2015 IEEE 5th International Conference on Power Engineering, Energy and Electrical Drives (POWERENG)

Advancements in building lightning protection zone

estimation

Viesturs Zimackis, Sandra Vitolina

Department of Electrical Machines and Devices
Riga Technical University
Riga, Latvia
viesturs.zimackis@rtu.lv, sandra.vitolina@rtu.lv

Abstract—Lightning protection system is an effective way to lightning protection system will be viewed in this paper,
properly protect structures against hazardous effects of lightning focusing mainly on lightning protection zone estimation.
strike. Lightning protection zone is an essential parameter of
lightning protection system, because it determines whether
structure is protected against lightning strikes. The rolling sphere
II. ROLLING SPHERE METHOD OVERVIEW
method is commonly used to estimate lightning protection zone, The term Rolling sphere comes from the studies carried
but it neglects some significant parameters such as differences in out in the United States by Ralph H. Lee [3]. The concept of
striking distance to ground and vertical masts, the lightning the rolling sphere is directly related to the electro-geometrical
strike probability is the same irrespective of striking point, model which was proposed by H. R. Armstrong and E. R.
attachment process of downward and upward leaders and Whitehead [4] and is based on the assumption that a stepped
lightning discharge polarity. This paper review existing leader has to approach to a critical distance (striking distance)
techniques that effectively eliminates these drawbacks. before it will be attracted to structure. In other words, sphere
with radius equal to striking distance and centre located on tip
Keywords—lightning protection zone, rolling sphere,
of the stepped leader approaching earth and the first point of
interception probability, attractive radius
grounded structure that touches surface of sphere will be the
lightning striking point.
I. INTRODUCTION
According to IEC 62305-3 the positioning of the air-
The most common way to protect buildings and another termination system is adequate if no point of the structure to
structures from lightning strikes is lightning protection system be protected comes into contact with a sphere with radius r
(LPS), including external lightning protection against direct rolling around and on top of the structure to be protected in all
lightning strokes which may cause fire, explosion or other possible directions. In this way, the sphere only touches the
mechanical damages and internal lightning protection against air-termination system or ground. Fig. 1 shows the principle of
overvoltages caused by lightning. air-termination positioning according to rolling sphere
The necessity of lightning protection system in Latvia and method. Striking points require protection, whilst lightning
another north temperate zone countries is demonstrated by the protection zones are not exposed to lightning strikes with
fact that in the period from 2009 to 2012 in Latvia 113 of all striking distance equal or greater than rolling sphere radius r.
building fire were caused by lightning strikes [1], an average Despite the widespread use of the rolling sphere method
of 37.7 fire per year. Due to ever-increasing number of and its simple concept which is entirely geometrical and is
electrical appliances in households, public and industrial
buildings protection against lightning strikes becomes
essential to every building. Latvian leading property insurer
"Balta" statistics show that 70% of all damages to electrical
appliances are caused by lightning storms [2].
Furthermore in recent years sophisticated architectural
structures are built and it gets more challenging to design
effective and inconspicuous lightning protection system. For
example roof terraces, where probability of lightning
discharge as well as potential thunderstorm viewers is high.
For this reason it gets even more important to design safe yet
attractive external lightning protection system.
As the lightning protection zone is the key parameter that
shows whether building is properly protected, only external Fig. 1. Illustration of rolling sphere mehod principle

