7th Asia-Pacific International Conference on Lightning, November 1-4, 2011, Chengdu, China

Close Proximity Bypasses to Collection Volume and Early Streamer Emission Air Terminals
Z. A. Hartono, I. Robiah
Lightning Research Pte. Ltd., Malaysia
zahartono@ieee.org robiah@ieee.org Abstract Since their introduction more than two decades ago, the early streamer emission (ESE) air terminals have repeatedly failed to protect buildings from direct lightning strikes. Although they claimed to provide a large protection zone, most of the ESE equipped tall buildings have exhibited one or more bypasses (i.e. lightning induced damages). After more than two decades of observation, a growing number of buildings have exhibited bypasses that are in close proximity to the air terminals. These close proximity bypasses provide indisputable evidence that the ESE protection zone is just a figment of the ESE proponents imagination.

1980s, it has been used by some ESE proponents as a method for positioning the collection volume terminals (CVT) i.e. ESE air terminals that are positioned according to the CVM. The proponents claimed that the CVT and ESE air terminal emit streamers earlier than conventional ones by a period of T whose value ranged between 50 to 100 microseconds. They also claimed that the emitted streamers have a constant velocity (Vs) of 1x106 ms-1. Hence they claimed that a single CVT/ESE air terminal can provide a protection zone whose radius (L) can be up to 100m where L= 106.T.

I. INTRODUCTION The study of the early streamer emission (ESE) air terminals began in 1991 after a high rise commercial building was struck and severely damaged by lightning in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The building had been installed with an ESE air terminal whose installation was made according to the collection volume method (CVM) of air terminal placement. Photographs of the building, which were taken before and after it had been struck by lightning, provided firm evidence that the claims made for the CVM and ESE air terminals were invalid. Since then, bypass (i.e. lightning induced damages) photography became the key method of documenting the performance of the CVM and ESE air terminals. The first phase of the long term study highlighted the multiple bypasses on tall buildings that had been installed with the ESE air terminals or applied with the CVM [1]. Most of the bypasses had occurred at locations that are far from the air terminals. This study will highlight the growing number of observed bypasses that are located in close proximity to the air terminals on both low and high rise buildings i.e. well within their claimed protection zones. The close proximity bypasses supports earlier findings that the CVM and ESE air terminals are incapable of protecting low as well as high rise buildings against lightning strikes [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. This suggests that their claimed protection zone is the same as the conventional air terminal and that their placement must comply with the rolling sphere method (RSM). II. CVT/ESE AIR TERMINALS AND STANDARDS The ESE air terminals refer to the proprietary lightning rods invented to replace the radioactive air terminals that were banned in the late 1980s. The CVM refers to an alternative air terminal positioning method that was intended to replace the RSM. Since the late

Fig. 1 One of the ESE protection zones as described by its manufacturer. (Source: Helita 1999)

In the early 1990s, the ESE proponents had proposed that their air terminals be included in the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) lightning protection standards. However, a study conducted by the International Conference on High Voltage Electric Systems (CIGRE) in 1995 reported that the value of Vs have neither been observed in nature nor supported by laboratory high voltage discharge studies. The scientifically accepted value for Vs is at least one order of magnitude lower than that claimed by the ESE proponents and hence the protection zone, if any, is very much less than 10m. This finding led the IEC to reject the proposed CVT/ESE technologies from being included in their lightning protection standard. The finding also enabled the NFPA to reject a similar standard which was submitted by CVT/ESE proponents. Since then, these proponents have not been able to provide any new data to support their claimed streamer velocity.

