958 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 40, NO.
4, JULY/AUGUST 2004
The Basis of Conventional Lightning
Protection Systems
John M. Tobias, Member, IEEE
Abstract—The study of lightning protection system design en-
compasses nearly 300 years. Yet, many of the original sources for
common design practices used today remain obscure. This paper
traces the significant developments in lightning protection from the
late 1700s to the modern day. Emphasis is placed on significant
events in the history that have had direct consequences in the es-
tablishment of design practices for lightning protection. It is also
demonstrated that many of the design practices used today were
subject to significant scrutiny and empirical qualification. Our in-
tent is to familiarize the student of lightning protection design with
the original literature, testing, and other noteworthy contributions
to the design of effective lightning protection systems.
Index Terms—Air terminals, grounding, lightning, lightning
protection.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE effectiveness of existing methods of lightning pro-
tection has come into question recently. Claims that the
methods contained in modern lightning protection standards
are “historical” or unsubstantiated have been made [1]. Careful
examination of the past 250 years of scientific literature on the
topic of lightning protection reveals that the development of
these methods were indeed the product of the scientific method
where various hypothesis were proposed, tried, observed and
recorded. Laboratory testing (of limited applicability) and more
importantly, extensive empirical field trials of the techniques of
modern lightning protection methods were conducted. Many
of the original sources of these methods are lost to the casual
researcher due to the age of the documents and their relative
obscurity. Despite this obstacle, we attempt to familiarize
the reader with this research toward the development of the
lightning protection standards extant today.
Most controversy in the lightning protection field centers
upon the air terminals, those devices intended to intercept the
lightning event. Failures of other components of lightning pro-
tection systems, such as the down conductor system, grounding
electrodes, and equipotential bonding are easy to characterize.
Lessons from failures of these subsystems were documented
and incorporated into lightning protection standards over the
years. Characterization of the air terminal remains difficult to
this day since the leader initiation and propagation processes
Paper PID-04-00, presented at the 2003 IEEE Petroleum and Chemical In-
dustry Technical Conference, Houston, TX, September 15–17, and approved
for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the
Petroleum and Chemical Industry Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications
Society. Manuscript submitted for review September 18, 2003 and released for
publication May 7, 2004.
The author is with U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort
Monmouth, NJ 07703-5000 USA (e-mail: john.tobias@us.army.mil).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2004.831277
0093-9994/04$20.00 © 2004 IEEE
are not completely understood, the event cannot be replicated
in a laboratory setting, and other modern techniques (such as
rocket-triggered lightning) do not necessarily produce identical
phenomena. Air terminal controversy has remained since 1769,
as we will see in this review.
The earliest literature available that proposes protection from
lightning starts in 1752 with Benjamin Franklin [2]. Franklin’s
original idea was to use a sharp point to draw charges from
the cloud to discharge it and thus prevent lightning. Early ex-
periments by Franklin in electrostatics had him arrive at this
conclusion. By placing objects with different geometries (sharp
and blunt) near a charged object, Franklin found that differing
amounts of charge were drawn from the original charged object.
(Later researchers would come to understand that electrostatic
lines of force concentrate at sharp points, theoretically verifying
his electrostatic experiments.) He consequently published the
first instruction for protection from lightning [2]:
“The Method is this: Provide a small iron Rod (it may
be made of the Rod-iron used by the Nailers) but of such a
Length, that one End being three or four Feet in the moist
Ground, the other may be six or eight Feet above the tallest
part of the Building. To the upper End of the Rod, fasten
about a Foot of Brass Wire, the Size of a common Knit-
ting-needle, sharpened to a fine Point; the Rod may be se-
cured to the House by a few small Staples. If the House be
long, there may be a Rod and Point at each End, and a mid-
dling Wire along the Ridge from one to the other. A House
thus furnished will not be damaged by Lightning, it being
attracted by the Points, and passing thro the Metal into the
Ground without hurting any Thing. ”
II. FIRST EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS
A. Early Observations
Within ten years, we see published accounts of field test and
observation regarding the new invention [3]. This account is
the first published account of an observed strike to an air ter-
minal, with verification by examination of the strike termina-
tion. In fact, references exist that indicate very early record
keeping of lightning damage before and after the installation of
Franklin rods in the late 1700s. Schonland documents lightning
damage to churches citing in particular, Campanile of St. Mark
in Venice, Italy, over the years from 1388 to beyond 1766. The
damage ceased in 1766, when a Franklin rod lightning protec-
tion system was installed.
