CONVENTIONAL PROTECTION

Professor Martin A. Uman, Fellow, IEEE

Chief Scientist, BOLT, Inc.
History and Overview
In the latter part of the eighteenth century Benjamin Franklin proposed the
original concept of lightning protection systems (LPSs) for buildings. His
well-known idea was to position a metallic lightning rod (called an air
terminal in modern parlance) above the building to intercept lightning
flashes that otherwise would strike the building. The lightning rods were
attached to down conductors, and the down conductors were attached to
ground rods driven into the soil adjacent to the building. Franklin thought
that his lightning protection system achieved two functions: 1) to divert the
lightning flash from the building and conduct its energy harmlessly to
ground, and 2) to dissipate the electrical energy in the cloud and thus
prevent lightning flashes. This somewhat scientific and somewhat intuitive
opinion of Franklin was formed at the advent of scientific study of electrical
phenomena, so scant theoretical or experimental science existed to support
his opinion. However, the Franklin LPS and subsequent LPSs based on his
concept substantially reduced lightning damage to the buildings and ships
of his era, namely wooden or masonry (non-conducting) structures. Today,
all interested in LPS and lightning phenomena are in debt to Benjamin
Franklin.
Over 150 years would pass before science effectively directed its attention
to lightning phenomenology and subsequently to valid engineering methods
for existing and future LPSs. Recent and sound scientific analyses and
experiments now reveal 1) that the Franklin type LPS is effective at
preventing fires in non-conducting structures, 2) that it is ineffective for the
protection of sensitive contents, such as electronics or explosives, from
high electric fields and arcing within conducting structures (modern
structures with a steel skeleton and/or metallic skin), and 3) that the
Franklin LPS and its variants do not effectively dissipate electric charge
from clouds and thus do not prevent lightning flashes.
Today perhaps even more than in Franklin's day, we are motivated to
protect critical assets and infrastructure from lightning:

Stored explosives including nuclear and chemical weapons present

a high consequence human and political risk.
Hydrocarbon energy processing, transmission, and storage present
a high consequence human and economic risk.
Some computation centers (FAA flight control, central computers,
server farms, industrial controls) present a high human and/or
economic risk.

These are but a few examples of assets or infrastructure where effective

protection against the effects of the infrequent or occasional occurrence of

an attached lightning flash is essential. Fortunately, we now know more

about lightning phenomena and have means to evaluate LPS performance.
However, much of the lightning phenomena science has been produced in
the last 30 years, and much of the LPS science has been produced in the
last 10 years. Thus, new and better lightning protection methods and
products based on this emerging science are just now becoming available.
In view of the recent lightning science, below we present information on
conventional lightning protection (time honored variants and extensions of
the Franklin concept) and non-conventional protection (suspect digressions
from the Franklin concept).
Conventional Lightning Protection
Conventional lightning protection systems are intended to intercept a
lightning strike and conduct its energy away from the building to ground,
thus protecting the building and its contents. Among the strategies used are
1) systems directly attached to the building and 2) systems unattached and
above or around the building.
The Franklin-type system was the first example of a directly attached
system, and it remains the dominant lightning protection method. As stated,
it has worked "statistically" well for historical (non-conductive) construction
for many years. As will be discussed in the next menu item, Modern
Protection, it does not effectively prevent lightning induced arcs and the
high electric fields that cause them. Extensive specifications (e. g., NFPA
780) have been developed for the height and configuration of air terminals
(lightning rods), the size of down conductors, and the implementation and
characterization of the grounding system for Franklin-type systems. These
conventional systems effectively conduct the low frequency components of
a lightning strike (see About Lightning, Lightning Damage) to ground, and
thus they are fairly effective at preventing fires when they intercept the
strike. The Franklin-type system and its variants have two major
shortcomings:
1. Lightning can be rather arbitrary (perhaps perverse) in the path it
takes to its attachment point. Many observations have revealed
lightning bypassing the air terminals and attaching directly to a
building, even when numerous, high air terminals are used.
Nevertheless, lightning more often than not attaches to the air
terminals rather than the building, and the system indeed then
diverts the bulk of the lightning energy harmlessly to ground. The
statistical effectiveness (% of air terminal attachments versus
building attachments) of these type systems is not well quantified.
2. Even when lightning attaches to an air terminal, the typical down
conductor is ineffective for conducting the high frequency
components of the strike to ground when substantial structural metal
is nearby, as is often the case in modern industrial construction.
Rather, the current is conducted through the lower inductance
structural metal in the building. Further, the relatively high

inductance down conductor causes high electric fields in response

to the rapid rise time of current in a lightning stroke. These high
electric fields can cause arcing and damage to electronic systems.
An example can illustrate this second point. A typical down conductor might
have a resistance of 0.2 milliOhms/m and an inductance of 1000
nanoHenry/meter. For a 5.0 meter high building, R=1.0 milliOhm and
L=5000 nanoHenry. Using the lightning parameters for an extreme lightning
strike from the Lightning Damage section in the About Lightning menu, the
maximum electric field generated is in the order of

