24-34

24 B&H Electrical Engineering Bosanskohercegovačka elektroteh2019

Volume 13 January/December nika
DOI: 10.2478/bhee-2019-0003

Original scientific paper/Izvorni naučni rad

EARLY STREAMER EMISSION VS CONVENTIONAL

LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEMS

GROMOBRANSKE HVATALJKE S RANIM

STARTOVANJEM ILI KLASIČNI SISTEMI
GROMOBRANSKE ZAŠTITE
Mladen Banjanin1, Svetozar Banjanin2

Abstract: This paper analyses and compares the conventional lightning protection systems proposed in IEC 62305 to the lightning protec-
tion systems based on the application of early streamer emission lightning rods proposed in NF C 17-102. Comparison between the two
approaches to the lightning protection of structures was presented, both from a technical and economic point of view. Some inconsistencies
in the conventional air termination system design methods are pointed out. The critical attitude of the scientific community regarding the
declared protection characteristics of the early streamer emission lightning rods is discussed.

Keywords: lightning protection, lightning air termination system, early streamer emission lightning rod, lightning protection system
design

Sažetak: U ovome radu analizirani su i upoređeni konvencionalni sistemi gromobranske zaštite objekata koji su predloženi u standardu IEC
62305, sa sistemima zaštite koji se baziraju na primjeni gromobranskih hvataljki s ranim startovanjem, predložene u standardu NF C 17-102.
Na jednostavnim primjerima je s tehničkog i ekonomskog aspekta izvršeno poređenje ovih dvaju pristupa gromobranskoj zaštiti objekata.
Ukazano je na određene nedosljednosti kod konvencionalnih metoda za projektovanje prihvatnog sistema gromobranske zaštite objekata.
Također je ukazano i na kritički stav naučne zajednice koji se odnosi na deklarisane zaštite karakteristike gromobranskih hvataljki s ranim
startovanjem.

Ključne riječi: gromobranska zaštita, gromobranska hvataljka, hvataljka sa ranim startovanjem, projektovanje gromobrana

INTRODUCTION - Down-conductors, which have the role to conduct

lightning current from the air termination system to
Efficient lightning protection of structures is very import- the grounding system.
ant for their reliable exploitation over a long period of - Grounding system, which has the role to conduct
time. Lightning protection systems of structures consist lightning current into the ground.
of external and internal lightning protection systems. An
external lightning protection system has the role to ac- To ensure adequate efficiency and reliability of the ex-
cept the lightning discharge and to conduct its current ternal lightning protection system, all three components
into the ground. An internal lightning protection installa- must be properly designed. In order to reduce the in-
tion has the role to limit surges that occur in the facility vestment costs, but also to simplify realization of protec-
and to protect persons and devices from injuries and tion, these protection systems can be implemented by
malfunctions respectively. using natural components [2]. For example, in the case
The external lightning protection installation of each ob- of structures with a glass facade it is not possible to use
ject consists of three components [1]: standard down-conductors, so the solution is to use re-
- Air termination system, which has the role to accept inforcement of concrete pillars as down-conductors, or
the lightning discharge. to put down-conductors in the concrete of pillars. Me-
tallic roof of the building can serve as the air termination
system if it has the minimum thickness defined in [2].
Reinforced concrete foundations of a building can serve
1
University of East Sarajevo – Faculty of Electrical Engineering, as the natural grounding system. In this way, the design
Bosnia and Herzegovina and implementation of the lightning protection system
2
Ban-Ko Inžinjering, Bosnia and Herzegovina can be significantly simplified.
mladen.banjanin@etf.ues.rs.ba, banjaninsvetozar@gmail.com,
Paper submitted: September 2019 Paper accepted: November 2019
 Volume 13 January/December 2019 25

