W F E A T U R E
Early streamer Emission
Lightning Protection Systems:
A n Overview
Key Words: Air terminal, early streamer emission, Franklin rod, lightning protection, lightning rod
arly streamer emission (ESF,) lightning protection sys-
tenis are a relatively new approach to the perennial
problem of lightning damage, and thcsc systems inay
hold promise for a more effective protection against light-
ning. However, tlie scientific and technical basis for this im-
proved performance is far from certain and tlie efficacy of
these technologies remains open to question. In this paper
we examine the physical hasis for ESE devices and identify
areas o f controversy and gaps in our linowlcdge o f lightning
and lightning protection tliat need to be considcrcd in assess-
ing ESE devices and in their future development.
The ESE devices considered here are liglitning attractors,
and in that sense, their purpose is the same as that of conven-
tional “lightning rods.” ESE devices, however, differ from
conventional lightning rods i n that they are equipped in
some fashion to increase thc efficiency of lightning attrac-
tion and thereby to cxtciid the effective range o f protection
over and above that of conventional lightning rods.
This article is hased on a compreliensivc hibliograpliy of
ESE lightning protection systems tliat was preparccl at the re-
quest of the National Fire Protection Research Fiiundatioii
[I];the reader is referred to that report for a critical analysis
of the published literature. Most 11f tlie papers on ESE t e r m -
i i a l s have been published within tlic last 30 years, atid bibli-
ographies covering the years hcfore 3 980 12, 31 reveal very
little work directly concerned with ESE terminals.
Definitions
As an aid ti1 tlie reader, ccimmonly used terms are defined
below. It should be cautioned, Ihowever, that tliere is little
consensus 011 the meaning of these terms. For example, the
terms “streamer” and “leader” are often iised iiiterchangc-
ably. There are also cases where different words are used to
denote the same phenomenon. For example, a “corona dis-
charge” is sometimes called ii “point discharge” o r a “partial
discharge.” The following definitions arc used in this report:
Lightning rod-A vertical conducting rod used to attract
(or intercept) a lightning strike by prodncing a local cii-
JanuaryiFebruary 2000 -Val, 16, No. 1 0683- 755410U1$1U.OUO2U0UiEEE
A R T I C L E
R. J. Van Brunt, T. 1. Nelson, and K. 1.
Stric klett
National Institute of Standards and Technology
ESE devices . . . differ from conventional
lightning rods in that they are equipped
in some fashion to increase the efficiency
o f lightning attraction and thereby
extend the effective range of protection
over and above that of conventional
lightning rods.
lianccmeiit of the electric field strength in air. It is sometimes
called a Franklin rod, conventional air terminal, or lightning
conductor.
Early streamer emission air terminal-An air terminal
equipped with a device that triggers the early initiation of
the upward connecting streamer-leader discharge, when
compared with a coiiveiitional air terminal under the same
conditions.
Primary cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning stroke-The ini-
tial discharge between a thundercloud and ground that is
generally associated with the propagation of a stepped
Icadcr. Four types of primary strokes arc distinguished: I)
downward propagating negative stroke from a cloud nega-
tivcly charged relative to ground (often referred to as iiorinal
lightning); 2) downward propagating positive strolc origi-
nating from that part of a thuiidercloiid positively charged
relative to ground; 3) upward propagating negative stroke;
and 4) upward propagating positive stroke. The primary CG
lightning stroke is also referred to as the initial stroke or as
simply a lightning flash.
5
 Stepped leader-lntciisc spark or plasma channel of fi-
nite but variable length in air corresponding to the ob-
served individual steps in a lightning stroke. This is
considered to be a relatively higli-temperatore discharge
stage heated by the passage of an electrical current pulse of
high inagnitude [4-61.
Streamer-A narrow, lnighly directed, and self-propagat-
ing discharge i n air. A strcanicr dcvclops from an electron
avalaticlie when the local space charge becomes of sufficient
density to produce an electric-field strength coinparablc to
or grcatcr than the external field. It is believed to propagate
at a high velocity by the inechanisin ai photoionization in
high-field regions produced ahead of the discharge. This is a
relatively cold discharge phenomenon that can be the pre-
cursor to the forniation of a leader step [4-61.
Keturn stroke-This is a discharge that propagates up-
ward from the ground (or lightning rod) in the cliannel
formed by the primary downward stroke. An individual
lightning event may cxhihit one or morc rcturn strokes [9,
IO]. The return stroke should not he confused with the
streamer-lcader initiated at a tcrtninal by tlie advancing pri-
mary lightning stroke.
striking distance-The distance covcred by the last leader
step of a downward propagating primary lightning stroke i n
making contact with a grouudcd ohjcct (lightning rod). This
is sometimes called the final jump a i d it is expected to fol-
low the path of an upward propagating streamer if such a
streamer occnrs. 'This distance varies with type and intensity
o f the lightning stroke.
Corona discharge-A localized, cold discharge in air that
forins around ohjects such as sharp conducting points or
wires that produce an eiilianceinent in electric-field strength
sufficient to allow ionization growth. Corona is also helicvcd
to form around Icadcr channels. Corona is an important
of space charge at grouud level and is sometimes
called a point discharge, or partial discharge. Under soinc
conditions it is the prccnrsor to streamer forination [I I].
Zone ofprotection-The volume surrounding or adjacent
to a lightning protection system that is presumed to be sub-
stantially iinnnune to direct lightningstrilies. In the case of air
terminals, thiscould h e deiincdas thevolume in which an ac-
ceptably high percentage o i lightning strokes will attach to
the rod as opposed to other locations upon entering this vol-
umc. A precise definition of the zone of protection and the
methods to be used for its deterinitiation arc suhjccts of dc-
hate [12-141
Cone of protection-A conic volume around a vertical
lightning rod used to define a region of protcctioo. This is a
cone whose height equals the height of the rod and whose
base has a radius ccntcrctl at the rod and equal in length to
the height (if the rod. The cone-of-protection concept is
based on an electrostatic field [I5].
Rollingsphere method-A mcthud that enables identifica-
tion of possible lightning attachment points by imaging a
sphere of radius equal to the assumed striking distance that is
rullcd over tlie exposed surface area surrounding a structure
6 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
(lightning rod) [14]. Points contactcd by the sphere on the
surface identify possible lightning attachmetit locations. It
should be noted that, although the method identifies possi-
h l e attachnient points, it does not give iniormation ahout the
probability of attachment to these points [I 61.
1,ightningattmction efficiency-A measure of the proh-
ability that a lightning stroke will attach to an air terminal
i f it enters its zone of protection, e.g., a 90% cfficicncy iin-
plics that YO"h of all strokes that elites the zone will attach,
independent of parameters such as current and angle of
approach. There seems to he n o clcar consensus on this
deiinition; howcvcr, the above definition will be used in
this report.
Onset field-The electric-field strength above which ioii-
ization growth (clcctron-avalanclie formation) is possible in
air. This is approximately 2.6 MVhn in dry air at standard
temperature and pressure [17].
Time lag-The time hctwccn when the field strength first
exceeds the onset iield and when a discharge is initiated. A
distinction is usually made between the statistical time lag (t,)
corresponding to time of electsoti-avalanche initiation and
the formative time lag (T~)corrrsponding t n the time for
complete discharge (streamer or leader) formation. Usually
(zf) is much less than (zs) [ 171.
Space charge-Density of charged particles (ions) in air
tliat modifies the local electric field. The cxistcncc of
space charge can have a significant influcncc 011liglitning
propagation.
Thundercloud-A cluud cuntaining a charge density suffi-
ciently high to allow iormation o i a lightning strokc.
Cloud-to-cloud (CC) lightning stroke-A lightning stroke
between thunderclouds that may or may not be related to a
cloud-to-ground stroke.
Iightning dissipater array-A system that supposedly rc-
pels or diverts lightning by fortnation of space charge such as
from corona discharge generated by an array of sharp metal
rods [20, 211.
Electron avalanche-An electron multiplication process
due to electron-impact ionization of gas molecules. This is
the initial stage i n the development of an electrical discharge
in air, e.g., a corona or streamer.
Discussion
Characteristics of Lightning
In the discussion that follows, we highlight some of the
properties o i lightning to which particnlar attention should
be paid in the evaluation of liglitiiitig-attractor-type protec-
tion systems. A cotnpletc trcatmcnt of the state-of-knowl-
edge of lightning can he found in other publishcd reviews 13,
22-26].
Perhaps the most significant property of lightning that
should be kept i n mind is its complex, stochastic, and fractal
character. These properties make it impossible to predict
precisely how a lightning stroke will develop. Indeed, the be-
havior of lightning phenomena is best descrihrd in statistical
terms, e.g., by giving probability distributions for stepped
 leader lengths, striking distances, currents, number of return
strokes, angle of approach, etc. as are often found in the lit-
crature [27-361.It may be noted that evcii low-level corona
discharge phenomena can exhibit complex stochastic and
niulti-modal behavior that is not easily predicted or undcr-
stood 111, 37, 3x1.
Two types of cloud-to-ground lightning discharges arc
identified, namely, positive and negative, where tlie sign re-
fers to tlie charge at the base of the cloud relative to thc
charge at ground level. Upward propagating dischargcu,
which apparently originate at groutid level, of both polari-
ties are also observed. In most locations, ticgative downward
strokes are by far the prcdoininant form of lightning. How-
ever, recent surveys show that the proportion of positive
strokes can be greater than 25% in some locations, especially
in mountainous areas or high latitudes in the northern hemi-
sphere where thunderstorms associated with frontal zoiics
predominate (28, 39, 401. The occurrence of positive light-
ning also varies significautly with season, generally being
most common in winter 132, 3 9 , 411.
In general, the statistical distributions of lightning charac-
teristics vary with terrain, altitude, latitude, a d time of year
[42]. These variations need to be considered in evaluating or
designing a lightning protection system for a particular loca-
tion. Evidence for significant variability in the behavior of
lightning is fouud not only from geographical survcys [40,
431, but also from nmnerous observations and recordings at
sites frcquetitly hit by lightning, such as the CN tower in To-
ronto, Canada [44], the Empire State Building in NcwYork
[28,31,34,4.5], Mount San Salvatore near Lugano, Switzer-
land [27,46], and otlicr locations [30,47,48]. Observations
at such locations reveal imiisnal and uiiexpectcd behavior of
lightning propagation [49]. Although it is known, for exam-
ple, that lightning often propagatcs horizontally with re-
spect to ground level within a cloud [SO], there are also
unexpected recordings of nearly horizontal propagation
over considerable distances at sub-cloud levels [46, 51-54].
The phenomenon of “hall lightning” [SS-SS1 inay corre-
spond, in some instances, to a type of horizontally propagat-
ing lightning near ground level.
Lightning is gcnerally helievcd to propagate in the atino-
sphcrc hy a streamer-leader mcchauism [4, 5, 35, 59-66].
Leaders arc highly conductive, luminous plasma chamiels
that typically vary in length hetween 3 in and 200 in. The ini-
tial lightning stroke is composed of conuccted leaders or
leader steps. Tlie avcrage velocity of propagation of a
stepped leader gcnerally fits a lug-normal distribution and
typically lies within the range of 1.0x 10’ i d s to 2.7 x 3 O6
m/s [36, 671, and the electric charge deposited in the leadcr
channel is within tlie range of 3 “C tu 20 “C.
Because of the high concentration of charge in the chan-
nel, tlie electric-field strength produced by the leader can he
sufficient to allow elcctrical breakdown (ionization) of the
air at distances greater than 1 0 in from the tip of the leader.
Corona-type discharges develop in tlie intensc field region at
the end o f tlie leader from which fast streamers cniaiiate aod
JanuaryIFebruary 2000 -Val, 16, No. 1
prepare the path for the next leader step [4,61,64]. When a
leader approaches ground level, it caii, given a sufficiently
high charge concentration in tlie channel, cause the field
strength at groundcd conductors such as a lightning rod to
hccoiiie great enough for tlie initiation and developnicnt of a
discharge at the grounded site. If a discharge is initiated at
ground level, it is likely to propagate upward in the
high-ficld region produced by the leader channel [68]. This
is usually the proccss hy which the initial lightning stroke
completes its path to ground. Tlie existence of upward prop-
agating discharges that connect with a downward propagat-
ing leader has bccn clearly established from observations in
tlie laboratory of discharges generated under impulse volt-
age conditions in long air gaps [@, 701 as well as from obscr-
vations of natural lightning 146, 68,711. It should be noted,
howcver, that upward coniiecting streamers are iiot always
observed during a liglmiing strike to ground [25, 711. Con-
sidering tlie probabilistic nature o f the streamer initiation
process, it is not surprising that thc upward streamer inay
not always occur, or may be too weak to observe. Moreover,
thc advancing leader caii initiate more than one upward
streatncr at different ground-level locations [25, 721, hut
only uue is likely to connect.
The probability that an upward streamer will be initiated
at agroundsite increases with thelocalelectric-fieldstrength
produced by tlie leader. The instantaneous field produced by
the lcader in turn increases with the instantaneous charge
and therefore tlic current in the leader channel at any given
time. It can thus be expected, as observed, that for a fixed
striking distance from a groundcd object, tlie probability
that ai1 upward strcamer will be launched should increase
with increasing current in the final leader step of the light-
ning stroke 1681. Also, the mean striking distance to a
grounded object should increase with increasing stroke cur-
rent [22, 731.
A typical lightning stroke exhibits a complex branching
structure [3,45,48]. This branching comes about in part he-
cause of the possihility that, at the end of a stepped leader
channel, more than otic path inay be prepared by different
streamers [63]. If this happens, tlie subsequent leader step
caii divide and propagate simultaneously i n two or more dif-
ferent directions. Only one of tlie leader channel branches is
likely to connect to ground. Cases have been recorded, how-
ever, where two or more stepped leader branches simulta-
neously propagate to ground. In such cases, questions arise
about the inutual interaction between branches and the niin-
imum likely branch separation. The theory of lightning is nut
sufficiently advanced at the present time to account for
branching behavior and the general fractal dimensions of
lightning. The space-charge distribution in the atmosphere
below the cloud is also likely to influence the branching char-
acteristic [131.It is only relatively recently that fractal mod-
els of electrical-discharge phenomena have been introduced
that deal with the branching characteristics [30, 741.
There is still much that we do not understand about the
hehavior of lightning, and the physics of lightning remains a
7
topic of intensive scientific investigation at research labora-
tories arouud the world [75-781. Little is known, for exam-
ple, ahout the mccliaiiisms hy which a liglitning discharge is
initiated within a thundercloud [79, 801. The average elec-
tric-field strength in a cloud generally lies far below the
breakdown strength of air. The initiation of lightning is pos-
sibly associated with local cnlianccnicnts in the charge den-
sity within tlie cloud. In any case, there is reason to helieve
from observations of liglitning propagation within clouds
154, 8 1 J that a cloud from which liglitniiig originates cannot
be treated as a uniformly charged equipotential region.
Moreover, it has been argued that objects at ground lcvcl
cannot influcncc the triggering of lightning in a cloud [82,
831. l‘his is a reasonable expectation because tlie region of a
cloud from which liglituiiig originates is likely to he at an al-
titude of 3 kin to 4 kin above ground level, which is one to
two orders of magnitude higher than most grounded objects.
Thus, any claims made about the ability of a gromid-based
lightning protection system to trigger or attract lightnitig
strikes from a cloud should he viewed with skepticism. An
exception, of course, is the use of grouud-lauiiclied ohjects
such as aircraft or rockets that are known to trigger lightning
[84, 851.
Aiiothcr area of active lightning research that deserves
special attention is that concerned with tlie influence of local
space charge on the path of a lightning stroke. It has already
been shown from laboratory simulations [54, 86, 871 that
discharge propagation can he affected significantly by the
presence of spacc charge associatcd with iuns or charged
particles. Space-charge effects are expected to he significant
within a tliimdercloud, hut may also he important at ground
level where ions can he produced by corona or point dis-
charges that occur i n advance of a liglitniiig strike 123, 82,
88-91]. The presence of space charge could influence the
performance of a lightning protection system and may ex-
plain tlie occurrence of horizontal or other unusual forms of
lightning 11.31. Kcscarch is nccdcd o n factors that influence
the electric-field distribution at ground level under a thun-
dercloud 1x1, 92-95],
ESE Air Terminals
An early strcaincr cmission air teriiiiiial differs from a
convcntional air teriiiiiial or liglituiiig rod in that it is
equipped with a device that supposedly eiihanccs the proba-
bility of initiating an upward propagating discharge
(streamer) to connect with tlie downward propagating
leader of a lightning stroke [96J. I’rcsumably, this enhance-
ment applies for both polarities of iiatural lightning, al-
though discussion of the polarity dependence of ESE systems
is noticcahly ahscnt from the literature. An ESE termiiial can
often h e distinguished from an ordinary lightning rod by the
presence of a small object iiear the top of the rod that serves
as a discharge trigger [Y 71. Tlie geometrical configuration of
the rod tip for ESE rods can also be more complex than that
of a conventional rod [97].