978-1-4799-9978-1/15/$31.00 ©2015 European Union 

based on the principle of minimal distance, there are several
assumptions that may lead to LPS failure. First, it predicts that
the striking distance to ground is equal to the striking distance
to masts and ground wires, but recent experimental studies on
scale models have proved that striking distance to ground is
not equal with striking distance to masts [5], [6]. Second, the
rolling sphere method predicts that the probability of lightning
strike is the same irrespective of striking point. Although, field
observations have shown that more than 90% of observed
lightning strikes occurred at sharp points and protruding
corners and less than 1% at flat surfaces [7]. Third, rolling
sphere method does not take into account the upward leader
inception and propagation process of and the importance of
field intensification [8]. To develop existing rolling sphere
method all drawbacks need to be analyzed. Further in this
paper some of the most popular approaches to improve rolling
sphere method drawbacks will be reviewed.
III. DIFFERENCE IN STRIKING DISTANCE
As mentioned before the rolling sphere method neglects
some significant parameters, such as lightning discharge
polarity and also incorrectly assumes that striking distance to
ground D is equal to striking distance to vertical rods or
catenary wires S. In spite of the fact that clear distinction
between striking distance to ground, vertical rods or wires was
proposed in the origins of electro-geometrical theory [4], only
in recent years this assumption was experimentally validated
[5], [6]. For both positive and negative polarity discharge
following equations for the striking distance S were obtained
[5]:
IV. DIFERENCES IN PROBABILITY OF LIGHTNING STRIKE
Rolling sphere method predicts that probability of a
lightning strike is the same regardless of the point where
lightning may struck, whether it is an edge or corner of the
building, or flat surface. However, field observations in
Malaysia, where the average number of annual thunderstorm
day is well above 200, shows that more than 90% of lightning
damages were observed at sharp points or protruding corners
of the roof (K), less than 5% at horizontal or slanting edges
(L), less than 2% at vertical edges below protruding corners
(M), less than 1% at flat surface near protruding corners (N)
and none at intruding corners (O). Distribution of observed
lightning damages is shown in Fig. 3 [7]. The observed results
can be explained by one of following methods that focuses on
the tip of the leader or center of the rolling sphere instead of
its circumference.
A. The collection surface method
The collection surface method determines the points on a
structure that are at high risks of being struck by lightning
according to rolling sphere method and results an optimal,
reliable and cost effective LPS by optimizing use of air-
termination.
The basic principle of the collection surface method is
comparing the size or length of the locus of lightning leader
and probability of any point on a structure being struck by
lightning is proportional to the size of its locus. When rolling
sphere is rolled over and around the structure, its center
creates locus which appear as a surface of spheroid for sharp
points, as an arc of a circle for a point on the edge of a
structure and as a unit surface located perpendicularly above a
 Negative: S = D(1 + 0.24e-H/D),  point on a curved or flat surface.
As shown in Fig. 4 for a particular point (A, B, C) several
-0.125H/D sets of loci can be created with their radial distance
Positive: S = D(0.8e + 0.17),  corresponding to the striking distances. The surface area or
length of each locus for a particular point depends on the
where S is striking distance to vertical rod, D is striking overall shape of the structure since adjacent points also have
distance to ground and H is height of the rod. their own locus, which intersects. By increasing the striking
Analyzing the aspect mentioned above it can be seen that distance the size of loci for certain points (B) shrinks in
the estimated protective boundary is no longer defined by a relation to another points (A, C) until it disappears. This is the
sphere with radius equal to striking distance, as assumed by one reason why most lightning damages occur at the higher
rolling sphere method, instead an ellipsoid should be used, points (A) that are further out from the main structure [7].
thus resulting an elliptic model [9]. From (1) and (2) can be
noticed that the striking distance S to vertical rod is greater
than striking distance D to ground in case of negative
discharge and shorter in case of positive discharge. As shown
in Fig. 2 lightning protection zone is larger than protection
zone obtained by rolling sphere method in case of negative
discharge and smaller in case of positive lightning discharge.

