, some of
the details are abstracted in order to present the
fundamental aspects of these processes in a simple
way. To learn more about lightning, please refer to the
books/papers in the reference slide (at the end) or
contact

• Dr. Vladimir A. Rakov (E-mail: rakov@ece.ufl.edu)

• Dr. Martin A. Uman (Email: uman@ece.ufl.edu)

For information regarding UF Lightning Research

Group, visit http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu
3
Introduction
 What is
Lightning?

Lightning is the discharge of

atmospheric electricity

Photograph by: Dustin Hill

 TLE or Transient Luminous
Events (sprites, elves)

Cloud-to-cloud +
flash + + + + + Cloud-to-cloud
(intracloud) + + + + + flash
+ + + + (intercloud)
Thundercloud + + + +
_ _ _ _ + + + _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ + + _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ + _ Thundercloud

Cloud-to-air
flash Cloud-to-ground
flash

Earth
 Downward Upward
Negative Negative
(90% of
CG flash)

Downward Upward
Positive Positive

Depending on direction of propagation and polarity of charges

7
(Adapted from Lightning Physics & Effects by V. A. Rakov & M. A. Uman)
 + + + + + + +
Thundercloud
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
+
Streamer Charges in Cloud
Dart/Dart-Stepped
Leader
Ionized Air
Stepped Negative
Leader
1st Return Stroke downward
2nd Return Stroke natural
Current 3rd Return Stroke lightning
Attachment
Striking
Upward Distance
Leaders
Objects on Image Charges
Ground on Ground

+ + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + +
Natural lightning at Camp Blanding
Photograph by: Dustin Hill
Still-camera
image Streak-camera image

Channel-base current

10
(Adapted from Lightning Physics & Effects by V. A. Rakov & M. A. Uman)
Various Steps of Lightning Discharge Process over Time

11
(Adapted from Lightning by M. A. Uman)
 M-component

12
(Adapted from Lightning Physics & Effects by V. A. Rakov & M. A. Uman)
 Negative Lightning for Cloud-to-Ground
• Overall duration: 200-300 ms
• Peak current: 1st stroke = 30 kA
Sub. stroke = 10-15 kA
M-comp. = 100-200 A
• 10-90% current rise-time: 1st stroke = 5 µs
Sub. stroke = 0.3-0.6 µs
M-comp. = 300-500 µs
• Current duration to HPW-value on tail:
1st stroke = 70-80 µs
Sub. stroke = 30-40 µs
• Max. current rate of rise: 1st stroke = ≥10-20 kA/µs
Sub. stroke = 100 kA/µs

(Adapted from Lightning Physics & Effects by V. A. Rakov & M. A. Uman)

 Parameters of downward negative lightning based on channel-based current.
Adapted from Berger et al. (1975)
Sample % exceeding tabulated values
Parameters Units
size 95% 50% 5%

Peak current 1st strokes 101 14 30 80

kA
(min. 2 kA) Sub. Strokes 135 4.6 12 30

1st strokes 92 5.5 12 32

Max. dI/dt kA/µs
Sub. Strokes 122 12 40 120

Front duration 1st strokes 89 1.8 5.5 18

µs
(2 kA to peak) Sub. Strokes 118 0.22 1.1 4.5
Stroke duration 1st strokes 90 30 75 200
(2 kA to HPW-value µs
on tail) Sub. Strokes 115 6.5 32 140

1st strokes 94 0.15 13 1100

Flash duration ms
Sub. Strokes 39 31 180 900
Time interval
14 ms 133 7 33 150
between strokes
 + + + + + + +
Thundercloud
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
+
Charges in Cloud
Dart/Dart-Stepped
Leader Ionized Air

Initial Subsequent Upward

Continuous Return Stroke lightning
Current
Upward
Positive
Leader
Streamer

Ground-Based Image Charges

Tall Object on Ground

+ + + + + + + + + +
Lightning striking Burj Khalifa in Dubai
(unknown source)
Still-camera
image Streak-camera image

Channel-base current
Note initial continuous current in place of first return stroke
17
(Adapted from Lightning Physics & Effects by V. A. Rakov & M. A. Uman)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ Thundercloud
_ _ _ _
+
Charges in Cloud

Natural Channel
Dart/Dart-Stepped
Leader Upward
Positive
Initial Leader Triggered
Continuous lightning
Ionized Air
Current using rocket-
Streamer Subsequent and-wire
Return Stroke technique

Exploded Wire
Wire connected
to Ground

Rocket Image Charges

Launcher on Ground
Rocket Triggered Lightning at Camp Blanding
 Subsequent strokes in triggered lightning are
similar to those in natural lightning
20
(Adapted from Lightning Physics & Effects by V. A. Rakov & M. A. Uman)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ Thundercloud
_ _ _ _
+
Charges in Cloud

Altitude
Current triggered
Leaders lightning
Streamers Return Stroke

Wire not
connected to
ground
Interceptor
Rocket Image Charges
Launcher on Ground
 Lightning
strikes plane
while take off in
Japan
(unknown
source).