8 IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
There arc diffcrcnt types or designs for ESE termiiials. A
coininon feature in their operation is tlic use of a discharge
triggering device tu incrcasc the probability for initiating a
streamer discharge at or near the rod tip upon the approach
of a descending leader. Contrary to some misconceptions,
ESE terminals d o iiot significantly incrcasc the conductivity
of air at a distance greater than 10 cm beyond the tip of the
rod [98, 991. Possible exceptions are systems that utilize in-
tense laser beams to “guide” a leader discharge. However,
such clcviccs arc considered to be experimental and are not
presently used for practical lightning protection. Tlie main
attracting effect of an ESE terminal is undoubtedly due to the
metal coilductor itself that introduces a significant enhance-
ment vf tlie electric-field streiigth which, in turn, increases
tlie rate of ionization in the air around the rod above that at
other nearby locations. In s o doing, it in
ity of discharge initiation and perhaps also tlie speed with
wliicli the discharge can propagate compared to surround-
ing areas that arc at a lower field. A tall lightning conductor
can therefore compete more favorably in attracting a light-
ning discharge than conductors in the same vicinity of
smaller height [IOO, 1011. Like conventional tcrniinals, tlie
attraction efficiency of an ESE terminal should increase with
its height abvvc the ground up to a limit determined by the
inaxitnuin striking distance.
Three general types of ESE devices have been identified,
namely: 1)rods to which a radioactive source is attached,
also referred to as ionizing o r radioactive air terminals
1102- 104); 2) rods equipped with an electrical triggering de-
vice [97, 10.51; atid .?I) systems that use laser beams
[I 06-1 091. Of these otily the first twv types are currently in
use. The third type is still under development and its effec-
tiveness, although promising, has iiot yet heen demonstrated
outside of the laboratory.
Tlic most widely used, and perhaps most controversial ESE
device is that equipped with a radioactive sviirce positioned
near tlie top v i tlie terminal 1102, 110, 1 I I]. The radioactive
materials employed are weak alpha particle emitters with rel-
atively long lifetimes such as L4‘Am (half-life of 433 years),
which is also used in some smoke detectors. Other types of ra-
dioactive materials have also h c c i i used, including 210~’o,
226Ra,”I<r, and 6oCo11121. The products from radioactive
decay of these materials ionize the air in the immediate vicin-
ity of tlie terminal, typically within a radius of 1 ciii to 3 cni.
The ion-pair production rate can be as high as 1O1’/s. It has
been argued that, outside of a small region near the terminal,
the i m p a i r forniation rate in the atmosphere from the radio-
active sourcc will fall sigiiificautly below the rate from natural
hackgroutid radiation [99]. Evidence that radioactive air ter-
minals are superior to conventional Franliliii rods has heen re-
ported based on interpretation of results from outdoor tests
usingirnpulse hreakdowii of rod-planc gaps L113-117]. How-
ever, many questions have been raised in the literature both
about the effectiveness of radioactive air termiiials 1.12, 16,
90, 98, 99, 118-1291 a d about the potential hazards they
pose due to pussihle human exposure to harinful radiation
11 12, 129-1351, Indccd their use is proliihited in some COLIII-
tries [lOS].
In recent years, ESE teriiiiiials that use electrical trigger-
ing devices have been introduced. In principle, their purpose
is tlie same as a radioactive source, aiid there is uo reason to
believe that electrically triggered systems could not be at
least as effective as a radioactive air tcrminal. They offer tlie
potential advantage of more control over ion production at
the tip of the terminal and thus would appear to be more ef-
fective i n avoiding unwanted colitinnous ciirona discliargc
formation in advance of a lightning strike. They also avoid
tlie healtli and cnvironmcntal issues that arc associated with
radioactive devices. Nevertheless, very little information
could he fonnd about electrically triggered ESE systems in
tlie archival literature. Most (if the discussiiin ahout these dc-
vices is confined to patent documents ['I 051 aiid to relatively
recent conference papers [97,136-1401. The availablc infor-
mation is usually both of a preliminary nature and lacking in
technical details. Consequently it is iinpossiblc at this time to
malie a complete, independent assessnient of tlie perfor-
mance of ESE terminals that employ electrical triggering.
From tlie limited infiirtnation published about such de-
vices, it appears that they empliiy a detector that s c u m the
approach of a downward propagating leader by producing
an electrical signal proportional either to the electric field or
the rate-of-change of tlie electric field produced by the ap-
proacliiiig leader [Y7, 10.51. Wlicn the output signal of the
detector reaches a certain level, it triggers n circuit that then
applies a fast, high-voltage pulse or pulses either directly to
the rod o r to a spark gap electrode arrangement positioned
at the top of the rtid. The application of the electrical pulses
enlintices tlie field enough to create a local discharge or ion-
ization at the most opportune time to initiate :in upward
propagating streamer. Thus, unlilie a rod equipped with a ra-
dioactive sonrce that causes continuous ionization in the snr-
rounding air, the electrically triggered ESE device produccs
ionization only during a brief pcriod prior to the lightning
strike. Information about the duration and extent of this ioii-
izatioii conld not be found.
There arc other types of recently devckiped ESE termi-
nals that utilize tlie piezoelectric effect for electrical trigger-
ing. Although this type of terminal is now available
commercially, only scant incntion of it is made in tlie archi-
val literature [105, 1411. From an examination of the litera-
ture, we decided that tlicrc is insufficient published
information about the operating principles and performancc
of the piezoelectric devices to enahlc an independent ap-
praisal of their performancc. It is presumed that tlie function
of a picziielectric trigger is the same as other ESE dcvices,
namely, to enhance ionization and thereby increase tlie
probability (reduce the time lag) for initiation of an upward
propagating streamer.
As mentioned above, lightning protcction systems that
utilize laser beams to trigger and/or guide a lightning dis-
charge, o r to assist in launching an upward streamer arc coli-
sidcrcd to he experimental. At tlie present time, there are no
JanuaryiFebruary2000 -Vol. 16, No 1
known commercial systems tliat employ lasers. Laboratory
stndies have shown, however, that laser heains can he effec-
tive in initiating and controlling tlic path of an electrical dis-
charge in long air gaps 1108, 142-158].
The comparative advantages and disadvantages of tlie
different types of ESE devices i n t e r n i s of their cost, size, re-
liability, etc. have not been examined in this investigation.
The fact that therc arc competitive ESE devices available
with differing configurations aiid operating principles
should be of concern in proposing uew standards for liglit-
ning protcctioii systems. It is douhtfol that tlie efficiency
aiid reliability of performaiicc is tlie same for all types of
ESE terminals.
In the following three sectious tlic physical bases for liSE
devices arc examined and issues rclatcd to tlie validation or
verification of ESE device pcrforoiaiice are discussed.
Physical Eases f o r ESE Air Terminals
A complete assessnieiit of ESE air-terminal pcrformancc
rcqnires an understanding of the basic physical mcclianisuiis
responsible f o i - their operation. It is not clear from an exami-
nation of the relevant literature that tlici-e is a complete aiid
universally agreed upon understanding of liow or why tliese
devices work. In the case of ESE terminals that use radioac-
tivc S O U I - ~ C S ,argunients arc made in tlie literature that they
simply do not work, or arc at best relatively ineffcctive [16,
I 18, 120, 222, 124-'129]. These negative opioious arc USII-
ally based on a lack of cvidcncc that could be found in tlic lit-
erature about tlie performance of radioactive terminals, and
arc seldom hased on results of independent tests. Reliable
qiiantitative data ahout the rclativc perfoi-rnancc of ESE vel--
sus coiiveiitioiial dcviccs under relevant conditions arc defi-
nitely lacking. However, die lackof data does not necessarily
prove that ESE devices do not work. 'The questions that
should be asked are, how d o they work and how much hetter
do they work, or could they work than couventional ternii-
tials, i.e., what is the gain, if anything, in lightning attraction
efficiency? Indisputablc results were not found to auswci-
these questions.
Taking into consideration what is presently known from
lahoratory studies of relevant electrical-discharge phcnoiii-
cna, reasonable speculation is possible about the iinpiirtant
processes that can account fur ESE device operation. Uiifor-
tunatcly one must resort tii speculation or extrapolations
from lahoratory scalc cxpcriments because tliere is a dearth
of detailed informatior from iibservations made during
lightning strikes in tlic natural environmcnt.
The one characteristic that appears conmion to all types
o f ESE devices is that they enhance ionization of the air i n tlie
immediate vicinity of tlic terminal tip prior to an approacli-
ing lightning stroke. This additional ionizatiou presumably
enhances the probability that a n upward propagating
streamer will he lauuched froiii tlie teriniiial tip. Alcgitimatc
qnestion that could then be asked is, liow does this addi-
tional ionization act to enhance streamer formation?
9
 The aiiswer to this question is not obvious but would ap-
pear to he found from a consideration of the time lug to clcc-
trical breakdown. This topic has been the subject of
numerous laboratory investigations [19]. In order for an
electrical discharge (streamer) to he initiated after a rapidly
rising voltage has been applied-for example, to a
point-sphere or sphere-sphere electrode gap in air-so that
the electric-field strength exceeds the breakdown streugtli of
air, there must be at least one fsee electrou available to initi-
ate the electron avalanche process, which is tlie precursor to
streamer formation [4,7, 19,159,1601. In tlie case ofaposi-
tivc point electrode, which approximates tlie conditions of a
normal negative liglitning stroke, the initial electron rclcasc
mechanism is thought primarily to be collisional electron de-
tachment from negative ions 119, 1611. The rate of
collisional detachment depeiitls hotli on the anion species
and on the strength of the electric field in which it moves.
In the case of air, the types of negative ions that can be
formed depend significantly on water-vapor content (liu-
midity), which appears to account for tlie observed large dif-
ference in laboratory measured time lags for dry arid humid
air under positive impulse conditions 1162-1661. From labo-
ratory experiments on positive impulse breakdown in air, it
is usually found that measured time lags exhibit a pro-
nounced decrease with increasing humidity, i.e., the dis-
charge initiation probability is enhanced hy the presence of
water vapor [19, 1671. Negative ions in the atmosphere are
formed by attaclunent of low-energy electrons to elec-
tro-negative gas molecules such as 0, and H,O. Initially
formed negative ions such as O ~O, ~and , OH^, can undergo
transformations into other types of negative ions such as 0,
and OH~.H,Othrough a complex sequence of ion-molecule
reactions 1111.
The presence of negative ions in an electrode gap prior to
the application of an impulse voltage (simulating an ap-
proaching leader) does not guarantee that a discharge will be
initiated. For example, if the rate of voltage rise is too slow,
the ions inay simply be swept out of the gap before undergo-
ing detachment. Moreover, the field strength at which a neg-
ative ion can detach an electron may, depending 011 tlie type
of ion, lie above or below the breakdown field stscngth of air
and this will determine its effectiveness in iuitiating a dis-
charge. If tlie ESE device helps ensure the presence of nega-
tive ions uear tlie terminal during tlie approach of a lightning
stroke, then it could he effective in reducing the time lag for
streamer initiation. However, its effectiveiiess must he inea-
sured against naturally occurring time lags and might de-
pend significantly on such conditions as relative humidity
and total charge (strength) of the oncoming Icadcr in the
lightning stroke.
In the case of a negative poiut electrode, as occurs for pos-
itive lightning, the mechanism for discharge initiation can bc
quite different. Near a negative point, detaclimcnt of nega-
tive ions may still play a role; however, these ions will be
forced to move into tlie lowes field region away from the
electrode tip where electron detachment by collision with air
nioleculcs becomes less probable. For negative points, elec-
trons can also be released by collision of positive ions with
the electrode surface. Tlie effectiveness of preleader ioniza-
tion in enhancing streamer initiation at the tip of an air ter-
iiiiual can lie expected, therefore, to depend on polarity. The
extent to which the probability of streamer initiation de-
pends un polarity for a given ESE or conventional terminal is
generally not known, or at least there is no evidence in the
archival literature that the effect of polarity has been investi-
gated thoroughly.
The presence of ionization at tlie terminal tip in advance
of a lightning stroke can also act to undermine tlie effective-
ness of an ESE device if this ionization can occur under high
enough field strength to allow formation of a corona dis-
charge 142, 'I 13,160,168,1691. Oiiceacoronaforiiisitpro-
duces orders of magnitude more ions than can be generated,
for example. from alpha particle emission from a radioactive
source. Tlie presence of ion space charge can significantly rc-
duce the electric-field strength near the top of ai1 air tcriniual
and inay thereby act to inhibit streamer initiation 1.37, 1701.
The possibility of corona formation depends on factors such
as the geometry of the tcrminal[171]. It lias also been shown
conclusively by experiments performed in the atmosphere
that the intensity of a corom discharge aiid tlie density of
space charge associated with it depends significantly on local
wind velocity 194,1721.
Laboratory experiments performed to determine tlie in-
fluence of radiation 011 the initiation of air discharges in large
sphere-plane gaps have shown that the presence of radiation
ascs the likelihood of discharge formation for impulse
voltages with steep wavefroiits, but decreases the likelihood
for breakdown at longer wavefronts (1ps compared to 180
ps) [173]. For steep wavefronts the breakdown voltage is
therefore effectively lower than it is for longer wavefroiits.
This experiment seems to show that the presence of radia-
tion enhances discharge initiation provided there is insuffi-
cieut time for corona space-charge formation. However, the
effect of the radiation was, in either case, relatively small and
and role of corona genesated space charge were
not quantified or even clearly identified. One of the conclu-
sions given in this work is that the major effect of tlie radia-
tion and corresponding ionization of tlie air is to eliminate
very long time lags to spark-over. It should be kept in mind
that time lag is a statistical variable, aiid for a given wcll-dc-
fined set of discharge gap conditions there will exist a distri-
hution in time lags that can be dctcrmined experimentally
[19, 1611.
It should also he noted that corona discharge formation
is involied to account for tlie effectiveness of supposed
lightning dissipaters [20, 12, 121, 1631. In this case, coroua
discharges presumably form at a multitude of sharp con-
ductors positioned around the area to be protected and
thereby produce enough space charge to reduce the electric
field and deflect tlie path of oncoming liglitiiing. The for-
ination of corona can depend siguificantly on tlie water va-
por content of tlie air arouud the terminal [164, 1741. Tlie
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
issue o f corona formation is also central to the debate about
the most desirable shape for the end of a conventiunal light-
ning rod [21,83, 3 75-1 781. Blunt rods are reported to pcr-
form hctter than sharp rods i n attracting lightning,
supposedly hecause corona forms less readily around hlunt
rods than around sharp rods 11781. The issue of corona for-
niatioii is also relevant to the operation o f ESE devices and
is presumably a factor that is considered in the design of
ESE terminals. Details of liow ESE devices are designed to
avoid corona formatior prior to a lightning strike are not
discussed iu the archival literature.
111additiou to iou formation that occurs during discharge
activity near the tip of a lightuing rod, clcctroti and inn colli-
sions with atmospheric molecules can form relatively
long-lived metastable excited neutral species such as the
a ‘ A g electronic state of tlic oxygen rnolccule or the A’Z;,
electronic state of tlie nitrogen molecule. Additionally,
vibrationally excited metastable molecular species are pro-
duced in a gas discharge. The presence of these nietastablc
species can have a significant influence oii strcamcl--dis-
charge propagation because they are more readily ionized
thau air niolecules ill the ground state and hecause they can
supply energy to electrons hy super-elastic collisions, the
overall effect of which is to providc a path of lowcr resis-
tance to an oncoming discharge [17Y-1 SI]. The qucnching
of metastable species through collisions with other mole-
cules or with surfaces can also he a source c i f discharge initi-
ating electrons, i.e., their presence under some conditions
might he effective in enhancing the probability of discharge
inception 1381.
Uiililie ions, ncutral metastable spccies do not contribute
to modification of the local electric-field strength and their
motion is also not sigiiificaiitly influenced hy tlie prcseuce of
a field. l‘hey tend to diffuse away f r i m thcir point of origin,
and their effectiveness in modifying a discharge path and
their range of influence dcpcnds ou their excitation energy
and density distribution at any given time. The density of
metastable species depends, in turn, on the relative rates of
formation, quenching, and diffusion of these species. Al-
though the influence of metastable species on discharge de-
velopinent has bccn estahlislied from laboratory iuvesti-
gations [180], considerahly less is liiiowii ahinit the dynamics
and interactions of these species in a discharge compared to
what is linown about ious. In particular, very little is ktmwn
about how they contribute to lightning discharge initiation
or propagation under relevant atmospheric conditions. As
with negative ions, tlie metastable content of the air around a
lightning teriniiial will be affected hy relative humidity and
general air contamination. ‘I‘lieinfluence of metastable spe-
cies should not extend significantly heyond the elid of a
lightning rod. Their role, if anything, will be to enhance ini-
tial development of a streamer at the rod tip.
In summary, it would appear that enhancement c i f up-
ward streamer initiation from an F,SE terminal (compared to
a conventional tcrminal) has a plausible physical basis. How-
ever, it would also appear that a conipletc and universally ac-
JanuaryiFebruary 2000 -Vol. 16, No. 1
cepted undcrstaudiiig of how a11 FSF, dcviccs work has iiut
yet heeii achieved, and it can he argued that a better uuder-
standing is nccdcd to make ineaningful quantitative conipar-
i s o t i s hctwccn tlie performances o f ESE and conventional
devices. To reach such au understanding it will undouhtedly
be necessary to address ntiineroti~basic questions such a s :
1 , What are the prcdominant streamer initiation mecha-
nisms under different conditions of polarity, atmospheric
liumidity, air contamination, atid terminal geometry?