Fig. 3. Distribution of observed lightning damages on flat roofed

building

Fig. 2. Comparison of lightning protection zones



Fig. 4. Locus lenght for certain points of structure
B. Dynamic electro-geometrical model
Dynamic electro-geometrical model in contrast of the
collection surface method does not use fixed radius, but varies
them and takes into account negative and positive lightning
discharges using ratio 90%/10% as given in IEC 62305-1. The
numerical method used in dynamic electro-geometrical model
is elaborated using only in international standards accepted
results, fundamentals of lightning physics and investigations
[10].
The entire surface of the structure to be protected including
air-terminations has to be discretized areally, as well as the
ground surrounding the structure. The space outside the
structure is discretized spacially. Using simple geometrical
relations or equations for each space point the closest surface
point can be found. The distance between space point and
surface point is striking distance. For this distance an interval
of the lightning current peak value can be linked, using
proportionality:
With different striking distance one surface point can be
the closest one to different space point, therefore all
probability values for each surface point must be added. The
sum of those is the final probability of a lightning strike at
given point. The sum of the probabilities to all surface points
is normalized to the total probability of 100% for a lightning
stroke to the entire structure [10].
Only pure geometrical distance between the space point
and the surface point is determined. Any electric field
enhancement effects at exposed points of the structure are
disregarded. Such influence would only further increase
probability of a lightning strike at sharp points, corners and
edges [10].
V. LEADER PROGRESSION MODELS
Leader progression models studies the interception of
lightning flashes with structures and shows that the attachment
of lightning flashes to grounded structures depends not only
on the prospective return stroke peak current as it is rolling
sphere method, but also on geometry of the structure to be
protected.
The final attachment of the stepped leader to grounded
structure takes place through the interaction of the downward
stepped leader with the upward moving connecting leader.
Leader progression models attempt to simulate both
downward and upward leaders until the meeting point at
which a return stroke is initiated. Leader progression models
can estimate the attractive radius of the structure for a
downward stepped leader with a given prospective return
stroke current [12].
At the moment there are several leader progression models
and all of them use a large number of simplifications and
assumptions. In this paper reviews only those models on
which existing lightning protection zone estimation methods
are based.
 r = A·I b, 
where r rolling sphere radius in meters, I is the peak value of
the lightning current, A and b are constants. Constants A and b
vary by calculations with different rod heights. Shaded area in
Fig. 5 shows the approximate range of the majority of the
calculations of striking distance to flat ground as function of
peak current [11]. Dynamic electro-geometrical model uses
IEC 62305-1 adopted constants A = 10, b = 0.65. With that
finally a probability value for a lightning stroke from that
space point to the surface point considered can be given.
Fig. 5. Striking distance as function of peak current

A. The collection volume method
The collection volume method [13] is based on leader
progression model proposed by Andrew J. Eriksson [14] in
1987. The model predicts that when a stepped leader with
given charge Q enters into a certain volume in space
(collection volume) it will be captured by the structure. The
collection volume depends on the charge of leader channel or
return stroke peak current, field enhancement of the structure
and velocity ratio of downward and upward leaders.
There have been several unsuccessful attempts to get
collection volume method in international and national
standards [15].
B. Modified rolling sphere theory
S. Ait-Amar and G.Berger proposed a model in which the
position of downward and upward leader tips are computed by
using the Petrov and Waters [16] charge distribution. The
Distance between downward and upward leader tip is called
modified striking distance rms and from the calculations with
different rod heights new constants A = 4.2, b = 2/3 in (3) are
derived [8].
 From simulations of the stepped leaders, it was noted that
the upward connecting leader emitted from a vertical lightning
rod forms a cone of radius Lup and height Hup. When modified
rolling sphere is rolled over and around structure to be
protected it takes into account the presence of a propagating
upward leader. Lightning protection zone according to
modified rolling sphere theory is illustrated in Fig. 6 [8].
The influence of the corners and edges of the structure on
lightning protection zone can be examined by using leader
progression model.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
After analyzing scientific literature following conclusions
can be drawn.
Rolling sphere method neglects some significant
parameters such as differences in striking distance to ground
and vertical masts, striking distance is the same irrespective of
striking point, attachment process of downward and upward
leaders.
Elliptic model uses positive and negative lightning
discharge to determine striking distance to ground and masts,
but does not consider interaction of the leaders and presumes
equal lightning strike probability to all points of structure.
Collection surface method and dynamic electro-geometric
model, determines points of structure with highest lightning
strike probability, but still neglects downward and upward
leader attachment process and assumes equal striking distance
to ground and masts.
Modified rolling sphere theory takes into account
geometry of structure and leader propagation, but striking
distance is still described as sphere.
Complex lightning protection zone estimation method that
takes into account all drawbacks needs to be developed to
result in a safe and effective lightning protection system.
Fig. 6. Lightning prottection zone according to modified rolling sphere
theory