Similar confirmation, also from Italy, occurs in the documen-
tation of a lightning strike occurring in Siena on 18 April 1777.
Lightning rods had been installed on the Torre del Mangia,
TOBIAS: BASIS OF CONVENTIONAL LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEMS
Fig. 1. Example of 1 : 1, or 45 conical protected zone.
the 102-m tower of the city hall that dominates the Piazza del
Campo and on the cathedral. Despite great controversy, the
system worked to protect the cathedral with many witnesses.
This, in turn, caused the Senate of Venice to issue a decree on
9 May 1788 ordering the erection of lightning rods [4].
Other places did not heed the new development. A lightning
strike to the spire of the Church of St. Nazaire in Brescia, Italy,
ignited a large amount of gunpowder stored there. By account,
several thousand people were killed. As a result, lightning pro-
tection was considered and installed by the British government
for the powder magazines at Purfleet.
B. Early Failure—Purfleet
Shortly after the installation of the lightning protection system,
lightning struck at Purfleet. The strike missed the lightning pro-
tection system, striking another metal component of the building,
resulting in some masonry damage. Although the powder was not
ignited, the incident ignited controversy concerning the effective-
ness of lightning protection systems [5] and the instructions for
installing them. It became clear that the lightning rod had some
limitations, in particular, a range of effect. Despite the incident at
Purfleet, more detailed investigation into the protective zone of
an air terminal would not come for nearly 40 years.
C. Development of the Protected Zone
The concept of a “protected zone” surrounding a lightning
protection system has provoked a great deal of discussion and
controversy since Purfleet. The protected zone is a zone sub-
stantially immune to lightning strikes due to the air terminal, an
example of the conical protected zone concept is illustrated in
Fig. 1. In examining the original sources, we find that its devel-
opment follows the traditional scientific method of hypothesis,
observation and result. Beginning with the earliest proposals in
the 1820s, this development continues into the present day.
Although Franklin is attributed to have proposed the concept
of the “cone of protection,” detailed inquiry to determine the
range of effectiveness of air terminals would wait until 1823.
Gay-Lussac proposed a cone of protection with a radius of twice
the height of the air terminal [6]. The impact of this as a design
consideration was very significant as the first codification of a
specific protected zone ascribed to the air terminals of a light-
ning protection system.
Further observations leading to the protected zone concept
were published in the 1840s by Sir William Snow Harris. His
concern (beginning in 1820) was the protection of ships. By ex-
amining the strike locations on ships over 20 years, he demon-
strated the 2 : 1 protective zone was not effective in all cases [7].
959
In 1880, Preece conducted experiments to measure the ac-
tual electric field about a vertical air terminal. Preece concluded
that a 1 : 1 height-to-radius conical volume was the effective
protected zone [8]. (Equivalently expressed as a 45 protective
angle, or 90 conical section.) This concept of a protection zone
about the lightning terminal at its apex was firmly established in
lightning protection standards, it would remain so for nearly an-
other hundred years. Yet, this line of inquiry was not exhausted.
In 1892, Sir Oliver Lodge published a review of the various
concepts of a protected zone that had been proposed to that date
[9]. Wide variation existed in the zones; angles of the conical
section from 90 to 30 (45 –15 protective angle). A protected
area similar to the current electrogeometric concept was appar-
ently proposed by Preece in an 1891 paper. With the bulk of
evidence available at the time, cones of protection varying from
45 to 64 protective angle were retained as the protected zone
concept, with little variation [8].
Continued investigation of the protected zone was performed
by Larmor and Larmor in their 1914 work [10]. They related the
zone of protection to electric field lines, using the then available
electromagnetic theory of Maxwell. The work was ahead of its
time in the sense it predicted the possibility of oblique strikes,
and by extension of their illustration of the electromagnetic field
lines in presence of the lightning air terminal, the curved pro-
tected zone now used under the electrogeometric model. Based
on this literature review, it also appears to be the first paper to
correlate the mechanism of gas ionization to lightning propa-
gation and suggested examining the air terminal in this venue.
Other theoretical and experimental studies were conducted in
the 1920s, arriving at similar conclusions [11], [12].