2. What are the relative roles c i f ious, electrons, and
inetastahle species o r tlic development and propagation of a
streamer discharge from a terminal for different conditions?
3 . What is the likelihood of corona formation around a
terminal aiid how will thc presence of corona affect the abil-
ity of the terminal to launch a streamer upon approach of a
lightning stroke?
4. In the case of radioactive terminals, what is tlie dcpend-
eticc of the streamer initiation probability on the intensity
and type of radiation source!
5 . In the case of electrically triggered devices, how docs
the streamer initiation probability depend on the timing and
inagnitude of tlie electrically triggered spark?
6. Also for electrically triggered devices, liow reliable is
the field sensor that controls die triggering, and ani its per-
formance bc affected by local spacc charge?
Attempts to find answers to questions like these arc the focus
of much ongoing cxperiinental and theoretical research, not
only on lightning, hut also on electrical discharge plicnom-
ciia in general.
Validation of ESE System Performance
Three general methods have hecn used to evaluate and
test the performance of lightning protection systems,
namely: 1) small-scale laboratory or outdoor tests in which
liglitning, or the effects of lightning, are siiiinlated by apply-
ing high-voltage impulses to widely separated electrodes; 2)
theoretical simulations of lightning strokes that predict
propagatiou behavior and striking distance; aiid 3 ) outdoor
tests involving observations of artificially triggered or uatil-
rally occurring cloud-to-ground lightning strikcs. 111this scc-
tion we briefly examine tlic advantages, disadvantages and
issues that havc heen raised coiiccrning the use and validity
of these mcthods.
LABORATORY AND SMALL-SCALE TESTS
Considerable insight has bccn gained ahout the physical
nature of lightning from laboratory-scale studies of electrical
breakdown and spark forillation in “long” air gaps, with typ-
ical gap spaciiig of 2 111 to 1.5 in [69, .136, 166, 173,
182-188]. Iring air gaps have also bccn used to test the per-
formance of lightning rods, including ESE devices, both iu
enclosed lahoratory space and in the open outdoor environ-
ment [72,113-1 17, 137-139, 18YJ. An ohvious criticism of
such tests is that even a 1.5-in gap is at least twn orders of
magnitude snialler than tlic height of a cloud above grouud
from which a typical lightning stroke originates. Such a large
11
 extrapolation has been considered by some to be uiiaccept-
able and essentially renders laboratory-scale tests useless in
evaluating the performance of a lightning rod 1190, 1911.
It can hc argued, liowcver, that for tlie purposes of testing
and research 011 lightning rod performance, it is probably
not necessary to simulate an entire cloud-to-ground liglit-
ning stroke in the laboratory. It is only required that a realis-
tic simulation he made of the filial leader step in the stroke
that approaches a lightning rod 1189, 1911. This reduces the
scale and simplifies the problciii enormously, hut still leaves
a task that taxes the limitations of present day laboratory fa-
cilities. For example, to simulate tlie entire range of striking
distances likely to occur in the natural environment, it would
be necessary to perform tests using electrode gaps in excess
of 100 ni. The gaps presently available in tlie largest lahora-
tories are smaller thaii this by roughly a11 order of magni-
tude. Although some gaiii in gap spacing can be achieved by
going to the outdoor etivirotinicnt [l 8x1, one still eiicouii-
ters the limitations on voltage imposed by existing impulse
generators. Even in the largest laboratories in which ESE de-
vices have beeu tested there is no provision to simulate all of
the conditions undcr which lightning occurs in the natural
environment. It will be recalled that natural lightning exhib-
its significant statistical variability i n such parameters as cur-
rent, mean striking distance, and angle of approach with
respect to any vertical lightning conductor. It also usually oc-
curs undcr conditions where significant space charge may be
present due to local point discharges and where humidity
aiid surface moisture levels are relatively high. Moreover,
high winds also tend to be associated with the occurrence of
lightning. It must he recognized that such parameters as liu-
inidity, space charge, and wind are not independent. For ex-
ample, the rate of space charge development is expected to
depend on humidity and tlie wind will he effective in redis-
tributing tlie space charge once it is formed [94]. Although
tlie influence of factors such as space charge [I921 and hu-
midity [166] have heen iuvestigated iu tlie laboratory tests, it
is not clear that the myriad conditions that can exist in the
ilatural atmosphere during a thunderstorm can lie ade-
quately simulated in present laboratory facilities. The extent
to which it may he necessary to simulate all conditions is cer-
tainly a snhject for debate.
Another concerti about tlie validity of small-scale simula-
tions is the degree to which tlie discharge produced is like
lightning. There is evidence, for example, that the cm-rent
aiid propagation velocities of Iahoratory-generated leaders
differ considerably from those associated with natural light-
ning. It would appear that more investigations into compari-
sons between the properties of simulated aiid natural
discharges may he required before more reliance is placed on
laboratory scale testing to evaluate tlie performance of air
terminals. The adjustment of laboratory parameters to pro-
duce long sparks that match the characteristics of natural
lighttiiiig assumes a complete kni~wlcdgcabout the charac-
teristics of natural lightning. Tlie extent to which our ktiowl-
edge of lightning is sufficiently complete is still open to
12
debate. The similarities and differences between iiatural
lightning and long sparks produced in the laboratory have
been extensively discussed (66, 113, 176, 190, 191,
193-2061.
Despite the present limitations, laboratory tests coupled
with fast electrical and optical diagnostics probably offer the
hest iiieaiis for learning about the physical inechanisms, op-
eration, aiid performance of lightning protection devices in a
reasonable time frame. Laboratory tests are especially useful
for investigating factors that influence streamer initiation
from an air terminal, and thcre seems to he much that cm he
learned about the initial discharge growth process for both
conveiitioiial and ESE terminals. Many laboratories have
been set up to simulate differelit aspects of liglitniiig 192,
207-2171, and even though most of them are not designed
specifically for testiiig lightning protection devices, some of
tlie advanced diagnostic methods developed in these lahora-
tories might find application in air terminal testing.
Because of tlie large statistical variahility in lightning bc-
havior, it is unliliely that a single test coufiguratioii can be
used to completely characterize the performaiicc of all light-
ning protection devices. In the future, it will probably be
necessary to consider a set of laboratory test configurations
that represent die range of lightning behavior likely to be eti-
countcrcd in the environment. At present it would seem that
we are a long way from having a standard laboratory test
procedure for lightning protection systems. Tlie influences
of such parameters as moisture, space charge, and wind are
still topics for research.
It is recommended that caution he exercised in drawing
significant quantitative co~iclusioiisabout tlie comparative
performauces of different lightning protection systems in
the natural environment from small-scale tests. There would
especially lie reason to doubt results from siinultaneous tests
of two or more devices that arc placed in close enough prox-
imity to be within each others supposed range of protection.
Under such conditions, the presence of one device can signif-
icantly modify the electric field configuration of another de-
vice (atid vice-versa) and thereby affect its performance.
SIMULATIONS USING THEORETICAL MODELS
With the advent of high-speed computing, it has become
feasible to consider the use o f theoretical simulations of
lightning as a tool in evaluating tlie performaiicc of a liglit-
ning protection system. In tlie past 20 years, considerable
progress has hccn made iii understanding tlie inechaiiisnis of
electrical discharge initiation [17, 67, 169, 170, 218-2221
atid in tlic modeling of corona streamer-leader discharge
propagatioiiitibotlisinall and long air gaps [3,59,223-23.31.
Nevertheless, the theory of lightning is still in the develop-
mental stage and new results continue to appear in the litera-
ture. At present, a “statidard” model for the lightning
discharge does not exist. The existing iiiodels employ many
simplifications and approximations that cannot be exain-
iiied or critiqued in this report. It suffices to say that they arc
generally designed to accoimt hest for laboratory-scale ob-
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
 scrvationsof long-gapspark dcvclopnieiitiii airaiid havenot
reached the level of sophistication required to account for
the broad range of complex statistical and fractal behavior
characteristic of natural lightning. The stochastic behavior
of relatively simple phenomena such as electron-avalaiiclic
development and corolla has only recently been dealt with i n
thcorctical models [11, 38,2221.
In as much as the effcctivcness of ESF, devices is attribut-
able to their ability to enhance initiation of an upward
streamer i n the field of an advancing leader, models used to
estimate their performance compared with conventional ter-
minals must deal with the statistics of discharge initiation,
i.e., they must he capable of predicting time lags applicable
to enviroiiniental conditions of the terminal. Unfortunately,
the prohlein of statistical time lags is very complex and is
generally avoided i n existing computer incidels of dis-
charges. The complexity of the problem is clue in part to a
lack of lmowledge ahout microscopic processes of electron
release and the statistical behavior of electron-avalanche
growth in nonuniform electric fields, particularly under the
multitude of conditions that could be encoinitered at the tip
of a lightning terminal.
One area whcrc theory shows promise for evaluation of
lightning terminals is in the prediction of striking distances
173, 3 86, 193, 234-2461, Assuming that the electric-charge
distribution within the approaching leader step is known, cs-
timates can be made from electrostatic-field calculations of
the instantaneous field at a nearby conductor, e.g., a vertical
conducting rod. Assuming a relatively simple charge distri-
hution in the leader channel, e.g., a linearly nnifurni cylin-
drical distribution, it is uften possible to express the field at
the teriiiiiiill due to tlie leader in closed form 12401. Calcnla-
tions of this type which talc into consideration the wide
range of possihle leader conditions (defined by such parame-
ters as charge, length, and position) could he useful in esti-
mating the maximum ranges of protection 1681. In essence,
such calculations, when coupled to the streamer inception
criterion 18, 111, 137, 159,223, 225,247,2481, determitic
the locations where ai1 advancing leader produces an elec-
tric-field strength at the terminal tip sufficient to allow
streamer development. It must be understood, however, that
sucli calculations supply geometrical information tliat is ap-
plicable to all terminals uf the same general geometrical con-
figuration independent of whether or not they are equipped
with an ESE device. I n this respect, they d o not yield specific
information ahout performance of the ESE device itself uii-
less the device operates in soch a manner that an impulse
voltagc is applied to increase the potential of the tcrniinal
conductor tip relative tu ground during the approach of a
lightning stroke. Such ii voltage would create a field that
adds to thc leader field thereby increasing the presumed
maximom range of protection. (It is not clcar that any elec-
d ESE devices actually do this, and if they do,
no information could he found in the literature to indicate
that calculations of the type mentioned above have ever b e e n
performed.)
JanuaryiFebruary 2000 - ~ V o l 16, No. 1
Criticisms that cm be raised ahout present striking dis-
tancc calculations rclatc to their semi-empirical nature and
the fact they asstiiiie leader charge distributions that may he
unrcalistic os have not heeii confirmed by observations of ac-
tual lightning discharges. Moreover, these calculations have
not dealt with effects of atmospheric space charge near
ground level.
Validatim of lightning models by comparison of calcu-
lated results with observations made clnriiig natural light-
ning strikes presents a major challenge to theorists. A
complete model should account for all observed properties
of lightning such as measured current, optical and radio-fre-
qucncy emission spectra, propagation velocity, etc. The
challenge is made especially difficult by thc broad statistical
variahility in lightning behavior and tlie paucity of complete
scts of ohservations on single lightning strokes. Neverthe-
less, it would appear that tlie method of predicting striking
distances hy simulating tlic effect of an approaching leader
shows great promise and it should he pursued and improved
npon. It possibly offers the hest approach tu answering sonic
of the difficult and controversial questions associated with
realistic determinations of protection zones that will be dis-
cussed later in this report.
TESTS USING NATURAL OR ARTIFICIALLY
TRIGGERED LIGHTNING
Perhaps the easiest and least controversial method of test-
ing lightning protection systems is to observe their pcrfor-
niancc i n the natural environment during actual
thunderstorms. However, this approach is ncither as easy
nor as lacking in controversy a s it may first seem. First of all,
with the exception of unusually high towers such as the F,n-
pire State Building, lightning strikes tu any given location in
relatively flat terrain whcrc a lightning rod is positioned are
likely to be extremely infrequent 12491. Even in pla
experience a high rate of lightning strikes such as in some
parts of central Florida, the ninnher of recorded
cloud-to-ground strokes within a square kilometer is likely
to be less than five per month on average (40, 2.501 during
the pcak of the thunderstorm season. Clearly, if natural
lightning strikes a terminal only one or twn times per year, it
talcs a n extremely long time to acquire enough data on its
performance to be statistically meaningful.
Recent attempts to test air terminals positioned at high el-
evations on iiwutitaiii tops in New Mexico whcrc there is a
known high frequency of lightning have shown that light-
ning seldom hits a terminal regardless of whether or not it is
equipped with an ESE dcvice [ 126, 177, 2.511. Although a
few isolated strikes to the mountain were reported to have
occurred within the supposed zones of protection of ESE ter-
ininals 1126, 177J, it would appear that the overwhelniing
majority of strikes to the mountain were at considcrahle dis-
tance from any terminal. In any case, the failure of air ternii-
nals to attract lightning on niountain tups at elevations of
3000 in (9843 feet) or more is obviously disturbing and
raises questions about the interpretation of such observa-
13
 tions. Before any serious conclusions arc drawn ahout the
performance of lightning attractors from tests performed
o n inountain tops, it may bc necessary to consider the per-
turbing effect of the mountain itself on such parameters as
the surface charge distrihution and electric-field profile un-
der a tliundercloud, as well as tlic extent that lightning
strokes at such high elevations differ from those that nor-
mally occur in lower, flatter locations. It would appear tliat
the aiiswcrs to some of these questions might already be
found in the literature.
It is noted in sonic papers that lightning that occurs at
high elevations generally differs on average from that wliicli
occurs at sea level, if in no other respect than that it lias less
distance to cover in going from the cloud to the ground L271.
At an elevation of 3000 m, tlie ground can he quite close to
or even engulfed hy tlic base of a storm cloud. Certainly tlic
results from high mountain tests cannot be dismissed, aiid
such tests should continuc, a s should similar tests underway
at other locations 11 761. The problem is how to iiiterpret the
results of these tests and infer what they might imply about
air terminal perforinatice at lower elevations, and what they
indicate about the influence of nionntaiiious or rocky terrain
on the effective zone of protection of a n air terminal.
The inifavorablc statistical odds associated with natural
lightning can be partially overcome hy using artificially trig-
gered lightning. Tests have shown that lightning can be trig-
gered with reasonably high probability by a rockct Iaunclied
into a thundercloud 185, 2.52-2.541. A long trailing wire is
usually attached to the rocket, which provides a low rcsis-
tatice path to guide tlie initial discharge and define its direc-
tion of propagation [U, 255, 2561. Transportahle facilities
have been dcvclopcd for rocket triggering of lightning that
can he used for testing at nearly any location [257]. Although
tests of air temiinals are bcirig rnadc using trigerred lielit-
ning, there arc questions that can he raised about the meaii-
ing of such tests. There is evidence that triggered lightning is
unlike natural lightning both in its intensity and propagation
characteristics. In particular, it has heen noted that triggered
lightning is of Iuwcr current than natural lightning and ex-
hibits characteristics inore like those of return strokes oh-
served i n natural lightning [25R, 2.591. It lias also hccn
argued that triggered lightning does not satisfactorily mimic
tlie primary stroke and is thcrcfore unsuited for investiga-
tion of the nttachmcnt t o 3 grounded lightning conductors,
i.e., its use i n evaluating air teriiiinals would appcar to be
questionable [258]. The extent to which rocket-triggered
lightning behaves like natural lightning seems to depciid oii
the length of the trailing wire and the distance of the hottum
ctid of the wire ahove ground when the discharge occurs.
Notwithstanding valid criticisnis, essentially no quantitative
information could he fouiid in the literature about results
from tests performed on air terminals using artificially trig-
gered lightning I26Ol.
Even thoogh testing of air terminals using natural light-
ning lias obvious limitations, we would rccoiiimcnd
long-term or continuous monitoring of lightning around air
14
terminals during thurtdcrstorru activity. Data from such
monitoring could provc valnablc i n identifying conditions
under which lightning protection devices arc likely to fail.
Admittedly it is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions
froni isolated events. However, it can be argued that previ-
ous liglitning records [36,43,5 1, 1761 have proven useful in
revealing unusual forms of lightning behavior that ought to
be considered in designing lahoratory methods o r computer
simulations fur use in evaluating lightning rods.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
In concluding this discussion we draw attention to four
specific issues: ‘I) tlic zone o f protection, 2) uncontrollable
factors, 3) radiation hazards, aiid 4) damage and mainte-
nance. For purposes of evaluating the relative performance
of ESE and conventional air terminals, the zone of protec-
tion is by far the most important. The second issue is con-
nected with the first in the sense that thcrc may exist
uocontrollablc factors that affect the zone of protection of-
fered by a terminal regardless of whether or not it is
cquipped with an ESE device.