An internal lightning protection system is implement- According to [1], the following risks must be considered to
ed by equalizing the potential (equipotential bonding) evaluate the need for lightning protection of the structures
of all metallic installations within the facility in order to or services:
prevent sparking between the metallic components at - risks R1, R2, R3 for structures,
different potentials [2]. Sparks could cause a fire, mal- - risks R1 and R2 for services.
functions of the electric and electronic equipment or
Risks R1, R2, R3 are defined as follows:
injury of the people operating devices during the oc-
- R1 - risk of loss of human life,
currence of atmospheric discharges. In addition to the - R2 - risk of loss of service to the public,
potential equalization, a very important aspect of the - R3 - risk of loss of cultural heritage.
internal lightning protection is application of the surge
protection devices (SPD) [3]. For each risk (R1, R2, R3) of interest the following steps
shall be taken:
This paper deals with the air termination systems and - identification of the components RX which make up
particularly down-conductors system design and different the particular risk (R1, R2, R3),
possibilities for their implementation. Two concepts of the - calculation of the identified risk components RX,
air termination system and corresponding down-conduc- - calculation of the total risk R (R1, R2, R3),
tors system design are analysed: - identification of the tolerable risk value RT (RT1, RT2, RT3),
- comparison of the calculated risk value R (R1, R2, R3)
- Conventional air termination systems (CATS), which
with the tolerable value RT (RT1, RT2, RT3). In the case
are based on the application of standard Franklin
of R≤RT, lightning protection is not necessary, but in
rods, catenary wires or meshes [2]. the case of R>RT lightning protection measures must
- Early streamer emission air termination systems be applied in order to satisfy the condition R≤RT for
(ESEATS) [4]. all risks of interest.
Comparisons of these two lightning protection philoso-
phies from the aspect of economy, engineering and sci-
ence are presented in this paper.

1. LIGHTNING PROTECTION OF STRUCTURES

This paper analyses the lightning protection of structures

lower than 60 m. According to [2], lightning strikes to
the side of such structures are not possible. Because of
that, only the air termination system of the roofing roofing
structure is analysed.

1.1. Risk management

When dealing with the structure lightning protection the

first step is to calculate risks. Risk is defined as value
of probable average annual loss (humans and goods)
due to lightning, relative to the total value (humans and
goods) of the object to be protected [5]. This means that
it is not possible to achieve 100% efficient protection
against direct lightning strikes and lightning surges, but it
is possible to achieve acceptable low risk values of such Figure 1: The procedure to evaluate the need for lightning pro-
scenarios. The risk assessment calculation procedure is tection of the structure
presented in [5].
Suggested values of the tolerable risks RT (RT1, RT2, RT3) are
The procedure to evaluate the need for lightning pro- given in Table I [5].
tection of a structure is given in Figure 1 [5]. It is im-
portant to note that the engineering practice, as well
Table I: Typical values of the tolerable risks RT [5]
as many professional papers and books in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, frequently use old or hybrid procedures to Types of loss RT (1/year)
evaluate the need for lightning protection of the struc-
Loss of human life or permanent injuries 10-5
tures. Those procedures were suggested in some with-
drawn standards (for example IEC 1024-1-1:1993). It Loss of service to the public 10-3
is very important to update such procedures in accor- Loss of cultural heritage 10-4
dance with [5].
26 B&H Electrical Engineering Bosanskohercegovačka elektrotehnika

Procedures for calculation of risks R1, R2, R3 can be sized. The mesh method defines the protection area of
found in [5]. However, suggested procedures can be the conductors’ grid placed on or above the protected
complicated for the engineering application. Because of surface, as in Figure 2 a). According to this method, the
that, there are many software solutions that can be used mesh of the conductors placed on or above the protect-
to perform risk assessment calculations as Furse Strik- ed surface, can assure its required LPL.
eRisk v6.0, DEHNsupport Toolbox, or some freeware
online programs as [6]. Protection angle method is also easy to use. It can be
applied for estimation of the lightning protection zone of
1.2. Conventional air termination systems (CATS) vertical rods or catenary wires, as in Figure 2 b). The pro-
design as per IEC 62305 tection angle values as a function of the required LPL are
defined in Figure 3 [2]. More precise values of the protec-
After the risk calculations are performed it is possible to tion angle can be found in [7]. Protection angle method
decide if the structure needs to have lightning protection can be applied only for values defined in Figure 3, while
system or not. In the case that lighting protection system in other cases mesh method or the rolling sphere method
is needed, the following three methods, or a combination must be used.
of those, can be used to design CATS [2]:
1) Mesh method,
2) Protective angle method,
3) The rolling sphere method.

These methods are well known and widely used in engi-

neering practice. Application examples of all three methods
are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 3: The protection angle (α) values [2]

When applying the protection angle method, it is very

important to use the protection angle corresponding to
the height of the rod tip above the protected surface, as
illustrated in Figure 4. The protected object has roofs at
two heights above the ground. Therefore, two protection
angles must be used in calculations. The first protection
angle α corresponds to the height H of the rod tip above
the protected surface, while the second protection an-
gle β corresponds to the height h of the rod tip above
the protected surface. Advantage of the protection angle
Figure 2: Application of the: a) mesh method, method is that the equivalent protection zone of many
b) protective angle method and c) the rolling sphere method for lightning rods can be estimated by superposing the pro-
CATS design tection zones of individual rods. The protection angle
Mesh method is the simplest to use. In accordance with method is applied in the way that equivalent protection
the required lightning protection level (LPL) of the struc- zone of all rods must fully cover protected object.
ture, the mesh dimensions can be determined from the
Table II [2]. This method is extremely suitable for the flat,
horizontal or inclined roofs. If the roof has chimneys or
other prominent parts, the mesh method can be used in
combination with other methods, which must be empha-