A key paper in this venue, summing up the work of 100 years
past, was Lee’s paper describing the electrogeometric model
of lightning protection [13]. This model remains in use by not
only NFPA 780 [14] but by all U.S. military/government light-
ning codes and standards, International Electrotechnical Com-
mission lightning protection standards and the lightning protec-
tion standards of most countries. The conical zones of protection
were superseded by the electrogeometric model in the 1980 edi-
tion of NFPA 78.
We also note that Horvath states that the electrogeometric
method was incorporated into Hungarian standards since 1962.
He goes on to state that laboratory experiments to formulate and
validate the concept were performed as early as 1948. Horvath,
having better access to European research, provides an inter-
esting perspective into the development and validation of the
electrogeometric concept [15]. Extensive work done by Horvath
includes verification by computer simulation in 1991 [16].
While the lightning protection zone is a key concept in light-
ning protection (since it drives the placement of strike termi-
nations), other aspects of lightning protection systems needed
installation guidance as well. In the late 1800s, comprehensive
rules for lightning protection began to form.
III. EARLY LIGHTNING PROTECTION STANDARDS
A. Events Leading Up to Original U.S. Standard
At approximately the same time as Preece’s work, Anderson
(1879) published a pivotal work on lightning protection entitled
960 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 40, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2004
Lightning Conductors—Their History, Nature, and Mode of Ap-
plication [17]. This book is essentially the first lightning protec-
tion standard. Even today, we follow most of the recommenda-
tions of this work. A most important aspect of Anderson’s pub-
lication is the references. In his book are listed the basic refer-
ences, from Italy, France, and Germany from the 1700s on to his
day. We can verify the accuracy and completeness of his work
by noting that he references earlier works by Preece, Harris,
Gay-Lussac, and Franklin. This book summarizes the interna-
tional literature and empirical observations, the “field trials” of
the day into a specification document.
During the period between 1878–1882, lightning protection
captured the attention of eminent architects, engineers and sci-
entists in Western culture. An essential effort was the harmo-
nization of understanding on lightning protection technology.
The Royal Meteorological Society, in May 1878, resolved to
address The Royal Institute of British Architects, The Physical
Society, and The Society of Telegraph Engineers, to consider
issuing a code of rules for the erection of lightning conductors,
and to proceed in preparing a code. After lengthy meetings in
which all aspects and experiences of lightning protection were
addressed, the organizing committee issued the Report of the
Lightning Rod Conference in 1882 [18] that established a set
of rules for those who installed lightning protection systems in
Britain. It was then felt that the techniques of lightning protec-
tion, as refined to date, was nearly infallible.
Other standards-like documents soon followed this report, for
example, [19]. Combined with the Anderson publication, these
documents essentially became the premise for the first lightning
protection code in the United States [20], published by the Na-
tional Fire Protection Association in 1904.
B. Qualification of Standards
During the period immediately following the publishing of
early standards in the United States, an interest in quantifying
the effectiveness of lightning protection systems develops. The
emphasis is primarily from an underwriting viewpoint and tends
to be statistical in nature. This period covers from approximately
1910 to 1950, where there are detailed statistics kept by a variety
of organizations.
1) Iowa Fire Marshal Records: A statistic often quoted by
researchers is the Iowa Fire Marshal’s records. As a preface to
these records, the listings are not detailed and do not say if the
systems are in a good state of repair or, for that matter, comply
with established codes and standards for lightning protection
according to the authority having jurisdiction for that region.
Despite this, we can use these to provide some useful insight. A
first report from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture appears in 1926
noting a high degree of protection afforded by “lightning rods”
and accounting for defective installations [21]. Maintenance of
the Iowa statistics continues through the 1960s.
2) Underwriter’s “Master Label”: Underwriter’s Labora-
tories maintains a “Master Label” program for the certification
of installations of lightning protection systems under their stan-
dard, UL 96A Installation of Lightning Protection Systems [22].
This standard mirrors NFPA 780 closely. In the years between
1923–1950, statistics were kept on the effectiveness of lightning
protection systems certified under the Master Label program.
Viemeister attests that the failure rate of these systems was less
than one-tenth of 1% of a sample of 240 000 structures [11].
Similar findings are cited by insurance and other statistics [12].