Zone of Protection
The classical “coiie-of-protectioii” concept is often used to
specify tlie regiou of space that is “protected” by a lightning
conductor. This coiiccpt was first iutroduccd i n the nine-
teenth century and is based on rather simplistic electrostatic
field analysis using a rod-plane type geometry in which the
base o f the tliuudcrcloud is assumed to have a uniform charge
distrihution [15, 2611. More recently the “rolling sphere”
method has heen introduced [14, 16, 122, 178, 2.5811 to esti-
mate protection zones. Although this inethod call be vicwcd
as an cxtcnsion uf the c[)nc-[,f-protectioiiconcept, it goes be-
yond this concept in providing identification of possible at-
tachment points within tlie cone. The rolling sphere method
allows for possihlc lightning strikes to the side of tlie Knipire
State Building, whereas the cone-of-protection does not.
Despite their simplicity, these concepts can he used to
male first order estimates of protection zones arouiid a
lightning rod or an array of lightning rods [ U , 122, 178,
262-2641. However, we would judge that zone-of-protcc-
tion cstiiiiatcs tliat arc derived from electrostatic field calcu-
lations are easily misinterpreted and can lead to exaggerated
or unreaJistic claims about the protection capalilitics of air
terminals (regardless of whether or not they are equipped
with a n ESE device).
Recognizing tliat lightning is a stochastic proccss that ex-
hibits a broad range of hchavior, it has been recoininended
that the simplistic zone-of-protection concept be replaced
with a more realistic statistical dcscriptiun in which, for ex-
ample, the most prohahle (or maximum) striking distance is
displayed graphically as a function of leader or primary
stroke currcnt [22,239, 265, 2661. It has been noted that
striking distances for positive discharges will differ from
those for negative discharges, and that tlie knowledge about
positive striking distances is inadequate [13].
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
 Nevertheless, enough may uow be known about the hc-
havior of lightning and the lightning attachment proccss that
inore sophisticated and statistically meaningful statements
can be made about protection zones than are used presently
[68, 193, 258, 2671.
Recently developed models for calculating striking dis-
tances [73,111, 186,235,237,239-246,2681 could prove
useful, for example, i n determining tlie niaxinium distances
from a terminal at which leaders with particular cliaracteris-
tics (length, charge distribution, and velocity) could enhance
the local electric-field strength enough to allow dcvclop-
mcnt of an upward streamer. Such calculations place an up-
per bound on the size of the protection zone for a terminal
with a given geometry (height) indcpendent of its ESE cliar-
actcristics 12691. Given knowledge (or assumptions) about
enhancement of streamer initiation probability at an ESE
terminal for a particular local field strength, it is conceivable
that reasonable quantitative estimates could bc made of the
incremental increase in liglitning attraction efficiency of ESE
terminals over conventional terminals. No evidence could
be found that this type of analysis has ever been attempted
for ESE terminals. Most of tlie theoretical work 011 striking
distance has been motivated hy the concerns of clcc-
tric-power utilities about lightning strikes to power trans-
mission systems [14,23,236,239-244,2691. Much of what
has been learned from tlie utility work can undoubtedly be
applied to an evaluation of air terminals.
Uncontrollable Factors
One of tlie most difficult prohlerns faced in the design of
air terminals is associated with assessing the influence of 1111-
controllal~lefactors. Included here are the effects of nearby
objects such as trees, builtlings, smoke stacks, etc. Such ob-
jects may not only he sources of corona and therefore spacc
charge [94, 2701; they may also significantly perturb the
electric field within the specified zone-of-protection. In ad-
ditiun to nearby objects, the terrain itself can also be a factor
in deterinining realistic zones of protection. If the effective
zone of protection is extended througli the use of an ESE dc-
vice, then problems of assessing the influence of other ob-
jects and variations in terrain arc also extended.
Flying debris in the vicinity of an air terminal (dust,
leaves, sticks, paper, etc.) may also be of concern, particu-
larly if it can somehow attach to the terminal. This conccrn is
justified because high winds often associated wit11 tliunder-
storms stir up and elevate ground matter and because the
more complex geometries used in the construction of ESE
devices may offer greater opportunities for trapping ground
matter. The effect of flying dchris is an issue that s e e m to be
ignored in tlie literature. On the other hand, no evidence
could be found to suggest that this effect is responsible for
any failures of air terminals to attract lighttiing.
Radiation Hazards
In the case of ESE devices cnipluying radioactive materi-
als, issues have bccn raised about tlie possible radiation Iiaz-
JanuaryiFebruary 2000 -Vol. 16, No, 1
ards to humans that the u s e of thcsc devices present [I 12,
129-132, 135, 2711. As noted above, radioactive air ternii-
nals are banned i n some couutries, presumably because of
perceived health hazards. It has been noted that 241Am
sources used in lightning protection devices are not any
more hazardous than similar sources approved for use in
smoke detectors or static eliminators [104, 112, 1341. Ncv-
ertheless, there are those who argue that the public may be
placed at risk from a proliferation of radioactive materials in
devices that can enter the enviromnent without adequate
contruls [112, 131, 2711.
Damage and Maintenance
Given that ESE devices likely have a structure and associ-
ated instrunientation that arc niorc complex than conven-
tional air terminals, questions can be raised about tlicir
susceptibility to damage during a lightning strike. The elec-
tric current and energy deposited by a lightning stroke can be
sufficiently high to actually melt metallic structnres and de-
stroy electronic components. Tliere arc numerous reports of
damage inflicted hy tlie primary lightning stroke to metal
parts on aircraft, etc. [211, 272-2761, The possibility of
damage means that a lightning protection device may re-
quire periodic inspection and/or niaintenance that is gcner-
ally not required for conventional terminals. Although this
problem is pointed out [105], there seems to he very little
discussion about it in the open literature.
Conclusions
The possible coi~clusioiisthat can be drawn from an ex-
amination of tlie literature are discussed in this section. The
main conclusions of this report are briefly summarized in tlie
Summary of Conclusions.
Due to the paucity of reliable quantitative data from tests
of ESE air termiiials that can be found i n tlie peer-reviewed
literature, it is nearly impossible to make quantitatively
mcaningful statements on the relative pcrforinance uf ESE
devices and conventional Franklin rods. In fact, sufficient rc-
liable quantitative data on the pcrformancc of conventional
rods seen- not to exist. There is, for conventional terminals,
ongoing debate about the best geometry for optimal light-
ning attraction efficiency, for example.
Nearly all of the data found on ESE device performance
resulted either from tests performed by manufacturers of
lightning protection systems or by those directly or indi-
rectly employed by such manufacturers. Altliougli criticism
is published by non-manufacturers about tlie performance of
ESE devices, especially radioactive air terminals, it is seldom
based on actual test data. Those on both sides of the issue iti-
voke lack of evidence in making their case abont the perfor-
mance of ESE terminals. I’roponents of these devices claim
that a lack of credible statistical data on failure of ESE termi-
nals proves their effectiveness, while critics of these tcrmi-
ilals argue that a lack of evidence about tlic improved
perforiiiance of ESE terminals over conventional tcrtninals
proves their incffcctivcn In citlicr case, one must beware
15
of faulry logic, in as much as a lack of cvidciice never proves
tlie lack (if something.
There arc reports of incidents where ESE devices failed to
provide the protectioii specified b y tlie manufacturer [ I h ,
126, 277, 27x1. Statistics on tlie failure of conveutional sys-
t e m have also hccn documented [104]. Wheu examining re-
ports of “failures,” one can always raise questious about
their cause, e.g., whether they are primarily a conseqociice
of exaggerated claims made by tlic manufacturer or a couse-
quencc of misuse (faulty installation) of tlie device. Reports
of isolated failures raise legitimate couccrus, hut are seldom
accoiiipanicd h y eiiough supporting data about the event to
enable a dctcrmination of why tlie failure occurrcd. Gen-
erally it is difficult tu draw significant conclusions from sin-
gle events that cati he used to improve system desigu or
evaluate system perforniancc. There is no reason to believe
that an air terminal is 100% efficient in attracting lightiiing,
regardless of what kind of ESE device it uses, if auy. Con-
sidering the wide range of possible atmospheric conditions
and types of liglittiing behavior that have been recorded, it is
uot surprising tliat air teriniiials of all types will sornetimcs
fail [46,49,53 1. Tall structiircs arc reported to be struck oc-
casionally by lightning at points far below die top, i.e., out-
side of the “protcction zone” 145, 52, 2791. Any claims o l
100%1efficieucy i n the performatice of a lightning attractor
should he viewed with sliepticism. In any case, tlie uicaning
of tlic term “efficiency,” wlieti specified for a n air terminal,
should be clearly defined and understood.
A rcasotiable physical basis fur tlie operation of a11 ESE
device appears to exist in the sense that there is good evi-
dence from laboratory investigatioiis that the ps(hahi1ity of
iuitiatiug a streamer discharge from a11 electrode caii be ill-
creased significantly by irradiation or electrical triggering.
However, tlie precise amomit by which this enhancement in
streamer initiation improves tlie lightning attraction effi-
ciency of an air terminal remains questionable. Thcrc is rea-
sou to doubt tliat it significantly extends the maximum range
of protcctiou. A lightning stroke that would not liit a con-
ventional terminal because of the fact tliat it does not en-
hancc the field at the terminal tip enough to allow streamer
iormatioti will also iiot likely liit a termiiial equipped with a11
ESE device. (The exception would be an ESE device tliat sig-
nificantly iucreases tlie terminal potential during the ap-
proach of a lightning stroke.) In our view, the possible
advantage offered by an ESE device, if operated properly, is
that it helps to iusure that a streamer will be initiated if tlie
field produced hy tlie oucomiiig stroke a t tlie terniiiial bc-
conies sufficietitly great to allow streamer propagation.
When comparing ESE aiid cotiveiitioiial terminals, it is prob-
ably preferable to consider efficiency rather than zoiic of
protectioii as a measure of pcrforinance.
It is possible that tlie increase in liglitiiing attraction effi-
ciency gained from usiug a n ESE device can also be achieved
by simply using a cotiventional termiual of greater height
[113j. There is no iudisputable evidence from the literature
that die range of protectioii offered h y a single ESE terminal
16
cati be greater than or necessarily tlie same as tlie range pso-
vided by two o r more conventional terminals of the same
height with overlapping zoues of protection. On the other
hand, an array of ESE terminals may provide better protec-
tiou than a similar array of coiiveiitional devices. Altliougli
tlie precise amoutit by which the ESE device extends or iiii-
proves the performance of a conveiitioiial terminal is geuer-
ally not known or easily measured; there is no reason to
believe tliat an ESE array will have an iuferior performance.
We would argue that until issues concerning the relative per-
formances of siugle ESE and coiivcntional terniiiials are set-
tled incaningful statements caunot bc made about the
coinpnrative performances of arrays of these terminals.
111geiieral, it can bc presumed that ESE terminals perform
at least as well as conventional tcrmiuals with tlie same geo-
metrical configuration provided, of course, that they are
properly designed to avoid significant coroua formation
during a thunderstorm. In tlie event that an ESE device fails
or hccoines inoperative for some reason, the ESE terminal
sliould revert in its characteristics aiid performance to that of
a conventional tcruiiual with tlic same height, geometrical
configuration, and conuectiou to ground.
Much has been learned about the operation of ESE tcrmi-
iials from laboratory-scale tests to suggest that ESE devices
do indeed etihaiice streamer cmissiou compared to convcn-
tional terminals. However, these results have uot been, and
probably cannot be, used to make quantitative dctcrmina-
tions of the relative cfficieiicies of these terminals for atmo-
spheric conditions utider a thundcrstorm. At tlie present
time, tlie results from a limited tiimiber of field tests with
uatural lightning are inconclusive with respect to providing
estimates of relative efficiencies. It is iiot clear that enough
data call ever be acquired from such tests to draw quaiitita-
tivc couclusions about attraction efficieucy. Tests in the iiat-
ural environment appear to be most useful in identifyiiig and
documenting conditions uuder which ais terminals fail.
Semi-cmpirical models have reccntly hcen developed to
calculate striking distances to lightning conductors. These
models show promise in providiug a method for making re-
alistic estimates of maxiruum protectiou range for air termi-
nals. ‘The maximum extent to which ESE devices enhatice
tlie attsactiou efficiency or increase tlie effective range of
protection of a termitial could conceivably bc iuvestigated
with these models.
Recommendations
Until recently, because there is not much that can be done
to improve tlie design of a conventional liglitning rod, tlicrc
was little motivation to perform complicated tests to evalo-
ate tlic efficiency of these rods as liglimiiig attractors. It has
always been rccoguized that conventional rods soiiietinics
failed and that the rcasons for failure were usually attrihut-
able to tlic complex atid unpredictable uature of tlie light-
ning discharge. With the appearatice oti the market of
competing products (ESE devices that supposedly improve
the attractim cfficieticy of a rod) have come questions about
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
how these new devices work and how they can he tested to
verify their performance. Lightning, in the meantime, re-
mains as complicated as ever, and our understanding of
lightning seems to progress only very slowly. Given this situ-
ation, it is not clear that we can find quantitatively accept-
able answers to questions about the performance of
lightning protection systems any time soon.
Considering the difficulty of the task, we offer the follow-
ing recommendations for future work without being specific
about realistic timetables and expectations:
1. Give priority to developing 11cw methods for calculat-
ing or otherwise determining striking distances and related
zones of protectioii that are more meauingful from a statisti-
cal point of view.
2. Continue and extend laboratory tests to investigate the
effects of relevant parainctcrs such as polarity, space charge,
wind, and humidity OD the streamer initiation probabilities
and propagation from ESE and coiiventioual terminals.
3 . Continue observations of natural lightning in and
around test sites setup with different air terminals in various
locations where the frequency of lightning is knowu to be
high.
4. Compile atid analyze existing and newly acquired sta-
tistical data on tlie behavior of lightning from different loca-
tions and different sources in a central location.
T o enhance credibility, more of the testing and data evalua-
tion should be pcrforined by individuals or organizations
not identified with manufacturers of lightning protection
systems.
Summary of Conclusions
The main conclusions of this report can he summarized in
tlie following statements:
1. Lightning is a complex, chaotic phenomenon that ex-
hibits a broad range of behavior and characteristics that arc
unpredictable. Any theory or assessment of lightniug protcc-
tion devices must take this fact into account.
2. A plausible physical basis exists for ESE devices, in the
scnsc that they can enhance the probability for initiating an
upward propagating streamer, which is directed at an 011-
coining lightning stroke, from an air terminal.
3. Insufficient iiiformation could be found ahout both
ESE and conventional air terminals to allow a ineaningful
comparison of their relative performance i n a natnral clivi-
ronment.
In conclusion, it could be said that there is yet more to bc
learned about lightning and about how lightniug protection
devices work or do not work. The road to better lightning
protection is obviously strewn with controversy and it
would appear that the path to resolution requires more en-
lightenment and less thunder.
Acknowledgments
The study was completed with support from the Technol-
ogy Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce
and was funded in part by the National Fire Protection Ke-
JanuaryiFebruary 2000 -Vol. 16, No. 1
search Foundation. The authors thank Samara Firebaugh for
her contributions to the work.
Richard J. Van Brunt received his B.Sc. in
physics from the University of Florida in 1961
and 1’h.D. in physics from the University of
Colorado-Toint Institute for Lahoratory As-
Group of the Elcctricity Division. He is an IEEE fellow and was
the IEEE Whitehead Memorial Lecturer iii 1994.He has coli-
ducted cxtensive research in atomic and molecular physics,
with an emphasis on gaseous dielectrics, plasma processing,
and partial dischargc detection.
Tom L. Nclson received a B.Sc. in electrical
engineering from North Dakota State Univer-
sity in 1988. In 1988 he joined the Electrical
System Group of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
MD, where he has been working in tlie areas
of precision power and energy measurements.
Kenneth L. Stricklett rcccived his B.Sc. in
mathematics from tlie University of Ne-
braska-Lincoln in 1979, and a M.Sc. and
P1i.D. in physics from the University of Ne-
braska-Lincoln in 1981 and 1987, respec-
tively. He then was a NORCUS post-doctoral
Fellow at the Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
I
.
:y . He has been a researcher at the National Insti-
tute uf Standards and Technology in the Electrical Systems
Group of the Electricity Division since 1989. He is an IEEE
member. He has conducted research in atomic and niolccular
physics and in electrical hreakdown and partial discharge dc-
tection in fluids.
References
1. 11.J. Van Brunt, T.S.. Nelson, and S.L. I’irebaugh, ‘‘Early strcnincr
cinission lighming prorcctioii sysrcms-literature survey and tccliiiicill
evaluation,” NlSTlR 562 I , National Institute of Standards and
l’echaolugy, Jan. 31 1995.
2. “I.ighming reference hihliugtaphy 1936-1949,” American Institute of
Electrical Engineers, 33 Wcst 39th Stveet, New York, NY, Apr. 19SO.
3 . M. Uman and E.P. Kridcr, “A veview of iiatural lightning: Ekperimcutal
data and modeling,” IFEE Trans. Bkctromag, Comp., Vol. EMC-24,
pp. 79-112, May 1982.
4. M. 1. Kalinin, ”Mechanism uf curona-to-spark triinsitim iii long air
gnps,”Sov. Phys.-Tech. l’bys., Vol. IO, pp. 948-95 I, J a n 1966.