Table II: The values of mesh size and rolling sphere radius corre-
sponding to the selected LPL [2] Figure 4: Determination of the protection angle value
LPL
Parameter The rolling sphere method is the most difficult to apply
I II III IV in comparison to the other two analysed methods, but it
Minimum peak current Imin 3 kA 5 kA 10 kA 16 kA is an universal method, which can be applied to design
Probability that I > Imin 99% 97% 91% 84% almost every lightning air termination system. When us-
Mesh size [m] 5×5 10×10 15×15 20×20 ing this method, the equivalent protection zone of many
lightning rods cannot be estimated by superposing the
Rolling sphere radius 20 m 30 m 45 m 60 m
 Volume 13 January/December 2019 27

protection zones of individual rods. Due to that, this

method is more complicated for application compared
to the mesh method or the protection angle method. The
rolling sphere method is based on the electro-geometric
model. The rolling sphere radius values corresponding to
the required LPL are defined in Table II [2]. When using
the rolling sphere method, the ball with radius R is roll-
ing around the object to be protected and its air termi-
nation system, Figure 2.c) and Figure 5. Air termination
system is properly designed if the ball cannot touch the
protected object, but only its air termination system and
surrounding ground.

Figure 5: Application of the rolling sphere method

In engineering practice, the air termination systems can

be designed by using specialized software [8]. In this
paper, the numerical calculation of the air termination
system protection zone is performed by using MATLAB
and protection angle method. Input data preparation is
Figure 7: Inefficient air termination system for the LPL I
performed in MS Excel software. implemented by using 6 Franklin rods

Analysed configuration is presented in Figure 6. The air

termination system in Figure 6 is implemented by using
6 vertical Franklin rods of 5 m in width. Protected ob-
ject has dimensions of 60×30 m. The equivalent light-
ning protection zones of this air termination system for
LPL I and LPL IV are presented in Figure 7 and Figure
8 respectively. Protection angles corresponding to the
o o
LPL I and LPL IV in this example are 59 and 72 re-
spectively [7]. The air termination system presented in
Figure 6 cannot ensure LPL I for the protected structure
because some parts of the roofing structure are unpro-
tected against direct lightning strikes, Figure 7. However,
the same air termination system can ensure LPL IV for Figure 8: Efficient air termination system for the LPL IV
the protected structure, Figure 8. implemented by using 6 Franklin rods

In the previous example, the lightning protection of the

structure is implemented by using 6 vertical Franklin
rods. However, protection angle method can also be
applied to calculate lightning protection zones of the
catenary wires. The catenary wires are used to design
lightning air termination system for the equipment placed
on the roofing structureroofing structure in cases when
visual effects are not important.

Analysed configuration and corresponding lightning pro-

tection zone are presented in Figure 9. In this case air
termination system is implemented by using two catena-
ry wires of 60 m of length. It is assumed that air termina-
Figure 6: Configuration of the protected roof and Franklin rods
28 B&H Electrical Engineering Bosanskohercegovačka elektrotehnika

tion systems have LPL I with a corresponding protection

angle of 590. The air termination system presented in
Figure 9 cannot ensure LPL I for the protected structure.
In Figure 10 the air termination system configuration is
modified with the aim to ensure LPL I for the protected
structure. In this case all parts of the protected roofing
structure are in the protection zone of the air termination
system.

Figure 10: Efficient air termination system for LPL I

implemented by using 2 catenary wires

1.3. Early streamer emission air termination system

(ESEATS) design as per NF C 17-102

French national standard NF C 17-102 [9] describes and

suggests application of the early streamer emission light-
ning rods for the implementation of the air termination sys-
tem. This kind of lightning protection is accepted in some
other national standards as UNE 21186 (Spain), SRPS
N.B4.810 (Serbia), I 20 (Romania), STN 3-1391 (Slovakia),
IRAM 2426 (Argentina), MKS N.B4.810 (Macedonia), NP
4426 (Portugal) etc [10]. The ESEATS are not support-
ed, but also not prohibited in the IEC 62305 standards
(radioactive air terminals are prohibited). Today, ESEATS
are increasingly used worldwide, including Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Some of the examples of their application
in Bosnia and Herzegovina include hospitals (Serbia in
East Sarajevo), hotels (Termag on the Jahorina Mountain),
Administrative Centres of the Government of Republika
Srpska in Banja Luka and in East Sarajevo, many residen-
Figure 9: Inefficient air termination system for LPL I
implemented by using 2 catenary wires tial buildings, stone quarries etc. Up to now, inefficiency of
ESEATS on these structures has not been reported, while
one lightning strike to the ESEATS at the Hotel Termag
appeared few years ago.