978-1-4577-1466-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

863

A. CVM Standard The CVM was first included in the appendix of the Australian lightning protection standard, AS1768, in 1991. Although it was clearly stated in the standard that the CVM was for information only (i.e. it should not be applied in practice) the CVM proponents had used the standard to justify the installation of the CVT. This gave the CVT an advantage over other ESE air terminals in the worldwide market. In 2002, the proponents conducted an unprecedented study on the CVT installed buildings in Malaysia which was then submitted to Standards Australia during the AS1768 revision. The study claimed that the CVM was effective based on the high lightning event counter readings obtained and the low observed bypasses from these installations. However, a review of the study revealed that most of the counter readings were invalid due to the unreliable nature of the devices. The counter readings were found to be highly erratic with zero readings recorded on many very tall buildings while some low buildings registered unusually high readings. This suggests that the majority of the event counters were not registering the correct number of lightning events and should not have been used for the study. The discovery of many metal clad buildings in the study ran contrary to an earlier claim made by the CVM proponent that no such buildings had been included. Any bypass on them would have been very small and undetectable from the ground. This suggests that the number of reported bypasses in the study is much smaller that it should be. The above inaccurate data suggests that the CVM is invalid as an air terminal positioning method and had not been field proven [13]. Consequently, the CVM was deleted from the revised Australian standard in 2003. B. ESE Standard In France, the ESE proponents published their own standard, the NFC 17-102, in 1995 in order to compete with the growing market share of the CVT. The purpose of the standard was to legalise the sales of their air terminals in the country because these devices did not comply with the European lightning protection standard. The ESE standard was also copied and published by ESE proponents in several other countries to achieve the same objective. After the rejection of the proposed ESE standard by IEC and NFPA, the French ESE standard was re-evaluated by a French scientific agency, INERIS, in 2001. Although the agency recommended some changes to the standard due to the dubious nature of its content, no action was taken by the ESE proponents. The ESE standard was finally annulled in 2009 due to its non-compliance with the IEC standard, IEC62305. However, the proponents have now claimed that the ESE standard is a product standard while the IEC standard is an installation standard. III. CLOSE PROXIMITY BYPASS EVENTS The following close proximity bypass events support the long accepted view that the ESE air terminals are unsuitable

for the protection of low as well as high buildings. The physical installation of both ESE systems have been visually inspected by the authors and found to be satisfactory. A. Sigolsheim Bell Tower The 30m tall 12th century bell tower situated in the town of Sigolsheim in eastern France was reportedly struck by lightning in 2009. This part of Western Europe has a very low keraunic level and the town has a very low annual thunder day (TD) of about 20. The lightning had struck and damaged a stone cross which was located about 6m horizontally away from a much taller ESE air terminal. An inspection conducted by the local authority after the incident confirmed that the bell towers lightning protection and grounding system had been properly maintained [14]. This incident clearly demonstrated the fact that the ESE air terminal is incapable of protecting an object (the stone cross) that is located well within its protection zone and mounted on a low rise building (<60m) in a low keraunic region (TD=20).

Fig. 2 The 30m bell tower which is the tallest structure in Sigolsheim

Fig. 3 The missing stone cross and the damaged roof of the bell tower with the ESE air terminal on the right (Photo: DNA News)

Fig. 4 The repaired bell tower photographed a year later with a new stone cross installed

978-1-4577-1466-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

864

B. Putrajaya Minaret The 116m high minaret, which is situated in the city of Putrajaya in Malaysia, is located in a very high keraunic region (TD=200). This slim concrete structure can be seen as the ultimate test case for verifying the existence of the claimed ESE protection zone and installation method. The minaret was installed with an ESE air terminal at the apex before it was completed. Since the minaret has a very slim design, all parts of the structure below the air terminal are located well inside the claimed ESE protection zone. The minaret had been struck by lightning many times since it was completed in 1998. The smaller bypasses on the tips of the concrete protrusions below the apex could be observed using a binocular while the bigger ones are visible to the naked eye. These bypasses clearly support the scientific view that the claimed streamer velocity is false and that the claimed ESE protection zone is either very small or non-existent.

Fig. 7 Two of the smaller bypasses on the minaret which could be easily seen with a binocular

IV. ANALYSES The following describes the mechanism of the lightning strike to the bell tower and minaret. A. Sigolsheim Bell Tower According to the ESE standard, NFC 17-102, the stone cross and the bell tower cannot be struck by lightning since they are located within the protection zone of the ESE air terminal depicted by the arc X-Y in Fig. 8.

Fig. 5 The 116m high minaret in Putrajaya

Y Stone Cross ESE air terminal

X
Fig. 8 Mechanism of lightning strike to the stone cross

However, according to the RSM, lightning can strike the stone cross if the imaginary sphere touches the cross only (circle A). If the sphere touches the cross and the air terminal, then lightning can strike either one of them (circle B). If the sphere touches the air terminal, then lightning can strike the air terminal only (circle C). Since the stone cross had been struck by lightning as predicted by the RSM, the protection zone mentioned in the ESE standard is just imaginary and unsuitable for protecting low buildings (i.e. <60m) against lightning strikes.
Fig. 6 One of the bigger bypasses that occurred on the side of the minaret.