= (1.0*10-3)*(200*103) + (5000*10-9)(400*103/10-6) volts

= ~1000 kV
The electric field would be ~200 kV/m more than enough to cause arcing
and disrupt electronics.
Note: In the menu item Modern Protection, FC/LPS
Overview, building measurements and analyses reveal that
electric fields less than 100th of those resulting from
conventional protection can be achieved using modern
protection based on Faraday cages. This significant
improvement results from the substantially lower "transfer
inductance" of a well-bonded "elemental Faraday cage" (~10
nanoHenries) in comparison to the inductance of a Franklintype down-conductor (~5000 nanoHenries). These
substantially lower electric fields effectively guard against
damage or disruption caused by arcs or high voltages.
Several variations of air terminals are used. Some evidence exists that
moderately blunt tip rods perform better than sharply pointed tip rods.
Unattached lightning diversion systems are often called catenary systems
or catch-net systems. They typically consist of an overhead grid of
conductors (overhead ground wires) suspended from masts with down
conductors to a grounding system. The overhead conductors are typically
spaced tens of feet apart. These systems have the advantage that when
successful, they intercept the lightning strike some distance from the
building to be protected. They have both the shortcomings noted above, but
perhaps to a lesser degree. They are typically more expensive to implement
than attached systems, they do not support surge protection, and their
advantages are hard to quantify. Uman cited an example [All About
Lightning] of a simple catenary system used in rural Poland consisting of a
single wire suspended over small wood and thatched-roof farmhouses. This
simple system reduced lightning caused house fires by 90%.

Conventional lightning protection systems have served us well for many

decades. Their frequent success and occasional failure has been well
observed. However, modern construction techniques and pervasive and
crucial electronic systems have prompted protection requirements that
conventional lightning protection systems cannot well meet. The
determination of the use of conventional protection and/or modern
protection (Modern Protection) rests heavily on the value and sensitivity of
the resources to be protected and on the nature of building construction.
Franklin-type protection (NFPA 780), when properly implemented, provides
effective protection from fire and other damage to the building "structure."
Modern protection guards the interior of the structure and its contents from
high electric fields and resultant arcs and high voltages. For many
construction types, the two protection methods are compatible and can
beneficially coexist. For some construction types (e. g., sheet metal
buildings), the elemental Faraday cage, see Modern Protection, FC/LPS
Overview, if effectively grounded, also provides protection from structure
fire and other damage, and need not be supplemented by a Franklin-type
system. BOLT can help you determine what protection method or
combination of methods is best for your investments, facilities and
operations.
Non-Conventional Lightning Protection
Some non-conventional alternatives to the general Franklin concept have
emerged over the decades and then been abandoned as ineffective. Some
non-conventional protection systems have a commercial presence today;
prominent examples are 1) early streamer emission systems and 2)
lightning prevention systems.
Advocates of early streamer emission systems claim these systems launch
an upward leader earlier than would a Franklin-type rod at the same height.
Thus, lightning purportedly attaches to them preferentially. Some interesting
means are used in the attempt to induce early upward leaders including
radioactive sources and electrical actuation of the rod. Most lightning
protection scientists reject the claims made by advocates of early streamer
emission systems, and this scientific opinion is reflected in reputable
scientific literature (see References, in this menu category). Nevertheless,
the systems are being deployed today.
An extremely desirable alternative to intercepting and diverting lightning is
to prevent lightning from striking, at least in the local area housing your
investments. An intuitively compelling method to prevent lightning is to
discharge a thundercloud before lightning can strike. Or less intuitively,
generating a cloud of positive charges over the local region might divert
downward leaders from that region, thus preventing attachment of a strike
to that region. Several types of charge transfer devices have been conjured
and promoted for these purposes. Most consist of numerous sharp
discharge points attached to ground. These discharge points may be
localized on a mast (think of a metal brush on a lightning rod) or may be
distributed about your facility (think of large grounded mesh of barbwire).

These devices do indeed provide a discharge mechanism for transferring

positive charge from the earth to the atmosphere. The "devil in the details"
is that thunderclouds generate charge quickly and move rapidly. Present
cloud discharge systems or downward leader diverting systems have yet to
demonstrate convincingly that they can transfer charge rapidly enough to
prevent a lightning strike to the local region. No persuasive statistical or
scientific studies are found in the open and refereed scientific literature
validating lightning prevention by efforts to either discharge thunderclouds
or divert downward leaders. Nevertheless, individuals with passionately
advocated anecdotes supporting either method can be found. However,
reputable scientific work does refute the claims for some types of charge
transfer devices or systems (see References, in this menu category).
This brief consideration of conventional and non-conventional lightning
protection reflects the opinion of the scientific community. Please read the
menu item, Conventional Protection, Warning and Disclaimer.
Gallery of Photographs
Conventional protection can fail to prevent fire and explosion.