First types of ESEATS were based on the radioactive iso-

topes as a source of ionization and they were used up
to 1980s. After they were banned, modern ESEATS have
been introduced.

ESEATS are devices capable to generate upward stream-

ers and leaders earlier than a classic Franklin rod when
used under the same conditions. The time difference
between moments when ESEATS and classic Franklin
rod generate upward streamers is marked as ΔT. Typi-
cal values of ΔT are 25 µs, 30 µs, 40 µs, 50 µs and 60
µs. According to [9] the maximum value for ΔT is 60 μs,
no matter what the laboratory test results are. Suggested
speed of the upward leader is 1 m/µs [9]. It is easy to
calculate that ESEATS will generate upward leader with
length equal to L=ΔT×106 [m] up to the moment when
upward streamers and leaders appear from the tip of the
classic Franklin rod. Because of that ESEATS manufactur-
ers declare much larger protection zone of this devices in
comparison to the classic Franklin rods.
 Volume 13 January/December 2019 29

The protection radius of the ESEATS can be calculated by

using equation (1) [9]:

RP
= h ( 2 R − h ) + L(2 R + L) , h ≥ 5m
(1)
RP = h ⋅ RP (5m) / 5 , 2 m ≤ h ≤ 5m
where: h is the height of the ESEATS tip relative to the
surface to be protected [m], R is the striking distance
from the classic Franklin rod, 20 m for LPL I, 30 m for
LPL II, 45 m for LPL III and 60 m for LPL IV, L is equal
to ΔT×106 [m], where ΔT is characteristic of the applied
ESEATS.

Minimum height of the ESEATS tip relative to the sur-

face to be protected is 2 m [9]. In Figure 11 graphical
explanation of the ESEATS protection radius estimation Figure 12: CATS and corresponding down-conductors systems
for the structure with dimensions 50×50 m designed by using
is given.
mesh method

Another important advantage of the ESEATS based light- Table III: Typical values of the distance between down-conduc-
ning protection systems is reduced required number of tors as a function of the required LPL [2]
down-conductors. According to [9] required number of
down-conductors is two for non-isolated down-conduc- LPL Typical distance
tors, or even only one in the case of the special isolated I 10 m
down-conductor.
II 10 m
III 15 m
IV 20 m

Based on the presented results from Figure 12 it can be

concluded that implementation of the CATS with high LPL
(LPL I or LPL II) at the structures with large dimensions
can be difficult task. For example, mesh air termination
system with LPL I from Figure 12 is implemented by us-
ing 22 conductors with length of 50 m (in total 1100 m
of wires), while down-conductors system is implemented
by using 20 wires. In many cases implementation of the
large number of down-conductors is extremely difficult,
despite the application of the natural down-conductors.
For example, if the structure has glass facade it is not
Figure 11: Protection radius of the ESEATS related to its height
above the surface to be protected possible to apply standard down-conductors at the walls,
while their integration in pillars of the building in most cas-
es cannot assure required distance of 10 m. Also, instal-
lation of the large number of down-conductors can be
1.4. Comparison of CATS and ESEATS solutions
very difficult in the underground garages or some other
specific structures.
Lightning protection of the structure with the dimensions
50×50 m is presented in Figure 12. The structure height
Implementation of the air termination system with LPL I on
is 20 m. CATS is implemented by using the mesh meth-
large structures can easily be done by using early streamer
od, being a common solution for the structures with flat
emission lightning rods. In Figure 13 lightning protection
roof. Calculations are performed for the LPL I, LPL II,
of the same structure as in Figure 12 (dimensions 50×50
LPL III and LPL IV. Mesh sizes are applied as defined
m) is designed by using ESEATS. For all four LPLs air ter-
in Table II. Suggested values of the distance between
mination system can be implemented by using only one
down-conductors as a function of the required LPL are
early streamer emission rod, but with different time ΔT.
defined in Table III [2].
When applying ESEATS, rod height above the protect-
ed surface is assumed to be 5 m, which is an optimum
solution. In the case that height of the rod tip over the
protected surface is lower than 5 m, protection radius of
the rod is linearly reduced, equation (1). In the case where
the height of the rod tip over the protected surface is
more than 5 m, protection efficiency remains the same or
slightly increases. In the case when ESEATS are applied,
30 B&H Electrical Engineering Bosanskohercegovačka elektrotehnika