(classical
example of
altitude
triggered
lightning)

22
 UF
Lightning
Research
Group

23
 Facilities
• The Lightning Center for Lightning Research
and Testing (ICLRT) at Camp Blanding, FL
– Rocket-Triggered Lightning Experiments

• The Lightning Observatory in Gainesville, FL

(45 km from Camp Blanding)

• Starke Site (3 km from Camp Blanding)

• The Lightning Research Laboratory

24
 Activities
• Studying the various physical
processes in natural and rocket-
triggered lightning

– Current shunts/Pearson coil

– Electric and Magnetic field antennas
– X-Ray detectors
– HF and VHF systems
– Optical equipments

25
 ICLRT at Camp Blanding, Florida

26
(Adapted from Lightning Physics & Effects by V. A. Rakov & M. A. Uman)
Rocket Triggered Lightning

(Click on the photograph to start video)

Rocket Triggered Lightning

(Click on the photograph to start video)

Rocket Triggered Lightning

(Click on the photograph to start video)

LOG is located 45 km from CB. Starke site, which is located 3 km
from CB, is not shown on the map.
30
Lightning Observatory in Gainesville

Glass
Cupola

X-ray
E-field detector
antenna
dE/dt
antenna

Single-station expt. (Natural lightning around Gainesville)

 Lightning Observatory in Gainesville

Multi-station expt. (RTL at CB; far-field measurements at 45 km)

 Flash UF 09-25

Near and far field measurement

33
 Starke Site

Multi-station expt. (RTL at CB; far-field measurements at 3 km)

Single-station expt. (Natural lightning around Starke)
Study on distribution line done at Camp Blanding
Study on underground cable done at Camp Blanding

Fulgurite
Study on underground cable done at Camp Blanding
Study on residential house done at Camp Blanding

(Click on the photograph to start video)

 Case Study

Triggered-Lightning Testing of
Lightning Protective System
of a Residential Building
(Triggered-Lightning Testing of the Protective System of a Residential
Building: 2004 and 2005 Results, B.A. DeCarlo, V.A. Rakov, J. Jerauld, G.H.
Schnetzer, J. Schoene, M.A. Uman, K.J. Rambo, V. Kodali, D.M. Jordan, G.
Maxwell, S. Humeniuk, and M. Morgan, ICLP 2006)
 Office

IS1
Launch
Control
N
Experimental 600 V
Underground
Cable
set-up
Test House Tower
Launcher

Lead
conductor

Test Test Runway

3-Phase
Distribution
Line
 North Instrumentation box

The test house at the ICLRT whose LPS was subjected to direct lightning
strikes in 2004 and 2005. Approximate dimensions of the house are 10 x 7 x
6.5 m3. Photo from 2005.
 Experimental set-up (2004)
Lightning current
injection point

3.8 m
Air 9.9 m

terminal
Ground
Level

To electrical
A
circuit neutral
4.6 m
B
D

3m 3.4 m
6.1 m
C N

Diagram of the LPS of the test house in 2004. All conductors below the plane labeled
“Ground Level” are buried (in direct contact with earth).
Note: Return stroke current only was injected in 2004.
 Experimental set-up (2004)

SPDs
Watt-hour
6Ω meter 600-V Cable

4Ω
50 Ω 50 Ω
Buried D
conductor

A B C G

336 Ω 468 Ω 668 Ω 69 Ω

Electrical diagram of test system configuration for 2004. Currents A, B, C, D, and K were
measured at the test house, and current G was measured at IS1, 50-m away.
 Current division results (2004)
Point B

Point A
SPDs
Watt-hour
Injected 6Ω meter 600-V Cable
(a)
K

4Ω
50 Ω 50 Ω

Point K Buried D
conductor
Point D
A B C G
Point C
336 Ω 468 Ω 668 Ω 69 Ω

(b)

Return-stroke currents for stroke 0401-3, displayed on a 10 µs time scale. (a)

injected current and currents at points A, B, C, D, and K; (b) currents for flash
0401-7.
 Experimental set-up (2005)
Lightning current Air
injection point terminal
3.8 m

9.9 m

4.6 m
Ground
Level A1

To electrical A
circuit neutral
B 6.8 m

D
3m
B1

3.4 m
N

Diagram of the LPS of the test house in 2005. All conductors below the plane labeled
“Ground Level” are buried (in direct contact with earth).
Note: Both initial-stage and return-stroke currents were injected in 2005.
 Experimental set-up (2005)

Watt-hour
meter
600-V Cable

50 Ω 50 Ω

A A1 B D B1 G

442 Ω 488 Ω 518 Ω 524 Ω 636 Ω 69 Ω

Buried loop conductor

Electrical diagram of test system configuration for 2005. Currents A, A1, B, B1, and D
were measured at the test house, and Current G was measured at IS1, 50 m away.
 Current division results (2005)
0