3) Ontario Lightning Rod Act: In January 1922, the Light-
ning Rod Act of Ontario was implemented by the Fire Mar-
shal’s Office. The purpose of this act was to establish some con-
trol over the installation of lightning protection systems and re-
duce the lightning-related losses of insurance companies. The
regulations prescribed under the act generally conform to the
Underwriters Laboratories requirement for a Master Label but
installers were subject to a licensure procedure. Statistics kept
under this act revealed a protection effectiveness of no less than
99.3% or higher over a sample of 66 282 installations [12], [23].
4) Summary Of Qualification: Upon consideration of the
studies performed from the 1920s through the 1960s on the
qualification of lightning protection systems, one can conclude
that effectiveness of these systems is quite high. We conjec-
ture that these studies were discontinued because they were
redundant. Insurance and government agencies concerned with
lightning protection were satisfied with the effectiveness of
lightning protection systems by the early 1950s or sooner.
IV. LABORATORY TESTING
A. Early Experiments
Some time after the establishment of lightning protection
standards in the United States, there was interest in qualification
of these standards by laboratory testing.
In the 1920s, Peek evaluated the protected zone concept
using laboratory testing to determine protected zones of
approximately 64 –76 [13], [24]. Without further elabora-
tion, scale laboratory tests were done on lightning protection
concepts beginning in the 1920s, most notably by the General
Electric Company. An excellent, yet brief, history of this effort
is presented by Viemeister [11] with photography illustrating
some of the experiments.
B. Later Experiments
Although this sort of work continues to this day, it is generally
agreed that a laboratory setting does not duplicate the conditions
needed for the lightning attachment process to an air terminal.
Bazelyan and Raizer reinforce this conclusion from laboratory
results from experiments performed in the Soviet Union in the
1940s [25].
From the 1950s through the 1970s protection for power trans-
mission lines became more of a concern. Consequently, a great
deal of investigation ensued with significant contributions in the
field by authors such as MacEachron, Whitehead, Wagner, and
Mousa [26]. During the period, a great deal of work went into
the verification of lightning protection techniques for surge sup-
pression, grounding, flashover, etc.
Laboratory testing did play a significant role in the devel-
opment of lightning protection system component parameters,
such as conductor sizing requirements and thickness of metal
attachment points. Examples are the metal thickness test results
discussed by McEachron [27] and recent testing conducted by
the U.S. Army [28] that confirms the conductor sizing require-
ments specified in NFPA 780.
TOBIAS: BASIS OF CONVENTIONAL LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEMS
V. MODERN OBSERVATIONS
Modern statistical results are available for the qualification of
lightning protection systems.
A. Kennedy Space Center
The Space Transportation System Lightning Protection and
Measuring System (LPMS) installation at NASA/Kennedy
Space Center Launch Complex LC-39B provides a good
example. Although this evaluation is less extensive in terms of
the number of lightning protection installations, it is far better
instrumented and monitored than many other installations.
Lightning damage in 1975 prompted the installation of a light-
ning protection system, with a design based on the concepts of
existing standards discussed thus far. From 1975 to the present
day, no lightning damage has been recorded at this complex.
[12], [29].
B. Federal Aviation Administration
Since 1996, the Federal Aviation Administration’s Terminal
Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) program has been monitoring
failures at 47 TDWR sites and correlating them with ground
strike data compiled from the National Lightning Detection Net-
work. The TDWR has an enhanced lightning protection system
consisting of air terminals (lightning rods), bonding connec-
tions, down conductors, and an earth electrode system; as de-
scribed in NFPA 780 and FAA Standard 019 [30]. The TDWR
has the most extensive database which can support, with doc-
umentation, the performance of a lightning protection system
built on the basic requirements of NFPA 780. All ground strikes
are correlated with failure data from each TDWR site. Any mal-
functions noted at a site are investigated and evaluated as to the
type of occurrence and any correlation to a severe weather event.
Results from this data indicate that a total of over 250 000
strikes were recorded within 20 nautical miles of the sites with
only three radar malfunctions experienced during thunderstorm
activity. The 20 nautical mile radius is deemed by the FAA to be
the reasonable distance that could generate a lightning-related
malfunction [12].
VI. CONCLUSION
Charting the progress of lightning protection from 1752 to the
present day, we conclude the development of lightning protec-
tion standards closely follows the introduction of new theories,
results of observations, statistical results, and so on. Many of
these works are on the verge of being lost (like the original UL
Master Label data), or at least forgotten by modern students of
lightning protection. We conclude that a familiarization of this
past work is useful for the student of lightning protection to un-
derstand how the standards we apply today were developed.