5. I<. Klingbeil and D.A. Tidmnn, “Theory and C O I I I ~ U ~ Diiiu&lT of tlw
lightning stepped Icadcr,”]. Gco. Res., Vol. 79, pp. 865-X69, 1:cb. 20
1974.
6. L.B. S.ocb, “ C o n h i n r i o n and cxtcnsion of n proposed mcchanisiu of the
stepped leader lightning strokc,”]. Geo. Res., Vol. 73, pp. 58 13-5817,
Sept. IS 1978.
7. 1. Gallimberti, “ A c o q m t e r model for stiemier prupngatii,n,”J. Phys. I):
Appl. Phyi., Vol. 5, pp. 2179-2189, 1972.
8. J.M. Mcrk, “A rhcory of spark dischargc,” Phys. Rev., Vol. 57, pp.
722-728, A ~ i s~ 1940. .
17
9. Y.T. Lin, M.A. Unum, and R.B. Standler, “1,ightning vetum stroke
mociris,=j. G ~K ~~S vol. , . 85, pp, 1571~1583,~ ~20 1980. r .
10. R. Thottappillil and M.A. Umnn, “1.ightning I’ctwn stroke model with
height-variable discharge time constant,” /. Geo. Res., Vol. 99, pp.
22773-22780, Nov. 20 1994.
11. 11.J. Van Bmnt, “Physics md chemistry of partial discharge and
corona-Recent advances and future challcngcs,” I
Electr. Insul., Vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 761-784, 1994.
12. R.H. Golde, Lightning Conductor, Vol. 2. Acadeinic Press, New York,
1977.
13. I1.H. Golde, “Lightning a n d tall structumS,” 11iE I’roc., Vol. 125, pp.
347-351, Apr. 1978.
14.1<.H. LCC,“Protcctian zone for buildings against lightning stmkcs using
trnnmiission linc protcction practice,” IEEE Trans. lid. App., Vol.
IA-14, pp. 465-470, Nov. /Dec. 1978.
15. W.H. Prercr, “On the space pratcctcd by a light~~ing-clind~Icror,” Phi.
Mag. J. Sci., Vol. 10, pp. 427-430, July-Dec. 1880.
16. D. Mackerras, M. Darveniza, and A.C. Iiew, ”Standad and now
standard lightning protection methods,”/. Elcc. Electr. Rng. Australia,
Vol. 7, pp. 133-140, Junc 1987.
17. M. Khalcrl, “Computation of COIOIEI onset using thc ring-chnrgc
method,” IEE Proc., Vol. 122, pp. 107-11 1, Jan. 1975.
18. M. Meiies and L.H. F i s h , “l’ositive point-to-plane COIUIII studies in
air,”Phys. Rev., Vol. 94, pp. 1-6, Apv. I , 1954.
19. C.G. Morgan, “Irradiation and time lags,” in Electrical Urmkdotun of
Gases (J.M. Mcck andJ.D. Cmggs, eds.), pp. 6 5 5 - 6 8 8 , Ncw York, N Y
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1978.
20. R.B. Carpenter, Jr., “Lightning prcvcnti~,n-Practicnl and pSOVe11,”
Measuremorts atrd Data, Vol. 10, pp. 90-96, Jan. /Feb. 1976.
21. J. Hughes, “Review of lightning prorcctiuii technology for tall struct-
ures,’’ tech. rep., Office of Naval Ilesearch, Arlington, Virginia, Jan. I ,
1977.
22. R.H. Goldc, “The lightning cmductor,”/. Frati. Inst., Vol. 283, pp.
451-477,June 1967.
23. M.A. Coodlet, “Lightning,”/. Inst. Elect. E,rg.,Vol. 81, pp. 1-2l,July
2937.
24. M A . Uman, “Natural lightning,”IEEB Trans. h d . App., Val. 30, trio. 3,
pp. 785-790, 1994.
25. M.A. Uman, The Lightning Discharge, Vol. 39. Academic Press, Inc.,
New York, NY, 1987.
26. C.F. Wagner and G.D. McCann, “Lightning phenomena,” Ulec. h g . ,
pp. 1-35, Aug.-Oct. 1941.
27. K. Bergcr, “Measurcmcnts and results of the lightning invrstigatim of
the years 1955-1963 on Mount San Snlvatare,” Ilull. SwissUlektrr,tcch.
Ver., Vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 1-23, 1965.
28. C.E.R. llruce and K.H. Golde, “The lightning discharge,"/. Inst. I<lec.
E q . 11,Vol. 88, pp. 487-520, Dec. 1941.
29. V. Cooray and 61. Perez, “Some featiircs of lightning flashes observed i n
swrcien,~’j. G ~ ” K. ~ ~vol.
. , 99, I’p. i 0 6 8 3 - 1 0 6 8 ~M~~
, 20 1994.
30. J.H. Hagenguth, “Photographic study of lightning,” Traits. Ain. Inst.
Elec. Eng., Vol. 66, pp. 577-585, 1947.
31. J.H. Hagcnguth and J.C. Anderson, “Lighming to the Empirc Stntc
Building Part 111,” Trans. Am. brst. E I a . Enfi., Vol. 71, Aug. 19.52.
32. J. Hojo, M. Ishii, T. Kawamura, F. SuLoki, H. Komoro, and H.
Shiogama, "Seasonal variation oi cloud~to~gruondlightning flnsh
characteristics in thc coastal area of the Sea ofJapan,”]. Gcu. Res., Vol.
94, pp. 13207-13212, Sept. 30 1989.
33. V. Mazur, “Lightning channel properties dctcnnincd with n ucrtic;dly
pointing doppler radar,” J. CLO.Res., Vol. 90, pp. 6165-6 174, Juoc 30
1985.
18
34. K.B. McEachron, ”lightning to tlic F,mpirc Statc Iluilding,” ‘ l h n s . Am.
Inst. ~ 1E S ~~ .vUi.
, ~ 60, . pp 885-889, scpt. 1941.
3 5 . R.F. Orvillc and V.P. Idone, “Lightning leader clialacteiistics i n die
thutidcrstonn rcsenich international program (TRIP),” /, Geo. Iles.,
vol. 87, I I 177.1 I 192, DCC. 20 1982.
36. H.M. ‘ I ’ l m n s ~ n“Characteristics
, of Port Morrsby gmond flashes,” /.
c ; ~ K~~ . ~ vol.
. , 8.5, I,l,, 1027.1036, pel,. 20 19x0.
37. G,W, Trichel, “The mechanism uf tlic point-tu-planc C U I U ~ iii air at
atllluSphC~KprCSSWC,”I’hyS. Re”., Vol. 5 5 , pp. 382-399, 1939.
38. 1I.J.Van Brunt and S.V. Kulkami, “Stochastic propcnics of Trichel-
pulse corona: A noti-Mhlnrkovian mndoni point proccss,” I’hys. Rev. A,
vol.42, p p 4908-4932, Oct. 15 IWO.
39. K.N. B a r d and D. ~Mackerras, ‘‘l’usitiue cloud~to~groond lightning
discharges i n Kathmaitdu thondel-srorms,” /. (;eo. Res., Vol. 28, pp.
103.3 1.10340, Jone 20 1993.
40. K.F. Orvillc, “Cl~,ud-t~,-gn,oi,‘Ilightning flash charactwistics iii tlic
cuntigoous Uoitcd Statcs: 1989-1991,” /, Ceo. Res., Vol. 99, pp.
JOX33~10841,May 20 1994.
41. W. Bcaslcy, ”Positive cloud-to-grouud lightning obsevvations,”]. Gea.
iles., v0i. 90, 6131.6138, J,,I.. 30 1985.
42. C.G. Kittcrmnn, ”Cliaractcristics of lightning from frontal systeni
thonilcr\tornls,” eo. R ~ s . VOI., 8 5 , pp. 5503-5505, 0ct.20 19x0.
43. S. Szpor, “Comparison of I’olish versus Ainericnn liglitning ~.ecards,”
IEEE Tuairs. Power App. Sys., Vol. PAS-88, pp. 646-652, May 1969.
44. W. Janischewvskgi, A.M. Hossein, 1.’ Dziurewicz, and V. Slmatak,
“CI~~,l.nctel.ization of the C L I I T C I I ~wavefront parameters of lightning
strikes to the CN Towel- i n Toronto,” i n 8th Iirtenmtiurial Symposium
on l~lighVoltage Enginccrifil’I.ocecdrnfis, Vol. 3 (Yakahama,Jnpnn),pp.
221-224, IKP. of]apan, Ang. 23 1993.
4.5. I<,ll, McEacliron, “Lightning to the Empire Srate Building,” J. Frati.
Inst., Vol. 227, pp, 149-217, Pch. 1939.
46. K. Rerger, “Nwcl ohscrvations 011 liglitiiing discharges: Results of
rraral-cl~~inMr~untSanSalvatorc,”J.Fran.lnst.,Vol. 283,pp.478-525,
June 1967.
47. M.A. Snrgcnt, ”Thc frcqucncy distdmtion of CLirrciit (magnitudes of
lightning strokcs to tall structiircs,” I’oioer App. Ys.,Vol.
11~a>~s.
PAS-91, pp, 2224~2229,Sept. /Oct. 1972.
48. B.F.J. Schanland, “lkvelopment of tlir lightning diachnrgr,” Nut., Vol.
1.32, pp. 407.408, Sept. 9 1933.
49. A. Uman, W.H. lleasley, J.h.‘Tiller, Y. Lin, B.P. Kridel-, C.D. Wcid-
mai~n,P.ll. Krchbicl, M. llraok, A.A.J. Few, J.1,. Ilohannon, C.L.
Lcnnun, H.A. Pochlcr, W.Jnffcris, J.R. Chilick, and ].I<. Nicholson, “An
uiiiis~iallightning flash at Kcnncdy Spacc Ccntcr,” Sci., Vol. 201, pp.
9-16, July 7 1978.
50. T.L. Teer and A.A. I’ew. “1 lorirunral liehtnina.” . ”_, 1. Geu. Res., Vol. 79.
pp. 34.36-3441, i\ug. 20 1974.
51. R.P.Kridcr, “An i i i i i i s ~ a lphotogrnpli of i i t i iiit lightning disclwge,”
Wea., Vol. 29, pp. 24-27, 1974.
12,A.M. Muosa, “Effcct of hcight of stmctwc on tlic striking distance o i a
downward lightning flash,” i n Proceedings of bitemational
Conr,nu,iications & Enerm Conference (Montreal, Quehcc), pp. 9-1 4,
IEEE Publication No. CH20412, Oct. 1 1994.
5 3 . 1I.E. Orvillc and K. Ilcrger, “hn ~ I ~ U S L I P lightning
I flash iniriated by a n
upw.,rd-i”-”l’agatilig leader,” J. Gco. Iles., Vol. 78, pp. 4520-4525, July
20 1973.
54. K.W. Williams, ‘‘TIE rlccrrificatioii of thondcrstorms,” Sci. Am., pp.
xn-99, NOV. 1988.
5 5 . M.F. Borisov, E A . Zobov, and 1.G. Litvioova, “Lateral nun-unifurmity
iii rhc glow oi a Ihigli-power spark channel,” Elektrichestva, pp. 66-68,
Oct. 1991.
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
( 6 . V. Luncv, “Luminous balls in Sihcria a i d the Far Fast: I’l~cn~~mctlology, 78. b’, Ileidler, “Lcrnp cakulatim and lightning cwrcnt fonction,” in 8th
cxpcrimcnt, liy~~~’thrsis,”Sov.l’hys.].,Vol.35,pp.256-274,May 1992.
tekolnikov, “Study of liglitning and lightning protection,” tech.
vep., I’oreign ‘Technology Division, Wright-Pnttcrson AFD, Feb. 18
I9XX.
S X . K. Yasui, “Plnsmn fircballs fed hy ~iiicrowrlvcs,”Phys. Lctt. A, Vol. 173,
pp. 45 1-455, Pel). 22 1993.
59. A. Bondiou and 1. Gallimberti, “Theorcticnl modelling of the dcvclop-
ment of the posirive spark i n lung gaps,”], I’hys. D:AbpI I’hyr., Vol. 27,
pp. 1252-1266, 1994.
60. M.M. Kekez and P. Snvic, ”I.abaratorysimuIatii,n of thc StCpped leader
in lightning, ’’ Can. J. Phys., Vol. 54, pp. 2216-2224, Nov. 15 1976.
6 1 . 5 R. Khastgir, “Lcadcrstrakecurrent innlightningdischargeaccording
to thc strcaiiwr tlieory,” Phys. Rev., Vol. 106, p p 616-617, M t y 15
1957.
62. C.T. Phclps, “l’ositive streamer systcm intcnsificstion and its possiblc
role in lightning itiitiation,”]. Atin. ‘1i.r. Phys., Vol. .36, p p 103-111,
1974.
63. B.F.J. Schonland, U.J. Maln, and H. Collens, “l’rugrcssivc lightti-
ing-11,” Puoc. Roy. Soc. Lotid. A, Val. 152, pi’. 59.5-625, 1935.
64. S. Srpur, “Relaxation tllcory of the lightning StCppCd Icader,” I j I d / .
Assoc. SuisscElcctr., Val. 68, pp. 1293-1296, Dcc. 1977.
65. S. Szpor, “Rcview of the theories of thc liglitoing iiiaiii dischnrgc,”
Axhiwum Hick-trotechniki, Vol. 26, W . 2, pp. 279-290, 1977.
6 6 . C.F. Wagner and A.R. I-lileman, “Thc liglitning stroke-11,’’ Trans. Am.
lmt. Elcc. Ens., 111, Vol. SO, p p 622-642, Oct. 1961.
67. S. Yokoyania, K. Miyake, T. Suzuki, and S. Kanso, “Wintcr lightniiig on
Japan Sea const: Dcrelopmcnr of orcnsuring system 011 progressing
featorc of lightning discharge,” 1EEE Trans. Power I)eliuc?y, Vol. 5 , pp.
1418-1425, July 1990.
68. C.F. Wagner and A.R. Hilcmnn, “‘l’he lightning srrokc,” ‘li-nnr. Am.
Inst. E l m . ERR.,111, Vol. 77, pp. 229-242, Junc 1958.
69. T.F.. Allihnne and J.M. Mcck, "The development of tllc spark din-
chargc,”Proc.Roy.Soc.I.u,id.A,Vol. l66,pp. 97-126,June 16 1938.
70. T.E. Allibone and J.M. Meek, “‘lhc ~lcvclopmentof tlir spark dis-
charge-11,” I+m. I<oy Soc. L m d . A, Vol. 169, pp. 246-268, Mar. 7
1939.
71. K.H. Galdr, “Occorrencc afupwardstreninrl-s i n Iighttringdischargrs,”
“ z t , ,Vol. 160, pp. 395-396, SCpt. 20 1947.
72. 7. Shindo, Y. Ailiara, ;md 7‘. Suzuki, “Mudcl cxpcvimcnl of u p w d
leaders-Shielding effccts of tall obiccts,” I Trans. Power Ileliuery, 94. R.B. Stnndler and W.1’. Winn, “Effccts of C W O ~ ~ on
Vol. 5, pp. 716-723, Apr. 1990.
73. M. Abdcl-Salam, M.T. El-Mohnndes, C. Bcrger, and B. Senouci, “Onset
criterion of u p ~ streamers
~ d from a Franklin rod,” J. Elcctroslalrcs,
Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 45-59, 1989.
74. I.. Nicineyer, L. I’ictroncru, and H.J. Wiesmnnn, “Fractal dimcnsioii of
diclcctric breakdi,wn,”Phys. Rcu. I.eif.,Vol. .SI, pp. 1033-1036, Mar.
I 9 19x4.
75. 1. Arima, T. Wat;,niibe, N. ‘likagi, atid M. Kakilinm, “Exprrimcntal
study of thc corona cliratli ciirrcnt in lightning rrtiirii stroke,” iii IX
Intcnintionul Confuence on Gas Discharge and their Applicirtioiis
(Venice, Italy), pp. 431-434, Sept. 19 1988.
76. I.J. Cnylor, V. Chandrascknr, V.N. Rrhgi, and S.S. Miogcr, “Multi-
paramcrcr radar ohsewations of lightning,” in liiternatioiral Confere,rce
oit Radar Meteorology ( N ~ r r n m ,OK USA), pp. 306-308, Amcricnn
Meteordogicnl Socicty, ‘1993.
77. A.S. Gayvaratisky and K.V. Karasyiik, “Nunierical m o d c l of liglitning
lender uricntntim on a tl.aiisinissim liiic,” iii 8th lntematianal
,Symposium on High Voltage Eriginccriiifi Proceedings, Vol. 3
(Ybkohama, Japan), pp. 277-2S0, IEli of Japan, t\ug. 23 1993.
JanuaryiFebruaiy 2000 -Vol. 16, No, 1
lntemntional Symposium on HiRh Voltqe Lhgimcri,i,q l’roceediiigs, Vol.
4 (Yakohnina, Japan), pp, 237-240, IEE of Japsn, Aug. 23 199.3.