References
[1] Negaisu sezona sƗkusies, pƝdƝjos trƯs gados zibens izraisƯjis 113
ugunsgrƝkus, June, 2012. Available: http://www.balta.lv/lv/negaisu-
sezona-sakusies-pedejos-tris-gados-zibens-izraisijis-113-ugunsgrekus
[2] Arvien biežƗk apdrošinƗs pret zibens radƯtiem zaudƝjumiem, February,
2013. Available: http://www.balta.lv/lv/noverte-iespeju-pasargat-sevi-
no-zibens
[3] R. H. Lee, "Protection zone for buildings against lightning strokes using
transmission line protection practice," IEEE transactions on industry
applications, vol. IA-14, No.6, pp. 465-470, November/December 1978.
[4] H. R. Armstrong, E. R. Whitehead, "Field and analytical studies of
transmission line shielding," IEEE transactions on power apparatus and
systems, vol. PAS-87, No.1, pp. 270-279, January 1968.
[5] S. Grzybowski, T. Disyadej, "Laboartory investigation of lightning
stiking distance to rod and transmission line," Asia-Pasific international
symposium on electromagnetic compatibility, pp. 1301 - 1304, Bejing,
China, 2010.
[6] P. N. Mikropoulos, T. E. Tsovilis, "Striking distance and interception
probability", IEEE transactions on power delivery, vol. 23, No. 3, pp.
1571 - 1580, July 2008.
[7] Z. A. Hartono, I. Robiah, "The collection surface concept as a reliable
method for predicting the lightning strike location," 25th International
Conference on Lightning Protection, pp. 328 - 333, Rhodes, Greece,
2000.
[8] S. Ait-Amar, G. Berger, "Lightning protection modelling: Applications
to revisited electrogeometrical model," 17th International Conference on
Gas Dischages and Their Applications, pp. 517 - 520, Cardiff, 2008.
[9] D. Machidon, M. Istrate, M. Guúă, M. Dragomir, "The elliptic model
implementation for the estimation of vertical rods' protection zones,"
Buletinul AGIR, 3/2012, pp. 477 - 482.
[10] A. Kernn, C. Schelthoff, M. Mathieu, "Calculation of interception
efficiencies for air-terminations using a dynamic electro-geometrical
model", International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XI SIPDA),
pp. 25 - 30, Fortaleza, Brazil, 2011.
[11] M. A. Uman, The art and science of lightning protection, Cambridge
University Press, 240 p, Cambridge, 2008.
[12] V. Cooray, Power and energy series 58, Lightning protection, The
institution of engineering and tehnology, 1036 p, London, 2010.
[13] F. D'Alessandro, J. R. Gumley, "A collection volume method for
placement of air terminalsfor the protection of stuctures against
lightning", Journal of Electrostatics, Vol.50, pp. 279-302, 2001.
[14] A. J. Eriksson, "An improved electrogeometric model for transmission
line shielding analysis", IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol.
PWRD-2, No. 3, pp. 871 - 877, July 1987.
[15] A. M. Mousa, "Failure of the Collection Volume Method and Attempts
of the ESE Lightning Rod Industry to Resurrect it", Journal of Lightning
research, Vol. 4, pp. 118-128, 2012.
[16] N. Petrov, R. T. Waters, "Determination of the striking distance of
lightning to earthed structures", Proc. Royal Society, Vol. A450, pp.
589-601, 1995.