Current, kA
-1 Downlead A
Downlead A1
-2 Downlead B
0521-1 (a)
Downlead B1
-3
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 Time, s
0521-1
Current, kA

-2
-4
-6 Injected Current
(b)
Sum of 4 Downleads
-8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time, s

(a) Return stroke currents in four downleads (A, A1, B, and B1) ,
(b) The sum of the four downlead currents (A, A1, B, and B1) vs. the injected current
waveform displayed on a 110 µs time scale for stroke 0521-1.
 Current division results (2005)
0

Current, kA
-5
Injected Current
0521-1 (Sum - D), scaled (a)
-10
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 Time, s
Current, kA

-2

-4 Current D
0521-1 Current G (b)
-6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time, s
(a) Injected current versus the difference between the sum of the four downlead currents
and current D, labeled (Sum – D). The (Sum – D) waveform is scaled so that its peak is equal
to that of the injected current and represents the current going to the grounding system
(local) of the test house. (b) Current D versus current G.
 Current division results, 2004 vs. 2005
Peak value of current D (current to electrical circuit neutral) vs. injected peak
current for return strokes in flashes triggered in 2004 and 2005.
Characteristics Injected current, Current D, kA Current D relative
kA to Injected current,
%
2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005
Minimum 3.6 6.8 0.8 4.4 16 51

Maximum 17.8 34.4 3.4 8.5 28 72

Arithmetic Mean 9.4 14.4 2.1 6.6 22 59

Standard 4.1 8.8 0.9 1.8 3.6 8.5

Deviation
Geometric Mean 4.7 12.7 1.9 6.1 22 58

Sample Size 11 8 11 7 11 7

Over 80% of the injected peak current was observed to enter the electrical
circuit neutral in similar 1997 tests at the ICLRT (Rakov et al., 2002).
 Damage to the system

4 mm
Adjacent
damage

(a) y
(b)

Damage to the insulation of the 600-V cable,

(a) puncture of the insulation of one conductor of the 600-V cable,
(b) damage to all three conductors of the cable.
 Current division results (2004 vs. 2005) Lightning current
Lightning current
injection point Air

2004 injection point

2005 terminal

Air
terminal Ground
To Level A1
Ground
electrical
Level
circuit A
To electrical neutral
A
circuit neutral B
B D
D B1

N
C N

16 8
0401-1 0521-1
14

12 6

Peak Current, kA
Peak current, kA

10

8 4

4 2

0 0
Inj. A B C D Inj. A A1 B B1 D

Bar charts of peak current of injected (Inj.) current, currents in ground rod A, ground
rod A1 (2005), ground rod B, ground rod B1 (2005), ground rod C (2004),
and current D for events LSA-0401-1 and LSA-0521-1.
 Current division results (2004 vs. 2005)
Lightning current Lightning current
injection point injection point Air

2004 Air
2005
terminal

terminal Ground
Ground To Level A1
Level electrical
circuit A
To electrical neutral
A
circuit neutral
B
B D
D B1

N N
C

80 35
70 0401-1 0521-1
60 30
50
40 25
30
20
HPW, µs

HPW, µs
20
10
3 15

10

0 0
Inj. A B C D Inj. A A1 B B1 D

Bar charts of half-peak width of injected (Inj.) current, currents in ground rod A, ground
rod A1 (2005), ground rod B, ground rod B1 (2005), ground rod C (2004), and current D
for events 0401-1 and 0521-1.
 Summary
• The primary objective was to examine current division between
local (at the test house) and remote grounding systems

• Current entering the electrical circuit neutral in percent of the

injected current:
1997 – >80%
2004 – 22%
better grounding at the test house than in 1997
2005 – 59%
Roughly a factor of two to three larger current in 2005 than in 2004
was forced to search its way to remote ground

• Overall, configuration tested in 2004 (RS only; SPDs installed)

performed better than the configuration tested in 2005 (IS + RS;
SPDs disconnected)

• In absence of SPDs in 2005, the watt-hour meter incurred damage,

similar to the no-SPD configuration tested in 1997 (Rakov et al.,
2002)
 QUESTIONS?

For information regarding UF Lightning Research Group, visit

http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu

54
 References
• Lightning Physics and Effects, V. A. Rakov and M.
A. Uman, Cambridge University Press, 2003

• Lightning, M. A. Uman, Dover Publication, 1969

• Triggered-Lightning Testing of the Protective

System of a Residential Building: 2004 and 2005
Results, B.A. DeCarlo, V.A. Rakov, J. Jerauld, G.H.
Schnetzer, J. Schoene, M.A. Uman, K.J. Rambo,
V. Kodali, D.M. Jordan, G. Maxwell, S.
Humeniuk, and M. Morgan, ICLP 2006
55
Photograph by: Dustin Hill