required number of down-conductors is two for non-iso- - Mesh conductors in the CATS and down-conductors
lated systems, or even only one for the special isolated in CATS and ESEATS are implemented by using Fe-
systems [9]. In Figure 13 down-conductors are designed Zn conductors with dimensions 20×3 mm2 which
with the aim to achieve their minimum length. price is 1.1 €/m.
- Holder of roof conductors’ price is 1.3 €/piece.
- Roof conductors’ joints price is 0.8 €/piece.
- Wall holders of down-conductors price is 0.7 €/piece.

Distance between the roof holders is assumed to be 1 m,

while the distance between the down-conductors holders is
assumed to be 1.5 m. These values are frequently applied in
engineering practice. Roof conductors’ joints are applied at
Figure 13: ESEATS and corresponding down-conductors
the intersection points of two conductors. Protection radius
systems for the structure with dimensions 50×50 m designed
by using a) non-isolated and b) isolated down-conductors of the early streamer emission rods is calculated by using
equation (1). In the case of ESEATS non-isolated down-con-
It is important to note that lightning protection of the ductors are applied and, in that case, at least two conduc-
structure from Figure 12 and Figure 13 can be imple- tors must be used [9]. In economic analysis only the price of
mented by using catenary wires only if visual effects are material is analysed, while labour cost is not included.
not of interest and if some sensitive equipment placed
on the roofing structure need to be protected with this In the case of the LPL III and LPL IV CATS solution is slightly
isolated lightning protection systems. This solution is not cheaper than ESEATS. However, in the case of LPL I and
common in engineering practice. Application of the stan- LPL II ESEATS solution is cheaper than CATS. Important fact
dard Franklin rods for protection of large buildings is also in the case of CATS is very difficult implementation procedure
rarely used because of the huge number of the required of the system with LPL I. This fact is of primary importance in
rods. many situations. To implement CATS with LPL I for the struc-
ture with dimensions 50×50 m, 1100 m of Fe-Zn wire must
By comparing designs of the lightning protection sys- be placed at the roofing structure and 121 roof conductors’
tems from Figure 12 and Figure 13 it is clear that ESEATS holders must be installed. Also, 20 down-conductors must
based solution is much simpler to implement in compari- be used to implement LPL I or LPL II for this structure. In the
son to CATS solution, especially for higher required LPLs. case of ESEATS, only one early streamer emission lightning
However, when searching for the optimum solution, it is rod and two down-conductors can be used.
necessary to perform economic analysis.
Previous analyses present that ESEATS solutions are much
In Table IV the technical and economic analyses of the more cost effective than CATS in the case when high LPL
CATS and ESEATS with corresponding down-conductor must be achieved at the structures with large dimensions. In
systems for the structure analysed in Figure 12 and Figure Table V technical and economic analyses of the CATS and
13 are presented. Following prices are assumed in the ESEATS and corresponding down-conductors systems are
calculations: presented for the LPL I of the structures with different di-
mensions. All calculation parameters are the same as in the

Table IV: Technical and economic analysis of CATS and ESEATS and corresponding down-conductors systems for the structure
with dimensions 50×50 m for different required LPLs

Technical analysis Total cost

Air termination system Down-conductors system (air termination + down-conductors)
CATS CATS ESEATS
LPL ESEATS
Fe-Zn Number of down -
Number of roof holders ΔT CATS price ESEATS price
wire conductors
and conductors’ joints
length and wall holders
3244 €
I 1100 m 1001 and 121 20 and 280
(2608 €+636 €)
2074 € 1519 €
II 600 m 576 and 36 20 and 280
(1438 €+636 €) (1400 €
25 µs 2 and 28
1481 € +119 €)
III 434 m 424 and 19 14 and 187
(1042 €+439 €)
1161 €
IV 350 m 345 and 13 10 and 140
(843 €+318 €)
 Volume 13 January/December 2019 31

Table V: Technical and economic analysis of CATS and ESEATS and corresponding down-conductors systems with LPL I for
structures with different dimensions

Technical analysis Total cost

Air termination system Down-conductors system (air termination + down-conductors)
Structure CATS CATS ESEATS
size [m] Fe-Zn ESEATS Number of
Number of roof holders CATS price ESEATS price
wire ΔT down - conductors
and conductors’ joints
length and wall holders
247 € 1475 €
10×10 60 m 57 and 9 25 4 and 56 (147 €+127 €) (1400 €+75 €)
1382 € 1497 €
30×30 420 m 385 and 49 25 12 and 168 (1001 €+381 €) (1400 €+97 €)
3244 € 1519 €
50×50 1100 m 1001 and 121 25 20 and 280 2 and 28 (2608 €+636 €) (1400 €+119 €)
7444 € 1852 €
80×80 2720 m 2465 and 289 40 32 and 448 (6427 €+1017€) (1700 €+152€)
11186 € 2174 €
100×100 4200 m 3801 and 441 60 40 and 560 (9914 €+1272 €) (2000 €+174 €)

previous calculation. The aim is to present influence of the discussed in [11]. As per [2] mesh of conductors can be
structure dimensions to the selection of the optimum light- placed at the roofing structure and in that way efficient
ning protection solution. air termination system can be implemented. However, the
rolling sphere method predicts that direct lightning strikes
According to the Table V CATS solutions are more cost ef- can attach the protected structure between the mesh
fective at the structures with small dimensions. In the anal- conductors unless the mesh is elevated above the top of
ysed examples, prices of the two solutions are nearly equal the structure [11]. This situation is illustrated in Figure 14.
for the structure with dimensions 30×30 m, while for the larg-
er structures ESEATS based solution become much more
cost effective. For the structure with dimensions 100×100
m. ESEATS based solution for the LPL I is almost 6 times
cheaper in comparison to CATS. Also, on structures of big
dimensions it is very difficult to implement CATS and corre-
sponding down-conductors, especially for LPL I or LPL II.
For example, at the structure with dimensions 100×100 m
length of roof conductors necessary for mesh implementa-
tion in CATS system is 4200 m, while required number of
roof conductors’ holders is 3801. Required number of roof
conductors’ joints is 441. Also, 40 down-conductors must
be used to implement LPL I or LPL II for this structure.

Even though natural components can be used as down-con-

ductors, the large number of down-conductors is still nec-
essary to implement CATS with LPL I or LPL II at large
structures. In the case of ESEATS, only one early streamer
emission lightning rod and two down-conductors can be
used. This is the main reasons for the frequent ESEATS ap-
plication at large and important buildings. Figure 14: The rolling sphere method predicts possibility of direct
lightning strikes to the protected structure if the mesh is placed
directly on the protected surface
2. SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CRITICISM OF THE AIR
TERMINATION SYSTEM DESIGN METHODS In [11] it is noticed that the relations between the striking
distances and the return stroke peak currents given in Ta-
2.1. Criticism of the CATS design methods ble II [2] are very rough. Next important issue defined in
[11] is that the specified relations between mesh sizes and
The CATS design methods suggested in IEC 62305 are striking distance values from Table II [2] are based on the
used for decades and even centuries and their efficien- practical experience rather than on the theory.
cy has been proven over a long period of exploitation.
However, those methods have some uncertainties, as
32 B&H Electrical Engineering Bosanskohercegovačka elektrotehnika

It is important to note that the rolling sphere method pre- - Between 0,8×105 m/s and 2,7×105 m/s for three de-
dicts lightning strikes to the side of the structures lower tected upward leaders [17],
than 60 m, but in [2] such lightning strikes are neglected, - Typically, about 104 m/s for positive upward-connect-
Figure 15. ing leaders in laboratory experiments [11].

Two triggered lightning events are described in [18] which

are frequently used to prove ESEATS efficiency. However,
critical review of this experiment is given in [11] where it
is stated that experiment is not properly utilized to prove
ESEATS efficiency.

In [19], a seven-year experimental test of lightning rods

is described. The experiment was performed in natural
conditions in Magdalena Mountains in New Mexico, USA.
Figure 15: The rolling sphere method predicts lightning strikes to It is stated that Franklin rods with diameter of 9.5 mm
the side of the structures lower than 60 m, while probability of and 51 mm. as well as the radioactive ESEATS did not
such lightning strikes per [2] is negligible receive any lightning strike during the seven-year experi-
ment, while the most strikes hit the 19 mm diameter rods.
2.2. Criticism of the ESEATS It must be emphasized that in these experiments old ra-
dioactive rods were tested.
When dealing with the ESEATS it is important to keep in
mind that scientific community has a very critical attitude In [20]-[23] some examples of the ESEATS inefficiency in
towards these devices, although manufacturers claim that exploitations in high lightning activity region of Malaysia
their efficiency is proven both in the laboratories and in the (keraunic level >200 days per year) are reported. Cases
exploitation. of lightning striking parts of the structures, which fall in
the protection zone of the ESEATS, were reported. These
ESEATS manufacturers test their devices in high voltage results are frequently mentioned by the engineers and
laboratories with the switching impulses 250/2500 µs scientist who are opponents of the ESEATS. However,
in accordance with NF C 17-102 [9], or with composite in these papers some important facts are not adequately
voltages consisting of high DC voltage and superimposed discussed, including: exact configuration of the protected
switching impulse voltage as in [12]. Such a test has proven structure, characteristics and manufacturers of the ap-
better protection efficiency of the ESEATS over the stan- plied ESE rods, date of rods manufacture and installation,
dard Franklin rods [12], [13]. However, many leading physi- comments about the initial and periodic inspections of the
cists stated that laboratory tests of the ESEATS suggested rods functionality and correctness of the installation, num-
in [9] cannot be used to prove their efficiency in natural con- ber of the collected lightning strikes by ESEATS and num-
ditions [11], [13], [14]. Main reasons are listed as follows: ber of lightning strikes penetrating to the protected struc-
- In natural conditions the lightning electric fields chang- tures etc. Also, detection of the direct lightning strikes to
es from slow to fast, while the switching electric field the protected structure are not performed using real time
produced in laboratory changes from fast to slow. Be- lightning localization systems or cameras, but through the
cause of that the development of leaders from the air minor damages at the surface of the protected structures!
terminals under these conditions is different [13], [14].
- The length of individual steps in the natural stepped
leader is tens of meters and that is considerably larg- 3. CONCLUSION
er than the length of laboratory sparks used to test
and certify ESEATS [11]. In this paper CATS and ESEATS and corresponding
- A high voltage pulses that are being generated at down-conductors systems are analysed. It is presented
the tip of the ESE lightning rods will be produced by that an ESEATS can be several times cheaper and much
a stepped leader at any standard Franklin rod. Be- simpler for implementation at large structures with high
cause of that ESE rods have the same protection ra- required LPL (for example LPL I) than CATS based solu-
dius as the standard Franklin rods [15]. tions. The same applies to the down-conductors system.
This is why the use of ESEATS is on the increase. Howev-
Physicists also do not support upward leader speed equal er, it is noticed that physicist dealing with the lightning dis-
to 1 m/µs which is suggested in [9]. According to [11] this charge process do not support declared characteristics
value of the upward positive leader speed is arbitrary. The and protection efficiency of the ESEATS. Because of that
results of the experimental measurements of the upward standard IEC 62305 suggest only CATS which prove their
leader speed are as follows: efficiency in the decades and centuries of exploitation. In
- Between 4×104 m/s and about 106 m/s for seven the scientific literature there are a lot of papers in which
detected upward positive leaders, while for four of ESEATS are analysed. Some of the papers present their
the seven leader speeds ranging from 4×104 m/s to good protection characteristics, which are in accordance
7,5×104 m/s [16], with the manufacturers’ declarations, while some other
papers present their inefficiencies, both from the theoret-
 Volume 13 January/December 2019 33

ical aspect and exploitation experience. It seems that ad- Rod, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electri-
ditional experimental analysis with the natural lightning are cal Insulation Vol. 22, No. 2, 2015
necessary to prove or disprove efficiency of the ESEATS. [13] M. Becerra, V. Cooray: The early streamer emis-
sion principle does not work under natural light-
ning, IX International Symposium on Lightning
FUNDING Protection, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, 26-30 Novem-
ber 2007
This work was supported by the Ministry for Scientific
[14] M. Becerra, V. Cooray: Laboratory experiments
and Technological Development, Higher Education and
cannot be utilized to justify the action of early
Information Society of the Republika Srpska through the
project “Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of the Ef- streamer emission terminals, J Journal of Physics
fectiveness of Early Streamer Emission Lightning Rods”. D: Applied Physics, Vol. 41, No. 8, 2008
[15] V. Cooray: The Similarity of the Action of Frank-
lin and ESE Lightning Rods under Natural Con-
REFERENCES ditions, Atmosphere, Vol. 9, No. 6, p. 225; June
2018
[1] Protection against lightning – Part 1: General prin- [16] K. Berger, E. Vogelsanger: Photographische
ciples, International Standard IEC 62305-1, Edi- Blitzuntersuchungen der Jahre 1955...1965 auf
tion 2.0, 2010 dem Monte San Salvatore. Bull. Schweiz. Elektro-
[2] Protection against lightning – Part 3: Physical technol., Vol. 57, pp. 559–620, 1966
damage to structures and life hazard, Internation- [17] S. Yokoyama, K. Miyake, T. Suzuki: Winter light-
al Standard IEC 62305-3, Edition 2.0, 2010 ning on Japan Sea coast—Development of mea-
[3] V. Milardic, I. Uglesic, I. Pavic: Selection of Surge suring systems on progressing feature of lightning
Protective Devices for Low-Voltage Systems Con- discharge, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 5, pp.
nected to Overhead Line, IEEE Transactions on 1418–1425, 1990
Power Delivery, Vol. 25 , Issue 3, pp. 1530-1537, [18] A. Eybert-Berard, A. Lefort, B. Thirion:Onsite
July 2010 tests, Proceeding of the 24th International Con-
[4] Protection against lightning – Early streamer ference on Lightning Protection, Birmingham, En-
emission lightning protection systems, French gland, pp. 425–435, 1998
Standard NF C 17-102, 2011 [19] C. B. Moore, G. D. Aulich, W. Rison: Measure-
[5] Protection against lightning – Part 2: Risk man- ments of Lightning Rod Responses to Nearby
agement, International Standard IEC 62305-2, Strikes, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27,
Edition 2.0, 2012 No. 10, pp. 1487-1490, 2000
[6] http://psm.ucy.ac.cy/protection-against-light- [20] Z. Hartono, I. Robiah: A study of non-convention-
ning-online-risk-assessment-tool/ al air terminals and stricken points in a high thun-
[7] DEHN – Lightning protection Guide, 3rd updat- derstorm region, 25th International Conference
ed edition (https://www.dehn-international.com/ on Lightning Protection, Rhodes, Greece, 2000
sites/default/files/uploads/dehn/pdf/blitzplaner/ [21] Z. Hartono, I. Robiah: A Long-Term Study on the
bpl2015/lpg_2015_e_complete.pdf) Performance of Early Streamer Emission Air Ter-
[8] Z. Stojković: Computer- Aided Design in Pow- minals in a High Keraunic Region, Asia-Pacific
er Engineering - Application of Software Tools, Conference on Applied Electromagnetics (APACE
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Academic Mind, Bel- 2003), Shah Alam, Malaysia, 2003
grade, p. 436, 2012 [22] Z. Hartono, I. Robiah: A review of studies on Early
[9] French standard NF C 17-102, Protection against Streamer Emission and Charge Transfer System
lightning - Early streamer emission lightning pro- conducted in Malaysia, 17th International Zurich
tection systems, 2011 Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
[10] S. Wiak, E. Napieralska: Computer Field Models 2006
of Electromagnetic Devices, IOS Press, Nether- [23] Z. Hartono, I. Robiah: Close proximity bypasses
land, p. 570, 2010 to collection volume and early streamer emission
[11] M. A. Uman, V. A. Rakov: A critical review of non- air terminals, 7th Asia-Pacific International Con-
convential approaches to lightning protection, ference on Lightning, Chengdu, China, 2011
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,
December 2002
[12] L. Pecastaing, T. Reess, A. De Ferron, S. Souakri,
E. Smycz, A. Skopec, C. Stec: Experimental
Demonstration of the Effectiveness of an Early
Streamer Emission Air Terminal Versus a Franklin
34 B&H Electrical Engineering Bosanskohercegovačka elektrotehnika

BIOGRAPHY Svetozar Banjanin was born in Dobro Polje, Yugoslavia,

in 1955. He received his BSc degree in 1978 from the Fac-
Mladen Banjanin was born in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia, in ulty of Electrical Engineering in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia. Over
1988. He received his BSc degree in 2011 from the Fac- the past 30 years, he has been a director and one of the
ulty of Electrical Engineering in East Sarajevo, Bosnia and leading engineers in company Ban-Ko Inžinjering, East Sa-
Herzegovina, and MSc and PhD degrees in 2012 and 2017 rajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. This company deals with
years, respectively, from the School of Electrical Engineering the design of electrical installation projects. They carried out
in Belgrade, Serbia. He has been working at the Faculty of several different projects in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia
Electrical Engineering in East Sarajevo since 2011. Presently, and Montenegro.
he is an assistant professor and Head of the Department
of Electric Power Systems. His main area of interest covers
high voltage engineering and lighting protection.