Although many major concepts of lightning protection have
their roots in works of 100 years ago, the development of stan-
dards is dynamic. New considerations include advanced surge
suppression technology, more quantifiable methods of risk as-
sessment, and new models for the lightning protection zone.
Several proposals in this venue are under consideration for the
961
100-year anniversary issue of the NFPA Standard for the Instal-
lation of Lightning Protection Systems (NFPA 780) slated for
release in 2004.
An important unknown that remains after 250 years of ex-
perience in lightning protection is a precise characterization of
the response of the air terminal in the lightning electromagnetic
environment. Although we know that air terminals are highly
effective in intercepting lightning events from the weight of
the experimental and empirical evidence, the exact process by
which they do so remains elusive. It is well known that interac-
tion between space charge about the air terminal and the moving
charges from a downward leader play significant roles in the
connection process. Recent studies have tried to optimize air ter-
minals based on controlling space-charge production [31], [32].
In these recent studies, blunt air terminals with a certain
radius of curvature seem to have an advantage over sharpened
air terminals as receptors of the lightning strike. Controversy
over this facet of air terminal design (e.g., blunt or sharp)
originates from the Purfleet incident. Investigators at Purfleet
thought sharp air terminals attracted lightning too well and
recommended blunt air terminals. The recent work by Moore
[31] indicates otherwise.
Thus, we find ourselves at a juncture similar to our colleagues
at the Lightning Rod Conference of 1882, when diverse sci-
entific and engineering professionals met [16] to develop con-
sensus for lightning protection methods. Their examination of
lightning science, protection techniques, and observations co-
ordinated with the electrical science and meteorological com-
munities set the foundation of lightning protection for the past
century. The wisdom to prevail for the next century will come
from the same eclectic consensus approach combined with the
application of the scientific method for validation. In order to
do this, we must not forget the work of our predecessors, as de-
tailed herein.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to acknowledge the support of
F. Mancini and S. LaPoint, of the U.S. Army Communica-
tions-Electronics Command, in the performance of this work.
Their understanding of the importance of lightning protection
standards has made this effort possible.
REFERENCES
[1] J. L. Bryan et al., “Report of the third party independent evaluation panel
on the early streamer emission lightning protection technology,” Report
to the NFPA Standards Council, Quincy, MA, 1999.
[2] B. Franklin, “How to secure houses, &c from lightning,” in Poor
Richard’s Almanac; reproduced in Benjamin Franklin’s Experiments,
I. B. Cohen, Ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1941.
[3] E. Kinnersley, “Letter to Benjamin Franklin, reproduced as letter
XX (from 1761),” in Benjamin Franklin’s Experiments, I. B. Cohen,
Ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1941, pp. 348–358.
[4] E. P. Krider, “Lightning rods in the 18th century,” presented at the
Second Int. Symp. Lightning and Mountains, Chamonix Mont Blanc,
France, 1997.
[5] E. Nickson, “XV. Sundry papers relative to an accident from lightning
at Purfleet, May 15, 1777, report to the Secretary of the Royal Society,”
Philos. Trans., R. Soc. Lond., pt. 1, vol. LXVIII, pp. 232–235, 1778.
[6] F. Gay-Lussac and C. Pouillet, “Introduction sur les paratonneres,
adoptee par L’Academie des Sciences,” French Academy of Sciences,
1823.
962 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 40, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2004
[7] W. S. Harris, Protection of Ships From Lightning. Ann Arbor, MI:
Xerox Univ. Microfilms, 1974.
[8] W. H. Preece, “On the space protected by a lightning conductor,” Philos.
Mag., vol. 9, pp. 427–430, 1880.
[9] O. J. Lodge, Lightning Conductors and Lightning Guards. London,
U.K.: Whittaker, 1892.
[10] J. L. Larmor and J. S. B. Larmor, “On protection from lightning and the
range of protection afforded by lightning rods,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond., vol.
90, pp. 312–317, 1914.
[11] P. E. Viemeister, The Lightning Book. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1972.