79. R.1:. Criffiths and C.T. P I M ~ s “A , iiiodcl for lightning initiarioii arising
from positive C O I . O strcainer ~ deuclopmcnt,”]. GEO.Kcr., Vol. 81, pp.
3671.3676, jUiy20 1976.
80.B. Vonnegot, “l‘lw atnmsphriic clectl-icity paradigm,” Uti11 Am. Met.
Sac., Vol. 75, pp. 53-60, Jan. 1994.
8 1 , P.R. I<rchhicl, M. Brook, and K.A. McCrory, “hn analysis of t l i c cli:irge
structure of lightning discharges to gronnd,”]. Geo. l<es., Vol. 84, pp.
2432-2456, May 20 1979.
82. J . A Cldmem, “l’i,inrdischnigc CIIII.CII~S,”], A m . Ter. I’hyr., Vol. 2, pp.
301-305, 1951.
83. C.B. Moore, “Improved configur.itims of lightning rods and air
tmniiials,”]. Fvarr. litst., Vol. 315, pp. 61-85,Jnn. 1983.
84. A.A. Barncs, ”Prcdicting triggercd lightning,” i n Intenmtional Con-
ferciice on 1,ightaingnndStnticBIcctricity (Bath, U.K.), Scpt. 2X 1989.
XS. M.M. Newman,J.R. Srahmano, a n d J.D. Robb, ”Expcrimcotnl s t d y of
triggered ~ i a t ~ i l aliglitning
l dischal-gcs,” t d i . rep., Fcdcral Aviation
Administl-arion, I’rujcct Nu. 520-002-03X, 1967.
86. E.R. Williams, C.M. Cookc, and K.A. Wright, ‘”l‘hc rolc of clcctric
spacrchargein noclcarlight~~ing,”].Geo. I<Es.,VOI.93,pp. 1679-1688,
Fcb. 20 19XX.
X7. E.K. Williams, C.M. Couhc, and K.A. Wright, ”Elcctrical dischargc
propagation in and al-ound spacc chargc clo~ls,”]. Geo. Res., Vol. 90,
pp. 6059-6070, J ~30 ~198s. c ~ ~
88. R.B. Rent, H.L. Collin, W.C.A. Ilutchinsun, and J.A. C h ; h ~ c v s “Spacc ,
chargcs produced by point dischnrgc fnnn trces during a
, ” , ” ]Ter.
t l , ~ , , , d ~ ~ ~ t ” ~ Atm. , Pl?ys., Vul. 27, p p 67-72, 196.7.
X9, J.A. Clislmers, “Point-dischargc curiiints rhrougli n living trec during a
thondcrstorio,”]. Atm. Ter. Wys., Vol. 24, pp. 1059- 1063, 1962.
90. D. Mulle~-Hillebl-ai~d, “Changc in t h c pnth of lightning by ionizing
radiation and spacc chargcs,” Blekirorrische Z. Aas& A, Vol. 83, p p
152-157, 1962.
91. H. Norindcr and II. Siksna, ‘‘Ionic density of the attnorpheric air inear
the ground during tliondcr-stow conditions,” Ark. Genfys., Vol. I, p p
453-472, Dec. 6 1950.
92. B.A. J ~ C O ~ S O and I ? F,.P. Kvidcr, “Elecrroirstic field changes produced by
Ihridn lightning,”J. Atm. Sci.. Vol. .ii, pp. 103-117,lan. 1976.
93. F,.P. Kridev and J.A. Musser, “Manwcll cwiciits ~ i i i d c rthundel-stulma,”
I. Geu. Res., Vol. X7, pp. I 1 1 7 J ~ l 1 1 7 6 Dec. , 20 1982.
C electric ficlda
henearh tlilllldCI.stOiills,” Quart. .I. Iloy. Met. Sac., Vol. 105, pp.
285-302, 1979.
95. T. Tali;ihahi arid Y.Sugiooma, “Effect of gmond stiiictiirc t i n iiiipiilsc
disch;irgc,” i n Xth lirternational Symposiuiiz on HiRh Vidtagc
Eiiginccring Proceedings, Vol. 3 (Yokohams, Japan), pp. 40 1-404, ILL
of Jspan,Aug. 23 1993.
96. D.W. Zipsc, “Lightning prorectiun systcms: Advantages and disad-
vantages," iii I’roceediir~sof the1 Petroleum and C h c m i d Irrdustry
TcchnicalCu,*f~.rence(St. I.ouis,MOIISA),p. 343,IEEE,Scpt. 13 1993.
9 7 . 0 . AlconchrlsndB. Thirion, “Study o f a type olcarlystrrsincr ciiiissioii
lightning condiictor,” i n WoAshup un Physics of IightninR ((:hamunix,
I’l-ance), Fch. 2 1993.
98. A.M. Cassie, ”The efirct of a iadioactivc sowcc 011 the path uf a
lightning strdcc,” tcch. ~ p . Elcctrical , Ilescarch Association, Surrey,
UK, 1969.
99. J.I;,.Ilobel-ts, “Ionizing radiation and lightning hazards,” Nut., Vol. 21 0,
pp. 5’14-515, AI^. 30 1966.
100. j.5. Cheng, “RC circuit tmodel 01 liglmiing b e a m on a very tall
structuve,” in Hbctiornqnctic C:oirrpz,nlibilily 1984 Scuexth
19
 lntematiunal \Vawnrsaw Symposium (Warsaw, I’oland), pp. 183-193,
Warsaw Technical University (Warsaw, Poland), June 18 1984.
101, T. Shindu and Y.Aihara, “Shielding theory for upward lightning,”
Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 8 , pp. 318-324, Jan. 1993.
102, G. Bcno, “USCof ionization in the air for light~~ingp~otection,”Isotiip.
Rad. Tech., Vol. 8, pp. 178-1x0, Winter 1970-71.
103. J.R. Gumley, C.G. Invernizzi, M. Khaled, and C.W. WalIhauscn,
“Coaxial lightning protectiun for land and marine telecommrmi-
cations,” Com. I,,/., Vol. 4, pp. 52-55, Sept. 1977.
104. J.R. Gomley, C.G. Invernirzi, M Khalctl, and C.W. Wallhausen,
“Nuclear lightning protectioii and the new coaxial lightning protection
system,” tech. rcp., Nuclear Regulatory Commissiun-in rcpt.
“Radioactivity in Cunsumcr Products,” 1978.
105. L. Lefort, P. Bailloz, M. Lefort, and B. Lamhin, “Method and
apparatus for protection against lightning,” June 21 1988.
106. L.M. Ball, “The laser lightning rod system: Thunderstorm domesti-
cation,”Appl. Opt., Vol. ‘13, pp. 2292-2296, Oct. 1974.
107. AA. Barnes and R.O. Ilerthel, “Survey of laser lightning rod techiii-
qucs,” in Inteniatiowal Conference ott Lightning and Static Electricity
(Cocoa Rcach, FL), Aug. 21 1991.
108. T. Shinda and S. Sasaki, “Devehpmcnt of laser techndogy for
lightning induction,” , l.
Inst. Elect. Eng. Japan, Vol. 1 11, pp. 739-746,
Sept. 1991.
109. S. Uchida, Y. Shimada, C. Yarnnnakn, E. Fujiwara, Y. Izawa, T.
Yamanaka, S. Nakai, D. Wang, Z.1. Kawasaki, K. Marsuura, T. Nagai,Y.
Sonoi, and N. Shirnokura, ‘‘Laser triggered lightning cxpcriments iii t h e
laboratory,” i n 8th Iirtcmational Symposium on lfigh Voltage
lhginecring l’xmrcccdings, Vol. 3 (Yokohama, Japan), pp, 313-316, IEE
of Japan, Aug. 23 1993.
110. T.P. Chew, “Some aspects of the lightning protcctioii mechanism and
radioactive lighming rods,”]. Inst. Hng., illalaysia, Vol. 31, pp. 58-67,
June/l)ec. 19x2.
I l l . T.P. Chew, ”The mechanism of lightaingprotection,”Master’s thesis,
University of Mnlaya, Faculty of Engineering, Sept. 1979.
112. A.A. Moghissi, P. Paras, M.W. Carter, and 1I.F. Ilarker, “Radioactivity
in C O I ~ S U I ~ products,”
I tech. rep., Nncleat Rcgiilatory Coinmissinn,
1978.
113. K.P. Iieary,A.Z. Chaherski,S. Gumley, J.K. Gumley, F. Richens,aiid
J.H. Mornn, “An cxperimental study of air terininal pcrformance as a
function of geomerrical shapcs,” in French-Japanese Workshop
(Dcauvillc, France), p p 1-7,July 15 1989.
114. K.P. I-leary,A.Z. Chaberski,S. Gum1ey.J.R. Gumley, F. Richens,aiid
J.H. Moran, “An experimental study of ioniring air terminal
Power Engineering Society (Porrland, Oregon),
J d y 24 1988.
115. K.P. Hcary,A.Z. Chabcrski,S. Gumley,J.R. Gumlcy, F. Richcns,and
J.H. Mol-sn, “An exprrimcnral study of ionizing air rcrmiiiill
performance,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 4, pp. 1173-11 84,
Apr. 1989.
116. K.P. Hcary, AZ. Chaherski, F. Richcns, and J.H. Moran, ”An
cxpcrimcotal study of corona-ion current uf air terminals,” in 2nd
Inrernational Cmrfermce ox Applied Electrostatics (Bcijing, China), pp.
349-354, Nov. 4 1993.
117. K.1’. Heary, A.Z. Chabcrslii, F. Richcns, and J.H. Moran, “Early
streamer emissim eiihanccil air tcrininnl QCrfOrCnmCe and zunc of
protection,” in I’raceedings ofthc I S Industrial and Commercial
Power Systems Anrrual Technical m e (Sr. I’etcrsburg, PL), pp.
118. H. Baatz, “Radioactive isotopes do not improve liglitiiingprotection,”
Elektrotechnide Z.A, Vol. 93, pp, 101-104, Fcb. 1972.
20
119. R.U. Bent, “Lighmingprotectioii for huildings, rowen and personnel,”
Annual 7extile Iirdustry Conference 1986 (Charlotte, NC),
IEEE (avail. from IEEE Service Cent. Cat. Nunher 86CH2320-0.
Piscatnway, NJ), May 7 1986.
120, C. Bouquegnean, “The value of radioactive lightning conductors,”
Fire Pev., Vol. 172, pp. 28-30, 1984.
121, B.J.C. Burrows, “Rcvicw of alternative systems,” i n Lightning I ’ m
tection Seminar Proceedings (Leatherhead, UK), pp. 3.311-7, ERA
T ~ ~ I D ~ K~ 1 ~1987.
~ I o ~ ~ ,
122, B.J.C. Burrows, “Thc Franklin rod-An update,” in IEE Conference
Publication no. 2.16, pp. 41-46, Itistitutioii of Elcctrical Engineers, UI<,
1984.
123. A. Corvino, “Lightning protection for building structiires,” Elettrifi-
caziotie, pp. 493.501, NOV. 1982.
124. R.H. Golde, “Protection of structures against lightning,” Proc. Inst.
Elect. Eng.-Cont. Sci.,Vol. 115,pp. 1523-1529, Oct. 1968.
125, P. Leoni, ”Radioactive isotopes do not improve lightiiing caiidiictor
performance,” Elcttrificazionc, pp. 227-233, May 1973.
126. W. Rison, “A study of lightning strikes in the vicinity of a radioacrivc
preventor,” tech rep., Ncw Mcxico Tech, 1.angmuir Laboratory,
Socorro, New Mexico 87801, 1991.
127. W. Rison, “A cumpariron of rhc corona current from a radioactive and
noo-radioacrive prevrntur,” tcch rcp., Ncu, Mcxico Tech, Langmuir
Laboratory, Socurro, Ncw Mcxico 87801, 1991.
128. H.I.. Suibelaon, “Do lightning arresrers with B radioactive tcmsinittel’
provide a wider field of prutccriun rhan Franklin lightning arresters?,”
R ~ VElectrotec.,
. VOI. 64, pp. ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ s , J L1978.I I ~ ~ A L I ~ .
129, M.D. Vuela, ”The radioactive lightning cuoducror,” Rev. Electrotec.,
Vol. 75, pp. 115-120, MaylJunc 1989.
130. M. Belli, M. Cremuncsc, and S. Grcco, “Hcalth implications of the
risks connected with die use of americium 24 I for IightiiiiigpTOtCCti”,,,”
tech. rep., Istituto Sopcriore di Siinita, Rome, Dec. 10 1975.
13 I,M. Belli, P. Salvadori, E. Sgrilli, and A. Susanna, “Public hcaltb aspects
in the use of vadium-226 and americiom-241 in liglitning rods,” tech
rcp., Nuclear Regulatory Commission-in rept. “Radioactivity in
c ~ ~ ~ sProciucts,”
~ I ~ I c1978.
~
132. G. Bcsscghini and F. Zampioi, “Radioprurection i n the iiistallntioii of
lightning-rods cquippcd with radioactive SOLIKCS,’’ C. /:is. Sunitar.
Prota. Contro Rad., Vol. 18, pp. 80-87, Jan.-June 1974.
133. PJ. Gillespie, ”Ionizing radiation: A putential lightning hnzard?,”
Nat., Vol. 208, pp. 577-578, Nov. 6 1965.
134. P.D. Marliovic and I).Ristic, “Rarlionctivc lightning rad with gamma
soiirccs and radiation problem of individuals a i d population,” Tchnika,
~ 0 1 . 3 6NO.
, 9 , p p . 1331-1334, 1981.
D.R. Nikezic and P.D. Markovic, “A Monte Carlo calculation of the
eapusure dose due to thc radionctivc lightniiig rod,” Acta Phys. l-len.,
vol.59, N ~1,. 91-93,198s.
136. G.N. Alcksandrov, G. Bergcr, niid C. Gary, “New investigations in t h c
lightning protection of substations,” in CIGRE, pp. 23/13-14, 1994.
137. G. Bcrgcr, “Detcrmination of the inception electric ficld of tlic
lightning upward leader,” in 8th Intentarionnl Symposiim on HiRh
Voltage E,igineering Proceediiigs, Vol. 3 (Yokohama, J”pU1). pp.
225-228, IEE of Japan, Aug. 23 1993.
138. G. Bcrger, “Enrlystresmer emission lightning rodconductor,”in 1992
Internotiom1Aerospace and Cround Co,rferertcc oil Lightning and Static
Electricity (Atlanric City, NJ), pp. 38:1-9, Oct. 6 1992.
139. G. Berger, “Formation of the positive leader of long air sparks for
various types of rad conductor,” in 22nd lntemational Conference on
Ligi,tningP~,,tectiotr (Budapest, Hungary), pp. 43-46, Scpr. 1 1994.
140, G. Bergcr, A. Goldman, B. Senouci, and M. Goldman, ‘%me basic
idees to iinpruvc lightning interception.” undated preprint.
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
141. S. Bursteiii and E. Mnriana, “Active and passive lightning protcctian,”
Rev. Elcctuotcc., Vol. 76, pp. 143-152, Sept. /Oct. 1990.
142.Y. Aihara,T. Shindo, M.Miki, and?’. Sumki, “Laser-goidcd discharge
dimncteristics of lung air p p s and ohservatioil of thc discliargc
pvoccsscs,”hlec. h g . ] a p a n , Vol. 113, p p 66-77, June 15 1993.
143. A.S. Gayvaronsky, A.G. Ovsyannikuv, and J.M. Razhansky,”A preven-
tion o f the long spnrk Icadcr chnnncl turning hy laser rsdiatiun,” in 8th
Intematiunal Symposium on High Voltage fingineering I’roce.editq+, Vol.
3 (Yokoliama, Japan), pp. 317-320, 1F.E ofJapan, Aug. 23 1993.
144.J.K. <+reig,l<.F, ~crnslcr,D.P.Murpl~y,R.E.Pechacek,J.I’enn,andM.
Raleigh, “l.aser-guided rlectric discharges in the ntnmosphrre,” iii
Seventh International Coirfercnce on Gar Discharges and their
Applications (Lundun, UK), p p 464-467, Aug. 3 I 1982.
145.J.R. Grcig, D.P. Murphy, 1I.E. I’echacek,M. Ralcigh, E. Lnikio, andS.
Hiuvcr, “Pulsed power considerations for lascr guidcd discharges and
thcir applications,” in 5th I I’ulsed Power Conference (Arlington,
VA), pp, 586.589, June 10,1985.
146. J.R. Cveig, R. Pechscek, M. Raleigh, I.M. Vitkovitsky, J. Halle, and R.
Feruslev, “Interaction uf laser-induced imii7ation with electric fields,”
in AlAA Fluid & I’lasina Uynaiizics Coiifcrence (Snowtnaes, C O ) , pp.
Pap. 80-13R0, July 14 198U.
147. M. Mirohaahi, H. Miyata, C. Sakae, 1’.Sakei, and T. Uchiyama,
“Triggering lightning by lascr produced plasma,” in Conference on
Lascrsn,,dElcctro-Optics (Ualtimore,MD),pp.310-313,Apl..24 1989.