978-1-4577-1466-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

865

B. Putrajaya Minaret Similar to the bell tower case above, the various protruding parts of the minaret should not be struck by lightning since they are located deep within the protection zone of the ESE air terminal as depicted by the arc in Fig. 9. However, by applying the RSM, any protruding parts below the apex can be struck by lightning as shown by the circles that come in contact with the side of the minaret. Since the minaret had been struck by lightning at the locations identified by the RSM, the air terminal placement method recommended by the ESE standard is unsuitable for protecting tall buildings (i.e. >60m) against lightning strikes.

Fig. 10 Single bypass to an ESE air terminal

Fig. 9 Mechanism of lightning strike to the minaret

Fig. 11 Single bypass to an ESE air terminal

V. OTHER CASES OF CLOSE PROXIMITY BYPASSES The bypasses at the bell tower and minaret mentioned earlier are not exceptional events. They have been increasing in number every year in Malaysia due to the high keraunic level. In some cases, multiple close proximity bypasses can be observed on buildings installed with more than one CVT/ESE air terminals. The close proximity bypasses highlight the need to treat the CVT/ESE air terminals like any conventional air terminals. Since the CVT/ESE air terminals have been shown to be incapable of attracting lightning strokes, the protection they provide is usually less than 10% of the exposed roof area. This means that hundreds of thousands of buildings around the world that have been installed with the CVT/ESE air terminals are severely under protected against direct lightning strikes. For them, it is just a matter of time before lightning will strike the building according to the RSM. The following are some examples of the dozens of close proximity single and multiple bypasses that occurred less than or about 10m from the CVT/ESE air terminals (Figs. 10 to 14).

Fig. 12 Multiple bypass to an ESE air terminal

978-1-4577-1466-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

866

since the location of these bypasses complied with the RSM. This is the result obtained by continuously monitoring the performance of these air terminals in a typical modern city environment in a high keraunic zone for over two decades. Therefore, for buildings that have already been installed with the CVT/ESE air terminals, it is highly recommended that conventional air terminals be installed at the known high risk locations according to the IEC62305 standard in order to avoid being struck and damaged by lightning as shown earlier. REFERENCES
[1] [2] Z. A. Hartono and I. Robiah, A long term study on the performance of early streamer emission air terminals in a high keraunic region, in Proc. Asia Pacific Conf. on Applied Electromagnetics, Aug. 2003. D. Mackerras, M. Darvenza and A. C. Liew, Review of claimed enhance lightning protection of buildings by early streamer emission air terminals, IEE Proc.-Sci. Meas. Technology, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 110, Jan. 1997. C. B. Moore, G. D. Aulich and W. Rison, Measurements of lightning rod responses to nearby strikes, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 1487-1490, May 2000. F. Noack, Early Streamer Emission devices- Verbesserung des Blitzschutzes?, ETZ, March 2002 A. M. Mousa, Validity of the collection volume method/field intensification method for the placement of lightning rods on buildings, in Proc. 26th ICLP, Sep. 2002 M. A. Uman and V. A. Rakov, A critical review of nonconventional approaches to lightning protection, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, pp. 1809-1820, Dec. 2002. W. Rison, Experimental validation of conventional and nonconventional lightning protection systems, in Proc. ICAE, July 2003 V. A. Rakov and M. A. Uman, Lightning: Physics and Effects, Cambridge University Press, 2003. M. Haddad and D. Warne, edited by, Advances in High Voltage Engineering, IEE Power Engineering Series 40, 2004. Becerra, M. and V. Cooray, The early streamer emission principle does not work under natural lightning!!, in Proc. 19th SIPDA, Nov. 2007. Mousa, A. M., Failure of the collection volume method and attempts of the ESE lightning rod industry to revive it, in Proc. of the 30th ICLP, Sep. 2010. V. Cooray, edited by, Lightning Protection, IET Power & Energy Series 58, 2010 Z. A. Hartono, and I. Robiah, Case Studies on the Performance of Commercial-grade Lightning Event Counters, in Proc. 19th EMC Zurich, May 2008. Chambre des Experts Agrees, Communaute Europeenne (CEACE), report no. 8024213399-59, 2009.

[3] Fig. 13 Single bypass to a CVT air terminal [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Fig. 14 Multiple bypasses to multiple CVT air terminal installation

VI. CONCLUSIONS The growing number of close proximity bypasses provided more indisputable evidence that the actual protection zone of the CVT/ESE air terminals is not superior to that of the RSM

[14]

978-1-4577-1466-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

867