Lightning can bypass conventional protection and directly strike the

"protected" structure.

Lightning strikes cause ground flashes even for well-grounded systems.

Fulgurites demonstrate the extreme temperatures of lightning and the 10s

of feet lightning can travel through earth to couple to a conductor (power
cables or pipes).

Disclaimer and Warning

The brief descriptions of conventional lightning protection were prepared by
the BOLT scientific staff to assist you in understanding your lightning
protection options. These descriptions are consistent with the opinion of the
scientific community. As stated, conventional lightning protection can have
effective protective value, particularly for preventing fire in non-conductive
buildings. This value is typically difficult to quantify. Also, conventional
protection may be prudent for buildings with low value contents.
Prospective customers for lightning protection are urged by BOLT to seek
independent and unbiased scientific advice before committing to substantial
investments for lightning protection or depending confidently on the
performance of conventional lightning protection. Before purchasing any
lightning protection system, prospective customers and their scientific
advisors are advised to evaluate the underlying lightning protection
technologies using scientific papers in refereed and reputable journals or
using acknowledged scientific texts. For some non-conventional lightning
protection technologies, no reputably published scientific support will be
found, and for some, scientific counter evidence will be found. Some
germane scientific papers and texts are listed in the next menu item.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.

Uman, M., Lightning, McGraw Hill, 1969.

Uman. M., All About Lightning, Dover Publications, 1986.
Golde, R. H., Lightning, Volume 1 and 2, Academic Press, New York, 1977.
Bazelyan and Raizer, Lightning Physics and Lightning Protection, Institute
of Physics Publishing, 2000
5. Bell, T., Thunderstorms, Viking Press, 1960.
6. Viemeister, P., The Lightning Book, MIT Press, 1961.
7. Marckerous, D., et. al., Review of claimed enhanced lightning protection of
buildings by early streamer emission air terminals, IEE Proc. - Scientific
Measurement Technology, Vol. 144 No. 1, January 1997.
8. Mousa, A., et. al., The applicability of lightning elimination devices to
substations and power lines, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 13,
No. 4, October 1998.
9. Grzybowski, S., et. al., Effectiveness of dissipators used for lightning
protection of 13 kV distribution lines - model tests, Ninth Annual Symposium
on High Voltage Engineering, August 28 - Sept 1, 1995.
10. Grzybowski, S., et. al., Effectiveness of spline ball dissipators used for
lightning protection of 115 kV distribution lines - model tests, 22nd
International Conference on Lightning (ICLP), R2-03, September, 1994.
11. NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems,
1997 Edition.

12. Moore, C., et al, Lightning Rod Improvements, Journal of Applied

Meteorology, 39, pp. 593-609, 2000.
13. Moore, C., Improved Configurations of Lightning Rods and Air Terminals,
Journal of Franklin Institute, 315, pp. 61-85,1982.
14. Tobias, J., et al, The Basis of Conventional Lightning Protection
Technology, Report of the Federal Interagency Lightning Protection Users
Group, June 2000.
15. Grzybowski, S., et. al., Effectiveness of dissipators used for lightning
protection of 13 kV distribution lines - model tests, Ninth Annual Symposium
on High Voltage Engineering, August 28 - Sept 1, 1995.
16. Van Brunt, R.J., et. al., Early Streamer Emission Air Terminals Lightning
Protection Systems, National Institute of Standards and Technology
(Gaithersburg, Maryland), Report for National Fire Protection Research
Foundation, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Mass., Jan. 31, 1995.
17. Grzybowski, S., et. al., Effectiveness of spline ball dissipators used for
lightning protection of 115 kV distribution lines - model tests, 22nd
International Conference on Lightning (ICLP), R2-03, September, 1994
18. Zipse, D. Lightning protection systems: Advantages and disadvantages,
IEEE Trans Ind. Appl. 30: 1351-61, 1994.
19. Rourke, C., A review of lightning-related operating events at nuclear power
plants, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 9: 636-641, 1994.
20. Mackerras, D. et. al., Standard and non-standard lightning protection
methods, Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Austria, 7:133140, 1987.
21. Moore, C., Improved Configurations of Lightning Rods and Air Terminals,
Journal of Franklin Institute, 315, pp. 61-85,1982.
22. Zeleny, J. Do lightning rods prevent lightning? Science 79: 269-71, 1934.