148. C. Honda, M. Naliarawa, T. Takuma, K. Uchino, K. IMuraoka, P.
Kinosliita, 0.Karahira, and M. Akazaki, “A study on laser-induced
discharge in atmospheric air (U),” in 8th lntenintionul Symposium on
High Voltage Engineeriiig I’roceedings, Vol. 3 (Yokohama, Japan), pp.
289.212, IEE of japan, A U ~23 . 1993.
149. G.Iinada,’I. Korodii, T. Ohmumo, K. Saiki, K. Masugnta, K.Yatsui,T.
Yasuota, S. ‘I‘amagawa, S. Satoh, and T. Cotoh, “l’olsc-power
technology and its applications to artificial coiitrol of lightning,” in 8th
hrternational Symposium an High Voltage Engineering Proceedings, Vol.
3 (Yokohama, Japan), pp. 309-3 12, IEE of Japan, Aug. 23 1993.
150.M. Ivis,T. Shinkai, K.Araki,andS.YosI,ik;,w~,,“TemporeIdrcayuf811
ntmosphcnc plasma leader strole for lightning mitiation,” in
Procccdirtgs of the Tenth Ixternatiuiral Coiiference on Gas Discharges
and their Applications, Vol. 2 (Swansea, UK), pp. 576-579, Sept. 13
1192.
151. R. Itntani, M. Kuho, M. Jinw, G. Nagana, Y. Son& and 7. Nagai,
“Fundamental irsrsrcli UII lascr triggcrcd lightning using a new
rcchniqoc,” in 8th lnlernational Symposium mi High Voltiige
h g i m e r i x g Proccediqs, Val. 3 (Yokohama, Japan), pp. 301-304, IRE
of Japan, Aug. 23 1993.
152. M. Miki, Y. Ailiara, mid T. Shindo, “Development o f long gap
clischavges giiided by a pulsed CO1 laser,”]. I’hys. 11: Appl. Phys., Vol.
26, pp. 1244-1252, Aug. 14 1993.
1.53. K. Nakamura, T. Suzuki, C. Ymiabe, ;and K. I-loni, “Fundnmcntnl
rrsea~clifor lightning trigger experiment hy wing UV lascrs,” Trans.
Inst. E I ~ CE % ~jnpafr,
. B, vol. 1 1 3 ,p p 126.5-1273, N””. 1993.
1.54. 1’.Sbindo, Y. Aihsrs, M. Miki, and T. Suzul<i, “Model experiments uf
laser-triggeved lightning,” IEEE Tram. Power Ileliuery, Vol. 8, pp.
311-317,Jan. 199.3.
155. T. Shindu, M. Miki, Y. Aihara, and A. Wada, “A study of laser-trig-
gcred lighming-calculafion of plasma generation along a l a m beam,” in
8th Intematiowd Symposium mi High Voltage Engineering Proceedings,
Vol. 3 (Yokohama, Japan), pp. 30.5-308, IEE of Japan, Aug. 23 19Y.3.
156. H. Takeno, M. Cho, K. Ohm, S. Nakamoto, and K. Araki, “Basic
experiment on r ~ t i i i ~ t iuf~ nlightning by laser indiiced discliargc i i i
cloud,” iii Xth Intcmatio,ial Symposium on High Voltage Engiirecring
JanuaryiFebruary 2000 -Vol. 16, No. 1
Proceedings, Vol. 3 (Yokohama,Japan), pp. 2Y3-296, IW ofJapan, Aug.
23 1993.
157. C. Yiirnahe, K. Nakamova, and K.Honi, “Tcchnology for triggered
lightniiigbylascrheam,”OyoButruri,Vol.61,pp. 718-721, July 1992.
158. I(. Yatsui, I(. Masugata, T. Kuroda,Y. Ohmomo, G. lmada, S. Saroh, T.
Goto, K. Ynsuoka, and 1. ‘Tamngawa, “Ureakdown characteristics in
atmosphere by T E A ~ C O 2laser,” i n Proceedings of the Sl’rE-’Ihe
lntemational Society fw Optical B:nginceri,ig, Vol. 1810 (Crctc,
Grrccc), pp. 671-674, Sept. 21 1992.
159. M. Laan and 1’. Peeter, “The multi-avalanche ~latureof streamer
formation in inharnogeneous ficlds,”]. Phys. D: Appl. I’hys., Vol. 27,
pp. 970.978, 1994.
160. I.W. McAllisrer, C.G. Crichton, and E. Bregosbo, “Experimental study
011 the m s e t of positive curuiia i n atmuspheric ni,” J. Appl. Phys., Vol.
50, pp. 6797-6805, Nov. 1979.
16 I.I.C. Somerville, 0. Farish, and D.J. Tcdford, “Thc influence of
atmospheric negative ions on rlie statistical time lag to spark
hrcakdown,” in Gaseous Dielectrics Iv -Proceedings of the Fourth
lntematianal Symposium on Gaseous Dielectrics (L.G. Chriatophorou
and M.O. I’ace, eds.) (Knoxville, TN), pp. 137- 144, I’ergamun Prcss,
NewYork, M a y 2 9 1984.
162. T.E. Allihoiie and D. Dring, “Inflocncc of humidity on thc breakdown
o i sphere and rod gaps under impulse voltages of short and long
wavrfrunts,” IEE Proc., Vol. 119, pp. 1417-1422, Sept. 1972.
163. S. Grzybowski atid E.11. Jenkins, ”Estimation of Iightningperfurmnncc
on niodels of 115 kV trniisniissiori liim,” in 8th brternatio?ial
Symposium on High Voltage Engineering Pmcmdixgs, Vol. 3
(Yokohama, Japan), pp. 325-328, IEE, of Japan, Aug. 23 1993.
164. W. Kohrmnnn, “Influcnce af wntw vapor on tlic clectrical hreakdown
oiair,”A,rimlen L r Phyrik, Vol. 18, pp. 379-384, 1956.
165. P.N. Mikropoulos and C.A. Stassinopoolos, “Influence of homidity on
the breakdown inechaiiism of medium length rod-plane gaps S ~ L C S S by C~
positive impulse vultngrs,” IBb; Proceedings Sci. Meas. Technol, Vol.
141, pp. 407-417, Sept. 1994.
166. 1I.T. Wntcrs, “Spark breakdown i n non-uniform ficlds,” in Electrical
Breakdown of <;uses (J.M. Meek and J.U. Craggs, eds.), pp. 385-532,
New York, NY: J ~ h Wiley n & Sons, Ltd., 197X.
167, H. Ryzko, ”The transition from multiple-avalancl,e to single-avalanche
mechanism i n the breakdown of air i n n homogcneous ficld,” h k . Fysik,
Vol. 25, Nu. 3 5 , pp. 481-507, 1963.
168. H.I. Anis, “Astody of cnrly discharges iii air gaps,” 11
App., Vol. IA-16, pp. 566474, JulylAug. 1980.
169. I.W. McAllirrer and A. Pederscn, “Curma-onset fieldLatrength CBICUI-
atims and rlie equivalent radius conccpr,” Arch. Elcktrotechnik, Vol.
64, pp. 43-48. 1981.
170. H. Parekh and K.D. Srivnstaw, ”Effcct of avalnnchc space charge field
011 the calculntion of corona onset voltage,” IEEE Tronr. I?lcctr. Insul.,
Val. EI-14,No. 4, pp. 181-192, 1979.
171. L.C. Thanh, ”Negative corona in a multiple interacting point-to-plane
Trans.fnd. ~ p p ,VOI.
% IA-21, pp. 518-522, Mat.lt\pr.
198.5.
172, M.I. Large and E.T. Piercc, “Thc dcpeiidciicc of poilit-disclinrgc
CUII’CII~Son wind as examined by B new cxpcriiiiental approach,” /, Atm.
Ter. Phys., Vol. 10, Nu. 516, pp. 251-257, 1957.
173. T.E. Allibonc and D. Dring, ”Influence of radiation on the sparkuvcr of
sphcre-piatic gaps stresscd with impulse voltages,” IBH I’rvc., Vol. 121,
pp. 759-763, July IY94.
174.Y. Gosha, “~nhancernentofDCposirivestresmercomna inn point-plane
gap in air due to addition uf a small ninoiiiir of a n clcctl-mcgative pisr”].
l’hys. 1l:Appl. I’hys., Vol. 14, pp. 2035-2046, 1981.
21
175. J.R. Gumley, ”Lightning inrrrception,” iii Ihctric Eiiergy Coefcre?ice
1989: b:lectrical Sovices for Uuildixgs. Preprints of Papers (Sydney,
NSW, Aucmlia), pp. 136-141, Natl. Cmmn. Electr. Energy Coll. Elcctr.
E,,~.,0~1.24 1989.
176. J.R. Gumley, “Lightning I n t e r c e p t i m a n d the uplcader,” in L2ird
International Conference on Lightaing I’rotectiun (Budapcst, Hungary),
Sept. 19 1994.
177. C.R. Moorc, J.A. Mathis, and W. Ilison, “Report on thc C X ~ O S U Y Cof
eighteen air terminnls along die crest of thc Magdalena inowitailis iii
New Mexico doring the 1994 thondel-storm BCBSOII,’’ tech. rep., New
Mexico l e c h , Liungmoir Laboratory, Sucorm, NM 8780 I ,1994.
178. A. Mumknmi, “1.ightning protection zones for rocket launch complexes,”
rcch. rep., Air Force, 1993.
179. G. Bergrr, B. Scnuuci, A. Goldman, a n d M. Goldman, “A physical
approach for lightning protection,” in I X International Cmifwencs on
G a Uischnrge and their Applicntiorrs (Venc,.ia, Italy), pp. 435~438,
Sept. I9 1988.
180. G. Hnrtniann and I. Gallimherti, “ l k influence of mcrastnblc molecdes
on the strcanics progression,” J. Phys. D: A/$. I’hys., Vol. 8, pp. 670-680,
1975.
181. J.J. Lowke, “Theory of clecrrical breakdown in air-The rule of
inictastahle oxygen ~~~olccuIcs,” J. I’hys. D:Appl. Phys., Vol. 25, pp.
202-210, 19Y2.
182. N.L. Allen ancl D. Diiiig, “Variation LII corona forinatim m r l c r
repetitive itiipiilse conditims,” ill Fourth lnteniatiiinui Symposium on
~ i ~voltage
/ > ~,tgixccri,tg( ~ t i l e t l s(;recce),
, p. 41.01, Sept. F 1983.
183. O.P.A. Domcns, 1’. Gilbert, B. IIutnlcl-, and G. Riquel, “Perfurmancc
of a 16.7 1x1 air rod-planc gap under a ncgntivc witching impulse,"/.
I’hys. 1): AppI. I’hys., Vol. 27, pp. 2379-2387, 1994.
184. C.T. PhelpS, “l’icld-cnhnnced p~Op>~g~tiOtI U f COrOlla StK:llllelS,” 1.
Geo. Rcr., Val. 76, pp. ,5799-5806, Aug. 20 1971.
185. F,,O. Selim and 1l.T. Waters, “Space charge modclling in impulse
c ~ m m , ’ ’ in Fourth Interitational .Symposium on High Voltage
~ ~(~ti,~,,~,
G ~ ~ ~Sept. ~ is ~1983.
~ )~ , ~ ~
I86, L. ‘I’hiunc, “Tlic dielectric strength uf lnigc air insulation,” in Su~gesin
High- Vo!tqe Netwarks (K.Ragaller, d), pp, 165~205,Plcnuin Press,
NewYork, 1980.
187. W. lhrkowski, “Study of the long sliding spark,” Archiwuni Elektrw
technitii, Vol. 3 0 , No. 1, pp. 279-295, 1981.
Inn. Y . Watanahe, “Switching surge flashover cliaractcristics of extremely
long air gaps,” IEEE Trans. I’owerApp. Sys., Vol. PAS-86, pp. 933-936,
Aug. 1967.
189. C. Gary, “l’aramercrs for H.V. tcstingofverioos f o r m of air teriniiiatimis.”
LIlld:& pl’epl‘i~lt.
190, 1I.H. Gulde, “Thc attriictive effect of a lightning conductor,” J. Inst.
Elecl.Bvg.,V~I.Y,pp. 212-213, May IY63.
191. T. Suzuki, K. Miyalie, atid I. Kishizimn, ”Study on expcrimcntal
simulation of lightning strokes,” I .am. PowerApp. Syr., Vol. 100,
pp. 1703.1711, ~ p r 1981.
. 2 13. W. Schufft and W. Schvader, “New Marx gemrator for the simulatim
192. les Reiiardieres Group, ”Part 4. Effects of pre-existing space charge on
positive discharge development,” l i C Proc. A, Vol. 133, pp. 469-483,
Oct. 1986.
193. L. Dcllrra and E. Garhgnati, “Shielding failure Cvahtioll: Application
of rlie leader progression n i ~ d ~ l ,i n” lnte,rrutionai Conference oil
1.iEharig mrd I’ower Systems (I.ondon, England), pp. 31-36, IFE of
London, Eiiglaird and New York, NY, Junc 51984.
194. J. Dupuy, “Negarivc diachargc in air,” i n I’roceedings of the 4th
Japan-Francs Workshop o n Lightning (Kaonz;iwa, Japan), pp. 19-24,
Nor. I 1 1991.
195. C. Cnry atid U. Ilutzlcr, “Simulntim a i lightning artachmcnr to
cartlicd stn&rcs,” I<m.Gen. Electr., pp. 18-24, Mar. 1989.
22
196. C. Gary, 1%.Hutzler, D. Crietisc, (;. Dragan, R. Enache, and B. P o p ,
“1,nharntory aspects regarding the iipward positive disclisrge due to
negative lightning,” Rev. Ruumaine Sci. Tech., Eldctrotechniqae et
Bnergetiquc, Vol. 34, pp. 363-377, July-Sept. 198Y.
197. E. ~;ackenI~acl~,~“Lightning discharge siiiiulation i n thc Inburarory,”
Bull. Schweizeyischen Clektrotechnischeir Vcrcins ~3des Verbandas
, ~ c b w ~ h e r i s c h c r E i e k t r i z i t a ~ t ~Vol.
w ~ ~80, , 239-247, Mar. 4 1989.
k epp.
198. B. H u w h , “Comp on uf lightning and loiig spark,” Rev. Gen.
Electr., pp. 12-17>Mar. 19x9.
199, B. Hutrlcr, “Lightningsimulariun,”BtrlI. Dir. Etud. Rech. U, pp. 3 1 ~ 4 0 ,
scpt.1988.
200. B. Jones, “Switching surges and ail- insulation,” Phil. Treans. Roy. Soc.
Lond, A, Vol. 275, pp. 165-1x0, 1973.
201. S. Larigaldie, C. I.ahaunr, and J,P, Morcan, ”Lightning leader laboratory
s i d a t i m i hy iiiraiis of rectilincar surface discharges,”]. AlJpl.I’hys., Vol.
52, pp. 71 14-7120, Dec. 1981.
202. E.T. I’iercc, “Natural lightning paramerers and their sinnhtion in
1abol.atory tests,” in 1Y 75 Confererrce ox Lightnixgand Static Electricily
(Abingdon, Uerks. UK), p, 13, Apt. 14 1975.
203.1‘. Suzuki, K. Miyake, and 1. Kishizima, “1,ight~~ingsrrokes to traiisiiiission
lines a i d substations. 1. Lahorarory experiments of lightning strokes,” tcch.
rcp., Cenrral Research Institution of Electric I’ower Industries, Tokyo,
~ a uec.~ I 1978. ~ ~ ~ ,
204. S. Sspur nod W. Thrkowski, “Laburatory corroburariun of the relaxntim
rhcory of the lightning s t ~ p p dIcadcr,” Archiwum Elektrotechniki, Vol.
17, No. 2, pp. 405-407, 1968.
205. M.A. Urnan, “A comparison of natural lightning and tlic long laboratory
spark with applicatiun to lightning tesring,” tech rep., Wcstinghouse
Research Labs, I’ittshurgh, P1\, Aug. 11970.
206. C.F. Wagner and A.R. Hlleman, “Mechanism of brcakduwn of
iaboratary gal , s , x ’~rrauns. , VOI. no, pp, 604-622,
AWL I,,SI. EIC. ~ n g . 111;
Oct. 1961.
207. G. Carmra and L. Thione, “Switching surge strcngth of large air gsps:
A physical
~ approach,”i IEBE ~ App. Sys., Vol. PAS-95, pp.
~ Traris. Power
512-524, Mar. /Apr. 1976.
208. A. Carrus, “An inducrancc u n the Marx generator fail branch-Ncw
technique for high efficiency lahoratory reproduction of sliort time to
half valuc lightning impnlses,” I E E E Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 4, pp.
Y O - Y ~ , J ~1989.
~~~.
209. U.W. Clifford, K.E. Crouch, and E.H. Schultc, “Lightning sinidation
and testing,” IEEE Trans. Blectromag, Comp., Vol. 24, pp. 209-224,
May 1982.
210, 0. lhrish, “Acting OII impulse: Applicaiions of IIV pulsc tcchnolagy,”
Efts. Sci. Ed.]., pp. 277-286, Dcc. 1994.
21 1. ILJ.Fisher and M.A. U m w , “Simulation fidelity in lightning penetration
studies,” tech. rep., US Dcpartiiiciit of Encrgy, Fch. 1 1990.