[12] J. M. Tobias, Ed., (2001, June) The basis of conventional lightning pro-
tection technology, Rep. # ADA396784. Federal Interagency Lightning
Protection Group. [Online] Available: www.stinet.dtic.mil
[13] R. H. Lee, “Protection zone for buildings against lightning strikes using
transmission line practice,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. IA-14, p.
465, Nov./Dec. 1978.
[14] Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems, NFPA
780, 2000.
[15] T. Horvath, “Rolling sphere—Theory and application,” in Proc. 25th Int.
Conf. Lightning Protection, Sept. 2000, pp. 301–305.
[16] , Computation of Lightning Protection. New York: Wiley, 1991.
[17] R. Anderson, Lightning Conductors—Their History, Nature, and Mode
of Application. London, U.K.: E. & F. N. Spohn, 1879, p. 86.
[18] G. J. Symons, Ed., Report of the Lightning Rod Conference. London,
U.K.: E. & F. N. Spohn, 1892.
[19] K. Hedges, Modern Lightning Conductors: An Illustrated Supplement to
the Report of the Lightning Research Committee of 1905 With Notes as
to the Methods of Protection & Specifications. London, U.K.: Crosby
Lockwood, 1905.
[20] W. S. Lemmon, B. H. Loomis, and R. P. Barbour, “Specifications for
protection of buildings against lightning,” National Fire Protection As-
sociation, Quincy, MA, 1904.
[21] R. N. Covert, “Protection of buildings and farm property from light-
ning,” U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Farmers’ Bull.
1512, 1926.
[22] Installation Requirements for Lightning Protection Systems, UL Stan-
dard 96A, 1994.
[23] G. F. Lewis, “Lightning, its origin and control,” Office of the Ontario
Fire Marshal, Toronto, ON, Canada, 6th ed., 1927.
[24] F. W. Peek, Dielectric Phenomena in High-Voltage Engineering. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1929.
[25] E. M. Bazelyan and Y. P. Raizer, Lightning Physics and Lightning Pro-
tection. Philadelphia, PA: Inst. of Physics, 2000, p. 233.
[26] K. B. McEachron, “Lightning protection since Franklin’s day,” J.
Franklin Inst., vol. 253, p. 443, 1952.
[27] , “General Electric Company letter to Electra Protection Company,
Inc. re: Why buildings burn from lightning with grounded metal roofs,”
General Electric Co., Schenectady, NY, May 12, 1944.
[28] J. M. Tobias, “Testing of ground conductors with artificially generated
lightning current,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 32, pp. 594–598,
May/June 1996.
[29] W. Jafferis, “Lightning protection for launch complexes LC-39A and
LC-39B,” in Proc. 24th Space Congr., NASA Kennedy Space Center,
FL, Apr. 24–27, 1987, pp. 33–56.
[30] Lightning and Surge Protection, Grounding, Bonding and Shielding Re-
quirements for Facilities and Electronic Equipment, Federal Aviation
Administration Standard 019D, Aug. 2002.
[31] C. B. Moore, W. Rison, J. Mathis, and G. D. Aulich, “Lightning rod
improvement studies,” J. Appl. Meteorol., vol. 39, pp. 593–609, 2000.
[32] C. B. Moore, “Improved configurations of lightning rods and air termi-
nals,” J. Franklin Inst., vol. 315, pp. 61–85, 1982.
John M. Tobias (M’90) received the B.S. degree in
physics from Seton Hall University, South Orange,
NJ, the M.S. degree in electrical engineering from
the University of Maryland Baltimore County,
Catonsville, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engi-
neering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology,
Newark.
He is an Electronics Engineer for the U.S. Army
Research, Development and Engineering Com-
mand’s Communications-Electronics Center. During
the past 12 years, he was primarily responsible for
electrical design safety in Army equipment, including lightning protection
of equipment and facilities. He has worked with a variety of interagency
groups and was consulted by United Nations Protection Forces, Macedonia,
to solve lightning protection problems. In the past few years, he assembled
an Interagency Lightning Protection Working Group to address challenges to
current lightning protection methods.
Dr. Tobias is a member of the NFPA 780 (Project on Lightning Protection)
Technical Committee and U.S. Deputy Technical Advisor for the International
Electrotechnical Commission, TC 81 (Lightning Protection). Within the NFPA
780 committee, he has chaired the Surge Protection Subcommittee and the
Lightning Engineering Model Subcommittee. He is a Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of New Jersey.