212. A.H. Pautan, L. Uitker, and R.L. Gardncr, “Natural lightning study
198.5,”rech. rcp.,AirForccWeapoiisLab., KirtlandAl:B,Dcc. 11986.
of lightning irnpulsc voltages and c ~ ~ r r c i i t s ,in ” 8th International
Syniporinm on lligh Voltage Engitieering Proceedings, Vol. 3
(Yokohama, Japan), pp, 453.456, IEE of Japan, Aug. 23 1993.
2 14. ESI. Schulte, “Updating thc McAir Lig1,tningSimulatioll Laboratory,”
rcch. ~ p . McDonriell
, Aircraft Cumpnny, St. Louis, MO, 1983.
21.5. E.H. Schulti., ‘“lhc Mcnonnel Aircrait Coinpany Lightning Simolation
I.abaratary,”]. Envimn. Sci., Vol. 22, pp. 22-27, May 1979.
216, L.C. Walk” ancl J.L. Hcbcrt, “Lightning simulation facilitics in the
Unired States and Europe,” in 23rdAeror/iace Sciences Meeting (?,,a,
NV),AIAA,Jan. 14 198.5.
217. W. Zischank, “Simulation of lightning discharges by direct strikes,”
Elektrotechnischc Z., Vol. 105, pp. 12-17, Jan. 1984.
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine
2 18. D. Graf, "Calculation of curuiia disclrnrges iii point tu plnnc gaps," in
Third Intcnratiuna/ Symposium on High Voltage Eirgisccring (Milan,
Italy), pS3.04, Aug. 23 1979.
21 9. L.E. Klinc, "Cornna cloud m o d e l predictions of switching siirge flnshovcr
vultngcs YS. electrode geometry," in I I'ower Engi,mritig Sociely
SuinmerMectbig 1976 (Portland, Oregon .P76345-9,July 18 1976.
220. L.E. Klinc, "Monte Cal-lo study oi imimtion sone electron kinctics iii
negative pin-plane coronas in arinasplwic air,"]. Appl. I'hys., Vol. SX,
pp. 3715-3719, Nov. LS 1985.
22 1. M.M.A. Salama, H. I'arekh, nod K.D. Srivastava, "Curomt iiiccptitin
ondcr switcliingsurge for p u i n t - t o - p h e long gaps,"]. Appl. Phyr., Vol.
47, pp. 2915-2917, July 1976.
222. M.C. Wnng and E.E. Konliardr, "Streamer dynamics," Phys. Rev. A,
Vol. 42, pp. 2366-2373, Aug. IS 1990.
223. G.A. Ilawson and W.P. Wion, "Amodcl fol.stl-eamrrpl.opagatioii," %.
Phys., Vol. 183, p p 159~171,1965.
224. I).I)omcos, A. Gilxrt, J. D U Q Uand ~ , 11. Mutzler, "Propagation of the
positive streamer-leader in a 16.7 111 rod-plane gap," J. Phys. D: Appl,
Phys.,Vol.24,pp. 1748~17.57,1991.
225. M.1. Dyakonov and V.Y. Kachoruvskii, "Srrcnmcr dischnrgr in a
hornogciieous field," Suv. Phys. ]ETl', Vol. 68, pp. 1070- 1074, M a y
1989.
226. 11. IHiitzler a n d D. Hurzlcr-l1arre, "Leader propng;nion iiindel for
pl.cdetcl.nlinati~,,,of switching surgc flashover volragc of largc air g:ips,"
'Iklnlls. I'ower AfJ/J.SyS., Vol. PAS-97, pp. 1087-1096, JulylAug.
1978.
227. S. I.arigaldic, A. Roussnud, and U. Jccko, "Mcchaoisms of high-currcnt
piilses i n lightning and lung-spark stepped leaders," J. A/>/,/.I'hys., Vol.
72, pp. 1729~1739,Scpt. 1 1992.
228. W.B.I. Mnicr, A. Kndish, C.D.Surhcrlnnd, ;and 1R.T. Rohiscoc, "A
distrihutcd paranleter wire nodc cl for traiisicnt clectrical discliargcs," J.
Appl. I'hyr., Vd, 67, pp, 7228-7239,June 1.5 1990.
229. E. Maiodc, "Thc mcchanisin ofsparkhieakdown in air at ato~inphcric
~ E S S U I Y between a pwitivc point and plane. 1. Ilxpcrimcnral: Natiire of
the srl'emer tsack,"]. Appl. Pbys., Vol. 46, pp. 2005-20 1.5, May 1975.
230. F.. Marodc, '"l'he meclisnism of spark breakdown in air at atmusphcric
pressure berwccn a pusitivc point and plane. 11. 'Tlicurctical: Compurer
siiiidiitioti o f rlic strcatncr tvaclt," 1. Appl. Phys., Vol. 46, pi'.
2016-2020, May 1971.
23 1. E. Nasscr and M. Heisdel-, "Marhcmntical-pl~y~i~~l nod cl oi the
streamer in oumnnifurm ficlds,"]. Appl. Phys., Vol. 45, pp. 1396-3401,
Aug. 1994.
232. W. Reinioghaiw, "Calculntiun of stveatiiers in gascous disclmges,"J.
Phys. D:App/. I'hys.,Vol. 6, pp. 1486-1493, 1973.
233. M.M.A. Salama, H. I'arelih, and K.D. Srivastava, "Model for
switching sorgc breakdown o f a poini~tu-plancair gap,'J. Appl. I'hys.,
Vol. 47, pp. 4426-4429, Oct. 1976.
234. 1.. Dcllarn and E. (;avbagnati, "Lightning stroke siniiilatiun by nicms
of rlie leadcl- progression model. Part I: Dcscriptioa of the niodcl and
evaluation of cx~usureaf free-standing structuxs," I
Delivery, Vol. 5 , N o . 4 , p p . 2009-2017, 1990.
2.3s. L. Dcllcra and E. Garhagnati, "Ovcrhcnd power line lightning
prorectiun," tech. rep., Ente Naziuilalc pcr I'Energin Elettrica, Milan
(Italy), 1990.
236. W. Dcrrz and V. Fritsch, "l)etermioatiun of areas o f tmisniissiun
r u ~ e r sattracting lightning strokes,'' Elcktrichertuo, Vol. 68, pp.
389~394,June 9 1969.
237. G Dragan and M. Ungurcanu, V i e striking distmcc of ligliining,"
Re". RoamaiaeSci. Tech., Elcctl-otcchniqne et Cnergetiqoc, Vol. 27, pp.
191-197,Apr.-June 1982.
JanuaryiFebruary 2000 -Vol. 16, No. 1
238. A.J. lirikssun, "Tlic incidencc of liglitning strikes to power lincs,(I
IEEE 'l'ra?zs.Power Delivery, Vol. PWKD-2, pp. 659.870, July 1987.
239. I.A.M. Rirk, "Modeling of lighming incident to tall structures, Part 11.
Applicatian," in IEEE Wintar I'ower Engineering Society Meeting
(Columhus, Ohio), pp. 93 WM 081-0, IEEE,Jan. 31 1993.
240. F.A.M. Rizk, "A model fur switching impulse leader inception and
breakdown of long air-gaps,'' IEEE Tram. Powar Delivery, Vol. 4, pp,
596-606, Jan. 1989.
241. F.A.M. Rirk, "Modeling of lightning incidence to t a l l structures, Part
Winter Power Engineering Society Meeting
(Columbus, Ohio), pp, 93 WM 082-8, IEEE, Jan. 31 1993.
242. F.A.M. Rizli, "Modeling of tlansmission line cxposure to direcr
Iighmingstri~kcs,"IEEETrans. Power Delivery, Vol. 5 , pp. 1983-1997,
Nov. 1990.
243. F.A.M. Rizk, "Critical switching iinpiilsc breakdown of long bundle-
conductor gaps," in I Winter Power Meeting (New York, New
strength of air insulation: Leader
inception criterim,"Ib:EE Traits. Power Delivery, Vol. 4, pp. 2187-2195,
Oct. 1989.
245.J.ll. Stahmann, "Launch pad lightning prutectiuii effcctiveness," tech.
rimal Aeronautics and Space Arlministration, Aug. I 1991.
Iiuin, A.C. Licw, and C.M. Wong, " C ~ ~ i ~ p usiiiiulatim
ter of the
tages a i t h e lightning protection mechanism," IEEB Trirns.
Power App. Tys., Vol. PAS-101, pp, 4370-4377, Nov. 1982.
247. A. Pederseo, "Calcolation of spark breakdown or corona starting
vultagcs in nonimiform ficlds," IEEE Trarts. Power App. Sys., Vol.
IPAS-86,pp. 200.206, P ~ I , .1967.
248. t l . Reather, " ' l l ~ cdcvclopmcnt of an electron avalaiiclie into n spark
chanocl,"Z. Phys., Vol. 112, pp. 464-489, 1939.
249. R.E. Orville, "l'horographs of a ~ O E lightning
C flash," Sci., Vol. 162,
pp. 666-667, Nov. K 1968.
250. M.V. Piepgrass, E.P. Krider, and C.B. Moorc, "Lightning and surface
rainfdl during Florida thimilerstorms," 1. Geo. Res., Vol. 87, pp.
11193-Il201, Ucc. 20 1982.
25 I . C.B. Moorc, "Prcliminsry report ULIthe 1993 exposurc of commercial
ESE air terminals mi Suuth Baldy Pcak in New Mexico," tech. ~ p .New ,
Mexico Tech, Lsngmoir Laboratory, Soccora, NM, 1993.
252. I(. Honi and H. Saliuwno, "Observation o f final jump of the discliarge
in the cxpcrinicnr of arrificially triggered lightning," IEEE Trans. Power
App. Sys.,Vul. P A S ~ l 0 4 No., 10, pp. 2910-2917, 1985.
253. J.R. Iippcrt, "Evalilation uf rocket triggcrcd lightning for research snd
developntenr," tech. rep., Air Furcc lnstitutc of Tcch., Wright-Pattcrson
AFII, 1981.
254. K. Nakamura, I(. Honi, and S. Aiba, "Discharge CLITRII~S in t h e
euperinicnt of artificially triggered lighming for winter thunderclouds,"
i n I989 Intcnzntional Symposium on Uectromagnetic Compatibility
(Nngoya,Jspan), pp. 664-669, I (cat. 11.89TH0276-6, IEEEService
Center, I'iscnfawsy, NJ), Scpt. 8 1989.
255. M. Ilrook, G. Armstrong, R.P.H. Winder, U. Vonnegut, and C.ll.
Moove, "Avrificial initiatim of lightning disclinrges,"J. Geu. Res., Vol.
66, pp. 3967-3969, Nov. 1961.
2.56. A. I~lierl,"Charncteristics of triggered lightning," in ICLP '8.5: 18th
International Canfenttce ow Lightning I'rutectiorr (Munich, Germany),
pp. 11-18,Sept. 16 198.5.
257. (;.I+. Schnerzrr and R.J. Fisher, "Sandia transportable triggered
lightning instrunientation facility," tech. rep., National Aeronautics and
Space Administtation, Aug. I , 1991.
258. R.1'. Picux, C.H. Gary, 8.1'. Hutnler,A.R. Eybert-Rcrard,l'.L. Hubcrt,
A.C. Mccstcrs, P.H. Pcrrood, J.!-I. Ilamelio, and J.M. Person,
23
 “Research on artificially rriggered lighrniog i n Prancc,” IEEE Tram.
PowerA[,p. Sys., Vol. PAS-97, pp. 725-733, MaylJunc 1978.
259. X. Lin, C. Wang, Y. Zhaug, Q. Xiao, I).Wang, Z. Zhou, and C. Guo,
“Enperimenr of artificially triggering lightning in China,” J . Gea. Res.,
Vol. 99, pp. 10727-1073 I , M a y 2 0 1994.
260. A. Eybert-Berard, U. Thirion, J.P. Bcrlnnrlis, B.Undor, and C. Gary, “In
situ lightning rod tcsts and analysis,” i n Lighttting n d Mou,rtaixr
(Chatnunix Nonr-Blanc, France), Socictc dcs Electricians et
Elcctraniciers et Club Alpin Francais, June 6 1994.
261. D. Mullcr-Hiliebrand, ‘“l’he protection of hauscs by lightning c u m
&mors-An historical review,” J. Frm. Imt., Vol. 274, pp, 3 4 ~ 5 4 ,
1962.
262. G. Bcrgcr, “Applications of t h e electrogeoinctric model to Fraiiklin
and ESE lightning rods,” in Lightning Protectioii Workshop (Hobarc
Standards, Australia), Nov. 12 1992.
I.
263. J.F. Shiplcy, “Thc protcctian of structures against lightning,” I m t .
Elec. Erg. I , Vol. YO, pp. 501~523,1943.
264. P.G. Woalncr, “Calculating lightning protcctian zones,” tech. rep.,
Tlic MlTllE Corporation, 7525 Colshire Drirc, Mclean, VA, 1990.
265. R. Rrict, “Tlicory of ground-based lighming protcctiun systcms,” i n
Euro EM Conference (Bordeaux, b’mncc), J L ~ IC 1994.
266. S. Srpor, “Lightning protection zoncs,)I Arch. Elektrotechniki, Warsaw,
I’uland,Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. S61-577, 1979.
267. U.1’. McKae, J.I.. Dirsrtiilarf, and GT. Glasson, “A )new theury of
shielding against direct lightning strokes based o n recent lightning
discharge data,” in Sth International Conference on Gas Discharger
(Livcrpaol, UK), pp. 108-111, Sept. 11 1978.
268. V.A. Kurilav, ‘ T h e orientatioii of lightning discharges on earthed
objects,” Izv. Vys~h.Uchcbn. Zaucd. I(mrs.,pp. 24-30, Nov. 1978.
269. C. Gary, S. Hurduhctio, and G. Uragm, ”llownward negative lightning
and high voltage ouerhend liuc surfacc g d i e n r s , ” in 21st lnteriiatiunal
Cmrferdnce 072 Lightniiig Protection (Berlin, Gelmnny), pp. 49-5.3, Sept.
21 1992.
Correction
The term “LC Shield,” wed i n the NovemberiDecember
19YY feature, “Technical Advances in the Undergroutid Me-
dium-Voltagc Cable Specification of the Largest Invcs-
tor-Owned Utilities in the US.,” is a registered trademark
owned by the Pirelli Cable Co. In the nse of the term in the
24
270. M.N.S. Immclman, “l’oint-dischargr CLITI’CII~Sduring thundevsrorms,”
Phi. Mag., Vol. 25, pp. 159-163,Jan. 1938.
271. E. Foriics and P. Ortiz, “Kadioactive lightning rode, static cliiniiiators,
and otlier radioactive devices,” tech. rcp., Nuclcar Regulatory
Commission-in rept. “Radioacrivity in Cunsumer I’roducts,” 1978.
272. J.A. Ihbbing, A.W. IHaason, and P.F. Little, “Simulated lightning
attachments to aircraft skins,” in 5th lnternntitinnl Conference on Gus
Discharges (Liverpool, IIK), pp, 289-292, Sept. 11 1978.
273. A. Kern, “Simulation and measurement uf melting effects on metal
sheets causcd hg direct lightning strikes,” tech. rep., National
Aeronautics and Spacc Adminisrration, I99 1.
274. J. Phillpott and T.E. James, “Simulation of lightning mikes to
aircraft,” rech. rep., UKABA, Abingdon, Berks. UK, May I 1971.
275. E.H. Scholtc, “Lightning damage ~ i ~ e c l ~ ~and n i siiiiiilacion
s ~ ~ ~ s techn-
iqucs,”]. Bnviro,~.Sci., Val. 23, pp. 13-17, May 19x0.
276. R.C. Twmney, “Effects uf lahoratory simulatcd precipitation iratic
electricity atid swept strokc lightning 011 aircraft windshield
sobsystems,” tech. rep., Douglas Aircraft Company, Long Beach, CA,
July I 1976.
277. D.M. Leitc, “Expcricncc of radioactive lightning aerials in field and in
lahorarories,” in Conference l’mcecdings. IC12 ‘85:18th International
Conference on Lightniiig Protcctimt (Munich, Germany), pp. 127-133,
VDE-Vcrlag, Bcrlm, West Germany, Sept. 6 1985.
278. A.C. Liew, “Lightning dainagc and problcrns cxpcricnced i n some
structorc~l~gstetlIsin Singapore,” i n Lightning Protection 92: Buildings,
Stnicturcs and Electronic 1:quipmeiit Conference and Erhibirioti
(l.earherBead, UK), pp. 7.211-8, ERA Tcchoolugy, Junc 23 1992.
279. A.M. Mousa and K.D. Srivastava, “Shielding of tall structures against
direct lightning strokes," i n Canadian Coitfcrcnce mi Electrical m d
ConipLIterEiisinecri~~ (Vaocouvcr, R.C., Canada), pp. 342-352, Nov. 3
198~.
section on Metallic Shielding and the section on Protective
Jackets, thcre should have been a trademark symbol (0) fol-
lowing the term whenever it occurrcd with a footnote indi-
cating that it is a l’irelli trade mark. The editors regret that
this omission occurred.
IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine