IET ENERGY ENGINEERING SERIES 127

Lightning
Electromagnetics
Other volumes in this series:
Volume 1 Power Circuit Breaker Theory and Design C.H. Flurscheim (Editor)
Volume 4 Industrial Microwave Heating A.C. Metaxas and R.J. Meredith
Volume 7 Insulators for High Voltages J.S.T. Looms
Volume 8 Variable Frequency AC Motor Drive Systems D. Finney
Volume 10 SF6 Switchgear H.M. Ryan and G.R. Jones
Volume 11 Conduction and Induction Heating E.J. Davies
Volume 13 Statistical Techniques for High Voltage Engineering
W. Hauschild and W. Mosch
Volume 14 Uninterruptible Power Supplies J. Platts and J.D. St Aubyn (Editors)
Volume 15 Digital Protection for Power Systems A.T. Johns and S.K. Salman
Volume 16 Electricity Economics and Planning T.W. Berrie
Volume 18 Vacuum Switchgear A. Greenwood
Volume 19 Electrical Safety: a guide to causes and prevention of hazards
J. Maxwell Adams
Volume 21 Electricity Distribution Network Design, 2nd Edition E. Lakervi and
E.J. Holmes
Volume 22 Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Power Systems K. Warwick, A.O. Ekwue
and R. Aggarwal (Editors)
Volume 24 Power System Commissioning and Maintenance Practice K. Harker
Volume 25 Engineers’ Handbook of Industrial Microwave Heating R.J. Meredith
Volume 26 Small Electric Motors H. Moczala et al.
Volume 27 AC-DC Power System Analysis J. Arrillaga and B.C. Smith
Volume 29 High Voltage Direct Current Transmission, 2nd Edition J. Arrillaga
Volume 30 Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) Y-H. Song (Editor)
Volume 31 Embedded generation N. Jenkins et al.
Volume 32 High Voltage Engineering and Testing, 2nd Edition H.M. Ryan (Editor)
Volume 33 Overvoltage Protection of Low-Voltage Systems, Revised Edition P. Hasse
Volume 36 Voltage Quality in Electrical Power Systems J. Schlabbach et al.
Volume 37 Electrical Steels for Rotating Machines P. Beckley
Volume 38 The Electric Car: Development and future of battery, hybrid and fuel-cell
cars M. Westbrook
Volume 39 Power Systems Electromagnetic Transients Simulation J. Arrillaga and
N. Watson
Volume 40 Advances in High Voltage Engineering M. Haddad and D. Warne
Volume 41 Electrical Operation of Electrostatic Precipitators K. Parker
Volume 43 Thermal Power Plant Simulation and Control D. Flynn
Volume 44 Economic Evaluation of Projects in the Electricity Supply Industry
H. Khatib
Volume 45 Propulsion Systems for Hybrid Vehicles J. Miller
Volume 46 Distribution Switchgear S. Stewart
Volume 47 Protection of Electricity Distribution Networks, 2nd Edition J. Gers and
E. Holmes
Volume 48 Wood Pole Overhead Lines B. Wareing
Volume 49 Electric Fuses, 3rd Edition A. Wright and G. Newbery
Volume 50 Wind Power Integration: Connection and system operational aspects
B. Fox et al.
Volume 51 Short Circuit Currents J. Schlabbach
Volume 52 Nuclear Power J. Wood
Volume 53 Condition Assessment of High Voltage Insulation in Power System
Equipment R.E. James and Q. Su
Volume 55 Local Energy: Distributed generation of heat and power J. Wood
Volume 56 Condition Monitoring of Rotating Electrical Machines P. Tavner, L. Ran,
J. Penman and H. Sedding
Volume 57 The Control Techniques Drives and Controls Handbook, 2nd Edition
B. Drury
Volume 58 Lightning Protection V. Cooray (Editor)
Volume 59 Ultracapacitor Applications J.M. Miller
Volume 62 Lightning Electromagnetics V. Cooray
Volume 63 Energy Storage for Power Systems, 2nd Edition A. Ter-Gazarian
Volume 65 Protection of Electricity Distribution Networks, 3rd Edition J. Gers
Volume 66 High Voltage Engineering Testing, 3rd Edition H. Ryan (Editor)
Volume 67 Multicore Simulation of Power System Transients F.M. Uriate
Volume 68 Distribution System Analysis and Automation J. Gers
Volume 69 The Lightening Flash, 2nd Edition V. Cooray (Editor)
Volume 70 Economic Evaluation of Projects in the Electricity Supply Industry,
3rd Edition H. Khatib
Volume 72 Control Circuits in Power Electronics: Practical issues in design and
implementation M. Castilla (Editor)
Volume 73 Wide Area Monitoring, Protection and Control Systems: The enabler for
Smarter Grids A. Vaccaro and A. Zobaa (Editors)
Volume 74 Power Electronic Converters and Systems: Frontiers and applications
A.M. Trzynadlowski (Editor)
Volume 75 Power Distribution Automation B. Das (Editor)
Volume 76 Power System Stability: Modelling, analysis and control A.A. Sallam and
B. Om P. Malik
Volume 78 Numerical Analysis of Power System Transients and Dynamics A. Ametani
(Editor)
Volume 79 Vehicle-to-Grid: Linking electric vehicles to the smart grid J. Lu and
J. Hossain (Editors)
Volume 81 Cyber-Physical-Social Systems and Constructs in Electric Power
Engineering S. Suryanarayanan, R. Roche and T.M. Hansen (Editors)
Volume 82 Periodic Control of Power Electronic Converters F. Blaabjerg, K. Zhou,
D. Wang and Y. Yang
Volume 86 Advances in Power System Modelling, Control and Stability Analysis
F. Milano (Editor)
Volume 87 Cogeneration: Technologies, Optimisation and Implentation
C.A. Frangopoulos (Editor)
Volume 88 Smarter Energy: from Smart Metering to the Smart Grid H. Sun,
N. Hatziargyriou, H.V. Poor, L. Carpanini and M.A. Sánchez Fornié (Editors)
Volume 89 Hydrogen Production, Separation and Purification for Energy A. Basile,
F. Dalena, J. Tong and T.N. Veziroğlu (Editors)
Volume 90 Clean Energy Microgrids S. Obara and J. Morel (Editors)
Volume 91 Fuzzy Logic Control in Energy Systems with Design Applications in
Matlab/Simulink‡ İ.H. Altaş
Volume 92 Power Quality in Future Electrical Power Systems A.F. Zobaa and
S.H.E.A. Aleem (Editors)
Volume 93 Cogeneration and District Energy Systems: Modelling, Analysis and
Optimization M.A. Rosen and S. Koohi-Fayegh
Volume 94 Introduction to the Smart Grid: Concepts, technologies and evolution
S.K. Salman
Volume 95 Communication, Control and Security Challenges for the Smart Grid
S.M. Muyeen and S. Rahman (Editors)
Volume 96 Industrial Power Systems with Distributed and Embedded Generation
R. Belu
Volume 97 Synchronized Phasor Measurements for Smart Grids M.J.B. Reddy and
D.K. Mohanta (Editors)
Volume 98 Large Scale Grid Integration of Renewable Energy Sources
A. Moreno-Munoz (Editor)
Volume 100 Modeling and Dynamic Behaviour of Hydropower Plants N. Kishor and
J. Fraile-Ardanuy (Editors)
Volume 101 Methane and Hydrogen for Energy Storage R. Carriveau and D.S-K. Ting
Volume 104 Power Transformer Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis A. Abu-Siada
(Editor)
Volume 106 Surface Passivation of Industrial Crystalline Silicon Solar Cells J. John
(Editor)
Volume 107 Bifacial Photovoltaics: Technology, applications and economics J. Libal
and R. Kopecek (Editors)
Volume 108 Fault Diagnosis of Induction Motors J. Faiz, V. Ghorbanian and G. Joksimović
Volume 109 Cooling of Rotating Electrical Machines: Fundamentals, modelling, testing
and design D. Staton, E. Chong, S. Pickering and A. Boglietti
Volume 110 High Voltage Power Network Construction K. Harker
Volume 111 Energy Storage at Different Voltage Levels: Technology, integration, and
market aspects A.F. Zobaa, P.F. Ribeiro, S.H.A. Aleem and S.N. Afifi (Editors)
Volume 112 Wireless Power Transfer: Theory, Technology and Application
N. Shinohara
Volume 114 Lightning-Induced Effects in Electrical and Telecommunication Systems
Y. Baba and V.A. Rakov
Volume 115 DC Distribution Systems and Microgrids T. Dragičević, F. Blaabjerg and
P. Wheeler
Volume 116 Modelling and Simulation of HVDC Transmission M. Han (Editor)
Volume 117 Structural Control and Fault Detection of Wind Turbine Systems
H.R. Karimi
Volume 118 Modelling and Simulation of Complex Power Systems A. Monti and
A. Benigni
Volume 119 Thermal Power Plant Control and Instrumentation: The control of boilers
and HRSGs, 2nd Edition D. Lindsley, J. Grist and D. Parker
Volume 120 Fault Diagnosis for Robust Inverter Power Drives A. Ginart (Editor)
Volume 121 Monitoring and Control using Synchrophasors in Power Systems with
Renewables I. Kamwa and C. Lu (Editors)
Volume 123 Power Systems Electromagnetic Transients Simulation, 2nd Edition
N. Watson and J. Arrillaga
Volume 124 Power Market Transformation B. Murray
Volume 125 Wind Energy Modeling and Simulation Volume 1: Atmosphere and plant
P. Veers (Editor)
Volume 126 Diagnosis and Fault Tolerance of Electrical Machines, Power Electronics
and Drives A.J.M. Cardoso
Volume 128 Characterization of Wide Bandgap Power Semiconductor Devices F. Wang,
Z. Zhang and E.A. Jones
Volume 129 Renewable Energy from the Oceans: From wave, tidal and gradient
systems to offshore wind and solar D. Coiro and T. Sant (Editors)
Volume 130 Wind and Solar Based Energy Systems for Communities R. Carriveau and
D.S-K. Ting (Editors)
Volume 131 Metaheuristic Optimization in Power Engineering J. Radosavljević
Volume 132 Power Line Communication Systems for Smart Grids I.R.S. Casella and
A. Anpalagan
Volume 134 Hydrogen Passivation and Laser Doping for Silicon Solar Cells B. Hallam
and C. Chan (Editors)
Volume 139 Variability, Scalability and Stability of Microgrids S.M. Muyeen, S.M. Islam
and F. Blaabjerg (Editors)
Volume 142 Wind Turbine System Design: Volume 1: Nacelles, drive trains and
verification J. Wenske (Editor)
Volume 143 Medium Voltage DC System Architectures B. Grainger and R.D. Doncker
(Editors)
Volume 145 Condition Monitoring of Rotating Electrical Machines P. Tavner, L. Ran and
C. Crabtree
Volume 146 Energy Storage for Power Systems, 3rd Edition A.G. Ter-Gazarian
Volume 147 Distribution Systems Analysis and Automation 2nd Edition J. Gers
Volume 151 SiC Power Module Design: Performance, robustness and reliability
A. Castellazzi and A. Irace (Editors)
Volume 152 Power Electronic Devices: Applications, failure mechanisms and
reliability F. Iannuzzo (Editor)
Volume 153 Signal Processing for Fault Detection and Diagnosis in Electric Machines
and Systems M. Benbouzid (Editor)
Volume 155 Energy Generation and Efficiency Technologies for Green Residential
Buildings D. Ting and R. Carriveau (Editors)
Volume 156 Lithium-ion Batteries Enabled by Silicon Anodes C. Ban and K. Xu (Editors)
Volume 157 Electrical Steels, 2 Volumes A. Moses, K. Jenkins, P. Anderson and
H. Stanbury
Volume 158 Advanced Dielectric Materials for Electrostatic Capacitors Q. Li (Editor)
Volume 159 Transforming the Grid Towards Fully Renewable Energy O. Probst,
S. Castellanos and R. Palacios (Editors)
Volume 160 Microgrids for Rural Areas: Research and case studies R.K. Chauhan,
K. Chauhan and S.N. Singh (Editors)
Volume 161 Artificial Intelligence for Smarter Power Systems: Fuzzy Logic and Neural
Networks M.G. Simoes
Volume 165 Digital Protection for Power Systems 2nd Edition Salman K. Salman
Volume 166 Advanced Characterization of Thin Film Solar Cells N. Haegel and
M. Al-Jassim (Editors)
Volume 167 Power Grids with Renewable Energy Storage, integration and
digitalization A.A. Sallam and B. OM P. Malik
Volume 169 Small Wind and Hydrokinetic Turbines P. Clausen, J. Whale and D. Wood
(Editors)
Volume 170 Reliability of Power Electronics Converters for Solar Photovoltaic
Applications F. Blaabjerg, A.l Haque, H. Wang, Z. Abdin Jaffery and Y. Yang
(Editors)
Volume 171 Utility-scale Wind Turbines and Wind Farms A. Vasel-Be-Hagh and
D.S.-K. Ting
Volume 172 Lighting interaction with Power Systems, 2 volumes A. Piantini (Editor)
Volume 174 Silicon Solar Cell Metallization and Module Technology T. Dullweber
(Editor)
Volume 175 n-Type Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaics: Technology, applications and
economics D. Munoz and R. Kopecek (Editors)
Volume 178 Integrated Motor Drives Xu Deng and B. Mecrow (Editors)
Volume 180 Protection of Electricity Distribution Networks, 4th Edition J. Gers and
E. Holmes
Volume 182 Surge Protection for Low Voltage Systems A. Rousseau (Editor)
Volume 184 Compressed Air Energy Storage: Types, systems and applications D. Ting
and J. Stagner
Volume 186 Synchronous Reluctance Machines: Analysis, optimization and
applications N. Bianchi, C. Babetto and G. Bacco
Volume 191 Electric Fuses: Fundamentals and new applications 4th Edition N. Nurse,
A. Wright and P.G. Newbery
Volume 193 Overhead Electric Power Lines: Theory and practice S. Chattopadhyay and
A. Das
Volume 194 Offshore Wind Power Reliability, availability and maintenance, 2nd
edition
P. Tavner
Volume 196 Cyber Security for Microgrids S. Sahoo, F. Blaajberg and T. Dragicevic
Volume 198 Battery Management Systems and Inductive Balancing A. Van den Bossche
and A. Farzan Moghaddam
Volume 199 Model Predictive Control for Microgrids: From power electronic
converters to energy management J. Hu, J.M. Guerrero and S. Islam
Volume 204 Electromagnetic Transients in Large HV Cable Networks: Modeling and
calculations Ametani, Xue, Ohno and Khalilnezhad
Volume 208 Nanogrids and Picogrids and their Integration with Electric Vehicles
S. Chattopadhyay
Volume 210 Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage in Power Grids M.H. Ali
Volume 211 Blockchain Technology for Smart Grids: Implementation, management
and security H.L. Gururaj, K.V. Ravi, F. Flammini, H. Lin, B. Goutham, K.B.R. Sunil
and C. Sivapragash
Volume 212 Battery State Estimation: Methods and Models S. Wang
Volume 215 Industrial Demand Response: Methods, best practices, case studies, and
applications H.H. Alhelou, A. Moreno-Muñoz and P. Siano (Editors)
Volume 213 Wide Area Monitoring of Interconnected Power Systems 2nd Edition
A.R. Messina
Volume 217 Advances in Power System Modelling, Control and Stability Analysis 2nd
Edition F. Milano (Editor)
Volume 225 Fusion-Fission Hybrid Nuclear Reactors: For enhanced nuclear fuel
utilization and radioactive waste reduction W.M. Stacey
Volume 228 Digital Technologies for Solar Photovoltaic Systems: From general to
rural and remote installations S. Motahhir (Editor)
Volume 238 AI for Status Monitoring of Utility Scale Batteries S. Wang, K. Liu, Y. Wang,
D. Stroe, C. Fernandez and J.M. Guerrero
Volume 905 Power system protection, 4 volumes
Lightning
Electromagnetics
Volume 2: Electrical processes and effects
2nd Edition

Edited by
Vernon Cooray, Farhad Rachidi and Marcos Rubinstein

The Institution of Engineering and Technology

Published by The Institution of Engineering and Technology, London, United Kingdom
The Institution of Engineering and Technology is registered as a Charity in England &
Wales (no. 211014) and Scotland (no. SC038698).
† The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2022
First published 2012
2nd Edition published 2022
This publication is copyright under the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright
Convention. All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research
or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in
the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of licences issued
by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those
terms should be sent to the publisher at the undermentioned address:
The Institution of Engineering and Technology
Futures Place
Kings Way, Stevenage
Hertfordshire SG1 2UA, United Kingdom
www.theiet.org

While the authors and publisher believe that the information and guidance given in this
work are correct, all parties must rely upon their own skill and judgement when making
use of them. Neither the author nor publisher assumes any liability to anyone for any
loss or damage caused by any error or omission in the work, whether such an error or
omission is the result of negligence or any other cause. Any and all such liability is
disclaimed.

The moral rights of the author to be identified as author of this work have been
asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this product is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-78561-539-9 (Volume 1 hardback)

ISBN 978-1-78561-540-5 (Volume 1 pdf)
ISBN 978-1-78561-541-2 (Volume 2 hardback)
ISBN 978-1-78561-542-9 (Volume 2 pdf)
ISBN 978-1-78561-543-6 (2 Volume set hardback)

Typeset in India by MPS Limited

Printed in the UK by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon

Cover image: Boris Jordan Photography/Moment via Getty Images

 Contents

About the editors xix

Acknowledgements xxi

1 Basic discharge processes in the atmosphere 1

Vernon Cooray and Liliana Arevalo
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Electron avalanche 2
1.3 Streamer discharges 4
1.4 Corona discharges 9
1.5 Thermalization or heating of air by a discharge 10
1.6 Low-pressure electrical discharges 11
1.7 Leader discharges 11
1.8 Some features of mathematical modelling of positive
leader discharges 13
1.9 Leader inception based on thermalization of the discharge channel 18
References 19

2 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 23

Edward R. Mansell and Donald R. MacGorman
2.1 Introduction 23
2.2 Definitions of some model descriptors 24
2.2.1 Basic terminology 24
2.2.2 Terms related to microphysics 26
2.2.3 Categories of electrification mechanisms 30
2.2.4 Other categorizations of cloud models 31
2.3 Brief history of electrification modelling 33
2.4 Parameterization of electrical processes 37
2.4.1 Calculating the electric field 37
2.4.2 Charge continuity 40
2.4.3 The non-inductive graupel–ice collision mechanism 42
2.4.4 The inductive charging mechanism 51
2.4.5 Small ion processes 54
2.5 Lightning parameterizations 58
2.5.1 Stochastic lightning model 60
2.5.2 Pseudo-fractal lightning 63
2.6 Some applications of models 64
2.6.1 Ion and inductive mechanisms 64
x Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

2.6.2 Non-inductive graupel–ice sensitivity 65

2.6.3 Charge structure and lightning type 66
2.6.4 Concluding remarks 70
References 71

3 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 77

Y. V. Serdyuk
3.1 Introduction 77
3.2 Outline of electro-physical processes in gaseous medium
under electric fields 77
3.2.1 Generation of charged species in gas 78
3.2.2 Losses of charged species in gas 79
3.2.3 Dynamics of densities of charge carriers in
discharge plasma 80
3.2.4 Concepts of electron avalanche and streamer 80
3.3 Hydrodynamic description of gas discharge plasma 82
3.4 Solving gas discharge problems 86
3.4.1 Simulations of corona in air 86
3.4.2 Computer implementation of corona model 87
3.4.3 Study case: positive corona between coaxial cylinders 99
3.4.4 Study case: positive corona in rod-plane electrode system 104
3.5 Simulations of streamer discharges in air 109
3.5.1 Study case: positive streamer in a weak homogeneous
background field 117
3.5.2 Study case: negative streamer in weak homogeneous
background fields 123
References 127

4 Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures 133

Vernon Cooray
4.1 Introduction 133
4.2 Striking distance 135
4.3 Leader inception models 137
4.3.1 Critical radius and critical streamer length concepts 137
4.3.2 Rizk’s generalized leader inception equation 138
4.3.3 Lalande’s stabilization field equation 138
4.3.4 Leader inception model of Becerra and Cooray (SLIM) 139
4.4 Leader progression and attachment models 139
4.5 The potential of the stepped leader channel and the striking
distance 142
4.5.1 Armstrong and Whitehead 142
4.5.2 Leader potential extracted from the charge neutralized
by the return stroke 142
4.5.3 Striking distance based on the leader tip potential 144
4.6 Comparison of EGM against SLIM 145
 Contents xi

4.7 Points where more investigations are needed 148

4.7.1 Orientation of the stepped leader 148
4.7.2 The orientation of the connecting leader 150
4.7.3 The connection between the leader potential and the
return stroke current 150
4.7.4 Inclination of the leader channel 152
4.7.5 Main assumptions of SLIM 152
4.8 Concluding remarks 153
References 153

5 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 157

Farhad Rachidi and Marcos Rubinstein
5.1 Introduction 157
5.2 Modeling lightning strikes to tall structures 157
5.2.1 Engineering models 158
5.2.2 Electromagnetic models 164
5.2.3 Hybrid electromagnetic model (HEM) 164
5.3 Electromagnetic field computation 165
5.3.1 Electromagnetic field expressions for a perfectly
conducting ground 166
5.3.2 Electromagnetic field computation for a finitely
conducting ground 171
5.4 Review of lightning current data and associated
electromagnetic fields 174
5.4.1 Experimental data 175
5.4.2 Data from short towers 176
5.4.3 Summary of Berger’s data 177
5.4.4 Other data obtained using short towers (  100 m) 178
5.4.5 Data from tall towers 181
5.5 Summary 191
References 191

6 Lightning electromagnetic field calculations in the presence

of a conducting ground: the numerical treatment of
Sommerfeld’s integrals 201
Federico Delfino, Renato Procopio, Mansueto Rossi,
Daniele Mestriner and Massimo Brignone
6.1 Introduction 201
6.2 Lightning electromagnetic field calculation in presence of
a lossy ground with constant electrical parameters 202
6.2.1 Over-ground electromagnetic field 203
6.2.2 Underground electromagnetic field 218
6.3 Lightning electromagnetic field calculation in presence of a
lossy ground with frequency-dependent electrical parameters 221
xii Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

6.3.1 The dependence of soil conductivity and permittivity

on the frequency 222
6.3.2 Numerical simulation of over-ground and underground
lightning electromagnetic field 226
6.4 Lightning electromagnetic field calculation in presence of
a lossy and horizontally stratified ground 228
6.4.1 Statement of the problem and derivation of the Green’s
functions for the electromagnetic field 228
6.4.2 Derivation of the lightning electromagnetic field 232
6.4.3 The reflection coefficient R 233
6.5 Conclusions 236
References 236

7 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation: a survey on the

available approximate expressions 243
Daniele Mestriner, Renato Procopio, Massimo Brignone and
Federico Delfino
7.1 Lightning electromagnetic fields over a homogeneous soil 243
7.1.1 Horizontal electric field – Cooray–Rubinstein (CR)
formula 244
7.1.2 Vertical electric field and azimuthal magnetic field 256
7.1.3 Lightning electromagnetic fields under the
ground-Cooray formula 259
7.2 Electromagnetic fields propagation along a horizontally
stratified ground 262
7.2.1 Lightning electromagnetic fields for a two-layer
horizontally stratified ground: a simplified formulation 263
7.2.2 Validation of the simplified formula 265
7.3 Electromagnetic fields propagation along a vertically
stratified ground 277
7.3.1 Lightning electromagnetic fields for a two-layer
vertically stratified ground: a simplified formulation 277
7.3.2 Validation of the simplified formula 278
7.4 Summary 284
References 285

8 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields with

overhead and underground cables 291
Carlo Alberto Nucci, Farhad Rachidi and Marcos Rubinstein
8.1 Introduction 291
8.2 Transmission line theory 292
8.3 Electromagnetic field interaction with overhead lines 294
8.3.1 Single-wire line above a perfectly conducting ground 294
8.3.2 Taylor, Satterwhite, and Harrison model 294
 Contents xiii

8.3.3 Agrawal, Price, and Gurbaxani model 295

8.3.4 Rachidi model 296
8.3.5 Rusck model and its extensions 297
8.3.6 Inclusion of losses 298
8.3.7 Multiconductor lines 299
8.3.8 Coupling to complex networks 302
8.3.9 Frequency-domain solutions 302
8.3.10 Time-domain solutions 303
8.3.11 Analytical solutions 305
8.3.12 Application to lightning-induced voltages 306
8.4 Electromagnetic field interaction with buried cables 311
8.4.1 Field-to-buried cables coupling equations 311
8.4.2 Frequency-domain solutions 314
8.4.3 Time-domain solutions 315
8.4.4 Lightning-induced disturbances in a buried cable 315
8.5 Conclusions 316
Acknowledgments 318
References 318

9 Application of scale models to the study of lightning transients in

power transmission and distribution systems 325
Alexandre Piantini and Jorge M. Janiszewski
9.1 Introduction 325
9.2 Basis of scale modeling 327
9.3 Simulation of the electromagnetic environment 329
9.3.1 Lightning channel 331
9.3.2 Ground 333
9.3.3 Overhead lines 333
9.3.4 Transformers 334
9.3.5 Surge arresters 335
9.3.6 Buildings 338
9.3.7 Transmission line towers 340
9.4 Evaluation of lightning surges in power lines 343
9.4.1 Investigations associated with direct strokes 343
9.4.2 Investigations associated with indirect strokes 347
9.5 Conclusions 363
Acknowledgments 364
References 364

10 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 375

Dongshuai Li, Alejandro Luque, Marcos Rubinstein and
Farhad Rachidi
10.1 Introduction 375
xiv Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

10.2 The full-wave FDTD model of lightning EMPs interaction

with the D-region ionosphere 376
10.2.1 The parameterization of the lower D-region
ionosphere 376
10.2.2 3D spherical model 378
10.2.3 2D symmetric polar model 381
10.3 VLF/LF signal of lightning EM fields propagation through
the EIWG 384
10.3.1 The effect of Earth’s curvature 384
10.3.2 The effect of the ground conductivity 386
10.3.3 The effect of different D-region ionospheric profiles 389
10.4 Application to the propagation of NBEs at different distances
in the EIWG 396
10.5 Application to lightning EM field propagation over a
mountainous terrain 400
10.6 Application to the optical emissions of lightning-induced
transient luminous events in the nonlinear D-region ionosphere 403
10.7 Summary 416
References 417

11 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 425

Vadim V. Surkov and Masashi Hayakawa
11.1 Introduction 425
11.2 Sprites 429
11.2.1 Basic properties and morphology of sprites 429
11.2.2 Mechanism of the sprite nucleation 430
11.2.3 Sprite development 433
11.2.4 Sprite models 435
11.2.5 Inner structure and color of sprites 441
11.2.6 ELF/VLF electromagnetic fields produced by sprites 443
11.2.7 Effects of sprites on the ionosphere 446
11.3 Blue jet, blue starter, and gigantic jet 448
11.3.1 Basic properties and morphology of blue and
gigantic jets 448
11.3.2 Development of gigantic jet 451
11.3.3 Models of gigantic jet 453
11.4 Elves 458
11.5 Other transient atmospheric phenomena possibly related to
lightning activity 460
11.5.1 Gnomes and Pixies 460
11.5.2 Transient atmospheric events 460
11.5.3 Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes 461
References 463
 Contents xv

12 The effects of lightning on the ionosphere/magnetosphere:

whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 475
M. Hayakawa and Y. Hobara
12.1 Introduction 476
12.2 Lightning-induced whistlers in the ionosphere/magnetosphere 477
12.2.1 General description of whistlers 477
12.2.2 Theoretical background of plasma waves 479
12.2.3 Use of whistlers as a diagnostic tool of the
ionosphere/magnetosphere 491
12.3 Ionospheric Alfvén resonator (IAR) 496
12.3.1 Brief history and general introduction of IAR 496
12.3.2 Ground-based observations of IARs at middle latitude 498
12.3.3 Generation mechanisms of IAR 507
12.3.4 Excitation of IAR by nearby thunderstorms 508
12.4 Summary of lightning effects on the ionosphere/magnetosphere 516
References 517

13 On the NOx generation in corona, streamer and low-pressure

electrical discharges 527
Vernon Cooray, Marley Becerra and Mahbubur Rahman
13.1 Introduction 527
13.2 Testing the theory using corona discharges 529
13.3 NOx generation in electron avalanches and its relationship
to energy dissipation 529
13.4 NOx production in streamer discharges 530
13.5 Discussion and conclusions 532
References 534

14 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges

and lightning 537
Vernon Cooray, Mahbubur Rahman and Vladimir Rakov
14.1 Introduction 537
14.2 NOx production by laboratory sparks 538
14.2.1 Radius of spark channels 538
14.2.2 The volume of air heated in a spark channel and its
internal energy 540
14.2.3 NOx production in spark channels 541
14.2.4 Efficiency of NOx production in sparks with different
current wave-shapes 542
14.2.5 NOx production in sparks as a function of energy 544
14.3 NOx production in discharges containing long-duration currents 546
14.4 NOx production in streamer discharges 546
14.5 NOx production in ground lightning flashes 547
14.5.1 The model of a ground lightning flash 547
14.5.2 NOx production in different processes in ground flashes 548
xvi Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

14.6 NOx production by cloud flashes 556

14.7 Global production of NOx by lightning flashes 558
14.8 Conclusions 560
Appendix 1 561
References 562

15 Lightning and climate change 569

Earle R. Williams, Joan Montanya, Joydeb Saha and Anirban Guha
15.1 Introduction 569
15.2 Basics of thunderstorm electrification and lightning 572
15.3 Thermodynamic control on lightning activity 573
15.3.1 Temperature 573
15.3.2 Dew point temperature 573
15.3.3 Water vapor and the Clausius–Clapeyron relationship 573
15.3.4 Convective available potential energy and its temperature
dependence 575
15.3.5 Cloud base height and its influence on cloud microphysics 577
15.3.6 Balance level considerations in deep convection 581
15.3.7 Baroclinicity 582
15.4 Global lightning response to temperature on different time scales 582
15.4.1 Diurnal variation 583
15.4.2 Semiannual variation 583
15.4.3 Annual variation 585
15.4.4 ENSO 586
15.4.5 Decadal time scale 588
15.4.6 Multi-decadal time scale 588
15.4.7 Hiatus in global warming and “warming hole” 590
15.5 Aerosol influence on moist convection and lightning activity 590
15.5.1 Basic concepts 590
15.5.2 Observational support 591
15.5.3 Lightning response to the COVID-19 pandemic 593
15.5.4 Work of Wang et al. (2018) on the global
aerosol-lightning relationship 593
15.6 Lightning as a climate variable 593
15.7 Lightning activity at high latitude 594
15.7.1 The Arctic 594
15.7.2 Alaska 595
15.8 Winter-type thunderstorms and lightning 595
15.8.1 Effects of global warming on winter thunderstorms 596
15.9 Storms at the mesoscale 597
15.10 Tropical cyclones 597
15.11 Cloud-to-ocean lightning 599
15.12 Lightning superbolts and megaflashes 600
15.13 Nocturnal thunderstorms 602
 Contents xvii

15.14 Meteorological control on lightning type 604

15.15 The global circuits as monitors for destructive lightning
and climate change 604
15.16 Expectations for the future 606
References 608

Index 627
This page intentionally left blank
 About the editors

Vernon Cooray is a professor emeritus at the Department of Electrical

Engineering of Uppsala University, Sweden. A fellow of the IEEE and recipient of
the Berger award, he is also in charge of the HV Laboratory at Uppsala University.
He has authored and co-authored about 350 scientific papers and books, served as
keynote speaker and session convener at various international conferences, on
journal boards, and as president of ICLP.

Farhad Rachidi is a professor at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne,

Switzerland. A Fellow of IEEE, he is head of the EMC Laboratory at the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology. His research focus includes lightning electro-
magnetics, and EMP interaction with transmission lines. Prior assignments include
the NASA Kennedy Space Centre. He has served on key journal boards and as
chairman or convener to key events and working groups, and has published 150
papers in peer-reviewed journals.

Marcos Rubinstein is a professor in telecommunications at the University of

Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland. He is an IEEE fellow and member of the
Institute for Information and Communication Technologies, and serves on key
positions such as head of the Applied Electromagnetics Group and chairman of the
International Project on Electromagnetic Radiation from Lightning to Tall struc-
tures. He has authored or co-authored over 200 scientific publications in journals
and conferences, and received several prestigious awards.
This page intentionally left blank
 Acknowledgements

We wish to thank all our colleagues who have spent a good deal of their free time
writing the chapters of this book.
We wish to express our sincere thanks to Ms. Olivia Wilkins and Ms. Nikki
Tarplett from the IET publishers and Mr. N. Srinivasan from MPS Limited for their
outstanding support throughout the publishing project. Despite unexpected delays
in our submissions, they remained patient and accommodating, always willing to
listen to our suggestions and provide valuable feedback. We are truly grateful for
their professionalism and dedication.
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 1
Basic discharge processes in the atmosphere
Vernon Cooray1 and Liliana Arevalo2

1.1 Introduction
The main constituents of air in the Earth’s atmosphere are nitrogen (78%), oxygen
(20%), noble gases (1%), water vapour (0.03%), carbon dioxide (0.97%), and other
trace gas species. In general, air is a good insulator and it can maintain its insulating
properties until the applied electric field exceeds about 2.8
104 V/cm at standard
atmospheric conditions (i.e. T = 293 K and P = 1 atm). When the background
electric field exceeds this critical value, the free electrons in air, generated mainly
by the high energetic radiation of cosmic rays and radio active gases generated
from the Earth, start accelerating in this electric field and gain enough energy
between collisions with atoms and molecules to ionize other atoms. This cumula-
tive ionization leads to an increase in the number of electrons initiating the elec-
trical breakdown of air. The threshold electric field necessary for electrical
breakdown of air is a function of atmospheric density. For example, the critical
electric field, E, necessary for electrical breakdown of air of density d is given by
d
E ¼ E0 (1.1)
d0
where d0 is the density of air at sea level at standard atmospheric conditions and E0 is
the corresponding critical electric field necessary for electrical breakdown under the
same conditions. Since the density of air in the Earth’s atmosphere decreases with
height z (in m) as d ¼ d0 ez=lp with lp  7:64
103 m, the critical electric field
necessary to cause electrical breakdown in the atmosphere decreases with height as

E ¼ E0 ez=le (1.2)
When the electric field in the atmosphere increases beyond this critical value,
the appearance of the resulting electrical discharge depends on the pressure and the
spatial variation in the electric field. Irrespective of its apparent features the basic
constituents of an electrical discharge in air can be separated into four parts. These

1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Uppsala University, Sweden
2
Hitachi Energy Hr Dc Insulation System, Ludvika, Sweden
2 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

are electron avalanches, streamer discharges, corona discharges, and leaders. When
the leaders reach an electrode of opposite polarity or a region of opposite charge
density, a rapid neutralization of the charge on the leader takes place. This neu-
tralization process is called a return stroke. The exact mechanism of the return
stroke is not yet known, but different types of models have been developed to
describe them. These models are described in several chapters of this book. Here,
we will concentrate on the four discharge processes mentioned above. Some parts
of this chapter are adopted and summarized from Ref. [1] where an extensive
description of basic physics of discharges is given.

1.2 Electron avalanche

Consider a free electron originated at x = 0 in space and moving under the influence of
a background electric field directed in the negative x direction. If the background
electric field is larger than the critical value necessary for cumulative ionization,
the electron may produce another electron through ionization collisions and these two
electrons in turn will give rise to two more electrons. In this way the number of
electrons increases with increasing x. Assume that the number of electrons at a dis-
tance x from the origin is nx. Let a be the number of ionizing collisions per unit length
made by an electron travelling in the direction of the electric field. As the ionization
processes increase the number of electrons in air, some of the electrons will get
attached to electronegative gases such as oxygen in air. Let h be the number of electron
attachments per unit length. The parameter a is called the Townsend’s first ionization
coefficient and the parameter h is called the attachment coefficient. Consider an ele-
mentary length of width dx located at a distance x from the origin. In travelling across
the length dx, nx number of electrons will give rise to dn additional electrons
dn ¼ nx ða  hÞdx (1.3)
The solution of this equation is

nx ¼ eðahÞx (1.4)
This equation shows that the number of electrons increases exponentially with
distance. This exponential growth of electrons with distance is called an electron
avalanche. The equation also shows that cumulative ionization is possible only if
ða  hÞ > 0. The magnitude of both a and h depends on the background electric
field and the air density. The quantity ða  hÞ is known as the effective ionization
coefficient and denoted by a  . For electric field values less than the critical value
necessary for electrical breakdown, ða  hÞ < 0 and for higher electric fields
ða  hÞ > 0. This explains the reason for the existence of a critical electric field
beyond which the air breaks down electrically.
As one can see from the above equation whether the avalanche will continue to
grow (i.e. nx continue to increase with distance) or whether it will start to decay
after an initial growth (i.e. nx will decrease with distance) depends on the spatial
distribution of the electric field. As long as the background electric field is such that
 Basic discharge processes in the atmosphere 3

300 8 × 107

6 × 107
Electric field (kV/cm)

Number of electrons
200

4 × 107

100
2 × 107

0 0 × 100
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Distance (µm) Distance (µm)
(a) (b)

Figure 1.1 (a) The electric field used in demonstrating the spatial variation in the
number of electrons in the avalanche head as the avalanche advances
in an electric field. (b) The variation in the number of electrons in the
avalanche head as a function of distance as the avalanche propagates
in the electric field shown in (a). Note that the origin of the avalanche
is at the point corresponding to zero distance

ða  hÞ > 0, the avalanche continues to grow while it starts to decay when

ða  hÞ < 0. In order to illustrate this, consider an electric field that originates from
a pointed source and decreases exponentially with distance. The electric field at the
source is larger than the critical value necessary for electrical breakdown in stan-
dard atmosphere (i.e. 2.8
104 V/cm). An example is shown in Figure 1.1(a).
Consider an electron avalanche that originates at the source and moves into the low
field region. Figure 1.1(b) shows how the number of electrons at the avalanche
head varies as the avalanche extends into the low field region. Observe that the
number of electrons increases initially, but it will start to decrease when the electric
field goes below the critical value necessary for electrical breakdown. In calculat-
ing the electron number in the avalanche, it is necessary to evaluate a and h as a
function of the background electric field. Denoting the gas density by N (in cm3)
and the background electric field by E (in V/cm), these dependencies can be
described by the following equations [2,3]:
2
3
15
a 7:248
10 5cm2 for E > 1:5
1015 V=cm2 (1.5)
¼ 2:0
1016 exp4  
N E N
N

2
3
15
a 5:593
10 5cm2 for E  1:5
1015 V=cm2
¼ 6:619
1017 exp4
E  (1.6)
N N
N
4 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2
 
h E E
¼ 8:889
105 þ 2:567
1019 cm2 for > 1:05
1015 V=cm2 (1.7)
N N N
 
h E E
¼ 6:089
104  2:893
1019 cm2 for  1:05
1015 V=cm2 (1.8)
N N N

As the avalanche grows the number of electrons at the head increases. These
electrons will spread out due to random diffusion causing the avalanche head to
expand. The p average
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi radius of the avalanche head can be calculated from the
equation r ¼ 4Dt where t ¼ x=vd is the time of advance of the avalanche, D is the
coefficient of diffusion and vd is the drift velocity of the electrons in the electric
field. The drift velocity of the electrons can be obtained from the equation:
 0:6064
16 E
vd ¼ 2:157
10 cm=s (1.9)
N
and the coefficient of diffusion D can be obtained from the following expressions [2]:
 0:3441
D E E
¼ 5:645
104 V for < 2:0
1017 V=cm2 (1.10)
me N N
and
 0:46113
D 7 E E
¼ 2:173
10 V 2:0
1017 < < 1:23
1016 V=cm2
me N N
(1.11)

In the above equations me is the electron mobility that can be extracted from (1.9).

1.3 Streamer discharges

The analysis given in the previous section shows that as the avalanche increases in
length, the charge accumulated at the head of the avalanche increases. As a result,
the electric field produced by this charge located at the head of the avalanche also
increases as the avalanche moves forward. If the background electric field supports
the growth of the avalanche, a situation will be reached that the electric field
produced by the charge located at the avalanche head will overwhelm the critical
electric field necessary for electrical breakdown in the medium. At this stage the
electric field produced by the charges located at the avalanche head, i.e. the space
charge electric field, starts influencing the ionization processes taking place in the
vicinity of the avalanche head. When this stage is reached, the avalanche will
convert itself to a streamer discharge. The exact mechanism of the formation of a
streamer discharge from an avalanche depends on the polarity of the source that
 Basic discharge processes in the atmosphere 5

generates the background electric field. First consider a source at positive polarity.
The source could be a charged graupel particle (in a thundercloud) in a background
electric field, a Franklin rod exposed to the background electric field of a thun-
dercloud or a high-voltage electrode. For clarity we will refer to it as the anode.
If the electric field in front of the anode is high enough, a photoelectron gen-
erated at a point located in front of the anode will initiate an avalanche that pro-
pagates towards the anode. The process is depicted in Figure 1.2. As the electron
avalanche propagates towards the anode, mobile positive space charge accumulates
at the avalanche head. When the avalanche reaches the anode, the electrons will be
absorbed into it leaving behind the net positive space charge. Because of the

Figure 1.2 Mechanism of positive streamers. A photoelectron generated at a point

located in front of the anode will initiate an avalanche that propagates
towards the anode. When the avalanche reaches the anode, the
electrons will be absorbed into it leaving behind the net positive space
charge. If the number of positive ions in the avalanche head is larger
than a critical value, secondary avalanches created by the photons
will be attracted towards the positive space charge. The positive space
charge will be neutralized by the electrons in the secondary
avalanches creating a weakly conducting channel. Consequently, a
part of the anode potential will be transferred to the channel making it
positively charged and increasing the electric field at the tip. The high
electric field at the tip attracts more electron avalanches towards it
and the channel grows as a consequence
6 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

recombination of positive ions and electrons, avalanche head is a strong source of

high energetic photons. These photons will create other avalanches in the vicinity
of the positive space charge. If the number of positive ions in the avalanche head is
larger than a critical value, the electric field created by the space charge becomes
comparable or overwhelms the critical electric field. As a result the secondary
avalanches created by the photons will be attracted towards the positive space
charge. The electrons in the secondary avalanches will be neutralized by the posi-
tive space charge of the primary avalanche leaving behind a new positive space
charge, little bit away from the anode. Furthermore, the neutralization process leads
to the creation of a weakly conducting channel and a part of the anode potential will
be transferred to this channel making it positively charged and increasing the
electric field at the tip. The high electric field at the tip of this weakly conducting
channel attracts more electron avalanches towards it and the resulting neutraliza-
tion process causes the weakly conducting channel to extend in a direction away
from the anode. This discharge that travels away from the anode is called a positive
streamer.
Now let us consider a source of negative polarity, i.e. a cathode. A photo-
electron generated close to the cathode will generate an avalanche (primary ava-
lanche) that moves away from the cathode leaving behind positive charge close to
it. The process is depicted in Figure 1.3. When the avalanche reaches a critical size,
the positive charge of the avalanche starts attracting secondary avalanches towards
it. Like in the case of a positive streamer the electrons in the secondary avalanches
neutralize this positive charge effectively moving it towards the cathode. When the
positive charge reaches the cathode, the field enhancement associated with the
proximity of positive space charge to the cathode leads to the emission of electrons
from the latter. These electrons will neutralize the positive space charge creating
a weakly conducting channel that connects the negative head of the electron
avalanche to the cathode. As a consequence, a part of the cathode potential will be
transferred to the head of this weakly ionized channel (i.e. negative streamer)
increasing the electric field at its head. This streamer head will now act as a virtual
cathode and the process is repeated. Repetition of this process leads to the propa-
gation of the negative streamer away from the cathode.
If the background electric field is very high, the positive space charge of the
primary avalanche may reach the critical size necessary for streamer formation
before reaching the anode. This may lead to the formation of a bi-directional dis-
charge, the two ends of which travel towards the anode and the cathode, former as a
negative streamer and the latter as a positive streamer. Such a discharge is called a
mid gap streamer.
So far we have not discussed the exact condition under which an avalanche will be
converted to a streamer. As mentioned earlier, the avalanche to streamer transition
takes place when the number of charged particles at the avalanche head exceeds a
critical value, Nc. From cloud chamber photographs of the avalanches and streamers,
Raether [4] estimated that an avalanche will be converted to a streamer when the
number of positive ions in the avalanche head reaches a critical value of about 108. A
similar conclusion is also reached independently by Meek [5]. On the other hand
 Basic discharge processes in the atmosphere 7

Figure 1.3 Mechanism of negative streamers. An photoelectron generated close

to the cathode will generate an avalanche that moves away from the
cathode leaving behind positive charge close to it. When the
avalanche reaches a critical size, the positive charge of the avalanche
starts attracting secondary avalanches towards it. Like in the case of a
positive streamer, the electrons in the secondary avalanches
neutralize this positive charge effectively moving it towards the
cathode. When the positive charge reaches the cathode, the field
enhancement associated with the proximity of positive space charge to
the cathode leads to the emission of electrons from the latter. These
electrons will neutralize the positive space charge creating a weakly
conducting channel that connects the negative head of the electron
avalanche to the cathode. A part of the cathode potential will be
transferred to the head of this weakly ionized channel (i.e. negative
streamer) increasing the electric field at its head. This streamer head
will now act as a virtual cathode and the process is repeated.
Repetition of this process leads to the propagation of the negative
streamer away from the cathode
8 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Bazelyan and Raizer [6] suggest 109 as a reasonable value for this transfor-
mation. Thus, the condition for the transformation of an avalanche to a streamer
can be written as
Ð xc
½aðxÞhðxÞdx
e0 ¼ 108  109 (1.12)
Note that in writing down the above equation, it is assumed that the electric
field is not uniform and therefore both a and h are a function of distance. Moreover,
in the above equation the distance x is measured from the origin of the avalanche
and xc is the distance from the origin of the avalanche where the background
electric field goes below the critical value necessary for electrical breakdown.
The advancement of the streamer in a given background electric field is
facilitated by the large increase in the local electric field in the vicinity of the
streamer head and by the enhanced production of the photons from the streamer
head. The photons create secondary electrons in front of the streamer head and
these secondary electrons give rise to secondary avalanches that will move, in the
case of positive streamers, towards the streamer head. Once initiated, the streamers
have been observed to travel in background electric fields that itself cannot support
avalanche formation. Thus, the secondary avalanche formation in the streamer is
confined to a very small region around the streamer head where the electric field
exceeds 2.8
104 V/cm, the minimum electric field required for the cumulative
ionization in air at atmospheric pressure. This region is called the active region.
The dimension of the active region is about 200 mm and the streamer radius was
found to be on the order of 10–50 mm [7,8]. This value, however, may correspond
to short streamers. Since the electron multiplication in the active region is sup-
ported by the space charge electric field of the streamer head, the streamer can
propagate in electric fields that are much smaller than the critical electric field
necessary for cumulative electron ionization. In air, the background electric field
necessary for positive streamer propagation lies in the range of 4.5–5
103 V/cm
[9–11]. For negative streamers it lies in the range of 1–2
104 V/cm. Any variation
in the electron loss processes can change this electric field. For example, when air
is saturated with water vapour, the critical electric field for positive streamer pro-
pagation grows from 4.7
103 V/cm at humidity of 3 g/m3 to 5.6
103 V/cm at
18 g/cm3 [12,13]. The critical electric field necessary for streamer propagation
decreases approximately linearly with decreasing air density [6].
In background electric fields close to the critical value necessary for streamer
propagation, the speed of streamers is about 107 cm/s. However, the streamer speed
increases with increasing background electric field. No direct measurements are
available today on the potential gradient of the streamer channels. Experiments
conducted with long sparks show that the average potential gradient of the elec-
trode gap when the positive streamers bridges the gap between the two electrodes is
about 5
103 V/cm [14]. This indicates that the potential gradient of the positive
streamer channels in air at atmospheric pressure is close to this value. Note that this
value is approximately the same as the critical electric field necessary for the
propagation of positive streamers.
 Basic discharge processes in the atmosphere 9

1.4 Corona discharges

In many situations, the electric field in air in the vicinity of objects exposed to high
external electric fields may overwhelm the critical electric field necessary for the
formation of electron avalanches in air. Moreover, the extent of the volume in which
this high electric field exist may confine to a very small region around the object (i.e.
the electric field is strongly non-uniform) so that it would not lead to any electrical
breakdown between the object under consideration and another one in its vicinity. In
this case the electrical activity will be concentrated and confined to a small volume
around the object. These types of discharge activity are called corona discharges.
Corona discharge consists of either electron avalanches, streamers or both.
During corona discharges ionic space charge of both polarities accumulate
near the highly stressed electrode, thus modifying the electric field distribution.
The equilibrium between accumulation and removal of space charge causes several
modes of corona discharges. Moreover, the physical nature of these corona dis-
charges is affected by the electronegativity of the gas under consideration.
Consider first the application of a positive voltage to a point, i.e. an anode.
Initially, electron avalanches start from a certain distance from the anode and start
moving towards it. If the electric field is high enough, some of these avalanches may
reach a critical size necessary for avalanche to streamer conversion at the anode. As a
consequence, the positive space charge left behind by the avalanches (note that the
electrons will be absorbed into the anode) may give rise to positive streamers. These
streamers may propagate a short distance into the gap (i.e. away from the anode) and
stop. The streamers will leave behind positive space charge close to the anode and this
positive charge reduces the electric field at the anode leading to the cessation of
streamer formation until the space charge is removed. As the space charge moves away
from the anode, the electric field recovers and a new set of streamers may start from
the anode. Moreover, as the space charge screens one region of the anode, streamers
may develop from another region. Thus, the discharge activity spreads across the
anode. This discharge activity is called onset streamers.
As the electric field increases further the activity increases. However, as the
electrons are not absorbed readily at the anode, they will form a negative ion sheath
close to the anode and between the anode and the positive space charge. This ion
sheath is called Hermitian sheath. The sheath increases the anode field but reduces
the field outside so that streamer formation is quenched. The length of the high
field region, i.e. the one between the anode and the negative sheath, is not long
enough to give rise to streamers, but formation of electron avalanches takes place in
there. Moreover, the electric field inside this zone is high enough to detach negative
ions. This discharge is called glow corona or Hermitian glow. As the field increases
further, the electric field outside the sheath becomes large enough and the streamer
formation starts again. They are called breakdown streamers and they extend into
the gap a distance depending on the applied voltage.
Now let us consider the case in which the source is of negative polarity, i.e. a
cathode. As the electric field increases, electron avalanches start from the cathode.
The resulting positive ions will travel towards the cathode. The collision of these
10 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

positive ions with the cathode gives out electrons that support the formation of
avalanches. The electron avalanches will move out a certain distance from the
cathode, but as they move away from the cathode the electric field decreases and
the electrons will be attached to oxygen molecules in air. This gives rise to a
negative space charge region. This negative space charge will reduce the electric
field and choke off the discharge activity. However, as the negative space charge
moves away due to the action of the electric field, the electric field at the cathode
recovers and a new discharge activity starts from the cathode. This mode of dis-
charge, relaxation and continuation, continues for a considerable potential range.
This oscillating corona discharge is called Trichel pulses because the current con-
sists of pulses separated in time. The repetition frequency of the pulses depends on
the applied voltage but can reach values about 106 s1.
As the electric field continues to increase, the negative ions are created too far
from the cathode to choke off the discharge activity and a pulseless discharge
activity, i.e. a glow discharge, starts from the cathode. This will continue for some
range of potentials and with increasing electric fields negative streamers start to
form from the cathode. Initially, they do not propagate far into the gap but with
increasing voltage they move further and further into the gap.

1.5 Thermalization or heating of air by a discharge

In the streamer phase of the discharge, many free electrons are lost due to attachment
to electronegative oxygen in air. Furthermore, a considerable amount of energy
gained by electrons from the electric field is used in exciting molecular vibrations.
Since the electrons can transfer only a small fraction of their energy to neutral atoms
during elastic collisions, the electrons have a higher temperature than the neutrals.
That is, the gas and the electrons are not in thermal equilibrium. As the gas tem-
perature rises to about 1,600–2,000 K, rapid detachment of the electrons from oxygen
negative ions supply the discharge with a copious amount of electrons thus enhancing
the ionization [15]. As the temperature rises, the time necessary to convert the energy
stored in the molecules as vibrational energy to thermal or translational energy
decreases and the vibrational energy converts back to translational energy thus
accelerating the heating process. As the ionization process continues, the electron
density in the channel continues to increase. When the electron density increases to
about 1017 cm3, a new process starts in the discharge channel. This is the strong
interaction of electrons with each other and with positive ions through long-range
Coulomb forces [15]. This leads to a rapid transfer of the energy of electrons to
positive ions causing the electron temperature to decrease, while the ion temperature
increases. The positive ions, having the same mass as the neutrals, transfer their
energy very quickly, in a time on the order of 108 or less (depending on the volume
of the discharge) to neutrals. This results in a rapid heating of the gas. At this stage,
the thermal ionization (ionization caused by the impact of ions and neutrals) sets in
causing a rapid increase in the ionization and the conductivity of the channel. This
process is called thermalization. During thermalization as the electron temperature
 Basic discharge processes in the atmosphere 11

decreases, the gas temperature increases and very quickly all the components of the
discharge namely, electrons, ions and neutrals, will achieve the same temperature and
the discharge will reach local thermodynamic equilibrium.

1.6 Low-pressure electrical discharges

As described previously, avalanche to streamer transition requires that the ava-
lanche grows to about 108–109 electrons and the space charge in the avalanche tip
creates an electric field that is capable of attracting electron avalanches towards it.
As the pressure decreases, the avalanche has to grow to longer and longer lengths
before it can accumulate enough space charge at its head to modify the background
electric field. This could be the case in the case of low-pressure discharges taking
place in the upper atmosphere (i.e. sprites and elves) during thunderstorms. In
these, the length of streamer like discharges may exceed hundreds of metres to
kilometres. Another interesting feature of these low-pressure discharges is the lack
of thermalization process. As mentioned earlier, the thermalization requires
increasing the electron density beyond a certain limit. In low-pressure discharges,
the density of molecules and atoms is such that the electron densities never reach
the critical values necessary for thermalization. In these discharges, the electron
temperature remains very high while the gas temperature remains close to ambient.
The electron impacts are the dominant mechanism of ionization in these discharges.

1.7 Leader discharges

In Section 1.3, we have considered the conditions necessary for the initiation of
streamer discharges in a given electric field configuration. The streamer is a cold
discharge (i.e. the gas temperature in the channel is close to ambient) and the con-
ductivity of the streamer channel is rather small. However, a leader discharge is a hot
discharge and the conductivity of the discharge channel is high. Let us now consider
how the streamers will be transformed into a leader and how the leader propagates in a
background electric field. Let us first consider a positive leader discharge.
Consider an anode whose potential rises rapidly in time. When the electric
field at the surface and in the vicinity of the anode increases to a value large enough
to convert avalanches to streamers (i.e. (1.12) is satisfied), a bust of streamers is
generated from the anode. Many of these streamers have their origin in a common
channel called the streamer stem. The streamers stop when the electric field
decreases below the critical value necessary for their propagation. Each individual
streamer is a cold discharge and the current associated with this cannot heat the air
sufficiently to make it highly conducting. However, the combined current of all
streamers flowing through the stem causes this common region to heat up
increasing the conductivity of the stem. The increase in the temperature causes the
gas to expand making the E/N (E is the electric field and N is the gas density) ratio
to increase leading to an increase in ionization and electron production. Since the
current will be concentrated into a thin channel (i.e. the streamer stem), this in turn
12 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

produce more heating and accelerate the ionization process. With increasing ioni-
zation, the process of thermalization sets in transforming the stem into a hot and
conducting channel called the leader.
Owing to its high conductivity, most of the voltage of the anode will be
transferred to the head of the leader channel resulting in a high electric field there.
This high electric field leads to the production of streamer discharges now from a
common stem located at the head of the leader channel. With the aid of cumulative
streamer currents, the new stem gradually transforms itself to a newly created
leader section with the streamer process now repeating at the new leader head. The
streamer system located in front of the leader is the source of current that heats the
air and makes possible the elongation of the leader. The main sequences of the
propagation of a positive leader are shown in Figure 1.4.

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Streamer stem Thermalized

leader
channel

Streamer bursts

Figure 1.4 Mechanism of positive leaders. When the electric field at the surface
and in the vicinity of the anode increases to a value large enough to
convert avalanches to streamers, a bust of streamers is generated from
the anode (T1). Many of these streamers have their origin in a
common channel called the streamer stem. The combined current of
all streamers flowing through the stem causes this common region to
heat up and, as a result, the stem will be transformed into a hot and
conducting channel called the leader (T2). Owing to its high
conductivity, most of the voltage of the anode will be transferred to the
head of the leader channel resulting in a high electric field there. This
high electric field leads to the production of streamer discharges now
from a common stem located at the head of the leader channel (T2).
With the aid of cumulative streamer currents, the new stem gradually
transforms itself to a newly created leader section with the streamer
process now repeating at the new leader head (T3, T4, T5)
 Basic discharge processes in the atmosphere 13

The leader usually supports a current of about 1 A at a relatively low long-

itudinal electric field of about 103 V/cm. The speed of propagation of the leader is
about a few centimetres per second. The spectroscopic measurements show that the
air in the leader channel is heated to about 5,000 K [9,10].
The development of the negative leader discharge is more complicated. As in
the case of positive leaders, a negative leader also originates with a streamer burst
issued from the high voltage electrode i.e. the cathode in this case. It also maintains
its propagation with the aid of negative streamers generated from its head.
However, the detailed mechanism of its propagation is different to that of positive
leaders. A simplified schematic diagram giving the main features of propagation of
a negative leader is shown in Figure 1.5. Once a negative streamer burst is gener-
ated from the leader head, a unique feature, called, a pilot system, that does not
exist in the positive leaders manifests in the system. The pilot system consists of a
bright spot called space stem, from which streamers of both polarity develops in
opposite directions. The location of the space stem is usually at the edge of the
negative streamer system. The action of these streamers heats the space stem and
converts it to a hot channel. This is called a space leader. The positive streamers
from the space leader propagate towards the head of the negative leader and the
negative streamers generated from the other end of the space leader propagate in
the opposite direction. Indeed, the positive streamers of the space stem propagate in
the region previously covered by negative streamers. The space leader lengthens
with a higher velocity towards the cathode (3 cm/ms) than towards the anode (1 cm/
ms). As the space leader approaches the main leader, the velocity of both increases
exponentially. The connection of the two leaders is accompanied by a simultaneous
illumination of the whole channel starting from the meeting point. During this
process, the space leader acquires the potential of the negative leader, and the
negative end of the space leader becomes the new tip of the negative leader. In
photographs it appears as if the negative leader extends itself abruptly in a leader
step. The change in the potential of the previous space leader generates an intense
burst of negative corona streamers from its negative end that has now become the
new head of the negative leader. Now a new space stem appears at the edge of the
new streamer system and the process repeats itself. Recent evidence shows
that repeated interaction of the negative leader with the space leader is the reason
for the stepwise elongation of the negative leaders as observed in negative stepped
leaders in lightning flashes [16]. Models that describe the propagation of negative
leaders taking into account the space leaders were published by Mazur et al. [17]
and Arevalo and Cooray [18].

1.8 Some features of mathematical modelling of positive

leader discharges
Consider a grounded object that is exposed to an electric field. An example being a
Franklin rod exposed to the electric field generated by a downward moving nega-
tive stepped leader. The goal is to simulate the initiation and propagation of the
14 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8

Negative
Streamer leader channel
bursts

New
leader step

Space stem
Space leader

Figure 1.5 Propagation of negative leaders. Once a negative streamer burst is

generated from the leader head, a unique feature, called, a pilot
system, that does not exist in the positive leaders manifest in the
system. The pilot system consists of a bright spot called space stem,
from which streamer of both polarity develop in opposite directions
(T2–T3). The location of the space stem is usually at the edge of the
negative streamer system. The action of these streamers heats the
space stem and converts it to a hot channel. This is called a space
leader. The space leader advances in both direction (the speed of
extension of the positive end is generally higher than that of the
negative end) through the cumulative action of positive streamers
(generated from the side facing the negative leader) and negative
streamers (generated from the opposite side) (T4–T5). The connection
of the two leaders is accompanied by a simultaneous illumination of
the whole channel stating from the meeting point (T6–T7). During this
process the space leader acquires the potential of the negative leader.
In fact, during this process (i.e. stepping process) the space leader
becomes the new step or the new section of the negative leader
channel and the negative end of the space leader becomes the new tip
of the negative leader. During the formation of the step, a new
streamer burst is generated from the new leader head and the process
is repeated (T8). Note that while the space leader travels towards the
negative leader, the latter itself may continue to grow in length as
shown in the diagram. (The processes associated with the origin of the
negative leader, which are almost identical to that of positive leaders,
are not shown in the diagram.)
 Basic discharge processes in the atmosphere 15

connecting leader (a positive leader discharge) from the Franklin rod. A brief
description of how this could be achieved is given below. The description is based
on the work published previously by Becerra and Cooray [19–21].
Assume that the electric field at ground level as a function of time generated by
the down coming stepped leader is known. This can be calculated, e.g. by using the
leader charge distribution as extracted by Cooray et al. [22]. The simulation con-
sists of several main steps and let us take them one by one.
a) The first step is to extract the time or the height of the stepped leader when
streamers are incepted from the grounded rod. Since the background electric field
is known, the electric field at the tip of the grounded rod can be calculated, e.g. by
using charge simulation method. This field is used together with the avalanche to
streamer conversion criterion given in (1.12) to investigate whether the electric
field at the conductor tip is large enough to convert avalanches to streamers. The
simulation continues using the time-varying electric field of the stepped leader
until the streamer inception criterion is satisfied.
b) The moment the streamer inception criterion is satisfied a burst of streamers
will be generated by the tip of the rod. The next task is to calculate the charge
in this streamer burst. The charge associated with the streamer burst is calcu-
lated using a distance–voltage diagram with the origin at the tip of the groun-
ded conductor as follows (see Figure 1.6). The streamer zone is assumed to
maintain a constant potential gradient Estr. In the distance–voltage diagram,
this is represented by a straight line (note that the point of zero distance cor-
responds to the tip of the conductor). On the same diagram the background
potential produced by the thundercloud and the down-coming stepped leader
(taking also into account the presence of the lightning conductor) at the current
time is depicted. If the area between the two curves up to the point where they
cross is A, the charge in the streamer zone is given by
Q0  KQ A (1.13)
where KQ is a geometrical factor. Becerra and Cooray [20] estimated its value
to be about 3.5
10-11 C/V m.
c) The next task is to investigate whether this streamer burst is capable of gen-
erating a leader. This decision is based on the fact that in order to generate a
leader a minimum of 1 mC is required in the charge generated by the streamers.
If the charge in the streamer zone is less than this value, then the procedure is
repeated after a small time interval. Note that with increasing time the electric
field generated by the stepped leader increases and, consequently, the charge in
the streamer bursts increases. Thus at a certain time the condition necessary for
the leader inception will be fulfilled.
d) Assume that at time t, the condition necessary for leader inception is satisfied. The
next task is to estimate the length and the radius of this initial leader section. In
doing this it is assumed that the amount of charge you need to create a unit length
of positive leader is ql. The value of ql is about 40–65 mC/m. With this the initial
length of the leader section L1 is given by Q0/ql. It is important to point out here
16 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

that Becerra and Cooray [21] utilized a more rigorous condition in which the
charge necessary to thermalize a unit leader section depends on the speed of
the leader. The initial radius of the leader, aL (t), is assumed to be 103 m and the
initial potential gradient of the leader section, EL1 ðtÞ, is assumed to be equal to
the potential gradient of the streamer region, i.e. 5.0
103 V/cm. Now we proceed
to the next time step, i.e. t ¼ t þ Dt.
e) During the time interval Dt the background potential is changed and we also have
a small leader section of length L1. Now the new charge in the streamer zone
generated from the head of the new leader section is calculated as before but now
including both the leader and its streamer zone in the distance–voltage diagram.
The leader is represented by a line with a potential gradient EL1 ðtÞ (see
Figure 1.6). The total charge is calculated from the area between this new curve
and the background potential. The charge generated in the current time step is
obtained by subtracting from this the charge obtained in the previous time
step. Let the charge obtained thus be Q1. This charge is used to evaluate the
length of the new leader section L2. Moreover, the flow of this charge through the

Background
potential
Potential

Streamer potential
gradient

Distance
(a)

Background
potential
Potential

Streamer potential
gradient

Leader potential gradient

Distance
(b)

Figure 1.6 The use of distance–voltage diagrams to calculate the streamer

charge. (a) The charge in the first streamer burst is given by the area
between the two curves representing the background potential and the
streamer potential gradient. (b) To calculate the charge in subsequent
streamer burst one has to include both the leader and the streamer
region in a distance–voltage diagram
 Basic discharge processes in the atmosphere 17

leader channel changes the potential gradient and the radius of the older leader
section L1. The new potential gradient and the radius of L1 are given by
EL1 ðt þ DtÞ and aL1 ðt þ DtÞ.
Now let us consider the nth time step. There are n leader sections and they have
there respective potential gradients and radii. The radius and the potential
gradient of ith leader section are obtained from
g1
p  a2Li ðt þ DtÞ ¼ p  a2Li ðtÞ þ EL ðtÞ  ILi ðtÞ  Dt (1.14)
g  p0 i
a2Li ðtÞ
ELi ðt þ DtÞ ¼ E L ðt Þ (1.15)
aLi ðt þ DtÞ i
2

In the above equation ELi ðtÞ is the internal electric field and ILi ðtÞ is the current of
the leader section Li at time t. With these, it is possible to calculate the time evo-
lution of the internal electric field for each segment and the potential drop along the

Q3

Q2

Streamer L4
zone Q1
L3 L3
Q0
L2 L2 L2

L1 L1 L1 L1
Streamer
stem

Grounded
structure

Figure 1.7 Pictorial definition of the parameters used in the mathematical

modeling of positive leader discharges as described in Section 1.8.
Note that Q0, Q1, Q2 , etc. are the charges in the streamer zones. The
flow of charge across the streamer stem makes it conducting and
converts it to a leader section
18 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

leader channel (at a given time, with k denoting the number of leader sections) as
follows:
X
k
DUL ¼ ELi ðtÞ  Li (1.16)
i¼1

The steps described above can be used to simulate the inception and propa-
gation of positive leaders. Figure 1.7 describes the basics of the process schema-
tically. The calculation can be simplified if, instead of calculating the time
evolution of leader potential gradient in each segment as above, one uses the
expression derived by Rizk [23] for the potential of the tip of the leader channel
that is given by

ði Þ ði Þ Estr Estr  E1 flLðiÞ =x0 g

Utip ¼ lL E1 þ x0 E1 ln  e (1.17)
E1 E1
ði Þ
In the above equation lL is the total leader length at the current simulation
step, E1 is the final quasi-stationary leader gradient and x0 is a constant parameter
given by the product vq, where v is the ascending positive leader speed and q is the
leader time constant.

1.9 Leader inception based on thermalization of the

discharge channel
The thermo-hydrodynamic model for the leader channel proposed by Gallimberti
has been used in the leader channel modeling for lightning and laboratory long
spark gaps in Refs. [19,20,24–30]. The physical principles of the model are based
on the fact that the current of the first corona streamers passing through the stem of
the corona burst will cause heating of the gas. The model assumes that for leader
inception, the plasma of the stem has to be raised to a temperature of around 1,500
K. The model assumes that only translational, rotational, and electronic excitation
can contribute directly to temperature increase. Chemical energy (dissociation and
ionization) of the gas is neglected while the vibrational energy is relaxed on a time
scale comparable or longer than that of the leader channel formation. The model
neglects the electric field increase due to rise of applied voltage and the chocking
effect of streamer space charge.
Recently Arevalo and Cooray [31] presented a two-dimensional model based
on the gas-dynamic equations with a set of kinetic reactions including the main
processes responsible for gas heating such as vibrational excitation and transfer of
energy into electronic, rotational, and translational excitation, coupled with Poisson
equation. The condition for streamer-to-leader transition is built on three principal
assumptions: (1) the axial variations of parameters along the channel are negligible
in comparison to the radial ones and, therefore, the leader head can be represented
by a one-dimensional (1-D) radial system, (2) the electrical current of a propagating
leader is produced in the streamer zone and injected into the leader head, and (3)
 Basic discharge processes in the atmosphere 19

the inception condition of the leader is attained if the gas temperature reaches a
critical temperature of 1,500 K in the streamer stem which was considered as a
cylindrical plasma channel. Based on this study, they concluded that
(i) Photoionization is essential for the development and propagation of positive
streamers. It enables the seed electrons in the high electric field region at the
head of the streamer.
(ii) The most important mechanisms to increase the electron density, and con-
sequently incept a leader, were the fast electron detachment from negative
ions caused by oxygen atoms and the acceleration of the electron impact
ionization due to NO molecules.
(iii) The rise of temperature on the leader depends directly on the energy avail-
able in the streamer channels, the vibrational energy relaxation, and the
recombination of particles. Consequently, it is incorrect to assume that all
streamer energy is directly used for heating and a unique amount of charge is
required to heat the channel and incept a leader.
(iv) Calculations indicate that sharp tips allow more charge to flow into the
streamer channels before leader inception takes place than blunt tips.
Therefore, the amount of electrical charge required to achieve leader incep-
tion depends on the electric field distribution of the electrode arrangement
i.e., geometry, applied voltage, the space charge, and environmental condi-
tions, among others.
(v) The study shows that the criterion of a constant minimum electrical charge of
1 mC to incept a leader channel, used in lightning attachment and long gap
discharge models, is not well-founded. Even though the critical charge
necessary for leader inception for rods of 1 cm radius is about 1 mC the value
of this critical charge decreases as the radius of the conductor increases.

References

[1] Cooray, V., 2003. Mechanism of electrical discharges, in Cooray, V., (Ed.),
The Lightning Flash, The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, UK.
[2] Morrow, R., 1985. Theory of negative corona in oxygen, Phys. Rev. A, 32,
1799–1809.
[3] Morrow, R. and Lowke, J. J., 1997. Streamer propagation in air, J. Phys. D:
Appl. Phys., 30, 614–627.
[4] Raether, H., 1940. Zur Entwicklung von Kanalentladungen, Arch.
Eleektrotech., 34, 49–56.
[5] Meek, J.M., 1940. A theory of spark discharge, Phys. Rev., 57, 722–728.
[6] Bazelyan, E.M. and Raizer, Yu.P., 1998. Spark Discharge, CRC Press, New
York.
[7] Marode, E., 1983. The glow to arc transition, in Kunhardt, E. and Larssen, L.
(Eds.), Electrical Breakdown and Discharges in Gases, Plenum Press, New
York.
20 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[8] Marode, E., 1975. The mechanism of spark breakdown in air at atmospheric
pressure between a positive point and a plane, I. Experimental: Nature of the
streamer track, II. Theoretical: Computer simulation of the streamer track, J.
Appl. Phys., 46, 2005–2020.
[9] Les Renardie´res Group, 1977. Positive discharges in long air gaps – 1975
results and conclusions, Electra, 53, 31–152.
[10] Les Renardie´res Group, 1981. Negative discharges in long air gaps, Electra,
74, 67–216.
[11] Gao, L., Larsson, A., Cooray, V. and Scuka, V., 1999. Simulation of strea-
mer discharges as finitely conducting channels, IEEE Trans. Dielectr.
Electr. Insul., 6, 1, 35–42.
[12] Griffiths, R.F., and Phelps, C.T., 1976. The effects of air pressure and water
vapour content on the propagation of positive corona streamers, Quart. J.R.
Mat. Soc., 102, 419–426.
[13] Griffiths, R.F., and Phelps, C.T., 1976. Dependence of positive corona
streamer propagation on air pressure and water vapour content, J. Appl.
Phys., 47, 2929–2934.
[14] Paris, L. and Cortina, R., 1968. Switching and lightning impulse discharge
characteristics of large air gaps and long insulator strings, IEEE Trans., PAS-
98, pp. 947–957.
[15] Gallimberti, I., 1979. The mechanism of long spark formation, J. de
Physique., 40, 7, C7–193–250.
[16] Biagi, C.J., Uman, M.A., Hill, J.D., Jordan, D.M., Rakov, V.A. and Dwyer, J.,
2010. Observations of stepping mechanisms in a rocket-and-wire triggered
lightning flash, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D23215, doi:10.1029/2010JD014616.
[17] Mazur, V., Ruhnke, L., Bondiou-Clergerie, A. and Lalande, P., 2000.
Computer simulation of a downward negative stepped leader and its inter-
action with a grounded structure, J. Geophys. Res., 105, D17, 22361–22369.
[18] Arevalo, L. and Cooray, V., 2011. Preliminary study on the modeling of
negative leader discharges, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 44, 31, doi:10.1088/
0022-3727/44/31/315204.
[19] Becerra, M. and Cooray, V., 2006. A self-consistent upward leader propa-
gation model, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 39, 3708–3715.
[20] Becerra, M. and Cooray, V., 2006. A simplified physical model to determine
the lightning upward connecting leader inception, IEEE Trans. Power
Delivery, 21, 2, 897–908.
[21] Becerra, M. and Cooray, V., 2006. Time dependent evaluation of the lightning
upward connecting leader inception, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 39, 4695–4702.
[22] Cooray, V., Rakov, V. and Theethayi, N., 2007. The lightning striking dis-
tance—Revisited, J. Electrostat., 65, 296–306.
[23] Rizk, F., 1989. A model for switching impulse leader inception and break-
down of long air-gaps, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, 4, 1, 596–603.
[24] Gallimberti, I., Bacchiega, G., Bondiou-Clergerie, A., and Lalande P., 2002.
Fundamental processes in long air gap discharges, C.R. Physique appliquée/
Appl. Phys., 3, 1335–1359.
 Basic discharge processes in the atmosphere 21

[25] Bondiou, A. and Gallimberti, I., 1994. Theoretical modeling of the devel-
opment of the positive spark in long air gaps, Phys. D Appl. Phys., 27(6),
1252–1266.
[26] Lalande, P., 1996. Etude des conditions de foudroiement d’une structure au
soil, Ph.D. thesis, Universite de Paris-Sud U.F.R. Scientifique d’Orsay.
[27] Goelian, N., Lalande, P., Bondiou-Clergerie, A., Bacchiega, G.L., A.
Gazzani, I. Gallimberti, 1997. A simplified model for the simulation of
positive-spark development in long air gaps, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 30,
2441–2452.
[28] Becerra, M. and Cooray, V., 2006, Time dependent evaluation of the light-
ning upward connecting leader inception, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 39,
pp. 4695–4702.
[29] Popov, N., 2009, Study of the formation and propagation of a leader channel
in air, Plasma Phys. Rep., 35, pp. 785–793.
[30] Fofana, I. and Beroual, A., 1997, A predictive model of the positive dis-
charge in long air gaps under pure and oscillating impulse shapes, J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys., 30, 1653–1667.
[31] Arevalo, L. and Cooray, V., 2017, Unstable leader inception criteria of
atmospheric discharges, Atmosphere, 8(9), 156.
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 2
Modelling of charging processes in clouds
Edward R. Mansell1 and Donald R. MacGorman1

2.1 Introduction
Our goal in this chapter is to introduce the treatments of electrical processes used by
numerical cloud models that integrate dynamic, microphysical, thermodynamic and
electric processes to track what happens to several classes of water particles as they
move through the cloud and interact with each other and with the environment as the
cloud evolves. We consider primarily models that treat ice particles, as well as liquid
water, because ice is now commonly recognized as a necessary ingredient for strong
electrification. We ignore models whose winds or particle spectra are unchanging and
models that treat electrification as interactions of electric circuit elements driven by a
current, charge or voltage source unrelated to microphysics and dynamics.
When using cloud models, it is prudent to keep their limitations in mind, as no
numerical model can reasonably be expected to replicate a storm exactly. Our
computer resources and our knowledge of many relevant processes and of the
environmental state are almost certainly never adequate to do that. What is done,
therefore, is to use simplified mathematical descriptions called parameterizations to
deal with the spectrum of particle types, to estimate the effects of poorly understood
physics and to incorporate the effects of processes that occur on temporal or spatial
scales too small to be included directly. The goal is for the parameterizations to
incorporate enough physics, to treat a broad enough range of time and distance scales
and to retain enough detail in the microphysical, electric, dynamic and thermo-
dynamic fields that the model can simulate accurately the aspect of the phenomenon
we are studying. To some extent, success is judged by examining how well the model
simulates observations of related storm properties, such as the distribution and evo-
lution of precipitation, cloud particles and electric field magnitudes. However, it
often is difficult to assess how well a particular model has succeeded in simulating a
given phenomenon. Relevant properties often are not observed well enough to judge
simulations, and even if they have been observed well, it is often difficult to deter-
mine how good a match with observations is needed to establish that the model is
adequately simulating the targeted behaviour.

1
National Severe Storms Laboratory, USA
24 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Although any model involves uncertainties, models also have strengths that
help circumvent the serious difficulties one faces trying to improve understanding
of storm electrification by analysing measurements alone. A sensor may itself
distort what is being measured, and ambiguities can arise when interpreting mea-
surements by a particular sensor in terms of desired storm parameters. Furthermore,
no combination of technologies is likely ever to be able to observe simultaneously
all of the thermodynamic, kinematic, electric and hydrometeor fields in evolving
clouds with enough temporal and spatial resolution to describe all their significant
behaviours and interactions. Modelling addresses these shortcomings by attempting
to calculate all of the relevant fields in a physically consistent way from as close to
first principles as is feasible. By providing a complete set of simulated observations
of the very complex system that is a thunderstorm, modelling provides a useful
means for testing the plausibility and implications of ideas gained from theory and
observations.
Thus, observations and models often complement each other in our efforts to
advance understanding: (1) laboratory, theory and field observations provide the
knowledge needed to build a model. (2) Modelling experiments provide insight into
storm processes and lead to predictions and model sensitivities that can be tested
with observations. (3) New laboratory and field observations are acquired under
model guidance to examine the predictions and sensitivities and refine the model.
(4) The refined model is then used either to probe previously defined issues more
deeply or to begin investigating new issues not possible to address with the pre-
vious version of the model. Note that progress in model capabilities is also often a
result of increased computer memory and processing speed.
In this chapter, we limit ourselves to explaining the basics of the techniques
involved in modelling electrification, as well as giving an overview of some of the
electrification research pursued through modelling studies. We attempt to cover
most electrical processes but present only selected examples of the treatments of
each one. Beyond defining some terms, we do not review the microphysical and
dynamical frameworks of cloud models, because doing so would make this chapter
far too lengthy. An overview of microphysical and dynamical treatments is given
by MacGorman and Rust (1998). More in-depth information about cloud models is
available in several books, including Pruppacher and Klett (1997), Cotton and
Anthes (1989), Houze (1993), Stensrud (2007), Straka (2009) and in many of the
publications referenced in this chapter.

2.2 Definitions of some model descriptors

2.2.1 Basic terminology
Several basic terms are used to describe models. A full simulation model, the only
kind we consider in this chapter, produces clouds through appropriate initial con-
ditions in an ambient environment defined by one or more atmospheric soundings
and has equations that govern the subsequent evolution of thermodynamic fields,
wind fields and microphysics. A kinematic model (e.g. Ziegler, 1985, 1988) still
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 25

must have an ambient environment defined by soundings but has no equation for
dynamics to govern the development of the wind field. Instead, the model ingests a
cloud wind field obtained from Doppler radars. (The wind field either can be a
single wind field, assumed to be steady state, or can vary in time from an early
stage of the storm.) It then uses the thermodynamic equation of state and continuity
equations for water substance to retrieve temperature, water vapour mixing ratio
and hydrometeor mixing ratios throughout the model domain.
Models also are classified by the number of spatial dimensions of the model
grid. To study storms in which three-dimensional structure and circulations are
important, it obviously is necessary to use a three-dimensional model. However, for
simpler situations or more limited investigations, modellers can reduce the number
of spatial dimensions that they use. Because adding a spatial dimension to a model
typically increases computer memory and storage requirements by more than an
order of magnitude, reducing the number of dimensions greatly reduces the com-
puter resources required to run a model.
Some electrification models are essentially zero-dimensional cloud models
because most parameters do not vary with either height or horizontal distance.
These models normally assume that the upper and lower boundaries are infinite
horizontal planes, so that the ambient electric field is constant with the distance
between them. Microphysics and vertical winds also are kept uniform between the
horizontal planes: on each boundary there is a source of hydrometeors, usually a
source of small particles at the bottom and a source of large particles at the
top. Particles and charge can vary with time, and charges are collected at the
boundaries as particles reach them, thereby changing the ambient electric field.
The model domain normally is considered to represent only part of a cloud, with
the upper plate corresponding to the centre of the upper positive charge, and the
lower plate the centre of the lower negative charge in a thunderstorm charge dis-
tribution. Illingworth and Latham (1977) pointed out that a model with infinite
planes will overestimate thunderstorm electric field magnitudes in most situations.
In a one-dimensional model, height is the only spatial coordinate that is
retained. Cloud properties can vary with height but not with horizontal position.
The model domain normally is defined as a cylinder whose radius R(z) is specified.
The use of a finite horizontal extent makes it possible to incorporate para-
meterizations of entrainment and turbulent eddy fluxes and makes electric field
magnitudes more realistic.
In a two-dimensional model, height and one horizontal coordinate are retained,
and cloud properties over the remaining horizontal coordinate are constant. Two-
dimensional models can be either slab-symmetric or axisymmetric. A slab-
symmetric model uses Cartesian coordinates and keeps cloud properties constant
along x or y. This symmetry is applied sometimes to squall lines. An axisymmetric
model uses cylindrical coordinates and sets azimuthal variations to zero. This
symmetry is useful for small thunderstorms and some aspects of hurricanes. Two-
dimensional models have a particular limitation, however, in that turbulence
incorrectly feeds upscale growth. Proper treatment of turbulence requires a three-
dimensional model.
26 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Unlike a one-dimensional model, two- and three-dimensional models do not

need to specify cloud boundaries or entrainment. Instead, the model is provided the
specified environmental thermodynamic and water vapour fields, and clouds form
in the model wherever these fields interact to create them. (Slab-symmetric models
also can use one horizontal component of environmental winds, but axisymmetric
models can treat only radially converging or diverging horizontal wind.) Modelled
air motions may be adequate to resolve entrainment, but eddy fluxes must be
treated by parameterization of subgrid-scale turbulence.

2.2.2 Terms related to microphysics

Temporal and spatial variations in water vapour and water substance are defined by
continuity equations for water vapour and water substance expressed in terms of
mixing ratios. The mixing ratio q for the Nth category of water substance is defined
as the mass of the Nth category per unit mass of dry air (often expressed as kilo-
grams or grams of water per kilogram of dry air). The mixing ratio for total water
substance then is the sum of the mixing ratios for water vapour and for all types of
hydrometeors. For each category of water substance, there is a continuity equation
of the form

dqN
¼ TransportðqN Þ þ SourceðqN Þ þ SinkðqN Þ (2.1)
dt

where transport is the net transport of qN into the volume by advection, turbulence
and diffusion; source is the sum of all sources of qN in the volume and sink is the
sum of all loss mechanisms for qN. Much of the challenge in parameterization is to
develop physically realistic expressions for sources and sinks, once a partition of
water into various categories is chosen.
The water substance in a cloud normally is partitioned into several categories.
For example, the following categories are described by Houze (1993):
1. Water vapour (qv) is water in the gaseous phase.
2. Cloud liquid water (qc) consists of liquid droplets that are too small to have
appreciable terminal fall speed (droplet radius less than roughly 100 mm).
3. Precipitation liquid water consists of liquid drops that are large enough to have
an appreciable terminal fall speed. This category sometimes is divided by
terminal fall speed into drizzle (qDr) (radius roughly 0.1–0.25 mm) and rain
(qr) (radius > 0.25 mm).
4. Cloud ice (qi) indicates ice particles that are too small to have an appreciable
terminal fall speed.
5. Precipitation ice consists of ice particles that have a terminal fall speed of
 0.3 m/s. This category often is subdivided by density and fall speed. For
example, snow (qs) has lower density and fall speeds of 0.3–1.5 m/s, graupel
(qg) is denser and falls at  1–10 m/s and hail (qh) is larger and still denser,
with fall speeds up to 50 m/s.
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 27

Models that omit all forms of ice are referred to as warm cloud models. Models
that include equations for the ice phase are referred to as cold cloud models or
mixed-phase models.
Each category of water substance interacts with the other categories to create
sources and sinks. For example, cloud water droplets coalesce to form drizzle, a
process that is a source for drizzle and a sink for cloud liquid water. There are
several types of basic interactions:
1. Condensation or deposition of water vapour onto cloud nuclei (called nuclea-
tion) to form cloud liquid water droplets and cloud ice particles, respectively,
having size spectra characteristic of the model cloud’s environmental
conditions
2. Hydrometeor growth through vapour condensation or deposition
3. Collection of particles to form larger particles (Collection of the various types of
particles consists of collisions followed by sticking together. The ways in which two
particles stick together are labelled by specific terms depending on the types of
particles involved: coalescence involves two or more liquid water particles; aggre-
gation involves two or more ice particles; and riming is the process of cloud water
droplets freezing into ice particles on contact. Accretion is used broadly to indicate
collection of liquid particles by ice particles but often has a connotation of larger
liquid particles sticking to larger ice particles.)
4. Breakup of drops or splintering of ice (These processes can increase the
number of particles beyond what would be expected from nucleation. The
increase from splintering is referred to as ice multiplication.)
5. Freezing of liquid water (Liquid water exists as supercooled water at heights
above the 0  C isotherm, but all liquid water usually is assumed to have frozen
by the time a parcel reaches the 40  C isotherm.)
6. Evaporation or sublimation of water vapour from hydrometeors
7. Melting of ice
8. Precipitation reaching the ground
It is possible to expand the number of categories and subcategories of
hydrometeors considerably. Typical categories are cloud droplets (D < 50 mm),
rain (D > 50 mm), small ice crystals, snow (or aggregated crystals), graupel and
hail. To expand categories, e.g. a modeller might want to track different shapes
(called habits) of ice particles separately (such as columns, plates and dendrites).
However, as more categories of water are used, the number of interactions that
must be considered increases rapidly. For that reason, modellers usually use only
the categories and subcategories that are essential to simulating the particular
phenomenon being studied.
To parameterize microphysics, models handle the size distributions of the
various categories in one of two ways, referred to as bulk microphysics and bin (or
spectral) microphysics. In bulk microphysics, the size distribution of particles is
described by some simple function. The amount in a given category can be tracked
at each grid point by a single parameter, such as the mixing ratio of water substance
in that category, or by two or more parameters, such as the mixing ratio and number
28 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

density of particles in a category. Distributions using two or more parameters

provide a more versatile description than distributions using one parameter.
In bulk microphysics, the size distribution of precipitating liquid often is
described as a simplified gamma function of the form

nðDÞ ¼ n0 Da expðlDÞ (2.2)

where n(D) is the number of particles per unit volume between D and D + dD and a
is the shape parameter, which controls the width of the spectrum. The intercept
parameter n0 is a function of the total number concentration nT and the slope
parameter l:
nT
n0 ¼ laþ1 (2.3)
Gða þ 1Þ
where l is defined as

1=d
Gða þ 1 þ dÞcnT
l¼ (2.4)
Gða þ 1Þrair q

where the constants c and d come from the mass–diameter relationship m(D) = cDd.
The moments M(j) of the distribution are given by
ð1
MðjÞ ¼ AðjÞ Dj nðDÞdD (2.5)
0

where A(j) is some constant factor. For the simplified gamma distribution, the
moments are
AðjÞnT Gða þ 1 þ jÞ
MðjÞ ¼ (2.6)
lj Gða þ 1Þ
For j = 0 and A(0) = 1, M(0) = nT, so the zeroth moment is the number con-
centration. If the mass of a particle is m(D) = cD3, then the third moment gives the
total mass of the distribution.
Single-moment schemes predict q and usually diagnose nT by setting assuming
value for n0 (the intercept parameter). Models with two-moment bulk microphysics
generally predict the mixing ratio q (third moment) and number concentration nT
(zeroth moment). Three-moment schemes can also diagnose the shape parameter a.
Setting the shape parameter a equal to zero results in the inverse exponential (IE)
distribution. This form of the size distribution is often referred to as a Marshall–
Palmer distribution (Marshall and Palmer, 1948).
In bulk microphysics, each property of the category has a single representative
value at a given grid point in the model domain that somehow averages the values
for all of the category’s particles within the corresponding volume. For example,
consider the sedimentation of liquid precipitation particles that have a terminal fall
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 29

speed relationship v(D) = aDb. The moment-weighted fall speed is used for sedi-
mentation of each bulk moment. For example, the mass-weighted fall speed VT,m is
given by
Ð1
vðDÞmðDÞnðDÞdD
VT;m ¼ 0 Ð 1 (2.7)
0 mðDÞnðDÞdD

which is used for sedimentation of the total particle mass in a grid volume. Note
that the denominator in (2.7) is the mass content (mass of condensate per volume).
Then C, the net rate of change in a grid point’s mass mixing ratio q due to sedi-
mentation, is given by
d
C¼ ðVT ;m qÞ (2.8)
dz
Moments of the distribution in a spectral bin model are calculated by an
explicit summation over the range of sizes for the water substance category being
considered. For example, the mixing ratio qx of particle type x, modelled by J size
bins and having mass increments of mx(j), is given by

1 X J
qx ¼ mx ðjÞnx ðjÞ (2.9)
rair j¼1

where nx(j) is the number density of particles in mass bin j. To represent the size
distribution of particles accurately, at least ten size bins must be included for each
hydrometeor category being parameterized.
With bin microphysics, it is unnecessary to assume that the size distribution
has a particular form. The overall size distribution is allowed to evolve naturally as
particles of different sizes gain and lose mass through their interactions. This is a
more direct approach than bulk microphysics, but even with many size bins, a bin
parameterization is not an exact treatment. There are gaps in our knowledge of
particle interactions, particularly for some size ranges and particle types, and these
gaps introduce uncertainties in bin parameterizations. Furthermore, although par-
ticles within a given size bin are more uniform than in a category that spans all
sizes in a bulk treatment, variations in properties, such as size, shape or density may
occur within an individual bin being treated explicitly and can affect interactions
involving this bin. When such variations are significant, spectral parameterizations
need to avoid treating all particles in a size bin identically, because it would
incorrectly cause all particles to transfer into a new size bin at the same time. To
avoid this, a spectral parameterization can treat particles in a given size bin as
having a distribution of sizes across the range of the bin and can use statistical
techniques to govern gradual changes in the population.
The main disadvantage of bin microphysical treatments compared with bulk
microphysics is that bin treatments require considerably more computational
resources: Each bin must satisfy its own continuity equation, and interactions must
be included between size bins, as well as between water substance categories.
30 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Thus, bin microphysics usually is reserved for addressing questions that cannot be
addressed by bulk microphysics. When specific microphysical treatments are used
in the rest of this chapter, bulk microphysics is used instead of bin microphysics.

2.2.3 Categories of electrification mechanisms

Electrification processes are broadly categorized as either inductive or non-inductive.
An inductive process is driven by an ambient electric field. Hydrometeors have
naturally occurring free ions that can move enough in response to an electric field to
polarize the particle. Figure 2.1 depicts a possible inductive (or polarization) charge
separation process in which a small liquid water droplet collides with and rebounds
from a graupel pellet. Other examples of possible inductive charge transfer include
the shedding of liquid water from hail (melting or undergoing wet growth) and break-
off of ice branches as snow melts (assuming the electric field forces free ions towards
the material that breaks away from the larger ice particle). Research has suggested
that inductive processes alone are not capable of providing strong electrification.
However, they may provide secondary effects important in some regions, such as in
melting layers and in regions having preferred attachment of one polarity of ion
driven by the electric field (e.g. screening layer charge).
Non-inductive charging processes are defined as charge transfer that is inde-
pendent of an external electric field. The collisional ice–ice mechanism is generally
regarded as the primary electrification mechanism, although much about the
mechanism is still not well understood. The non-inductive ice–ice mechanism has
been best described by the relative growth rate theory of Baker et al. (1987), which
states simply that when two ice surfaces collide and rebound, the surface that is
growing faster by vapour deposition will gain positive charge (by losing negative
charge). Supersaturation with respect to ice is required for deposition growth and
significant charge transfer. One explanation for the mechanism is that partial
melting occurs around the impact site, which mixes the (negative) charges from the
two surfaces (Emersic, 2006). As the two particles separate, some of the melted
mass is carried off by the smaller particle, resulting in a net charge transfer
(Figure 2.2). Other proposed non-inductive mechanisms involve thermoelectric
+
–– – –––
– – – –

+ θ + +
+++ +++
E

–
+

Figure 2.1 Example of an electric field-dependent inductive process. Here, a

graupel particle and water droplet are polarized by an electric field
(left). A rebounding collision transfers some negative charge from the
droplet to the graupel particle (right)
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 31

Figure 2.2 Example of an electric field-independent non-inductive process. Here,

a graupel particle and ice crystal are initially uncharged in a cloud of
small droplets (left). A rebounding collision transfers some charge
between the ice and graupel particles (right). The sign of charge
transfer could be positive or negative, depending on the vapour
deposition growth of the interactive surfaces

effects, contrasting surface potentials and electrical double layers arising from
physical properties of ice surfaces.

2.2.4 Other categorizations of cloud models

Besides the dynamic, thermodynamic and microphysical considerations discussed in
the previous section, other choices also influence the complexity and computational
requirements of models. Most cloud models are time dependent, meaning that cloud
properties are allowed to evolve, but some simpler models use steady-state dynamics.
Many one-dimensional models and some two- and three-dimensional models
use the anelastic form of the continuity equation. The more sophisticated two- and
three-dimensional cloud models usually are fully compressible. The anelastic
approximation eliminates sound waves, which often are considered undesirable
because their magnitude can be large and other processes are of more interest in
modelling studies, but doing so requires solution of an elliptic equation for the
pressure field. Elliptic equations require iterative or implicit solvers, which can be
inefficient. The fully compressible form retains sound waves and allows use of
explicit (forward-in-time) numerical solvers. Efficiency is maintained by integrat-
ing sound waves separately (‘split explicit’ method).
A full simulation model produces clouds through appropriate initial conditions
and simulates the subsequent evolution of all model fields. To simulate a cloud
with a given one-dimensional, time-dependent model, a vertical profile of each
relevant parameter of the ambient environment is specified, vertical forcing (e.g. a
thermal perturbation or vertical velocity source) is applied at a low height and the
model then computes how deviations from environmental values evolve. Similarly,
a two-dimensional, axisymmetric model generally applies forcing centred on r = 0.
Usually, two-dimensional, slab-symmetric models and three-dimensional models
are initiated by introducing some type of forcing with a more complicated geo-
metry into the specified environmental conditions. This forcing may be, e.g., in the
32 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

form of convergence in some region at low levels on which are superimposed thermal
bubbles, whose size, location and temperature excess above ambient conditions must
be chosen (either given specific values or chosen randomly from some range). Storms
that result from a given model experiment can be influenced by the form and mag-
nitude of forcing that is applied, as well as by assumed environmental conditions; this
is especially true of small thunderstorms driven primarily by local heating.
Besides full simulation models, which simulate the dynamics, thermodynamics
and microphysics of storms simultaneously beginning with initial forcing in a pre-
storm atmospheric environment, another type of model, called a kinematic model,
use observed wind fields of storms to estimate the accompanying temperature and
water vapour perturbations and microphysics in a particular atmospheric environ-
ment. In a kinematic model (e.g. Ziegler, 1985, 1988), the thermodynamic equation
of state and continuity equations for water substance are the same as in a full
simulation model, but there is no equation for dynamics to govern the development
of the wind field. Instead, the model ingests an observed cloud wind field from
Doppler radars and ambient environmental conditions from an atmospheric
sounding. Then, the equation of state and continuity equations for water substance
are solved to retrieve temperature, water vapour mixing ratio and hydrometeor
mixing ratios throughout the model domain. In a time-dependent, kinematic model,
the various fields are allowed to evolve from their state at an early stage of the
cloud. Changes in the wind field are calculated by interpolating between observed
wind fields at each time step. Changes in the retrieved fields then are calculated
from changes in the wind fields.
Kinematic models have the disadvantage that, because the modelled cloud
does not begin with initial cloud formation, there may be significant errors in fields
that are sensitive to the cloud’s history of evolution. Furthermore, the wind field of
the model is not influenced by microphysics and thermodynamics, and kinematic
models can be used only for periods when Doppler wind fields are available.
However, a kinematic model has the advantage that it produces a model storm
consistent with both the observed storm wind field and the complete set of ther-
modynamic and continuity equations. It can be difficult to use full simulation
models to investigate some storms, especially small storms, because of model
sensitivities to the form of initial forcing, to boundary conditions or to minor
changes in the storm environment.
Most cloud models that have been used in electrification studies have tracked
the properties of water substance categories at grid points fixed with respect to the
Earth (these are sometimes called Eulerian models). Particle tracing or Lagrangian
models (e.g. Kuettner et al., 1981), however, compute changes to the properties of
individual particles or groups of identical particles along trajectories that follow the
particles through the storm, instead of at fixed grid points. Model fields related to
the particles are derived after each model time step by interpolating particle para-
meters from particle locations to the model grid. This type of treatment typically is
used with simplifications to other aspects of the model to keep computations
tractable. Sometimes an Eulerian model uses statistical techniques to mimic a
Lagrangian treatment for a particular type of particle.
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 33

2.3 Brief history of electrification modelling

In the 1950s and 1960s, there were several calculations of electrification rates from
particle interactions that considered neither cloud dynamics nor the microphysics of
the particles. The first attempt to include electrification in a numerical cloud model
that considered these factors was by Pringle et al. (1973), who used a crude para-
meterization of charge separation that did not attempt to mimic any particular
microphysical charging mechanism. Takahashi (1974) allowed hydrometeors to
capture space charge in his one-dimensional, time-dependent cloud model but did
not include charge exchange between particles. Ziv and Levin (1974), Scott and
Levin (1975) and Levin (1976) studied inductive charging by considering hydro-
meteors that moved vertically and interacted between the two plates of an infinite
horizontal capacitor but did not include any cloud dynamics. Illingworth and
Latham (1977) included explicit parameterizations of several microphysical char-
ging mechanisms in a one-dimensional model with steady-state dynamics. Kuettner
et al. (1981) incorporated parameterizations of inductive and non-inductive char-
ging in a two-dimensional Lagrangian model with steady-state dynamics. Although
these last two studies were able to estimate the relative contributions to cloud
electrification from the various mechanisms they modelled, the use of specific
steady-state dynamics did not allow them to consider how electrification varied
with evolving cloud dynamics. Relatively simple models continue to be used for
tests of specific hypotheses (e.g. Mathpal and Varshneya, 1982; Singh et al., 1986;
Canosa et al., 1993).
The next step in the evolution of electrification modelling was to add elec-
trification processes to cloud simulation models that coupled electrification with
both microphysics and dynamics. Early attempts at this coupling included only
warm rain processes (i.e. there was no freezing or ice). Takahashi (1979) used a
two-dimensional, time-dependent axisymmetric model with bin microphysics to
study electrification of shallow, warm clouds. Chiu (1978) also developed a
two-dimensional, time-dependent axisymmetric model, although with bulk
microphysics, and was the first to include a parameterization of small ions and
their interactions with particles in a cloud simulation model. By including ion–
hydrometeor interactions, simulated clouds were able to form screening layers at
cloud boundaries, and mechanisms such as the Wilson’s selective ion capture
mechanism could affect the charge on particles in appropriate regions. Helsdon
(1980) used a similar model that was slab-symmetric instead of axisymmetric to
study whether cloud electrification could be modified by injecting metal-coated
chaff fibres into a warm cloud.
Since several scientists already had suggested that ice–particle interactions
were important for thunderstorm electrification by the non-inductive mechanism,
applications of warm cloud models were considered extremely limited, and there
was considerable interest in developing electrification models that included ice
processes. Rawlins (1982) included electrification in a cloud simulation model that
parameterized ice processes in a three-dimensional model. The model used bulk
34 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

microphysics, a simple parameterization of the non-inductive mechanism and a

traditional parameterization of the inductive mechanism. Electrification occurred
only when graupel or hail interacted with snow or cloud ice, so no charge was
generated by interactions involving liquid hydrometeors. Takahashi (1983, 1984)
included ice processes in a two-dimensional, time-dependent axisymmetric model
with bin microphysics. Parameterized charging mechanisms included inductive
charging, ion–hydrometeor interactions and non-inductive charging based on the
laboratory data of Takahashi (1978). Takahashi’s model had much better grid
resolution than Rawlins’s but had a domain height of only 8 km, and so was limited
to small storms.
Helsdon and Farley (1987b) added a simple non-inductive charging para-
meterization to the Chiu (1978) ion capture and inductive charging parameteriza-
tions in a two-dimensional, time-dependent, slab-symmetric model with bulk ice
microphysics. They used the model to simulate a storm that was observed to pro-
duce a single lightning flash during the Cooperative Convective Precipitation
Experiment in Montana. Modelled space charge and electric field distributions
were similar to those observed by two aircrafts that penetrated the storm only in
simulations in which both the non-inductive and inductive mechanisms operated
together. In that case, the time required for model electrification to increase to the
point that lightning occurred was comparable to that required by the observed
storm. After publication of Helsdon and Farley, an error was found in the for-
mulation of the non-inductive parameterization for experiments in which it was
used alone. Wojcik (1994) repeated the investigation with the corrected formula-
tion of the non-inductive mechanism acting alone and found that it produced an
electric field consistent with the aircraft observations. Randell et al. (1994) used a
non-inductive parameterization similar to Takahashi (1984) in a configuration of
the Helsdon and Farley (1987b) model that omitted the inductive mechanism (and
used the corrected non-inductive formulation). They simulated storms in three
different environments to examine conditions under which the non-inductive
mechanism could produce a thunderstorm.
Electrification processes have been incorporated into another cloud simulation
model based on a simpler geometry. Mitzeva and Saunders (1990) developed a one-
dimensional model that included no inductive mechanism or ion capture but used a
sophisticated parameterization of non-inductive charging based on laboratory stu-
dies of Jayaratne et al. (1983) and Keith and Saunders (1989), instead of Takahashi
(1978). Their model employed bulk microphysics and was used primarily to
examine the evolution of non-inductive charging rates as a function of the intensity
of precipitation produced by three storms.
The cloud models summarized above were simulation models, but some
models have been kinematic models. Ziegler et al. (1986) used bulk microphysics
in a one-dimensional, kinematic model whose domain consisted of a cylindrical
cloud with a fixed radius. The only electrification mechanism was a para-
meterization of the non-inductive mechanism suggested by Gardiner et al. (1985).
Ziegler et al. (1991) expanded the kinematic model to be three dimensional and
modified the kinematic retrieval process to enable the model to assimilate
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 35

radar-derived wind fields that were available every three minutes, from early in the
storm’s lifetime throughout much of its life. They also added parameterizations of
the inductive charging mechanism and of screening layer charge on the cloud
boundary. Ziegler and MacGorman (1994) used the three-dimensional model to
study a supercell storm (features that are not slab- or axisymmetric are critical to an
adequate treatment of supercell storms).
Norville et al. (1991) developed a kinematic model that used bin microphysics.
The only electrification mechanism that they included was a non-inductive char-
ging mechanism based on the laboratory work of Jayaratne et al. (1983), Baker
et al. (1987) and Keith and Saunders (1989). The geometry of their model cloud
consisted of two concentric cylinders, in order to be able to model coexisting
updrafts and downdrafts. Conditions were horizontally uniform inside the inner
cylinder and different, but again uniform, between the inner and outer cylinders.
This configuration has been called a one-and-one-half dimensional model. Norville
et al. simulated the same storm studied by Helsdon and Farley (1987b). Their
model was able to produce electric field magnitudes comparable to observed values
by using only the non-inductive mechanism.
Most modelling studies prior to the 1990s, whether they used simulation or
kinematic models, have examined electrification only in the absence of lightning.
Without a lightning parameterization, models could simulate only the initial elec-
trification of thunderstorms, because lightning modifies the charge distribution and
limits the maximum magnitude of the electric field. Rawlins (1982) used a
threshold electric field of 500 kV m1 to initiate a lightning flash and a simple
charge neutralization scheme. He found that the electric field regenerated quickly
after a lightning flash. Helsdon et al. (1992) developed a detailed two-dimensional
unbranched lightning flash parameterization that calculated the neutralized charge
from the ambient electric field. It was used successfully to simulate a storm that
produced a single lightning flash, and later was expanded to a three-dimensional
unbranched channel (Helsdon et al., 2002). Takahashi (1987) incorporated a simple
parameterization of a lightning flash in his model to examine factors influencing
the height and location of lightning. Ziegler and MacGorman (1994) developed a
simple three-dimensional parameterization of the net effect of several flashes per
time step to simulate a supercell storm. Baker et al. (1995) added a simple para-
meterization of lightning to their one-and-one-half dimensional, kinematic model
with bin microphysics and Solomon and Baker (1996) developed an analytical
treatment of a vertical, one-dimensional lightning channel for the same model.
MacGorman et al. (2001) developed a three-dimenstional treatment to simulate
discreet flashes using the crude parameterization of neutralized charge by Ziegler
and MacGorman (1994). Mansell et al. (2002) developed a detailed three-
dimensional fractal lightning scheme that used Gauss’s law to estimate the charge
neutralized by branched equipotential lightning channels. These last two lightning
parameterizations are described in detail in Section 2.5.
The two-dimensional simulation study of Helsdon et al. (2001) broke ground
in comparing results from multiple non-inductive graupel–ice schemes. Helsdon
et al. (2001) did not include lightning, however, so results were obtained only up to
36 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

the time of the first lightning flash. Helsdon et al. (2002), using a three-dimensional
version of their model and a lightning parameterization, tested the so-called ‘con-
vective’ charging hypothesis, which relies on screening layers formed by ion
attachment to be advected into the storm updraft to generate electrification via
inductive charging. Helsdon et al. (2002) found only weak, disorganized elec-
trification that could not generate electric fields sufficient for lightning without
inclusion of a non-inductive graupel–ice mechanism. A study by Mansell et al.
(2005) investigated differences in electrification from multiple graupel–ice para-
meterizations as well as inductive graupel–droplet charge separation in a three-
dimensional model with lightning.
Sun et al. (2002) employed a three-dimensional model with two-moment
microphysics (mass and number concentration) to examine the effects of elec-
trification on the microphysics and dynamics of a small storm. Feedback to
dynamics was achieved through an electrical drag term in the momentum equations
using the net charge density and electric field and by electric force adjustments to
hydrometeor terminal speeds. The results with electrification and feedback differed
appreciably from the non-electrical simulation. An increase in latent heating was
found when electrical forces were enabled. The increased latent heating was
attributed to reductions in graupel fall speeds at mid-levels of the storm, which
increased its residence time and total riming growth. The model almost certainly
overestimated electric force effects, however, in the assumption that hydrometeors
of a given class are uniformly charged, which disagrees with in situ particle charge
measurements. The maximum electric field also was allowed to increase to 250 kV
m1 before activating the lightning scheme (a three-dimensional adaptation of the
Helsdon et al., 1992, scheme). Sun et al. (2002) incorporated somewhat out-of-date
parameterizations of electrification, including drop–droplet inductive charge
separation (Chiu, 1978), which is widely considered to be ineffectual due to
enhanced drop coalescence even in relatively weak electric fields.
Mansell et al. (2002) simulated lightning behaviour in two different storms
using the same charge separation schemes. A low-shear thunderstorm had a normal
tripole charge structure (main negative charge with main positive charge above and
lower positive charge below). A high-shear supercell simulation, however, exhib-
ited an inverted tripole structure. The low-shear storm produced negative cloud-to-
ground (CG) lightning that was initiated between the main negative and lower
positive charge regions. The supercell storm simulation had positive CG lightning
that was initiated between a main positive region and lower negative charge.
A new electrified model was described by Barthe et al. (2005), who presented
initial results from a version of the Meso-NH model that included electrification
and lightning parameterizations. They also included a sensitivity study of two
graupel–ice schemes. Barthe and Pinty (2007) presented more details of the para-
meterizations used in Barthe et al. (2005), especially details concerning the light-
ning scheme.
The model used in Mansell et al. (2002) has been used in a number of later
studies. Kuhlman et al. (2006) presented simulations of a severe supercell storm
and compared results to observations of that storm. Fierro et al. (2006) investigated
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 37

the effects of an inhomogeneous environment on the simulated kinematics, elec-

trification and lightning of a supercell storm. Fierro et al. (2007) investigated
electrification of an idealized tropical cyclone. Mansell et al. (2010) used a two-
moment microphysics scheme to compare simulated electrification and lightning of
a small thunderstorm with observed lightning evolution.
A few recent cloud model studies have started examining lightning production
of nitrogen oxides (NOx). Zhang et al. (2003) combined a chemistry model with an
electrification and lightning model (Helsdon et al., 2002) to study production,
transport and subsequent chemical reactions of NOx. Barthe et al. (2007) simulated
the electrification and NOx production in a strong storm but did not include a
chemistry module. Results from both of these models were included in an inter-
comparison study (Barth et al., 2007).
The rest of this chapter describes some of the parameterizations of electrical
processes used by the above cloud models.

2.4 Parameterization of electrical processes

To include electrification in numerical models, the various electrical processes of
clouds must be parameterized and integrated with parameterizations of dynamical,
thermodynamic and microphysical processes. In this section, we discuss how
numerical models produce and transport charge on hydrometeors, how the electric
field is calculated and how lightning is parameterized. We present only processes
that laboratory studies suggest will have appreciable effect in storm electrification.
In most cases, we give only one or two examples of how a particular process has
been parameterized.

2.4.1 Calculating the electric field

Once a modelled storm has produced charged hydrometeors, it is necessary to
calculate the resulting electric field, both for analysis of model results and for use in
the next time step to calculate the results of processes dependent on the electric
field. Electric field calculations in one-dimensional models are much simpler than
in two- and three-dimensional models. For one-dimensional, infinite layer models,
the only non-zero component of the electric field is the vertical component, Ez,
which can be calculated from Gauss’s law. If the contribution of the image charge
below the conducting Earth is included, Ez at height z0 (above ground level) due to
charge at the kth grid level at height zk is
8
>
> rk Dz
< e
> for z0 < zk
Ez0 ¼ r Dz (2.10)
>
>  k for z0 ¼ zk
>
: 2e
0 for z0 > zk
where Dz is the height increment between grid levels, rk is the charge density at the
kth grid level and e is the electrical permittivity of air (8.859  1012 Fm1).
38 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

φ
zk
r dz
dr r dφ

z0

Figure 2.3 Geometry for calculating E at height z0 on the z axis from an

infinitesimal element of a disk of charge at height zk

Because the electric field from an infinite layer is constant with height above and
below the layer, this geometry is likely to give electric field profiles considerably
different from profiles appropriate to most physically realistic thunderstorm geo-
metries (although it might be suitable for extensive stratiform clouds).
More realistic electric field profiles usually can be obtained in a one-
dimensional model in which the size of the cloud is limited to some radius. On
the axis of a cloud with cylindrical symmetry, the only non-zero component of the
electric field is again the vertical component. The contribution of an infinitesimal
charge (including its image charge) to the vertical electric field on the axis at height
z0 (Figure 2.3) is given by
" #
rk zk  z0 zk þ z0
dEz ðz0 Þ ¼ þ  rdrdjdz
4pe ½r2 þ ðzk  z0 Þ2 3=2 ½r2 þ ðzk þ z0 Þ2 3=2
(2.11)

The electric field on the axis due to a thin disk of charge of radius R(z) (i.e. R
can vary with height) at the kth grid level then is obtained by integrating over r and
j. Some care is needed in determining the constants of integration to get
" #
rk Dz zk  z0 zk  z0
Ez ðZ0 Þ ¼ þ C (2.12)
2e ½R2 þ ðzk  z0 Þ2 1=2 ½R2 þ ðzk  z0 Þ2 1=2

where C = 0 for zk < z0, C = 1 for zk = z0 and C = 2 for zk > z0.

 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 39

For an arbitrary charge distribution in two or three dimensions, there are no

simple expressions for the electric field. It would be possible to compute the
electric potential or field at an arbitrary point by adding the contributions from
the charge at every grid point (from the superposition principle), but computing the
potential or field this way at every grid point would be too computationally
intensive in many cases. Instead, what is done usually is to use standard numerical
algorithms to solve for f at all grid points by inverting the Poisson equation

r
r2 f ¼  (2.13)
e

where r is the total space charge density at the point being evaluated. Then, the
electric field is computed from the potential by using the relationship E = rf.
Note that, in a two-dimensional model, the symmetry of the model requires the
component of the electric field perpendicular to the plane of the model to be zero.
Each point in a two-dimensional (slab-symmetric) model physically represents
an infinite line charge, which distorts the electric field relative to a three-
dimensional model.
To use numerical Poisson solvers (e.g. multi-grid iteration) to determine f, it
is necessary to specify boundary conditions for f on all sides of the grid. As an
elliptic equation, boundary conditions specify the value of f, the normal deri-
vative @f/@n or a linear combination of the two. Since the ground is a good con-
ductor, hence an equipotential, it is obvious that the potential of the bottom layer of
the grid at the ground should be set to a constant. The constant usually is chosen to be
zero, although any constant could be chosen without affecting the resulting electric
fields. It is generally inappropriate to set the potential to a constant at the lateral grid
boundaries. The upper boundary can be set to a fair-weather value if it is high enough
to approximate the electrosphere, as a constant potential at the top seems to result in
more stable solutions than setting the normal derivative. Choosing boundary condi-
tions for the other sides is not as straightforward as for the ground, and choices can
depend on the cloud size and geometry being modelled. At r = 0 in an axisymmetric,
two-dimensional model, for example, Ez is the only non-zero component of E, so
the boundary condition there would be @f/@r = 0. In three-dimensional or slab-
symmetric, two-dimensional models, however, Ex might well be large if the storm is
near the boundary at x = 0 (or x = X), so @f/@x = 0 would not be an accurate
boundary condition on that side. It often is impossible to find simple boundary con-
ditions that are exactly correct. However, if the cloud is completely contained by the
grid, suitable a priori boundary conditions can be used to produce reasonably accurate
calculations of f.
At least two strategies have been used to improve the solution of f when
charges get close to the domain boundaries. One method is to use brute force to
calculate f at the boundaries (e.g. Riousset et al., 2007); this increases solution
accuracy in the interior but is computationally expensive. An alternative method is
to solve for f in an enlarged domain that has fair-weather charge densities between
the model boundaries and the enlarged domain (e.g. Mansell et al., 2005). Pushing
40 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

out the lateral and upper potential boundaries has the effect of pushing the mirror
charges farther away, thereby reducing the error they cause in the solution.

2.4.2 Charge continuity

Continuity equations for charge are similar to the continuity equations for air and
for water substance categories discussed earlier in this chapter. As for the hydro-
meteor mixing ratios, there must be a continuity equation for the charge on each
water substance category. These equations govern how each water category gains
and loses charge at a given grid point of a model. They express what in physics
texts is called conservation of charge. The total charge at a grid point is then the
sum of the charges on all the water substance categories that exist there, i.e., if rt is
the total charge density at a grid point, and rn, the charge density on the nth water
substance category at that location, then
X
rt ¼ rn (2.14)

The charge density from ions is included as a category if a model treats ion
processes.
To derive expressions for the continuity equations, first consider charged parti-
cles in a parcel of air. Here, a parcel is a fixed mass of air but with a volume that can
change (e.g. can expand when rising and compress when sinking). If no charge enters
or leaves the parcel, then the total charge Qt in the parcel is invariant to parcel motion
and volume changes, but the total charge density rt = Qt/V is not invariant (where V is
the parcel volume at a given time). Thus, we can temporarily define a ‘charge mixing
ratio’ er ¼ r=rair as the charge per mass of air. Then the parcel-following
(Lagrangian) advection equation for charge on hydrometeor type n is
rn
de
¼ Ser n (2.15)
dt
where Ser n represents processes that can change the charge on the nth hydrometeor
type, such as collisional charge separation and ion attachment. Ser n also includes
transfer of charge in and out of the parcel by sedimentation (for precipitation par-
ticles) and turbulent mixing. The Lagrangian reference is then transformed to the
fixed Eulerian grid volume reference frame by the coordinate transformation
d=dt @=@t þ V  r as
@e
rn
¼ V  re
r n þ Ser (2.16)
@t n

For consistency with typical cloud model equations, we multiply (2.16) by air
density rair.
@e
rn
rair ¼ ¼ rair V  re
r n þ rair Ser (2.17)
@t n
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 41

Expanding the divergence term using a vector identity and dividing again by rair
gives

@e
rn 1
¼ r n rair VÞ  e
½r  ðe r n r  ðrair VÞ þ Ser (2.18)
@t rair n

Note that in the incompressible case we have rair = constant and r (rair V) = 0.
Substituting e
r n ¼ rn =rair and cancelling the factors of rair, one recovers the more
familiar expression of local charge continuity, @rn =@t ¼ r  J n , with the current
density Jn replacing the charge motion rnV.
Equations (2.17) and (2.18) are mathematically equivalent and known as the
advective and flux forms, respectively. The flux form is generally preferred in finite
difference models because it has immediate conservation properties that are not
guaranteed in an advective form.
To (2.18), we now add the turbulent mixing and sedimentation terms (second
and third terms, respectively, on the right-hand side of the following):
@e
rn 1 1
¼  ½r  ðe r n ra VÞ  e r n r  ðra VÞ þ r  ðra Kh re
rnÞ
@t ra ra
r n ra V
er Þ
1 @ðe
þ n
þ Ser (2.19)
ra @z n

where Kh is a mixing coefficient determined by the closure scheme employed by a

given cloud model. The fall speed, V
er , is usually the mass-weighted fall speed.
n
For single-moment bulk microphysics, it is best to use the mass-weighted fall speed
to prevent the particle mass from getting out of phase with the charge. This pre-
vents unrealistically large particle charges from occurring during sedimentation.
The term Ser in (2.19) now represents charge sources and sinks through par-
n
ticle interactions. Examples of sources and sinks for the nth category include ion
capture, charge exchange during collisions with particles in another category, and
mass loss or gain as particles are transferred from one category to another. When
mass is lost from one category to another, the charge carried by the mass also must
be transferred to the new category, thereby decreasing the magnitude of charge in
the category losing mass. However, the magnitude of charge in the category gain-
ing mass can either decrease or increase, because the polarity of the charge gained
with the new mass can be either the same as or opposite to the polarity of charge
already on particles in the category. Since most processes can be either a source or
a sink of charge for a given category of particle, it is not worthwhile to try to
distinguish sources from sinks. Thus, we group all such processes together.
Note that the storm as a whole does not lose or gain charge unless charge is
transferred to or from a region outside the storm. When the charge on particles in
one category is altered by interactions with particles in other categories, a com-
pensating change (equal in magnitude, opposite in sign) must occur in the charge of
the other categories, so that the net charge summed over all categories remains the
same. There are no compensating changes in the charge within the storm when the
42 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

charge on particles is altered by a process involving charge from outside regions,

such as ground flashes, cloud-to-air flashes, capture of ions emitted by point dis-
charge from the ground and screening layer formation at cloud boundaries.
Equation (2.19) can be rewritten in terms of the charge density by substituting
e
r n ¼ rn =rair and expanding the left-hand side:

@rn @ðrn V
n Þ
¼ r  ðrn VÞ þ r  ½ra Kh rðrn= ra Þ þ þ Sn (2.20)
@t @z

Note that the advection part has been reduced to one term and that the second
term effectively retains e r n . In many models, however, the scalar advection for-
mulation is designed for parcel invariants (such as mass mixing ratio), so the for-
mulation of (2.19) can use the same model code without modification. The state
variable rn has more physical meaning, however, than e r n , so a compromise is to
transform rn to e r n for advection and turbulent mixing, and then back to rn for
electrification processes.
As discussed by Pruppacher and Klett (1997), V
n can be generalized to include
the effect of electrostatic force in addition to gravity. If this is done, the third term
on the right of (2.19) should be replaced by ð1=rair Þr  ðrair e r n Vn Þ, where Vn is
now a vector, not a scalar.
Many microphysical processes are capable of placing charge on particles. The
main processes that have been included in cloud models are the non-inductive
graupel–ice mechanism, the inductive mechanism and ion capture. The rest of this
section considers treatments of each of these. Electrification mechanisms that have
not yet been used in models are not considered here, although other mechanisms
may be significant in some situations (e.g. melting processes may play a role in
electrifying the stratiform precipitation region of storm systems).

2.4.3 The non-inductive graupel–ice collision mechanism

2.4.3.1 Parameterized laboratory results
Parameterizing the non-inductive collision charge separation mechanism requires
that the charge per hydrometeor collision be determined and then included in a bin
or a bulk parameterization of all collisions involving a particular water substance
category at a grid point during a time step of the model. Laboratory studies have
found (1) that the non-inductive mechanism appears to be most effective when
rimed graupel collides with cloud-ice particles or snow in a region that also has
liquid water (i.e. the mixed-phase region) and (2) that the sign and magnitude of the
charge that is transferred depend on ambient temperature, liquid water content and
impact speed. The simplest parameterization of the non-inductive mechanism
assumes that a constant value of charge is transferred per collision between parti-
cular hydrometeor types, as was done by Rawlins (1982) and Helsdon and Farley
(1987b), both of whom assumed that the sign of charge transfer reversed polarity at
–10 C (see Table 2.1).
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 43

Table 2.1 Non-inductive parameterization of Helsdon and Farley (1987b)

Growth mode Interacting types dq*(fC ¼ 1015 C) Temperature range

Dry Graupel/cloud ice 2 T < 10 C
2 T > 10 C
Graupel/snow 200 T < 10 C
200 T > 10 C
Wet Graupel/rain† 100 All T
Graupel/cloud water‡ 0 All T
Other Graupel/rain‡ 0 All T
Rain/cloud water 0 All T
*
Polarity is for charge transferred to graupel (to rain in growth mode ‘Other’); charge transferred to the
particle colliding with graupel is of equal magnitude, but opposite polarity; †Splashing interactions;
‡
Shedding or limited accretion.

Takahashi (1983, 1984) used the laboratory non-inductive charging data

directly from Takahashi (1978). A lookup table of Takahashi’s results (shown
contoured in Figure 2.4) was developed by Randell et al. (1994) and was used in
that and later studies (e.g. Helsdon et al., 2001; Mansell et al., 2005). The base
charge per collision dq0 was interpolated (or extrapolated) from the lookup table.
Note that Takahashi (1978) did not factor in a collection efficiency, so the actual
charge per rebounding ice collision would be higher than the charge per collision

30
20

10
Cloud water content (g/m3)

–20
1
–10

40
30 0

0.10 20

10

0.01
0 –5 –10 –15 –20 –25 –30
Temperature (°C)

Figure 2.4 Takahashi (TAK) charging diagram (Takahashi, 1978), contoured

from the tabulated data in Wojcik (1994), with charge separation in
units of fC
44 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

(which includes sticking collisions). The table covers a temperature range of 0 C to

30 C and cloud water content from 0.01 to 30 g/m3. For temperatures lower than
30 C, the charge separation values at 30 C were used. Takahashi (1984)
accounted for charging dependence on crystal size and fall speed by multiplying the
value obtained from the table by a factor a:
 2

DI V g
a ¼ 5:0 (2.21)
DI V0
where DI is the diameter of the ice crystal or snow particle, V
g is the mass-
weighted mean terminal fall speed of graupel and D0 = 100 mm and V0 = 8 m/s. This
factor was based on the work of Marshall et al. (1978). In Takahashi (1984), the
value of a was not allowed to be greater than 10.0 (i.e. a 10.0). Thus, the final
charge per collision is dq = adq0 . Tsenova and Mitzeva (2009) tested the Takahashi
scheme but used the results of Keith and Saunders (1990) regarding dependence on
crystal size and impact speed, which significantly affected charge separation rates.
Tsenova and Mitzeva (2009) also developed an equation set to parameterize the
lookup table of the data from Takahashi (1978).
Based on the work of Jayaratne et al. (1983), Gardiner et al. (1985) suggested
that the charge transferred to a rimed graupel/hail particle when it collides with a
cloud-ice/snow particle could be parameterized by
n
i ðDvgi Þ ðLWC  LWCcrit Þ  f ðDT Þ
@q ¼ kq Dm (2.22)
where kq is a constant of proportionality approximately equal to 73, Di is the diameter
of the cloud-ice particle in centimeters, Dvgi is the relative impact speed
(in cm/s) between the graupel particle and ice crystal given by the difference in their
terminal velocities, m  4, n  3, LWC is the liquid (cloud) water content
(in g/m3), LWCcrit is the value of the liquid water content below which the sign of dq
reverses (a plot of LWCcrit as a function of T is given by Jayaratne et al., 1983) and DT
is the degree of supercooling (DT = 273.15  T for T < 273.15 K and is 0 otherwise).
The function f(DT) was a polynomial fit to the laboratory data of Jayaratne et al.:

f ðDT Þ ¼ aDT 3 þ bDT 2 þ cDT þ d (2.23)

5
where a = 17 10 , b = 0.003, c = 0.05, and d = 0.13 and dq is in fC
(1015C). Subsequent laboratory experiments showed that the increase in charge
with ice-crystal diameter levelled off at large values of diameter, so the D4i
dependence in (2.22) overestimated the charge transferred for large Di.
Saunders et al. (1991) suggested a new, more complicated parameterization for
dq that was based on laboratory experiments over a broader range of cloud-ice size,
liquid water content and temperature. Their expression for charge (in fC), similar in
functional form to that used by Gardiner et al. (1985), was

dq ¼ BDai ðDvgi Þb qðEW ; TÞ (2.24)

 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 45

where EW is effective liquid water content, a parameter defined by Saunders et al.

Unlike f(DT) in (2.22) and (2.23), however, f (T, EW) had different functional forms
in different regimes of temperature and effective liquid water content. Furthermore,
kq, m, and n depended on the size of the ice crystal and the polarity of charge
transferred. These dependencies are shown in Table 2.2. Because data did not
extend to temperatures greater than 7.4 C, Helsdon et al. (2001) linearly extra
polated q(EW, T) at a particular EW from the value given by the expression in
Table 2.2 for T = 7.4 C to zero at T = 0 C.
Saunders et al. (1991) used effective liquid water EW content instead of LWC,
the liquid water content measured by in situ instruments and determined by most
numerical cloud models, because their observations suggested that EW was more
relevant to riming-based non-inductive charging. EW is a modification of LWC that
includes only the accreted fraction of liquid water content in the path of graupel.
Therefore, it is given by the product of the ambient liquid water content and the
collection efficiency (EW = LWC  Ecollect). The collection efficiency Ecollect for
graupel and water particles is equal to the product Ecollect Estick, where Ecolli is the
collision efficiency, a factor 1 that reduces the geometric cross section of graupel

Table 2.2 Non-inductive parameterization of Saunders et al. (1991)

Valid for And for

T ( C) EW dq Sign* q(EW,T)* (fC) Di (mm) B a b

g/m3
2042EW – 129 <155 4.92  1013 3.76 2.5
(for 0.06 < EW < 0.12)
<–20 <0.16 þ 155–452 4.04  106 1.9
(PLEZ†) –2900EW þ 463
(for 0.12 < EW < 0.16 >452 52.8 0.44
–314EW þ 7.9
(for 0.026 < EW < 0.14) <253 5.24  108 2.54 2.8
–7.4 to –16 <0.22 –
(NLEZ†) 419EW–92.6 253 24 0.5
(for 0.14 < EW < 0.22)
<155 4.92  1013 3.76 2.5
–7.4 to Tr‡ >0.22
þ 20.2EW – 1.36T þ 10.1 155–452 4.04  106 1.9
7.4 §
>1.1 §

>452 52.8 0.44

<253 5.24  108 2.54 2.8
Tr‡,k >1.1k – 3.02–31.8EW þ
26.5(EW)2 253 24 0.5

*Sign (polarity) is for charge transferred to graupel. Charge on cloud-ice has opposite polarity. †PLEZ
and NLEZ refer to positive/negative low EW zones (see Figure 2.5). ‡Tr is the temperature at which the
polarity of charge gained by graupel reverses for a given value of liquid water content: Tr ¼ 15.06EW
7.38, for EW in g/m3 and Tr in oC. §For regions where q(EW,T) is negative (at EW near 1.1 for T 24oC),
use q(EW,T) ¼ 0. kMust also be outside previous ranges in T-EW space. For regions where q(EW,T) is positive
(at 16oC < T < 20oC and EW 0.1 g/m3), use q(EW,T) ¼ 0.
46 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

to account for aerodynamic effects that sweep small particles around graupel, and
Estick is the fraction of colliding particles that stick to the graupel surface (i.e. do not
rebound). Saunders et al. (1991) noted that in their experiments, EW typically was
roughly equal to LWC/2.
The polarity of charge that graupel gains for each combination of temperature
and effective liquid water content under the parameterization described in Table 2.2
is shown graphically in Figure 2.5. The line dividing positive and negative charging
for 0.22 g/m3 < EW < 1.1 g/m3 can be given in terms of critical values of either EW
or T. Saunders et al. (1991) gave the following expression for EWcrit (in g/m3),
valid for 10.7 C > T > 23.9 C:

EWcrit ¼ 0:49  6:64  102 T (2.25)

An equation for the reversal temperature Tr can be obtained by inverting this
equation (see footnote in Table 2.2).
Helsdon et al. (2001) noted that the expressions given in Table 2.2 resulted in
much more charge per collision than observed for some particle sizes and collision
speeds at small values of EW (<0.22 g/m3 for positive charge and <0.16 g/m3 for
negative charge). Furthermore, model simulations using these expressions tended to
produce thunderstorm charge distributions in which the majority of negative charge
was located above positive charge during most of the period being simulated. When
Helsdon et al. (2001) drastically reduced the amount of charge per collision to
10–20% of the value given by the expressions in Table 2.2 in the zones of low
effective liquid water, model simulations produced a charge distribution similar to the
charge distribution inferred from in situ measurements of the storm being analysed.
Mansell et al. (2005) found that limiting the maximum charge transfer had an effect
similar to that of reducing the influence of the low effective liquid water zones.
We note here that the charge per separation event reported by Saunders et al.
(1991) was derived from the charging current, the ice crystal concentration

1.4 S91
1.2

+
EW (g/m3)

1.0
0.8
0.6
–
0.4
0.2
NLEZ PLEZ
0
0 –10 –20 –30
Temperature °C

Figure 2.5 Plot of the charging zones of the S91 (Saunders et al., 1991) non-
inductive ice–ice parameterization. The positive and negative low-EW
zones are indicated by PLEZ and NLEZ, respectively. Heavy dashed
line indicates extrapolation to higher temperature (no charge
separation occurs for conditions below the dashed grey line)
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 47

(determined from Formvar slides) and an assumed ice crystal collection efficiency of
approximately 0.5 (i.e. only about half of the colliding crystals will rebound). Models
typically assume much lower collection efficiencies, with correspondingly higher
rebound efficiencies. However, simulations generally have not accounted for this
difference, which could cause overestimation of charging rates by up to a factor of 2.
Brooks et al. (1997) suggested that the rime accretion rate (RAR) may affect
the sign and magnitude of charge per collision. They hoped to reconcile the results
of Takahashi (1978) and Saunders et al. (1991), which had riming rod speeds of
9 m/s and 3 m/s, respectively. They converted the Saunders et al. (1991) results
using RAR = EWDVgi/3 (units of gm2s1) in place of EW in the Saunders et al.
(1991) parameterization, so that (2.25) became
RARcrit ¼ 1:47  0:02T (2.26)
for the range 23.8 C < T < 7.4 C. (For T > 7.4 C or T < 23.8 C, one can
use RARcrit (T = 7.4 C) or RARcrit (T = 23.8 C), respectively.) Brooks et al.
(1997) also reported limited laboratory tests at 15 C that showed that charging
was similar for different combinations of V and EW that had the same RAR. Their
reformulation left out the low effective liquid water zones, citing difficulty in
reproducing results at low EW.
A follow-on study by Saunders and Peck (1998) examined charge reversal as
function of RAR. They fit a sixth-order polynomial function RARcrit to represent the
critical RAR (Figure 2.6), above which graupel gained positive charge:

RARcrit ðT Þ ¼ 1:0 þ 7:9262  102 T þ 4:4847  102 T 2

þ 7:4754  103 T 3 þ 5:4686  104 T 4 (2.27)
þ 1:6737  105 T 5 þ 1:7613  107 T 6

4
SP98
Rime accretion rate (gm–2s–1)

3
+
2

1 –

0 –10 –20 –30

Temperature °C

Figure 2.6 Plot of the critical rime accretion rate RARcrit curve of Saunders and
Peck (1998). Graupel charges positively at rime accretion rates above
the curve and negatively below. Charge separation is assumed to cut
off at about 33 C
48 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

which could then be used with the revised Brooks et al. (1997) charging para-
meterization. The fit is only valid to about 33 C, below which Saunders and Peck
(1998) expected charge separation to become negligible. Mansell et al. (2005) used
a piece-wise continuous function to extend charge separation smoothly to zero over
the low-temperature end of the curve from 33 C to 40 C.
For Brooks et al. (1997) and Saunders and Peck (1998), the mean separated
charge per rebounding collision can be adapted for bulk distributions as

m ðV
g  V
1 Þn q ðRARÞ
dq ¼ kq D (2.28)
n;1

where V
g and V
I are the mass-weighted mean terminal speeds for graupel and
cloud ice (or snow), respectively, and kq, m, and n are constants that depend on
crystal size as shown in Table 2.2. Mansell et al. (2005) altered the charge
separation equations, q(RAR, T) from Brooks et al. (1997) so that they smoothly
approach zero at RAR = RARcrit. For positive charging of graupel (RAR > RARcrit),

q þ ðRARÞ ¼ 6:74ðRAR  RARcrit Þ (2.29)

For negative charging (0.1 gm2 s1 < RAR < RARcrit),

q  ðRARÞ ¼ 3:9ðRARcrit  0:1Þ !


RAR  ðRARcrit þ 0:1Þ=2 2 (2.30)
 4 1
RARcrit  0:1

Note that there is an implicit temperature dependence since RARcrit varies with
temperature. The negative charging equation (2.30) shifts the parabolic function
given in Brooks et al. (1997) to fit between the limits of 0.1 gm2 s1 and RARcrit,
removing the discontinuity at RARcrit in the original formulation. Charging is
assumed to be zero for RAR < 0.1 gm2 s1.
Few quantitative results are available on charge separation at temperatures less
than 30 C. (One example is Saunders and Peck, 1998, which examined the sign
of charging, but not the quantity, at lower temperature.) Therefore, lacking
experimental guidance, Mansell et al. (2005) suggested limiting charging at low
temperature by an arbitrary factor b, such as
8
<1 : T > 30 C
b ¼ 1  ½ðT þ 30=13Þ : Thom > T < 30 C
2
(2.31)
:
0 : T < Thom

The low-temperature cut-off is made at Thom  –38 C because all cloud dro-
plets are homogeneously frozen by that temperature, so no further riming occurs.
Deep convective updrafts, however, may maintain ice supersaturation for T < Thom,
which might support appreciable charge separation but no laboratory data exist.
Mitzeva et al. (2006) used a one-dimensional cloud model to explore possible
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 49

consequences of allowing collisional non-inductive charge separation in regions

with supersaturation with respect to ice but without any liquid hydrometeors.

2.4.3.2 General formulation

In models with bin microphysics for graupel and cloud ice, the derivation of an
expression for the rate at which graupel and cloud-ice charge densities (rg and ri,
respectively) build due to the non-inductive mechanism is fairly simple. Per unit
time, the volume in which a graupel particle of diameter Dg collides with cloud-ice
particles of diameter Di is just the product of the cross-sectional area p(Dg + Di)2/4
(the area of a circle in which graupel and ice particles just touch) times the vertical
fall speed of graupel relative to cloud-ice particles, DVgi = |VgT  ViT|. To compute
a charging rate, the volume swept out by a graupel particle per unit time must be
multiplied by the collision separation efficiency for graupel and ice (Egi), which is
the fraction of ice particles in this volume that collide with the graupel and separate
from it. Egi is equal to the product Ecolli Esep, where Ecolli is a factor that accounts
for aerodynamic effects, as discussed previously, and Esep is the fraction of col-
liding particles that separate (Esep = 1  Estick, where Estick is the fraction accreted
by graupel). The modified volume per unit time is called the collision kernel Kgi
and can be expressed as
p
Kgi ¼ ðDg þ Di Þ2 DVgi Egi (2.32)
4

If ng is the number density of graupel particles of diameter Dg, then the rate at
which ng graupel particles collide and separate from ni cloud-ice particles is given
by Kgi ng ni, and the rate at which this process charges graupel of diameter Dg and
cloud ice of diameter Di is
@rg
¼ Kgi ng ni dq
@t (2.33)
@r
¼ i
@t
The expression for non-inductive charging between graupel and snow is the
same as (2.32) and (2.33), except that the parameters for cloud ice are replaced by
those for snow (ns, Ds, Egs and DVgs). Similarly for hail and snow, graupel para
meters are changed to the values for hail (nh, Dh, Ehs and DVhs), although dq has not
yet been determined by laboratory experiments specifically for hail.
To determine the rate of change in charge density for graupel in a particular
size category of a model with bin microphysics, it is necessary to add together the
contributions given by (2.33) for every size category of snow and cloud ice that
interacts with the graupel. Likewise, the rate of change in charge density on a
particular size category of cloud ice or snow must include the contribution from all
size categories of graupel and hail.
To determine the rate of change in charge density on a particular type of
hydrometeor in a model with bulk microphysics, two approaches have been used.
50 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

The first is to evaluate (2.33) at a grid point by determining mean values of dq and
Kgi and the total concentrations across all sizes for Ng and Ni at that grid point. The
second approach is to integrate the right-hand side of (2.33) across all sizes both of
that hydrometeor category and of every other category with which that category
interacts. For example, the change in charge density of graupel due to collisions
with snow or cloud ice is
ðð
@rg p
¼ ðDg þ D1 Þ2 DVgi Egi ng ðDg Þni ðDi Þdq dDi dDg (2.34)
@t 4
where the subscript i refers to either snow or cloud ice. The size distributions n(D)
often are assumed to have the form of the inverse exponential distribution (2.2 with
a = 0) with parameters n0 and L. For cloud ice, because Di Dg and ViT VgT,
the magnitude of sums and differences of these quantities can be approximated as
Dg and VgT in (2.34). To evaluate this integral for cloud ice, Ziegler et al. (1986)
assumed further that since cloud ice typically has a narrow size distribution, it can
be approximated as a population with a single average diameter D
i . If Ni is the total
concentration of cloud-ice particles, this implies that
ð
@rg p
¼ Ni Egi ðDg þ D
i Þ2 DVgi ng ðDg Þdq dDg (2.35)
@t 4
The general formulation of (2.34) for the non-inductive charge (density)
separation rate @rxy/@t between ice hydrometeor classes x and y is
ð1 ð1
@rxy p 0
¼ dqxy ð1  Exy ÞDVxy j
@t 0 0 4

 ðDx þ Dy Þ2 nx ðDx Þny ðDy ÞdDx dDy (2.36)

where Dx and Dy are the diameters of the colliding particles, Exy is the collection
efficiency, DExy is the relative fall speed, nx and ny are number concentrations and
dq0 xy is the charge separated per rebounding collision. In general, dq0 xy may be a
function of ice-crystal diameter, impact speed, cloud water content and tempera-
ture. The collection efficiency Exy is the product of the collision efficiency (Ecolli,
assumed to be unity) and the probability of sticking given a collision (Estick). In
wet-growth mode, one may assume Ex,y = 1, and no charge separation occurs.
As it stands, (2.36) is not a tractable integrand. The equation can be approxi-
mated and simplified by assuming a form for dq0 xy that can be pulled out of the
integral. Also, the fall speed difference is approximated by the difference of mass-
weighted mean fall speeds. The collection efficiency is assumed to be constant.
Multiplying and dividing by Exy then isolates the number concentration collection
rate integral (nxacy):
@rxy 1
¼ bdqxy ð1  Exy ÞExy ðnxacy Þ (2.37)
@t
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 51

Where

nxacy ¼ Exy DV xy
ð1 ð1 (2.38)
p
 ðDx þ Dy Þ2 nx ny dDx dDy
0 0 4

and dqxy is now a representative (weighted average) separated charge per

rebounding collision and (1  Exy) represents the rebound probability. Each of the
non-inductive charging schemes uses the monodisperse diameter D for pristine ice
crystals (plates and solid columns) but the characteristic diameter Dn = 1/ln to
represent the average size of an inverse exponential (IE) distribution (e.g. rimed
cloud ice and ice aggregates). The number concentration collection rate nxacy is
calculated by an analytical approximation. For an inverse exponential distribution
category (xe) interacting with a monodisperse distribution (ymym) the number con-
centration collection rate is
p
nxe acym ¼ Exy ny nx DV xy
4
 ½Gð3ÞD2n;x þ 2Gð2ÞDn;x Dy þ Gð1ÞD2y  (2.39)

Similarly, for an inverse exponential distribution (xe) interacting with another

inverse exponential distribution (ye), the number concentration collection rate is
p
nxe acym ¼ Exy ny nx DV xy ½Gð3ÞGð1ÞD2n;x
4
þ2Gð2ÞGð2ÞDn;x Dn;y þ Gð1ÞGð3ÞD2n;y  (2.40)

Collision rates for other size distribution functions (e.g. a general Gamma
function) are beyond the scope of this chapter. For other collision rates, readers are
referred to studies of microphysics parameterizations such as Milbrandt and Yau
(2005) and Seifert and Beheng (2006).

2.4.4 The inductive charging mechanism

As defined above, the inductive mechanism occurs in the presence of an electric
field. Laboratory studies (e.g. Aufdermaur and Johnson, 1972; Aufdermaur and
Johnson, 1972; Gaskell, 1981; Brooks and Saunders, 1994) and theory (e.g. Mason,
1988) suggest (1) the magnitude of charge transferred is a function of both the
magnitude of the electric field and the angular distance of the impact point from the
electric field vector through the centre of the particle, (2) inductive charging during
collisions of ice particles appears to be negligible because charge transfer is too slow
in ice (Latham and Mason, 1962), (3) collisions of rain drops and cloud droplets do
not contribute significant charge because essentially no cloud droplets separate after
they collide with rain drops in an electric field, and (4) only a small fraction of
colliding rain drops or colliding graupel and cloud droplets subsequently separate,
but enough charge is separated to be significant (Aufdermaur and Johnson, 1972).
52 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

The expression for the induced charge gained by a spherical graupel or hail particle
in a rebounding collision with a cloud droplet in an electric field is

DQg ¼ 4pe0 g1 jEj cos qE;r rcld

2
 AQg þ BQcld (2.41)

where rcld is the radius of the cloud droplet; qE,r is the angle between the impact
point and the electric field vector through the centre of the graupel/hail particle
(shown in Figure 2.1); Qg and Qcld are the charge already on the graupel/hail par-
ticle and cloud droplet, respectively; g1, A, and B are dimensionless functions of
rcld/rg the ratio of the radii of the two particles:

g2 ðrcld =rg Þ2
A¼ (2.42)
1 þ g2 ðrcld =rg Þ2

1
B¼ (2.43)
1 þ g2 ðrcld =rg Þ2

Parameterizing the inductive mechanism requires procedures similar to those

used in parameterizing the non-inductive mechanism, except it is necessary to take
into account that the mechanism’s effectiveness is a function of where on their
surfaces two particles collide. The charge produced by the inductive mechanism is
strongly dependent on the angle between the impact point and the electric field
vector. As shown in Figure 2.1 for a spherical graupel particle, the magnitude of the
induced surface charge density is the largest at the two ends of the diameter that
parallels the electric field vector: As the angle from the electric field increases to
90 , the surface charge density decreases to zero. Besides this effect, the probability
that colliding graupel and cloud droplets will separate can vary with the angle of
the impact point from the vertical axis. Moore (1975) suggested that the separation
probability is much larger for glancing collisions than for head-on collisions. Since
colliding particles must separate for the inductive mechanism to work, the angular
dependence of charge transfer and separation probability can interact in compli-
cated ways. The mechanism will be most effective at the location on the graupel
surface where the product of the induced surface charge density and the collision
separation probability is largest.
Regardless of whether a model uses bulk or bin microphysics, the inductive
parameterization must handle the complication of these interacting factors. Chiu
(1978) treated them by defining a mean separation probability hSi and a mean
impact cosine hcos ji
ð
1 p=2
hSi ¼ 2 SðjÞ2prg2 sin j cos j dj (2.44)
prg 0
ð
1 p=2
hcos ji ¼ 2SðjÞsin j cos2 j dj (2.45)
hSi 0
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 53

where the weighting factor under the first integral is an infinitesimal area in the
horizontal cross section of the graupel particle. Then the mean charge transferred to
a graupel particle by colliding with and separating from cloud droplets is

dQg ¼ hSi½4pe0 g1 jEj cos qE;z rcld

2
hcos ji  AhQg i þ BhQcld i (2.46)
where qE,z is the angle between the electric field vector and the lower vertical axis
and hQg i and hQcld i are the mean charge per particle on graupel and cloud droplets,
respectively. The rate at which this process charges a group of graupel particles of
radius rg due to collisions with cloud droplets of radius rcld is found by multiplying
the charge transferred per collision by the sweep-out volume of the graupel particle
and the number concentrations of graupel and cloud particles:
 
@rg rg ; rcld  
¼ prg2 Dvg;cld Ecolli ng rg ncld ðrcld ÞdQg (2.47)
@t
where ng(rg) and ncld(rcld) are the number density of graupel and cloud liquid water
particles of radius rg and rcld, respectively, and Ecolli in this case is the collision
efficiency for graupel and cloud particles (i.e. the fraction of cloud particles in the
volume swept out by the graupel particle that actually collide with it). This
expression neglects rcld in the sum rcld + rg for the cross-sectional area prg2 .
The rate at which charge is generated by a parameterization of the inductive
mechanism depends strongly on the values selected for hSi and hcos ji. If the
mean separation probability is 1 (i.e. all colliding particles separate) and
hcos ji ¼ 0:67, then the mechanism’s effectiveness is maximized. This is almost
certainly an overestimate. Some studies, such as Moore (1975) and Aufdermaur
and Johnson (1972), suggested that it is orders-of-magnitude too large. Helsdon and
Farley (1987b) used a mean separation probability of 0.015 in their model experi-
ment and a mean cosine of 0.5. Mansell et al. (2005) tested a range of values and
found that higher efficiencies could have a significant effect on simulated charge
structure.
As is the case for the graupel–ice non-inductive mechanism, models with bulk
microphysics must integrate the charge produced by the inductive mechanism
across all sizes of interacting hydrometeors, so the total rate of change in the charge
density of graupel would be given by integrating (2.47) over all values for cloud
radius and graupel radius. Helsdon and Farley (1987b) approximated the integra-
tion by replacing rcld, rg, Dvg,cld, and Ecolli with their mean values at a grid point,
thereby treating them as constants in the integral. The remaining integration of ng
(rg)ncld(rcld) over all radii gave simply the total number density of graupel times the
total number density of cloud droplets at the grid point being considered.
Ziegler et al. (1991) developed a bulk parameterization based on several sim-
plifying assumptions. Consistent with their parameterization of the non-inductive
mechanism discussed above, they considered only Dcld Dg and vcldT vgT and so
ignored the cloud droplet term in sums and differences of these quantities.
Furthermore, they assumed that the narrow droplet size spectrum could be approxi-
mated as a population having a single diameter Dcld, and they used values of
54 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2
 2
g1  p2 =2; g2  p2 =6 and A  g2 Dcld =Dg , which were appropriate for
Dcld =Dg 1. In considering the collision process for inductive charging, it was
assumed that only a small fraction of graupel and cloud particles separates after
they collide, as found by Aufdermaur and Johnson (1972), and that rebounding
occurs only during glancing collisions, as suggested by Moore (1975. Since the
probability that any one cloud droplet will experience two rebounding collisions
with graupel is much lower than the probability that it will experience one, the
‘B’ term involving pre-existing droplet charge (2.47) was omitted. (Droplets
could not gain charge by any other mechanism in their model, which is not
the case for models that treat small ion attachment or screening layers.)
Furthermore, they considered only a vertical electric field, since it was the
vertical electric field that had been hypothesized to contribute to thunderstorm
electrification by the inductive mechanism. The equation for the rate at which
charge was gained by a graupel particle of diameter Dg from the inductive
mechanism then became
"   2 #
@Qg p p3 2 p D2cld
¼ 2
Egc Er Dg vg ncld a Dcld e0 Ez hcos ji  hQg i 2
@t 4 2 6 Dg
(2.48)
where a is the fraction of collisions that have glancing trajectories, ncld is the total
number concentration of cloud particles, Egc and Er are the collision and rebound
probabilities, and Ez is the vertical electric field component. Ziegler et al. (1991)
integrated this equation for single-moment graupel (inverse exponential distribu-
tion with intercept n0g) to get
@rg  3 
¼ p =8 egc er ncld n0g aD2cld ð4grI =3CD rair Þ1=2
@t (2.49)
h  i
 pGð3:5ÞeEz hcos filg7=2  Gð1:5Þrg lg3=2 = 3ng

where G (1.5) = 0.886 and G (3.5) = 3.323. They chose Egc = 0.84, Er = 0.1, a = 0.022
and hcos ji ¼ 0:1, which gave a probability of rebounding collisions prbnd = EgcEra
near the lower end of the range found by Aufdermaur and Johnson (1972).

2.4.5 Small ion processes

Some models (e.g. Chiu, 1978; Takahashi, 1979; Helsdon and Farley, 1987a;
Mansell et al., 2005) explicitly treat space charge on free ions (as opposed to charge
carried by hydrometeors) and incorporate ion capture by hydrometeors in order to
examine how ion capture affects cloud electrification. Although an explicit treat-
ment of ions creates difficulties, it also enables a model to deal with important
phenomena, including the early stages of electrification (when charging by other
electrification processes is small or non-existent), precipitation capture of ions
emitted as corona beneath a storm, screening layer charge at cloud boundaries, and
the dispersal and capture of ions from a lightning channel.
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 55

Cosmic rays are the source of most ions in the fair-weather troposphere, except
near the ground; radioactive decay from the surface contributes up to half of the ions
found near ground. In fair weather, the number of positive ions is roughly equal to the
number of negative ions, so the net charge density results from small differences of
large numbers of ions. Ions move under the influence of the electric field E and their
average drift velocity in a given E is the mobility times the electric field m E, where
subscript gives the polarity of the ions. The mobility m increases with decreasing
pressure and so increases with height (i.e. the mean free path increases).
Each polarity of ion must obey its own continuity equation, which is similar to
(2.20) for charge attached to hydrometeors. For ions, however, a term must be
added to account for average charge motion under the influence of the electric field,
since the resulting ion drift velocity can easily be much different than wind velo-
cities. Also, the source/sink term often is split into sources and sinks occurring in
fair weather and those requiring clouds or thunderstorms (e.g. Chiu, 1978; Helsdon
and Farley, 1987b). The continuity equation for free ions can be written as
 
@n 1 n
¼ r  ½n V n m E þ r  Km r þG
@t rair rair (2.50)
 anþ n  Satt þ Spd þ Sevap

where n+ is the number density of positive ions and n–, the number density of
negative ions. Advection (the first term in the brackets) and turbulent mixing (the
second full term) are treated the same as for the other scalar variables. The second
term in the brackets is the ion drift motion, which can be treated similarly to the
advection term. G is the background cosmic ray ion generation rate; an+n– is the ion
recombination rate and the last three terms, respectively, are ion attachment to
hydrometeors (sink), point discharge current from the surface (source) and release
of any charge as ions from hydrometeors that evaporate completely (source). If the
ion drift speeds exceed the maximum for stable transport at the time step of the
model, then the ion processes (except advection and turbulent mixing) can be per-
formed on a subdivided time step, leaving the dynamical time step unchanged.
The fair-weather state can be defined as in Gish (1944), using the modified
coefficients of Helsdon and Farley (1987b):
Ez;FW ¼ E0 ðb1 ea1 z þ b2 ea2 z þ b3 ea3 z Þ (2.51)

where E0 = –80.0 V/m, b1 = 0.5, a1 = 4.5  103, b2 = 0.65, a2 = 3.8 104, b3 =

0.1, and a3 = 1.0104.
At steady state in a fair-weather condition, the vertical positive and negative
ion fluxes are
d 
nþ mþ EZ;FW ¼ GðzÞ  anþ n (2.52)
dz
d 
 n m Ez;FW ¼ GðzÞ  anþ n (2.53)
dz
56 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

where G(z) is the ion generation rate by cosmic rays (held constant as a function of
altitude) and a = 1.6 1012 m3 s is the ionic recombination coefficient (Chiu,
1978).
The ion mobilities m from Shreve (1970) are given by
4
m ¼ b e1:410 z
(2.54)
where b+= 1.4  10 m V s and b– = 1.9 10 m V s
–4 2 –1 –1 –4 2 –1 –1
and z is in metres.
Diffusivity is derived from mobility by the Einstein relation
kT
D ¼ m (2.55)
e
where k is Boltzmann’s constant, T is the temperature (in Kelvin), and e is the
electron charge magnitude (ions are assumed to be singly charged).
Under steady-state (i.e. fair-weather) conditions, one may assume that the ion
currents and charge densities vary negligibly from constant values, so that
rj = 0 Therefore, from (2.52) we get
GðzÞ ¼ anþ;FW ðzÞn;FW ðzÞ ðsteady stateÞ (2.56)
(as in Takahashi, 1979) and the cosmic ray generation rate can be held constant in
time throughout a simulation.
Ion attachment to hydrometeors is a combination of diffusion, Sdiff, and con-
duction, Scond. As in Chiu Chiu (1978), the two terms are calculated separately and
added (Satt = Sdiff + Scond). The equations from Chiu (1978) (based on Whipple
and Chalmers, 1944)) for attachment by conduction can be found in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Expressions for ion capture via conduction

Qj E||VT or E||VT m |E| @nþ/@t* @n–/@t*

Qj > QM† Either Any value 0 n–njm–Qje–1
Qj < –QM‡ Either Any value –nþnjmþQje–1 0
0 < Qj < QM mþ|E|<|VT| 0 
–QM < Qj < 0 Parallel –nþnjmþQje–1 n nj m jEj 3prj2
2
  1 þ Qj =QM
–QM < Qj < QM mþ|E|<|VT| nþ nj mþ jEj 3prj2
2
 1  Qj =QM
0 < Qj < QM m–|E|<|VT|  n–njm–Qje–1
–QM < Qj Anti-parallel nþ nj mþ jEj 3prj2 0
<0 2
1  Qj =QM 
–QM < Qj < QM m–|E|<|VT| n nj m jEj 3prj2
2
1 þ Qj =QM

*nj ¼ nj(rj). †Hydrometeor completely positive. ‡Hydrometeor completely negative; from Chiu (1978)
based on Whipple and Chalmers (1944). The minimum charge on a particle needed to prevent polar-
ization is QM 12pejEjrj2 .
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 57

In Chiu (1978), the vertical component of the electric field was used to calculate
Scond (i.e. |E| is replace by |Ez|). The equation for diffusion attachment used by
Mansell et al. (2005) is similar to Chiu (1978) and Helsdon (1980):
  "   #
@n X rj VTj 1=2
Sdiff ¼ ¼ j 4prj D n nj f ðXj Þ 1 þ (2.57)
@t diff 2pD

where rj, VTj, and nj are the mean radius, mean terminal fall speed, and number
concentration of the jth hydrometeor category, respectively. The factor f (Xj) is from
Helsdon (1980):
Xj
f ðXj Þ ¼ (2.58)
eXj1
where Xj = Qj/QD; Qj is the charge per particle in hydrometeor category j; and
QD = 4perjkBT/e is the hydrometeor charge at which the electric potential and thermal
energies are balanced at the surface. In Helsdon (1980), Xj was allowed to become
negative, which enhances diffusion for ions of opposite charge [i.e. f(Xj) > 1].
Alternatively, one can allow only non-negative values of Xj [i.e. f(Xj) 1] to avoid the
possibility of double-counting the ion attachment by conduction (Chiu, 1978).
A point ion discharge current jpd (corona current) from features at the sur-
face can be allowed when the vertical electric field component at the ground
exceeds a given threshold (|Ez| > E0). The formulation used here (as in
Takahashi, 1984) follows Jhawar and Chalmers (1967) with values of Standler
and Winn (1979):

jpd ¼ CEz ðjEz j  E0 Þ2 (2.59)

where C = 2  10–20 A mV–3, and E0 = 5  103 Vm1, and Ez is the vertical
electric field component at the ground. The discharge current jpd is converted to an
ion concentration rate Spd as
jpd
Spd ¼ (2.60)
qe Dz
where qe is the electron charge magnitude and Dz is the vertical grid spacing at the
first scalar grid point above ground. Note that Spd+= 0 for Ez < E0 and Spd–= 0 for
Ez > –E0.
When Ez exceeds 15–20 kV m–1, the cubic formulation begins to over-
predict the average point discharge for a typical model time step of 3–5 s and
thus can cause an overshoot in the ion density. A much smaller time step (e.g.
Standler and Winn, 1979) would allow the initial large discharge rates to feed
back quickly to limit further corona, as would occur in nature. Limiting the
magnitude of Ez to 15 kV m1 in (2.59) still allows the modelled surface electric
field to recover from large electric field impulses (over 30 kV m1) within a
reasonable time (6–10 s) and avoids excessive responses in corona current (e.g.
to impulses from CG flashes).
58 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

2.5 Lightning parameterizations

Simulations of electrical evolution need some form of lightning discharge para-
meterization to prevent electric field magnitudes from growing to unrealistic
values. Lightning parameterizations also allow the study of relationships between
storm properties (e.g. updraft mass flux and total graupel mass) and lightning dis-
charge rates (e.g. flash rate and charge discharge rate). A number of discharge
parameterizations are noted in Section 2.3. This section describes some recent
parameterizations designed for three-dimensional models.
The lightning parameterization of MacGorman et al. (2001) attempted to
overcome shortcomings of previous schemes, which either reduced high-charge
regions in bulk (e.g. Rawlins, 1982; Takahashi, 1987; Ziegler and MacGorman, 1994)
or did not treat horizontal branching (Helsdon et al., 1992) in one or more layers
inferred from observations (e.g. Lhermitte and Krehbiel, 1979; MacGorman et al.,
1981; Shao and Krehbiel, 1996). MacGorman et al. (2001) applied the MacGorman
et al. (1981) hypothesis that each layer of lightning channels corresponds to a
major region of thunderstorm charge to develop a parameterization of lightning
that could mimic observed lightning structure. The parameterization explicitly
delineates lightning discharge regions according to ambient electric potential sur-
faces and charge density. The MacGorman et al. (2001) lightning parameterization
has three basic steps: (1) a lightning channel is initiated in a region of high electric
field as a bidirectional unbranched single channel. (2) Branching volumes are
determined within the potential surfaces defined by the channel tip values when the
channel propagation stops at a preselected threshold of the storm’s electric field.
(3) Charge is deposited at connected points of sufficient net charge density within
the branching volumes.
In the MacGorman et al. (2001) scheme (Table 2.4), a flash occurs when the
electric field magnitude exceeds the initiation threshold Einit anywhere in the model
domain. In MacGorman et al. (2001), a uniform threshold of 150 kV m1 was used

Table 2.4 Variables and suggested values of the MacGorman et al. (2001)
lightning parameterization affecting lightning structure or charge

Variable Value Description

–1
Einit 150 kV m Threshold value of E for determining when a flash will occur
dEinit 10kVm–1 Offset from Einit to determine grid points available for lightning
initiation
Estop 15 kV m–1 Minimum |E| above which initial channel propagation is allowed
rchan 0.5 nC m–3 Minimum |r(i, j, k)| for grid points to be involved in lightning
beyond initial propagation
rneut 0.5 nC m–3 Magnitude of |r(i, j, k)| not available to a flash (threshold for
neutralizing charge)
fr 0.3 Fraction of the available charge density neutralized at a grid point
by a flash
Zcg 0.5 km Height below which a flash is categorized as a CG flash
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 59

for the examples, but an alternate choice is the height-varying ‘breakeven’ or

‘runaway electron’ electric field Ebe given in Marshall et al. (1995) (see also
Gurevich et al., 1992):
Ebe ðzÞ ¼ 167ra ðzÞ (2.61)
 z
ra ðzÞ ¼ 1:208 exp (2.62)
8:4
where Ebe has units of kV/m and ra is the air density (kg/m3) as a function of
altitude, z (km). Marshall et al. (1995) found that the runaway electron threshold
was a better fit than the conventional breakdown threshold to the maximum electric
field magnitudes seen in many thunderstorm soundings. The actual processes of
natural lightning initiation are not understood well. Whether or not the runaway
electron hypothesis correctly describes lightning initiation, it at least provides a
good match to the maximum electric field magnitudes that have been observed as a
function of height. More recently, Dwyer (2003) determined a higher threshold for
runaway air breakdown: Einit = 2.84 105(rair/ro) V/m, where rair is air density
and ro=1.225 kg/m3.
In the first stage of a parameterized flash, the lightning initiation point is
chosen randomly from among all the points where the electric field magnitude is
greater than a lower threshold 0.9Einit. The lower threshold and randomized choice
are an attempt to allow lightning to occur over a larger range of locations, to
account for some of the natural variability of lightning initiation due to unresolved
subgrid-scale fluctuations in a cloud model. The development of the initial channel
is similar to Helsdon et al. (1992) but traces the electric field line in subgrid steps
(roughly one-tenth of the vertical grid spacing) rather than extending to the nearest
model grid point. Beginning at the grid point chosen for initiation, a flash traces the
electric field line outward in both directions (parallel and anti-parallel) until the
magnitude of the ambient electric field at each end falls below some threshold
value (Estop). The quantity Estop can be set either to a fixed value or to a fixed
percentage of Einit when Einit varies with height. MacGorman et al. (2001) used a
value of Estop = 15 kVm1, but subsequent testing found that higher values were
needed to control electric field growth. A lower value of Estop tends to result in
overshooting the charge layers closest to the initiation point.
The second stage of the MacGorman et al. (2001) lightning parameterization
finds the branching regions. At each end of the flash inside storm charge, the
parameterization uses a ‘wildfire’ technique to expand the flash from the end of the
channel to all contiguous grid points satisfying two conditions: |r(i, j, k)|  rchan
and |f(i, j, k)|  |fend|, where r(i, j, k) and f(i, j, k) are, respectively, the net charge
density and the ambient electric potential at a grid point, and jend the ambient
electric potential at the end of the channel before extension. During the wildfire
expansion, each new point that is added must adjoin a point that satisfied these
conditions previously as the flash developed. The condition on |f(i, j, k)| keeps
further flash development within the volume bounded by the equipotential surface
that passes through the channel at the point where the initial stage of parameterized
channel propagation stops.
60 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Charge estimation and neutralization were parameterized by using the techni-

que developed by Ziegler and MacGorman (1994), except that Ziegler and
MacGorman neutralized charge at all grid points having |r(i, j, k)|  rchan
throughout the storm, but the new parameterization neutralizes charge only at such
grid points within a single localized flash, defined by the volumes bounded by the
equipotential surface |fend| at each end. For cloud flashes, the MacGorman et al.
(2001) parameterization added a condition not used by Ziegler and MacGorman
(1994) to make sure that the volume of grid points for each polarity is sufficient to
hold the neutralized charge without causing an electric field magnitude larger than
Einit at the outer boundary of an equivalent sphere. When one end encompassed
much more charge than the other before the correction for charge was computed,
the correction occasionally added enough charge at the smaller end to create a new
flash at the outer boundary of the original flash volume. In this situation, a real
lightning flash would be expected to keep propagating. Therefore, the MacGorman
et al. (2001) parameterization expands the volume of the flash at the end at which
the uncorrected total charge magnitude is smaller, if the volume is too small to hold
the corrected charge without causing breakdown. The condition on the flash
volume means that the number of points in each branching volume must be greater
than Ncrit, which is given by
 3=2
4p Qdis
Ncrit ¼ (2.63)
3dv 4peEinit
where dv is the volume represented by each grid point, e is the permittivity of air,
and Qdis is the magnitude of the adjusted charge deposited in each branching
volume. If one of the branching regions has fewer than Ncrit points, then extra
contiguous grid points with sufficient charge density are added to the region until it
contains Ncrit = points.
In a model that does not explicitly predict ion concentrations, lightning charge
is deposited directly on hydrometeors according to their fractional surface area as in
Ziegler and MacGorman (1994). If it does predict ion concentrations, the lightning
charge at each grid point should be converted to an ion concentration and added to
the ion concentration at that grid point.

2.5.1 Stochastic lightning model

Mansell et al. (2002) presented a stochastic branched lightning parameterization
adapted from the dielectric breakdown model developed by Niemeyer et al. (1984)
(NPW) and Wiesmann and Zeller (1986). The NPW model was developed to
examine the branched structures of dielectric breakdown. Wiesmann and Zeller
(1986) made the NPW model more physical by adding a critical electric field
threshold (Ecrit) for propagation and allowing for an internal electric field (Einit) in
the discharge channel. The internal field simply specifies the voltage drop along the
channel segment and accounts for the resistance of the channel. Previous studies
Petrov and Petrova (e.g. 1993, 1999) and Pasko et al. (e.g. 2000) had also used the
Wiesmann–Zeller version of the dielectric breakdown model to study electrical
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 61

discharges in the atmosphere but had been limited to two-dimensional slab sym-
metric or axisymmetric model domains and did not include cloud models.
The lightning model simulates the step-by-step propagation of a bidirectional
discharge from an initiation point by successively creating new breakdown exten-
sions, or bonds, from the discharge structure. Figure 2.7 shows a sample two-
dimensional grid with part of a discharge. Each new extension is chosen randomly
from all possible new extensions. An extension from a grid point on the channel to
an adjacent grid point is possible (i.e. has a non-zero probability) if the electric field
vector favours propagation towards the adjacent grid point and the electric field
magnitude between the two points exceeds a critical value, Ecrit. Once all possible
extensions have been identified, the probability p of choosing a particular extension
is given by
8
<1
for Ei > Ecrit
pi ðEÞ ¼ ðE  Ecrit Þh (2.64)
:F i for Ei Ecrit
0

where h is a weighting exponent and Ei is the magnitude of the electric field

component between the ith pair of candidate extensions from a grid point on the
existing channel to an adjacent point not yet P
on the channel. The P devisor F is the
sum of the unnormalized probabilities, F ¼ k ðEk  Ecrit Þh , so pi ¼ 1. Each
probability is transformed in a range of width pi within the range (0,1):
!
X X
pi ! pk; pk
k¼1;i¼1 k¼1;i

and a random number selects one new extension.

Figure 2.7 Sample grid showing a portion of a stochastic lightning model discharge
in two dimensions. Open circles represent grid points not connected to
the discharge. Filled circles and heavy lines indicate the discharge path.
Dashed lines indicate possible new bonds. In three dimensions,
connections are allowed along all of the unit cube directions
62 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

NPW had a critical field of zero (Ecrit = 0) in their model and found that the
density of branching decreases with increasing values of h. NPW found that ‘bush’
type (densely packed) discharges result for h 1, but ‘branched’ structures result
for h  3. Wiesmann (1988) found that introducing Ecrit > 0 (with h = 1) has a
similar effect as setting h > 1, since both tend to limit side branching. Dissado and
Sweeney (1993) pointed out the difficulty in physically justifying any exponent
other than h = 1, however, so Mansell et al. (2002) assumed a linear relationship
between pi and Ei (i.e. h = 1), as well as Ecrit > 0.
In the WZ model, electrical resistance of the channels is represented by an
internal electric field Eint. A perfect conductor would have Eint = 0, and its surface
would have a constant potential, whereas a conductor with resistance has Eint > 0,
and the potential varies along its length. A non-zero internal field acts to reduce the
the electric field between the channel and non-channel points and thus reduces the
overall extent of the discharge structure (all other values being held equal). When a
new grid point is added to the discharge, the electric potential fnew at the new
channel point is calculated from the potential fb of the point from which the
channel segment extends:
fnew ¼ fb  sEint d (2.65)
where d is the length of the new segment and s is the sign of charge carried by the
channel. Thus, the potential at a point that is n segments away from the initiation
point can be written in terms of the reference potential fref of the starting point, so
that (2.65) becomes
X
n
fðnÞ ¼ fref  s Eint ðjÞdj (2.66)
j¼1

where the sum is along the path from the initiation point to segment n. Each
channel point has a unique path from the initiation point because no branch is
allowed to rejoin to another branch. For bidirectional discharges, the initial refer-
ence potential is taken as the average of the ambient potentials of the two initial
grid points.
The electric potential f at grid points not on the channel must be updated
after each extension of the conducting channel by solving Poisson’s equation
(2.13). The electric potential is already defined by (2.66) along the discharge
structure, which is treated as a boundary with Dirichlet conditions when solving
(2.13). Because of the complex geometry of the discharge boundary, Poisson’s
equation is most easily solved with an iterative technique such as successive
overrelaxation, as described in Appendix A of Mansell et al. (2002). The charge
density induced on the channel at a grid point can be found simply from Poisson’s
equation (r = –er2 f). The charge on the channel is not needed for solving (2.67)
because the effect of this charge on f is included by satisfying the boundary
condition imposed by the channel potential (2.66). The channel charge must be
calculated periodically during development of bidirectional discharges to check
for overall flash neutrality.
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 63

2.5.2 Pseudo-fractal lightning

Molinié et al. (2002) and Barthe et al. (2005) introduced a hybrid lightning
parameterization designed for the computational efficiency of MacGorman et al.
(2001) but also explicitly creating channels as in Mansell et al. (2002).
Refinements to the scheme were presented in Barthe and Pinty (2007). An initial
channel follows the electric field bidirectionally (grid point to grid point, as in
Helsdon et al., 1992) from an initiation point until the ambient electric field
magnitude falls below 20 kV m–1. The initial channel (1) determines whether the
discharge will be intracloud or CG (i.e. determined whether one end descends to
the CG flash altitude threshold or not) and (2) provides the starting points for the
branching algorithm.
The second stage of the Barthe–Molinié scheme returns to the initiation point
and begins adding branch points starting from the main channel. Any point that
meets the electric potential and charge criteria of MacGorman et al. (2001) is
considered a possible extension point. Here, however, the potential criterion was
set by the initiation point rather than the value at the tip of the initial channel. The
number of channel points allowed within a given distance of the initiation point is
given by the fractal formula

Lc c1
N ðdÞ d (2.68)
Lmoy

where d is the linear distance from the starting point and c is the assumed fractal
dimension. Lc is a tunable length-scale parameter, and Lmoy was described as the
‘average length of a grid mesh’ and could be interpreted as the cube root of the
volume defined by the average horizontal and vertical grid spacings:
 1=3
Lmoy ¼ DxDyDz . The Lc/Lmoy factor was designed to help maintain consistency
between simulations with different grid resolution. Barthe and Pinty (2007) found
acceptable results for 2.5 c 2.8 and of 500 Lc 1,000 in tests with a grid that
had constant Dx=Dy=1,000 m and constant Dx 500 m.
In practice, the number of allowed points are found within concentric shells
with inner radius d and thickness Dl=(DxDyDz)1/3 of the smallest grid volume in the
domain (generally at the lowest level if the vertical spacing varies with altitude).
The scheme iterates from the smallest to largest shells, randomly adding new
channel points if another site is allowed by N(d) and a point adjacent to a current
channel point meets the criteria of potential and charge density. All candidate
points are given equal probability of being chosen. Once a shell is filled or has no
more candidate points, the next larger shell is considered. Since the electric field at
the channel tips is neither calculated nor taken into account, the growth of the
structure is more akin to diffusion-limited aggregation models (e.g. Witten and
Sander, 1981; Garik et al., 1987) than dielectric breakdown models (e.g. Niemeyer
et al., 1984; Wiesmann and Zeller, 1986; Petrov and Petrova, 1993; Pasko et al.,
2000; Mansell et al., 2002).
64 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

2.6 Some applications of models

By far the most frequent theme of modelling studies has been to examine the
viability and relative contributions of various electrification mechanisms. This final
section briefly covers model evaluations of ion attachment, inductive warm rain
charging, non-inductive ice–ice charge separation and applications of modelled
lightning.

2.6.1 Ion and inductive mechanisms

Some studies have included ion capture by hydrometeors. To the extent that they
parameterize cloud boundary microphysics, mixing, transport and charge capture
with enough fidelity and resolution, these could be used to evaluate at least some
aspects of the Vonnegut (1953) hypothesis, which is frequently called the con-
vective mechanism and which we call the Grenet–Vonnegut mechanism to give
credit to Grenet (1947) (translated to English as Grenet, 1993). Briefly, the
hypothesis states that storms can become electrified initially by lifting fair-weather
charge (small ions), which then drive ion currents that result in attachment of small
atmospheric ions to small hydrometeors at cloud boundaries (screening layer
charge). Screening layer charge at the top of the cloud could then circulate down
and be entrained back into the cloud, leading to stronger electric fields. The
Grenet–Vonnegut mechanism does not involve precipitation processes and so
would operate in both warm and cold clouds.
Chiu (1978) and Takahashi (1979) both tested inductive charging and ion
capture in a cloud model with warm cloud microphysics (i.e. without the ice phase)
in two-dimensional models. Chiu (1978) simulated a deeper cloud (approximately
7 km) with single-moment bulk microphysics and found only weak electrification
from the Grenet–Vonnegut mechanism prior to precipitation formation. The
simulations achieved maximum electric field magnitudes of 1–700 kV m1, via
inductive (polarization) charge exchange between rain drops and cloud droplets,
depending heavily on the drop–droplet separation probability. The model used by
Chiu (1978) did not predict the droplet number concentration, which was assumed
to be a constant value, which would have resulted in overestimation of the con-
centration and therefore of the charge separation. Takahashi (1979), on the other
hand, employed a spectral bin microphysics that could account for depletion of
small droplet concentration via collection by larger drops. Takahashi (1979)
simulated a shallower cloud than Chiu (1978) (approximately 3 km), and the model
reproduced observations of weakly electrified warm maritime clouds reasonably
well (maximum E of 100–200 V/m), which suggests that ion capture can be
important for weak electrification in these small storms. Takahashi (1979) found
that the most important electrification process was ion capture by hydrometeors,
which was significantly enhanced during evaporation and condensation, and that
inductive polarization charging made little contribution.
Helsdon et al. (2002) used a full three-dimensional model to test the Grenet–
Vonnegut mechanism in both weak and strong storm simulations. They also found
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 65

that the convective mechanism alone could produce only very weak electrification
and that the charge structure tended to be opposite of what was expected by the
hypothesis. Simulations that included ice–ice non-inductive charge separation,
however, did produce substantial electric field magnitudes. A general result of
these and other simulations (e.g. Mansell et al., 2005) is that the process of ion
attachment plays an important role in the formation of electrical screening layers,
but by itself cannot result in strong electrification.

2.6.2 Non-inductive graupel–ice sensitivity

The disparate results of laboratory studies of non-inductive graupel–ice charge
separation (e.g. Takahashi, 1978; Jayaratne et al., 1983; Saunders et al., 1991;
Pereyra et al., 2000) have naturally motivated numerical modelling studies to
compare predictions of storm charge and lightning structure using parameteriza-
tions of the different sets of laboratory data. The laboratory data have sampled a
relatively small range of conditions, so cloud models are useful for testing extra-
polations of those results to a wide range of storm conditions, including conditions
in turbulent dynamic clouds to which the various laboratory methods may be more
or less applicable.
Helsdon et al. (2001) compared results based on two of the parameterizations
described in Section 2.4.3.1: Takahashi (1978) and Saunders et al. (1991) (S91) in a
two-dimensional model. Their model did not include a lightning discharge para-
meterization, so only the early electrification of the storm was examined. Helsdon
et al. (2001) found that the low effective liquid water zones of the S91 para-
meterization would dominate the charge separation and result in unrealistic charge
structures unless their charging rates were drastically reduced (by factors of 5–10).
The two laboratory parameterizations produced starkly different initial charge
structures, with Takahashi tending to produce a dominant positive dipole (positive
over negative charge) and Saunders resulting in a negative dipole. However, the
charge structure produced by the S91 parameterization switched towards a positive
dipole later in the storm, so the two parameterizations had more similar results at
later times.
Mansell et al. (2005) tested multiple parameterizations in a three-dimensional
model that incorporated a lightning parameterization so the full life cycle of a
multi-cell storm could be simulated. In their results, the two parameterizations
tested by Helsdon et al. (2001) produced relatively similar charge and lightning
polarities, in part because of parameter choices that reduced the early inverted
charging in the S91 scheme. Mansell et al. (2005) also tested parameterizations
based on Saunders and Peck (1998) (SP98), using the RAR and found that they
tended to maintain an inverted polarity structure. Barthe et al. (2005) made a lim-
ited comparison of results produced by a parameterization of Takahashi (1978) and
by a simple scheme with an adjustable charge reversal temperature (Helsdon and
Farley, 1987b). They found comparable charge structures in their two simulations
when the reversal temperature was set at –20 C.
66 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

2.6.3 Charge structure and lightning type

Mansell et al. (2002) presented simulation results supporting the importance of
lower positive charge (in the normal tripole structure) for instigating ordinary –CG
flashes. Similarly, they showed that a lower negative charge was important for
instigating +CG flashes, which were initiated between a mid-level positive charge
region and a lower region of negative charge, as had been recently inferred from
lightning mapping observations. The same particle charging parameterization was
used for a multi-cell storm and a supercell storm. The multi-cell had a normal
tripole structure and produced –CG flashes, but the supercell developed an
inverted-polarity charge structure and produced +CG flashes.
Mansell et al. (2005) later showed that the same storm with different non-
inductive graupel–ice parameterizations not only produced different charge struc-
tures, but also produced different lightning structure, particularly affecting the
polarity of CG flashes. All or most of the CG flashes produced by the Takahashi
and S91 parameterizations were –CG flashes, whereas CG flashes produced by the
RAR-based parameterizations tended to be +CG flashes. Kuhlman et al. (2006) and
Fierro et al. (2006) found similar variations in CG polarity for the different grau-
pel–ice parameterizations in supercell storms. Mansell et al. (2005) and Helsdon
et al. (2001) both noted important sensitivities to the assumptions about ice crystal
concentrations, particularly in the warmer part of the mixed-phase region (0 C–
10 C). Both studies used single-moment microphysics and had to diagnose the
concentrations.
Differences in results produced by the Takahashi, S91 and the Saunders and
Peck (1998) parameterization (SP98) when used in the multi-cell storm simulated
by Mansell et al. (2005) are shown in Figures 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10. However, these
simulations used two-moment microphysics (Mansell et al., 2010) that predicts the
number of particles per volume (zeroth moment) in addition to the total particle
mass (third moment) for all hydrometeor types (cloud droplets, rain drops, ice
crystals, snow and graupel). The electrification was not allowed to affect the
dynamics, so the kinematic and microphysical structures (Figure 2.8) are identical
in the three cases shown. The mixed-phase region is illustrated in Figure 2.8(b) as
the intersection of the graupel and cloud droplet contents at temperatures between
0 C and about –38 C. This region is also characterized by updrafts, as cloud dro-
plets tend to quickly evaporate in downdrafts.
Instantaneous graupel–ice charge separation rates are quite different for the
three non-inductive parameterizations (Figure 2.9). Takahashi and S91 are more
similar to each other, with the positive charging of graupel at lower altitude (higher
temperature) and the negative charging of graupel at higher altitude. The positive
charging from the Takahashi scheme extends higher and farther into the forward
flank compared with results from S91, which has slightly weaker positive charging
rates than the Takahashi scheme, but stronger negative charging rates aloft. Graupel
charging in the SP98 simulation is almost completely positive, except for a pocket
of weaker negative charging in the forward flank at about the same altitudes as in
the Takahashi and S91 simulations.
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 67

14
Reflectivity 20 m s–1
12 Max vector
20 10
10 –40

Altitude (km)
30
8 –30
50 40
–20
6
–10
4 0
2

Temp. (°C)
0
(a) 10 15 20 25 30 35
14
Graupel/cloud mass contents
12 Cloud edge
10 30 d –40
Altitude (km)

BZ
8 –30
4
–20
6 3
2 –10
1
4 0
0.5 1 1.5
2 0.1

0
10 15 20 25 30 35
(b) Horizontal distance (km)

Figure 2.8 Kinematic and microphysical structure of a simulated multi-cell

thunderstorm at 52 min (used for Figures 2.9 and 2.10).
(a) Simulated reflectivity (dBZ) and two-dimensional winds with
cloud boundary (thick grey line) and isotherms (thin horizontal lines
at 0–40oC). (b) Graupel mass content (grey-filled contours, g/m3)
and cloud droplet mass content (black line contours, g/m3). Cloud
edge contour follows the boundary of small cloud droplets and ice
crystals

Differing charge structures (Figure 2.10(a)–(c)) and electric potential

(Figure 2.10(d)–(f)) result from the cumulative effects of the respective charge
separation schemes. Takahashi and S91 generally exhibit a ‘normal tripole’ struc-
ture in the updraft region, with a mid-level negative charge and upper and lower
positive charge regions. The structure is more clearly seen in the positive and
negative potential regions, because details in the charge structure are complicated
by local reversals due to lightning charge. The lower and upper positive charges are
mainly carried by graupel and ice crystals, respectively, while the main negative
charge is carried in part by graupel and in part by ice crystals. The SP98 case, by
contrast, has roughly an inverted dipole structure, with negative charge on ice
crystals above positive charge on graupel.
68 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

14
S91
12
30 dBZ
10 –40

Altitude (km)
8 –30
–20
6
–10
4 0
2
Cloud edge

Temp. (°C)
0
(a) 10 15 20 25
14
Takahashi
12
30 dBZ
10 –40
Altitude (km)

8 –30
–20
6
–10
4 0
2
Cloud edge
Temp. (°C)

0
(b) 10 15 20 25
14
SP98
12
30 dBZ
10 –40
Altitude (km)

8 –30
–20
6
–10
4 0
2
Cloud edge
0
10 15 20 25
(c) Horizontal distance (km)

Figure 2.9 Simulated non-inductive graupel–ice charge separation rates using

the (a) S91, (b) Takahashi, and (c) SP98 schemes. Non-inductive
charge separation rates have contour intervals of 10, 60, and
200 pC m–3 s–1 increasing thereafter by intervals of 300 pC m–3 s–1
[negative (dashed) and positive (solid) charge to graupel]

The CG lightning produced in the simulations with two-moment micro-

physics is similar to the CG lightning in the original simulations with single-
moment microphysics by Mansell et al. (2005). Approximate CG flash origins
are cartooned in Figure 2.10(d)–(f). The Takahashi and SP98 simulations
 Net charge density Net charge density Net charge density
14
S91 Takahashi SP98
Altitude (km) 12 Cloud edge Cloud edge Cloud edge
10 –40 –40 –40 –40
8 –30 –30 –30 –30
–20 –20 –20 –20
6 –10 –10 –10 –10
4 0 0 0 0
2 dB
Z
dB
Z
dB
Z
30 30 30
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35

Temp. (°C)
Horizontal distance (km) Horizontal distance (km) Horizontal distance (km)
(a) (b) (c)

Electric potential Electric potential Electric potential

14
S91 0 Takahashi SP98 –40
12 5 0 –5
15 0 –30
Altitude (km)

10 15 15 25 5 –15
25 –25 –20
0 2515
8 0 35 5 –10
0 –5
6 0 0
0 –35
4 45 –35 –25 –5
25 5
15 –25 –15 +CG
2 –CG
+CG –15 –5 –5 0
15
5 –CG 5 0
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal distance (km) Horizontal distance (km) Horizontal distance (km)
(d) (e) (f )

< –0.1 nC m–3 > 0.1 nC m–3 < –0.6 nC m–3 > 0.6 nC m–3

Figure 2.10 Simulated charge structure (top) and electric potential (bottom) using the (a,d) S91, (b,e) Takahashi and (c,f)
SP98 schemes. Contours of positive (black) and negative (grey) potential have intervals of 5 MV, 15 MV and
increasing thereafter by intervals of 10 MV. Local reversals of charge sign are caused by simulated lightning charge
deposition. The stars (d,e,f) indicate approximate initiation points of cloud-to-ground (CG) near the time of the plots
(52 min). The jagged lines connect the initiation points (stars) to approximate relative ground strike locations
70 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

produce CG flashes that were exclusively negative or positive, respectively.

The S91 simulation, however, produces both polarities of CG lightning.
Negative CG flashes (both Takahashi and S91) originated between the main
negative and lower positive charge regions in the storm core, whereas +CG
flashes (S91 and SP98) usually initiate downshear of the updraft core. The
distribution of +CG and –CG flashes in the S91 results is much like the
‘lightning bipole’ pattern that has been observed in mesoscale convective sys-
tems (MCSs), with –CG lightning occurring in the convective line and +CG
lightning offset downshear towards the transition zone.

2.6.4 Concluding remarks

Numerical modelling has been a valuable tool in storm electrification research.
Studies have strongly supported the primary role of graupel–ice collisions in
generating electrification strong enough for lightning to occur. Many general
features such as electrical screening layers and CG lightning have been produced
by model simulations, but models have the additional benefit of providing com-
plete, internally consistent storm data sets for analyses. The lightning behaviours
that have been observed in storms have been simulated well enough (e.g. kuhl-
man et al., 2006; Mansell et al., 2010) to provide support for relationships
inferred from observations as well as to help develop new hypotheses about
relationships between lightning and other storm properties. Model sensitivity
tests of laboratory data for graupel–ice charge separation have shown that the
differences in the laboratory data can translate into stark differences in simulated
charge structure, although the specific simulated differences may well be affected
by the considerable uncertainties in the treatments of the mixed-phase region of
storms (e.g. cloud water content, graupel and ice concentrations and graupel
riming rates). Models can also help point out areas in which more laboratory
research may be needed. For example, the lack of charge in some regions of
simulated storms in which charge has been measured in real storms suggests a
need to investigate particle charging during non-inductive ice–ice interactions in
regions of ice supersaturation, but little or no liquid water.
Many challenges remain for numerical models. A primary challenge is the
difficulty of simulating a particular storm case with sufficient similitude, some-
thing that requires a great deal of trial and error with deterministic simulations
and may or may not succeed. Assimilation of radar and other data with varia-
tional and ensemble methods provides a means to force a modelled storm to look
more like an observed storm, but at the costs of computational expense and
perhaps unphysical adjustments to the non-electrical model fields. A number of
regularly observed electrical features have not been well simulated (or not
attempted), such as charge separation and lightning in storm anvils and in MCS
stratiform precipitation regions, as well as charge structures associated with radar
bright bands. A combination of further laboratory and storm observations and
improvements to numerical models is needed to make progress in understanding
storm electrification processes.
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 71

References
Aufdermaur, A. N. and D. A. Johnson, 1972: Charge separation due to riming in an
electric field. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 98, 369–382.
Baker, B., M. B. Baker, E. R. Jayaratne, J. Latham and C. P. R. Saunders, 1987:
The influence of diffusional growth rates on the charge transfer accompanying
rebounding collisions between ice crystals and soft hailstones. Quart. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 113, 1193–1215.
Baker, M. B., H. J. Christian and J. Latham, 1995: A computational study of the
relationships linking lightning frequency and other thundercloud parameters.
Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 121, 1525–1548.
Barth, M. C., S.-W. Kim, C. Wang, K. E. Pickering, L. E. Ott, G. Stenchikov, et al.,
2007: Cloud-scale model intercomparison of chemical constituent transport in
deep convection. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 4709–4731.
Barthe, C., G. Molinié and J.-P. Pinty, 2005: Description and first results of an
explicit electrical scheme in a 3D cloud resolving model. Atmos. Res., 76, 95–
113.
Barthe, C. and J.-P. Pinty, 2007: Simulation of a supercellular storm using a three-
dimensional mesoscale model with an explicit lightning flash scheme.
J. Geophys. Res., 112, doi:10.1029/2006JD007484
Barthe, C., J.-P. Pinty and C. Mari, 2007: Lightning-produced NOx in an explicit elec-
trical scheme tested in a Stratosphere-Troposphere Experiment: Radiation, Aerosols
and Ozone case study. J. Geophys. Res., 112, doi:10.1029/2006JD007402
Brooks, I. M. and C. P. R. Saunders, 1994: An experimental investigation of the
inductive mechanism of thunderstorm electrification. J. Geophys. Res., 99,
10627–10632.
Brooks, I. M., C. P. R. Saunders, R. P. Mitzeva and S. L. Peck, 1997: The effect on
thunderstorm charging of the rate of rime accretion by graupel. Atmos. Res., 43,
277–295.
Canosa, E. F., R. List and R. E. Stewart, 1993: Modeling of inductive charge
separation in rainshafts with variable vertical electric fields. J. Geophys. Res.,
98, 2627–2633.
Chiu, C.-S., 1978: Numerical study of cloud electrification in an axisymmetric,
time-dependent cloud model. J. Geophys. Res., 83, 5025–5049.
Cotton, W. R. and R. A. Anthes, 1989: Storm and Cloud Dynamics. Academic
Press, San Diego, 883 pp.
Dissado, L. A. and P. J. J. Sweeney, 1993: Physical model for breakdown structures
in solid dielectrics. Phys. Rev. B, 48, 16261–16268.
Dwyer, J. R., 2003: A fundamental limit on electric fields in air. Geophys. Res.
Lett., 30, doi:10.1029/2003GL017781.
Emersic, C., 2006: Investigations into Thunderstorm Electrification Processes.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK, 327 pp.
Fierro, A. O., M. S. Gilmore, E. R. Mansell, L. J. Wicker and J. M. Straka, 2006:
Electrification and lightning in an idealized boundary-crossing supercell
simulation of 2 June 1995. Mon. Wea. Rev., 134, 3149–3172.
72 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Fierro, A. O., L. Leslie, E. R. Mansell, J. M. Straka, D. R. MacGorman and C. L.

Ziegler, 2007: A high-resolution simulation of microphysics and electrification
in an idealized hurricane-like vortex. Met. Atmos. Phys., 98(1–2), 13–33.
Gardiner, B., D. Lamb, R. L. Pitter, J. Hallett and C. P. R. Saunders, 1985:
Measurements of initial potential gradient and particle charges in a Montana
summer thunderstorm. J. Geophys. Res., 90, 6079–6086.
Garik, P., K. Mullen and R. Richter, 1987: Models of controlled aggregation. Phys.
Rev. A., 35, 3046–3055.
Gaskell, W., 1981: A laboratory study of the inductive theory of thunderstorm
electrification. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 107, 955–966.
Gish, O. H., 1944: Evaluation and interpretation of the columnar resistance of the
atmosphere. Terr. Magn. Atmos. Electr., 49, 159–168.
Grenet, G., 1947: Essai d’explication de la charge électrique des nuages d’orages.
Ann. Géophys., 3, 306–307.
Grenet, G., 1993: Possible explanation for the electric charge in thunderclouds
(Reprint of 1947 paper in English). Atmos. Res., 30, 175–179.
Gurevich, A. V., G. M. Milikh and R. Roussel-Dupre, 1992: Runaway electron
mechanism of air breakdown and preconditioning during a thunderstorm. Phys.
Lett. A, 165, 463–468.
Helsdon, J. H., Jr., 1980: Chaff seeding effects in a dynamical-electrical cloud
model. J. Appl. Met., 19, 1101–1125.
Helsdon, J. H., Jr. and R. D. Farley, 1987a: A numerical modeling study of a
Montanathunderstorm: 1. Model results versus observations involving non-
electrical aspects. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 5645–5659.
Helsdon, J. H., Jr. and R. D. Farley, 1987b: A numerical modeling study of a
Montana thunderstorm: 2. Model results versus observations involving elec-
trical aspects. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 5661–5675.
Helsdon, J. H., Jr., S. Gattaleeradapan, R. D. Farley and C. C. Waits, 2002: An
examination of the convective charging hypothesis: Charge structure, electric fields
and Maxwell currents. J. Geophys. Res., 107, doi:10.1029/2001JD001495
Helsdon, J. H., Jr., W. A. Wojcik and R. D. Farley, 2001: An examination of
thunderstorm-charging mechanisms using a two-dimensional storm elec-
trification model. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 1165–1192.
Helsdon, J. H., Jr., G. Wu and R. D. Farley, 1992: An intracloud lightning para-
meterization scheme for a storm electrification model. J. Geophys. Res., 97,
5865–5884.
Houze, R. A., Jr., 1993: Cloud Dynamics. Academic Press, San Diego, 573 pp
Illingworth, A. J. and J. Latham, 1977: Calculations of electric field growth, field
structure and charge distributions in thunderstorms. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 103, 277–298.
Jayaratne, E. R., C. P. R. Saunders and J. Hallett, 1983: Laboratory studies of the
charging of soft hail during ice crystal interactions. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
109, 609–630.
Jhawar, D. S. and J. A. Chalmers, 1967: Point-discharge currents through small
trees in artificial fields. J. Atmos. Terr. Physics, 29, 1459–1463.
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 73

Keith, W. D. and C. P. R. Saunders, 1989: Charge transfer during multiple large ice
crystal interactions with a riming target. J. Geophys. Res., 94, 13103–13106.
Keith, W. D. and C. P. R. Saunders, 1990: Further laboratory studies of the char-
ging of groupel during ice crystal interactions. Atmos. Res., 25, 445–464.
Kuettner, J. P., Z. Levin and J. D. Sartor, 1981: Thunderstorm electrification-
inductive or non-inductive? J. Atmos. Sci., 38, 2470–2484.
Kuhlman, K. M., C. L. Ziegler, E. R. Mansell, D. R. MacGorman and J. M. Straka,
2006: Numerically simulated electrification and lightning of the 29 June
2000 STEPS supercell storm. Mon. Wea. Rev., 134, 2734–2757.
Latham, J. and B. J. Mason, 1962: Electrical charging of hail pellets in a polarizing
electric field. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 266, 387–401.
Levin, Z., 1976: A refined charge distribution in a stochastic electrical model of an
infinite cloud. J. Atmos. Sci., 33, 1756–1762.
Lhermitte, R. and P. R. Krehbiel, 1979: Doppler radar and radio observations of
thunderstorms. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Electron., GE-17, 162–171.
MacGorman, D. R., A. A. Few and T. L. Teer, 1981: Layered lightning activity.
J. Geophys. Res., 86, 9900–9910
MacGorman, D. R. and W. D. Rust, 1998: The Electrical Nature of Storms. Oxford
University Press, New York, 422 pp.
MacGorman, D. R., J. M. Straka and C. L. Ziegler, 2001: A lightning para-
meterization for numerical cloud models. J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 459–478.
Mansell, E. R., D. R. MacGorman, C. L. Ziegler and J. M. Straka, 2002: Simulated
three-dimensional branched lightning in a numerical thunderstorm model.
J. Geophys. Res., 107, doi:10.1029/2000JD000244
Mansell, E. R., D. R. MacGorman, C. L. Ziegler and J. M. Straka, 2005: Charge
structure and lightning sensitivity in a simulated multicell thunderstorm.
J. Geophys. Res., 110, doi:10.1029/2004JD005287.
Mansell, E. R., C. L. Ziegler and E. C. Bruning, 2010: Simulated electrification of a
small thunderstorm with two-moment bulk microphysics. J. Atmos. Sci., 67,
171–194, doi:10.1175/2009JAS2965.1
Marshall, B. J. P., J. Latham and C. P. R. Saunders, 1978: A laboratory study of
charge transfer accompanying collision of ice crystals with a simulated hail-
stone. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 104, 163–178.
Marshall, J. S. and W. M. Palmer, 1948: The distribution of raindrops with size.
J. Meteor., 5, 165–166.
Marshall, T. C., M. P. McCarthy and W. D. Rust, 1995: Electric field magnitudes
and lightning initiation in thunderstorms. J. Geophys. Res., 100, 7097–7103.
Mason, B. J., 1988: The generation of electric charges and fields in thunderstorms.
Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 415, 303–315.
Mathpal, K. C. and N. C. Varshneya, 1982: Riming electrification mechanism for
charge generation within a thundercloud of finite dimensions. Ann. de
Géophys., 38, 167–175.
Milbrandt, J. A. and M. K. Yau, 2005: A multimoment bulk microphysics para-
meterization. Part II: A proposed three-moment closure and scheme descrip-
tion. J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 3065–3081.
74 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Mitzeva, R. P. and C. P. R. Saunders, 1990: Thunderstorm charging: Calculations

of the effect of ice crystal size and graupel velocity. J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 52,
241–245.
Mitzeva, R. P., C. P. R. Saunders and B. Tsenova, 2006: Parameterisation of non-
inductive charging in thunderstorm regions free of cloud droplets. Atmos. Res.,
82, 102–111, doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2005.12.006
Molinié, G., J.-P. Pinty and F. Roux, 2002: Some microphysical and electrical
aspects of a cloud resolving model: Description and thunderstorm case study.
C. R. Phys., 3, 1305–1324.
Moore, C. B., 1975: Rebound limits on charge separation by falling precipitation.
J. Geophys. Res., 80, 2658–2662.
Niemeyer, L., L. Pietronero and H. J. Wiesmann, 1984: Fractal dimension of
dielectric breakdown. Phys. Rev. Lett., 52, 1033–1036.
Norville, K., M. Baker and J. Latham, 1991: A numerical study of thunderstorm
electrification: Model development and case study. J. Geophys. Res., 96, 7463–
7481.
Pasko, V. P., U. S. Inan and T. F. Bell, 2000: Fractal structure of sprites. Geophys.
Res. Lett., 27, 497–500
Pereyra, R. G., E. E. Avila, N. E. Castellano and C. Saunders, 2000: A laboratory
study of graupel charging. J. Geophys. Res., 105, 20803–20812.
Petrov, N. I. and G. N. Petrova, 1993: Physical mechanisms for intracloud lightning
discharges. Tech. Phys., 38, 287–290.
Petrov, N. I. and G. N. Petrova, 1999: Physical mechanisms for the development of
lightning discharges between a thundercloud and the ionosphere. Tech. Phys.,
44, 472–475.
Pringle, J. E., H. D. Orville and T. D. Stechmann, 1973: Numerical simulation of
atmospheric electricity effects in a cloud model. J. Geophys. Res., 78, 4508– 4514.
Pruppacher, H. R. and J. D. Klett, 1997: Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation.
Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 954 pp.
Randell, S. C., S. A. Rutledge, R. D. Farley and J. H. Helsdon, Jr., 1994: A mod-
eling study of the early electrical development of tropical convection:
Continental and oceanic (monsoon) storms. Mon. Wea. Rev., 122, 1852–1877.
Rawlins, F., 1982: A numerical study of thunderstorm electrification using a three
dimensional model incorporating the ice phase. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
108, 779–800.
Riousset, J. A., V. P. Pasko, P. R. Krehbiel, R. J. Thomas and W. Rison, 2007:
Three-dimensional fractal modeling of intracloud lightning discharge in a New
Mexico thunderstorm and comparison with lightning mapping observations. J.
Geophys. Res., 112, doi:10.1029/2006JD007621.
Saunders, C. P. R., W. D. Keith and R. P. Mitzeva, 1991: The effect of liquid water
on thunderstorm charging. J. Geophys. Res., 96, 11007–11017.
Saunders, C. P. R. and S. L. Peck, 1998: Laboratory studies of the influence of the
rime accretion rate on charge transfer during crystal/graupel collisions.
J. Geophys. Res., 103, 13949–13956.
 Modelling of charging processes in clouds 75

Scott, W. D. and Z. Levin, 1975: A stochastic electrical model of an infinite cloud:

Charge generation and precipitation development. J. Atmos. Sci., 32, 1814–
1828.
Seifert, A. and K. D. Beheng, 2006: A two-moment cloud microphysics para-
meterization for mixed-phase clouds. Part 1: Model description. Met. Atmos.
Phys., 92, 45–66, doi:10.1007/s00703-005-0112-4.
Shao, X. M. and P. R. Krehbiel, 1996: The spatial and temporal development of
intracloud lightning. J. Geophys. Res., 101, 26641–26668.
Shreve, E. L., 1970: Theoretical derivation of atmospheric ion concentrations,
conductivity, space charge density, electric field and generation rate from 0 to
60 km. J. Atmos. Sci., 27, 1186–1194.
Singh, P., T. S. Verma and N. C. Varshneya, 1986: Some theoretical aspects of
electric field and precipitation growth in a finite thundercloud. Proc. Indian
Acad. Sci., 95, 293–298.
Solomon, R. and M. B. Baker, 1996: A one-dimensional lightning parameteriza-
tion. J. Geophys. Res., 101, 14983–14990.
Standler, R. B. and W. P. Winn, 1979: Effects of coronae on electric fields beneath
thunderstorms. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 105, 285–302.
Stensrud, D. J., 2007: Parameterization Schemes: Keys to Understanding
Numerical Weather Prediction. Cambridge University Press, UK, 459 pp.
Straka, J. M., 2009: Cloud and Precipitation Microphysics: Principles and
Parameterizations. Cambridge University Press, UK, 392 pp.
Sun, A., H.-Y. Chun, J.-J. Baik and M. Yan, 2002: Influence of electrification on
microphysical and dynamical processes in a numerically simulated thunder-
storm. J. Appl. Meteor., 41, 1112–1127.
Takahashi, T., 1974: Numerical simulation of warm cloud electricity. J. Atmos.
Sci., 31, 2160–2181.
Takahashi, T., 1978: Riming electrification as a charge generation mechanism in
thunderstorms. J. Atmos. Sci., 35, 1536–1548.
Takahashi, T., 1979: Warm cloud electricity in a shallow axisymmetric cloud
model. J. Atmos. Sci., 36, 2236–2258.
Takahashi, T., 1983: Numerical simulation of winter cumulus electrification. Part I:
Shallow cloud. J. Atmos. Sci., 40, 1257–1280.
Takahashi, T., 1984: Thunderstorm electrification – a numerical study. J. Atmos.
Sci., 41, 2541–2558.
Takahashi, T., 1987: Determination of lightning origins in a thunderstorm model.
J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 65, 777–794.
Tsenova, B. D. and R. P. Mitzeva, 2009: New parameterization of non-inductive charge
transfer based on previous laboratory experiments. Atmos. Res., 91, 79–86.
Vonnegut, B., 1953: Possible mechanism for the formation of thunderstorm elec-
tricity. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 34, 378.
Whipple, F. J. W. and J. A. Chalmers, 1944: On Wilson’s theory of the collection of
charge by falling drops. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 70, 103–118.
Wiesmann, H. J., 1988: Realistic models of dielectric breakdown. Fractals’ Physical
Origin and Properties, L. Pietronero, ed., Plenum Press, New York, 243–257.
76 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Wiesmann, H. J. and H. R. Zeller, 1986: A fractal model of dielectric breakdown

and prebreakdown in solid dielectrics. J. Appl. Phys., 60, 1770–1773.
Witten, T. A., Jr. and L. M. Sander, 1981: Diffusion-limited aggregation, a kinetic
critical phenomenon. Phys. Rev. Lett., 47, 1400–1403.
Wojcik, W. A., 1994: An Examination of Thunderstorm Charging Mechanisms
Using the IAS 2D Storm Electrification Model. Master’s thesis, South Dakota
School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD, 113 pp.
Zhang, X., J. H. Helsdon, Jr. and R. D. Farley, 2003: Numerical modeling of
lightning-produced NOx using an explicit lightning scheme: 2. Three-
dimensional simulation and expanded chemistry. J. Geophys. Res., 108,
doi:10.1029/2002JD003225.
Ziegler, C. L., 1985: Retrieval of thermal and microphysical variables in observed
convective storms. Part I: Model development and preliminary testing.
J. Atmos. Sci., 42, 1487–1509.
Ziegler, C. L., 1988: Retrieval of thermal and microphysical variables in observed
convective storms. Part II: Sensitivity of cloud processes to variation of the
microphysical parameterization. J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 1072–1090.
Ziegler, C. L. and D. R. MacGorman, 1994: Observed lightning morphology rela-
tive to modeled space charge and electric field distributions in a tornadic storm.
J. Atmos. Sci., 51, 833–851.
Ziegler, C. L., D. R. MacGorman, J. E. Dye and P. S. Ray, 1991: A model eva-
luation of non-inductive graupel-ice charging in the early electrification of a
mountain thunderstorm. J. Geophys. Res., 96, 12833–12855.
Ziegler, C. L., P. S. Ray and D. R. MacGorman, 1986: Relations of kinematics,
microphysics and electrification in an isolated mountain thunderstorm.
J. Atmos. Sci., 43, 2098–2114.
Ziv, A. and Z. Levin, 1974: Thundercloud electrification: Cloud growth and elec-
trical development. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1652–1661.
 Chapter 3
Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical
discharges in air
Y. V. Serdyuk1

3.1 Introduction
Electrical gas discharges belong to the class of low-temperature plasmas.
Depending on particular conditions, they can be equilibrium (thermal) or non-
equilibrium (non-thermal) meaning that temperatures/energies of constituting par-
ticles (electrons, ions, neutral atoms/molecules) are either nearly equal or different,
respectively. Examples of the former are electric arcs, sparks, microwave dis-
charges, where such effects like Joule heating of the gas and its thermal ionization
are significant. In contrast, non-thermal discharge plasmas are characterized by
presence of highly energetic electrons in “cold” neutral gas and ionic component
with temperature close (or slightly higher) to that of gas. Typical examples of these
are electron avalanches, glow discharges, streamers, electrical coronas, where the
degree of ionization of the gas is much less than unity, the electron density rarely
exceeds
1014 cm3 and their mean energy is normally below
10 eV.
This chapter deals with basic principles of numerical simulations of non-
thermal electrical discharges in air, which are predecessors and indispensable
attributes of a leader discharge (see, e.g., [1]). First, processes in such discharges
and a theoretical background of so-called fluid model are considered. Further,
numerical approaches utilized for computer implementation of the model are pre-
sented. Finally, examples are given including computer simulations of coronas as
well as positive and negative streamers.

3.2 Outline of electro-physical processes in gaseous

medium under electric fields
Most of the gases under normal pressure and temperature can be considered as an
ideal gas which obeys classical thermodynamic laws. Molecules of such a gas can
be seen as randomly moving non-interacting particles with energy distributions

1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
78 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

described by Maxwell–Bolzmann statistics. Gases at normal conditions, including

air, are good electrical insulators. As it was found in early years of studying
of gas discharges, if one applies a low voltage (weak electric field) to an air gap
formed by a pair of parallel-plate metallic electrodes, a current with the density of
j0
1016–1017 A/cm2 could be registered in the external circuit [2]. This current
is observed as a consequence of natural background ionization processes (discussions
on particular mechanisms can be found elsewhere [3,4]) with a characteristic rate of
R0
1–10 ion pairs/(cm3s) that leads to a permanent presence of n0
103 ion pairs in
1 cm3, each carrying charge q (typically, singly ionized atoms/molecules are present,
and, hence, q is the electronic charge 1.6  1019 C). The ions experience the
electrostatic force qE in the applied electric field E, V/cm, and drift in gas with the
velocity w = mE (m is the mobility, cm2/(Vs)). The motion of charge carriers in a
weak electric field is associated with predominantly elastic scattering collisions with
neutral atoms/molecules and the energy e = qEl they gain on their free path l =
(N0 s)1 is small (here, N0 is the density of gas molecules, cm3; s is the cross-
section of the process, cm2). Simple estimations for electrons in air under normal
conditions yield the free path of l
4  104 cm and the energy gained between
collisions in the field of 1kV/cm De
0.4 eV (calculated with N0
2.5  1019 cm3
and s
1016 cm2 that is typical scattering cross-section). Despite the very small
amount of charge carriers (n0 << N0 at normal conditions), their directional flow
gives rise to the measurable current j0 = qn0w between the electrodes and provides
apparent electric conductivity of air on the level
1013 S/cm [5].

3.2.1 Generation of charged species in gas

If the external field becomes stronger (e.g., due to an increase of the applied voltage),
electrons may gain energy which eventually can be high enough for non-elastic
collisions associated with energy transfer between colliding partners. In this way,
exited neutral atoms/molecules can be generated in the volume, and further, if the
electron energy exceeds the so-called ionization potential of the gas De > eion, new
electrons and positive ions can be produced in ionizing collisions according to the
scheme e+A!A++e+e (here e, A and A+ stand for the electron, atom/molecule and
positive ion, respectively). The rate of the impact ionization then can be expressed as
Rimp = (dne /dt)imp = (dnp /dt)imp = ki ne NA, where ne, np, and NA are the densities of
electrons, positive ions, and neutral atoms/molecules, cm3, respectively; t stands for
the time, s; and ki is the rate constant of the process, cm3/s. The product ni = ki NA
defines the ionization frequency, i.e. the number of ionizing collisions per second,
which being divided by the drift velocity yields well-known Townsend’s ionization
coefficient a = ni /we = ni /(me E), cm1, that is the number of ionization events per
1 cm of length which electron passes in the field. Using this parameter, the ionization
intensity can be rewritten as Rimp = (dne /dt)imp = (dnp /dt)imp = a ne we = a ne me E,
where newe is the magnitude of the electron flux. In practice, both formulations can
be utilized. However, the former is preferable when dealing with individual com-
ponents of plasma or when specific reactions between electrons and neutral species
are of interest. In the latter approach, the coefficient a is utilized as a unique generic
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 79

property of a gas or gas mixture. Dependencies of the ionization coefficient on

electric field, which are normally given in the form of a/p = f(E/p) (p is the gas
pressure), have been extensively studied over the years and experimental data are
widely presented in the literature, see, e.g., [6–9].
Note that under certain conditions, additional mechanisms of generation of
charged particles in air volume may be activated and become intensive [6], e.g.,
step-wise ionization of excited particles A* by electron impact e+A!A*+e,
e+A*!A++e+e; photo-ionization A+hn!A++e (hn represents a photon); associa-
tive ionization A+B!AB++e; detachment of electrons from negative ions, which
may take place according to A-+B!A+B+e (A- stands for a negative ion); etc. Each
of these processes is characterized by its own rate constant [10,11].

3.2.2 Losses of charged species in gas

Production of charged particles in discharge plasma is accompanied by their losses,
and depending on the rates of these, a discharge can transform into different forms
or can be even terminated. An example of the former is an avalanche-to-streamer
transition, and the latter situation occurs when losses dominate, e.g., when the
applied voltage is switched off and plasma decay takes place.
There are several mechanisms of electronic losses in air plasmas and the most
important for typical discharge conditions are recombination and attachment. These
take place due to interactions of charged particles in two-body collisions and often in
three-body collisions with participation of neutral species (see [10] for a detailed list
of possible reactions). For example, the most important reactions of electron
attachment in air [6] are e+O2+O2!O2+O2 (zero and weak fields) and e+O2!O
+O (strong fields). In practice, other processes, including those with carbon dioxide
and water molecules, can also contribute to the total loss of electrons and to an
increase of concentration of negative ions in air discharges. Therefore, it is con-
venient to treat the intensity of electron attachment similarly to that of the impact
ionization described above by introducing a generic attachment coefficient h, cm1,
which is the number of attachment events on 1 cm length passed by an electron in the
field. Hence, the corresponding rate is Ratt = (dnn/dt)att = (dne /dt)att = h ne we = h ne
me E (here, nn stands for the density of negative ions). Note that this approach is not
applicable if kinetics of particular kinds of species is of interest. In this case, indi-
vidual reactions with corresponding rate constants should be considered.
The rate of loss of electrons and positive ions in discharge plasma due to
recombination can be found as Repr = (dne /dt)epr = (dnp /dt)epr = bep ne np, where
bep is the recombination coefficient, cm3/s. In case of three-body electron-ion
recombination, its rate coefficient is proportional to the density of the third particles
which can be neutrals, photons or additional electrons. However, this process is not
typical for discharge conditions in air in contrast to three-body ion-ion recombi-
nation, for which the mechanism A+B++C!A+B+C dominates at moderate and
high pressures [6]. The rate of this reaction can be written as Rpnr = (dnp /dt)pnr =
(dnn /dt)pnr = bpnr np nn, where bpnr = kpnr NA is the corresponding recombination
coefficient and kpnr is the rate constant. Note that bpnr is proportional to NA, i.e. to
80 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

gas pressure p = NAkT (here, k is Boltzmann’s constant, T is the absolute

temperature).
Another mechanism, common for all kinds of particles in discharge plasma, is
loss due to diffusion which occurs in presence of strong gradients of charged spe-
cies. It is characterized by the coefficient D, cm2/s, which has different values
depending on the type of diffusion (e.g., free or ambipolar) [6]. Diffusion may be
especially important in air plasmas embedded in a discharge vessel, where elec-
trons from plasma volume may diffuse to metallic or dielectric walls and can be
further absorbed or neutralized by ions. The rates of the latter are determined not
only by the interaction between reacting particles but also by the properties of the
air-solid interface where the reactions take place.

3.2.3 Dynamics of densities of charge carriers in discharge

plasma
Summarizing previous consideration, electrons and ions in an electrical discharge
in air experience a drift in the electric field, diffuse due to gradients of their con-
centrations and interact with neutral particles and with each other (except of elec-
tronic collisions which are not important at low degrees of ionization) producing
new charges or disappearing depending upon particular conditions. The generation
and loss are described by rate equations with corresponding constants or generic
coefficients. The total rates of particles interactions in a non-thermal air discharge
plasma can be formally represented as corresponding sums of rates of individual
processes: Re = Rimp  Ratt  Repr + Read for electrons; Rp = Rimp  Repr  Rpnr +
Rpad for generic positive ions; Rn = Ratt  Rpnr + Rnad for generic negative ions.
Here, the terms Read, Rpad, and Rnad include rates of possible additional mechanisms
of generation and loss which should enter the equations with positive and negative
signs, respectively. Note that the equations are coupled via coefficients represent-
ing different processes and practically all of them are dependent on the electric
field strength [12]. In its turn, the actual electric field in the volume occupied by
discharge plasma is a superposition of an electrostatic field defined by the geometry
of the system and a field produced by a space charge with the density r = q
(npnenn), C/cm3, that makes the field being coupled to local concentrations of
charge carriers. Under certain conditions, the effect of the space charge may
become so strong that it may even lead to a change in the appearance of electrical
discharge. An example of this is the electron avalanche-to-streamer transformation
considered below.

3.2.4 Concepts of electron avalanche and streamer

Free electrons play especially important role in gas discharge development due to
their low mass and the ability to be efficiently accelerated in the electric field (high
mobility). If a voltage is applied between parallel plate metallic electrodes immersed
in gas and the corresponding applied field is sufficiently strong to provide the rate of
ionization higher than the rate of losses, each free electron in discharge volume can
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 81

produce an electron-positive ion pair in collisions with neutral particles. This process
provides conditions for multiplication of charge carriers and exponential growth of
their densities ne,p = n0 exp(a x), which is called an electron avalanche (in the
expression, x is the length which electrons pass in the field). Primary and newly
generated electrons drift further in the field towards the anode being concentrated in
the avalanche head while its tail is formed by the produced positive ions, which are
much slower and move in the opposite direction to the cathode. Strong gradients of
the electron density at the head lead to a diffusion that provides a typical conical
shape of an electron avalanche, which was registered in early years of studying of gas
discharges [13]. When the avalanche reaches the surface of a metallic anode, the
electronic cloud at the avalanche head is absorbed/neutralized, and only the posi-
tively charged tail is left in the gap. There are two scenarios for further development
depending upon the produced space charge density.
In case when the number of electrons in the avalanche head (and, corre-
spondingly, ions in the tail) is relatively small (less than
108), the density of the
accumulated space charge is not high enough to modify the field distribution and
so-called Townsend’s or dark discharge can occur. In such a discharge, secondary
electrons can be emitted from the cathode surface due to impacts of positive ions,
metastable exited molecules and photons left in the gap, and they give rise to the
next generation of avalanches. If the generation rate becomes sufficiently high to
compensate losses of electrons, i.e. each lost electron can be replaced by a new one
emitted from the cathode, the discharge becomes self-sustained and an electrical
breakdown occurs due to unlimited multiplication of avalanches. A conductive
channel is created after breakdown, which can be further transformed into a spark
or an electric arc depending upon the properties of the external circuit. The
breakdown criterion for this so-called multi-avalanche mechanism is given by the
well-known Townsend’s condition ad = log(1+1/g), where g is the secondary
ionization coefficient specifying electronic yield due to secondary processes on the
cathode surface and a seed electron is assumed to appear in its vicinity and travel
the whole distance d between the electrodes.
If the primary avalanche is strong and the density of the space charge produced
is high enough to generate the field comparable with the electrostatic (external)
field, conditions for a streamer discharge formation and propagation can be even-
tually created. The streamer theory is based on the concept of growth of a thin
ionized channel between the electrodes, which follows the positively charged trail
left by the primary intensive avalanche and is supported by secondary avalanches
created due to photo-ionization in the gas volume at the streamer head. Streamer
discharges in air are known to propagate with extremely high velocity up to

108 cm/s and once created, they are able to develop even in regions with low
background fields. Streamers also exhibit different properties depending on the
direction of propagation (so-called cathode- and anode-directed streamers).
Depending on the arrangement of the discharge gap and ambient conditions,
streamers developing between electrodes can either lead to a complete breakdown
forming spark or arc discharges or serve as an initial stage for a leader process
taking place in long gaps with non-uniform electrostatic fields.
82 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

The concepts of both electron avalanches and streamers are widely presented
in the literature, e.g. [2,6], and are not intended to be considered in details here.
Instead, physical processes taking place in these kinds of discharges are analyzed
below in conjunction with the examples of computer simulations.

3.3 Hydrodynamic description of gas discharge plasma

The processes in gas discharges outlined in the previous section involve effects
related to collective motion of charged species such as drift in an electric field, their
diffusion and collisions. Therefore, a self-consistent model of discharge plasma can
be developed utilizing averaged swarm parameters of the processes characterizing
particles kinetics and interactions.
In general, there are two approaches to describe dynamic behavior of electron
and ions ensembles at microscopic level. The first one is based on individual
description while another one is based on some kind of statistical treatment, where
particles distribution function f(v, r, t) is considered, which obeys Boltzmann’s
equation


@f qE @f
þ v  rr f þ  rv f ¼ (3.1)
@t m @t c
Here, r is the position vector in space, v is the velocity vector, m is the particle
mass, and the right-hand side represents so-called collision integral, i.e. the rate of
change of the distribution function due to collisions, e.g., between electrons and
neutrals/ions. The gradient operators in (3.1) are defined in configuration space
(symbol r) and in velocity space (symbol v).
The individual description investigates not only the most probable distribution
but also the probability of deviations from this distribution. Within this approach
the movement of each particle is traced in configuration space at all stages of
discharge development and, thus, it provides deep insight into evolution of a par-
ticle assemble. At the same time, this is the major practical drawback from the
point of view of discharge modeling because such simulations require considerable
amount of computational time and memory even when very few particles are used.
Consequently, the later stages of discharges, such as avalanche-streamer transition
and streamer propagation, cannot be modeled without introducing significant
simplifications.
The kinetic approach deals with the averaged quantities and ignores individual
deviations of parameters of motion of charge carriers. Even though such deviations
are usually very small, (3.1) is still too difficult to be solved directly for most
problems due to strong changes of the electric field in space and time. In practice, it
is usually preferable to describe behavior of charged particles in plasma on a
macroscopic level by averaged quantities like particle fluxes, densities, velocities,
etc., which are defined hierarchically by the corresponding moments of
Boltzmann’s equation (3.1). This approach leads to an infinite set of moment
equations equivalent to the distribution function in the interested time scale of
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 83

moments, and which are easier to solve. Following this way, a fluid description of
the particles assembles is obtained, which treats the macroscopic properties in
terms of the moments of particles distribution functions [14]. Thus, the evolution of
electron density, electron average momentum and electron mean energy are defined
by the zero-, first-, and second-order moments. Higher order moments may be used
in some expansions, but they usually have no physical significance for gas dis-
charge simulation problems. The lowest moment is obtained by integrating (3.1)
over dv; the conservation of the momentum equation (first-order) is obtained by
multiplying (3.1) by mv and integrating over dv; and the conservation of the energy
equation (second-order) is obtained by multiplying (3.1) by mv2/2 and integrating
over dv. In this way, the non-equilibrium fluid model for electrons in the inter-
electrode air volume can be written as
@ ne
¼ rr  ðne ve Þ þ Re
@t
@ ðm ne ve Þ
¼ rr  ðm ne v2e Þ  q E ne  rr Pe  m ne ve =tm
@t
@ ðne yÞ
¼ rr  ðne e ve Þ  q E ne ve  rr  ðPe ve Þ  ne ðy  y0 Þ=ty
@t
(3.2)
Here, Re represents the total rate of generation and loss; y stands for electron
mean energy; y0 is the background gas thermal energy. The electron pressure is
defined by the ideal gas equation of state Pe = ne kb Te, where kb is the Boltzmann
constant and Te is the electron temperature. Note that since the relationship between
the electron mean energy and the temperature is given by 3 kb Te / 2 = y mve2/2, the
electron pressure in (3.2) can be represented as Pe = 2ne (ymve2/2)/3. In addition,
the average velocity of electrons can be replaced with their drift velocity in the field.
In general, the electron average momentum and mean energy are in non-
equilibrium states in the time scales corresponding to the characteristic times of the
moment equations. The reason is that electrons gain momentum and energy from
the local electric field and ionize the neutral gas in electron-neutral ionization
collisions. Therefore, they lose a certain amount of momentum and energy through
collisions. These losses are accounted for in the last terms of the right hand sides in
the corresponding equations (3.2) which express the fact that the average momen-
tum and mean energy will reach quasi-equilibrium states in the time scales of their
relaxation times tm and ty , respectively. For typical air discharge plasma condi-
tions, the relaxation times are of order
1013–1012 s [2]. Thus if the time scale of
interest is larger than that, one may assume that the electron average momentum
and mean energy always reach a quasi-equilibrium state and use only zero-moment
of the distribution function, namely the first equation in (3.2), to describe the
kinetics of the electron ensemble. This greatly simplifies the formulation of the
problem, but imposes some limitations, e.g. on the rate of change of the applied
field or on its frequency. Note, that this assumption is true for other kinds of par-
ticles in the discharge plasma since the characteristic time scales for processes,
84 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

where ions or atoms/molecules are involved, are much larger than those for elec-
trons due to differences in their mass and velocities.
The terms forming the collision integral in (3.1) may include as many reactions
as are of physical significance and are of interest in a particular situation, and each
particle type should be described by its own equation and each reaction by the
corresponding rate. Very often such a detailed approach is not required and aver-
aged properties are used. For example, behavior of positive ions of a certain kind
can be expressed by a single continuity equation similar to the first one in (3.2) with
the kinetic parameters characteristic for this particular type of ions. Further sim-
plifications can be made by considering generic kinds of particles, e.g., positive and
negative ions in case of a discharge in air. This allows reducing the set of equation
describing dynamics of charge carriers in discharge plasma to the three partial
differential equations (PDE) expressing conservation of their densities:
@ ne
þ r  ðne we þ De r ne Þ ¼ Re
@t
@ np
þ r  ðnp wp þ Dp r np Þ ¼ Rp (3.3)
@t
@ nn
þ r  ðnn wn  Dn r nn Þ ¼ Rn
@t
In some cases the set (3.3) can be made even simpler by omitting some terms
based on physical considerations and assumptions, e.g., the ionic diffusion can be
neglected when analyzing fast processes like streamer propagation, which typically
lasts some hundreds of nanoseconds if the gap length is of order of units of cen-
timeters while the diffusion of ions is much slower. The PDEs are to be com-
plemented with boundary conditions describing interactions of discharge plasma
with surrounding objects (metallic electrodes, dielectric walls, etc.) that is usually
implemented by setting up fluxes of charge carriers or their concentrations on the
interfaces. One should stress here that a correct choice of boundary conditions is
crucial especially when surface reactions leading to generation/loss of charged
species are to be considered. In addition, initial conditions should be provided for
the equations (3.3) defining distributions of the densities of electrons and ions in
space at the instant of discharge initiation.
The so-called source terms on the right-hand side of (3.3) include rates of
processes taking place in the discharge volume discussed above. Thus, background
ionization, electron impact ionization, electron attachment, electron–ion, and ion–
ion recombination are the main phenomena to be accounted for when (3.3) is used
to describe development of electron avalanches in air. In case of streamers, addi-
tional production of secondary electrons in the gas volume is defined by the rate of
photo-ionization Rph and the source terms can be written as:
Re ¼ a ne jwe j  h ne jwe j  bep ne np þ R0 þ Rph
Rp ¼ a ne jwe j  bep ne np  bpn np nn þ R0 þ Rph (3.4)
Rn ¼ h ne jwe j  bpn np nn
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 85

The list of the mechanisms represented in (3.4) may be extended depending

upon particular conditions and may include, e.g., detachment of electrons from
negative ions and ionization from exited states (so-called step-wise ionization). The
former leads to generation of electrons and loss of negative ions and, therefore, the
corresponding rates should be added with the correct signs. As for the description
of interactions of electrons with exited gas molecules, this requires information on
space and time variations of the densities of exited species and, hence, an additional
PDE should be considered in (3.3).
One may notice that all the kinetic coefficients in (3.3) and (3.4) are functions
of the local electric field strength and, hence, the set of equations (3.3) should be
complemented by Poisson’s equation

r  ðe0 e r jÞ ¼ r ¼ q ðnp  ne  nn Þ (3.5)

Here, f stands the distribution of the electric potential; e0 = 8.8541012 F/m

is the permittivity of vacuum; e is the dielectric constant equal to unity for air. The
term on the right-hand side represents the space charge density rv , which is a
function of space co-ordinates and implicitly time (via time variations of the den-
sities of charge carriers). Solution of (3.5) with appropriate boundary conditions
allows for obtaining a distribution of the electric field E = rf in the discharge
volume to be used for calculating kinetic coefficients in (3.3) and (3.4).
The coupled set of equations (3.3–3.5) accompanied with boundary and initial
conditions and kinetic coefficients forms a self-consistent model describing evo-
lution of gas discharge plasma. It provides information about spatial and temporal
behaviour of densities of charged species and local electric fields. Based on the
microscopic quantities, integral (measurable) characteristics can be obtained such
as electric current and its time dependencies, generated net charge in the gas
volume, power dissipation, etc. The discharge current through the gas between
electrodes is usually one of the main parameters of interest which can be measured
in experiments and used for verification and tuning of models. For discharges in air,
it can be calculated by means of Sato’s equation [15]
ð
q  
I¼ np wp  ne we  nn wn  Dp r np þ De r ne þ Dn r nn  EL dV
Ua V
ð
e0 @ EL
þ  EL dV
Va V @ t
(3.6)
Here, Ua is the applied voltage and EL is the vector of Laplacian field obtained
by solving (3.5) with rv = 0. Integration in (3.6) is to be performed over the whole
discharge volume V. The first term in the equation yields a conductive component
of the current due the drift and diffusion of charge carriers, and the second term
represents a capacitive current.
The presented hydrodynamic approach (also called fluid or drift-diffusion
model) has become popular among researchers dealing with numerical simulations
86 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

of different kinds of non-thermal gas discharges. It has been extensively used to

study avalanches and streamers [16–20], coronas [21–23], high-frequency dis-
charges [24,25], barrier discharges [26,27], etc., and also has been employed for
analysis in many practical applications [28–31]. Discussions on limitations of the
model imposed by neglecting higher order moments of Boltzmann’s equation (3.1)
can be found elsewhere [32].

3.4 Solving gas discharge problems

Computer modeling of gas discharges with the approach described above requires
simultaneous solution of two different kinds of PDEs, namely, hyperbolic equa-
tions (3.3) and elliptic equation (3.5). Main computational challenges in discharge
simulations are related to the strong coupling, non-linearity and stiffness of the
model equations as well as to a necessity to resolve properly space charges in
the gas volume. The latter requires a very fine computational mesh especially in the
vicinity of electrodes and in the regions where sharp gradients in charge carriers’
concentrations exist. Due to these complications, there is no “universal” software
which may be used for modeling all kinds of gas discharge plasmas which are of
interest for practice and, therefore, most of the numerical simulations reported in
the literature have been performed with homemade computer codes. However,
recently developed tools for scientific computations offer a number of features
which can be utilized for solving gas discharge problems. One of the most appro-
priate software available today is a finite-element package Comsol Multiphysics,
which provides an extended flexibility on all stages of the modeling process and
allows for solving coupled PDEs of different nature.
In this section, examples of numerical modeling of electrical discharges in air
are presented. First, coronas in concentric cylinders and rod-plane electrode sys-
tems are considered focusing on computer implementation of the set of equations
(3.3)–(3.5) in Comsol Multiphysics 3.5a and on an analysis of generic properties of
corona discharges. Further, specific features of the model for positive and negative
streamers and numerical techniques for solving corresponding set of PDEs are
introduced followed by a discussion on typical parameters of streamers in air based
on results of computer simulations.

3.4.1 Simulations of corona in air

Corona discharges appear in systems with strongly non-uniform electric fields pro-
vided that at some location the field strength exceeds ionization threshold of gas. The
reasons for local field enhancements can be different. Corona can be initiated on
electrodes with small radiuses of curvature or from sharp edges of elements of
electrode systems. In a leader discharge, the leader stem can be considered as a
highly conductive rod producing strong electric field at its tip. In any case, the nature
and processes taking place in corona discharge are essentially similar.
Depending on the field (structure, time variations, polarity, etc.) and ambient
conditions, discharges in strongly non-uniform fields in air are observed as glow,
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 87

burst or streamer coronas [33]. In general, the corona regimes are defined by
dynamics and configuration of space charges generated in the gas volume. Thus,
the glow mode appears due to permanent presence of space charges in the close
vicinity of the corona electrode while the other two modes are determined by the
motion of space charge cloud in the gas between electrodes. The simulations below
focus on glow corona mode although problem formulation and set-up for modeling
of burst discharge is similar.

3.4.2 Computer implementation of corona model

Simulation procedure in Comsol Multiphysics starts with a preparation stage
where the dimensionality of the model and equations to be solved are to be
defined. This is done in the Model Navigator window which appears after running
the software. It is extremely important to choose a proper number of dimensions
for the problem in hand to avoid unnecessary increase of the size of the model and
to reduce its computational cost and time. For this, the considered geometry
should be analyzed first in order to find ways for its simplifications, e.g., by
utilizing existing symmetry (if any), avoiding unimportant detail, etc. As an
example, corona between concentric cylindrical electrodes can be modeled in 2D
or even in 1D due to symmetry of the system while for a rod-plane electrode
arrangement a 2D model can be developed accounting for axial symmetry and
providing that the symmetry axis coincides with the axis of the rod. Further, (3.3)
are to be added to the model that is done using “Multiphysics” window by
clicking Application Modes ! COMSOL Multiphysics ! Convection and
Diffusion ! Transient analysis ! Add. For each equation, one can specify a
name for dependent variables, e.g., in the examples considered here “e” stands for
concentration of electrons, “pos” and “neg” for densities of positive and negative
ions, respectively. Further, it is important to choose correct “Equation form” for
the convection-diffusion equations – it should be set to “Conservative” to insure
that drift fluxes will appear under r-sign in (3.3). Next step is to add Poisson’s
equation (3.5) for the electric potential needed for computing local fields
accounting for space charge effects that is done by choosing Application Modes !
COMSOL Multiphysics ! Electromagnetics ! Electrostatics Add. If the dis-
charge current (3.6) is to be calculated, an additional electrostatic equation
should be added to the list which is to be used with the space charge density r = 0
(i.e., as Laplace equation) for obtaining electrostatic field distribution EL.
Finally, one should make sure that “Quadratic” finite elements are selected (the
general rule is that the order of elements should not be smaller than the highest
order of the equations in the model). The described settings are illustrated in
Figure 3.1 for the case of axially symmetric electrode arrangement, e.g., rod-
plane system. Note that the multiphysics problem can be also built on the basis of
specialized modules if they are available, e.g. “Chemical Engineering” and “AC/
DC” modules for convection-diffusion and electrostatics equations, respectively.
The modules provide some useful predefined quantities as well as extended lists
of available boundary conditions.
88 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Figure 3.1 Defining dimensionality and choosing application modes in Model

Navigator for solving set of (3.3)–(3.6)

After accepting the model settings, a CAD-tool window will appear where one
may define a computational domain and draw geometry for the problem. A com-
putational domain represents a part of space for which the problem is to be defined
in terms of coefficients of (3.3)–(3.5), boundary and initial conditions. The coef-
ficients in (3.3)–(3.5) are essentially material characteristics, which can be imple-
mented using constants, expressions and functions available via “Options” in the
main menu. The geometry can be drawn using provided geometry primitives and
utilizing Boolean operations (union, difference, intersection, etc.) or, alternatively,
it can be imported from external CAD software or even from an image or sketch
(see User Guide for corresponding procedures).
Constant quantities used in the model can be split into several groups: global
(Boltzmann constant, elementary charge), conditional (pressure, temperature,
initial charge density n0, rate of background ionization R0, etc.), those related to the
applied stress (e.g., voltage magnitude and its rise/decay rates in case of step-wise
dc or voltage amplitude and time constants for double-exponential representation of
a voltage impulse), microscopic parameters of air (mobilities of ions, masses of
particles, etc.), and auxiliary (e.g., artificial diffusion factors, see below). The
constants can be implemented using corresponding “Options” as illustrated in
Figure 3.2, where typical values of air parameters are borrowed from [9,34,35].
The constants are further used either directly in the problem settings or in the
expressions for calculating field/time/pressure/etc.-dependent characteristics. In the
latter case, the expressions to be computed are specified as shown in Figure 3.3.
Here, the reduced field E/N, Td, is defined in the first line using the in-built name
for the field variable normE_es in the Electrostatics equation. This quantity is
further utilized as an argument for functions describing field dependencies of
 Figure 3.2 Definitions of constants in the corona model

Figure 3.3 Expressions for calculating coefficients in (3.3)–(3.6)

90 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

electron drift velocities we(E/N) and their characteristic energies De /me = f(E/N) as
well as ionization a/N (E/N) and attachment h/N (E/N) coefficients. In contrast to
electrons, most of the parameters of ions in non-thermal air discharge plasmas are
dependent not only on electric field strength but also on gas temperature [34].
Therefore, kinetic temperatures of ions Tp and Tn (positive and negative, respec-
tively) are calculated using masses of corresponding ions from “Constants” and
they are further employed for obtaining diffusion coefficients Dp,n, ion-ion
recombination coefficient bii and detachment frequency ndet in (3.3)–(3.4).
Knowing all the parameters, rates of ionization, attachment, recombination and
detachment are computed and corresponding source terms (3.4) are formed, see
Figure 3.3. The space charge density (variable rho) is calculated as it is given on the
right-hand side of (3.5). Variables cur_den_cond and cur_den_cap represent con-
ductive and capacitive current densities, respectively, which are under integral
signs in (3.6). These quantities are used for computing integration coupling vari-
ables cur_cond and cur_cap (conductive and capacitive current, respectively) by
means of corresponding option available via Options ! Integration coupling
variables ! Subdomain variables (see Figure 3.4). Finally, the total current (vari-
able current in the expressions) is obtained as a sum of the two components.
Field-dependent characteristics of electrons in air (drift velocities, mean
energies, ionization and attachment coefficients) have been studied extensively and
have been presented in numerous scientific publications. However, detailed ana-
lysis of data available in the literature showed that there are large discrepancies in
the experimental as well as calculated results obtained by different authors which
can be attributed to specific conditions of experiments and equipment used,
methods of solving Botlzmann’s equation which yielded all the microscopic
properties of interest, etc. The dependencies presented in [36] (reproduced in
Figure 3.5) seems to be most reliable and are adopted in the present analysis. In the

Figure 3.4 Implementation of integration coupling variables for computing

discharge current
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 91

10–21

alpha / N or eta / N, m–2

10–22

10–28

α/N
η/N
10–24
100 101 102
(a) Reduced field E/N, Td

5
4.5 ×10

3.5
Drift velocity, m /s

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
(b) Reduced field, Td

10

9
Averaged energy of electrons De/u e , eV

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
(c) Reduced field, Td

Figure 3.5 Field dependencies of the ionization and attachment coefficients (a),
electron drift velocity (b) and mean electron energy (c) in air [36]
92 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

software, the dependencies shown in Figure 3.5 are implemented as functions of the
reduced field E/N using their tabular representations as demonstrated in Figure 3.6
(functions can be accessed via “Options” in the main window of the software). The
values between points given in the table may be requires in the solution process
and, therefore, interpolation of the data is needed. This can be implemented using,
e.g., “Piecewise cubic” interpolation method, which preserves the shapes of a
curves in Figure 3.5. To compute the functions outside the provided ranges,
extrapolation is used (in Figure 3.6, the method is set to “Interpolation function”).
Note that the specified functions can be used on any stage of the simulations
(equation settings, post-processing, etc.) by providing a name and argument as it is
shown, e.g., in lines 2–4 in Figure 3.3. Alternatively, functional dependencies can
also be read from external data files. For this, one should prepare files according to
the format used in Matlab and specify a path to the file for each function. The files
are read during model initialization stage and data are kept in computer memory
while solving the model.
Next step in building the model is to assign material characteristics for the
computational domain. For the convection–diffusion equations, these include dif-
fusion coefficients, components of the drift velocities of the charge carriers and the
source terms (3.4). An example of the settings for electrons is shown in Figure 3.7a
(note “–” sign for the velocities of negatively charged particles which should be
changed to “+” for positively charged ones). Settings for Poisson’s equation
(Figure 3.7b) include dielectric constant of the medium er = 1 and space charge
density rho as defined in the Expressions (Figure 3.3). Initial conditions are given
via “Subdomain settings” (tab “Init” in Figure 3.7). It is usually assumed that

Figure 3.6 Implementation of field dependent characteristics of electrons in air

 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 93

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.7 Settings for the convection-diffusion (a) and Poisson’s (b) equations

initially (at zero field) the gas is electrically neutral and the concentrations of
electrons and positive ions are set to n0 (see Figure 3.3 for the magnitude). This is
not exactly true (see [34] for discussion) but such assumption introduces errors in
the solution only at very short instants after voltage application provided that
equilibrium concentrations are set to the values corresponding to low space charge
densities, which are not able to distort electrostatic field in the system. The con-
centrations of electrons and positive ions change to non-equilibrium distributions
94 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

during several initial time steps and, also, negative ions density rises due to strong
attachment in low field regions (Figure 3.5a). Actually, the provided initial values
are used in the model just for initializing the simulation process and to compute
quantities for the first time step.
Further, the solution obtained on a current time step is utilized as initial value
when calculating densities and potential distributions for the next step and, therefore,
the specified initial state of the system is “forgotten” after several successive steps.
Boundary conditions are essential for correct representation of a real physical
picture in the model. When the computational domain is limited by physical
boundaries (like in case of coaxial cylinders), one should focus on and implement
actual processes taking place on gas–metal interfaces that may include injection of
charges, their absorption/neutralization, etc. In most of the cases, a computational
domain is limited also by artificially introduced boundaries and choice of condi-
tions there becomes non-trivial. An example is shown in Figure 3.8 for rod-plane
geometry represented in axially symmetric domain. When setting boundary con-
ditions for this case, one should keep in mind that (3.3)–(3.5) are coupled. Hence, if
a positive potential is applied to the rod (Figure 3.8b), a simplest set of boundary
conditions includes “Convective flux” for electrons (Figure 3.8a) and negative ions
and “Concentration” equal to zero for positive ions on the boundaries representing
surface of the rod. By specifying convective fluxes, one insures continuity of the
current flow between electrodes. Opposite is valid for the grounded plane (hor-
izontal boundary on the bottom): zero concentrations of electrons and negative ions
and convective flux of positive ions are specified here. Note that injection of
negative charges from the plane and positive ions from the needle is prevented
when using such conditions. The left vertical boundary between the plane and the
needle represents physical symmetry of the system and “Axial symmetry” is spe-
cified here for all equations. Finally, the choice of conditions for the open boundary
(e.g., the rightmost vertical one) should be made taking into account field behavior
which controls in-coming and out-coming fluxes of charged particles. Thus, if one
sets “Zero charge/Symmetry” for the potential here (which is natural), the field
component normal to the boundaries will be set to zero and there will be no fluxes
of charge carriers crossing the boundary that doesn’t reflect the real situation. In
reality, charges existing in the gas are attracted/repelled to/from high field region
and continuously move across the boundary. This motion is a result of the forces
associated with the field directions others then tangential (parallel) to the boundary
and can be modeled by, e.g., specifying a grounded surface there. However, this
may alter field distribution in the region of interest located around the rod tip. Thus,
a compromise between the two approaches is to be found. One way is to increase
the size of the domain allowing artificial boundaries to be located far from the
region of interest (surface of the rod) and to assign “Zero charge/Symmetry” for the
potential and “Normal fluxes” for charge carriers. The effect of the external
boundaries on the field distribution and fluxes of charges is minimized in this case,
but the size of the model can rise significantly. Another option is to apply
“Distributed impedance” conditions (available in AC/DC module) for the electro-
static equation (3.5) and “Convective flux” for (3.3).
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 95

open boundary

open
rod

rod open
plane
(a)

open boundary
open

rod
open

rod
plane
(b)

Figure 3.8 Implementation of boundary conditions for convection-diffusion (a)

and electrostatics (b) equations
96 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

After introducing materials characteristics, initial and boundary conditions for

all the equations in the model, a computational mesh is to be generated that is a
crucial part of a finite-element problem affecting accuracy of a solution. In order to
reduce the number of unknowns to solve for, it should be generated in an adaptive
way to provide high resolution in regions where strong variations in the geometry
exist (curved surfaces and ages, thin layers, etc.) being not too dense in other
regions. The software makes it possible to control mesh generation process by
specifying a number of mesh parameters available via Mesh ! Free mesh para-
meters in the main menu (there are also other options to control meshing, see
User’s guide for details).
All the procedures described above are the pre-processing steps of the pro-
blem. When completed, the actual solution process can be initiated. The problem
in hands requires time-dependent solver which can be chosen via Solve ! Solver
Parameters (Figure 3.9). In this window, several important parameters should be
specified. In the “General” tab (Figure 3.9a), one should provide “Times” for
output, i.e. instants for which the solution will be available. One should also
choose a solver for the linear system arising after discretization of the PDEs.
Several types of direct and iterative solvers are available in “Linear system sol-
ver”. In general, the most appropriate one can be chosen after analyzing the
nature of the problem, available computing power, memory, etc. For the problem
under consideration, one may select direct solvers which are different in their
requirements and efficiency: UMFPACK can be chosen if RAM size is high
enough; alternatively, SPOOLES provides almost the same computational time
but requires less memory; PARDISO is a parallel solver and can be an option if a
computer is equipped with several processors. In the tab “Time stepping”
(Figure 3.9b), one can mark “Manual tuning of step size” and provide initial time
step and maximum time step. The first option helps the solver at the initialization
stage and the second one is useful to avoid to large time steps using which some
rapid variations of the quantities can be missed during solution process.
Sometimes it is also useful to select “Strict” option instead of “Free” in General !
Time steps taken by solver. Doing so, the solver is pushed to take intermediate
steps between the output times that is helpful when, e.g., oscillations or other
variations in the solution are expected. In some cases, one may reduce the
“Maximum BDF order” in Advanced field to switch to a more stable numerical
scheme for the time-stepping algorithm (the default order is 5). However, this
should be done with a care because small values here result in stronger numerical
damping. In the “Advanced” tab (Figure 3.9c), the option Weak may be chosen
for the “Solution form” to automatically convert the problem into an integral
form that may help to prevent singularities in the Solution. Also, “Assembly
block size” (number of mesh elements that the solver processes at once during the
assembly process) can be increased if available RAM size is high enough. The
described approach to specify solver settings is just a simplest option and it may
be implemented in a more advanced way to increase the efficiency of the solution
process, e.g., by utilizing time dependent segregated solvers (see User’s guide for
details).
Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 97

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3.9 Choosing solver parameters

98 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

In general, one can run the model at this stage. However, most likely such an
attempt would not be successful due to specific features of the system (3.3)–(3.5)
already mentioned above. From mathematical point of view, it is very stiff (in a
sense that it is characterized by different time-scales and source terms for different
kinds of charge carriers) and strongly non-linear (most of the terms are field-
dependent). In addition, the velocities of the carriers in strong fields become
extremely high that leads to their strongly drift-dominated flows with very high
local Peclet numbers, which is a dimensionless number describing the relationship
between the convective and diffusive terms in the convection–diffusion equations.
These peculiarities make the discretized problem to be inherently very unstable that
results in non-physical oscillations in the solution and even in negative con-
centrations magnitudes, primarily in regions where steep gradients of the charge
densities are present. The oscillations can even be large enough to affect con-
vergence of the solution. To resolve these problems, special algorithms or stabiliza-
tion methods should be used. The software provides several stabilization techniques
which can be selected for each (3.3) via Physics ! Subdomain settings ! Artificial
diffusion (Figure 3.10). The experience showed that “Isotropic diffusion” with the
Tuning parameters ad defined in Constants (Figure 3.2) is one of the most appropriate
choices for the considered problem. Note that tuning parameters should not be too
high to avoid introducing large amount of artificial diffusion which may distort the
solution. This is especially important in presence of interfaces between different
materials where transport coefficients change abruptly.
After completing all the steps above, one may run solver and obtain solutions
for output times specified in Solver Parameters (Figure 3.9a). The solution progress
is indicated in log-window showing current time and some auxiliary information

Figure 3.10 Choosing stabilization method for the convection-diffusion equation

for electrons
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 99

from the solver. In addition, the convergence of the solution can be traced when
using iterative solvers. After successfully completing the whole specified time
interval, the software automatically switches to a post-processing mode where a
wide range of graphical tools for visualization and analysis of the results is avail-
able to create 1D-, 2D-, and 3D-plots, time dependencies, performing integration
and differentiation of different quantities, etc. These facilities are available via Post
Processing ! Plot parameters in the main menu. The post-processing tools allow
also combining different kinds of plots to facilitate the analysis of the data.

3.4.3 Study case: positive corona between coaxial cylinders

DC corona between coaxial cylinders has been a subject of numerous investiga-
tions. Most of them were performed quite long time ago starting from famous
research [37]. An extensive description of corona phenomena can be found in [33].
The subject is also covered in many recent books and scientific articles. For the
reference purposes, one of the most cited experimental data set presented in [38] is
chosen in the present analysis. This research has been performed with a special
concern to discharge stability preventing formation of streamers. The electrode
system used in [38] consisted of a large cylinder diameter of D = 58.1 cm and the
internal one (corona electrode) whose diameter was varied in the range of
d0 = 0.3185–3.175 cm. The voltage was applied between the cylinders and voltage–
current corona characteristics were recorded.
In the model, the experimental geometry is implemented in Cartesian coordinate
system. To obtain corona voltage–current characteristic from a single run of the
model, the applied voltage is implemented as a linearly increasing function of time
rising from 0 V to 200 kV within 1,000 s with the ramping rate of 200 V/s that is low
as compared with time constants of the processes in the discharge and, therefore,
does not introduce any transient effects or significant capacitive currents. The con-
ditions, the kinetic coefficients and other material parameters presented above are
used. The choice of boundary conditions for the charge carriers is obvious in this
case: since corona electrode surface is set to the positive potential, convective fluxes
for electrons and negative ions and zero concentration for positive ions are specified
here; the negative charges are repelled from the surface of the grounded outer
cylinder (hence, ne = nn = 0) and the current flow is due to positive ions only (con-
vective flux condition). An example of the results of the simulations is presented
below for the case of corona electrode diameter of d0 = 1 cm.
A two-dimensional surface plot showing the distribution of the density of
positive ions for the applied voltage of 200 kV (t = 1,000 s) is presented in
Figure 3.11. As one can observe, the ions are localized in the vicinity of the corona
electrode where their concentration reaches
1015 m3 while it is significantly
lower in the main part of the inter-electrode gap. The volume around the corona
wire within which the impact ionization and production of positive ions take place
is called corona (or ionization) region. Its size and concentrations of charge carriers
are dependent on field configuration and the applied voltage. As it is seen in
Figure 3.12a, the increasing voltage leads to growing electron density in the
100 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

×1015
1.035
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

Figure 3.11 Concentration of positive ions between cylinders at 200 kV

vicinity of the corona electrode due to rising field strength and, consequently,
ionization intensity. However, the levels of the electronic concentrations are much
lower than the densities of the positive ions, Figure 3.12b, at the corresponding
voltages (time instants in the legend). The reason is that the electrons are lost on the
surface of the corona electrode where convective flux boundary condition is spe-
cified and due to their attachment to electronegative components of air. The latter
gives rise to increased densities of negative ions, Figure 3.23c, which however,
remain even lower than those for electrons. As a result, the positive space charge is
dominating in the entire discharge space, Figure 3.12d, except a very thin layer
around the internal cylinder on the surface where the concentration of positive ions
is set to zero. This picture is natural for DC coronas where the external drift region
is always filled with ions whose charge sign is similar to the sign of the potential
applied to the corona electrode.
The space charge density in the inter-electrode space becomes significant at
certain voltage level (which slightly exceeds corona inception voltage) and the
electrostatic field is distorted by the field generated by the space charge. This can
be seen in Figure 3.13a where distributions for several time instants (applied vol-
tage magnitudes) are shown. Thus, the curves for t = 100, 200, 300, and 400 s
(corresponding voltages are 20 kV, 40 kV, 60 kV, and 80 kV) are simply shifted
upwards towards higher field levels due to the increasing voltages while their shape
defined by the geometry of the system is preserved. However, at longer times
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 101
12 14
×10 ×10
10 10 0
100
9 9 200
300
400

–3
8 8 500

Concentration positive ions, m

–3

600
Concentration electrons, m

700
7 7 800
900
6 6 1000

5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2

1 1
0 0
0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01 0.011 0.012 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
(a) distance from wire, m (b) distance from wire, m
12
×10 ×10–4
0
2 100
1.4 200
300
1.8 400
–3

1.2 500
Concentration negative ions, m

1.6 600
3
Space charge density, C/m

700
800
1.4 1 900
1000
1.2
0.8
1
0.8 0.6

0.6 0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0 0
0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01 0.011 0.012 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
distance from wire, m distance from wire, m
(c) (d)

Figure 3.12 Time variations of the distributions of the densities of electrons (a),
positive ions (b), negative ions (c), and resulting space charge (d).
Arrows indicates increase of the concentrations with time (voltage).
Note that variations of the quantities at instants 0–400 s are not
visible with the linear scale used

(= higher voltages), the main changes in the distributions appear in the external
corona region (drift region) due to the accumulated space charge. The field strength
increases here in accordance with the growth of the space charge density,
Figure 3.12d. At the same time, the field remains constant on the surface of the
corona electrode, Figure 3.13b. This fact is in agreement with numerous experi-
mental findings (see, for example, [33] and the books mentioned at the beginning of
the section). From Figure 3.13b, one can identify the voltage level at which space
charge dominated corona mode appears and which is normally identified as corona
inception voltage. For the considered case of d0 = 1 cm, it is
83 kV that is in
agreement with the experimental data given in [38]. The constant field on the surface
of the corona electrode reflects the fact that the discharge is self-controlled. The
surface field in Figure 3.13b is
42 kV/cm and it only slightly exceeds the ionization
102 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

×106
4.5 0
100
200
4 300
400
500
Electric field strength, V/m

3.5 600
700
3 800
900
1,000
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
(a) distance from wire, m
×107
1 SC controlled
electrostatic
0.9

0.8
Electric field strength, V/m

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
(b) Time, s

Figure 3.13 Time variations of electric field distributions (a) and the field
strength on the corona electrode surface (b)

threshold of air (
31 kV/cm). This relatively low field (as compared with the elec-
trostatic one) provides rate of generation of ions needed just for compensation of
ionic losses and results in a steady-state corona at the given voltage.
Any computational model should be validated against experimental data. For
the considered case, voltage–current characteristics of the corona discharge
dependencies in [38] are used here as reference data for verification of the
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 103

developed model. Additionally, known analytical expression is employed as a

supplementary mean of the validation. The analytical formula representing func-
tional dependence of the positive corona current on the applied voltage for coaxial
cylindrical system is attributed to Townsend and it is written as (see, e.g., [39])
8 p e 0 mp
I¼ V ðV  Vi Þ; A=m (3.7)
R2 log ðR=r0 Þ
Here, R = D / 2 and r0 = d0 / 2 are the radiuses of the external and internal
cylinders, respectively; V and Vi are the applied and corona inception voltages,
respectively. The inception voltage is found from the known expression for the
field between coaxial cylinders as Vi = Ecr r0 log(R/r0), where the critical field is
obtained using Peek’s formula
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ecr ¼ 3  106 d 1 þ 0:03= d r0 ; V =m (3.8)

Here, d is the relative air density a defined in the Expressions, Figure 3.2.
Formulas (3.7) and (3.8) are empirical and have been validated in numerous studies. As
one may see from (3.7), the corona current is proportional to V2 and it is meaningful
only at voltages exceeding Vi. In addition, the magnitude of the current is affected by
the value assigned to the mobility of positive ions mp. Actually, the mobility is the only
parameter to be chosen in (3.7) for given dimensions of the electrodes. The results of
the calculations with (3.6) and (3.7) are shown in Figure 3.14 together with the

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000
Current, mcA/m

d0=0.64cm
2,500

2,000
1.585cm
1,500
2.54cm
1,000

500

0
50 100 150 200
Voltage, kV

Figure 3.14 Voltage–current characteristics of positive corona between coaxial

cylinders: points – experimental data [38], broken lines – analytical
calculations (3.6) and (3.7), solid lines – present simulations
104 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

experimental data. One can notice an agreement between the calculated and measured
corona characteristics. However, the best fit between the measured results and calcu-
lations with (3.6) and (3.7) is found with slightly higher value of mp = 2.8cm2/Vs than
that corresponding to typical mobility of positive ions in air. This difference can be
attributed to the special conditions of experiments [38] where the inter-electrode gap
was irradiated with a radioactive b-source containing 90Sr of strength 0.4 mCi to
achieve glow (streamer-less) mode of the corona discharge. The simulations performed
with the developed model are also agree well with the experiments, as it is seen in
Figure 3.14, and the best fit in this case is obtained with a more realistic value for the
mobility of positive ions mp = 2.3 m2/Vs. The fact that both analytical calculations and
numerical simulations provide results which are slightly different from experimental
ones demonstrates the importance of selecting reliable material characteristics for
discharge modeling from available data.

3.4.4 Study case: positive corona in rod-plane electrode

system
Another “classical” electrode configuration often used for corona research is a rod-
plane arrangement. For this study case, the simulations are performed for the
conditions of [40], where positive dc corona in air gap of 1 m length was investi-
gated for the diameter of the rod varying in the range dr = 12.7–50.8 mm. The
computational domain representing the geometry [40] is implemented in 2D (r–z
coordinates) utilizing axial symmetry of the system, Figure 3.15. The domain is
1.5 m

dr /2
1m

Co1

1.2 m

Figure 3.15 Computational domain and dimensions of the electrode system

 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 105

limited by the symmetry axis and surface of the rod on the left, horizontal line on
the bottom representing surface of the plane, and by two artificially introduced
boundaries on the top and on the right-hand side. A positive potential is applied to
the rod and the bottom plane is grounded. It is assumed that the potential changes
linearly with time from 0 to 300 kV during 1,000 s (similar to the previous case, but
with increased ramping rate 300 V/s).
The boundary conditions for the charge carriers on the electrodes are similar to
the ones used for the coaxial system above: if the signs of the charged particles
correspond to the sign of the potential on the surface, zero concentrations are
specified; otherwise, “Convective flux” conditions are used. On the open bound-
aries, “Zero charge/Symmetry” is set for the potential and inward fluxes of charge
carries are defined as normal convective fluxes. The latter condition is not strict
because the fluxes are controlled here by the direction and magnitude of the electric
field as it was discussed above. The model settings for the internal part of the
domain are similar to the ones used in the simulations of the concentric electrodes.
The computational mesh for the system in Figure 3.15 should be refined at the tip

×1014
2.5

2.375

2.25

2.125

1.875

1.75

1.625

1.5

1.375

1.25

1.125

0.875

0.75

0.625

0.5

0.375

0.25

0.125

Figure 3.16 Profile of the concentration of positive ions at 300 kV (the region

55 cm2 at the rod tip is shown)
106 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

of the rod and along the symmetry axis, where most intensive discharge activity is
expected. This is done using meshing facilities provided in the software. An
example of the results obtained from the simulations is presented below for the case
of dr = 38.1 mm.
The distribution of the concentration of positive ions in the corona discharge at
the applied voltage of 300 kV is shown in Figure 3.16. One can observe that the
ionic cloud is narrow and extends into the bulk of the gap in contrast to the case of
corona around cylindrical conductor in Figure 3.11. Such shape was observed in
many experiments and it is the consequence of the distribution of the electric field
which is strongest along the symmetry axis. The maximum of the density of the
ions is located close to the rod tip and under the conditions of [40] reaches

2.51014 m3.
The time variations of the concentration profiles of charge carriers along the
symmetry axis are shown in Figure 3.17. One may see that the densities of negative

12
×10 ×1014
2.5 2.5 0
100
200
300
400
Concentration positive ions, m–3

2 500
2
Concentration electrons, m–3

600
700
800
900
1.5 1.5 1000

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(a) distance from rod, m (b) distance from rod, m

×1011 ×10–5
6 4 –5
0
×10
4 100
200
3.5 300
5 3.5 400
Concentration, negative ions, m–3

3
500
Space charge density, C m–3

2.5 600
3 700
2
4 800
900
2.5 1.5
1000
1
3 2 0.5
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
1.5
2
1
1
0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(c) distance from rod, m (d) distance from rod, m

Figure 3.17 Time variations of densities of charge carriers along symmetry axis:
(a) electrons, (b) negative ions, (c) positive ions, and (d) resulting
space charge. The arrows indicate changes at longer instants (higher
voltages). The inset in (d) shows the distributions of the space charge
density in close vicinity of the rod tip
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 107

×106
4 0
100
200
3.5 300
400
500
3 600
Electric field strength, V/m

700
800
2.5 900
1,000

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(a) distance from rod, m
7
1.1 ×10 electrostatic
SC controlled
1

0.9

0.8
Electric field strength, V/m

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
(b) Time, s

Figure 3.18 Time variations of electric field distributions (a) and the field
strength on the corona electrode surface (b)
108 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

carriers are much lower than the positive ones and they are localized in a thin
(<2 mm) layer at the rod surface forming the corona region (Figure 3.17a and c).
The drift region of the discharge covers practically the entire gap (Figure 3.17b). As
a result, the whole space in front of the rod is positively charged except of a small
volume around the tip of the rod where negative charges are dominating
(Figure 3.17d). The space charge density increases with time (i.e., applied voltage),
however, the shape of the profiles remains identical in the main part of the drift
region at the distance from the rod larger than
1 cm (the curves are just shifted
upwards and are parallel). Such behavior of the space charges leads to the situations
when the external field is almost completely screened out and the resulting dis-
tributions (Figure 3.18a) are characterized by extremely low field strength in the
middle of the gap (at distances from the rod tip 0.2–0.3 m) and its enhancement at
the surface of the plane. The field level at the tip of the corona electrode is the
highest and it remains constant after corona inception (Figure 3.18b). This is
similar to the case considered above for cylindrical system, however, the field
magnitude is slightly lower (compare Figure 3.13b and b). Summarizing, one may
state that corona discharge is a phenomenon completely controlled by space char-
ges produced in the corona region which define its internal as well as external
properties.
The corona current calculated using expression (3.6) is presented in
Figure 3.19 as a function of the applied voltage for three sizes of the diameter of the
corona rod together with the experimental results [40]. One may note that the best
agreement between the computed and measured data is achieved for dr = 50.8 mm
that is the largest size of the rod for which the simulations were performed. For the

250
dr= 38.1mm

200

dr= 25.4mm
Current, mcA

150

dr= 50.8mm
100

50

0
50 100 150 200 250 350
Voltage, kV

Figure 3.19 Voltage–current characteristics of positive corona in rod-plane

system: points are experimental data [40], lines are the results of the
simulations
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 109

intermediate rod diameter dr = 38.1 mm, the observed discrepancies can be

attributed, first of all, to the inconsistencies in the conditions of the experiments
[40] and those, under which the material parameters used in the model were mea-
sured. Thus, the simulations are performed with the constant value of the mobility
of positive ions. However, by analyzing the behavior of the characteristics in
Figure 3.19, one may suggest that if the mobility is field dependent and increases
with the increasing field strength (which is the result of either rising applied voltage
or smaller rod diameter), it would lead to an increase in the slope of the char-
acteristics, as it was shown in [38], and better agreement with experimental results
could be achieved. Another explanation may be that the field magnitude in the
arrangement with the largest rod diameter is not high enough to initiate transition to
streamer corona mode while this may happen for smaller rod sizes. There is no
information in [40] concerning corona modes observed in the experiments and if
streamer corona took place, it would provide higher currents than those obtained
from the simulations that is observed in Figure 3.19.

3.5 Simulations of streamer discharges in air

Electrical discharges in high-pressure gases are usually associated with formation
and development of filamentary plasma channels (streamers), which propagate in
an ambient neutral gas. A streamer is a self-adjusting object. Since it has been
formed, it produces charged particles in a high field region at the front, needed to
maintain high plasma conductivity in the channel. In its turn, the electric field at
streamer tip is controlled by the produced space charge. This property allows
streamers to develop in weak fields, much lower than the ionization threshold of the
gas. Numerical solution of the set of PDEs (3.3)–(3.5) in case of streamer dis-
charges is challenging. There is no commercial software available today, which can
be used for modeling of streamers in a way similar to that introduced above for
corona discharges. Main computational difficulties arising in modeling of strea-
mers are outlined below and a simplified approach for solving (3.3)–(3.5) based on
finite-difference method is introduced. Further, typical results that can be obtained
from the numerical model are presented and discussed using achieved solutions for
propagation of positive and negative streamers in weak homogeneous background
electric fields as examples.
According to the basic theory, a streamer can be formed if a space charge
produced in an electron avalanche is sufficiently strong to generate own field which
is comparable with the external applied field. The condition of the avalanche-to-
streamer transition is represented by well-known criterion (see previous section).
Further development of a streamer in the inter-electrode space requires additional
mechanisms for production of secondary electrons in gas volume which, being
accelerated in the strong field at the streamer head, produce secondary avalanches
contributing to the total charge in the discharge channel and providing conditions
for its growth and propagation. It is commonly accepted today that the secondary
seeding electrons in air discharges can appear due ionization of oxygen by photons
110 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

emitted at quenching of highly exited non-resonant states of nitrogen molecules

[41]. At direct photoionization, the energies of the photons exceed ionization
potential of O2 (12.2 eV) and the wavelengths of the ionizing radiation are in the
range 98–102.5 nm. The upper limit corresponds to the wavelength at which
intensive absorption of photon by nitrogen takes place. According to [41], the rate
of production of secondary electrons at point x due to radiation source located at x’
in the discharge volume can be expressed as
ð
pq x w Rimp ðx0 Þ f ðrÞ 3 0
Rph ¼ d x (3.9)
p þ pq a 4p r2
Here, pq = 30 Torr is the quenching pressure; Rimp(x0 ) is the intensity of the
electron impact ionization at the position of the source; r = |x – x0 | and the ration
(xw/a) = 0.08 at E/p = 100 V/(cmTorr). The absorption function of the radiation is
given as
exp ðcmin pO2 rÞ  exp ðcmax pO2 rÞ
f ðrÞ ¼ (3.10)
r log ðcmax =cmin Þ

where cmax = 2 (cmTorr) 1 and cmin = 3.5102 (cmTorr) 1 are the maximum
and minimum absorption cross-sections of O2 molecule in the interval of wave-
lengths mentioned above, and pO2 is the partial pressure of oxygen in air.
The rate of the process (3.9) is to be incorporated in the expressions (3.4) for
the total rates of generation and losses of charged species. However, direct use of
(3.9) in numerical simulations is extremely costly. By its nature, photoionization is
a non-local source of charge carriers in discharge plasma meaning that productions
of ionizing agents (photons) and ionic pairs take place at different locations in
space. Thus, the intensity of photoionization in each node of the computational
mesh is to be calculated by summing up contributions from all other nodes. This
leads to a necessity to create a full matrix containing Rph values, which should be
stored in computer memory (RAM) during solution process and should be updated
on each time step. This situation can be avoided by considering the fact that the rate
of photoionization in (3.9) is dependent on the intensity of electron impact ioni-
zation (physically, it is related to a large number of excited molecules in the regions
with strong fields). Hence, the integration (3.9) can be performed only within
regions where the ionization rate Rimp is high, e.g., at the streamer head. Moreover,
the core of the integral can be approximated in some way and efficient techniques
for numerical calculations can be successfully applied as it is proposed in, e.g.,
[42]. Recently, significant progress in computing photoionization in gas discharge
related problems was achieved by applying radiation transfer theory [43–46].
Simulations of propagating streamer requires an extremely fine computational
mesh to accurately resolve charged layers in the vicinity of electrodes and in
regions with steep gradients of the densities of charge carriers. This can be
achieved by implementing static or dynamic meshes. The former may lead to
unnecessary increase of the size of the problem and even make it unsolvable if
large inter-electrode distances and higher spatial dimensions (2D or 3D) are to be
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 111

considered. A dynamic mesh is the most suitable option and it should be imple-
mented in a way allowing for an adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) in the regions of
strong variations of the carriers densities. However, implementation of AMR for
the streamer problem is not trivial and requires special consideration, particularly in
case of positive (cathode-directed) discharges where the velocity of the ionization
wave (streamer front) and the drift velocity of secondary electrons have opposite
directions. Examples of 3D simulations performed with finite-differences (FD) and
finite-elements (FE) methods using AMR can be found in [47,48].
Another computational challenge is related to the numerical algorithm for
solving drift-diffusion equations (3.3), which should be very accurate and provide
monotonic positive solutions for concentrations profiles free of unphysical features
like oscillations, ripples and numerical diffusion. Conventional high-order algo-
rithms (second order and above) being applied to (3.3) introduce dispersive ripples
in the solution, particularly at locations of steep gradients. At the same time, low
order schemes, such as donor cell, Lax-Friedrichs, etc. or high order schemes with
zero order diffusion added, produce no ripples, but suffer from excessive numerical
diffusion. Since a discharge plasma channel propagating in a neutral gas can be
considered as a kind of shock wave (ionization wave is the term commonly used in
the literature), it is natural that the best alternative would be to use one of the high-
order methods especially designed for shock capturing, such as Godunov’s method,
explicit two-step MacCormack’s method, Van Leer’s approach, etc. Discussions on
numerical schemes and techniques used in gas discharge problems can be found in
[49–52]. Among these methods, a finite-difference version of the so-called flux-
corrected transport (FCT) [53,54] has been extensively studied, tested and applied
for simulations of streamers, see e.g. [55,56]. A finite-element implementation of
FCT was developed as well [12,57,58], but has not become popular and it is still a
subject of research.
The FCT belongs to the class of non-linear flux limiter methods. It is essential
to note that FCT is not a numerical scheme, but it is rather a technique consisting of
several stages. FCT constructs the net transportive flux G (the product of particle
concentrations and their drift velocity G = nw) point by point on a computational
mesh as a weighted average of a flux computed by a low order scheme and a flux
computed by a high order scheme. The weighting is dependent upon the local
density profile (non-linearity) and it is done in a manner, which insures that the
high order flux is used to the greatest extent possible without introducing over-
shoots and undershoots in the solution. This weighting procedure is referred to as a
“flux-correction” or “flux-limiting.” The result is a family of transport algorithms
capable of resolving moving contact discontinuities over 3–4 grid points, and shock
fronts over 2 grid points, without overshoots or undershoots [54]. Formally,
application of the FD-FCT procedure to a one-dimensional continuity equation of
type (3.3) includes the following actions [53] (fully multidimensional FCT
approach has been developed in [59]):

1. Compute low order fluxes G Li1=2 and G Liþ1=2 given by some low order scheme
to guarantee monotonic (ripple-free) results.
112 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

2. Compute high order fluxes G H H

i1=2 and G iþ1=2 with some high order scheme.
3. Define the “antidiffusive” fluxes as Aiþ1=2  G H iþ1=2  G iþ1=2 ; Ai1=2 
L

G i1=2  G i1=2 .
H L

Compute updated low order (“transported and diffused”) solution ntd i ¼ ni 

m
4.
ðG iþ1=2  G i1=2 Þ=ðD t=D xi Þ.
L L

5. Limit Aiþ1=2 in a manner such that nmþ1 as computed in step 6 below is

free of extrema other than those found in ntd or nm :ACiþ1=2 ¼ Ciþ1=2 Aiþ1=2 ;
0  Ciþ1=2  1
6. Apply the limited antidiffusive fluxes to obtain the convected density
nmþ1
i ¼ ntd
i  ðAiþ1=2  Ai1=2 ÞðD t=D xi Þ.
C C

Here, index i stands for the current position on the computational grid, and
i1/2 indicates the positions of the interfaces of the neighbouring grid cells;
indexes m and m+1 are used for the current and the following time instants,
respectively; .. is the current spatial step on the grid; D t is the time step; C is the
weighting function. One can observe that if ACiþ1=2 ¼ Aiþ1=2 , i.e. in the absence of
the flux limiter, the solution nmþ1 will simply be the time-advanced high order
solution. Flux correction (step 5) is the critical stage in the FCT procedure. In the
original algorithm [53], it is proposed to be implemented as:

ACiþ1=2 ¼ S  max 0 ; min iþ2  niþ1 ÞD xiþ1 ; S ðni  ni1 ÞD xi

Aiþ1=2 ; S ðntd td td td

(3.11)

Here, S ¼ sign ðAiþ1=2 Þ. To see what this flux-correction formula does,

observe that if ðntd
iþ1  ni Þ > 0, then
td

ACiþ1=2 ¼ min Aiþ1=2 ; ðntd

iþ2  niþ1 ÞD xiþ1 ; ðni  ni1 ÞD xi ; or Aiþ1=2 ¼ 0
td td td C

(3.12)

whichever is larger. The “raw” antidiffusive flux Aiþ1=2 always tends to decrease
nm m
i and to increase niþ1 . Thus, the flux-limiting formula ensures that the corrected
flux cannot push ni below nm
m
i1 , which would produce a new minimum, or push
nmiþ1 above nm
iþ2 , which would produce a new maximum. The equation above is
constructed to take care of all cases for signs and slopes.
The FD-FCT technique for integrating continuity equations outlined above has
been implemented in a library of FORTRAN routines [60], which can treat one-
dimensional Cartesian, cylindrical, spherical, or generalized coordinates on uni-
form or non-uniform Eulerian or Lagrangian grids. The procedure can be extended
to higher spatial dimensions using time step splitting method.
As it was demonstrated in the examples of simulations of corona discharges,
the continuity equations (3.3) are to be solved in conjunction with Poisson’s
equation (3.5) to obtain electric field distribution in the domain. In case of
streamers, the concentrations of charge carriers are high, especially at the strea-
mer head, and the field in the inter-electrode space is fully controlled by the
generated space charge. The distribution of the field reflects structure and
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 113

dynamic variations of the space charge density and, therefore, it should be

updated for each time step consequently with the system (3.3). The experience of
simulations shows that solving Poisson’s equation takes about 70–80% of the
total computational time [16] and, thus, high efficiency is one of the criteria when
choosing a method for solving equation (3.5). Another requirement follows from
the fact that even for the simplest so-called “1.5D model” [61], when the radius of
a cylindrical discharge channel is assumed to be constant and the transport
equations are solved in 1D, the equation for potential distribution should be
solved in two- or, preferably, in tree-dimensions because the actual object has a
3D structure. Hence, taking into account fine computational mesh needed to
resolve gradients at the plasma front, the problem becomes extremely computa-
tionally expensive and it is highly desired to decrease the amount of the con-
sumed computer memory. To reduce the computational cost, some further
simplifications can be considered, e.g., utilizing symmetry whenever possible. By
doing so, one may reduce, for example, symmetric physical 3D domain to a
rotationally symmetric 2D rectangular computational domain formed by the
surfaces of the electrodes, the symmetry axis of the gap and an open external
boundary. Such problem is to be solved in cylindrical coordinates and the initial
conditions are normally chosen in a way that the plasma channel develops along
the symmetry axis, i.e., seed electrons are placed on the axis; the boundary con-
ditions for Poisson’s equation (3.5) are defined as Dirichlet type on the electro-
des’ surfaces and of Neumann type on other boundaries. Such approach is
commonly used in practice and drastically reduces demands for computational
resources. However, it is applicable for modelling a single streamer only and such
phenomenon like streamer branching cannot be treated accurately.
Methods for solving Poisson’s equation have being elaborated for decades that
resulted in a large number of software packages available today [62,63] in which
different numerical methods and schemes have been implemented. Several of them
have been adapted, tested, and used for discharge simulations. For example, the
package ITPACK 2C [64] offers codes for solving linear systems of equations
arising from discretization of partial differential equations utilizing seven different
iterative methods (details can be found in [65]). Among those, the RSSI solver has
been found to have the best performance for the problem in hands, Figure 3.20.
Note that benchmarking similar to that in the figure is highly desirable when
choosing a code which is best suited for particular purposes.
In majority of cases, formation and propagation of streamers are required to
be analyzed in systems where at least one of the electrodes forms a region with a
strong electrostatic field, e.g. rod-plane, wire-plane, needle-plane, etc. and a
proper computational mesh in a representative domain is to be generated. For
numerical simulations utilizing the finite-difference approach, structured rectan-
gular grids are normally used. The necessary refinements discussed above can be
easily implemented for arbitrary rectangular domains, however, special approa-
ches are required for meshing geometrically non-uniform computational regions.
One of the methods is to introduce a set of so-called equivalent charges (may be,
e.g., point or line charges) in a uniform domain, which disturb the electric
114 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Problem size: 7301 14726 29601

Elapsed time

JSI RSSI SSORSI

Solver

Figure 3.20 Performance of three most efficient ITPACK 2C solvers: JS (Jacobi

semi-iteration), RSSI (reduced system semi-iteration), SSORSI
(symmetric successive over-relaxation semi iteration). For
benchmarking, (3.5) was discretized on a 2D uniform structured FD
mesh that yielded a sparse block diagonal matrix, which was stored
in Compressed Sparse Row format. The problem sizes: 15050
nodes (7,301 unknowns), 20075 (14,726 unknowns), 300100
(29,601 unknowns). The codes were compiled with Intel Fortran
compiler and run on a desktop computer

potential in a way reflecting its actual distribution [2,66]. However, specifying

magnitudes and locations of the equivalent charges may become very tricky in
some situations, especially when the shape of the physical electrode is to be
introduced very precisely. To resolve this, a method for solving Poisson’s equa-
tion using domain transformation technique can be utilized. The idea of the
method is (i) to transform the physical domain to a rectangular computational
domain, (ii) to find the potential distribution in the rectangular region, and (iii) to
obtain the solution in the physical domain by back transformation. This approach
is widely used in fluid mechanics for computing parameters of boundary layers,
flows through nozzles, etc. [67]. As an example, consider the original equation
(3.5) in 2D cylindrical coordinates (r, z)

@ 2 j @ 2 j 1 @j
þ þ ¼ R ðz; rÞ (3.13)
@ z2 @ r2 r @ r
Here, for simplicity e = 1, and R stands for the space charge density divided with
e0. Following the steps described above, the physical domain containing a curved
boundary (Figure 3.21) can be mapped into a rectangle 0  q  1, 0  x  1
using relations q = r / Sr and x = z / f(r), where q and x are the axial and radial
coordinates in the computational domain, and f(r)= zmax = Sz+F(r) is the geometry
factor. The function F(r) determines the shape of the boundary and it is given in
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 115

Z ξ
F(r)
1

Sz

0 Sr r 0 1 θ

Figure 3.21 Transformation of physical non-uniform (r,z) region to uniform

computational (q,x) domain. Symbols Sz and Sr stand for the axial
and radial dimensions of the physical domain, respectively

Table 3.1 Definitions of the geometry function F(r)

Electrode system F(r) Comments

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sphere – plane a  a2p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r2 a is the radius of the sphere
Ellipse – plane a  ð1  1  r2 =b2 Þ a, b are semi-axes of the ellipse
Paraboloid – plane a  r2 =b2 a is a height of the parabola a ¼ z(Sr ) 
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Sz; b ¼ Sr
Hyperboloid – plane Sz  ð 1 þ r2 =b2  1Þ b is the imaginary semi-axis of the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi hyperbola
Protrusion of elliptic a  ð1  1  r2 =b2 Þ, a, b are the semi-axes of the ellipse (height
shape on plate – r  ba , r > b and radius of base of the protrusion,
plane respectively)
Protrusion of para- a  r2 =b2 , z < a þ Sza , a is the height of the protrusion;
bolic shape on plate z a þ Sz b is the radius of base of the protrusion
– plane pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Protrusion of hyper- Sz  ð 1 þ r2 =b2  1Þ, a is the height of the protrusion;
bolic shape on plate z< aþSza , z b is the imaginary semi-axis of the
– plane aþSz hyperbola

Table 3.1 for a variety of cases. After transformation, (3.13) in the new rectangular
domain (q,x) becomes

@2j @2j @2j @j @j

Czz þ Czr þ C rr þ Cz þ Cr ¼ Rðx; qÞ (3.14)
@x 2 @ x  @q @q 2 @x @q
The coefficients in (3.14) are

Czz ¼ x  G2 þ 1=f ðrÞ2 ; Czr ¼ 2 x  G=Sr ;

(3.15)
Crr ¼ 1=Sr ; Cz ¼ x  ðG2  Q  G=qÞ; Cr ¼ 1=q Sr
116 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

The parameters G = d(log( f (r))/dr and Q = d2(log( f (r))/dr2 are determined by

the geometrical factor f(r). After solving (3.14) in the rectangular domain, the
components of electric field in the physical domain can be found as
@j 1 @j
Ez ¼  ¼ (3.16)
@z f@x

@j @j 1 @j
Er ¼  ¼xG  (3.16)
@r @ x Sr @q
and
In general, obtaining the potential distribution from (3.14) seems to be more
complicated than by solving the original equation (3.13), mostly due to the second
term containing cross-derivatives. However, the problems are, in general, of similar
complexity and (3.14) can be solved effectively with an appropriate software
package, e.g., MUDPACK [68]. This software is a collection of FORTRAN codes
for automatic discretization and computing second- and fourth-order finite differ-
ence approximations to the elliptic PDEs using multigrid method (MG), which is a
fast iterative method based on the multilevel or multi-scale paradigm [69]. It can be
applied in combination with any of the common discretization techniques and it
does not depend on the separability or other special properties of the equation.
Extensive information about MG and available software can be found in [70].
Typical flowchart for solving the coupled system of (3.3)–(3.5) with the pre-
sented FD techniques is shown in Figure 3.22. The input parameters for initializing
calculations are: the dimensions of the physical domain, gas pressure, potentials of
the electrodes, number of nodes in the computational grid, desired output times, the
initial distribution of space charges (if any). The routine DRIVER calculates data

INPUT
reads input parameters

OUTPUT
DRIVER
writes ne(z, r), np(z, r),
E(z, r), I(t), etc.
POISSON
solves field problem
END

TRANSPORT
solves contimity equations

POISSON

Yes
t < tout
No

Figure 3.22 Flowchart of the algorithm for solving the coupled equations (3.3)–(3.5)
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 117

needed for the main solvers and calls subroutine POISSON, which solves the
Poisson’s equation (3.5). The output from it is the distribution of the electric field in
the discharge gap (after the first call it gives the electrostatic field distribution if no
space charge was set initially). Then the routine TRANSPORT is called for solving
system (3.3) and (3.4). This routine calculates the time step limited by Courant–
Friedrichs–Lewy condition, advances the profiles of the densities of charged par-
ticles taking into account the source terms and computes the space charge density
profiles using the electric field distribution obtained earlier. Then, the current time
is updated and the routine POISSON is called again to calculate the electric field
corresponding to the new space charge distribution. If the current time is not greater
than the desired output time, the loop TRANSPORT – POISSON is repeated until
the condition is fulfilled. The output includes microscopic (the particle densities,
the electric field and potential distributions, etc.) and macroscopic (the electric
current, electrostatic energy, Joule dissipation, etc.) discharge characteristics. Note
that the algorithm is different from the one used for the simulations of corona
discharges above, where the discretized PDEs are solved simultaneously. In gen-
eral, both approaches are valid as far as the correct sequence of calculations is
utilized in the latter one.

3.5.1 Study case: positive streamer in a weak homogeneous

background field
Development of positive (cathode-directed) streamers in air is a subject of great
practical interest and was studied extensively. In majority of real cases, electric
fields are distributed non-uniformly being enhanced at surfaces of electrodes with
small radiuses of curvature and diminishing to very low magnitudes at some dis-
tances from them. Under such field conditions, two main stages in the discharge
development can be recognized. The first one – streamer inception – is localized in
a region of enhanced field in the vicinity of an electrode stressed with a positive
electric potential and it is essentially the avalanche-to-streamer transition discussed
above. After the formation stage is completed, a streamer is able to propagate in a
region where the field may be considerably lower than the critical one
30 kV/cm.
It has been determined experimentally [71,72] that the so-called stability field, i.e.,
the background field needed to sustain a steady propagation of the discharge with
constant velocity, is Eb = 4.3–5 kV/cm for positive streamers under normal con-
ditions in air. To understand mechanisms and internal discharge processes during
its propagation in a weak fields, numerical simulations have been utilized exten-
sively owing to the well-known difficulties of experimental investigations of
streamers (required high temporal and spatial resolution, low light emission from
discharge plasma, etc.) [61]. Results of a numerical study of cathode-directed
streamers in air under conditions of the experiments [72,73] are presented below.
The propagation of streamers was considered between two parallel-plate
metallic electrodes forming a gap Sz = 3.3 cm with a uniform electric field Eb. One
of the electrodes (anode) contained a needle protrusion of a hyperbolic shape pro-
viding local field enhancement. A streamer was formed at the needle tip, where
118 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

according to electrostatic calculations the field strength reached
200 kV/cm, and
it propagated further into the gap in a constant field Eb which was attained on the
distance of
0.4 cm from the anode. Thus, the streamer passed
3 cm in the
uniform weak field Eb the magnitude of which was varied in the simulations in
order to observe its effect on streamer dynamics. The problem domain was similar
to that shown in Figure 3.21 (left) which was transformed into a rectangular domain
(Figure 3.21, right) utilizing the technique discussed above. The model used was a
quasi two-dimensional one (1.5D) with the fixed radius of the discharge channel
Rc = 200 mm and, hence, uniform distributions of charge carriers’ densities within
its cross-section were assumed. The value of Rc used can be found as an overage
magnitude obtained by fully two-dimensional simulations for weak fields, e.g. [74],
and it is in agreement with experimental observations (a discussion regarding
streamer radius can be found in [61]). The field dependencies of the rate coeffi-
cients in (3.3) and (3.4) were taken from [16] and the rate of photoionization was
computed by applying (3.9) and (3.10) on the symmetry axis of the gap along
which the discharge propagation takes place. The ionic diffusion was neglected due
to its insignificance in the time scale of streamer development. The boundary
conditions for the set of PDEs (3.3) included zero densities of positive ions on the
anode and negative ions on the cathode np(Sz,t) = nn(0,t) = 0; the densities of
electrons were set to zero on surfaces of both electrodes ne(0,t) = ne(Sz,t) = 0.
Symmetry (Neumann) conditions were applied for all charge carriers on the other
boundaries. For (3.5), the potentials fc and fa were specified on the cathode and
anode, respectively, and symmetry condition was used on the boundary represent-
ing physical symmetry axis. On the outer boundary of the computational domain,
the linear potential distribution was set. The magnitudes of fc and fa and the
distribution on the outer boundary were adjusted in a way to provide the distribu-
tion of the electrostatic field in the domain close to that appeared in the experiments
[73]. The latter was justified by comparing the fields obtained by the presented
method with the results of calculations performed using commercial finite-element
software.
Solution of the set of (3.3) requires initial conditions for the densities of charge
carriers. One of the approaches utilized in streamer simulations is based on the
assumption that a quasi-neutral layer or “plasma spot” with relatively high charge
density exists in the high field region. This method allows avoiding modeling the
avalanche stage and streamer inception can be achieved during several time steps at
the beginning of the simulations. However, it appears to be artificial because the
location of initial charges and their densities are set arbitrary. A more physical
approach is presented in [75] and it employs the fact that collisional detachment of
electrons from negative ions is effective in air at atmospheric conditions. The rate
of the process is R0 = ndet nn0, where ndet is the detachment frequency and
nn0
103 cm3 is the equilibrium background concentration of negative ions. The
magnitude of ndet is determined as ndet = k nel exp(Wa/Wch), where nel is the
frequency of elastic collisions, Wa is the electron affinity, Wch is the chaotic energy
of negative ions, and k = 0.1 is the similarity coefficient. Assuming negative ions of
type O 3 [75], the following magnitudes of the parameters can be used for
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 119

evaluations: Wch = M(mn0E)2/2, where the mobility mn0= 2.55 cm2V1s1 and the
mass of the ion M = 5.31023; Wa = 2.05 eV; nel = 0.791010 s1. The rate R0
appeared to be field dependent and, e.g., for the field strength at the tip of the
needle E = 200 kV/cm, it is R0
51011 cm3s1 that is considerably lower than
the magnitudes of other terms in Re (3.4) and its influence during streamer devel-
opment is negligible. However, the term R0 is important during streamer initiation
stage for providing increased concentrations of seed electrons in the regions with
enhanced fields and facilitating streamer inception.
The problem was solved on a uniform structured computational mesh
16 mm  20 mm using the flux-corrected transport technique for (3.3) and (3.4)
implemented in [60] and multigrid solver [68] for (3.14). The time step Dt was
limited by the Courant criterion c = Dt|we|/Dz = 0.3 (here, Dz = 16 mm is the space
resolution).
The results of the simulations can be seen in Figure 3.23, where time variations
of the electron density profiles along the axis of the discharge at different magni-
tudes of the background field are presented. As one can observe, streamer inception
takes less than one nanosecond after voltage application. The density of electrons
increases during the formation stage up to
1014 cm3 (see curves for t = 1 ns) due

1015 1015
Electron density, cm–3
Electron density, cm–3

3 kV/ cm 3.7 kV/ cm

1014 1014

1013 64 1013

40 24 16 8 4 1 30 20 12 8 4 1
1012 1012
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
z, cm z, cm

1015 1015
4.3 kV/ cm 5 kV/ cm
Electron density, cm–3

Electron density, cm–3

1014 1014

20
1013 29 1013

24 16 12 8 4 1 16 12 8 4 1
1012 1012
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
z, cm z, cm

Figure 3.23 Time variations of the electron density at different magnitudes of Eb

indicated on the plots. Time in ns is shown at the curves. The cathode
is located on the left at z = 0, and the tip of the needle is found to the
right at z = 3.3 cm
120 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

to strong field at the needle tip. During propagation stage, the streamer enters the
region with the weak uniform field in the bulk of the gap, where conditions for its
development are dependent upon the magnitude of Eb. Thus if the background field
is low, the losses of electrons exceed their production and the discharge can be
terminated as it is seen in the plots for 3 and 3.7 kV/cm. The electron densities at
the discharge front remain practically constant if propagation takes place in stron-
ger background fields of 4.3 and 5 kV/cm, indicating that the losses are compen-
sated by the production of electrons at the streamer head. In the streamer channel
(especially in the anode region), the concentrations of electrons decrease with time
continuously due to attachment and recombination. This, however, leads to just
minor variations of the conductivity s of the discharge plasma (Figure 3.24), which
is defined as a sum of contributions of all kinds of charge carriers s = q (neme + nnmn
+ npmp). One may notice that the conductivity of the channel remains on the level of

0.2 S/cm and
0.3 S/cm during propagation in the fields Eb = 4.3 kV/cm and
5 kV/cm, respectively, while it decreases rapidly in weaker background fields. The
values of the discharge plasma conductivity obtained from the simulations agree
well with known data [6,61].
As it was mentioned above, streamers are essentially ionization waves propa-
gating in an insulating medium. Conversion of a neutral gas into conductive plasma

102 102

3 kV/ cm 3.7 kV/ cm

Conductivity, S/cm

Conductivity, S/cm

101 101

100 100

10–1 10–1
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
z, cm z, cm

102 102
4.3 kV/ cm 5 kV/ cm
Conductivity, S/cm

Conductivity, S/cm

101 101

100 100

10–1 10–1
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
z, cm z, cm

Figure 3.24 Evolution of the conductivity of discharge plasma at different Eb (the

magnitudes are indicated on the graphs). The instants and positions
of the electrodes are similar to those in Figure 3.23
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 121

takes place at the streamer head, where extremely strong electric fields appear due
to produced space charges as it is seen in Figure 3.25. One may observe that the
field strength is low behind the discharge front due to high conductivity of plasma
in the channel and also between the front and the cathode (located at z = 0) where it
is equal to Eb. Depending on the magnitude of the background field, the peaks
associated with the streamer head may decrease during its propagation, as it hap-
pens at Eb = 3, 3.7, and 4.3 kV/cm, or remain constant if the field is strong enough
to support discharge development, see graph for Eb = 5 kV/cm. The latter indicates
a stable mode of the discharge. One should note, however, that under considered
circumstances, the streamer is also able to cross the gap between electrodes even at
lower magnitude of Eb, often referred as crossing field (see plot for 4.3 kV/cm),
although this depends upon conditions on early stages of its formation in the vici-
nity of the needle (field strength, accumulated charge, acceleration, etc.). When the
streamer front approaches the cathode region, a cathode-streamer head interaction
can be observed, which is associated with an increase of the maximum of the
electric field strength seen in the plots for Eb = 4.3 and 5 kV/cm. This field
enhancement leads to intensive ionization and to corresponding rise of the electron
density and conductivity shown in Figures 3.23 and 3.24, respectively. It has been
argued in [76] that this phenomenon is conditioned by a release of electrostatic
energy accumulated in a streamer channel – cathode system.

250 250
3 kV/cm 3.7 kV/cm
Field strength, kV/cm
Field strength, kV/cm

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
z, cm z, cm
250 250
4.3 kV/cm 5 kV/cm
Field strength, kV/cm

Field strength, kV/cm

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
z, cm z, cm

Figure 3.25 Distributions of electric field at different magnitudes of Eb indicated

on the graphs. The instants and positions of the electrodes are
similar to those in Figures 3.23 and 3.24
122 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Based on the results of the simulations presented above, the background

field of 5 kV/cm can be considered as the streamer stability field. The length
Lst of the streamer channel increases linearly with time during its stable propaga-
tion, as shown in Figure 3.26a. The growth of the channel is slowed down in
weaker background fields and the discharge becomes incapable to cross the gap at
Eb < 3 kV/cm. The latter is defined as the minimal crossing field. This value
obtained from the simulations agrees well with the magnitude of 2.9 kV/cm
achieved from experimental observations [72].
As it was mentioned above, stable streamer propagation is associated with
constant electric field strength at its head. Therefore, it is natural to expect that
streamer velocity follows this behavior since the intensity of photoionization and
production of secondary electron avalanches needed for advancing the discharge
front are governed by the electric field. Thus, constant field strength at the head

180 kV/cm (Figure 3.25) provides constant streamer velocity
1.6108 cm/s at
Eb = 5 kV/cm, as it can be seen in Figure 3.26b. In the background field of
4.3 kV/cm, the maximum field decreases with increased streamer length from

4.3
5.0 3.7 3.0
3
Streamer length, cm

0
0 20 40 60 80
Time, ns
(a)
200
5.0
Streamer velocity, cm / μs

150
4.3
100

3.7
50
3.0
0
0 1 2 3
Streamer length, cm
(b)

Figure 3.26 Positive streamer length as function of propagation time (a) and
streamer velocity as a function of its length (b).The magnitudes of the
background field strength in kV/cm are indicated at the curves (b)
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 123

170 kV/cm to
140 kV/cm that leads to the decrease of velocity from
1.6108
cm/s to
1.1108 cm/s. In weaker background fields, the velocity decreases with
streamer length in the same linear manner as the field at its tip (se Figure 3.25). The
discharge front acceleration in the cathode region (streamer length > 3 cm) also
corresponds to the enhancement of the maximum field. It is necessary to note here
that the magnitudes of the streamer velocities obtained in present simulations are
slightly overestimated as compared with the results of fully two-dimensional
simulations [74] due to neglected radial expansion of the discharge channel.
Finally, one should mention that propagation of positive streamers in weak
fields is governed by the electrostatic energy Q accumulated in the system (Q is the
volume integral of the energy density e0E2/2). An analysis of the computed dis-
tributions of the energy along the discharge channel showed that the stable streamer
propagation is associated with a slight increase of the accumulated energy. In
contrast to this, the magnitudes of Q decrease if the propagation takes place in the
background fields weaker that the stability threshold.

3.5.2 Study case: negative streamer in weak homogeneous

background fields
A negative (anode-directed) streamer can be initiated by stressing an electrode with
a small radius of curvature with a negative potential provided that strong enough
electric field exists in its vicinity. Similar to positive streamers, the negative ones
may propagate for long distances in weak background fields. Data regarding sta-
bility field for negative streamers under normal conditions in air are ambiguous.
One may refer to [61], where the range of 8–16 kV/cm is mentioned based on
available experimental data, and to the results of modeling [77], where the values
of 10–15 kV/cm could be found for short streamers. However, it is obvious that the
magnitude of the background field required for stable propagation of negative
streamers is higher than that for the positive discharges. The reason is that sec-
ondary electrons produced by photoionization at negative streamer head experience
an electrostatic force pushing them away from the plasma front toward the region
with lower field strength. This process can be considered as an additional
mechanism of electronic losses and it leads to a reduction of the intensity of sec-
ondary avalanches that should be compensated by an increase of the background
field to maintain conditions (in particular, conductivity of the discharge channel)
required for stable propagation.
The results of the simulations presented below were obtained for the conditions
similar to those used for the modeling of positive discharges described in the pre-
vious section. The flat electrode containing the protrusion was energized with a
negative potential that resulted in an inception of a negative streamer at the needle
tip. A parametric study was performed in order to determine the minimal field
strength in the gap between the plate electrodes needed for stable streamer
development.
The computed temporal variations of the electron density distributions along
the streamer channel progressing in different background fields are shown in
124 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Figure 3.27. As it can be seen, streamer inception takes place in the high field
region at the cathode (z > 3 cm), where the electron densities rise quickly and reach

1014 cm3 within 1 ns, similarly to the case of positive discharges (Figure 3.23).
Different behavior can be observed when plasma front enters the balk of the gap
where the background field is weak. In case of negative streamers, the minimal
crossing field is found to be
7 kV/cm and discharge propagation in this field is
associated with the decrease of the electrons density. In the magnitudes of Eb are
lower than that, a streamer is terminated rapidly in the middle of the gap as it is
observed for the strength of 5 and 6 kV/cm in which the discharge propagates for

1.9 and 2.9 cm, respectively. The concentration of electrons is kept constant if the
background field strength is raised to 8 kV/cm. In this case, loses of electrons in
discharge plasma are compensated by the higher rate of their production, which is
dependent on the local electric field strength at the streamer front. One can see in
Figure 3.28 that the field strength at the head decreases rapidly when streamer
termination takes place (graphs for 5 and 6 kV/cm) because the space charge pro-
duced is not strong enough. The situation is different when the discharge propa-
gates in the background field Eb = 8 kV/cm. In this case, the electric field
associated with the streamer head reaches
200 kV/cm and remains almost

1015 1015
Electron density, cm–3
Electron density, cm–3

5 kV/ cm 6 kV/ cm
1014 1014

1013 1013
8 4 1 8 4 1
28 16 40 28 16
1012 1012
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
z, cm z, cm
1015 1015
Electron density, cm–3
Electron density, cm–3

7 kV/ cm 8 kV/ cm
1014 1014

1013 15 12 8 4 1 1013 10 8 6 4 2 1

1012 1012
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
z, cm z, cm

Figure 3.27 Time variations of the electron density at different magnitudes of Eb

indicated on the plots. Time in ns is shown at the curves. The anode is
located on the left at z = 0, and the tip of the needle is found to the
right at z = 3.3 cm
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 125

250 250
5 kV/cm 6 kV/cm

Field strength, kV/cm

Field strength, kV/cm
200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
z, cm z, cm

250 250
7 kV/cm 8 kV/cm
Field strength, kV/cm

Field strength, kV/cm

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
z, cm z, cm

Figure 3.28 Distributions of the electric field at different magnitudes of Eb

indicated on the graphs. The instants and positions of the electrodes
are similar to those in Figure 3.27

constant during propagation. Similar behavior was obtained for positive streamers,
where the peak field strength was found to be
170 kV/cm (see Figure 3.25). The
difference between these values is related to the different conditions needed to
maintain intensive production of secondary avalanches at the head of the negative
streamer as mentioned above. Note that the ionization coefficient a depends
exponentially on the field strength and, thus, even small increase of E results in a
significant amount of generated secondary electrons.
The length of the channel of the negative discharge increases linearly with time
during its stable propagation (Figure 3.29a, curve for 8 kV/cm), similar to the case
of the positive streamer (Figure 3.26a, curve for 5 kV/cm). However, in contrast to
the latter, the gap between the stability field and the minimal crossing field for
negative streamers is smaller and negative discharges seem to be more sensitive to
changes in the magnitudes of the background field strength than the positive ones.
The data presented in Figures 3.27–3.29 indicate that just a minor reduction of Eb
below 7 kV/cm may lead to rapid streamer termination. Another distinction of
negative streamers obtained from the simulations is that the velocity corresponding
to stable propagation
3.2108 cm/s (Figure 3.29b, 8 kV/cm) is two times higher
than that for the positive ones (compare with Figure 3.26b, 5 kV/cm) due to the
stronger field at the streamer front. Other features observed in Figure 3.29b, like
126 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

3.5

2.5 8 kV/cm
Streamer length, cm

2 7 kV/cm

1.5 6 kV/cm

1 5 kV/cm

0.5

0
0 5 10 15
Time, ns
(a)

× 108
4.5

3.5
8 kV/cm
Streamer velocity, cm/s

2.5 7 kV/cm

2
6 kV/cm
1.5

1 5 kV/cm

0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Streamer length, cm
(b)

Figure 3.29 Negative streamer length as function of propagation time (a) and
streamer velocity as a function of its length (b). The magnitudes of the
background field strength in kV/cm are indicated at the curves (b)

acceleration at the very late stage when the streamer head approaches the anode
surface, and the linear decrease of the velocity with increasing length of the channel
in the background fields lower than the stability level, are similar to those discussed
above for positive discharges.
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 127

References
[1] I. Gallimberti, G. Bacchiega, A. Bondiou-Clergerie and P. Lalande,
Fundamental processes in long air gap discharges, C. R. Physique, Vol. 3,
pp. 1335–1359, 2000.
[2] E. Kuffel, W. S. Zaengl, and J. Kuffel, High Voltage Engineering:
Fundamentals, Newnes, London, 2nd ed., 2000.
[3] S. Pancheshnyi, Role of electronegative gas admixtures in streamer start,
propagation and branching phenomena, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol.,
Vol. 14, pp. 645–653, 2005.
[4] E. Nasser, Fundamentals of Gaseous Ionization and Plasma Electronics,
John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY, 1971.
[5] K. L. Aplin, Instrumentation for Atmospheric Ion Measurements, Ph.D.
thesis, Univ. of Reading, 2000.
[6] Y. P. Raizer, Gas Discharge Physics, Springer Verlag, New York, NY, 1997.
[7] J. Dutton, A survey of electron swarm data, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, Vol. 4,
No. 3, pp. 577–856, 1975
[8] J. W. Gallagher, E. C. Beaty, J. Dutton, and L. C. Pitchford, An annotated
compilation and appraisal of electron swarm data in electronegative gases, J.
Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 109–152, 1983.
[9] J. J. Raju, Gaseous Electronics: Theory and Practice, CRC Press, London,
2006.
[10] I. A. Kossyi, A. Yu Kostinsky, A. A. Matveyev, and V. P. Silakov, Kinetic
scheme of the non-equilibrium discharge in nitrogen-oxygen mixtures,
Plasma Sources Sci. Technol., Vol. 1, pp. 207–220, 1992.
[11] K. Becker, K. H. Becker, U. Kogelschatz, and K. H. Schoenbach (eds.), Air
plasma chemistry, in K. H. Becker, U. Kogelschatz, K. H. Schoenbach and
R. J. Barker (eds.) (eds.) , Non-equilibrium air Plasmas at Atmospheric
Pressure, IOP Publishing, Bristol, 2005.
[12] G. E. Georghiou, A. P. Papadakis, R. Morrow, and A. C. Metaxas,
Numerical modelling of atmospheric pressure gas discharges leading to
plasma production, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 38 pp. R303–R328, 2005.
[13] H. Raether, The electron avalanche and its development, Appl. Sci. Res., Sec.
B, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 23–33, 1956.
[14] E. E. Kunhardt, Electron macrokinetics in partially ionized gases: the
hydrodynamic regime, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 803–814, 1990.
[15] R. Morrow and N. Sato, The discharge current induced by the motion of
charged particles in time-dependent electric fields; Sato’s equation extended,
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 32, pp. L20–L22, 1999.
[16] R. Morrow and J. J. Lowke, Streamer propagation in air, J. Phys. D: Appl.
Phys., Vol. 30, pp. 614–627, 1997.
[17] M. C. Wang and E. E. Kunhardt, Streamer dynamics, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 42,
No. 4, pp. 2366–2373, 1990.
[18] N. Y. Babaeva and G. V. Naidis, On streamer dynamics in dense media, J.
Electrostat., Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 123–133, 2001.
128 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[19] N. L. Aleksandrov, E. M. Bazelyan, and V. A. Vasil’ev, The effect of low

direct voltage on streamer breakdown in long non-uniform air gaps, J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 36, pp. 2089–2095, 2003.
[20] A. A. Kulikovsky, The mechanism of positive streamer acceleration and
expansion in air in a strong external field, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 30,
pp. 1515–1522, 1997.
[21] R. Morrow, Theory of electrical corona in SF6, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys.
Research A382, pp. 57–65, 1996.
[22] R. Morrow, The theory of positive glow corona, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.,
Vol. 30, pp. 3099–3114, 1997.
[23] C. Soria, F. Pontiga, and A. Castellanos, Plasma chemical and electrical
modelling of a negative DC corona in pure oxygen, Plasma Sources Sci.
Technol., Vol. 13, pp. 95–107, 2004.
[24] G. E. Georghiou and A. C. Metaxas, Simulation of RF coronas using the FE-
FCT method, J. Microwave Power Electromag. Energy, Vol. 35, pp. 151–64,
2000.
[25] A. Salabas, G. Gousset, L. L Alves, Two-dimensional fluid modelling of
charged particle transport in radio-frequency capacitively coupled dis-
charges, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol., Vol. 11, pp. 448–465, 2002.
[26] Y. B. Golubovskii, V. A. Maiorov, J. Behnke, and J. F. Behnke, Modeling of
the homogeneous barrier discharge in helium at atmospheric pressure, J.
Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 36, pp. 39–49, 2003.
[27] Y. V. Yurgelenas and M. A. Leeva, Development of a barrier discharge in air
in highly non-homogeneous electric field caused by the residual dielectric
surface charges, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 809–815,
2009.
[28] J. P. Boeuf, Plasma display panels: physics, recent developments and key
issues, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 36, pp. R53–R79, 2003.
[29] A. Oda, Y. Sakai, H. Akashi, and H. Sugawara, One-dimensional modeling
of low-frequency and high-pressure Xe barrier discharges for the design of
excimer lamps, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 32, pp. 2726–2736, 1999.
[30] O. Eichwald, N. A. Guntoro, M. Yousfi, and M. Benhenni, Chemical
kinetics with electrical and gas dynamics modelization for NOx removal in
an air corona discharge, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 35, pp. 439–450, 2002.
[31] U. Kogelschatz, Dielectric-barrier discharges: their history, discharge phy-
sics, and industrial applications, Plasma Chem. Plasma Process., Vol. 23,
pp. 1–46, 2003.
[32] H. C. Kim, F. Iza, S. S. Yang, M. Radmilovic-Radjenovic, and J. K. Lee,
Particle and fluid simulations of low-temperature plasma discharges:
benchmarks and kinetic effects, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 38, pp. R283–
R301, 2005.
[33] L. B. Loeb, Electrical Coronas: Their Basic Physical Mechanisms,
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1965.
[34] N. Yu Babaeva and J. K. Lee, Dust-grain charging in developing air plasma,
IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 823–828, 2004.
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 129

[35] J. Chen, and J. H. Davidson, Model of the negative dc corona plasma:

comparison to the positive dc corona plasma, Plasma Chem. Plasma Proces.,
Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 83–102, 2003.
[36] J. J. Lowke, Theory of electrical breakdown in air – the role of
metastable oxygen molecules, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 25, pp. 202–210,
1992.
[37] F. W. Peek, Dielectric Phenomena in High-Voltage Engineering, 3rd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1929.
[38] R. T. Waters and W. B. Stark, Characteristics of the stabilized glow dis-
charge in air, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 8, pp. 416–427, 1975.
[39] J. Q. Feng, An analysis of corona currents between two concentric cylind-
rical electrodes, J. Electrost., Vol. 46, pp. 37–48, 1999.
[40] T. E. Allibone, J. E. Jones, J. C. Saunderson, M. C. Taplamacioglu, and R. T.
Waters, Spatial characteristics of electric current and field in large direct-
current coronas, Proc. Royal Soc. Lond. A, Vol. 441, pp. 125–146, 1993.
[41] M. B. Zheleznyak, A. K. Mnatsakanyan, and S. V. Sizykh, Photo-ionization
of nitrogen and oxygen mixtures by radiation from a gas discharge, High
Temp., Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 357–362, 1982.
[42] A. Luque, U. Ebert, C. Montijn, and W. Hundsdorfer, Photoionization in
negative streamers: Fast computations and two propagation modes, Appl.
Phys. Lett., Vol. 90, pp. 081501-1–081501-3, 2007.
[43] P. Segur, A. Bourdon, E. Marode, D. Bessieres and J. H. Paillol, The use of
an improved Eddington approximation to facilitate the calculation of pho-
toionization in streamer discharges, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol., Vol. 15,
pp. 648–660, 2006.
[44] A. Bourdon, V. P. Pasko, N. Y. Liu, S. Celestin, P. Segur, and E. Marode,
Efficient models for photoionization produced by non-thermal gas dis-
charges in air based on radiative transfer and the Helmholtz equations,
Plasma Sources Sci. Technol., Vol. 16, pp. 656–678, 2007.
[45] N. Liu, S. Celestin, A. Bourdon, V. P. Pasko, P. Segur, and E. Marode,
Application of photoionization models based on radiative transfer and the
Helmholtz equations to studies of streamers in weak electric fields, Appl.
Phys. Lett., Vol. 91, pp. 211501-1–211501-3.
[46] J. Capeillere, P. Segur, A. Bourdon, S. Celestin, and S. Pancheshnui, The
finite volume method solution of the radiative equation for photon transport
in non-thermal gas discharges: application to the calculation of photo-
ionization in streamer discharges, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 41,
pp. 234018–234031, 2008.
[47] S. Pancheshnyi, P. Segur, J. Capeillere, and A. Bourdon, Numerical simu-
lation of filamentary discharges with parallel adaptive mesh refinement,
J. Comp. Phys., Vol. 227, pp. 6574–6590, 2008.
[48] L Papageorgiou, A C Metaxas and G E Georghiou, Three-dimensional
numerical modeling of gas discharges at atmospheric pressure incorporating
photoionization phenomena, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 44, pp. 045203–
045213, 2011.
130 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[49] P. J. Roache, Fundamentals of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Hermosa

Publishers, Albuquerque, USA, 1998.
[50] Khalid Alhumaizi, Comparison of finite difference methods for the numer-
ical simulation of reacting flow, Comp. Chem. Eng., Vol. 28, pp. 1759–1769,
2004.
[51] A. Bourdon, D. Bessieres, J. Paillol, A. Michau, K. Hassouni, E. Marode and
P. Segur, Influence of numerical schemes on positive streamer propagation,
in Proc. XXVIIth Int. Conf. Phen. Ionized Gases (ICPIG), Eindhoven, The
Netherlands, 18–22 July, 2005.
[52] A. Luque and U. Ebert, Density models for streamer discharges: beyond
cylindrical symmetry and homogeneous media, J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 231,
pp. 904–918, 2011, doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2011.04.019
[53] J. P. Boris and D. L. Book, Flux-corrected transport: I. SHASTA, a fluid
transport algorithm that woks, J. Comp. Phys., Vol. 11, pp. 38–69, 1973.
[54] D. Kuzmin, R. Löhner, and S. Turek (Eds.), Flux-Corrected Transport:
Principles, Algorithms and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg,
2005.
[55] R. Morrow, Numerical solution of hyperbolic equations for electron drift in
strongly non-uniform electric field, J. Comp. Phys., Vol. 43, pp. 1–15, 1981.
[56] P. Steinle, R. Morrow, and A. J. Roberts, Use of implicit and explicit flux-
corrected transport algorithms in gas discharge problems involving non-
uniform velocity fields, J. Comp. Phys., Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 493–499, 1989.
[57] G. E. Georghiou, R. Morrow and A. C. Metaxas, A two-dimensional, finite-
element, flux-corrected transport algorithm for the solution of gas discharge
problems, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 33, pp. 2453–2466, 2000.
[58] O. Ducasse, L. Papageorghiou, O. Eichwald, N. Spyrou, and M. Yousfi,
Critical analysis on two-dimensional point-to-plane streamer simulations
using the finite element and finite volume methods, IEEE Trans. Plasma
Sci., Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 1287–1300, 2007.
[59] S. T. Zalesak, Fully multidimensional flux-corrected transport algorithms for
fluids, J. Comp. Phys., Vol. 31, pp. 335–362, 1979.
[60] J. Boris, A. Landsberg, E. Oran, and J. Gardner, LCPFCT – a flux-corrected
transport algorithm for solving generalized continuity equations, Naval
Research Laboratory, Report No. NRL/MR/6410-93-7192, Washington, DC,
USA, 1993.
[61] E. M. Bazelyan and Yu. P. Raizer, Spark Discharge, CRC Press, London,
1998.
[62] GAMS: Guide to Available Mathematical Software, http://gams.nist.gov.
[63] Netlib Repository, http://netlib.org.
[64] D. R. Kincaid, J. R. Respess, D. M. Young, and R. G. Grimes, ITPACK 2C:
A FORTRAN Package for Solving Large Sparse Linear Systems by
Adaptive Accelerated Iterative Methods, Center for Numerical Analysis,
University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1999.
[65] J. W. Demmel, Applied Numerical Linear Algebra, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA,
1997.
 Numerical simulations of non-thermal electrical discharges in air 131

[66] H. Singe, H. Steinbigler, and P. Weiss, A charge simulation method for the
calculation of high voltage fields, IEEE Trans. Power App. Sys., Vol. PAS-
93, No. 5, pp. 1660–1968, 1974.
[67] J. C. Tannehill, D. A. Anderson and R. H. Pletcher, Computational Fluid
Mechanics and Heat Transfer, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, 1997.
[68] J. C. Adams, MUDPACK: Multigrid software for elliptic partial differential
equations, National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA, 1998, http://
scd.ucar.edu/css/software/mudpack
[69] P. Wesseling, An Introduction to Multigrid Methods, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, UK, 1992.
[70] MGnet Repository, http://mgnet.org.
[71] N. L. Allen and A. Ghaffar, The conditions required for the propagation of a
cathode-directed positive streamer in air, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol.28,
pp.331–337, 1995.
[72] L. Gao, A. Larsson, V. Cooray and V. Scuka, Simulation of streamer dis-
charges as finitely conducting channels, IEEE Trans. Diel. Elec. Insul.,
Vol.6, No.1, pp.35–42, 1999.
[73] M. Akyuz, L. Gao, A. Larsson, and V. Cooray, Streamer current in a three-
electrode system, IEEE Trans. Diel. Elec. Insul., Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 665–672,
2001.
[74] N. Yu Babaeva and G. V. Naidis, Simulation of positive streamers in air in
weak uniform electric field, Phys. Lett. A, Vol. 215, pp. 187–190, 1996.
[75] A. F. Djakov, Y. K. Bobrov, and Y. V. Yurgelenas, Modeling of positive
streamer in air in non-uniform electric field, in A. F. Djakov (ed.) (eds.) ,
Physics and Technology of Electric Power Transmission, MPEI Publishers,
Moscow, pp. 161–200, 1998 (in Russian).
[76] I. Odrobina and M. Cernak, Numerical simulation of streamer-cathode
interaction, J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 78, pp. 3635–3642, 1995.
[77] N. Y. Babaeva and G. V. Naidis, Dynamics of positive and negative strea-
mers in air in weak uniform electric fields, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.,
Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 375–379, 1997.
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 4
Attachment of lightning flashes to
grounded structures
Vernon Cooray1

4.1 Introduction
A grounded structure can interact with a lightning flash in two different ways. It
can interact with either a downward or an upward lightning flash. The initiation of a
downward lightning flash takes place in the cloud, whereas in the case of upward
lightning flash, the point of initiation is usually at the tip of a tall structure. In other
words, upward lightning flashes are created by the grounded structure itself. In this
chapter, a brief description of various models used to study the lightning attach-
ment is given together with some of their predictions. A portion of the material
presented here is published previously in Refs. [1] and [2].
First, let us consider the events associated with the attachment of a downward
negative lightning flash (i.e. a lightning flash that transport negative charges to
ground) with a grounded structure. Experimental investigations show that a
downward lightning flash is initiated by a column of charge called the stepped
leader that travels from cloud to ground in a stepped manner. As the stepped leader
approaches the ground, the electric field at ground level increases steadily. The
electric field at the pointed tips of a grounded structure, which is immersed in this
background electric field, may reach values that are several times to several tens of
times the magnitude of the background electric field produced by the stepped lea-
der due to field enhancement. When the electric field at the tip of a structure
reaches a critical value of about 3.0
106 V/m, electron avalanches will be gen-
erated from the tip. As the background electric field and hence the local electric
field at the tip intensifies, the ionization taking place at the tip becomes more
vigorous leading to an increase in the number of charged particles in the head of the
electron avalanches. When this number reaches a value around 108 to 109, electron
avalanches will be transformed to a streamer discharge [3,4] (see also Chapter 1 of
this volume). This conversion of electron avalanches to a streamer, or the streamer
inception, is called avalanche to streamer transition. Once the conditions necessary
for streamer inception are satisfied, several streamer bursts will be issued from the

1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Uppsala University, Sweden
134 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

point under consideration. These streamer bursts are generated from a common
stem and if the charge in the streamer burst is larger than about 1 mC, the streamer
stem will be thermalized leading to the creation of a leader [3]. This transition is
called streamer to leader transition. This leader, created by the action of the electric
field generated by the stepped leader, is called a connecting leader. Once incepted,
a connecting leader starts to grow towards the down-coming stepped leader. This
growth of the connecting leader is mediated by streamer bursts generated at its
tip. The charge associated with each streamer burst depends on the background
electric field and the potential gradient of the connecting leader channel. The
potential gradient of the connecting leader channel (which is positively charged in
this case) can be obtained by appealing to the thermodynamic model of the positive
leaders as described by Gallimberti [3]. Each streamer burst extends the leader by a
small amount. For example, if the charge in a streamer burst is Q, then the amount
of elongation of the positive leader is given by Q/ql, where ql is the amount of
charge necessary to thermalize a unit length of the leader channel. For positive
leaders, this is equal to about 40–60 mC/m. Indeed, both the down-coming stepped
leader and the upward-moving connecting leader moves with the aid of streamer
bursts that generate enough charge to thermalize a section of the leader. As the
positive leader approaches the negative one, the average potential gradient between
the two leader tips continues to increase, and when it reaches a value equal to 500
kV/m, all conditions necessary for the final connection are satisfied making the
final connection imminent. This condition is called the final jump condition. Once
the connection is made, the resulting rapid neutralization of the stepped leader
charge leads to the generation of a return stroke. The point of attachment of the
downward flash on the structure is the point of initiation of the connecting leader
that made the final connection with the stepped leader.
Now, let us consider the upward lightning flashes initiated by tall grounded
structures. Upward lightning flashes are initiated by the tall structures themselves due
to the enhancement, caused by the geometry of the structure, of the background electric
field generated by the thundercloud. As the electric field generated by the thundercloud
increases and once all the stages that have been described above, namely, initiation of
avalanches, initiation of streamers and initiation of a leader, had been completed, an
upward-moving leader will be initiated from a field- enhanced tip of a tall grounded
structure. Once initiated, the conditions necessary for its propagation are identical to
that of the connecting leader described in the previous section except for the fact that
here the background electric field remains more or less constant whereas in the pre-
vious case it was increasing with time as the stepped leader approaches the structure.
Once the leader initiated from the structure reaches the charge centre in the cloud, dart
leaders will follow this channel to ground initiating subsequent return strokes.
For a lightning attachment model to be self-consistent, it should take into
account all the processes mentioned above. However, due to the difficulties asso-
ciated with including all these processes into a lightning striking model, engineers
have constructed empirical models that can be applied easily in practice. In the next
section, some of the models utilized to analyse the problem of lightning attachment
are described. However, before proceeding further, let us describe the meaning of
the striking distance as applied in lightning protection studies.
 Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures 135

4.2 Striking distance

Since the striking distance is a man-made parameter, it is first necessary to define
what is meant by the term striking distance. According to the definition of this
parameter by Golde [5], the striking distance is the separation between the tip of
the stepped leader and the tip of a grounded structure when a stable (i.e. con-
tinuously propagating) upward connecting leader is established from the tip of
the grounded structure. However, one can see immediately that this definition
will lead to ambiguous situations in practice. For example, as a stepped leader
approaches the ground, several stable connecting leaders could be established
either by several points on the same structure or by points in several structures. In
this case the above definition cannot be used to define the striking distance
uniquely. Another situation where this definition may cause difficulties is when
one tries to analyse lightning strikes to a flat ground. In this case the final
attachment may take place without the origin of a connecting leader in a con-
ventional sense. However, one can get out of this ambiguous situation by rede-
fining the striking distance as follows. It could be defined as the separation
between the tip of the structure, where a connecting leader is generated, and the
tip of the stepped leader when the final jump condition is established between the
connecting leader and the stepped leader. This is illustrated in Figure 4.1. With
this definition, a striking distance is associated only with a connecting leader that
successfully intercepts the down-coming stepped leader. It could also be applied

Stepped leader

Striking
distance
Final jump

Connecting
leader

Grounded structure

Figure 4.1 The striking distance is defined in the figure as the separation between
the tip of the structure, where a connecting leader is generated, and
the tip of the stepped leader when the final jump condition is
established between the connecting leader and the stepped leader
136 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

without any ambiguity in situations where a connecting leader, in the conven-

tional sense, is absent (or is very short) during a lightning strike.
One of the most simple and user-friendly lightning strike models is the elec-
trogeometrical model (EGM). According to EGM, the attachment between the
stepped leader and the grounded structure takes place when the final jump condi-
tion (defined in the next section) is established between the tip of the stepped leader
and the grounded structure. EGM does not envisage the presence of a connecting
leader. In this chapter, the critical distance between the tip of the stepped leader and
the grounded structure when the final jump condition is established between them
is referred to as EGM striking distance. This is the striking distance in the absence
of a connecting leader. Thus, the striking distance as defined in the previous section
reduces to EGM striking distance when the connecting leader is absent or
negligibly short.
The final jump condition, borrowed from the jargon of laboratory long
sparks, is defined as the instant when the streamers generated from the leader
channel reaches the grounded electrode. Since the streamers maintain a constant
potential gradient, one can assume that the final jump condition is reached when
the average potential gradient between the leader tip and the grounded structure
becomes equal to the potential gradient of streamer channels. Now consider a
strike of a negative downward flash to flat ground. If the ground is completely
flat then the final jump condition is reached when the average electric field
between the leader tip and the ground reaches a value 1–2 MV/m. This is the
critical electric field necessary for negative streamer propagation. However, in
practice, a completely flat ground does not exist and even on the surface of an
ocean the turbulence created during thunderstorms may result in the formation of
waves that may act as temporary protrusions. In such cases, positive streamers
could be generated from small protrusions on ground or on the ocean surface. If
the breakdown is mediated purely by positive streamers, then it is reasonable to
use an average potential gradient of 500 kV/m, the critical electric field necessary
for the propagation of positive streamers, during the final jump. Golde [5] sug-
gested using 500 kV/m for negative ground flashes and 300 kV/m for positive
ground flashes. On the other hand, based on the breakdown voltage as a function
of gap length of long sparks, Armstrong and Whitehead [6] assumed that the
average potential gradient, Eave (voltage divided by the gap length, V/m), during
the final jump is given by

7:55
105
Eave ¼ (4.1)
r0:166
In the above equation, r is the gap length (in m). As one can observe from the
above equation, this average potential gradient depends on the gap length and it
decreases with increasing gap length.
In the case of encounter between the connecting leader and the stepped leader,
the final jump condition is reached when the potential gradient between the two
leader tips is equal to the specified critical potential gradient. With the definition
 Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures 137

given earlier, the striking distance in the absence of a connecting leader from a
grounded structure is equal to the separation between the tip of the structure and the
tip of the stepped leader when the average potential gradient between them reaches
the specified critical value. With increasing length of the connecting leader, the
striking distance increases.
In order to apply this concept of striking distance, it is necessary to know when
and where from the structure a connecting leader is incepted. There are several
theories that can be utilized to find this information and some of the important ones
are summarized below.

4.3 Leader inception models

4.3.1 Critical radius and critical streamer length concepts
Laboratory experiments conducted with rod–plane gaps in air show that for a given
gap length the breakdown voltage remained the same with increasing electrode
radius until a critical radius is reached [7,8]. Further increase of the radius led to an
increase of the breakdown voltage. The radius at which the breakdown voltage
starts to increase is named the critical radius. The critical radius is the minimum
radius of a spherical electrode in a given gap length that will produce leader
inception immediately with the inception of streamers. The critical radius increases
initially with gap length but reaches a more or less asymptotic value of about 38 cm
for large gap lengths. Experiments conducted with inverted geometries gave values
in the range of 10–28 cm [9].
The critical radius concept is commonly applied in lightning research in the
evaluation of the background electric field necessary for the generation of a con-
tinuous leader from a point on a grounded structure. This is done by assuming that a
leader is incepted from a point when the electric field at a distance of critical radius
from the point reaches breakdown value in air.
Experiments also show that the length of the streamers at the critical radius is
about 3 m [7]. In other words, the length of the streamers should exceed this critical
value before the inception of a leader. Akyuz and Cooray [10] have used the critical
streamer length as the criterion, instead of the critical radius, in evaluating the
inception of connecting leaders. Based on the results of Chernov et al. [11], Petrov
and Waters [12] assumed that the streamer initiated from a given point on a
structure must extend to a critical length of 0.7 m, before an upward leader is
initiated from that point. In a model developed by Bazelyan and Raizer [13], it is
assumed that the unstable leader inception takes place when the potential drop
between the electrode tip and a point about 1 m from it is equal to a critical value
that is assumed to be approximately equal to 400 kV. Since 400 kV/m is approxi-
mately equal to the potential gradient of positive streamers, this criterion implies
that the inception of a leader takes place when the streamers extend to a length of
about 1 m. According to them, for the continuous propagation of the leader, the
difference between the potential of the leader tip and the potential produced by the
external field at the location of the leader tip should increase continuously.
138 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

One advantage of the critical streamer length criterion over the critical radius cri-
terion is that it can be easily implemented in any complicated structure that one
may encounter in practice.
It is important to point out, however, that the critical radius and critical streamer
length concepts are derived from breakdown characteristics of long rod– plane gaps
under the application of switching impulses of critical time to crest. In the case of
lightning attachment, the temporal variation of the electric field generated at the
grounded structure by a down-coming stepped leader is very different to that of an
electric field generated by a switching impulse. For this reason, the validity of such
concepts in the case of lightning flashes is still a topic of discussion.

4.3.2 Rizk’s generalized leader inception equation

Based on the results from laboratory, Rizk [14] has constructed a theory to evaluate
the inception of leaders from grounded structures. According to this theory, the
ambient potential U at the tip of the structure (potential in the absence of the
structure) required to incept an upward connecting leader from a horizontal wire is
given by
2247
U¼ (4.2)
1 þ ð5:15  5:49 lnðaÞÞ=h lnðh=2aÞ
where h is the height in metres, a is the radius of the wire in metres and U is in kV.
For a vertical tower, it is given by
1556
U¼ (4.3)
1 þ 3:89=h
where h is the height of the tower in metres.
Note that these results are based on laboratory data pertinent to switching
impulses, and the assessment of their validity in the case of electric fields gen-
erated by stepped leaders may require further research efforts. Recently, Rizk
[15] has established theory that allows evaluation of leader inception from any
structure.

4.3.3 Lalande’s stabilization field equation

Lalande [16] used a physical model for the leader propagation in long gaps pro-
posed by Goelian et al. [17] and combined it with the thermo-hydrodynamic model
of the leader channel proposed by Gallimberti [3] in order to compute the leader
inception condition. In constructing the model, it is also assumed that the ratio of
the leader velocity to leader current remains constant during the development of the
leader. Based on this analysis, the background electric field necessary to initiate
stable leaders from grounded structures was estimated as

240
E0  þ 12½kV=m (4.4)
1 þ h=10
 Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures 139

where h is the height of the structure in metres. In a later study, however, Lalande
et al. [18] proposed the following equation, which is different from the above, for
the electric field necessary to initiate a stable leader:
306:7 21:6
E0  þ ½kV=m (4.5)
1 þ h=6:1 1 þ h=132:7
Unfortunately, details as to the modifications necessary both in physics and in
mathematics to change the results from (4.4) to (4.5) were not given in Ref. [18].

4.3.4 Leader inception model of Becerra and Cooray (SLIM)

Utilizing the same physics as developed by Gallimberti [3], Becerra and Cooray
[19,20] introduced a model to evaluate the inception of connecting leaders. The
model can be applied to any grounded structure including conductors and towers of
power transmission and distribution lines. The main steps that are included in the
model are the following:
1. Formation of a streamer discharge (streamer inception) at the tip of a grounded
object.
2. Transformation of the stem of the streamer into thermalized leader channel
(unstable leader inception).
3. Extension of the positive leader and its self-sustained propagation
(stable leader inception).
In the model, the streamer inception is evaluated using the well-known strea-
mer inception criterion [3], while the transition from streamer to leader is assumed
to take place if the total charge in a streamer burst is equal to or larger than about 1
mC [3]. The condition for self-propagation of the leader, i.e. stable leader inception,
is assumed to be satisfied if the leader continues to accelerate in the background
electric field at least for a distance of a few metres. In addition, this model not only
predicts the conditions under which leaders are incepted but it provides the current
and speed of the upward-moving leaders. A detailed description of the procedure
proposed by Becerra and Cooray to evaluate the leader inception can be found in
[19,20] (see also Chapter 1 of this volume).
In the above section, we have described some of the important leader inception
models. However, inception of a connecting leader itself does not guarantee
lightning attachment. It is necessary for the connecting leader to propagate and
make the final connection with the stepped leader. There are several models that
attempt to simulate this process and they are called leader progression models.
Now, let us summarize several of these models.

4.4 Leader progression and attachment models

For a complete description of the attachment of a leader to grounded structures both
the inception of a connecting leader and its subsequent propagation and final
connection to the downward stepped leader have to be analyzed. The leader
140 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

progression models attempt to simulate the dynamics associated with this process.
Five models that, in contrast to EGM, take into account the formation of an upward
leader exist today and they were introduced by Eriksson [21], Dellera and
Garbagnati [22], Rizk [23], Becerra and Cooray [24], and Vargas and Torres
[25–27]. Only for some of them, however, the dynamic progress of downward and
upward leader is explicitly represented, as it will be illustrated in what follows. For
ease of reference, refer to these five models as A, B, C, D, and E, respectively.
Basic features of these models are schematically depicted in Figure 4.2. Note that
the description given here for the model C is based on Ref. [23]. In a recent paper,
the model was updated and improved by Rizk [15].
● In models A, C, and D, the downward stepped leader is assumed to take a
straight path to ground without branches, while in B the path is determined step
by step by the solution of subsequent electrostatic problems in which the
boundary conditions are represented essentially by the downward and upward
leaders. In E, the downward leader channel may also be tortuous and branched,
and the channel geometry is based on the statistical characterizations of natural
lightning channels as reported by Hill [28–29] and Idone and Orville [30].
● The linear charge density on the downward stepped leader channel is
assumed to decrease upwards in models A, C, D, and E. In B, the charge per

Cloud (ring changes)

Interception
locus
Downward Downward Downward
leader leader leader

Striking Striking Striking

distance distance distance
Streamer
Upward Critical zone Critical Rizk
radius Streamer
leader radius Upward zone Upward model
concept leader concept
leader
(a) (b) (c)

Downward
leader Downward
leader

Striking
Striking
distance
distance
Critical
Leader inception model Streamer streamer
Streamer of Becerra and Cooray zone Upward length
zone Upward
leader leader concept

(d) (e)

Figure 4.2 Schematics of the leader propagation models A, B, C, D, and E

(adapted from Ref. [1]). The indicated striking distance follows Golde
[5] definition
 Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures 141

unit length has two different values: one in the vicinity (last tens of metres)
of the leader tip, which is uncorrelated to the amplitude of the lightning
current and assumed equal to 100 mC/m, and the other one along the rest of
the leader channel, the magnitude of which varies with the prospective return
stroke current, along the rest of the leader channel. In D, the variation of the
charge per unit length of the stepped leader is approximated by an analytical
expression extracted by Cooray et al. [31] by analysing the charge brought to
ground by first return strokes within the first 100 ms. In E, the charge dis-
tribution along the downward stepped leader, including main channel and
branches, is estimated by an electrostatic model of the lightning leader
channel and the thundercloud [26].
● As the downward leader propagates towards the ground, the conditions at the
surface of the grounded structure are evaluated continuously to find the time of
leader inception. The criterion for upward connecting leader inception used is
either critical radius concept (A and B), Rizk’s generalized equation (C),
Becerra and Cooray procedure (D) or Vargas and Torres criteria (E). The latter
considers a streamer inception electric field assumption and the critical strea-
mer length concept [26]. It is worth noticing that models A, B and C are only
applicable to horizontal wires and vertical earthed structures [see the comment
made on model C at the beginning of this section], whereas models D and E
can be applied to any grounded structure, including complex buildings.
Recently, the procedure to apply models B and C to any grounded structure is
illustrated in references 32 and 15, respectively.
● In models A, C, D and E, the downward stepped leader path is considered unaf-
fected by the presence of upward connecting leaders. In models A, C and D, the
connecting leader travels in space in such a way that it will find the closest path for
the connection with the stepped leader. In model B, both leaders propagate in the
direction of the maximum electric field that exists along an equipotential line that
is located at the outer boundary of the streamer region. The same criterion is
applied in model E to simulate the propagation of the connecting leader.
● The ratio between the speed of propagation of the downward stepped leader and
the upward-moving stepped leader is assumed to be either 1 or 4. However, in
model D, the velocity of the upward leader is evaluated from first principles.
● In model A, the final attachment of the two leaders takes place when two tips
of the leader channel meet each other. In model B, the final jump condition is
reached when the streamer systems from the two leaders meet each other. In C,
D and E, the final jump condition is reached when the average electric field
between the two leader tips is 500 kV/m.
Recently, Mazur et al. [33] introduced a model to describe the propagation of
negative stepped leaders. They utilized the model to estimate the striking distance
of lightning flashes. In the model, the direction of a new leader step is taken to be
the direction in which the length of the negative streamers issued by the negative
leader head is longest. The direction of the positive leader is given by the direction
of the maximum electric field at the tip of the positive leader immediately outside
142 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

the boundary region with an electric field of 3 MV/m. They also assumed that the
striking distance is equal to the length of the final step of the stepped leader.
The length of the final leader step was estimated by dividing the leader potential by
the electric field of the negative streamer zone. Based on their simulations, it was
claimed that the connecting leader does not play a significant role in determining
the striking distance.
When considering the complexity of the lightning phenomena, it will always
be necessary to make a large number of assumptions and simplifications in order to
formulate a usable lightning strike model. However, the creation of leader pro-
gression models has been a major step forward and they are capable of predicting
several phenomena observed in the field. Moreover, the models seem to be well
suited for sensitivity analysis where the effects of various parameters on the effi-
ciency of lightning protection procedures are being studied by changing one para-
meter at a time. It is important to stress here that self-consistent leader progression
models can also be utilized to compliment the simple engineering models that are
being used in practice.

4.5 The potential of the stepped leader channel and the

striking distance
The potential of the leader channel cannot be measured directly but has to be
inferred from other experimental data or theory.

4.5.1 Armstrong and Whitehead [6]

Armstrong and Whitehead [6] appealed to the return stroke model of Wagner [34]
to obtain the potential of the leader channel as a function of the prospective return
stroke current. According to the model of Wagner, the potential of the leader
channel is given by the equation
2=3
V ¼ 3:7
106 IP (4.6)
In the above equation, the voltage, V, is in volts and the peak return stroke current,
Ip, in kA.

4.5.2 Leader potential extracted from the charge

neutralized by the return stroke
How the potential of the stepped leader channel can be extracted from the charge
dissipated by the first 100 ms of the return stroke channel as measured by Cooray
et al. [31] is illustrated below. The description given is identical to the procedure used
by Cooray and Rakov [35] to extract the stepped leader potential from the same data.
Cooray et al. [31] analysed the negative first return stroke currents measured
by Berger and Vogelsanger [36,37] at Monte San Salvatore to find out whether
there is any relationship between the peak current and the charge brought to ground
during the first 100 ms. They reasoned that the time interval of 100 ms is
 Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures 143

representative of the time for the return stroke front to reach the charge centre in the
cloud and therefore the charge brought to ground during this time is a result of the
neutralization of the section of the leader channel located below the charge centre.
They found that there is a strong correlation between the two parameters. Figure 4.3
shows the results obtained by Cooray et al. [31]. The relationship between the two
parameters can be represented by the equation
Q ¼ 0:061 Ip (4.7)
where Ip is the first return stroke peak current in kA and Q is the charge, in
Coulombs, transported to ground by the return stroke during the first 100 ms.
Cooray et al. [31] extended their analysis further to obtain the distribution of the
linear charge density along the leader channel as a function of return stroke peak
current. The procedure adopted by Cooray et al. [31] to extract the leader charge
distribution corresponding to a given prospective return stroke peak current is the
following. First, they assumed that the stepped leader channel can be represented
by a vertical, finitely conducting channel with a given potential gradient. The
length of the channel was selected by Cooray et al. [31] to be 4 km, a representative
value for the height of the charge centre from the measuring station used by Berger
and Vogelsanger [36,37]. Second, they assumed that, since the negative charge
region extends more in a horizontal direction than vertical, as far as the distribution
of the charge along the leader channel is concerned, the effects of the charges in the
cloud can be represented by a conducting plane charged to a given potential.

100

80
Peak current (kA)

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Charge Q

Figure 4.3 The charge dissipated by first return strokes in the first 100 ms into the
stroke (circular points). The first return stroke current waveforms used
in the study are from Berger and Vogelsanger [36] and Berger [37].
The solid line shows the linear fit to the data and the dashed line the
power fit (from Ref. [31])
144 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

This assumption led to a uniform electric field below the cloud. Third, they
assumed that the charge brought to ground during the return stroke is the sum of
positive charge necessary to neutralize the negative charge on the leader channel
and the additional positive charge induced on the leader channel due to the pre-
sence of the background electric field caused by the remaining negative charge in
the cloud. Once these assumptions are made, the analysis is carried out as follows.
First, from the observed relationship between the return stroke peak current and the
charge, as depicted in Figure 4.3, the charge corresponding to a given peak return
stroke current is obtained. Second, the background electric field was adjusted so
that the estimated total charge deposited in the leader channel by the return stroke is
equal to this charge. The resulting distribution of the charge along the leader
channel is the one corresponding to the prospective return stroke current selected.
Since the background electric field corresponding to a given charge is known (or
estimated), the leader tip potential as a function of this charge can be estimated.
This potential can be expressed as a function of return stroke peak current with the
aid of (4.7). The resulting relationship between the potential of the tip of the
stepped leader and the peak return stroke current is given by

V ¼ 3
106 IP0:813 (4.8)

where Ip is the first return stroke peak current in kA and V is the potential of the tip
of the fully extended stepped leader channel in volts. Note that the potential gra-
dient of the thermalized leader channel is about 1–2 kV/m, and the potential of the
leader channel increases (by about 1–2 kV/m) as one moves along the channel
towards the cloud.
It is important to point out here that the stepped leader tip potential obtained by
Cooray and Rakov [35] using an identical analysis is different from the one given
by (4.8). The reason for this difference is that Cooray and Rakov [35] fitted a power
curve instead of a line (as done by Cooray et al. [31]) to the data in Figure 4.3. The
best-fit curve used by Cooray and Rakov [35] is also depicted in Figure 4.3 for
comparison. However, the linear charge distribution of the stepped leader channel
as derived by Cooray et al. [31] is based on a linear fit to the data, and for this
reason it is appropriate to use the leader potential given by (4.8) together with the
charge distribution derived by Cooray et al. [31].

4.5.3 Striking distance based on the leader tip potential

In calculating the striking distance it is necessary to know the potential of the
stepped leader channel because the final jump condition is defined according to
the average potential gradient across the gap between the connecting leader and the
stepped leader channel or in the absence of a connecting leader, between the
structure and the tip of the stepped leader.
Now, if the connecting leader is short or absent, then the striking distance, S, is
given by S = V/Es. We define this as the EGM striking distance appropriate to the
given potential and denote it by Segm. In this expression, Es is the average electric
field between the stepped leader tip and the grounded structure when the final jump
 Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures 145

condition is reached. Thus, the EGM striking distance according to the study of
Armstrong and Whitehead [6] becomes (combining (4.1) and (4.6))

Regm ¼ 6:71Ip0:8 (4.9)

On the other hand, if one uses the leader potential given by (4.8) and assumes
that the average potential gradient at final jump is equal to 500 kV/m, the EGM
striking distance as a function of return stroke peak current becomes

Regm ¼ 6:0Ip0:813 (4.10)

Note that the similarity between the two equations, i.e. (4.9) and (4.10), is a
mere coincidence. In the above estimation it is assumed that the potential gradient
in the final jump zone is equal to 5
105 V/m. On the other hand, if the ground is
assumed to be completely flat then the final jump condition is reached when the
negative streamers of the stepped leader reach the ground. This happens when the
average potential gradient between the leader tip and the ground is equal to
(1–2)
106 V/m, the potential gradient of negative streamers. If an average value
of 1.5
106 V/m is used, the striking distance of a negative stepped leader to
completely flat ground becomes

S ¼ 2Ip0:183 (4.11)

This expression is approximately equal to the expression for the striking distance to flat
ground obtained by Cooray et al. [31]. The slight difference between this equation and
the one derived by Cooray et al. [31] is due to the fact that the estimation given here is
based on the exact charge distribution of the stepped leader channel as estimated in the
analysis whereas in Cooray et al. [31] an approximate analytical expression for
the same charge distribution is used to estimate the average potential gradient between
the leader tip and the ground. Note also that in the section where the striking distance is
calculated in Cooray et al. [31], the potential gradient of the negative streamer zone is
given as 5
105 V/m by mistake. Observe that the striking distance depends on the
assumed potential gradient of the negative streamer channels. In some studies this
potential gradient is assumed to be 750 kV/m. If we make this assumption the striking
distance would be larger than the one given by equation (4.11).

4.6 Comparison of EGM against SLIM

Cooray [1] and Cooray and Becerra [2] compared the results predicted by the
advanced model introduced by Becerra and Cooray [19,20,24] (called self-
consistent leader inception and propagation model, SLIM) with the predictions of
EGM. In the calculation presented by Cooray and Becerra [2], the leader tip
potential is represented by the equation derived by Cooray and Rakov [35].
However, here the potential based on the linear fit to the measured data of Cooray
et al. [31] will be used i.e. (4.8). The reason for this choice is the following.
In SLIM the electric field generated by the leader is calculated using an analytical
146 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

expression for the leader charge derived by Cooray et al. [31]. This analytical
expression is derived by Cooray et al. [31] from a linear fit to the measured data.
Thus it is appropriate to use the potential given by (4.8) in calculating the final
jump condition in SLIM. Moreover, in the study conducted by Cooray and Becerra
[2], what was calculated is the attractive radius of vertical and horizontal con-
ductors. The parameter under study here is the striking distance.
The definition of the striking distance that will be used is given in Section 4.2. The
structure studied here is a vertical structure of cylindrical shape. The tip of the structure
is a hemisphere with a radius equal to the radius of the cylindrical section. In the
calculation, the radius of the structure is assumed to be 0.1 m. Calculations are per-
formed for vertical conductor heights varying from 5 m up to 100 m. For a given
conductor, the striking distance radius is evaluated for prospective return stroke peak
currents of 5–90 kA. In the calculation it is assumed that the stepped leader approaches
vertical structure directly overhead. It is important to mention here that the calculated
striking distance depends also on the final jump condition used in the analysis. Here, it
is assumed that the final jump condition is reached when the average potential gradient
between the tips of the connecting leader and the stepped leader is equal to 500 kV/m.
Before proceeding further, let us consider the EGM. As mentioned previously,
according to the EGM a stepped leader will terminate at a point on a structure if the
potential gradient between the tip of the stepped leader and the point on the structure
reaches a critical value. Here it is assumed that this critical potential gradient is 500 kV/
m. Recall that according to SLIM the final attachment of the stepped leader to the
structure takes place when the potential gradient between the tip of the connecting leader
and the tip of the stepped leader reaches 500 kV/m. Since EGM neglects the presence of
a connecting leader, for a given leader potential EGM provides a lower limit to the
striking distance. As the length of the connecting leader increases, the striking distance
increases. Thus, the striking distance obtained by SLIM will be longer than the striking
distance predicted by EGM. Of course this is true as long as the same critical criterion
(i.e. same average potential gradient across the gap) is used for the final jump condition.
For example, in attractive radii calculations presented by Cooray and Becerra [38], it
was assumed that the potential gradient at every point in the gap should exceed 500 kV/
m before the final jump condition is reached. This condition is more restrictive than the
final jump condition based on the average potential gradient of 500 kV/m across the
gap. Figure 4.4 illustrates how the striking distance varies as the height of the structure is
increased. For comparison purposes, the EGM striking distance (i.e. (4.10)) is also
depicted in each diagram. Analytical expressions for the variation of striking distance as
a function of peak current for different heights are tabulated in Table 4.1.
Note, from the data given in Figure 4.4, that the difference between the striking
distances calculated using SLIM and EGM increases with increasing structure
height. For a given height, the difference is less for smaller currents than for the
larger ones. However, for structure heights less than about 30 m, the differences in
the striking distances are negligible for practical purposes even for peak return
stroke currents as large as 90 kA. For peak return stroke currents less than about 16
kA, the difference between SLIM and EGM is less than about 30% for structure
heights less than about 50 m.
 Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures 147

250 300

250
200

Striking distance (m)

Striking distance (m)

200
150
150
100
100

50 50

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) Return stroke peak current (kA) (b) Return stroke peak current (kA)

400 400

300 300
Striking distance (m)

Striking distance (m)

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
(c) Return stroke peak current (kA) (d) Return stroke peak current (kA)

500 600

400
Striking distance (m)
Striking distance (m)

400
300

200
200

100

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
(e) Return stroke peak current (kA) (f ) Return stroke peak current (kA)

Figure 4.4 The striking distance of vertical structures (cylindrical in shape) of

different heights evaluated from the model of Becerra and Cooray
[19,20,24] (solid line). The dashed lines correspond to the striking
distance that one would obtain if the presence of the connecting leader
is neglected (i.e. from the EGM). Results are shown for structure
heights of (a) 10 m, (b) 20 m, (c) 30 m, (d) 50 m, (e) 70 m and (f) 100 m
148 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Table 4.1 Analytical expression for the striking distance as a function of peak
return stroke current, Ip, for different structure heights

Height (m) S ¼ aI bp S ¼ aq þ bq I p þ cq Ip2

a b aq bq cq

10 6.0 0.813 10.378 2.979 5.75
103

20 5.824 0.835 9.595 3.129 5.15
103
30 4.953 0.920 1.97 3.911 5.85
103
40 4.8 0.966 4.142 4.765 8.61
103
50 4.835 0.993 8.315 5.497 11.08
103
60 5.017 1.006 10.743 6.101 13.35
103
70 5.106 1.021 14.04 6.667 15.04
103
80 5.271 1.028 15.662 7.107 16.26
103
90 5.299 1.039 17.528 7.480 17.24
103
100 5.497 1.039 18.409 7.795 18.33
103

Coefficients for both power and quadratic fits are tabulated. In the case of EGM, the striking distance is
given by S ¼ 6Ip0:813 or S ¼ 10:38 þ 2:98Ip þ :006Ip2 . The striking distance is given in metres and the
peak return stroke current in kA. The quadratic function fits the data better than the power function.

4.7 Points where more investigations are needed

It is important to note here first that, since the knowledge concerning the detailed
mechanism of the lightning flash and the relevant physics is not available, it is difficult
and sometimes even impossible to justify the assumptions that are being made in
developing lightning strike models. In creating a model one has to achieve a balance
between the correct model and the correct physics. One can simplify the model very
much and get the physics correctly but such a procedure does not help because the
model will be very far from the reality. On the other hand, one can make the model
complicated but at the same time one has to downplay the physics of the problem
because the exact physics of the complicated processes taking place during a lightning
flash is not known. Whatever the case, when considering the complexity of the light-
ning phenomena, it will always be necessary to make several assumptions and simpli-
fications in order to formulate a usable lightning strike model. Some of these
assumptions may not be easy to justify because of our limited knowledge on the physics
of the process under consideration. Let us consider the points where more research is
needed to justify or falsify the assumptions made in developing lightning strike models.

4.7.1 Orientation of the stepped leader

In the leader progression models, two assumptions are made concerning the path of
propagation of the stepped leader. In the model of Dellera and Garbagnati [22,39],
it is assumed that the leaders travel along the maximum electric field direction.
Consequence of this assumption is that the path of the stepped leader is influenced
by the grounded structures and by the connecting leaders. This is the case since
these structures can modify the magnitude and direction of the electric field
 Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures 149

experienced by the stepped leader. In the models of Rizk [23] and Becerra and Cooray
[19,20,24], it is assumed that the path of propagation of the stepped leader is not
influenced both by the grounded structures and by the connecting leader until the final
jump condition is reached. Of course the first assumption makes some physical sense
but it is not that clear how this assumption should be applied in practice. It is difficult, if
not impossible, to determine the direction of the maximum electric field ahead of the
leader channel due to following reasons: the space in front of the leader channel is
occupied by streamer discharges that supply the current necessary for the propagation
of the leader. The electric field configuration in front of the leader channel is deter-
mined by the spatial distribution of the space charge of the streamer system, which, due
to the random nature of the electrical discharges, is not uniform. Thus, the exact dis-
tribution of the electric field in space in front of the leader cannot be determined with
certainty. Moreover, the direction of the stem of the streamer system, which becomes
the new leader segment, may to some extent be controlled by the space charge lying
ahead of it. This space charge reduces the electric field at the stem and therefore the
direction of the next section of the leader channel may lie in a direction away from the
main concentration of the space charge [40]. The situation is even more complicated in
the case of negative stepped leaders. In this case, the high electric field at the outer edge
of the negative streamer system leads to the creation of a space stem. Subsequently, this
space stem is converted to a space leader. The space leader extends in two direction,
one end moving towards the tip of the stepped leader and the other away from it. When
the two leaders meet (i.e. space leader and the stepped leader) the space leader
becomes the next step of the stepped leader. Thus, the location of the space stem with
respect to the tip of the leader channel will decide the direction of the next leader
step. The theory available at present cannot be used to predict the exact location of the
space stem with respect to the electric field configuration. Thus, the exact direction of
the new step of the leader (or its current direction of propagation) is not a parameter that
can be predicted easily. Indeed it is this random nature of the discharge that causes the
leader channel to take a tortuous path. It is important to note, however, that Mazur et al.
[33] assumed that the direction of a new leader step (and hence the direction of pro-
pagation of the stepped leader) coincides with the direction in which the length of the
negative streamers issued by the negative stepped leader is longest.
The next problem is our lack of knowledge concerning the external electric field
necessary to divert the direction of propagation of a stepped leader channel. The
engine that drives the leaders is the streamer bursts created in front of the leader
channel, and the direction of propagation of the streamers is controlled mainly by the
electric field produced by the already thermalized leader channel. The background
electric field necessary for the propagation of negative streamers is about 1 to 2 MV/
m and it is reasonable to assume that in order to divert the direction of the negative
streamer bursts the background electric field may reach values comparable to this
value. If this is correct, then the background electric field produced at the head of the
negative stepped leader channel by the grounded structures or the connecting leader
has to reach values comparable to 1–2 MV/m to divert the path of the stepped
leader channel. This can happen only when the grounded structure or the connecting
leader has approached the down-coming stepped leader almost to the point of final
jump distance. This, to some extent, justifies the assumption that the stepped leader
150 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

path is not influenced by the grounded structure or the connecting leader until the
final jump condition is reached. Of course, in reality, the situation could lie some-
where in between these two extreme scenarios.
One clear example of a time-resolved stepped leader that propagated without
being much influenced by the connecting leader is shown in Figure 15 of Berger [41].
In this example, the connecting leader issued from the tower propagated first upwards
for a distance of about 10–20 m and then turned towards the down-coming stepped
leader and met it at point A (marked in Figure 15 of Berger [41]), which is at a height
of about 40–50 m from the tip of the tower. More time-resolved photographs similar
to this are needed to investigate how the electric fields created by structures and
connecting leaders can influence the path of negative stepped leaders.

4.7.2 The orientation of the connecting leader

In some of the leader propagation models, it is assumed that the positive connecting
leader always travel towards the tip of the down-coming negative stepped leader. The
discussion made above concerning the direction of propagation of negative leaders is
also applicable to the positive leader. However, one difference is that the background
electric field necessary for the propagation of positive streamers is about 450–500 kV/m
and this is considerably less than the background electric field necessary for the pro-
pagation of negative streamers. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the background
electric field necessary to influence the propagation of positive leaders is less than the
ones required to influence the negative stepped leaders. Thus, the influence of the
negative stepped leader on the path of the positive connecting leader is more pro-
nounced than the influence of the positive connecting leader on the path of the negative
stepped leader. However, in SLIM, for example, it is assumed that the connecting leader
from the very beginning of its initiation travels towards the negative stepped
leader xtip. The reality lies again somewhere in between. Initially, the positive con-
necting leader may travel without much influence from the negative stepped leader but it
may turn towards it when the background electric field produced by the negative step-
ped leader is large enough to influence the direction of the movement of streamers
located ahead of the positive leader. Actually, the photograph referred to in the previous
section shows that the positive leader initially travelled vertically upwards without much
influence from the negative leader but later turned towards the negative stepped leader.
However, the independent upward movement of the connecting leader may take place
only when the stepped leader tip is far from the grounded structure. Fortunately, during
that time the orientation of the tip of the negative leader with respect to the structure is
also close to the vertical making the above assumption reasonable. Detailed analysis of
time-resolved pictures of lightning strikes could shed more light on this problem.

4.7.3 The connection between the leader potential and the

return stroke current
One of the fundamental assumptions in lightning protection studies is the existence
of a relationship between the potential of the stepped leader and the prospective
peak return stroke current. Once this relationship is known, one can extract from it
 Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures 151

the other engineering parameters such as the striking distance. The existence of
such a relationship is in agreement with physical considerations because the charge
that will be stored on the down-coming leader channel is related to its potential and
the resulting return stroke current, which, in turn, is governed by this charge. The
final jump condition between the connecting leader (or the grounded structure) and
the stepped leader is reached when the average potential gradient between the tips
of the two leaders (or between the grounded structure and the tip of the stepped
leader) is equal to the critical electric field necessary for positive streamer propa-
gation. Thus, the main parameter that influences the final jump condition is the
potential of the stepped leader channel.
Here and in the study conducted by Cooray and Rakov [35], the potential of
the stepped leader channel is evaluated first by theoretically analysing the charge
on the stepped leader channel as a function of its potential and then connecting
this charge to the charge brought to ground by the return strokes over the first
100 ms of the discharge in the current waveforms measured by Berger and
Vogelsanger [36] and Berger [37]. The detailed procedure of the analysis and the
assumptions involved were discussed by Cooray et al. [31]. The validity of
the assumptions made in the analysis was tested by Cooray et al. [31] at least for
the subsequent return strokes by checking whether the derived relationship
between the charge and the current could provide a fit to the experimentally
observed relationship between the magnitude of the close electric fields and the
return stroke peak current. Recently, Mazur and Ruhnke [42] attempted to obtain
the leader potential from the remote measurements of the electric field change
produced by the stepped leader and connecting this derived potential to the return
stroke current estimated from the lightning location systems. Unfortunately, they
could not find a strong relationship between the derived leader potential and the
return stroke current. The various assumptions made in simulating the leader
channel together with the fact that the currents used in the analysis were not
measured but were estimates from the direction finding systems may have
influenced to some extent the obtained results.
More studies should be conducted to get more accurate values of leader
potential because, as shown in this chapter, it is the most important parameter in
lightning attachment. The experimental data show that the mechanism of the
negative leader is similar to that of laboratory sparks. If this is the case, then
the step length is approximately equal to the extension of the streamer region. The
extension of the streamer region is a measure of the potential of the leader channel.
Thus, by measuring the average step length as a function of return stroke current
one may be able to derive an expression for the variation of leader potential with
return stroke current. For example, Figure 4.5 depicts the length of the leader step
as a function of prospective return stroke current calculated using the leader charge
distribution extracted by Cooray et al. [31]. In the calculation it is assumed that the
space stem is created at the edge of the streamer region. The estimated leader step
lengths correspond to leaders at a height of 300 m from ground level. Note that the
estimated leader step lengths for typical return stroke currents are considerably
smaller than the typical value of 50 m estimated in classical studies.
152 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

60

40

Step length (m)

20

0
0 20 40 60 80
Prospective return stroke peak current (kA)

Figure 4.5 The length of the leader step as a function of prospective return stroke
current calculated using the leader charge distribution extracted by
Cooray et al. [31]. In the calculation it is assumed that the space stem
is created at the edge of the streamer region

4.7.4 Inclination of the leader channel

Almost all the studies reported so far in the literature have assumed the leader
channel to propagate vertically downwards. However, to establish the full picture
of lightning strikes, it is necessary to complement these studies using inclined
leader channels. Such analysis also requires information concerning how to repre-
sent the charge distribution along inclined stepped leader channels. Future studies
should also be directed to address such issues.

4.7.5 Main assumptions of SLIM

In constructing SLIM, several assumptions and approximations are made especially
in calculating the streamer charge. First, it was assumed that the corona region is
conical in shape. This is based on some of the experimental evidence available in the
literature [19,20,24]. However, more studies are needed to establish the correct shape
of the streamer region. In calculating the streamer charge it was assumed that as the
streamers grow from the head of the leader the background potential is changed only
in the streamer region while the potential distribution ahead of the streamer region is
unaffected. In reality, as the streamers extend forward they will also modify the
potential distribution ahead of them [43]. Future studies should address this issue.
Moreover, in calculating the streamer charge it was assumed that the area associated
with the region in a potential–distance diagram between the line representing the
potential of the streamer region (denoted by a straight line) and the background
potential is proportional to the streamer charge. In future studies, this assumption
should be relaxed and the streamer charge should be calculated from first principles.
The first attempt in this direction was made recently by Arevalo et al. [44].
 Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures 153

Recently, based on a back-of-the-envelope calculation, Rizk [15] concluded that

SLIM is incapable of predicting the correct inception voltage of a 10-m long gap
experiments conducted by Les Renardiéres Group. Interestingly, SLIM had already
been tested against the data from the same long gap experiment referred to in Rizk
[15] by Becerra and Cooray [20] and a good agreement was found between the
predicted and experimentally observed leader inception and breakdown voltages.

4.8 Concluding remarks

The main conclusion that can be extracted from the work presented in the chapter is
that the connecting leader does not play a significant role in the case of lightning
attachment to normal (i.e. short) structures. For structures shorter than about 30 m, one
can use EGM without significant errors. However, it is important to stress here that this
difference may still play an important role when two conductors are competing with
each other to get attached to a down-coming stepped leader. In such cases, the pre-
dictions of EGM and SLIM so as to the point of attachment may differ from each other.
Note also that in the comparison between lightning strike models, the same leader
charge distribution and leader potential should be used in all models. It is only then the
concepts and predictions of different models could be tested against each other. This is
a point worth keeping in mind because there are many lightning strike models in the
literature, each based on a different leader charge distribution or leader potential.

References
[1] Cooray, V., A review of simulation procedures utilized to study the attach-
ment of lightning flashes to grounded structures, Prepared on behalf of the
CIGRE working groupC4.405, Electra, 257, pp. 48–55, 2011.
[2] Cooray, V. and M. Becerra, Attractive radii of vertical and horizontal con-
ductors evaluated using a self consistent leader inception and propagation
model – SLIM, Atmos. Res., 2011, Accepted for publication in Atmos. Res.,
Available online in Science Direct since August, 2011.
[3] Gallimberti, I., The mechanism of long spark formation, J. Physique Coll.,
40, C7, suppl. 7, pp. 193–250, 1972.
[4] Bazelyan, E. M. and Y. P. Raizer, Spark Discharge, CRC Press, New York,
1977.
[5] Golde, R. H., Lightning Protection, Edward Arnold, London, 1973.
[6] Armstrong, H. R. and E. R. Whitehead, Field and analytical studies of
transmission line shielding, IEEE Trans., PAS-87, (1), pp. 270–279, 1968.
[7] Les Renardiéres Group, Research on long air gap discharges—1973 results,
Electra 35, pp. 47–155, 1974.
[8] Carrara, G. and L. Thione, Switching surge strength of large air gaps: a phy-
sical approach, IEEE Trans., PAS-95, (2), pp. 512–524, March/April, 1976.
[9] Bernardi, M., L. Dellera, E. Garbagnati, G. Sartorio, Leader progression model
of lightning: Updating of the model on the basis of recent tests results, Proc.
23rd Int. Conf. Lightning Protection (ICLP), Florence, Italy, September, 1996.
154 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[10] Akyuz, M. and V. Cooray, The Franklin lightning conductor: conditions

necessary for the initiation of a connecting leader, J. Electrostat., 51–52,
pp. 319–325, 2001.
[11] Chernov, E. N., A. V. Lupeiko, N. I. Petrov, Investigation of spark discharge
in long air gaps using Pockel’s device, Proc. 7th Int. Symp. High Voltage
Eng., Dresden, pp. 141–144, 1991.
[12] Petrov, N. I. and R. T. Waters, Determination of the striking distance of
lightning to earthed structures, Proc. R. Soc. A, 450, pp. 589–601, 1995.
[13] Bazelyan, E. M. and Y. P. Raizer, Lightning Physics and Lightning
Protection, Institute of Physics, Bristol, 2000.
[14] Rizk, F., A model for switching impulse leader inception and breakdown of
long air-gaps, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, 4, (1), pp. 596–603, 1989.
[15] Rizk, F., Modeling of lightning exposure of buildings and massive struc-
tures, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, 24, (4), pp. 1987–1998, 2009.
[16] Lalande, P., Study of the lightning stroke conditions on a grounded structure,
Doctoral thesis, Office National d’Etudes et de Recherches A’erospatiales
ONERA, France, 1996.
[17] Goelian, N., P. Lalande, A. Bondiou-Clergerie, G. L. Bacchiega, A. Gazzani, I.
Gallimberti, A simplified model for the simulation of positive-spark develop-
ment in long air gaps, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 30, pp. 2441–2452, 1997.
[18] Lalande, P., A. Bondiou-Clergerie, G. Bacchiega, I. Gallimberti,
Observations and modeling of lightning leaders, C.R. Physique, 3, pp. 1375–
1392, 2002.
[19] Becerra, M. and V. Cooray, A simplified physical model to determine the
lightning upward connecting leader inception, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery,
21, (2), pp. 897–908, 2006.
[20] Becerra, M. and V. Cooray, Time dependent evaluation of the lightning
upward connecting leader inception, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 39, pp. 4695–
4702, 2006.
[21] Eriksson, A. J., An improved electrogeometric model for transmission line
shielding analysis, IEEE Trans., PWDR-2, pp. 871–877, 1987.
[22] Dellera, L. and E. Garbagnati, Lightning strike simulation by means of the
Leader Progression Model: II. Exposure and shielding failure evaluation of
overhead lines with assessment of application graphs, IEEE Trans. Power
Delivery, PWRD-5, pp. 2023–2029, 1990.
[23] Rizk, F., Modeling of lightning incidence to tall structures. Part I: Theory,
IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, PWRD-9, pp. 162–171, 1994.
[24] Becerra, M. and V. Cooray, A self-consistent upward leader propagation
model, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 39, pp. 3708–3715, 2006.
[25] Vargas, M., Novel integral model of the lightning discharge channel and its
attachment to grounded structures, Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Engineering,
National University of Colombia, Bogotá D.C., Colombia, 2006.
[26] Vargas, M. and H. Torres, On the development of a lightning leader model
for tortuous or branched channels – Part I: Model description, J. Electrostat.,
66, (9+10), October, pp. 482–488, 2008.
 Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded structures 155

[27] Vargas, M. and H. Torres, On the development of a lightning leader model

for tortuous or branched channels – Part II: Model results, J. Electrostat., 66,
(9+10), October, pp. 489–495, 2008.
[28] Hill, R. D., Analysis of irregular paths of lightning channels, J. Geophys.
Res., 73, (6), pp. 1897–1906, 1968.
[29] Hill, R. D., Tortuosity of lightning, Atmos. Res., 22, (3), pp. 217–233, 1988.
[30] Idone, V. and R. Orville, Channel tortuosity variation in Florida triggered
lightning, Geophys. Res. Lett., 15, (7), pp. 645–648, 1988.
[31] Cooray, V., V. Rakov, N. Theethayi, The lightning striking distance –
revisited, J. Electrostat., 65, (5,6), pp. 296–306, 2007.
[32] Borghetti, A., F. Napolitano, C. A. Nucci, M. Paolone, M. Bernardi, Numerical
solution of the leader progression model by means of the finite element method,
Proc. 30th Int. Confer. Lightning Protection, Cagliary, Italy, 2010.
[33] Mazur, V., L. Ruhnke, A. Bondiou-Clergerie, P. Lalande, Computer simu-
lation of a downward negative stepped leader and its interaction with a
grounded structure, J. Geophys. Res., 105, (D17), pp. 22361–22369, 2000.
[34] Wagner, C. F., Relation between stroke current and velocity of the return
stroke, IEEE Trans., PAS-82, pp. 609–617, 1963.
[35] Cooray, V. and V. Rakov, On the upper and lower limit of peak current of
first return strokes in negative lightning flashes, Atmos. Res., 117, 2012.
[36] Berger, K. and E. Vogelsanger, Measurement and results of lightning records
at Monte San Salvatore from 1955–1963 (in German), Bull. Schweiz.
Elektrotech., 56, pp. 2–22, 1965.
[37] Berger, K., Methods and results of lightning records at Monte San Salvatore
from 1963–1971 (in German), Bull. Schweiz. Elektrotech. Ver., 63,
pp. 1403– 1422, 1972.
[38] Cooray, V. and M. Becerra, Attachment of lightning flashes to grounded struc-
tures, in Cooray, V. (ed.), Lightning Protection, The IET, London, 2009
[39] Dellera, L. and E. Garbagnati, Lightning simulation by means of the leader
progression model, I. Description of the model and evaluation of exposure of
free standing structure, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, 5, (4), pp. 20009–20017,
1990a.
[40] Cooray, V, Origin of the fine scale tortuosity in sharks and leader channels,
Atmosphere, 9, p. 205, 2018.
[41] Berger, K, The Earth flash, in Golde, R. H., (ed.), Lightning, vol. 1,
Academic Press, London, UK, 1977
[42] Mazur, V. and L. H. Rhunke, Determining the striking distance of lightning
through its relationship to leader potential, J. Geophys. Res., 108, p. 4409,
doi:1029/2002JD003047, 2003
[43] Cooray, V., H. Jayasinghe, M. Rubinstein, F. Rachid, The geometry and
charge of the streamer bursts generated by lightning rods under the influence
of high electric fields, Atmosphere, 13(12), p. 2028, 2022
[44] Arevalo, L., V. Cooray, D. Wu, Laboratory long gaps simulation considering
a variable corona region, Proc. Int. Confer. Lightning Protection (ICLP),
Cagliary, Italy, 2010
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 5
Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers
Farhad Rachidi1 and Marcos Rubinstein2

5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we present a review of recent progress in the modeling of lightning
strikes to tall structures. Since some tall structures are struck by lightning several
tens of times per year, they can be used as ground-truth to measure and calibrate the
location accuracy of lightning location systems. In addition, knowledge of the
transient processes in tall objects when they a subjected to a lightning strike allows
us to use them to calibrate the lightning return stroke currents reported by lightning
detection and location systems. Tall objects constitute also a primary source of data
from which channel-base lightning current statistics are obtained. These statistics
are in turn used to improve the design of lightning protection devices and systems.
This chapter is organized as follows: Section 5.2 presents a review of the
extension of lightning return stroke models to include the presence of an elevated
strike object. Section 5.3 deals with the computational methods for the evaluation
of the electromagnetic fields generated by lightning strikes to tall structures. A
review of available data on lightning currents from lightning to tall structures is
presented in Section 5.4. Finally, a summary is given in Section 5.5.

5.2 Modeling lightning strikes to tall structures

The presence of an elevated strike object has been included in two classes of return-
stroke models, namely the engineering models and the electromagnetic or antenna-
theory (AT) models, as defined by Rakov and Uman [1]. In the engineering return-stroke
models, the spatial and temporal distribution of the channel current is specified based on
observed characteristics such as channel-base current, return-stroke speed, and remote
electromagnetic fields. The presence of an elevated strike object in such models has been
considered by assuming the object as a uniform, lossless transmission line (e.g., [2]). In
AT models (e.g., [3–6]), the strike object and the lightning channel are represented using
thin wires. Maxwell’s equations are numerically solved using usually the method of

1
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland
2
School of Engineering and Management Vaud, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts
Western Switzerland
158 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

moments (MoM) [7] to find the current distribution along the lightning channel, from
which the radiated electromagnetic fields can be computed. Besides the electromagnetic
and engineering model classes, the so-called Hybrid Electromagnetic/circuit theory or
HEM/circuit theory model could be considered as a third class based on a combination
of the electromagnetic approach and circuit theory (e.g., [8,9]). Each of the model classes
will be presented in turn in the next few sections.

5.2.1 Engineering models

To analyze the interaction of lightning with tall strike objects, some of the engineering
return-stroke models, initially developed for the case of return-strokes initiated at
ground, have been extended to take into account the presence of a vertically-extended
strike object (e.g., [10–24]). In some of these models, it is assumed that a current pulse
io(t) associated with the return-stroke process is injected at the lightning attachment
point, both into the strike object and into the lightning channel (e.g., [11,12,14–21]).
The upward-moving wave propagates along the channel at the return-stroke speed v as
specified by the return-stroke model. The downward-moving wave propagates at the
speed of light along the strike object, assumed to be a lossless, uniform transmission line
characterized by constant non-zero reflection coefficients at its top and its bottom. As
noted in [13], the assumption of two identical current waves injected into the lightning
channel and into the strike object implies that their characteristic impedances are equal
to each other. If the impedance of the channel is considered to be time-invariant, this
assumption appears to compromise the self-consistency of the models in that there is no
impedance discontinuity at the tower top at the time of lightning attachment to the
tower, but there is one when the reflections from ground arrive at the tower top.

5.2.1.1 Extension of engineering models based on a distributed

source representation
Rachidi et al. [2] presented an extension of the so-called engineering return-stroke
models, taking into account the presence of a vertically extended strike object, that
does not employ the assumption that identical current pulses are launched both
upward and downward from the object top. The extension is based on a distributed-
source representation of the return-stroke channel [25,26], which allows for more
general and straightforward formulations of these models than the traditional
representations, which imply a lumped current source at the bottom of the channel.
The general equations for the spatial–temporal distribution of the current along
the lightning channel and along the strike object derived in [2] are:

   
0 0 z0  h z0  h
iðz ; tÞ ¼ Pðz  hÞio h; t   rt io h; t 
v c
X1    
h þ z0 2nh z0  h
þ ð1  rt Þð1 þ rt Þ rg rt io h; t 
nþ1 n
 u t
n¼0
c c v
(5.1)

for h<z0 <H0

 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 159

1

X    
h þ z0 2nh h þ z0 2nh
iðz0 ; tÞ ¼ ð1  rt Þ rnt rng io h; t   þ rnt rnþ1
g io h; t  
n¼0
c c c c
(5.2)
0
for 0  z  h
where h is the height of the tower, rt and rg are the top and bottom current
reflection coefficients for upward and downward propagating waves, respectively,
given by
Zt  Zch
rt ¼ (5.3)
Zt þ Zch
Zt  Zg
rg ¼ (5.4)
Zt þ Zg
H0 is the total height of the extending return-stroke channel, c is the speed of light,
P(z0 ) is a model-dependent attenuation function, u(t) the Heaviside unit-step func-
tion, v is the return-stroke front speed, and v* is the current–wave speed.
Expressions for P(z0 ) and v* for some of the most commonly used return-stroke
models are summarized in Table 5.1, in which l is the attenuation height for the
MTLE model and Htot is the total height of the lightning channel.
Equations (5.1) and (5.2) are based on the concept of ‘undisturbed current’
io(t), which represents the ‘ideal’ current that would be measured at the tower top if
the current reflection coefficients at both of its extremities were equal to zero.
It is assumed that the current reflection coefficients rt and rg are constant. In
addition, any upward connecting leader and any reflections at the return-stroke
wavefront [19] are disregarded.
An extension of the engineering models was proposed by Mosaddeghi et al.
[27] that takes into account the presence of possible reflections at the return stroke
wavefront and a return stroke initiation above the structure due to an upward
connecting leader. Based on the approach proposed by Shostak et al. [19],
Mosaddeghi et al. derived closed-form iterative solutions for the current distribu-
tion along the channel and the strike object. Mosaddeghi et al. [27] used their
enhanced model to obtain simulations for the magnetic fields and compared them

Table 5.1 P(z´) and v* for different return-

stroke models

Model P(z0 ) v*
BG 1 ?
TCS 1 c
TL 1 v
MTLL 1z0 /Htot v
MTLE exp(z0 /l) v

Adapted from [1].

160 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

with experimental waveforms associated with lightning strikes to the CN Tower in

Toronto (553 m). They showed that taking into account the reflections at the return-
stroke wavefront results in a better agreement regarding the typical features of the
magnetic fields [27].

5.2.1.2 Extension of engineering models based on a lumped

series voltage source
Baba and Rakov [24,28] proposed an alternative approach to Rachidi et al.’s dis-
tributed source representation [2] using a lumped series voltage source at the
junction point between the channel and the strike object. They showed that such a
representation ensures appropriate boundary conditions at the attachment point and
is equivalent to the distributed source representation [28]. In their representation,
Baba and Rakov expressed the spatialtemporal distribution of the current along
the strike object and along the channel in terms of the short-circuit current isc(t),
which is related to the undisturbed current through
isc ðtÞ ¼ 2i0 ðtÞ (5.5)
Furthermore, in [28], Baba and Rakov considered in their expressions a dif-
ferent speed vref for the upward propagating current waves reflected from the
ground and then transmitted into the lightning channel.
Note that an equivalent representation in terms of the so-called reference
current – the current that would flow through the return-stroke channel in the
absence of the elevated struck object – has also been proposed by Shigihara and
Piantini ([29]).

5.2.1.3 On the representation of the elevated strike object

In all engineering models, the elevated strike object is modeled as an ideal trans-
mission line. To include the structural discontinuities of the elevated strike object,
several transmission line sections in cascade (e.g., [14,30]) or circuit models [1]
have also been considered. The transmission line representation of the elevated
strike object has been shown to yield reasonable results in comparison with
experimental data. However, the waveforms of experimentally measured current
data associated with lightning to tall structures are affected by other, less-easily
controlled factors such as the variability of the lightning channel impedance and
possible reflections at the return-stroke wavefront [31]. In [32], Bermudez et al.
presented an experimental validation of the transmission line representation of an
elevated object struck by lightning. The experimental results were obtained using a
reduced-scale model and injected signals with narrow pulse widths (down to
500 ps). The validation was performed using a reduced scale structure representing
the Toronto CN Tower in Canada. Two models consisting, respectively, of a single
section uniform transmission line and a 3-section uniform transmission line were
considered for the comparison. It was shown that the 3-section model was able to
accurately reproduce the obtained experimental data. The overall agreement
between the single-section model and the experimental results was also satisfactory
for the early-time response, although some differences appeared for later times.
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 161

FDTD simulations performed by Baba and Rakov [33] and confirmed by

Shoory et al. [34] suggest that the waveguide properties of a biconical antenna
(representing a tower) depend on the direction of propagation. In particular, while
the current pulses suffer no attenuation as they travel from the tower apex to its
base, the attenuation is significant when they propagate from the base to the apex
[33]. This finding might render questionable the validity of reflection coefficients
at ground level inferred from the measurements of current at the top of the tower.

5.2.1.4 Current distribution along the channel as predicted by

engineering models
Pavanello et al. [35] compared the spatial-temporal distribution of the current
predicted by engineering models (based on the distributed source representation),
employing an undisturbed current io(t), given by

Io1 ðt=t1 Þ2  
ðt=t2 Þ t=t3 t=t4
io ðh; tÞ ¼ e þ I o2 e  e (5.6)
h 1 þ ðt=t1 Þ2

This undisturbed current is shown in Figure 5.1, where the values of the
parameters chosen are Io1 = 9.9 kA, h = 0.845, t1 = 0.072 ms, t2 = 5.0 ms, Io2 = 7.5
kA, t3 = 100.0 ms, t4 = 6.0 ms. These values correspond to the channel-base current
adopted in [36] to compare ground-initiated lightning return-stroke models.
Starting from the same undisturbed current, the spatialtemporal distributions of
the current along the channel and along the strike object were calculated for each
model (see Figure 5.2).

12

10

8
io(h,t)
Current (kA)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (μs)

Figure 5.1 Undisturbed current (adapted from [34])

162 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2
2,000 2,000
TL BG
1,800 t =10 μs 1,800 t =10 μs
1,600 1,600
1,400 1,400
1,200 1,200
z', m

z', m
1,000 1,000
800 800
600 600
400 t =1 μs 400 t =1 μs
200 200
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(a) I(z', t), kA (b) I (z', t), kA

2,000 2,000
MTLL TCS
1,800 1,800 t =10 μs
t =10 μs
1,600 1,600
1,400 1,400
1,200 1,200
z', m

z', m

1,000 1,000
800 800
600 600
400 t =1 μs 400 t =1 μs
200 200
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(c) I (z', t), kA (d) I (z', t), kA

2,000
MTLE
1,800
t =10 μs
1,600
1,400
1,200
z', m

1,000
800
600
400 t =1 μs
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(e) I (z', t), kA

Figure 5.2 Current as a function of height z0 at ten instants of time, t = 1, 2, . . . ,

10 ms, for five models starting from the same undisturbed current
(shown in Figure 5.1). (a) TL model, (b) BG model, (c) MTLL model,
(d) TCS model, (e) MTLE model. The horizontal line indicates the
height of the tower (168 m). (Adapted from [35])

In the calculation, the elevated strike object was assumed to have a height
h = 168 m, corresponding to the Peissenberg tower in Germany, and the reflection
coefficients were set, respectively, to rt = 0.53 and rg = 0.7 [37].
Figure 5.2 shows the current distribution along the tower and along the chan-
nel, at different time instants (t = 1, 2, .., 10 ms), predicted by each model.
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 163

25 30
Top of the tower Bottom of the tower

20 25

20
Current (kA)

Current (kA)
15
15
10
10
5
5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a) Time (Ps) (b) Time (μs)

Figure 5.3 Current at the top (a) and at the bottom (b) of a 168-m tower (adapted
from [35])

It can be seen that [35]

– In accordance with (5.2), the current distribution along the tower (the lower
part of each figure, for heights up to the 168 m height of the tower) is inde-
pendent of the model.
– The BG and TCS models exhibit a strong discontinuity at the return-stroke
wavefront, inherent in these models [1].
– Although not clearly visible due to the vertical scale of Figure 5.2, the return-
stroke wavefront for the TL, MTLL and MTLE models also exhibits a dis-
continuity at the front. This discontinuity arises from the fact that the current
injected into the tower at its top is reflected back and forth at its top and bottom
ends, and portions of this current are transmitted into the channel; these
transmitted pulses, which are assumed to travel at the speed of light, catch up
with the return-stroke wavefront traveling at a lower speed, but are not allowed
to propagate into the leader channel above the return-stroke front [38].
Figure 5.3 shows the waveforms of current evaluated at the top (168 m) and the
base of the tower (0 m). The effects of the multiple reflections at the tower extre-
mities are clearly visible in the waveforms. It can also be seen that the current at the
tower base has a higher peak value due to the contribution from the reflected wave
at ground level [35].

5.2.1.5 Determination of reflection coefficients at the top and

the bottom of the strike object
Engineering models require that the reflection coefficients at the top and bottom of the
strike object be known. In most of the studies, those coefficients are assumed to be
constant and frequency-independent. The values of the reflection coefficients have
been inferred by several authors from a limited experimental set of current waveforms
found in the literature [39–41]. The knowledge of the reflection coefficients is also
required to extract the ‘primary’ (or undisturbed) current exempt from the disturbances
introduced by the transient processes along the tower. Guerrieri et al. [12] proposed a
formula, corrected by Rachidi et al. [2], to extract the undisturbed current. The formula
164 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

involves an infinite summation in the time domain, assuming that the reflection coef-
ficients are constant and known. Gavric [42] proposed an iterative method based on the
electromagnetic transient program (EMTP) to remove superimposed reflections caused
by a strike tower from digitally recorded lightning flash currents. Janischewskyj et al.
[43] derived reflection coefficients at the CN Tower in Toronto and stated that the
values depend on the initial rise time of the measured current, although the limited
number of points in their plots render the drawing of conclusions difficult. A depen-
dence on the risetime would suggest that at least one of the reflection coefficients is a
function of the frequency. They also proposed a method to extract the reflection
coefficients from the measured current waveform. However, their method is applicable
only assuming a simplified current waveform (double ramp) and neglecting any fre-
quency dependence for the reflection coefficients. The last consideration was relaxed in
a first approximation by Bermudez et al. [22]. They derived a frequency-domain
counterpart of expressions (5.1) and (5.2) which include the frequency-dependence of
reflection coefficients. They also derived an expression to calculate the reflection
coefficient as a function of frequency at the bottom of the lightning strike object from
two currents measured at different heights along the strike object.
Interestingly, Bermudez et al. [22] showed that, if the current and its time
derivative overlap with reflections at the top or bottom of the strike object, it is
impossible to derive the reflection coefficient at the top of the strike object exactly
regardless of the number of simultaneous current measurements and they proposed
an extrapolation method to estimate this reflection coefficient. They applied their
proposed methodology to experimental data obtained on the Peissenberg Tower
(Germany) consisting of lightning currents measured at two heights and obtained
results that suggest that the reflection coefficient at ground level can be considered
as practically constant in the frequency range 100 kHz to 800 kHz [22].

5.2.2 Electromagnetic models

Electromagnetic models have been widely employed by lightning researchers for
investigating lightning strikes to tall structures. An AT-type model was first proposed
by Podgorski and Landt in 1985 [3,44] and it was applied to analyze lightning strikes to
the CN Tower. In AT-type models (e.g., [4–6,45]), the elevated strike object is repre-
sented using thin wires and the ground is generally assumed to be perfectly conducting.
More recently, the finite conductivity of the ground and the buried grounding structure
of the tower have been included in the analysis [46,47]. The lightning return-stroke
channel is modeled as a vertical wire antenna and the lightning return-stroke current is
injected by a voltage source at the tip of the tower. The current distribution along the
channel and along the tower are found by solving an electric field integral equation [6].

5.2.3 Hybrid electromagnetic model (HEM)

The so-called hybrid electromagnetic model (HEM) (e.g., [8,9]) is a combination of
electromagnetic and circuit theory models. In this model, the electric scalar and
magnetic vector potentials are employed to take into account electromagnetic
coupling, which is represented in terms of circuit quantities, voltages, and currents.
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 165

5.3 Electromagnetic field computation

In electromagnetic models, the distribution of the current along the radiating
structure (strike object and lightning channel) and the electromagnetic fields are
computed simultaneously in a single operation. In contrast, the use of engineering
models, which specify the spatialtemporal distribution of the current along the
channel and the struck object, use the model-specified current along the radiating
structure to calculate the associated electromagnetic fields. The calculation proce-
dure essentially depends on the electromagnetic properties of the ground. When the
ground can be assumed to be a perfectly conducting plane, image theory can be
adopted for the evaluation of the electromagnetic fields. For distances not
exceeding a few kilometers, the perfect ground assumption is considered to be a
reasonable approximation for the vertical component of the electric field and for
the azimuthal component of the magnetic field (e.g., [48,49]). Indeed, even for a
finitely conducting ground, contributions of the source dipole and of its image (see
Figure 5.4) to these field components add constructively and, consequently, rela-
tively small variations in the image field due to the finite ground conductivity will

z'
H tot

v
H0
z' i(z', t)

R Observation point
ρt
h r Er

E z
ρg Ez

Perfect ground

R' az
P
ay
image az
φ
ax
ar

–H0

Figure 5.4 Adopted geometry for field computation [51]

166 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

have little effect on the total field. However, the horizontal (radial) component of
the electric field radiated by lightning is appreciably affected by the finite ground
conductivity. Indeed, for this field component, the effects of the two contributions
subtract, and small changes in the image field may lead to appreciable changes in
the total horizontal field. Although the intensity of the horizontal field component
is generally much smaller than that of the vertical field, within the context of
certain field-to-transmission line coupling models (e.g., [50]), this component plays
an important role and, thus, its calculation requires the use of rigorous expressions
or at least reasonable approximations.

5.3.1 Electromagnetic field expressions for a perfectly

conducting ground
With reference to (5.1), the current at a height z0 along the lightning channel results
from the contribution of a series of time-delayed current components. The first one,
moving upward at a constant speed v, represents the return-stroke wave front that
progressively turns on the distributed current sources [2] by way of which the
channel is modeled.
Assuming that no current flow is possible above this return-stroke wave front,
the current distribution is abruptly interrupted at this front [38,51] as discussed
further in the next paragraph.
All other contributions resulting from multiple reflections at the two ends of
the tall structure are supposed to travel at the speed of light. Because of their higher
speed, they catch up with the return-stroke wavefront providing a nonzero con-
tribution which leads to a discontinuity mentioned in the previous paragraph if no
current is admitted above the front. Notice that this truncation already produces a
discontinuity at time t = 0+ since the contribution of the very first distributed cur-
rent source in the channel is reflected from the tower top and propagates upward at
the speed of light [38].
The current discontinuity may only occur if there is accumulation of charge at
the wave front. This has led some researchers to suggest that the abrupt halt in the
current may be unlikely or inconceivable from a physical point of view. Regardless
of the physical merits of the assumption, the discontinuity must still be considered
in the analysis for the sake of consistency with the adopted engineering models.
The electromagnetic field contributions from an elemental dipole of current
i(z0 , t) and length dz0 located along the vertical axis at z0 (see Figure 5.4) are cal-
culated with the usual expressions valid for a perfectly conducting ground
(e.g., [52]):

ð
dz0 2ðz  z0 Þ2  r2 t
0
dEz ðr; z; z ; tÞ ¼ iðz0 ; t  R=cÞdt
4peo R5 R=c
 (5.7)
2ðz  z0 Þ2  r2 0 r2 @iðz0 ; t  R=cÞ
þ iðz ; t  R=cÞ þ 2 3
cR4 c R @t
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 167

ð
dz0 3rðz  z0 Þ t
dEz ðr; z; z0 ; tÞ ¼ iðz0 ; t  R=cÞdt
4peo R5 R=c
 (5.8)
3rðz  z0 Þ 0 rðz  z0 Þ @iðz0 ; t  R=cÞ
þ iðz ; t  R=cÞ þ 2 3
cR 4 c R @t


0 dz0 r 0 r @iðz0 ; t  R=cÞ
dHj ðr; z; z ; tÞ ¼ iðz ; t  R=cÞ þ 3 (5.9)
4peo R3 cR @t

in which
– r and z are the cylindrical coordinates of the observation point,
– R is the distance between the dipole and the observation point,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R ¼ r2 þ ðz0  zÞ2 ,
– i(z0 , t) is the dipole current,
– c is the speed of light, and
– eo is the permittivity of free space.
The total electromagnetic fields are calculated by integrating the above equa-
tions along the tower and the channel and their image, assuming a perfectly con-
ducting ground.
In the presence of a current discontinuity, the radiation term, namely the last
term in each equation, which is proportional to the current time-derivative, intro-
duces a singularity that needs to be treated separately [52–57].

5.3.1.1 Turn-on term

The complete expression of the electromagnetic field is obtained by integrating
(5.7) through (5.9) along z0 from ground level to the wavefront and then by adding
the corrective turn-on term across the discontinuity in H, expressed as
ð
@iðz0 ; t  R=cÞ 0
f ðz0 ; z; rÞ dz (5.10)
H @t

where f(z0 , z, r) can be r2/c2R3, r(zz0 )/c2R3, or r/cR2, depending on which com-
ponent of the field is being calculated [38].
The reason why an additional turn-on term must be introduced in the field
equations is that the presence of the discontinuity at the return-stroke wavefront in
(5.1) cannot be disregarded when the time-derivative of the current is calculated. Its
derivative, namely, a delta function, multiplied by the amplitude of the current at
the wavefront, needs to be added to the radiation term. In the case in which the
current distribution presents no discontinuity at the return-stroke wavefront, this
turn-on term contribution vanishes. The discontinuity can be treated considering a
continuous current wavefront of length Dz00 which reaches the level Ifront linearly in
a time Dt, and expressing the radiation integral across H taking the limit when the
front duration tends to zero [52].
168 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

The final expressions for the turn-on term fields, in which the apparent front
speed appears as the reciprocal of the term between brackets, are given by [38]:
Ifront ðHÞ  r 1 Ifront ðH 0 Þ  r 1
HF= turnon ¼  h i þ 02
h i (5.11)
4pcR2 ðzHÞ 4pcR ðzH 0 Þ
1
v  cR
1
v 0 cR

Ifront ðHÞ  r  ðz  HÞ 1 Ifront ðH 0 Þ  r  ðz  H 0 Þ 1

Er= turnon ¼  h i þ 2 R0 3
h 0Þ
i
4pe0 c2 R3 ðzHÞ 4pe c ðzH
1
v  cR
0 1
v  0
cR

(5.12)
0
Ifront ðHÞ  r 2
1 I ðH Þ  r 1 2
Er= turnon ¼ h i þ front 2 0  h 0Þ
i (5.13)
4pe0 c2 R3 ðzHÞ 4pe c R 3 ðzH
1
 v cR
0 1
 0 v cR

In (5.11)(5.13), the two terms on the right-hand side represent the turn-on
term due to the discontinuity at the wavefront and at its image, respectively.
The general expression for the current at the wavefront is simply obtained from
(5.1), in which the time variable t appears implicitly through H [38]:
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
H h 1 H h
Ifront ðHÞ ¼ PðH  hÞi0 h; þ r2 þ ðH  zÞ2  þ
v c v
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
H h 1 H h
 rt i0 h; þ r2 þ ðH  zÞ2  þ
v c c
X1  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
H h 1 H þ h 2nh
þ ð1  rt Þð1 þ rt Þ rgnþ1 rnt i0 h; þ r2 þ ðH  zÞ2  
n¼0
v c c c
(5.14)
It is worth observing that the first term on the right-hand side of (5.14) is
nonzero only for the BG and TCS models, and it corresponds to the inherent dis-
continuity predicted by these two models. As a consequence of this, the turn-on
term has the same expression for the TL, MTLL, and MTLE models [38].
The contribution of the turn-on term to the total field depends on many factors,
such as the height of the tower, the reflection coefficients at its extremities, the
return-stroke speed, and the position of the observation point (distance and eleva-
tion). Pavanello et al. [38] found that the contribution of the turn on term to the
total electric and magnetic fields is negligible at close distances (below 100 m) and
increases rapidly to reach an asymptotic value of about 12% at a distance of 5 km
and beyond. At these distances, the field peak is essentially due to the
radiation term.

5.3.1.2 Comparison between different engineering models

Pavanello et al. [35] compared five engineering models* (BG, TCS, TL, MTLL
and MTLE) employing the same undisturbed current io(t), presented in Figure 5.1.

*Extended using the distributed source approach.

 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 169

The elevated strike object was assumed to have a height h = 168 m, corresponding
to the Peissenberg tower in Germany.
The reflection coefficients were set, respectively, to rt = 0.53 and rg = 0.7 [37].
Figure 5.5 presents electric and magnetic fields calculated at a distance of 50 m
from the tower base [35]. At this distance, the electric field is dominated (for late
times, after the initial fast transition) by its electrostatic term. The model-predicted
electric fields are very similar for the first 5 ms, beyond which the BG, TCS and
MTLL models predict a flattening of the field, typically observed at close dis-
tances, while the TL model predicts a field decay. The late-time E-field predicted
by the MTLE model exhibits a ramp, as in the case of a ground-initiated return-
stroke [35]. Note, however, that a judicious choice of the attenuation factor would
result in the flattening of the late-time E-field at close range [58].
Figure 5.5b shows that the predicted magnetic field is nearly model-
independent. At this distance, the magnetic field is dominated by its induction
term, and its waveshape is similar to the current at the base of the tower shown in
Figure 5.3b.
Figure 5.6 presents calculated electric and magnetic fields at a distance of 5 km
[35]. The electric and magnetic field waveshapes for the first 5 ms are dominated by
the radiation term and, hence, they are very similar. No significant differences are
found between the various models in this early-time region. The differences
between the model predictions become more pronounced at later times, t > 5 ms or
so, although they are unremarkable. Note that all the models predict a flattening of
the electric field at later times at a value that is significantly smaller than the initial
peak, in contrast with calculated electric fields for ground-initiated return-strokes
(see, e.g., [36]).
The electric and magnetic fields at a distance of 100 km are plotted in
Figure 5.7 [35]. At this distance, the fields are essentially radiation fields, and
electric and magnetic fields have the same waveshape. The fields associated with
ground-initiated return-strokes at such distances exhibit a zero-crossing which is
only reproduced by the MTLE and MTLL models [1,36]. As seen in Figure 5.7, for

16 100

14 90
80
12
Magnetic field, A/m
Electric field, kV/m

MTLE 70
10 60
8 TCS 50 BG, TCS, TL, MTLL, MTLE
BG 40
6
MTLL 30
4 TL
20
2 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
(a) t, μs (b) t, μs

Figure 5.5 Electric (a) and magnetic (b) fields calculated at a distance of 50 m
from a lightning return-stroke to a 168-m tower (adapted from [35])
170 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2
0.35 0.9
0.8
0.3
0.7

Magnetic field, A/m

Electric field, kV/m

0.25
0.6
BG
0.2 0.5
TCS BG
MTLL
0.15 TL 0.4 TCS
TL MTLL
0.3
0.1 MTLE
0.2
MTLE
0.05
0.1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
t, μs t, μs
(a) (b)

Figure 5.6 Electric (a) and magnetic (b) fields calculated at a distance of 5 km
from a lightning return-stroke to a 168-m tower (adapted from [35])

16 45

14 40

12 35
Magnetic field, mA/m
Electric field, V/m

30
10
25
8
20
6 BG BG
15 TL TCS
TL TCS MTLL
4 MTLL 10
2 5 MTLE
MTLE
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
(a) t, μs (b) t, μs

Figure 5.7 Electric (a) and magnetic (b) fields calculated at a distance of 100 km
from a lightning return-stroke to a 168-m tower (adapted from [35])

the considered case of a 168-m tower-initiated return-stroke, none of the models

predicts a zero-crossing. The absence of zero-crossing, in particular for the MTLE
and MTLL models, can be explained by the contribution of the turn-on term [38].
As mentioned in Section 5.2.1, Mosaddeghi et al. [27] proposed a revision of
the engineering models for return-strokes to tall structures that takes into account
the presence of possible reflections at the return stroke wavefront and a return
stroke initiation above the structure due to an upward connecting leader. Simulation
results for the magnetic fields obtained using the new model were compared with
experimental waveforms associated with lightning strikes to the CN Tower
(553 m). It was shown that taking into account the reflections at the return-stroke
wavefront results in better agreement with the fine structure of the magnetic field
waveforms, including the double-peak, the early narrow undershoot and the far-
field zero crossing (see Figure 5.8). The results also suggest that the typical double-
peak response of the radiated fields from tall structures might be due to the
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 171

60
Measurment
Extended MTLE
50 MTLE

40
HI (mA/m), event#3

30

20

10

–10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Ps)

Figure 5.8 Comparison of simulated azimuthal magnetic fields at 50.9 km using

the original MTLE model and the extended version of Mosaddeghi
et al. with the measured waveform (adapted from [27])

combined effect of upward-connecting leaders and reflections at the return stroke

wavefront.

5.3.1.3 Effect of the tower

Based on theoretical modeling and experimental observations, it is well established
that the presence of a tower could result in a substantial increase (a factor of 3 or so)
of the electric and magnetic field peaks and their derivatives (e.g., [16,23,24]) for
observation points located at distances exceeding the height of the tower.
Interestingly, the effect of the tower at distances of about the height or the
tower or less is a significant decrease of the electric field (e.g., [24,59–61]).

5.3.2 Electromagnetic field computation for a finitely

conducting ground
Assuming the lightning channel as a lossless vertical antenna above a finitely
conducting ground, the associated electromagnetic fields could be basically cal-
culated using three different approaches: (1) use of dedicated algorithms, (2) use of
simplified approaches, and (3) use of numerical methods (MoM or FDTD) [62].

5.3.2.1 Dedicated algorithms

The exact solution of Maxwell’s equations due to a vertical dipole located above a
finitely conducting ground as discussed in [63] results in the so-called Sommerfield
integral equations. The high oscillatory nature of the Sommerfeld integrals makes it
difficult to evaluate the resulting expressions numerically. Some efforts have been
172 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

recently made to find an algorithm to carry out the required numerical integrations
efficiently. A dedicated algorithm [64–67] has been developed by Delfino and co-
workers that could be applied to obtain the fields generated by lightning in the air
and in the ground.

5.3.2.2 Simplified approaches

Cooray–Rubinstein and Barbosa et al. formulae (above-ground horizontal electric
field)
Several studies have shown that the Cooray–Rubinstein formula [68,69] yields a
satisfactory approximation of the above-ground horizontal electric field at close
(one hundred meters), intermediate (some kilometers), and far (tens of kilometers)
distances (e.g., [49,68]). In the Cooray–Rubinstein formula, the horizontal electric
field at a given height, h, is expressed as the sum of two terms. The first term is the
horizontal electric field for a perfectly conducting ground and the second term
accounts for the effect of a finitely-conducting ground. This formula reads
pffiffiffiffiffi
m0
Er ðz ¼ h; rÞ ¼ Erp ðz ¼ h; rÞ  Hjp ðz ¼ 0; rÞ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (5.15)
e þ s=jw

where Erp is the radial electric field calculated at a height h, and Hjp is the azi-
muthal magnetic field computed at ground level, both computed assuming the
ground to be a perfect conductor.
Delfino et al. [65] showed that only for very low conductivities, does the Cooray–
Rubinstein formula exhibit some deviations from the reference one, but it still gives a
conservative estimate of the radial field component, since it behaves as an upper bound
for the exact curve. General limits of validity of the Cooray–Rubinstein approximation
were theoretically examined by Wait [70]. Shoory et al. [71] presented a general
equation for the horizontal electric field, from which the Cooray–Rubinstein formula
can be derived as a special case. Cooray [26] further proposed a simple modification of
(5.15) that provides a better early time response. Barbosa and Paulino [72] proposed an
approximate time-domain formula for the horizontal electric field whose range of
validity was stated to be equivalent to that of the Cooray–Rubinstein formula (which is
in the frequency domain). Caligaris et al. [73] mathematically derived the time-domain
counterpart of the Cooray–Rubinstein formula.

Cooray formula (under-ground electric fields)

The use of modern underground power and communication systems over the past
few years has resulted in increasing attention to the study of penetrating lightning
electromagnetic fields into a finitely conducting ground. The direct use of equa-
tions for radiated electromagnetic fields inside the ground [63] from a simple dipole
as for the case of above-ground fields, can be very costly in terms of computation
time. In [74], Cooray proposed a simplified formula for the evaluation of under-
ground vertical and horizontal electric fields from lightning. The accuracy of
Cooray’s simplified expression has been further evaluated by Petrache et al. [75] by
taking as a reference the exact solutions published by Degauque and Zeddam [76].
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 173

Petrache et al. reported a good agreement between the exact and predicted hor-
izontal electric field penetrating the ground at distances as close as 100 m [75]. The
predictions of Cooray’s formula were found to be in good agreement with exact
solutions for large values of the ground conductivity (about 0.01 S/m) [64]. For
poor ground conductivities (0.001 S/m or so), Cooray’s expression yields less
satisfactory results, especially for the late time response [64].

5.3.2.3 Numerical methods

Finite difference time domain (FDTD) technique
Compared with traditional approaches for the evaluation of electromagnetic fields
in the vicinity of the lightning channel, the FDTD method has the advantage of
being easily implemented in computer codes [77] and, further, the finite ground
conductivity is taken into account in a straightforward way. The one-dimensional
FDTD method has been widely applied to the analysis of induced overvoltages on
overhead transmission lines by nearby lightning return strokes (e.g., [78]). It is only
recently that the method has also been applied to the analysis of lightning elec-
tromagnetic fields. Sartori et al. [79] have proposed a hybrid method based partially
on the FDTD technique for the near electric field calculation. The magnetic field
was first determined analytically, assuming the spatial–temporal distribution of the
current in each radiating dipole to be a step function. In 2004, Yang et al. [80] used
also FDTD to compute electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of a return stroke.
Their FDTD approach has been used as a reference to test the validity of the quasi-
image method and the Cooray–Rubinstein formula.
More recently, Mimouni et al. [81,82] calculated the underground electric and
magnetic fields for strikes to both flat ground and tall towers, using engineering
return-stroke models and the FDTD method. Figures 5.9 and 5.10 show simulation
results obtained by Mimouni et al. for the evaluation of the underground horizontal
electric field, which have been compared with those of Delfino et al. [67] as well as
the results obtained using the Cooray simplified formula [74].

50 200

0 0

–200
–50
–400
Er (V/m)

Er (V/m)

–100
–600
–150
–800
–200 Simulation result
Simulation result –1000 Sommerfeld approach [17]
Sommerfeld approach [17]
–250 Cooray formula
Cooray formula –1200

–300 –1400
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) t (Ps) (b) t (Ps)

Figure 5.9 Underground radial electric field (r =50 m, depth d = 5 m) for (a)
s = 0.01 s/m, and (b) s = 0.001 s/m lossy ground, compared with the
Sommerfeld approach and the Cooray formula (adapted from [81])
174 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2
50 200

0
0
–200

–50
Er (V/m)

–400

Er (V/m)
–100 –600

Simulation result –800 Simulation result

–150 Sommerfeld approach [17] Sommerfeld approach [17]
Cooray formula –1000 Cooray formula

–200
0 2 4 6 8 10 –1200
t (Ps) 0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) (b) t (Ps)

Figure 5.10 Underground radial electric field (r = 50 m, depth d = 10 m) for (a)

s = 0.01 s/m, and (b) s = 0.001 s/m lossy ground, compared with the
Sommerfeld approach and the Cooray formula (adapted from [81])

It can be seen that the FDTD results are in excellent agreement with the exact
evaluation of Delfino et al. [67]. The comparisons also show that the results
obtained using the Cooray formula are in general in good agreement with more
exact solutions, although some discrepancies can be observed for the late-time
response of the field and for poor ground conductivities.
Baba and Rakov [33,83] also used the FDTD method to study the mechanisms
of current wave propagation along vertical conductors [83], to reproduce small-
scale experiments [33], and to study the enhancement of electromagnetic fields
measured on the top of buildings [84].

Method of Moments
The Method of Moments (MoMs) has also been extensively applied to compute
electromagnetic fields radiated by a lightning discharge, within the so-called AT
models, which belong to the class known as electromagnetic models and in which
the return-stroke channel is represented using thin wires (e.g., [4–6,44–46,71,85]).
Most of the MoM solutions are implemented in the frequency domain, which
allows taking into account the presence of a lossy ground in a straightforward way.

5.4 Review of lightning current data and associated

electromagnetic fields
Tall structures, such as telecommunication towers, transmission-line towers,
buildings and chimneys have been instrumented to measure lightning current
characteristics using sensors with varying degrees of sophistication. The very first
lightning current measurements with purposely installed sensors appear to have
been made by Pockels on Mount Cimone in Italy, by observing the magnetization
of basalt pieces placed near a lightning rod on an observation tower [86]. Based on
the same principle, Foust and Kuehni [87] and Foust and Gardner [88] developed a
sensor called a magnetic link that measures the peak current by determining the
remnant magnetization on strips of the appropriate type of magnetic material. Foust
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 175

and Gardner’s magnetic link sensor measures only the highest current in a flash.
Wagner and McCann [89] made an improved instrument, called a fulchronograph,
which uses a number of strips attached to the edge of a wheel. As the wheel spins,
the magnetic strips pass successively close to coils through which the current to be
measured flows and, thus, different levels are recorded on different strips, provid-
ing a crude indication of the change of the current with time.
These relatively inexpensive sensors, especially the magnetic links, have been
used extensively in Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Russia and other
countries [90–94].
Although knowledge of the peak current is important, appropriate protection of
current electric and electronic systems requires more detailed information about the
waveshapes of the currents.
Measurements of the lightning current as a function of time were made by
McEachron [95] starting in 1937 on the 443-m tall Empire State Building using
oscilloscopes to measure lightning currents at a height of 389 m, on top of the
building but below its final spire. Since then, a number of towers have been instru-
mented to capture lightning currents. Without being exhaustive, but including both
active and inactive measurement stations, towers are located in Austria, Brazil,
Canada, Colombia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Spain, South Africa, and
Switzerland, and, with at least two more tower instrumentation projects in the works
as of the writing of this text, one in Serbia and Montenegro, and one in China.
In the following section, we will present a representative selection of experi-
mental lightning current data and electromagnetic fields from them.

5.4.1 Experimental data

Experimental data on lightning return stroke currents to towers can be classified
into two categories: (1) data obtained using short instrumented towers (less than
100 m effective height) and (2) data obtained using tall instrumented towers (taller
than 100 m effective height). We will discuss the difference between effective and
actual height later.
Tall objects measuring less than 100 m or so are believed to be stuck essen-
tially by downward lightning, which initiates in the cloud with a downward leader
discharge that connects to a relatively short upward connecting discharge that is
initiated by enhancement of the electric field near the top of the tall object as the
downward leader approaches. For towers taller than 500 m or so, essentially all
lightning flashes are initiated by an upward leader from the tall object. Contrary to
downward lightning, upward flashes are considered to be initiated by the tall
objects since they would not be initiated if the object were not present. Towers
between 100 m and 500 m experience a combination of both types of flashes.
The currents from downward and upward lightning differ in a number of
points. Figure 5.11 illustrates a current record corresponding to typical upward
negative lightning, which is the most common type of upward lightning.
As seen in Figure 5.11, upward lightning begins with an initial continuous
current (ICC), whose onset is associated with the start of the upward leader.
176 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

kA
0.0

ICC

–0.5

ICC-pulses

–1.0

Return
–1.5 Strokes

–2.0
0 100 200 300 400
ms

Figure 5.11 Typical upward lightning current (adapted from [96])

The ICC has a typical amplitude of a few hundred Amps and a duration of a few
hundred ms. It may exhibit superimposed pulses currently called ICC pulses (in
the past called a-pulses), exhibiting amplitudes lower than 2 kA. Once the ICC
has ceased to flow, one or more return stroke pulses may appear. Return stroke
pulses are generally larger than ICC pulses, have shorter risetimes, and may be
followed by a continuing current similar to the ICC. Currents in downward
lightning striking grounded objects do not exhibit the initial ICC part. Instead,
they are characterized by the presence of a first return stroke current which fol-
lows a downward stepped leader. This first return stroke may be followed by
subsequent leader-return stroke sequences.
It is important to note that the 100 m height limit for the appearance of upward
lightning does not refer to the actual height of the tall object but to its effective
height, which takes into account the enhancement of the electric field on the object
due, for instance, to a mountain on which the object may be built. Since there is, at
present, no accurate way of estimating theoretically the effective height of a tower,
empirical methods are employed (by the ratio of upward to downward flashes or the
increase in the number of flashes to a tower with respect to the surrounding terrain).
In the following sections, we use the actual physical heights of the towers.

5.4.2 Data from short towers

The most widely referenced and most comprehensive dataset to date on lightning
return stroke currents measured on short instrumented towers was presented by
Berger and co-workers. The measurements were made on two 70-m tall towers
including the steel needle that acts as a lightning rod, built on Mount San Salvatore
in Lugano, Switzerland. Mount San Salvatore has a height of 640 m above the level
of the adjacent Lake Lugano and it is 914 m above sea level.
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 177

The towers were instrumented using resistive shunt sensors at their tops and
the currents were recorded using cathode-ray oscilloscopes installed in 1958. On
each tower, two different shunts were used in series, one with a resistance of 0.05
Ohms for currents in the 1–200 kA range and the other with a 0.8 Ohm resistance
used for currents from 50 A to 24 kA [97]. Four channels were used with two time
deflections with a resolution of 0.5 ms [98].
About 15% of the measurements reported by Berger and co-workers were due
to downward-moving stepped leaders. Most discharges to the towers were initiated
by upward-moving stepped leaders of both polarities.

5.4.3 Summary of Berger’s data

Figures 5.12 and 5.13 show a compilation of measurements, performed by Berger
and co-workers for lightning initiated by downward-moving leaders.
The waveforms in Figure 5.12 correspond to the average of 88 normalized first
return stroke waveforms and 76 normalized subsequent return stroke waveforms.

0 16 32 43 64 80 µs–B
0.0
A
–0.2

–0.4
B
–0.6

–0.8

–1.0
0 80 160 240 320 400 µs–A
(a)

0 8 16 24 32 40 µs–B
0.0

–0.2
A
–0.4
B
–0.6

–0.8

–1.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 µs–A
(b)

Figure 5.12 Typical, normalized negative return-stroke current wave shapes: (a) First
return stroke and (b) subsequent return stroke (adapted from [99])
178 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

99

95 1

80

50
2

20 3

100 101 102 kA

Figure 5.13 Cumulative statistical distributions of the return-stroke current peak

(solid-line curves) and their log-normal approximations (slanted
dashed lines) for (1) negative first strokes, (2) negative subsequent
strokes, and (3) positive first strokes as reported by Berger et al.
[98]. The vertical scale gives the percentage of peak currents
exceeding a given value on the horizontal axis (adapted from [99])

They are presented in two time scales, with the label “A” corresponding to a large
scale going up to 100 ms and “B” to a shorter time scale of 40 ms (dashed lines). In
Figure 5.12, it is possible to observe that the average subsequent stroke current
exhibits a faster risetime than that of the average first stroke.
In Figure 5.13, the peak current distribution is presented for negative first
return strokes, negative subsequent return strokes, and positive return strokes. The
dashed, slanted lines represent a log normal distribution fit to the experimental data
for all three cases [100]. The value of the peak current distribution at 50% is around
30 kA for first return strokes, both negative and positive. The corresponding value
for negative subsequent strokes is close to 12 kA. Most positive flashes are single-
stroke.
Table 5.2 contains parameters of negative as well as positive lightning. There
is a controversy concerning the front duration and the maximum rate of rise, di/dt,
in Berger’s data. Indeed, the instrumentation used by Berger and co-workers had a
limited frequency bandwidth, which may have introduced inaccuracies in their
experimental observations.

5.4.4 Other data obtained using short towers (  100 m)

Other short instrumented towers have been used around the world to measure
lightning return stroke parameters.
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 179

Table 5.2 Lightning current parameters for downward flashes

Parameter Units Sample size Percent exceeding

tabulated value

95% 50% 5%

Peak current (minimum 2 kA)

Negative first strokes kA 101 144.6 30 80
Negative subsequent strokes kA 135 4.6 12 30
Positive first strokes kA 26 4.6 35 250
Charge (total charge)
Negative first strokes C 93 1.1 5.2 24
Negative subsequent strokes C 12 0.2 1.4 11
Complete negative flash C 294 1.3 7.5 40
Impulse charge 16
Negative first strokes C 90 1.1 4.5 20
Negative subsequent strokes C 117 0.22 0.95 4.0
Positive first strokes C 25 2.0 16 150
Front duration (2 kA to peak)
Negative first strokes msec 89 1.8 5.5 18
Negative subsequent strokes msec 118 0.22 1.1 4.5
Positive first strokes msec 19 3.5 22 200
Maximum di/dt
Negative first strokes kA/msec 92 5.5 12 32
Negative subsequent strokes kA/msec 122 12 40 120
Positive first strokes kA/msec 21 0.20 2.4 32
Stroke duration (2 kA to half-value)
Negative first strokes msec 90 30 75 200
Negative subsequent strokes msec 115 6.5 32 140
Positive first strokes msec 16 25 230 2,000
Integral (i2 dt)
Negative first strokes A2sec 91 6.0  103 5.5  104 5.5  105
Negative subsequent strokes A2sec 88 5.5  102 6.0  103 5.2  104
Positive first strokes A2sec 26 2.5  104 6.5  103 1.5  107

Time interval
Between negative strokes msec 133 7 33 150
Flash duration
Negative (including single stroke flashes) msec 94 0.15 13 1,100
Negative (excluding single stroke flashes) msec 39 31 180 900
Positive (only single flashes) msec 24 14 85 500

Adapted from [100].

180 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Garbagnati, Dellera, Lo Pipero, and co-workers measured currents at the top of

two 40-m television towers in the 1970s using, as Berger and co-workers did,
resistive shunts, located at the top of the towers, and oscilloscopes. The towers were
located on the top of two mountains, each about 900 m above sea level
[98,100,101]. One of the towers was located in the north of Italy, not far from
Berger’s towers in Mount San Salvatore, and the other tower was located in central
Italy. Table 5.3 summarizes the results of the Italian group for downward flashes.
Eriksson and co-workers measured lightning currents on a 60-m tall tower located
on relatively flat ground in South Africa in the 1970s. The tower was insulated from
ground and the lightning current was measured at the bottom via a current transformer
and a Rogowski coil. More than 50% of the flashes they measured were initiated by
downward, negatively charged stepped leaders. All of the recorded flashes lowered
negative charge to the ground. The 10-to-90% risetimes of the measured currents had a
median value of 0.6 ms, significantly shorter that the risetimes observed on other
towers. Table 5.4 shows values reported by Anderson and Eriksson in 1980 [102].

Table 5.3 Return-stroke current parameters measured by Garbagnati and

coworkers in Italy for discharges lowering negative charge to ground

Parameter Downward

First Subsequent
strokes strokes
Sample size 42 33
Peak value (kA) 33 18
Maximum rate of rise (kA/ms) 14 33
Time to crest (msec) – (3 kA to peak) 9 1.1
Time to half value (msec) 56 28
Impulse charge (C) – (to end of impulse of 2.8 1.4
500 msec)

Adapted from [100,101].

Table 5.4 Return-stroke current parameters measured by

Eriksson and coworkers in South Africa for natural
subsequent strokes lowering negative charge to ground

Parameter Subsequent natural

strokes

95% 50% 5%
Sample size 114
Peak value (kA) 4.9 12 29
10%–90% average of current steepness (kA/ms) 3.3 15 72
10%–90% time duration (msec) 0.1 0.6 2.8

Adapted from [102].

 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 181

Other data have been obtained using short towers in Japan [103], in Austria
[96,104,105], and in Colombia [106–108].
The Gaisberg Tower in Austria is located near the city of Salzburg. The tower
is 100 m tall and it sits on top of the Gaisberg Mountain, whose summit is at
1,287 m above sea level, and 800 m above the surrounding terrain.
The current is measured at the base of the air terminal installed on the top of
the tower using a shunt resistor of 0.25 mOhm. Two separate channels with dif-
ferent gains are used to transmit and record the data from the Gaisberg tower: One
of them, whose saturation level is 2 kA (positive and negative) is used to record the
small, slow initial continuous current ICC. The other is set for a saturation level of
plus or minus 40 kA to record pulses and return strokes.
Diendorfer and co-workers [96] analyzed currents from strikes to the Gaisberg
tower recorded from 2000 to 2007. The authors reported that the incidence of
lightning to the tower is essentially independent of the season, even though an
active thunderstorm season exists in Austria during the summer. The average
number of flashes per year recorded during the 8-year study period was somewhat
higher than 60. Overall, 93% of the flashes were negative (all strokes lowered
negative charge to ground), 4% were positive (all the strokes lowered positive
charge to ground), and 3% of the records showed bipolar current waveforms.
Based on the presence or absence of an initial continuous current, Diendorfer
et al. concluded that at least 99% of all flashes to the Gaisberg tower were upward-
initiated for the studied period. Of those, 30% of the negative flashes exhibited at
least one return stroke, the average number of strokes being 4.4. The interstroke
interval for the analyzed flashes had a geometric mean of 17.3 ms. Of the
remaining 70% of upward-initiated negative flashes, 22% consisted of an initial
continuous current with superimposed pulses greater than 2 kA and 48% had no
superimposed current pulses with peak currents greater than 2 kA.

5.4.5 Data from tall towers

Lightning return stroke currents measured on the 540-m tall Ostankino tower in
Moscow represent the first measurements of currents performed simultaneously at
three different heights along a tower. The three current sensors were installed at
533, 272, and 47 m above ground level as reported by [109]. The lightning return-
stroke current observations present different waveshapes at the three observation
points (Figure 5.14). The differences are presumably due to reflections produced at
the tower discontinuities during the initial lightning current propagation to ground.
From the three waveshapes presented in Figure 5.14, we can see that the largest
“absolute peak” amplitude appears at the lower observation point (about 22 kA).
This suggests that, at the point of discontinuity between the bottom of the tower and
the grounding impedance, there is a positive reflection of the current that adds to
the initial return stroke current. This positive reflection from the bottom is clearly
discernible at the other two locations after a few microseconds of propagation
delay. The fact that the peak amplitude of the current measured at 533 m (8 kA) is
smaller than the peak amplitude at 272 m (10 kA) indicates that a negative
182 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

540 m t (μs)
533 m
0 10 20 30 40
0

I, kA
–5
533 m
–10

272 m 0 10 20 30 40
0

I, kA
–10
–20 272 m
–30
0 10 20 30 40
0

I, kA
47 m –10
–20 47 m
–30

Figure 5.14 Sample of return stroke current waveshape of upward negative

lightning, recorded at three different locations in the Ostankino
tower in Moscow (adapted from [109])

reflection coefficient can be associated with the top of the tower. This coefficient
represents the discontinuity between the tower and the “equivalent” impedance of
the lightning channel.
Rakov [109] reports a median peak value for currents measured at 47 and
533 m of 18 and 9 kA, respectively. He suggests that the effective grounding
impedance of the tower is much smaller than its characteristic impedance and that
this is appreciably lower than the equivalent impedance of the lightning channel.
Studies on lightning striking the CN Tower (553-m high) in Toronto, Canada,
have been performed and reported by the “CN Tower Lightning Studies Group
(CNTLSG)” since 1978 (e.g., [43,110,111]). The lightning return-stroke current
derivatives striking the CN tower are measured by two inductive Rogowski coils
located at 509 and 474 m height. A photograph of the CN-Tower in Toronto is
shown in Figure 5.15.
A lightning return-stroke current measured on the CN Tower in 1999 is pre-
sented in Figure 5.16. Lightning return-stroke currents and current derivatives
observed at the CN Tower have been found to exhibit multiple reflections produced
at the tower discontinuities. The observed currents and current derivatives are
therefore “contaminated” by these reflections.
The waveshapes of the currents in Figure 5.16 exhibit a positive reflection
arriving around 3.6 msec after the first current maximum. This propagation time
corresponds to a round-trip time from the tower top to ground, confirming that this
reflection was produced at the lower discontinuity level between the tower-bottom
and the grounding impedance. The positive value of the reflection implies a posi-
tive ground reflection coefficient. The observed positive reflection is less pro-
nounced for the sensor located closer to the top of the tower. This is similar to the
observations at the Ostankino tower, suggesting a negative top reflection
coefficient.
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 183

Figure 5.15 A picture of the CN-Tower in Toronto

However, comparing the wave shapes for the observed currents in

Figures 5.14 and 5.16, we can see that the currents observed on the CN Tower
exhibit a more complex structure than those of the Ostankino Tower. This is
probably due to the architecture of the CN Tower, which presents a number of
features that act as discontinuities to the current (see Figure 5.15), as suggested by
Shostak [20].
A more complete study of reflections produced in the CN Tower data was
recently presented by Shostak and co-workers (see [19,30,31,113,114]).
The 168-m tall Peissenberg tower located near Munich in Germany, on a
ridge 250 m above the surrounding open ground and 950 m above sea level, was
used first from 1978 until 1999 to study lightning currents and their associated
electromagnetic fields [37]. From 1978 to 1999, the tower had two current mea-
surement systems installed, respectively, at approximately 167 m and 13 m. The
systems were able to measure return stroke currents and their derivatives. During
the time of exploitation of the tower, only one stroke of a downward negative
flash was recorded by the system. The majority of the strokes recorded at the
Peissenberg tower were produced by upward flashes, with negative or positive
184 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

I (kA) - New Coil

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
–1
–2
–5 0 5 10 15
(a) time (μsec)

I (kA) - Old Coil

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
–1
–2
–5 0 5 10 15
(b) time (μsec)

Figure 5.16 A lightning return-stroke current observed at (a) 509 and (b) 474 m
height along the CN Tower in Toronto (adapted from [112])

polarity. Figure 5.17a shows a photograph of the Peissenberg tower and

Figure 5.17b presents waveforms of return-stroke currents measured simulta-
neously at the bottom and top of the tower in which the “contamination” of the
current by multiple reflections is clearly distinguishable.
The current wave shapes in Figure 5.17b exhibit a higher peak value for the
current observed at the bottom of the tower.
A 250-m tall telecommunication tower was instrumented by Montandon and
Beyeler in St. Chrischona, near Basel, in Switzerland, with two current loop
antennas at 248 and at 175 m, and an additional current probe at the top. The tower
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 185

(a)

0
tower base
(5 m)
–2
tower top
(kA) (160 m)
–4
i1
i imax/top
–6
imax/bottom
–8
0 2 4 6 8
t (Ps)
(b)

Figure 5.17 (a) Peissenberg tower and (b) comparison of a lightning return-
stroke current recorded at the Peissenberg tower top and bottom
(adapted from [37])

was located at the summit of a hill 500 m above sea level. The two current deri-
vative systems and the current probe were used over a period of 5 years to record
lightning return stroke current waveshapes impacting the tower [115,116].
Figure 5.18 shows the location of the measurement systems on the tower.
186 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

loop antenna
248/10nH
+248.00
current monitor
248m /25V/kA
plastic cylinder to
shelter HF-high
power antennas

+175.00 loop antenna

175m /10nH

+155.00

oscilloscope 3. 47 fl
GOULD 1602/47 fl oscilloscope 1.
LECROY 9450/44 fi
measures the over- 44 fl
voltage caused by oscilloscope 2.
lightning in specific LECROY 9450/44 fi
installations
39 fl

+ 103.00

30 fl

20 fl

10 fl
+ 23.74

493 m above
sea level
+ 0.00

Figure 5.18 Position of the lightning measurement equipment on the St.

Chrischona tower, Switzerland (adapted from [116])
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 187

Lightning channel
Coaxial shunt resistor
2 mΩ E/O
10 mΩ
Frequency Sensitivity E/O
Magnetic flux
5 kHz~1 MHz 0.41 μT/V
density

Optical cable
200 m
Electric field 100 Hz~100 MHz 0.87 (kV/m) / V

Loop antenna (Φ 0.6 m, 4 turn) High stack

Flat-plate antenna

RC circuit and E/O 630 m

Loop-1 Loop-2 Optical cable

O/E
Integrator O/E Digitizer
O/E
Amp
Personal
computer MO

Figure 5.19 Configuration of lightning stroke current and electromagnetic field

observation systems at the Fukui thermal power plant (adapted
from [21])

The 200-m high Fukui tower in Japan was also used to measure lightning
return-stroke currents and their associated electromagnetic fields at the
Fukui thermal power plant on the coast of the Sea of Japan. Two coaxial
shunt resistors (2 mW, 10 mW) were installed at the top of the tower [21]. It was
found that the measured current was affected by reflected waves at the ground
and at the top of the tower. Figure 5.19 presents a schematic representation of
the installation of the Fukui tower and the electromagnetic field recording
system.
A study conducted using data from EUCLID (European Cooperation
for Lightning Detection) over a 3 and half year time period starting in
January 1998 showed that a telecommunication tower near Saint Gallen, in
Northeastern Switzerland, is struck by lightning more than any other tower
in that country, with an average number of direct hits of more than 100 per
year.
The Säntis tower is 124 m tall and it sits on top of the 2,502 m mount Säntis
(see Figure 5.20).
188 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Figure 5.20 Photograph of the Säntis telecommunications tower in Northeastern

Switzerland

The tower was instrumented and the measurement system was put in operation
in June 2010, with Rogowski coils and wideband B-dot sensors installed to measure
the current at 24 m and 82 m AGL (e.g., [117–119]).
Table 5.5 summarizes statistical results for the current peak and risetime
obtained using various instrumented towers around the world.
Table 5.5 Comparison of return-stroke current peaks in downward and upward flashes measured in instrumented towers effectively
transporting negative charge to ground

Location Height (m) Location Sample size Ipeak (50%) (kA) Risetime (ms) Sensor location
CN Tower – Toronto (1992–2001) [112,120]
Upward flashes 553 Canada 387 5.06a 0.64f Top (474 m)
7.19b
Ostankino Tower – Moscow (1984) [109]
Negative upward flashes at 533 m 540 Russia 58 9 – 533 m
Negative upward flashes at 47 m 76 18 – 47 m
Empire State Building – USA (1952) [109]
Upward flashes 410 USA 84 10 – Top
Fukui thermal power plant (1989–1994) [121]
Upward flashes type A (strong luminosity) 200 Japan 22 33 (23.5c) 1–2c Top
Upward flashes type B (low luminosity) 33 3.4
Peissenberg Tower–Germany (1992/98) [37]
Negative upward flashes, ICC pulsesj 168 Peissenberg at 89 3.63b – Top
167 m
Negative upward flashes, return stroke pulsesj 68 7.97b –
Japan Transmission Towers (1994/97) [103]
Negative downward flashes, 1st stroke at top 40–140 Japan 36 39 4.5g Top
Gaisberg Tower (Austria) [122]
Downward negative, first strokes 100 Austria 14i – Top
Downward negative, subsequent strokes 2.91i –
Upward negative, ICC pulsesj 2.94i
Upward negative, return stroke pulsesj 8.57i
Mount Saint Salvatore Tower- [99]
Negative downward flashes, 1st stroke 70–90 Switzerland 101 30 5.5d Top
Negative downward flashes, 2nd stroke 135 12 1.1d
Upward flashes 70 10 –
(Continues)
Table 5.5 (Continued)

Location Height (m) Location Sample size Ipeak (50%) (kA) Risetime (ms) Sensor location
South Africa Tower (1980) [102,123]
Negative downward flashes 60 South Africa 114 12b 0.6h Bottom
Morro do Cachimbo Tower- [124]
Negative downward strokes, 1st stroke 60 Brazil 31 40.4a 5.6h Bottom
45.3b
Negative downward strokes, subs. stroke 59 16.3b 0.7h
Italy Towers [100,101]
Negative downward flashes, 1st stroke 40 Italy 42 33 9e Top
Negative downward flashes, 2nd stroke 33 18 1.1e
Negative upward flashes, 1st stroke 61 7 4e
Negative upward flashes, 2nd stroke 142 8 1.3e
a
First peak of the current.
b
Absolute peak of the current.
c
Values reported by [21].
d
Front duration defined as the time interval between the 2 kA point on the front and the first peak, the time resolution of the system was 0.5 ms.
e
Time to crest defined between 3 kA to peak.
f
Risetime to wavefront peak.
g
The time resolution of the system was 100 ns [103].
h
Time interval between instants corresponding to 10% and 90% of first current peak.
i
1 kA threshold.
j
a-Components: ICC pulses (sometimes known as a-components or a-pulses) are superimposed on the initial continuous current. Return stroke pulses (also known as
b-components or b-pulses) are pulses following a period of no current in the channel.
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 191

5.5 Summary
In this chapter, the recent progress in our understanding of the transient processes
that take place when lightning strikes tall structures was presented. The extension
of lightning return stroke models to include the presence of these strike structures
was given, including the engineering, electromagnetic and hybrid model classes.
The computational methods commonly used to calculate the electromagnetic fields
generated by lightning strikes to tall structures were presented, both for the idea-
lized case of a perfectly conducting ground, and for lossy ground. For the latter, in
addition to standard FDTD and MoM numerical methods and dedicated algorithms
for the evaluation of Sommefeld’s integrals, simplified, approximate approaches
were presented.
A review of available data on the lightning current and its associated electro-
magnetic fields was presented in Section 5.4, where the dataset of Berger and
co-workers was presented in detail and an overview was given of some of the
instrumented towers around the world, including the most recent lightning current
and electromagnetic field results.
It is worth noting that in this chapter, we have only considered the return stroke
phase of the lightning discharge. The effect of tall structures on the electromagnetic
fields radiated by the M-component† mode of charge transfer has also recently been
considered and analyzed [125].

References

[1] Rakov, V.A. and M.A. Uman, Review and evaluation of lightning return
stroke models including some aspects of their application. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1998;40(4):403–26.
[2] Rachidi, F., V.A. Rakov, C.A. Nucci, and J.L. Bermudez, The effect of
vertically-extended strike object on the distribution of current along the
lightning channel. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2002;107(D23):4699.
[3] Podgorski, A.S. and J.A. Landt, Numerical analysis of the lightning-CN
tower interaction, in 6th Symposium and Technical Exhibition on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1985, Zurich, Switzerland.
[4] Heidler, F. and T. Zundl, Influence of tall towers on the return stroke cur-
rent, in Aerospace and Ground Conference on Lightning and Static
Electricity, 1995, Williamsburg, USA.
[5] Baba, Y. and M. Ishii, Numerical electromagnetic field analysis of light-
ning current in tall structures. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
2001;16(2):324–8.

†
The M-component mode of charge transfer occurs during the continuing current stage in downward
lightning and during the initial stage of upward lightning initiated by tall structures or in rocket-triggered
lightning.
192 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[6] Kordi, B., R. Moini, W. Janischewskyj, A. Hussein, V. Shostak, and V.A.

Rakov, Application of the antenna theory model to a tall tower struck by
lightning. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2003;108(D17): 4542.
[7] Harrington, R.F., Field Computation by Moment Methods. 1993, New
York: IEEE & Wiley.
[8] Visacro, S. and F.H. Silveira, Evaluation of lightning current distribution
along the lightning discharge channel by a hybrid electromagnetic model.
Journal of Electrostatics, 2004 60:111–20.
[9] Silveira, F.H., S. Visacro, and A.R. De Conti, Lightning effects on the
vicinity of elevated structures, International Conference on Lightning
Protection ICLP, 2004, Avignon, France.
[10] Zundl, T., Lightning current and LEMP calculations compared to mea-
surements gained at the Peissenberg tower, in 22nd ICLP (International
Conference on Lightning Protection), 1994, Budapest, Hungary.
[11] Guerrieri, S., F. Heidler, C.A. Nucci, F. Rachidi, and M. Rubinstein,
Extension of two return stroke models to consider the influence of elevated
strike objects on the lightning return stroke current and the radiated elec-
tromagnetic field: comparison with experimental results. EMC ’96 ROMA,
International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1996, Univ.
Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, Italy.
[12] Guerrieri, S., C.A. Nucci, F. Rachidi, and M. Rubinstein, On the influence
of elevated strike objects on directly measured and indirectly estimated
lightning currents. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 1998;13(4):
1543–55.
[13] Guerrieri, S., E.P. Krider, and C.A. Nucci, Effects of traveling-waves of
current on the initial response of a tall Franklin Rod, ICLP2000, 2000,
Rhode, Greece.
[14] Rusan, I., W. Janischewskyj, A.M. Hussein, and J.-S. Chang, Comparison
of measured and computed electromagnetic fields radiated from lightning
strikes to the Toronto CN tower, in 23rd International Conference on
Lightning Protection (ICLP), 1996, Florence.
[15] Motoyama, H., W. Janischewskyj, A.M. Hussein, R. Rusan, W.A.
Chisholm, and J.S. Chang, Electromagnetic field radiation model for
lightning strokes to tall structures. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
1996;11(3):1624–32.
[16] Rachidi, F., W. Janischewskyj, A.M. Hussein, et al., Current and electro-
magnetic field associated with lightning return strokes to tall towers. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2001;43(3):356–67.
[17] Janischewskyj, W., V. Shostak, and A.M. Hussein, Comparison of light-
ning electromagnetic field characteristics of first and subsequent return
strokes to a tall tower 1. Magnetic field, in 24th ICLP (International
Conference on Lightning Protection), 1998, Birmingham, UK.
[18] Janischewskyj, W., V. Shostak, and A.M. Hussein, Lightning electric field
characteristics of first and subsequent return strokes to a tall tower. Eleventh
International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, 1999;467(5).
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 193

[19] Shostak, V., W. Janischewskyj, A. Hussein, and B. Kordi, Electromagnetic

fields of lightning strikes to a tall tower: a model that accounts for upward-
connecting discharges,in 25th ICLP (International Conference on
Lightning Protection), 2000, Rhodes, Greece.
[20] Shostak, V., W. Janischewskyj, A.M. Hussein, J.S. Chang, and B. Kordi,
Return-stroke current modeling of lightning striking a tall tower accounting
for reflections within the growing channel and for upward-connecting dis-
charges, in 11th International Conference on Atmospheric Electricity,
1999, Guntersville, USA.
[21] Goshima, H., A. Asakawa, T. Shindo, H. Motoyama, A. Wada, and S.
Yokoyama, Characteristics of electromagnetic fields due to winter light-
ning stroke current to a high stack, Transactions of the Institute of
Electrical Engineers of Japan, Part B, 2000;120(1):44–9.
[22] Bermudez, J.L., M. Rubinstein, F. Rachidi, F. Heidler, and M. Paolone,
Determination of reflection coefficients at the top and bottom of elevated
strike objects struck by lightning. Journal of Geophysical Research,
2003;108(D14):4413. doi:10.1029/2002JD002973.
[23] Bermudez, J.L., F. Rachidi, W. Janischewskyj, et al., Far-field—current
relationship based on the TL model for lightning return strokes to elevated
strike objects. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
2005;47(1):146–59.
[24] Baba, Y. and V.A. Rakov, Lightning electromagnetic environment in the
presence of a tall grounded strike object. Journal of Geophysical Research,
2005;110. D09108, doi:10.1029/2004JD005505.
[25] Rachidi, F. and C.A. Nucci, On the Master, Uman, Lin, Standler and the
Modified Transmission Line lightning return stroke current models.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 1990;95(D12):20389–94.
[26] Cooray, G.V, On the concepts used in return stroke models applied in
engineering practice. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 2002;45(1):101–8.
[27] Mosaddeghi, A., F. Rachidi, M. Rubinstein, et al., Radiated fields from
lightning strikes to tall structures: effect of upward connecting leader and
reflections at the return stroke wavefront. IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2011;53(2):437–45.
[28] Baba, Y. and V.A. Rakov, On the use of lumped sources in lightning return
stroke models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2005;110:D03101.
[29] Shigihara, M. and A. Piantini, Estimation of lightning currents from mea-
surements performed on elevated objects, in 28th International Conference
on Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2006, Kanazawa, Japan.
[30] Shostak, V., W. Janischewskyj, A. Hussein, J.S. Chang, F. Rachidi, and J.L.
Bermudez, Modeling of the electromagnetic field associated with lightning
return strokes to a complex tall tower, in 26th ICLP (International
Conference on Lightning Protection), 2002, Cracow, Poland.
[31] Shostak, V., W. Janischewskyj, and A.M. Hussein, Expanding the modified
transmission line model to account for reflections within the continuously
194 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

growing lightning return stroke channel, IEEE Power Engineering Society

Summer Meeting, 2000, Piscataway, USA: Cat. IEEE.
[32] Bermudez, J.L., F. Rachidi, W.A. Chisholm, et al., On the use of trans-
mission line theory to represent a nonuniform vertically-extended object
struck by lightning, in 2003 IEEE Symposium on Electromagnetic
Compatibility (EMC), 2003, Boston, USA.
[33] Baba, Y. and V.A. Rakov, On the interpretation of ground reflections
observed in small-scale experiments simulating lightning strikes to towers.
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2005;47(3):533–542.
[34] Shoory, A., F. Vega, F. Rachidi, and M. Rubinstein, On the propagation of
current pulses along tall structures struck by lightning, in 2010 Asia-Pacific
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2010, Beijing, China.
[35] Pavanello, D., F. Rachidi, V.A. Rakov, C. Nucci, and J.L. Bermudez,
Return stroke current profiles and electromagnetic fields associated with
lightning strikes to tall towers: comparison of engineering models, in
International Conference on Lightning Protection, ICLP 2004, 2004,
Avignon, France.
[36] Nucci, C.A., G. Diendorfer, M. Uman, F. Rachidi, M. Ianoz, and C.
Mazzetti, Lightning return stroke current models with specified channel-
base current: a review and comparison. Journal of Geophysical Research,
1990;95(D12):20395–408.
[37] Heidler, F., J. Wiesinger, and W. Zischank, Lightning currents measured at
a telecommunication tower from 1992 to 1998, in 14th International Zurich
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2001, Zurich, Switzerland.
[38] Pavanello, D., F. Rachidi, J.L. Bermudez, M. Rubinstein, and C.A. Nucci,
Electromagnetic field radiated by lightning to tall towers: treatment of the
discontinuity at the return stroke wavefront. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 2004;109:D06114.
[39] Beierl, O, Front shape parameters of negative subsequent strokes measured
at the Peissenberg tower, in 21st ICLP (International Conference on
Lightning Protection), 1992, Berlin, Germany.
[40] Montandon, E. and B. Beyeler, The lightning measuring equipement on the
Swiss PTT telecommunications tower at St. Chrischona, Switzerland, 1994,
telecom recherches et développement: St. Chrischona, Switzerland.
[41] Willett, J.C., V.P. Idone, R.E. Orville, et al., An experimental test of the
“Transmission-Line Model” of electromagnetic radiation from triggered
lightning return strokes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1988;93
(D4):3867–78.
[42] Gavric, M.R., Iterative method for waveshape restoration of directly mea-
sured lightning flash currents. IEE Proceedings Generation, Transmission
and Distribution, 2002;149(1):66–70.
[43] Janischewskyj, W., V. Shostak, J. Barratt, A.M. Hussein, I. Rusan, and J.S.
Chang, Collection and use of lightning return stroke parameters taking into
account characteristics of the struck object, in 23rd ICLP (International
Conference on Lightning Protection), 1996, Florence, Italy.
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 195

[44] Podgorski, A.S. and J.A. Landt, Three dimensional time domain modelling
of lightning. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 1987;PWRD-2(3):
931–8.
[45] Moini, R., V.A. Rakov, M.A. Uman, and B. Kordi, An antenna theory
model for the lightning return stroke, in 12th International Zurich
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1997, Zurich, Switzerland.
[46] Petrache, E., F. Rachidi, D. Pavanello, et al., Lightning strikes to elevated
structures: influence of grounding conditions on currents and electro-
magnetic fields, in IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 2005, Chicago, IL.
[47] Petrache, E., F. Rachidi, D. Pavanello, et al., Influence of the finite ground
conductivity on the transient response to lightning of a tower and its
grounding, in 28th General Assembly of International Union of Radio
Science (URSI), 2005, New Delhi, India.
[48] Rubinstein, M, An approximate formula for the calculation of the hor-
izontal electric field from lightning at close, intermediate, and long range.
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1996;38(3):531–5.
[49] Rachidi, F., C.A. Nucci, I. M., and C. Mazzetti, Influence of a lossy ground
on lightning-induced voltages on overhead lines. IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1996;38(3):250–63.
[50] Agrawal, A.K., H.J. Price, and S.H. Gurbaxani, Transient response of
multiconductor transmission lines excited by a nonuniform electromagnetic
field, in IEEE International Symposium Digest. Antennas and Propagation,
1980, New York, USA.
[51] Pavanello, D., F. Rachidi, M. Rubinstein, J.L. Bermudez, and C.A. Nucci,
On the calculation of electromagnetic fields radiated by lightning to tall
structures, in International Conference on Lightning Protection, ICLP
2004, 2004, Avignon, France.
[52] Rubinstein, M. and M.A. Uman, Transient electric and magnetic fields
associated with establishing a finite electrostatic dipole, revisited. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1991;33(4):312–20.
[53] Rubinstein, M. and M.A. Uman, On the radiation field turn-on term asso-
ciated with traveling current discontinuities in lightning. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 1990;95(D4):3711–13.
[54] Le Vine, D.M. and J.C. Willett, Comment on the transmission line model
for computing radiation from lightning. Journal of Geophysical Research,
1992;97:2601–10.
[55] Thottappillil, R. and V.A. Rakov, On different approaches to calculating light-
ning electric fields. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2001;106:14191–205.
[56] Thottappillil, R., V.A. Rakov, and M.A. Uman, Distribution of charge
along the lightning channel: relation to remote electric and magnetic fields
and to return-stroke models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1997;102
(D6):6987–7006.
196 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[57] Thottappillil, R., M.A. Uman, and V.A. Rakov, Treatment of retardation
effects in calculating the radiated electromagnetic fields from the lightning
discharge. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1998;103(D8):9003–13.
[58] Cooray, V., V.A. Rakov, C.A. Nucci, F. Rachidi, and R. Montano, On the
constraints imposed by the close electric field signature on the equivalent
corona current in lightning return stroke models, in International
Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP 2004), 2004, Avignon, France.
[59] Pavanello, D., F. Rachidi, M. Rubinstein, N. Theethayi, and R.
Thottappillil, Electromagnetic environment in the immediate vicinity of a
tower struck by lightning, in EUROEM’2004, 2004, Magdeburg, Germany.
[60] Miyazaki, S. and M. Ishii, Influence of elevated stricken object on lightning
return-stroke current and associated fields, in International Conference on
Lightning Protection ICLP, 2004, Avignon, France.
[61] Mosaddeghi, A., A. Shoory, F. Rachidi, et al., Lightning electromagnetic
fields at very close distances associated with lightning strikes to the
Gaisberg Tower. Journal of the Geophysical Research, 2010;115:(D17101.
[62] Rakov, V.A. and F. Rachidi, Overview of recent progress in lightning
research and lightning protection. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 2009;51(3):428–42.
[63] Baños, A, Dipole Radiation in the Presence of a Conducting Half-Space,
1966, Oxford: P. Press.
[64] Delfino, F., R. Procopio, F. Rachidi, and C.A. Nucci, An algorithm for the
exact evaluation of the underground lightning electromagnetic fields. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2007;49(2):401–11.
[65] Delfino, F., R. Procopio, and M. Rossi, Lightning return stroke current
radiation in presence of a conducting ground: 1. Theory and numerical
evaluation of the electromagnetic fields. Journal of Geophysical Research,
2008;113;D05110.
[66] Delfino, F., R. Procopio, M. Rossi, F. Rachidi, and C.A. Nucci, Lightning
return stroke current radiation in presence of a conducting ground: 2.
Validity assessment of simplified approaches. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 2008;113:D05111.
[67] Delfino, F., R. Procopio, M. Rossi, F. Rachidi, and C.A. Nucci, Evaluation
of underground lightning electromagnetic fields, in International
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility EMC EUROPE 2006, 2006,
Barcelona, Spain.
[68] Rubinstein, M., An approximate formula for the caluclation of the hor-
izontal electric field from lightning at close, intermediate, and long range.
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1996;38:531–5.
[69] Cooray, V., Horizontal fields generated by return strokes. Radio Science,
1992;27(4):529–37.
[70] Wait, J.R, Concerning the horizontal electric field of lightning. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1997;39(2):186.
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 197

[71] Shoory, A., R. Moini, S.H.H. Sadeghi, and V.A. Rakov, Analysis of
lightning-radiated electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of lossy ground.
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2005;47(1):131–45.
[72] Barbosa, C.F. and J.O.S. Paulino, An approximate time-domain formula for
the calculation of the horizontal electric field from lightning. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2007;49(3):593–601.
[73] Caligaris, C., F. Delfino, and R. Procopio, Cooray-Rubinstein formula for
the evaluation of lightning radial electric fields: derivation and imple-
mentation in the time domain. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 2008;50(1):194–7.
[74] Cooray, V, Underground electromagnetic fields generated by the return
strokes of lightning flashes. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 2001;43(1):75–84.
[75] Petrache, E., F. Rachidi, M. Paolone, C. Nucci, V.A. Rakov, and M.A.
Uman, Lightning-induced voltages on Buried Cables”, Part I: theory. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2005;47(3).
[76] Degauque, P. and A. Zeddam, Remarks on the transmission-line approach
to determining the current induced on above-ground cables. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1988;30(1):77–80.
[77] Tirkas, P.A., C.A. Balanis, M.P. Purchine, and G.C. Barber, Finite-
difference time-domain method for electromagnetic radiation, inter-
ference, and interaction with complex structures. IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1993;35(2):192–203.
[78] Paolone, M., C.A. Nucci, and F. Rachidi, A new finite difference time
domain scheme for the evaluation of lightning induced overvoltages on
multiconductor overhead lines, in 5th International Conference on Power
System Transients, 2001, Rio de Janeiro.
[79] Sartori, C.A.F. and J.R. Cardoso, An analytical-FDTD method for near
LEMP calculation. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 2000;36(4):1631–4.
[80] Yang, C. and B. Zhou, Calculation methods of electromagnetic fields very
close to lightning. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
2004;46(1):133–41.
[81] Mimouni, A., F. Rachidi, and Z. Azzouz, Electromagnetic environment in
the immediate vicinity of a lightning return stroke. Journal of Lightning
Research, 2007;2:64–75.
[82] Mimouni, A., F. Rachidi, and Z. Azzouz, A finite-difference time-domain
approach for the evaluation of electromagnetic fields radiated by lightning
to tall structures. Journal of Electrostatics, 2008;866:504–13.
[83] Baba, Y. and V.A. Rakov, On the mechanism of attenuation of current
waves propagating along a vertical perfectly conducting wire above
ground: application to lightning. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 2005;47(3):521–32.
[84] Baba, Y. and V.A. Rakov, Electromagnetic fields at the top of a tall
building associated with nearby lightning return strokes. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2007;49(3):632–43.
198 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[85] Moini, R., B. Kordi, G.Z. Rafi, and V.A. Rakov, A new lightning return
stroke model based on antenna theory. Journal of Geophysical Research,
2000;105(D24):29693–702.
[86] Pockels, F., Über die Blitzentladungen erreicht Strömstärke, in Phys. Z.
1900. p. 2.
[87] Foust, C.M. and H.P. Kuehni, The Surge Crest Ammeter. General Electric
Review, 1932;35:5.
[88] Foust, C.M. and G.F. Gardner, General Electric Review, 1934;35:324327.
[89] Wagner, C.F. and G.D. McCann, Transactions on American Institute of
Electrical Engineers, 1940;59:442–449.
[90] Grünewald, H., Die Messung von Blitzstromstärken an Blitzableitern und
Freileitungsmasten. Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift, 1934;22:4.
[91] Zaduk, H., Neuere Ergebnisse der Blitzstromstärkemessungen an
Hochspannungsleitungen. Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift, 1935;17:5.
[92] Popolansky, F., Lightning current measurement on high objects in
Chechoslovakia, in 20th International Conference on Lightning Protection
ICLP, 1990, Interlaken.
[93] Kulikow, D., Blitzströme, in 14th International Conference on Lightning
Protection ICLP, 1978, Danzig.
[94] Miladowska, K., Vergleichung der Blitzresultate von hohen Schornsteinen
und den Zählern, in 14th International Conference on Lightning Protection
ICLP, 1978, Danzig.
[95] McEachron, K.B., Lightning to the empire state building. Journal of
Franklin Institute, 1939;227:149–217.
[96] Diendorfer, G., H. Pichler, and M. Mair, Some parameters of negative
upward initiated lightning to the Gaisberg Tower (2000–2007). IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2009. Submitted for
publication.
[97] Uman, M.A., Lightning. 1984, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
[98] Golde, R.H., Lightning. Vol. 1. 1977, London: Academic Press. p. 496.
[99] Berger, K, R.B. Anderson, and H. Kroninger, Parameters of lightning fla-
shes. Electra. 1975;41:23–37.
[100] Uman, M.A., The lightning discharge. Vol. 39. 1987, Florida: Academic
Press, Inc. 377.
[101] Cortina, R., E. Garbagnati, W. Serravalli, L. Dellera, A. Pigini, and L.
Thione, Quelques aspects de l’évaluation des performances des réseaux
électriques vis-à-vis de la foudre, CIGRE, 1980, Paris.
[102] Fisher, R.J., G.H. Schnetzer, R. Thottappillil, V.A. Rakov, M.A. Uman, and
J.D. Goldberg, Parameters of triggered-lightning flashes in Florida and
Alabama. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1993;98(D12):22887–902.
[103] Narita, T., T. Yamada, A. Mochizuki, E. Zaima, and M. Ishii, Observation
of current waveshapes of lightning strokes on transmission towers. IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 2000;15(1):429–35.
[104] Diendorfer, G., M. Mair, and W. Schulz, Detailed brightness versus light-
ning current amplitude correlation of flashes to the Gaisberg tower, in 26th
 Modeling lightning strikes to tall towers 199

ICLP (International Conference on Lightning Protection), 2002, Cracow,

Poland.
[105] Diendorfer, G., M. Mair, W. Schulz, and W. Hadrian, Lightning current
measurements in Austria-experimental setup and first results, in 25th ICLP
(International Conference on Lightning Protection), 2000, Rhodes, Greece.
[106] Torres, H., Experimental station “Ilyapa” to measure directly lightning
parameters in tropical zone, http://www.paas.unal.edu.co/investigacion/
estacion.htm. 2000 September 2000. Available from: http://paas.unal.edu.
co/investigacion/estacion.htm.
[107] Torres, H., O. Trujillo, F. Amortegui, et al., Experimental station to mea-
sure directly lightning parameters in tropical zone. Eleventh International
Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, 1999;467:5.
[108] Torres, H., O. Trujillo, F. Amortegui, et al., Design, construction and
calibration of three devices to measure directly lightning parameters, in
Eleventh International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, 1999,
London, UK.
[109] Rakov, V.A., Transient response of a tall object to lightning. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2001;43(4):654–61.
[110] Janischewskyj, W., J.S. Chang, A.M. Hussein, V. Shostak, I. Rusan, and Y.
Chen, Parameters of CN Tower lightning during severe and non-severe
thunderstorms, in 10th International Conference on Atmospheric
Electricity, 1996, Osaka, Japan.
[111] Hussein, A.M., W. Janischewskyj, J.S. Chang, et al., Simultaneous mea-
surement of lightning parameters for strokes to the Toronto Canadian
National Tower. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1995;100(D5):8853–61.
[112] Hussein, A., W. Janischewskyj, M. Milewski, V. Shostak, J.S. Chang, and
W.A. Chisholm, Return-stroke current waveform parameters of lightning to
the CN Tower (1992–2001), in 26th ICLP (International Conference on
Lightning Protection), 2002, Cracow, Poland.
[113] Shostak, V., Modeling of return stroke current for lightning events at a
complex tall structure, in 2001 International Workshop on Electromagnetic
Radiation from Lightning to Tall Structures, 2001, Toronto, Canada.
[114] Shostak, V., W. Janischewskyj, A.M. Hussein, and B. Kordi,
Characteristics of return stroke current and electromagnetic field wave-
forms observed in multistroke lightning flashes to a tall tower, in Eleventh
International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, 1999, London,
UK.
[115] Montandon, E. and B. Beyeler, Lightning induced voltages on electrical
installations on a Swiss PTT instrumented tower in St. Chrischona ,
Switzerland, in 22nd International Conference on Lightning Protection,
1994, Budapest, Hungary.
[116] Montandon, E. and B. Beyeler, The lightning measuring equipment on the
Swiss PTT telecommunications tower at St. Chrischona, Switzerland, in
22nd ICLP (International Conference on Lightning Protection), 1994,
Budapest, Hungary.
200 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[117] Rubinstein, A., C. Romero, M. Paolone, et al., Lightning measurement

station on Mount Säntis in Switzerland, in X International Symposium on
Lightning Protection (SIPDA), 2009, Curitiba, Brazil.
[118] Romero, C., A. Rubinstein, M. Paolone, et al., Instrumentation of the Säntis
Tower in Switzerland for lightning current measurements. International
Journal of Plasma Environmental Science & Technology, 2010;4(1):79–85.
[119] Rachidi, F. and M. Rubinstein, “Säntis lightning research facility: a sum-
mary of the first ten years and future outlook”, Springer e+i, 2022.
doi:10.1007/s00502-022-01031-2.
[120] Hussein, A.M., W. Janischewskyj, M. Milewski, V. Shostak, F. Rachidi,
and J.S. Chang, Comparison of current characteristics of lightning strokes
measured at the CN tower and at other elevated objects. IEEE International
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2003;2:495–500.
[121] Asakawa, A., K. Miyake, S. Yokoyama, T. Shindo, T. Yokota, and T.
Sakai, Two types of lightning discharges to a high stack on the coast of the
sea of Japan in winter. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 1997;12
(3):1222–31.
[122] Pichler, H., G. Diendorfer, and M. Mair, Statistics of lightning current
parameters measured at the Gaisberg Tower, in 18th International
Lightning Detection Conference (ILDC), 2004, Helsinki, Finland.
[123] Rakov, V.A., Lightning discharges triggered using rocket-and-wire tech-
niques, in Recent Research Development on Geophysics, 1999. R. Signpost:
India. p. 141–171.
[124] Schroeder, M.A.O., A.J. Soarez, S. Visacro, L.C.L. Cherchiglia, and V.J.
Souza, Lightning current statistical analysis: measurements of Morro do
Cachimbo Station – Brazil, in 26th ICLP (International Conference on
Lightning Protection), 2002, Cracow, Poland.
[125] Q. Li, F. Rachidi, M. Rubinstein, et al., An extension of the guided wave
M-Component model taking into account the presence of a tall strike
object. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2021;126:
e2021JD035121. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035121.
 Chapter 6
Lightning electromagnetic field calculations in
the presence of a conducting ground: the
numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals
Federico Delfino1, Renato Procopio1, Mansueto Rossi1,
Daniele Mestriner1 and Massimo Brignone1

6.1 Introduction
During the past decades, much attention has been paid to the problem of the
interaction between lightning electromagnetic fields and overhead and buried
conductors. This has led to the formulation of different reliable field-to-
transmission line coupling models [1,2]. All these models require an accurate
evaluation of the lightning electromagnetic fields along the line, taking into
account the effect of the ground finite conductivity, since the approximation of
perfectly conducting ground becomes unacceptable especially in the evaluation of
the horizontal electric field [3].
Different models can be adopted to represent a lossy soil; the simplest one
assumes that both the conductivity s and the relative permittivity er are constant.
Enhanced representations could then consider the influence of the working fre-
quency on s and er or their dependence on the depth, in the case of a horizontally
stratified ground. In the following, such configurations will be examined with the
final aim to derive lightning field expressions (radial and vertical electric field,
azimuthal magnetic one) and to propose numerical procedures for their efficient
and accurate calculation. It is important to highlight from the beginning that the
presence of a ground with finite conductivity will be responsible of the appearance
in field expressions of the so-called Sommerfeld’s integrals. The numerical eva-
luation of such integrals represent a hard task due to the singular, oscillating and
divergent behaviour of their integrands and, as a consequence, suitable strategies
have to be identified to guarantee at the same time precision in execution and
acceptable computational costs.

1
Department of Electrical, Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering and Naval Architecture
Department (DITEN), University of Genoa, Italy
202 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

The chapter is organized as follows. In Section 6.2, the ground parameters will
be considered constant; under such assumption both the derivation and the calcu-
lation of the lightning electromagnetic field components will be presented.
Next, in Section 6.3, the influence of the frequency dependent behaviour of the
ground electrical parameters will be studied. Finally, in Section 6.4, the problem of
the derivation of the lightning electromagnetic fields over a stratified conducting
ground will be faced.

6.2 Lightning electromagnetic field calculation in

presence of a lossy ground with constant electrical
parameters
In order to determine the electromagnetic field produced by a lightning current
distribution along a channel of height H over a conducting half-space, one has first
to solve the elementary problem of the vertical electric dipole radiation. Such
problem was solved by Arnold Sommerfeld in his works [4,5], where the complete
theory which underlies the derivation of the Green functions for any kind of
scattering problem in presence of an absorbing earth is presented. Although the
work by Sommerfeld set up the theoretical bases, further research was developed
since the publication of his first paper on the subject in order to investigate the
application of the theory to several propagation and radiation problems of practical
interest [6–10]. With the coming of numerical analysis techniques, an ever-
growing attention was paid to the development of methods for the evaluation of
both the Green functions and their integrals on the scattering geometries [11–17].
It should be noticed indeed that the Green functions expressions involve the
Sommerfeld’s integrals, which require a huge computational effort, due to their
characteristics of slow convergence. From a mathematical standpoint, the
Sommerfeld’s integrals are improper integrals (i.e. over a semi-infinite domain) of
complex functions characterized by the presence of two branch points. The pre-
sence in the integrand of the highly oscillating Bessel function and of an integrable
singularity are the main causes of numerical troubles. Such troubles led some
authors, involved in antenna modeling, to address their research to the investiga-
tion of some sort of approximate approaches in order to find simplified formulas
and methods [18–23].
During the development of lightning studies, when the problem of the light-
ning electromagnetic field evaluation in presence of a lossy ground was addressed,
researchers resorted to methods and techniques already investigated by antenna
specialists (e.g. Norton’s approximation [6] and surface impedance [15]) and often
made use of codes already developed in this context (e.g. NEC [24], NEC-2)
[25–28]. Recently, the application of more sophisticated numerical techniques
widely employed in full-Maxwell electromagnetic field analysis (like FDTD and
MoM) has been investigated [29–31].
On the other hand, several authors decided to work on approximate formulas
specifically intended to the lightning horizontal electric field evaluation
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 203

(namely the component that mostly affects line overvoltages). Among them, the
most remarkable ones are those proposed by Cooray and Rubinstein [32–34]. Such
formulas have been intensively employed for the evaluation of lightning induced
overvoltages on overhead power line [3,35]. Approximate approaches were also
developed for the numerical evaluation of Sommerfeld’s integrals appearing in the
expressions of the lightning fields [36,37] or for maximum overvoltage estimation
[38] (a detailed analysis of the available approximate expressions is the focus of the
next chapter).
In this section, our aim is to present in a systematic way the derivation of the
electromagnetic fields generated by a lightning return stroke current, respectively
in the half-space “air” and in the half-space “lossy ground,” and to propose an
efficient method for the numerical computation of the field expressions.

6.2.1 Over-ground electromagnetic field

6.2.1.1 A overview on Green’s functions theory
The problem of determining the exact expression of the electromagnetic field
radiated by a lightning discharge can be faced using the principles of Green’s
function theory [39,40]. Let:

Lu ¼ r  ðruÞ þ k2 u ¼ F (6.1)
be a partial differential equation defined in the domain A  <3 , associated with the
well-known Sommerfeld’s radiation condition at the infinity [5]
 
pffiffi @u
lim r  jku ¼ 0 (6.2)
r!1 @r

expressed in cylindrical coordinates.

L is a differential operator, F is an assigned function over the domain <3 , k is a
given constant, u is the unknown of the problem and j2 = 1.
Let w be the solution of
(
Lw ¼ dðP  P0 Þ;
pffiffi (6.3)
lim rð@w=@r  jkwÞ ¼ 0;
r!1

where d() is the Dirac function and P and P0 are respectively the observation and
the source point.
It can be shown that [40]
ð
u ¼ wFdP0 (6.4)
A

Equation (6.4) states that the solution of problem (6.1) for a generic right-hand-
side F can be easily obtained by solving only once problem (6.3) and calculating
the particular solution w, which is called Green’s function [39,40].
204 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

According to such results, the lightning electromagnetic field calculation pro-

blem we have to deal with can be solved into two steps:
1. evaluation of the field due to an elementary current dipole, i.e. the physical
counterpart of the Dirac d function of system (6.3), in order to obtain the
Green’s function;
2. evaluation of an integral of the kind (6.4) over the lightning channel, in order to
obtain the real unknown, i.e. the radiated electromagnetic field.

6.2.1.2 Derivation of the Green’s functions for the over-

ground electromagnetic field
Here, the problem is to determine the field radiated by a vertical dipole lying at
height z0 over a lossy ground.
With reference to Figure 6.1, the vertical dipole is placed at source point
P’(0,0,z’), while the observation point is P(r,f,z). The upper half-space is air,
which is assumed to be lossless and characterized by magnetic permeability m0 and
electric permittivity e0. The lossy ground (lower half-space) has conductivity s and
electric permittivity e.
As well-known![5], the symmetry!of the problem allows to state that the vector
potential in the air A and in the earth A E have only component on the vertical axis,
that is to say:
! !
A ¼ Ae 3 !
! (6.5)
A E ¼ AE e 3

az

Z P
P (r, I, Z' )
Z
ay
+ R
P' (0, 0, Z') I r
– a)
ax
ar
HPV
Air Hr,P0,V= 0
Z=0

Ground Hr,P0,V

Figure 6.1 Model geometry: the dipole radiation over a conducting ground
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 205

having indicated with A and AE the !vertical components of the vector potential in
air and earth respectively and with e 3 the vertical axis unit vector. So, in the fre-
quency domain, the set of equations solving this problem is the following:
8 ! ! !
>
> DA þ k2 A ¼ m0 dðP  P0 Þe 3 z > 0;
>
>
>
>
! !
DA þ kE 2 A ¼ 0 z < 0;
>
>
>
>
>
< A ¼ AE z ¼ 0;
(6.6)
>
> 2 @A @AE
>
> n ¼ z ¼ 0;
>
> @z @z
>
>  
>
> lim pffiffir @A  jkA
>
: _ ¼ 0;
r!1 @r
where: k2 ¼ w2 m0 e0 is the wave number in air (being w 2the angular frequency),
k
k2E ¼ w2 em0 þ jwm0 s the wave number in the earth n2 ¼ kE2 the complex refractive
index and d the Dirac function. The first and second Helmholtz equations hold
respectively in air and in earth, while the third and fourth ones are the interface
conditions, which must be satisfied in order to ensure the continuity of the tan-
gential magnetic and electric fields at ground level. Sommerfeld showed [5] that,
with the addition of the fifth equation, the well-known radiation condition, the
problem has a unique solution.
It should be observed that the set of (6.6) has been derived assuming for all
variables a time-harmonic dependence of the kind ejwt .
Once (6.6) has been solved and the vector potential spatial distribution has
been obtained, the expression of the three non-zero components of the field can be
easily derived according to the following relationships:
8  
>
> jw @ 2 A
>
> E z ¼ þ k 2
A ;
>
> k2 @z2
>
>  
<
jw @ 2 A
> Er ¼ 2 ; (6.7)
>
> k @z@r
>
>
>
> 1 @A
>
: Hj ¼  ;
m0 @r
A being the vertical component of the vector potential.
In order to solve problem (6.6), it is first necessary to face the simplified case
of the vertical dipole radiation in free space (Figure 6.2). Such problem is described
only by the first and the fifth equation of system (6.6), respectively the governing
equation and the condition at the infinity. Of course, due to the different symmetry
of the problem, a system of spherical coordinates is now used.
As well-known [5], the solution in terms of the vector potential spatial dis-
tribution is the following:

m0 ejkR
AðRÞ ¼ (6.8)
4p R
206 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

H) Er

ϑ r Eϑ

I
di
y

Figure 6.2 Model geometry: the dipole radiation in free space

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R ¼ r2 þ ðz  z0 Þ2 being the distance between the source point and the obser-
vation one. Developing (6.8) as a superposition of the Helmholtz equation eigen-
functions in a cylindrical domain [5], after some mathematical manipulations [41],
one gets:
ð
m0 ejkR m0 þ1 l mjzz0 j
¼ e J0 ðlrÞdl (6.9)
4p R 4p 0 m
being m2 ¼ l2  k2 and J0 the Bessel function of the first kind and zeroth order.
Coming back now to the primary problem of Figure 6.1, one has to modify
(6.9) by adding a further integral term, in order to satisfy the interface conditions
(at z = 0) of system (6.6). Such term can have the following form:
ð
m0 þ1 0
GðlÞ  J0 ðlrÞ  emðzþz Þ dl (6.10)
4p 0
This is again a superposition of eigenfunctions and the function G appearing in
it, which can be seen as the spectral distribution in the l-continuum of the eigen-
functions [5], will be determined imposing the interface conditions.
Similarly, the expression for AE can be searched in the following form:
ð 
m0 þ1 mE zmz0
AE ¼ GE ðlÞ  J0 ðlrÞ  e dl (6.11)
4p 0
m2E ¼ l2  k2E being and GE an unknown function, whose meaning is the same as G.
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 207

Imposing now the interface conditions, one gets:

8
< l þ G  G ¼ 0;
E
m (6.12)
:
mE GE  n ðl  mGÞ ¼ 0;
2

and finally:
 
l 2mE
GðlÞ ¼ 1 2 ;
m n m þ mE
  (6.13)
2n2
GE ðlÞ ¼ l 2 ;
n m þ mE
which can be put into (6.10) and (6.11) respectively to obtain the expression for A
and AE.
As far as A is concerned, one therefore has that:
 ð þ1   
m ejkR l 2m 0
Aðr; z; z0 Þ ¼ 0 þ 1 2 E  J0 ðlrÞ  emðzþz Þ dl
4p R 0 m n m þ mE
(6.14)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Now, recalling (6.9) and defining R0 ¼ r2 þ ðz þ z0 Þ2 , it readily follows that:
0 ð
m0 ejkR m0 þ1 l mðzþz0 Þ
¼ e J0 ðlrÞdl (6.15)
4p R0 4p 0 m
which means that the part of the vector potential A due to the first term of G can be
interpreted as the image effect.
Equation (6.14) can be then rewritten as:
 0 ð þ1 
m ejkR ejkR mE l mðzþz0 Þ
A¼ 0 þ 0 2 J0 ð lrÞ  e dl (6.16)
4p R R 0 n 2 m þ mE m
Here, it should be noticed that only the first two terms would be present if the
ground conductivity was zero and so they represent the expression for the “ideal”
vector potential (i.e. the one corresponding to perfectly conducting ground), while
the last one takes into account the ground conductivity (i.e. the Sommerfeld inte-
gral). Inserting (6.16) into system (6.7), it is now possible to obtain the expression
for the fields:
8 ð þ1
>
> j mE mðzþz0 Þ l
3
>
> E z ¼ E zi   J 0 ð lr Þ  e  dl;
>
> 2pwe0 0 n2 m þ mE m
>
> ð þ1
<
j 0 m
Er ¼ Eri  l2 J1 ðlrÞemðzþz Þ 2 E dl; (6.17)
>
> 2pwe n m þ mE
>
>
0 0
>
> ð
>
> 1 þ1 mE mðzþz0 Þ l
2
: Hj ¼ Hji   J1 ð lr Þ  e  dl;
2p 0 n2 m þ mE m
208 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

where the terms Eri, Ezi, and Hji are the “ideal” fields, whose expressions can be
found in [42].

6.2.1.3 Derivation of the lightning return stroke over-ground

electromagnetic field
The Green functions (6.17) are now utilized to evaluate the electromagnetic field
expression due to a lightning event. In order to reach this goal, it is necessary to
multiply the Green functions for the current distribution and to integrate along the
channel (see Figure 6.3) [39,40]. Let us assume for the current the following
model [43]:
z0
Iðz0 ; wÞ ¼ Pðz0 ÞIð0; wÞejw v ; (6.18)
I(0,w) being the channel base current, P(z0 ) the height dependent attenuation
function and v the current wavefront0 speed.
In this case, setting Pðz0 Þ ¼ e a (MTLE model [44]), the expressions of the
z

lightning fields are:

8 ð
>
> jIð0; wÞ þ1 mE mz l
3
>
> E zL ¼ E ziL   J0 ð lrÞ  e  QðlÞdl;
>
> 2pwe0 0 n2 m þ mE m
>
> ð
<
jIð0; wÞ þ1 2 m
ErL ¼ EriL  l J1 ðlrÞemz 2 E QðlÞdl; (6.19)
>
> 2pwe n m þ mE
>
>
0 0
>
> ð
>
> Ið0; wÞ þ1 mE l2
: HjL ¼ HjiL   J1 ðlrÞ  emz  QðlÞdl:
2p 0 n m þ mE
2 m
The function Q appearing in (6.19) is the result of the integration along the
channel, namely:
ðH
eðj v maÞH  1
w 1

eðj v maÞz dz0 ¼  w

w 1 0
QðlÞ ¼  (6.20)
0 j v  m  a1

Air H0,P0,V= 0

H
i(z',t)
dz’
R
z’ P (r, I, Z)

Ground Hr,P0,V

Figure 6.3 Model geometry: the lightning radiation over a conducting ground
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 209

The expressions for the “ideal field” terms, namely EziL, EriL, and HjiL, are [3]:
ð " #
Ið0; wÞ H 2ðz  z0 Þ2  r2 2ðz  z0 Þ2  r2 r2
EziL ¼ þ þ jw 2 3
4pe0 H cR4 jwR5 c R
 0 
Rþjz j
 ejw Pðz0 Þdz0
c v (6.21)
ð    jz0 j
Ið0; wÞ H 3rðz  z0 Þ 3rðz  z0 Þ r ðz  z 0 Þ jw Rcþ v
EriL ¼ þ  jw  e Pðz0 Þdz0
4pe0 H cR4 jwR5 c2 R 3
(6.22)
and
ðH    0
Ið0; wÞ r r R jz j
HjiL ¼ 3
 jw 2 ejw c þ v Pðz0 Þdz0 (6.23)
4p H R cR

6.2.1.4 Evaluation of the Sommerfeld’s integrals

The quantity,
ð þ1
mE ln
I¼ Ju ðlrÞemz QðlÞdl (6.24)
0 n2 m þ mE mm
appearing in system (6.19) with different values of n, m, and u is known as
Sommerfeld’s integral. In this section, the main mathematical features of this kind
of integral are analyzed in order to find out a fast and reliable procedure for its
numerical treatment.

6.2.1.4.1 The branch points

The integrand of I is a function of a complex variable l and is not uniquely
determined because of the square roots m and mE that appear in it.
Corresponding to the four combinations of signs of m and mE, the integral (6.24)
is four-valued, and its Riemann surface [45] has four sheets. In order to ensure the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiof the integral and its vanishing for z ! 1, one must take
convergence
m ¼ l2  k2 with positive real part. As shown in [5], also mE has to be taken with
positive real part in order to make the integrals expressing the vector potential and
the fields in the earth converge.
Stating this rule of signs, only one of the four sheets is singled out as a
“permissible sheet.” This means that in performing the integration, it is necessary
that the chosen path lie only on the permissible sheet. This is achieved by joining
the two branch points m and mE by two branch cuts, which may not be intersected
by the path of integration. The chosen path is the one depicted in Figure 6.4, in
which the integration variable is u = l/k, so as the branch points occur at u = 1
and u = kE/k.
210 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Im [u]

kE/k

Re [u]

Figure 6.4 Integration path for the Sommerfeld’s integrals

In order to get the expressions for m and mE, one can make the following
considerations.
Let us start with mE. As stated before, one must choose:
ReðmE Þ > 0 (6.25)
 
Recalling the definition of m2E ,
it readily follows that Im < 0. So, indi- m2E
cating with f the phase angle one has that p < f < 2p s a consequence, if q is
of mE2,
the phase angle of mE, one has that either q ¼ 2f or q ¼ 2f þ p can be chosen. In the
p
second case 3p 2 < q < 2p, while in the first one 2 < q < p. So, to meet the
f
requirement (6.25), q ¼ 2 þ p must be chosen and, as a consequence, it results:
  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f f 1 þ cos f
cos q ¼ cos þ p ¼  cos ¼ þ (6.26)
2 2 2
and
  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f f 1  cos f
sin q ¼ sin þp ¼  sin ¼  (6.27)
2 2 2
Now, expressing mE in polar form, it follows:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 þ cos f 1  cos f
mE ¼ jmE jð j Þ (6.28)
2 2
being

l2  ee0 k2
cos f ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi (6.29)
2
l  k
2 e
e0
2
þ s2 k2 me00
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 211

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6
real part

0.4

0.2

0.0

–0.2
–0.95 2.00 2.05 2.10 2.15 2.20
O(1/m)

Figure 6.5 Real part of the s-dependent term for k = 2.09  105

and
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 ffi
4 e m
jmE j ¼ l2  k2 þ s2 k2 0 (6.30)
e0 e0

where the square roots are all real functions.

As far as m is concerned, one can observe that m ¼ lims!0þ mE , and thus it
results:
( pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
l2  k2 for l > k ;
m¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (6.31)
j k2  l2 for l < k :

6.2.1.4.2 The s–dependent term

mE
The term gs ðlÞ ¼ n2 mþm would be zero if the ground were a perfect conductor. As a
E
matter of fact, for fixed k, it is a function of l, and, as can be seen from Figures 6.5
and 6.6, its behavior shows some sort of “resonance” for l = k.
As a consequence, the integrand of (6.24), in the neighborhood of k, in spite of
being continuous, is not, so to speak, “smooth.”
This fact has an important consequence: the integral (6.24) is a Hankel trans-
form, but the above mentioned property makes it impossible for the traditional
Hankel transform algorithms [46] (which basically are Gaussian quadrature meth-
ods) to correctly evaluate the integral in (6.24), as shown in Figure 6.7, where the
real part of the spectrum is depicted (the same holds for the imaginary one).
212 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

1.5

1.0

0.5
imaginary part

0.0

–0.5

–1.0

–1.5 2.0942 2.0943 2.0944 2.0945

O(1/m) X 105

Figure 6.6 Imaginary part of the s-dependent term for k = 2.09  105

0.05

0.04

0.03
real part of the spectrum

0.02

0.01

–0.01

–0.02

–0.03
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
frequency [Hz] ×105

Figure 6.7 Failure of the classical routine for the Hankel transform
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 213

6.2.1.5 The vertical component of the electric field

The inverse Fourier transform of the ideal term (6.21) can be performed analyti-
cally, thus obtaining:
ð "  
1 vt 2ðz  z0 Þ2  r2 R jz 0 j
eziL ðtÞ ¼ i 0; t  
4pe0 vt cR4 c v
 3
R jz 0 j
ð   @i 0; t  
2ðz  z0 Þ2  r2 t R jz0 j r2 c v 7 7Pðz0 Þdz0
þ i 0; s   ds  5
R 5
0 c v 2
c R 3 @t

(6.32)
having indicated with lower case letters the time domain functions.
Here, the range of integration is (–vt, vt) instead of (–H, H), since the current i
(z0 ,t) is identically zero for z0 >vt. This is the reason why, if one performs the fields
calculations in the time domain and is interested in the first microseconds of the
transient, the channel height is of no use.
As far as the Sommerfeld term is concerned, the inverse Fourier transform
must be carried out numerically. This requires to evaluate numerically the corre-
sponding Sommerfeld integral appearing in the first of system (6.19) for many
different values of frequency in an assigned range (i.e. [0 Hz, 107 Hz]). Moreover,
if one observes that, for each frequency:
● the integrand contains both the Bessel function (which is highly oscillating)
and the s-dependent term (whose behaviour is shown in Figures 6.5 and 6.6);
● the integrand is singular for l = k;
● the integral must be carried out over a semi-infinite domain,
one is easily convinced that such calculation requires a huge computational effort.
To overcome the first problem, a Romberg method [47–49] has been used,
dividing the interval of integration into sub-intervals, with particular attention to
the neighborhood of k, namely:
ð1  ð 0:99 ð1 ð 1:01 ð1 
k f ðkuÞdu ¼ k f ðkuÞdu þ k f ðkuÞdu þ k f ðkuÞdu þ k f ðkuÞdu
0 0 0:99 1 1:01
(6.33)
having posed u ¼ lnkand having indicated with f the integrand function of the
first integral of system (6.19).
As far as the singularity is concerned, let us consider the integral I1 between
0.99 and 1:
ð1
u
I1 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi h1 ðuÞdu (6.34)
0:99 1  u2
214 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

with
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
h1 ðuÞ ¼ J0 ðkruÞk3 u2 gs ðkuÞejk 1u z QðkuÞ (6.35)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Setting s ¼ 1  u2 , one has that:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð 10:992 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
I1 ¼ h1 1  s2 ds (6.36)
0

being the integrand not singular in the range of integration.

Indicating with I2 the integral between 1 and 1.01, one has that:
ð 1:01
u
I2 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi h2 ðuÞdu (6.37)
1 u 1
2

being
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h2 ðuÞ ¼ J0 ðkruÞk3 u2 gs ðkuÞek u 1z QðkuÞ
2
(6.38)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Setting now s ¼ u2  1, one has that:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð 1:012 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
I2 ¼ h2 1 þ s2 ds (6.39)
0

being again the integrand not singular in the range of integration.

The integral between 1.01 and ? requires to “approximate the infinity,” that is
to say to find out a number M such that the difference between the original integral
and the one between 1.01 and M is sufficiently small. Typically the number M is
searched with iterative procedures; here it is possible to derive an upper bound for
the error Err in the so-called integral tail for each frequency and so to estimate M in
an analytical way, thus reducing the computational costs.
Let
ð1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k3 u3
J0 ðkruÞ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi gs ðkuÞek u 1z QðkuÞdu
2
ErrðMÞ ¼ (6.40)
M u 1
2

it readily follows that:

ð1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k3 u3
J0 ðkruÞ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi gs ðkuÞek u 1z QðkuÞ du
2
ErrðMÞ  (6.41)
M u2  1
Observing that:
● the absolute values of both Q and gs are decreasing functions for u>1;
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
● if M>4/3, u2  1  u2
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
● jJ0 ðkruÞj < pkru 2
[41]
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 215

×10–11
3.5

2.5
Error/Integral

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency [Hz] ×10–6

Figure 6.8 Ratio between the upper bound of the tail and the absolute value of the
integral between 0 and M as a function of the frequency

one has
pffiffiffi ð
2 2k3 1 kuz 3
ErrðMÞ  jgs ðkMÞQðkMÞj pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi e 2 u2 du (6.42)
pkr M
Finally, since the integral in relation (6.42) is known analytically [41], it follows:
pffiffiffi   5  
2 2k3 kz 2 5 kMz
ErrðMÞ  jgs ðkMÞQðkMÞj pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi G ; (6.43)
pkr 2 2 2
being G the incomplete Gamma function [41].
In Figure 6.8, the ratio between the upper bound of the tail and the absolute
value of the integral between 0 and M has been plotted as a function of the fre-
quency, having set M = 4p/5k, showing that our goal has been achieved.
The position u ¼ lnk is not possible for f = 0 Hz. This implies that another
method must be used to perform the so-called static term.
Let us reconsider the Sommerfeld integral appearing in the first of (6.17);
observing that, if k approaches 0:
8
>
> n2 !
js
;
>
>
>
> we0
>
>
< m 2 ! l2 ;
E
(6.44)
>
> m 2
! l2 ;
>
>
>
>
> mE
> we0
: 2 ! ;
n m þ mE js
216 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

one has that [41]:

ð
j þ1 mE mðzþz Þ l
0 3
 J0 ð lrÞ  e  dl
2pwe0 0 n2 m þ mE m
ð   (6.45)
1 þ1 0 1 3 r2
! J0 ðlrÞ  elðzþz Þ l2 dl ¼ F ; 1; 1;
2ps 0 psR0 3 2 R0 2
F being the Hypergeometric function [41].
As a consequence, the static term for the Sommerfeld integral appearing in the
first of (6.19) is given by:
ð
þ1
jIð0; wÞ mE mz l
0
3
limk!0   J0 ðlrÞ  e  QðlÞdl
2pwe0 n2 m þ mE m
0
(6.46)
ðH  
Ið0; 0Þ 1 3 r2
¼ F ; 1; 1; 0 2 Pðz0 Þdz0
ps R0 3 2 R
0

6.2.1.6 The radial component of the electric field

The inverse Fourier transform of the ideal term (6.22) can be performed analyti-
cally, thus obtaining:
ð"
vt   ðt  
1 3rðz  z0 Þ R jz0 j 3rðz  z0 Þ R jz0 j
eriL ðtÞ ¼ i 0; t   þ i 0; s   ds
4pe0 cR4 c v R5 c v
vt 3 0
R jz0 j
@i 0; t  
rðz  z0 Þ c v 7 7Pðz0 Þdz0
þ 2 3 5
c R @t

(6.47)
having indicated with lower case letters the time domain functions.
As far as the Sommerfeld term is concerned, again the inverse Fourier trans-
form must be carried out numerically. This requires to numerically evaluate the
corresponding Sommerfeld integral appearing in the second of (6.19) for many
different values of frequency in an assigned range (i.e. [0 Hz, 107 Hz]). From a
numerical point of view, here things go better, since the integral function is not
singular for l = k.
Therefore, again a Romberg method is used, splitting the range of integration
into many sub-intervals, as done for the z-component of the electric field, but the
neighborhood of k does not require a ‘special treatment’ as before.
The only problems to solve are the ones relevant to the integral tail and the
static term. Indicating again with Err the upper-bound for the integral tail and with
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 217

M the last point of the interval on which the integral is taken, one has:
ð1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
J1 ðkruÞk3 u2 gs ðkuÞek u 1z QðkuÞdu
2
ErrðMÞ ¼ (6.48)
M

With considerations similar to the ones done in the previous section, it follows
that:
pffiffiffi 3 ð 1
2k
ek2z u2 du
u 3
ErrðMÞ  jgs ðkMÞQðkMÞj pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (6.49)
pkr M
and again [41]:
pffiffiffi 3  5  
2k kz 2 5 kMz
ErrðMÞ  jgs ðkMÞQðkMÞj pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi G ; (6.50)
pkr 2 2 2

As far as the static term is concerned, now one has that:

ð
j þ1 mE 0
 J1 ðlrÞ  emðzþz Þ  l2 dl
2pwe0 0 n m þ mE
2

ð  
1 þ1 0 3r 1 r2
! J1 ðlrÞ  elðzþz Þ l2 dl ¼ F 2;  ; 2; (6.51)
2ps 0 2psR04 2 R02
As a consequence, the static term for the Sommerfeld integral appearing in the
second of (6.19) is given by:
ð þ1
jIð0; wÞ mE 0
limk!0   J1 ðlrÞ  emz  l2 QðlÞdl
2pwe0 0 n2 mþ mE
ðH  
3rI ð0; 0Þ 1 1 r2
¼ F 2;  ; 2; 02 Pðz0 Þdz0 (6.52)
2ps 0 R04 2 R

6.2.1.7 The azimuthal component of the magnetic field

The inverse Fourier transform of the ideal term (6.23) can be performed analyti-
cally, thus obtaining:
2 3
ð vt 0
@i 0; t  Rc  jzv j  0

1 4 r r R j z j 5Pðz0 Þdz0
hjiL ðtÞ ¼ þ 3 i 0; t  
4p vt cR
2 @t R c v

(6.53)

having indicated with lower case letters the time domain functions.
218 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

As far as the Sommerfeld term is concerned, in the numerical evaluation of the

integral (carried out again with a Romberg method for a number of frequencies
ranging between 0 and 107 Hz), one has to face:
● the singularity in the integrand function for l = k;
● the integral tail;
● the static term.
The first problem can be solved in the same way as for the vertical component
of the electric field, with the only difference that now:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
h1 ðuÞ ¼ J1 ðkruÞk2 ugs ðkuÞejk 1u z QðkuÞ (6.54)
and
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h2 ðuÞ ¼ J1 ðkruÞk2 ugs ðkuÞek u2 1z
QðkuÞ (6.55)
The quantity Err is now:
ð1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k2 u2
J1 ðkruÞ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi gs ðkuÞek u 1z QðkuÞdu
2
ErrðMÞ ¼ (6.56)
M u 1
2

In this case, the upper-bound is given by:

pffiffiffi ð
2 2k2 1 kuz 1
ErrðMÞ  jgs ðkMÞQðkMÞj pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi e 2 u2 du (6.57)
pkr M
and, finally [41],
pffiffiffi   3  
2 2k2 kz 2 3 kMz
ErrðMÞ  jgs ðkMÞQðkMÞj pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi G ; (6.58)
pkr 2 2 2
As far as the static term is concerned, recalling the third of (6.19), one can
observe that such term must vanish, since:
mE we0
! (6.59)
n 2 m þ mE js
and the coefficient before the Sommerfeld integral in the third of system (6.19)
does not depend on the frequency.

6.2.2 Underground electromagnetic field

In this section, the derivation of the underground lightning electromagnetic fields
expression is presented, starting from the expression for their Green’s functions.
The situation is now the one depicted in Figure 6.9, in which the vertical dipole
is placed at source point P0 (0, 0, z0 ), while the observation point is P(r, f, z), with
z < 0.
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 219

az
z P
z
ay
+
P' (0,0,z') ϕ r
– aΦ
ax
R ar

Air ε0, μ0, σ = 0

z=0

P (r, ϕ, z)
Ground ε, μ0, σ

Figure 6.9 The electric dipole radiation in the subsoil

Combining (6.11) and (6.13), one can easily gets:

 ð þ1 
m0 l ðmz0 mE zÞ
AE ¼ 2n2
 J0 ðlrÞ  e dl (6.60)
4p 0 n2 m þ mE
Furthermore, the three nonzero components of the fields are related to the
vector potential in the earth by the following:
8  
>
> jw @ 2 AE
>
> E z ¼ þ kE
2
AE ;
>
> kE 2 @z2
>
>  
<
jw @ 2 AE
> Er ¼ 2 ; (6.61)
>
> k @z@r
>
>
E
>
> 1 @AE
>
: Hj ¼  :
m0 @r
Now, inserting (6.60) into (6.61), it follows:
8 ð þ1
> j l3 0
>
> E ¼  J0 ðlrÞ  emz emE z dl;
>
>
z
2pwe n2m þ m
>
> 0 0 E
>
< ð þ1
j 0 l2 m
Er ¼  J1 ðlrÞemz emE z 2 E dl; (6.62)
>
> 2pwe0 0 n m þ mE
>
>
>
> ð þ1
>
> n 2
l 2
0
: Hj ¼  J1 ðlrÞ  emz emE z dl:
2p 0 n m þ mE2
220 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Assuming now the same expression for the current distribution in the lightning
channel used in the previous case (see (6.18)), with the same attenuation function P
(z0 ), the lightning fields are given by:
8 ð
>
> jIð0; wÞ þ1 l3
>
> EzL ¼  J0 ðlrÞ  QðlÞemE z dl;
>
> 2pwe n 2m þ m
>
>
0 0 E
>
< ð
jIð0; wÞ þ1 l2 m
ErL ¼  J1 ðlrÞQðlÞemE z 2 E dl; (6.63)
>
> 2pwe0 0 n m þ mE
>
>
>
> ð
>
> n2 Ið0; wÞ þ1 l2
>
: HjL ¼   J1 ðlrÞ  QðlÞemE z dl:
2p 0 n2 m þ mE

From a numerical point of view, the same considerations can be done as in the
previous subsection, concerning the troubles in the evaluation of the integrals, due
to the characteristics of the integrand functions.
Here, for the sake of brevity, we simply give the expressions for the upper
bound of the error that is made truncating the integral tail and for the static term for
the three nonzero components of the fields.
Vertical electric field:
– upper bound:
pffiffiffi 4   7  
2k kz 2 7 kMz
EðMÞ  jgsz ðkMÞQðkMÞj pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  G ;
pkr 2 2 2

being gsz ðlÞ ¼ n2 mþm

1
E
– static term:
ð
jIð0; wÞ þ1 l3
limk!0  J0 ðlrÞ  emE z QðlÞdl
2pwe0 0 n2 m þ mE
ð  
Ið0; 0Þ H 1 3 r2
¼ F ; 1; 1; Pðz0 Þdz0
ps 0 R3 2 R2

Radial electric field:

– upper bound:
pffiffiffi 3   5  
2k kz 2 5 kMz
EðMÞ  jgsr ðkMÞQðkMÞj pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  G ;
pkr 2 2 2
mE
being gsr ðlÞ ¼ n2 mþm
E
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 221

– static term:
ð
jIð0; wÞ þ1 mE
limk!0   J1 ðlrÞ  emE z  l2 QðlÞdl
2pwe0 0 n2 m þ mE
ð  
3rIð0; 0Þ H 1 1 r2
¼ 4
F 2;  ; 2; 2
Pðz0 Þdz0
2ps 0 R 2 R
Azimuthal magnetic field:
– upper bound:
pffiffiffi   3  
2 2k3 kz 2 5 kMz
EðMÞ  jgsz ðkMÞQðkMÞj pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi G ;
pkr 2 2 2
– static term:
ð
n2 Ið0; wÞ þ1 l2
limk!0  J1 ðlrÞ  emE z QðlÞdl
2p 0 n2 m þ mE
ð  
rIð0; 0Þ H 1 3 r2
¼ 3
F ; 0; 2; 2
Pðz0 Þdz0
2p 0 R 2 R

6.3 Lightning electromagnetic field calculation in

presence of a lossy ground with frequency-dependent
electrical parameters
In the previous paragraphs, even though no mathematical approximations were
used in the theory underlying the outlined work, one major, yet commonly adopted,
simplifying assumption was made on the considered model: the relevant soil
electrical parameters, namely conductivity and permittivity, were assumed to be
frequency independent. The validity of this hypothesis could be questionable, as
extensive research on the subject, conducted since the early years of the last century
[50], shows a non-negligible dependence of both permittivity and conductivity on
the frequency [51,52]. As a matter of fact, ground electrical parameters are heavily
affected by soil heterogeneous components and structure and, remarkably, by its
water content (distinction between “wet ground” and “dry ground” is typically
made [51]). Furthermore, a number of different phenomena take place over the
frequency range of interest for lightning electromagnetic field evaluation (up to a
few MHz), including dipolar molecules polarization, counter-ion diffusion polar-
ization (due to separation of cations and anions), interfacial (Maxwell–Wagner)
polarization, other polarization effects, and various conduction and loss mechan-
isms, each acting on a specific frequency interval [53,54], thus making conductivity
and permittivity behave as frequency-dependent functions. As an example,
222 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

according to [51], for frequencies f up to 1 MHz, wet rocks conductivity slowly

varies with f and typically lies in the range between 101 and 105 S/m, with the
1 MHz value seldom exceeding the low frequency one by more than one order of
magnitude, while the relative dielectric permittivity asymptotically tends to a value
less than that of the water for higher frequencies and is usually inversely propor-
tional to f in the lower portion of the range (where for some minerals and mixtures
its value can be as high as 104 and even 108 below 1 Hz). In the same frequency
range, the conductivity of dry rocks is proportional to f, with starting values (i.e., at
low frequencies) lying in the range from 106 to 1012 S/m, while their relative
permittivity seldom exceeds 10, slowly varies with f, and is characterized by a ratio
between low frequencies and 1 MHz values seldom exceeding one order of
magnitude.
In light of these considerations, our aim here is to investigate how the actual
frequency-dependent characteristics of both permittivity and conductivity affect the
electromagnetic fields radiated by a cloud-to-ground lightning return stroke. To do
this, we make use of suitable relations, which have been proven effective to
represent the frequency dependence of ground conductivity and permittivity for a
number of soil types over the frequency range of interest [55,56]. Experimental
measurements of the electrical parameters for various soils, mixtures, and minerals,
as well as theoretical explanations and proposed representations for their frequency
behavior can be found, for instance, in [51,53,54].

6.3.1 The dependence of soil conductivity and permittivity

on the frequency
In 1966, Scott [56] reported the results of measurements of the dielectric constant e
and of the conductivity s of many samples of soil, over the frequency range [102–
106] Hz and noted that the results for the many samples could be correlated quite
well in terms of just one parameter, the water content p. By averaging these data,
the author produced a set of curves s(w) and e(w) as functions of the angular
frequency w for different values of the water content. This means that, if one knows
the water content of the soil, one can obtain a sufficiently accurate waveform
expressing the functional dependence of the ground conductivity and permittivity
on the angular frequency.
In 1975, Longmire and Smith [55] proposed a model for the soil in order to
provide an analytical expression for its conductivity and permittivity. Starting from
the well-known relationship, which states that
J ¼ ðjwe þ sÞE; (6.64)
J being the (total) current density in the soil and E the electric field, it is
possible to define an admittance Y ¼ ðjwe þ sÞ which allows to assimilate a cubic
meter of soil to a network of resistor and capacitors (Figure 6.10).
Once the parameters of such a network are determined, it is possible to infer
the conductivity and the permittivity of the ground from the real and the imaginary
parts of the admittance, respectively.
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 223

R1 Rn–1 Rn

R0 C00 C1 Cn–1 Cn

Figure 6.10 Soil equivalent network

Specifically, with reference to the network of Figure 6.10, the admittance

reads:

1 XN
1
Y¼ þ jwC1 þ (6.65)
R0 R þ jwC
n¼1 n
1
n

Therefore, it follows that

X
N
Cn
e ¼ C1 þ 2
(6.66)
n¼1 1 þ ðw=bn Þ

and

1 X
N
Cn bn ðw=bn Þ2
s¼ þ (6.67)
R0 n¼1 1 þ ðw=bn Þ2

with bn ¼ Rn1Cn .

Now, defining
8 C1
>
> e1 ¼ ;
>
> e0
>
>
>
>
>
> 1
< s0 ¼ ;
R0
(6.68)
>
> C
> an ¼ n ;
>
>
> e0
>
>
>
>
: f ¼ bn ;
n
2p
The relative permittivity er and the conductivity can be written, respectively, in
the following form
X
N
an
e r ðf Þ ¼ e 1 þ (6.69)
n¼1 1 þ ðf =f n Þ2
X
N
an f n ðf =f n Þ2
sðf Þ ¼ s0 þ 2pe0 (6.70)
n¼1 1 þ ðf =f n Þ2
224 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Finally, in order to have good fitting between (6.69) and (6.70) and the
experimental curves obtained by Scott, Longmire and Smith [55] have shown that it
is sufficient to set:
e1 ¼ 5 (6.71)
 
p 1:54 S
s1 ¼ 8  103 (6.72)
10 m
p 1:28
fn ¼ 10n1 ½Hz (6.73)
10
where p is the percent water volume, which typically ranges between 2 and 30.
Lower values imply lots of “rock-like” content. The values for the coefficients an
are reported in Table 6.1. Our analysis assumes radially homogenous soil type and
moisture content.
Otherwise, it would be necessary to take into account the fact that, for any
given location, the moisture content in the top meter varies seasonally by at least
a factor of two, leading to a (roughly) factor-of-four gradient in electrical
conductivity in the top two meters of soil. This creates an additional frequency-
dependent behavior at higher frequencies due to dependence of skin depth on
frequency. The hypothesis of radially homogenous soil justifies (6.72) and (6.73)
and allows us not to consider such an effect.
As an example, Figures 6.11 and 6.12 present the variation of conductivity and
relative permittivity as a function of the frequency in the range [0–5106] Hz and
for water content p equal to 0.2%, 1% (to simulate rock-like ground), 2%, 10%, and
30% respectively.
Others formulations for the frequency-dependence of the soil conductivity and
permittivity have been proposed by Portela in [57] and Visacro et al. in [58].
Portela carried out a series of measurements which comprises experimental data
obtained in several geological areas in Brazil and considers soil samples measured
from 100 Hz up to 2 MHz. The value of the effective conductivity s, as well as
relative permittivity, is expressed as a function of the low frequency conductivity
s0 obtained from the measured 100 Hz soil resistivity according to (6.74)
  a 
p w
s þ jwe s0 þ Di cot ang a þ j (6.74)
2 2p  106

Table 6.1 Coefficients an

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

6 5 4 3 2 2 1 1
an 3.410 2.7410 2.5810 3.3810 5.2610 1.3310 2.7210 1.2510 4.8 2.17 0.98 0.392 0.173
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 225

10–1

10–2
Sigma [S/m]

10–3

10–4

p
10–5
102 103 104 105 106 107
Frequency [Hz]

Figure 6.11 Ground conductivity as a function of the frequency for water content
p equal to 0.2%, 1%, 2%, 10%, and 30%

105

104
relative permittivity

103

102

101
P

100
102 103 104 105 106 107
Frequency [Hz]

Figure 6.12 Ground relative permittivity as a function of the frequency for water
content p equal to 0.2%, 1%, 2%, 10%, and 30%
226 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

where w is the angular frequency, s0 ¼ r1 (where r0 is the low frequency ground

0
resistivity), Di and a are statistical parameters, which express the frequency
dependence of soil conductivity and permittivity. Weibull distributions are adopted
for Di and a and, according to [57], their median values can be assumed as 11.71 S/m
and 0.706, respectively.
More recently, the authors of [58] proposed another expression based on a
large number of field measurements:
 g
f
s ¼ s0 þ s0  hðs0 Þ
1MHz
pg (6.75)
tan  103
er ¼ er1 þ 2 s0  hðs0 Þf g1
2pe0 ð1MHzÞg

where s0 is the low-frequency conductivity (100 Hz) in mS/m, er1 is the relative
permittivity at higher frequencies and f is measured in Hz. The parameters hðs0 Þ, g
and er1 are:

hðs0 Þ ¼ 1:26  s0 0:73

g ¼ 0:54 (6.76)
er1 ¼ 12

6.3.2 Numerical simulation of over-ground and

underground lightning electromagnetic field
Let us reconsider (6.18) and (6.62) that express respectively the over-ground and
underground lightning electromagnetic fields: since they are carried out in the
frequency domain, it is apparent that, if one is interested to consider the effect of
the frequency dependent ground parameters
w on the
 w fields, it is sufficient to insert in
those expressions the functions er 2p and s 2p defined in (6.72) and (6.73)
respectively, thus obtaining:
8 ð
>
> jIð0; wÞ þ1 mE mz l
0 3
>
> E ¼ E   J ð lr Þ  e  QðlÞdl;
>
>
zL ziL
2pwe0 0 n2 m þ mE
0
m
>
>
>
> ð
<
jIð0; wÞ þ1 2 m
ErL ¼ EriL  l J1 ðlrÞemz 2 E QðlÞdl; (6.77)
>
> 2pwe n m þ mE
>
>
0 0
>
> ð
>
> Ið0; wÞ þ1 mE mz l
2
>
>
: HjL ¼ HjiL   J 1 ð lrÞ  e  QðlÞdl:
2p 0 n2 m þ mE m
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 227

for the over-ground lightning electromagnetic field and:

8 ð
> jIð0; wÞ þ1 l3
>
> E ¼  J0 ðlrÞ  QðlÞemE z dl;
>
>
zL
2pwe0 0 n2 m þ mE
>
>
>
> ð
<
jIð0; wÞ þ1 l2 m
ErL ¼  J1 ðlrÞQðlÞemE z 2 E dl; (6.78)
>
> 2pwe0 0 n m þ mE
>
>
>
> ð
>
> n2 Ið0; wÞ þ1 l2
>
: HjL ¼   J1 ðlrÞ  QðlÞemE z dl:
2p 0 n2 m þ m E

for the underground one. Equations (6.77) and (6.78) are formally identical to
(6.19) and (6.63), since the dependence of the soil parameters on the frequency is
hidden in the definition of the quantities n2 and mE.
In [59], a detailed analysis on the effects of taking into account the frequency
dependent behavior of the soil characteristics in the evaluation of the electro-
magnetic fields is presented. Here, we simply limit our discussion to summarize in
Table 6.2 the main results.

Table 6.2 Summary of the results and recommended models for the calculation of
electromagnetic fields generated by lightning return-strokes

Field Above-ground Underground

component
Er For low percent water volume Significant differences between
(p  1%), it is necessary to the model with constant soil
include the frequency depen- parameters and the one with
dence of ground electrical s and e variable with w only for
parameters very low (p  1%) and very
high percent (p  30%) water
volume
Ez The Sommerfeld term is negli- Significant differences between
gible, no matter the model the model with constant soil
adopted for s and e parameters and the one with
s and e variable with w for very
low (p  1%) and very high
percent (p  30%) water
volume
Hf The Sommerfeld term is negli- Significant differences between
gible, no matter the model the model with constant soil
adopted for s and e parameters and the one with
s and e variable with w only for
very high percent (p  30%)
water volume
228 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

6.4 Lightning electromagnetic field calculation in

presence of a lossy and horizontally stratified ground

In the previous sections, the ground parameters have been considered either con-
stant or frequency dependent; in both cases, they have been treated as
homogeneous.
The aim of the present section is to investigate the effect of the soil stratifi-
cation on the evaluation of the lightning electromagnetic fields.
One of the first studies on the propagation of electromagnetic waves along a
stratified medium is due to Wait, who showed that the concepts of ground surface
impedance and attenuation function can be used to represent the effect of a multi-
layered soil [60]. For the case of the lightning radiation over a stratified conducting
ground, a recent literature review can be found in [61]. Here, the formulation
proposed by Wait in [60] for a dipole is extended to account for the presence of the
lightning channel and the derivation of the final formulas is presented in details
starting from the field problem, consisting of one Helmholtz equation for each layer
and the suitable boundary conditions [5,42].

6.4.1 Statement of the problem and derivation of the

Green’s functions for the electromagnetic field
Here, we are interested in determining the field radiated by a vertical dipole located
at a height z0 over a lossy stratified ground.
The geometry of the problem is shown in Figure 6.13. The upper half-space is
air, which is assumed to be lossless and characterized by a magnetic permeability
m0 and an electric permittivity e0. The lossy ground (lower half space) has two
layers, with conductivities s1 and s2 and relative electric permittivities er1 and er2
The depth of the first layer is h1. The observation point is P(r,f,z).
The following set of equations applies to this problem (in the frequency
domain and assuming, as before, that the vector potential in all media has only
vertical component, due to the symmetry of the problem) [5]:
! ! !
DA þ k2 A ¼ m0 dðP  P0 Þe 3 z>0 (6.79)

Air ε0,μ0,σ=0

H
i(z',t)
dz'
R
z' P(r,ϕ,z)

h1 Layer 1 ε1,μ 0,σ 1

Layer 2 ε2,μ0,σ 2

Figure 6.13 Model geometry: the lightning radiation over a multilayered ground
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 229

! !
DA E1 þ kE1 2 A E1 ¼ 0  h1 < z < 0 (6.80)
! !
DA E2 þ kE2 2 A E2 ¼ 0 z < h1 (6.81)
 
pffiffi @A
lim r  jkA ¼ 0 (6.82)
r!1 @r

A ¼ AE1 z¼0 (6.83)

1 @A 1 @AE
¼ z¼0 (6.84)
k 2 @z kE1 2 @z

AE1 ¼ AE2 z ¼ h1 (6.85)

1 @AE1 1 @AE2
2 @z
¼ z ¼ h1 (6.86)
kE1 kE2 2 @z
! ! ! 
where A is the vector potential in the upper half-space (air), A E1 A E2 is the vector
potential in the first (second) ground layer, k 2 ¼ w2 m0 e0 is the wave number in air
(w being the angular frequency), kE1ð2Þ 2
¼ w2 e0 er1ð2Þ m0 þ jwm0 s1ð2Þ is the wave
number in the first (second) ground layer and d is the Dirac distribution. Equations
(6.79)–( 6.81) are Helmholtz equations that hold respectively in air and in the two
earth layers, while (6.83)–(6.86) are the interface conditions, which must be satis-
fied in order to ensure the continuity of the tangential magnetic and electric fields at
ground level and at the transition between the first and the second layers. Finally, as
shown by Sommerfeld [5], with the addition of the well-known radiation condition
(6.82), the problem has a unique solution.
It should be observed that the set of (6.79)–(6.86) has been derived assuming,
as in the previous sections, for all variables a time-harmonic dependence of the
kind ejwt .
In order to solve these equations [5], one can first solve (82) and then modify
the obtained solution in order to meet the interface conditions. Sommerfeld himself
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m0 ejkR
showed that Ap ¼ 4p R with R ¼ r2 þ ðz  z0 Þ2 is the solution of (6.79) and
(6.82). Moreover, he proved that
ð
m0 þ1 l mjzz0 jJ0 ðlrÞdl
Ap ¼ e (6.87)
4p 0 m
where m2 ¼ l2  k2 and J0 is the Bessel function of the first kind and zeroth order.
Thus, it is sufficient to find a solution of the homogeneous Helmholtz equation,
which, added to Ap, meets the interface conditions to find the final solution of the
problem. It can be easily proven that the function u defined as:

uðr; zÞ ¼ emz J0 ðlrÞ (6.88)

230 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

is a solution of the problem u þ h2 u ¼ 0 in cylindrical coordinates for any l and

with l2 = m2 + h2 [5]. As a consequence, also the function
ð
m0 þ1 0
b0 ðlÞJ0 ðlrÞemðzþz Þ dl
4p 0
is a solution of the homogeneous Helmholtz problem in air for any function b0.
This means that, in order to meet the interface conditions, one can look for a
solution of the kind:
ð 
m0 þ1 mðzþz0 Þ
A ¼ Ap þ b0 ðlÞJ0 ðlrÞe dl (6.89)
4p 0
ð 
m0 þ1 mz0 mE1 z mE1 z
AE1 ¼ e J0 ðlrÞða1 ðlÞe þ b1 ðlÞe Þdl (6.90)
4p 0
and
ð þ1 
m mz0 mE2 z
AE2 ¼ 0 e J0 ðlrÞb2 ðlÞe dl (6.91)
4p 0

where the functions b0, a1, b1 and b2 can be determined imposing the four interface
conditions and m2Ei ¼ l2  kEi 2
; i ¼ 1; 2. It should be noticed that the coefficient of
the term emE2 z is set to zero in order to ensure the convergence of the integral when
z ! 1. Imposing the interface conditions, one obtains that:
l
b0 ðlÞ ¼ RðlÞ (6.92)
m
R being the reflection coefficient [60], defined as:
w0 ðlÞ  z1 ðlÞ
R ðl Þ ¼ (6.93)
w0 ðlÞ þ z1 ðlÞ
where
mE1
w0 ðlÞ ¼ (6.94)
kE1 2
and z1 is the surface impedance given by
   
w2 ðlÞ emE1 h1 þ emE1 h1 þ w1 ðlÞ emE1 h1  emE1 h1
z1 ðlÞ ¼ w1 ðlÞ (6.95)
w1 ðlÞðemE1 h1 þ emE1 h1 Þ þ w2 ðlÞðemE1 h1  emE1 h1 Þ
where the quantities w1 and w2 are defined as
mE1
w1 ðlÞ ¼ (6.96)
kE1 2
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 231

and
mE2
w2 ðlÞ ¼ (6.97)
kE2 2
A brief discussion on the physical interpretation of the reflection coefficient is
in order: (6.87) states that, for each frequency, the vector potential Ap due to the
vertical dipole in the free space is a superposition of waves (belonging to a con-
tinuous spectrum) of the kind defined in (88), each characterized by a different
value of l and whose amplitude is l/m. The presence of the soil generates, for each
value of l, a reflected wave, whose amplitude is related to the corresponding
incident wave by the coefficient R.
Once the vector potential spatial distribution has been obtained, the expression
of the three non-zero components of the over-ground field can be easily derived
according to the following relationships:
 
jw @ 2 A
Ez ¼ 2 þ k2
A ;
k @z2
 
jw @ 2 A
Er ¼ 2 ; (6.98)
k @z@r
1 @A
Hj ¼  :
m0 @r
Substituting (6.89) and (6.92) into (6.98), one obtains the expression of the
fields which read:
2 3
2 ðz  z 0 Þ2  r 2
6 cR4 7  
6 7 R
6 7 ð þ1
1 6 6 2ð z  z 0 2
Þ  r 2 7 jw
7 c j 1  RðlÞ mðzþz Þ l
0 3
Ez ¼ þ e  J ð lr Þe dl;
4pwe0 6 7 0
6 jwR5 7 2pwe0 0 2 m
6 7
4 r2 5
þjw 2 3
c R
2 3rðz  z0 Þ 3
6 cR4 7  
6 7 R ð þ1
6
1 6 3rðz  z0 Þ 7 7
jw
c  j
0 1  R ðlÞ
Er ¼ 6þ 7 e l2 J1 ðlrÞemðzþz Þ dl;
4pe0 6 jwR 7 5 2pwe0 0 2
6 7
4 5
rðz  z0 Þ
jw 2 3
c R  
0
  jw R þ jz j ð
1 r r c v 1 þ1 1  RðlÞ mðzþz Þ l
0 2
Hj ¼  jw e  J1 ð lr Þe dl:
4p R3 cR2 2p 0 2 m
(6.99)
232 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

The first terms in the above expressions of the fields are as in the previous
sections called “ideal fields,” since they would be the only nonzero terms if the
ground was a perfect conductor.
In a similar way, one can easily determine the underground fields first by
obtaining the following expressions of the coefficients a1, b1, and b2 [which can be
done imposing again the interface conditions (6.83)–(6.86)],
8    
> l l
>
> w1 þ b0 ðlÞ  w0  b0 ðlÞ
>
> m m
>
> a ð l Þ ¼ ;
>
> 1
>
<  2w2  
l l
w1 þ b0 ðlÞ þ w0  b0 ðlÞ (6.100)
>
> m m
> b1 ðlÞ ¼
> ;
>
> 2w2
>
>
>
> b ð lÞw
: b2 ðlÞ ¼
1 1
eh1 ðmE2 mE1 Þ ;
w1 þ w2
then inserting them in (6.90) and (6.91) and finally recalling the relationships
between the vector potential and the fields that state:
8 !
>
> jw @ 2
A
>
> Ez1ð2Þ ¼
E1ð2Þ
þ kE1ð2Þ 2 AE1ð2Þ ;
>
> kE1ð2Þ 2 @z2
>
> !
<
jw @ 2 AE1ð2Þ (6.101)
> Er1ð2Þ ¼ ;
>
> kE1ð2Þ 2 @z@r
>
>
>
> 1 @AE1ð2Þ
>
: Hj1ð2Þ ¼  :
m0 @r

6.4.2 Derivation of the lightning electromagnetic field

The Green’s functions (6.99) are now utilized to obtain the expressions for the
electromagnetic field due to a lightning return-stroke. In order to reach this goal, it
is sufficient to do as in Section 6.2.1.3. Here, as an example, we report the
expression for the over-ground field, that is to say:
EzL ¼ EziL 
ð
jIð0; wÞ þ1 1  RðlÞ 0 l3
J0 ðlrÞemz QðlÞdl;
2pwe0 0 2 m
ErL ¼ EriL 
ð
jIð0; wÞ þ1 2 1  R ðl Þ (6.102)
l J1 ðlrÞemz QðlÞdl;
2pwe0 0 2
HjL ¼ HjiL 
ð
Ið0; wÞ þ1 1  RðlÞ l2
J1 ðlrÞemz QðlÞdl:
2p 0 2 m
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 233

where the expressions of the ideal fields EziL, EriL, and HfiL are those defined in
(6.21)–(6.23).

6.4.3 The reflection coefficient R

We will discuss now the main mathematical properties of the reflection coefficient
R, defined in (6.93). First of all, it can be shown that the absolute values of both R
and (1R)/2 are decreasing as l increases for l >> k. This observation will be
useful in the numerical treatment of the integrals in order to find an upper bound for
the integral tail. Second, one can easily verify that

1  R ðl Þ m
lim ¼ 2 E ; (6.103)
h1 !1 2 n m þ mE

which confirms the fact that (6.102) reduces to the expression of the field in the
case of a one-layer soil. Then, in order to evaluate the static limit of the
Sommerfeld integrals (i.e., the DC fields), it is necessary to analyze the behavior of
the function (1R)/2 when w approaches zero. Since it is apparent that, for small
values of w

jsi l
ni 2 ! ; w0 ! 2
we0 k
l we0 (6.104)
mEi 2 ! l2 ; wi ! 2
k jsi
m2 ! l2 ;

it readily follows that

lh lh lh lh
e 1 e 1
1  RðlÞ we0 s1 þ e 1 þe
s2
1

lim ¼ lh1 ; (6.105)

w!0 2 js1 elh1 þe
s1
lh1 lh
þ e 1 e
s2

which states that the limit is zero and the function (1R)/2 is linear in the neigh-
borhood of w = 0.
After some algebraic manipulations, (6.105) can be re-written as
 
1  R ðl Þ we0
lim ¼ f ðlÞ; (6.106)
k!0 2 js1
in which

ðs2 þ s1 Þelh1 þ ðs1  s2 Þelh1

f ðl Þ ¼ (6.107)
ðs2 þ s1 Þelh1  ðs1  s2 Þelh1

It can be observed that the function f is decreasing with l if the conductivity of

the first layer is greater than the conductivity of the second one; in the other case
the function is increasing with l but always remaining smaller than one. This means
234 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

that in any case an upper bound for the function f is given by

jf ðlÞj  maxf1; f ðMÞg lM (6.108)
Such bound will be useful when evaluating the upper bound for the static term.
Figures 6.14–6.18 illustrate some of the most important physical properties of
the reflection coefficient R, obtained considering for the first layer s1 = 0.002 S/m
and er1 = 5 and for the second s2 = 0.1 S/m and er2 = 80. In Figures 6.14 and 6.15,

0.6

0.5

h1=1 [m]
0.4 h1=10 [m]
h1=100 [m]
ratio

0.3

0.2

0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10
Iamda/k

Figure 6.14 Ratio between the function (1R)/2 and the function gs for f = 1 kHz

1.8
h1=1 [m]
1.6 h1=10 [m]
h1=100 [m]
1.4

1.2
ratio

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10
Iamda/k

Figure 6.15 Ratio between the function (1R)/2 and the function gs for f = 1 MHz
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 235

the ratios between the function (1R)/2 and the equivalent function for the case of
homogenous ground gs [62] are plotted for two different values of the frequency,
namely 1 kHz and 1 MHz. As can be seen from the figures, if the frequency
increases from 1 kHz to 1 MHz, it is sufficient to have a smaller depth of the first
layer to make the ratio become closer to one and therefore to make the corre-
sponding fields become closer one to each other.
In other words, the more high frequencies are “present” in the spectrum of the
lightning channel current, the closer are the corresponding fields to the ones which
would be present in the case of a homogeneous ground.
Figure 6.16 shows the absolute value of the reflection coefficient for four
different values of the frequency and in the case of a first layer depth of 1 m. As can
be seen, at higher frequencies the reflected wave is larger. The same observation
applies to the case of larger first layer depth, namely 10 m (Figure 6.17) and 100 m

102

100

10–2
R

10–4
Frequency
10–6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Iamda/k

Figure 6.16 Reflection coefficient for first layer depth of 1 m

102

100

10–2
R

10–4
Frequency
10–6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Iamda/k

Figure 6.17 Reflection coefficient for first layer depth of 10 m

236 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

102

100

10–2
R

10–4
Frequency

10–6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Iamda/k

Figure 6.18 Reflection coefficient for first layer depth of 100 m

(Figure 6.18), with the only difference that, for each frequency, the corresponding
values are higher. Extrapolating this result, we can conclude that the maximum
magnitude of the reflected wave is obtained for a homogeneous single-layer
ground.

6.5 Conclusions
The electromagnetic field due to a lightning event in presence of a lossy ground has
been studied considering three main situations:
1. homogeneous lossy ground with constant conductivity and permittivity;
2. homogeneous lossy ground with frequency-dependent soil electrical
parameters;
3. stratified lossy ground.
In all the cases, the exact field expressions have been derived starting from the
Maxwell equations both in air and in the ground. Particular attention has been
devoted to the numerical treatment of the Sommerfeld integrals involved in all the
field expressions and a suitable algorithm has been proposed in order to evaluate
them fastly and efficiently.

References
[1] C. R. Paul, Analysis of Multiconductor Transmission Lines. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
[2] F. M. Tesche, M. Ianoz, and T. Karlsson, EMC Analysis Methods and
Computational Models. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 237

[3] F. Rachidi, C. A. Nucci, M. Ianoz, and C. Mazzetti, “Influence of a lossy

ground on lightning-induced voltages on overhead lines,” IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 250–264,
1996, doi: 10.1109/15.536054.
[4] A. Sommerfeld, “Über die Ausbreitung der Wellen in der drahtlosen
Telegraphie,” Annalen der Physik, vol. 386, no. 25, pp. 1135–1153, 1926.
[5] A. Sommerfeld, Partial Differential Equations in Physics. London:
Academic Press, 1949.
[6] K. A. Norton, “The propagation of radio waves over the surface of the earth
and in the upper atmosphere,” Proceedings of the Institute of Radio
Engineers, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1203–1236, 1937, doi: 10.1109/
JRPROC.1937.228544.
[7] I. M. Longman, “Note on a method for computing infinite integrals of
oscillatory functions,” Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philosophical Society, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 764–768, Oct. 1956, doi: 10.1017/
S030500410003187X.
[8] V. V. Novikov and G. I. Makarov, “Propagation of pulsed signals over a
homogeneous flat earth,” Radio Eng. Electron. Phys, vol. 5, pp. 644–652,
1961.
[9] J. R. Wait, “Electromagnetic surface waves,” Advances in Radio Research,
vol. 1, pp. 157–217, 1964.
[10] A. Baños, Dipole Radiation in the Presence of a Conducting Halfspace,
vol. 9. New York, NY: Pergamon, 1966.
[11] D. Bubenik, “A practical method for the numerical evaluation of
Sommerfeld integrals,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation,
vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 904–906, 1977.
[12] R. Mittra, P. Parhami, and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Solving the current element
problem over lossy half-space without Sommerfeld integrals,” IEEE
Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 778–782,
1979, doi: 10.1109/TAP.1979.1142177.
[13] P. Parhami and R. Mittra, “Wire antennas over a lossy half-space,” IEEE
Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 397–403,
1980, doi: 10.1109/TAP.1980.1142339.
[14] P. Parhami, Y. Rahmat-Samii, and R. Mittra, “An efficient approach for
evaluating Sommerfeld integrals encountered in the problem of a current
element radiating over lossy ground,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 100–104, 1980, doi: 10.1109/
TAP.1980.1142273.
[15] J. Maclean, Radiowave Propagation Over Ground Software. New York, NY:
Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
[16] T. J. Cui and W. C. Chew, “Modeling of arbitrary wire antennas above
ground,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 38, no.
1, pp. 357–365, 2000.
238 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[17] T. J. Cui and W. C. Chew, “Accurate model of arbitrary wire antennas in free
space, above or inside ground,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 482–493, 2000.
[18] T. Sarkar, “Analysis of radiation by arrays of parallel vertical wire antennas
over imperfect ground,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation,
vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 749–749, 1975, doi: 10.1109/TAP.1975.1141153.
[19] P. R. Bannister, New Formulas that Extend Norton’s Farfield Elementary
Dipole Equations to the Quasi-Nearfield Range, Naval Underwater Systems
Center New London CT, 1984.
[20] K. A. Michalski and J. R. Mosig, “Multilayered media Green’s functions in
integral equation formulations,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 508–519, 1997, doi: 10.1109/8.558666.
[21] K. A. Michalski, “Extrapolation methods for Sommerfeld integral tails,”
IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 1405–
1418, 1998, doi: 10.1109/8.725271.
[22] C. E. Baumann and E. E. Sampaio, “Electric field of a horizontal antenna
above a homogeneous half-space: implications for GPR,” Geophysics,
vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 823–835, 2000.
[23] J. R. Wait, “Influence of finite ground conductivity on the fields of a vertical
traveling wave of current,” IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, vol. 41, no. 1, p. 78, 1999, doi: 10.1109/15.748141.
[24] G. J. Burke, A. J. Poggio, J. C. Logan, and J. W. Rockway, “Numerical
electromagnetic code (NEC),” in 1979 IEEE International Symposium on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1979, pp. 1–3.
[25] R. L. Gardner, “Effect of the propagation path on lightning-induced transient
fields,” Radio Science, vol. 16, no. 03, pp. 377–384, 1981.
[26] J. R. Wait and D. A. Hill, “Ground wave of an idealized lightning return
stroke,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 48, no. 9,
pp. 1349–1353, 2000, doi: 10.1109/8.898767.
[27] R. K. Pokharel, M. Ishii, and Y. Baba, “Numerical electromagnetic analysis
of lightning-induced voltage over ground of finite conductivity,” IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 651–656,
2003, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2003.819065.
[28] H. K. Hoidalen, J. Sletbak, and T. Henriksen, “Ground effects on induced
voltages from nearby lightning,” IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 269–278, 1997, doi: 10.1109/15.649810.
[29] C. Yang and Bihua Zhou, “Calculation methods of electromagnetic fields
very close to lightning,” IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 133–141, 2004, doi: 10.1109/
TEMC.2004.823626.
[30] A. Shoory, R. Moini, S. H. H. Sadeghi, and V. A. Rakov, “Analysis of
lightning-radiated electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of lossy ground,”
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 47, no. 1,
pp. 131–145, 2005, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2004.842104.
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 239

[31] Y. Baba and V. A. Rakov, “Voltages induced on an overhead wire by

lightning strikes to a nearby tall grounded object,” IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 212–224, 2006.
[32] V. Cooray, “Horizontal fields generated by return strokes,” Radio Science,
vol. 27, no. 04, pp. 529–537, 1992.
[33] M. Rubinstein, “An approximate formula for the calculation of the hor-
izontal electric field from lightning at close, intermediate, and long range,”
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 38, no. 3,
pp. 531–535, 1996, doi: 10.1109/15.536087.
[34] V. Cooray, “Some considerations on the ‘Cooray-Rubinstein’ formulation
used in deriving the horizontal electric field of lightning return strokes over
finitely conducting ground,” IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 560–566, 2002.
[35] A. Borghetti, J. A. Gutierrez, C. A. Nucci, M. Paolone, E. Petrache, and F.
Rachidi, “Lightning-induced voltages on complex distribution systems:
models, advanced software tools and experimental validation,” Journal of
Electrostatics, vol. 60, no. 2–4, pp. 163–174, 2004.
[36] A. Zeddam and P. Degauque, “Current and voltage induced on tele-
communication cables by a lightning stroke,” Electromagnetics, vol. 7, nos.
3–4, pp. 541–564, 1987, doi: 10.1080/02726348708908197.
[37] V. Cooray, “On the accuracy of several approximate theories used in quan-
tifying the propagation effects on lightning generated electromagnetic
fields,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 56, no. 7, pp.
1960–1967, 2005.
[38] M. Darveniza, “A practical extension of Rusck’s formula for maximum
lightning-induced voltages that accounts for ground resistivity,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 605–612, 2006.
[39] C. A. Balanis, Advanced Engineering Electromagnetics. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
[40] E. Zauderer, Partial Differential Equations of Applied Mathematics. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[41] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products.
London: Academic press, 2014.
[42] F. Delfino, R. Procopio, M. Rossi, and L. Verolino, “Lightning current
identification over a conducting ground plane,” Radio Science, vol. 38, no. 3,
pp. 15–1, 2003.
[43] V. A. Rakov and M. A. Uman, “Review and evaluation of lightning return
stroke models including some aspects of their application,” IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 403–426,
1998, doi: 10.1109/15.736202.
[44] C. A. Nucci and F. Rachidi, “Experimental validation of a modification to
the transmission line model for LEMP calculation,” in 8th Symposium and
Technical Exhibition on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1989, no. CONF.
[45] W. Rudin, Real and Complex Analysis. New York, NY:Tata McGraw-Hill
Education, 2006.
240 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[46] W. L. Anderson, “Numerical integration of related Hankel transforms of

orders 0 and 1 by adaptive digital filtering,” Geophysics, vol. 44, no. 7,
pp. 1287–1305, 1979.
[47] P. J. Davis and P. Rabinowitz, Methods of Numerical Integration.
Chelmsford:Courier Corporation, 2007.
[48] W. T. Vetterling and W. H. Press, Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN: The Art
of Scientific Computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
[49] A. R. Krommer and C. W. Ueberhuber, Numerical Integration: On
Advanced Computer Systems, vol. 848. New York, NY: Springer Science &
Business Media, 1994.
[50] R. L. Smith-Rose, “The electrical properties of soil at frequencies up to
100 megacycles per second; with a note on the resistivity of ground in the
United Kingdom,” Proc. Phys. Soc., vol. 47, no. 5, p. 923, 1935, doi:
10.1088/0959-5309/47/5/318.
[51] B. D. Fuller and S. H. Ward, “Linear system description of the electrical
parameters of rocks,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience Electronics, vol. 8,
no. 1, pp. 7–18, 1970.
[52] S. Ramo, J. R. Whinnery, and T. Van Duzer, Fields and Waves in
Communication Electronics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
[53] G. P. De Loor, “The dielectric properties of wet materials,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, no. 3, pp. 364–369, 1983.
[54] V. A. Rinaldi and F. M. Francisca, “Impedance analysis of soil dielectric
dispersion (1 MHz–1 GHz),” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 111–121, 1999,
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:2(111).
[55] C. L. Longmire and K. S. Smith, A Universal Impedance for Soils, Santa
Barbara, CA: Mission Research Corp, Oct. 1975. Accessed: Oct. 23, 2020.
Available: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA025759.
[56] Scott, J., “Electrical and magnetic properties of Impedance analysis of soil
dielectric dispersion rock and soil,” U.S. Geological Survey.
[57] C. Portela, “Measurement and modeling of soil electromagnetic behavior,”
in 1999 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatability.
Symposium Record (Cat. No. 99CH36261), 1999, vol. 2, pp. 1004–1009.
[58] S. Visacro and R. Alipio, “Frequency dependence of soil parameters:
experimental results, predicting formula and influence on the lightning
response of grounding electrodes,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 927–935, 2012.
[59] F. Delfino, R. Procopio, M. Rossi, and F. Rachidi, “Influence of frequency-
dependent soil electrical parameters on the evaluation of lightning electro-
magnetic fields in air and underground,” Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres, vol. 114, no. D11, 2009.
[60] J. R. Wait, Electromagnetic Waves in Stratified Media: Revised Edition
Including Supplemented Material. New York, NY: Elsevier, 2013.
[61] A. Shoory, A. Mimouni, F. Rachidi, V. Cooray, R. Moini, and S. H. Sadeghi,
“Validity of simplified approaches for the evaluation of lightning
 The numerical treatment of Sommerfeld’s integrals 241

electromagnetic fields above a horizontally stratified ground,” IEEE

Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 657–663,
2010, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2010.2045229.
[62] F. Delfino, R. Procopio, and M. Rossi, “Lightning return stroke current
radiation in presence of a conducting ground: 1. Theory and numerical
evaluation of the electromagnetic fields,” Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres, vol. 113, no. D5, 2008.
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 7
Lightning electromagnetic field propagation:
a survey on the available
approximate expressions
Daniele Mestriner1, Renato Procopio1, Massimo Brignone1
and Federico Delfino1

In this chapter, a review of the main approximate expressions available in literature

to evaluate lightning electromagnetic fields that propagate over and under a lossy
ground is presented together with their validation against exact expressions or full
Maxwell approaches.
First the case of homogeneous ground is analyzed presenting the two main
approximate expressions for the horizontal electric field above the ground (Cooray
Rubinstein formula, Section 7.1) and below the ground (Cooray’s formula,
Section 7.2).
Then, the most popular expressions for electromagnetic fields propagating
over a horizontally (Section 7.3) and vertically (Section 7.4) stratified ground are
reported and validated.

7.1 Lightning electromagnetic fields over a homogeneous

soil

The propagation of the lightning electromagnetic fields over and under a lossy
homogeneous ground has been intensively studied in the last decades. Researchers
have focused their attention mainly on the horizontal component of the electric
field for two reasons:
1. The finite ground conductivity mostly affects such component while the vertical
component of the electric field and the azimuthal component of the magnetic
one can be evaluated supposing perfectly conducting ground without compro-
mising the accuracy of the final result [1]. This assumption is generally valid but
some particular cases should be taken into account as presented in Section 7.1.2.

1
Department of Electrical, Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering and Naval Architecture
Department (DITEN), University of Genoa, Italy
244 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

2. When dealing with the effect of lightning on power and telecommunication

lines, the horizontal component of the electric field is the source term of the
field-to-line coupling differential equations and so it must be evaluated in all
the line points. The vertical component of the electric field, on the other hand,
only appears in the boundary conditions describing the line terminations.

7.1.1 Horizontal electric field – Cooray–Rubinstein (CR)

formula
The exact evaluation of such component involves the Sommerfeld integrals which
appear prohibitive from a computational point of view [2], especially when the
fields have to be computed in many different points of the line and, most of all,
when a statistical analysis of the effect of lightning on power lines has to be carried
out (e.g. lightning performance studies [3]).
For this reason, approximate expressions have been developed to obtain a good
compromise between accuracy and computational performance. The first con-
tribution was provided by Cooray [4] who developed an approximate frequency
domain expression for the surface impedance able to evaluate the horizontal elec-
tric field at the ground surface from the incident azimuthal magnetic field. Such
formula was then improved by Rubinstein [5] adding a term that allows the cal-
culation of the horizontal electric field at any height above ground. The resulting
expression became known as the Cooray–Rubinstein (CR) formula, which reads:
Er ðw; z; rÞ ¼ Hji ðw; 0; rÞZ ðwÞ þ Eri ðw; z; rÞ (7.1)
in which Z is the surface impedance defined as:
pffiffiffiffiffi
m0
Z ðwÞ ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (7.2)
s
e þ jw

and where Er ðw; z; rÞ is the horizontal component of the electric field at angular
frequency w, height z and horizontal distance r from the lighting channel, while
Hji ðw; 0; rÞ is the azimuthal component of the magnetic field at the same frequency
and horizontal distance and at the ground level and Eri ðw; z; rÞ is the horizontal
component of the electric field both assuming perfectly conducting ground.
Moreover, m0, e, and s are the magnetic permittivity the dielectric constant and the
conductivity of the soil respectively. It should be noted that in (7.1) neglecting
propagation effects on the azimuthal magnetic field is reasonable for medium-high
values of the soil conductivity (greater than 0.001 S/m); it remains a valid
assumption only for distances lower than 200 m for conductivities of about 0.001 S/m
and lower than 100 m for conductivities of about 0.0001 S/m [6].
However, when the CR formula has to be inserted in time domain methods, an
IFFT procedure has to be adopted to evaluate the lightning horizontal field.
As well known, all the FFT-IFFT-based methods have two inherent drawbacks
to calculate the quantities of interest in time domain. One is the requirement of
huge computational resources, and the other is the error due to the truncation of the
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 245

lightning current frequency spectrum. So, the direct evaluation of Er in time

domain has been studied in recent years.
The first expression of the CR formula in time domain was given in 2006 by
Caligaris et al. [7]; its derivation is here briefly summarized.
Under the assumption that the return-stroke wavefront starts traveling up at time
zero, we are in presence of quantities that are identically zero for t < 0. This implies
that the existence of the Fourier transform =ðf Þ of a function f ensures the existence
of its Laplace transform Lðf Þ [21]. So, for further manipulations, it is convenient to
express (7.1) in the Laplace domain. For the sake of simplicity, we denote with the
same name both Fourier and Laplace transform, due to the fact that the relation
between the two is given by s ¼ jw: from here on we will assume that if the argument
is s then we are working in the Laplace domain, if w in the Fourier one. Then we get:
Er ðs; z; rÞ ¼ Hji ðs; 0; rÞZ ðsÞ þ Eri ðs; z; rÞ (7.3)
Where pffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffi
m0 m0 1 1
Z ðsÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffis ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ h pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffis :
eþs e 1 þ ses 1 þ se
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Observing that lims!1 Z ðsÞ ¼ m0 =e ¼ h, it is convenient to write:
pffiffiffiffiffi
m0
g ðsÞ ¼ Z ðsÞ  h ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  h (7.4)
e þ s=s
The inverse Laplace transform of g is known analytically, namely
 1  s s h s   s i
L ðgÞ ðtÞ ¼ h e2et I1 t  I0 t (7.5)
2e 2e 2e
In being the modified Bessel function of first type and order n.
Moreover, denoting with d the Dirac function, one has that:
fLðdÞgðsÞ ¼ 1; (7.6)
so, combining (7.6) and (7.5), it readily follows that:
 1  ns s h s   s i o
L ðZ Þ ðt Þ ¼ h e2et I1 t  I0 t þ dðtÞ : (7.7)
2e 2e 2e
With the aid of the convolution integral properties, one gets the time domain
CR formula for the horizontal electric field er at height z, distance r and time t:
ðt
er ðt; z; rÞ ¼ h hji ðt; 0; rÞ½K ðt  tÞ þ dðt  tÞdt þ eri ðt; z; rÞ (7.8)
0

being s
s  th  s   s i
K ðtÞ ¼ e 2e I0 t  I1 t ¼ aeat ½I0 ðatÞ  I1 ðatÞ
2e 2e 2e (7.9)
s
a¼
2e
246 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

and where eri is the horizontal electric field at height z, distance r and time t,
calculated as if the ground was a perfect conductor and hfi the azimuthal magnetic
field at height z, distance r and time t, calculated as before in the case of perfectly
conducting ground. The terms eri and hfi are, respectively, the inverse Laplace
transform of Eri and Hfi appearing in (7.3) and can be evaluated directly in the time
domain, as presented in the previous chapter.
Finally, recalling the properties of the Dirac function, one has:
ðt
er ðt; z; rÞ ¼ h hji ðt; 0; rÞK ðt  tÞdt þ eri ðt; z; rÞ  hhji ðt; 0; rÞ (7.10)
0

The implementation of (7.10) presented in [7] is a classic example of linear

convolution, which is reported here to show its weaknesses that have originated
subsequent research.
Let us consider np time samples and assume hji ðt; 0; rÞ as constant in each
interval between two samples, that is to say, with tn ¼ Dtðn  1Þ, n ¼ 1::np , and
hn ¼ hji ðtn ; 0; rÞ:

hji ðt; 0; rÞ  hn 8 t 2 ½tn ; tnþ1 Þ (7.11)

With this assumption, one can compute the integral in (7.10) at each time
sample tn between t1 = 0 and tnp as:
ð tn n1 ð tmþ1
X
CIðtn Þ ¼ CIn ¼ Kðt  tÞhji ðt; 0; rÞdt  Kðtn  tÞhm dt
t1 m¼1 tm

X
n1 ð tmþ1
¼ hm Kðtn  tÞdt (7.12)
m¼1 tm

(for n > 1; CI1 = 0).

The integral appearing in (7.12) can be rewritten as follows:
ð tmþ1 ð ðnmÞDt
D
Kðtn  tÞdt ¼ Kðt0 Þdt0 ¼ Knm (7.13)
tm ðnm1ÞDt

So (7.12) becomes
8
> CI ¼ 0
< 1
X
n1
(7.14)
>
: n
CI ¼ hm Knm ; n ¼ 2::np ;
m¼1

The integral in (7.13) was calculated using a Gaussian quadrature method,

opening two problems: if one has to evaluate the late time response of the hor-
izontal fields, with typical values of s and e, the values assumed by the argument at
of the modified Bessel functions can generate problems of overflow. This can be
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 247

explained simply by recalling the asymptotic behavior of the modified Bessel

function, namely:
ex X 1
ð1Þk Gðn þ k þ 1=2Þ
In ðxÞ  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ f ðx Þ (7.15)
2px k¼0 ð2xÞk k!Gðn  k þ 1=2Þ

with f a suitable function such that limx!þ1 f ðxÞ ¼ 0 and where G is the incom-
plete Gamma function. It is apparent that the term ex is the responsible for the
overflow. The problem can be circumvented observing that in (7.5) the Bessel
functions In(x) are multiplied by the term ex. So, if one sets up a routine which
directly computes In(x)ex, he can avoid to calculate the exponential ex.
At time sample tn, one has to perform one more integral (7.13) and n1 pro-
ducts (and n1 sums); in other words, the number of computations to be performed
at each iteration grows linearly with the number of iterations, i.e. the algorithm has
a time complexity order n2.
For these reasons, the authors of [8] proposed the following improvement.
The surface impedance can be expressed as:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffirffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sm0 m0 s stG
ZðsÞ ¼ ¼ ¼h (7.16)
se þ s e s þ s=e stG þ 1
with tG ¼ e=s.
If we can find a rational approximation (RA) for the function:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s0 X
NRA
rk
zðs0 Þ ¼ 0
1þ 0a
(7.17)
s þ1 k¼1
s k

where NRA is the number of poles used in the expansion, (7.3) can be approximated as:
X
NRA
rk Hji ðs; 0; rÞ
ECR ðs; z; rÞ ¼ Hji ð0; r; sÞZ ðsÞ ¼ hHji ðs; 0; rÞ  h
k¼1
stG  ak
(7.18)
The RA in (7.17) can be effectively computed by means of the vector fitting
(VF) technique [9]. It should be noticed that (7.17) and thus the poles ak and resi-
dues rk do not depend on tG , i.e., do not depend on the values of ground permit-
tivity and conductivity. Therefore, they have to be computed only once. The
computations illustrated as numerical examples in the last section were carried out
using an expansion with NRA=12, obtained by fitting the values of z sampled on 105
“frequencies” w0 [i.e., replacing s0 with jw0 in (7.17)], ranging from 10-4 to 100. The
fitting accuracy can be appreciated in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. All poles are real.
Table 7.1 shows the obtained values for poles and residues.
In order to re-state the problem in time domain, we rewrite (7.18) in the
classical state-space equation form. The method adopted here presents the advan-
tage of directly making use of the poles ak and residues rk from the vector fitting.
Furthermore, it allows a straightforward transformation from continuous time to
discrete time, and it is very simple to code (Table 7.1).
248 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

1
[z]

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
N =12
ω' exact
0.4

0.3
[z]

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ω'

Figure 7.1 Rational approximation of z. Adapted from [8]

0.8
0.6
[z]

0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
N =12
ω' exact
0.4

0.3
[z]

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
ω'

Figure 7.2 Rational approximation of z, zoom. Adapted from [8]

The aforementioned classical state space form is:

8
>
> Hji ðs; 0; rÞ
>
> X ðsÞ ¼ ; k ¼ 1::NRA
< k stG  ak
(7.19)
>
> X
NRA
>
: ECR ðs; z; rÞ ¼ hHji ðs; 0; rÞ  h rk Xk ðsÞ
>
k¼1
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 249

Table 7.1 Poles and residues

ak rk
9.5767718047658079E01 2.4807255056699237E01
6.9826012409778959E01 1.4853965557307094E01
4.1509910805114025E01 6.4924454704342230E02
2.2286140573279206E01 2.4809658479110788E02
1.1343452528471004E01 8.9808401793780475E03
5.5577444158951196E02 3.1389835104789613E03
2.6246991903765934E02 1.0559668692280658E03
1.1888088239587109E02 3.3870559700515702E04
5.1013756832941235E03 1.0243347132959180E04
2.0025909738681470E03 2.8760866085666423E05
6.2900517731833501E04 6.9477373464759209E06
1.0993593611408876E04 7.8176216694433083E07

or:
8 ak 1
>
> sX ðsÞ ¼ Xk ðsÞ þ Hji ðs; 0; rÞ; k ¼ 1::NRA
>
< k t t
G G
X (7.20)
>
>
NRA
>
: CR
E ðs; z; rÞ ¼ hHji ð s; 0; r Þ  h rk Xk ðsÞ
k¼1

where Xk ðsÞ are the NRA state variables of the system.

System (7.20) can be reformulated in time domain as follows:
8 ak 1
>
> x_ k ðtÞ ¼ t xk ðtÞ þ t hji ðs; 0; rÞ; k ¼ 1::NRA
>
< G G
X (7.21)
>
>
NRA
>
: eCR ðt; z; rÞ ¼ heji ðt; 0; rÞ  h rk xk ðtÞ
k¼1

(we assume xk ð0Þ ¼ 0; k ¼ 1::NRA , as initial conditions).

Now this continuous time system has to be approximated with a discrete time
system, in order to implement it in a computer code.
This discretization is achieved by considering the magnetic field as constant at
each time interval:
hji ðt; 0; rÞ  hn 8 t 2 ½tn ; tnþ1 Þ (7.22)
where tn are the time samples tn=Dt(n1), n=1..np. Now, solving the first NRA of
(7.21) between tn and tn+1:
8
< x_ ðtÞ ¼ ak xk ðtÞ þ 1 hn
k
tG tG ; k ¼ 1::NRA ; t 2 ½tn ; tnþ1  (7.23)
:
xk ðtn Þ ¼ xk;n
250 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

we obtain:

1  ðak =tG Þðttn Þ 

xk ðtÞ ¼ xk;n eðak =tG Þðttn Þ þ e  1 hn (7.24)
ak

The discrete counterpart of (7.21) can be found simply by evaluating (7.24)

and the last of (7.21) itself at t = tn+1:
8
>
> ðak =tG ÞDt 1  ðak =tG ÞDt 
>
> x k;nþ1 ¼ x k;n e þ e  1 hn ; k ¼ 1::NRA
< ak
(7.25)
>
> X
NRA
>
> e ¼ hh  h rk xk;nþ1
: CR;nþ1 nþ1
k¼1

Note that the coefficients eðak =tG ÞDt and ðeðak =tG ÞDt  1Þ=ak can be evaluated
only once and hold for all the iterations.
Differently from the previous approach, the algorithm corresponding to system
(7.25) requires about 3NRA products (and 2NRA sums), with NRA of the order of
ten; the number of computations at each iteration is constant, so the algorithm has a
time complexity order n. As observed in [10], the possible issue of this approach is
that the accuracy of the horizontal electric field is dependent on the performance of
the vector-fitting technique. Meanwhile, a frequency truncation is necessary when
using the vector-fitting technique, which could be an uncertain factor to influence
the final result. So, from 2011 on, researchers have mainly focused their attention
on 2 main issues: improve the computational efficiency of the convolution integral
(7.10) and analyze properties of the integral kernel (7.5) in order to find
suitable approximations that do not involve special functions.
Concerning the first research line, the first contribution was given by Zou et al.
in 2012 [10]. As summarized in [11], the method proposed in [10] proposed a
piecewise quadratic convolution and quadrature routine of a truncated integral
based on K to evaluate the convolution term in (7.10). More in details, given a
function f : D ! <, if one divides D in a finite number N of intervals (defining a
time sequence tn) and approximates f in each of them with a linear function, it
readily follows that:

X
N
f ðtÞ  ðun þ vn tÞ½1ðt  tn Þ  1ðt  tnþ1 Þ (7.26)
n¼1

where 1 is the Heaviside function, while:

f ðtnþ1 Þ  f ðtn Þ
un ¼ f ðtn Þ  tn
tnþ1  tn
(7.27)
f ðtnþ1 Þ  f ðtn Þ
vn ¼
tnþ1  tn
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 251

So if one approximates both the kernel and the magnetic field as in (7.26), it
follows that:
X
N
KðtÞ  ðan þ bn tÞ½1ðt  tn Þ  1ðt  tnþ1 Þ (7.28)
n¼1

and
X
M
hji ðt; 0; rÞ  ðdm þ em tÞ½1ðt  tm Þ  1ðt  tmþ1 Þ (7.29)
m¼1

where the involved coefficients can be calculated as in (7.27), while M and N are
the number of intervals in which the magnetic field and the kernel are discretized,
respectively.
This way the convolution integral can be approximated as:
ðt
D
hji ðt; 0; rÞ  KðtÞ ¼ hji ðt; 0; rÞKðt  tÞdt
0

X X
N þ1 M þ1  ttm
b l2 g l3
’ amn l þ mn þ mn 1ðt  tn  tm Þ
n ¼1 m ¼1
2 3
l¼tn
(7.30)
where amn ¼ an dm , bmn ¼ an em  bn dm and gmn ¼ bn em
The advantage of this method is that the numerical overflow problem and the
cancellation error due to the subtraction of two close big numbers (I0(x)I1(x)) can
be avoided. However, many time intervals are essential to approximate the kernel if
high accuracy is required. It is obvious that the computational cost would be quite
large, especially for the coupling simulation, because the horizontal electric fields
at different observation points should be calculated.
In 2017, Liu et al. proposed the following approach [12], based on the integral
form of the Bessel function:
ð
1 p x cosq
I n ðx Þ ¼ e cos ðnqÞdq (7.31)
p 0
So, the kernel K can be rewritten as:
ð
a p ð1 cosqÞat
K ðtÞ ¼ aeat ½I0 ðatÞ  I1 ðatÞ ¼ e ð1  cos qÞdq (7.32)
p 0
With typical numbers of ground dielectric constant and conductivity, the
integrand in (7.32) vanishes after an angle qc which is significantly smaller than p
(the authors proposed 0.637p). This suggests the possibility of efficiently evaluat-
ing the integral in (7.32) with the standard Gauss method, that reads:
ð qc
a aX N
K ðt Þ  eð1 cosqÞat ð1  cos qÞdq  Wk eð1 cosqk Þat ð1  cos qk Þ (7.33)
p 0 p k¼1
252 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

where Wk is the kth weight of Gauss integral according to the kth Gauss integral
point qk .
If one poses
pk ¼ ð1  cos qk Þa
a (7.34)
Ck ¼ Wk ð1  cos qk Þ
p
then
X
N
K ðt Þ ’ Ck epk t (7.35)
k¼1

which, from a formal point of view, has the same meaning as (7.17); indeed the kernel
has been developed in a sum of exponential functions in the time domain. The advan-
tage of the proposed method is that, in this case, such development does not come from
any VF technique, thus avoiding the problem of the frequency spectrum truncation.
Moreover, it is apparent from (7.34) that the poles and residues of such development are
independent on the ground conductivity and dielectric constant, which makes the
method much more appealing as such quantities have to be computed just once.
Moreover, as observed in [12], it is obvious that the resulting residues and poles are all
real numbers, while some complex residues and poles may be obtained when VF
method is used. At this point the same recursive convolution technique can be applied.
The main drawback of the proposed approach is some deviations appear in the
very early time period because of the approximation in the domain of integration
(upper integration limit equal to qc ) and the errors committed by the Gauss
numerical method to perform the integration itself. The solution proposed by the
authors is to perform a linear convolution using the exact expression of the kernel
for the first time instants and then adopt the abovementioned technique for the
remaining part of the time domain of interest.
In 2018, the same authors proposed an improvement of the procedure which is
mainly based on the definition of an upper integration limit depending on the time,
which allows to perform a recursive convolution over the entire time domain of
interest [13].
More in details, if we reconsider the integrand of (7.32), we get that:

eð1 cosqÞat ð1  cos qÞ  ht ðqÞ ¼ 2eð1 cosqÞat (7.36)

ht being a positive monotonic decreasing function in [0,p). So a time dependent

upper integration bound can be obtained solving:
ht ðqÞ  etol (7.37)
etol being a user-defined tolerance. This way one obtains a new definition of the
angle qc , as follows:
(
 p  
qc ¼ arccos ln etol 1 þ 1 (7.38)
2 at
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 253

where p is used when (7.37) does not have solution. Of course, as the procedure is
carried out in the discrete time domain, in each time interval a different value of the
angle qc is used.
The properties of the integral kernel have been mainly investigated by the
research group of the University of Naples (A. Andreotti et al.) since 2015 and the
obtained results have been published in [14–17].
In particular, in [14], a new formulation for the CR expression in time domain
is proposed, in which the kernel of the convolution integral exhibits better prop-
erties than (7.5) in terms of smoothness. As reported in [14], the kernel K is char-
s
acterized by a class of functions which describe a Dirac pulse. Indeed, when a ¼ 2e
increases, the function K becomes more and more peaked around t = 0 taking very
large values and, for increasing values of t, tends to zero more and more rapidly.
It is then apparent that any numerical integration involving such a function
becomes a hard task. However, if one observes that:

d at
K ðtÞ ¼ aeat ½I0 ðatÞ  I1 ðatÞ ¼  ½e I0 ðatÞ (7.39)
dt
it follows that
ðt ðt
d
hji ðt; 0; rÞK ðt  tÞdt ¼ hji ðt; 0; rÞ ½I0 ðaðt  tÞÞeaðttÞ dt
0 0 dt
¼ hji ðt; 0; rÞI0 ðaðt  tÞÞeaðttÞ jt0
ðt
@hji ð0; r; tÞ h i
 I0 ðaðt  tÞÞeaðttÞ dt
0 @t
ðt
@hji ð0; r; tÞ h i
¼ hji ðt; 0; rÞ  I0 ðaðt  tÞÞeaðttÞ dt
0 @t
(7.40)

So the CR formula becomes:

ðt
@hji ð0; r; tÞ h i
er ðt; r; zÞ ¼ h I0 ðaðt  tÞÞeaðttÞ dt þ eri ðt; r; zÞ (7.41)
0 @t

The new kernel has been often indicated with Ke and has the following expression:

Ke ðxÞ ¼ ½I0 ðaxÞeax  (7.42)

which, as reported in [14], presents much better numerical properties because,

regardless the value of a, Ke(0) ¼ 1.
In [16], the same authors proposed analytical expression for the CR in time
domain for a step or a linearly rising with constant tail channel base current, while
in [15,16], some local and global approximations of the kernel Ke are reported. The
main global approximations are listed below:
254 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Given

f ðxÞ ¼ I0 ðxÞex (7.43)

it comes out that:

1
f ðxÞ  h1 ðxÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; (7.44)
1 þ 2px

or that
" #
ðp  1Þx
f ðxÞ  h2 ðxÞ ¼ h1 ðxÞ 1 þ ðp1Þ 2
; (7.45)
1 þ 8ppþ2 x

which can be obtained combining the expansions of function f for x approaching

zero and infinity respectively and turns out to be much more effective than (7.44).
An alternative approach consists of generalizing h1 with a family of two
parameters functions that can be tuned in order to minimize the approximation
error. The outcome is the following:
 
pa2 1
a0 þ ð1  a0 Þexp  a001 x
f ðxÞ  h3 ðxÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (7.46)
1 þ 2pa20 x

That, for a0 = 0.496859, is significantly closer than h1 to the exact kernel.

In 2019, Barbosa and Paulino [18] proposed a comparison between h1 and the
kernel they developed in [19,20] to assess their accuracy by means of comparison
with the exact one Ke.
Barbosa and Paulino kernel, reported below, turned out to be much more
effective maintaining the same good property of not involving the use of special
functions:
 
rffiffiffiffi e þ a x
e e0 2
h 4 ðx Þ ¼
e0  e 32 (7.47)
e0 þ ax

ps
in which a ¼ :
4e0
Finally, one should note that in 2019 Liu et al. [11] further refined their
approach based on the integral form of the Bessel function and its evaluation in a
reduced integration domain (0, qc ) working on the kernel Ke.

7.1.1.1 Validation of CR formula

In order to perform a comparative analysis between such approximate formula
and the exact approach presented in the previous chapter, we considered two
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 255

channel-base current waveforms, corresponding respectively to typical first and

subsequent return strokes, based on the observations of Berger et al. [21, 22].
The channel base currents are reproduced by a sum of two Heidler’s func-
tions [23]. The first return stroke channel-base current is characterized by a peak
value of 30 kA and a maximum steepness of 12 kA/ms, whereas the subsequent
return stroke current has a peak value of 12 kA and a maximum steepness of
40 kA/ms.
The Heidler current expression is the following one:
ið0; tÞ ¼ i1 ð0; tÞ þ i1 ð0; tÞ (7.48)
being respectively
 n1  n2
t t
I01 t11 t t I02 t21 t t
i1 ð0; tÞ ¼  n1 e 12 ; i2 ð0; tÞ ¼  n2 e 22 (7.49)
h1 h2
1þ t
t11 1þ t
t21
  1=n1   1=n2
t11 t t21 t
 t12 n1 t12  t22 n2 t22
h1 ¼ e 11
and h2 ¼ e 21
(7.50)
The numerical values, corresponding to the first and subsequent stroke are
given in Table 7.2.
The decay constant l in the MTLE model is assumed to be equal to 2 km, a
value that has been determined using experimental data [22,24].
As far as the speed within the lightning channel is concerned, the value
adopted is 1.5  108 m/s, while the channel height is assumed to be equal to 8 km.
Such number is useless whenever all the calculations are carried out in the time
domain; but, since the Sommerfeld’s integrals evaluation is in the frequency
domain, the knowledge of the channel height becomes necessary. In addition, it is
worth noting that the choice of another model for P(z0 ) (e.g. the TL model)
would lead to similar results for the first transient (about 1 ms), since in this time
range the lightning channel current waveform reaches a height of about 150 m
(at the speed v = 1.5  108 m/s). For such a short height, the differences between
MTLE and TL models are small. Finally, we decided to limit our analysis to the
first microsecond of transient because we verified that the main differences
between the exact formulation and the simplified approaches occur in such
time frame.

Table 7.2 Parameters of the two Heidler’s functions used to reproduce the
channel-base current waveshape

I01 (kA) t11 (ms) t12 (ms) n1 I02 (kA) t21 (ms) t22 (ms) n2
First stroke 28 1.8 95 2    
Subsequent stroke 10.7 0.25 2.5 2 6.5 2 230 2
256 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

In [1], a detailed discussion on the results obtained by the comparative simulation

campaign can be found. Here, we simply report the main comments that can be made:
● for very low conductivities (s about 104 S/m), the use of the exact approach is
recommended (see Figure 7.3). This has been confirmed by [25], where the CR
formula has been compared with the results of a FDTD simulation. According
to [25], the propagation effect of the magnetic field should be considered in
case of low conductivities and far distances.
● for very high conductivities (s about 102 S/m) the CR formula and the exact
approach predict the same results (see Figure 7.4);
● for intermediate conductivities (s about 103 S/m) and close distances
(r < 100 m) to the lightning channel, the “ideal” field is a quite good approx-
imation (see Figure 7.5);
● for intermediate conductivities (s about 103 S/m) and observation points at a
distance r from the lightning channel larger than 100 m, the CR formula is
accurate and effective for the first stroke (Figure 7.6) and deviates from the
exact approach of some percent in the early time response and for typical
subsequent strokes (see Figure 7.7).

7.1.2 Vertical electric field and azimuthal magnetic field

The vertical electric field and the azimuthal magnetic field above a homogenous
ground have been recently addressed by [1,26,27]. Regarding the vertical electric

300

200

100

0
Er [V/m]

–100

–200

Ideal
–300 With the CR Formula
With Sommerfeld Integral
–400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time [s]
× 10–5

Figure 7.3 Radial electric field calculated with the CR formula, the Sommerfeld’s
integral and under the assumption of perfectly conducting ground
(r = 250 m, z = 10 m and s = 0.0001 S/m). Channel-base current
typical of subsequent strokes. Adapted from [1]
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 257

50

40

30

20
Er [V/m]

10

–10
Ideal
–20 With the CR Formula
With Sommerfeld Integral
–30
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time [s]
× 10–5

Figure 7.4 Radial electric field calculated with the CR formula, the Sommerfeld’s
integral and under the assumption of perfectly conducting ground
(r = 500 m, z = 10 m and s = 0.01 S/m). Channel-base current typical
of subsequent strokes. Adapted from [1]

× 104
4

3.5

2.5
Er [V/m]

1.5 Ideal
With the CR Formula
1 With Sommerfeld Integral

0.5

–0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time [s]
× 10–5

Figure 7.5 Radial electric field calculated with the CR formula, the Sommerfeld’s
integral and under the assumption of perfectly conducting ground
(r = 20 m, z = 10 m and s = 0.001 S/m). Channel-base current typical
of subsequent strokes. Adapted from [1]
258 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

200
Ideal
With the CR Formula
150 With Sommerfeld Integral

100
Er [V/m]

50

–50

–100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time [s]
× 10–5

Figure 7.6 Radial electric field calculated with the CR formula, the Sommerfeld’s
integral and under the assumption of perfectly conducting ground
(r = 500 m, z = 10 m and s = 0.001 S/m). Channel-base current
typical of first strokes. Adapted from [1]

50

0
Er [V/m]

–50

Ideal
With the CR Formula
With Sommerfeld Integral
–100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time [s]
× 10–5

Figure 7.7 Radial electric field calculated with the CR formula, the Sommerfeld’s
integral and under the assumption of perfectly conducting ground
(r = 500 m, z = 10 m and s = 0.001 S/m). Channel-base current
typical of subsequent strokes. Adapted from [1]
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 259

field, it is shown by [26] that, for an observation point on the surface of the
ground with a conductivity of 0.001 S/m, the vertical electric field is not sig-
nificantly affected by the ground finite conductivity at distance ranges from 50 m
to 1 km. However, the peak value of the time derivative of the vertical electric
field can be attenuated by about 70% in propagating 1,000 m along the ground.
Cooray also showed that, for ground conductivities not less than 0.001 S/m and
observations points not farther than 1 km, the approximations proposed by [28]
predict adequately the vertical electric field components. On the other hand, for
observation points at about 10 m above the ground surface and as close as 100 m
to the channel-base, the authors of [1] have shown that the PEC ground is a
reasonable assumption for obtaining the vertical electric field and the azimuthal
magnetic field above a homogeneous lossy ground. However, for larger distances
and for ground conductivities smaller than 0.001 S/m, some disagreements can be
found between fields above a perfect ground and those above a homogenous lossy
ground.

7.1.3 Lightning electromagnetic fields under the ground-

Cooray formula
In 2001, Cooray presented approximate formulas for the calculation of the electric
and magnetic fields from lightning under the ground in the time domain [29]. Such
formulas were obtained by inspection comparing the expression given by Bannister
for the fields at the ground and under the ground [30]. These expression have been
validated and successfully applied in the analysis of lightning electromagnetic
fields coupling to buried cables [31,32]. Here, the derivation of the formula is
presented following the approach proposed by Rubinstein et al. in 2011 [33]. Such
derivation is based on concepts such as reflection across the air-ground interface
using the Snell’s law and propagation within a uniform isotropic medium.
Whitaker showed in 1909 [34] that it is possible to represent a function that
satisfies the homogeneous wave equation as an infinite sum of plane waves.
Assuming that the impinging electromagnetic field from a lightning return stroke
can be approximated as a sum of plane waves impinging on the air–ground inter-
face, it turns out that, for typical ground conductivities, the refracted angle, given
by the Snell’s law, is very close to 90 degrees regardless of the angle of incidence.
So it is possible to assume that the transmitted wave is propagated into the ground
with a propagation direction nearly perpendicular to it.
So, in the frequency domain, the horizontal component of the electric field at
depth h under the ground can be written as:

Er ðw; h; rÞ ¼ Er ðw; 0; rÞegg h (7.51)

being gg the ground propagation constant defined as:

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi
s
gg ¼ jw m0 e þ (7.52)
jw
260 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Combining (7.52) and (7.1), one has:

pffiffiffiffiffi
m0
Er ðw; h; rÞ ¼ Hji ðw; 0; rÞ ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi egg h
q (7.53)
s
e þ jw

The time-domain counterpart of (7.51) is:

ðt
er ðt; h; rÞ ¼ er ðt  s; 0; rÞyðsÞds (7.54)
0

having indicated, as before, with low-case letters time domain functions. The
function y is defined as:
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
eat=2 atz
yðtÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi I0 a t2  tz2 1ðt  tz Þ þ eatz =2 dðt  tz Þ (7.55)
2 t2  tz2
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
being a ¼ se ; tz ¼ z m0 e, d the Dirac function, 1 the Heaviside function and I0
the modified Bessel function of first type and order zero. To compute the con-
volution integral (7.55) one must know the horizontal field at ground level, which
can be calculated using the CR formula.

7.1.3.1 Validation of the Cooray formula

In this section, the formula for the underground horizontal electric field is first
compared with the results of the exact Sommerfeld approach, presented in the
previous chapter.
Let us consider the same return stroke currents as in Section 7.1.1.1 and two
different soil conductivities (0.01 S/m and 0.001 S/m). The observation point is
located 50 m far from the lightning channel and 10 m below the ground surface.
The conclusions of such comparative analysis are the following: at very close
distances from the lightning channel, there are two main situations:
● For large values of the soil conductivity (say s = 0.01 S/m), the approximate
formula produces accurate results both for the first and the subsequent strokes
(see Figures 7.8 and 7.9).
● For smaller values of conductivity (say s = 0.001 S/m), the approximate for-
mula yields to less satisfactory results, especially for the late time response in
the case of the first stroke (see Figure 7.10); while it seems to provide better
results for the subsequent strokes (see Figure 7.11), even though at the late
time some differences still persist. This is probably due to the fact that
Cooray’s expression is derived considering only the radiation component of
the underground fields and that, for small distances, the radiation term is
dominant only for the first microsecond or so.
If the horizontal distance grows up, the differences become less significant,
since the radiation term plays a more dominant role [35].
According to the previous section, in the Cooray formula it is necessary to
have at disposal the azimuthal magnetic field at ground level. Thus, two possible
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 261

50
0
–50
–100 Sommerfeld approach

Er [V/m]
Cooray formula
–150
–200
–250
–300
–350
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
t [s] × 10–5

Figure 7.8 Underground horizontal electric field generated by the first stroke
current (r = 50 m, z = 10 m and s = 0.01 S/m). Adapted from [35]
50

–50
Er [V/m]

–100
Sommerfeld approach
–150 Cooray formula

–200
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
t [s] × 10–5

Figure 7.9 Underground horizontal electric field generated by a subsequent stroke

current (r = 50 m, z = 10 m and s = 0.01 S/m). Adapted from [35]

500

0
Sommerfeld approach
Cooray formula
Er [V/m]

–500

–1,000

–1,500

–2,000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
t [s] × 10–5

Figure 7.10 Underground horizontal electric field generated by the first stroke
current (r = 50 m, z = 10 m and s = 0.001 S/m). Adapted from [35]
262 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

200

–200
Er [V/m]
–400

–600

–800 Sommerfeld approach

Cooray formula
–1,000

–1,200
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
t [s] × 10–5

Figure 7.11 Underground horizontal electric field generated by a subsequent stroke

current (r = 50 m, z = 10 m and s = 0.001 S/m). Adapted from [35]

solutions can be adopted: (a) the magnetic field computed with the assumption of
PEC ground and (b) the magnetic field including the propagation effects due to
lossy ground.
In order to better clarify this point, a wider comparison has been provided by
[25] through the FDTD technique. The authors studied the efficacy of the Cooray
formula at the same depth as in previous case but for different horizontal distances
from the lightning channel (from 100 m to 2 km) and for different soil con-
ductivities (from 0.0001 to 0.01 S/m), leading to the following results and key-
points:
● The assumption of perfectly conducting ground for the evaluation of the
magnetic field at ground level might lead to inaccuracies in the Cooray for-
mula. This aspect is more relevant when the soil conductivity is low
(s = 0.0001 S/m) and the observation point is distant from the stroke location.
● The use of Cooray formula taking into account propagation effects in the
computation of the magnetic field results in acceptable predictions of the
underground horizontal electric fields.
● The assumption of perfectly conducting ground for the evaluation of the
magnetic field at ground level is a valid assumption if the soil conductivity is
greater than 0.001 S/m and the observation point is not more than 2 km far
from the channel.

7.2 Electromagnetic fields propagation along a

horizontally stratified ground
Formulations for electromagnetic fields above a stratified ground can be deduced as
generalizations of those above a homogeneous lossy ground [28]. A historical and
comprehensive review of the available formulations, their domains of applicability
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 263

and theoretical bottlenecks e.g., resulting from the presence of surface waves on
“wrong” Riemann sheets is given in the review papers by Wait [36,37].
More recently studies on stratified ground have been carried out. In 2011 the
authors of [38] proposed a generalization of the C–R and Wait formulae, for cal-
culating the horizontal electric field at the ground surface showing that the C–R
formula overestimates the field value till 10% for low relative permittivity.
Irregularities in the soil have been considered in [39], where a good accordance
between model and measurements has been shown. Here FDTD procedure has been
adopted for the numerical evaluation of the Sommerfeld integrals.
In 2018 [40], an analysis of stratified frequency dependent soils has been
presented, showing that the lightning electric fields are more affected by the stra-
tification than by the frequency. In 2019, the authors of [41] showed that a two-
layered soil model is more reliable than a homogeneous one comparing their results
with measurements of the electric field in the range of distances from the lightning
strike point 69–126 km. Comparison with experimental data is carried out in [42],
confirming that the vertical electric field and the azimuthal magnetic field at close
range can be evaluated assuming the ground as a perfectly conducting plane, while
the soil stratification and frequency-dependent parameters effect becomes sig-
nificant at intermediate and distant ranges; on the contrary, the horizontal electric
field is found to be very sensitive to the ground stratification at all distances.
The formulation for obtaining lightning radiated electromagnetic fields above
a two-layer horizontally stratified ground is presented in what follows.

7.2.1 Lightning electromagnetic fields for a two-layer

horizontally stratified ground: a simplified
formulation
The electromagnetic propagation along a horizontally stratified ground goes back
in the time till the early works of Millington [43], Kirke [44], Suda [45], and
Bremmer [46]. In particular, using an integral equation formulation, Bremmer
showed that the work of Millington was valid for a wide range of frequencies and
ground parameters.
In the frequency domain, according to Wait [37], the vertical component of
the electric field and the azimuthal component of the magnetic one can be
deduced by the respective ideal components corrected by an attenuation function
F accounting for the propagation effects. On the other hand, as proposed by
Shoory et al. [47], the radial component of the electric field can be obtained by a
linear combination of its ideal component and the azimuthal component of the
magnetic field at ground level scaled by the attenuation function and the surface
impedance Z. In formulas:

Ez ðw; z; rÞ ¼ Ezi ðw; z; rÞF ðw; rÞ (7.56)

Er ðw; z; rÞ ¼ Eri ðw; z; rÞ  Hji ðw; 0; rÞF ðw; rÞZ ðwÞ (7.57)

Hj ðw; z; rÞ ¼ Hji ðw; z; rÞF ðw; rÞ (7.58)

264 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Note that the Cooray–Rubinstein formula is essentially obtained by (7.57)

neglecting the effect of the attenuation function, (F = 1). When a two-layer hor-
izontally stratified ground (Figure 7.12) each one characterized by conductivity si
(with i = 1,2) and electric permittivity e0 eri , the surface impedance is given by:
K2 ðwÞ þ K1 ðwÞtanh ðu1 h1 Þ
ZðwÞ ¼ K1 ðwÞ (7.59)
K1 ðwÞ þ K2 ðwÞtanh ðu1 h1 Þ
where the involved quantities are given by
ui ðwÞ
Ki ðwÞ ¼ (7.60)
si þ jwe0 eri
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ui ðwÞ ¼ g2i ðwÞ  g20 ðwÞ (7.61)

and
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
gi ðwÞ ¼ jwm0 ðsi þ jwe0 eri Þ (7.62)
represents the wave number in the ith layer, while g0 is the free space wave number
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
g0 ðwÞ ¼ jw m0 e0 (7.63)
The expression of the attenuation function F needed in (7.56)–(7.58) was
derived by Wait [48] and it involves the complementary error function (erfc ) of
complex value [49]:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fðw; rÞ ¼ 1  j ppðw; rÞepðw;rÞ erfc j pðw; rÞ (7.64)

being

pðw; rÞ ¼ 0:5g0 ðwÞrD2 ðwÞ (7.65)

Lightning channel

Observation
Point at
P(ρ,ϕ,z)
Air ε0, μ0

h1 Layer 1 ε0εr1, μ0, σ1

Layer 2 ε0εr1, μ0, σ2

Figure 7.12 Geometry of the two layer horizontally stratified ground

 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 265

And D being defined in terms of the normalized surface impedance of the two-
layer ground
ZðwÞ
DðwÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (7.66)
m0 =e0
All the encountered square roots of complex quantities in the above expres-
sions have to be evaluated according to the roots on the upper Riemann sheet [50].

7.2.2 Validation of the simplified formula

In this section, we aim at validating the simplified formula proposed by Wait. The
first part of the section aims at validating the formula for observations points close
to the stroke location (<10 km), while the second one focuses on observations
points further away from the stroke location. For both cases the possible influence
of the frequency-dependent soil is analyzed.

7.2.2.1 Near and intermediate distances

The first set of simulations here are dedicated to observation points at close dis-
tances of r = 50 m and r = 1,000 m and at height of z = 0.5 m. Two different depths
are assumed for the upper ground layer according to Figure 7.12, namely h1 = 2 m
and h2 = 5 m. The return stroke model and the return stroke speed are the same as in
Section 7.1.1.1. The channel-base current is a typical subsequent stroke as proposed
in (7.48) with the parameters of Table 7.2.
However, different values are used for ground electrical parameters which are
adapted from Shoory et al. [1]. s1 = 0.002 S/m, er1 = 5, s2 = 0.1 S/m, er2 = 80 are
assumed as the conductivities and relative permittivities of each ground layer. For
test of validity of the simplified formulations use is made of a dedicated algorithm
for the solution of Sommerfeld integrals presented by Delfino et al. [51]. The
simulation results of the vertical electric field, azimuthal magnetic field, and hor-
izontal electric field are shown in Figure 7.13 for r = 50 m and in Figure 7.14 for
r = 1,000 m. The figures also include curves of the electromagnetic fields above a
perfect ground.
As can be seen, the agreement between simplified approaches and the exact
solutions is excellent for both depths of the upper ground layer and for both
distances of observation points from the channel base. Some differences – even
though minimal – can be observed for the late time response of the vertical
electric field. It can be further seen that, for the vertical electric (Figures 7.13(a)
and (d) and 7.14(a) and (d)) and the azimuthal magnetic (Figures 7.13(c) and (f)
and 7.14(c) and (f)) fields, the results considering the two-layer horizontally
stratified ground obtained using both exact and simplified approximate techni-
ques are very similar to those obtained assuming a perfect ground. This is, how-
ever, not the case for the horizontal electric field waveforms shown in
Figures 7.13(b) and (e) and 7.14(b) and (e). While the horizontal electric field is
essentially positively polarized at r = 50 m, at r = 1,000 m, it is characterized by a
bipolar waveshape with a dominant initial negative excursion followed by a
266 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

× 104 × 104
2 2
Vertical electric field (V/m)

Vertical electric field (V/m)

Stratified ground (dedicated solution) Stratified ground (dedicated solution)
Stratified ground (Wait formula) Stratified ground (Wait formula)
0 Perfect ground
0 Perfect ground

–2 –2

–4 –4

–6 –6

–8 –8
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Time (μs) (d) Time (μs)

800 1,000
Horizontal electric field ( V/m)

Horizontal electric field ( V/m)

600
500
400

200 0

0 Stratified ground (dedicated solution) Stratified ground (dedicated solution)

Stratified ground (Shoory formulation) –500 Stratified ground (Shoory formulation)
–200 Perfect ground Perfect ground

–400 –1,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Time (μs) (e) Time (μs)
Azimuthal magnetic field (A/m)

Azimuthal magnetic field (A/m)

40 40
Stratified ground (dedicated solution) Stratified ground (dedicated solution)
Stratified ground (Wait formula) Stratified ground (Wait formula)
30 Perfect ground
30 Perfect ground

20 20

10 10

0 0

–10 –10
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Time (μs) Time (μs)
(f )

Figure 7.13 Vertical electric (a,d), horizontal electric (b,e), and azimuthal
magnetic (c,f) field components for an observation point at the height
of z = 0.5 m above a two-layer horizontally stratified ground (see
Figure 7.3) at a distance of r = 50 m from the channel base. Height
of upper ground layer is assumed to be h1 = 2 m for (a,b,c) and
h1 = 5 m for (d,e,f) (adapted from Shoory et al. [52])

positive excursion at the later times. Detailed discussion on this effect can be
found in [52]. The authors of [42] showed that the soil stratification plays an
important role in the horizontal electric field only for observations points located
close to the ground (z = 0.5 m), while for higher vertical coordinates the ground
can be assumed homogeneous.
These conclusions have been confirmed by [53], where the electromagnetic
fields above the ground have been computed with the FDTD technique considering
different cases in terms of ground conductivity and permittivity as well as different
depth of the upper layer (from 5 to 20 m). The EM fields were computed at a height
of 10 m above the ground surface and 50 m far.
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 267
500 500
Stratified ground (dedicated solution)
Vertical electric field (V/m)

Vertical electric field (V/m)

Stratified ground (dedicated solution)
Stratified ground (Wait formula) Stratified ground (Wait formula)
0 Perfect ground 0 Perfect ground

–500 –500

–1,000 –1,000

–1,500 –1,500
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Time (μs) (d) Time (μs)

5
Horizontal electric field ( V/m)

Horizontal electric field ( V/m)

10

0 0

–5 –10
Stratified ground (dedicated solution) Stratified ground (dedicated solution)
–10 Stratified ground (Shoory formulation) –20 Stratified ground (Shoory formulation)
Perfect ground Perfect ground

–15 –30
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Time (μs) (e) Time (μs)

1.5 1.5
Azimuthal magnetic field (A/m)

Azimuthal magnetic field (A/m)

Stratified ground (dedicated solution) Stratified ground (dedicated solution)

Stratified ground (Wait formula) Stratified ground (Wait formula)
1 Perfect ground 1 Perfect ground

0.5 0.5

0 0

–0.5 –0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Time (μs) (f ) Time (μs)

Figure 7.14 Vertical electric (a,d), horizontal electric (b,e), and azimuthal
magnetic (c,f) field components for an observation point at the height
of z = 0.5 m above a two-layer horizontally stratified ground (see
Figure 7.3) at a distance of r = 1,000 m from the channel base.
Height of upper ground layer is assumed to be h1 = 2 m for (a,b,c)
and h1 = 5 m for (d,e,f), adapted from Shoory et al. [52]

7.2.2.1.1 Frequency-dependence of soil parameters

The effect of the frequency-dependent soil parameters in case of a stratified ground
has been proposed in [42]. The vertical electric field and the azimuthal magnetic
field can be computed supposing perfect ground, assuming that the frequency-
dependent soil does not provide any further information. On the other hand, the
horizontal electric field could be influenced by the frequency-dependent soil as its
time-behaviour is affected by the finite ground conductivity.
Figures 7.15 and 7.16, adapted from [42], show the horizontal electric field
considering the same currents (first and subsequent strokes) and ground stratifica-
tion proposed in the previous subsection (Section 7.2.2.1). The observation point is
located 50 m far from the channel while two different heights (10 m and 0.5 m)
have been considered. The results were obtained supposing two different scenarios
for the two-layer soil: the first one with a upper (lower) layer characterized by a
268 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

30 7
a1) a1)
25 6

20 5
Er (kV/m)

Er (kV/m)
15
2.6% WC (Homogeneous) 3 2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
10 11.6% WC (Homogeneous)
11.6% WC (Homogeneous)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) 2 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)
5 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)
2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 1 2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
0 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 0 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
–5 –1
0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (μs) Time ( μs)
30 7
a2) a2)
25 6
5
20
4
Er (kV/m)
Er (kV/m)

15
2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
3 2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
10 11.6% WC (Homogeneous) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) 2 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)
5 1
2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
0 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 0 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
–5 –1
0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (μs) Time (μs)

Figure 7.15 Horizontal electric field (Er) at 50 m. First column: first stroke;
second column: subsequent stroke. The depth of the top layer is 2 m
in the first row and 10 m in the second row. The observation point is
set to 10 m. Adapted from [42]

water content (WC) of 2.6% (11.6%) and the second one being the viceversa of the
first (see previous chapter for the link between WC and the ground parameters). As
can be noticed from the figures, the frequency-dependent soil plays a meaningful
role only in case of observation point located at an height of 0.5 m.

7.2.2.2 Far distances

For the second set of simulations presented in this section, we consider an obser-
vation point at ground level and at distances of r = 10 km and r = 100 km from the
channel base. The adopted values for the electrical parameters of the ground are
s1 = 0.001 S/m, er1 = 10, and s2 = 4 S/m, er2 = 30.
For the observation points at the ground surface, the simplified equations for
the horizontally stratified ground are validated against the FDTD simulation tech-
nique. The details of the technique and its implementation can be found in [54].
The procedure is essentially the same as that used in [55–57] and the simulation
domain of the FDTD technique is shown in Figure 7.12. The technique solves the
two Maxwell’s curl equations by means of the so-called Yee discretization scheme
[54]. The spatial and temporal derivatives are represented simply using the first
order finite differences.
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 269

1 0.5
2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
11.6% WC (Homogeneous) b1)
0.5 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) 0
a1)
Er (kV/m)

Er (kV/m)
0
2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
–0.5 11.6% WC (Homogeneous)
–0.5 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)

2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) –1 2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)

–1 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
–1.5 –1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (μs) Time (μs)
1 2.6% WC (Homogeneous) 0.5
11.6% WC (Homogeneous) b2)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
0.5 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)
0
a2)
Er (kV/m)

Er (kV/m)
0
2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
–0.5 11.6% WC (Homogeneous)
–0.5 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)
2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) –1 2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
–1 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
–1.5 –1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (μs) Time (μs)

Figure 7.16 Horizontal electric field (Er) at 50 m. First column: first stroke;
second column: subsequent stroke. The depth of the top layer is 2 m
in the first row and 10 m in the second row. The observation point is
set to 0.5 m. Adapted from [42]

The depth of the upper soil layer for r = 10 km was set to h1 = 2 m. For
r = 100 km, because of the limitations in the computational resources, the smallest
possible value for h1 was 20 m.* In the FDTD simulations, a value for the time step
of 2 ns was considered for r = 10 km and a value of 20 ns was considered for
r = 100 km. The overall time interval was set to Tmax = 50 ms for r = 10 km and
Tmax = 380 ms for r = 100 km. This corresponds to 25,000 time steps for r = 10 km
and 19,000 time steps for r = 100 km. The spatial discretization interval was
chosen to be 2 m for r = 10 km and 20 m for r = 100 km.
According to Figure 7.17, the simulation domain was truncated using the first
order Mur absorbing boundary conditions at rmax = 11 km, zmax = 7.5 km, and
zmin = 100 m for r = 10 km and at rmax = 101 km, zmax = 52.5 km, and zmin = 100 m
for r = 100 km. Making use of the axial symmtery of the problem, this corresponds
to 5,500  3,800 spatial cells for r = 10 km and 5,050  2,630 spatial cells for
r = 100 km.
The simulation results for vertical electric field are shown in Figure 7.18. For
more clarity, the curves are also given in smaller time scales. It can be seen that the

*This is due to the fact that we are simply using square cells and not adaptive meshing scheme. This
would result in a prohibitive number of cells if we decrease the depth of the upper ground layer.
270 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

z
First-order Mur absorbing boundary condition
zmax Air

Lightning
return stroke
channel
Axial symmetry

ρmax
ρ
h1
σ1, ε0εr1, μ0

–zmin σ2, ε0εr2, μ0

Figure 7.17 Side view of the simulation domain of the FDTD technique used for
the validation of the simplified approaches. For r = 10 km we used
rmax = 11 km, zmax = 7.5 km, and zmin = 100 m and and for r = 100 km
we used rmax = 101 km, zmax = 52.5 km, and zmin = 100 m (adapted
from Shoory et al. [58])

60 60
h1 = 2 m Perfect ground Perfect ground
Vertical electric field (V/m)

Vertical electric field (V/m)

h1 = 2 m
50 Stratified ground (Wait formulation) 50 Stratified ground (Wait formulation)
Stratified ground (FDTD) Stratified ground (FDTD)
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Time (μs) (b) Time (μs)

5 Perfect ground 5
Perfect ground
Vertical electric field (V/m)

Vertical electric field (V/m)

Stratified ground (Wait formulation) Stratified ground (Wait formulation)

h1 = 20 m
4 Stratified ground (FDTD) 4 Stratified ground (FDTD)

3 3

2 2
h1 = 20 m
1 1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15
(c) Time (μs) (d) Time (μs)

Figure 7.18 Vertical electric field at ground level at a distance of r = 10 km

(a) and (b) with h1 = 2 m and r = 100 km (c) and (d) with h1 = 20 m
obtained using the Wait’s formulation (7.64) and FDTD technique.
The results for a perfectly conducting ground are also shown for
comparison. (a,c) longer time window, (b,d) shorter time window m
(adapted from Shoory et al. [58])
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 271

Wait’s formulation appears to be quite accurate in reproducing the electric field

waveform. Furthermore, both oscillatory and enhancement effects are confirmed in
the full-wave FDTD simulations. Table 7.3 presents the values of the field peaks
and zero-to-peak risetimes predicted by the Wait’s formulation and by the FDTD
method. It can be observed that the Wait’s formulation is able to reproduce these
two parameters with an accuracy of 20 % for r = 10 km and 8.8 % for r = 100 km.
Larger errors observed for r = 10 km are reasonable because Wait’s approximate
formula applies to distant fields where the radiation term is the dominant
component.
It is worth mentioning that higher amplitudes in the predicted field waveforms
above a horizontally stratified ground compared with those above a perfect ground
does not mean any gain of energy for the propagating wave. In fact, instanenous or
frequency selective enhancement are possible while the fields satisfy the radiation
condition which enforces the conservation of energy.
The simulation results of the horizontal electric field are on the other hand
shown in Figure 7.19. The results obtained using the proposed simplified formula
appear to be in very good agreement with the FDTD results. It is also interesting to
observe that the stratified ground results in the same oscillatory behaviour for the
horizontal electric field as observed in the vertical electric field component shown
in Figure 7.18.
In [41], the importance of taking into account the soil stratification is further
evaluated through a comparison of the Wait formula with the results of a rocked-
triggered lightning using simultaneous observations of the lightning current and of
the radiated fields at nine different distances. The analysis was performed using the
MTLE model (l = 2 km), a return stroke speed of c/2 and representing the channel-
base current with the sum of two Heidler’s functions whose parameters have been
evaluated using a genetic algorithm [59]. The authors considered three different
strokes (RS1, RS4, and RS5) with the parameters appearing in Table 7.4.
The observations points correspond to the available measuring station in the
region of Guandong (China), where the experimental facility is located. According
to this, the fields are observed at 69, 72, 85, 87, 100, 112, and 126 km.
The ground parameters s1 , s2 , er1 , er2 and the height of the top layer h1 were
respectively set to 0.001 S/m, 4 S/m, 5, 80, and 15.5 m. These values were deter-
mined in order to obtain the best match with the experimental data.

Table 7.3 Peak and risetimes of the far vertical electric field predicted using
Wait’s formulation and FDTD Simulations m

r (km) h (m) Peak (V/m) Rise time (ms)

Wait FDTD Error (%) Wait FDTD Error (%)
10 2 39.3 43.1 8.8 0.6 0.5 20
100 20 4.8 4.6 4.3 3.4 3.3 3.0
Adapted from Shoory et al. [54].
272 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

1
FDTD
0.5

Er (V/m) 0

–0.5
Shoory formulation
–1

–1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Time (μs)
0.2
Shoory formulation

0.1 FDTD
Er (V/m)

–0.1

–0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(b) Time (μs)

Figure 7.19 Horizontal electric field at ground level at a distance of (a) r = 10 km

with h1 = 2 m and (b) r = 100 km with h1 = 20 m obtained using the
formula proposed by Shoory et al. [47]and FDTD technique (adapted
from Shoory et al. [47])

Table 7.4 Lightning return stroke parameters

Lightning return stroke I 01 (kA) t11 (ms) t12 (ms) n1 I 02 (kA) t21 (ms) t22 (ms) n2
RS1 16.0 0.501 9.6 5 5.6 10.0 77 3
RS4 18.0 0.359 8.9 5 5.9 9.5 60 3
RS5 15.0 0.417 6.1 6 5.0 8.0 55 3

The need of considering the soil stratification can be clear from Figure 7.20,
where a poor agreement is observed between the measured vertical electric field
and the one computed supposing homogenous ground and different values of the
ground conductivity.
The simulation results assuming a two-layer model for the ground are shown in
Figure 7.21 for all the stations and all the three return strokes. Each column presents the
results for one return stroke, for which electric field waveforms (calculated and mea-
sured) are presented from the shortest to the farthest stations (from the top to the bottom).
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 273

6
Homogeneous ground σ = 0.001 S/m
5 Homogeneous ground σ = 0.003 S/m
Homogeneous ground σ = 0.01 S/m
4
Perfect ground

Ez (V/m)
3 Measured data at for RS1

–1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (μs)

Figure 7.20 Vertical electric field at 85 km: measurement vs. homogeneous soil
model computation. Adapted from [41]

In accordance with the results of [58], the two-layer soil model proposed by
Wait allows obtaining very good agreement between computed and measured
waveforms for all the considered distances and events. In particular, the late-time
response follows to a much better extent the experimental waveforms with respect
to the homogenous case. In the stations located at 87 and 100 km some dis-
crepancies can be observed, probably ascribed to the variation of the soil electrical
parameters along the considered paths, as well as due to their frequency
dependence.
7.2.2.2.1 Frequency-dependence of soil parameters
Considering the frequency-dependence of the ground parameters lead to different
results in terms of variation of the EM fields behavior. According to [42], the
vertical electric field and the azimuthal magnetic field are almost unaffected by
the frequency-dependence of the ground parameters (Figures 7.22 and 7.23). On the
other hand, the frequency dependence in case of soil stratification affects the hor-
izontal electric field in a consistent way causing a decrease of the field peak
(Figure 7.24).
The results were obtained supposing the same two different scenarios for the
two-layer soil as the previous section. The same return stroke model was adopted as
in the previous sub-section, while two cases for the channel-base current (Heidler’s
function) are considered: a first return stroke (30 kA, maximum steepness = 12 kA/
ms) and a subsequent stroke (12 kA, maximum steepness = 12 kA/ms). The
frequency-dependent soil is taken into account with the model proposed in [42] and
two different depths of the top layer are considered: 2 m and 10 m, respectively.
Figures 7.22–7.24 show the vertical electric field, magnetic field and horizontal
electric field computed 10 m above the ground at an horizontal distance of 100 km.
For each scenario the comparison between the homogenous case and the stratified
is provided considering or not the frequency-dependent soil.
274 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2
8 8
6
6 Stratified ground 6 Stratified ground Stratified ground
Measured data Measured data Measured data
Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)
4
4 LSZ(69km) for RS1 4 LSZ(69km) for RS4 LSZ(69km) for RS5

2 2
2

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(a1) Time (μs) (a2) Time (μs) (a3) Time (μs)

8 8 6

6 Stratified ground 6 Stratified ground Stratified ground

Measured data Measured data 4 Measured data
Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)
4 LPZ(72km) for RS1 4 LPZ(72km) for RS4 LPZ(72km) for RS5
2
2 2
0
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(b1) Time (μs) (b2) Time (μs) (b3) Time (μs)

6 6
6
Stratified ground Stratified ground Stratified ground
4 4
Measured data Measured data Measured data
Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)
4
CCZ(85km) for RS1 CCZ(85km) for RS4 CCZ(85km) for RS5
2
2
2
0
0 0
–2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(c1) Time (μs) (c2) Time (μs) (c3) Time (μs)

6
6 4
Stratified ground Stratified ground Stratified ground
4 Measured data Measured data Measured data
Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)

4
CCJ(87km) for RS1 CCJ(87km) for RS4 2 CCJ(87km) for RS5
2
2

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(d1) Time (μs) (d2) Time (μs) (d3) Time (μs)

6 6
Stratified ground Stratified ground 4 Stratified ground
4 Measured data 4 Measured data Measured data
Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)

BNZ(100km) for RS1 BNZ(100km) for RS4 2 BNZ(100km) for RS5

2 2

0 0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(e1) Time (μs) (e2) Time (μs) (e3) Time (μs)

4
4 Stratified ground 4 Stratified ground 3 Stratified ground
Measured data Measured data Measured data
Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)
Ez (V/m)

JAZ(112km) for RS1 2 JAZ(112km) for RS5

JAZ(112km) for RS4
2 2
1

0 0 0

–1
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(f1) Time (μs) (f 2) Time (μs) (f 3) Time (μs)
4
4 Stratified ground 4 Stratified ground 3 Stratified ground
Measured data Measured data Measured data
Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)

2
2 MCZ(126km) for RS1 2 MCZ(126km) for RS4 MCZ(126km) for RS5
1

0 0 0

–1
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(g1) Time (μs) (g2) Time (μs) (g3) Time (μs)

Figure 7.21 Vertical electric field for different distances (from 69 to 126 km) and
different return stroke currents (from left to right). Adapted from [41]
 5
2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
10 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 4 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
8
c1) b1)
3
Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)
6

2
4
2.6% WC (Homogeneous) 2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
2 11.6% WC (Homogeneous) 1 11.6% WC (Homogeneous)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (μs) Time (μs)
5
2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
10 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 4 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
8
c2) c2)
3
Ez (V/m)

Ez (V/m)
6

2
4
2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
2 11.6% WC (Homogeneous) 1 11.6% WC (Homogeneous)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (μs) Time (μs)

Figure 7.22 Vertical electric field (Ez) at 100 km. First column: first stroke;
second column: subsequent stroke. The depth of the top layer is 2 m
in the first row and 10 m in the second row. Adapted from [42]

30 14
2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
25 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
12 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
10
20 c1)
Hphi (mA /m)
Hphi (mA /m)

c1)
8
15
6
10
2.6% WC (Homogeneous) 4 2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
11.6% WC (Homogeneous) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous)
5 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
2
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (μs) Time (μs)
30 14
2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
25 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
12 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
10
20
c2) c2)
Hphi (mA /m)

Hphi (mA /m)

8
15
6
10
4
2.6% WC (Homogeneous) 2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
5 11.6% WC (Homogeneous) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) 2 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (μs) Time (μs)

Figure 7.23 Azimuthal magnetic field (Hphi) at 100 km. First column: first stroke;
second column: subsequent stroke. The depth of the top layer is 2 m
in the first row and 10 m in the second row. Adapted from [42]
276 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2
0.1 2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
0.1 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 0.05 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
0
c1)
0
Er (V/m)

Er (V/m)
–0.1
c1) –0.05
–0.2
2.6% WC (Homogeneous) 2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
–0.1 11.6% WC (Homogeneous)
11.6% WC (Homogeneous)
–0.3 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)
–0.15
0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (μs) Time (μs)
0.1
2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 2.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
0.1 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent) 11.6% WC (Homogeneous frequency-dependent)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent 0.05 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) frequency-dependent
0
c2)
0
Er (V/m)

Er (V/m)

–0.1
c2) –0.05
–0.2
2.6% WC (Homogeneous) 2.6% WC (Homogeneous)
11.6% WC (Homogeneous) –0.1 11.6% WC (Homogeneous)
2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower) 2.6% WC (top) 11.6% WC (lower)
–0.3
11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower) 11.6% WC (top) 2.6% WC (lower)
–0.15
0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (μs) Time (μs)

Figure 7.24 Horizontal electric field (Er) at 100 km. First column: first stroke;
second column: subsequent stroke. The depth of the top layer is 2 m
in the first row and 10 m in the second row. Adapted from [42]

9
Homogeneous (σ = 0.003 S/m)
8
Stratified (0.001 S/m(top) and 4 S/m (lower))
7 Homogeneous frequency-dependent (σ = 0.003 S/m)
Stratified frequency-dependent (0.001 S/m(top) and 4 S/m (lower))
6 Measured data at 85 km
Ez(V/m)

0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (μs)

Figure 7.25 Comparison of the measured vertical electric field with different
models for the soil. Adapted from [42]
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 277

As a conclusion, the frequency-dependent soil plays a less meaningful role

with respect to consider or not the stratified ground, and this aspect is further
validated in Figure 7.25 by the comparison of the measured vertical electric field
associated with a rocket-triggered return stroke. In the scenario proposed in
Figure 7.25 (adapted from [42]), the observation point is located at 85 km from the
stroke location and the ground parameters have been chosen in order to obtain the
best match with the experimental data.

7.3 Electromagnetic fields propagation along a vertically

stratified ground

7.3.1 Lightning electromagnetic fields for a two-layer

vertically stratified ground: a simplified formulation
Similar to the horizontally stratified ground, we refer to relations (7.56)–(7.58)
for the vertically stratified ground. In particular we consider a two-layers vertical
stratification (Figure 7.26), each characterized by conductivity si (with i = 1,2)
and electric permittivity e0 eri . The expression of the attenuation function has been
proposed by Wait and Householder [60], Wait [61,62] and Wait and Walters
[63,64], although Hill and Wait [65] have shown that there are singularities
in the integrands of the expression, and they provide the final result as proposed
below
8 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ( rffiffiffi ð dl )
>
> g0 ðwÞr d F1 ðw; r  xÞF2 ðw; xÞ
>
> F ðw; rÞ  ½D ðwÞ  D ðwÞ 2 F ðw; rÞ þ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi dx jD2 ðwÞj < jD1 ðwÞj
>
> 1 2 1 1
< 2p r d xðr  xÞ
Fðw; rÞ ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ( rffiffiffi )
>
> ð rdl
>
> F2 ðw; rÞ  g0 ðwÞr½D1 ðwÞ  D2 ðwÞ 2 dF2 ðw; rÞ þ
>
>
F2 ðw; r  xÞF1 ðw; xÞ
p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi dx jD2 ðwÞj >jD1 ðwÞj
: 2p r xðr  xÞ
d

(7.67)

Observation
point

ρ dl
σ1, ε0εr1, μ0 σ2, ε0εr2, μ0

Figure 7.26 Geometry of the two layer vertically stratified ground

278 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

in which d is a small distance over which one can assume the attenuation functions
to be constant, while Di (i = 1, 2) is the normalized surface impedance of each
ground section defined as ( e.g., by Hill and Wait [66]).
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
jwe0 ½si þ jwe0 ðeri  1Þ
Di ðwÞ ¼ (7.68)
si þ jwe0 eri
and F1 and F2 are the attenuation functions of each section of the ground repre-
sented as a function of the horizontal distance from the source to the observation
point and defined as follows:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fi ðw; rÞ ¼ 1  j ppi ðw; rÞepi ðw;rÞ erfc j pi ðw; rÞ (7.69)

with

pi ðw; rÞ ¼ 0:5g0 ðwÞrD2i ðwÞ (7.70)

7.3.2 Validation of the simplified formula

In this section, the above simplified formula for a vertically stratified ground is
validated against an FDTD simulation. In order to provide a complete scenario, the
validation has been performed at near distances (200 m), intermediate distances
(1 km) and at long distances (10 km) for two different mixed-path arrangements
(Table 7.5). The validation for near and intermediate distances has been obtained
thanks to the work presented in [67], while the validation for long distances has
been obtained thanks to the work of Shoory et al. [68]. The simulation domain for
both FDTD validations is here depicted as follows (Figure 7.27). Further details are
available in the corresponding articles.

7.3.2.1 Near distances

In this section, two cases for dl are considered (dl = 50 m and dl = 100 m). The
typical subsequent stoke is used [22] and the MTLL model [69] is supposed (height
of the channel = 7.5 km, v = 1.5  108 m/s). The observation point is located 200 m
far from the channel and at ground level. Figure 7.28 shows the comparison of the
Wait’s formula with the FDTD simulation in the considered cases, where in each
plot curves 1 and 2 correspond to Wait’s formula and FDTD (dl = 100 m),

Table 7.5 Details of the soil configuration

Case 1 Case 2
s1 0.001 S/m 4 S/m
er1 10 30
s2 4 S/m 0.001 S/m
er2 30 10
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 279

First-order Mur absorbing boundary condition

Zmax Air

Lightning
return stroke
channel
Axial symmetry

ρmax
ρ
ρ
dl

–Zmax σ1,ε0εr1, μ0 σ2,ε0εr2, μ0

Figure 7.27 Side view of the simulation domain of the FDTD technique used for
the validation of the simplified approaches. Adapted from [68]

respectively; curves 3 and 4 correspond to Wait’s formula and FDTD (dl = 50 m),
respectively.
The results confirm the accuracy of the simplified formula at near distances.
This, in principle, could not be obvious as the formula has been originally devel-
oped for the radiation component of the field at far distance. However, since within
tens or hundreds of meters from the lightning channel, the electrostatic and
induction field components become more and more predominant when the distance
of the observation point gets closer and they are less affected by the ground finite
conductivity, it seems that the vertical electric field at near ranges are not sig-
nificantly affected by mixed propagation path, thus Wait’s formula appears to
present a reasonable accuracy at close distances too. Therefore, in such a mixed
path, one can approximately use the vertical field waveforms of the PEC ground to
expedite the computation process. However, it is important to notice that some
minimal differences can be seen in the early-time response within a few micro-
seconds. This aspect will become more relevant in case of intermediate distances
and will be discussed in the following subsection.

7.3.2.2 Intermediate distances

In the following, the comparison between the Wait’s formula and FDTD is pro-
vided for an observer located 1 km from the lightning channel and at ground level.
The details of the FDTD simulations, as well as the lightning current details and the
cases related to the mixed-propagation soil are the same as in the previous sub-
section. The simulated results are shown in Figure 7.29, where in each plot curves 1
and 2 correspond to Wait’s formula and FDTD (dl = 500 m), respectively; curves 3
and 4 correspond to Wait’s formula and FDTD (dl = 50 m), respectively.
280 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

6,000
Electric Field (V/m)

4,000

2,4
2,000

1,3

0
0 2 4 6
(a) Time(μs)

6,000
Electric Field (V/m)

4,000

2,4
2,000
1,3

0
0 2 4 6
(b) Time(μs)

Figure 7.28 Vertical electric field for (a) case 1 and (b) case 2 at the surface of a
mixed-path ground at a distance of d = 200 m. Curves 1 and 2
correspond to the Wait’s formula and FDTD (dl = 100 m),
respectively; curves 3 and 4 correspond to the Wait’s formula and
FDTD (dl = 50 m), respectively. The subsequent return stroke is
used. Adapted from [67]
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 281

600

400
Electric Field (V/m)

3 4

200 12

0
0 1 2 3 4
(a) Time (μs)

600
Electric Field (V/m)

400

1 2

200
3 4

0
0 2 4 6 8
(b) Time (μs)

Figure 7.29 Vertical electric field for (a) case 1 and (b) case 2 at the surface of a
mixed-path ground at a distance of d = 1,000 m. Curves 1 and 2
correspond to the Wait’s formula and FDTD (dl = 500 m),
respectively; curves 3 and 4 correspond to the Wait’s formula and
FDTD (dl = 50 m), respectively. The subsequent return stroke is
used. Adapted from [67]
282 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

As can be seen, the agreement is still excellent; however, some minimal dif-
ferences can be observed for the early time response within a few microseconds
between them. Therefore, Wait’s formula may cause errors for predicting the
lightning electromagnetic field derivates in close distances. This can be ascribed to
the high-frequency components of the subsequent strokes which are more affected
by the finitely conducting ground.

2,000
Electric Field (V/m)

1,000

12

34

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Time (μs)

2,000
Electric Field (V/m)

1,000
12
34

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
( b) Time (μs)

Figure 7.30 Vertical electric field for (a) case 1 and (b) case 2 at the surface of a
mixed-path ground at a distance of d = 1,000 m. Curves 1 and 2
correspond to the Wait’s formula and FDTD (dl = 500 m),
respectively; curves 3 and 4 correspond to the Wait’s formula and
FDTD (dl = 50 m), respectively. The first return stroke is used.
Adapted from [67]
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 283

As stated in [67], the Wait’s formula can reproduce accurately the vertical
electric field (or azimuthal magnetic field, here not shown for sake of brevity) at
close distances within 1,000 m because the static and induction components are
dominant at close distances and they are usually less affected by finite ground
conductivity. However, if the channel-base current is characterized by an high-
frequency spectrum, the static and induction terms becomes more affected by the
finite ground conductivity and consequently the Wait’s formula partially loses its
validity.
This aspect is confirmed in Figure 7.30, where the same scenario of
Figure 7.29 is proposed for a typical first stroke, characterized by a low frequency
spectrum with respect to subsequent one.

7.3.2.3 Far distances

This section presents the validity of Wait’s formula for far distances (10 km)
according to the work proposed in [68]. In the following, we refer to cases 1 and 2
as in Table 7.5. With respect to the previous configuration, in the following the
MTLE model [24] is assumed. The channel-base current is a typical subsequent
stroke [22].
Simulation results of a vertical electric field at a distance of r = 10 km from the
channel base at ground level according to the case 1 are shown in Figure 7.31 for
four different values of dl, namely 7.5 km, 2.5 km, 0.5 km, and 0.1 km. The same
results for the case 2 are shown in Figure 7.32. It can be seen that Wait’s for-
mulation appears to be quite accurate in reproducing the vertical electric field
waveforms.
Vertical electric field (V/m)

Vertical electric field (V/m)

40 40 FDTD
FDTD
30 30

20 20
Wait formulation Wait formulation
10 10

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
(a) Time (μs) (b) Time (μs)
Vertical electric field (V/m)

Vertical electric field (V/m)

40 FDTD 40 FDTD
30 30

20 20
Wait formulation Wait formulation
10 10

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
(c) Time (μs) (d) Time (μs)

Figure 7.31 Vertical electric field at the surface of a mixed-path ground at a

distance of r = 10 km for case 1 (a) dl = 7.5 km, (b) dl = 2.5 km,
(c) dl = 0.5 km, and (d) dl = 0.1 km. Adapted from [68]
284 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2
Vertical electric field (V/m)

Vertical electric field (V/m)

40 40
FDTD FDTD
30 30

20 20
Wait formulation Wait formulation
10 10

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (μs) Time (μs)
(a) (b)
Vertical electric field (V/m)

Vertical electric field (V/m)

40 FDTD 40 FDTD
30 30

20 20
Wait formulation Wait formulation
10 10

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (μs) Time (μs)
(c) (d)

Figure 7.32 Vertical electric field at the surface of a mixed-path ground at a

distance of r = 10 km for case 2, (a) dl = 7.5 km, (b) dl = 2.5 km, (c)
dl = 0.5 km, and (d) dl = 0.1 km. Adapted from [68]

Table 7.6 Peak and risetimes of the vertical electric field predicted using Wait’s
formulation and FDTD simulation

Case no. dl (km) Peak (V/m) Rise time (ms)

Wait FDTD Error (%) Wait FDTD Error (%)
1 7.5 33.5 35.2 4.8 1.3 1.1 18
2.5 32.2 33.6 4.2 1.6 1.5 6.3
0.5 31.8 32.8 3.0 1.8 1.7 5.9
0.1 31.6 32.1 1.6 2 1.8 10
2 7.5 32.2 32.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 0.0
2.5 33.6 34.1 1.5 1.3 1.2 8.3
0.5 34.4 35.3 2.5 1.0 0.9 11.1
0.1 34.7 36.2 4.1 0.9 0.8 12.5

Table 7.6 presents the values of the field peaks and zero-to-peak risetimes
predicted by Wait’s formulation and by the FDTD method. It can be seen that
Wait’s formulation can predict field peaks with an error of less than 4.8% and field
rise times with an error of less than 18.0%.

7.4 Summary
In this chapter, we provided a review of simplified formulations for obtaining
propagation effects on lightning radiated electromagnetic fields for the case of
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 285

(i) homogenous lossy ground, (ii) two-layer horizontally stratified ground and (iii)
two-layer vertically stratified ground. The validation has been performed using as
reference three types of approaches: full-wave approach, numerical evaluation of
Sommerfeld integrals and experimental results of rocket-triggered lightning.
For the case of a homogeneous ground, the Cooray–Rubinstein and Cooray
formula have shown to be, in general, accurate for typical values of ground con-
ductivity in the prediction of the overground (underground) horizontal electric field.
For the case of a two-layer horizontally stratified ground, it was shown that the
results obtained using the simplified approaches are in excellent agreement with
exact results in near, intermediate, and far distance ranges, with some minimal
differences of the late time response of the vertical electric field. It was seen that at
near and intermediate distance ranges and for elevated observation points, vertical
electric and azimuthal magnetic field components appear not to be appreciably
affected by the ground finite conductivity and can be evaluated assuming the
ground as a perfectly conducting ground. On the other hand, the horizontal electric
field above a horizontally stratified ground is very much affected by the ground
electrical parameters. On the other hand, in case of far distances, the vertical
electric field and the azimuthal magnetic field should be computed taking into
account the soil stratification. It is noticed that the Wait’s formula become more
precise as the distance from the lightning channel grows. For all the considered
distances, the possible influence of the frequency-dependent soil parameters has
been proposed, leading to the conclusion that it is less influent than considering the
soil stratification with respect to the PEC case.
For the case of a vertically stratified ground, the accuracy of the Wait for-
mulations was examined taking as reference full-wave simulations obtained using the
FDTD technique. It was shown that Wait’s simplified formulas are able to reproduce
the near, intermediate and distant field peak and waveshape with a good accuracy.
Some minimal differences can be noticed for the early-time response if the spectrum
of the channel-base current is characterized by a high-frequency content.

References
[1] F. Delfino, R. Procopio, M. Rossi, F. Rachidi, and C.A. Nucci, “Lightning
return stroke current radiation in presence of a conducting ground: 2.
Validity assessment of simplified approaches,” J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.,
vol. 113, no. D5, 2008, doi: 10.1029/2007JD008567.
[2] F. Delfino, R. Procopio, and M. Rossi, “Lightning return stroke current
radiation in presence of a conducting ground: 1. Theory and numerical
evaluation of the electromagnetic fields,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 113, 2008,
doi: 10.1029/2007JD008553.
[3] M. Brignone, F. Delfino, R. Procopio, M. Rossi, and F. Rachidi, “Evaluation
of power system lightning performance—Part II: application to an overhead
distribution network,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. PP, pp. 1–8,
2016, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2016.2601657.
286 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[4] V. Cooray and V. Scuka, “Lightning-induced overvoltages in power lines:

validity of various approximations made in overvoltage calculations,” IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 355–363, 1998, doi:
10.1109/15.736222.
[5] M. Rubinstein, “An approximate formula for the calculation of the hor-
izontal electric field from lightning at close, intermediate, and long range,”
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 531–535, 1996, doi:
10.1109/15.536087.
[6] V. Cooray, “Horizontal electric field above-and underground produced by
lightning flashes,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 52, no. 4,
pp. 936–943, 2010.
[7] C. Caligaris, F. Delfino, and R. Procopio, “Cooray–Rubinstein formula for
the evaluation of lightning radial electric fields: derivation and imple-
mentation in the time domain,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 50,
no. 1, pp. 194–197, 2008, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2007.913226.
[8] F. Delfino, P. Girdinio, R. Procopio, M. Rossi, and F. Rachidi, “Time-
domain implementation of Cooray–Rubinstein formula via convolution
integral and rational approximation,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 755–763, 2011, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2011.2107325.
[9] B. Gustavsen and A. Semlyen, “Rational approximation of frequency
domain responses by vector fitting,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 14, no.
3, pp. 1052–1061, 1999, doi: 10.1109/61.772353.
[10] J. Zou, M. Li, C. Li, J. B. Lee, and S. H. Chang, “Fast evaluation of the
horizontal electric field of lightning with Cooray–Rubinstein formula in time
domain using a piecewise quadratic convolution technique,” IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 1034–1041, 2012, doi: 10.1109/
TEMC.2012.2192277.
[11] X. Liu, M. Zhang, and J. Yang, “Fast evaluation of the lightning horizontal
electric field over a lossy ground based on the time-domain Cooray–
Rubinstein formula,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 61, no. 2,
pp. 449–457, 2019, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2018.2822786.
[12] X. Liu, J. Yang, L. Wang, and G. Liang, “A new method for fast evaluation
of the Cooray–Rubinstein formula in time domain,” IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1188–1195, 2017, doi: 10.1109/
TEMC.2017.2649559.
[13] X. Liu, M. Zhang, J. Yang, L. Wang, and C. Wang, “Fast evaluation of the
Cooray–Rubinstein formula in time domain via piecewise recursive con-
volution technique,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1404–
1410, 2018, doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2017.1205.
[14] A. Andreotti, F. Rachidi, and L. Verolino, “A new formulation of the Cooray–
Rubinstein expression in time domain,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 391–396, 2015, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2015.2401399.
[15] A. Andreotti, F. Rachidi, and L. Verolino, “On the Kernel of the Cooray–
Rubinstein formula in the time domain,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 927–930, 2016, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2016.2526650.
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 287

[16] A. Andreotti, F. Rachidi, and L. Verolino, “Some developments of the Cooray–

Rubinstein formula in the time domain,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1079–1085, 2015, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2015.2434771.
[17] A. Andreotti, F. Rachidi, and L. Verolino, “A new solution for the evaluation
of the horizontal electric fields from lightning in presence of a finitely
conducting ground,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 60, no. 3,
pp. 674–678, 2018, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2017.2735859.
[18] C. F. Barbosa and J. O. S. Paulino, “On time-domain expressions for cal-
culating the horizontal electric field from lightning,” IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 434–439, 2019, doi: 10.1109/
TEMC.2018.2820647.
[19] C. F. Barbosa and J. O. S. Paulino, “An approximate time-domain formula
for the calculation of the horizontal electric field from lightning,” IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 593–601, 2007, doi:
10.1109/TEMC.2007.902183.
[20] C. Barbosa and J. O. S. Paulino, “A time-domain formula for the horizontal
electric field at the earth surface in the vicinity of lightning,” IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 640–645, 2010, doi: 10.1109/
TEMC.2010.2047647.
[21] K. Berger, “Parameters of lightning flashes,” Electra, vol. 41, pp. 23–37,
1975.
[22] F. Rachidi, W. Janischewskyj, A.M. Hussein, et al., “Current and electro-
magnetic field associated with lightning-return strokes to tall towers,” IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 356–367, 2001.
[23] H. Heidler, “Analytische blitzstromfunktion zur LEMP-berechnung,” 18th
ICLP Munich Ger. 1985, 1985.
[24] C. A. Nucci and F. Rachidi, “Experimental validation of a modification to
the transmission line model for LEMP calculation,” in 8th Symposium and
Technical Exhibition on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1989, no. CONF.
[25] M. Khosravi-Farsani, R. Moini, S. H. H. Sadeghi, and F. Rachidi, “On the
validity of approximate formulas for the evaluation of the lightning elec-
tromagnetic fields in the presence of a lossy ground,” IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 362–370, 2012.
[26] V. Cooray, “On the accuracy of several approximate theories used in quan-
tifying the propagation effects on lightning generated electromagnetic
fields,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 1960–1967, 2008.
[27] V. Cooray, “Propagation effects due to finitely conducting ground on
lightning-generated magnetic fields evaluated using Sommerfeld’s integrals,”
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 526–531, 2009.
[28] K. A. Norton, “The propagation of radio waves over the surface of the earth
and in the upper atmosphere,” Proc. Inst. Radio Eng., vol. 25, no. 9,
pp. 1203–1236, 1937.
[29] V. Cooray, “Underground electromagnetic fields generated by the return
strokes of lightning flashes,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 43,
no. 1, pp. 75–84, 2001, doi: 10.1109/15.917942.
288 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[30] P. R. Bannister and N. U. S. Center (U.S.), Simplified Expressions for the

Electromagnetic Fields of Elevated, Surface, Or Buried Dipole Antennas.
New York, NY: Naval Underwater Systems Center, Newport Laboratory,
1987.
[31] E. Petrache, F. Rachidi, M. Paolone, C. A. Nucci, V. A. Rakov, and M. A.
Uman, “Lightning induced disturbances in buried Cables – Part I: theory,”
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 498–508, 2005, doi:
10.1109/TEMC.2005.853161.
[32] M. Paolone, E. Petrache, F. Rachidi, et al., “Lightning induced disturbances
in buried cables - part II: experiment and model validation,” IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 509–520, 2005, doi: 10.1109/
TEMC.2005.853163.
[33] M. Rubinstein, L. G. Diaz, A. Shoory, and F. Rachidi, “A physical derivation
of the horizontal electric field under the ground associated with lightning
return strokes,” in 2011 International Symposium on Lightning Protection,
October 2011, pp. 78–81, doi: 10.1109/SIPDA.2011.6088420.
[34] E. T. Whittaker, “On the partial differential equations of mathematical
physics,” Math. Ann., vol. 57, pp. 333–355, 1909.
[35] F. Delfino, R. Procopio, M. Rossi, F. Rachidi, and C. A. Nucci, “An algorithm
for the exact evaluation of the underground lightning electromagnetic fields,”
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 401–411, 2007.
[36] J. R. Wait, “Propagation effects for electromagnetic pulse transmission,”
Proc. IEEE, vol. 74, no. 9, pp. 1173–1181, 1986.
[37] J. R. Wait, “The ancient and modern history of EM ground-wave propaga-
tion,” IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 7–24, 1998.
[38] D. Li, C. Wang, and X. Liu, “General time-domain formula for horizontal
electric field excited by lightning,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 395–400, 2011.
[39] D. Li, M. Azadifar, F. Rachidi, et al., “On lightning electromagnetic field
propagation along an irregular terrain,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 161–171, 2015.
[40] Q. Li, M. Rubinstein, J. Wang, L. Cai, M. Zhou, and F. Rachidi, “Distant
electric fields from lightning retum strokes: influence of soil stratification
and frequency-dependent parameters,” in 2018 34th International
Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2018, pp. 1–6.
[41] Q. Li, J. Wang, F. Rachidi, et al., “Importance of taking into account the soil
stratification in reproducing the late-time features of distant fields radiated by
lightning,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 935–944,
2018.
[42] Q. Li, M. Rubinstein, J. Wang, et al., “On the influence of the soil stratifi-
cation and frequency-dependent parameters on lightning electromagnetic
fields,” Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 178, p. 106047, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.
epsr.2019.106047.
[43] G. Millington, “Ground-wave propagation over an inhomogeneous smooth
earth,” Proc. IEE-Part III Radio Commun. Eng., vol. 96, no. 39, pp. 53–64, 1949.
 Lightning electromagnetic field propagation 289

[44] H. L. Kirke, “Calculation of ground-wave field strength over a composite

land and sea path,” Proc. IRE, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 489–496, 1949.
[45] K. Suda, “Field strength calculations-new method for mixed paths,” Wirel.
Eng., vol. 31, pp. 249–249, 1954.
[46] H. Bremmer, “The extension of Sommerfeld’s formula for the propagation
of radio waves over a flat earth, to different conductivities of the soil,”
Physica, vol. 20, no. 1–6, pp. 441–460, 1954.
[47] A. Shoory, A. Mimouni, F. Rachidi, V. Cooray, and M. Rubinstein,
“Lightning horizontal electric fields above a two-layer ground,” in 2010 30th
International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), September 2010,
pp. 1–5, doi: 10.1109/ICLP.2010.7845920.
[48] J. R. Wait, Electromagnetic Waves in Stratified Media: Revised Edition
Including Supplemented Material, vol. 3. New York, NY: Elsevier, 2013.
[49] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with
Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, vol. 55. New York, NY: US
Government Printing Office, 1948.
[50] W. C. Chew, Waves and Fields in Inhomogeneous Media. New York, NY:
IEEE Press, 1995.
[51] F. Delfino, R. Procopio, M. Rossi, A. Shoory, and F. Rachidi, “Lightning
electromagnetic radiation over a stratified conducting ground: formulation
and numerical evaluation of the electromagnetic fields,” J. Geophys. Res.
Atmos., vol. 116, no. D4, 2011, doi: 10.1029/2010JD015077.
[52] A. Shoory, F. Rachidi, F. Delfino, R. Procopio, and M. Rossi, “Lightning
electromagnetic radiation over a stratified conducting ground: 2. Validity of
simplified approaches,” J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres, vol. 116, no. D11,
2011, doi: 10.1029/2010JD015078.
[53] A. Mimouni, F. Rachidi, and M. Rubinstein, “Electromagnetic fields of a
lightning return stroke in presence of a stratified ground,” IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 413–418, 2014, doi: 10.1109/
TEMC.2013.2282995.
[54] K. Yee, “Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems involving
Maxwell’s equations in isotropic media,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.,
vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 302–307, 1966.
[55] A. Mimouni, F. Delfino, R. Procopio, and F. Rachidi, “On the computation
of underground electromagnetic fields generated by lightning: a comparison
between different approaches,” in 2007 IEEE Lausanne Power Tech, 2007,
pp. 772–777.
[56] A. Mimouni, F. Rachidi, and Z. Azzouz, “Electromagnetic environment in
the immediate vicinity of a lightning return stroke,” J. Light. Res, vol. 2,
pp. 64–75, 2007. https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/116398 (accessed Sep.
30, 2020).
[57] A. Mimouni, F. Rachidi, and Z. Azzouz, “A finite-difference time-domain
approach for the evaluation of electromagnetic fields radiated by lightning
strikes to tall structures,” J. Electrost., vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 504–513, 2008, doi:
10.1016/j.elstat.2008.05.002.
290 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[58] A. Shoory, A. Mimouni, F. Rachidi, V. Cooray, R. Moini, and S. H. Sadeghi,

“Validity of simplified approaches for the evaluation of lightning electro-
magnetic fields above a horizontally stratified ground,” IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 657–663, 2010, doi: 10.1109/
TEMC.2010.2045229.
[59] J. L. Bermudez, C. A. Pena-Reyes, F. Rachidi, and F. Heidler, “Use of
genetic algorithms to extract primary lightning current parameters,” in
Proceedings of EMC Europe 2002. International Symposium on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2002. https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/
102246 (accessed Sep. 30, 2020).
[60] J. R. Wait and J. Householder, “Mixed-path ground wave propagation: 2.
Larger distances,” J. Res. NBS, vol. 59, pp. 19–26, 1957.
[61] J. R. Wait, On the Teory of Mixed-Path Ground-Wave Propagation on a
Spherical Earth. New York, NY: US Department of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards, Boulder Laboratories, 1960.
[62] J. R. Wait, “Recent analytical investigations of electromagnetic ground wave
propagation over inhomogeneous earth models,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 62, no. 8,
pp. 1061–1072, 1974.
[63] J. Wait and L. Walters, “Curves for ground wave propagation over mixed
land and sea paths,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 38–
45, 1963.
[64] J. Wait and L. Walters, “Correction to ‘Curves for ground wave propagation
over mixed land and sea paths’,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 11, no.
3, pp. 329–329, 1963.
[65] D. A. Hill and J. R. Wait, “HF ground wave propagation over mixed land,
sea, and sea-ice paths,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 4, pp. 210–
216, 1981.
[66] D. A. Hill and J. R. Wait, “Ground wave attenuation function for a spherical
earth with arbitrary surface impedance,” Radio Sci., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 637–
643, 1980.
[67] Q. Zhang, D. Li, Y. Zhang, J. Gao, and Z. Wang, “On the accuracy of Wait’s
formula along a mixed propagation path within 1 km from the lightning
channel,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 1042–1047,
2012, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2012.2190765.
[68] A. Shoory, A. Mimouni, F. Rachidi, V. Cooray, and M. Rubinstein, “On the
accuracy of approximate techniques for the evaluation of lightning electro-
magnetic fields along a mixed propagation path,” Radio Sci., vol. 46, no. 2,
pp. 1–8, 2011, doi: 10.1029/2010RS004480.
[69] V. A. Rakov and A. A. Dulzon, “A modified transmission line model for
lightning return stroke field calculations,” in Proc. 9th Int.
Symp. Electromagn. Compat, 1991, pp. 229–235.
 Chapter 8
Interaction of lightning-generated
electromagnetic fields with overhead and
underground cables
Carlo Alberto Nucci1, Farhad Rachidi2 and
Marcos Rubinstein3

8.1 Introduction
The problem of lightning protection of overhead and buried power lines has been
reconsidered in recent years due to the proliferation of sensitive loads and the
increasing demand by customers for good quality in the power supply [1].
Overvoltages originated by lightning are a major cause of flashovers and
disturbances. Additionally, lightning-originated surges can also damage, depending
on their amplitude and energy content, the power components connected to these
networks as well as the relevant electronic devices.
The evaluation of lightning-induced voltages requires the knowledge of the
electromagnetic field change along the considered line. This electromagnetic field
is generally determined assuming that the lightning return stroke channel is a
straight vertical antenna above a conducting plane. Some studies have attempted to
take into account the channel tortuosity and inclination in the computation of
electromagnetic fields (e.g., [2–6]). The spatial and temporal distribution of the
current along the channel is specified using a return stroke model.
The problem of return stroke modeling and electromagnetic field computation
is beyond the scope of this chapter. It is however worth mentioning that:

● Four classes of lightning return stroke models have been defined by Rakov and
Uman [7]: (1) the gas dynamic models, (2) electromagnetic models, (3)
distributed-circuit models, and (4) engineering models. Outputs of the elec-
tromagnetic, distributed-circuit, and engineering models can be directly used

1
Department of Electrical, Electronic and Information Engineering, School of Engineering, University of
Bologna, Italy
2
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland
3
School of Engineering and Management Vaud, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts
Western Switzerland
292 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

for the computation of electromagnetic fields. A review on recent work on

these three types of models can be found in [8].
● Three different approaches are more frequently adopted to compute the elec-
tromagnetic fields, both above and below the earth surface: (1) numerical
solution of the exact equations through dedicated algorithms, (2) numerical
solution of the Maxwell’s equations using numerical methods, such as the
finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) technique or the method of moments
(MoM), and (3) use of simplified equations. These approaches have been
reviewed by Rakov and Rachidi [8].
In this chapter, we present the general theory describing the interaction of an
impinging electromagnetic field with transmission lines, with particular reference
to lightning-induced voltages.
The chapter is organized as follows. Section 8.2 contains a brief presentation of the
transmission line theory and a discussion of its underlying assumptions. Section 8.3
presents the field-to-overhead transmission line models that have been proposed to
describe the coupling of electromagnetic fields to transmission lines. In that section, the
derived equations are then extended to deal with the presence of losses and multiple
conductors, and expressions for the line parameters, including the ground impedance
and admittance are presented. Solution methods in the frequency domain and in the time
domain are also presented. In addition, application examples of lightning-induced vol-
tages are presented, with special emphasis on the effects of ground losses. Section 8.4
presents a theoretical framework for modelling the electromagnetic field interaction
with a buried cable. Expressions for the line parameters are given and solution methods
in the frequency and the time domains are presented. Examples of lightning-induced
currents and a comparison with experimental data obtained using triggered lightning are
also included in that section. General conclusions are given in Section 8.5.

8.2 Transmission line theory

The problem of an external electromagnetic field coupling to an overhead line can be
solved using a number of approaches. One such approach makes use of antenna theory,
a general methodology based on Maxwell’s equations* [9]. When electrically long lines
are involved, however, the antenna theory approach requires prohibitively long calcu-
lation times and high computational resources. On the other hand, the less resource
hungry quasi-static approximation [9], in which propagation is neglected and coupling
is described by means of lumped elements, can be adopted only when the overall
dimensions of the circuit are smaller than the minimum significant wavelength of the
electromagnetic field. For many practical cases, however, this condition is not satisfied.
As an example, let us consider the case of power lines illuminated by a lightning
electromagnetic pulse (LEMP). Power networks extend, in general, over distances of
several kilometers, much larger than the minimum wavelengths associated with LEMP.

*Different methods based on this approach generally assume that the wire’s cross-section is smaller than
the minimum significant wavelength (thin-wire approximation).
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 293

Indeed, significant portions of the frequency spectrum of LEMP extend to frequencies

up to of a few MHz and beyond, which corresponds to minimum wavelengths of about
100 m or less (e.g., [10]).
A third approach is known as transmission line (TL) theory. The main
assumptions for this approach are [11]:
1. Propagation occurs along the line axis.
2. The sum of the line currents at any cross-section of the line is zero. In other
words, the ground – the reference conductor – is the return path for the currents
in the n overhead conductors.
3. The response of the line to the coupled electromagnetic fields is quasi trans-
verse electromagnetic (quasi-TEM) or, in other words, the electromagnetic
field produced by the electric charges and currents along the line is confined to
the transverse plane and perpendicular to the line axis.
If the cross-sectional dimensions of the line are electrically small, propagation
can indeed be assumed to occur essentially along the line axis only and the first
assumption can be considered to be a good approximation.
Furthermore, the second condition is satisfied if the ground plane exhibits
infinite conductivity since, in that case, the currents and voltages can be obtained
making use of the method of images, which guarantees currents of equal amplitude
and opposite direction in the ground.
The condition that the response of the line is quasi-TEM is satisfied only up to a
threshold frequency above which higher-order modes begin to appear [9]. For some
cases, such as infinite parallel plates or coaxial lines, it is possible to derive an exact
expression for the cutoff frequency below which only the TEM mode exists [12]. For
other line structures (i.e., multiple conductors above a ground plane), the TEM mode
response is generally satisfied as long as the line cross section is electrically small [12].
Under these conditions, the line can be represented by a distributed-parameter
structure along its axis.
For uniform transmission lines with electrically small cross-sectional dimensions
(not exceeding about one tenth of the minimum significant wavelength of the exciting
electromagnetic field), a number of theoretical and experimental studies have shown a
fairly good agreement between results obtained using the TL approximation and
results obtained either by means of antenna theory or experiments (see e.g., [1,13]). A
detailed discussion of the validity of the basic assumptions of the TL theory is beyond
the scope of this chapter. However, it is worth noting that, by assuming that the sum of
all the currents is equal to zero, we are considering only “transmission line mode”
currents and neglecting the so-called “antenna-mode” currents [9]. If we wish to
compute the load responses of the line, this assumption is adequate, because the
antenna mode current response is small near the ends of the line. Along the line,
however, and even for electrically small line cross sections, the presence of antenna-
mode currents implies that the sum of the currents at a cross section is not necessarily
equal to zero [9, 12]. However, the quasi-symmetry due to the ground plane, if pre-
sent, results in a very small contribution of antenna mode currents and, consequently,
the predominant mode on the line will be transmission line [9].
294 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

8.3 Electromagnetic field interaction with overhead lines

8.3.1 Single-wire line above a perfectly conducting ground
We will consider first the case of a lossless, single-wire line above a perfectly con-
ducting ground. This simple case will allow us to introduce various field-to-
transmission line coupling models and to discuss a number of concepts essential to
the understanding of the electromagnetic field coupling phenomenon. Later in this
chapter, we will cover the cases of lossy and multiconductor lines. The transmission
line is defined by its geometrical parameters (wire radius a and height above ground h)
and its terminations ZA and ZB, as illustrated in Figure 8.1, where the line is illumi-
nated by an external electromagnetic field. The problem of interest is the calculation
of the induced voltages and currents along the line and at !e
the terminations.
!e
The external exciting electric
!i
and
!i
magnetic fields E and B are defined
!r
as the
!r
sum of the incident fields, E and B , and the ground-reflected !
fields,
!
E and B,
determined in absence of the line conductor. The total fields E and B at a given point
in space are hence given by the sum of the !s
excitation
!s
fields and the scattered fields
from the line, the latter being denoted as E and B . The scattered fields are created
by the currents and charges induced on the line conductor and in the ground.
Three seemingly different but completely equivalent approaches have been
proposed to describe the coupling of electromagnetic fields to transmission lines.
In what follows, we will present each one of them in turn. For a step-by-step
derivation of the equations, see [11].

8.3.2 Taylor, Satterwhite, and Harrison model

The field-to-transmission line coupling equations as derived by Taylor, Satterwhite,
and Harrison [14] are given by
ðh
dV ðxÞ 0
þ jwL IðxÞ ¼ jw Bey ðx; zÞdz (8.1)
dx 0
ðh
dIðxÞ
þ jwC 0 V ðxÞ ¼ jwC 0 Eze ðx; zÞdz (8.2)
dx 0
where L0 and C0 are the per-unit-length line inductance and capacitance of the line,
related to each other through eo mo ¼ L0 C 0 .

→
z Ee
→
Be
y
2a
h

ZA ZB
C
x
0 x x + dx L

Figure 8.1 Geometry of the problem. C is the integration path used in the
derivation of the first Telegrapher’s equation
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 295

For a line of finite length, such as the one represented in Figure 8.1, the boundary
conditions for the load currents and voltages must be enforced. They are simply given by
V ð0Þ ¼ ZA Ið0Þ (8.3)
V ðLÞ ¼ ZB IðLÞ (8.4)
Note that, unlike the classical telegrapher’s equations in which no external
excitation is considered, the presence of an external field results in forcing func-
tions expressed in terms of the exciting magnetic flux and electric field in both
Telegrapher’s equations.
Equations (8.1) and (8.2) are commonly referred to as the Taylor et al. model.
They can be represented using an equivalent circuit, as shown in Figure 8.2. The
forcing functions (source terms) in (8.1) and (8.2) are included as a set of dis-
tributed series voltage and parallel current sources along the line.
8.3.3 Agrawal, Price, and Gurbaxani model
An equivalent formulation of the field-to-transmission line coupling equations was
proposed in 1980 by Agrawal, Price, and Gurbaxani [15]. This model is commonly
referred to as the Agrawal et al. model.
The basis for the derivation of the Agrawal et al. model can be described as
follows: The excitation fields produce a line response that is TEM. This response is
expressed in terms of a scattered voltage Vs(x), which is defined in terms of the line
integral of the scattered electric field from the ground to the line. The total voltage
can be obtained from the scattered voltage through
ðh
V ðxÞ ¼ V s ðxÞ þ V e ðxÞ ¼ V s ðxÞ  Eze ðx; zÞdz (8.5)
0

The field-to-transmission line coupling equations as derived by Agrawal et al.

[15] are given by
dV s ðxÞ
þ jwL0 IðxÞ ¼ Exe ðx; hÞ (8.6)
dx
dIðxÞ
þ jwC 0 V s ðxÞ ¼ 0 (8.7)
dx
h
–jɷʃ Bey (x, 0, z)dzdx
0
L'dx
I (x) + I(x + dx)

h C'dx
ZA V(0) V(x) –jɷC′ ʃ E ez (x, 0, z)dzdx V(x + dx) V(L) ZB
0

0 x x + dx L

Figure 8.2 Equivalent circuit of a lossless single-wire overhead line excited by an

electromagnetic field. Taylor et al. model
296 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Note that, in this model, only one source term is present (in the first equation)
and it is simply expressed in terms of the exciting electric field tangential to the line
conductor Exe ðx; hÞ.
The boundary conditions in terms of the scattered voltage and the total current
as used in (8.6) and (8.7), are given by
ðh
V s ð0Þ ¼ ZA Ið0Þ þ Eze ð0; zÞdz (8.8)
0
ðh
V s ðLÞ ¼ ZB IðLÞ þ Eze ðL; zÞdz (8.9)
0

The equivalent circuit representation of this model (8.6)–(8.9) is shown in

Figure 8.3. For this model, the forcing function (the exciting electric field tangen-
tial to the line conductor) is represented by distributed voltage sources along the
line. In accordance with boundary conditions (8.8) and (8.9), two lumped voltage
sources (equal to the line integral of the exciting vertical electric field) are inserted
at the line terminations.
It is also interesting to note that this model involves only electric field com-
ponents of the exciting field and the exciting magnetic field does not appear
explicitly as a source term in the coupling equations. As we will see in the next
section where we present the Rachidi model [16], it is also possible to represent the
coupling model in terms of magnetic fields only.

8.3.4 Rachidi model

Another form of the coupling equations, equivalent to the Agrawal et al. and to the
Taylor et al. models, has been derived by Rachidi [16]. In this model, only the exciting
magnetic field components appear explicitly as forcing functions in the equations:
dV ðxÞ
þ jwL0 I s ðxÞ ¼ 0 (8.10)
dx
ðh
dI s ðxÞ 1 @Bex ðx; zÞ
þ jwC 0 V ðxÞ ¼ 0 dz (8.11)
dx L 0 @y

e
E x(x, 0, h)dx
L'dx
I(x) + I(x + dx)

+ +
h h
e
ʃ E z (0, 0, z)dz ʃ E ez (L, 0, z)dz
0 0
s(x
V s(0) V s(x) C 'dx V + dx) V s(L)
ZA ZB

0 x x + dx L

Figure 8.3 Equivalent circuit of a lossless single-wire overhead line excited by an

electromagnetic field. Agrawal et al. model
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 297

in which I s ðxÞ is the so-called scattered current related to the total current by

IðxÞ ¼ I s ðxÞ þ I e ðxÞ (8.12)

where the excitation current I e ðxÞ is defined as
ðh
1
I ðxÞ ¼  0
e
Bey ðx; zÞdz (8.13)
L 0

The boundary conditions corresponding to this formulation are

ð
V ð0Þ 1 h e
I ð0Þ ¼ 
s
þ 0 By ð0; zÞdz (8.14)
ZA L 0
ð
V ðLÞ 1 h e
I ðLÞ ¼
s
þ 0 By ðL; zÞdz (8.15)
ZB L 0
The equivalent circuit corresponding to the above equivalent set of coupling
equations is shown in Figure 8.4. Note that the equivalent circuit associated with
the Rachidi model could be seen as the dual circuit - in the sense of electrical
network theory - of the one corresponding to the Agrawal et al. model (Figure 8.3).

8.3.5 Rusck model and its extensions

More than 60 years ago, Rusck [17] introduced a coupling model to take into
account the interaction of lightning generated electromagnetic fields with overhead
power transmission and distribution lines. The model, which assumes that the
ground is perfectly conducting, has served the power system research community
for many decades. More recently, it was found that this model is not complete
because some of the forcing terms in the relevant transmission line equations,
which are based purely on the scalar and vector potentials, were missing [18]. In
2017, Cooray et al. [19] presented a new description of the solution to the problem
of the interaction of electromagnetic fields with overhead power lines in terms of
the vector and scalar potentials of the incident electromagnetic field. However,
unlike the Rusck model, the equations are complete and are completely equivalent
to the models of Taylor et al. [14], Agrawal et al. [15], and Rachidi [16]. Moreover,
the model introduced by Rusck was derived by assuming that the ground over

L'dx
s
I (x) I s(x + dx)
h
h 1 Be(L, 0, z)dz
1 Be(0, 0, z)dz
L' 0 y
L' 0 y e C'dx
h
1 дBx
ZA V(0) V(x) L' дy (x, 0, z)dzdx V(x + dx) V(L) ZB
0

0 x x + dx L

Figure 8.4 Equivalent circuit of a lossless single-wire overhead line excited by an

electromagnetic field. Rachidi model
298 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

which the power line is located is perfectly conducting. The model proposed by
Cooray et al. [19] accounts for the presence of a finitely conducting ground. It is
worth noting that an extension of the Rusck model to take into account the ground
losses was recently proposed by Piantini [20]. The extension of Piantini uses the
Agrawal et al. model representation of the coupling equations in terms of the
scattered voltage.

8.3.6 Inclusion of losses

In the calculation of lightning-induced voltages, losses are, in principle, to be taken
into account both in the wire and in the ground. Losses due to the finite ground
conductivity are the most important ones, and they affect both the electromagnetic
field and the surge propagation along the line [21].
Let us make reference to the same geometry of Figure 8.1, and let us now take
into account losses both in the wire and in the ground plane. The wire conductivity
and relative permittivity are sw and erw, respectively, and the ground, assumed to be
homogeneous, is characterized by its conductivity sg and its relative permittivity
erg. The Agrawal et al. coupling equations extended to the present case of a wire
above an imperfectly conducting ground can be written as (for a step by step
derivation, see [9])

dV s ðxÞ
þ Z 0 IðxÞ ¼ Exe ðx; 0; hÞ (8.16)
dx
dIðxÞ
þ Y 0 V s ðxÞ ¼ 0 (8.17)
dx
where Z’ and Y’ are the longitudinal and transverse per-unit-length impedance and
admittance respectively, given by [9,21]

Z 0 ¼ jwL0 þ Z 0w þ Z 0g (8.18)
ðG0 þ jwC 0 ÞY 0g
Y0 ¼ (8.19)
G0 þ jwC 0 þ Y 0g

in which
- L0 , C0 and G0 are the per-unit-length longitudinal inductance, transverse
capacitance, and transverse conductance, respectively, calculated for a lossless wire
above a perfectly conducting ground:
   
0 mo 1 h mo 2h
L ¼ cosh ffi ln for h >> a (8.20)
2p a 2p a
2peo 2peo
C0 ¼ 1
ffi for h >> a (8.21)
cosh ðh=aÞ lnð2h=aÞ
sair 0
G0 ¼ C (8.22)
eo
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 299

- Z 0w is the per-unit-length internal impedance of the wire; assuming a round

wire and an axial symmetry for the current, the following expression can be derived
for the wire internal impedance (e.g., [22]):
gw Io ðgw aÞ
Z 0w ¼ (8.23)
2pasw I1 ðgw aÞ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where gw ¼ jwmo ðsw þ jweo erw Þ is the propagation constant in the wire and
Io and I1 are the modified Bessel functions of zero and first order, respectively;
-Z 0g is the per-unit-length ground impedance, which is defined as [23,24]
Ðh
0
jw 1 Bsy ðx; zÞdx
Zg ¼  jwL0 (8.24)
I
where Bsy is the y-component of the scattered magnetic induction field.
Sunde [25] derived a general expression for the ground impedance which is
given by
ð
jwmo 1 e2hx
Z 0g ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi dx (8.25)
p 0 x2 þ g2g þ x
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where gg ¼ jwmo ðsg þ jweo erg Þ is the propagation constant in the ground.
The general expression (8.25) is not suitable for a numerical evaluation since it
involves an integral over an infinitely long interval. Several approximations for the
ground impedance of a single-wire line have been proposed in the literature (see
[21] for a survey). One of the simplest and most accurate was proposed by Sunde
himself and it is given by the following logarithmic function:
!
0 jwmo 1 þ gg h
Zg ffi ln (8.26)
2p gg h

It has been shown [21] that the above logarithmic expression represents an
excellent approximation to the general expression (8.25) over the frequency range
of interest.
Finally, Y 0g is the so-called ground admittance, given by [9]

g2g
Y 0g ffi (8.27)
Z 0g

For typical overhead power lines, the effects of the ground admittance and the
wire impedance are negligible compared to the effect of the ground impedance and
the line inductance, and can be disregarded in the computation [1,23]†.

8.3.7 Multiconductor lines

The field-to-transmission line coupling equations for the case of a multi-wire
system along the x-axis above an imperfectly conducting ground (see Figure 8.5)

†
Note that for buried cables, the effect of the ground admittance is no longer negligible [78].
300 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2
→
Ee

→e
B
z j
2aj
i
2ai

hj
hi

rij

y
yi σg , εrg yj

Figure 8.5 Cross-sectional geometry of a multiconductor line above a conducting

ground plane in the presence of an external electromagnetic field

are given by [1,9, 26]

d s
½Vi ðxÞ þ jw ½L0ij  ½Ii ðxÞ þ ½Z 0gij ½Ii ðxÞ ¼ ½Exe ðx; yi ; hi Þ (8.28)
dx
d
½Ii ðxÞ þ ½G0ij  ½Vis ðxÞ þ jw ½C 0ij  ½Vis ðxÞ ¼ ½0 (8.29)
dx
in which
● ½Vis ðxÞ and ½Ii ðxÞ are frequency-domain vectors of the scattered voltage and
the current along the line;
● ½Exe ðx; yi ; hi Þ is the vector of the exciting electric field tangential to the line
conductors;
● [0] is the zero-matrix (all elements are equal to zero);
● ½L0ij  is the per-unit-length line inductance matrix. When the distances between
conductors are much larger than their radii, the general expression for the
mutual inductance between two conductors i and j is given by [9]
!
0 mo rij2 þ ðhi þ hj Þ2
Lij ¼ ln 2 (8.30)
2p rij þ ðhi  hj Þ2

The self inductance for conductor i is given by

 
0 mo 2hi
Lii ¼ ln (8.31)
2p rii
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 301

● ½C 0ij  is the per-unit-length line capacitance matrix. It can be evaluated directly

from the inductance matrix using the following expression [9]
h i h i1
C 0ij ¼ eo mo L0ij (8.32)

● ½G0ij  is the per-unit-length transverse conductance matrix. The transverse

conductance matrix elements can be evaluated starting either from the capa-
citance matrix or the inductance matrix using the following relations
h i s h i h i1
G0ij ¼ C 0ij ¼ sair mo L0ij
air
(8.33)
eo
In most practical cases, the transverse conductance matrix elements G0ij are
negligible in comparison with jwC 0ij [12] and can therefore be neglected in the
computation.
● Finally, ½Z 0gij  is the ground impedance matrix. The general expression for the
mutual ground impedance between two conductors i and j derived by Sunde is
given by [25]
ð1
jwmo eðhi þhj Þx
Z 0gij ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi cos ðrij xÞ dx (8.34)
p 0 x2 þ g2g þ x

In a similar way as for the case of a single-wire line, an accurate logarithmic

approximation has been proposed by Rachidi et al. [26] which is given by
2  2  2 3
hi þhj rij
jwmo 6 1 þ g g 2 þ g g 2 7
Z 0gij ffi ln4  2  2 5 (8.35)
4p hi þhj rij
gg 2 þ gg 2

The calculation in the time domain of the transient ground resistance matrix of
an overhead transmission line is addressed in [27, 28] by solving analytically the
inverse transform of the ground impedance expression in the frequency domain.
Note that in (8.28) and (8.29), the terms corresponding to the wire impedance
and the so-called ground admittance have been neglected. This approximation is
valid for typical overhead power lines [21].
The boundary conditions for the two line terminations are given by
ð hi
 s 
Vi ð0Þ ¼ ½ZA ½Ii ð0Þ þ Eze ð0; yi ; zÞdz (8.36)
0
ð hi
 
Vis ðLÞ ¼ ½ZB ½Ii ðLÞ þ Eze ðL; yi ; zÞdz (8.37)
0

in which [ZA] and [ZB] are the impedance matrices at the two line terminations.
The line coupling equations can be solved using Green’s functions to obtain
closed-form solutions in the frequency domain, as we will see in Section 8.3.8, or in
the time domain using the FDTD technique.
302 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

8.3.8 Coupling to complex networks

In order to take into account the presence of power system components, line-
discontinuities, and complex system topologies, the LEMP-to-transmission line
coupling model has been linked with appropriate circuit solver software taking
advantage of the large available library of power system components (e.g., [13,
29–38]). The developed models for the calculation of LEMP-caused transients in
overhead power lines have been experimentally validated using reduced-scale setups
with LEMP and NEMP (nuclear electromagnetic pulse) simulators, and full-scale
setups illuminated by fields from rocket-triggered lightning (see [13] for a review).

8.3.9 Frequency-domain solutions

As mentioned in Section 8.3.7, the field-to-transmission line coupling equations,
together with the boundary conditions, can be solved in the frequency domain using
Green’s functions, which represent the solutions for the line current and voltage due
to a point voltage and/or current source [9]. In this section, we will present the
solutions using the Agrawal et al. model for the case of a single-conductor line.
Similar solutions can be found for the case of a multiconductor line (see e.g., [9,12]).
Considering a voltage source of unit amplitude at a location xs along the line, the
Green’s functions for the current and the voltage along the line read, respectively [9],
egL  
GI ðx; xs Þ ¼ 2gL
egðx> LÞ  r2 egðx> LÞ ðeg x<  r1 eg x< Þ (8.38)
2Zc ð1  r1 r2 e Þ

degL  
GV ðx; xs Þ ¼ 2gL
egðx> LÞ þ dr2 egðx> LÞ ðeg x<  dr1 eg x< Þ (8.39)
2ð1  r1 r2 e Þ

where
● x< represents the smaller of x or xs, and x> represents the larger of x or xs,
● d = 1pfor
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffix > xs and d = 1 for x < xs,
● g¼ p Z 0ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Y 0 is the complex propagation constant along the transmission line,
● Zc ¼ Z 0 =Y 0 is the line’s characteristic impedance, and
● r1 and r2 are the voltage reflection coefficients at the loads of the transmission
line given by

ZA Zc ZBZc
r1 ¼ r2 ¼ (8.40)
ZA þZc ZB þZc
The solutions for the total line current I(x) and scattered voltage V s ðxÞ can be
written as the following integrals of the Green’s functions [9]
ðL ðh ðh
IðxÞ ¼ GI ðx; xs ÞVs0 dxs þ GI ðx; 0Þ Eze ð0; 0; zÞdz  GI ðx; LÞ Eze ðL; yi ; zÞdz (8.41)
0 0 0
ðL ðh ðh
V s ðxÞ ¼ GV ðx; xs ÞVs0 dxs þ GV ðx; 0Þ Eze ð0; 0; zÞdz  GV ðx; LÞ Eze ðL; 0; zÞdz (8.42)
0 0 0
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 303

Note that the second and the third terms on the right-hand side of (8.41) and (8.42)
are due to the contribution of equivalent lumped sources at the line ends (see Figure 8.3).
The total voltage can be determined from the scattered voltage by adding the
contribution from the exciting field as
ðh
V ðxÞ ¼ V s ðxÞ  Eze ðx; 0; zÞdz (8.43)
0

If we are interested in the transmission line response at its terminal loads, the
solutions can be expressed in a compact way by using the so-called BLT (Baum,
Liu, Tesche) equations [9]
1
Ið0Þ 1  r1 0 r1 eg L S1
¼ 1=Zc gL
(8.44)
IðLÞ 0 1  r2 e r2 S2
1
V ð0Þ 1 þ r1 0 r1 eg L S1
¼ (8.45)
V ðLÞ 0 1 þ r2 eg L r2 S2
where the source vector is given by
0 ðL ðh ðh 1
g xs 1 eg L
  B
1
2 e Exe ðxs ; 0; hÞdxs þ Eze ð0; 0; zÞdz  C Eze ðL; 0; zÞdz
S1 B 0 0 2 0 2 C
¼B ð C
S2 @ L g L ðh ðh A
gðLxs Þ e e 1
1
2 e Ex ðxs ; 0; hÞdxs  Ez ð0; 0; zÞdz þ
e
Ez ðL; 0; zÞdz
e
0 2 0 2 0
(8.46)
Note that in the BLT equations, the solutions are directly given for the total
voltage and not for the scattered voltage.
For an arbitrary excitation field, the integrals in (8.46) cannot be carried out
analytically. However, for the special case of a plane wave excitation field, the
integrations can be performed analytically, and closed-form expressions can be
obtained for the load responses. General solutions for vertical and horizontal field
polarizations are given in [9].

8.3.10 Time-domain solutions

A time domain representation of the field-to-transmission line coupling equations
allows the straightforward treatment of nonlinear phenomena as well as the varia-
tion in the line topology [1]. On the other hand, frequency-dependent parameters,
such as the ground impedance, need to be represented using convolution integrals.
The field-to-transmission line coupling equations (8.28) and (8.29) can be
converted into the time domain to obtain the following expressions [11,26]:
@  s  h i@ h i @  
vi ðx; tÞ þ L0ij ½ii ðx; tÞ þ x0ij  ½ii ðx; tÞ ¼ Exe ðx; y ¼ yi ; z ¼ hi ; tÞ (8.47)
@x @t @t
@ h i@  h i@ s 
½ii ðx; tÞ þ Gij0 vsi ðx; tÞ þ Cij0 vi ðx; tÞ ¼ 0 (8.48)
@x @t @t
304 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2
h i
in which  denotes convolution product and the matrix z0ij is called the transient
ground resistance matrix; its elements are defined as
h 0i nh 0 i o
xij ¼ F 1 Zgij =jw (8.49)

The inverse Fourier transforms of the boundary conditions written, for sim-
plicity, for resistive terminal loads read
ð hi
 
vsi ðx; tÞ ¼ ½RA ½ii ð0; tÞ þ Eze ðx ¼ 0; y ¼ yi ; z; tÞ (8.50)
0

ð hi
 
vsi ðL; tÞ ¼ ½RB ½ii ðL; tÞ þ Eze ðx ¼ L; y ¼ yi ; z; tÞ (8.51)
0

where ½RA  and ½RB  are the matrices of the resistive loads at the two line terminals.
The general expression for the ground impedance matrix terms in the
frequency domain does not have an analytical inverse Fourier transform. Thus, the
elements of the transient ground resistance matrix in the time domain have to be, in
general, determined using a numerical inverse Fourier transform algorithm.
However, analytical expressions have been derived by Rachidi et al. [39] and
Araneo and Celozzi [40] which have been shown to be reasonable approximations
to the numerical values obtained using an inverse FFT. More discussion on the
validity of the approximate analytical expressions can be found in [41].
One of the most popular approaches to solve the coupling equations in the
time domain is the FDTD technique (e.g., [42]). Such a technique was already
used by Agrawal et al. in [15], where partial time and space derivatives were
approximated using a first-order FDTD scheme. In [43], instead, the use of a
second-order FDTD scheme based on the Lax–Wendroff algorithm [44],[45] was
proposed. The second-order FDTD scheme shows much better stability compared
to its first-order counterpart, especially when analyzing complex systems invol-
ving nonlinearities [43, 46].
The second-order discretized solutions for the line current and scattered vol-
tage are given by Paolone et al. [13]
 
 
0 1 Dt2  0  0 1
½ii  nkþ1  ½ii  nk1
½vi  knþ1 ¼ ½vi  nk  Dt Cij þ
Lij Cij
2Dx 2
 
½Exi  nkþ1  ½Exi  nk1 ½vi  nkþ1 þ ½vi  nk1  2½vi  nk
 
2Dx Dx2
0h i n h in 1
0
Dt 2     v  v0gi
1 B gi
k1 C
þ Lij 0 Cij 0 @ kþ1
A
2 2Dx

(8.52)
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 305
 h i n
 1 ½vi  nkþ1  ½vi  nk1
½ii  knþ1 ¼ ½ii  nk  Dt Lij 0  ½Exi  nk þ v0gi
2Dx k
 
Dt2  0  0 1 ½ii  kþ1 þ ½ii  k1  2½ii  k
n n n
þ Cij Lij
2 Dx2
!
Dt2  0  0 1  0  ½Exi  knþ1  ½Exi  kn1 (8.53)
þ Cij Lij Cij
2 2Dt
0 h i n h i n1 1
Dt 2     1 B   v0gi  v0gi
k C
 Cij 0 Lij 0 @ Cij 0 k
A
2 Dt

where
● Dx is the spatial integration step;
● Dt is the time integration step;
● k = 0,1,2, . . . , kmax is the spatial discretization index (kmax = (L/Dx)+1, where L
is the line length);
● n = 0,1,2, . . . , nmax is the time discretization index;
● ½vi  knþ1 is the vector of the scattered voltages corresponding to the spatial and
time discretization indexes k and n+1, respectively;
● ½ii  knþ1 is the vector of the conductors’ currents corresponding to the spatial and
time discretization indexes k and n+1, respectively;
● ½Exi  knþ1 is the vector of the exciting horizontal electric field along the wires
corresponding to the spatial and time discretization indexes k and n+1,
respectively;
h in P n h i nh  k k 
½ii  n ½ii  n1
● v0gi ¼ x0gij Dt .
k h¼0 k

8.3.11 Analytical solutions

Back in the 1950s, because of limited computer resources, approximate analytical
expressions were developed to calculate lightning-induced voltages [17]. The first
expressions were obtained assuming strong hypotheses (single-wire, infinite lines,
lossless wire and ground, simple models for the return-stroke, etc.). More recently,
attention was devoted to the development of more accurate analytical solutions for
lightning-induced voltages. Indeed, the evaluation of the lightning performance of
power lines requires a statistical analysis involving thousands of lightning events
considering different points of impact and different channel-base current para-
meters. Without analytical expressions, the huge number of electromagnetic field
calculations (which need to be performed along the whole considered power
network and for all the considered events) would require prohibitively high
computational resources. The research activities carried out in the past decade or so
in this field have resulted in the development of efficient analytical/semi-analytical
approaches with acceptable accuracies (e.g., [29, 47–58]).
306 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

8.3.12 Application to lightning-induced voltages

Ground losses are generally associated with attenuation and dispersion of propa-
gating surges along transmission lines. This is indeed the case when the travelling
voltage and current waves are originated from lumped excitation sources located at
specific points along the line.
However, the situation is different when the traveling waves are originated
from distributed voltage and/or current sources along the line, representing the
interaction of an external electromagnetic field with the line. Indeed, it has been
shown that line losses due to the ground finite conductivity (e.g., [21, 59–62]) or
the corona phenomenon (e.g., [63]) could result in important enhancement of the
induced voltages and currents. On the other hand, the presence of buildings around
the line tends to decrease the effects of the LEMP-line coupling, as specifically
investigated in [64].
The aim of this section is to illustrate the complex effects of ground losses in
field-to-transmission line interactions, and to emphasize that such effects could
result in important enhancement of voltages induced by external fields, as opposed
to direct overvoltages.
Effect of ground losses on overvoltages due to a direct strike
Let us consider a 20-km long, 7.5-m high overhead line above a conducting
ground. We shall present the overvoltages due to a direct strike to the line, calculated
at different observation points along the line, as shown in Figure 8.6. The lightning
current has a peak value of 4 kA and a maximum time derivative of 2 kA/ms.
Figure 8.7 shows the computed voltages calculated taking into account ground
losses. The adopted ground parameters in the simulations are sg = 0.001 S/m and
er = 10, and the expression for the ground transient resistance is the one proposed in
[39]. As expected, it can be seen that the resulting voltage wave experiences the
typical dispersion as it travels away from the strike point.
It is important to mention that for direct lightning strikes, the effect of ground
losses is far less significant than the effect of corona. In Figure 8.8, the voltages
calculated taking into account the corona effect (and omitting the effect of ground
losses) are shown. The simple adopted corona model that specifies the dependence of
the dynamic capacitance as a function of the voltage is taken from Nucci et al. [63].

7 km 7 km
2 km 2 km 2 km

U0 U1 U2 U3

R R

20 km

Figure 8.6 Direct lightning overvoltages along an overhead line

 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 307

1,000

800
Voltage (kV)

600

400

U0
2 km
200
4 km
6 km

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (μs)

Figure 8.7 Effect of ground losses on traveling voltages along the line, due to a
direct lightning strike (adapted from [81]). The curves at 2 km, 4 km,
and 6 km correspond, respectively, to the observation points U1, U2,
and U3 in Figure 8.6

450
U0
400 U1
350 U2 U3
300
Voltage [kV]

250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time [us]

Figure 8.8 Influence of corona on traveling voltages along the line, due to a
direct lightning strike (adapted from [63]). The curves labeled U0, U1,
U2, and U3 correspond, respectively, to the curves labeled U0, 2 km,
4 km, and 6 km in Figure 8.7 and to the observation points labeled U0,
U1, U2, and U3 in Figure 8.6

It can be seen that the traveling waves exhibit the typical distortion and
attenuation associated with corona effect. A comparison between the results of
Figures 8.7 and 8.8 shows, additionally, that the overvoltages are more significantly
affected by the corona effect, rather than by the ground losses.
308 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

In the simulations presented in Figures 8.7 and 8.8, we assumed that the
magnitudes of the overvoltages are below the lightning impulse withstand voltage
of the line. In most of the cases, however, the surge propagating from the point of
strike along the line is altered by flashovers occurring between the strike location
and the point of interest. Practically all flashovers to ground occur at the poles, as
on overhead distribution lines the weakest insulation is generally at a pole structure
rather than between conductors through air [65]. Figure 8.9 shows a typical over-
voltage (evaluated by calculations) due to a direct lightning strike of 30 kA current
amplitude. The calculations have been performed using the Electromagnetic
Transient Program (EMTP) [66] for a single-wire line with no ground wires. The
line is composed of eight spans (9 poles) of 200 m length each with a characteristic
impedance of 440 W. Each pole, 8-m high, is modeled as a transmission line with a
characteristic impedance of 300 W. The footing DC resistance was assumed to be
nonlinear (current-dependent), with 30 W at zero current. The insulator flashover
voltage was fixed at 150 kV. The voltage was calculated 600 m from the strike
location. The example shows the general characteristics of a direct lightning
overvoltage which presents a few very short spikes, followed by an impulse voltage
with a smoother shape [65].
Effect of ground losses on induced overvoltages
We will now consider a single-wire overhead line matched at both ends, and
illuminated by the electromagnetic field radiated by a nearby lightning return
stroke. The computations are carried out by means of the LIOV code (see [1] for a
detailed description of models used in the code).
The wire is at a height of 10 m above a ground plane characterized by a ground
conductivity sg = 0.001 S/m and a relative permittivity er = 10. The return stroke
current has a peak value of 12 kA and a maximum time derivative of 40 kA/ms
(typical of subsequent return strokes).

160
[kV]
120

80

40

–40

–80
0 10 20 30 40 [us] 50

Figure 8.9 Example of a typical lightning overvoltage due to a direct

strike to the MV line. Adapted from [65], computations
performed by T. Henrikssen
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 309

Figure 8.10 presents the voltage induced along a 2.8-km line for a return stroke
located in the vicinity of the left-end terminal, at both terminations and at two
intermediate distances. This configuration has been chosen because it is similar to
an event recorded by De La Rosa et al. on an experimental line in Mexico [67]. The
voltages reported in Figure 8.10 are calculated (i) considering a finitely conducting
ground as described in the previous paragraph, and (ii) considering the ground as
perfectly conducting.
The computed results show that the voltages calculated taking into account
ground losses exhibit significantly larger amplitudes than those calculated assum-
ing a perfectly conducting ground. Also, the voltages exhibit an inversion of
polarity as the observation point moves towards the far end of the line.
The reason why, for the examined case, ground losses can result in an amplitude
enhancement has been discussed thoroughly in a few papers [1,59,68]. In summary, it
can be said that the finite conductivity of the ground does not significantly affect the
vertical electric field amplitude and waveshape, but acts in modifying the horizontal
electric field waveshape and, in particular, it results in this this field component’s
polarity reversal [21,69, 70]. This inversion of polarity is more pronounced for larger
distances and for larger values of ground resistivity, as shown in Figure 8.11.
It is worth mentioning that in [71], the results obtained by the Cooray–
Rubinstein formula are compared with the calculations performed by solving the
Sommerfeld integral for the radial component of the electric field.
Figure 8.10 shows also that the voltage induced at farther distances along the line
from the strike location exhibits larger amplitudes than that close to the lightning.
Experimental data obtained by De La Rosa and co-workers [67] support this theoretical
finding, since for an event similar to the one presented in Figure 8.10, they observed a
line flashover occurring at the far end of the line and not at the close one.

4 0m
Induced Overvoltage (kV)

0
1 km
2 km 2.8 km
–4

–8

–12
430 m

–16 730 m 2.8 km

–20
0 5 10 15 20
Time (μs)

Figure 8.10 Lightning-induced voltages along the line. Solid lines: perfect
ground; dashed lines: lossy ground. Adapted from [81]
310 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

20

0
Ex.r 2 ( V/m * km2)

–20

–40

–60

100 m
–80 500 m
1 km
2 km
–100
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (μs)

Figure 8.11 Radial electric field at four distances from the stroke location
calculated with the Cooray–Rubinstein formula [69,70]. Ground
conductivity 0.001 S/m, ground relative permittivity 10. Observation
point: 10 m above ground. For illustrative purposes, the values are
multiplied by the square of the distance from the stroke location.
Adapted from [59]

Additional experimental data supporting the enhancement of the induced

voltage due to the finite ground conductivity were presented by Ishii et al. [61].
An example is shown in Figure 8.12 where the induced voltage measured on an
experimental reduced-scale line is compared with computation results. As it can be
seen from the figure, the induced voltage magnitude for a ground conductivity of
0.06 S/m is about twice as large as the induced voltage computed assuming a
perfectly conducting ground.
It is important to bear in mind, however, that for different strike locations and
observation points along the line, ground losses also could result in an attenuation
of the induced voltages (see [1, 23, 62]). For this reason, statistical evaluations
are of utmost importance when the assessment of the lightning performance of
distribution lines is pursued [72, 73].
As we have seen in the previous subsection, lightning overvoltages due to a
direct strike are strongly afffected by the corona effect. For the case of induced
voltages by a nearby lightning strike, the corona effect needs to be taken into
account only for particularly severe excitation conditions (very close impact point
and/or large return stroke current peaks) [63]. In this case, Nucci et al. [63] have
shown that the corona effect would result in an enhancement of the induced voltage
magnitudes, as opposed to the typical attenuation observed in the case of direct
strikes. This enhancement can be explained, theoretically, by considering that the
increase of the line capacitance produced by corona results in a decrease of the
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 311

7.5 m 25 m
1.5 m
x V

Measured waveform
Calculated waveform (σ = 0.06 S/m)
2.25
Calculated waveform (σ = ∞)
Induced Voltage [V]

0
100 200 300
Time [ns]
–0.75

Figure 8.12 Lightning-induced voltage on an experimental reduced-scale line.

Comparison between measured waveforms and computations.
Adapted from [82].

propagation speed of the various surges induced by lightning. This reduction in

the propagation speed makes it possible for the total induced voltage – which
results from all the contributions of the various induced surges - to reach larger
magnitudes (see [63] for a more detailed explanation).
As an example, Figure 8.13 shows the lightning-induced voltages on a 1-km
long, 7.5-m high, single-conductor overhead line, taking into account the corona
effect [63, 74].

8.4 Electromagnetic field interaction with buried cables

8.4.1 Field-to-buried cables coupling equations
Consider a horizontal buried cable of length L (cylindrical conductor with an
insulated jacket) located along the x-axis at depth d. Assuming that the vertical
component of the electric field can be neglected below the ground surface [75],
voltages and currents along the cable induced by a nearby lightning can be calcu-
lated using the field-to-transmission line equations expressed in the frequency-
domain [76,77]
dV ðxÞ
þ Z 0 IðxÞ ¼ Exe ðx; z ¼ dÞ (8.54)
dx

dIðxÞ
þ Y 0 V ðxÞ ¼ 0 (8.55)
dx
 160
with corona
140 without corona
Obs.
Overvoltage [kV] 120 point #3

100
Obs.
80 point #2

60 Obs.
point #1
40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(a) Time [μs]

180
with corona
160
without corona
140 Obs.
120 point #1
Overvoltage [kV]

100
Obs.
80 point #2

60 Obs.
point #3
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(b) Time [μs]

50 m 1000 m
50 m

50 m

Stroke
Location B 500 m Stroke
Location A
Top view
Side view
1.06 cm

Observation Observation Observation

point #1 (0 m) point #2 (250 m) point #3 (500 m)
10 m

Zc (stroke location A) Zc
Open (stroke location B)

(c) 1000 m

Figure 8.13 Voltage induced by a nearby lightning at three observation points

along a 1-km overhead line in the presence of corona. Solid lines:
taking into account corona; dotted lines: disregarding corona.
Ground: perfectly conducting. Stroke location: (a) stroke location A of
Figure 8.13c. (b) stroke location B of Figure 8.13c. Adapted from [74]
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 313

where the longitudinal impedance is:

Z 0 ¼ jwL0 þ Zw0 þ Zg0 (8.56)

and the transversal admittance is:

ðG0 þ jwC 0 ÞYg0
Y0 ¼ (8.57)
ðG0 þ jwC 0 Þ þ Yg0

in which (see Figure 8.14 for the geometrical parameters)

● L’ and C’ are, respectively, the per-unit-length longitudinal inductance and
transverse capacitance of the cable given by:
 
m b
L0 ¼ o ln (8.58)
2p a
2pe0 eri
C0 ¼ (8.59)
lnðb=aÞ
● G’ is the per-unit-length transverse conductance of the cable:
si 0
G0 ¼ C (8.60)
e0 eri
● Zw0 is the per-unit-length internal impedance of the conductor (wire). Assuming
an axial symmetry for the current, the following expression can be adopted [22]:
gw I0 ðgw aÞ
Zw0 ¼ (8.61)
2pasw I1 ðgw aÞ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where gw ¼ jwm0 ðsw þ jwe0 erw Þ is the propagation constant in the wire and
erw is the relative permittivity of the wire.
● Zg0 and Yg0 are the per-unit-length ground impedance and ground admittance,
respectively. These two quantities are related through the following expression [9]:

g2g
Yg0 ffi (8.62)
Zg0
Air

Ground σg, ε rg
2b
d
2a
Conductor
σw, ε rw

Insulating jacket
σi, ε ri

Figure 8.14 Geometry of the buried cable (cylindrical conductor of radius a with
an insulating jacket)
314 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

where gg is the propagation constant in the ground, which can be expressed as

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
gg ¼ jwm0 sg þ jwe0 erg .
Several expressions have been proposed in the literature for the ground
impedance (see [78] for a review).
Most of the approximate formulas neglect the contribution of the displacement
current and therefore predict values for the ground impedance that tend to infinity
at higher frequencies. This corresponds in the time domain to a singularity of the
ground transient resistance at t = 0. A logarithmic approximation has been proposed
by Petrache et al. [78] which, unlike most of the considered approximations, has an
asymptotic behavior at high frequencies. This expression reads
!
jwm 1 þ g b
Zg0 ¼ 0 g
ln (8.63)
2p gg b

Petrache et al. [78] have also shown that, within the frequency range of interest, the
wire impedance can be neglected due to its small contribution to the overall longitudinal
impedance of the line. The ground admittance, however, can play an important role at
high frequencies (1 MHz or so) especially in the case of poor ground conductivity. The
ground admittance needs to be taken into account in the calculation of lightning-induced
currents and voltages on buried cables. This is in contrast with the case of overhead lines
in which its contribution is generally negligible even in the MHz range.

8.4.2 Frequency-domain solutions

In a similar way to the case of overhead lines, the field-to-buried wire lines
coupling can be solved using Green’s functions. For an arbitrary incident field
exciting the cable (the vertical electric field component underground is neglected),
the solution for the cable current and voltage at an arbitrary position x on the cable
can be written as the following integrals of the Green’s functions [9,78]
ðL
IðxÞ ¼ GI ðx; xs ÞVs0 dxs (8.64)
0

ðL
V ðxÞ ¼ GV ðx; xs ÞVs0 dxs (8.65)
0

where GI and GV represent the Green’s function for the cable current and voltage,
respectively, which are given by [9]:

8 h i
> egL
>
> egðxs LÞ  r2 egðxs LÞ ðegx  r1 egx Þfor x < xs
<
2Zc ð1  r1 r2 e2gL Þ
GI ðx; xs Þ ¼ (8.66)
>
> egL h i
>
: e gðxLÞ
 r e gðxLÞ
ðegxs  r1 egxs Þfor x < xs
2Zc ð1  r1 r2 e2gL Þ 2
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 315
8 h i
>
> egL gðxs LÞ gðxs LÞ
>
< e  r e ðegx þ r1 egx Þfor x < xs
2ð1  r1 r2 e2gL Þ 2
GV ðx; xs Þ ¼ h i (8.67)
>
> egL
>
: egðxLÞ þ r2 egðxLÞ ðegxs  r1 egxs Þfor x < xs
2ð1  r1 r2 e 2gL Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where g ¼ Z 0 Y 0 is the line complex propagation constant along the cable and
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Zc ¼ Z 0 =Y 0 is the line characteristic impedance.
A frequency-domain solution is particularly useful when one is interested in
calculating the inner response of a shielded cable [79], which involves the cable
transfer function, a highly frequency-dependent quantity.

8.4.3 Time-domain solutions

The field-to-transmission line coupling equations (8.54) and (8.55) can be con-
verted into the time-domain to obtain the following expressions:
@vðx; tÞ @iðx; tÞ @iðx; tÞ
þ L0 þ x0g ðtÞ  ¼ Exe ðx; d; tÞ (8.68)
@x @t @t
@iðx; tÞ @vðx; tÞ @iðx; tÞ
þ C0 þ h0g ðtÞ  ¼0 (8.69)
@x @t @t
where:
x0g ðtÞ is the transient ground resistance defined as the inverse Fourier transform
Z 0g
of jw ;
 denotes convolution product;
h0g ðtÞ represents the
0
transient ground conductance defined as the inverse
Yadd 0
Fourier transform of jw , where Yadd is defined by

0 ð jwC 0 Þ2
Yadd ¼ (8.70)
jwC 0 þ Yg0

The general expression for the ground impedance in the frequency-domain

does not have an analytical inverse Fourier transform. However, an analytical
expression for the ground transient resistance in the time domain is proposed in
[78] which is shown to be sufficiently accurate and non-singular. The ground
transient conductance has to be determined using a numerical inverse Fourier
transform. A time domain solution of field-to-buried cable coupling equations
using the point-centered FDTD method can be found in [78].

8.4.4 Lightning-induced disturbances in a buried cable

Paolone et al. [80] and Petrache et al. [79] presented experimental results obtained
at the International Center for Lightning Research and Testing (ICLRT) at Camp
Blanding, Florida during the summers of 2002 and 2003. Currents induced by
triggered and natural lightning events were measured at the terminations of a buried
power cable, in the cable shield and in the inner cable conductor.
316 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2
IS 2
TOP VIEW

Buried cable 133 m

depth 0.9 m
m
N

130
loca tion #1
S troke location
474
m m
9
32 43 m

Strike
m 424 m
256

Strike location #2 Strike location #3

Horizontal magnetic field

Cable termination box sensor placed at a height 4.5 m
of 0.5 m above the ground
IS 1 IS 2
21 m
Cable PVC pipe

6m
Z 45 m Z
133 m

Ground rod IS 1 Termination of Ground rod IS 2

Connection to Rg1 = 60 Ω the cable Rg2 = 37 Ω
the ground

Figure 8.15 Positions of the triggered lightning strokes (top) and buried cable
experimental set-up (bottom). The cable shield is connected to the
ground rods at IS 1 and IS 2. Adapted from [80]

Figure 8.15 illustrates the positions (strike locations) for which experimental
data were recorded.
A comparison between the measured currents in the cable shield at the IS2
termination, and those predicted by simulations is presented in Figure 8.16 [80].
Figure 8.17 presents the measured and simulated currents in the inner conductor of
the buried shielded cable. The coupling to the inner conductor was evaluated using
the concept of cable transfer impedance. It can be seen that the simulation results
are in good agreement with experimental data.

8.5 Conclusions

In this chapter, we discussed the TL theory and its application to the problem of
lightning electromagnetic field coupling to transmission lines.
After a short discussion on the underlying assumptions of the TL theory, we
described seemingly different but completely equivalent approaches that have been
proposed to describe the coupling of electromagnetic fields to transmission lines.
The field-to-transmission line coupling equations were then extended to deal
with the presence of losses and multiple conductors and expressions for the line
parameters, including the ground impedance and admittance were presented. The
time-domain representation of the field-to-transmission line coupling equations,
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 317

160
Simulated shield current IS2
140 Measured shield current IS2

120
Shield current [A]

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time [microseconds]

Figure 8.16 Comparison between experimental and simulation results for the
lightning-induced current in the shield of the experimental cable for
the first return stroke of a single stroke flash recorded on August 18,
2002; strike location #1. Adapted from [80]

5
Simulated shield current IS2
4 Measured shield current IS2

3
Inner current [A]

–1

–2
–5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time [microseconds]

Figure 8.17 Experimental data and simulation results for the lightning-induced
currents in the inner conductor of the experimental cable for the flash
recorded on August 18, 2002; strike location #1. Adapted from [79]
318 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

which allows for a straightforward treatment of nonlinear phenomena as well as the

variation in the line topology, was also described. Solution methods in the fre-
quency domain and in the time domain were given and application examples with
reference to lightning-induced voltages were presented and discussed.
Specifically, the effect of ground losses was illustrated and discussed. When
the travelling voltage and current waves are originated from lumped excitation
sources located at a specific location along a transmission line (direct lightning
strike), both the corona phenomenon and ground losses result in an attenuation
and dispersion of propagating surges along transmission lines. However, when
distributed sources representing the action of the electromagnetic field from a
nearby lightning illuminating the line are present, ground losses and the corona
phenomenon could result in important enhancement of the induced voltage
magnitude.
Finally, we reviewed the theory of electromagnetic field coupling to a buried cable.
Solution methods in the frequency and the time domain were also presented. Examples
of lightning-induced currents and comparison with experimental data were presented.

Acknowledgments

The material presented in this chapter is mainly the results of a joint Italo-Swiss
research cooperation carried out during the last two decades involving Alberto
Borghetti, Silvia Guerreri, Michel Ianoz, Carlo Mazzetti, Mario Paolone, and
Emanuel Petrache. Their contribution and support are gratefully acknowledged.
The authors wish to express their gratitude to V.A. Rakov, F.M. Tesche, and M.A.
Uman for their precious cooperation throughout these years.

References
[1] Nucci, C. and Rachidi, F., 2014. Interaction of electromagnetic fields
generated by lightning with overhead electrical networks, in: Cooray, V.
(Ed.), The Lightning Flash. IEE, London, pp. 559–610.
[2] Le Vine, D.M. and Meneghini, R., 1978. Simulation of radiation from
lightning return strokes: the effects of tortuosity. Radio Sci. 13, 801–809.
[3] Le Vine, D.M. and Meneghini, R., 1978. Electromagnetic fields radiated
from a lightning return stroke: application of an exact solution to Maxwell’s
equations. J. Geophys. Res. 83, 2377–2384.
[4] Moini, R., Sadeghi, S.H.H., Kordi, B., and Rachidi, F., 2006. An antenna-
theory approach for modeling inclined lightning return stroke channels.
Electr. Power Syst. Res. 76, 945–952.
[5] Sakakibara, A., 1989. Calculation of induced voltages on overhead lines
caused by inclined lightning studies. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 4, 683–693.
[6] Wu, S.C. and Hsiao, W.T., 1994. Characterization of induced voltages on
overhead power lines caused by lightning strokes with arbitrary configurations.
In 1994 Int. Conf. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 3, pp. 2706–2710.
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 319

[7] Rakov, V.A. and Uman, M.A., 1998. Review and evaluation of lightning
return stroke models including some aspects of their application. IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 40, 403–426.
[8] Rakov, V.A. and Rachidi, F., 2009. Overview of recent progress in lightning
research and lightning protection. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 51,
428–442.
[9] Tesche, F.M., Ianoz, M., and Karlsson, T., 1997. EMC Analysis Methods and
Computational Models. Wiley Interscience, New York, NY.
[10] Cooray, V., 2003. The Lightning Flash, IEE Power and Energy Series. IEE.
[11] Nucci, C.A., Rachidi, F., and Rubinstein, A., 2008. Derivation of telegrapher’s
equations and field-to-transmission line interaction. In Rachidi, F. and Tkachenko,
S. (eds) (eds.) , Electromagnetic Field Interaction with Transmission Lines: From
Classical Theory to HF Radiation Effects. WIT Press, Southampton.
[12] Paul, C.R., 1994. Analysis of Multiconductor Transmission Lines. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
[13] Paolone, M., Rachidi, F., Borghetti, A., et al., 2009. Lightning electro-
magnetic field coupling to overhead lines: theory, numerical simulations
and experimental validation. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. Press. 51,
532–547.
[14] Taylor, C.D., Satterwhite, R.S., and Harrison, C.W., 1965. The response of a
terminated two-wire transmission line excited by a nonuniform electro-
magnetic field. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. AP. 13, 987–989.
[15] Agrawal, A.K., Price, H.J., and Gurbaxani, S.H., 1980. Transient response of
multiconductor transmission lines excited by a nonuniform electromagnetic
field. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 22, 119–129.
[16] Rachidi, F., 1993. Formulation of the field-to-transmission line coupling
equations in terms of magnetic excitation fields. IEEE Trans. Electromagn.
Compat. 35, 404–407.
[17] Rusck, S., 1958. Induced lightning overvoltages on power transmission lines
with special reference to the overvoltage protection of low voltage networks.
Trans. R. Inst. Technol. Stockh. 120.
[18] Cooray, V., 1994a. Calculating lightning-induced overvoltages in power
lines: a comparison of two coupling models. IEEE Trans. Electromagn.
Compat. 36, 179–182.
[19] Cooray, V., Rachidi, F., and Rubinstein, M., 2017. Formulation of the field-
to-transmission line coupling equations in terms of scalar and vector poten-
tials. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 59, 1586–1591. https://doi.org/
10.1109/TEMC.2017.2657891
[20] Piantini, A., 2017. Extension of the rusck model for calculating lightning-
induced voltages on overhead lines considering the soil electrical para-
meters. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 59, 154–162. https://doi.org/
10.1109/TEMC.2016.2601011
[21] Rachidi, F., Nucci, C.A., M., I., and Mazzetti, C., 1996b. Influence of a lossy
ground on lightning-induced voltages on overhead lines. IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat. 38, 250–263.
320 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[22] Ramo, S., Whinnery, J.R., and van Duzer, T., 1994. Fields and Waves in
Communication Electronics, 3rd ed. Wiley, New York, NY.
[23] Rachidi, F., Nucci, C.A., Ianoz, M., and Mazzetti, C., 1996a. Importance of
losses in the determination of lightning-induced voltages on overhead lines.
In EMC 96 ROMA Int. Symp. Electromagn. Compat. Univ Rome Sapienza
Rome Italy 2.
[24] Tesche, F.M., 1992. Comparison of the transmission line and scattering
models for computing the HEMP response of overhead cables. IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat. 34, 93–99.
[25] Sunde, E.D., 1968. Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission Systems.
Dover Publication, New York, NY.
[26] Rachidi, F., Nucci, C.A., and Ianoz, M., 1999. Transient analysis of
multiconductor lines above a lossy ground. IEEE Trans PWDR. 14,
294–302.
[27] Tossani, F., Napolitano, F., and Borghetti, A., 2018. Inverse laplace trans-
form of the ground impedance matrix of overhead lines. IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat. 60, 2033–2036. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2017.
2765207
[28] Tossani, F., Napolitano, F., and Borghetti, A., 2017. New integral formulas
for the elements of the transient ground resistance matrix of multiconductor
lines. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 59, 193–198. https://doi.org/
10.1109/TEMC.2016.2591590
[29] Hoidalen, H.K., 2003. Analytical formulation of lightning-induced voltages
on multiconductor overhead lines above lossy ground. IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat. 45, 92–100.
[30] Hoidalen, H.K., 1999. Calculation of lightning-induced overvoltages using
MODELS. In Int. Conf. Power Syst. Transients Tech Univ Bp. Bp. Hung.
[31] Hoidalen, H.K., 1997. Lightning-induced overvoltages in low-voltage sys-
tems (Ph.D. thesis). Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
[32] Montano, R., Theethayi, N., and Cooray, V., 2008. An efficient imple-
mentation of the Agrawal et al. model for lightning-induced voltage calcu-
lations using circuit simulation software. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. – Regul.
Pap. 55, 2959–2965.
[33] Napolitano, F., Borghetti, A., Nucci, C.A., Paolone, M., Rachidi, F., and
Mahserejian, J., 2008. An advanced interface between the liov code and the
EMTP-RV. In Proc. 29th Int. Conf. Lightning Protection, Uppsala, Sweden,
pp. 1–12.
[34] Nucci, C.A., Bardazzi, V., Iorio, R., Mansoldo, A., and Porrino, A., 1994.
A code for the calculation of lightning-induced overvoltages and its interface
with the Electromagnetic Transient program. In Proc. of the 22nd
International Conference on Lightning Protection, Budapest, Hungary,
19–23 September 1994.
[35] Orzan, D., 1998. Couplage externe et interne entre un champ électro-
magnétique et un réseau de lignes multifilaires (Ph.D. thesis). Ecole
Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 321

[36] Orzan, D., Baraton, P., Ianoz, M., and Rachidi, F., 1996. Comparaison entre
deux approches pour traiter le couplage entre un champ EM et des réseaux
de lignes.
[37] Perez, E., Delgadillo, A., Urrutia, D., and Torres, H., 2007. Optimizing the
surge arresters location for improving lightning induced voltage perfor-
mance of distribution network, presented at the IEEE PES General Meeting,
Tampa, FL, USA, https://doi.org/10.1109/PES.2007.385697.
[38] Borghetti, A., Gutierrez, A., Nucci, C.A., Paolone, M., Petrache, E., and
Rachidi, F., 2004. Lightning-induced voltages on complex distribution sys-
tems: models, advanced software tools and experimental validation.
J. Electrost. 60, 163–174.
[39] Rachidi, F., Loyka, S., Nucci, C.A., and Ianoz, M., 2003. A new expression
for the ground transient resistance matrix elements of multiconductor over-
head transmission lines. Electr. Power Syst. Res. J. 65, 41–46.
[40] Araneo, R. and Cellozi, S., 2001. Direct time domain analysis of trans-
mission lines above a lossy ground. IEE Proc. Sci. Meas. Technol. 148,
73–79.
[41] Theethayi, N. and Thottappillil, R., 2008. Surge propagation and cross-
talk in multiconductor transmission lines above ground. In Rachidi, F.
and Tkachenko, S. (eds), Electromagnetic Field Interaction with
Transmission Lines. From Classical Theory to HF Radiation Effects.
England: WIT Press.
[42] Tafflove, A., 1995. Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite Difference
Time Domain Method. Norwood, MA:Artech House.
[43] Paolone, M., Nucci, C.A., and Rachidi, F., 2001. A new finite difference
time domain scheme for the evaluation of lightning induced overvoltages on
multiconductor overhead lines. In International Conference on Power
System Transients (IPST), pp. 596–602.
[44] Lax, P.D. and Wendroff, B., 1960. System of conservations laws. Commun.
Pure Appl. Math. 13, 217–237.
[45] Omick, S.R. and Castillo, S.P., 1993. A new finite difference time-domain
algorithm for the accurate modeling of wide-band electromagnetic phe-
nomena. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 35, 215–222.
[46] Paolone, M., 2001. Modeling of lightning-induced voltages on distribution
networks for the solution of power quality problems, and relevant imple-
mentation in a transient program (Ph.D. thesis). University of Bologna,
Bologna, Italy.
[47] Brignone, M., Procopio, R., Nicora, M., Mestriner, D., Rachidi, F., and
Rubinstein, M., 2022. A prony-based approach for accelerating the lightning
electromagnetic fields computation: effect of the soil finite conductivity.
Electr. Power Syst. Res. 209, 108013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2022.
108013
[48] Darveniza, M., 2007. A practical extension of Rusck’s formula for max-
imum lightning induced voltage that accounts for ground resistivity. IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv. 22, 605–612.
322 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[49] Andreotti, A., Pierno, A., and Rakov, V.A., 2013a. An analytical approach
to calculation of lightning induced voltages on overhead lines in case of
lossy ground—Part I: model development. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 28,
1213–1223. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2013.2241084
[50] Andreotti, A., Pierno, A., Rakov, V.A., and Verolino, L., 2013b. Analytical for-
mulations for lightning-induced voltage calculations. IEEE Trans. Electromagn.
Compat. 55, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2012.2205001
[51] Mestriner, D., Brignone, M., Procopio, R., et al., 2021a. An efficient meth-
odology for the evaluation of the lightning performance of overhead lines.
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 63, 1137–1145. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TEMC.2021.3054427
[52] Mestriner, D., Brignone, M., Procopio, R., Piantini, A., and Rachidi, F.,
2021b. A new channel-base lightning current formula with analytically
adjustable parameters. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 63, 542–549.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2020.3009273
[53] Mestriner, D., Brignone, M., Procopio, R., et al., 2021c. Analytical expressions
for lightning electromagnetic fields with arbitrary channel-base current. Part II:
validation and computational performance. IEEE Trans. Electromagn.
Compat. 63, 534–541. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2020.3018108
[54] Andreotti, A., Rakov, V.A., and Verolino, L., 2018. Exact and approximate
analytical solutions for lightning-induced voltage calculations. IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat. 60, 1850–1856. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2018.
2812422
[55] Brignone, M., Procopio, R., Mestriner, D., et al., 2021. Analytical expres-
sions for lightning electromagnetic fields with arbitrary channel-base
current—Part I: theory. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 63, 525–533.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2020.3018199
[56] Napolitano, F., 2011. An analytical formulation of the electromagnetic field
generated by lightning return strokes. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.
53, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2010.2065810
[57] Nicora, M., Mestriner, D., Brignone, M., et al., 2022. Assessment of the
lightning performance of overhead distribution lines based on Lightning
Location Systems data. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 142, 108230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2022.108230
[58] Nicora, M., Mestriner, D., Brignone, M., et al., 2021. Estimation of the
lightning performance of overhead lines accounting for different types of
strokes and multiple strike points. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 63,
2015–2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2021.3060139
[59] Guerrieri, S., Nucci, C.A., and Rachidi, F., 1997. Influence of the ground
resistivity on the polarity and intensity of lightning induced voltages, in 10th
International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, Montreal, Canada.
[60] Hermosillo, V.F. and Cooray, V., 1995. Calculation of fault rates of over-
head power distribution lines due to lightning induced voltages including
the effect of ground conductivity. IEEE Trans Electromagn. Compat. 37,
392–399.
 Interaction of lightning-generated electromagnetic fields 323

[61] Ishii, M., Michishita, K., Hongo, Y., and Ogume, S., 1994. Lightning-
induced voltage on an overhead wire dependent on ground conductivity.
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 9, 109–118.
[62] Rachidi, F., 2012. A review of field-to-transmission line coupling models
with special emphasis to lightning-induced voltages on overhead lines. IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 54, 898–911.
[63] Nucci, C.A., Guerrieri, S., Correia de Barros, M.T., and Rachidi, F., 2000.
Influence of corona on the voltages induced by nearby lightning on overhead
distribution lines. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 15, 1265–1273.
[64] Tossani, F., Borghetti, A., Napolitano, F., Piantini, A., and Nucci, C.A.,
2018. Lightning performance of overhead power distribution lines in urban
areas. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 33, 581–588. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TPWRD.2017.2658183
[65] CIGRE-CIRED JWG C4.4.02: Protection of MV and LV Networks against
Lightning. Part I: Common Topics, 2006. CIGRE Tech. Broch. No 287.
[66] Dommel, H.W., 1986. Electromagnetic Transient Program Reference Manual
(EMTP Theory Book). Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.
[67] De la Rosa, F., Valdivia, R., Pérez, H., and Loza, J., 1988. Discussion about
the inducing effects of lightning in an experimental power distribution line in
Mexico. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 3, 1080.
[68] Chowdhuri, P., Cooray, V., Correia de Barros, M.T., et al., 2005. Lightning
induced voltages on overhead power lines. Part III: sensitivity analysis.
Electra.222, 27–30.
[69] Cooray, V., 1994b. Lightning-induced overvoltages in power lines: validity
of various approximations made in overvoltage calculations. IEEE Trans.
Electromag. Compat., 40, 355–363.
[70] Rubinstein, M., 1996. An approximate formula for the calculation of the
horizontal electric field from lightning at close, intermediate, and long range.
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 38, 531–535.
[71] Tossani, F., Napolitano, F., Borghetti, A., and Nucci, C.A., 2019. Influence
of the radial electric field appraisal on lightning-induced overvoltages sta-
tistical assessment. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 61, 637–643. https://
doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2019.2899656
[72] Borghetti, A., Nucci, C.A., and Paolone, M., 2009. Indirect-lightning per-
formance of overhead distribution networks with complex topology. Power
Deliv. IEEE Trans. On 24, 2206–2213.
[73] Borghetti, A., Nucci, C.A., and Paolone, M., 2007. An improved procedure
for the assessment of overhead line indirect lightning performance and its
comparison with the IEEE Std. 1410 method. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 22,
684–692.
[74] Dragan, G., Florea, G., Nucci, C.A., and Paolone, M., 2010. On the influence
of corona on lightning-induced overvoltages. In 30th International
Conference on Lightning Protection – ICLP 2010.
[75] Cooray, V., 1992. Horizontal fields generated by return strokes. Radio Sci.
27, 529–537.
324 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[76] Galvan, A. and Cooray, V., 1999. Lightning induced voltages on bare and
insulated buried cables. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium
on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Zurich, February, 1999.
[77] Vance, E.F., 1978. Coupling with Shielded Cables. New York, NY:John
Wiley and Sons.
[78] Petrache, E., Rachidi, F., Paolone, M., Nucci, C., Rakov, V.A., and Uman,
M.A., 2005. Lightning-induced voltages on buried cables”, Part I: theory.
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 47, 498–508.
[79] Petrache, E., Paolone, M., Rachidi, F., et al., 2007. Lightning-induced
currents in buried coaxial cables: a frequency-domain approach and its
validation using rocket-triggered lightning. J. Electrost. 65, 322–328. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.elstat.2006.09.015
[80] Paolone, M., Petrache, E., Rachidi, F., et al., 2005. Lightning-induced vol-
tages on buried cables. Part II: experiment and model validation. IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 47, 509–520.
[81] Rachidi, F., Nucci, C.A., Guerrieri, S., and Correia de Barros, M.T., 2001.
On the amplitude enhancement of voltages induced by external EM fields on
transmission lines due to ground losses and corona phenomenon. In 2001
IEEE EMC International Symposium. Symposium Record. International
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility.
[82] Ishii, M., Michishita, K., and Hongo, Y., 1997. Verification of coupling
model for calculation of induced lightning voltages, in CIGRE International
Colloquium on Insulation Coordination, Toronto, Canada.
 Chapter 9
Application of scale models to the study of
lightning transients in power transmission and
distribution systems
Alexandre Piantini1 and Jorge M. Janiszewski2

9.1 Introduction
A power system’s reliability bears on its ability to supply continuous and unin-
terrupted energy without significant momentary disturbances. However, power
lines are often located in areas of high ground flash densities, being therefore prone
to lightning-caused faults.
For most overhead power transmission lines, lightning is the primary cause of
unscheduled interruptions, which may result in either shielding failure or back-
flashover. The first situation occurs when the lightning stroke bypasses the overhead
ground wire and terminates directly on a phase conductor. If the stroke current is
larger than a certain value, the resultant voltages across the insulator strings will
exceed the line critical impulse flashover voltage (CFO) and lead to flashover.
Depending on parameters such as the stroke current magnitude and front time, line
CFO, tower impedance, and footing resistance, even when lightning strikes the tower
or an overhead ground wire the voltages across the insulators may be high enough to
cause a flashover. In such a situation, it is called backflashover, as it results from a
lightning strike to part of the network which is usually at ground potential.
Concerning distribution networks, failures of power equipment, especially
transformers and pin insulators, are frequently observed, particularly when lines
cross rural areas and are consequently more exposed to direct strikes. Lightning
overvoltages on distribution lines may be originated either from direct strikes or by
induction due to nearby flashes. Although the former type is much more severe, the
latter is usually responsible for a more significant number of line flashovers and
supply interruptions on systems with rated voltage 15 kV or less due to their higher
frequency of occurrence and to the low line insulation withstand capability. The

1
Institute of Energy and Environment, Lightning and High Voltage Research Center, University of São
Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
2
Polytechnic School, Telecommunications and Control Department, University of São Paulo, São
Paulo, Brazil
326 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

generation mechanisms of these two kinds of overvoltages are entirely different,

and both of them must be correctly computed to evaluate the lightning performance
of a given distribution network.
Investigations on lightning transients on power systems can be carried
out using the following methods: measurements on real, full-scale power lines;
rocket-triggered lightning; digital simulations; and scale models. The first provides
direct data about overvoltages caused by natural lightning [1–15], but a complete
analysis can only be made if the lightning strike point, the stroke current waveform
and propagation velocity, the soil resistivity, the high-frequency behavior of power
line equipment (e.g., transformers), and line parameters such as the grounding
interval and the ground resistance in each point are known. Besides, a long time is
required to obtain a statistically relevant data amount.
On the other hand, the rocket-triggered lightning technique allows for simulta-
neous measurements of overvoltages and the most important lightning parameters,
constituting a special tool for studying the interaction of lightning with various objects
and systems [16–23]. The results obtained from the experiments carried out at the
International Center for Lightning Research and Testing (ICLRT) in Camp Blanding,
FL, USA, have contributed significantly to a better understanding of the lightning
phenomenon and characterization of stroke parameters. However, owing to the costs
associated with the implementation of such system (area, launch control, experimental
lines, measuring equipment, etc.), as well as to the high degree of personnel speciali-
zation required, there are just a few research centers in operation around the world.
Once the physical principles that dominate the induction phenomenon are under-
stood, the assessment of the overvoltages and the line lightning performance can be
achieved by means of computer simulations. Elaborate models and numerical codes,
capable of describing the transient behavior of realistic line configurations in a rela-
tively accurate way, have been developed in recent years, such as the Electromagnetic
Transients Program (EMTP) [24]. Nonetheless, there are situations of high complexity
level which cannot be simulated with the existing versions of such codes.
The scale model technique enables tests to be performed under controlled
conditions and allows for the simulation of a wide variety of situations. Once the
system is implemented, a significant amount of data can be obtained in a relatively
short time. The technique is widespread in the fields of civil and mechanical
engineering. In electrical engineering, models have been employed to study, for
instance, transient voltages in transformers [25], the radiation patterns of antennas
[26], electric fields in substations or close to overhead lines [27–30], direct strikes
to power transmission lines [31–34], lightning strikes in the vicinity of power dis-
tribution networks [35–48], and overvoltages in wind turbine generator systems
resulting from direct lightning strikes [49,50]. Scale models of electrical systems
have been an important tool to predict power system transients after different types
of perturbations. They are flexible tools that can be advantageous for the validation
of theoretical models and the analysis of the lightning electromagnetic pulse
(LEMP) response of complex electric power networks.
This chapter presents, initially, the theory of scale models. Then, methods for
simulating the electromagnetic environment and various power system components,
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 327

namely overhead lines, transformers, and surge arresters, are described, and details
are given on the reduced system implemented at the University of São Paulo, Brazil.
The last part of the chapter is dedicated to the application of the technique to the
evaluation of lightning transients, with emphasis on the analysis of lightning-induced
voltages on overhead power distribution lines. The versatility of the scale model
technique is demonstrated and examples illustrate its usefulness in the study of
complex phenomena, either for enabling the evaluation of situations that are not
worthwhile to be treated theoretically or for giving adequate support for the valida-
tion of theoretical models and relevant computer codes.

9.2 Basis of scale modeling

The scale model of a particular electromagnetic system depends on the definition
of the numerical relationships between the values of the quantities in the model and
the full-scale system. The scale factors can be derived by applying Maxwell’s
equations to the real system and the reduced scale model and, then, by relating the
quantities of interest in both systems.
Considering the equations for the curls of the electric (E) and magnetic (H) fields
@E
r  H ¼ sE þ e (9.1)
@t
and
@H
r  E ¼ m ; (9.2)
@t
in a given medium with conductivity s, permittivity e and permeability m, the scale
factors for length (p), time (g), electric field (a), and magnetic field (b) can be defined as
8
> xm ym zm tm
<p ¼ x ¼ y ¼ z g ¼ t
>
(9.3)
>
>
: a ¼ Em b¼
Hm
;
E H
where x, y, and z refer to the coordinate system, t represents the time, and subscript
m refers to scale model variables. In the scale model, the fields are described by:

@E m
rm  H m ¼ sm E m þ em (9.4)
@tm
@H m
rm  E m ¼ mm ; (9.5)
@tm
with

H m ¼ H m ðxm ; ym ; zm ; tm Þ; E m ¼ E m ðxm ; ym ; zm ; tm Þ
and sm ; em ; mm representing the characteristics of the scale model medium.
328 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

In (9.4) and (9.5), the symbol rm stands for differentiation with respect to the
model coordinates. It can be shown that the scale factor for the curl operator is 1/p.
Thus,
1 b
rm  H m ¼ r  H m ¼ r  H : (9.6)
p p

Analogously:
a
rm  E m ¼ r  E: (9.7)
p

Differentiating Em and Hm with respect to time leads to:

@E m a @E
¼ (9.8)
@tm g @t

and
@H m b @H
¼ : (9.9)
@tm g @t

Substituting (9.6) to (9.9) into (9.4) and (9.5) results in:

b a @E
r  H ¼ sm aE þ em (9.10)
p g @t

and
a b @H
r  E ¼ mm : (9.11)
p g @t

In order to correctly represent the real system by the model, (9.10), (9.11) and
(9.1), (9.2) must be equivalent. Thus:
8
> gb
>
> e ¼ e
> m pa
>
>
>
< ag
mm ¼ m: (9.12)
>
> pb
>
>
>
> b
>
: sm ¼ s
pa

The scale factor of any electromagnetic quantity can be determined from the
above definitions. If air is the medium in both systems, the following conditions
must prevail:
8
> gb
>
< em ¼ e ! pa ¼ 1
: (9.13)
>
> ag
: mm ¼ m ! ¼1
pb
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 329

Table 9.1 Scale factors: ratios between the values of the

quantities in the model and in the full-scale
system [35,41]

Quantity General case Special case: same

medium (air) for both
systems
Length p p
Time g p
Electric field a a
Magnetic field b a
Resistance a/b 1
Capacitance bg/a p
Inductance ag/b p
Impedance a/b 1
Propagation velocity p/g 1
Frequency 1/g 1/p
Conductivity b/(pa) 1/p
Voltage ap ap
Current bp ap

Then,
a ¼ b; g ¼ p; sm ¼ s=p; (9.14)
i.e., the scale factor for conductivity must be the inverse of that of length. Clearly,
the last condition is not satisfied, as air is the medium for both systems. However,
considering that air is a good insulator, the error resulting in not taking its con-
ductivity into account can be neglected.
The scale factors for the quantities of interest, considering the general case and
the special one, when the medium (air) is the same for both systems, are reported in
Table 9.1. The results show that if p and either a or b are known, the scale factors
for all quantities can be determined. On the other hand, if only p and the ratio
between a and b are known, only some of the quantities can be directly related.

9.3 Simulation of the electromagnetic environment

The choice of the length scale factor p depends on the available area for the
installation of the facility and the features of the available generation and mea-
suring systems. A very low-scale factor allows for the simulation of longer lines
and stroke channels in laboratories of smaller dimensions. This procedure, how-
ever, implies the need for measuring systems with larger bandwidths.
This section describes the requirements for simulating the electromagnetic
environment and modeling some important power system components. The infor-
mation given here refers mostly to the 1:50 scale model implemented at the
University of São Paulo to investigate lightning transients in overhead power
330 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

distribution lines. The scale factors relevant to the electrical quantities of this sys-
tem are reported in Table 9.2, whereas a general view of the experimental facility,
showing the ground plane and a typical configuration of an urban distribution
system with the main feeder and some laterals is presented in Figure 9.1.

Table 9.2 Scale factors relevant to the system

implemented at the University of São
Paulo [41]

Quantity Scale factor

Length 1:50
Time 1:50
Electric field 1:360
Magnetic field 1:360
Resistance 1:1
Capacitance 1:50
Inductance 1:50
Impedance 1:1
Propagation velocity 1:1
Frequency 50:1
Conductivity 50:1
Voltage 1:18,000
Current 1:18,000

Figure 9.1 General view of the scale model. Generation and measuring systems
located below the ground plane [51]
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 331

9.3.1 Lightning channel

Among the various stages of a lightning discharge, it is usually during the return
stroke phase that the major problems concerning lightning overvoltages arise. In
this phase, the lightning current may reach peak values, at ground level, from a few
kA to more than 100 kA. The return stroke front propagation velocity along the
channel decreases with height and falls in the range of about 6%–87% of that of
light in free space [52], although even higher values were reported in [53] within
the lowest 500 m of the lightning channel.
Several physical and mathematical models have been proposed for the return
stroke [54–58]. In reduced-scale experiments related to the analysis of overvoltages
on power lines caused by either direct or nearby lightning events, the lightning
channel is usually represented by means of a transmission line [31,32,34–46,48].
Nevertheless, other methods are sometimes used. For instance, the tests carried out
in [33] to evaluate the voltages across insulator strings due to direct strikes to
transmission lines were performed using a repetitive pulse generator to apply cur-
rent surges directly to the tower or to one end of the overhead ground wire. In [47],
the assessment of the influence of shield wires on lightning-induced voltages on
overhead lines was made using a pulse generator. Pulse voltages were applied to a
metal mesh suspended in the air and located in a distribution line model’s vicinity.
In [35,41], the return stroke channel was simulated by a copper conductor
wound on an insulating rod in such a way that the propagation velocity of the
current along the channel was about 11% of that of light in free space. Owing to
local restrictions, the stroke channel model, shown in Figure 9.2, was limited to a
length of 12 m. The number of turns was approximately 323 per meter of rod
length, and the diameters of the copper conductor and the insulating rod were
0.7 mm and 25.4 mm, respectively.

Figure 9.2 Lightning channel model [51]

332 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

The propagation velocity along the lightning channel model and the surge
impedance of the simulated channel (Z0) were experimentally determined from the
analysis of reflected voltages resulting from the application of a step signal at one
end, leaving the other one open. The value obtained for Z0 was 2.2 kW. In order to
eliminate reflections, a non-inductive resistor R = 2.2 kW was connected between
the top of the stroke channel model and the mesh of conductors providing the return
path for the injected current, as shown in Figure 9.3. The return conductors, some
of which can be seen in Figure 9.1, were separated by a distance of approximately
1 m. Therefore, for the relevant frequencies of the current spectrum, the return
conductors can be reasonably assumed to represent a conducting surface involving
the system, so that the electromagnetic field in the region under analysis is estab-
lished by the current along the channel model. As pointed out in [35], although the
channel model was not intended to provide an accurate simulation of the lightning
channel, for points relatively far from it, the current can be assumed to propagate
upwards with the determined velocity, so that the radiated electromagnetic field can
be calculated with good accuracy.
As air is the same medium for both systems and therefore the scale factors for
time and length are equal, currents with very short rise times are needed to simulate
typical lightning currents. For a scale model with p = 1:50, the front time of the
simulated stroke current must be about some tens of nanoseconds (e.g., 40 ns for a

R = Z0
To the To the
ground plane ground plane

Lightning channel model

(chacteristic impedance Z0)

Line Voltage Current

probe probe

Ground plane Current

Generation Amplifier
System
Oscilloscope

Figure 9.3 Schematic diagram of the experimental setup (adapted from [35])
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 333

typical first stroke front time of 2 ms). Moreover, the current amplitude must be of
the order of at least a few amperes to enable the simulation of surge arresters.
As the channel surge impedance Z0 is relatively high, it would not be possible to
obtain currents with the desired characteristics using a capacitor. Therefore, a high
voltage cable, 280 m long, charged by a dc voltage source, was used to generate
the required steep front currents [35,41,45]. Once the desired voltage was reached,
the cable was connected to the channel model through a high-speed switch. As the
circuit impedance was predominantly resistive, this technique allowed the genera-
tion of currents with the desired, relatively short, front times.
The current injected into the channel model was measured at ground level by a
current probe associated with an amplifier. The measuring system bandwidth was
from dc to 50 MHz, and its rise time was shorter than 7 ns. For the measurements
reported in [35], digital storage oscilloscopes with sampling rates of either 500 MS/s
or 1 GS/s (single-shot bandwidths of 200 MHz and 250 MHz, respectively)
were used.

9.3.2 Ground
The ground resistivity depends on the type of soil and various factors such as soil
granulometry, degree of compactness, quantity, and kind of dissolved salts, strati-
fication, water content, and temperature. It varies widely and, depending on the
condition, it may assume values lower than 100 W.m or greater than 10,000 W.m.
With a few exceptions [48], in scale model experiments, the ground is usually
assumed as a perfectly conducting plane and simulated by means of copper or
aluminum sheets [31–47]. In [59], Rachidi et al. show that the approximation of a
perfectly conducting ground is, in general, reasonable for the calculation of both the
azimuthal magnetic field and the vertical component of the electric field for dis-
tances between the lightning stroke location and the observation point shorter than
about one kilometer. However, both fields’ time derivatives may be significantly
affected by the propagation effects, as pointed out by Cooray [60,61]. On the other
hand, the earth resistivity has a remarkable impact on the horizontal electric field
[59,62–67] and, by extension, on the lightning-induced voltages. Several investi-
gations have been carried out about the influence of a lossy ground on lightning-
induced voltages on overhead lines [9,48,59,62,68–71] and, according to Nucci
[62], the assumption of a perfectly conducting ground is reasonable for distribution
systems located above a soil with resistivity lower than about 100 W m.
In [35,41], the whole scale model was placed above a conducting plane rea-
lized by means of interconnected aluminum plates covering an area of 28  9 m2,
which is equivalent to 1,400  450 m2 on a full-scale basis.

9.3.3 Overhead lines

Although the choice of a scale factor for length (p) requires the use of materials
with conductivities 1/p times (thus, higher than) those of the materials of the real
system, in reduced scale experiments copper wires are usually used for simulating
the line conductors, as the inherent errors can be reasonably neglected.
334 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Figure 9.4 Model of a single-phase distribution line [51]

In [35,41], the scale model was used to simulate typical 15 kV distribution

lines. The conductors were simulated by means of copper wires with an overall
length of 28 m and a diameter of 0.4 mm. They were mounted on PVC structures
spaced 60 cm and with such a form that allowed the representation of different
network configurations. The adopted dimensions represent a full-scale system of
1.4 km overall length with 2.0 cm conductors diameter and spacing of 30 m
between adjacent poles. The line was composed of either a single or four con-
ductors (three phases plus neutral). One of the test configurations corresponding to
a single-phase line is illustrated in Figure 9.4. The three-phase line had various
laterals; the phase and neutral conductors were placed at heights of 20 cm and
16 cm above ground, corresponding to 10 m and 8 m, respectively.

9.3.4 Transformers
A transformer can be viewed as a complex network of capacitances, resistances,
self-inductances, and mutual inductances, and the knowledge of its response
when subject to lightning and switching surges is of great importance for
designing and development. In [25], an electromagnetic model was developed to
evaluate transient voltages in the transformer windings. The model, which
represented an important advance in transient analysis in transformers, consisted
of two parts of different scale factors: an equivalent circuit of capacitances and a
geometrical model for the self and mutual inductances, even if non-linear. The
voltages measured at different points of real transformers and their respective
models were in very good agreement and the accuracy of the model was con-
sidered entirely adequate for design purposes. The electromagnetic model is
flexible, all points of interest are readily available, and measurements can be
made easily and rapidly.
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 335

However, when the reproduction of the transformer’s internal characteristics is

not aimed at, and only its response as a power system component is required, much
simpler models can be used. For instance, in the investigation on lightning-induced
voltages on medium voltage (MV) networks carried out in [35,41], the distribution
transformers were represented, in the scale model, by capacitors of 10 pF (corre-
sponding to 0.5 nF on a full-scale basis) connected between each phase conductor
and the neutral. This capacitance value was inferred from measurements, as func-
tion of frequency, of the input impedance (Zt) of a typical three-phase, 30 kVA,
13.8 kV–220/127 V, delta-grounded wye connected distribution transformer. The
measurements were performed with the three terminals of the MV side short-
circuited, assuming the differential mode of induced voltage to be negligible. This
is indeed a very reasonable assumption, as the distance from the stroke location to
the line is in general much larger than the distance between the line conductors.
Therefore, the voltages induced on the phase conductors are very similar.
Through a signal generator, voltages of constant amplitude and variable fre-
quency were applied to the MV terminals and simultaneous measurements were
made of the applied voltage and the currents injected into each terminal. The input
impedances were obtained from those measurements for 50 different frequencies in
the range of 2 kHz–1 MHz. As no significant differences were found among the
values relative to the three terminals, the impedance corresponding to the middle
terminal was taken as representative of the transformer. For a transformer with its
primary winding delta-connected and short-circuited terminals, there is no current
flow through the primary winding and thus Zt is practically independent of the load
connected to the secondary. This was confirmed by tests carried out considering
three conditions for the low-voltage (LV) terminals: open, short-circuited, and
connected to resistors of 1.6 W representing the transformer nominal load.
Although the evaluation of voltages transferred to the transformer secondary
demands a more detailed representation, this simple model is perfectly suitable for
studies concerned with lightning transients on MV networks, for which only the
simulation of the transformer input impedance seen from the primary side is
required. This impedance has, in general, a predominantly capacitive behavior, as
illustrated in Figure 9.5 for a three-phase distribution transformer similar to the one
considered in [35,41], also rated 30 kVA and delta-grounded wye connected.

9.3.5 Surge arresters

Several investigations have been carried out on the effectiveness of surge arresters in
mitigating lightning overvoltages and improving the lightning performance of power
lines [1,11,35–37,40–42,72–74]. In [41], a model was developed to enable an experi-
mental study of the effect of surge arresters on lightning-induced voltages on overhead
lines. The primary motivation for creating such a model was related to the non-
existence, at that time, of a complete set of data involving measurements of lightning-
induced voltages on lines with surge arresters. As induced voltages are influenced by
several parameters [36,41,67,75,76], the use of data obtained under controlled condi-
tions is essential to validate theoretical models and their relevant codes.
336 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

100

80

Magnitude (kΩ)
60

40

20

0
1 10 100 1,000
(a) Frequency ( kHz)

–90
Phase (degrees)

–180

–270

–360
1 10 100 1,000
( b) Frequency ( kHz)

Figure 9.5 Input impedance Zt (per phase) of a typical three-phase, 30 kVA,

13.8 kV – 220/127 V, delta-grounded wye connected distribution
transformer[51]: (a) absolute value; (b) phase

The arrester models were designed to reproduce the non-linear VI-character-

istics (residual voltage vs. discharge current) of surge arresters commonly used in
distribution systems, which was accomplished by a combination of diodes and
resistors. For the model validation, tests were performed on 9 distribution arresters
(6 SiC and 3 ZnO) with rated voltage and current of 12 kV and 5 kA, respectively.
The VI-characteristic is in general obtained by applying the standard current
(8/20 ms waveform) to the arrester and measuring the peak value of the voltage at
its terminals. However, instead of the peak value, in [41] the VI-characteristics
were obtained considering the voltage values corresponding to the instant at which
the current reaches its maximum, as the usual measuring techniques do not
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 337

eliminate the circuit inductance effects and, therefore, the obtained peak values are
larger than the real ones. This discrepancy increases for faster front time currents,
and in [77] it is recommended to take the value of the voltage at the current peak
point, especially for front times shorter than about 4 ms.
As in the case of nearby strokes the currents through the arresters hardly ever
reach values higher than 1 kA [41,78], the similarity between the behaviors of the
model and of the actual arresters was also verified for relatively low currents. An
appropriate circuit with components selected to produce the standard current
waveform, taking into account the time scale factor, was used to test the model and
the actual arresters. Based on the analysis of the test results, the scale factor
1:18,000 was adopted for voltage and current and, as a consequence, the scale
factor for electric and magnetic fields (a) was determined as 1:360. Therefore, the
quantities in the model could be related to those of the full-scale system by
applying the relationships shown in Table 9. 1, as presented in Table 9.2.
Figure 9.6 shows the dynamic VI-characteristics, i.e., the curves relating
instantaneous values of voltages and currents, for the model and the distribution
arresters. The VI-characteristics obtained by combining all the test results are pre-
sented in Figure 9.7. As the scatter among the results relative to surge arresters of
the same type (ZnO or SiC) was small, the results corresponding to each type were
grouped. It can be readily seen that the surge arrester model represents relatively
well the behavior of the actual arresters within the range of the current peak values
considered.
The equivalent circuit of the surge arrester model is composed of a resistance
Rpr in series with an inductance Lpr, both in parallel with a capacitance Cpr, as
shown in Figure 9.8a. The behavior of the non-linear resistance Rpr is presented in
Figure 9.8b. The inductance Lpr and the capacitance Cpr were introduced to repre-
sent the model’s transient behavior more accurately. The inductance is related to
the increase in the residual voltage for currents with short front times, whereas the
capacitance is associated with the voltage wavefront.

50
SiC
40
Voltage (kV)

Model

30
ZnO
20

10
0 1 2 3 4 5
Current (kA)

Figure 9.6 Dynamic VI-characteristics for the model (scale factor 1:18,000 for
voltage and current) and actual SiC and ZnO surge arresters (adapted
from [35,41])
338 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

SiC ZnO Model

60

Residual Voltage (kV) 50

40

30

20

10
0.1 1 10
Current (kA)

Figure 9.7 VI-characteristics for the model (scale factor 1:18,000 for voltage and
current) and actual SiC and ZnO surge arresters (adapted from
[35,41])

30
Voltage (kV)

20
Rpr
Cpr
Lpr 10

0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
(a) (b) Current (kA)

Figure 9.8 Surge arrester model equivalent circuit (adapted from [35,41]):
(a) electric circuit; (b) characteristic of the non-linear resistor Rpr

Several preliminary simulations indicated that the circuit shown in Figure 9.8
represents the arrester model relatively well when the Lpr and Cpr values are,
respectively, 0.02 mH and 270 pF (corresponding to 1.0 mH and 13.5 nF on a
full-scale basis). Figure 9.9 presents some examples of comparisons between
calculations performed using the equivalent circuit and relevant measurements for
current amplitudes of 20 mA and 105 mA (corresponding to 0.36 kA and 1.89 kA).
The associated residual voltages were, respectively, 1.67 V and 1.83 V (30 kV and
33 kV on a full-scale basis). A very close agreement was reached in all compar-
isons, thus validating the arrester model equivalent circuit.

9.3.6 Buildings
Urban overhead distribution networks are characterized not only by a high density of
transformers, surge arresters, and laterals, but also by the presence of buildings in
their vicinity. The presence of nearby tall structures limits the line exposure to direct
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 339

0.4 40
Measured
30
Current (kA)

Voltage (kV)
0.2 20
Calculated
10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Time (μs) Time (μs)

2 40
Calculated
30
Current (kA)

Voltage (kV)
Measured
1 20

10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Time (μs) Time (μs)

Figure 9.9 Currents injected into the surge arrester model and corresponding
measured and calculated residual voltages (all scales referred to the
full-scale system). Adapted from [35,41]: (a) applied current: 0.36 kA;
(b) applied current: 1.89 kA

lightning strokes, but on the other hand lightning flashes may occur very close to the
line. Therefore, overvoltages of high magnitudes may be induced even in the case of
stroke currents of moderate intensity [39]. The induced overvoltages are affected by
the electromagnetic field distortion caused by neighboring buildings. The computa-
tion of lightning surges under such conditions is too complicated and cannot be done
with the existing versions of advanced codes such as the so-called LIOV-EMTP code
[79,80]. A method to take into account the effect of the attenuation of the lightning
electromagnetic pulse (LEMP) radiated by indirect lightning strokes due to buildings
has been presented by Borghetti et al. [81] and Tossani et al. [82]. Such attenuation is
represented by means of specific weighting functions applied to the LEMP analytical
expressions valid for open terrain. The weighting functions’ parameters are identified
through the least-square minimization of the differences with the results provided by
a finite-element method model that is assumed as reference for the configurations
analyzed. As shown in [82], the weighting functions can be used, with reasonable
accuracy, for lightning return stroke current waveforms and distances between the
line and the stroke location different from those used for their identification.
340 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

According to Table 9.1, if the medium is the same for the model and the full-scale
system, the conductivity scale factor is the reciprocal of that of length. This means that,
for the system described in [35,39], buildings should be made of materials 50 times
more conductive than those of full-scale constructions. In [35,39], grounded aluminum
structures (cuboids) were used to simulate the buildings and analyze their effect on
lightning-induced voltages on overhead lines. As aluminum is characterized by an
electrical conductivity greater than 50 times those of the materials used in real struc-
tures, in principle the effect of the structures should be, in actual situations, less sig-
nificant than that observed in the tests [35,39,41]. Besides, as the shielding effect is due
mainly to the steel rebars embedded inside reinforced concrete, the buildings could be
better simulated by meshes of cubes with edges being constituted by metallic wires.
However, as shown in [81], the differences between the results obtained by repre-
senting the buildings as cuboids with perfectly conducting surfaces and those obtained
by simulating them by meshed structures of the steel rebars of the reinforced concrete
are small. This outcome suggests that the adopted building models are suitable and that
the results obtained from the scale model experiments can be used to assess the
shielding effect of nearby buildings on lightning-induced voltages on overhead lines.
One of the test configurations considered in [41], corresponding to structures
15 m high, is presented in Figure 9.10, where one of the return conductors shown in
Figure 9.3 can also be seen at the left side of the picture. In this particular case, the
channel model, which can be seen in the center of the figure, was only 20 m from
the closest lateral. Such a short distance is unlikely unless lightning hits an elevated
object like a tree, mast, or another structure protruding above the line, which is the
situation considered in the simulation. The distances between the buildings and the
main feeder, referred to the full-scale system, are indicated in Figure 9.11.

9.3.7 Transmission line towers

The lightning performance of a transmission line is affected by various system
components, and the surge response characteristics of the towers play an important

Figure 9.10 Scale model for studying the effect of nearby buildings on lightning-
induced voltages on overhead distribution lines (adapted from [41])
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 341

15 m
10 m
8m

6m 10 m 6m

Figure 9.11 Distances between buildings and main feeder corresponding to the
test configuration shown in Figure 9.10 (dimensions referred to the
full-scale system) [51]

role in estimating the outage rate. Although the tower surge impedance value itself
does not significantly influence the number of line outages, the tower travel time
values greatly affect the overvoltages’ characteristics and, consequently, the line
performance.
The estimation of the surge response of transmission line towers is not trivial,
and various theoretical approaches have been made for such calculations.
Approximate formulas have been proposed, sometimes with the towers represented
by either cylindrical or conical conductors. In some cases, measurements have been
made in actual towers. In this context, the use of reduced-scale models allows
verifying the validity of theoretical formulas or obtaining additional knowledge on
the towers’ behavior when submitted to direct lightning strikes.
In [83], Chisholm, Chow, and Srivastava proposed equations for tower surge
impedance and tower travel time to deal with midspan strokes, emphasizing that
previous impedance models derived for vertical strokes to tower top were not valid
for the more common midspan stroke. A new model for “horizontal” currents was
presented and verified with experiments conducted using reduced tower models.
The impedances of cylindrical, conical, and inverted-cone towers with heights of
40 cm (conical and inverted-cone) or 50 cm (cylindrical) were determined con-
sidering horizontal and vertical currents. A travelling-wave stub model for cross-
arms was also proposed, and tests with a tower model were performed to verify the
crossarm impedance values and the propagation times. The experiments clearly
showed the influence of the crossarms on the current propagation and supported the
stub models. It was shown that the crossarms divert and delay some stroke current,
and this reduces the tower impedance and increases the tower travel time.
In [84], Yamada et al. report measurements performed in both actual and
reduced models of transmission towers aiming at confirming theoretical results or
obtaining further information on their surge behavior. A step current generator was
connected to the top of a 140.5 m high tower of a UHV transmission line and
measurements were made of the voltages across the insulator strings, crossarms,
342 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

and conductors. The voltage of the tower footing was also recorded. From the
measurements, a tower model was developed to fit the results of EMTP simula-
tions. In order to investigate the effect of the relative position of the current lead
and the auxiliary potential wires on the measurements, a scaled tower, 1.8 m high,
was built. A coaxial cable kept parallel to the ground connected the top of the tower
to a pulse generator on the ground. The voltage at the tower top was measured for
different positions of the auxiliary potential wire with respect to the current lead
wire, and it was shown that the surge impedance of the straight arrangement was
lower than that of the perpendicular arrangement.
In [85], a new method was proposed by Motoyama and Matsubara to calculate
the response of transmission towers to lightning surges. The method, based on the
electromagnetic field theory, showed that the tower surge response depends on the
propagation velocity of the lightning current and on the way it is injected into
the tower. Tests performed using scale models of 500 kV and UHV towers without
conductors and overhead ground wires showed the adequacy of the proposed
method and confirmed that the direction of the current injection line significantly
affects the tower surge response.
Gutiérrez et al. [86] proposed a new model to represent the transient behavior
of a tower struck by lightning. The various parts of the tower were represented
by equivalent vertical and/or horizontal transmission line segments, and complex
tower structures could be simulated, with straightforward inclusion of non-
uniformities, distributed losses, and wave speed variations. A reduced-scale model
was built and very fast pulses were applied to the top of a cylindrical copper con-
ductor with a height of 1 m and a radius of 1 mm. Due to mechanical requirements,
this was the smallest practical conductor’s radius, which was chosen to satisfy the
thin wire assumption. The voltage responses of the vertical line corresponding to
the injected current pulses were measured and compared with numerical simula-
tions carried out using the proposed model, and an excellent agreement was found.
Additional comparisons using data obtained from field experiments confirmed the
validity of the model.
Experimental results obtained using a reduced scale model of a vertical con-
ductor were used by Goni et al. [87] in comparisons with simulation results using
the FDTD method and a numerical electromagnetic code based on the method of
moments (NEC-2). The analysis involved the simulation of the surge phenomena of
a vertical conductor, including the effects of both horizontal and vertical wave
incidence. A tower was represented by a vertical cylinder with height and radius of
0.6 m and 2.5 mm, respectively, which was placed over a copper plate that simu-
lated the ground. In the case of horizontal incidence, the conductor was excited by a
pulse generator via a 2 m long horizontal wire with the remote end connected to the
ground. Bidirectional probes were used to measure the injected current and the
current flowing through the conductor. The voltage measuring wire had a hor-
izontal length of 1 m and was connected to the ground at the remote end. In the case
of the horizontal incidence, it was perpendicular to the current lead wire. For the
vertical wave incidence, the pulse generator was connected to the top of the con-
ductor, associated with a vertical current lead wire 1.5 m long. A good agreement
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 343

was found between the results of the scale model experiments and numerical
simulations.

9.4 Evaluation of lightning surges in power lines

In this section, a number of examples are given which illustrate the application of
the scale model technique in studies concerning lightning transients in power
transmission and distribution systems. Surges originated from both direct and
indirect strokes can be investigated through this procedure. The examples concern
investigations aiming at:
● evaluating the influences of various parameters on lightning overvoltages;
● validating theoretical models and relevant computer codes for voltage
calculations;
● analyzing the characteristics of lightning-induced voltages considering highly
complex situations such as overhead power distribution networks located in
urban areas, with buildings in their vicinity.

9.4.1 Investigations associated with direct strokes

Due to their high impulse withstand capability, much higher than those of dis-
tribution networks, transmission lines are not affected by nearby flashes, and their
response to direct strokes determines their lightning performance. Most of the
studies conducted on this topic make use of sophisticated numerical codes such as
the EMTP [24], capable of describing the transient behavior of power systems in a
rather accurate way. Especially in the past, scale models were a popular tool for
investigating the influence of various parameters on the overvoltages appearing
across the insulators as a consequence of direct strikes to transmission lines. At that
time, besides oversimplified concepts of the response of a system when struck by
lightning, the level of knowledge of the characteristics of the lightning parameters
was much less than today, and therefore discrepancies between the number of line
outages predicted by the existing methodologies and those actually observed in the
field motivated the search for better tools for evaluating the lightning performance
of transmission lines.
An unexplained large number of outages on the 345 kV Ohio Valley Electric
Corporation system motivated a study on several of the factors that influence the
line lightning outage rate [34]. By making use of a 1:250 scale model, the authors
simulated two spans of a transmission line and discussed the charge distribution
along the downward leader channel and the build-up of charges on the phase con-
ductors and ground wire due to the electric and magnetic fields produced around
the channel of an approaching downward-moving leader. Measurements of the
capacitance of the simulated channel and of the charges on the line conductors were
performed. The shielding effects of other conductors and upward leaders from the
ground wire were also discussed. The results showed that the voltage produced by
the released bound charges on the line conductors may be neglected in comparison
with the voltage associated with the current injected into the struck point.
344 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

The lightning performance of a 345 kV transmission line was also investigated

in [32]. A 1:25 scale model, representing a line section composed of two spans, was
built using an exact model for the center tower and equivalent cylindrical structures
for the two adjacent towers. The conductors were suspended from the tower at their
proper heights by model string insulators and allowed to sag between towers a
realistic amount. A network of resistors was placed at each end of the model to
provide terminations between conductors and between conductors and ground in
order to extend the apparent length of the model and to prevent reflections of
traveling waves. The ground plane was formed by an aluminum sheet about 1.5 m
wide which extended the full length of the line. The stroke channel was modeled by
a spiral of wire suspended vertically above the tower in such a way that it had an
effective surge impedance of 1,150 W and a return stroke velocity of about 18%
that of light in free space (c). Currents having front times as short as 0.002 ms,
corresponding to full-scale values of 0.05 ms, were obtained. The voltages which
resulted across the insulators when an approximate step function of current was
delivered into the tower top were measured without ground wires and with one or
two ground wires installed. Parameters such as current propagation velocity and
tower footing resistance were varied. Measurements were also performed on a
1:50 model, which allowed for the simulation of stroke currents with full-scale
front times of 1–5 ms.
In studies involving direct lightning strikes to transmission lines, the string
insulator voltages are usually discussed in terms of transfer impedances between
stroke current and insulator voltages, or volts per ampere of stroke current.
The transfer impedance is defined as the ratio of instantaneous values of insulator
voltage and stroke current. For currents with very short front times – as for
example, the case considered in [32] –, if the transfer impedance is plotted as a
function of time, the resulting curve is a close approximation to the response of the
system to a true step function of current.
Measurements performed in [32] with stroke current front times corresponding
to 0.05 ms and 0.30 ms in the full-scale system showed that the transfer impedance
associated with the longer front time was lower, indicating that reflections from the
lower portions of the tower had been able to reduce the overall tower impedance
before the current wave reached its crest. For both current front times, the voltages
which resulted at the top, middle, and bottom insulators when the current was
delivered into the tower top were measured for the system without ground wires
and with one or two ground wires installed. The experiments showed that two
ground wires reduce the insulator voltages substantially more than one ground
wire does. For the shorter current front time, the ratio of the transfer impedances
corresponding to the case of one ground wire and of no ground wire was approxi-
mately 0.5 for the three insulators. With two ground wires, the ratios with respect to
the case of a system without ground wire were about 0.36, 0.30, and 0.37 for the
top, middle, and bottom insulators, respectively. For the longer current front time
and system with one ground wire, the ratio was about 0.56 for the three insulators.
Similar experiments were carried out in [31] using a 1:60 scale model representing
a 380 kV transmission line with only the top conductor. For a stroke current front
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 345

time, on a full-scale basis, less than 0.1 ms, the measured ratios of the transfer
impedances corresponding to one or two ground wires with respect to the case of no
ground wire were, respectively, 0.6 and 0.43.
The effects of the channel impedance and of the stroke current propagation
velocity (v) were examined in [32] by measuring the voltage across the top insu-
lator for three different channel models. Two of them were helical lines; one with a
characteristic velocity of about 18% c and an impedance of 1,150 W, and the other
with a characteristic velocity of 32% c and an impedance of 750 W. The third
channel model was simply a length of wire suspended above the tower. Its char-
acteristic velocity was the same as the speed of light, and its impedance was about
500 W. The results showed that the effects of different stroke velocities and channel
impedances on the shapes of the transfer impedance curves are minor, as illustrated
in Figure 9.12. The same conclusion was obtained in [31].
Evaluations of the influence of the tower footing resistance on the transfer
impedance, considering the presence of one overhead ground wire, were carried out
in [31,32]. Three situations were considered in [31] regarding the value of the
footing resistance: 0 W (tower grounded solidly), 75 W, and 220 W. The stroke
current front time, on a full-scale basis, was less than 0.1 ms. In [32], the response of
the system was measured considering the following situations: tower grounded
solidly, grounded through 82 W (330 W at each leg), and isolated. The stroke
current front time, on a full-scale basis, was 0.05 ms; the voltage was measured at
the top insulator. As expected, both studies showed that, due to the time delay
for the arrival of the reflections originated at the tower bottom, the initial portion of
the waveforms was not affected. After a current wave had been reflected back
from the tower base, the transfer impedance and insulator voltage assumed a value
depending on the parallel resistance of the footing resistance and ground wire surge
impedances. The transfer impedances corresponding to the three arrangements
considered in [31] are presented in Figure 9.13.
The study conducted in [31] also included an evaluation of the influence of the
tower representation. Therefore, tests were performed considering three different
tower models: an exact scale reproduction, a combination of a cylinder and a cone,
and a cylinder. Very similar transfer impedances were obtained in the tests corre-
sponding to the three tower representations.
Transfer Impedance (Ω)

Transfer Impedance (Ω)

Transfer Impedance (Ω)

120 120 120

80 80 80
v = 0.18 c v = 0.32 c v = 1.0 c
40 40 40

0 0 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Time (μs) Time (μs) Time (μs)

Figure 9.12 Transfer Impedance for top insulator as a function of stroke current
propagation velocity. Time scale referred to the full-scale system.
Adapted from [32]
346 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

R = 220 Ω

Transfer Impedance (Ω) R = 75 Ω

50

R=0Ω

0 0.5 1
Time (μs)

Figure 9.13 Transfer impedance for different values of the tower footing
resistance (R). (Time scale referred to the full-scale system.)
Adapted from [31]

An analysis of the effects of the surge response of a tower and its conductors
and of the severity of the stroke current waveform required to produce flashover
voltages across the suspension insulators was carried out in [33] through the use of
a 1:28 scale model. A series of tests was made using a miniature representation of
an actual 51 m high transmission line tower and its associated conductors.
Lightning strikes to the tower and the overhead ground wire were simulated using a
repetitive surge generator. The applied surges had exponentially rising fronts
and essentially flat tails. The slope of the wavefront was varied and the resulting
voltage across the insulator of the model tower was measured. The results were
presented in terms of either the initial and the effective (determined from the 10%
and 90% points on the current waveform) stroke current rates of rise required to
cause insulator flashovers for the cases of the system without ground wire, with one
ground wire, and with two ground wires.
An investigation of the characteristics of lightning surges at a substation,
resulting from backflashover across an insulator string of the closest transmission
tower, considering non-horizontal or non-uniform lines incoming to the substation,
was conducted by Takami et al. [88]. The experiments were conducted in a
reduced-scale model composed of a horizontal transmission line, two towers, an
inclined incoming line, and a substation gantry. The scale factor was approximately
1:40, and the 500 kV tower models were 2 m high. The distance between the towers
was 4 m, and the gantry model stayed 3 m distant from the first tower, whose top
was connected to a pulse generator. Tests were performed simulating or not the
occurrence of backflashover, and the characteristics of the overvoltages at the
tower and the gantry were examined under both conditions. When backflashover
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 347

was considered, it was simulated by short-circuiting the crossarm and the upper
phase conductor of the first tower with a copper wire.
The experiments showed that the voltage at the tower crossarm rises gradually
in comparison with the current injected into the tower. The power line potential at
the gantry was found to be smaller than at the tower where the backflashover
occurs, in contrast with the trend observed from a circuit theory-based simulation in
which the inclined incoming line is represented by a horizontal line. Such
approximation has been usually employed in lightning surge simulations using the
Electromagnetic Transients Program (EMTP) or its alternatives. The measured
power line voltage at the gantry was about 50% of the voltage computed using
EMTP, and this would contribute to a more economical and rational design of a
substation. In [89], Takami et al. analyze the same system by FDTD simulation,
using the scale model results previously obtained to validate the computational
procedure.

9.4.2 Investigations associated with indirect strokes

Overvoltages induced by nearby strokes are an important source of disturbances in
telecommunications systems and are usually among the main causes of voltage sags
and short interruptions on electric power supply distribution networks. The surge
magnitudes and waveforms vary widely depending on the system configuration and
lightning stroke parameters. A number of coupling models have been proposed in
the literature to model the phenomenon [90–95] and modified or extended to enable
the analysis of more practical situations [59,62,63,67,69,96–105]. Such models
require, apart from a few very simple cases, a computer code for the calculation of
induced surges.

9.4.2.1 Validation of theoretical models

In comparison with transients caused by direct strikes to power lines, those asso-
ciated with nearby strokes are more complicated to calculate. There are many
parameters involved in the induction mechanism, and, moreover, some of the
approaches for computing lightning-induced voltages lead to significantly diver-
gent results. Comparisons among the most popular coupling models have been
presented in [97,106–111], as well as the analyses of the reasons for the observed
discrepancies. An example that illustrates the situation is shown in Figure 9.14, in
which an induced voltage waveform recorded by Yokoyama et al. [12] is compared
with simulations performed using the models by Chowdhuri [91], Rusck [92], and
Liew-Mar [93].
The experimental research developed by Yokoyama et al. [6,8,12] was the first
to record lightning currents and associated induced voltages. The voltages were
measured on a 10 m high, 820 m long, unenergized overhead line. The line was
L-shaped, matched at both ends, and located at a distance of 200 m from a 200 m
high tower. The stroke currents on the top of the tower and the corresponding
voltages on the line were recorded simultaneously. Details of the experimental
setup and the measuring systems are presented in [12], but it is relevant to mention
348 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

20
Measured
15
Rusck
10

5
Voltage (kV)

0
Liew-Mar
–5

–10

–15
Chowdhuri
–20

–25
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time (μs)

Figure 9.14 Comparison between a measured induced voltage obtained by

Yokoyama et al. [12] and the calculations according to the models
by Chowdhuri [91], Rusck [92], and Liew-Mar [93]. Adapted from
[41,97]

that, owing to the characteristics of the optical-electrical converter used for the
voltage measurements, the recorded voltage waveforms presented a faster decay than
the original ones [8]. As the stroke current propagation velocity was not measured, a
constant value of 30% of that of light in free space was adopted for the calculations
presented in Figure 9.14. Other assumptions concern the soil, which was considered
as a perfectly conducting plane, and the stroke channel, which was considered ver-
tical, without branches, and 3 km long. The current distribution along the channel
was calculated according to the transmission line (TL) model [112].
The results presented in Figure 9.14 indicate that it is vital to utilize, for the
estimation of the lightning performance of a given line, a method – and the
respective computer code – whose validity has been demonstrated preferably from
comparisons with experimental results obtained under controlled conditions.
The reduced scale system developed in [41] has been used to validate two meth-
ods, namely the Extended Rusck Model (ERM) [41,97,99,100,113] and the LIOV-
EMTP [79,80,114]. The former is an extension to the Rusck model in the sense that,
unlike the original model, its features allow for taking into account situations of
practical interest such as, e.g., the case of a line with various sections of different
directions, the presences of a multi-grounded neutral or shield wire, and equipment
such as transformers and surge arresters. It allows also to take into account the elec-
trical characteristics of the soil [104]. The incidence of lightning flashes to nearby
elevated objects and the occurrence of upward leaders can also be considered [96].
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 349

The LIOV-EMTP is a code based on two already existing computer programs,

the LIOV program – developed in the framework of an international collaboration
involving the University of Bologna, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of
Lausanne, and the University of Rome [63] and the EMTP [24]. This program
allows for the calculation of the voltages induced by lightning return strokes on
homogeneous, multi-conductor, lossy overhead lines using the Agrawal et al.
coupling model [90].
The comparisons between theoretical and experimental results presented in
this section involve overhead distribution lines either protected or not against
lightning. The voltages were measured through high impedance probes with
capacitance of 13 pF (corresponding to 0.65 nF on a full-scale basis) and bandwidth
from dc to 100 MHz. The digital storage oscilloscopes had sampling rates of
500 and 1 GS/s and single-shot bandwidths of 200 and 250 MHz, respectively.
● Line without protection
As the comparisons presented in this subsection concern very simple line config-
urations, where surge arresters and other sources of non-linearities are not present –
and therefore the voltages are directly proportional to the currents –, the voltages
and currents presented in the figures are not referred to the full-scale system.
Correlation can be done by applying the scale factors shown in Table 9.2. In the
text, reference to the full-scale system is provided in parentheses.
A comparison between measured and calculated induced voltages is depicted
in Figure 9.15. The computation, carried out using the ERM, refers to a 5.4 m
(270 m) long straight single-phase line matched at both terminations. The lightning
channel was 1.4 m (70 m) from the line, and the stroke current could be approxi-
mated by a triangular waveform with an amplitude of 2.78 A (50 kA), front time of

12

2.6 m 0.8 m 2.0 m measured

8
Voltage (V)

4 calculated
1.4 m

stroke channel (r.s.m.)

0
0 100 200 300
(a) (b) Time (ns)

Figure 9.15 Measured and calculated (using the ERM) induced voltages (adapted
from [115]). Stroke current with peak value of 50 kA, front time of
2 ms, and time to half-value of 85 ms. M: measuring point. (a) line
topology (top view); (b) induced voltages
350 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

40 ns (2 ms), and time to half-value of 1.7 ms (85 ms). A good agreement is found
between the results derived from numerical simulation and experiment in terms of
both the voltage magnitudes and waveforms.
Figures 9.16–9.18 present comparisons between measured and calculated
induced voltages corresponding to three different currents injected into the channel
model. The single-phase straight line (hereafter referred to as “Reference Line”) was
28 m (1.4 km) long, matched at both ends, 1.4 m (70 m) from the channel model, and
its terminations were equidistant from the stroke location. The copper conductor was
supported by PVC poles spaced every 60 cm (30 m), and its diameter was 0.4 mm
(2 cm). The influence of the wire cross-section on the induced voltages is not sig-
nificant for the typical range commonly used [113]. The conductor height was 20 cm
(10 m), and its measured surge impedance was 455 W. The calculations were per-
formed with the recorded current waveforms approximated by straight lines, which in
the figures are shown superimposed to the measured currents.

Calculated
4
Voltage (V)

1.5
Current (A)

1.0
2
Measured 0.5

0 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
(a) Time (ns) (b) Time (ns)

Figure 9.16 Measured and calculated (using the ERM) induced voltages – Case
MOD-1 (adapted from [41]): (a) induced voltages; (b) measured
current and straight-line approximation superimposed

6
Calculated 1.6

4
Voltage (V)

1.2
Current (A)

0.8
2
Measured 0.4

0 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
(a) Time (ns) (b) Time (ns)

Figure 9.17 Measured and calculated (using the ERM) induced voltages – Case
MOD-2 (adapted from [41]): (a) induced voltages; (b) measured
current and straight-line approximation superimposed
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 351

1.5
6

Calculated 1.0

Current (A)
Voltage (V)

2 Measured 0.5

0 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
(a) Time (ns) (b) Time (ns)

Figure 9.18 Measured and calculated (using the ERM) induced voltages – Case
MOD-3 (adapted from [41]): (a) induced voltages; (b) measured
current and straight-line approximation superimposed

8 8
T T
6 6
Voltage (V)
Voltage (V)

4 4
R R
2 2

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
(a) Time (ns) (b) Time (ns)

Figure 9.19 Measured and calculated (using the ERM) induced voltages (adapted
from [41,113]). Reference Line (R): matched at both ends; Test Line (T):
one end matched and the other open. (a) Measured; (b) calculated

Comparisons between measured and calculated induced voltages considering

lines with different terminations are presented in Figures 9.19–9.21. The voltages
were measured simultaneously on the Reference Line and a second line (hereafter
referred to as “Test Line”), placed symmetrically with respect to the lightning
channel model. The configurations were exactly the same, except for the termi-
nations – the Reference Line was matched at both ends, whereas the Test Line
was terminated in different ways. An impulse current with an amplitude of
1.1 A (19.8 kA) and front time of 60 ns (3 ms) was injected into the channel
model, and the voltages induced on both lines were recorded simultaneously. In
all the tests, the current amplitude remained practically constant for the time
window of interest.
352 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

6 6

4 4

Voltage (V)
Voltage (V)
R R
2 2
T T
0 0
100 200 300 400 100 200 300 400
–2 –2
(a) Time (ns) (b) Time (ns)

Figure 9.20 Measured and calculated (using the ERM) induced voltages (adapted
from [41,113]). Reference Line (R): matched at both ends; Test Line
(T): one end matched and the other short-circuited. (a) measured
voltages; (b) calculated voltages

5 5

R R

0 0
Voltage (V)

Voltage (V)

100 200 300 400 100 200 300 400

–5 –5
T T

–10 Time (ns) –10 Time (ns)

(a) (b)

Figure 9.21 Measured and calculated (using the ERM) induced voltages (adapted
from [41,113]). Reference Line (R): matched at both ends; Test Line
(T): one end open and the other short-circuited. (a) measured
voltages; (b) calculated voltages

● Line with a shield wire or surge arresters

The most effective methods of improving the lightning performance of distribution
lines are the increase of the insulation withstand capability, the use of shield wires,
and the application of surge arresters.
Independently of its position, a neutral or a shield wire tends to reduce the
magnitude of the induced voltages due to the electromagnetic coupling with the
phase conductors. By its turn, the application of line surge arresters can sig-
nificantly reduce the magnitudes of lightning-induced voltages, provided that the
arrester spacing is not too large. In both cases, the degree of voltage reduction
depends on several line and lightning parameters, such as the distance between
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 353

adjacent grounding points, the value of the ground resistance, the stroke current
steepness, and the position of the stroke location with respect to the line and the
observation point.
The examples presented in this subsection concern realistic line configurations,
representative of actual rural distribution lines. Thus, for convenience, the values of
all the parameters are referred to the full-scale system. The conversion to the values
actually recorded in the scale model experiments can be made by applying the scale
factors indicated in Table 9.2.
A comparison between measured and calculated voltages on a line with a
shield wire is presented in Figure 9.22. In this case, the Test Line had two con-
ductors, phase and shield wires, at the heights h = 10 m and hg = 9 m, respectively.
The horizontal distance between the conductors was 0.75 m. The voltages were
obtained at the point of the line closest to the stroke location, for the following
conditions: current magnitude I = 36 kA, current front time tf = 3.1 ms, distance
between the line and the lightning channel d = 70 m, distance between adjacent
grounding points xg = 450 m, and ground resistance Rg = 0 W. The stroke location
was in front of a grounding point and equidistant from the line terminations. This
test configuration is depicted in Figure 9.23a, whereas Figure 9.23b shows one of
the configurations used to evaluate the effect of surge arresters.
Figure 9.24 presents a comparison between measured and calculated voltages
for the case of surge arresters added on all the three phases of the Test Line,
which in this configuration had no shield wire. The distance between adjacent
conductors was 0.75 m. The observation point was in front of the channel model,
and the values of the parameters, referred to the full-scale system, were: I = 54 kA,
tf = 3.2 ms, xg = 450 m, and Rg = 200 W. The stroke location was equidistant from
two sets of surge arresters.
Figure 9.25 presents a configuration more representative of urban distribution
networks, in which the main feeder has various laterals. The line was three-phase

120

90
Voltage (kV)

40
Current (kA)

60 Calculated
20
30
Measured
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (μs) Time (μs)
(a) (b)

Figure 9.22 Measured and calculated (using the ERM) phase-to-ground induced
voltages at the point closest to the stroke location for the line
configuration shown in Figure 9.23a (adapted from [41,113]).
I = 36 kA; tf = 3.1 ms, d = 70 m; h = 10 m, hg = 9 m, xg = 450 m,
Rg = 0 W, lightning channel in front of a grounding point.
(a) induced voltages; (b) measured current
354 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

0.75 m 1.5 m

1m

10 m
9m

Rg Rg

(a) (b)

Figure 9.23 Configurations of the Test Line for the comparisons shown in
Figures 9.22 and 9.24 (adapted from [41,113]): (a) with a shield
wire (hg = 9 m); (b) with surge arresters

200
Measured
Voltage (kV)

150 60
Current (kA)

100
Calculated 30
50
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (μs) Time (μs)
(a) (b)

Figure 9.24 Measured and calculated (using the ERM) phase-to-ground induced
voltages at the point closest to the stroke location for the line
configuration shown in Figure 9.23b (adapted from [41,113]). I = 54
kA; tf = 3.2 ms, d = 70 m; h = 10 m, xg = 450 m, Rg = 200 W,
lightning channel equidistant from two sets of surge arresters. (a)
induced voltages; (b) measured current

and the heights of the phase and neutral conductors were 10 m and 8 m, respec-
tively. The distance between adjacent phases was 0.75 m, and the main feeder was
matched at both ends. Each transformer was represented by capacitors connected
between each phase and the neutral. However, as the value of the simulated
transformer input capacitance (0.5 nF) was similar to the value of the voltage probe
capacitance (0.65 nF), at the measuring point the capacitor was replaced with the
voltage probe.
The neutral was grounded at every transformer and also at the middle of the
laterals through ground resistances of 50 W. At the measuring point, however, Rg
was zero and, therefore, the neutral-to-ground voltage was related only to the
inductive voltage drop across the down conductor. Owing to the low value of the
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 355

90 m 210 m 210 m 148 m 42 m 132 m 210 m 210 m 170 m

150 m 148 m 346 m 284 m 152 m 150 m

150 m

70 m
150 m
75 m

M1

20 m

Surge arresters Grounding point (neutral) M1 Measuring point

Transformer Stroke location

Figure 9.25 Network configuration for the comparison shown in Figure 9.26
(adapted from [35,41])

400
Measured

200
Voltage (kV)

0
2 4 6 8

–200
Calculated
–400
Time (μs)

Figure 9.26 Measured and calculated (using the LIOV-EMTP) induced voltages
at point M1 of Figure 9.25 (Case 1). I = 34 kA; tf = 2 ms (adapted
from [35])

down conductor inductance (estimated of the order of ten mH), such voltage was
very small compared to the voltage across the capacitances. Hence, the differences
between phase-to-ground and phase-to-neutral voltages were negligible, as con-
firmed by simulations.
Figure 9.26, which corresponds to Case 1 [35], depicts a comparison between
the measured and calculated induced voltages at node M1 indicated in Figure 9.25
for a stroke current with peak value of 34 kA, front time equal to 2 ms and time to
half-value equal to 85 ms. The measurement and simulation regard the phase con-
ductor closest to the stroke location.
Comparisons were also made for the system configuration presented in
Figure 9.27. The voltages shown in Figure 9.28 (Case 2.1 [35]) refer to a stroke
356 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

90 m 210 m 210 m 148 m 42 m 132 m 210 m 210 m 170 m

150 m 148 m 346 m 284 m 152 m 150 m

150 m

70 m
150 m
75 m

M2

Figure 9.27 Network configuration for the comparison shown in Figure 9.28
(adapted from [35,41]). The meanings of the symbols are the same as
in Figure 9.25

200
Measured

100
Voltage (V)

Calculated
0
2 4 6 8

–100 Time (μs)

Figure 9.28 Measured and calculated (using the LIOV-EMTP) induced voltages
at point M2 of Figure 9.27 (Case 2.1 [35]). I = 70 kA; tf = 2 ms.
Adapted from [35]

current with the same previous waveform but with a peak value equal to 70 kA.
The calculation was performed considering a simplified configuration with two
conductors (middle phase and neutral). Despite the higher stroke current mag-
nitude in relation to Case 1 (70 kA against 34 kA), the corresponding induced
voltage peak values are lower (roughly 150 kV against 300 kV), mostly because
the distance between the stroke location and the closest line section (70 m) is
larger than that corresponding to Case 1 (20 m). Moreover, in Case 1 the mea-
suring point is located at the terminal of the lateral closest to the stroke location,
while in Case 2.1, the stroke location is nearest the main feeder. The combi-
nation of the above-mentioned conditions has a significant effect on the induced
voltages.
The results obtained with the ERM and the LIOV-EMTP show a good agree-
ment between measured and calculated induced voltages. Possible reasons for
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 357

discrepancies between measurements and simulations, for all cases, can be

addressed to:
(a) measuring errors: the overall uncertainty of the measuring system used in the
tests was less than  5%;
(b) slight deviations of the stroke current from the waveform considered in the
calculations;
(c) representation of the surge arrester model by means of its equivalent circuit;
(d) high-frequency oscillations associated with noise or switching of the current
generation system (both of random nature);
(e) variation of the current propagation velocity, its distortion and attenuation as
it progresses upwards along the lightning channel model. Some superimposed
high-frequency oscillations, probably related to the reasons (b) and (d) above,
are particularly evident on the measured voltage shown in Figure 9.28. As,
however, they are not caused by reflections (and hence not associated with the
line configuration) and an idealized current waveform was considered for the
calculations, these oscillations are never present in the calculated voltages.
Nevertheless, the disagreements between measurements and computer simu-
lations were relatively low, and the experimental validation of the proposed mod-
els, performed for realistic line configurations, can be considered satisfactory.

9.4.2.2 Analysis of complex situations

Another important application of the scale model technique is related to the ana-
lysis of the lightning performance of electrical systems located within a complex
electromagnetic environment, for which the implementation of the relevant theo-
retical models is not yet available. Such a kind of situation occurs, for example, in
the case of urban distribution networks. The difficulty, in this case, is related
mainly to the computation of the effect of structures in the vicinity of the line on the
inducing electromagnetic field, as well as, to a lesser degree, to the large number of
laterals, transformers, and surge arresters that characterize an urban power dis-
tribution system. This subsection illustrates the application of scale models to the
investigation of the behavior of lightning-induced voltages on urban distribution
networks.
● Influence of line laterals
Each intersection point of the main feeder with the laterals represents a line dis-
continuity, since a surge that arrives at one of these points “sees” an impedance that
is smaller than the line surge impedance. The polarity of the reflected voltage will
be opposite to that corresponding to the incident one. On the other hand, the
transmitted voltage will have the same polarity but smaller amplitude than the
incident one. Therefore the voltages induced on points of the line which are close to
a lateral tend, in general, to reach smaller magnitudes than those that would be
reached in the absence of the lateral. This is the case when the distance between the
lateral and the observation point is small enough so that the effect of the reflection
is “felt” before the voltage reaches its maximum.
358 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Figure 9.29 presents one of the test configurations used in [38], which con-
sisted of two lines placed at a distance of 70 m from the stroke location. The shorter
line was single-phase, straight, and with both ends matched, while the other was
four-conductor and branched. The main feeder of the branched line was matched at
both ends; the laterals were either matched or open-ended. In this configuration, the
lines had neither arresters nor transformers. The value of the ground resistances was
50 W except at the measuring point, where it was zero. The voltages shown in
Figure 9.30 illustrate the influence of the line laterals on the induced voltages for

90 m 210 m 210 m 148 m 42 m 132 m 210 m 210 m 170 m

Additional
laterals
150 m
M1
70 m
150 m
70 m

M2

128 m 39 m 104 m

Figure 9.29 Test configuration for the analysis of the influence of the line laterals
on lightning-induced voltages (adapted from [38]). The meanings of
the symbols are the same as in Figure 9.25

200 200
1 5
160 160 4
2
120 120
Voltage (kV)

Voltage (kV)

80
3 80
40
40
0
5 10 15 20
0
–40 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (μs) Time (μs)
(a) (b)

Figure 9.30 Induced voltages at points M1 and M2 of the lines shown in

Figure 9.29 (adapted from [38]). I = 46 kA; tf = 2 ms. Curve 1: Point
M2; Curves 2 and 4: Point M1, line without the additional laterals;
Curves 3 and 5: Point M1, line with the additional laterals. (a)
matched laterals; (b) open-ended laterals
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 359

the case of a stroke current with amplitude of 46 kA, front time of 2 ms, and time to
half-value of 85 ms.
The induced surges are affected not only by the presence of the laterals but also
by their termination conditions. The voltage magnitudes tend to decrease either in
the case of long (or matched) laterals or when they are terminated with surge
arresters. The shorter the distance between the measuring point and the nearest
lateral, the more significant the voltage reduction, as can be readily seen in
Figure 9.30a. On the other hand, if the laterals are open-ended, the induced voltage
may increase as the distance between the measuring point and the nearest lateral
becomes shorter, as shown in Figure 9.30b.
The voltages corresponding to the case of open-ended laterals tend to be
greater than those relative to long (or matched) laterals; the difference tends to
increase as the observation point approaches a line branch. For instance, although
notable differences are observed between the wavetails of voltages 2 (ends of all
laterals matched) and 4 (ends of all laterals open), measured at a distance of 342 m
from the nearest lateral, their peak values are about the same. On the other hand, a
difference of about 30% is observed between the magnitudes of curves 3 (ends of
all laterals matched) and 5 (ends of all laterals open), which were measured at a
shorter distance (132 m) from the nearest lateral.
● Influence of buildings
The presence of nearby structures causes a reduction of the lightning electro-
magnetic field around the overhead distribution line and, as a result, the induced
voltages are affected. Figure 9.31 depicts two test configurations adopted in an
investigation of the impact, on the lightning-induced voltages, of the presence of
buildings of different heights (hb) in the vicinity of the distribution network.
Aluminum structures connected to the ground were used to simulate the buildings,
as illustrated in Figure 9.10 for the case of hb = 15 m. The parameters se and sd
indicated in Figure 9.31 represent the distances between the measuring point (M)
and the closest set of surge arresters located on its left and right sides, respectively.
The same distance between the line and the stroke location, equal to 20 m, was
adopted in all the tests, although, especially for the case of hb = 0 m, a lightning
stroke so close to the line is an unlikely event, unless it hits an elevated object like a
tree, a mast or another structure protruding above the line itself.
Figure 9.32 shows the measured induced voltages at the transformer of the
main feeder located in front of the lightning strike point for the three buildings’
heights considered, namely 0 m, 5 m, and 15 m. The stroke current magnitude was
34 kA and, in order to illustrate the effects of the presence of surge arresters, two
situations were considered regarding the distances se and sd. It can be clearly noted
that the buildings provoke a reduction in the electromagnetic field around the line
and, consequently, the induced voltages may be substantially affected. This
reduction is more significant in the case of higher structures, which provide more
effective shielding of the line against the inducing field.
The influence of the distance between the observation point and the arresters on
the induced voltages tends to decrease as the building height increases. For hb = 0 m
360 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

90 210 210 150 150 210 210 170

22
M 150

75
150

Se Sd

(a)
90 210 210 150 150 210 210 170

22
M 150

75
150

Se Sd

(b) 80 80 80
Stroke location 80 40 30

Figure 9.31 Test configurations (top view) [39]. Distance of 20 m between line and
stroke location. Squares and rectangles denote blocks with structures
of different heights (hb). All dimensions in meters. The meanings of the
symbols are the same as in Figure 9.25. (a) hb = 5 m; (b) hb = 15 m

(no buildings around the line), the ratio between the crest values of the induced
voltages for the two cases considered (se = sd = 75 m and se = 148 m, sd = 174 m) is
approximately 0.54. For hb = 5 m, the ratio is 0.57, while for hb = 15 m the ratio is
0.96. This can be explained by the fact that, for hb = 0 m, the difference between
the induced voltages is due only to the different distances between the transformer
and the nearest sets of arresters. This influence is very significant, especially
for discharges close to the line. On the other hand, the amplitude of the total elec-
tromagnetic field near the line diminishes as the buildings’ heights increase as a
consequence of the shielding, which becomes more effective. Therefore, in the test
conditions, for hb = 15 m the induced voltages are more influenced by the presence of
buildings than by the distance between the measuring point and the arresters.
The results shown in Figure 9.32, even that corresponding to the case of
hb = 0 m, differ from those illustrated in Figure 9.26, which was obtained for the
same lightning current. The induced voltage magnitude of Figure 9.26 (around
300 kV) is greater because the measuring point is located at the end of a lateral
where the transformer is not protected with surge arresters.
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 361

1) hb = 0 m 300
120
2) hb = 5 m
1 3) hb = 15 m 1
90 200
2
2
Voltage (kV)

Voltage (kV)
60 100
3 3
30 0
2 4 6 8 10

0 –100
2 4 6 8 10

–30 Time (μs) –200 Time (μs)

(a) (b)

Figure 9.32 Measured induced voltages for different buildings´ heights (test
configurations indicated in Figure 9.31) and different distances
between the observation point and the closest set of arresters
(adapted from [39]). I = 34 kA; tf = 2 ms. (a) se = 75 m; sd = 75 m;
(b) se = 148 m; sd = 174 m

Another test configuration considered in [39], in which the measurements were

performed at the transformer located at the end of the closest lateral to the stroke
location, is depicted in Figure 9.33. The distances from the stroke location to the
main feeder and to the nearest lateral were 70 m and 20 m, respectively. Excepting
the transformer at which the voltages were measured, all the transformers located at
the ends of laterals were protected by surge arresters. Figure 9.33 is for hb = 15 m
and distance of 150 m between the measuring point and closest set of surge

90 210 210 150 20 340 210 170

22
150

75
150

80 80
M: measuring point 80
80 40 30

Figure 9.33 Test configuration (top view) for hb = 15 m and sr = 150 m (adapted
from [39]). Distances of the stroke location to the main feeder and
the closest lateral are 70 m and 20 m, respectively. Squares and
rectangles denote blocks with structures 15 m high. All dimensions in
meters. The meanings of the symbols are the same as in Figure 9.25
362 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

arresters (sr), but tests were also performed for the cases of hb = 0 m, hb = 5 m, and
sr = 75 m. Figure 9.34 presents the induced voltages for a stroke current magnitude
of 50 kA and the various test conditions.
The voltage magnitudes diminish as the buildings’ height increases, and this
effect becomes more evident as the distance sr increases. For sr = 150 m the ratio
between the crest values of the voltages relative to hb = 15 m and hb = 0 m (U15/U0)
is approximately 0.48, whereas in the case corresponding to sr = 75 m the ratio is
about 0.70. If sr = 0 m, the phase-to-ground voltages at the transformer terminals
will be given by the sum of the arrester residual voltages and the voltage drop on
the grounding conductor. As the dependence of the arrester residual voltage upon
the buildings’ height is very little, the ratio U15/U0 will be close to unity. Thus, the
ratio diminishes (i.e., the influence of the buildings increase) as sr increases.
As shown in Figures 9.32 and 9.34, the presence of buildings close to dis-
tribution networks reduces the lightning electromagnetic field and, consequently,
the induced voltages. On the other hand, high structures may attract lightning fla-
shes close to the line and, therefore, voltages of large amplitudes can be induced.
The induced voltages strongly depend on the stroke current magnitude, and
this is illustrated in Figure 9.35, which presents the measured voltages for stroke
current magnitudes of 34 kA and 70 kA and the test configuration shown in
Figure 9.33, but without the presence of buildings around the line. The variation of
the peak voltages was almost linear in the test conditions, a behavior that can be
explained by the relatively high value of the ground resistance (50 W), the short
front time of the stroke current (2 ms), and the distances sr (75 m and 150 m)
between the surge arresters and the measuring point. A decrease in the value of the
ground resistance or in the distance sr would tend to increase the system

1) hb = 0 m
600 160
1 2) hb = 5 m 1
3) hb = 15 m
300 2
3 2
80
Voltage (kV)

Voltage (kV)

3
0 4 8 12
0 4 8 12
–300

–600 Time (μs) –80 Time (μs)

(a) (b)

Figure 9.34 Measured induced voltages for different buildings’ heights and
different distances sr between the observation point and the closest
set of arresters (Figure 9.33 corresponds to the case of hb = 15 m and
sr = 150 m). Adapted from [39]. I = 50 kA; tf = 2 ms. (a) sr = 150 m;
(b) sr = 75 m
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 363

800 200
1) I = 70 kA
1 1
2) I = 34 kA
400
2
Voltage (kV)

Voltage (kV)
100
2
0
4 8 12 16
0
4 8 12 16
–400

–800 Time (μs) –100 Time (μs)

(a) (b)

Figure 9.35 Measured induced voltages for different stroke current peak values
and different distances sr between the observation point and the closest
set of arresters (test configuration indicated in Figure 9.33, but with
hb = 0 m). Adapted from [39]. tf = 2 ms. (a) sr = 150 m; (b) sr = 75 m

non-linearity. A slower stroke current or a larger distance between the stroke

location and the distribution line would have a similar effect, as in this case the
voltage peak would be reached in a longer time and therefore the effect of the
arresters would be more significant.
As suggested by the voltage peak values observed in Figures 9.34a and 9.35a,
the obtained results interestingly show that in some exceptional cases, namely for
strokes in the very close vicinity of the line and for stroke currents with high
amplitude and time-variation rate, surge arresters may not prevent an insulation
flashover from occurring, especially if they are installed at some distance (e.g.
150 m) from the closest point to the lightning channel.
In [116], Thang et al. computed lightning-induced voltages on multi-conductor
lines with surge arresters and pole transformers in the presence of nearby buildings
using the 3-D FDTD method. The magnitudes of FDTD-computed lightning-
induced voltages are reduced in the presence of nearby buildings, and the observed
trend is in general agreement with that reported by Piantini [41], Piantini and
Janiszewski [38,39], and Piantini et al. [35].

9.5 Conclusions
The scale model technique is a very powerful and versatile tool for the analysis of
the interaction of lightning with electric power lines, and well complements other
methods such as rocket-triggered lightning and experiments with full-scale sys-
tems. It enables the simulation of a wide variety of situations and, moreover, tests
can be carried out under controlled conditions. After the system implementation, a
substantial amount of data can be obtained in a relatively short time.
An important application of scale models concerns the validation of theoretical
models of complex phenomena and their relevant codes. They can also be very
364 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

useful in the evaluation of the influence of the line configuration and of various
lightning parameters on the overvoltages’ magnitudes and waveforms, which can
be assessed with satisfactory accuracy. In this chapter, the usefulness of the method
was illustrated by its application for the validation of the ERM and LIOV-EMTP
predictions, as well as for the investigation of the behavior of lightning transients
on overhead power transmission and distribution lines subjected to direct and
indirect strokes. The technique is particularly suitable for the analysis of situations
that are either too complex or not worthwhile to be treated theoretically, as e.g. the
case of lightning-induced voltages on urban power distribution networks sur-
rounded by nearby buildings.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks are due to Prof. C.A. Nucci, Prof. A. Borghetti, and Dr. M. Paolone
for the valuable discussions and for providing the simulation results obtained with
the LIOV-EMTP code.

References
[1] Piantini, A., De Carvalho, T. O., Silva Neto, A., Janiszewski, J. M.,
Altafim, R. A. C., and Nogueira, A. L. T., ‘A system for simultaneous
measurements of lightning-induced voltages on lines with and without
arresters’, In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on
Lightning Protection (ICLP), Avignon, 1, September 2004, pp. 297–302.
[2] Michishita, K., Ishii, M., Asakawa, A., Yokoyama, S., and Kami, K.,
‘Voltage induced on a test distribution line by negative winter lightning
strokes to a tall structure’, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 2003, 45, (1), pp. 135–140.
[3] Fernandez, M. I., Rakov, V. A., and Uman, M. A., ‘Transient currents and
voltages in a power distribution system due to natural lightning’, In
Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Lightning Protection
(ICLP), Birmingham, September 1998, pp. 622–629.
[4] De La Rosa, F., Pérez, H., and Galván, A., ‘Lightning-induced voltage
measurements in an experimental power distribution line in Mexico’, In
Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Lightning Protection
(ICLP), Budapest, Sep. 1994, pp. R 6b-09/1-6.
[5] Georgiadis, N., Rubinstein, M., Uman, M. A., Medelius, P. J., and
Thomson, E. M., ‘Lightning-induced voltages at both ends of a 448 m
power-distribution line’, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 1992, 34, (4), pp. 451–460.
[6] Yokoyama, S., Miyake, K., and Fukui, S., ‘Advanced observations of
lightning induced voltage on power distribution lines (II)’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 1989, 4, (4), pp. 2196–2203.
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 365

[7] Rubinstein, M., Tzeng, A. Y., Uman, M. A., Medelius, P. J., and Thomson,
E. M., ‘An experimental test of a theory of lightning-induced voltages on an
overhead wire’, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
1989, 31, (4), pp. 376–383.
[8] Yokoyama, S., Miyake, K., Mitani, H., and Yamazaki, N., ‘Advanced
observations of lightning induced voltage on power distribution lines’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 1986, 1, (2), pp. 129–139.
[9] Cooray, V. and De La Rosa, F., ‘Shapes and amplitudes of the initial peaks
of lightning-induced voltage in power lines over finitely conducting earth:
theory and comparison with experiment’, IEEE Transactions on Antennas
and Propagation, 1986, 34, (1), pp. 88–92.
[10] Master, M. J., Uman, M. A., Beasley, W., and Darveniza, M., ‘Lightning
induced voltages on power lines: experiment’, IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, 1984, 103, (9), pp. 2519–2529.
[11] Eriksson, A. J., Penman, C. L., and Meal, D. V., ‘A review of five years’
lightning research on an 11 kV test – line’, In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Lightning and Power Systems, IEE, London,
1984, pp. 62–66.
[12] Yokoyama, S., Miyake, K., Mitani, H., and Takanishi, A., ‘Simultaneous mea-
surement of lightning induced voltages with associated stroke currents’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, 1983, 102, (8), pp. 2420–2427.
[13] Eriksson, A. J., Stringfellow, M. F., and Meal, D.V., ‘Lightning-induced
overvoltages on overhead distribution lines’, IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, 1982, 101, (4), pp. 960–968.
[14] Perry, F. R., Webster, G. H., and Baguley, P. W., ‘The measurement of
lightning voltages and currents in Nigeria: part 2, 1938–1939’, Journal of I.
E.E. – Part II: Power Engineering, 1942, 89, (9), pp. 185–203.
[15] Perry, F. R., ‘The measurement of lightning voltages and currents in South
Africa and Nigeria: 1935 to 1937’, Journal of I.E.E. – Part II: Power
Engineering, 1941, 88, (2), pp. 69–87.
[16] DeCarlo, B. A., Rakov, V. A., Jerauld, J., et al., ‘Triggered-lightning test-
ing of the protective system of a residential building: 2004 and 2005
results’, In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Lightning
Protection (ICLP), Kanazawa, September 2006, pp. 628–633.
[17] Bejleri, M., Rakov, V. A., Uman, M. A., Rambo, K. J., Mata, C. T., and
Fernandez, M. I., ‘Triggered lightning testing of an airport runway lighting
system’, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2004,
46, (1), pp. 96–101.
[18] Rakov, V. A. and Uman, M. A., ‘Artificial initiation (triggering) of light-
ning by ground-based activity’, In Lightning: Physics and Effects
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003), Chapter 7, pp. 265–307.
[19] Rakov, V. A., Uman, M. A., Fernandez, M. I., et al., ‘Direct lightning
strikes to the lightning protective system of a residential building:
triggered-lightning experiments’, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
2002, 17, (2), pp. 575–586.
366 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[20] Rakov, V. A., ‘Rocket-triggered lightning experiments at Camp Blanding,

Florida’, In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Lightning
Protection (SIPDA), São Paulo, May 1999, pp. 375-–88.
[21] Barker, P. P., Short, T. A., Eybert-Berard, A. R., and Berlandis, J. P.,
‘Induced voltage measurements on an experimental distribution line during
nearby rocket triggered lightning flashes’, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, 1996, 11, (2), pp. 980–995.
[22] Rubinstein, M., Uman, M. A., Medelius, P. J., and Thomson, E. M.,
‘Measurements of the voltage induced on an overhead power line 20 m
from triggered lightning’, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 1994, 36, (2), pp. 134–140.
[23] Clement, M. and Michaud, J., ‘Overvoltages on the low voltage distribution
networks. Origins and characteristics. Consequences upon the construction
of Electricite de France networks’, In Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Electricity Distribution (CIRED), Birmingham, 1993,
pp. 2.16.1–2.16.6.
[24] Dommel, H. W., ‘Electromagnetic transients program reference manual’ In
EMTP Theory Book, (The University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
1986).
[25] Abetti, P. A., ‘Transformer models for the determination of transient vol-
tages’, AIEE Transactions, 1953, 72, (2), pp. 468–480.
[26] Sinclair, G., ‘Theory of models of electromagnetic systems’, Proceedings
of the I. R. E., 1948, 36, (11), pp. 1364–1370.
[27] Sebo, S. A., Devore, R. V., Caldecott, R., and Wuhan J. H., ‘Design and RF
operation of scale model of Dickinson + 400 kV HVDC converter station’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, 1985, PAS-104, (7),
pp. 1930–1936.
[28] Sebo, S. A., Caldecott, R., and Kasten, D. G., ‘Model study of HVDC
electric field effects’, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,
1982, 101, (6), pp. 1743–1756.
[29] Sebo, S. A., and Caldecott, R., ‘Scale model studies of AC substation
electric fields’, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, 1979,
PAS-98, (3), pp. 926–939.
[30] Consa, R. P., and René, J. G., ‘Air model for the study of electrostatic
induction by transmission lines’, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, 1968, PAS-87, (4), pp. 1002–1010.
[31] Garbagnati, E., and Lo Piparo, G. B., ‘Modelli geometrici per la determi-
nazione della risposta al fulmine di un sostegno di linea aerea’,
L’Eletrotecnica, 1970, 57, (8), pp. 439–448.
[32] Fisher, F. A., Anderson, J. G., and Hagenguth, J. H., ‘Determination of light-
ning response of transmission lines by means of geometrical models’, AIEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, 1960, 78, pp. 1725–1736.
[33] Johnson, I. B., and Schultz, A. J., ‘Analytical studies on lightning phe-
nomena involving towers, insulator strings, and transmission lines’, AIEE
Transactions, 1958, 76, pp. 1310–1314.
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 367

[34] Hagenguth, J. H. and Anderson, J. G., ‘Factors affecting the lightning

performance of transmission lines’, AIEE Transactions, 1958, 76,
pp. 1379–1392.
[35] Piantini, A., Janiszewski, J. M., Borghetti, A., Nucci, C. A., and Paolone,
M., ‘A scale model for the study of the LEMP response of complex power
distribution networks’, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 2007, 22,
(1), pp. 710–720.
[36] Piantini, A. and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘The effectiveness of surge arresters on
the mitigation of lightning induced voltages on distribution lines’, Journal
of Lightning Research, 2007, 2, pp. 34–52.
[37] Piantini, A. and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘Protection of distribution lines against
indirect lightning strokes through the use of surge arresters’, CIGRE Surge
Arrester Tutorial, Rio de Janeiro, April 2005.
[38] Piantini, A. and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘Lightning induced voltages on dis-
tribution transformers: the effects of line laterals and nearby buildings’, In
Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Lightning Protection
(SIPDA), Santos, November 2001, pp. 77–82.
[39] Piantini, A. and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘Lightning induced voltages on dis-
tribution lines close to buildings’, In Proceedings of the 25th International
Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), Rhodes, B, September 2000,
pp. 558–563.
[40] Nucci, C. A., Borghetti, A., Piantini, A., and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘Lightning-
induced voltages on distribution overhead lines: comparison between
experimental results from a reduced-scale model and most recent approa-
ches’, In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Lightning
Protection (ICLP), Birmingham, 1, September 1998, pp. 314–320.
[41] Piantini, A., ‘Lightning induced voltages on overhead rural and urban lines,
considering different protection alternatives – theoretical and experimental
modelling and calculation of the number of supply interruptions’ (in
Portuguese). PhD Thesis, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, University of
São Paulo, February 1997.
[42] Piantini, A. and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘Use of surge arresters for protection of
overhead lines against nearby lightning’, In Proceedings of the 10th
International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering (ISH), Montreal, 5,
August 1997, pp. 213–216.
[43] Paulino, J. O. S., Boaventura, W. C., and Lopes, I. J. S., ‘Lightning induced
voltage on distribution lines with shield wires: digital simulations and
reduced model measurements’, In Proceedings of the 9th International
Symposium on High Voltage Engineering (ISH), Graz, 1995, pp. 6718/1-4.
[44] Piantini, A. and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘Lightning induced voltages on over-
head lines: the effect of ground wires’, In Proceedings of the 22nd
International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), Budapest,
September 1994, pp. R3b/1-R3b/5.
[45] Piantini, A. and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘An experimental study of lightning
induced voltages by means of a scale model’, In Proceedings of the 21st
368 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), Berlin,

September 1992, pp. 195–199.
[46] Yokoyama, S., ‘Calculation of lightning-induced voltages on overhead
multiconductor systems’, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, 1984, 103, (1), pp. 100–108.
[47] Yokoyama, S., ‘Experimental analysis of earth wires for induced lightning
surges’, IEE Proceedings – C, 1980, 127, (1), pp. 33–40.
[48] Ishii, M., Michishita, K., and Hongo, Y., ‘Experimental study of lightning-
induced voltage on an overhead wire over lossy ground’, IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1999, 41, (1), pp. 39–45.
[49] Yamamoto, K., Noda, T., Yokoyama, S., and Ametani, A., ‘Experimental
and analytical studies of lightning overvoltages in wind turbine generation
systems’, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Power
Systems Transients (IPST), Lyon, June 2007.
[50] Yamamoto, K., Noda, T., Yokoyama, S., and Ametani, A., ‘An experi-
mental study of lightning overvoltages in wind turbine generation systems
using a reduced-size model’, Electrical Engineering in Japan, 2007, 158,
(4), pp. 22–30.
[51] Piantini, A. and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘Scale models and their application to
the study of lightning transients in power systems’, In V. Cooray (ed.),
Lightning Electromagnetics (The Institution of Engineering and
Technology, London, 2012), Chapter 19, pp. 719–764.
[52] Rakov, V. A., ‘Lightning parameters important for lightning protection’, In
Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Lightning Protection
(SIPDA), Santos, November 2001, pp. 393–412.
[53] Mach, D. M. and Rust, W. D., ‘Photoelectric return-stroke velocity and
peak current estimates in natural and triggered lightning’, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 1989, 94, pp. 13,237–47.
[54] Nucci, C. A., ‘Lightning induced voltages on overhead power lines. Part I:
return-stroke current models with specified channel-base current for the
evaluation of the return-stroke electromagnetic fields’, Electra, 1995,
(161), pp. 74–102.
[55] Thottappillil, R., Rakov, V. A., and Uman, M., ‘Distribution of charge
along the lightning channel: relation to remote electric and magnetic fields
and to return stroke models’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 1997, 102,
pp. 6887–7006.
[56] Rakov, V. a., and Uman, M. A., ‘Review and evaluation of lightning return
stroke models including some aspects of their applications’, IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1998, 40, (4), pp. 403–426.
[57] Gomes, C. and Cooray, V., ‘Concepts of lightning return stroke models’,
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2000, 42, (1),
pp. 82–96.
[58] Rakov, V. A., ‘Engineering models of the lightning return stroke’, In
Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Lightning Protection
(SIPDA), Curitiba, November 2003, pp. 511–530.
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 369

[59] Rachidi, F., Nucci, C. A., Ianoz, M., and Mazzetti, C., ‘Influence of a
lossy ground on lightning-induced voltages on overhead lines’,
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1996, 38, (3),
pp. 250–264.
[60] Cooray, V., ‘On the validity of several approximate theories used in
quantifying the propagation effects on lightning generated electromagnetic
fields’, In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Lightning
Protection (SIPDA), São Paulo, November 2005, pp. 112–119.
[61] Cooray, V., ‘Propagation effects due to finitely conducting ground on
lightning generated magnetic fields evaluated using Sommerfeld’s inte-
grals’, In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Lightning
Protection (SIPDA), Foz do Iguaçu, November 2007, pp. 151–150.
[62] Nucci, C. A., ‘Lightning-induced voltages on distribution systems: influ-
ence of ground resistivity and system topology’, In Proceedings of the
8th International Symposium on Lightning Protection (SIPDA), São Paulo,
November 2005, pp. 761–773.
[63] Nucci, C. A., Rachidi, F., Ianoz, M., and Mazzetti, C., ‘Lightning-induced
overvoltages on overhead lines’, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 1993, 35, (1), pp. 75–86.
[64] Romero, F. and Piantini, A., ‘Evaluation of lightning horizontal electric
fields over a finitely conducting ground’, In Proceedings of the 9th
International Symposium on Lightning Protection (SIPDA), Foz do Iguaçu,
November 2007, pp. 145–150.
[65] Barbosa, C. F. and Paulino, J. O. S., ‘An approximate time-domain formula
for the calculation of the horizontal electric field from lightning’,
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2007, 49, (3),
pp. 593–601.
[66] Shoory, A., Moini, R., Sadeghi, S. H. H., and Rakov, V. A., ‘Analysis of
lightning-radiated electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of lossy ground’,
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2005, 47, (1),
pp. 131–145.
[67] Nucci, C. A. and Rachidi, F., ‘Interaction of electromagnetic fields with
electrical networks generated by lightning’, In V. Cooray (ed.), The
Lightning Flash (IEE Power Engineering Series, London, 34, 2003),
Chapter 8, pp. 425–478.
[68] Ishii, M., Michishita, K., Hongo, Y., and Ogume, S., ‘Lightning-induced
voltage on an overhead wire dependent on ground conductivity’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 1994, 9, (1), pp. 109–118.
[69] Rachidi, F., Nucci, C. A., and Ianoz, M., ‘Transient analysis of multi-
conductor lines above a lossy ground’, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, 1999, 14, (1), pp. 294–302.
[70] Borghetti, A. and Nucci, C. A., ‘Frequency distribution of lightning-
induced voltages on an overhead line above a lossy ground’, In
Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Lightning Protection
(SIPDA), São Paulo, May 1999, pp. 229–233.
370 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[71] Hoidalen, H. K., Sletbak, J., and Henriksen, T., ‘Ground effects on induced
voltages from nearby lightning’, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 1997, pp. 269–278.
[72] Nucci, C. A. and Rachidi, F., ‘Lightning protection of medium voltage
lines’, In V. Cooray (ed.), Lightning Protection (IET Power and Energy
Series, London, 58, 2010), Chapter 13 pp. 635–680.
[73] Paolone, M., Nucci, C. A., Petrache, E., and Rachidi, F., ‘Mitigation of
lightning-induced overvoltages in medium voltage distribution lines by
means of periodical grounding of shielding wires and of surge arresters:
modeling and experimental validation’, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, 2004, 19, (1), pp. 423–431.
[74] Yokoyama, S., ‘Lightning protection of MV overhead distribution lines’, in
Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Lightning Protection
(SIPDA), São Paulo, Novemebr 2003, pp. 485–507.
[75] Nucci, C. A., (CIGRE WG C4.01). ‘Lightning-induced voltages on overhead
power lines. Part III: sensitivity analysis’, Elektra, October 2005, pp. 27–30.
[76] Piantini, A., ‘Lightning protection of low-voltage networks’, In V. Cooray
(ed.), Lightning Protection (IET Power and Energy Series, London, 58,
2010), Chapter 12, pp. 553–634.
[77] Lat, M. V. and Carr, J.: Application Guide for Surge Arresters on
Distribution Systems, (Canadian Electrical Association, Toronto, 1988).
[78] Yokoyama, S., ‘Distribution surge arrester behavior due to lightning
induced voltages’, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 1986, 1, (1),
pp. 171–178.
[79] Borghetti, A., Gutierrez, A., Nucci, C. A., Paolone, M., Petrache, E., and
Rachidi F., ‘Lightning-induced voltages on complex distribution systems:
models, advanced software tools and experimental validation’, Journal of
Electrostatics, 2004, 60, pp. 163–174.
[80] Nucci, C. A., Bardazzi, V., Iorio, R., Mansoldo, A., and Porrino, A., ‘A
code for the calculation of lightning-induced overvoltages and its interface
with the Electromagnetic Transient program’, In Proceedings of the 22nd
International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), Budapest,
September 1994, pp. 19–23.
[81] Borghetti, A., Napolitano, F., Nucci, C. A, and Paolone, M., ‘Effects of
nearby buildings on lightning induced voltages on overhead power dis-
tribution lines’, Electric Power Systems Research, 2013, 94, pp. 38–45.
[82] Tossani, F., Borghetti, A., Napolitano, F., Piantini, A., and Nucci, C. A.,
‘Lightning performance of overhead power distribution lines in urban
areas’, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 2018, 33, (2), pp. 581–588.
[83] Chisholm, W. A., Chow, Y. L., and Srivastava, K. D., ‘Lightning surge
response of transmission towers’, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, 1983, PAS-102, (9), pp. 3232–3242.
[84] Yamada, T., Mochizuki, A., Sawada, J., et al., ‘Experimental evaluation of
a UHV tower model for lightning surge analysis’, IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, 1995, 10, (1), pp. 393–402.
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 371

[85] Motoyama, H. and Matsubara, H., ‘Analytical and experimental study on

surge response of transmission tower’, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, 2000, 15, (2), pp. 812–819.
[86] Gutiérrez, J. A., Moreno, R. P, Naredo, J. L., et al., ‘Nonuniform trans-
mission tower model for lightning transient studies’, IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, 2004, 19, (2), pp. 490–496.
[87] Goni, O., Hossain, F., Yusuf, S.U., Rahman, M., Kaneko, E., and
Takahashi, H., ‘Simulation and experimental analyses of electromagnetic
transients behaviors of lightning surge on vertical conductors’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 2006, 21, (4), pp. 1778–1786.
[88] Takami, J., Tsuboi, T., Yamamoto, K., Okabe, S., and Baba, Y., ‘Lightning
surge characteristics on inclined incoming line to substation based on
reduced-scale model experiment’, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and
Electrical Insulation, 2013, 20, (3), pp. 739–746.
[89] Takami, J., Tsuboi, T., Yamamoto, K., Okabe, S., and Baba, Y., and
Ametani A., ‘Lightning surge response of a double-circuit transmission
tower with incoming lines to a substation through FDTD simulation’, IEEE
Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, 2014, 21, (1),
pp. 96–104.
[90] Agrawal, A. K., Price, H. J., and Gurbaxani, S. H., ‘Transient response of a
multiconductor transmission line excited by a nonuniform electromagnetic
field’, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1980, EMC-
22, (2), pp. 119–129.
[91] Chowdhuri, P., ‘Analysis of lightning-induced voltages on overhead lines’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 1989, 4, (1), pp. 479–492.
[92] Rusck, S., ‘Induced lightning over-voltages on power-transmission lines
with special reference to the over-voltage protection of low-voltage net-
works’, Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology, 1958, (120).
[93] Liew, A. C. and Mar, S. C., ‘Extension of the Chowdhuri–Gross model for
lightning induced voltage on overhead lines’, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, 1986, 1, (2), pp. 240–247.
[94] Andreotti, A., Pierno, A., and Rakov, V. A., ‘A new tool for calculation
of lightning-induced voltages in power systems—Part I: development of
circuit model’, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 2015, 30, (1),
pp. 326–333.
[95] Andreotti, A., Pierno, A., and Rakov, V. A., ‘A new tool for calculation of
lightning-induced voltages in power systems—Part II: validation study’,
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 2015, 30, (1), pp. 334–341.
[96] Piantini, A., and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘The influence of the upward leader on
lightning-induced voltages’, In Proceedings of the 23rd International
Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), Florence, September 1996,
pp. 352–357.
[97] Piantini, A. and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘Induced voltages on distribution lines
due to lightning discharges on nearby metallic structures’, IEEE
Transactions on Magnetics, 1998, 34, (5), pp. 2799–2802.
372 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[98] Hoidalen, H. K., ‘Analytical formulation of lightning-induced voltages on

multiconductor overhead lines above lossy ground’, IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2003, 45, (1), pp. 92–100.
[99] Piantini, A. and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘An improved model for lightning-
induced voltages calculations’, In Proceedings of the IEEE/PES
Transmission & Distribution Conference and Exposition, Latin America,
São Paulo, November 2004, pp. 554–559.
[100] Piantini, A., and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘The extended rusck model for calcu-
lating lightning induced voltages on overhead lines’, In Proceedings of the
7th International Symposium on Lightning Protection (SIPDA), Curitiba,
Novemebr 2003, pp. 151–155.
[101] Darveniza, M., ‘A practical extension of Rusck’s formula for maximum
lightning-induced voltages that accounts for ground resistivity’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 2007, 22, (1), pp. 605–612.
[102] Ren, H. M., Zhou, B. H., Rakov, V. A., Shi, L. H., Gao, C., and Yang, J. H.,
‘Analysis of lightning-induced voltages on overhead lines using a 2-D
FDTD method and Agrawal coupling model’, IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2008, 50, (3), pp. 651–659.
[103] Thang, T. H., Baba, Y., Rakov, V. A., and Piantini, A., ‘FDTD computation
of lightning-induced voltages on multiconductor lines with surge arresters
and pole transformers’, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 2015, 57, (3), pp. 442–447.
[104] Piantini, A., ‘Extension of the Rusck model for calculating lightning-
induced voltages on overhead lines considering the soil electrical para-
meters’, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2017, 59,
(1), pp. 154–162.
[105] Brignone, M., Mestriner, D., Procopio, R., Rossi, M., Piantini, A., and
Rachidi, F., ‘EM fields generated by a scale model helical antenna and its
use in validating a code for lightning-induced voltage calculation’,
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2019, 61, (3),
pp. 778–787.
[106] Baba, Y. and Rakov, V. A., ‘Voltages induced on an overhead wire by
lightning strikes to a nearby tall grounded object’, IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2006, 48, (1), pp. 212–224.
[107] Michishita, K. and Ishii, M., ‘Theoretical comparison of Agrawal’s and
Rusck’s field-to-line coupling models for calculation of lightning-induced
voltage on an overhead wire’, IEE Transactions of Japan, 1997, 117, (9),
pp. 1315–1316.
[108] Piantini, A., and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘Analysis of three different theories for
computation of induced voltages on distribution lines due to nearby light-
ning’, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electricity
Distribution, Buenos Aires, December 1996, pp. session 1/127–132.
[109] Nucci, C. A., ‘Lightning-induced voltages on overhead power lines. Part II:
coupling models for the evaluation of the induced voltages’, Electra, 1995,
(162), pp. 121–145.
 Scale models to the study of lightning transients 373

[110] Nucci, C. A., Rachidi, F., Ianoz, M., and Mazzetti, C., ‘Comparison of two
coupling models for lightning-induced overvoltage calculations’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 1995, 10, (1), pp. 330–339.
[111] Cooray, V., ‘Calculating lightning-induced overvoltages in power lines: a
comparison of two coupling models’, IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1994, 36, (3), pp. 179–182.
[112] Uman, M. A. and Mclain, D. K., ‘Magnetic field of the lightning return
stroke’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 1969, 74, pp. 6899–6910.
[113] Piantini A. and Janiszewski, J. M., ‘Lightning-induced voltages on over-
head lines – application of the extended Rusck Model’, IEEE Transactions
on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2009, 51, (3), pp. 548–558.
[114] Paolone, M., Rachidi, F., Borghetti, A., et al., ‘Lightning electromagnetic
field coupling to overhead lines: theory, numerical simulations and
experimental validation’, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 2009, 51, (3), pp. 532–547.
[115] Piantini, A., Janiszewski, J. M., and Braz, C. P., ‘Utilization of reduced
models for the analysis of lightning induced overvoltages on overhead
lines’, In Proceedings of the International Conference on High Voltage
Engineering and Application, New Orleans, October 2010.
[116] Thang, T. H., Baba, Y., Piantini, A., and Rakov, V. A., ‘Lightning-induced
voltages in the presence of nearby buildings: FDTD simulation versus
small-scale experiment’, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 2015, 57, (6), pp. 1601–1607.
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 10
Lightning interaction with the ionosphere
Dongshuai Li1, Alejandro Luque1, Marcos Rubinstein2
and Farhad Rachidi3

10.1 Introduction

Lightning discharges, including cloud-to-ground (CG) and intracloud (IC) light-

ning, are known to emit electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) in a wide frequency band
ranging from few Hz up to hundreds MHz [1]. During the breakdown and ioniza-
tion processes (mostly from leader processes and streamers), there are strong
emissions in the HF (3–30 MHz) and VHF (30–300 MHz) bands. When high cur-
rents occur in previously ionized channels (mostly from return strokes and the
active stage of cloud flashes), the most powerful emissions concentrate in the very
low frequency (3–30 kHz, VLF) and low frequency (30–300 kHz, LF) bands [2].
Among them, the VLF/LF waves of lightning discharges can propagate long dis-
tances with low attenuation by reflection between the ground surface and the lower
D-region ionosphere (60–90 km), namely the so-called earth-ionosphere waveguide
(EIWG).
In order to investigate the lightning EMPs interaction with the ionosphere, a
number of models and methods have been developed in the literature, such as the
wave-hop (ray theory) method [3–6], the waveguide mode theory [7–9], or
numerical methods such as the finite-difference-time-domain (FDTD) method
[10–17] and the full-wave finite element method (FEM) [18,19]. Previous studies
indicate that the amplitude and phase perturbation for lightning VLF/LF signals
have a complicated relationship with the ionospheric D region parameters. The
propagation of lightning EMPs between the earth ground surface and the lower D
region ionosphere can be affected by many factors, such as the propagation dis-
tances [10,14,20], the ground conductivity [14,20], the electron and neutral particle
densities [13,21,22], the Earth curvature [23,24], the presence of the Earth’s mag-
netic field [22,25–27], and the presence of mountainous terrain [24].

1
Instituto de Astrofı́sica de Andalucı́a (IAA), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientı́ficas (CSIC),
Spain
2
School of Engineering and Management Vaud, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts
Western Switzerland
3
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland
376 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

In this chapter, we will first introduce the propagation theory of lightning

EMPs interaction with the ionosphere on the basis of the full-wave FDTD method.
We will then investigate the propagation effect of lightning radiated electro-
magnetic (EM) fields in the EIWG by considering the effect of the Earth curvature,
the effect of the ground conductivity, and the effect of different ionospheric pro-
files. Finally, we will present applications, including (1) propagation of narrow
bipolar events (NBEs) at different distances, (2) lightning electromagnetic fields
propagation over mountainous terrain, and (3) the optical emissions of lightning-
induced transient luminous events in the nonlinear D-region ionosphere.

10.2 The full-wave FDTD model of lightning EMPs

interaction with the D-region ionosphere
10.2.1 The parameterization of the lower D-region
ionosphere
The first time domain model of lightning electromagnetic wave propagation cou-
pled with the lower ionosphere was introduced in the 1990s [28–30]. Thenceforth,
numerical models based on the FDTD method have been gradually developed and
they have been widely used to analyze the lightning-ionosphere interactions in the
past 30 years [31]. In this chapter, we adopt the FDTD model with the ionospheric
characteristics as suggested by [13] to consider three fundamental equations: the
two Maxwell’s curl equations and a modified Ohm equation (sometimes called
Langevin equation). In the simulation, we only consider the electrons to be mobile
since the mass of ions is much smaller than that of electrons, but they could be
added to (10.3) according to [13]. The system of equations is shown below:
!
@E ! ! !
e0 ¼ r  H  J e  J s; (10.1)
@t
!
@H !
m0 ¼ r  E; (10.2)
@t
!
@J e ! ! ! !
þ nen J e ¼ w c;e  J e þ w2p;e e0 E; (10.3)
@t
! !
where J s is the current density of the !source; !J e is the self-consistent conduction
current driven by the electric field; w c;e ¼ eB 0 =m!e is the gyrofrequency
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi vector
associated with the Earth’s magnetic field vector B 0 ; wp;e ¼ e2 Ne =me e0 is the
plasma frequency; e0 is the free-space permittivity; nen is the collision frequency
between electrons and the neutral air; e, me , and Ne are the charge, mass, and
number density of electrons, respectively.
The lower D-region ionosphere extending from 60 km to 90 km is a partly
ionized gas or plasma, made of free electrons, free ions, and neutral molecules.
VLF/LF waves generated by lightning can reflect between the ground surface and
the lower D-region ionosphere with low attenuation, thus propagating over
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 377

thousands of kilometers [31]. The main parameters shown in (10.3) that char-
acterize the propagation of the lightning EM fields in the lower D-region iono-
sphere are the electron number density
!
Ne , the electron-neutral collision frequency
nen , and the Earth’s magnetic field B 0 , which strongly depends on the solar activity,
and that varies with the time and the geographic latitude [32].
There are several different approaches in the literature to obtain the electric
number density Ne and the electron-neutral collision frequency nen of the iono-
sphere. The simplest way is to use the following empirical formulation proposed in
[33]. According to [33], the profile of the electron number density in the undis-
turbed lower ionosphere can be approximately described by an exponential func-
tion of height based on a number of independent experimental approaches.
The exponential profile of electron number density Ne is:

Ne ¼ n0 ebðzHref Þ ; (10.4)
where b is the steepness of the profile and n0 ¼ 3  107 m3 is the electron density
where most VLF energy is reflected at the effective reflected height Href .
Figure 10.1(a) gives the electron number density Ne based on the exponential
profile (Href ¼ 83 km; b ¼ 0:35 km1 ) given by [33] with a comparison of this
profile with others in the literature. It can be seen that the exponential profile of
electron number density proposed by [33] gives a reasonable approximation for the

90 90
Wait and Spies [1964] profile (used here)

85 85

80 80

75 75
Altitude (km)
Altitude (km)

70 70

65 65

60 60
IRI lonosphere
Wait and Spies [1964] profile (used here)
55 Pasko et al. [1997] profile 1 55
Pasko et al. [1997] profile 2
Pasko et al. [1997] profile 3
Hu et al. [2007]
50 50
104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 105 106 107 108
Electron number density (m–3) Electron-neutral collision frequency (s–1)
(a) ( b)

Figure 10.1 (a) Electron number density based on the exponential profile given
by [33] with a comparison of this profile with others in the literature:
International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) 2007 model [34]; Pasko
et al. [35], Hu et al. [36], and (b) The exponential profile of the
electron-neutral collision frequency proposed by [33]
378 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

electron density profile below 90 km compared to the International Reference

Ionosphere (IRI) model [34].
The exponential profile of the electron-neutral collision frequency nen is:

nen ¼ n0 ebz ; (10.5)

where b ¼ 0:15 km1 is the steepness of the profile and n0 ¼ 1:816  1011 s1 is a
constant. The exponential profile of the electron-neutral collision frequency is shown
in Figure 10.1(b).
Note that the oversimplified formulations of (10.4) and (10.5) are only valid
for regions below 90 km. In general, in a weakly ionized collisional medium such
as lower D-region ionosphere, both the electron mobility and electron number
density depend nonlinearly on the local electric field. A more accurate model
including the nonlinear characteristics in the lower D-region ionosphere will be
discussed in Section 10.6.

10.2.2 3D spherical model

In this section, we will introduce a three-dimensional (3D) spherical FDTD model
to quantify the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field in the lower ionosphere and to
investigate the propagation of the EM pulse of the lightning source at any position
with any inclination in the EIWG. The grid of the 3D spherical !
FDTD model is
shown in Figure 10.2. The components of the current density J are located at the
center of the Yee cube [37].
In Figure 10.2, Dr , Dq , and Df are the spatial steps in the directions r, q, and f
of 3D spherical coordinate, respectively. RE is the Earth’s radius. The field

θ
Er
Eφ
Eφ
Hθ
Er
RE Hr Eθ
r Eθ Jr
Earth Hφ Jφ
Jθ
Eθ Eθ Er

φ Eφ Eφ
Er

Figure 10.2 The grid of the 3D spherical FDTD model (left panel) and a unit cell
(right panel)
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 379

components in 3D spherical coordinates are expressed as:

! ! ! !
E ¼ Er r þ Eq q þ Ef f; (10.6)
! ! ! !
H ¼ Hr r þ Hq q þ Hf f; (10.7)
! ! ! !
J ¼ Jr r þ Jq q þ Jf f: (10.8)
Using (10.6)–(10.8) in (10.1) and (10.2), the updating equations in 3D spherical
coordinate for the three electric field components (Er , Eq , Ef ) and the three magnetic
field components (Hr , Hq , Hf ) can be obtained by using the central-difference
approximation to the space and time partial derivatives [16,38,39]. The field updating
equations for the three electric field components (Er , Eq , Ef ) are given as follows:
nþ1
Er jiþ1=2;j;k ¼ Ca Er jniþ1=2;j;k

" nþ1=2 nþ1=2

sin qjþ1=2 Hf jiþ1=2;jþ1=2;k  sin qj1=2 Hf jiþ1=2;j1=2;k
þ Cb
riþ1=2 sin qj Dq

nþ1=2 nþ1=2 #
Hq jiþ1=2;j;kþ1=2  Hq jiþ1=2;j;k1=2 nþ1=2 nþ1=2
ðJr jiþ1;j;k þ Jr ji;j;k Þ
  Cb ;
riþ1=2 sin qj Df 2
(10.9)
nþ1
Eq ji;jþ1=2;k ¼ Ca Eq jni;jþ1=2;k
" nþ1=2 nþ1=2
Hr ji;jþ1=2;kþ1=2  Hr ji;jþ1=2;k1=2
þCb
ri sin qjþ1=2 Df
nþ1=2 nþ1=2 #
riþ1=2 Hf jiþ1=2;jþ1=2;k  ri1=2 Hf ji1=2;jþ1=2;k

ri Dr
nþ1=2 nþ1=2
ðJq ji;jþ1;k þ Jq ji;j;k Þ
Cb ; (10.10)
2
nþ1
Ef ji;j;kþ1=2 ¼ Ca Ef jni;j;kþ1=2
" nþ1=2 nþ1=2
riþ1=2 Hq jiþ1=2;j;kþ1=2  ri1=2 Hq ji1=2;j;kþ1=2
þCb
ri Dr
nþ1=2 nþ1=2 #
Hr ji;jþ1=2;kþ1=2  Hr ji;j1=2;kþ1=2

ri Dq
nþ1=2 nþ1=2
ðJf ji;j;kþ1 þ Jf ji;j;k Þ
Cb ; (10.11)
2
380 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

where the coefficients at the general E-field component location ði; j; kÞ are:
2ei;j;k  si;j;k Dt
Ca ji;j;k ¼ ; (10.12)
2ei;j;k þ si;j;k Dt
2Dt
Cb ji;j;k ¼ ; (10.13)
2ei;j;k þ si;j;k Dt
s and e ¼ e0 er are the electric conductivity and the permittivity of the medium at
the location ði; j; kÞ, where e0 is the free-space permittivity and er is the relative
permittivity.
The field updating equations for the three magnetic field components (Hr , Hq ,
Hf ) are given as follows:
nþ1=2 n1=2
Hr ji;jþ1=2;kþ1=2 ¼ Da Hr ji;jþ1=2;kþ1=2
"
Eq jni;jþ1=2;kþ1  Eq jni;jþ1=2;k
þDb
ri sin qjþ1=2 Df

sin qjþ1 Ef jni;jþ1;kþ1=2  sin qj Ef jni;j;kþ1=2

 ; (10.14)
ri sin qjþ1=2 Dq
nþ1=2 n1=2
Hq jiþ1=2;j;kþ1=2 ¼ Da Hq jiþ1=2;j;kþ1=2
" #
riþ1 Ef jniþ1;j;kþ1=2  ri Ef jni;j;kþ1=2 Er jniþ1=2;j;kþ1  Er jniþ1=2;j;k
þ Db  ;
riþ1=2 Dr riþ1=2 sin qj Df
(10.15)
nþ1=2 n1=2
Hf jiþ1=2;jþ1=2;k ¼ Da Hf jiþ1=2;jþ1=2;k
" n #
Er jiþ1=2;jþ1;k  Er jniþ1=2;j;k riþ1 Eq jniþ1;jþ1=2;k  ri Eq jni;jþ1=2;k
þ Db  ;
riþ1=2 Dq riþ1=2 Dr
(10.16)
where the coefficients at the general H-field component location ði; j; kÞ are:
2mi;j;k  si;j;k Dt
Da ji;j;k ¼ ; (10.17)
2mi;j;k þ si;j;k Dt

2Dt
Db ji;j;k ¼ ; (10.18)
2mi;j;k þ si;j;k Dt

s is the magnetic conductivity and m ¼ m0 mr is the permeability, where m0 is the

free-space permeability and mr is the relative permeability.
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 381

In spherical coordinates, we have a singularity at q ¼ 0 and q ¼ p corre-

sponding to the north pole and south pole of the sphere. The corrected updating
equations for the Er component at q ¼ 0 ( j ¼ 1 at the north pole) and q ¼ p ( j ¼ Nq
at the south pole, Nq is the number of grid points in q direction) can be obtained by
applying the Ampère’s law contour integral around a small contour C enclosing the
z-axis [16,39]:
nþ1
Er jiþ1=2;j¼1;k ¼ Er jniþ1=2;j¼1;k
Dt sin q1=2 XNf
nþ1=2 (10.19)
þ Hf jiþ1=2;j¼1;k Df ;
2pe0 riþ1=2 ð1  cos q1=2 Þ k¼1
nþ1
Er jiþ1=2;j¼Nq ;k
¼ Er jniþ1=2;j¼Nq ;k
Dt sin qNq 1=2 XNf
nþ1=2
þ Hf jiþ1=2;j¼Nq ;k Df ;
2pe0 riþ1=2 ð1 þ cos qNq 1=2 Þ k¼1
(10.20)
where q1=2 ¼ Dq =2 and qNq 1=2 ¼ p  Dq =2.

10.2.3 2D symmetric polar model

For many application problems, it is possible to save computational cost with
sufficient accuracy using a two-dimensional (2D) symmetric polar FDTD model
instead of the 3D model by solving the above-mentioned (10.1)–(10.3). However,
due to the 2D symmetrical conditions in the FDTD model, the effect of the Earth’s
magnetic field needs to be neglected. According to [13,40], the propagation of the
lightning electromagnetic field in the lower ionosphere is mainly determined by the
interaction of electrons and neutrals; the Earth’s magnetic field can be neglected
when the electron-neutral collision frequency is much higher than the electron
gyrofrequency (more detailed analysis on the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field
can be found in Section 10.3.3.3). With this approximation, (10.3) reduces to:
!
@J e ! !
þ nen J e ¼ w2p;e e0 E; (10.21)
@t

Figure 10.3 further shows the grid of the 2D symmetric polar FDTD model,
where the axis of symmetry is located at the edge of i ¼ 1. The field components in
2D polar coordinates are given by:
! ! !
E ¼ Er r þ Eq q; (10.22)
! !
H ¼ Hf f; (10.23)
! ! !
J ¼ Jr r þ Jq q: (10.24)
As shown in Figure 10.3, Dr and Dq are the spatial step in the direction r and q
of 2D polar coordinates, respectively. RE is the radius of the Earth. The update
382 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

i=1
r Axis of symmetry

(i, j+1)
∆r
Er
Eθ
J
r
Hφ
J
θ
θ (i, j)
Earth (i+1, j+1)
Eθ

Er
RE
(i+1, j)
∆θ

Figure 10.3 The grid of the 2D symmetric polar FDTD model (left panel) and a
unit cell (right panel). The axis of symmetry is located at the edge of
i¼1

equations of the Eq , Er , and Hf components are as follows [16,41]:

nþ1
Eq jiþ1=2;j ¼ Ca Eq jniþ1=2;j
" nþ1=2 nþ1=2 #
rjþ1=2 Hf jiþ1=2;jþ1=2  rj1=2 Hf jiþ1=2;j1=2
 Cb
rj Dr (10.25)
nþ1=2 nþ1=2
ðJq jiþ1;j þ Jq ji;j Þ
 Cb ;
2
nþ1
Er ji;jþ1=2 ¼ Ca Er jni;jþ1=2
" nþ1=2 nþ1=2 #
sin qiþ1=2 Hf jiþ1=2;jþ1=2  sin qi1=2 Hf ji1=2;jþ1=2
þ Cb
rjþ1=2 sin qi Dq
nþ1=2 nþ1=2
ðJr ji;jþ1 þ Jr ji;j Þ
 Cb ;
2
(10.26)
nþ1=2 n1=2
Hf jiþ1=2;jþ1=2 ¼ Da Hf jiþ1=2;jþ1=2
" n #
Er jiþ1;jþ1=2  Er jni;jþ1=2 rjþ1 Eq jniþ1=2;jþ1  rj Eq jniþ1=2;j
þDb  :
rjþ1=2 Dq rjþ1=2 Dr
(10.27)
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 383

i=1

Axis of symmetry

S = R02

Hφ R0
Er
Hφ θ

C = 2R0

Figure 10.4 Update Er on the z-axis by applying Ampère’s law. The marked blue
surface enclosed by the curve C with a radius R0 and area S

In order to deal with the singularity problem at i ¼ 1 for 2D symmetric polar

coordinates, we consider Ampère’s law enclosed by the curve C with the area S
(see Figure 10.4):
Þ !
ð !

H dl ¼ e0 @@tE ds (10.28)
C S

Applying (10.28) to the field Hf j1þ1=2;jþ1=2 by assuming that Hf does not vary
along a small circle around the z-axis with radius R0 ¼ ðrjþ1=2 Dq Þ=2, we obtain:
!
!
H f j1þ1=2;jþ1=2 ð2pR0 Þ ¼ e0 @@tE r j1;jþ1=2 ðpR20 Þ
nþ1=2 nþ1=2
(10.29)

As shown in Figure 10.4, to update Er at the axis of symmetry, we integrate Hf

along the curve C in a small circle at R0 ¼ ðrjþ1=2 Dq Þ=2 in the f direction:

nþ1 4Dt nþ1=2

Er j1;jþ1=2 ¼ Er jn1;jþ1=2 þ Hf j1þ1=2;jþ1=2 (10.30)
e0 ðrjþ1=2 Dq Þ
384 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

10.3 VLF/LF signal of lightning EM fields propagation

through the EIWG

Previous studies indicate that the amplitude and phase perturbation for VLF/LF
signals of lightning EM fields in the EIWG have a complicated relationship with
many parameters. In the following sections, with the help of the FDTD models
proposed in Section 10.2, we will analyze how different factors affect the lightning
EM fields propagation through the Earth-ionosphere waveguide, including the
Earth’s curvature, the presence of the ground conductivity, the different iono-
spheric profiles in D-region ionosphere and the presence of the Earth’s
magnetic field.

10.3.1 The effect of Earth’s curvature

In order to analyze the effect of the Earth’s curvature on the lightning EM fields
propagation through the Earth-ionosphere waveguide, we compared the results
including the Earth’s curved surface to a simple flat ground surface. In the litera-
ture, the effect of the Earth curvature has been studied either using correction
algorithms [12], using full-wave ray theory over a spherical earth [3–6] or using a
stair-case approximation of the curved surface of the Earth [23]. In this section, to
provide a more accurate boundary approximation, the 2D polar coordinate model
presented in Section 10.2.3was adopted, while for the purpose of comparison, a 2D
cylindrical coordinate model [42,43] was also used to represent the case of the flat
ground surface.
In the simulation, the lightning channel is assumed to be straight and vertical
above the ground with a height of H ¼ 8 km. The lightning return stroke is spe-
cified according to the modified transmission-line model with exponential current
decay (MTLE) with l ¼ 2 km describing the current decay with height [44,45]. In
the MTLE model, the temporal and spatial variation of the return stroke current
Iðz; tÞ is given by Iðz; tÞ ¼ Ið0;t  z=vÞexpðz=lÞ, t  z=v, where Ið0;tÞ is the
channel-base current, v ¼ 1:5  108 m=s is the return stroke speed and the channel
extends along the z-axis from z ¼ 0 to z ¼ H. The lightning current used in the
numerical calculation is given by following the bi-Gaussian function:

I0 t2 =t1 2 t2 =t2 2

IðtÞ ¼ ðe e Þ; (10.31)
h

where the peak current is I0 , the rise time is determined by t1 and the fall time is
determined by t2 , and h ¼ ðt21 =t22  1Þðt21 =t22 Þt1 =ðt1 t2 Þ is the amplitude correction
2 2 2

factor. Normalized lightning currents and their frequency spectrum are presented in
Figure 10.5 with the parameters I0 ¼ 1 (normalized with respect to the maximum
amplitude values), t1 ¼ 10 ms  50 ms, t2 ¼ 60 ms  100 ms chosen in the range
given by [13,46]. It can be seen that the currents with shorter rise time t1 contains
more high-frequency components. In contrast, longer fall time t2 includes more
low-frequency components.
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 385

1
W μs, τ2= 100 μs
different W, τ2= 100 μs
0.9
W μs, different τ2
Normalized current with respective to the maximum

0.8 50μs
40μs
0.7 30μs
20μs
0.6

0.5
90μs
80μs
0.4
70μs
0.3
60μs
0.2

0.1

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
(a) Time (μs)

100
W μs, τ2= 100 μs
different W, τ2= 100 μs
80
W μs, different τ2

60
Normalized current Spectrum (dB)

40

20

–20

–40

–60

–80

–100
10–3 10–2 10–1 100
(b) Frequency (MHz)

Figure 10.5 The lightning current waveforms and their frequency spectrums
386 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

For the ionosphere medium, we consider the electron number density Ne and the
electron-neutral collision frequency nen by following the typical exponential profiles
proposed in [33] (see (10.4) and (10.5) in Section 10.2.1 for details). The channel-
base current is based on (10.31) with I0 ¼ 30 kA, t1 ¼ 10 ms and t2 ¼ 100 ms (see
the green line in Figure 10.5). Note that the lightning channel-base current mentioned
here will be used throughout this chapter unless specifically stated.
The electric fields over a perfectly conducting ground calculated at distances
ranging from 100 km to 800 km are shown in Figure 10.6. It can be seen in the
figure that the lightning electric field waveforms in the EIWG contain a first peak
that originates from the lightning source current, known as the groudwave (marked
as “G” in Figure 10.6), followed by subsequent peaks due to the reflections from
the ionosphere, known as the reflected sky waves (marked as “S” in Figure 10.6).
As expected, when the distances increases, the reflected skywaves occur earlier in
time with respect to the groundwaves.
It can be seen in Figure 10.6 that both the amplitudes and time delays of the
groundwaves and skywaves can be affected by the presence of the Earth curvature.
Errors due to neglecting the Earth’s curvature at distances of 300 km or less can be
neglected. However, the effect of the Earth curvature becomes more significant as
the observation distances increases.

10.3.2 The effect of the ground conductivity

In this section, we will investigate the effect of the ground conductivity on the
propagation of lightning EM fields through the EIWG. To simplify the problem, we
assumed the ground to be homogeneous in the calculation. However, in reality, the
ground might be inhomogeneous, anisotropic and more complex with frequency-
dependent ground electrical parameters (ground conductivity and ground permit-
tivity) along the propagation path [47]. In Figure 10.7, by applying the same 2D
symmetric polar FDTD model used in Section 10.2.3, the lightning electric fields at
different distances ranging from 200 km to 800 km were evaluated by considering
two different values of the ground conductivity, namely 0:01 S=m and 0:001 S=m.
For comparison, the results obtained assuming a perfectly conducting ground
(sg ¼ 1 ) were also shown. Note that the relative permittivity was set to erg ¼ 10
for both cases.
It is noted that, for both the groundwaves and skywaves, the finite ground
conductivity mainly attenuates the high-frequency components of lightning EMPs
and affects essentially the early time response of the fields by attenuating their peak
and increasing their risetime. The effect of the ground conductivity is found to be
stronger as the observation distance increases and as the values of the ground
conductivity decrease. Note that the effect of the ground conductivity becomes
more significant when the lightning source contains more high-frequency compo-
nents, such as the propagation of narrow bipolar events (NBEs) (see Section 10.4
for further discussion). The propagation effects of the ground may enhance or
attenuate the fields due to the ground geometry and the electrical characteristics of
the propagation path. More details on complex cases of lossy ground, such as a
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 387

without earth curvature without earth curvature

4 with earth curvature with earth curvature

d = 100 km
2 d = 200 km

G
E field (V/m)

E field (V/m)
G
2
S

S 0
0

–2 –2
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
(a) Time (μs) (b) Time (μs)

without earth curvature without earth curvature

with earth curvature with earth curvature

1 G d = 300 km
1 d = 400 km
G

E field (V/m)
E field (V/m)

S S

0 0

–1 –1
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
(c) Time (μs) (d) Time (μs)

without earth curvature without earth curvature

with earth curvature with earth curvature
1 d = 500 km 1 d = 600 km

G G
E field (V/m)
E field (V/m)

0 0

–1 –1
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
(e) Time (μs) (f ) Time (μs)

1.0 1.0
without earth curvature without earth curvature
with earth curvature with earth curvature
d = 800 km
0.5 G d = 700 km 0.5 G
E field (V/m)
E field (V/m)

0.0 0.0

S S
0.5 0.5

–1.0 –1.0
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
(g) Time (μs) (h) Time (μs)

Figure 10.6 The effect of the Earth curvature on the lightning electric fields over
a perfectly conducting ground at distances ranging from 100 km to
800 km
388 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

2
d = 200 km (σg = v
d = 400 km (σg = v
d = 600 km (σg = v
d = 800 km (σg = v
d = 200 km (σg = S/m
d = 400 km (σg = S/m
d = 600 km (σg = S/m
d = 800 km (σg = S/m
1
E field ( V/m)

–1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(a) Time (μs)

2
d = 200 km (σg = v
d = 400 km (σg = v
d = 600 km (σg = v
d = 800 km (σg = v
d = 200 km (σg = S/m
d = 400 km (σg = S/m
d = 600 km (σg = S/m
d = 800 km (σg = S/m
1
E field ( V/m)

–1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(b) Time (μs)

Figure 10.7 The effect of the ground conductivity on the lightning electric fields at
distances ranging from 200 km to 800 km with ground conductivity
(a) 0:01 S=m and (b) 0:001 S=m. The relative permittivity was set to
erg ¼ 10 for both cases

horizontally-layered ground and a mixed ocean–land propagation path can be found

in [48–52] and the references quoted there. The propagation effect of lightning EM
fields over mountainous terrain can be found in Section 10.5.
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 389

10.3.3 The effect of different D-region ionospheric profiles

The lower D-region ionosphere is usually considered to be a magnetized, aniso-
tropic, collisional, and vertically stratified cold plasma. It could change from day to
night at different locations even during a magnetically quite periods due to the
ionization of solar and cosmic rays [33,53]. In recent years, different profiles of
electron number density in D-region ionosphere have been proposed in the litera-
ture, which can give a reasonable approximation for the electron number density
below 90 km altitude compared to the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI)
model [34] (see Figure 10.1(b)). Some of them have been widely used in many
VLF remote sensing studies to infer the ionospheric parameters, and have been
found to give good agreement between observed and calculated D-region iono-
sphere characteristics [9,25,54–56]. In this section, we will investigate lightning
VLF/LF wave propagation through different ionospheric profiles in the Earth-
ionosphere waveguide, including the typical daytime/nighttime profiles, the profile
consisting of different slopes and ionospheric heights, and the effect of the Earth’s
magnetic field.

10.3.3.1 The typical daytime/nighttime ionospheric profiles

Previous studies indicate that the reference height of the ionosphere varies in the
range of about 60–90 km as a function of local time [57]. The difference between
daytime and nighttime ionospheric model is mainly due to the solar radiation.
During nighttime, the ionosphere is much less charged and higher in altitude than at
daytime, because the D region chemistry reactions are enhanced by solar radiation
during the daytime. In the calculations presented in this section, we assumed the
electron number density in D-region ionosphere by following the typical daytime/
nighttime profiles proposed by [36,58,59]:
0 0
Ne ¼ 1:43  1013 e0:15h eðb0:15Þðhh Þ ; (10.32)
where the steepness b and the ionospheric reflection height h0 were inferred from
the typical daytime and nighttime electron number density profiles in the IRI model
[34]. In accordance with [5,14], for nighttime conditions, we adopted b ¼ 0:8 km1
and h0 ¼ 84 km, while for daytime conditions, b ¼ 0:3 km1 and h0 ¼ 70 km were
adopted. Figure 10.8 gives the adopted nighttime and daytime electron number
density profiles based on (10.32). It is found that the electron density at the same
altitude is higher in daytime than at night. In contrast, the ionospheric reflection
height in nighttime is higher than in daytime. This is due to the solar radiation,
which increases the total ionization in the D-region ionosphere during the daytime
resulting in a higher absorbing rate than in nighttime [11,57].
In order to investigate the propagation of lightning VLF/LF waves under the
daytime/nighttime ionospheric profiles, we calculated the lightning electric fields
at distances ranging from 200 km to 800 km over a perfectly conducting ground
by considering the ionosphere under free space, daytime and nighttime
conditions. Note that the adopted parameters in this section are based on the 2D
symmetric polar FDTD model using the same configuration in Section 10.3.1.
390 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

90
Daytime ionospheric profile
Nighttime ionospheric profile
85

80

75
Altitude (km)

70

65

60

55

50
104 105 106 107 108 109 1010
Electron number density (m–3)

Figure 10.8 The daytime and nighttime electron number density profiles in the
D-region ionosphere for the simulation

The channel-base current is based on (10.31) with I0 ¼ 30 kA, t1 ¼ 10 ms and

t2 ¼ 100 ms. As in Section 10.3.1, the lightning channel length was set to H ¼ 8 km
and the return stroke speed to n ¼ 1:5  108 m=s. Figure 10.9 shows the lightning
electric fields at distances ranging from 200 km to 800 km under free space, daytime,
and nighttime ionospheric conditions. The groundwave, the first and second reflected
skywaves are identified and marked as “G”, “1S,” and “2S” in the figures.
It is shown that, compared with the case of free space, the waveform of the
lightning electric fields at different distances can be strongly affected by the pre-
sence of the ionospheric electron density profiles. As the distances increases, the
ionospheric reflections for both daytime and nighttime profiles occur earlier in time
with respect to the groundwaves. At distance greater than 600 km, it becomes
difficult to distinguish the groudwave and the first reflected skywaves since both
waveforms start to overlap. Previous studies indicate that the lower D-region
ionosphere exhibits a strong low-pass behavior and a significant absorbing effect
on high frequency components of lightning EMPs [5]. At a fixed distance, the
reflected skywave during the daytime arrive earlier than that during nighttime,
since the ionosphere at nighttime has a relatively higher reflection height. It can be
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 391

2
Free space
Daytime profile
Perfectly conducting ground Nighttime profile
G
E field ( V/m) d = 200 km
1

1S
2S
0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

(a) Time (μs)
1.0
Free space
Perfectly conducting ground Daytime profile
Nighttime profile
G
0.5
d = 400 km
E field ( V/m)

2S

0.0

1S
–0.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

(b) Time (μs)

0.6
Free space
Perfectly conducting ground Daytime profile
0.4 G Nighttime profile

0.2
E field ( V/m)

d = 600 km

0.0

–0.2
1S
2S
–0.4

–0.6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
(c) Time (μs)

0.4 Free space

Perfectly conducting ground Daytime profile
G Nighttime profile
0.2
d = 800 km
E field ( V/m)

0.0

–0.2
1S
2S
–0.4

–0.6

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

(d) Time (μs)

Figure 10.9 Comparison of the lightning electric fields for free space, daytime,
and nighttime ionospheric profiles at distances ranging from 200 km
to 800 km
392 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

further noticed that the waveform of the reflected skywaves in the nighttime is
sharper than in the daytime, because the ionosphere in the nighttime has a relatively
higher reflection rate at high frequencies than in the daytime.

10.3.3.2 The ionospheric profiles consisting of different slopes

and ionospheric reflection heights
In this section, the effect of the electron number density profiles consisting of
different slopes and ionospheric reflection heights will be discussed. The electron
number density Ne and the electron-neutral collision rate nen are based on (10.32)
and (10.5), respectively. The other adopted parameters in this section are based on
the same configuration in Section 10.3.1. A comparison of lightning electric fields
over a perfectly conducting ground at a distance of 300 km is given by Figure 10.10
with different ionosphere electron number density profiles for the steepness b
varied from 0:3 km1 to 0:9 km1 and ionospheric reflection heights h0 ranging
from 60 km to 80 km.
It can be seen from Figure 10.10 that the ionosphere electron number density
profiles only affect the skywave parts. As shown in Figure 10.10(a,c,e), the
waveforms of the reflected skywaves become sharper as the value of the steepness
b increases. From Figure 10.10(b,d,e), it is noted that the ionospheric reflection
height h0 mainly affects the arrival time of the skywaves. A higher reflection height
will result in a longer time delay between the reflected skywaves and the
groundwaves.

10.3.3.3 The effect of the Earth’s magnetic field

The Earth’s magnetic field, also known as the geomagnetic field, is generated by
electric currents due to the motion of convection currents of a mixture of molten
liquid iron and nickel in the Earth’s outer core. Previous studies indicate that the
Earth’s magnetic field can cause significant magnetic-azimuth variations of the
lower ionosphere’s reflection for 2150 kHz radio waves emitted by lightning
[27]. In this section, based on the 3D spherical FDTD model proposed in
Section 10.2.2, we will analyze the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on the
propagation of lightning EM field through the EIWG. !
As shown in Figure 10.11, at any location, the Earth’s magnetic field vector B 0
can be described by using three elements: the total intensity F, the inclination angle
I (also called the dip angle and measured from the horizontal plane to the field
vector, positive downwards), and the declination angle D (also called the magnetic
variation and measured clockwise from geographic north to the horizontal component
of the field vector). Table 10.1 further gives the ranges of the total intensity F, the
inclination angle I, and declination angle D at the Earth’s surface based on the World
Magnetic Model (WMM). The detailed distribution map for the Earth’s magnetic
field can be found in https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/DoDWMM.shtml. !
In the calculation, we consider the
!
effect! of the Earth’s magnetic field B 0 by
including the gyrofrequency vector w c;e ¼ eB 0 =me in (10.3). The electron-neutral
collision rate nen is assumed to be exponential as a function of altitude z based on
(10.5). The electron number density profile Ne is assumed to follow the typical
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 393
1.5 1.5
β= 0.3 km–1 h' = 60 km
β= 0.6 km–1 h' = 70 km
β= 0.9 km–1 h' = 80 km
1.0 1.0 –1
d = 300 km, β = 0.3 km
d = 300 km, h' = 60 km
E field ( V/m)

E field ( V/m)
0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

–0.5 –0.5

–1.0 –1.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
(a) Time (μs) ( b) Time (μs)
1.5 1.5
β= 0.3 km–1 h' = 60 km
β= 0.6 km–1 h' = 70 km
β= 0.9 km–1 h' = 80 km
1.0 1.0 –1
d = 300 km, β = 0.6 km
d = 300 km, h' = 70 km
E field ( V/m)

E field ( V/m)
0.5 0.5

0.0
0.0

–0.5
–0.5

–1.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
(c) Time (μs) (d) Time (μs)
1.5 1.5
β= 0.3 km–1 h' = 60 km
β= 0.6 km–1 h' = 70 km
β= 0.9 km–1 h' = 80 km
1.0 1.0 –1
d = 300 km, β = 0.9 km
d = 300 km, h' = 80 km
E field ( V/m)

E field ( V/m)

0.5
0.5

0.0
0.0

–0.5
–0.5

–1.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
(e) Time (μs) (f ) Time (μs)

Figure 10.10 Comparison of the lightning electric fields at a distance of 300 km

with different ionosphere electron number density profiles for the
steepness b varied from 0:3 km1 to 0:9 km1 and the ionospheric
reflection heights h0 ranging from 60 km to 80 km.

nighttime ionospheric profile of (10.32) with b ¼ 0:8 km1 and h0 ¼ 84 km. The
other adopted parameters in this section are the same as in Section 10.3.1. The
channel-base current is based on (10.31) with I0 ¼ 30 kA, t1 ¼ 50 ms and
t2 ¼ 100 ms. To illustrate the azimuth effects of the Earth’s magnetic field, we
consider that the magnetic azimuth angle (the angle between the direction of wave !
propagation of lightning-radiated waves and the Earth’s magnetic field vector B 0 )
varies from the geographic north by following the clockwise direction: North (0 ),
Northeast (45 ), East (90 ), Southeast (135 ), South (180 ), Southwest (225 ), West
394 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Zenith
West

South North
D X
I

East Y F

B0

Nadir

Figure 10.11 The definition of Earth’s magnetic field B0 with the total intensity
F, inclination angle I and declination angle D. The vertical direction
is perpendicular to the WGS 84 ellipsoid model of the Earth

Table 10.1 The ranges of the total intensity F, the inclination angle I and
declination angle D at the Earth’s surface based on the WMM model

Element Name Alternative name Range at Earth’s surface Positive sense

Min Max Unit
F Total intensity Total field 22,000 67,000 nT
I Inclination Dip 90 90 Degree Down
D Declination Magnetic variation 180 180 Degree East/clockwise

(270 ), and Northwest (315 ). The dip angle of the Earth’s magnetic field is taken
as 20 , 40 , and 60 with intensity 45,000 nT, which are good approximations for
the most parts of the northern hemisphere. Figure 10.12 shows the lightning electric
fields over a perfectly conducting ground calculated at distances ranging from
100 km to 300 km considering different magnetic azimuth angles and dip angles. It
is noted that the lightning electric fields can be significantly affected by the pre-
sence of the Earth’s magnetic field. Since the model is symmetric in the f-axis
direction at East (90 ) and West (270 ), the results corresponding to North (0 ) and
South (180 ), Northeast (45 ), and Southeast (135 ), as well as Southwest (225 )
and Northwest (315 ), are coincident. It can be further seen that the effect of the
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 395
3
90˚ 270˚ 90˚ 270˚
d = 100 km, dip angle = 20˚ d = 300 km, dip angle = 20˚ 0˚ 180˚
0˚ 180˚
45˚ 135˚
1.0 45˚ 135˚
225˚ 315˚ 225˚ 315˚
2
E field (V/m)

E field (V/m)
0.5
1

0.0
0

–1 –0.5

0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800

(a) Time (μs) (b) Time (μs)

3
90˚ 270˚ d = 300 km, dip angle = 40˚ 90˚ 270˚
d = 100 km, dip angle = 40˚
0˚ 180˚ 0˚ 180˚
45˚ 135˚ 1.0 45˚ 135˚
225˚ 315˚ 225˚ 315˚
2
E field ( V/m)

E field ( V/m) 0.5

1

0 0.0

–1 –0.5

0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800

(c) Time (μs) (d) Time (μs)

3
d = 100 km, dip angle = 60˚ 90˚ 270˚ d = 300 km, dip angle = 60˚ 90˚ 270˚
0˚ 180˚ 0˚ 180˚
45˚ 135˚ 1.0 45˚ 135˚
225˚ 315˚ 225˚ 315˚
2
E field ( V/m)

E field ( V/m)

0.5
1

0.0
0

–1 –0.5

0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800

(e) Time (μs) (f ) Time (μs)

Figure 10.12 lightning electric fields over a perfectly conducting ground at

distances ranging from 100 km (a,c,e) to 300 km (b,d,f) considering
different magnetic azimuth angles: North (0 ), Northeast (45 ), East
(90 ), Southeast (135 ), South (180 ), Southwest (225 ), West
(270 ), and Northwest (315 )

Earth’s magnetic field becomes larger as the dip angle increases. The effect of the
Earth’s magnetic field is greatest for propagation toward the East (90 ) and lowest
for propagation toward the West (270 ). Moreover, the effect of the Earth’s mag-
netic field increases as the distance increases.
According to (10.3), the effect! of the Earth’s magnetic field is determined
by the ratio of the gyrofrequency w c;e and the electron-neutral collision rate nen .
When wc;e =nen  1, the ionospheric plasma is too collisional to get magnetized,
396 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

electrons cannot make even a fraction of a gyration before colliding with a neutral
particle. When wc;e =nen 1, the ionospheric plasma is completely magnetized and
the EM !
waves will be significantly affected by the presence of Earth’s magnetic
field B 0 [15,26]. Further measured and frequency-dependent modeling results
about the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on lightning EM fields can be found
in [27].

10.4 Application to the propagation of NBEs at different

distances in the EIWG

Narrow bipolar events (NBEs) (also called narrow bipolar pulses (NBPs) or com-
pact intracloud discharges (CIDs)) are energetic intracloud discharges character-
ized by narrow bipolar electromagnetic waveforms identified from ground-based
VLF/LF observations. Several properties of NBEs stand out when compared to
other lightning processes: they exhibit short time durations (10–20 ms), fast pro-
pagation speeds (107 –108 m/s), strong very high frequency (VHF) radiation and
they typically occur isolated from other electrical activity within a time frame of a
few milliseconds, although in some cases NBEs are precursors of a leader process
inside the thunderstorm [60–64]. These unique properties have turned NBEs into an
active research topic that promises to shed light into the initiation mechanism of
lightning in a thunderstorm [65]. In this section, we will investigate the propagation
of NBEs by using the full-wave FDTD approach. The obtained results are com-
pared with ground-based VLF/LF measurements from different stations in the
Jianghuai Area Sferic Array (JASA) in Southern China. JASA consists of more
than ten low-frequency electric field sensors that continuously record VLF/LF
broadband (between 300 Hz and 300 kHz) lightning signals at a sampling rate of
5MHz with a detection range of up to several thousand kilometers [66].
In the following, we consider a typical positive NBE event captured by JASA
in China at local time 08:57:29 on July 7, 2012. In the calculation domain, as
shown in Figure 10.13, we model the NBE as a vertical and straight channel located
at a height h above the curved earth surface and we consider the current distribution
along the NBE channel according to the modified transmission line model with a
linear decay of current with height (MTLL) [67]. The observation point p is located
at ground level at a distance d from the NBE source. The ground is assumed to be
homogeneous with conductivity sg and relative permittivity er . The ionosphere is
considered to be vertically stratified and horizontally homogeneous in the r direc-
tion shown in Figure 10.13. For the ionosphere medium, we consider the electron
number density Ne and the electron-neutron collision frequency nen by following
the typical exponential profiles proposed in [33] (see (10.4) and (10.5) in
Section 10.2.1 for details). To avoid artificial reflections at the upper, lower and
outer boundaries of the computational domain, we used absorbing convolutional
perfectly matched layers (CPML) [68]. The NBE current inside the discharge
channel starts at an altitude H2 and propagates downwards at a speed u with the
channel length L to reach the final, lower altitude H1 .
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 397

Axis of symmetry
z

CPM
H2 L
1S
L NBE
H1
2S
h G Ion
osp
d he
re
Gro
und
CPM p

L
L

M
(σ

CP
g,ε
rg )

r
Re

Earth’s Center

Figure 10.13 Geometry of the 2D symmetric polar FDTD model with a ground wave
and two ionospheric reflected sky waves marked as G, 1S, and 2S

In the FDTD simulation, the computational domain is 500 km  110 km, with
spatial steps of 50 m in both the r and z directions. Considering 10 steps per
wavelength to avoid numerical dispersion, the maximum frequency that can be
simulated using our full-wave FDTD model is about 600 kHz, which is enough to
cover the VLF/LF frequency band. The expression of the NBE current is the
double-exponential waveform proposed in [65]:
eat
IðtÞ ¼ I0 ; (10.33)
1 þ eðaþbÞt
where a ¼ 1=t1 and b ¼ 1=t2 are the rise and fall time constants ofathe current, and
the peak current is normalized to one by setting I0 ¼ ð1 þ abÞðab ÞðaþbÞ . The detailed
parameters of the NBE source are based on the VHF observation results from [65]
as shown in Table 10.2.
Figure 10.14 shows a comparison between the simulated and the measured
VLF/LF waveforms at different distances ranging from about 100 km to 400 km.
The VLF/LF waveforms of NBE shown in Figure 10.14 involve a ground wave and
398 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Table 10.2 Parameters of the NBE source used for the calculation

Parameters t1 t2 L h u sg erg
Values 1 ms 6 ms 300 m 10 km 3.510 m/s7
0.01 S/m 10

Measurement
1.0 FDTD modeling
1.0 Measurement
FDTD modeling

β = 0.5, Href= 66 km β = 0.5, Href= 66 km

G
Normalized E field

Normalized E field
0.5 d = 169 km 0.5 G d = 245 km

1S 2S 1S 2S
0.0 0.0

–0.5 –0.5

–1.0 –1.0
300 400 500 600 700 300 400 500 600 700
(a) Time (μs) (b) Time (μs)

1.0 Measurement
FDTD modeling
1.0 Measurement
FDTD modeling

β = 0.5, Href= 66 km β = 0.5, Href= 66 km

Normalized E field

G
Normalized E field

0.5 d = 340 km 0.5

G d = 413 km

0.0 0.0

1S 2S 2S
–0.5 –0.5 1S

–1.0 –1.0
300 400 500 600 700 300 400 500 600 700
(c) Time (μs) (d) Time (μs)

Figure 10.14 Comparison of the normalized electric fields between the FDTD
modeling results and the VLF/LF waveforms measured at different
sensors from JASA: (a) d = 169 km, (b) d = 245 km, (c) d = 340 km,
and (d) d = 413 km. The effective reflected height Href and the
steepness b of the profile are 66 km and 0:5 km1 , respectively. The
ground conductivity is sg ¼ 0:01 S=m and the relative permittivity is
er ¼ 10

two ionospheric reflected sky waves marked as G, 1S, and 2S. Notice that, by using
the appropriate physical parameters for the ground and ionosphere, all the simu-
lated results obtained from the full-wave FDTD model agree perfectly with the
VLF/LF measurements at different distances. Since our measured electric field
signals are uncalibrated and the currents of the NBE source are not available, all the
electric fields in Figure 10.14 are normalized to the maximum amplitude measured
at different sensors from JASA.
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 399

The ground conductivity might be inhomogeneous along the propagation paths

to different stations. Figure 10.15 shows the influence of the ground conductivity
on the electric fields at different distances. Due to a large high-frequency content of
the narrow features of NBEs, we see that the finite ground conductivity sig-
nificantly affects the early time response of the ground wave part of the electric
fields by attenuating its peak and slowing down its risetime. Meanwhile, the effect
on both the groundwave and the skywave increases with the propagation distance.
Note that the electric fields for each observation distance are normalized to the
maximum amplitude of the case corresponding to a perfectly conducting ground
(sg ¼ 1). However, the propagation effects on the NBEs at far distance in the
EIWG will not only depend on the ground conductivity, but it is also a complex
function of the geometry and the effective ionospheric conductivity in the Earth-
ionosphere cavity [62]. More details about frequency dispersion signatures caused by
the propagation of NBEs in the EIWG and the comparison of the results between the
full-wave FDTD method and the simplified ray theory model can be found in [69].

1.0 σg = f 1.0 σg = f
Normalized E field to the case σ = ∞

Normalized E field to the case σ = ∞

σg = 0.01 S/m σg = 0.01 S/m

σg = 0.001 S/m σg = 0.001 S/m
β = 0.5, Href= 66 km β = 0.5, Href= 66 km
0.5 0.5
d = 169 km d = 245 km

0.0 0.0

–0.5 –0.5
420 490 560 630 400 450 500 550 600
(a) Time (μs) (b) Time (μs)

1.0 1.0 σg = f
σg = f
Normalized E field to the case σ = ∞
Normalized E field to the case σ = ∞

σg = 0.01 S/m σg = 0.01 S/m

σg = 0.001 S/m σg = 0.001 S/m
β = 0.5, Href= 66 km 0.5 β = 0.5, Href= 66 km
0.5
d = 340 km d = 413 km

0.0 0.0

–0.5 –0.5
400 450 500 550 400 450 500 550
(c) Time (μs) (d) Time (μs)

Figure 10.15 Simulated electric fields by considering different ground

conductivities: (i) sg ¼ 1, (ii) sg ¼ 0:01 S=m and (iii)
sg ¼ 0:001 S=m at different observation distances: (a) d = 169 km,
(b) d = 245 km, (c) d = 340 km, and (d) d = 413 km. The relative
permittivity was set to erg ¼ 10 in all cases. The effective reflected
height Href and the steepness b of the profile are 66 km and
0:5 km1 , respectively
400 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

10.5 Application to lightning EM field propagation over

a mountainous terrain

The propagation effect of lightning EM fields over a rough surface has been inves-
tigated in many studies [42,43,49,50,52,70–74]. It was noted that the waveshape,
peak value, and time delay of the lightning-radiated fields could be strongly affected
when the propagation occurs along a mountainous terrain or a non-smooth ground.
The assumption of a finitely conducting smooth ground might result in a significant
underestimation of the peak of the electric fields in mountainous areas [43,71]. In this
section, we will investigate the propagation effects over a mountainous terrain of
lightning in the Earth-ionosphere waveguide by using a full-wave FDTD model that
includes the effect of the mountainous terrain proposed in [69]. The obtained results
are validated against simultaneous experimental data consisting of lightning currents
measured at the Säntis Tower in Switzerland and electric fields measured in Neudorf,
Austria, located at a 380 km distance from the tower.
Figure 10.16 shows the region around the Säntis Tower in the Swiss Alps. The
124-m Säntis Tower has been instrumented since 2010 and it serves as an experi-
mental station for the direct measurement of lightning currents [75]. We consider
the topography between the Säntis Tower and the 380-km distant electric field
sensor at Neudorf, Austria (see Figure 10.16) based on the global digital elevation
model version 2 (GDEM V2) data [76]. The 2D cross-section of the topographic

(m)
51˚ 4,500

50˚ 4,000

3,500
49˚

3,000
48˚
latitude

2,500
47˚
2,000
46˚
1,500
45˚
1,000

44˚ 500

43˚
4˚ 5˚ 6˚ 7˚ 8˚ 9˚ 10˚ 11˚ 12˚ 13˚ 14˚ 15˚ 16˚
longitude

Figure 10.16 The topographic map of the selected region around the Säntis Tower
(red triangle) and the 380-km distant Neudorf station (black star)
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 401

(m)
4,000
3,000
3,500
2,500
3,000
Santis
¨
2,000 2,500
Height(m)

2,000
1,500
1,500
1,000
Neudorf 1,000

500 500

0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance(km)

Figure 10.17 2D cross-section of the topographic profiles along the direct path
between the Säntis Tower and the 380-km distant Neudorf station
(black dash line in Figure 10.16)

profiles along the direct path between the Säntis Tower and the Neudorf E-field
measurement station is given in Figure 10.17.
We adopted a 2D symmetric polar coordinate model for the FDTD simulation
(the geometry of the FDTD model can be found in Figure 10.4 of [24]). The
working space in the r and z directions is 500 km  90 km, which is divided into
square cells Dr  Dz ¼ 100 m  100 m. To avoid artificial reflections at the outer
boundaries of the computational domain, we used CPML absorbing boundary [68].
The lightning channel is assumed to be straight and vertical above the ground with
a height H ¼ 8 km. The current distribution along the lightning channel was spe-
cified according to the modified transmission-line model with exponential current
decay (MTLE) [44,45]. In the MTLE model, the temporal and spatial variation of
the return stroke current Iðz; tÞ is given by Iðz; tÞ ¼ Ið0;t  z=vÞexpðz=lÞ,
t  z=v, where Ið0; tÞ is the current at ground level, v ¼ 1:5  108 m=s is the return
stroke speed, and l ¼ 2 km is a constant describing the current decay with height
[44,45]. The measured return stroke currents obtained from the Säntis Tower are
used directly as the input channel-base current Ið0; tÞ in the MTLE model (see
Figure 10.18(a,c)). The ground is assumed to be homogeneous and lossy with a
ground conductivity sg ¼ 0:01 S=m and relative permittivity erg ¼ 10.
Figure 10.18 shows examples of two measured lightning return stroke currents
(a,c) of an upward flash obtained at the Säntis Tower and the simultaneously
measured electric fields (b,d) at 380-km distance in Neudorf that occurred at UTC
time 17:26:00 on September 25, 2019. It can be seen in Figure 10.18 that the
waveform of the lightning-radiated electric field at 380 km distance includes both a
ground wave (marked as G) and a reflected sky wave (marked as S). For compar-
ison purposes, we consider three different FDTD simulation cases by assuming:
402 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2
3
Measurement
FDTD with terrian and Ne profile
0.2 FDTD with flat ground and Ne profile
RS7 FDTD with flat ground

2 G RS7
Current (kA)

0.1 d = 380 km,σg = 0.01 S/m, h = 75 km,β = 0.75

Ez (V/m)
1
0.0
S
0 –0.1

0 100 200 300 400 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
(a) Time (μs) (b) Time (μs)
9 1.0
Measurement
FDTD with terrian and Ne profile
FDTD with flat ground and Ne profile
RS12
FDTD with flat ground

0.5 G RS12
6
Current (kA)

d = 380 km,σg = 0.01 S/m, h = 75 km,β = 0.75

Ez (V/m)

3 0.0

–0.5
0

0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400

(c) Time (μs) (d) Time (μs)

Figure 10.18 Measured lightning return stroke currents at the Säntis Tower (a, c)
and the comparison between the simultaneous measurement and the
FDTD modeling results at the 380-km distant Neudorf measurement
station (b, d). Black line: measurement data; three cases for FDTD
modeling: (i) red line: irregular terrain with an electron density
profile in the ionosphere, (ii) green line: flat ground with an
electron density profile in the ionosphere, and (iii) blue line: flat
ground with free space

(i) the irregular terrain based on the topographic map shown in Figure 10.17 with
the electron density profile in the ionosphere given by (10.4), (ii) a flat ground with
the electron density profile in the ionosphere given by (10.4), and (iii) a flat ground
with free space. It can be seen that, after taking into account the effect of the
irregular terrain between the Säntis Tower and the field measurement station, and
the electron density profile in the ionosphere, the vertical electric fields calculated
by using the FDTD model are in good agreement with the measurements obtained
from the 380-km sensor in Neudorf for both considered cases. It is further shown
that the waveforms of the lightning-radiated electric fields can be strongly affected
by the presence of both ionospheric cold plasma characteristics and the mountai-
nous terrain. Indeed, the use of either the electron density profile or the terrain
profile is not enough to obtain a complete match between the simulated and the
measured waveforms. The presence of mountainous terrain mainly affects the time
delays and amplitudes of the ground wave parts. However, the skywave parts
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 403

mostly depend on the effect of the ionospheric cold plasma characteristics. A more
detailed analysis including the effect of the ionospheric cold plasma characteristics,
the effect of the Earth curvature, and the propagation effects over a mountainous
terrain can be found in [10,24]. Note that the measured data at the 380-km distant
Neudorf station in [10,24] was affected by a ringing which was due to a problem in
the analog integrator. The problem was solved recently and the presented data in
this section do not exhibit such ringing any more.

10.6 Application to the optical emissions of lightning-

induced transient luminous events in the nonlinear
D-region ionosphere
When a powerful lightning EMP reaches the lower ionosphere, the electrons there
will be heated and produce molecular excitation and optical emissions, resulting in
one of the most common Transient Luminous Events (TLEs) – elves (“Emission of
Light and Very Low Frequency perturbations due to Electromagnetic Pulse
Sources”). According to both space and ground based measurements [13,17,77],
elves normally occur over thunderstorms at an altitude of about 80–95 km above
the ground with a typical donut shape, centered directly over the parent lightning
discharge, expanding around hundreds of kilometers in radius direction and lasting
less than 1 ms. In this section, we will investigate the propagation of lightning EM
fields and their interaction with a nonlinear D-region ionosphere, including the
ionization, attachment and detachment, and optical emissions.
In the simulation, we consider that the electron mobility me varies as a non-
linear function of the so-called reduced electric field. The reduced electric field
Eeff =N is commonly measured in Townsend (1 Td ¼! 1  1017 V cm2 ), where
Eeff is the magnitude of the local electric field vector E, and N is the background
gas number density. As shown in Figure 10.19, the electron mobility me is calcu-
lated by the Boltzmann solver BOLSIG+* [78] using cross sections from [79,80]. A
comparison electron mobility profile proposed in [35] is also given in Figure 10.19,
where N0 ¼ 2:688  1025 m3 . The background gas number density N is taken
from the MSIS-E-90 model [81] by assuming a mixed air with 78% N2 and 22% O2
(see Figure 10.20).
In the calculation, the mobility is updated self-consistently at each point in
time and space as the fields propagate. The collision frequency between electrons
and the neutral air can be obtained by nen ¼ e=ðme me Þ, where e, me , and me are the
charge, mass, and mobility of electrons, respectively. In order to investigate the
nonlinear effect of the ionospheric cold plasma characteristics, including the ioni-
zation, attachment and detachment, and optical emissions, besides (10.1)–(10.3)
mentioned in Section 10.2.1, we add two more equations including the ionization,

*BOLSIG+ uses a two-term expansion of the electron distribution function in spherical harmonics to

solve the steady-state Boltzmann equation for electrons in weakly ionized gases under uniform electric
fields in the bulk of collisional low-temperature plasmas. More details for BOLSIG+ can be found in the
website https://nl.lxcat.net/solvers/BOLSIG+/.
404 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

101
Obtained from BOLSIG+ (used here)
Pasko et al. [1997]

100
μe N/N0 (m2/V/s)

10–1

10–2
10–4 10–2 100 102
Reduced E field (Td)

Figure 10.19 Electron mobility as a function of the reduced electric field

calculated by the Boltzmann solver BOLSIG+ with a comparison
profile proposed by [35], where N0 ¼ 2:688  1025 m3 and N is
the background gas number density

attachment and detachment rates to update the number density of electrons and
O ions in the ionosphere [13,82]:
@Ne
¼ ðni  na ÞNe þ nd NO (10.34)
@t
@NO
¼ na Ne  nd NO (10.35)
@t
where ni , na , and nd are the ionization, attachment, and detachment rates, respectively.
As shown in Figure 10.21, the rates of the ionization, attachment, and detachment are
also calculated based on the previously mentioned Boltzmann solver BOLSIG+ [78]
using the cross section database from [79,80]. All the rates are updated by following the
values of the reduced electric fields during the FDTD calculation. Similar to the electron
mobility me , the rates of ionization, attachment and the detachment are updated self-
consistently with the background electric fields. The procedure for the self-consistent
updating of the EM fields in the FDTD model is the following:
!
● Add the !current! density of the source J s .
● Update E and H at time step tn by following the standard FDTD algorithm.
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 405

90
Total
N2
O2
85

80

75
Altitude (km)

70

65

60

55

50
1019 1020 1021 1022 1023
Gas number density (m–3)

Figure 10.20 The profile of the gas number density taken from the MSIS-E-90 model
[81] by assuming a mixed air with 78% N2 and 22% O2

● Update the mobility me , ionization rate ni , attachment rate na , and detachment

rate nd based on the reduced electric field.
● Calculate the electron-neutral collision frequency nen from the mobility me .
● Update the electron number density Ne based on the ionization rate ni ,
attachment rate na , and detachment rate nd . !
● Update the self-consistent conduction current J e according to the modified
Ohm equation
!
[see
!
(10.3)].
● Update E and H at time step tnþ1 by following the standard FDTD
algorithm.
Elves are the optical signatures of heating of ionospheric electrons and
excitation of first and second positive bands of N2 molecules by the energetic
lightning EMPs. In order to evaluate the optical emissions of elves, we consider
their four main emission band systems. They are the first positive (1PN2 ) and
406 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

1012
Ionization
Attachment
Detachment
1011

1010
νk N0/N (1/s)

109

108

107

106
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Reduced E field (Td)

Figure 10.21 The ionization, attachment and detachment rates as a function of the
reduced electric field, where N0 ¼ 2:688  1025 m3 and N is the
background gas number density

second positive (2PN2 ) band systems of N2 , the LBH band system of N2 and the
first negative band system of N2þ (1NN2þ ). The number of molecules nk in the
excited state k corresponding to each emission band system [83] can be calculated
by:

@nk nk X
¼ nk Ne  þ nm Am ; (10.36)
@t tk m

where tk ¼ ðAk þ a1 NN2 þ a2 NO2 Þ1 is the total lifetime of excited state k. a1 and
a2 are the quenching rates due to the collisions between N2 and O2 molecules,
respectively. NPN2 and NO2 are the gas number density of N2 and O2 molecules.
The sum term m nm Am represents the increase of nk due to cascading from higher
states m. Table 10.3 shows the values of Ak , a1 , and a2 used in the four considered
emission band systems [17]. The optical excitation rate nk as a function of the
reduced electric field corresponding to each emission band system is shown in
Figure 10.22, which can be obtained by using BOLSIG+ based on the cross section
database from [79,80].
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 407

Table 10.3 The values of Ak , a1 , and a2 used in the optical emission band systems

Emission band Excited states Wavelength Ak a1 a2

System

Q (nm) (1=s) (m3 =s) (m3 =s)

1PN2 N2 ðB Qg Þ
3
478–2,531 1.7  10 4
1.6  1017 1.5  1016
2PN2 N2 ðC Q u Þ
3
268–546 2.0  107 1.12  1017 2.85  1016
LBHN2 N2 ða1 Qg Þ 100–260 1.8  104 2.2  1017 4.3  1016
þ
1NNþ
2 Nþ
2 ðB
2
uÞ 286–587 1.6  107 4.53  1016 7.36  1016

1012

1011

1010
νk N0/N (1/s)

109

108

N2 1P
N2 2P
107
N2 LBH
N+2 1N

106
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Reduced E field (Td)

Figure 10.22 The optical excitation rates as a function of the reduced electric
field for the main four emission band systems of elves
Finally, the photon emission intensity Ik , which is the number of photons per
volume per second (ph=cm3 =s) calculated by using:
! !
Ik ðr; tÞ ¼ Ak nk ðr; tÞ; (10.37)
where the value of Ak is shown in Table 10.3. The emission lines of the nth
vibrational state of the kth excited state into the n0 th vibrational state of the k 0 th
excited state can be calculated by:
Iðk;nÞ!ðk 0 ;n0 Þ ¼ nk qAðk;nÞ!ðk 0 ;n0 Þ ; (10.38)
408 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

where q is the Frank-Condon factor and Aðk;nÞ!ðk 0 ;n0 Þ is the Einstein coefficient from
the nth vibrational state of the kth excited state into the n0 th vibrational state of the
k 0 th excited state [84]. Note that, besides the chemical reactions between the
electron and N2 /O2 molecules, other plasma chemical reactions can also play a role
in the optical emission of TLEs. A more detailed analysis of the full kinetic
chemistry model involved in 136 species interacting through 1,076 chemical
reactions can be found in [85].
Most elves are generated by intense cloud-to-ground (CG) lightnings that radiate
large EMPs directly toward the ionosphere. Both the 2D polar and the 3D spherical
model can be used to investigate the nonlinear effects of the ionospheric cold plasma
characteristics. However, due to the symmetry in 2D model, the effect of the Earth’s
magnetic field needs to be neglected if that model is selected. In order to include the
effect of the Earth’s magnetic field, in the following, we use the 3D spherical coor-
dinate FDTD model. In the calculation, the computation space in the q  f  r
directions is 800 km  200 km  100 km. The lightning channel is assumed to be
straight and vertical above the ground with a height H ¼ 8 km. The CG lightning
current is assumed to be a Bi-Gaussian function IðtÞ ¼ I0 ðet =t1  et =t2 Þ, where
2 2 2 2

I0 ¼ 100 kA, the rise time is t1 ¼ 30 ms and the fall time is t2 ¼ 100 ms. The current
distribution along the channel is specified according to the MTLE model [44,45].
The initial profile of electron number density Ne is taken from the International
Reference Ionosphere (IRI) 2007 model [see Figure 10.1(a)]. The ground is assumed
to be homogeneous and lossy ground with a ground conductivity sg ¼ 0:001 S=m
and a permittivity erg ¼ 10. CPML are used to avoid artificial reflections at the outer
boundaries of the computational domain [68].
We first focus on the case without the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field.
Figures 10.23 and 10.24 give the side and top views, respectively, of the vertical
electric fields at different time steps. It is noted that the different frequency com-
ponents of the EMPs from CG lightning are reflected at different heights due to
dispersion and attenuation in the ionosphere. The higher frequency components
penetrate deeper than the lower ones and are then rapidly attenuated by the higher
conductivity in the ionosphere [5,24].
The reduced electric fields at different snapshots in time are further shown in
Figures 10.25 and 10.26. The values of the reduced electric fields produced from
CG lightning are strong enough at altitudes between 80 and 90 km to accelerate the
available electrons sufficiently to affect the neutral molecules including heating,
ionization, attachment and optical emissions. In order to obtain the optical emis-
sions produced by the elves, the LBHN2 photon emission intensity of the elve
triggered by CG lightning is calculated and shown in Figures 10.27 and 10.28.
It is seen that the optical emission of the simulated elve expands around
200 km in the radial direction at an altitude of about 85 km, which is consistent
with the observation in the typical donut shape with a hole at the center as a result
of the radiation pattern of the vertical CG lightning channel. According to the
previous studies, the brightness of optical emissions of elves strongly depends on
the ambient electron number density and the peak current of the parent lightning
[13,17,26]. Furthermore, the dip angle of the Earth’s magnetic field B0 , a tilted
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 409

Time at 0.38 ms V/m

Altitude (km) 90 2
60 1
0
30
–1
0 –2
Time at 0.51 ms
90 2
Altitude (km)

60 1
0
30 –1
0 –2
Time at 0.64 ms
90 2
Altitude (km)

1
60
0
30 –1
0 –2
Time at 0.76 ms
90 2
Altitude (km)

1
60
0
30 –1
0 –2
–250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance (km)

Figure 10.23 Side views of the electric fields at different time steps

Time at 0.38 ms V/m

Distance (km) Distance (km) Distance (km) Distance (km)

30 2
15 1
0 0
–15 –1
–30 –2
Time at 0.51 ms
30 2
15 1
0 0
–15 –1
–30 –2
Time at 0.64 ms
30 2
15 1
0 0
–15 –1
–30 –2
Time at 0.76 ms
30 2
15 1
0 0
–15 –1
–30 –2
–250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance (km)

Figure 10.24 Top views of the electric fields at different time steps at a height of
85 km

lightning discharge channel and the local chemical impact may also create sig-
nificant density perturbations in the ionosphere and further affect the shape of the
optical emission of elves [26,86]. Figures 10.29 and 10.30 further indicate the
 Time at 0.38 ms Td
Altitude (km) Altitude (km)
90 25
20
70 15
10
5
50 0
Time at 0.51 ms
90 25
20
15
70 10
5
50 0

Time at 0.64 ms
Altitude (km)

90 25
20
15
70 10
5
50 0

Time at 0.76 ms
Altitude (km)

90 25
20
15
70 10
5
50 0
–250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance (km)

Figure 10.25 Similar to Figure 10.23, but for the reduced electric fields
 Time at 0.38 ms Td
30 25
Distance (km)

20
15
15
0 10
–15 5
–30 0
Time at 0.51 ms
30 25
Distance (km)

15 20
15
0
10
–15 5
–30 0
Time at 0.64 ms
30 25
Distance (km)

15 20
15
0 10
–15 5
–30 0
Time at 0.76 ms
30 25
Distance (km)

20
15
15
0 10
–15 5
–30 0
–250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance (km)

Figure 10.26 Similar to Figure 10.24, but for the reduced electric fields
 Time at 0.38 ms Ph/cm3/s
Altitude (km) Altitude (km) Altitude (km) Altitude (km)

90 1013
109
70
105
50 101
Time at 0.51 ms
90 1013
109
70 105
50 101
Time at 0.64 ms
90 1013
70 109
105
50 101
Time at 0.76 ms
90 1013
109
70 105
50 101
–250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance (km)

Figure 10.27 Similar to Figure 10.23, but for the photon emission intensity of the LBHN2 band
 Time at 0.38 ms Ph/cm3/s
Distance (km) 30 1013
15 109
0
105
–15
–30 101
Time at 0.51 ms
30 1013
Distance (km)

15 109
0
105
–15
–30 101
Time at 0.64 ms
30 1013
Distance (km)

15 109
0
105
–15
101
–30
Time at 0.76 ms
30 1013
Distance (km)

15 109
0
105
–15
101
–30
–250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance (km)

Figure 10.28 Similar to Figure 10.24, but for the photon emission intensity of the LBHN2 band
 Time at 0.38 ms Ph/cm3/s
Altitude (km) Altitude (km) Altitude (km) Altitude (km)

90 1013
109
70
105
50 101
Time at 0.51 ms
90 1013
109
70
105
50 101
Time at 0.64 ms
90 1013
70 109
105
50 101
Time at 0.76 ms
90 1013
109
70
105
50 101
–250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance (km)

Figure 10.29 Side view of the reduced electric field for the FDTD model at different time steps with the effect of the Earth’s
magnetic field
 Time at 0.38 ms Ph/cm3/s
Distance (km) 30 1013
15 109
0
105
–15
–30 101
Time at 0.51 ms
30 1013
Distance (km)

15 109
0
105
–15
–30 101
Time at 0.64 ms
30 1013
Distance (km)

15 109
0
105
–15
–30 101
Time at 0.76 ms
30 1013
Distance (km)

15 109
0
105
–15
–30 101
–250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance (km)

Figure 10.30 Top view of the reduced electric fields at a height of 85km for the FDTD model at different time steps with the effect of
the Earth’s magnetic field
416 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

LBHN2 photon emission intensity of the elve triggered by CG lightning with the
effect of the Earth’s magnetic field. The dip angle of the Earth’s magnetic field is
taken as 40 with an intensity of 45,000 nT, and a magnetic azimuth angle 90 . As
shown in Figures 10.29 and 10.30, the Earth’s magnetic field mainly affects the
higher altitudes above 80km. The presence of the Earth’s magnetic field constrains
electron motion and introduces anisotropy in the conductivity of the ionosphere,
which results in the typical donut shape of elves not being perfectly symmetrical
compared with the case without the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field (see
Figures 10.27 and 10.28). More details about the effect of the Earth’s magnetic
field on elves can be found in [13,26].
Moreover, recent studies indicated that narrow bipolar pulses (NBEs) whose
amplitudes are similar to CG lightning and 10 times larger than the typical
intracloud (IC) lightning [62], are also powerful enough to create elves. However,
since NBEs do not have a connection to the ground, the EMPs that they generate
reflect from both the ionosphere and the ground to generate the so-called “elve
doublets”: the first elve in the doublet is created by the EMP direct path to the
ionosphere and the second elve in the doublet is created by the ground reflection.
The time difference between the two elve peaks depends on the altitude of the
discharge, the altitude of the ionospheric reflection, and the distance to the
observer. More details about elve doublets can be found in [13,26,87]. More
recently, another special intracloud discharge, termed energetic in-cloud pulses
(EIPs), was found to be associated with elves as well [40,88]. EIPs are impulsive
in-cloud discharges with a current moment up to hundreds of kA km and with a
time duration about 10 ms. EIPs can also produce elve doublets similar to pre-
viously mentioned NBEs. According to [89,90], EIPs might have a direct rela-
tionship with terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs), which make them more
mysterious. The observation of TGF and an associated elve using the
Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor (ASIM, https://asdc.space.dtu.dk/) on
the International Space Station can be found in [88]. More optical elves modeling
associated with EIPs can be found in [40]. Atmospheric discharges not only exist
on Earth. They can also be found in other planets of the solar system, such as
Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, and Venus [91,92]. In addition, elve-like
mesospheric optical emissions also can occur in other gaseous giant planets. More
details on the lightning-induced EM pulses propagation on Venus, Jupiter, and
Saturn can be found in [15,86].

10.7 Summary
In this chapter, we first introduced the propagation theory of lightning EMPs
interacting with the ionosphere on the basis of the full-wave FDTD method and
then investigated several factors identified in the literature which could affect the
propagation of lightning EMPs in the EIWG, such as the propagation distance,
the Earth curvature, the ground conductivity, the different ionospheric profiles, and
the presence of the Earth’s magnetic field. Finally, we presented applications
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 417

including the propagation of narrow bipolar events (NBEs), the propagation of

lightning over mountainous terrain, and optical emissions of lightning-induced
transient luminous events in the nonlinear ionosphere.
It is shown that the lightning EMPs can significantly modify the ionosphere
and that, if the local electric field of EMPs is intense enough, it can further modify
the electron density and collision frequency of the ionosphere to produce the so-
called TLEs in the upper ionosphere. The long distance propagation of lightning
VLF/LF signals in the Earth-ionosphere waveguide makes it a unique tool, on the
one hand, to probe the variability of the lower ionosphere driven by lightning and,
on the other hand, to study the characteristics of the lightning source and its pro-
duced TLEs. Note that, in this chapter, we only focused on the lower D-region
ionosphere (60–90 km). It is worth mentioning that the EM pulses from lightning
propagate primarily in the lower D-region ionosphere, but a small fraction of their
energy penetrates through the ionosphere and into the magnetosphere, where it
propagates as a whistler mode wave [93]. The collisions between electrons and
neutral molecules in the upper atmosphere (at 60–120 km) will lead to a burst of
electron precipitation and cause an ionospheric disturbance – called lightning-
induced electron precipitation (LEP). A review of LEP observations and theory can
be found in [31] and the references therein.
In addition, most of the modeling results in this chapter are based on the full-
wave FDTD method. For the general purpose of scientific applications, many open
FDTD codes are available, such as the free and open software package MEEP
developed by Oskooi et al. [94] covering a broad range of flexible electromagnetic
applications (source code and documentation are available from https://meep.
readthedocs.io/en/latest/) and the open GREMPY code (GRanada ElectroMagnetic
PYthon simulator) developed by Alejandro Luque [15] with the purpose of study-
ing the interactions between a lightning-generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP)
and the upper layers of planetary atmospheres (source code and documentation are
available from https://github.com/aluque/grempy).

References
[1] Rakov VA, Uman MA. Lightning: physics and effects. Cambridge university
press; 2003.
[2] Cummins KL, Murphy MJ, Tuel JV. Lightning detection methods and
meteorological applications. In: IV International Symposium on Military
Meteorology, Malbork, Poland; 2000. p. 26–28.
[3] Jacobson AR, Shao X, Holzworth R. Full-wave reflection of lightning long-
wave radio pulses from the ionospheric D region: Numerical model. Journal
of Geophysical Research: Space Physics. 2009;114(A3).
[4] Jacobson AR, Holzworth RH, Pfaff R, et al. Coordinated satellite observa-
tions of the very low frequency transmission through the ionospheric D layer
at low latitudes, using broadband radio emissions from lightning. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Space Physics. 2018;123(4):2926–2952.
418 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[5] Qin Z, Chen M, Zhu B, et al. An improved ray theory and transfer matrix
method-based model for lightning electromagnetic pulses propagating in
Earth-ionosphere waveguide and its applications. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Atmospheres. 2017;122(2):712–727.
[6] Shao XM, Jacobson AR. Model simulation of very low-frequency and low-
frequency lightning signal propagation over intermediate ranges. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility. 2009;51(3):519–525.
[7] Budden KG. The wave-guide mode theory of wave propagation. Logos
Press; 1961.
[8] Cheng Z, Cummer SA. Broadband VLF measurements of lightning-induced
ionospheric perturbations. Geophysical Research Letters. 2005;32(8).
[9] Cummer SA, Inan US, Bell TF. Ionospheric D region remote sensing using
VLF radio atmospherics. Radio Science. 1998;33(6):1781–1792.
[10] Azadifar M, Li D, Rachidi F, et al. Analysis of lightning-ionosphere inter-
action using simultaneous records of source current and 380 km distant
electric field. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.
2017;159:48–56.
[11] Han F, Cummer SA, Li J, et al. Daytime ionospheric D region sharpness
derived from VLF radio atmospherics. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Space Physics. 2011;116(A5).
[12] Hu W, Cummer SA. An FDTD model for low and high altitude lightning-
generated EM fields. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation.
2006;54(5):1513–1522.
[13] Marshall RA. An improved model of the lightning electromagnetic field
interaction with the D-region ionosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Space Physics. 2012;117(A3).
[14] Tran TH, Baba Y, Somu VB, et al. FDTD modeling of LEMP propagation in
the earth-ionosphere waveguide with emphasis on realistic representation of
lightning source. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 2017;122
(23):12,918–12,937.
[15] Luque A, Dubrovin D, Gordillo-Vázquez FJ, et al. Coupling between
atmospheric layers in gaseous giant planets due to lightning-generated
electromagnetic pulses. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.
2014;119(10):8705–8720.
[16] Inan US, Marshall RA. Numerical Electromagnetics: The FDTD Method.
Cambridge University Press; 2011.
[17] Kuo CL, Chen A, Lee Y, et al. Modeling elves observed by FORMOSAT-2
satellite. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics. 2007;112(A11).
[18] Lehtinen NG, Inan US. Radiation of ELF/VLF waves by harmonically
varying currents into a stratified ionosphere with application to radiation by
a modulated electrojet. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.
2008;113(A6).
[19] Lehtinen NG, Inan US. Full-wave modeling of transionospheric propagation
of VLF waves. Geophysical Research Letters. 2009;36(3).
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 419

[20] Aoki M, Baba Y, Rakov VA. FDTD simulation of LEMP propagation over
lossy ground: Influence of distance, ground conductivity, and source para-
meters. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 2015;120
(16):8043–8051.
[21] Lay EH, Shao X. High temporal and spatial-resolution detection of D-layer
fluctuations by using time-domain lightning waveforms. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Space Physics. 2011;116(A1).
[22] Lay EH, Shao X, Jacobson AR. D region electron profiles observed with
substantial spatial and temporal change near thunderstorms. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Space Physics. 2014;119(6):4916–4928.
[23] Tran TH, Baba Y, Rakov VA. A Study of Earth’s Curvature Effect on LEMP
Propagation Over Distances Ranging from 100 to 1000 km. In: XVI
International Conference on Atmospheric Electricity, Nara, Japan; 2018.
[24] Li D, Luque A, Rachidi F, et al. The Propagation Effects of Lightning
Electromagnetic Fields Over Mountainous Terrain in the Earth-Ionosphere
Waveguide. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 2019;124
(24):14198–14219.
[25] Shao XM, Lay EH, Jacobson AR. Reduction of electron density in the night-
time lower ionosphere in response to a thunderstorm. Nature Geoscience.
2013;6(1):29.
[26] Marshall RA, Inan US, Glukhov VS. Elves and associated electron density
changes due to cloud-to-ground and in-cloud lightning discharges. Journal
of Geophysical Research: Space Physics. 2010;115(A4):A00E17.
[27] Jacobson AR, Shao XM, Lay E. Time domain waveform and azimuth var-
iation of ionospherically reflected VLF/LF radio emissions from lightning.
Radio Science. 2012;47(4):1–17.
[28] Inan US, Bell TF, Rodriguez JV. Heating and ionization of the lower iono-
sphere by lightning. Geophysical Research Letters. 1991;18(4):705–708.
[29] Taranenko YN, Inan US, Bell TF. Optical signatures of lightning-Induced
heating of the D region. Geophysical Research Letters. 1992;19(18):1815–
1818.
[30] Taranenko YN, Inan US, Bell TF. The interaction with the lower ionosphere
of electromagnetic pulses from lightning: excitation of optical emissions.
Geophysical Research Letters. 1993;20(23):2675–2678.
[31] Inan US, Cummer SA, Marshall RA. A survey of ELF and VLF research on
lightning-ionosphere interactions and causative discharges. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Space Physics. 2010;115(A6).
[32] Gurevich A. Nonlinear Phenomena in the Ionosphere. vol. 10. Springer
Science & Business Media; 2012.
[33] Wait JR, Spies KP. Characteristics of the Earth-ionosphere waveguide for
VLF radio waves. US Dept. of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards: for
sale by the Supt. of Doc., US Govt. Print. Off.; 1964.
[34] Bilitza D, Reinisch BW. International reference ionosphere 2007: improve-
ments and new parameters. Advances in Space Research. 2008;42(4):599–609.
420 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[35] Pasko VP, Inan US, Bell TF, et al. Sprites produced by quasi-electrostatic
heating and ionization in the lower ionosphere. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Space Physics. 1997;102(A3):4529–4561.
[36] Hu W, Cummer SA, Lyons WA. Testing sprite initiation theory using
lightning measurements and modeled electromagnetic fields. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 2007;112(D13).
[37] Lee JH, Kalluri DK. Three-dimensional FDTD simulation of electro-
magnetic wave transformation in a dynamic inhomogeneous magnetized
plasma. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation. 1999;47
(7):1146–1151.
[38] Holland R. THREDS: A finite-difference time-domain EMP code in 3D spherical
coordinates. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science. 1983;30(6):4592–4595.
[39] Otsuyama T, Sakuma D, Hayakawa M. FDTD analysis of ELF wave pro-
pagation and Schumann resonances for a subionospheric waveguide model.
Radio Science. 2003;38(6):11–1.
[40] Liu N, Dwyer JR, Cummer SA. Elves Accompanying Terrestrial Gamma
Ray Flashes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics. 2017;122
(10):10,563–10,576.
[41] Thèvenot M, Bérenger JP, MonediÈre T, et al. A FDTD scheme for the
computation of VLF-LF propagation in the anisotropic earth-ionosphere
waveguide. In: Annales des télécommunications. vol. 54; 1999. p. 297–310.
[42] Li D, Azadifar M, Rachidi F, et al. Analysis of lightning electromagnetic
field propagation in mountainous terrain and its effects on ToA-based
lightning location systems. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.
2016;121(2):895–911.
[43] Li D, Azadifar M, Rachidi F, et al. On lightning electromagnetic field pro-
pagation along an irregular terrain. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility. 2016;58(1):161–171.
[44] Nucci CA. On lightning return stroke models for LEMP calculations. In:
Proc. 19th Int. Conf. Lightning Protection, Graz, Austria; 1988.
[45] Rachidi F, Nucci C. On the Master, Uman, Lin, Standler and the modified
transmission line lightning return stroke current models. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 1990;95(D12):20389–20393.
[46] Lin YT, Uman M, Standler R. Lightning return stroke models. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Oceans. 1980;85(C3):1571–1583.
[47] Delfino F, Procopio R, Rossi M, et al. Influence of frequency-dependent soil
electrical parameters on the evaluation of lightning electromagnetic fields in
air and underground. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.
2009;114(D11).
[48] Shoory A, Mimouni A, Rachidi F, et al. Lightning horizontal electric fields
above a two-layer ground. In: 2010 30th International Conference on
Lightning Protection (ICLP). IEEE; 2010. p. 1–5.
[49] Zhang Q, Li D, Fan Y, et al. Examination of the Cooray-Rubinstein (C-R)
formula for a mixed propagation path by using FDTD. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 2012;117(D15).
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 421

[50] Zhang Q, Li D, Zhang Y, et al. On the accuracy of Wait’s formula along a

mixed propagation path within 1 km from the lightning channel. IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility. 2012;54(5):1042–1047.
[51] Zhang Q, Li D, Tang X, et al. Lightning-radiated horizontal electric field
over a rough-and ocean-land mixed propagation path. IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility. 2013;55(4):733–738.
[52] Propagation effects on the lightning-generated electromagnetic fields for
homogeneous and mixed sea-land paths. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres. 1994;99(D5):10641–10652.
[53] Wait JR, Walters LC. Reflection of VLF radio waves from an inhomoge-
neous ionosphere. Part I. Exponentially varying isotropic model. J Res NBS
D. 1963;67(6):361–367.
[54] McRae WM, Thomson NR. VLF phase and amplitude: Daytime ionospheric
parameters. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. 2000;62
(7):609–618.
[55] McRae WM, Thomson NR. Solar flare induced ionospheric D-region
enhancements from VLF phase and amplitude observations. Journal of
Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. 2004;66(1):77–87.
[56] Thomson NR. Daytime tropical D region parameters from short path VLF phase
and amplitude. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics. 2010;115(A9).
[57] Smith DA, Heavner MJ, Jacobson AR, et al. A method for determining
intracloud lightning and ionospheric heights from VLF/LF electric field
records. Radio Science. 2004;39(1).
[58] Bickel JE, Ferguson JA, Stanley GV. Experimental observation of magnetic
field effects on VLF propagation at night. Radio Science. 1970;5(1):19–25.
[59] Thomson NR. Experimental daytime VLF ionospheric parameters. Journal
of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics. 1993;55(2):173 – 184.
[60] Le Vine DM. Sources of the strongest RF radiation from lightning. Journal
of Geophysical Research: Oceans. 1980;85(C7):4091–4095.
[61] Willett JC, Bailey JC, Krider EP. A class of unusual lightning electric field
waveforms with very strong high-frequency radiation. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 1989;94(D13):16255–16267.
[62] Smith DA, Shao XM, Holden DN, et al. A distinct class of isolated intra-
cloud lightning discharges and their associated radio emissions. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 1999;104(D4):4189–4212.
[63] Smith DA, Eack KB, Harlin J, et al. The Los Alamos Sferic Array: A
research tool for lightning investigations. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres. 2002;107(D13):ACL 5–1–ACL5–14.
[64] Gurevich A, Duncan L, Karashtin A, et al. Radio emission of lightning
initiation. Physics Letters A. 2003;312(3-4):228–237.
[65] Rison W, Krehbiel PR, Stock MG, et al. Observations of narrow bipolar
events reveal how lightning is initiated in thunderstorms. Nature
Communications. 2016;7:10721.
[66] Zhu B, Ma M, Xu W, et al. Some properties of negative cloud-to-ground fla-
shes from observations of a local thunderstorm based on accurate-stroke-count
422 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

studies. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. 2015;136:

16–22.
[67] Rakov VA, Dulzon A. A modified transmission line model for lightning
return stroke field calculations. In: Proc. 9th Int. Symp. Electromagn.
Compat; 1991. p. 229–235.
[68] Roden JA, Gedney SD. Convolution PML (CPML): An efficient FDTD
implementation of the CFS–PML for arbitrary media. Microwave and
Optical Technology Letters. 2000;27(5):334–339.
[69] Li D, Liu F, Pérez-Invernón FJ, et al. On the accuracy of ray-theory methods
to determine the altitudes of intracloud electric discharges and ionospheric
reflections: application to narrow bipolar events. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Atmospheres. 2020;125(9):1–10.
[70] Ming Y, Cooray V. Propagation effects caused by a rough ocean surface on
the electromagnetic fields generated by lightning return strokes. Radio
Science. 1994;29(01):73–85.
[71] Li D, Rubinstein M, Rachidi F, et al. Location accuracy evaluation of
ToA-based lightning location systems over mountainous terrain. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 2017;122(21):11,760–11,775.
[72] Li D, Zhang Q, Wang Z, et al. Computation of lightning horizontal field over
the two-dimensional rough ground by using the three-dimensional FDTD.
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility. 2014;56(1):143–148.
[73] Liu Z, Koh KL, Mezentsev A, et al. Variable phase propagation velocity for
long-range lightning location system. Radio Science. 2016;51(11):1806–
1815.
[74] Schulz W, Diendorfer G. Evaluation of a lightning location algorithm using
an elevation model. In: 25th International Conference on Lightning
Protection (ICLP), Rhodos; 2000.
[75] Romero C, Paolone M, Rubinstein M, et al. A system for the measurements
of lightning currents at the Säntis Tower. Electric Power Systems Research.
2012;82(1):34–43.
[76] Tachikawa T, Kaku M, Iwasaki A, et al. ASTER global digital elevation
model version 2-summary of validation results. NASA; 2011.
[77] Fukunishi H, Takahashi Y, Kubota M, et al. Elves: Lightning-induced
transient luminous events in the lower ionosphere. Geophysical Research
Letters. 1996;23(16):2157–2160.
[78] Hagelaar G, Pitchford L. Solving the Boltzmann equation to obtain electron
transport coefficients and rate coefficients for fluid models. Plasma Sources
Science and Technology. 2005;14(4):722.
[79] Phelps A, Pitchford L. Anisotropic scattering of electrons by N2 and its
effect on electron transport. Physical Review A. 1985;31(5):2932.
[80] Lawton S, Phelps A. Excitation of the b 1S+g state of O2 by low energy
electrons. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 1978;69(3):1055–1068.
[81] Hedin AE. Extension of the MSIS Thermosphere Model into the middle and
lower atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.
1991;96(A2):1159–1172.
 Lightning interaction with the ionosphere 423

[82] Luque A, Gordillo-Vázquez F. Mesospheric electric breakdown and delayed

sprite ignition caused by electron detachment. Nature Geoscience. 2012;5
(1):22–25.
[83] Sipler DP, Biondi MA. Measurements of O (1D) quenching rates in the F
region. Journal of Geophysical Research. 1972;77(31):6202–6212.
[84] Gilmore FR, Laher RR, Espy PJ. Franck–Condon factors, r-centroids, elec-
tronic transition moments, and Einstein coefficients for many nitrogen and
oxygen band systems. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data.
1992;21(5):1005–1107.
[85] Pérez-Invernón FJ, Luque A, Gordillo-Vázquez FJ. Modeling the chemical
impact and the optical emissions produced by lightning-induced electro-
magnetic fields in the upper atmosphere: the case of Halos and Elves trig-
gered by different lightning discharges. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres. 2018;123(14):7615–7641.
[86] Pérez-Invernón FJ, Luque A, Gordillo-Vázquez FJ. Three-dimensional
modeling of lightning-induced electromagnetic pulses on Venus, Jupiter,
and Saturn. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics. 2017;122
(7):7636–7653.
[87] Marshall RA, da Silva CL, Pasko VP. Elve doublets and compact intracloud
discharges. Geophysical Research Letters. 2015;42(14):6112–6119.
[88] Neubert T, Østgaard N, Reglero V, et al. A terrestrial gamma-ray flash and
ionospheric ultraviolet emissions powered by lightning. Science. 2020;367
(6474):183–186.
[89] Lyu F, Cummer SA, Briggs M, et al. Ground detection of terrestrial gamma
ray flashes from distant radio signals. Geophysical Research Letters.
2016;43(16):8728–8734.
[90] Lu G, Blakeslee RJ, Li J, et al. Lightning mapping observation of a terres-
trial gamma-ray flash. Geophysical Research Letters. 2010;37(11):L11806.
[91] Yair Y, Fischer G, Simões F, et al. Updated Review of Planetary
Atmospheric Electricity. In: Leblanc F, Aplin KL, Yair Y, et al., (eds.) , In
Planetary Atmospheric Electricity. New York, NY: Springer New York;
2008, pp. 29–49.
[92] Aplin KL, Fischer G. Lightning detection in planetary atmospheres.
Weather. 2017;72(2):46–50.
[93] Helliwell RA. Whistlers and Related Ionospheric Phenomena. vol. 50.
Stanford University Press Stanford, Calif.; 1965.
[94] Oskooi AF, Roundy D, Ibanescu M, et al. Meep: A flexible free-software
package for electromagnetic simulations by the FDTD method. Computer
Physics Communications. 2010;181(3):687 – 702.
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 11
Lightning effects in the mesosphere
Vadim V. Surkov1,2 and Masashi Hayakawa3,4

11.1 Introduction
Spectacular large-scale optical flashes in the stratosphere and mesosphere above
large thunderstorm systems were first discovered by Franz et al. [1] serendipitously
during a test of a low-light television camera. Interestingly, this phenomenon was
predicted by the Nobel prize winner C.T.R. Wilson back in the 1920s [2]. And since
then, there has been a lot of evidence from airplane pilots and other eyewitnesses
about short-term light flashes of various shapes and colors over storm clouds [3].
One of the main reasons why this phenomenon was discovered so late is the
difficulty of observing this phenomenon from the earth’s surface since the optical
flashes in the stratosphere and mesosphere are closed to the observer by thunder-
clouds. In ground-based measurements, the giant optical flashes above thunder-
clouds can be seen at a small angle to the horizon at distances of hundreds of
kilometers from the flash site. In addition, they have a very short duration and occur
much less common than ordinary cloud-to-ground lightning (e.g., [4], and refer-
ences therein).
Recent researches have revealed a surprising variety of such large-scale optical
events occurring above thunderstorms at stratosphere, mesosphere, and lower
ionosphere altitudes, which have been termed Transient luminous events (TLEs)
(e.g., [5]). The most commonly observed phenomenon, the so-called red sprite or
sprite, manifests itself as a luminous red glow occurring at a 50–90 km altitude
range gradually changing to blue color below 50 km [5]. To date, a large amount of
information is available concerning these beautiful phenomena. If you type “sprite
discharge” in the Internet search bar, you will see a large number of sprite photos
taken in various conditions. To illustrate, Figures 11.1 and 11.2 show photos of
sprites captured by P. M. Smith during the 2019 Kansas storm season.

1
Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radio Wave Propagation (IZMIRAN),
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
2
Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Science, Russia
3
Advanced Wireless and Communications Research Center, The University of Electro-Communications
(UEC), Japan
4
Hayakawa Institute of Seismo Electromagnetics (Hi-SEM) Co. Ltd., UEC Alliance Center 521, Japan
426 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Figure 11.1 A sprite image by P. M. Smith, which was taken from central
Oklahoma, looking over Kansas (Wichita area) in September 2019.
The photo is provided with P. M. Smith’s permission

Figure 11.2 The collection of sprites by P. M. Smith was taken from Northern
Oklahoma during a 2-hour period of storms over Central Kansas in
April 2019. In this image, all the brightest sprites are combined during
that time frame. The photo is provided with P. M. Smith’s permission

Another type of TLEs primary blue color was first discovered during the
Sprites94 aircraft campaign [6,7]. Figure 11.3 illustrates one of the first photos of
blue jets (BJ) detected over a large evening thunderstorm in the Indian Ocean on
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 427

Figure 11.3 A picture of the blue jet by P. Huet as observed in Réunion Island,
Indian Ocean (20 51:840 S latitude, 55 27:60 E longitude), on March
1997. Adapted from Wescott et al. [8]

March 1997 [8]. This kind of TLEs termed BJs propagates upward from the top of
the cloud towards the stratosphere up to altitudes of about 40 km. The BJ’s basic
properties have been well-documented despite their rare occurrence as compared to
sprites. The so-called blue starters (BSs) and gigantic jets (GJs) are propagating
upward gigantic electric discharges accompanied by luminous phenomena, which
are considered as some varieties of BJs. One of the main features of BSs is that they
propagate only a few kilometers over the cloud top to altitudes below 25 km [9].
The GJ propagates upward from the thundercloud top through the stratosphere and
mesosphere to a terminal altitude of about 85
90 km. The GJ was first observed at
the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico over an intense oceanic thunderstorm
200 km away from the Observatory [10]. Figure 11.4 shows an example of GJ
observed at the Mauna Kea Observatory in Hawaii and captured by Frankie
Lucena. The most intensive optical emission primary blue color is seen at the base
of GJ while the reddish color prevails in the upper portion of the GJ.
In recent decades, the study of high-altitude discharges in the atmosphere has
become an extensive, rapidly developing area of geophysical electrodynamics.
Since the sprite discovery [1], several ground-based and aircraft campaigns (e.g.,
428 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Figure 11.4 The gigantic jet image was captured by Frankie Lucena at the Mauna
Kea Observatory in Hawaii on the night of July 24, 2017. Taken from
https://spaceweathergallery.com/

[4], and references therein) as well as measurements on satellites and aboard the
International Space Station (ISS) have been conducted to study the sprites on dif-
ferent continents and oceans (e.g., [11–13]). Many other amazing varieties of TLEs
were discovered during these studies. These include “Sprite halos” which are a
brief, diffuse glow regions of light occurring at 70–85 km altitude [14] that may be
followed by a sprite although a significant fraction of haloes occurs without being
accompanied by sprites; “Elves,” which are reddish rapidly expanding rings that
sometimes appear on the lower surface of the ionosphere after an intense lightning
discharge [15–17]; so-called “Trolls” which are red spots arising after the flash of
an extremely strong sprite [18]; “Gnomes” and “Pixies” which are very small, brief
spikes and spots of light appearing above the tops of a large thundercloud and etc.
On the basis of satellite FORMOSAT-2 observations, the rate of TLE occurrence
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 429

over the globe is estimated to be several million events per year. Recent satellite
measurements have shown that a portion of UV radiation flashes, although asso-
ciated with the electrical activity in underlying thunderstorms, are not directly
related to lightning discharges and thus can be differed from traditional TLEs [19].
Thus, the list of amazing large-scale optical and electrical phenomena in the upper
atmosphere continues to expand.
This chapter presents an overview of recent high-speed video and satellite-
based observations of TLEs. The main emphasis is placed on the interpretation of
observed features of TLEs and on the recently advanced theories explaining these
features.

11.2 Sprites
11.2.1 Basic properties and morphology of sprites
As is seen from Figures 11.1 and 11.2, there can be a lot of variation among sprites
including their shape and size, vertical and horizontal dimensions, number of sprite
groups, brightness, and details of the fine structure of sprites. The majority of
sprites can be divided into two basic morphological classes [20–22]. The
columniform-shaped sprites are luminous vertical columns about 10 km long and
less than 1 km in diameter with a slightly diffuse top and abrupt bottom, which
sometimes ends in dim downward-directed streamer filaments. An example of such
columnar sprites can be found in the upper-right corner of Figure 11.2. Groups of
columnar sprites are often observed, occasionally reaching 20–30 elements.
Typically, the individual sprite flash lasted from a few to several tens of ms.
The typical “carrot” sprite shown in Figure 11.1 consists of the luminous
column with the upper diffuse region in red color at a 50–90 km altitude range and
lower tendril-like filamentary structure in bluish color. The transverse size of the
luminous area varies from 20–30 km to 50–100 km (e.g., [23]). Sometimes the
sprite occurrence is preceded by the appearance of a halo at an altitude of
approximately 75 km. The typical sprite halo is visible as a brief descending diffuse
glow in a pancake shape about 10 km in thickness and 50–80 km in diameter.
In a group of so-called “dancing sprites,” its individual elements can “dance”
over the thunderstorm during a long period of about 0.1–1 s [24–27]. The dancing
sprites are assumed to be associated with the continuing current (CC) of causative
lightning and correspond to surges in the CC moment waveform. The long-time-
delayed elements occur lower than the short-time-delayed elements and they are
horizontally shifted several tens of kilometers from the causative stroke.
It is known that most cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning discharges are negative;
that is, those discharges lower the negative charges from thundercloud to ground.
However, 5%–10% of global CG lightning activity is composed of positive cloud-
to-ground (+CG) lightning, which transfers the positive charges to ground (e.g., see
[28,29], and references therein). Interestingly, the first sprite observations showed
that 99.9% of the sprite events occurred several milliseconds after a strong +CG
[30,31]. The mean time delay between causative +CGs and the sprites is about
430 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

20 ms [32,33]. Further investigations have shown that the fraction of “negative”

sprites, although small, has to be greater than 0.5
1% [34,35].
One of the most important characteristics of lightning stroke is the so-called
charge moment change (CMC), which is approximately equal to the product of the
length of the lightning channel by the charge lowered by the lightning to the ground.
Usually, the CMC value is several tens of Ckm. Chen et al. [36] have reported the
analysis of sprite parameters and their causative lightning, which can initiate the sprite,
based on data gathered by Imager of Sprites and Upper Atmospheric Lightning
(ISUAL) on board the FORMOSAT-2 satellite. The analysis has shown that the mean
CMC of causative CG lightning has to be much greater than the above CMC value to
initiate the sprite. The minimum CMC of causative + CG lightning is as low as 63 C
km, while the mean value of CMC is about 1,480 C km. Observations of intense
sprite-producing lightning events have shown the CMC of causative + CG lightning
can reach significant values 2,100 – 6,100 C km [37,38]. These events were
accompanied by the appearance of sprites contained unusually large CMC from 910 to
2,800 C km. In the case of negative causative lightning, their minimum and mean CMC
values are
210 C km and
920 C km, respectively. Thus, the majority of sprites are
unambiguously associated with supercritical positive or negative lightning strokes.

11.2.2 Mechanism of the sprite nucleation

To gain a better insight into the mechanism of sprite formation, let us recall some
properties of electric discharges in air. The fundamental scaling principle holds that
the electric field breakdown threshold is proportional to the number density N of
neutral gas. Laboratory experiments with electric discharges in air and other gases
at different pressures and N confirm this dependence (e.g., see [39]). The number
density of air in the atmosphere decreases with height z approximately exponen-
tially; that is,
N ¼ N0 expð
z=Ha Þ; (11.1)
whence it follows that the so-called conventional breakdown threshold Ec in air
falls off approximately exponentially with altitude:
Ec ¼ Ec0 expð
z=Ha Þ: (11.2)
Here Ec0  32 kV/cm is the constant of the order of breakdown threshold at
the sea level z ¼ 0 while Ha  7
9 km denotes the so-called scale height of the
atmosphere, which depends on air temperature and meteorological conditions.
Laboratory tests show that the electric breakdown of air starts with the genera-
tion of electron avalanches. As the strong electric field exceeds the breakdown
threshold given by (11.2), it can trigger the transition from an electron avalanche
mechanism to a streamer generation. It is well-documented in the laboratory that an
individual streamer is the self-propagating narrow filament of cold low-conducting
plasma (e.g., [40]). At the next stage, the spatial structure of the discharge is deter-
mined by the dynamics of the streamer development and the streamer branching
phenomena. The speed of the streamer in the air reaches values of 102
104 km/s.
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 431

The streamer head can be charged negatively or positively. A negatively charged

streamer propagates due to the ejection of electrons from its head into ambient air,
whereas a positive streamer propagates due to injections of ambient electron ava-
lanches into its head from its surroundings. The charge density at the streamer head is
so high that the electric field around the head is four to seven times larger than Ec ,
which in turn gives rise to the high rate of impact and photoionization around the
head [40]. This is the main reason why the streamer can propagate through the region
where the electric field is smaller than the conventional breakdown threshold. The
minimum values of electric field required for the propagation of positive and negative
streamers in the atmosphere are proportional to N and thus can be described by an
equation analogous to (11.2). In the case of negative streamers, the parameter Ec0
defining the breakdown threshold at the sea level equals
12:5 kV/cm while for the
positive streamer Ec0 ¼ 4:4 kV/cm [41]. The altitude dependences of the breakdown
electric field that correspond to different air breakdown mechanisms are shown in
Figure 11.5 with dotted lines: 2, conventional breakdown threshold; 3, negative
streamer propagation, and; 4, positive streamer propagation.
As mentioned above, sprites occur a few milliseconds after the extraordinarily
intense lightning discharge. It is generally accepted that worldwide sprites and halos
are triggered by the strong quasi-electrostatic (QE) field caused by an uncompensated
thundercloud charge existing for the short time just after the moment of causative
lightning. For example, consider a positive flash, which usually consists of a single
stroke followed by a CC. Notice that only a small part of
CG flashes is accompanied
by CC and its magnitude is normally much smaller than that of CC current due to
+CG. The positive CC typically lasts for several tens or hundreds of milliseconds and
its current magnitude amounts to 5–10 kA [29]. During this discharge, the uncom-
pensated charge of the cloud can reach hundreds of Coulomb. Considering the QE
field of this charge at high altitudes; that is, away from the thundercloud, the actual
charge distribution in the thundercloud is of no importance. So let us simplify the
problem assuming that the uncompensated negative charge q of the thundercloud is
uniformly distributed inside the ball, which is located approximately in the middle of
the cloud. The center of the charged ball with radius r is located on z-axis at the
altitude h, as shown in Figure 11.5. In such a case, the electric field taken along the
z-axis is given by ðq < 0Þ

qðz
hÞ
Ez
¼ ; h
r < z < h þ r;
4pe0 r3
qðz
hÞ (11.3)
Ez
¼ ; 0 < z < h
r or z > h þ r;
4pe0 jz
hj3

where e0 is the electric constant/dielectric constant of free space. Since the ground
is a conductor, the induced charges of the opposite sign will appear on the ground
surface. The electric field of these induced charges in the atmosphere coincides
with the field of the mirror electric image of the ball located at depth z ¼
h
(Figure 11.5). The left side of Figure 11.5 shows a model of electric charges in a
cloud and their electrical images in the ground. The net electric field taken along
432 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

90
z
80

70
2
60
3
50

z, km
4
40
1
30

20
E
z=h 10
E
0
–3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 4
z = –h log ‌ Ez ‌ , kV/m

Figure 11.5 Model calculations of thunderstorm QE field preceding sprite

discharge. Absolute value of the vertical electric field is shown with line
1, which corresponds to the thunderstorm charge q ¼
150 C. Altitude
dependences of the breakdown electric field that correspond to different
air breakdown mechanisms are shown with dotted lines 2
4

the z-axis is given by Ez ¼ Ez
þ Ezþ , where Ez
is defined by (11.3), and the field
of induced charges has the form:
q
Ezþ ¼
; ðz > 0Þ: (11.4)
4pe0 ðz þ hÞ2
where q < 0 is the charge of thundercloud. Note that at high altitudes under
requirement z  h the (11.3) and (11.4) are simplified. In the first approximation,
for the small parameter h=z we obtain:
qh
Ez ¼ Ez
þ Ezþ  : (11.5)
pe0 z3
This dependence on height is not surprising, since the cloud charges and their
electric image in the ground form an electric dipole with a dipole moment 2qh.
The direction of the vector of the total field Ez under and above the charged
ball is indicated in Figure 11.5 by vertical arrows. The dependence of the absolute
value of the vertical electric field on the height z, calculated by using (11.3) and
(11.4), is shown in Figure 11.5 with line 1. In making this plot the following
numerical values of the parameters have been used q ¼
150 C, h ¼ 10 km, and
r ¼ 2 km. Such a thundercloud charge could arise immediately after the +CG
discharge, which results in the CMC of the order of 1,500 Ckm.
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 433

80 km

70 km

60 km

50 km

t = 5.29 ms t = 5.71 ms t = 5.99 ms t = 6.41 ms t = 6.69 ms t = 6.96 ms t = 7.38 ms t = 10.29 ms

Figure 11.6 High-speed images of the sprite development from small dim
inhomogeneities as observed at Yucca Ridge Field Station on August 13,
2005, at 03:43:09.4 UT. The nucleation point of the left sprite element is
marked with a white arrow. Adapted from Cummer et al. [42]

QE field decreases with altitude according to the power law, approximately

inversely proportional to z3 . The conventional breakdown threshold in (11.2)
decreases exponentially with height, i.e. more rapidly than the QE field does. Air
breakdown can occur at those altitudes where the total QE field of the thundercloud
charges and the charges induced in the ground exceeds the breakdown threshold Ec .
As is seen from Figure 11.5, this breakdown condition is valid for z > 82 km.
However, the sprite nucleation can also occur at lower altitudes near some atmo-
spheric inhomogeneities, where the local electric field is greater than Ec . The origin
of the initial sprite streamers can occur in the altitude range of 60
80 km, where
QE field (line 1 in Figure 11.5) begins to exceed the threshold values required for
the propagation of streamers (lines 3 and 4 in Figure 11.5).

11.2.3 Sprite development

High-speed video observations have shown that a carrot-shaped sprite can be
initiated several ms after the causative lightning spontaneously from a bright spot in
the mesosphere. For example, Figure 11.6 displays a series of high-speed images
illustrating sprite development and structure [42]. The time in these pictures is
counted since the moment of the causative lightning stroke. This sprite consists of
two distinct sprite elements, marked on the first and second pictures with the
symbols A and B. These elements start to grow from two small and dim streaks
located between 70 and 75 km altitude. Consider, for example, the left sprite ele-
ment shown with a white arrow in the first picture. The downward streamer pro-
pagation is accompanied by branching into multiple channels and by enhancement
of luminescence. Taking into account that the QE field is directed downwards, one
can assume that this is a positive streamer. The upper portion of the sprite starts to
grow up and develops into a bright column which is larger in size and significantly
brighter than the initial downward streamers. In the fifth and subsequent pictures,
this sprite portion branches and terminates in diffuse glows.
Pre-existing kilometer-scale plasma irregularities arising before the streamer
initiation in halo emissions have been observed near the altitude  of 75 km [43].
434 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

These spatial irregularities descend rapidly along with the sprite halo and then
slow down producing spots of stationary glow. Finally, the streamer suddenly
starts from this formation. Figure 11.7 shows this scenario for the development
of the sprite. This event illustrates the sprite development from brightening
inhomogeneities at the bottom of a halo [42]. The bright inhomogeneities arise
at the lower edge of the originally homogeneous halo 2.2 ms after the return
stroke. The downward propagating sprite streamers begin to develop from these
spots and then branch in the same way as the previous example. The upward
streamers propagate at velocity ð0:5
2Þ  107 m/s and terminate in diffusive
emissions. The expanding bright columns in the upper portion of the sprites are
wider and more diffuse than that visible in the sprites shown in Figure 11.6. The
last images in Figure 11.7 illustrate the gradual fading of the glow and the
disintegration of the sprite.
Early observations have shown that the initial streamer’s velocities are greater
than 107 m/s [44]. Using a multi-anode photometer, McHarg et al. [45] have
observed the downward and upward propagating streamer at the velocities on the
order of 107
108 m/s. On the basis of high-speed imagining with 0:1 ms resolution,
McHarg et al. [46] has shown that the highest part of the upward sprite streamers
can accelerate on the order of 1010 m/s2 at the initial stage of streamer develop-
ment. Plots of the streamer head velocity versus time and velocity versus altitude
are shown in Figure 11.8. As is seen from this Figure, the lowest region of down-
ward streamers accelerates initially to a maximum velocity ð1
3Þ  107 m/s and
then immediately decelerates at approximately constant value 1010 m/s2 which is
saved until the sprite is stopped [47].

80 km

70 km

60 km

50 km

t = 1.66 ms t = 2.06 ms t = 2.26 ms t = 2.46 ms t = 2.66 ms t = 3.06 ms 40 km

80 km

70 km

60 km

50 km

t = 3.46 ms t = 3.66 ms t = 4.06 ms t = 4.66 ms t = 6.26 ms t = 7.86 ms 40 km

Figure 11.7 High-speed images of the sprite development from the sprite halo as
observed at Yucca Ridge Field Station on August 13, 2005, at
03:12:32.0 UT. Adapted from Cummer et al. [42]
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 435

× 107 × 107
2 3
Center Center
1× Left Left
2 1×
V, m/s

10 10

V, m/s
10 10
1 m/ 2 m/s 2
s
1

0 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
× 107 Time, ms × 107 Time, ms
2 3
Center Center
Left Left
2

V, m/s
V, m/s

1
1

0 0
75 70 65 60 55 50 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40
A‫׀‬t, km A‫׀‬t, km

Figure 11.8 The downward streamer head velocity versus time (upper row), and
the streamer velocity versus altitude (lower row). In making the first
and second columns the high-speed images shown in Figures 11.6
and 11.7 were used. Adapted from [47]

Flashes of extremely strong sprite are occasionally accompanied by appear-

ance of red spots arising after the flash down in the lowest tendrils near the cloud
tops [48]. These phenomena which have been termed Trolls (Transient Red Optical
Luminous Lineaments) consist of a rapid series of events. The video observations
with high time resolution have shown that each individual event starts with the
formation of a red spot with faint red tails like a sprite tendril. Then this spot
“flows” downward. Each following event starts higher than the previous one. As a
whole, this series of events looks like a blur propagating upward from near cloud
top to 40–50 km altitude at a velocity of about 1:5  105 m/s.

11.2.4 Sprite models

To gain a better insight into the mechanism of sprite formation and its properties,
consider a few theoretical models describing the sprite evolution.
Free electrons make a significant contribution to the electrical conductivity of
air at mesospheric altitudes since the mobility of electrons is much greater than that
of ions. In strong electric fields, the free electron production is predominately due
to the impact ionization of oxygen and nitrogen molecules according to the fol-
lowing reactions (e.g., [49,50])

e
þ O2 ! 2e
þ Oþ
2; e
þ N2 ! 2e
þ Nþ
2: (11.6)
In addition, free electrons can appear due to photo-ionization near the charged
streamer head, where the charge density and electric field are more significant.
436 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Under an appreciable electric field, a major role is played by the competing pro-
cesses of dissociative two-body or three-body attachment of electrons to either O2
or N2 molecules
e
þ O2 ! O þ O
; e
þ O2 þ A ! O

2 þ A; (11.7)
where A is another neutral molecule. It is generally accepted that the dissociative
two-body attachment is more important than the three-body attachment at meso-
spheric and lower ionospheric altitudes [14].
For simplicity, we consider a three-component plasma consisting of electrons
and single charged positive and negative ions. Let ne be the electron number density
while nþ and n
be the number densities of positive and negative ions, respectively.
To treat the electromagnetic phenomena associated with sprite development includ-
ing its streamer structure and relationship with intra-cloud (IC) process, a set of
transport kinetic and electrodynamic equations are required. The equations describing
the variations in the number densities of electrons and ions must take into account not
only the ionization and electron attachment to neutrals but also the electron-ion
recombination, electron drift and diffusion, etc. Let ni and na be the ionization and
attachment rates, while me and De be the electron mobility and diffusion coefficient,
respectively. Then the basic kinetic equations are as follows:

@ t ne ¼ Ic þ Iph þ ðni
na
bÞne
bd ne nþ
r  ðne me EÞ þ r  ðDe rne Þ;

(11.8)
@ t n
¼ ðna þ bÞne
bi n
nþ ; (11.9)
@ t nþ ¼ Ic þ Iph þ ni ne
bd ne nþ
bi n
nþ : (11.10)
Here the symbol @ t denotes partial time derivative, Ic stands for the rate of
primary ionization due to cosmic rays, solar radiation, electron precipitation and
etc.; Iph is the source of nonlocal photo-ionization which can play a significant role
in the vicinity of the streamer head, bd is the effective coefficient of dissociative
recombination, bi is the effective coefficient of ion-ion recombination, and b is the
effective electron attachment rate in the absence of the electric field E. In the strong
electric field ni and na are much greater than b. The functions me , and De , both
depend on the neutral molecule number density N , which falls off approximately
exponentially with altitude z according to (11.1).
The electric field in the mesosphere is caused by both thundercloud charges
and charges resulting from the electric breakdown of air. To complete the set of
(11.8)–(11.10) a proper model of thundercloud QE field and the following Maxwell
equation are needed
e0 r  E ¼ eðnþ
n

ne Þ; (11.11)
where e is the elementary charge. If the transient magnetic field can be neglected,
then the electric field can be expressed through the potential j via E ¼
rj.
The ionization and attachment rates, ni and na , are strongly dependent on both
the applied electric field through electron temperature and on the neutral molecule
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 437

number density. For model calculations, an approximation of these functions

similar to the Townsend approximation can be used [51]:



E i ðN Þ E a ðN Þ
ni ¼ me ai Eexp
; na ¼ me aa Eexp
: (11.12)
E E
Here me is the electron mobility while ai and aa are the inverse of the electron
mean free paths between ionization or attachment events. The products of me ai and
me aa do not depend on the air number density, since ai and aa are proportional to the
N whereas me / N
1 . Therefore, me ai ¼ me0 ai0 and me aa ¼ me0 aa0 , where the sub-
script 0 means the functions taken at sea level. Critical fields Ei and Ea responsible
for the ionization and electron attachment rates, are proportional to N , and thus
exponentially depend on altitude; that is, Ei ¼ Ei0 N =N0 and Ea ¼ Ea0 N =N0 .
The difference between the ionization rate and electron attachment rate given by
(11.12) is shown in Figure 11.9 as a function of the reduced electric field E  ¼ E=N .
In making this plot we have used altitude 70 km and the following numerical values
of the parameters me0 ¼ 3:8  10
2 m2 V–1s–1, ai0 ¼ 4:3  105 m–1, aa0 ¼ 2  103 m–1,
Ei0 ¼ 2  107 V m–1, and Ea0 ¼ 3  106 V m–1 [51]. As is seen from this Figure, the
inequality ni < na is valid at a low electric field. If an excess of electron density is
formed at such fields, then it will fall off quickly due to the dissociative attachment of
electrons to electronegative species, essentially to molecules of O2. In the inverse
case, that is, ni > na , the electron density may increase exponentially with time
thereby producing electron avalanches. The critical value of electric field known as

vi – va,
2
103 s–1

0.2 1.2 E N,
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
E1 E0 E* Emin E2 10–19 V m2

–1 τ –1

–2

–3

Figure 11.9 The difference between the ionization rate and electron attachment
 ¼ E=N as calculated
rate as a function of reduced electric field E
from (11.12) at an altitude of 70 km. The attachment instability can
 min where the graph has a minimum.
develop to left from the point E
Adapted from Surkov and Hayakawa [52]
438 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

the conventional breakdown threshold Ec is derivable from the condition ni ¼ na

and (11.12). From this, we arrive at (11.2) for Ec with the parameter
Ec0 ¼ ðEi0
Ea0 Þ=lnðai =aa Þ  32 kV=cm.
In the analysis that follows, we start with some analytical results. First of all, let us
consider the so-called avalanche-to-streamer transition. Evidently that the sprite
development starts with the formation of electron avalanches at the presence of
ambient electric field exceeding the breakdown threshold Ec of air at mesospheric
altitudes The number of electrons in avalanche increases in time: Ne ¼ expðgi me Ec tÞ,
where gi is the ionization coefficient [39]. The growth of an individual electron ava-
lanches is accompanied by an accumulation of considerable space charges at the
avalanche heads followed by the generation of the proper electric field E0 of these
charges. The field of these charges can strengthen the ambient field that results in the
avalanche-to-streamer transition. To study this transition in a little more detail, the
head of the electron avalanche can be approximated by a ball withradius Ra [39].
The electric field of a uniformly charged ball is given by E0 ¼ eNe = 4pe0 R2a . With
increasing the avalanche size and the electron number, the electrostatic repulsion of
the electrons becomes more and more significant. The electron drift due to their
repulsion in the field E0 results in the ball expansion at the rate dRa =dt  me E0 . Taking
into account the above expressions for Ne and E0 we arrive at the following equation
dRa eme expðgi me Ec tÞ
¼ : (11.13)
dt 4pe0 R2a
The solution of this differential equation under requirement Ra ð0Þ ¼ 0 is given by
3e 3eNe
R3a ¼ fexpðgi me Ec tÞ
1g  : (11.14)
4pe0 gi Ec 4pe0 gi Ec
Rearranging this equation we obtain that Ra ¼ 3E0 =ðgi Ec Þ. Actually, the increase
in the head radius in accordance with (11.14) is limited since Ra must be less than the
ionization length g
1i . The increase in the avalanche head slows down, or even ceases
completely if Ra reaches the value about g
1 0
i [39]. At this point, the electric field E of
0
the head charges reaches a critical value Eс  Ec =3. The total electric field on outer
side of the avalanche head increases up to the value of E  Ec þ Eс0 , while on the side
of the head facing the inside of the avalanche, the field is approximately equal to
E  Ec
Eс0 . The weakening of the total field behind the avalanche head promotes
the formation of a quasi-neutral plasma in the tail of the avalanche and to the
rebuilding of the avalanche structure to a streamer form.
In fact, the criterion for the avalanche-to-streamer transition depends not only on
ionization and electron repulsion but also on electron diffusion and attachment rate. In
the model by Qin et al. [53], the avalanche head is also approximated as a charged ball,
but they took into account not only the electrostatic repulsion of electrons but also the
diffusive spreading of the electron avalanche. It was assumed that the electron drift due
to their repulsion in the field E0 and diffusion gives rise to the ball expansion at the rate
dRa 2De
¼ me E 0 þ : (11.15)
dt Ra
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 439

As the first term on the right-hand side of (11.15) is neglected, the solution of
this equation under zero initial condition has a form Ra ¼ ð2De tÞ1=2 , which is
typical for diffusion processes. In the model by Qin et al. [53], it is assumed that
ionization and dissociative electron attachment in the thundercloud QE field play a
major role in the excitation of the sprite streamer. In this case, only the ionization
and attachment rates can be retained in (11.8), neglecting the other terms on the
right-hand side of the equation

dne
¼ ðni
na Þne : (11.16)
dt
Just after + CG lightning, the uncompensated negative electric charges appear
in a thundercloud for a short time. Equations (11.15) and (11.16) were used to
approximate the inception of sprite streamers from sprite halo in the electric field of
these charges. In this model, the condition Eс0  Ec =3 was applied as a criterion for
the avalanche-streamer transition. The numerical modeling has shown that the
sprite streamer initiation depends strongly on the CMC of causative + CG lightning
and the ambient electron density profile.
In semi-analytical models by Surkov and Hayakawa [52], a sprite is approxi-
mated through an expanding plasma ball that develops from a plasma inhomo-
geneity situated at altitudes of 70–80 km above the thundercloud. To simplify the
problem, the streamer structure of the sprite leaves out of the account, and the
plasma ball is assumed to be homogeneous and conductive. At the mesospheric
altitudes, the mobility of the electrons is much greater than that of the ions, so only
the electron conductivity is taken into account inside the ball, that is, s ¼ ene me .
Combining this relationship and (11.16) and taking into account the continuity
equation for electric current, yields
ds
r  j ¼ 0; ¼ ðni
na Þs; (11.17)
dt
where j ¼ sE þ e0 @ t E is the total electric current density.
Just after causative lightning, the uncompensated charges arise in the thun-
dercloud. The plasma ball is polarized in the electric field in the thundercloud
electric field E0 ðtÞ and polarization charges appear on its surface thereby producing
the time-dependent dipole-type field outside the ball. In this model, the total elec-
tric field is given by
 
pðtÞ  r
Eðr; tÞ ¼ E0 ðtÞ
r ; (11.18)
4pe0 r3
where pðtÞ is the dipole moment of the polarization charges while r denotes the
position vector drawn from the ball center which is located at the height h. The total
electric field (11.18) at the lowest point of the ball is assumed to be equal to kEc ,
where k  1 is the dimensionless factor. The polarization charges weaken the
electric field inside the ball. But, if this field exceeds the air breakdown threshold,
then the ionization of the air and the production of free electrons begin to prevail
440 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

over their attachment to the neutral molecules followed by the increase in the ball
plasma conductivity in (11.17). In this model, the rates of ionization and electron
attachment to molecules are governed by the electric field (11.18) in accordance
with (11.12). That is, given some electric field E0 ðtÞ, the problem is reduced to a set
of ordinary nonlinear equations for the functions pðtÞ, sðtÞ, and RðtÞ. These equa-
tions should be supplemented by the proper boundary conditions on the ball sur-
face, that is, the continuity of electric potential and normal component of the total
current density.
The ball radius begins to increase as soon as the electric field of the thunder-
cloud exceeds the conventional breakdown threshold of air Ec ðhÞ. The analysis of
the approximate analytical solution of this problem showed that the initial accel-
eration a0 ¼ d 2 R=dt2 is practically independent of the rate of change of the thun-
dercloud electric field and is given by [54]

   
me0 kEc ðhÞsa ðhÞHa Ei0 Ea0
a0  ai0 exp

aa0 exp
: (11.19)
3e0 kEc0 kEc0
For night conditions, the conductivity of the ambient air sa ðhÞ at altitude
h ¼ 70 km is about 10
9 S/m while Ec ðhÞ  0:51 kV/m. Substituting the above
numerical values of the parameters as well as Ha ¼ 8 km and k ¼ 1:2 in (11.19),
we obtain that a0  1010 m/s2.
The numerical solution of this model problem is illustrated in Figure 11.10 as
the thundercloud QE field is approximated via E0 ðtÞ / ðt=tr Þexpð
t=tr Þ, where tr is

× 107
4.5

4 2 ms
5 ms
3.5 9 ms

2.5
V, m/s

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
t–t* , ms

Figure 11.10 Model calculation of the expansion velocity of the plasma ball
immersed in thundercloud QE field. Taken from Surkov and
Hayakawa [54]
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 441

the relaxation time. In this figure, the maximum expansion velocity of the plasma
ball varies within ð3:2
4:4Þ  107 m/s depending on tr .
Despite this model being far from perfect, the above estimates of the ball
expansion velocity and acceleration are close in magnitude to the observed values
of the sprite streamer velocity and acceleration shown in Figure 11.8. To proceed
analytically, it is necessary at this point to construct a more complete model of the
sprite which takes into account the structure of a developed sprite consisting of
individual moving streamers. Even in this simplified form, the set of (11.8)–(11.12)
describing the plasma phenomena associated with sprite evolution is rather com-
plicated. Thus, the most portion of the theoretical studies of sprites are based on
numerical simulations of the (11.8)–(11.12) or similar equations (e.g., [55–57]).
The reader is referred to that works for details about sprite numerical simulations.

11.2.5 Inner structure and color of sprites

Figure 11.1 displays a typical structure of the developed carrot-shaped sprite. It is
usually the case that upper diffuse region in red color gradually changes to lower
tendril-like filamentary region in blue color below approximately 50 km. The
predominance of red and blue colors in the optical sprite emission is due to the
excitation of molecules of N2 by electron impact followed by the optical emission
of excited molecules of N2. At altitudes above 50 km the first positive band system
of N2 emission (N21P) makes the main contribution to the red region (600
760
nm) of the optical spectrum of the sprite whereas below 50 km the strong collision-
induced quenching of the electron-excited state B3 Pg gives rise to the suppression
of this emission [5,58]. In the altitude range below 50 km, the blue color begins to
prevail in the sprite optical emission due to the excitation of the second positive
band of N2 (N22P).

Figure 11.11 A sprite telescopic image at wide (a) and narrow (b) field of view
(FOV) as observed over northwestern Mexico on July 13, 1998, at
06:00:00 UT. The small rectangle on panel (a) is shown on panel
(b) at a large scale. The images have been false-colored and
saturated at 685 kiloRayleigh (kR) in order to better represent
intensity (see color bar). Taken from Gerken et al. [59]
442 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Figure 11.11 shows sprite telescopic images taken over northwestern Mexico
on July 13, 1998, at low (a) and high (b) resolutions [59]. The small white rectangle
on panel (a) is shown on panel (b) at a large scale in order to highlight the fine
structure of the sprite. It is evident from this image that the tendril-like region of the
sprite consists of densely packed branching streamers. These high-resolution
measurements have shown that the mobile bright compact balls, shown in this
image with red color, are the highly ionized streamer heads. In the altitude range of
60
64 km, the transverse scale of filamentary structures ranges from 60 to 145 m
whereas the size of streamer heads varies from 10 to 100 m and the streamer speed
lies in the range of 106
107 m/s [46,59].
The diameter of the CG lightning streamer is smaller than 1 mm and its length
amounts to tens of meters, whereas the size of sprite streamers is much greater. This
fact can be explained based on the similarity theory for streamers that establishes
similarity relations for different streamer parameters and the air number density
([40,41,60]). First of all, we consider the scaling in size of a glow discharge.
According to the similarity theory the typical streamer length Ls , the streamer head
radius Rs , and the charge qs in the head vary inversely proportional to the neutral
gas density N . For example, this means that Rs ðzÞ ¼ Rs0 N0 =N ðzÞ, where Rs0
denotes the streamer head diameter at sea level and z is the streamer altitude.
Substituting (11.1) for N ðzÞ into the above relationship and using the parameters
z ¼ 62 km, Rs0 ¼ 1 mm, and Ha ¼ 7 km, we obtain that Rs  7 m. Kanmae et al.
[61] have shown that the sprite streamer diameters have to be larger than that
predicted by this simple similarity law possibly due to the effects of the photo-
ionization and an expansion of the streamer head along its propagation over a long
distance. In this notation, the above estimate is compatible with the streamer head
size observed by Gerken et al. [59].
The dynamics of the individual sprite streamer and its internal structure are
rather complicated. After the passage of the streamer heads, the ionized channels
arise in their wake. These channels exhibit intricate luminous patterns of alternating
bright and dark spots, conventionally called beads and glows. The sprite beads
appear as persistent, localized spots of light emission that often punctuate a strea-
mer channel [62]. Their lifetime is much longer than the duration of the streamer
head propagation.
One conceivable reason for the existence of beads and glows is assumed to be
the attachment instability of electric discharges developing in the streamer channel
[63]. The attachment instability builds up as a result of the fluctuation of the
electron number density ne at certain electric field in the streamer channel (e.g.,
[39]). To explain this kind of instability, consider again (11.16) describing the
variation of electron number density due to the ionization and the dissociative
attachment of electron to neutral molecules. The difference between the ionization
rate and electron attachment rate versus the reduced electric field is shown in
Figure 11.9.
Let I ¼ ene me SE be the time-dependent electric current in a streamer channel,
where S is the cross-section of the streamer channel. For simplicity, this current is
assumed to be uniform and constant along a streamer channel. This implies that all
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 443

the parameters in the expression for I are taken in an average sense. Let E  min
denotes the reduced electric field which corresponds to minimum of the graph
shown in Figure 11.9. Suppose that the electric field E  min in some
 0 is less than E
cross-section of the channel. Since the electric current is constant along the chan-
nel, the small negative fluctuation of the electron number per unit of the channel
length, ne S, in this section will result in a small increase of the local electric field to
the value E >E  0 . This change in the electric field, which is schematically shown
in Figure 11.9 with a blue arrow, leads to a decrease in the difference ni
na . From
(11.16), it is clear that this change in ni
na will cause an additional decrease of ne ,
which in turn results in the increase in E  and so on thereby exciting the attachment
instability.
Following Luque et al. [63], we now examine the mechanism of beads generation
in the presence of exponentially decreasing electric current I ¼ I0 expð
t=tÞ in the
streamer channel. Here t  1 ms is the current relaxation time. Assuming for the
moment that S is constant, then the equation for the current in the streamer channel can
be rewritten to the view I
1 ðdI=dtÞ ¼ n
1
1
e ðdne =dt Þ þ E ðdE=dt Þ. Substituting the
expression for electric current and (11.16) for dne =dt into the above relationship yields
 
dE=dt ¼ E na
ni
t
1 : (11.20)

There are three stationary points in (11.20); that is, E ¼ 0 and two points E 1

1
and E 2 which are the roots of the equation na
ni ¼ t . These roots are defined
by the intersection points of the graph na
ni with a red horizontal line t
1 shown
in Figure 11.9. It follows from (11.20) that the electric field can enhance in the
streamer channel areas if the electric field lies within the interval from E 2
 1 to E
shown in Figure 11.9. Additionally, the reduction of the free electrons due to their
attachment to neutral molecules gives rise to the resistance of these areas. This
results in the Joule dissipation and enhancement of the heat release, which can
cause the transformation of these areas into quasi-stationary bright beads.
The model based on attachment instability claims only a qualitative explana-
tion of the observed beads and glows in the streamer channel. Actually, the beads
appear in the streamer wake at different times after the streamer head passage. In
this notation, it seems likely that the streamer’s current variations and the streamer
interaction can play a significant role in bad and glow excitation.

11.2.6 ELF/VLF electromagnetic fields produced by sprites

The time delays between causative CG strokes and the sprites vary widely from less
than 1 ms to a few hundred depending on the sprite type, meteorological conditions,
etc. [32,33]. The carrot sprite occurrence can be accompanied by a burst of VHF
electromagnetic radiation starting 25–75 ms before the causative CG stroke
whereas the column sprites exhibit little VHF activity [64]. These effects are
indicative of a correlation between intra-cloud processes and sprite generation
mechanisms.
The simultaneous optical and ground-based observations of the sprite-
producing lightning events have shown that the ELF/VLF electromagnetic field
444 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

data contained not only the signal radiated by the lightning current but also the peak
which coincides in time with the appearance of sprite luminosity [65]. This fact was
established by using the ISUAL instruments on board the FORMOSAT-2 satellite.
Figure 11.12 displays an example of ELF/VLF variations detected by the ground-
based magnetometer located approximately 2780 km from lightning discharge [66].
The radiation caused by the sprite current manifests itself as 1
2 ms pulses that
follow a lightning return stroke by a few milliseconds to a few hundred milli-
seconds. It should be emphasized that these pulses are caused by the currents
generated inside the sprite itself and they are not associated with the M-component
of continuing current of causative +CG discharge. In contrast to return stroke, the
sprite spectrum almost entirely belongs to the ELF region.
In theory, one of the main characteristics of the ELF field at large distances
from a lightning discharge is the so-called lightning current moment, which is
approximately equal to the product of the discharge current I ðtÞ and the length LðtÞ
of the lightning channel. The current moment waveform of the observed signals can
be extracted from the ELF data by using the model approximation of the lightning
and sprite currents. To extract this information, the solution to the problem of the
ELF electromagnetic field propagation in the Earth-ionosphere waveguide is used
[66]. The time dependence of the lightning and sprite current moments is selected
in such a way that the calculated ELF field pulse would be close to the observed
ELF magnetic field variations. On the basis of several case studies, the sprite cur-
rent moments have been estimated as much as 200
300 kAkm [66].
A network of ground-based stations equipped with different sensors has been
operative during Japanese sprite campaigns in winters 2004/2005 and 2006/2007
[33]. This network included optical instruments at two-spaced observatories, VLF
and ELF electromagnetic field antennas, and magnetometers. High-sensitive cam-
eras have been used to capture optical emissions of causative lightning and sprite
images. The coordinates and onset time of lightning flashes were measured by
using three VHF antennas of the SAFIR interferometric lightning system. The
azimuthal magnetic field (nT)

0
sprite
–0.4 return current
stroke pulse
pulse
–0.8

55.60 55.62 55.64 55.66

time after 0426 UT (sec)

Figure 11.12 Azimuthal component of the ELF/VLF magnetic field variation

recorded at Duke University, North Carolina on October 3, 2004 at
0426:55.6 UT. The peaks on the graphs are presumably due to the
current pulses generated by the causative +CG lighting and sprite.
Adapted from Cummer et al. [66]
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 445

technique of determining the current moment of sprite-producing lightning dis-

charges used in these experiments differs from the technique described above. The
current moment has been estimated by comparing the measured ELF lightning
spectra with the spectra obtained by solving the model problem [28].
As an example, Figure 11.13 illustrates the sprite-producing lightning event
recorded in Hokuriku area, Japan on February 3, 2007 [33,67]. North-South com-
ponent of ELF magnetic field shown in this figure has a peak marked by the vertical
red line which coincides with the onset time of the sprite. Other ELF transients; that
is, East-West magnetic component and vertical electric field have the same wave-
form including the sprite-producing peak. The power spectral density of these ELF
magnetic field variations is shown in Figure 11.14. The spectrum resonance
structure below 7 Hz is apparently due to excitation of the ionospheric Alfvén
resonator (IAR) (e.g., [68]), but several peaks are in the region 7
25 Hz. An
interesting property of the spectrum is that the envelope of the spectrum, shown
with the green line, is subject to oscillations with a “period” of about 15–20 Hz.

0
HNS(+), mA/m

–0.5

–1

Figure 11.13 North-south component of ELF magnetic field caused by a sprite-

producing lightning event recorded at Hokuriku area, Japan on
February 3, 2007 [33,67]. The peak marked by a vertical red line
coincides in time with the appearance of sprite luminosity. Adapted
from Surkov et al. [67], with permission, Elsevier

120
100
80
60
40
20

5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Frequency, Hz

Figure 11.14 Power spectral density of the ELF magnetic field variations which
were shown in Figure 11.13. Adapted from Surkov et al. [67], with
permission, Elsevier
446 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

To explain this property one should take into account that this power spectrum
contains the contribution of the magnetic fields of both causative lightning dis-
charge, Bc , and the delayed sprite, Bs . Let t be the lag of time between the cau-
sative lightning and sprite occurrences, while rc and rs be their position vectors
with respect to the observation site. The total spectrum is then given by [67]:

BðwÞ ¼ Bc ðrc ; wÞ þ Bs ðrs ; wÞexpðiwtÞ: (11.20)

The power spectrum is proportional to jBðwÞj2 which contains the oscillatory

factors cos ðwtÞ and sin ðwtÞ whence it follows that the power spectrum amplitude
has to be modulated with “period” t
1  15
20 Hz. So, the ULF/ELF power
spectra permit us to obtain information not only about the lightning and sprite
current moments but also about the sprite delay time.

11.2.7 Effects of sprites on the ionosphere

The intense lightning discharges often result in observable changes in the amplitude
and phase of VLF electromagnetic waves propagating in the Earth–ionosphere
waveguide and passing over a thunderstorm region [4,69–71]. One possible cause
for these changes is the so-called lightning-induced electron precipitation (LEP)
event (e.g., [70]). The basic mechanism for the LEP effect is due to the fact that,
firstly, a portion of lightning-radiated wave energy is transferred into magneto-
spheric whistler mode waves, which interact in gyroresonance with relativistic
radiation belt electrons and, secondly, the electron scattering into the loss cone and
precipitation in the upper atmosphere followed by the secondary air ionization [72].
The VLF amplitude and phase changes occur 1 c after the return stroke. This time
lag is due to the delay of both the VLF whistler mode propagating to the equatorial
region of the radiation belts and the electrons traveling from the equatorial region
to the lower ionosphere.
It was later discovered that in some events the observed VLF wave pertur-
bations follow within only a few milliseconds of the lightning discharge in
contrast to the LEP effect. Most of them had positive amplitude changes
whereas LEP events most commonly result in negative amplitude changes. This
kind of VLF perturbation has been termed “early” or “early/fast” events [73].
The lightning impact on the ionosphere is assumed to be due to heating and
ionization of the D region of the ionosphere caused by lightning electromagnetic
radiation or QE field of the thundercloud. This leads to local changes in con-
ductivity and reflection coefficient in the D region, which in turn results in the
amplitude and phase perturbations of the subionospheric VLF wave passing
over a thunderstorm region (e.g., [74]).
Similar early/fast effects associated simultaneously with sprite appearance
have been observed by Inan et al. [73]. Analysis of VLF data gathered during
the 2003 EuroSprite campaign has shown that the sprite occurrences are
accompanied by early/fast VLF perturbations in a one-to-one correspondence
[75]. Figure 11.15 shows an example of the sprite-produced early/fast event
observed during this campaign [76]. The onset time of this event has a short
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 447

52.6

VLF amplitude (dB)

51.8

51.0

50.2

49.4

48.6

47.8
–4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60
Time (s)

Figure 11.15 A typical example of an “early/fast” VLF event associated

simultaneously with a sprite at Crete during the 2003 EuroSprite
campaign. Adapted from Haldoupis et al. [77]

duration smaller than 20 ms and coincides with the sprite onset time. This data
counts in favor of the suggestion that these sprite-related early/fast events are
caused by the interaction of VLF waves with the conductivity perturbation in the
upper D region. The typical recovery time of the early/fast effects varies from
10 to 300 s and is comparable to the LEP recovery time [4,77]).
It is generally believed that this recovery time is basically determined by
recombination processes in the ionospheric plasma since the dissociative recom-
bination of electrons and single positive ions prevails over electron attachment at
the altitudes of the lower ionosphere [78]. In consideration of this approximation,
(11.8) describing the perturbations of electron and ion number densities is simpli-
fied to
dne
¼
bd ne nþ : (11.21)
dt
Let ne0 be the electron number density arising just after the short-term stage of
interaction of the sprite-radiated electromagnetic wave with the lower ionosphere.
Taking into account that ne  nþ and performing integration of (11.21) under the
requirement ne ð0Þ ¼ ne0 , we come to the usual law for binary plasmas
ne0
ne ¼ : (11.22)
1 þ bd ne0 t
Substituting ne ¼ ne0 =3 into (11.22) we obtain the rough estimate of the
recovery time: tr  2=ðbd ne0 Þ. Using the typical values of the parameters
bd ¼ ð1
3Þ  10
7 cm3/s [78] and ne0 ¼ 6  104 cm–3 [77] gives the value of
tr  ð1
3Þ  102 s, which is compatible with the observed recovery time.
448 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

HWV-CRE TE, dB
1
0.5
0
–0.5
–1
–1.5

Figure 11.16 A typical example of an “early/slow” event associated with a sprite-

producing lightning was observed at Crete during the 2003
EuroSprite campaign. The onset time of the sprite is shown with the
vertical dashed line. Adapted from Neubert et al. [4]

Another type of the sprite effect on phase and amplitude of VLF waves pro-
pagating in the Earth–ionosphere waveguide is referred to as “early/slow” event
[4]. Figure 11.16 shows an example of such event observed in Crete at a distance of
about 2,000 km from a convective storm in central France. The sprite appears at the
time marked by the vertical dashed line in Figure 11.16. The “early/slow” events
have a long onset duration of up to 2.5 s, which is much greater than the “early/fast”
onset duration shown in Figure 11.15.
The ground-based VLF measurements have shown that the growth phase of the
early/slow events is accompanied by bursts of spherics which are commonly related to
intra-cloud (IC) lightning discharges whereas spherics were not detected during onsets
of early/fast events [74]. This implies that the long duration of the “early/slow” onset
time can be associated with the enhancement of IC electric activity before and after the
sprite appearance. Horizontal IC discharges can have the greatest impact on the
ionosphere since the horizontal currents radiate most of the electromagnetic energy in
the directions perpendicular to the current line. A series of electromagnetic pulses
radiated upward from horizontal IC discharges can accelerate sprite-produced elec-
trons followed by secondary ionization buildup in the upper D region of the iono-
sphere. This leads to a gradual buildup of conductivity changes below the nighttime
VLF wave reflection heights. One may assume such an effect could be responsible for
the long onset durations of the observed early/slow events. The VLF measurements
thus provide us with important information about the role played by IC processes in
the perturbation of the lower ionosphere above the sprite occurrence.

11.3 Blue jet, blue starter, and gigantic jet

11.3.1 Basic properties and morphology of blue and
gigantic jets
A class of upward propagating beams of blue light that start at the top of thun-
dercloud and terminate in the upper stratosphere have been discovered during the
Sprites94 aircraft campaign [6,7]. These beams of luminosity have been termed
blue jet (BJ). They originate from the thundercloud top and move upwards in a
narrow cone of about 15
20 with the mean velocity of the order of 100 km/s to
terminal altitudes of about 25
40 km. A picture of a typical BJ which was
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 449

observed over a large evening thunderstorm in the Indian Ocean [8] is shown in
Figure 11.3. Figure 11.17 demonstrates the inverted black and white image of the
BJ shown in Figure 11.3 [8]. At the base of BJ, its diameter is about 400 m. At
30 km altitude, the jet diameter broadens to about 2 km.
It is evident that the main cause of the optical emission of BJs is the upward-
directed large-scale electric discharge in the stratosphere that cause the ionization
of air and the excitation of air molecules including N2 by electron impact. The red
N2 emissions are strongly quenched at these altitudes. So, the blue color in the
optical emission of BJs is caused by the predominance of the emission of the
excited energy levels of the second positive band of N2 (N22P) (e.g., [79]). As
compared to the sprites, BJ luminosity is brighter than the sprite ones while the BJ
tip moves slower than the sprite streamer head. Unlike sprites, the BJs do not seem
to require the occurrence of lightning before the BJ discharge.
Blue starters (BSs) are a kind of BJs, which propagate upward from cloud tops
at 17
18 km altitudes and terminate abruptly at altitudes below 25 km. Basically,
they differ from BJs by a lower terminal latitude [9]. Analysis of data gathered by

40

35
Altitude (km)

30

25

20

18

0 2 4
Scale (km)

Figure 11.17 The inverted black-and-white image of this blue jet which was
shown in Figure 11.3. Adapted from Wescott et al. [8]
450 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

the ISUAL payload on board the FORMOSAT-2 satellite has shown that BSs have
a length about 8 3 km with a width of  ð2
4Þ km [80].
As compared to BJs and BSs, the GJs are more intensive discharges propa-
gating upwards from the thundercloud top through the stratosphere and mesosphere
to lower ionosphere. When the GJ terminates at altitude of about 85
90 km, it
produces the electrical connection between the thundercloud top and the conduct-
ing D- and E-layers of the ionosphere [10,81,82]. The first images of GJ over an
oceanic thunderstorm were captured at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico
[10]. Figure 11.18 demonstrates an example of GJ observed over the Pilbara region
in the north of Western Australia on March 28, 2017. The bright blue/purple stem
below the streamer corona is thought to be a leader channel. The top edge of the
bright stem is usually located at 30
50 km altitude [83,84]. The upper streamer
zone at mesospheric altitudes exhibits red color, in analogy to the sprites, mainly
due to the excitation of the first positive band system of N2 emission.
A majority of GJs are of negative polarity and can transfer more than 100 C of
negative charge from the cloud top to the ionosphere (e.g., [85]). The ISUAL
experiment observed global rates of 0.50, and 0.01 events per minute for sprites and
gigantic jets, respectively [86]. Although the instruments with a larger sensitivity and
coverage will detect many more such events, it is evident that the GJ occurrence is a
much rarer event compared to a sprite occurrence. The GJs are more frequent over
intense tall tropical thunderstorms of 14
18 km altitude with convective surges or
even overshooting [87–89] although Yang et al. [90] have reported observations of
GJs over a mesoscale convective system in the middle latitude region in eastern
China. The GJ over a maritime thunderstorm not only with 6.5 km tall but also with
overshooting has been observed by van der Velde et al. [84].

Figure 11.18 A gigantic jet over Pilbara, Australia, on March 28, 2017, captured
by Jeff Miles. Taken from https://watchers.news/2017/03/31/gigan
tic-jets-over-pilbara-australia-on-march-28-2017
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 451

According to morphological characteristics, GJs can be divided into several

categories such as the tree-shaped GJs like that shown in Figure 11.4 or carrot-like
GJs with beads and patches at the top of a massive central area similar to those seen
in carrot sprites [91]. One more type of GJs, which have two clearly separated main
branches that can develop separately; that is, not simultaneously is shown in
Figure 11.18.

11.3.2 Development of gigantic jet

The video sequence of the images of upward propagating GJs can be used in order to
estimate the dependence of the GJ top altitude on time. Triangles and circles shown in
Figure 11.19 indicate the altitudes of the GJ top depending on time as observed by a
Pasko et al. [10] and b Soula et al. [89]. The initial and final stages of this dependence
can be approximated by two dashed straight lines which correspond to approximately
constant velocities of the GJ top [49]. At the initial stage, the apparent velocity of GJ
upward propagation is of the order of ð5:7
6:3Þ  104 m/s that is close to a typical
leader velocity observed during usual CG lightning discharge. Some GJs may initially
develop as ordinary IC lightning followed by the origination of the leader which
begins to propagate upward from the thundercloud top [83]. At the final stage, as is
seen in Figure 11.19, the GJ top velocity increases up to ð1:2
2:3Þ  106 m/s.
Based on recent measurements, the GJ evolution can be divided into several main
stages: the leading jet (LJ), fully developed jet (FDJ), and trailing jet (TJ) (e.g., [81]).
Figure 11.20 illustrates these stages of the GJ development with an example of the
image sequences captured from the north coast of Colombia in 2018 [91].
The LJ stage numbered by 1 in Figure 11.20 manifests itself as a weak lumi-
nescence above the cloud top starting  150 ms before the FDJ stage. The area
marked with a dotted line in the left upper corner of this figure depicts three faintly

90 90
80
80 Pasko et al. [2002] 70 Soula et al. [2011]
70 60
Altitude (km)
Altitude (km)

60 50
≥ 2.3×106 m/s
≥ 1.2×106 m/s
50 40
6.3×104 m/s
40 5.7×104 m/s 30
30
20 20
50 100 150 200 250 80 100 120 140 160 180
(a) Time (ms) (b) Time (ms)

Figure 11.19 Illustration of GJ evolution as observed by a Pasko et al. [10] and b

Soula et al. [89]. Triangles and circles indicate the heights of the GJ
top depending on time. The initial and final stages of GJ evolution are
approximated with dashed straight lines. Taken from da Silva and
Pasko [49]
452 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

glowing segments, which become visible at an altitude of 32.6 km to 34.4 km only

5.0 ms before the start of the FDJ stage (numbered by 2–4). These close-up images
are shown with 0.2 ms resolution. The segments exhibit the brief downward
extension of a streamer starting at the same time as the onset of upward-
propagating streamers at the beginning of the FDJ stage. The time-averaged speed
of the streamer upward extension during the LJ stage is about ð0:5
2Þ  104 m/s as
observed with a slow camera while the LJ current is estimated at 100 A. In the
late LJ stage, sometimes there occurred a stepping process with step sizes of
2
5 km, 5
10 ms intervals between them, and 0.5 ms step duration [91]. On
account of the step duration 0:5 ms, one can estimate the upward step speed of the
order of ð0:4
1Þ  107 m/s, which is about two orders of magnitude greater than the
time-averaged speed at this stage.
Stepping is typical for negative leaders in lightning flashes. So, these observations
count in favor of the hypothesis that the negative lightning leader reaching  40 km
altitude can be generated in GJ followed by the formation of the streamer zone, which
in turn can make the jump to the ionosphere [49]. In contrast to the typical negative
leader in the CG lightning, however, the LJ stepping process exhibits a much longer
duration, no optical pulses upon connection, and less brightness. Although the absence
of optical emission can be due to strong absorption in the blue/ultraviolet part of the GJ
spectrum in the atmosphere at large distances.
The FDJ stage starts with the final growth of the GJ to the ionosphere followed
by a sudden increase of the luminosity which is much brighter than that at the LJ
stage. The lower panel in Figure 11.20 illustrates the FDJ stage in an enlarged time
scale with a time resolution of 0.2 ms. The origin of the FDJ is located at the

27 ms GJ 12 19 November 2018 02:13:39

90
Altitude (km)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
1 image = 1ms
90
80
Altitude (km)

70
60
50
40
30
20

2.5 × 107 ms–1 4.2 ms 1 image = 0.2 ms

Figure 11.20 An example of the image sequences of the GJ development captured

from the north coast of Colombia, Cartagena on November 19,
2018. The upper panel shows the selected images recorded by the
high-speed camera with a time resolution of 1 ms. A dotted line in
the left upper corner indicates the brief downward extension of a
streamer starting at the same time as the final upward jump. The
lower panel demonstrates a zoom in time of the FDJ stage of the GJ
with a temporal resolution of 0.2 ms. The background in this figure
was removed and the contrast was improved. Taken from van der
Velde et al. [91]
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 453

altitude range of 35
50 km. From this point, the GJ develops in a bidirectional
fashion in such a way that upper portion of the GJ propagates toward the iono-
sphere without interruption forming the diverging branched structure of the nega-
tive streamers whereas the power portion of the GJ transforms into downward
extending filaments/positive streamers, which gradually fade over time. Van der
Velde et al. [91] have reported that the upward negative streamers propagate at
mean speeds of ð1
2:5Þ  107 m/s, accelerating above 70 km up to the speed
7:5  107 m/s; that is, one order magnitude greater than that reported by Pasko et al.
[10] and Su et al. [81]. Notice that no downward-propagating return strokes were
detected upon connection to the ionosphere in contrast to CG lightning.
Simultaneous optical and ground-based ELF observations have shown that GJs
result in the generation of low-frequency magnetic fields [83,85,92]. For example,
the ascending streamers during the final jump and decay of the FDJ are accom-
panied by the appearance of a sharp peak in the magnetic field perturbation with a
duration of about 5 ms. This peak is assumed to be due to the increase in the FDJ
current up to 350 A during the final jump [91].
The TJ stage (numbered by 5–7) begins after the GJ reaches the ionosphere and
then lasts for about 200 ms. The upper part of the TJ luminescence attenuates
gradually during this stage although the middle part of the jet starts to form a
brighter section after a few milliseconds [89,91]. This bright section/trailing jet
reaches a maximum luminosity 60
80 ms after the time when the FDJ stage is
completed. Beads and new patches appearing above the TJ indicate that an electric
field may exist in this region. The upward velocity of the TJ top slows down from
9  105 m/s to 2  104 m/s after reaching maximum luminosity and then the TJ ter-
minates at 55
62 km altitudes. The highest current moment during the TJ stage is
estimated to be 37.5 kA km, which corresponds to the current of about 850 A while
the total CMC by the end of the TJ stage is 2,300 C km.
11.3.3 Models of gigantic jet
It is generally believed that the conditions under which a BJ or GJ can occur largely
depend on the distribution of electric charges in the cloud. Classical, normally
electrified thunderstorms have a stratiform electrical structure close to a typical
dipolar structure. Most part of negative charges predominantly accumulates in the
middle region of the thundercloud, whereas the majority of positive charges tend to
pile up at the thundercloud top [29,93,94]. These main charges are supplemented
by a small positive charge located at the bottom and negative screening charge at
the upper cloud boundary.
An example of the electric field measured by a balloon in the typical thun-
dercloud is shown in Figure 11.21, which demonstrates strong variations of the
electric field with altitude [95]. The arrow L indicates the height at which the
electric field is close to the conventional breakdown threshold. In order to explain a
normal and nonstandard electrical structure of the cloud, several models of the
charge distribution in the cloud have been proposed. The models consisting of four
charges areas located at different altitudes are illustrated in Figure 11.22 [94].
These space charges are assumed to have a Gaussian spatial distribution. The
454 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

June 18, 1987, Hinton, OK May 30, 1988, Dalhart, TX

z, km z, km

12 12
L
10 L 10

8 L
8 L
L
6 6
L
4 4

2 2

0 0
–200 –100 0 100 200 –200 –100 0 100 200
E, kV m–1 E, kV m–1

Figure 11.21 Examples of altitude dependence of balloon-measured vertical

electric field in a thundercloud. The arrows L indicate the heights
at which a CG lightning leader may start to develop. Adapted from
Marshall et al. [95]

negative and positive charge areas are shown with blue and red contours while the
total charges of these areas are indicated to the right from contours (in C).
Figure 11.22a, c displays the model charge distribution at which the IC lightning (a)
can occur between the two most highly charged regions, and the model that cor-
responds to the low-altitude IC lightning (c). Negative CG discharge can arise if the
storm accumulates lower positive charge as shown in Figure 11.22b. Observations
of the so-called “bolt-from-the-blue” (BFB) lightning discharges can be explained
in terms of the model shown in Figure 11.22e. The negative BFB discharge begins
as regular upward-directed IC discharge which does not terminate in the upper
positive charge. Instead, it continues horizontally out the upper side of the storm
and turns downward to ground [94].
It is generally believed that the positive BJ discharge may occur under the
requirement that large amount of positive charge piles up near the top of cloud.
This charge can be covered from above by a negatively-charged screening layer as
shown in Figure 11.22d. It seems likely that the BJ discharges once triggered would
propagate upward through the negative-charged layer and escape the cloud top into
the stratosphere.
Since the GJ usually bears a large amount of negative charge, in contrast to the
BJ discharges, the GJ events can be associated with the accumulation of great deal
of negative charges at middle level of the thundercloud and opposite charges at
upper level. This charge distribution provides an alternative way of neutralization
the mid-level negative charge, by discharging it to the upper atmosphere due to GJ
rather than to ground due to CG lightning. Figure 11.22f shows the model dis-
tribution of space charges in the cloud, which may precede the occurrence of the
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 455

(km)
21
18
Negative 15
Intracloud cloud-to-ground
lightning lightning 12
(–15) (–20) 9
+50 +40 6
–50 –60
3
+10 +12.5
0
0 4 8 12 0 4 8 12 (km)
(a) (b) (km)
21

Positive 18
Low-altitude
intracloud lightning blue jet 15
12
(–20) (–20) 9
+40 +57.5 6
–45 –40
+15 +5 3
0
0 4 8 12 0 4 8 12 (km)
(c) (d)
Negative gigantic jet (km)
21
18
Negative (–3) 15
bolt-from-the-blue +82.5
12
(–30) 9
–120
+20 6
+30 +25
–90 3
0
0 4 8 12 0 6 12 18 (km)
(e) (f)

Figure 11.22 Simplified models of electric charge distribution in a thundercloud.

Blue and red contours indicate negative and positive charge areas.
The numbers in the columns on the right indicate the charges of the
corresponding areas in coulombs. Taken from Krehbiel et al. [94]

CG discharge [94]. This model consists of four space charges: 25,
120, 82.5, and

3 C distributed around the altitudes 4.3, 8.0, 13.2, and 15.4 km, respectively.
To study the QE field associated with the GJ events in a little more detail, the
simplest model was used, which assumes that these charges form four spherically
symmetric regions arranged one above the other along the vertical z-axis. The
spatial charges are uniformly distributed in these regions. The results of numerical
456 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

20
3
18
16
14
12
, km

10
Ɀ

2
8
1
6
4
2
0
–300 –200 –100 0 100 200 300 400 500
EⱿ , kV/m

Figure 11.23 Numerical simulation of the altitude dependence of the

thunderstorm QE field, which may precede the occurrence of the
CG discharge. Vertical component of the QE field versus altitude is
shown with solid line. A runaway breakdown field and the electric
fields required for propagation of positive and negative streamers
in the air are shown with dashed lines 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Adapted from Surkov and Hayakawa [60]

modeling of the vertical electrical field taken along z-axis versus altitude z are
shown in Figure 11.23 with solid line [60]. The dashed lines 1
3 indicate the
altitude dependence of the runaway breakdown threshold and minimum fields
required for propagation of positive and negative streamers in the air. The occur-
rence of GJ discharge is possible at those altitudes where the thundercloud QE field
exceeds one of these three threshold fields. Initiation of the GJ discharge due to the
runaway breakdown mechanism at low altitudes is very questionable because of the
lack of seed relativistic electrons and great length required for a relativistic ava-
lanche multiplication process (e.g., [79]). As is seen from Figure 11.23 the negative
GJ discharge can be initiated within the altitude range of 10–12 km where the
thunderstorm QE field is close to electric fields required for propagation of nega-
tive streamers in the air. The arrow indicates the most probable altitude for the GJ
initiation. The negative GJ once triggered can penetrate through the above narrow
layer with positive electric field (10
15 km), and then escape the thundercloud
toward the ionosphere. So, the GJ once triggered starts to propagate as a normal IC
discharge between the main mid-level negative charge and a screening positive
upper-level charge, that continues to propagate upward out of the top of the thun-
dercloud [94].
The upward-propagating BJ and GJ discharges and normal CG lightning have
a few properties in common despite the BJ and GJ have the inverted structure and
other spatiotemporal scales. The BJ can be considered as an upward-propagating
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 457

positive leader with a streamer corona on the top in close analogy to usual CG
lightning [96] whereas the most of GJ manifest themselves during the LJ stage as
upward-propagating negative leaders (e.g., [91]). A great number of the short-lived
cold streamers produce a streamer corona of BJ and GJ discharges. In contrast to
CG discharge, the length and radius of individual streamers emitted from the hot
leader head and a typical size of the streamer corona increase with altitude because
of exponential decreasing air density.
In the model by Raizer et al. [97–99], the BJ/GJ originated from a bidirectional
leader starting at the height where the electric field is maximal. It is assumed that the
ascending leaders prevail over the descending ones due to the exponential decrease in
atmospheric pressure with altitude. The minimum field required for the streamer
propagation is given by equation similar to (11.2); that is, Es ¼ Es0 expð
z=Ha Þ,
where Es0 is the critical field at sea level. Let hl be the altitude of the leader tip, which
plays a role in the streamer source. The individual streamer born at this altitude can
grow up to “infinity” if the leader tip has the potential
ð1
U¼ Es dz ¼ Es0 Ha expð
hl =Ha Þ: (11.23)
hl

From here one may obtain an order-of-magnitude estimate of the escape alti-
tude hl . Such an upward-propagating streamer can reach to the lower ionosphere if
it starts from the altitude [98]
Es0 Ha
hl ¼ Ha ln : (11.24)
U
Using empirical data by van der Velde et al. [84] and by Neubert et al. [100],
Milikh et al. [101] have estimated the parameters in (11.24) and found that hl  42
km. This rough estimate is compatible with the GJ observations since the streamer
corona of the GJ start to grow up at the altitude range of 40–50 km (e.g., see
Figure 11.20). The streamer corona of the BJ discharge arises at lower altitudes and
therefore it terminates in the stratosphere before reaching the altitudes of the
ionosphere.
One of the challenges of the BJ and GJ research is to know enough about the
streamer-to-leader transition and initiation of lightning leader. Laboratory tests with
long sparks and numerical simulations have shown that the initial lightning leader
can result from the contraction of the streamer’s currents into a small radius channel
[39,102]. This contraction has been assumed to be due to the development of an
ionization-thermal instability that is well-known in the theory of a glow discharge
[40,103].
The numerical simulations of the initiation of lightning leader and streamer-to-
leader transition in the air have shown that the transition from a uniform discharge
to the contracted state occurs as the electric current in the discharge channel
exceeds the critical value which increases with the pressure decreasing [101]. This
means that the critical current required for the BJ/GJ discharge contradiction
increases with altitude. The BJ/GJ leader thus terminates at such an altitude where
the critical current becomes as high as the leader current. Taking into account that
458 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

the observed altitude of GJ leader termination is about 48 km, and comparing this
altitude with that derived from their numerical calculation, Milikh et al. [101] have
estimated the critical current as 3.3 kA.

11.4 Elves
Divergent rings of brief optical emissions at the bottom of the ionosphere some-
times occurring immediately after intense return strokes of lightning discharges
were first observed from the Space Shuttle in 1991 [15]. These phenomena are
referred to as Elves that is an abbreviation for emission of light and VLF pertur-
bations due to EMP sources [16]. Generally, the Elves first arise at  90 km alti-
tude and then expand over 300
700 km laterally and 10
20 km in thickness for an
extremely short time of less than 0.1 ms [15,16,104,105]. Figure 11.24 illustrates an
example of Elves above a powerful thunderstorm in the Czech Republic taken from
the ground by a low-light video camera by Martin Popek.
It is generally accepted that the Elves are the visible manifestation of the
ionospheric response to a strong electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiated by the CG
discharge current of either polarity (e.g., [104–106]). Elves are produced as a result
of heating and secondary ionization of the lower ionosphere by the EMP from a
lightning discharge [105,107]. The Elves predominantly radiate in red color basi-
cally due to the nitrogen fluorescence resulting from the molecules excitation by

Figure 11.24 Elves above a powerful thunderstorm in the Czech Republic

captured by Martin Popek at night on April 2, 2017. This image was
taken from spaceweathergallery.com
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 459

the EMP. The short duration of this effect is basically due to a short lifetime of
excited states of molecules in the ionosphere.
The electromagnetic radiation pattern of a vertical lightning discharge is partly
similar to that of a vertical dipole antenna over a conducting ground. Due to that,
the lightning radiation intensity increases with increasing zenith angle. This prop-
erty of the radiation pattern can explain the fact that most observed elves have a
“doughnut” shape.
Elves are much more common than other types of TLEs. Analysis of data
gathered by the ISUAL instrument aboard the FORMOSAT-2 satellite has shown that
the global occurrence rate of the Elves can be estimated as 3.23 events per minute
while about 90% of elves happened over sea [86,108]. The data of the JEM-GLIMS
mission (Global LIghtning and sprite MeaSurements at Japanese Experimental
Module of ISS) gathered for the three-year observation period have shown that about
6.1% of lightning events are accompanied by Elves appearance [109].
The unusual Elve, which exhibits a distinct striped structure unlike the vast
majority of symmetric, torus-shaped “classic” Elves were first reported by Yue and
Lyons [110]. Figure 11.25 shows the event called a “tiger Elve”, which illustrates the
striations in the Elves luminosity observed using a high-speed camera system near Fort
Collins, Colorado on June 12, 2013 [110]. Simultaneous and independent observations
by a co-located color near infrared camera revealed a pattern of internal gravity wave
(IGW) in the airglow at the OH layer located at height of 85 km. Since the banded
structure in the Elve and the IGW roughly coincided in space, this suggested that the

Figure 11.25 A distinctly striated Elve was observed using an intensified high-speed
camera system at the Yucca Ridge Field Station near Fort Collins,
Colorado on June 12, 2013. Taken from Yue and Lyons [110]
460 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

“tiger Elve” structure is due to the Elve interaction with a strong IGW propagating at
lower ionosphere altitudes. This effect can be explained by the fact that the ionization
rate in the D-region ionosphere is inversely proportional to the air density, which is
modulated by the IGWs. Numerical simulation of the lightning EMP interaction with
the ionospheric plasma has shown that the observable Elves striations at altitudes near
85 km can be generated by the IGW with a plasma density perturbation of as low as
5% [111]. So, a strong lightning discharge followed by Elves can make it visible the
IGW in the ionosphere.
About 4% of Elves events produced by strong lightning EMP are accompanied
by the so-called Elves doublets; that is, a pair of Elves occurred with a very small
time delay on the order of 100 ms [112,113]. The first Elve in the doublet is due to
EMP reflection from the ionosphere, whereas the second one is caused by triple
reflection; that is twice from the ionosphere and once from the Earth. This con-
clusion is supported by the facts that the time lag in the appearance of the second
Elves depends on the altitude of the discharge, the altitude of the ionospheric
reflection, and the distance to the camera.

11.5 Other transient atmospheric phenomena possibly

related to lightning activity
11.5.1 Gnomes and Pixies
In this section, we make a small excursion into the recently discovered optical
phenomena, whose direct connection with lightning discharges has not yet been
established, although these phenomena are most commonly observed over thun-
derclouds and active thunderstorms.
So-called Gnomes manifest themselves as brief lightning-like channels, pre-
sumably white in color, propagating upward from the top of a large thundercloud’s
anvil [18]. Typical Gnome’s lifetime is about tens milliseconds, their lateral size is
about 150
200 m and they do not grow more than 1 km above the cloud top at the
speed 104 m/s. Gnomes are partly similar to BSs although they are brighter and
much more compact in shape than the BSs.
A very small, brief spot of light sometimes appearing at the overshoot dome
similar to those produced the Gnomes have been referred to as Pixies [18]. These
mini flashes of white color have only 100 m in size and last for about 10 ms. It also
appears that the Gnomes and Pixies are neither temporally nor spatially associated
with specific CG and IC lightning flashes and occur independently of the lightning
appearance.

11.5.2 Transient atmospheric events

One more type of faint optical flash in the atmosphere near thundercloud, which is
presumably different from known TLEs, has been recently observed onboard low-
orbit satellites [114]. The optical measurements of this transient atmospheric event
(TAEs) were performed in the UV (300
400 nm), red, and infrared (>610 nm)
ranges. The majority of these flashes were detected in the equatorial region in
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 461

cloudy areas although the most powerful flashes occurred more frequently over the
oceans at higher latitudes.
The total optical energy emitted by TAEs is estimated to be about 25
50 kJ [115],
which is much less than the average optical emission energy of the sprites (300 kJ,
[116]) and lighting (1 MJ, [29]). Typical TAE may contain one burst of light or a series
of multiple bursts. The individual burst of light has a duration of about 0.1 ms or even
shorter while the multiple bursts can last for tens milliseconds. Conventionally, this
kind of faint flashes can be split into to two types: “luminous” and “dim” transients
depending on the number, Nph , of emitted photons [117]. The “dim” transients is a
portion of the short-term TAE with Nph < 1021 photons while the “luminous” tran-
sients are more intense event with Nph > 1023 photons and longer duration.
It is generally believed that the optical emission spectra of TAEs are due to the
fluorescence of the atmospheric nitrogen molecules, analogously to the emission
spectra of sprites and other mesospheric flashes, which are mainly composed of
the emission spectral lines of nitrogen molecules. Although the mechanism for the
fluorescence excitation seems to be distinct from that of TLEs. Analysis of the
“luminous” transients has shown that the photons number emitted in the UV range
was approximately three times greater than that of the red-IR range [114]. This
property is typical for the emission spectra of nitrogen molecules located at high
altitudes greater than 50 km [118]. Thus, it can be expected that the sources of the
“luminous” TAEs are located in the mesosphere.
It was hypothesized that the molecule fluorescence can be excited by electron
flows with energies on the order of tens of eV [19]. However, the reason for the
appearance of such electron flows in the atmosphere is a puzzle. Another model
explaining the TAE’s origin is based on assumption that large-scale areas with a low
space charge density and a low electric breakdown threshold can occur in the
mesosphere thereby producing electric discharges between the charged areas [115].
One possible cause for the existence of such charged areas at 50
70 km altitudes is
the abnormally low air conductivity due to the presence of suspended dust particles
[119]. The decrease in air conductivity is caused by free electron and ion attachment
to both the dust particles and positive ion clusters, which build up from nitrogen ions
N þ due to their hydration with water molecules. In the model, the TAEs parameters
are best suited to the onboard observations as the charged areas are situated at alti-
tudes of 60
70 km. The best-fit parameters are so that the charged areas of
10
15 km in size have to contain a total charge of about 1 C. In such a case the
theory predicts that the optical energy radiated during a single electric discharge
between the charged areas can be on the order of tens kJ while the discharge duration
is about several milliseconds [115]. Despite these theoretical estimates being com-
patible with the observations much remains to be done in this area.
11.5.3 Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes
Another interesting phenomenon is the brief bursts of upward-directed X-ray and
gamma-ray radiation detected on board low-orbit satellites near active thunder-
storm. This phenomenon termed terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs) was first
observed in 1994 by the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) on board
462 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory [120]. These studies were continued by

other space missions, for example, Reuven Ramaty High-Energy Solar
Spectroscopy Imager (RHESSI) spacecraft designed to detect X-rays and gamma-
rays [121] and Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor (ASIM) mounted at the
International Space Station, which is orbiting at about 400 km altitude [122–124].
The ASIM payload contains instruments for TGF and optical measurements of
lightning flashes; that is, the Modular X- and Gamma ray Sensor (MXGS) and the
Modular Multi-spectral Imaging Array (MMIA).
Typically the TGFs consist of several pulses of the gamma-ray radiation last-
ing of about 10
100 ms. However, this is much shorter than duration of typical
gamma-ray burst incident on the Earth from the space. The photon energy spectrum
of the TGF extends from 25 keV to 30
40 MeV [121,125,126]. The total
energy of the radiated photons is estimated to be 1
102 kJ. The mean fluence of
an individual TGF flash is about 0:1
1 photon/cm2 which corresponds to the total
photon number 1017
1019 photons radiated per flash [127,128].
The presence of high-energy photons implies that the main source of the TGF
photons is the bremsstrahlung of relativistic electrons in the atmosphere. It is now
commonly accepted that the production and acceleration of the energetic electrons
in the atmosphere at time scales of several microseconds is due to the development
of relativistic runaway electron avalanche (RREA) in a strong electric field
[129,130]. To activate the RREA process, the seed population of relativistic elec-
trons is required. The energetic particles including the high-energy electrons arise
from the interaction of a cosmic ray shower with air molecules. These electrons can
then be accelerated to relativistic energies in a strong large-scale QE field produced
by electric storm charges [131–133]. It has been also proposed that the seed elec-
trons can reach the relativistic energy in the strong inhomogeneous electric field in
the vicinity of the lightning leader channel and its tip ([134–142]).
To gain a better understanding of the physical mechanism of TGF generation,
it is necessary to establish the TGF source location in the atmosphere. It is gen-
erally believed that the most likely TGF source is a powerful IC lightning discharge
or, more exactly, an upward-propagating IC lightning leader, which carries a
negative charge [143–147]. Cummer et al. [148] and Lyu et al. [149] have reported
a few TGF events caused by strong current pulses with a current amplitude greater
than 200 kA. The altitudes of the IC lightning leader pulses associated with the
TGFs can be determined from VLF/LF electric field measurements. Using TGF
events detected by the instruments of Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) on the
Fermi satellite, Cummer et al. [143] showed that some of TGFs were produced a
few milliseconds after the onset of radio signals produced by the ascending IC
leader. These TGFs occurred after the leader had extended 1:5
2 km from its
initiation point at an altitude of about 8
11 km.
The simultaneous TGF and optical observations of lightning flashes by ASIM
satellite favor the assumption that the TGFs can occur during the initial phase of IC
lightning. Analysis of these data has shown that the onset time of TGFs frequently
preceded the onset of the lightning optical emission by 250
400 ms [123]. This
implies that the majority of TGFs start to develop during upward propagation of the
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 463

leader just before a large current pulse heats up the leader channel and emits a main
optical pulse. In some instances, the TGF-produced lightning current had such a
high amplitude, a prerequisite for Elves, that both TGF and Elves were observed
simultaneously [150].
Recently Belz et al. [151] have reported the first high-resolution ground-based
observations of downward-directed TGFs, which were detected by the large-area
Telescope Array cosmic ray observatory in a proximity (3
4 km) to the lightning
flash. The TGFs consisting 5
10 ms duration bursts of gamma rays were observed
during strong initial breakdown pulses in the first few milliseconds of negative
cloud-to-ground and low-altitude IC flashes. The number of gamma photons pro-
duced by such TGF was estimated as high as 1012–1014; that is, several orders of
magnitude less than satellite-detected photon number [152].
We cannot come into detail about this interesting phenomenon since the
researches are still continuing. The interested reader is referred to a review by
Kumar and Pooja [153] and references herein for details.

References
[1] Franz, R. C., R. J. Nemzak, and J. R. Winkler (1990), Television image of a
large upward electrical discharge above a thunderstorm system, Science 249,
48–51.
[2] Wilson, C. T. R. (1925), The electric field of a thunderstorm and some of its
effects, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 37, 32D.
[3] van der Velde, O. A. (2008), Morphology of sprites and conditions of sprite
and jet production in mesoscale thunderstorm systems, PhD thesis,
Toulouse, France, 202 pp.
[4] Neubert, T., M. Rycroft, T. Farges, et al. (2008), Recent results from studies
of electric discharges in the mesosphere, Surv. Geophys. 29(2), 71–137.
[5] Sentman, D. D., E. M. Wescott, D. L. Osborne, D. L. Hampton, and M. J.
Heavner (1995), Preliminary results from the Sprites94 campaign: Red
sprites, Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 1205–1208.
[6] Boeck, W. L., O. H. Jr. Vaughan, R. J. Blakeslee, B. Vonnegut, M. Brook,
and J. McKune (1995), Observations of lighting in the stratosphere,
J. Geophys. Res. 100, 1465. doi:10.1029/94JD02432.
[7] Wescott, E. M., D. Sentman, D. Osborne, D. Hampton, and M. Heavner
(1995), Preliminary results from the Sprites94 aircraft campaign: 2. blue jets,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 1209. doi:10.1029/95GL00582.
[8] Wescott, E. M., D. D. Sentman, H. Stenbaek-Nielsen, P. Huet, M. J.
Heavner, and D. R. Moudry (2001), New evidence for the brightness and
ionization of blue starters and blue jets, J. Geophys. Res. 106, 21549–21554.
[9] Wescott, E. M., D. D. Sentman, M. J. Heavner, D. L. Hampton, D. L. D.
Osborne, and Jr. O. H. Vaugham (1996), Blue starters: Brief upward discharges
from an intense Arkansas thunderstorm, Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 2153–2156.
464 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[10] Pasko, V. P., M. A. Stanley, J. D. Mathews, U. S. Inan, and T. G. Wood

(2002), Electrical discharge from a thundercloud top to the lower iono-
sphere, Nature 416(6877), 152–154. https://doi.org/10.1038/416152a.
[11] Chanrion, O., T. Neubert, I. L. Rasmussen, et al. (2019), The Modular
Multispectral Imaging Array (MMIA) of the ASIM payload on the
International Space Station, Space Sci. Rev. 26, 215. doi:10.1007/s11214-
019-0593-y.
[12] Neubert, T., N. Østgaard, V. Reglero, et al., The ASIM mission on the
International Space Station, Space Sci. Rev., 215, 26, 2019a, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11214-019-0592-z.
[13] Østgaard, N., J. E. Balling, T. Bjørnsen, et al., The modular X- and gamma-
ray sensor (MXGS) of the ASIM payload on the International Space Station,
Space Sci. Rev., 215, 23, 2019a, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-018-0573-7.
[14] Barrington-Leigh, C. P., U. S. Inan, and M. Stanley (2001), Identification of
sprites and elves with intensified video and broadband array photometry,
J. Geophys. Res. 106, 1741. doi:10.1029/2000JA000073.
[15] Boeck, W. L., O. H. Jr. Vaughan, R. J. Blakeslee, B. Vonnegut, and M.
Brook (1992), Lightning induced brightening in the airglow layer, Geophys.
Res. Lett. 19, 99–102.
[16] Fukunishi, H., Y. Takahashi, M. Fujito, Y. Wanatabe, and S. Sakanoi (1996),
Fast imagining of elves and sprites using a framing/streak camera and a
multi-anode array photometer. EOS Trans. AGU Fall Meet. Suppl. 77, F60.
[17] Inan, U. S., W. A. Sampson, and Y. N. Taranenko (1996), Spacetime
structure of optical flashes and ionization changes produced by lightning-
EMP, Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1029/95GL0 3816.
[18] Lyons, W. A., T. E. Nelson, R. A. Armstrong, V. P. Pasko, and M. A. Stanley
(2003), Upward electrical discharges from thunderstorm tops, Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 84(4), 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-4-445.
[19] Garipov, G. K., B. A. Khrenov, M. I. Panasyuk, et al. (2005), UV radiation
from the atmosphere: results of the MSU “Tatiana” satellite measurements,
Astropart. Phys. 24, 400–408.
[20] Hayakawa, M., T. Nakamura, Y. Hobara, and E. Williams (2004),
Observation of sprites over the sea of Japan and conditions for lightning-
induced sprites in winter, J. Geophys. Res. 105, 4689–4697.
[21] Myokei, K., Y. Matsudo, T. Asano, et al. (2009), A study of the morphology
of winter sprites in the Hokuriku area of Japan in relation to cloud height,
J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 71, 597–602.
[22] Wescott, E. M., D. D. Sentman, M. J. Heavner, D. L. Hampton, and Jr. O. H.
Vaughan (1998), Blue jets: their relationship to lightning and very large
hailfall, and their physical mechanisms for their production, J. Atmos. Solar-
Terr. Phys. 60, 713–724.
[23] Stenbaek-Nielsen, H. C., D. R. Moudry, E. M. Wescott, D. D. Sentman, and
F. T. Sao Sabbas (2000), Sprites and possible mesospheric effects, Geophys.
Res. Lett. 27, 3829–3832.
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 465

[24] Bór, J., Z. Zelkó, T, Hegedüs, et al. (2018), On the series of +CG lightning
strokes in dancing sprite events, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 11030–11047.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD028251.
[25] Lyons, W. A (1996), Sprite observations above the U.S. High Plains in
relation to their parent thunderstorm systems, J. Geophys. Res. 101(D23),
29641–29652.
[26] Soula, S., J. Mlynarczyk, M. Füllekrug, et al. (2017), Dancing sprites:
Detailed analysis of two case studies, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 122(6),
3173–3192.
[27] Yang, J., G. Lu, L.-J. Lee, and G. Feng (2015), Long-delayed bright dancing
sprite with large horizontal displacement from its parent flash. J. Atmos.
Solar-Terr. Phys. 129, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2015.04.00.
[28] Nickolaenko, A. P. and M. Hayakawa (2002), Resonances in the Earth-
Ionosphere Cavity. Kluwer Acad., Dordrecht, Netherlands.
[29] Rakov, V. A. and M. A. Uman (2003), Lightning: Physics and Effects.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[30] Boccippio, D. J., E. R. Williams, S. J. Heckman, W. A. Lyons, I. T. Baker,
and R. Boldi (1995), Sprites, ELF transients, and positive ground strokes,
Science 269, 1088–1091.
[31] Williams, E., E. Downes, R. Boldi, W. Lyons, and S. Heckman (2007),
Polarity asymmetry of sprite-producing lightning: a paradox? Radio Sci. 42,
RS2S17. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006RS003488.
[32] Lu, G., S. A. Cummer, J. Li, et al. (2013), Coordinated observations of
sprites and in-cloud lightning flash structure, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118,
6607–6632. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50459.
[33] Matsudo, Y., T. Suzuki, K. Michimoto, K. Myokei, and M. Hayakawa
(2009), Comparison of time delay of sprites induced by winter lightning
flashes in the Japan Sea with those in the Pacific Ocean, J. Atmos. Solar-
Terr. Phys. 71, 101–111.
[34] Cummer, S. A., W. A. Lyons, and M. A. Stanley (2013), Three years of
lightning impulse charge moment change measurements in the United
States, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 5176–5189. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jgrd.50442.
[35] Li. J., S. Cummer, G. Lu, and L. Zigoneanu (2012), Charge moment change
and lightning-driven electric fields associated with negative sprites and halos,
J. Geophys. Res. 117, A09310. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JA017731.
[36] Chen, B.-C., H. Chen, C. W. Chuang, et al. (2019), On negative sprites and
the polarity paradox, Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 9370–9378. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2019GL0838 04.
[37] Cummer, S. A. and M. Füllekrug (2001), Unusually intense CC in lightning
produces delayed mesospheric breakdown, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 495–498.
[38] Stanley, M., M. Brook, P. Krehbiel, and S. Cummer (2000), Detection of
daytime sprites via a unique sprite ELF signature, Geophys. Res. Lett. 27,
871–874.
[39] Raizer, Y. P. (1991), Gas Discharge Physics. Springer, Berlin.
466 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[40] Bazelyan, E. M. and Y. P. Raizer (1998), Spark Discharge. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
[41] Pasko, V. P. (2006), Theoretical modeling of sprites and jets, In: M.
Füllekrug, E. A. Mareev, and M. J. Rycroft (eds), Sprites, Eves and Intense
Lightning Discharges, NATO Science Series II: Mathematics, Physics and
Chemistry, vol 225. Springer, Heidleberg, pp 253–311.
[42] Cummer, S. A., N. Jaugey, J. Li, W. A. Lyons, T. E, Nelson, and E. A. Gerken
(2006b), Submillisecond imaging of sprite development and structure,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L04104. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005G L0249 69.
[43] Qin, J., V. P. Pasko, M. G. McHarg, and H. C. Stenbaek-Nielsen (2014), Plasma
irregularities in the D-region ionosphere in association with sprite streamer
initiation, Nat. Commun. 5, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4740.
[44] Stanley, M., P. Krehbiel, M. Brook, C. Moore, W. Rison, and B. Abrahams
(1999), High speed video of initial sprite development, Geophys. Res. Lett.
26, 3201–3204.
[45] McHarg, M. G., R. K. Haaland, D. Moudry, and H. C. Stenbaek-Nielsen
(2002), Altitude-time development of sprites, J. Geophys. Res. 107(A11),
1364. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JA000283.
[46] McHarg, M. G., H. C. Stenbaek-Nielsen, and T. Kammae (2007),
Observations of streamer formation in sprites, Geophys. Res. Lett. 34,
L06804. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027854.
[47] Li, J. and S. A. Cummer (2009), Measurement of sprite streamer acceleration
and deceleration, Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L10812. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2009GL037581.
[48] Lyons, W. A., M. Stanley, T. E. Nelson, and M. Taylor (2000), Sprites,
elves, halos, trolls, and blue starters above the STEPS domain, EOS Trans.
AGU, 81(48), F131.
[49] da Silva, C. L. and V. P. Pasko (2013), Dynamics of streamer-to-leader
transition at reduced air densities and its implications for propagation of
lightning leaders and gigantic jets, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 13561–
13590. https ://doi.org/10.1002/2013J D0206 18.
[50] Kelley, M. C. (1989), The Earth’s Ionosphere. Academic, New York, NY.
[51] Luque, A. and U. Ebert (2009), Emergence of sprite streamers from
screening-ionization waves in the lower ionosphere, Nat. Geosci. 2(11),
757–760. doi:10.1038/ngeo662.
[52] Surkov, V. V. and M. Hayakawa (2020), Progress in the study of transient
luminous and atmospheric events: a review, Surveys Geophys. 41(5), 1101–
1142. doi:10.1007/s10712-020-09597-2.
[53] Qin, J., S. Celestin, and V. P. Pasko (2011), Onthe inception of streamers
from sprite halo events produced by lightning discharges with positive and
negative polarity, J. Geophys. Res. 116, A06305. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2010JA016366.
[54] Surkov, V. V. and M. Hayakawa (2016), Semi-analytical models of the
sprite generation from plasma heterogeneities, Geomag. Aeron. 56(6),
724–732. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793216050145.
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 467

[55] Luque, A. and U. Ebert (2010), Sprites in varying air density: Charge con-
servation, glowing negative trails and changing velocity, Geophys. Res. Lett.
37, L06806. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009G L0419 82.
[56] Pasko, V. P., J. Qin, and S. Celestin (2013), Toward better understanding of
sprite streamers: Initiation, morphology, and polarity asymmetry, Surv.
Geophys. 34(6), 797–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-013-9246-y.
[57] Qin, J. and V. P. Pasko (2015), Dynamics of sprite streamers in varying air
density, Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 2031–2036. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2015GL063269.
[58] Pasko, V. P. (2007), Red sprite discharges in the atmosphere at high altitude: The
molecular physics and the similarity with laboratory discharges, Plasma Sources
Sci. Technol. 16, S13–S29. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-0252/16/1/S02.
[59] Gerken, E. A., U. S. Inan, and C. P. Barrington-Leigh (2000), Telescopic
imaging of sprites, Geophys. Res. Lett. 27(17), 2637–2640.
[60] Surkov, V. V. and M. Hayakawa, Underlying mechanisms of transient
luminous events: A review, Ann. Geophys., 30, 1185–2012, 2012.
doi:10.5194/angeo-30-1185-2012.
[61] Kanmae, T., H. C. Stenbaek-Nielsen, M. G. McHarg, and R. K. Haaland
(2012), Diameter-speed relation of sprite streamers, J. Phys. D, Appl. Phys.
45, 275203. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/45/27/275203.
[62] Sentman, D. D., E. M. Wescott, M. Heavner, and D. Moudry, Observations
of sprite beads and balls, Eos. Trans. AGU, 77(46), F61, 1996.
[63] Luque, A., H. C. Stenbaek-Nielsen, M. G. McHarg, and R. K. Haaland (2016),
Sprite beads and glows arising from the attachment instability in streamer chan-
nels, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121, 2431–2449. doi:10.1002/2015JA022234.
[64] van der Velde, O. A., Á. Mika, S. Soula, C. Haldoupis, T. Neubert, and U. S.
Inan (2006), Observations of the relationship between sprite morphology and
in-cloud lightning processes, J. Geophys. Res. 111, D15203. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2005J D0068 79.
[65] Cummer, S. A., U. S. Inan, T. F. Bell, and C. P. Barrington-Leigh (1998),
ELF radiation produced by electrical currents in sprites, Geophys. Res. Lett.
25, 1281–1284.
[66] Cummer, S. A., H. U. Frey, S. B. Mende, et al. (2006a), Simultaneous radio and
satellite optical measurements of high-altitude sprite current and lightning
continuing current, J. Geophys. Res. 111, A10315. doi:10.1029/2006JA011809.
[67] Surkov, V. V., Y. Matsudo, M. Hayakawa, and S. V. Goncharov (2010),
Estimation of lightning and sprite parameters based on observation of sprite-
producing lightning power spectra, J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 72, 448–456.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2010.01.001.
[68] Surkov, V. and M. Hayakawa (2014), Ultra and extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields, in Springer Geophysics Series, XVI, Springer, New
York, NY, 486 p.
[69] Hobara, Y., N. Iwasaki, T. Hayashida, M. Hayakawa, K. Ohta, and H.
Fukunishi (2001), Interrelation between ELF transients and ionospheric
468 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

disturbances in association with sprites and elves, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28(5),
935–938. https ://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL003795.
[70] Inan, U. S., S. A. Cummer, and R. A. Marshall (2010), A survey of ELF and
VLF research on lightning-ionosphere interactions and causative discharges,
J. Geophys. Res. 115, A00E36. doi:10.1029/2009JA014775.
[71] Otsuyama, T., J. Manaba, M. Hayakawa, and M. Nishimura (2004),
Characteristics of subionospheric VLF perturbation associated with winter
lightning around Japan, Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L04117. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2003GL019064.
[72] Helliwell, R., J. P. Katsufrakis, and M. Trimpi (1973), Whistler-induced
amplitude perturbation in VLF propagation, J. Geophys. Res. 78, 4679–4688.
[73] Inan, U. S., T. F. Bell, V. P. Pasko, D. D. Sentman, E. M. Wescott, and
W. A. Lyons (1995), VLF signatures of ionospheric disturbances associated
with sprites, Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 3461–3464. https://doi.org/10.1029/
95GL0 3507.
[74] Haldoupis, C., R. J. Steiner, Á. Mika, S. et al. (2006), ‘‘Early/slow’’ events:
A new category of VLF perturbations observed in relation with sprites,
J. Geophys. Res. 111, A11321. doi:10.1029/2006JA011960.
[75] Haldoupis, C., N. Amvrosiadi, B. R. T. Cotts, O. A. van der Velde, O.
Chanrion, and T. Neubert (2010), More evidence for a one-to-one correlation
between Sprites and Early VLF perturbations, J. Geophys. Res., 115,
A07304, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA015165.
[76] Neubert, T., T. H. Allin, E. Blanc, et al. (2005), Co-ordinated observations
of transient luminous events during the Eurosprite 2003 campaign, J. Atmos.
Solar-Terr. Phys. 67, 807–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2005.02.004.
[77] Haldoupis, C., Á. Mika, and S. Shalimov (2009), Modeling the relaxation of
early VLF perturbations associated with transient luminous events, J.
Geophys. Res., 114, A00E04, doi:10.1029/2009JA014313.
[78] Glukhov, V., V. Pasko, and U. Inan, Relaxation of transient lower iono-
spheric disturbances caused by lightning-whistler-induced electron pre-
cipitation bursts, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 16971–16979, 1992.
[79] Pasko, V. P. (2010), Recent advances in theory of transient luminous events,
J. Geophys. Res. 50(6), A00E35. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA014860.
[80] Kuo, C. L., H.-T. Su, and R.-R. Hsu (2015), The blue luminous events
observed by ISUAL payload on board FORMOSAT-2 satellite. J. Geophys.
Res. Space Phys., 120, 9795–9804. doi:10.1002/2015JA021386.
[81] Su, H. T., R. R. Hsu, A. B. Chen, et al. (2003), Gigantic jets between a
thundercloud and the ionosphere, Nature 423, 974–976. https://doi.org/
10.1038/nature01759.
[82] van der Velde, O. A., W. A. Lyons, T. E. Nelson, S. A. Cummer, J. Li, and
J. Bunnell (2007), Analysis of the first gigantic jet recorded over continental
North America, J. Geophys. Res. 112, D20104. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2007JD008575.
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 469

[83] Lu, G., S. A. Cummer, W. A. Lyons, et al. (2011), Lightning development

associated with two negative gigantic jets, Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L12801.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047662.
[84] van der Velde, O. A., J. Bór, J. Li, et al. (2010), Multi-instrumental observa-
tions of a positive gigantic jet produced by a winter thunderstorm in Europe,
J. Geophys. Res. 115, D24301. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014442.
[85] Cummer, S. A., J. Li, F. Han, et al. (2009), Quantification of the
troposphereto-ionosphere charge transfer in a gigantic jet, Nat. Geosci. 2,
1–4. https ://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO607.
[86] Chen, A. B., Ch.-L. Kuo, Yi-J. Lee, et al. (2008), Global distributions and
occurrence rates of transient luminous events, J. Geophys. Res. 113, A08306.
doi:10.1029/2008JA013101.
[87] Liu, N. Y., M. G. McHarg, and H. C. Stenbaek-Nielsen (2015), High-altitude
electrical discharges associated with thunderstorms and lightning, J. Atmos.
Solar-Terr. Phys. 136, 98–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2015.05.013.
[88] Meyer, T. C., T. J. Lang, S. A. Rutledge, et al. (2013), Radar and lightning
analyses of gigantic jet-producing storms, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118,
2872–2888. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50302.
[89] Soula, S., O. A. van der Velde, J. Montanyà, P. Huet, C. Barthe, and J. Bór
(2011), Gigantic jets produced by an isolated tropical thunderstorm near
Réunion Island, J. Geophys. Res. 116, D19103. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2010JD015581.
[90] Yang, J., M. Sato, N. Y. Liu, G. P. Lu, Y. Wang, and Z. C. Wang (2018), A
gigantic jet observed over a MCS in middle latitude region, J. Geophys. Res.
Atmos. 123(2), 977–996. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026878.
[91] van der Velde, O. A., J. Montànyа, J. A. López, and S. A. Cummer (2019),
Gigantic jet discharges evolve stepwise through the middle atmosphere,
Nat. Commun. 10(1), 4350. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12261-y.
[92] Chou, J. K., L. Y. Tsai, C. L. Kuo, et al. (2011), Optical emissions and
behaviors of the blue starters, blue jets, and gigantic jets observed in the
Taiwan transient luminous event ground campaign, J. Geophys. Res. 116,
A07301. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA016162.
[93] Cooray, V. (2015), An Introduction to Lightning. Springer, Dordrecht.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8938-7.
[94] Krehbiel, P. R., J. A. Riousset, V. P. Pasko, et al. (2008), Upward electrical
discharges from thunderstorms, Nat. Geosci. 1, 233–237. https://doi.org/
10.1038/ngeo1 62.
[95] Marshall, T., M. McCarthy, and W. Rust (1996), Electric field magnitudes
and lightning initiation in thunderclouds, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 7097–7104.
[96] Petrov, N. I. and G. N. Petrova (1999), Physical mechanism for the devel-
opment of lightning discharges between a thundercloud and the ionosphere,
Tech. Phys. 44, 472–475.
[97] Raizer, Y. P., G. M. Milikh, and M. N. Shneider (2006), On the mechanism
of blue jet formation and propagation, Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L23801.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027697.
470 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[98] Raizer, Y. P., G. M. Milikh, and M. N. Shneider (2007), Leader-streamer

nature of blue jets, J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 69, 925–938. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jastp.2007.02.007.
[99] Raizer, Y. P., G. M. Milikh, and M. N. Shneider (2010), Streamer- and
leader-like processes in the upper atmosphere: models of red sprites and
blue jets, J. Geophys. Res. 115, A00E42. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2009JA014645.
[100] Neubert, T., O. Chanrion, E. Arnone, et al., The properties of a gigantic jet
reflected in a simultaneous sprite: Observations interpreted by a mode, J.
Geophys. Res., 116, A12329, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JA016928.
[101] Milikh, G. M., M. N. Shneider, and M. S. Mokrov, Model of blue jet formation
and propagation in the nonuniform atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res. Space
Physics, 119, 5821–5829, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020123.
[102] Gallimberti, I. (1979), The mechanism of the long spark formation,
J. Physique 40, 193.
[103] Bazelyan, E. M., Y. P. Raizer, and N. L. Aleksandrov (2007), The effect of
reduced air density on streamer-to-leader transition and on properties of
long positive leader, J. Phys. D, Appl. Phys. 40, 4134–4144. https ://doi.
org/10.1088/0022-3727/40/14/007.
[104] Cheng, Z., S. A. Cummer, H. T. Su, and R. R. Hsu (2007), Broadband very low
frequency measurement of D region ionospheric perturbations caused by
lightning electromagnetic pulses, J. Geophys. Res. 112, A06318. https ://doi.
org/10.1029/2006J A0118 40.
[105] Inan, U. S., C. Barrington-Leigh, S. Hansen, V. S. Glukhov, T. F. Bell, and
R. Rairden (1997), Rapid lateral expansion of optical luminosity in
lightning-induced ionospheric flashes referred to as “elves”, Geophys. Res.
Lett. 24, 583–586.
[106] Nickolaenko, A. P. and M. Hayakawa (1995), Heating of the lower iono-
sphere electrons by electromagnetic radiation of lightning discharges,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 3015–3018.
[107] Rowland, H. L. (1998), Theories and simulations of elves, sprites and blue
jets, J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 60, 831–844.
[108] Su, H. T., R. R. Hsu, A. B. Chen, Y. J. Lee, and L. C. Lee (2002), Observation
of sprites over the Asian continent and over oceans around Taiwan, Geophys.
Res. Lett. 29(4), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013737.
[109] Sato, M., T. Adachi, T. Ushio, et al. (2017), Sprites identification and their
spatial distributions in JEM-GLIMS nadir observations, Terr. Atmos.
Ocean Sci. 28, 545–561. https://doi.org/10.3319/TAO.2016.09.21.02.
[110] Yue, J. and W. A. Lyons (2015), Structured elves: Modulation by con-
vectively generated gravity waves, Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 1004–1011.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014G L062612.
[111] Marshall, R. A., J. Yue, and W. A. Lyons (2015), Numerical simulation of
an elve modulated by a gravity wave, Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 6120–6127.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL0649 13.
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 471

[112] Marshall, R. A., R. T. Newsome, and U. S. Inan (2008), Fast photometric

imaging using orthogonal linear arrays, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.
46(11), 3885–3893.
[113] Newsome, R. T. and U. S. Inan (2010), Free-runningground-based photo-
metric array imaging of transient luminous events, J. Geophys. Res. 115,
A00E41. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA014834.
[114] Garipov, G. K., B. A. Khrenov, P. A. Klimov, et al. (2011), Global transients in
ultraviolet and red-infrared ranges from data of the “Universitetsky-Tatiana-2”
satellite, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118(2). doi:10.1029/2012JD017501.
[115] Surkov, V. V. (2020), On the nature of optical flashes observed aboard
Universitetsky-Tatyana and Vernov satellites, J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys.
210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2020.105389.
[116] Takahashi, Y., A. Yoshida, M. Sato, et al. (2010), Absolute optical energy
of sprites and its relationship to charge moment of parent lightning dis-
charge based on measurement by ISUAL/AP, J. Geophys. Res. 115,
A00E55. doi:10.1029/2009JA014814.
[117] Klimov, P., G. Garipov, B. Khrenov, et al. (2017), Vernov satellite data of
transient atmospheric events, J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 56, 2189–2201.
https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-16-0309.1.
[118] Milikh, G. M., J. A. Valdivia, and K. Papadopoulos (1998), Spectrum of red
sprites, J. Atmos. Solar Terr. Phys. 60, 907–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1364-6826(98)00032-7.
[119] Zadorozhny, A. M. and A. A. Tyutin (1997), Universal diurnal variation of
mesospheric electric fields, Adv. Space Res. 20, 2177–2180.
[120] Fishman, G. J., P. N. Bhat, R. Mallozzi, et al. (1994), Discovery of intense
gamma-ray flashes of atmospheric origin, Science 264(5163), 1313–1316.
doi:10.1126/science.264.5163.1313.
[121] Smith, D. M., L. I. Lopez, R. P. Lin, and C. P. Barrington-Leigh (2005),
Terrestrial gamma flashes observed up to 20 MeV, Science 307(5712),
1085–1088. doi:10.1126/science.1107466.
[122] Neubert, T., N. Østgaard, V. Reglero, et al. (2019a), The ASIM mission on
the International Space Station, Space Sci. Rev. 215, 26. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s1121 4-019-0592-z.
[123] Østgaard, N., T. Neubert, V. Reglero, et al. (2019b), First ten months of
TGF observations by ASIM, J. Geophys. Res. 124, 14024–14036.
doi:10.1029/2019JD031214.
[124] Sarria, D., P. Kochkin, N. Østgaard, et al. (2020), The first terrestrial electron
beam observed by the Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor, J. Geophys.
Res. Space Phys. 125, 10497–10511. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027071.
[125] Briggs, M. S., G. J. Fishman, V. Connaughton, et al. (2010), First results on
terrestrial gamma ray flashes from the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor,
J. Geophys. Res. 115, A07323. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA015242.
[126] Marisaldi, M., F. Fuschino, C. Labanti, et al. (2010), Detection of terrestrial
gamma ray flashes up to 40 MeV by the AGILEsatellite, J. Geophys. Res.
Space Phys. 115, A00E13. doi:10.1029/2009JA014502.
472 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[127] Carlson, B. E., N. G. Lehtinen, and U. S. Inan (2007), Constraints on ter-

restrial gamma ray flash production from satellite observation, Geophys.
Res. Lett. 34, L08809. doi:10.1029/2006GL029229.
[128] Gjesteland, T., N. Østgaard, S. Laviola, et al. (2015), Observation of intrinsi-
cally bright terrestrial gamma ray flashes from the Mediterranean basin,
J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 120, 12143–12156. doi:10.1002/2015JD023704.
[129] Gurevich, A. V. (1961), On the theory of runaway electrons, J. Exp. Theor.
Phys. USSR (JETP-USSR) 12, 904–912.
[130] Gurevich, A., K. Zybin, and Y. Medvedev (2007), Runaway breakdown in
strong electric field as a source of terrestrial gamma ashes and gamma
bursts in lightning leader steps, Phys. Lett. A, 361(1–2), 119–125.
[131] Babich, L. P., E. N. Donskoy, I. M. Kutsyk, and R. A. Roussel-Dupré
(2005), The feedback mechanism of runaway air breakdown, Geophys. Res.
Lett. 32, L09809. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021744.
[132] Dwyer, J. R. (2003), A fundamental limit on electric fields in air, Geophys.
Res. Lett. 30(20), 2055. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL017781.
[133] Gurevich, A. V. and K. P. Zybin (2001), Runaway breakdown and
electric discharges in thunderstorms, Phys.-Uspekhi (Adv. Phys. Sci.) 44,
1119–1140.
[134] Babich, L. P. (2003), High-Energy Phenomena in Electric Discharges in
Dense Gases: Theory, Experiment and Natural Phenomena, Arlington, VA:
Futurepast Inc.
[135] Babich, L. P., E. I. Bochkov, I. M. Kutsyk, T. Neubert, and O. Chanrion
(2015), A model for electric field enhancement in lightning leader tips to
levels allowing X-ray and y ray emissions, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.
120, 5087–5100. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020923.
[136] Carlson, B. E., N. G. Lehtinen, and U. S. Inan (2010), Terrestrial gamma
ray flash production by active lightning leader channels, J. Geophys. Res.
115, A10324. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015647.
[137] Celestin, S. and V.P. Pasko (2011), Energy and fluxes of thermal runaway
electrons produced by exponential growth of streamers during the stepping
of lightning leaders and in transient luminous events, J. Geophys. Res. 116,
A03315. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA016260.
[138] Dwyer, J. R. and D. M. Smith (2005), A comparison between Monte Carlo
simulations of runaway breakdown and terrestrial gamma-ray flash observa-
tions, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L22804. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023848.
[139] Köhn, C., M. Heumesser, O. Chanrion, K. Nishikawa, V. Reglero, and T. Neubert
(2020b), The emission of terrestrial gamma ray flashes from encountering
streamer coronae associated to the breakdown of lightning leaders, Geophys.
Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL089749. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089749.
[140] Moss, G. D., V. P. Pasko, N. Liu, and G. Veronis (2006), Monte Carlo
model for analysis of thermal runaway electrons in streamer tips in tran-
sient luminous events and streamer zones of lightning leaders, J. Geophys.
Res. 111, A02307. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JA011350.
 Lightning effects in the mesosphere 473

[141] Skeltved, A. B., N. Østgaard, N. Lehtinen, A. Mezentsev, and B. Carlson

(2017), Constraints to do realistic modeling of the electric field ahead of the
tip of a lightning leader, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 122, 8120–8134. https://
doi.org/10.1002/2016JD026206.
[142] Xu, W., S. Celestin, and V. P. Pasko (2012), Source altitudes of terrestrial
gamma-ray flashes produced by lightning leaders, Geophys. Res. Lett. 39,
L08801. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051351.
[143] Cummer, S. A., F. Lyu, M. S. Briggs, G. Fitzpatrick, O. J. Roberts, and J. R.
Dwyer (2015), The lightning leader altitude progression in terrestrial
gamma-ray flashes, Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 7792–7798. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2015GL065228.
[144] Lu, G., R. J. Blakeslee, J. Li, et al. (2010), Lightning mapping observation
of a terrestrial gamma ray flash, Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L11806.
doi:10.1029/2010GL043494.
[145] Mailyan, B. G., M. S. Briggs, E. S. Cramer, et al. (2016), The spectroscopy
of individual terrestrial gamma-ray flashes: Constraining the source prop-
erties. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121(11), 11346–11363. doi:10.1002/
2016JA022702.
[146] Shao, X., T. Hamlin, and D. Smith (2010), A closer examination of ter-
restrial gamma ray ash related lightning processes, J. Geophys. Res. Space
Phys. 115, A00E30. doi:10.1029/2009JA014835.
[147] Stanley, M. A., X. M. Shao, D. M. Smith, et al. (2006), A link between
terrestrial gamma-ray flashes and intracloud lightning discharges, Geophys.
Res. Lett. 33, L06803. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025537.
[148] Cummer, S. A., M. S. Briggs, J. R. Dwyer, et al. (2014). The source altitude,
electric current, and intrinsic brightness of terrestrial gamma-ray flashes,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 41(23), 8586–8593. doi:10.1002/2014GL062196.
[149] Lyu, F. S., S. A. Cummer, and L. McTague (2015), Insights into high peak
current in cloud lightning events during thunderstorms, Geophys. Res. Lett.
42, 6836–6843. doi:10.1002/2015GL065047.
[150] Neubert, T., N. Østgaard, V. Reglero, et al. (2019b), A terrestrial gamma-
ray flash and ionospheric ultraviolet emissions powered by lightning,
Science, 367(6474), 183–186. doi:10.1126/science.aax3872.
[151] Belz, J. W., P. R. Krehbiel, J. Remington, et al. (2020), Observation of the
origin of downward terrestrial gamma-ray flashes, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.
125(23), e2019JD031940. doi:10.1029/2019jd031940.
[152] Surkov, V. V. and V. A. Pilipenko, Estimate of the source parameters of ter-
restrial gamma-ray flashes observed at low-Earth-orbit satellites, J. Atmos.
Solar-Terr. Phys., 237, 105920, 2022, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2022.105920.
[153] Kumar, P. M. and R. Pooja (2021), Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes and
other energy atmospheric phenomena: An overview, Disaster Adv. 14(4),
107–125.
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 12
The effects of lightning on the ionosphere/
magnetosphere: whistlers and ionospheric
Alfvén resonator
M. Hayakawa1,2 and Y. Hobara3,4

This chapter will present possible effects of atmospheric lightning on the upper
atmosphere such as the ionosphere and magnetosphere composed of ionized plas-
mas. Though there exist several phenomena on the effect of lightning discharges
onto the ionosphere/magnetosphere, we introduce only two major attractive topics:
(1) lightning-induced whistlers in the ionosphere/magnetosphere, and (2) iono-
spheric Alfvén resonator (IAR) in an altitude region between the lowest ionosphere
and lower magnetosphere, where one likely candidate of its source is lightning
discharges. The former is quite a well-known phenomenon, and whistlers are bursts
of ELF/VLF waves produced by lightning discharges. Some part of VLF/ELF
lightning energy penetrates through the ionosphere, propagates along the magnetic
field line in the magnetosphere, and penetrates again through the ionosphere in the
opposite hemisphere, followed by reception on the ground as a whistler. We show
initially the phenomena of ground-based whistlers, their brief theoretical explana-
tion, and their use in the diagnostics of ionospheric/magnetospheric electron den-
sity. Also, earlier satellite observations of nonducted whistlers are presented.
Further, we will describe recent satellite observations of short-fractional hop
whistlers and VLF/ELF electromagnetic waves, with special reference to their use
in the study of global lightning activity. On the other hand, the latter phenomenon,
IAR in the ULF/ELF band is a rather new subject as compared with whistler stu-
dies, and so we pay more emphasis on IAR in this chapter. IARs exhibit an inter-
esting feature of fingerprint resonance structures on the dynamic spectra. This IAR
is apparently considered to be a kind of resonance of Alfvén waves in a region
between the lowest ionosphere and lower magnetosphere, whose resonance fre-
quencies (f = 1-10 Hz) are lower than the well-known Schumann resonances. We

1
Advanced Wireless and Communications Research Center, The University of Electro-Communications
(UEC), Japan
2
Hayakawa Institute of Seismo Electromagnetics, Co., Ltd. (Hi-SEM), Japan
3
Graduate School of Informatics and Network Engineering, The University of Electro-Communications
(UEC), Japan
4
UEC, Center for Space Science and Radio Engineering, Japan
476 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

present our own statistical results on morphological characteristics of IARs (spec-

tral resonance structures) at middle latitudes as your basis to understand the reso-
nance structure of IARs. Then we will review the physical mechanisms, in other
words, the energy source of IAR signatures seems to depend on latitude. Though
there are considerable uncertainties in the physical modeling, we will suggest a
plausible hypothesis as the origin of IARs at middle and low latitudes; the link to
nearby lightning discharges. Lastly, a summary will follow.

12.1 Introduction
The physics and effects of lightning discharges taking place in the atmosphere are
extensively discussed in most chapters of this monograph, and hence this chapter will
deal with the consequence of atmospheric lightning onto the upper atmosphere such
as the ionospheric/magnetospheric plasma. There are various possible effects of
lightning on the ionosphere/magnetosphere, but we restrict our attention to the fol-
lowing two interesting phenomena: (1) lightning-induced whistlers in Section 12.2
and (2) Section 12.3 concerned with ionospheric Alfvén resonator (IAR) where one
possible source is either distant or nearby lightning discharges.
In Section 12.2, we will discuss the first part of whistlers. Section 12.2.1 pro-
vides you with the history and general description of whistlers. In early times
whistlers are generally observed on ground-based stations, so they are defined by
bursts of ELF (extremely low frequency, f < 3 kHz)/VLF (very low frequency,
3 kHz < f < 30 kHz) waves, originated in lightning discharges in the opposite
hemisphere of the receiver. While the bulk of the energy from the causative light-
ning discharges propagates in the Earth-ionosphere waveguide as atmospherics (or
sferics) [1–5], some part of its energy is known to penetrate through the upper
ionosphere, propagate in the magnetosphere, probably along the magnetic field line
(ducted propagation), and penetrate again through the ionosphere in the opposite
hemisphere, to be received as a whistler. On the other hand, most whistlers
observed on board rockets and satellites (either deep in the magnetosphere or in the
ionosphere) are considered to be propagating in the nonducted mode, so these
nonducted whistlers have never been detected on the ground. There have already
been published several excellent books and reviews on the topic of whistlers [6–11].
Section 12.2.2 deals with the general theoretical background of plasma waves
including whistler mode and also Alfvén mode (this will be the topic of IAR in
Section 12.3). Particularly in Section 12.2.2.4, we will explain the whistler disper-
sion (D) as the most useful parameter of ground-based whistlers. Section 12.2.3 is
aimed at the use of whistlers as a diagnostic tool. Section 12.2.3.1 deals with the
diagnosis of magnetospheric electron density profile with the use of ground-based
whistler dispersions at different latitudes, and Section 12.2.3.2 will be concerned
with early satellite observations of various kinds of nonducted whistlers.
Section 12.2.3.3 will present recent LEO (low-Earth-orbit) satellite observations of
short-fractional hop whistlers and VLF/ELF electromagnetic waves (both wave-
form and power spectra data) to be utilized to study the global lightning activity and
lightning characteristics.
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 477

In Section 12.3, we will consider IARs. As compared with whistler studies, this
phenomenon of IAR in the ULF (ultra low frequency, f <10 Hz)/ELF range is
rather newly recognized as being important even in space physics [11,12]. Though
there is little doubt that IAR is a near-Earth resonance of Alfvén waves in the
altitude region between the lowest ionosphere and the lower magnetosphere, its
generation mechanism, or to be more exact, energy source or origin of IARs is
extremely poorly understood, and hence many scientists have recently paid a lot of
attention to the elucidation of this IAR phenomenon. Section 12.3.1 provides you
with the history and general description of IARs. Then, as a reference or a basis of
IAR signatures for the readers to understand what IAR looks like, we will present in
Section 12.3.2 our own statistical results of spectral resonance structures (SRSs)
and morphological features (local time dependence, seasonal variation, and
dependence on geomagnetic activity) of IARs based on a long-term (2.5 years)
observation at middle latitudes. Also, we make a brief comparison with the
observational results at high and low latitudes. In Section 12.3.3, we will discuss
the proposed generation mechanisms of IARs with special reference to geomag-
netic latitude. Generally speaking, it seems likely that magnetospheric influence
might be involved in IAR excitation at high and auroral latitudes, but the more
plausible source at middle and low latitudes might be lightning discharges. Based
on those discussions in Section 12.3.4, we will introduce our own idea of the major
role of nearby lightning discharges in exciting IARs in middle and low latitudes,
but it is needless to say that we need further appreciable efforts in the future before
a definite mechanism has been established.

12.2 Lightning-induced whistlers in the ionosphere/

magnetosphere
12.2.1 General description of whistlers
We will present a brief history of whistlers. Barkhausen [13] is generally credited
with the discovery of whistlers, who observed whistling tones on German army
radio receivers that were used to eavesdrop on allied army telephone conversations,
and concluded that they were not the noise inside the receiver but due to the origin
outside the receiver. Additional observations of whistlers and related VLF/ELF
noises (recently called VLF/ELF emissions) were published by Burton and
Boardman [14]. There were very few additional significant developments in the
understanding of whistlers until the landmark work of Storey [15]. With taking into
account the earlier theoretical work by Eckersley [16,17] on the wave propagation
in an anisotropic plasma, Storey concluded that the whistlers observed at one
location are originated in lightning discharges in the opposite hemisphere and then
propagated in the magnetosphere along the Earth’s magnetic field lines to the
hemisphere of the observer. Additionally, he suggested that, in order to explain the
observed dispersion, the electron density in the equatorial plane (i.e., apex of the
propagation path) a few Earth radii away, in the remote part of the propagation
path, must be on the order of hundreds of electrons per cubic centimeters, providing
478 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

the first evidence that ionized plasma was present far beyond the ionospheric
F layer. Hence, the use of whistlers opened a new era for space physics. There is a
sizable literature on whistles at different latitudes, including Helliwell [9], Walker
[7], Hayakawa and Tanaka [18], Park [10], Al’pert [19], Hayakawa and Ohta [20],
and Hayakawa [8].
Whistlers are burst electromagnetic signals with a frequency spectrum in the
range from about 100 Hz to over 10 kHz, which are originated in lightning dis-
charges in the atmosphere, penetrate into the ionosphere, and then propagate in
whistler mode in the magnetosphere approximately along the Earth’s magnetic
field lines to the opposite hemisphere. There the waves again traverse the iono-
sphere, this time in the downward direction and are observable in the conjugate
point on the Earth’s surface. The main frequency range of whistlers is ELF and
VLF, which are less than the local electron plasma frequency and the local gyro-
frequency (the definition of these characteristic frequencies will be given later), and
this frequency range is called “whistler-mode” branch. Propagation along the
Earth’s magnetic field is made possible by trapping waves in field-aligned density
irregularities (so-called ducts) (see Helliwell [9] and Hayakawa [8] for better
understanding of the physical mechanism of ducting), so that these whistlers are
named ducted whistlers as in Figure 12.1(a) and (c). Most of the ground-based
whistlers are considered to be ducted. The physics of whistler-mode propagation is
such that higher frequencies in the signal travel faster than lower ones, and hence
the higher frequencies arrive at an observing point on the Earth’s surface in the
conjugate point, earlier than the lower frequencies (this dispersion principle will be
given later). This is the reason why we observe a descending tone (as a short
(1 hop) whistler) as shown in Figure 12.1(b). Sometimes echo train whistlers are
observed (3-hop and 5-hop whistlers of a short whistler). If the whistler’s electro-
magnetic signal is converted to an audio signal, the audio signal will sound like a
whistle, and this is the reason why we call it a whistler. A less commonly observed
type of ducted whistler only at higher latitudes is the so-called “nose” whistler [21]
as shown in Figure 12.2, for which there is a minimum propagation time, corre-
sponding to a maximum propagation speed, at one “nose” frequency, the fre-
quencies below and above that value traveling slower and arriving increasingly
later. The more commonly observed whistler as in Figure 12.1(b) represents simply
the lower-frequency fraction of the nose whistler as shown in Figure 12.2(a).
Apparently, only a small fraction of lightning flashes produce ducted whistlers, but
probably a majority of flashes produce electromagnetic signals that propagate
through the ionosphere and then propagate in the magnetosphere both across and
along the magnetic field lines as “nonducted” whistlers, traveling in the magneto-
sphere until their energy is dissipated as in Figure 12.1(d). It follows that non-
ducted whistlers can only be observed on board satellites in the magnetosphere and
not on the Earth’s surface. Diagrams showing idealized paths taken by ducted and
nonducted whistlers are presented in Figure 12.1(c) and (d). An idealized time-
domain whistler spectrum is shown in Figure 12.3(a), and idealized plots of
frequency versus time in Figure 12.2(b). The square root of inverse frequency
versus time is plotted in Figure 12.3(c).
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 479

Northern hemisphere
1 3 5
Duct f

Dipole equator t

Interaction Southern hemisphere

region
Geographic 2 4 6
f
equator Plasmasphere
Lightning
t
Causative
sferic
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 12.1 (a) Typical path of a ducted whistler within the plasmasphere, shown
together with the waveform of the ducted whistler signal before, during,
and after its interaction with cyclotron-resonant electrons in the
magnetospheric equatorial region. (b) Frequency versus time curves
(dynamic spectra) for a whistler traversing a path that echoes from
hemisphere to hemisphere along a geomagnetic field as observed at
conjugate points in the northern and southern hemispheres. The causative
sferic is also indicated: it was produced by a lightning discharge in the
southern hemisphere. Potential ray paths (solid lines) for ducted (c) and
nonducted (d) whistler-mode propagation in the magnetosphere.
Adapted from Rakov and Uman [6]

12.2.2 Theoretical background of plasma waves

12.2.2.1 Characterization of the ionosphere and
magnetosphere
The ionosphere is composed of ionized plasmas (electrons and ions) and is a
complex structure composed of three major layers (D, E, and F regions) as in
Figure 12.4 for temperate latitudes near sunspot maximum (e.g., [6,22,23]). The
lowest layer, the D-region extends in height from about 40 to 90 km. Its typical
electron density is on the order of 109 m
3 (103 cm
3) during the day, and dimin-
ished to a negligible value after sunset. The E region extends between about 90 and
160 km. The electron density in this region typically has a value above 1011 m
3
(105 cm
3) in the daytime, but it is about two orders of magnitude lower at night.
480 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

1.0
Low-frequency θ = 0˚
0.8 approximation

High-frequency
0.6 approximation
f/fbe

0.4

Nose frequency
0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time delay, s
(a)
Frequency, kHz

0
2000:03 UT 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Time
(b)

Figure 12.2 (a) Normalized frequency versus time delay for longitudinal
propagation (q = 0 ) over a path of length c/B0. (b) An example of
observed spectrograms of nose whistlers. The left-hand arrow
indicates the causative sferic for the two whistler groups indicated by
the right-hand two arrows. Adapted from Hayakawa [8]

Above the E region is the F region, which extends to a height of 1,000 km or so.
The peak (maximum) F-region electron density has an average value of about
2  1012 m
3 (2  106 cm
3) during the day and 2  1011 m
3 (2  105 cm
3) at
night. As shown in Figure 12.4, the ionospheric electron density varies over four orders
of magnitude.
Above the F region of the ionosphere, at heights over about 1,000 km, is called
the “magnetosphere,” where the motions of plasmas (electrons and ions) are
strongly influenced by the Earth’s magnetic field [19,24]. The inner part of the
magnetosphere is called the plasmasphere. It extends outward by four or five
Earth’s radii to the plasmapause, where the plasma density decreases abruptly [25].

12.2.2.2 Equations of electron motion, Maxwell’s equations,

and dispersion relation
The general description of electromagnetic waves in an anisotropic plasma in a whole
frequency range can be found in the monographs by Stix [26], Allis et al. [27],
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 481

Atmospheric Whistler

(a)
6,000
4,000

f , Hz
2,000
0
(b)
0.05
0.04
f –1/2, Hz –1/2

0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Time, s
(c)

Figure 12.3 Idealized time-domain waveform and frequency content of a ducted

whistler as a function of time. (a) The waveform; each cycle
represents 400 Hz on the original. (b) The actual frequency f versus
time (t). (c) f
1/2 versus t. Adapted from Rakov and Uman [6]

1,000

500
F
Height, km

Night Day
200

E
150

50
108 109 1010 1011 1012 1013
Electron density, m–3

Figure 12.4 Idealized ionization profiles of the Earth’s ionosphere at temperate

latitudes near sunspot maximum. Adapted from Rakov and Uman [6]
482 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Ginzburg [28], Budden [29], Al’pert [19], Parks [30], Nicholson [31], Walker [32], and
Kivelson and Russell [24], but we will make its brief review below.
We offer a general theoretical overview of the interaction of electromagnetic
waves with the charged particles of the ionosphere and magnetosphere. We con-
sider an electron having electric charge –e (e > 0) and mass m which moves with
velocity v. Only the motion of electrons can be considered because the mass of
electrons is significantly lighter than that of ions (e.g. mass of protons (the lightest
ion) is about 2,000 times heavier than that of electrons). The electrons are influ-
enced by the wave electric and magnetic fields as well as the DC Earth’s magnetic
field (B0) during the propagation of electromagnetic waves and the currents gen-
erated by the electrons re-generate electromagnetic waves. For electrons, the
equation of motion in the Cartesian coordinate is given by
dv
m ¼
eðE þ v  ðB0 þ BÞÞ (12.1)
dt
The electromagnetic electric and magnetic field vectors are E and B, and the
ambient Earth’s magnetic field is B0 = B0az (az is the unit vector directed towards
positive z direction) as in Figure 12.5. Here collisions between electrons and heavy
neutral particles are ignored. We are also justified in neglecting the force on the
electron from the time-varying magnetic field (v  B). The force due to the time-
varying magnetic field is generally negligible in comparison with the force due to
the electric field since the ratio of these forces is roughly v/c and v/c « 1 where c is
the speed of light. By assuming the time dependence of e jwt ( j, w, and t are ima-
ginary unit, angular frequency (w = 2p f, f frequency), and time respectively). The
equation of motion of electrons will be written as follows.
2 3 2 3 2 3
uc Ec uy
e eB0 4
jw4 uy 5 ¼
4 Ey 5

uc 5 (12.2)
m m
uz Ez 0

z
B0

k, vp
θ

Figure 12.5 Coordinate system for the wave propagation. The Earth’s magnetic
field B0 is in the z direction, and the wave propagation (k) is in the xz
plane and makes an angle q with B0.
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 483

Then we obtain the three components of electron velocities driven by the wave
electric field and ambient Earth’s magnetic field are,
e jw Ec
wH Ey
nc ¼

m wH 2
w2
e wH Ec þ jw Ey
ny ¼

m wH 2
w2
e Ez
nz ¼
(12.3)
m jw
where wH is the electron angular gyrofrequency given by wH (= 2pfH) = eB0/m,
which is easily calculated by the simplified form fH(Hz) = 28B0(nT). This gyrofre-
quency means the angular frequency at which the electron makes circular orbits in a
plane perpendicular to the Earth’s magnetic field. The current density is given by,
J ¼
Nev (12.4)
where N is the electron density. Each component of this current is shown by using
(12.4).

Jx ¼ ðNe2 =mÞðjw E x
wH Ey Þ=ðwH 2
w2 Þ

Jy ¼ ðNe2 =mÞðwH Ex þjw Ey Þ=ðwH 2
w2 Þ (12.5)
 2 
Jz ¼ Ne =m Ez =jw

Then the conductivity tensor <s> is given by,

sxx ¼ ðNe2 =mÞjw =ðwH 2
w2 Þ ¼ syy

sxy ¼
ðNe2 =mÞwH =ðwH 2
w2 Þ ¼
syx (12.6)
szz ¼ ðNe2 =mÞ=jw
sxz ¼ szx ¼ syz ¼ szy ¼ 0
and the dielectric tensor <e>is also described by using <e > ¼ e0 hIi
j<s >=w;
!
w2p
exx ¼ eyy ¼ e0 1 þ
wH 2
w2

wp 2 wH
exy ¼
eyx ¼ je0 (12.7)
wðwH 2
w2 Þ
 
wp 2
ezz ¼ e0 1

w2
exz ¼ ezx ¼ eyz ¼ ezy ¼ 0
484 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

where hIi is a unit tensor and the electron plasma frequency is defined by
w2p ¼ ð2pf p Þ2 Þ ¼ N e2 =me0 (e0, dielectric constant of free space) ðf p ðkHzÞ ¼
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
9 N ðcm
3 ÞÞ:
We consider now Maxwell’s equations for the case of time-harmonic electro-
magnetic fields that vary in space as,
exp½jðwt
k  rÞ (12.9)
Here we have used the time dependence assumed previously and now include a
spatial variation specified by the term of –j k  r, where k is the propagation vector
(or wave normal direction) (its direction is the direction of wave propagation and its
magnitude k equals 2p divided by the wavelength) and r is the position vector.
Figure 12.5 is the coordinate system of our propagation study, in which the static
Earth’s magnetic field B0 is already assumed to be in the z-axis and the wave
propagation (k) is assumed to be in the x-z plane and to make an angle (q) with
B0. For an electromagnetic wave with temporal and spatial variation given by (12.9),
we can write Maxwell’s equations as (m0, magnetic permeability of free space)

jk  E ¼
jwmH (12.10)

jk  H ¼ jwD (12.11)
Combining the above two equations, yields to,

k  ðk  EÞ þ w2 m0 < e > E ¼ 0 (12.12)

This equation is the so-called wave equation of electromagnetic waves in the
anisotropic plasma with the presence of B0. Equation (12.12) is decomposed into
(x, y, z) components as follows.
2 2 2 32 3
k cos q
w2 m0 exx
w2 m0 exy
k 2 sin q cos q Ec
4 w2 m exy k 2

w 2
m e 0 5 4 Ey 5 ¼ 0
0 0 xx

k 2 sin q cos q 0 k 2 sin2 q
w2 m0 ezz Ez
(12.13)
The solution to any equation of this form (that is, in order to have a non-trial
solution (E)) is found by setting to zero the determinant of the matrix in (12.13).
This result is inserted in (12.13), which can be solved for the wave electric field.
Once both the electric field and the propagation direction are known, the wave
magnetic field can be calculated from (12.10).
The phase velocity vp and group velocity vg can be expressed by a vector
representation as,
w w
vp ¼ ¼ k
k k2
@w
vg ¼ (12.14)
@k
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 485

The phase velocity vp is defined as the direction normal to the wave front, so
that it is easily understood as being parallel to k. On the other hand, the group
velocity vg is defined as the direction of electromagnetic wave energy (ray direc-
tion) and the most interesting peculiarity of the anisotropic plasma is that vg is not
parallel to vp for the general oblique propagation (consult Helliwell [9], Park [10],
and Hayakawa [8] for further details). Only when q = 0, the direction of vg is
parallel to vp and the value of vg is easily given by vg ¼ @ðnwÞ=@w (n: refractive
index).

12.2.2.3 Special cases of longitudinal and perpendicular

propagation and general oblique propagation
By using (12.13), we will study first the special cases of propagation; that is, (1)
longitudinal propagation (q = 0) and (2) transverse propagation (q = p/2) to facil-
itate better understanding of wave propagation in an anisotropic plasma.
(a) Longitudinal propagation
The longitudinal propagation means that the propagation vector (k) is parallel to the
Earth’s magnetic field (B0); that is, q = 0. Substituting q = 0 in (12.13) yields the
following wave equation.
 2  
k
w2 m0 exx
w2 m0 exy Ec
¼0 (12.15)
w2 m0 exy k 2
w2 m0 exx Ey
ðezz ÞEz ¼ 0 (12.16)
Since (12.16) represents only the plasma oscillation (w = wp), we will not
discuss this oscillation further. The presence of non-trivial solution of Ex and Ey in
(12.15) requires the determinant of the coefficients in (12.15) equal to zero, which
leads to the following.

k 2
w2 m0 ðexx
jexy Þ k 2
w2 m0 ðexx þ jexy Þ ¼ 0 (12.17)

Equation (12.17) is found to yield the following two characteristic
mode waves.
(i) Right-hand polarized wave
Taking the first term on the left-hand side of (12.17) being zero, the following
dispersion relation is obtained.
k 2 c2 wp 2
n2 ¼ 2 ¼ 1 þ ¼R (12.18)
w wðwH
wÞ
where n is called refractive index, and this wave is right-handed circularly
polarized as shown below. The rotation of wave electric field is exactly the
same as the gyration of electrons in the Earth’s magnetic field.
Ex
j ¼
1 (12.19)
Ey
486 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

This wave mode is so-called “whistler” mode when the wave frequency
is below wH.
(ii) Left-handed polarized wave
Similarly taking the second term on the left-hand side of (12.17) being zero,
the dispersion relation for this wave is,

k 2 c2 wp 2
n2 ¼ ¼1þ ¼L (12.20)
w 2 wðwH þ wÞ
and this wave is found to be left-handed circularly polarized as is evidenced by
the following relation.
Ex
j ¼1 (12.21)
Ey

(b) Transverse propagation

We now consider the transverse propagation characterized by q = p/2; that is,
propagation direction (k) is perpendicular to B0. In this case, the wave equation
(12.14) becomes,
  

w2 m0 exx
w2 m0 exy Ec
¼0 (12.22)
w2 m0 exy k 2
w2 m0 exx Ey
ðk 2
w2 m0 ezz ÞEz ¼ 0 (12.23)
That is, there exist two mode waves as follows.
(i) Ordinary wave (O wave) (k?B0 and EkB0)
The wave mode obtained by (12.23) is characterized by its electric field being
parallel to B0 (Ez 6¼ 0) with Ex = Ey = 0. By setting the first term of the left-
hand side of (12.23) to zero, we obtain the following dispersion relation for the
ordinary mode.

wp 2
n2 ¼ 1
¼P (12.24)
w2
This wave is linearly polarized and (12.24) is identical to the dispersion relation of
the plasma oscillation without any effect of the Earth’s magnetic field (12.16).
This is the reason why we use the terminology of “ordinary” wave.
(ii) Extraordinary wave (X wave) (k ?B0 and E ?B0 )
In order to have non-trivial solutions (Ex 6¼ 0, Ey 6¼ 0) in (12.22), the
determinant of the matrix on the left-hand side of (12.22) is set to zero, which
leads to the following dispersion relation.

exx 2 þ exy 2 2RL

n2 ¼ ¼ (12.25)
exx RþL
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 487

The wave polarization of this extraordinary wave is estimated from

(12.22) as,

Ex exy wp 2 wH
¼
¼
j (12.26)
Ey exx wðwp 2 þ wH 2
w2 Þ
so that the wave electric field is elliptically polarized in the xy plane.
(c) Cutoffs and resonances
Cutoff is defined as a frequency at which the value k2 goes to zero (or
n2 ! 0), so these cutoff frequencies can be obtained by setting the refractive
index n2 ! 0 (or k2 ! 0). Hence we expect that the wavelength and phase
velocity becomes infinity. When the wave propagates through the plasma with
a spatial gradient of refractive index including n2 = 0, the wave is reflected at
the point of cutoff.
The cutoff frequencies can be easily estimated by setting n2 ! 0 in the dis-
persion relation for each mode. The cutoff frequencies for the longitudinal
propagation can be obtained from (12.18) and (12.20):
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
wH wH 2
wR ¼ þ wp 2 þ (12.27)
2 4
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
wH wH 2
wL ¼
þ wp 2 þ (12.28)
2 4
The cutoff frequencies for transverse propagation are obtained from (12.24)
and (12.25). For the extraordinary wave, the cutoff frequencies occur when
n2! 0 (or R = 0 or L = 0), so that they are identical to those for the longitudinal
propagation, wR and wL. For the ordinary wave, the cutoff frequency is
expected from n2 = P = 0; that is, wp.
Next, we move on to the explanation of resonances. Resonance is defined at a
frequency at which n2 = ? (k2 ! ?). When the wave approaches a resonance
condition, k2 goes to infinity so that the phase velocity becomes zero, then the
wave is mainly dissipated due to the significant interaction with plasma.
The resonance frequencies for the longitudinal propagation are obtained
when the denominator of (12.18) and (12.20) vanishes. That is, the right-
handed polarized (R) mode exhibits a resonance at w = wH, and at this fre-
quency, the wave electric field continuously accelerates electrons because the
wave field is in phase with the gyro-motion of electrons. This resonance is
called electron cyclotron resonance. Also, the left-hand polarized (L) mode is
found to have a resonance at w = wHi (ion gyrofrequency). Though in our
former equations we have only considered the motion of electrons, the
motion of ions becomes important when the frequency becomes smaller than
wHi and it is very easy for us to take into account the effect of ions in the
dispersion relation.
The resonance for the transverse propagation can be obtained exactly in the same
way as above. The ordinary wave has no resonance because the denominator of
488 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

(12.24) may not vanish except w = 0. On the other hand, the extraordinary wave
(12.25) exhibits a resonance at a particular frequency of wUHR (upper hybrid
resonance frequency), so that the wave electromagnetic energy is converted to the
upper hybrid oscillation. A similar hybrid resonance is observed as well at wLHR
(lower hybrid resonance frequency).
(d) Oblique propagation
We have discussed two representative cases of propagation, that is, longitudinal (q = 0)
and transverse (q = p/2), which gives us a lot of useful ideas on the propagation
characteristics of electromagnetic waves in the anisotropic plasma. Here, the dispersion
relation of the waves propagating obliquely to B0 is obtained by solving the following
equation by setting the determinant of the coefficients of E in (12.13) to zero.

An4
Bn2 þ C ¼ 0 (12.30)

A ¼ exx sin q þ ezz cos q
2 2

B ¼ ðexx 2 þ exy 2 Þsin2 q þ exx ezz ð1 þ cos2 qÞ (12.31)

2
C ¼ ezz ðexx þ ezy 2 Þ
A ¼ Ssin2 q þ Pcos2 q
B ¼ RLsin2 q þ PSð1 þ cos2 qÞ (12.32)
C ¼ PRL
1 1
S ¼ ðR þ LÞ; D ¼ ðR
LÞ (12.33)
2 2
Equation (12.30) gives us the presence of two characteristic modes in the
plasma at any frequency as,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
B  B2
4AC
n ¼
2
(12.34)
2A
The dispersion relations (w–k diagram) of different modes in the plasma are
illustrated in Figure 12.6 for different q values. In the figure, the longitudinal
propagation (q = 0) is indicated by k, while the transverse propagation (q = p/2), is
by ?. Shaded regions in Figure 12.6 correspond to the oblique propagation. The
plasma condition of wp > wH (satisfied nearly almost in all regions in the magne-
tosphere) is assumed in Figure 12.6, and Figure 12.6 indicates the presence of three
frequency branches as follows.
(i) Free space waves (w > wp, wH)
This plasma wave branch is called quasi-free-space mode. There are the
extraordinary mode (R–X and Z mode) and ordinary mode (L–O), but this
branch is not so interesting in our chapter, so that we do not go into the
details of this branch. Please look at the books by Parks [30] and Kivelson
and Russell [24] for further details and the corresponding wave phenomena
in the magnetosphere including Z mode in the magnetosphere.
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 489

ω
n2 = R

║ n 2 = 2RL/ (R + L)
n2 = L
ωR ┴ n 2 = 2RL/ (R + L)
ωUHR
n2 = P
┴ ║ ┴
ωPe
║ ┴
ωL
whistler–mode
ωHe

n2 = R

║ ωLHR
┴ n 2 = 2RL/ (R + L)

║ n2 = L
ωHi

Figure 12.6 Dispersion curve in the form of w-k diagram for an electron-ion
plasma for the case of wp = 2wH. k and ? mean the longitudinal
(q = 0) and transverse propagation (q = p/2), and the dispersion
curve for oblique propagation must lay in the shaded area. wR and
wL are the cutoff frequencies of right-and left-handed polarized mode
waves. While wUHR and wLHR are the lower and upper hybrid
resonance frequencies. n2 = R and n2 = L for q = 0 indicate the
right- and left-handed circularly polarized waves, respectively.

(ii) Whistler-mode branch (wHi < w < wH)

This is the so-called “whistler-mode” branch, which is our main interest for
this chapter. In this frequency range we have only this whistler mode because
another L wave is evanescent (i.e., non-propagating) (n2 = L < 0 in this
frequency). The whistler mode wave has right-handed polarization and tends
to propagate along B0. This will be discussed later in some more detail.
(iii) Alfvén wave branch (w < wHi)
This frequency range is the Alfvén wave branch, and there exist two char-
acteristic modes (i.e., Alfvén wave and modified Alfvén wave). Alfvén wave is
considered to be the counterpart of whistler-mode in the sense that it is left-
handed polarized and its ray direction tends to be very parallel to B0. Modified
Alfvén wave is considered to be the lower frequency part of the whistler branch.
The Alfvén wave is responsible for IARs to be discussed in the next section.

12.2.2.4 Whistler propagation and dispersion

Many important properties of whistlers can be explained by using the theory out-
lined in Sections 12.2.2.2. and 12.2.2.3. To understand how the electromagnetic
490 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

waves from lightning propagate into the ionosphere, we first examine the appli-
cation of Snell’s law to the boundary between the free space and ionosphere,
sin qi ¼ ni  sin qt (12.34)
where ni is the refractive index of the ionosphere and that of free space is taken as
unity. And qi is the incidence angle measured from the vertical downward, and qt is
the transmitted angle in the ionosphere measured from the vertical upward. We will
show that ni »1 and hence qt in the ionosphere must be nearly zero; that is, essen-
tially vertical for any incidence angle (qi) of the wave in free space impinging on
the boundary. Using (12.18), we can have the whistler-mode refractive index to
good approximation as,

wp 2
ni 2 ¼ (12.35)
wðwH
wÞ
This refractive index exceeds much that of free space. For example, at the
ionospheric F region where the electron density is near 106 cm
3, ni is close to 100
at frequencies near 5 kHz. After the whistler enters the magnetosphere, propagates
along a field-aligned duct, and reaches the ionosphere in the conjugate hemisphere,
there happens the reverse interface situation. Snell’s law can also be involved to
show that if the wave’s normal direction is inside a relatively narrow angle around
the vertical (this is called transmission cone) [8,9], then it can penetrate through the
ionosphere and hence be detected on the ground. When the wave is ducted and also
we consider the high to middle latitudes where the Earth’s magnetic field is close to
the vertical, this condition is easily satisfied. However, if not (e.g., at low latitudes),
then the wave will be reflected (totally reflected) back into the magnetosphere,
sometimes leading to the generation of echo train whistlers.
On the assumption that the whistler wave is propagating along a magnetic field
line, the time of propagation T(w) from the source to the receiver, can be computed
from the knowledge of group velocity of the wave.
ð
ds
T ðwÞ ¼ (12.36)
path vg

In the case of q = 0, vg is easily estimated by vg ¼ @ ðnwÞ=ð@wÞ and when

w « wH (so-called low-frequency approximation in Figure 12.2(a)), (12.36) becomes,
ð
1 wp
T ðwÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ds (12.37)
2c path wwH

We can define the dispersion D as,

ð
1 wp
D ¼ T ðf Þf 1=2 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ds (12.38)
2c 2p wH
which is independent of the wave frequency f and which can be determined only by
the plasma conditions of the magnetosphere. Equation (12.38) suggests that the
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 491

greatest contribution comes from the region around the apex of the propagation
path because of the smallest wH there. This equation is known as the Eckersley’s
dispersion law and is valid at frequencies far below the nose frequency. The fact
that the dispersion D is independent of frequency is illustrated in Figure 12.3(c).
By utilizing the more general (12.18) for a given path, the integral in (12.36)
enables us to deduce a nose frequency fn for which the propagation time is a
minimum. For a homogeneous plasma, the nose frequency fn = fH/4. As seen from
(12.38) the ionosphere does not contribute much to the observed time delays; the
most important contribution is expected at the highest part of the path (equatorial
plane) of the magnetosphere.

12.2.3 Use of whistlers as a diagnostic tool of the

ionosphere/magnetosphere
12.2.3.1 Diagnosis of magnetospheric electron density profile
The ground-based observation of lightning-generated whistlers at different latitudes
enables us to obtain the latitudinal distribution of D, together with the extensive use
of nose whistlers at higher latitudes. Then, we can estimate the general electron
density profile in the equatorial plane of the magnetosphere as in Figure 12.7. The
full line refers to the profile obtained with ground-based whistlers, in which we can
find the presence of plasmapause with a sharp density drop [10,33,34]. Some white
circles in Figure 12.7 refer to the observation by satellites, to be compared with

60˚ 56˚ 59˚ 61˚ 63˚

104
(56˚) (40˚) (28˚) (23˚) (20˚)
neq (el – cm–3)

103

102

Gringauz et al.

101
1 2 3 4 5
Geocentric distance (earth radii)

Figure 12.7 Electron density profile in the equatorial plane of the magnetosphere
(full line) with the use of whistlers. White circles indicate the electron
density observed by satellites. After Darrouzet et al. [36]
492 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

ground results. Furthermore, we can monitor the dynamic behavior (spatial and
temporal variations) of the magnetospheric electron density profile including the
plasmapause structure [25,33,35,36].

12.2.3.2 Satellite observations of nonducted whistlers in the

magnetosphere
While ground-based whistlers are known to be trapped in field-aligned ducts
(ducted propagation), most of the whistlers observed aboard spacecraft are propa-
gating in the nonducted mode. Various kinds of those nonducted whistlers on board
satellites have been observed in early times and please refer to former reviews for
further details [8,10,19]. Here we will list only a few examples and we will make a
brief description of each.
● Magnetospherically reflected (MR) whistlers
This MR whistler is observed deep inside the magnetosphere, which is
composed of multiple discrete components (whistlers), all originated from a
single lightning discharge [37]. A lightning discharge illuminates the iono-
sphere over a wide latitude range with the reasonable assumption of a nearly
vertical wave normal angle of each component as the wave enters the iono-
sphere. At a given frequency there are usually a number of nonducted paths (as
in Figure 12.1(d)) from the lightning discharge to the satellite. We have to
emphasize here that the effect of ions is playing the main role in this nonducted
propagation [38], which makes it possible for the ray to propagate across the
magnetic field line.
The spectrograms of those MR whistlers are often utilized to deduce the
electron density profile of the magnetosphere and also the presence of field-
aligned ducts.
● Ion cyclotron whistlers
Another typical effect of ions appears in the form of ion cyclotron whistlers
[39]. This whistler appears for a short-fractional whistler, or 0+ whistler in the
view concept of Figure 12.1(b), and propagation of the ion cyclotron mode is
possible only if “more than two species” are present. When there are many
species of ions, the dispersion relation (Figure 12.6) as in Section 12.2.2.3 (d)
becomes rather complicated, so that we direct the reader to consult the original
paper by Gurnett et al. [39] or a review by Hayakawa [8] for further detailed
exposition on the generation mechanism of ion whistlers.
These ion-cyclotron whistlers are used to study the presence of different ion
species in the ionosphere and their dynamic behavior.

12.2.3.3 Satellite observations of short-fractional hop (0+)

whistlers and their link to global distribution of
lightning activity and lightning characteristics
Prior to going to the LEO satellite observations, we will review the earlier whistler
studies, primarily based on ground-based observations. Many problems remained
to be resolved at that time: (1) overall propagation feature of whistlers from the
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 493

source to the receiver, and (2) duct characteristics and duct formation mechanism.
The first topic was to discuss the one-to-one correspondence between a causative
lightning discharge and its whistler and then the detailed propagation mechanism in
the magnetosphere. This one-to-one correspondence was attempted by many sci-
entists, especially at low latitudes [40–42]. In these studies, they made full use of
the direction finding of locating causative sferics [43] and also the direction finding
to pinpoint the ionospheric exit regions of short whistlers [44–47]. As for the sec-
ond topic, characteristics of field-aligned ducts (spatial scale, enhancement factor,
life time, etc.) are of essential interest in whistler propagation, and also the physical
mechanism of duct formation has yet to be established, though there have been
proposed a few hypotheses (e.g., [48,49]). The second topic is still poorly under-
stood even now, but the first topic has been recently studied extensively because of
the abundance of LEO satellite observations, which will be presented below.
We first present a few earlier LEO satellite observations related to whistler
mode waves (mainly 0+ whistlers [50]) in the ionosphere [51,52]. Hayakawa [51]
measured the wave intensities at a few ELF and VLF point frequencies on board the
Ariel 4 satellite. High values of the observed mean/minimum and peak/mean
intensity ratios in each sampling interval allowed him to infer that the measured
ELF/VLF radio noises at low latitudes are impulsive and so were considered to be
due to lightning discharges. His world distribution suggested that VLF noises are
localized around three lightning chimneys of the world, and also a clear day/night
asymmetry was compatible with the day/night difference of transionospheric
absorption with full-wave computations.
We move on to recent satellite observations. Chum et al. [53] investigated the
correspondence between 0+ whistlers on the DEMETER and Magion-5 satellites
and lightning discharges detected by the ground-based European Lightning
Detection Network (EUCLID). And they demonstrated that the maximum whistler
amplitude at the satellite depends primarily on the proximity to the source lightning
relative to the magnetic footpoint of the satellite, and the area in the ionosphere
through which the electromagnetic energy induced by a lightning discharge enters
the ionosphere, is up to several thousands of kilometers wide. Then, using the same
satellite and EUCLID, Fiser et al. [54] found pairs of causative lightning and cor-
responding whistlers, and processing data from 200 paths over Europe it is found
that the mean amplitude decreases monotonically with the horizontal distance up to
1,000 km from the lightning discharge, and nighttime amplitude is about three
times the daytime value. Using a similar detection technique to Fiser et al. [54]
adopted to the burst mode data on DEMETER, Compston [55] studied the global
distribution of lightning activity.
Then, using VLF wideband signals on board the DEMETER, Ferencz et al.
[56] have found a specific signal structure of numerous 0+ whistlers and they
termed them as “Spiky” whistlers as shown in Figure 12.8. These signals appear to
be composed of a conventional 0+ whistler combined with the compound mode
patterns of tweek sferics [57–60]. This finding is not so surprising, because they
have detected just the leakage of tweek sferics into the ionosphere, propagating in
whistler mode up to the satellite. A more general effect fundamentally based on the
494 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

20

frequency (kHz) 15

10

0
0 0.1
time (s)

Figure 12.8 An example of “spiky” whistlers observed in burst mode VLF

recording on board DEMETER (satellite position 34.7 N, 5.0 E,
altitude 702 km, L = 1.49) (after Ferencz et al. [56])

same principle, had already been observed on the ground-based short whistlers
[40,42,61]. Shimakura et al. [61] found, for the first time, such tweek mode patterns
superimposed on low-latitude short (1 hop) whistlers as observed simultaneously at
two stations of Sakushima and Kagoshima in Japan. The simultaneous observations
of whistlers and causative lightning discharges enabled them to conclude that the
causative sferics are located exactly just below the duct entrance in the southern
hemisphere and then additional tweek traces might be due to the subionospheric
propagation from the far ionospheric exit point (about 3,000 km east of the stations)
in the northern hemisphere to the VLF stations.
Next Parrot et al. [62] have studied the occurrence rate of 0+ whistlers with the
automatic detection with the use of neural network on board the DEMETER [63],
and Figure 12.9 illustrates an example of their world distribution of the occurrence
rate of 0+ whistlers during nighttime. They have shown that the whistler rate cal-
culated as a function of longitude varies between 1 and 6 s
1 during nighttime and
0.5–0.7 s
1 at the day. Also, whistler rate is found to be anti-correlated with the
F10.7 cm solar flux, being consistent with earlier ground-based results at low
latitudes [64,65], though there have been some publications on the positive corre-
lation between the lightning activity and solar activity [66]. The decreased light-
ning activity at the solar minimum is largely counterbalanced by the increase in
whistler rates in the ionosphere due to the decrease in ionospheric absorption.
Finally, the measurements of electromagnetic wave intensity unlike the use of
wideband spectra before, have recently been extensively utilized to study lightning
activity. Using DEMETER data, Nemec et al. [67] studied the relationship between
median intensities of electromagnetic emissions in the VLF range and lightning.
The analysis of 3.5-year data demonstrated that electromagnetic emissions may be
due to lightning activity changes. The effect of lightning activity is most
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 495

kp: [0o 9o] Night Year [2005–2010]

Whistlers: 0s1/2< Do < 3.2s1/2
90 126382
Latitude

63191

–90 1
–180 0 180
Longitude

Figure 12.9 Global distribution of 0+ whistlers with small dispersion (D less

than 3.2 s1/2) detected on DEMETER during the period of 2005
and 2010 for nighttime condition regardless of geomagnetic
activity (Kp value). After Parrot et al. [62]

pronounced at f 2 kHz, forming a continuous band and being strongest at night.

Colman and Starks [68] constructed a climatology of VLF wave intensity from
lightning in the plasmasphere. Using OTD/LIS (optical transient detector/lightning
imaging sensor) lightning data (1995–2005) and assuming a linear relationship
between optical flash rate and VLF power flux and that VLF amplitude drops as
1/distance, the proximity for VLF power is calculated. These values are mapped
along the magnetic field line in order to compare them with the electric field
spectral densities observed on the DEMETER (2005–2009). Good overall agree-
ment was found with previous observations.
Using data from DEMETER (period of 2004–2010) and Van Allen probes
(2012–2016), Zahlava et al. [69] have studied the longitudinal dependence of the
intensity of whistler mode waves. A significant longitudinal dependence is
observed in the nighttime in the frequency range from 40 Hz to 2 kHz, but almost
no dependence at the day. The observed results are compared with the previous
OTD/LIS data by Christian et al. [70], and it is found that lightning-generated
electromagnetic waves may be responsible for the observed electromagnetic effect.
Electric and magnetic field amplitudes of VLF lightning-generated waves have
been studied by Ripoll et al. [71] on the basis of 11.5 years of observation by the
Van Allen probes. Their satellite data have been compared with those by the
ground-based World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN). Mean
amplitudes are found to be low compared with whistler mode waves (1  1.6 pT,
19  59 mV/m). They have found excellent correlations between WWLLN-based
power and wave amplitudes in space at various longitudes and strong dayside
ionospheric damping.
496 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Finally, Jacobson et al. [72] have suggested a new direction of direction

finding and polarization measurement with the data from C/NOFS
(Communications/Navigation outage Forecasting System) satellite observation
of vector electric field in the band of 0–16 kHz during a period of 2008–2014.
Based on the statistics of these burst-mode recordings, of which 6,890 records
meet stringent quality-control criteria, it is found that the wave normal makes
an angle of 40–90 degrees with the magnetic field, indicating nonducted
propagation, which seems to be consistent with the common view.
Work will continue in the future on the use of satellite observations to study
the global distribution of lightning activity (longitudinal dependence, diurnal,
seasonal, and solar cycle variations, etc.) and the characteristics of lightning dis-
charges. The information on ELF/VLF wave intensities would be of essential
importance in the study of wave-particle interactions (e.g., [73,74]), particle pre-
cipitation (e.g., [75]), mechanisms of ELF/VLF emissions (e.g., [76–78]) as the
background wave intensity.

12.3 Ionospheric Alfvén resonator (IAR)

12.3.1 Brief history and general introduction of IAR
Various kinds of resonance phenomena are known to be present in the near-Earth
environment. From the higher frequency, there is a transverse resonance in the
Earth-ionosphere waveguide of lightning discharges in the ELF and VLF range
(known as cutoff of tweek sferics) (e.g., [4,60,58,79]). When we go to the lower
frequency down to the ELF range, we know the presence of longitudinal resonance
in the Earth-ionosphere waveguide due to global lightning discharges, which is
known as Schumann resonance [12,79–81]. Its fundamental frequencies are
8, 14, and 20 Hz, etc., and recently the observation of the Schumann resonance
intensity is found to serve as a kind of global thermometer because of the close
relationship of Schumann resonance intensity to the equatorial surface temperature
(e.g. [79,81,82]).
At the frequency below the Schumann resonance region, there is an additional
resonance phenomenon called “ionospheric Alfvén resonator” (IAR), which is the
topic of this section (see a book by Surkov and Hayakawa [12]). Polyakov [83] and
Polyakov and Rapoport [84] predicted theoretically the existence of such Alfvén
quasi-resonances in the ionosphere, and the IAR plays an important role in the
understanding of the physical phenomena in the coupled magnetosphere-ionosphere
system (e.g., [11,85–95]). The fundamental idea of this IAR is that there is the pre-
sence of IAR as a resonance in the region between the two regions of sharp boundary
where the Alfvén velocity vA ¼ B20 =m0 ni mi changes abruptly (B0 is the Earth’s
magnetic field intensity, and mi and ni are the ion mass and density (this ni is different
from the previous ni in Section 12.2.2.4)). One is the lowest ionosphere (D/E layer)
and the other is a height of 500–1,000 km. Based on these spatial scales the reso-
nance frequencies are found to range from 1 to 5 Hz in the ULF/ELF range, and IAR
appears as a unique “fingerprint” structure. However, the generation mechanism of
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 497

this IAR is not yet agreed. As you imagine, there are two probable possibilities
depending on latitude, that is (1) magnetospheric origin; any noise in the upper
magnetosphere or (2) lightning origin; that is, the effect of lightning discharges in the
atmosphere. No matter whether the origin of IAR is either magnetospheric or
atmospheric lightning effect, the mode responsible for this IAR is left-handed
polarized Alfvén mode as discussed in Section 12.2.2.3.
The findings of IARs have been obtained from ground-based observations, and we
will cite the papers mainly based on “long-term” observations. IAR was initially dis-
covered at a middle latitude station (Nizhni Novgorod, Russia; L = 2.65 (McIlwain L is
defined by the geocentric distance where the magnetic field crosses the magnetic
equator in the unit of Earth’s radius), geomagnetic latitude = 52.12) and at a high
latitude station (Kilpisjarvi, Finland; L  6, geomagnetic latitude = 66) by Belyaev
et al. [96–98]. Further experimental evidence for the existence of IAR at high latitudes
was later confirmed by Demekhov et al. [91] with the data at Kilpisjarvi observatory.
Yahnin et al. [99] studied diurnal and seasonal variations of SRS occurrence rate based
on continuous observations for more than 4 years at a high latitude station, Sodankylä
(L = 5.2, geomagnetic latitude of 64 ). They found a clear tendency of decrease in both
the resonant frequencies and difference in resonance frequencies DF from the mini-
mum to maximum solar activity. The high-resolution measurements of IAR signatures
were also made at low-latitude stations such as Crete (L = 1.3, geomagnetic latitude of
28 ) by Bösinger et al. [100] during half a year and Muroto, Japan (L = 1.206, geo-
magnetic latitude of 24.4 ) with the 2.5-year data by Nose et al. [101]. Very recently
Beggan and Musur [102] have reported on the characteristics of IAR in middle latitude
from their long-term (5 years) observation at Eskdalemuir, UK (L = 3.46, geomagnetic
latitude = 55.3), which are consistent with early works by Molchanov et al. (2014) to
be presented later. Potapov et al. [95] have attempted the simultaneous IAR observa-
tion at two mid-latitude stations, Ulaanbaatar (L = 1.9) and Mondy (L = 2.2) and one
high-latitude station, Istok (L = 6.1), but unfortunately not continuous. Their results
during 4 days are found to be consistent with early results.
While there are so many ground-based measurements of IARs, there have been
recently some attempts to make in-situ observations of IARs from data by LEO
satellites. Simoes et al. [103] have found few cases, with the data obtained by the
C/NOFS satellite, of detecting a distinct picture of IAR (and Schumann resonances)
during the minimum solar activity during the cycle 23/24 in the low-latitude
ionosphere (most evident during nighttime). Further observational evidence of IAR
signatures was obtained in low latitudes by the Ukrainian satellite, Chibis-M [104]
and by the Freja satellite in auroral latitudes [105]. Dudkin et al. [104] have shown
that their satellite observations have not revealed any long-term IAR signatures
unlike the ground-based observations (as will be shown later). Also, in contrast to
the dominant view (as will be shown later), IAR has been found to be effectively
excited on the dayside as well.
In Section 12.3.2, we initially present our statistical properties of IARs
observed at middle latitude on the basis of ground-based observations for more than
2 years at a mid-latitude observatory at Karimshino (Kamchatka, Russia, L = 2.1,
geomagnetic latitude of 46 ) [106,107] in order for the reader to understand what
498 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

IAR looks like. Next in Section 12.3.4, we will review the generation mechanisms
of IAR signatures. It is definitely certain that this phenomenon is a resonance effect
of Alfvén mode waves between the lowest ionosphere and lower magnetosphere,
but the energy source (or initial agent) of those IAR signatures is very con-
troversial, seemingly strongly dependent on latitude of our observation. And, in
Section 12.3.5, we have suggested one of the most promising candidate hypothesis
or excitation of IAR at middle and low latitudes by nearby thunderstorms, which
might be very useful for the lightning community, that is, readers of this book.
12.3.2 Ground-based observations of IARs at middle latitude
12.3.2.1 Observations and data processing
The continuous registration of the ULF/ELF magnetic field variations at the geo-
physical observatory, Karimshino started in June 2000 and is still going on. The
observatory is located in Karimshino (geographic coordinates: 52.94 N, 158.25 E,
L = 2.1) at a distance of about 50 km from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (see the
details in Uyeda et al. [108] and Gladychev et al. [109]). Three axial induction
magnetometers are used to measure geomagnetic field variations in the p frequency
ffiffiffiffiffiffi
range of 0.003–40 Hz. The sensitivity threshold is better pffiffiffiffiffiffithan 20 pT/ Hz at a
frequency of 0.01 Hz, and it corresponds to 0.02 pT/ Hz at frequencies above
10 Hz. The sampling rate per channel is 150 Hz, and the sampling resolution is
24 bits. The accuracy of absolute and relative (between channels) timing of digital
data is 5 ms and better than 10 ms, respectively. See Schekotov and Hayakawa
[110] for further details of the equipment and measurement.
Because of relatively high crust conductivity in the region of observations the
vertical magnetic signal amplitude is low in comparison with the horizontal ones.
The amplitude of the vertical component in the frequency range of 1–3 Hz is
comparable with the sensor sensitivity, and thus the resonant structures cannot be
detected for the vertical component with the equipment used. The technique and
results of the signal analysis for two horizontal components are given below.
The signal spectra were evaluated with Welch’s method in the frequency range
0.1–5 Hz with resolution of 0.05 Hz in the time window of 30 min and many para-
meters of resonance structures were estimated. An example of the evolution of
nighttime dynamic frequency spectra is shown in Figure 12.10 for about one week
from September 12 to 18, 2000. The bottom three panels illustrate the dynamic
spectra for the three magnetic field components (H, D, and Z), respectively. The
second panel indicates the coherency between the two magnetic components H and D
and the third panel indicates the wave polarization by using the two horizontal
magnetic field components. The top panel indicates the temporal evolution of the Kp
index (geomagnetic activity) for comparison. Figure 12.11 is another type of pre-
sentation of Figure 12.10 in the form of spectral power density versus wave fre-
quency for the two horizontal components D (in thick line) and H (in thin line). The
local time is LT = 19 h through LT = 06 h on a particular day, September 13 and 14,
2000. We can recognize from this figure the IAR spectra with typical resonance
(fingerprint) structures, especially in the local time interval from LT = 21 h to 01h,
but weak (not so conspicuous) resonance structures are also seen at other LTs.
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 499

Karimshino, 0000 UT /11/09/2000 to 2400 UT /17/09/2000

10 8
3 6
ks 1 4 kp
0.3 2
0.1 0
5 0.5
Polarization Coherency

4
Freq. Hz

3
2 0.25
1
0
5 0.5 Right
4
Freq. Hz

3 0 Linear
2
1
–0.5 Left

F*Spectral density (B), Hz*pT/sqrt (Hz)

5 1.5
4
Freq. Hz

3
2 H 1
1
0.5
Dynamic Spectra

5 1.5
4
Freq. Hz

3
D 1
2
1
0.5
5 1.5
4
Freq. Hz

3
2 Z 1
1
0.5
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Date (LT)

Figure 12.10 An example of the temporal evolution of SRS of IARs from LT = 19

to 06 h on September 13–14, 2000. SRS is most clearly seen at LT =
22 h (DF  0.5 Hz). (LT = UT + 12 h). The top panel indicates the
Kp index, the second one, the coherency between the horizontal
magnetic field components, the third, wave polarization by means of
the horizontal magnetic field components, and the last three panels,
the dynamic spectra for H, D, and Z components. The values are
indicated in color. After Molchanov et al. [107]

We can notice from Figures 12.10 and 12.11 very clear resonance structures on
the horizontal magnetic field components (H and D). However, when we use the
“polarization spectrum,” it is much easier for us to identify such resonance struc-
tures (SRS), which is clearly recognized in the second top panel of Figure 12.10,
when we compare it with the corresponding amplitude dynamic spectra (e.g., the
2nd panel from the bottom in Figure 12.10). The observed wave is found to be left-
handed polarized (or Alfvén mode wave).
The algorithm of automatic SRS detection and calculation of its main para-
meters have been described below. Various parameters obtained from the analysis
of the spectra are as follows:
● averaged separation frequencies of resonance DF,
● intensity of the resonance signal,
● “quality” parameter Q of the resonance structure.
500 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

The algorithm of data analysis is schematically illustrated in Figure 12.12. The

SRS with the frequency difference DF is given in the top panel (a). Its fifth-order
polynomial approximation is shown with a dashed line as a trend. The difference
between the raw spectrum and its approximation (trend) (hereafter, we call it spectral

KARIMSHINO, from 19:00 LT /13/09/2000 to 06:00 LT /14/09/2000

19 h 20 h 21 h
3 3 3
D D D
H H H
2 2 2

1 1 1

0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
22 h 23 h 00 h
3 3 3
D D D
H H H
2 2 2
Field Spectral Density, Hz2*pT2/Hz

1 1 1

0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
01 h 02 h 03 h
3 3 3
D D D
H H H
2 2 2

1 1 1

0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
04 h 05 h 06 h
3 3 3
D D D
H H H
2 2 2

1 1 1

0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Frequency, Hz

Figure 12.11 An example of the temporal evolution of dynamic spectra of IARs

on a particular day (September 13/14, 2000). After Molchanov
et al. [107]
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 501

∆F
Spec. Dens., Hz 2*pT2 / Hz

0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
(a) Frequency, Hz
Spec. Dens. Var., Hz 2*pT2 / Hz

–1

–2
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
(b) Frequency, Hz

1.5
Var. Spec. Dens., a. u.

δf
1.0

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
SRS ∆F
(c) Frequency, Hz

Figure 12.12 The method of SRS identification and determination of the SRS
parameters. (a) SRS (in solid line) and its trend (in dashed line), (b)
SRS difference, and (c) Spectrum of the SRS difference. Its
maximum location is the averaged DF in the SRS. SRS exists if the
distribution is narrow banded, that is, quality Q1. After
Molchanov et al. [107]
502 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

density variation) is given in the middle panel (b). The total power can be estimated
as a sum of the resonant power and the background power approximately corre-
sponding to the curve going through the minima of spectra in Figure 12.12(a). The
intensity of the resonant signal is numerically estimated as the mean of the absolute
value of spectral density variation, but the relative accuracy of this approximation is
low. Both spectra of the total signal and its resonant part have several approximately
equidistant maxima. The average distance between the maxima is estimated with a
help of the Fourier transform of the spectrum of the resonant signal, and this spec-
trum is depicted in Figure 12.12(c) as a function of frequency. Its maximum corre-
sponds to the averaged frequency difference between the SRS maxima. We define
the “quality” Q of the resonant structure as the ratio of this maximal frequency to the
half-width of the maximum df using the formal similarity with the parameters of
damping oscillations. A resonance structure by definition exists if at least two max-
ima are found in the spectrum, that is, Q > 1. This allows us to exclude a possibility
of false IAR detection caused by some other effects like Pc1 geomagnetic pulsations.

12.3.2.2 Seasonal and diurnal variations of the SRS

parameters
The IAR occurrence rate (occurrence probability) is defined as the ratio of number of
nighttime (21h–03h LT) intervals with IARs to the total number of intervals, and this
is plotted in Figure 12.13(a). The average frequency difference between adjacent
spectral maxima is shown in Figure 12.13(b). The top of each grey rectangle means
the average DF for a certain month, and the range of the dark rectangle indicates
the error bar of estimation. When only one event was registered during a month, the
frequency difference is not shown because of a big error in estimation. The seasonal
variation averaged over all periods of observations of the IAR occurrence rate, fre-
quency difference DF and intensity are shown in Figure 12.14 from the top to the
bottom. It is seen from the figures that during all the periods of observations the
probability of IAR occurrence is maximal in autumn-winter and it vanishes in spring-
early summer. A clear maximum of DF is also observed in winter in the second panel
of Figure 12.14. The bottom panel of Figure 12.14 exhibits a broad maximum, so that
we can suggest that the IAR power density depends relatively weakly on the season.
So, the seasonal variations of the two quantities of IAR power and SRS IAR
occurrence rate seem to be in anti-correlation.
The diurnal variations of IAR occurrence rate for the four seasons are sum-
marized in Figure 12.15 (winter, spring, summer, and autumn, from top to the
bottom). In winter and autumn when the occurrence rate is maximal there is a clear
pre-midnight maximum. Besides, in winter a secondary weaker maximum is found
in early morning (04h–06h LT). Only few events were registered in spring, so that
no estimates can be made for them. The IAR occurrence rate in summer seems to
be shifted to post-midnight hours.

12.3.2.3 Dependence on geomagnetic activity

SRS IAR occurrence rate both at middle and high latitudes [99] is found to increase
with a decrease in geomagnetic activity. This observational result is confirmed by
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 503

0.4
OCCURRENCE RATE

0.3

0.2

NO DATA
0.1

0
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0.7
SRS FREQUENCY ∆F, Hz

0.6

0.5
NO DATA

0.4

0.3

0.2
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 2001 2002

Figure 12.13 The temporal evolution of monthly IAR occurrence rate

(probability) during all the observation periods from July 2000 to
December 2002 (top panel). The bottom is the corresponding
temporal variation of DF during the same period. The top of each
grey rectangle indicates DF, and the range of the dark rectangle
means the error bar. After Molchanov et al. [107]

our statistical analysis. Correlation coefficients of SRS occurrence rate with the Kp
index of global magnetic activity for different 1-year intervals are shown in
Figure 12.16 (days with data gaps and the last three months, April–June 2002 (see
seasonal dependence) were excluded from the analysis). The stable and reliable
negative correlation of IAR with Kp is noticed from the figure and it may be
possible that SRSs of IAR are masked under disturbed geomagnetic conditions by
high background activity.

12.3.2.4 Summary of morphological characteristics of IARs at

middle latitudes
We characterize SRS by the fundamental frequency and averaged DF. The para-
meter Q characterizing the “quality” of the SRS has been introduced, which is
controlled by the IAR quality and the ratio of the amplitude of resonant signal to
the background noise. If the resonance “quality” parameter exceeds a threshold
value, we can detect any SRS of IAR. We have found that the seasonal variation of
504 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

0.4
OCCUR. RATE

0.2

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0.6
FREQ. ∆F. Hz

0.4

0.2
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0.6
SPEC.DENS., pT/√Hz

0.4

0.2

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 12.14 Seasonal dependence of the occurrence rate (probability) (top), DF

(middle), and power spectrum density (bottom) averaged over the
observation period. After Molchanov et al. [107]

the IAR occurrence rate is estimated based on the above detection criterion.
The seasonal variation is strong: In spring–early summer only few IAR events with
SRS are registered, but the occurrence rate is found to strongly grow in the autumn-
winter period.
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 505

OCCURRENCE RATE
0.6
WINTER

0.4

0.2

0.6
SPRING

0.4

0.2

0.6
SUMMER

0.4

0.2

0.6
AUTUMN

0.4

0.2

0
12 14 16 18 20 22 00 02 04 06 08 10 12
Local Time, hour

Figure 12.15 Diurnal variation (or local time dependence) of the IAR occurrence
rate for different seasons (winter, spring, summer, and autumn,
from top to the bottom). After Molchanov et al. [107]
506 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Time of observation and analysis, days

0.2

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540

Kp*IAR correlation

0.0

–0.2

–0.4
–18 –12 –6 0 6 12 18
Time delay IAR to Kp, days

Figure 12.16 Correlation coefficients of the IAR occurrence rate with the Kp
index for different 1-year periods (shown above). All the correlation
coefficients are negative for time delay of 0–1 day. After Molchanov
et al. [107]

The main results of this observation can be summarized as follows:

1. During the observation for 2.5 years, IAR structures occur during approxi-
mately one-quarter of the observation period (250 nights). There is an evident
seasonal variation in the occurrence rate with a maximum in the
autumn–winter period and almost complete absence of IAR structures at the
spring–early summer time.
2. The occurrence maximum in the diurnal variation is found at the LT of 21 h–
23 h, and almost all the IAR structures are observed at local nighttime.
3. The averaged DF is about 0.2–0.5 Hz in the summer–autumn period, but it
increases up to 0.5–0.7 Hz in the winter time.
4. IARs are mostly polarized along the azimuthal direction (D-component), and
the diurnal variations in the two horizontal components are sometimes not
identical.
5. IAR is found to be left-handed polarized (that is, Alfvén mode waves).
6. There is an anti-correlation between the IAR occurrence rate and Kp index of
the global geomagnetic activity.
We briefly compare the present experimental findings at our middle latitude
(L = 2.1) station with the previous and recent observations at high latitude (L = 5.2)
[99] and at low latitudes (L = 1.3, Bösinger et al. [100] and L = 1.206, Nosé et al.
[101]). Yahnin et al. [99] utilized an extremely long-term observation of more than
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 507

4 years, Bösinger et al. [100] used the data only for half a year, and Nosé et al.
[101] used the data for about 2.5 years. When we think about the generation
mechanism of IAR, the latitudinal dependence of different morphologies of IAR
would be of essential importance (this will be described in the next subsection).
Several results have been reported on the basis of a shorter database [95–97] even
at middle latitudes, but this section has provided the first results of middle latitude
IAR characteristics by using sufficiently long-term observation. Point (1) in the
above summary suggests that IAR structures occur for approximately one-quarter
of the observation periods (250 nights). This means that the IAR phenomena are not
so rare, and are rather a regular phenomenon, which seems to be consistent with the
conclusion by Bösinger et al. [100,111] and Nosé et al. [101] at low latitudes. Point
(2) on LT dependence is likely to be consistent with the nighttime maximum in
previous or recent publications at high and low latitudes ([99,101]; Bösinger et al.
[100]. Next, the seasonal variation in Point (1) seems to be consistent with Yahnin
et al. [99] at high latitudes, but Nosé et al. [101] at low latitudes have found a
slightly higher occurrence in May–September, which is considerably different from
our seasonal dependence at middle latitude. Finally, as far as Kp dependence is
concerned, we have found a clear anti-correlation at middle latitudes (Point (6))
being consistent with high-latitude results [99], but Nosé et al. [101] have noticed
no significant correlation with Kp index at low latitudes. So these existing con-
sistencies and discrepancies in morphological characteristics of IARs at different
latitudes will be of great potential in studying the energy source of IARs at different
latitudes.
These findings with ground-based measurements have been confirmed by the
LEO satellites [103,104] but few examples. Further, Dudkin et al. [104] have found
the daytime occurrence as well, which suggests that the absence of IAR during the
day on the ground may be due to the stronger daytime absorption during the
ionospheric transmission.

12.3.3 Generation mechanisms of IAR

Though the fundamental idea of IAR is a resonance of Alfvén waves in the altitude
region between the lowest ionosphere and lower magnetosphere, the physical
mechanism, in other words, the origin (or source) of IAR has not yet been estab-
lished, leading to proposals of different hypotheses. Also, it is highly likely to be
dependent on latitude of our observation.
At high latitudes, Trakhtengertz and Feldstein [85,112–114] proposed a
mechanism of the IAR excitation due to an instability of magnetospheric convective
flows that cause the formation of a turbulent Alfvén boundary layer near the upper
wall of the IAR. The “feedback” instability due to the ionospheric modification by
energetic particle precipitation can also stimulate the IAR [86–88,115–117].
Evidently, these proposed plausible mechanisms seem to work only at high and
auroral latitudes, but no observational evidence has been obtained yet.
As a possible source of the IAR excitation at middle and low latitudes, the
generation of the ionospheric turbulence and currents by the neutral wind
508 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

fluctuations in the conductive lower ionosphere has been theoretically suggested by

Molchanov et al. [107], Surkov et al. [118] and Surkov and Hayakawa [12].
According to this model, the IAR excitation might be expected to take place above
the regions with intense atmospheric turbulence such as hurricanes, typhoons,
atmospheric fronts, etc. However, this expectation has not yet been validated
experimentally or observationally.
The other plausible energy source for the IAR excitation is related to atmo-
spheric lightning discharges. The world thunderstorm centers in the tropical regions
were suggested to be the primary source of IAR excitation [12,96,100].
However, their theoretical estimates have shown that the contribution of dis-
tant global thunderstorm centers with typical charge movements of negative cloud-
to-ground (–CG) flashes to middle latitude electromagnetic field in the IAR band is
about two orders of magnitude lower than that observed actually [12,119]. To
resolve this issue, Shalimov and Bösinger [120] proposed that relatively infrequent
(10%) but more intense (stronger by about an order of magnitude) +CG flashes
can provide a necessary ULF background at large distances. Even in this case,
however, the estimated spectral power would be inconsistent with observations.
Thus, the possible role of distant thunderstorms in the IAR excitation is still very
controversial. As shown in Section 12.3.3, IAR signatures seem to be a persistent
feature of the upper nighttime ionosphere and should be seen by LEO satellites.
Dudkin et al. [104] have found the daytime IAR as well, which will provide an
interpretation that ground-based IARs cannot be observed during day because of
the enhanced absorption during the ionospheric penetration.
As an alternative mechanism, it was suggested that local thunderstorms are
able to generate signals in the IAR range with sufficient intensities [121].
Schekotov et al. [122] investigated a ULF magnetic response to the regional
lightning activity, and showed that the mechanism of the SRS is not related to the
oscillatory response of the upper ionosphere, as has been commonly assumed, but
is caused by the specific multi-pulse structure of geomagnetic disturbances pro-
duced by a lightning discharge.
As mentioned above, the generation mechanism of IARs has not yet been
established, but in Section 12.3.5, we will introduce the latest idea of the role of
nearby lightning discharges in the IAR excitation by Surkov et al. [121], which
might be of great interest to the lightning community, the readers of this book.
Lastly, we have indicated some further theoretical studies on the modeling of the
IAR excitation in the upper atmosphere by lightning discharges, sometimes with
taking into account the excitation of the horizontal ionospheric waveguide by
fast magnetosonic wave (i.e., modified Alfvén mode wave in Figure 12.6)
[93,123–126].

12.3.4 Excitation of IAR by nearby thunderstorms

It is a fact that the low frequencies determine the near field of the lightning dis-
charge, while the high frequencies make a main contribution to the far-field spec-
trum. On the other hand, the quasi-static field falls off faster with distance than the
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 509

wave field, which means that in the ELF frequency range the discharge spectrum
from nearby lightning is more intense than that of more distant discharges [121].
This is the basic idea of trying to correlate IARs to nearby lightning.
As it is seen from the examples in Figure 12.10, there are many impulses that
can be associated with thunderstorm activity, and only some of these impulses are
accompanied by sharp impulses in the frequency range of 0.25–4 Hz. The former is
thus assumed to be a result of nearby lightning discharges. In order to estimate the
number of lightning discharges per unit of time, we choose the signal discrimina-
tion level as 5 pT. Total number of the impulses, DN, with amplitude which is
greater than this level, increases with time as shown in Figure 12.17. Lines 1 and 2
correspond to the frequency filters 6–20 Hz and 0.25–4 Hz, respectively. Averaging
over an interval of 1 hour results in a mean occurrence rate of the impulses of about
n1 = 0.144 s
1 and n2 = 0.023 s
1, which is typical for nighttime conditions at
Karimshino station. Note that about 2,000 thunderstorms operate simultaneously in
the whole world producing a total current of about 1,800–2,000 A [79]. Taking into
account that a lightning discharge usually brings the charge 20–30 C, one can find
that the mean occurrence rate of the lightning discharges v = 60–100 s
1. Hence a
thunderstorm typically produces a rate number of about 0.03– 0.05 s
1, which is

600

500

1
400
∆N

300 3

4
200

2
100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t, min

Figure 12.17 Temporal variations of the sum of magnetic impulses. The threshold
level for the impulse amplitude is 5 pT. Lines 1 and 2 correspond to
the frequency channels 6–20 and 0.25–4 Hz, accordingly. The
impulses of solely H component (6–20 Hz) are shown with dash
lines 3, while the D component is shown with dash line 4. After
Surkov et al. [121]
510 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

close to n2. From here we may assume that one nearby thunderstorm and 3–6
remote ones make a major contribution to the rate number shown in Figure 12.17.
As for the signals of remote thunderstorms, it should be noted that the intensity of H
component is larger than that of D component. The impulses of H component
(6–20 Hz) that are displayed in Figure 12.17 with dashed line 3 occur more fre-
quently than in the D component shown with dashed line 4. On the other hand, in
the frequency range of 0.25–4 Hz the occurrence rate numbers of both components
are very close to each other.
Most of the intense signals which can be associated with a nearby thunder-
storm have a bipolar structure. It appears that the first impulse in the signals is due
to the primary wave radiated by the return stroke. The interval between positive and
negative impulses is typically 2 s. One may assume that such a shape of the signal
results from Alfvén wave reflection from the gradient in Alfvén velocity at the
upper boundary of the resonance cavity. If the typical size of the resonance cavity is
500–1,000 km, the arrival time of the reflected Alfvén wave is estimated as 2 s,
which is close to the signal duration. The signal occasionally contains three distinct
impulses at least. This implies a possibility for multiple wave reflections from the
IAR upper boundary.
Let N be the number of nearby thunderstorm centers simultaneously operating
around the ground-based recording station. A local coordinate system has the x-axis
eastward, the y-axis to the north, and z-axis vertically upward. Since we are inter-
ested in solely nearby thunderstorms, a plane-stratified model of the medium is
used. Let rm and jm be the polar coordinates of the thunderstorm epicenter, where
m = 1, 2, . . . N as shown in Figure 12.18. A typical size of the thunderstorm is
assumed to be smaller than the distance from the recording station. We ignore the
lightning discharge distribution inside a thunderstorm area, and this implies that all

y y'
N-S

E-W z' x'

rµ

z φµ x

Br
BI

Figure 12.18 Schematic picture of reference and local coordinate systems. There,
z and z0 axes are “out of paper.” Br and Bf are the component of
magnetic variations due to the thunderstorm located at r = rm. After
Surkov et al. [121]
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 511

the lightning discharges related to the same thunderstorm must have the same
coordinates; that is, the coordinates of a given thunderstorm.
Now we also introduce a reference frame x0 , y0 , and z0 fixed to the thunderstorm
with the number m. Let B (rm, t–tnm) be the magnetic field due to the lightning dis-
charge that happened at the accidental moment tnm, where nm= 1, 2, . . . is the number
of the lightning discharge. It is usually the case that the lightning discharges are
vertical and transfer a negative electric charge to the ground [6,127,128]. If we use a
cylindrical coordinate system in which the lightning discharge is in the direction of the
polar z0 -axis, the magnetic field B is independent of azimuthal angle j. According to
Belyaev et al. [97], only radial component Br among the two horizontal ones contains
the resonance factor, which dominates the IAR resonance properties. In the Cartesian
reference frame fixed to the ground-recording station, the horizontal magnetic field
can be expressed through the radial and azimuthal components as follows:
Bx ¼ Bf sin jm
Br cos jm
By ¼
Bf cos jm
Br sin jm (12.39)

On the ground z = z0 = 0 the components Br and Bf are random values, which

depend on rm and t–tnm.
Far from the lightning discharge, the electromagnetic field of the lightning dis-
charge can be characterized by the current moment of the discharge m(t) = I(t)l(t),
where I(t) is the current produced by the median return strokes of lightning and l(t)
denotes the lightning channel length. According to Surkov et al. [118], we approx-
imate the actual current moments with the function m(t) = MF(t), where the magni-
tude M of the current moment is assumed to be a random value, whereas F(t) is a
universal function of time. Hence the horizontal magnetic field of a single lightning
discharge can be written as
Br ;f ðrm ; t
tnm Þ ¼ Mnm Gr ;f ðrm ; t
tnm Þ (12.40)
where the functions Gr,f is supposed to be equal to zero as t < tnm. These functions
are derived from Maxwell’s equations, which should be supplemented by proper
boundary conditions at the ground and the atmosphere–ionosphere boundary.
The net magnetic perturbation at a ground-recording station is a random
quantity Bran which equals the sum of the magnetic perturbations caused by sepa-
rate lightning discharges. The net horizontal field of all the thunderstorms located
around the station is then
X
N X
Bran ðtÞ ¼ Bm ðtÞ; Bm ðtÞ ¼ b Gn ;
Mn m A (12.41)
m m
m¼1 nm

where Bm is the horizontal magnetic field due to the thunderstorm with number m,
the matrix Âm and the vector Gnm are given by
 
b m ¼
cosjm
A
sinjm
; (12.42)

sinjm
cosjm
512 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

and
 
Gr ðrm ; t
tnm Þ
Gnm ¼ ; (12.43)
Gj ðrm ; t
tnm Þ

We now turn to the modeling of a single lightning discharge. A typical light-

ning discharge consists of several return strokes. According to Jones [129], Uman
and Krider [128], Uman [127], MacGorman and Rust [130], and Rakov and Uman
[6], the current produced by the median return stroke of lightning is modeled as,
X
4
IðtÞ ¼ Im expð
wm tÞ (12.44)
m¼1

where wm are inverse time constants and the amplitudes Im of individual currents
P
4
term must satisfy the condition Im ¼ 0. The vertical current channel grows
m¼1
upward with the velocity dl/dt = V0 exp (
Wt), where V0 = 8 107 m/s is the
current wave velocity at the ground level and W is the relaxation time parameter
whence it follows that the final channel length is l1 = V0/W. The current moment of
the single return stroke m1(t) = I(t)l(t) can be written as (see, e.g., [79,131,132])
X
4
m1 ðtÞ ¼ l1 ½1
expð
WtÞ Im expð
wm tÞ (12.45)
m¼1

It is usually the case that the lightning discharge contains n = 2–6 return
strokes. More frequently, there are three return strokes with a characteristic dura-
tion of about 100 ms. The mean interval between them is of the order of t0 = 40 ms.
Following Jones [129], we assume that the final length of the return stroke
increases with its number n as ln = l1 + (n–1) Dl, where l1 = 4 km and Dl = 1 km.
The current relaxation time parameter Wn is related to the channel length ln as
follows:

1 ln
1
Dl
Wn ¼ ¼ W1 þ ðn
1Þ; (12.46)
V0 V0
where W1 = V0/l1 = 2  104 s–1. The net magnetic moment of multiple discharges
can be written as m(t) = MF(t), where M = l1|I1| is the “magnitude” of magnetic
moment. while the dimensionless function F(t) describes the shape of multiple
discharge
X
n0
ln X4
Im
FðtÞ ¼ 1
exp
Wn t0n  h t0n exp
wm t0n (12.47)
l
n¼1 1
j
m¼1 1
I j

where t0n ¼ t
ðn
1Þt0 and h(x) denotes the step-function, that is h = 1 if x 0

and h = 0 if x < 0. In this model, all the current impulses have the same shape while
the increase in lightning channel length results in a gradual enhancement of the
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 513

electric current moment. To simplify the problem, we assume now that the
lightning discharge contains n0 = 3 return strokes. Taking the typical parameters
for the models of the return strokes (see, e.g., [79,131–134]) I1–4 =
28.45, 23.0,
5.0, 0.45 (in kA) and w1–4 = 6.0  105, 3.0  104, 2.0  103, 147.0 (in s
1), one can
estimate the typical magnitude of magnetic moment as M = 170 kA  km. The
spectrum of the function F(t) is

W1 Xn0 X4
Im exp½jwt0 ðn
1Þ
F ðw Þ ¼ (12.48)
2p n¼1 m¼1 jI1 j ðwm
jwÞðWn þ wm
jwÞ

Here we will evaluate the electromagnetic field spectrum of the lightning

discharge in the upper atmosphere, and we approximate the actual conductivity
distribution with the plane-stratified model [118] which is a reasonable approx-
imation to the variation of the conductivity with altitude. Figure 12.19 illustrates a
schematic medium model. The ground z 0 is considered to be a uniform con-
ductor with constant conductivity sg. The vertical lightning discharge has appeared
in the atmosphere at the altitude z = h above the ground at the moment t = 0. When
considering far distances, the actual lightning discharge can be replaced with the
vertical lumped electric current moment m(t) located at the z-axis at the altitude
z = h. Since a lightning discharge transfers the negative electric charge to the
ground, the vector of current moment is therefore vertically upward. The atmo-
spheric slab 0 < z < d is supposed to be an insulator. The ionospheric plasma z > d

z
z
B0

z=d+1+L Magnetosphere z

L F layer
z=d+l VA
σP σH
VAI VAM
l E layer
z=d x
y
Atmosphere
d
σg
z=0

σ
Earth

Figure 12.19 Schematic illustration of a stratified medium model. The plots of the
Alfvén velocity and the ionosphere/ground conductivities are shown
in the right panel. After Surkov et al. [121]
514 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

is immersed in the constant Earth’s magnetic field B0. The actual profile of the
Hall and Pedersen conductivities strongly varies with altitude. The plasma con-
ductivity peak lies inside the ionospheric E layer, which is considered in the thin-
slab approximation. This condition is not so burdensome on account of smallness
of the typical wavenumber k allowing for the condition kl « 1, where l denotes the
characteristic width of the E layer. In the model, the region above the E layer
(i.e., F layer and magnetosphere) is supposed to be the area consisting solely of
cold collisionless plasma. The IAR formation in this region is due to the plasma
density fall off with altitude, which makes the Alfvén velocity, vA, rapidly
increase upward. The ionospheric resonance cavity is bounded from below by the
conductive E layer and from above by the region where the gradient of the Alfvén
velocity reaches a peak, which makes it possible to have reflection of the Alfvén
wave from the upper space. The typical vertical scale of the resonance cavity is
L 103 km.
It should be noted that the same resonance cavity can serve as a waveguide for
the magnetosonic/compressional mode (modified Alfvén wave in the previous
section) (e.g., [135]). According to Pokhotelov et al. [87], we use a suitably idea-
lized model of the resonance cavity which describes the Alfvén velocity in terms of
a piece-wise function so that vA = vAI within the resonance cavity (d < z < d + l +L)
and vA = vAM in the outer magnetosphere (z > d + l +L), where vAI and vAM (vAM » vAI)
are constant quantities referring to the ionosphere (I) and magnetosphere (M),
respectively. The geomagnetic field B0 is supposed to be vertically upward. A more
accurate model which takes into account the dip angle of the local geomagnetic field
gives rise to very complicated equations [136–138]. For simplicity, we adopt the
model of the vertical geomagnetic field in order to avoid the complexities connected
with magnetic field inclination.
On account of the axial symmetry of the field produced by the vertical current
moment, the cylindrical coordinates z, r, and f are used. In this case, all the
quantities are free of f so that @=@f ¼ 0. In the atmosphere, the primary field of
the current moment contains only three components, Er, Ez, and, Bf termed as TM
mode. When the electromagnetic wave of TM mode penetrates into the ionosphere,
it produces excitation of the TE mode, that is, Ef , Br, and Bz due to the mode
coupling via Hall conductivity in the ionosphere. The shear and compressional
Alfvén waves can get trapped in the F layer of the ionosphere thereby exciting the
IAR. Low-frequency resonant oscillations are leaking back into the atmosphere so
that all the components of the electromagnetic field, which are TM and TE modes,
can be detected on the ground.
In the framework of the model, we note that the spectra of the electromagnetic
perturbations due to a solitary lightning discharge have been obtained by [139]. The
reader is referred to those works for details about the derivation of the formulae. Let
SW ¼ 1=ðm0 vAI Þ be the Alfvén parallel conductance, ap ¼ Sp =Sw and ap ¼ SH =Sw
stand for the dimensionless height-integrated Pedersen and Hall conductivities,
respectively, and x0 = wL/vAI be dimensionless frequency. The Fourier transforms of
the magnetic perturbation dBr and dBf on the ground level z = 0 can be written as
follows,
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 515

dBr ðr; wÞ ¼ Mgr ðr; wÞ (12.49)

dBf ðr; wÞ ¼ Mgf ðr; wÞ (12.50)

The mathematical derivations of gr ðr; wÞ and gf ðr; wÞ are rather complicated,

so that we want to avoid these. Please look at our original paper by Surkov et al.
[121] for further details of electromagnetic fields in each region and the application
of boundary conditions to each boundary.
A model calculation of the lightning-generated spectra of the resonance com-
ponent dBr for the typical nighttime parameters of the mid-latitude ionosphere is
given in Figure 12.20. The discharge contains three CG return strokes. The
numerical parameters of the lightning discharge used in making this plot are given
above. The numerical values for the various magnetospheric, ionospheric, and
other parameters are vAI = 500 km/s, vAM = 5  103 km/s, L = 500 km, d = 100 km,
l = 40 km, z = 0, sg = 210
3 S/m, SP = 0.2 Ohm
1, and SH = 0.3 Ohm
1
(nighttime conditions). In this figure, lines 1–4 correspond to the distances r = 100,
300, 1,000, and 10,000 km, respectively. It is obvious from Figure 12.20 that the
spectra exhibit distinct resonance structures in such a way that the resonance fre-
quencies are close to the IAR eigenfrequencies as observed. Owing to the

0.05
1
2

0.04

2'
| δ Br | . pT . Hz –1

0.03

3
0.02

0.01
4

0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
f, Hz

Figure 12.20 Model calculation of the nighttime IAR spectra excited by a solitary
cloud-to-ground lightning discharge. The radial/resonant
component Br on the ground is shown with lines 1–4, which
correspond to the distances r = 100, 300, 1,000, and 10,000 km,
respectively. The approximate analytical solution at distance
r = 300 km is shown with dotted line 2’. After Surkov et al. [121]
516 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

symmetry of the problem the radial component of the magnetic perturbation must
tend to zero when r ! 0. The calculations have shown that the spectrum magnitude
reaches a peak at a distance of about 300 km.
Surkov et al. [121] have further considered the random magnetic variations
produced by the CG lightning discharges treated as a stochastic process. The
obtained frequency spectra are found to be close to the observations. The theore-
tical consideration by Surkov et al. [121] can be summarized as follows:
1. The model computations of the power spectra are in favor of nearby thunder-
storms as a possible cause for the IAR excitation at middle latitudes.
2. The solitary CG lightning discharges in the neighborhood of the ground station
may result in the impulse IAR excitation, which is capable of producing an
observable SRS signature on the ground.
3. The random lightning discharges in the range of 1–2 thousands km make a
main contribution to the mid-latitude IAR power spectrum since the predicted
resonant frequencies and peak intensities are practically consistent with those
observed.
Finally, we have to conclude that even though there have been proposed sev-
eral hypotheses as the origin of IARs at different latitudes, any mechanism is far
from being accepted. So appreciable work will be highly required observationally
in order to validate even the most promising hypothesis of nearby lightning dis-
charges in the excitation at middle/low latitudes in Section 12.3.4.

12.4 Summary of lightning effects on the ionosphere/

magnetosphere
In this chapter, we have discussed two major effects of atmospheric lightning dis-
charges on the upper atmosphere of the ionospheric/magnetospheric plasma. The
first is an extremely well-known phenomenon; whistlers. This whistler signal ori-
ginated in the VLF/ELF part of the causative lightning discharge in the opposite
hemisphere, it propagates in the ionosphere/magnetosphere, and is received by a
ground-based receiver. General characteristics and the general theory of ground-
based whistlers are presented, and we have presented the use of this lightning-
induced ground-based whistler as the diagnosis of magnetospheric plasma density
and also earlier satellite observations of nonducted whistlers. Furthermore, we have
introduced abundant recent LEO satellite observations of 0+ whistlers and ELF/
VLF electromagnetic waves (either waveform or power spectral data) extensively
utilized to study the global lightning activity and lightning characteristics.
The second item of this chapter is IAR in the ULF/ELF band, which has a
relatively short history. This IAR is known to take place in the frequency range
below the Schumann resonance and the eigenfrequencies are in the ULF/ELF range
from 1 to 5 Hz. The frequency spectra of IARs are just like fingerprint structure
(SRS). Theoretically, this IAR was predicted around 1980, but it is only recently
that many workers have paid extensive attention to this IAR. The characteristic
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 517

IAR eigenfrequencies can be roughly estimated as frnnvA/(2L) where

n = 1,2, . . . . (mode number) and L is the length of field line piece within the
resonance cavity. Two possible hypotheses depending on the latitude of observation
have been proposed so far as the excitation mechanism of this IAR: (1) lightning in
the atmosphere, and (2) magnetospheric effect. After presenting our own long-term
observational results at middle latitudes as a basis for the readers, we have compared
our mid-latitude results with those at high and low latitudes. Finally, we have pre-
sented one likely mechanism by nearby lightning discharges for the excitation of
middle and low-latitude IARs. However, further appreciable efforts will be highly
required to obtain deeper understanding of the mechanisms of IARs.
Finally, we would like to add one more phenomenon of the lightning effect on the
upper atmosphere including the mesosphere and ionosphere. During the last three
decades there has been an enormous progress in the study of transient luminous events
such as sprites, blue jets, elves, etc., in possible association with lightning discharges,
and the readers interested in this topic are directed to our latest review [140].

References
[1] Wait, J. R., Electromagnetic Waves in Stratified Media, Pergamon Press,
Oxford, 1970.
[2] Budden, K. G., The Waveguide Mode Theory of Wave Propagation, Logos
Press, London, 1961.
[3] Davies, K., Ionospheric Radio, Peter Peregrinus, London, 580p., 1990.
[4] Al’pert, Ya. L., Propagation of Radio Waves in the Ionosphere, Plenum
Press, New York, NY, 1974.
[5] Galejs, J., Terrestrial Propagation of Long Electromagnetic Waves,
Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York, 376p, 1972.
[6] Rakov, V. A., and M. A. Uman, Lightning: Physics and Effects, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
[7] Walker, A. D. M., The theory of whistler propagation, Rev. Geophys. Space
Phys., 30, 411–421, 1976.
[8] Hayakawa, M., Whistlers, in H. Volland (Ed.), Handbook of Atmospheric
Electrodynamics, Vol. 2, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 155–193, 1995.
[9] Helliwell, R. A., Whistlers and Related Ionospheric Phenomena, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA, 1965.
[10] Park, C. G., Whistlers, In Handbook of Atmospherics, Vol. 2, Ed. by H.
Volland (eds.) , CRC Press, Boca Raton Florida, pp. 21–79, 1982.
[11] Pilipenko, V.A., Impulsive coupling between the atmosphere and ionosphere/
magnetosphere, Space Sci. Rev. 168, 1–4, 2011, doi: 10.1007/s11214-011-
9859-8.
[12] Surkov, V. and M. Hayakawa, Ultra and Extremely Low Frequency
Electromagnetic Fields, Springer, Tokyo, 486p, 2014.
[13] Barkhausen, H., Zwei mit Hilfe der neuen Verstärker entdeckte
Erscheinungen, Physik Z., 20, 401–403, 1919.
518 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[14] Burton, E. T. and E. M. Boardman, Audio-frequency atmospherics, Proc.

Inst. Radio Eng., 21, 1476–1494, 1933.
[15] Storey, L. R. O., An investigation of whistling atmospherics, Philos. Trans.
R. Soc., A246, 113–141, 1953.
[16] Eckersley, T. L., 1929–1930 developments in the study of radio wave pro-
pagation, Marconi Rev., 5, 1–8, 1931.
[17] Eckersley, T. L., Musical atmospherics, Nature, 135, 104–105, 1935.
[18] Hayakawa, M. and Y. Tanaka, On the propagation of low-latitude whistlers,
Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 16, 111–123, 1978.
[19] Al’pert, Ya. L., Space Plasma, Vols. 1 and 2, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1990.
[20] Hayakawa M. and K. Ohta, The propagation of low-altitude whistlers: A
review, Planet Space Sci., 40, 1339–1351, 1992.
[21] Helliwell, R. A., J. H. Crary, J. H. Pope, and R. L. Smith, The “nose”
whistler – a new high latitude phenomenon, J. Geophys. Res., 61, 139–142,
1956.
[22] Yeh, K. C. and C. H. Liu, Theory of Ionospheric Waves, Academic Press,
New York, NY, 1972.
[23] Kelley, M. C., The Earth’s Ionosphere: Plasma Physics and
Electrodynamics, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 487p, 1989.
[24] Kivelson, M. G. and C. T. Russell, An Introduction to Space Physics,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
[25] Carpenter, D. L. and C. G. Park, On what ionospheric workers should know
about the plasmapause-plasmasphere? Rev. Geophys. Space. Res., 81, 2728–
2736, 1973.
[26] Stix, T. H., The Theory of Plasma Waves, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
1962.
[27] Allis, W. A., S. J. Buchsbaum, and A. Bers, Waves in Anisotropic Plasmas,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1963.
[28] Ginzburg, V. L., The Propagation of Electromagnetic Waves in Plasamas,
Permagon Press, Oxford, 1970.
[29] Budden, K. G., The Propagation of Radio Waves, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1985.
[30] Parks, G. K., Physics of Space Plasma: An Introduction, Addison-Wesley
Pub. Comp., Reading, MA, 1991.
[31] Nicholson, D. R., Introduction to Plasma Theory, Krieger Pub. Comp.,
Brevard County, FL, 1991.
[32] Walker, A. D. M., Plasma Waves in the Magnetosphere, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1993.
[33] Darrouzet, F., D. L. Gallagher, N. André, et al., Plasmaspheric Density
Structures and Dynamics: Properties Observed by the CLUSTER and
IMAGE Missions, Space Sci. Rev., 145, 55–106, 2009.
[34] Sazhin, S. S., M. Hayakawa, and K. Bullough, Whistler diagnostics of
magnetospheric parameters: a review, Ann. Geophys., 10, 293–308, 1992.
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 519

[35] Carpenter, D. L., Whistler evidence of a “knee” in the magnetospheric

ionization density profile, J. Geophys. Res., 68, 1675–1682, 1963.
[36] Corcuff, Y., Probing the plasmapause by whistlers, Ann. Geophys., 31, 53–
67, 1975.
[37] Smith, R. L. and J. J. Angerami, Magnetospheric properties deduced from
OGO-1 observations of ducted and nonducted whistlers, J. Geophys. Res., 73
(1), 1–20, 1968.
[38] Kimura, I., The effects of ions on whistler-mode ray tracing, Radio Sci., 1,
269–284, 1966.
[39] Gurnett, D. A., S. D. Shawhan, R. L. Smith, and N. M. Brice, Ion cyclotron
whistlers, J. Geophys. Res., 70, 1665–1688, 1965.
[40] Shimakura, S., M. Moriizumi, and M. Hayakawa, Propagation mechanism of
very unusual low-latitude whistlers with additional traces of the earth-
ionosphere waveguide propagation effect, Planet Space Sci., 39, 611–616, 1991.
[41] Hayakawa, M., S. Shimakura, M. Moriizumi, and K. Ohta, On the location
of causative atmospherics of very low latitude whistlers and their magneto-
spheric propagation mechanism, Radio Sci., 27, 335–339, 1992.
[42] Ohta, K., M. Shimizu, and M. Hayakawa, The effect of subionospheric
propagation on whistlers as deduced from direction finding measurement,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 89–92, 1994.
[43] Iwai, A., J. Ohtsu, M. Nishino, and M. Kashiwagi, A new direction finding
network for locating the sources of atmospherics, Proc. Res. Inst. Atmos,
Nagoya Univ., 16, 17–20, 1969.
[44] Tsuruda, K. and K. Hayashi, Direction finding technique for elliptically
polarized VLF electromagnetic waves and its application to the low latitude
whistlers, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 37, 1193–1202, 1975.
[45] Bullough, K. and J. L. Sagredo, VLF goniometer observations at Halley Bay,
Antarctica – I. The equipment and the measurement of signal bearing, Planet
Space Sci., 21, 899–912, 1973.
[46] Cousins, M. D., Direction finding on whistlers and related VLF signals,
Tech. Rep., No.3432-2, Radioscience Laboratory, Stanford Univ., Stanford,
CA, 1972.
[47] Okada, T., A. Iwai, and M. Hayakawa, The measurement of incident and
azimuthal angles and the polarization of whistlers, Planet Space Sci., 25,
233–241, 1977.
[48] Park, C. G. and R. A. Helliwell, The formation by electric fields of field-
aligned irregularities in the magnetosphere, Radio Sci., 6, 299–304, 1971.
[49] Cole, D., Formation of field-aligned irregularities in the magnetosphere,
J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 33, 741–750, 1971.
[50] Hayakawa, M., J. Ohtsu, and A. Iwai, On the propagation of ionospheric
whistlers at low latitude, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 35, 1677–1684, 1973.
[51] Hayakawa, M., Satellite observation of low-latitude VLF radio noises and their
association with thunderstorms, J. Geomagn. Geoelectr., 41, 573–595, 1989.
[52] Parrot, M., World map of ELF/VLF emissions by a low-orbiting satellite,
Ann. Geophys., 8, 135–145, 1990.
520 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[53] Chum, J., J. Jiricek, O. Ssantolk, M. Parrot, G. Diendorfer, and J. Fiser,

Assigning the causative lightning to the whistlers observed on satellites,
Ann. Geophys., 24(11), 2921–2929, 2006. doi:10.5194/angeo-24-2921-2006.
[54] Fiser, J., J. Chum, G. Diendorfer, M. Parrot, and O. Santolik, Whistler
intensities above thunderstorms, Ann. Geophys., 28(1), 37–46, 2010.
[55] Compston, A., Global estimate of lightning energy injected into the Earth’s
plasmasphere, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, March 2016.
[56] Ferencz, O. E., Cs. Ferencz, P. Steinbach, et al., The effect of subionospheric
propagation on whistlers recorded by the DEMETER satellite – observation
and modeling, Ann. Geophys., 25, 1103–1112, 2007.
[57] Yamashita, M., Propagation of tweek atmospherics, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys.,
40, 151–156, 1978.
[58] Hayakawa, M., K. Ohta, and K. Baba, Wave characteristics of the tweek
atmospherics deduced from the direction finding measurement and theore-
tical interpretation, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 10733–10743, 1994.
[59] Ohya, H., M. Nishino, Y. Murayama, and K. Igarashi, Equivalent electron
densities at reflection heights of tweek atmospherics in the low-latitude
D-region ionosphere, Earth Planets Space, 55(10), 627–635, 2003.
[60] Outsu, J., Numerical study of tweeks based on waveguide mode theory,
Proc. Res. Inst. Atmos. Nagoya Univ., 7, 58–71, 1960.
[61] Shimakura, S., A. Tsubaki, and M. Hayakawa, Very unusual low latitude
with additional traces of the earth-ionosphere waveguide propagation effect,
J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 49, 1081–1091, 1987.
[62] Parrot, M., J. L. Pincon, and D. Shklyar, Short-fractional hop whistler rate
observed by the low-altitude satellite DEMETER at the end of the solar
cycle 23, J. Geophys. Res., Space Phys., 124, 3522–3531, 2019. doi:10.1029/
2018JA026170.
[63] Elie, F., M. Hayakawa, M. Parrot, J. L. Pincon, and F. Lefeuvre, Neural
network system for the analysis of transient phenomena on board the
DEMETER microsatellite, IEICE (Inst. of Electronics, Information, and
Communications Engineers, Japan), Trans. Fundam. Electron. Commun.
Comput. Sci., E82-A(8), 1571–1581, 1999.
[64] Hayakawa, M., J. Ohtsu, and A. Iwai, Characteristics of dispersion and
occurrence rate of whistlers at low latitudes during one solar cycle,
J. Geomagn. Geoelectr., 23(2), 187–204, 1971.
[65] Ohta, K. and M. Hayakawa, The correlation of whistler occurrence rate at a
low latitude with thunderstorm activity at its conjugate region and with solar
activity, Pure Appl. Geophys., 133(1), 167–178, 1990.
[66] Miyahara, H., R. Kataoka, T. Mikami, et al., Solar rotational cycle in
lightning activity in Japan during the 18–19th centuries, Ann. Geophys., 36
(2), 633–640, 2018.
[67] Nemec, F., O. Santolik, M. Parrot, and C.J. Rodger, Relationship between
median intensities of electromagnetic emissions in the VLF range and
lightning, J. Geophys. Res., 115, A08315, 2010.
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 521

[68] Colman, J. J. and M. J. Starks, VLF wave intensity in the plasmasphere due
to tropospheric lightning, J. Geophys. Res., Space Phys., 118(7), 4471–4482,
2013. doi:10.1002/jgra.50217.
[69] Zahlava, J., F. Nemec, O. Santolik, et al., Longitudinal dependence of
whistler mode electromagnetic wave in the Earth’s inner magnetosphere,
J. Geophys. Res., 123, 6562–6575, 2018. doi:10.1029/2018JA025384.
[70] Christian, H. J., R. J. Blakeslee, D. J. Boccippio, et al., Global frequency and
distribution of lightnings as observed from space by the Optical Transient
Detector, J. Geophys. Res., 108(D1), 4005, 2003. doi:10.1029/
2002JD002347.
[71] Ripoll, J. F., T. Farge, D. M. Malaspina, et al., Analysis of electric
and magnetic lightning-generated wave amplitudes measured by the Van
Allen probes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL087503, 2020. doi:10.1029/
2020GL087503.
[72] Jacobson, A. R., R. H. Holzworth, R. Pfaff, and R. Heelis, Low-latitude
whistler wave spectral and polarization from VEFI and CINDI payloads on
C/NOFS satellite, J. Geophys. Res., Space Phys., 125(1), 2020. doi:10.1029/
2019JA02704.
[73] Abel, B. and R. M. Thorne, Electron scattering in Earth’s inner magneto-
sphere 1. Dominant physical processes, J. Geophys. Res., 103(A2), 2385–
2396, 1998. doi:199810.1029/97JA02919.
[74] Bortnik, J., U. S. Inan, and T. F. Bell, Energy distribution and lifetime of
magnetospherically reflecting whistlers in the plasmasphere, J. Geophys.
Res., 108(A5), 1199, 2003. doi:10.1029/2002JA009316.
[75] Meredith, N. P., R. B. Horne, S. A. Glauer, and R. R. Anderson, Slot region
electron loss timescales due to plasmaspheric hiss and lightning-generated
whistlers, J. Geophys. Res., 112(A8), A08,214, 2007. doi:10.1029/2007
JA012413.
[76] Hayakawa, M. and S. S. Sazhin, Mid-latitude and plasmaspheric hiss: A
review, Planet Space Sci., 40, 1325–1338, 1992.
[77] Sazhin, S. S. and M. Hayakawa, Magnetospheric chorus emissions: A
review, Planet Space Sci., 40, 681–697, 1992.
[78] Inan, U. S., S. A. Cummer, and R. A. Marshall, A survey of ELF and VLF
research on lightning-ionosphere interaction and causative discharges,
J. Geophys. Res., 115, A00E36, 2010. doi:10.1029/2009JA014775.
[79] Nickolaenko, A. P. and M. Hayakawa, Resonances in the Earth-Ionosphere
Cavity, Kluwer Academic Publication, Dordrecht, 2002.
[80] Schumann, W. O., Uber strahlunglosen Eigen schwingungen einer leitenden
Kugel, die von einer Luftschicht and einer Inospharenhulle umgeben ist,
Z. Naturforschung, A7, 149–154, 1952.
[81] Nickolaenko, A. P. and M Hayakawa, Schumann Resonances for Tyros:
Essentials of Global Electromagnetic Resonance in the Earth-Ionosphere
Cavity, Springer, Tokyo, 2014.
[82] Williams, E. R., The Schumann resonance: a global tropical thermometer,
Science, 256, 1184–1187, 1992.
522 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[83] Polyakov, S. V., On the properties of the ionospheric Alfvén resonator, in

KAPG Symposium on Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 3. Moscow, Nauka,
72–73, 1976.
[84] Polyakov, S. V. and V. O. Rapoport, The ionospheric Alfvén resonator,
Geomagn. Aeron., 21, 610–614, 1981.
[85] Trakhtengertz, V. Y. and A. Y. Feldstein, Turbulent Alfvén boundary layer
in the polar ionosphere: 1. Excitation conditions and energetics, J. Geophys.
Res., 96, 19363–19374, 1991.
[86] Lysak, R. L., Feedback instability of the ionospheric resonator cavity,
J. Geophys. Res., 96, 1553–1568, 1991.
[87] Pokhotelov, O. A., D. Pokhotelov, A. Strelkov, V. Khruschev, and M. Parrot,
Dispersive ionospheric Alfvén resonator, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 7737–7746,
2000.
[88] Pokhotelov, O. A., V. Khruschev, M. Parrot, S. Senchenkov, and V. P.
Pavlenko, Ionospheric Alfvén resonator revisited: Feedback instability,
J. Geophys. Res., 106, 25813–25823, 2001.
[89] Trakhtengertz, V., A. G. Demekhov, S. V. Polyakov, and V. O. Rapoport, A
mechanism of PC 1 pearl formation based on the Alfvén sweep maser,
J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys., 62, 231–238, 2000a.
[90] Trakhtengertz, V. Yu., P. P. Belyaev, S. V. Polyyakov, A. G. Demekhov, and
T. Bösinger, Excitation of Alfvén waves and vorticies in the ionospheric
Alfvén resonator by modulated powerful radio waves, J. Atmos. Solar-Terr.
Phys., 62, 267–276, 2000b.
[91] Demekhov, A. G., V. Yu. Trakhtengertz, and T. Bösinger, Pc 1 waves and
ionospheric Alfvén resonator: generation or filtration?, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
27, 3805–3808, 2000a.
[92] Demekhov, A. G., P. P. Belyaev, J. Manninen, T. Turunen, and J. Kangas,
Modeling the diurnal evolution of the resonance spectral structure of the
atmospheric noise background in the Pc 1 frequency range, J. Atmos. Solar-
Terr. Phys., 62, 257–265, 2000b.
[93] Fedorov, E., A. Schekotov, Y. Hobara, R. Namakura, N. Yagova, and M.
Hayakawa, The origin of spectral resonance structures of the ionospheric
Alfvén resonator. Single high-altitude reflection or resonance cavity excita-
tion?, J. Geophys. Res., 119, 3117–3129, 2014. doi: 10.1002/2013JA019428.
[94] Potapov, A. S., T. N. Polyushkina, B. V. Dovbnya, B. Tsegmed, and R. A.
Rakhmatulin, Emissions of ionospheric Alfvén resonator and ionospheric
conditions. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys., 119, 91–101, 2014.
[95] Potapov, A. S., T. N. Polyushkina, B. Tsegmed, et al., Considering the
potential of IAR emissions for ionospheric sounding, J. Atmos. Solar-Terr.
Phys., 164, 229–234, 2017. doi: 10.10161 j.jastp.
[96] Belyaev, P. P., S. V. Polyakov, V. O. Rapoport, and V. Y. Trakhtengertz,
Discovery of the resonance spectrum structure of atmospheric electro-
magnetic noise background in the range of short-period geomagnetic pul-
sations, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 297, 840–846, 1987.
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 523

[97] Belyaev, P. P., S. V. Polyakov, V. O. Rapoport, and V. Y. Trakhtengertz,

The ionospheric Alfvén resonator, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 52, 781–788,
1990.
[98] Belyaev, P. P., T. Bösinger, S. V. Isaev, and J. Kangas, First evidence at
high latitudes for the ionospheric Alfvén resonator, J. Geophys. Res., 104,
4305–4317, 1999.
[99] Yahnin, A. G., N. V. Semenova, A. A. Ostapenko, J. Kangas, J. Manninen,
and T. Turunen, Morphology of the spectral resonance structure of the
electromagnetic background noise in 0.1–4 Hz at L = 5.2, Ann. Geophys.,
21, 779–756, 2003.
[100] Bösinger, T., C. Haldoupis, P. P. Belyaev, et al., Spectral properties of the
ionospheric Alfvén resonator observed at a low-latitude station (L = 1.3),
J. Geophys. Res., 107(A10), 1281, 2002. doi:10.1029/2001JA005076.
[101] Nosé, M., M. Uyeshima, J. Kawai, and H. Hase, Ionospheric Alfvén reso-
nator observed at low-latitude ground station, Muroto, J. Geophys. Res.,
Space Phys., 120(7), 2017. doi:10.1002/2017JA024204.
[102] Beggan, C. D. and M. Musur, Observation of ionospheric Alfvén reso-
nances at 1-30 Hz and their superposition with the Schumann resonances,
J. Geophys. Res., Space Phys., 123(5), 4202–4214, 2018. doi:10.1029/
2018JA025264.
[103] Simoes, F., J. Klenzing, S. Ivanov, et al., Detection of ionospheric Alfvén
resonator signatures in the equatorial ionosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 117,
A11305, 2012.
[104] Dudkin, D., V. Pilipenko, V. Korepanov, S. Klimov, and R. Holzworth,
Electric field signatures of the IAR and Schumann resonance in the upper
ionosphere detected by Chibis-M microsatellite, J. Atmos. Solar-Terr.
Phys., 117, 81–87, 2014.
[105] Grzesiak, M., Ionospheric Alfvén resonator as seen by Freja satellite,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 923–926, 2000. doi:10.1029/1999GL/
1999GL010747.
[106] Hayakawa, M., O. A. Molchanov, A. P. Nickolaenko, A. Schekotov and E.
Fedorov, Observation of ionospheric Alfvén resonance at a middle latitude
station, Adv. Polar Upper Atmos. Res., Nat’l Inst. Polar Res., Tokyo, 18,
65–76, 2004.
[107] Molchanov, O. A., A. Y. Schekotov, E. N. Fedorov, and M. Hayakawa,
Ionospheric Alfvén resonance at middle latitudes: results of observations at
Kamchatka, Phys. Chem. Earth, 29, 649–655, 2004.
[108] Uyeda, S., T. Nagao, K. Hattori, et al., Russian-Japanese complex geo-
physical observatory in Kamchatka for monitoring of phenomena con-
nected with seismic activity, in M. Hayakawa and O.A. Molchanov (Eds.),
Seismo Electromagnetics: Lithosphere—Atmosphere—Ionosphere Coupling,
Terra Sci. Publ. Comp. Tokyo, pp. 413–419, 2002.
[109] Gladychev, V., L. Baransky, A. Schekotov, et al., Some preliminary results
of seismo-electromagnetic research at Complex Geophysical Observatory,
Kamchatka, in M. Hayakawa and O.A. Molchanov (Eds.), Seismo
524 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Electromagnetics: Lithosphere—Atmosphere—Ionosphere Coupling, Terra

Sci. Publ. Comp. Tokyo, pp. 421–432, 2002.
[110] Schekotov, A. and M. Hayakawa, ULF/ELF Electromagnetic Phenomena
for Earthquake Prediction, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Beau
Bassin, Mauritius, 102 p, 2017.
[111] Bösinger, T., A. G. Demekhov, and V. Y. Trakhtengertz, Fine structure in
ionospheric Alfvén resonator spectra observed at low latitude, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 31, L18802, 2004. doi:10.1029/2004GL020777.
[112] Trakhtengertz, V. Y. and A. Y. Feldstein, Effect of the nonuniform Alfvén
velocity profile on stratification of magnetospheric convection, Geomagn.
Aeron., 21, 711, 1981.
[113] Trakhtengertz, V. Y. and A. Y. Feldstein, Quiet auroral arcs: Ionospheric
effect of magnetospheric convection stratification, Planet. Space Sci., 32,
127–134, 1984.
[114] Trakhtengertz, V. Y. and A. Y. Feldstein, About excitation of small-scale
electromagnetic perturbations in ionospheric Alfvén resonator, Geomagn.
Aeron., 27, 315, 1987.
[115] Lysak, R. L., Generalized model of the ionospheric Alfvén resonator, in
Auroral Plasma Dynamics, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 80, Ed. by R. L.
Lysak, p. 121, AGU, Washington, D. C., 1993.
[116] Lysak, R. L., Propagation of Alfvén waves through the ionosphere: depen-
dence on ionospheric parameters, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 10017–10030, 1999.
[117] Lysak, R. L. and Y. Song, Energetics of the ionospheric feedback interac-
tion, J. Geophys. Res., 107(A8), 1160, 2002. doi:10.1029/2001JA000308.
[118] Surkov, V. V., O. A. Pokhotelov, M. Parrot, E. N. Fedorov, and M.
Hayakawa, Excitation of the ionospheric resonance cavity by neutral winds
at middle latitudes, Ann. Geophys., 22, 2877–2889, 2004.
[119] Fedorov, E. N., A. J. Schekotov, O. A. Molchanov, M. Hayakawa, V. V.
Surkov, and V. A. Gladyshev, An energy source for mid-latitude IAR:
World thunderstorm centers, nearby discharges or neutral wind fluctua-
tions? Phys. Chem. Earth, 31, 462–468, 2006.
[120] Shalimov, S. and T. Bösinger, On distant excitation of the ionospheric
Alfvén resonator by positive cloud-to-ground discharges, J. Geophys. Res.,
113, A02303, 2018. doi:10.1029/2007JA012614.
[121] Surkov, V. V., M. Hayakawa, A. Y. Schekotov, E. N. Fedorov, and O. A.
Molchanov, Ionospheric Alfvén resonator excitation due to nearby thunder-
storms, J. Geophys. Res., 111, A1303, 2006. doi:10.1029/2005JA011320.
[122] Schekotov, A., V. Pilipenko, K. Shiokawa, and E. Fedorov, ULF impulsive
magnetic response at mid-latitudes to lightning activity, Earth Planets
Space, 63, 119–128, 2011.
[123] Surkov, V.V. and V. A. Pilipenko, Spectral signatures of the ionospheric
Alfvén resonator to be observed by low-earth orbit satellite, J. Geophys.
Res., Space Phys., 121, 2783–2794, 2016.
[124] Fedorov, E. N., N. Mazur, V. A. Pilipenko, and L. J. Baddeley, Modeling
the high-latitude ground response to the excitation of the ionospheric MHD
 Whistlers and ionospheric Alfvén resonator 525

modes by atmospheric electric discharges: ULF response to atmospheric dis-

charges, J. Geophys. Res., Space Phys., 121, 11,282–11,301, 2016. doi:10.1002/
2016JA023354.
[125] Mazur, N. G., E. N. Fedorov, V. A. Pilipenko, and V. V. Vaknina, ULF
electromagnetic field in the upper ionosphere excited by lightning, J. Geophys.
Res., Space Phys., 123, 6692–6702, 2018. doi:10.1029/2018JA025622.
[126] Plyasov, A. A., V. V. Surkov, V. A. Pilipenko, E. N. Fedorov, and V. N.
Ignatov, Spatial structure of the electromagnetic field inside the iono-
spheric Alfvén resonator excited by lightning activity, J. Geophys. Res.,
Space Phys., 117, A09306, 2012.
[127] Uman, M. A., The Lightning Discharge, Elsevier, New York, NY, 1987.
[128] Uman, M. A. and E. P. Krider, A review of natural lightnings: experimental
data and modeling, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., 24, 79–112, 1982.
[129] Jones, D. L., Electromagnetic radiation from multiple return stroke of
lightning, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 32, 1077–1093, 1970.
[130] MacGorman, D. R. and W. D. Rust, The Electrical Nature of Storms,
Oxford University Press, London, 1998.
[131] Nickolaenko, A. P. and M. Hayakawa, Electric fields produced by lightning
discharges, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 17175–17189, 1998.
[132] Nickolaenko, A. P. and M. Hayakawa, A model for causative discharge of
ELF-transients, J. Atmos. Electr., 19, 11–24, 1999.
[133] Berger, K., R. B. Anderson, and H. Kröninger, Parameters of lightning
flashes, Electra, 41, 23–27, 1975.
[134] Visacro, S., A. Soares Jr., M. A. O. Schroeder, L. C. L. Cherchigola, and
V. J. de Sousa, Statistical analysis of lightning current parameters: mea-
surements at Morro do Cachimbo Station, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D01105,
2004. doi:10.1029/2003JD003662.
[135] Greifinger, C. and S. Greifinger, Theory of hydromagnetic propagation in
the ionospheric waveguide, J. Geophys. Res., 73, 7473–7490, 1968.
[136] Surkov, V. V., Front structure of the Alfvén wave radiated into the mag-
netosphere due to excitation of the ionospheric E layer, J. Geophys. Res.,
101, 15403–15409, 1996.
[137] Surkov, V. V., E. N. Fedorov, V. A. Pilipenko, and D. R. I. Rao,
Ionospheric propagation of geomagnetic perturbations caused by equatorial
electrojet, Geomagn. Aeron., 37, 792–796, 1997.
[138] Fedorov, E., V. Pilipenko, V. Surkov, D. R. K. Rao, and K. Yumoto,
Ionospheric propagation of magnetohydrodynamic disturbances from the
equatorial electrojet, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 4329–4336, 1999.
[139] Surkov, V. V., O. A. Molchanov, M. Hayakawa, and E. N. Fedorov,
Excitation of the ionospheric resonance cavity by thunderstorms,
J. Geophys. Res., 110, A04308, 2005. doi:10.1029/2004JA010850.
[140] Surkov, V. V. and M. Hayakawa, Progress in the study of transient luminous
and atmospheric events: A review, Surv. Geophys., 41, 1101–1142, 2020.
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 13
On the NOx generation in corona, streamer and
low-pressure electrical discharges*
Vernon Cooray1, Marley Becerra1 and Mahbubur Rahman2

13.1 Introduction
An assessment of the global distribution of nitrogen oxides (NOx) is required for a
satisfactory description of tropospheric chemistry and in the evaluation of the
global impact of increasing anthropogenic emissions of NOx [1]. In the mathema-
tical models utilized for this purpose, it is necessary to have the natural as well as
man-made sources of NOx in the atmosphere as inputs. Thunderstorms are a main
natural source of NOx in the atmosphere and it may be the dominant source of NOx
in the troposphere in equatorial and tropical South Pacific [2].
In quantifying the production of NOx by thunderstorms, scientists have until
recently concentrated on the lightning return strokes neglecting all other processes
associated with thunderstorms [3]. This view is gradually changing as the theories
and experimental data show that not only the return strokes in ground flashes but
other discharge events in ground and cloud flashes, such as continuing currents, are
also contributing significantly to the NOx emissions [4]. For example, the study
conducted by Rahman et al. [4] shows that the contribution by continuing currents
to the NOx production in lightning flashes is comparable, if not overwhelm, to the
contribution by return strokes. However, the physics behind the process that makes
continuing currents as efficient as return strokes in producing NOx is still unknown.
Based on the ionization process that leads to the production of free electrons,
electrical discharges taking place in the atmosphere can be divided into two types,
namely, ‘cold’ and ‘hot’ electrical discharges. In cold electrical discharges, free
electrons are produced solely by the collisions between energetic electrons and
atoms. In these discharges, the electron temperature may reach several tens of
thousands of degrees whereas the gas and ion temperature remains close to ambient
temperature. Corona discharges, streamer discharges and Townsend-type electrical

*This material was published previously by the same authors in Open Atmospheric Science Journal,
vol. 2, pp. 176–180, 2008. It is reproduced here by permission from the journal.
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Uppsala University, Sweden
2
School of Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, Sweden
528 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

discharges taking place at low pressure are several examples of cold discharges
taking place in the atmosphere. In hot electrical discharges, the gas and ion tem-
perature can also reach several tens of thousands of degrees and the main
mechanism in the discharge that generates free electrons is the thermal ionization.
In these discharges, ions and neutral atoms are heated to such high temperatures
through a process called thermalization that facilitates the transfer of energy from
free electrons to neutrals via ions [5]. This transfer of energy from electrons to
neutrals causes the temperature of the neutrals to go up. This increase in the tem-
perature of the neutrals leads to production of copious amount of electrons by the
energetic collisions between neutral particles (i.e. thermal ionization). Several
examples of hot discharge processes taking place in the atmosphere are return
strokes, leaders, M components and continuing currents.
In addition to hot discharges mentioned above, an active thundercloud also
produces cold discharges in the form of corona and streamer discharges. However,
in quantification of NOx produced by thunderstorms, scientists neglect the con-
tribution of the cold discharge processes. Moreover, the recent discovery of
thunderstorm-created ionization processes in the stratosphere and mesosphere,
known as sprites, blue jets and elves, also poses a question as to the effects of these
ionization processes on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere. These ionization
processes can also be categorized under ‘cold’ discharges because the pressure at
which these discharges take place does not support thermal ionization, making
electron impacts the main source of ionization. Indeed, there is a need today to
develop procedures to quantify the NOx production in cold discharges.
The effects of solar proton events in the NOx production in the upper atmo-
sphere and the effect of NOx on the chemical balance of the stratosphere were a
major concern of the atmospheric scientists since the discovery of the importance
of NOx in ozone production and destruction [6]. In quantifying the NOx production
from these events, scientists utilized the connection between the ionizing events in
the atmosphere and the number of resulting NOx molecules. To facilitate further
discussion, let us denote the number of NOx molecules produced per ionizing event
in the atmosphere by the parameter k. The theoretical work of Nicolet [7] set the
value of k close to unity, whereas the investigations of Jackman et al. [8] predicted
that at altitudes larger than about 80 km, k is about 1.5 and for low altitude it is
about 1.2–1.3. These results have been used extensively to study the NOx produc-
tion by cosmic rays and solar radiation impinging on the Earth’s atmosphere.
Recently, Rahman et al. [9] investigated the validity of this theoretical calculation
by studying the NOx production in air by alpha particles emitted by a radioactive
source. The results of this study confirmed these theoretical predictions fixing the
value of k to about 1.0. Since the main source of ionization during proton impacts
are high energetic secondary electrons, it is reasonable to assume that the number
of NOx molecules produced in discharge processes in which electrons are the main
source of ionization is approximately equal to the number of ion pairs produced in
the discharge. This hypothesis is tested in this chapter using the data obtained
from corona discharges and then it is utilized to quantify the NOx production in
lowpressure discharges and streamer discharges.
 On the NOx generation in corona, streamer 529

13.2 Testing the theory using corona discharges

The working hypothesis of this chapter is that in cold electrical discharges, the total
number of NOx molecules generated by the discharge is k times the total number of
ion pairs produced in the discharge. Let us test this hypothesis by using the
experimental data on corona discharges.
In a recent study, Rehbein and Cooray [10] conducted an experiment to
quantify the NOx production in corona discharges. In the study, a corona dis-
charge is maintained in a coaxial geometry and the discharge voltage and the
current are measured simultaneously with the concentration of NOx produced in
the discharge chamber. If one neglects the ionization loss processes (i.e. attach-
ment and recombination), the steady state current gives the rate of production of
electrons and hence the rate of occurrence of ionizing events in the discharge.
Since the total NOx production in the discharge over a given time interval is
known, the data can be used to quantify the number of NOx molecules produced
per ion pair. The results of this calculation gave k=0.6 for negative corona and
k=1.0 for positive corona. Even though the NOx generating efficiency per ion
pair is lower in negative corona than in positive corona, this result confirms that
the number of NOx molecules produced in the discharge is approximately equal
to the number of ionization events.

13.3 NOx generation in electron avalanches and its

relationship to energy dissipation

Consider a single electron accelerating in a background electric field of strength E.

The number of ionizations caused by the electron in moving a unit length per unit is
equal to the Townsend’s primary ionization coefficient a(p, E), which is a function
of pressure p and the electric field E. Assuming that one ionization event corre-
sponds to k number of NOx molecules, the total number of NOx molecules Nul
produced by the ionization processes as the electron moves a unit length is given by
Nul ¼ kaðp; EÞ (13.1)
Now, the energy dissipated as the electron moves a unit length in the back-
ground electric field is given by eE, where e is the electronic charge. Thus, the
number of NOx molecules produced per unit energy, Nue, is given by
kaðp; EÞ
Nue ¼ (13.2)
eE
Since a/p is a function of the reduced electric field E/p alone, the above equation
predicts that Nue is only a function of E/p. Figure 13.1 shows how the value of Nue
varies as a function of E/p. First note that the NOx production efficiency increases
with increasing E/p. This also shows that for a given pressure, the NOx production per
unit energy is not unique but depends also on the applied electric field. Consequently,
in any experiment that is designed to obtain the NOx production efficiency of cold
530 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

8 × 1016

6 × 1016
NOx molecules/J

4 × 1016

2 × 1016

0 × 100
0 × 100 1 × 104 2 × 104 3 × 104
E/p (V/m/Torr)

Figure 13.1 NOx production per unit energy Nue as a function of E/p in electron
avalanches

electrical discharges, it is necessary to utilize voltage impulses in which the reduced

electric field E/p remains the same.

13.4 NOx production in streamer discharges

As an electron avalanche propagates towards the anode of a discharge gap, low

mobile positive space charge accumulates at the avalanche head. When the ava-
lanche reaches the anode, the electrons will be absorbed into it leaving behind the
net positive space charge. Due to the recombination of positive ions and electrons,
the avalanche head is a strong source of high energetic photons. These photons will
create other avalanches in the vicinity of the positive space charge. If the number of
positive ions in the avalanche head is larger than a critical value, the electric field
created by the space charge becomes comparable to the background electric field
and the secondary avalanches created by the photons will be attracted towards
the positive space charge. The electrons in the secondary avalanches will be neu-
tralized by the positive space charge of the primary avalanche, leaving behind a
new positive space charge, little bit closer to the cathode. The process repeats itself
and the positive space charge head travels towards the cathode as a consequence
[11]. This discharge that travels towards the cathode from the anode is called a
positive streamer. At atmospheric pressure, the total number of ions in the streamer
head, w, is about 108 and the radius of the streamer head, Rs, is about 100 mm [12].
The streamer needs a background field of about 5–10 kV/cm, depending on polarity
for continuous propagation. Consider a streamer moving in a uniform electric field
of strength E. In order for the streamer to move a unit length in this electric field,
 On the NOx generation in corona, streamer 531

the total number of ionizing events taking place in the vicinity of the streamer head
is about w/2Rs and the total number of NOx molecules created by the streamer in
moving a unit length, Ns, is
kw
Ns ¼ (13.3)
2Rs
On the other hand, the amount of energy dissipated by the streamer channel in
moving the unit distance is Eew. Thus, the production efficiency of NOx in strea-
mer discharges, PNOx , in molecules/J is
k
PNOx ¼ (13.4)
2eERS
Substituting k = 1, Rs = 10-4 m and E = 5  105 V/m (for positive streamers), we
find that the streamer will make about 6  1016 NOx molecules/J.
In a recent study, Cooray and Rahman [13] conducted an experiment in coaxial
geometry to measure the NOx production efficiency of streamer discharges. Let us
consider the cylindrical coaxial geometry. Assume that the peak voltage applied to
the central conductor of the coaxial system is V. This voltage will create an electric
field in the cylinder, which has its highest value at the surface of the conductor and
then decreases inversely with increasing radial distance. Consider a streamer dis-
charge initiated close to the inner electrode and moving in this electric field.
Assume that the streamer discharge will propagate to a distance where the back-
ground electric field reaches Es, the critical electric field necessary for streamer
propagation. If the applied voltage is V, then the charge that will be induced on a
unit length of the inner conductor of the coaxial arrangement is given by
2pe0 V
Q¼ (13.5)
lnðb=aÞ
where a and b are the radii of the inner and outer conductors. The electric field at a
radial distance r from the inner conductor is then given by
V
Er ¼ (13.6)
r lnðb=aÞ
Since the streamers propagate to a distance where the background electric field
is Es, the length of the streamers, ls, in the coaxial arrangement is given by
V
ls ¼ a (13.7)
lnðb=aÞEs
Then the number of ionizing events, Ns, generated during the propagation of
the streamer is given by
wls
Ns ¼ (13.8)
2Rs
532 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

On the other hand, the energy released by the movement of the streamer head
in the gap, Us, is given by
V
Us ¼ ew lnðls =aÞ (13.9)
lnðb=aÞ
Thus, the number of NOx molecules produced per unit energy, Nue, is given by
k
Nue ¼ (13.10)
2Es Rs lnðls =aÞ
For the experimental conditions reported in [13], i.e. a = 0.001 m, b = 0.15 m
and V = 83  103 V, the calculated production efficiency is about 1.6  1016
molecules/J. The measurements produced 1–2  1016 molecules/J.

13.5 Discussion and conclusions

Studies on the NOx production in the atmosphere by proton impacts show that the
number of NOx molecules created is almost equal to the number of ion pairs created
during the impact. By comparing theory with available experimental data it is
shown in this chapter that this result is also valid for electrical discharges in which
electron impacts are the main source of ionization. Based on this observation, the
NOx production in electrical discharges where the electron production depends
solely on the impact of electrons with neutral atoms is evaluated. The types of
electrical discharges considered in this chapter are the corona discharges, electrical
discharges at low pressure and streamer discharges.
In a corona discharge associated with current amplitude I, the rate of occur-
rence of ionizing events (neglecting attachment and recombination) is I/e, where e
is the electronic charge. This is equal to 6.25  1018I. Thus, the number of NOx
molecules produced per second in the discharge is given by 6.25  1018kI in which
the value of k depends on polarity (i.e. k  1 for positive polarity and k  0:6 for
negative). It is of interest to note that this equation can be utilized to estimate the
global production of NOx by ground corona associated with thunderstorms. Various
studies estimate that the global corona current associated with ground corona is
about 1–2 kA [14]. Substituting this value in the above equation and using k = 1.0
for positive corona, the number of NOx molecules produced globally by ground
corona per second is estimated to be about (6–12)  1021. This is equivalent to an
annual production of 0.01 Tg (N). During thunderstorms, it is not only at ground
level that corona discharges are initiated. The thunderstorm itself is a large source
of corona discharges. For example, in a thundercloud, charges may disperse from
regions of high concentration to low concentration through corona discharges and
the same could be the vehicle that transports the charges induced in conducting
channels during neutralization events in to the bulk of the cloud. The theory as
presented in this chapter could be applied to obtain the NOx production from these
processes once the magnitude of the currents associated with these processes
are known.
 On the NOx generation in corona, streamer 533

Let us consider the results presented in Figure 13.1. These results are obtained
using several assumptions. First, it is assumed that the electron generating
mechanism in the discharge is the impact ionization due to energetic electrons.
Second, it is assumed that the background electric field is uniform in the region in
which the discharge is taking place. However, the calculation procedure can be
modified rather easily to take into account the effect of non-uniform electric fields.
Third, it is assumed that the space charge accumulated in space during the dis-
charge will not distort the electric field locally. Due to these assumptions, the
results as given in Figure 13.1 are valid for ‘Townsend’s like’ low-pressure elec-
trical discharges where the space charge effects can be neglected. On the other
hand, the data given in Figure 13.1 can be utilized to study the NOx production in
any cold discharge with space charge distortions provided that the quantity E is
replaced by the effective electric field in which the electron avalanches are
generated.
An example of a cold discharge in which the space charge effects cannot be
neglected is a streamer discharge. In streamers the electron avalanches are initiated in
the electric field of the streamer head that is much stronger than the background
electric field in which streamers are propagating. In evaluating the NOx production of
streamer discharges in this chapter, instead of evaluating the NOx production in each
individual avalanche taking place at the streamer head, a simpler but an equivalent
procedure based on the known mechanism of the streamer is utilized. In a streamer
discharge, electron avalanches are generated in a specially varying electric field. The
maximum value of the field, which is about 2  107 to 4  107 V/m, occurs at the
head of the streamer (assuming 108 ions located within a radius of about 50–100 mm)
and it decreases to about 3  106 V/m at a distance of about 200 mm from the head.
Recall that our analysis gave about 2  1016 NOx molecules/J for streamer discharges
moving in a background electric field of about 5  105 V/m. Comparison of this NOx
production efficiency with the data given in Figure 13.1 indicates that in streamer
discharges the electron avalanches are generated in an effective electric field of about
5106 V/m.
Streamer discharges occurring in the atmosphere are associated mainly with
the lightning leaders in ground flashes and cloud flashes. Actually, the propagation
of the leader is mediated by streamer bursts emanating from the tip of the leader.
They may also originate during the neutralization of these leaders by return strokes.
Cooray et al. [15] utilized the theory as developed in this chapter to study the NOx
production by streamers in lightning leaders.
The experimental observations indicate that the space charge effects cannot be
neglected in upper atmospheric discharges known as sprites even though these
discharges are taking place at considerably low atmospheric pressures. For exam-
ple, observations indicate that sprites give rise to streamer-like structures.
Therefore, the electric field in which the avalanches are growing during the
development of sprites may be considerably higher than the background electric
field generated by the thunderclouds. However, if the dimension and the ion con-
centration in these streamer heads are known, an analysis similar to that utilized in
this chapter to study the NOx production in streamer discharges at atmospheric
534 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

pressure could be used to evaluate the NOx production in streamers in sprites. On

the other hand, the elves are not associated with streamers and the results presented
in Figure 13.1 could be applied directly if the background electric field that drives
them is estimated.
The reason for the development of streamers in sprites, even though they are
taking place at considerably low atmospheric pressure, is the large dimensions
involved with the region of ionization associated with these electrical discharges.
This allows the accumulation of space charge over large volumes affecting the
local electric field. On the other hand, laboratory discharges generated at the same
pressures would not have streamer-type discharges because the special dimensions
are not large enough in laboratory discharges to support them. The results presented
in Figure 13.1 would be applicable directly in low-pressure laboratory discharges.
In a study conducted recently by Peterson et al. [16], NOx generated by laboratory
discharges at different pressures were measured, and based on the results an esti-
mation was made on how the NOx production efficiency in molecules/J varies as a
function of pressure. Based on the results the authors predicted that the NOx pro-
duction efficiency increases with decreasing pressure. Unfortunately, in that study
the applied voltage is not given and therefore it is difficult to find out whether the
voltage applied at different pressures is such that the E/p ratio is the same at dif-
ferent pressures. As shown in the present chapter, the NOx production efficiency in
these discharges depends on the ratio E/p and any change in this ratio when one
moves from one pressure to another will also affect the NOx production.

References
[1] Crutzen, P. J., The influence of nitrogen oxides on the atmospheric ozone
content, Quart. J. R. Met. Soc., vol. 96, 320–325, 1970.
[2] Gallardo, L. and H. Rodhe, Oxidized nitrogen in the remote pacific: the role
of electrical discharge over oceans, J. Atmos. Chem., vol. 26, 147–168, 1997.
[3] Chameides, W. L., The role of lightning in the chemistry of the atmosphere, in
The Earth’s Electrical Environment, National Academy Press, Washington D.C,
1986.
[4] Rahman, M., V. Cooray, V. A. Rakov, et al., Measurements of NOx pro-
duced by rocket-triggered lightning, Geophys. Res. Lett., vol.34, L03816,
2007, doi:10.1029/2006GL027956.
[5] Orville, R. E., Lightning spectroscopy, in R. H. Golde (ed.), Lightning,
Volume 1, Physics of Lightning, Academic Press, London, 1977.
[6] Crutzen, P. J., Atmospheric interactions-homogeneous gas reactions of C, N
and S containing compounds, in B. Bolin and R. B. Cook, (eds.), The Major
Bio-geochemical Cycles and Their Interactions, SCOPE, Paris, 1983.
[7] Nicolet, M., On the production of nitric oxide by cosmic rays in the meso-
sphere and stratosphere, Planet. Space Sci., vol. 23, 637–649, 1975.
[8] Jackman, C. H., H. S. Porter and J. E. Frederick, Upper limits on production
rate of NO per ion pair, Nature, vol. 280, 170, 1979.
 On the NOx generation in corona, streamer 535

[9] Rahman, M., V. Cooray, G. Possnert and J. Nyberg, An experimental quan-

tification of the NOx production efficiency of energetic particles in air,
J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys., vol. 68(11), 1215–1218, 2006.
[10] Rehbein, N. and V. Cooray, NOx production in spark and corona discharges,
J. Electrostat., vol. 51–52, 333–339, 2001.
[11] Cooray, V., Mechanism of electrical discharges, in V. Cooray (ed.), The
Lightning Flash, The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, 2003.
[12] Van Veldhuizen, E. M. and W. R. Rutgers, Pulsed positive corona streamer
propagation and branching, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., vol. 35, 2169–2179, 2002
[13] Cooray, V. and M. Rahman, Efficiencies for production of NOx and O3 by
streamer discharges in air at atmospheric pressure, J. Electrostatics, vol. 63,
977–983, 2005.
[14] Roble, R. G. and I. Tzur, The global atmospheric-electrical circuit, in The
Earth’s Electrical Environment, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,
1986.
[15] Cooray, V., M. Rahman and V. Rakov, NOx production in lightning flashes,
Proceedings of International Conference on Atmospheric Electricity,
Beijing, 2007.
[16] Peterson, H., M. Bailey, J. Hallett and W. Beasley, NOx production in
laboratory simulated blue jets and sprite discharges, 12th Conference on
Cloud Physics, P2.13, Madison, WI, 2006.
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 14
On the NOx production by laboratory electrical
discharges and lightning*
Vernon Cooray1, Mahbubur Rahman1 and Vladimir Rakov2

14.1 Introduction
An assessment of the global distribution of nitrogen oxides is required for an ade-
quate description of tropospheric chemistry and in the evaluation of the global
impact of increasing anthropogenic emissions of NOx [1]. In the mathematical
models utilized for this purpose, one needs to specify as inputs the natural as well
as man-made sources of nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere. Lightning is one of the
main natural sources of nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere, and it may be the
dominant source of nitrogen oxides in the troposphere in equatorial and tropical
South Pacific regions [2]. Thus, an accurate quantification of nitrogen oxide pro-
duction by thunderstorms is necessary for further development of the chemical
models of the troposphere and in the evaluation of the effects of the man-made
nitrogen emissions in the terrestrial atmosphere.
Because of the difficulty of making direct measurements of NOx produced by
natural lightning flashes, researchers have employed indirect methods to quantify
the global production of NOx [3–12]. Because of a large number of uncertainties
involved in these methods, the estimates of global NOx production by lightning
flashes available in the literature vary by two orders of magnitude, from 1 to 100 Tg
(N) per year. In estimating lightning produced NOx by indirect methods scientists
have usually utilized the following two procedures: (1) a laboratory measurement
of the number of NOx molecules per unit energy for a laboratory spark is made and
the result is extrapolated to lightning by multiplying this measured value by esti-
mated energy of lightning event. (2) A ground-based NOx measurement is made in
the vicinity of a natural lightning flash and from it the source strength is estimated
by making suitable assumptions concerning the fluid dynamics of the NOx flow
from the source to the measurement point.

*This material was published previously by the same authors in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-
Terrestrial Physics, vol. 71, pp. 1877–1889, 2009. It is reproduced here by permission from the journal.
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Uppsala University, Sweden
2
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Florida, USA
538 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

In studies of NOx production by lightning flashes, only return stroke is

assumed to be the NOx source and the effects, if any, of leaders, continuing cur-
rents, M components, and K processes are neglected. Many studies have excluded
cloud flashes from NOx estimates assuming their contribution to be insignificant.
Recent direct measurements of NOx produced by triggered lightning flashes [13]
show, however, that it is not only the return stroke in ground flashes but also other
slow processes such as continuing currents are significantly contributing to the NOx
production. This calls for a more thorough investigation of the problem including
different processes in both ground and cloud flashes. In this chapter, we describe
how this could be achieved. First, we quantify the NOx production by different
discharge processes of lightning flashes such as return strokes, leaders, continuing
currents, and M components and subsequently this information is utilized to
quantify NOx production by a typical lightning flash containing all these elements.
The results are used to obtain a global estimate of the lightning produced NOx.
While performing this analysis, we will also attempt to provide answers to the
following important questions related to the quantification of NOx emission by
lightning flashes: (a) Is the energy of discharge the correct scaling factor to extra-
polate NOx emission from laboratory discharges to lightning flashes? (b) Does the
shape of discharge current waveform influence the NOx emission? (c) What are the
relative contributions from leaders, return strokes, continuing currents, M compo-
nents and K processes to the NOx production by lightning flashes? (d) Can one
neglect the cloud flashes in evaluating the global NOx production?

14.2 NOx production by laboratory sparks

In order to evaluate NOx production from electrical discharges or sparks it is
necessary to estimate the amount of air heated to a given temperature in the dis-
charge. This requires information concerning the dimension of the hot core of
electrical discharges and how it will change for different current waveforms.
Therefore, let us first investigate how the hot core of the electrical sparks varies as a
function of its current.

14.2.1 Radius of spark channels

According to Braginskii [14], the radius of spark channel at time t, r(t), as a
function of current is given by

rðtÞ ¼ kro1=6 i1=3 t1=2 (14.1)

where r(t) is in m, t is in microseconds, i is the instantaneous current in the spark
channel in kA, k is a constant and ro is the air density at atmospheric pressure
(1.29  103 g/cm3). In deriving this expression, Braginskii assumed that the current
increases linearly with time. However, the current in sparks decays after reaching
the peak value, and Braginskii noted that the value of constant k (originally set to
0.93  103) may have to be changed if the equation is to predict the time variation in
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 539

channel radius of sparks. Cooray and Rahman [15] have made a comparison of the
results predicted by (14.1) with the constant suggested by Braginskii [14] with the
experimental data published by Flowers [16] and Higham and Meek [17] and found
that it overestimates the radius of spark channels. Table 14.1 gives channel radii
observed in the experiment and constants k in (14.1) that give the best fit to the
experimental data. Based on this comparison, Cooray and Rahman [15] estimated that
k = (0.328  0.05)  103. Recently, Perera et al. [18] analysed the diameter of spark
channels of length 30 cm using a photographic technique and the maximum channel
diameter is obtained as a function of spark peak current for both positive and negative
polarities. Perera et al. [18] compared the measured maximum channel diameter with
the one obtained from (14.1) using the current waveform measured in the discharge as
input. The results of that study confirm that the Braginskii’s original constant over-
estimates the channel diameter, whereas the constant suggested by Cooray and
Rahman [15] (i.e. 0.328  103) provides a reasonable fit to the data. Based on these
experimental validations, the value of the constant suggested by Cooray and Rahman
[15] is used in the analysis presented here. Lightning currents were directly measured
on tall towers and at the triggered lightning channel base (e.g. Berger [19]; Fisher
et al. [20]). Mathematical expressions to describe the waveform of typical first and
subsequent return-stroke currents recorded by Berger [19] are found in CIGRE Study
Committee 33 Report [21] and Nucci et al. [22]. First let us utilize the typical current
waveforms found in the above references to study how the radii of the first and
subsequent return strokes vary as a function of peak current. Figure 14.1 shows how
the maximum radius of the channel given by (14.1) varies as a function of peak
current for first and subsequent return strokes. Note that the radius of a typical first
return stroke (with a peak current of 30 kA) is about 2 cm and that of a typical
subsequent stroke (peak current 12 kA) is about 1 cm. These values are in agreement
with the radii of return-stroke channels estimated in photographic studies as sum-
marized by Orville [23].

Table 14.1 Measured spark radii and values of k in (14.1) giving the best fit to data

Reference Peak Rise time Decay time r (tm) tm Value of k

current (ms) (ms) (cm) (ms) giving
(kA) the best
fit (10–3)
Flowers (1943) 17 8 60 0.8 8 0.37
18 6 60 0.7 6 0.35
22 3.3 60 0.615 3.3 0.41
26 8 60 0.9 8 0.35
Higham and Meek 0.185 20 0.19 12 0.259
(1950)
0.250 20 0.145 12 0.254
0.500 10 0.225 12 0.34
0.400 10 0.195 12 0.32
0.300 10 0.16 9 0.31
540 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

0.035

0.03

0.025
(i)
Radius (m)

0.02

(ii)
0.015

0.01

0.005
0 20 40 60 80
Peak current (kA)

Figure 14.1 The maximum radius of the channel as given by (14.1) as a function
of peak current for first (i) and subsequent (ii) return strokes. In these
calculations, the typical current wave-shapes for first and subsequent
return strokes found in the literature were used

14.2.2 The volume of air heated in a spark channel and its

internal energy
Detailed studies of the temporal variation in temperature and pressure of lightning
discharges and long laboratory sparks show that the channel temperature reaches a
peak of about 25,000–30,000 K and the channel pressure is of the order of 10 atm in
a few microseconds after the commencement of current flow through the channel
[24–26]. Then the channel plasma cools down mostly due to the channel expansion,
loss of heat due to radiation and engulfing cold air from outer zones. This phase
may last for about few tens of microseconds. At the end of this phase, the channel
temperature reduces to a value of about 15,000 K and the pressure inside the
channel attains the atmospheric pressure clamping down the pressure driven
expansion of the channel. Experimental data that support this scenario are provided,
both for laboratory sparks and for lightning flashes, by Orville [24,25,27] and
Orville et al. [26]. Another experimental observation that supports this scenario is
the following. The experimental data obtained by Orville [24] on the temperature of
the lightning stepped leader channel show that at the formation of the step the
channel temperature increases to about 25,000 to 30,000 K. Subsequently, the
temperature decreases to about 15,000 K and remains at that level until the channel
is retraced by the return stroke. The theoretical calculations of Paxton et al. [28],
Hill [29] and Plooster [30] also indicate that by the time the pressure inside the
spark channel reduces to the atmospheric pressure the average temperature in
the channel is close to 20,000–15,000 K. After the pressure equilibrium is reached,
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 541

the cooling of the channel takes place mainly due to the entrainment of cold air
across the channel boundaries into the hot core of the channel effectively reducing
the diameter of the hot core [31]. Similarly, (14.1) predicts that the spark channel
expands initially with time and its maximum radius is attained in a few micro-
seconds to a few tens of microseconds, depending on the peak and the duration of
current. After this, the radius of the hot channel decreases, while the channel
resistance starts to increase with time. Based on the experimental and theoretical
data [24–26,28–30], we assume in our analysis that the pressure in the channel at
the time of maximum radius is close to atmospheric pressure and that the average
temperature of the hot air in the channel at this time is close to 15,000 K. In reality,
the channel temperature is not uniform across the cross-section of the channel. But
the theoretical calculations of Paxton et al. [28] and Hill [32] indicate that after a
few tens of microseconds the radial temperature distribution is relatively flat with a
sharp decrease to ambient temperature at the channel boundaries. This justifies the
use of an average value to describe the channel temperature. Further, the tem-
perature of 15,000 K estimated by Orville [27] when the channel was close to
pressure equilibrium is the average temperature across the channel justifying our
selection of 15,000 K as the average temperature. Thus, we assume that in a
cylindrical spark channel the volume of air, V, heated to a temperature of about
15,000 K is given by

V ¼ lprmax
2
(14.2)
where l is the length of the spark and rmax is the maximum radius of the spark
channel given by (14.1) with k = 0.328  103.

14.2.3 NOx production in spark channels

It is believed that in an electrical discharge mainly NO is being produced through a
series of high temperature reactions, which is confirmed by different laboratory
experiments. Depending on the presence of excess O2 and O3 and the residence
time, the experimentally found NO/NOx ratios vary significantly. However, the
total number of molecules of NOx (NO + NO2) produced by a discharge is equal to
the total number of NO molecules produced in the discharge, which is calculated in
this section.
As mentioned previously, a procedure outlined by Borucki and Chameides
[33] has been adopted to quantify the number of NO molecules that will be ‘fixed’
as the discharge channel cools down to ambient temperature. The amount of NO
produced by a discharge via high temperature reactions is determined by the freeze-
out temperature, Tf. This temperature is defined as follows: Let us denote by tNO(T)
the time required by NO to reach thermodynamic equilibrium at a given tempera-
ture, T. The freeze-out temperature is defined in such a way that tNO(Tf) = tT(Tf)
where tT(T) is the characteristic cooling time of the heated gas. When T > Tf then
tNO (T) < tT (T) and the chemical reactions are fast enough to keep NO in ther-
modynamic equilibrium. If T < Tf then tNO (T) > tT(T) and chemical reactions are
too slow to adjust to the rapidly decreasing temperature. In this case, the amount of
542 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

NO at Tf in the mixture is frozen out. Thus, if N is the number of air molecules heated
above Tf, the number of NO molecules generated by the process, MNO, is given by
MNO ¼ Nf ðTf Þ (14.3)
where f (Tf) is the fraction of NO molecules in the gas at temperature Tf [33,34].
The value of Tf depends on the cooling rate of the gas in the discharge. For
lightning-like discharges, Tf and corresponding f (Tf) were estimated to be around 2,660
K and 0.029 respectively [33,34]. These values have been used in the calculations
presented here. In order to evaluate MNO it is necessary to evaluate N, the number of
molecules heated above Tf, which can be found from the following equation:



Eh To
N ¼V  No  (14.4)
Ef Tf
where V is the volume of hot air in the discharge channel given by (14.2), Eh and Ef
are the internal energy of air per unit volume at the temperatures Th and Tf, respec
tively, To is the standard temperature and No is the number of molecules per unit
volume at standard temperature and pressure. In the calculations, we have assumed
that Th = 15,000 K, Tf = 2660 K, To = 273 K and No = 2.69  1025 m3. In deriving
(14.4) we have assumed that, as the channel cools after reaching the pressure
equilibrium due to the entrainment of cold ambient air into the discharge channel, not
much of the energy escapes the channel as radiation. Moreover, in the derivation we
have neglected the production of NO, if any, by the shock wave generated by the
discharge. Both these assumptions are supported by the calculations of Hill et al. [31].
The number of NO molecules produced by the discharge is then given by



Eh T0
MNO ¼ f ðTf Þ  V   N0  (14.5)
Ed Tf
The values of Eh and Ef are calculated using the set of equations given by
Plooster [30,35] describing the variation in internal energy of air as a function of
temperature and pressure. Since the radii of spark channels and hence the amount
of air heated to a given temperature depend not only on the peak current but also on
the temporal variation of the current, the amount of NOx produced by a spark
depends both on the peak current and the current waveshape. Thus, if the current
waveform in the discharge channel is known, then (14.1) to (14.5) can be used to
evaluate the number of NO molecules produced by the discharge.

14.2.4 Efficiency of NOx production in sparks with different

current wave-shapes
Let us now check the validity of (14.5) by comparing its predictions with the
available experimental data. The efficiency of NOx production by electrical dis-
charges is evaluated in the references [33,36–41]. Unfortunately, only in a few
cases the current waveform associated with the electric discharges used in the
experiment is given. These are the studies conducted by Wang et al. [40], Rehbein
and Cooray [39] and Rahman et al. [41]. The current waveform associated with the
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 543

sparks analysed by Wang et al. [40] has a rise time of 30 ms and a decay time (time
taken by the current to decay to 1/2 of its peak value) of 400 ms. The current
waveform associated with the sparks in the experiment conducted by Rehbein and
Cooray ([39]; the current waveforms are given in Ref. [42]) was oscillatory with a
frequency of 2.8 MHz and decay time of 2 ms. The current waveform in the spark
experiments conducted by Rahman et al. [41] had a rise time of about 0.3 ms and a
decay time of about 25 ms. The NOx production per unit length by these discharges
is evaluated using the equations presented in the previous section and the results,
together with the experimental data, are shown in Figure 14.2. First note that there
is a reasonable agreement between the experimental data and the theory. Second,
note how the NOx production depends on the wave-shape of current. For a given
peak current, a current with a longer duration gives rise to more NOx than a current
with a shorter duration. The reason for this is that the volume of the discharge
channel increases with increasing the duration of current waveform. Since the
volume of the discharge channel is a measure of the internal energy retained in the

1E+022
(a)

(b)
1E+021
(c)
(d)
NOx molecules/m

1E+020
(e)

1E+019

1E+018

1E+017
100 1000 10000 100000
Peak current (A)

Figure 14.2 NOx production efficiency of laboratory sparks and lightning return
strokes as a function of peak current. (a) Theoretical prediction based
on the current waveform of the study conducted by Wang et al. [40],
(b) prediction based on the typical first return-stroke current
waveform, (c) prediction based on the typical subsequent return-stroke
current waveform, (d) prediction based on the current waveform in the
sparks studied by Rahman et al. [41] and (e) prediction based on the
current waveform in the sparks studied by Rehbein and Cooray [39]).
The experimental data corresponding to different studies (Rehbein and
Cooray: hollow triangles; Wang et al.: hollow circles; Rahman et al.:
solid circles) are also shown in the figure
544 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

discharge channel, in long duration currents more energy goes into the internal energy
of the discharge than in short-duration currents. As the internal energy of the dis-
charge increases the mass of air that is being heated beyond the NOx, freeze-out
temperature also increases leading to a higher NOx production. To the best of our
knowledge, this is the first time that the dependence of NOx production on the shape
of the current waveform flowing in the discharge channel is explicitly recognized.

14.2.5 NOx production in sparks as a function of energy

In order to calculate the energy dissipated in the discharge channel, we will employ
again the spark discharge channel model of Braginskii [14]. Two simplifying
assumptions made in developing this model are as follows: (a) The conductivity of
the channel is uniform across the channel cross-section. (b) The conductivity of the
channel does not vary as a function of time. With these assumptions, the energy
dissipated in the discharge channel is given by
ð1
i2
U ¼i dt (14.6)
prðtÞ2 s
0

where s is the effective conductivity of the spark channel, r(t) is the radius of the
channel at time t (given by (14.1)) and l is the length of the channel. Braginskii [14]
recommended the use of 104 S/m as the effective conductivity of the channel.
In order to test the validity of this equation, the energy in the sparks studied by
Rahman et al. [41] was evaluated by integrating the product of voltage and current
waveforms. For 35 current waveforms, the total energy calculated from the above
equation agrees within 15%, when the value of s is assumed to be 0.65  104 S/m.
Paxton et al. [28] studied the development of lightning channel taking into account
the detailed physics of the complex electrohydrodynamic and thermodynamic
processes. The current waveform used by Paxton et al. had a linear rise to peak
followed by an exponential decay. The peak value, rise time and decay time of the
current waveform used by Paxton et al. were 20 kA, 5 ms, and 50 ms respectively.
The calculated total energy dissipation in the discharge up to 50 ms was about
5 kJ/m. Equation (14.6) for the same current predicts the same energy dissipation
when s = 104S/m. These comparisons suggest that (14.6) can give a reasonable
value for the total energy dissipated in the discharge for values of s ranging from
0.65  104 to 104 S/m. In the calculations to follow, we will use s = 0.8  104 S/m.
Figure 14.3 depicts the energy dissipation per unit length in electrical dis-
charges having current signatures similar to those of typical first and subsequent
strokes, as a function of peak current. According to Figure 14.3, typical first
(30 kA) and subsequent (12 kA) return strokes will dissipate about 20 and 2.5 kJ/m,
respectively, in channel sections close to ground.
In Figure 14.4, the calculated yield of NOx as a function of the energy dissipated
in the discharge is depicted for current waveforms corresponding to the experiments
conducted by Wang et al. [40], Rehbein and Cooray [39] and Rahman et al. [41]. For
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 545

80,000

60,000

Energy (J/m)
(i)
40,000

(ii)
20,000

0
0 20 40 60 80
Peak current (kA)

Figure 14.3 The energy dissipation per unit length in (i) first return strokes and
(ii) subsequent return strokes as a function of peak current

1E+022
(a)

1E+021
(b)
NOx molecules/m

1E+020
(c)

1E+019

1E+018

1E+017
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 1,00,000
Energy (J/m)

Figure 14.4 NOx production efficiency of laboratory sparks and lightning return
strokes as a function of the energy dissipated in the discharge. (a)
Theoretical prediction based on the current waveform of the study
conducted by Wang et al. [40], (b) prediction based on the current
waveform in the sparks studied by Rahman et al. [41] and (c) prediction
based on the current waveform in the sparks studied by Rehbein and
Cooray [39]). The experimental data corresponding to different studies
(Rehbein and Cooray: hollow triangles; Wang et al.: hollow circles;
Rahman et al.: solid circles) are also shown in the figure
546 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

comparison purposes the experimental data are also shown in the same diagram. It is
important to note that the experimental evaluation of the energy dissipated in spark
channels is not trivial. Errors may result from the measurement of voltage across the
spark channel either due to inductances in the circuit or due to the response char-
acteristics of high-voltage dividers. Moreover, for large currents the discharge chan-
nel transverse diameters may reach several centimetres and in the case of short gaps
(about 3 cm), as in the case of Wang et al. [40] study, the electrode effects may
influence the total energy measured. Nevertheless, as one can see in Figure 14.4,
there is a reasonable agreement between the theory and the experiment. One impor-
tant conclusion that can be made from the results of this analysis is that the energy
dissipated in the discharge cannot be used as a scaling factor in extrapolating
laboratory data to lightning. The reason for this is that for a given energy the NOx
production efficiency of a spark depends on the waveform of the discharge current.

14.3 NOx production in discharges containing

long-duration currents
Currents having relatively long durations ranging from several milliseconds to
hundreds of milliseconds are associated with different lightning processes. One
such process is the stepped leader. A stepped leader may carry currents of tens to
hundreds of amperes with durations of some tens of milliseconds. Long-duration
currents initiated by return strokes and flowing along the channel to ground are
known as continuing currents. Discharge processes taking place inside the cloud
can also generate long-duration currents.
The theory presented in Section 14.2.3 cannot be applied to calculation of NOx
production in channels carrying long-duration currents. When the current duration is
long, ample time is available for the mixing of cold air into the discharge channel
while the current is still flowing in the channel. Thus, the energy dissipated in the
channel is continuously being utilized to heat cold air coming into the channel. At the
same time hot air leaving the channel as it cools down creates NOx in gas volumes
adjacent to the discharge channel. In the case of long-duration current, this turbulent
mixing of cold air into the channel and hot air leaving it has to be taken into account
in the calculation of NOx production. This prevents us from using the procedure for
calculating the NOx production in spark channels, described in Section 14.2.3. Recent
measurements conducted by Rahman et al. [13] show that the NOx production by
steady currents in rocket-triggered lightning is proportional to the charge transferred
along the channel. According to their measurements, the NOx production efficiency
of long-duration currents is equal to about 2  1020 molecules/m/C.

14.4 NOx production in streamer discharges

The propagation of leaders in long laboratory sparks and lightning is facilitated by
streamer discharges taking place at the forward moving leader tip. Streamer dis-
charges may also be responsible for the leakage of charge from the hot leader
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 547

channel core, which is at extremely high potential, into the corona sheath. The air
temperature in a streamer is close to the ambient temperature, whereas the electron
temperature can be several tens of thousands of degrees Kelvin. The collision
between energetic electrons and neutral molecules leads to the dissociation of N2
and O2 in the streamer discharges and the resulting chemistry gives rise to both
NOx and O3. However, the theory developed for the NOx generation in hot sparks
cannot be utilized here, because the NOx production process is not controlled by
temperature variation. Recently, Cooray et al. [43, see chapter 13] demonstrated
that a theory developed for studying NOx production by solar proton events [1,44]
could be utilized to calculate the NOx production from corona and streamer dis-
charges. According to this theory, the NOx production rate is approximately equal
to the rate of production of ion pairs during the proton impact. Since the bulk of
ionization in such events is produced by secondary electron impacts, Cooray et al.
[43] applied the same concept to study the NOx production in low pressure gas
discharges, corona discharges and streamer discharges in which the source of
ionization is the electron impacts. Let us assume that the radius of the streamer
channel is Rs and the number of charge particles at the streamer head is Nhead. Since
the number of ionizing events created by a streamer in moving a unit length is equal
to Nhead/2Rs, according to Cooray et al. [43], the number of NOx molecules pro-
duced by a streamer in propagating a unit distance is given by kNhead/2Rs, where k
is the number of NOx molecules generated per ionizing event. Using experimental
data for corona Cooray et al. [43] demonstrated that k  1 for positive polarity and
k  0.6 for negative polarity.

14.5 NOx production in ground lightning flashes

Having outlined the procedure to evaluate the efficiency of NOx production in
sparks, continuing currents and streamer discharges we are now in a position to
incorporate them all into a single model that can be used for evaluating the NOx
production by lightning flashes.

14.5.1 The model of a ground lightning flash

As summarized by Cooray [45], a ground flash is initiated by an electrical break
down process in the cloud that is called the preliminary breakdown. This pro-
cess leads to the creation of a column of charge called the stepped leader that
extends from cloud to ground in a stepped manner. On its way towards the
ground a stepped leader may give rise to several branches. Once the connection
of the stepped leader to ground is made, a nearly ground-potential wave and the
associated luminosity wave travel along the leader channel towards the cloud at
a speed comparable to that of light. This wave is called the return stroke.
Although the current signature associated with the return stroke proper tends to
have duration of a few hundred microseconds, the return-stroke current may not
go to zero within this time, and a low-level current may continue to flow for tens
to hundreds of milliseconds. Such long-duration currents are called continuing
548 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

currents. Continuing current longer than 40 ms tends to follow subsequent (as

opposed to first) strokes, described below. The arrival of the first return-stroke
front at the cloud end of the return stroke channel leads to a change of potential
in the vicinity of this point. This change in potential may initiate a positive
discharge that travels away from the upper end of the return-stroke channel (the
so-called J-process). When a fresh discharge is created in the previously ionized
channel, the process that follows depends on the conditions along the channel. If
the channel carries a continuing current, there will be a wave that travels
towards the ground and produces a reflection there. This process is called the M
component. If the channel carries essentially no current, the downward-moving
wave may take the form of dart leader that travels towards the ground and
produces a return stroke there. Such return stroke is called the subsequent return
stroke. Processes similar to those occurring after the first return strokes may
also take place after subsequent return strokes. Unsuccessful dart leaders and
other transient processes involving in-cloud channels are referred to as K
changes.
In evaluating the NO x production by a ground flash, one has to consider all
these processes. In the present study, an attempt is made to include the various
lightning processes in the estimation of the global NOx production by ground
flashes. In this evaluation, a ground flash is represented by the following
model. The geometry of the lightning channel consists of a vertical section
of height H and a horizontal section of length L. The horizontal channel that
is located in the cloud consists of n branches of equal lengths. Each branch is
created by a leader discharge and during its creation the leader current is
confined to that particular branch, i.e. it does not flow along other branches. In
lightning flashes giving rise to continuing currents, the source is confined to a
single branch, i.e. the current passes through a branch and follows the vertical
channel to ground. Processes to be taken into account are the leaders, return
strokes, continuing currents and M components in the vertical channel section
and leaders and K changes in the horizontal channel sections. A cloud flash is
represented by two networks of horizontal channels, one in the positive charge
region and the other in the negative, connected to each other by a vertical
channel. The geometry of the horizontal channels is identical to the one
assumed for ground flashes.

14.5.2 NOx production in different processes in ground flashes

14.5.2.1 Leaders
Corona sheath
A leader channel consists of a hot core surrounded by a corona sheath. The corona
sheath is created through the action of streamer discharges, and the charge depos-
ited in the corona sheath by the streamers is supplied by the current flowing in the
hot core. Both these processes (i.e. streamer discharges and current flow along the
core of the leader) have to be considered in evaluating the NOx production by
leader discharges. In this section, we will concentrate on the former.
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 549

According to bidirectional leader concept, the vertical channel of a negative

ground flash is forged by negative stepped leaders and the channels in the cloud
are created by positive leaders moving away from the point of origin of the flash.
In the analysis to follow, we assume that the magnitude of the charge deposited
per unit length of the leader channel is the same on both vertical and horizontal
channels. Let us denote this by r. We also assume that most of this charge resides
in the corona sheath and the transport of this charge into the corona sheath is
mediated by streamers. Since most of the charge of the streamer is located at the
head of the streamer [46], the number of streamers, Ns, per unit length of the
leader channel is
r
Ns ¼ (14.7)
eNhead
where Nhead is the charge on the head of the streamer channel. Applying the Gauss
law over a cylindrical surface encompassing the whole corona sheath, one obtains
the radius of the corona sheath of a positive leader, Rc+, as
r
Rcþ ¼ (14.8)
ð2peo Esþ Þ
where Es+ is the critical background electric field necessary for the propagation of
positive streamers. Note that in writing down the above equation, we assume that
all the charge in the corona sheath is located inside the radius Rc+ and the electric
field at this outer edge of the corona sheath is equal to Es+. If the electric field in the
streamer region remains constant at this critical electric field, in order to satisfy the
boundary conditions in coaxial geometry the volume charge density in the streamer
region should decrease inversely with radius. Since most of the streamer charge is
located at its head, this condition requires the number of streamers moving out from
the central conductor to decrease linearly with radial distance. In other words the
number of streamers having a given length l is two times the number of streamers
of length 2l provided that 2l < Rc+. Thus, streamers travel, on average, a distance of
Rc+/2 in creating the corona sheath. Using the expression for the number of NOx
molecules generated by a single streamer in moving a unit length derived pre-
viously, we find the number of NOx molecules created by positive streamers per
unit length of positive leader channel, hstr+, as

K þ r2
hstrþ ¼ (14.9)
8pe0 eEs þ Rs

where k+ is the number of NOx molecules generated per ionizing event in positive
discharges. Similarly, the number of NOx molecules generated by negative strea-
mers per unit length of the negative leader channel is given by

k  r2
hsrt ¼ (14.10)
8pe0 eEs Rs
550 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

where the parameters have the same definition as in previous equation but corre-
sponding to negative streamers. Thus, the total number of NOx molecules generated
by corona sheath of the leaders in the whole ground flash is given by

NOxleadersheath ¼ hstr H þ hstrþ L (14.11)

The charge per unit length of lightning stepped leaders is expected to be in

the range of 0.0005–0.001 C/m. In the calculations, we assumed that r = 0.0005
C/m. The values of Es+ and Es- are equal to 500 kV/m and 1 MV/m respectively
[47]. We assume that N = 108 [46]. We also assumed that the values of k = 0.6
and k+ = 1.0 are independent of pressure. Recall that k- and k+ refer to the number
of NOx molecules created by an ionizing event. The assumption is based on the
study of Jackman et al. [48] whose theoretical calculations predict that NOx
molecules per ionizing events does not change significantly with increasing
altitude and hence with pressure. We have also assumed that the values of Es+ and
Es- do not vary with pressure. In reality, they decrease linearly with pressure but
that effect is somewhat compensated by the increase in the size of the streamer
head with decreasing pressure. Substituting these values in (14.9), we obtain
hstr+  2  1020 for r = 0.0005 C/m.

NOx production in the hot core of the leader

The average speed of propagation of lightning stepped leaders is about 2  105 m/s
and to supply a charge per unit length equal to 0.0005 C/m the current flowing
along the hot core should be about 100 A. As the leader progresses, this current will
continue to flow in any given channel section as long as the conditions are
suitable for the continuous propagation of the leader head. Let us represent the
current flowing along the stepped leader channel by Ils. If the linear charge density
along the leader channel is constant and equal to r then Ils = vr where v is the speed
of propagation of the head of the leader channel. Let hlea be the number of NOx
molecules generated per unit length per unit charge by the current flowing in the
core of the leader channel. Thus, the number of NOx molecules generated by a unit
length of the leader channel due to this current is hleaIls td, where td is the time over
which a current of amplitude Ils flows along the core of the channel section.
Consider the vertical channel of length H. In a channel element of length dz located
at a height (H–z) above ground level the duration of this current is (H–z)/vs, where
vs is the speed of progression of the leader head. Note that this time is equal to the
time needed for the leader head to travel the distance from the channel element to
the ground. The total number of NOx molecules generated in the channel element
by the core current after correction for the pressure is hleaIls (H–z)e–(H–z)/lr dz/vs.
The total contribution from the vertical channel section can be obtained by inte-
gration of this expression from 0 to H. In constructing the above equation, we have
assumed that the atmospheric pressure decreases exponentially with height with a
decay height constant lp and the efficiency of NOx production by hot discharges
decreases linearly with pressure [49,50].
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 551

The evaluation of the contribution to the NOx production from non-vertical in-
cloud channels is more complicated. The channel system inside the cloud may
consist of many branches and at a given time only a few of these branches may be
developing [51–53], and hence the core current is active only along those branches
at that time. Thus, one problem in evaluating the NOx production in the core of the
non-vertical in-cloud channel is the difficulty of knowing the length of the channel
sections in which the current is flowing at a given time. Consider that the non-
vertical in-cloud channels comprise n identical branches connected to the top of the
vertical channel. We presume that these channels in the cloud are also created by
processes similar to that of lightning leaders observed in ground flashes, and
therefore, their current and speed of development are also identical to those of these
leaders. As mentioned in Section 14.5.1, we assume that the core current will flow
in each branch only when that particular branch is being formed. In reality, core
current may pass from an active branch to a previously formed branch thus
increasing the total length of the channel sections supporting a core current at a
given time. Consider the development of a horizontal channel section inside the
cloud. Let us direct the coordinate x along the channel section. Consider an element
dx on this channel located at a distance x from the origin of the section. In this
element, the current flows for a duration of (l – x)/vs where vs is the speed of
development of the channel and l is the length of the channel. Thus, the number of
NOx molecules produced in this channel element is hleaIls–H/lp(l–x)dx/vs. The total
NOx production in the channel section can be obtained by integrating the above
expression from 0 to l. The result of this integration is hleaIlsI2e–H/lp/2vs. Since we
have assumed that there are n identical branches and the total length of the hor-
izontal channels is L the number of NOx molecules produced by the current flowing
through the core of the channels inside the cloud is given by hleaIlsL2e–H/lp/2vsn. A
similar procedure can be used to evaluate the NOx pro duction along the vertical
section of the leader channel, but the mathematics is slightly more complicated due
to the fact that the pressure varies along the channel. After applying the mathe-
matics, one can show that the total number of NOx molecules produced by the core
current in the stepped leader channel of the ground flash (including the branches in
the cloud) is
h Ils  2 
NOxslcore ¼ lea lp  lp eH=lp ½H þ lp 
vs (14.12a)
h Ils
þ lea L2 eH=lp
2vs n
Using the same procedure the number of NOx molecules produced in the dart
leader channel core can be written as
hlea Ild 2
NOxdlcore ¼ ðlp  lp eH=lp ½H þ lp Þ (14.12b)
Vd
where Idl is the current in the dart leader and vd the speed of dart leaders. To
evaluate this equation, it is necessary to have values for hlea, n, vs, Ils, vd and Ild. As
552 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

pointed out in Section 14.3, the efficiency of NOx production by long-duration

currents is about 21020 molecules/m/C. We assume that this is also true for the
currents flowing along the leaders channels, i.e. hlea = 2  1020 molecules/m/C.
This assumption is justified because, like continuing currents, leaders also support
currents with amplitudes on the order of hundred amperes or more for durations of
many milliseconds depending on the time of travel. The channel structure inside the
cloud, as revealed from interferometric studies, can be approximated by a few large
channels connected to the main channel [51,52]. Thus, the value of n may lie in the
range of, say, 3–10. Optical observations of the stepped leaders and the interfero-
metric studies show that the speed of development of stepped leader channels in
virgin air, vs, is about 2  105 m/s [51,54]. Measurements conducted with both
natural and triggered lightning show that the speed of dart leaders, vd, is about
107 m/s [55–57]. The currents in either the stepped leaders or dart leaders cannot be
measured directly. But, inferences based on electric field measurements show that
stepped and dart leaders are associated with currents of the order of 100 A and 1 kA
[58–60], respectively.

14.5.2.2 Return strokes

In assessing the NOx production by first and subsequent strokes, we make the
following assumptions. (a) The shape of the current waveform at the channel base
of the first and subsequent return strokes are similar to the typical waveforms
constructed by CIGRE Study Committee 33 [21] and Nucci et al. [22]. (b) The
return-stroke peak current decreases linearly along the vertical section of the
channel and reducing to zero amplitude at the cloud end of the vertical channel.
(c) The return-stroke channel is vertical from ground level to the height of the
charge centre, H. With these assumptions, the NOx produced by the first return
stroke after correcting for the decrease in pressure with height is
lp lp H=lp
NOxfr ¼ hfr lp ½1  þ e  (14.13)
H H
where hfr is the number of NOx molecules produced by a unit length of the dis-
charge at atmospheric pressure having a current identical to that of a typical first
return stroke. In the calculation, we assume that the peak current of a typical first
return stroke is 30 kA. Note that, as depicted by curve b in Figure 14.2, NOx
production depends on the peak current of the first return stroke. From this
figure we estimate that hfr=5.91020 molecules/m. Similarly, the number of NOx
molecules generated by a subsequent return stroke is given by
lp lp H=lp
NOxsr ¼ hsr lp ½1  þ e  (14.14)
H H
where hsr is the number of NOx molecules produced by a unit length of the dis-
charge at atmospheric pressure having a current identical to that of a typical sub-
sequent return stroke. In the calculation, we assume that the peak current of a
typical subsequent return stroke is 12 kA. Note again that, as depicted by curve c in
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 553

Figure 14.2, NOx production also depends on the peak current of the subsequent
return stroke. From this figure, we estimate that hsr = 1.4  1020 molecules/m.
The use of return-stroke current instead of the energy dissipated in return
strokes as an input parameter in quantifying NOx production in return strokes, as
done above, has at least one important advantage. The energy dissipated in light-
ning flashes cannot be measured directly but has to be inferred by indirect methods
leading to large inaccuracies in the estimated NOx production. On the other hand,
the current at the channel base of ground flashes can be measured and a large
amount of data on this parameter is available in the literature.
In deriving (14.13) and (14.14), it has been assumed that the return-stroke peak
current decreases with height. The experimental observations show that the
luminosity of both first and subsequent return strokes decreases with height indi-
cating that the return-stroke current peak also decreases with height [54,61]. Of
course, since the exact nature of how the return-stroke peak current decreases with
height is not known, one has a freedom to select any other form of decay for the
peak current than the linear decay assumed in the calculation. However, the
expression describing a linear decay with current amplitude decreasing to zero at
cloud level involves only one parameter, i.e. height of the vertical channel, and it
also specifies the boundary conditions for the current at the cloud end of the
channel. Moreover, the linear decay has been shown to produce electric fields at
both far and close distances that are similar to those measured when used in return-
stroke models [62,63].

14.5.2.3 M components and K processes

As pointed out earlier, the development or extension of the lightning channels
located inside the cloud is mediated by leaders. As these leaders develop, the
changes in the potential at the extremities of the leader may cause K processes that
travel along the channel reducing the potential differences. The interferometric
observations indicate that it is usual to have a few K processes in the developing
stage of a given channel section [51, 52]. Thus, if hk is the number of NOx mole-
cules produced per unit length of the channel by a K process, then the total number
of NOx molecules generated by K processes during the development of the channels
inside the cloud after correction for the pressure is hknkLe–H/lp . In this expression,
nk is the number of K changes taking place in the development of a particular
branch. In writing down the above expression, we have also assumed that the
current associated with a given K change occurring during the development of a
given branch travels only along that branch. In the calculations to be conducted
later, we assume that nk=3. Thus, the total number of K changes per flash is equal to
nnk, where n is the number of branches in the channel. In a lightning flash with five
branches in the cloud, the total number of K changes would be 15. If these K
changes end up in a channel carrying a continuing current to ground, then the
resulting current will propagate to ground as an M component. The number of NOx
molecules produced in the vertical channel by the M components after correction
for the pressure is given by nmhmlp(1–e–H/lp), where nm is the number of M com-
ponents travelling along the vertical channel of a typical ground flash. It is also
554 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

assumed that the NOx production efficiency of a typical K change is identical to

that of a typical M component, i.e. hk = hm. This assumption is not unreasonable
since, as mentioned above, they share a common origin and therefore they probably
have similar currents. The total number of NOx molecules generated by K changes
and M components after the pressure correction is

NOxm ¼ ½nm hm lp ð1  eH=lp Þ þ nk hk LeH=lp  (14.15)

Now, let us evaluate the magnitude of hm. A typical M component current has
a more or less symmetric bell-shaped waveform with a rise time of about 400 ms
and a peak of about 160 A [64]. Calculations done with such a current waveform
show that hm = 2  1020. Thus, hk is also equal to 2  1020. M components travel
along the vertical channel carrying continuing currents. In a typical ground flash
having a continuing current, M component may outnumber the number of return
strokes by 1 to 4. Therefore, a typical ground flash containing continuing currents
may support about 16 M components along the vertical channel. In making the
above statement, we have assumed that a typical ground flash contains four return
strokes. On the other hand, the percentage of ground flashes containing long
(longer than 40 ms) continuing currents is about 30–50% [65,66]. This fixes the
value of nm to about 5.

14.5.2.4 Continuing currents

In the model under consideration, we assume that the continuing currents are
flowing only through the vertical section of the ground flash. Of course, they also
flow along horizontal channels, but our knowledge at present on how continuing
current is distributed in channels in the cloud is rather meagre. In this case, the total
number of NOx molecules generated by these continuing currents in a ground flash
after pressure correction is given by

NOxcv ¼ ½kc hcon Icon tc lp ð1  eH=lp Þ (14.16)

where hcon is the number of NOx molecules produced per Coulomb by a unit length
of the discharge channel carrying continuing current, Icon is the magnitude of
continuing current, tc is the typical duration of continuing current and kc is the
fraction of ground flashes that support continuing currents. In the calculations we
assumed that hcon = 2  1020 molecules/m/C (see Section 14.3). According to
experimental data, about 30–50% of the lightning flashes contain continuing cur-
rents and the amplitude and the duration of a typical continuing current are about
100 A and 100 ms respectively [65,66]. Thus, kc = 0.3 and tc = 0.1 s.
The exact nature of the source that drives continuing current along the vertical
channel is not known. Most likely the source is the development and the charge
transfer along the upper channel sections. Since we have taken this activity into
account in Section 14.5.2.1 under leaders, it is reasonable to consider only the
vertical channel here.
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 555

14.5.2.5 NOx production in a typical negative ground flash

One can sum the contributions to the NOx production from different processes
taking place in a ground flash as done in the following equation:
h Ils  2 
NOxground ¼ hstr H þ hstr þ L þ lea lp  lp eH=lp ½H þ lp 
vs  
hlea Ils 2 H=lp lp lp H=lp
þ Le þ hfr lp 1  þ e
2vs n H H

ns hlea Ild 2 
H=lp
þ lp  lp e ½H þ lp 
vd  
lp lp H=lp
þ hsr hs lp 1  þ e þ nm hm lp ð1  eH=lp Þ
H H
þ nk hk LeH=lp þ kc hcon Icon tc lp ð1  eH=lp Þ
(14:17)
We made an attempt above to specify numerical values for the constants that
appear in this equation. One has to admit, of course, that our knowledge on the
numerical values of different parameters is not complete and more work has to be
done before the above equation could be applied with confidence. However, this
equation provides a foundation on which the procedure to estimate NOx production
in lightning flashes could be built as one obtains more information concerning the
parameters. In Appendix 1, we have summarized our current knowledge on each of
the parameters that appear in (14.17)
Note that since M components are discharges propagating in channels carrying
continuing currents, one may wonder whether the contribution from M components to
the NOx production is already taken into account in the production of NOx by con-
tinuing currents. The reason why we have included both contributions (i.e. continuing
currents and M components) in the above equation is the following. The lightning
channel becomes more luminous when M components are travelling through it. This
shows that they cause additional atomic excitation and ionization because the channel
becomes luminous while they propagate along it. Furthermore, the optical observa-
tions show that during the propagation of the M components the diameter of the
channel through which a continuing current is already propagating gradually increases
from about 0.5 cm to about 3 cm [67]. Moreover, M components were also observed
to produce thunder [68]. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the M component will
enhance the NOx production beyond the NOx production level of the continuing cur-
rent during its passage through the channel. This justifies adding the contribution of
the M components to that of the continuing current. The same reasoning applies to the
addition of the contribution from K processes to the NOx yield from the leader currents
flowing through the hot core of the developing leaders.
Now, let us illustrate the use of (14.17). In Figure 14.5, we have depicted the
contributions from leaders (separated into contribution from streamers in the cor-
ona sheath and current flow along the core), return strokes, M components, K
processes and continuing currents as a function of the horizontal channel length L.
First, note that the contributions from return strokes and the continuing currents do
556 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

0 20 40 60 80 100
1027
Horizontal channel length (km)

Number of NOx molecules

(a)
1026
(c)

(d)
(b)
1025
(e)
(f)

1024
0 10 20 30 40 50
Charge neutralized (C)

Figure 14.5 The number of NOx molecules produced by different processes

associated with a ground flash as a function of horizontal channel
length. (a) Total, (b) streamers in corona sheaths, (c) core current in
leaders, (d) M components and K changes, (e) continuing currents
and (f) return strokes (four strokes). The vertical channel length is
assumed to be 5 km and the number of main branches in the cloud is
assumed to be 5.

not vary with increasing length of the horizontal channels because these currents
are assumed to propagate only along the vertical channel. Second observe that the
return strokes produce the least contribution to the NOx production, whereas the
largest contribution is made by leaders with the current flowing along the core
being the main contributor. More than 90% of the contribution to the NOx pro-
duction is coming from leaders, M components and K processes. Leaders alone
contribute about 50% to the NOx production. Note that these observations are true
also for horizontal channel lengths as short as 10 km. On the other hand, in the
literature, the return stroke is often assumed to be the NOx source in ground flashes.
Our study shows that this assumption is incorrect. Using VHF lightning channel
mapping technique, Laroche et al. [69] observed that the mean total channel length
in over 20,000 cloud and ground flashes is 45 km. Taking this length as a typical
value the results presented in Figure 14.5 show that an average ground flash with
four return strokes will generate about 4 x 1025 NOx molecules per flash.

14.6 NOx production by cloud flashes

Cloud flashes normally occur between the main negative and upper positive charge
regions of the cloud. Much of the information available today on the mechanism of
the cloud flash is based on electric field measurements. Also Proctor [70–72],
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 557

Shao et al. [51] and Shao and Krehbiel [52] made important discoveries utilizing
VHF radio imaging techniques. Based on this information, Cooray [45] summar-
ized the activities during a cloud flash as follows (see also [65]).
The cloud flash commences with a movement of negative leader discharge
from the negative charge region towards the positive one in a more or less vertical
direction. The vertical channel develops within the first 10 to 20 ms from the
beginning of the flash. This channel is a few kilometres in length and it developed
with a speed of about 2.0  105 m/s. Even after the vertical channel was formed,
one could detect an increase in the electrostatic field indicative of negative charge
transfer to the upper levels along the vertical channel.
The main activity after the development of the vertical channel is the hor-
izontal extension of the channels in the upper level (i.e. the channels in the positive
charge region). These horizontal extensions of the upper level channels are corre-
lated to the brief breakdowns at the lower levels, followed by discharges propa-
gating from the lower level to the upper level along the vertical channel. Thus, the
upper level breakdown events are probably initiated by the electric field changes
caused by the transfer of charge from the lower levels. For about 20 to 140 ms of
the cloud flash, repeated breakdowns occur between the lower and upper levels
along the vertical channel. These discharges transported negative charge to the
upper levels. Breakdown events of this type can be categorized as K changes. In
general, the vertical channels through which these discharges propagate do not
generate any radiation in the VHF range, which indicates that they are conducting.
This is so because, in general, conducting channels do not generate VHF radiation
as discharges propagate along them. Occasionally, however, a discharge makes the
vertical channel visible at VHF and then the speed of propagation can be observed
to be about (5–70)  106 m/s, typical of K changes. This active stage of the dis-
charge may continue to about 200 ms.
In the latter part of this active stage (140–200 ms), significant extensions of the
lower level channels (i.e. the channel in the negative charge region) take place, but
they occur retrogressively. That is, successive discharges, or K changes, often start
just beyond the outer extremities of the existing channels and then move into and
along these channels, thereby extending them further. These K changes transport
negative charge from successively longer distances to the origin of the flash, and
sometimes even to the upper level of the cloud flash as inferred from VHF emis-
sions from the vertical channel. Sometimes, these K changes give rise to discharges
that start at the origin of the flash and move away from it towards the origin of the
K changes. Such discharges can be interpreted as positive recoil events that trans-
port positive charge away from the flash origin and towards the point of initiation
of the K change. At the final part of the discharge, the vertical channel and the
upper level channels were cut off from the lower level channels. This is probably
caused by the decrease in the conductivity of the vertical channel. The above
description shows that a cloud flash can be described as an electrical activity that
collects the charge from the main negative charge centre and redistribute it in the
positive charge centre after transporting it along a more or less vertical channel.
The recent observations based on three-dimensional interferometry also confirm
558 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

the basic features of cloud flashes described above [73–76]. It is important to

mention here that, since positive discharges do not radiate efficiently in HF and
VHF, the channels created by positive discharges could be detected only when
negative recoil discharges travelling along them. Thus, the channel structure of
lightning flashes inside the cloud available today may not be complete.
Let us assume that the total length of the channels in the negative charge centre
is equal to that in the positive charge centres. Denote this length by L. Assume
further that these channels are oriented in a horizontal direction. The electrical
activity taking place in the negative and positive charge centres during a cloud flash
are not very different from the electrical activity taking place in the negative charge
centre in the case of a ground flash (i.e. creation and extension of channels by
leaders and intermittent occurrence of K changes). Taking into account the fact that
the atmospheric pressure is different at the heights where negative and positive
charges are located in a cloud, we can describe the NOx production by a cloud flash
by the following equation.
h h
NOxcloud ¼ hstrþ L þ hstr L þ lea Ilea L2 eHn =lp þ lea Ilea L2 eHp =lp
 2vn 2vn
kc hcon Icon tc lp eHn =lp  eHp =lp þ nk hk LeHn =lp þ nk hk LeHp =lp

þnm hm lp eHn =lp eHp =lp
(14.18)
where Hn is the height of the negative charge centre and Hp is the height of the
positive charge centre. We assume that Hp = 10 km. In writing down the above
equation, it was assumed that the percentage of cloud flashes supporting continuing
currents and the number of M components in a cloud flash are identical to those of
ground flashes. The results obtained for different values of L are shown in Figure 14.6.
In many studies dealing with the global production of NOx the assumption is made
that the cloud flashes do not contribute significantly to the NOx production in thun-
derstorms. This assumption was challenged previously by Gallardo and Cooray [77].
There are also field measurements showing the importance of cloud flashes in NOx
production. For example, airborne measurements of Dye et al. [78] show that NOx
from a storm that produced exclusively cloud discharges was comparable to other
observations, where both cloud and ground discharges are occurring. Further, the
modelling of airborne NOx measurements by DeCaria et al. [9,79] show that intra-
cloud lightning (or the intracloud part of the ground flashes) was the dominant source
of NOx for the thunderstorms investigated in the study. The results presented in
Figure 14.6 show that for a given channel length both the ground flash and the cloud
flash generate more or less equal number of NOx molecules.

14.7 Global production of NOx by lightning flashes

The results presented above can be used to evaluate the global production of NOx
by lightning flashes if the flash rate of the lightning flashes is known. In the ana-
lysis, we have not treated positive flashes separately but indirectly assumed that the
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 559

0 20 40 60 80 100
1027
Horizontal channel length (km)

Number of NOx molecules

(a)

1026 (c)

(d)
(b)

1025

(f)
(e)
1024
0 10 20 30 40 50
Charge neutralized (C)

Figure 14.6 The number of NOx molecules produced by different processes

associated with a cloud flash as a function of horizontal channel
length. (a) Total, (b) streamers in corona sheaths, (c) core current in
leaders, (d) K changes, (e) continuing currents and (f) M
components. The vertical channel length is assumed to be 5 km long
and the number of main branches in the cloud is assumed to be 5

NOx production from a typical positive flash is similar to that of a typical negative
flash. In the literature, the flash rate is assumed to lie in the range of 40–300
flashes/s [80,81]. In the results to be presented, we assumed a global lightning flash
rate of 100/s. There is no reason to separate the flash rate into ground and cloud
flashes because both types of flashes produced more or less the same amounts of
NOx. In Figure 14.7, we have depicted the annual NOx production by lightning
flashes as a function of the horizontal channel length. If one assumes an average
total channel length of 45 km for a lightning flash, the global NOx production by
lightning flashes will be about 4 Tg(N)/year. One has to understand that the global
lightning flash frequency is not a constant and it may vary from one year to another.
Moreover the number 100 flashes/s is based on thunderstorm observations and
satellite data suggest values in the range of 40–60 flashes/s. But, of course, this
estimation too depends on the detection threshold level of the satellite and the
possible screening of light by cloud cover. The important point however is that
the NOx production rate is proportional to the global lightning flash frequency. The
number 4 Tg(N)/year is based on 100 flashes/s and if it varies between 40 and 300
flashes/s, the global NOx production rate will also vary between 2 and 12 Tg(N)/
year. Lee et al. [82] studied the various sources and sinks of NOx in the atmosphere
and concluded that the contribution from lightning should be in the range of 4–8 Tg
(N)/year. Our results agree with this prediction. The present global estimates
of NOx based on theoretical and laboratory studies vary between 1 and about
100 Tg(N)/year. The two orders of magnitude variation in this estimate are due to
560 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

0 20 40 60 80 100
12
Horizontal channel length (km)
10

Annual NOx yield, Tg(N)

8

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Charge neutralized (C)

Figure 14.7 Annual production of NOx by lightning flashes as a function of

horizontal channel length. The flash rate is assumed to be 100/s, the
vertical channel length in ground flashes is assumed to be 5 km and
the number of main branches in the cloud is assumed to be 5

the different results obtained for the NOx production efficiency of laboratory dis-
charges and the different values assumed for the energy dissipation in lightning
flashes. As pointed out previously, the variation in the efficiency of NOx production
in laboratory discharges is probably due to the differences in the current waveforms
associated with these discharges. The energy dissipation in lightning flashes is a
parameter that cannot be measured directly and therefore is not a good scaling
quantity in NOx studies. Our estimate is free from both these drawbacks. Another
interesting point of our study is the observation that most of the NOx production in
lightning flashes is due to cloud flashes or the cloud portion of ground flashes.
Thus, the injection of NOx by thunderstorms into the atmosphere takes place pri-
marily at a height of 5–10 km. The theoretical studies conducted by Gallardo and
Rodhe [2] show that in order to account for the nitrate deposition in the remote
marine regions, the strength of the NOx source due to lightning should be about
5 Tg(N)/year and the source should be located at the cloud height. Our study
confirms this inference.

14.8 Conclusions

The results presented in this chapter show that the NOx production efficiency of
electrical discharges depends not only on the energy dissipated in the discharge but
also on the shape of the current waveform. This provides an explanation for the
different values of NOx molecules/J obtained by different researchers in different
experiments. Thus, energy dissipated in a discharge is not suitable as the scaling
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 561

quantity for extrapolating the laboratory data to lightning flashes. In this chapter,
we present a theory that can be used to evaluate the NOx production in electrical
discharges, if the discharge current is known. The results obtained are compared
with the available experimental data and a good agreement is found between theory
and experiment. The study shows that the primary contribution to NOx from
thunderstorms is coming from the electrical activity inside the cloud, with only a
small fraction being contributed by return strokes. Using the proposed theory, we
estimated the global NOx production by lightning flashes taking into account dif-
ferent lightning processes such as leaders, return strokes, M components, K changes
and continuing currents. The results show that the efficiency of NOx production in
ground flashes and cloud flashes are similar and for an average total channel length
of 45 km the global production of NOx by lightning flashes, based on lightning
flash frequency of 100 flashes/s, is about 4 Tg(N)/year.

Appendix 1

hstr – The number of NOx molecules generated in the corona sheath during the creation of
a leader channel. The current estimate is 2  1020 molecules/m.
hcon – The number of NOx molecules generated per unit length per unit charge by a
continuing current. The best estimate is 2.0  1020 molecules/m/C.
hlea – The number of NOx molecules generated per unit length per unit charge by the leader
current flowing through the channel core. The best estimate is 2.0  1020 molecules/
m/C.
lP – The decay height constant for the atmospheric pressure. This is equal to 8500 m.
H – The height of the negative charge centre. The value used in the calculations is
5000 m.
Hp – The height of the positive charge centre. The value used in the calculation is
10,000 m.
L – The total length of the horizontal sections in the cloud. Current estimates place it
somewhere between 30 and 50 km.
hfr – The number of NOx molecules generated per unit length in a discharge channel
carrying a current waveform similar to that of a typical first return stroke. The best
estimate is 5.9  1020 molecules/m.
hsr – The number of NOx molecules generated per unit length in a discharge channel
carrying a current waveform similar to that of a typical subsequent return stroke.
The best estimate is 1.4  1020 molecules/m.
ns – The number of subsequent return strokes in a typical ground flash. The best estimate is 3.
hm – The number of NOx molecules generated per unit length in a discharge channel
carrying a current waveform similar to that of M component. The best estimate is
2.0  1020 molecules/m.
hk – The number of NOx molecules generated per unit length by a K change. It is assumd
that hk = hm.
nk – The average number of K changes taking place during the development of a given
channel branch in the cloud. It is assumed to be 3.
nm – The average number of M components in a typical ground flash. The best estimate is
5. This number is based on the fact that a ground flash with a continuing current can
support about 16 M components and about 30% of the ground flashes contain
continuing currents.
(Continues)
562 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

(Continued)

kc – The fraction of ground flashes containing continuing currents. The best estimate is
0.3.
tc – The average duration of continuing current. The best estimate is 100 ms. This
figure is actually valid for long continuing currents.
Icon – Magnitude of typical continuing current. The best estimate is 100 A.
Ils – Magnitude of typical stepped leader current. The best estimate is 100 A.
Ild – Magnitude of typical dart leader current. The best estimate is 1 kA.
vs – The average speed of development of lightning leader channels in virgin air inside
the cloud. The best estimate is 2105 m/s.
vd – The average speed of dart leaders. The best estimate is 107 m/s.
n – The number of major branches inside the channel. The available VHF interfero-
metric images show that it may vary from about 3 to 10. It is assumed to be 5.

References

[1] Crutzen, P. J., The influence of nitrogen oxides on the atmospheric ozone
content, Quart. J. R. Met. Soc., vol. 96, pp. 320–325, 1970.
[2] Gallardo, L. and H. Rodhe, Oxidized nitrogen in the remote pacific: the role of
electrical discharges over the oceans, J. Atmos. Chem., vol. 26, pp. 147– 168,
1997.
[3] Tuck, A. F., Production of nitrogen oxides by lightning discharges, Quart. J.
R. Met. Soc., vol. 102, pp. 749–755, 1976.
[4] Noxon, J. F., Atmospheric nitrogen fixation by lightning, Geophys. Res.
Lett., vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 463–465, 1976.
[5] Chameides, W. L., D. H. Stedman, R. R. Dickerson, D. W. Rusch and R. J.
Cicerone, NOx production in lightning, J. Atmos. Sci., vol. 34, pp. 143–149, 1977.
[6] Drapcho, D. L., D. Sisterson and R. Kumar, Nitrogen fixation by lightning
activity in a thunderstorm, Atmos. Environ., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 729–734, 1983.
[7] Franzblau, E. and C. J. Popp, Nitrogen oxides produced from lightning,
J. Geophys. Res., vol. 94(D8), pp. l1089–11104, 1989.
[8] Stith, J., J. Dye, B. Ridley, P. Laroche, E. Defer, K. Baumann, G. Hu·bler, R.
Zerr and M. Venticinque, NO signatures from lightning flashes, J. Geophys.
Res., vol. 104, pp. 16081–16089, 1999.
[9] DeCaria, A. J., K. E. Pickering, G. L. Stenchikov and L. E. Ott, Lightning
generated NOX and its impact on tropospheric ozone production: A three
dimensional modeling study of a stratosphere-Troposphere Experiment:
Radiation, Aerosols and Ozone (STERAO-A) thunderstorm, J. Geophys.
Res., vol. 110, no. D14303, doi:10.1029/2004JD005556, 2005.
[10] Cook, D. R., Y. P. Liaw, D. L. Sisterson and N. L. Miller, Production of
nitrogen oxides by a large spark generator, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 105, no.
D6, pp. 7103–7110, 2000.
[11] Huntrieser, H., C. Feigl, H. Schlager, et al., Airborne measurements of NOX,
tracer species, and small particles during the European Lightning Nitrogen
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 563

Oxides Experiment, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 107, p. 4113, doi: 10.1029/

2000JD000209. 2002.
[12] Zhou, Y., S. Soula, V. Pont and X. Qie, NOx ground concentration at a
station at high altitude in relation to cloud-t-ground lightning flashes, Atmos.
Res., vol. 75, pp. 47–69, 2005.
[13] Rahman, M., V. Cooray, V. A. Rakov, et al., Measurements of NOX pro-
duced by rocket-triggered lightning, Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 34, no.
L03816, doi:10.1029/2006GL027956, 2007.
[14] Braginskii, S. I., Theory of the development of a spark channel, Sov. Phys.-
JEPT, vol. 34, pp. 1068–1074, 1958.
[15] Cooray, V. and M. Rahman, On the relationship between discharge current,
energy dissipation and NOx production in spark discharges. Proc.
International Conference on Lightning and Static Electricity, Seattle,
Washington, 2005.
[16] Flowers, J. L., The channel of the spark discharge, Phys. Rev., vol. 64,
pp. 225–239, 1943.
[17] Higman, J. B. and J. M. Meek, The expansion of gaseous spark channels,
Proc. Phys. Soc., LXIII, 9-B, pp. 649–663, 1950.
[18] Perera, C., M. Fernando, P. Liyanage, M. Rahman and V. Cooray,
Correlation between current and channel diameter of long laboratory sparks,
Proc. 29th International Conference on Lightning Protection, Uppsala,
Sweden, 2008.
[19] Berger, K., Methods and results of lightning records at Monte San Salvatore
from 1963–1971 (in German), Bull. Schweiz. Elektrotech. ver., 63,
pp. 21403–21422, 1972.
[20] Fisher, R. J., G. H. Schnetzer, R. Thottappillil, V. A. Rakov, M. A. Uman
and J. D. Goldberg, Parameters of triggered lightning flashes in Florida and
Alabama, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 98, no. 22, pp. 887–22, 902, 1993.
[21] CIGRE, paper 63, report of the working group 01 (lightning) of study
committee 33, 1991.
[22] Nucci, C. A., G. Diendorfer, M. A. Uman, F. Rachidi, M. Ianoz and C.
Mazzetti, Lightning return stroke current models with specified channel base
current: A review and comparison, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 95, pp. 20395–
20408, 1990.
[23] Orville, R. E., Quantitative analysis of a lightning return stroke for diameter
and luminosity changes as a function of space and time, J. Geophys. Res.,
vol. 79, pp. 4059–4067, 1977a.
[24] Orville, R. E., Spectrum of the lightning stepped leader, J. Geophys. Res.,
vol. 73, pp. 6999–7008, 1968a.
[25] Orville, R., A high speed time resolved spectroscopy study of the lightning
return stroke, Part I, Part II and Part III, J. Atmos. Sci., vol. 25, pp. 827–856,
1968b.
[26] Orville, R., M. A. Uman and A. M. Sletten, Temperature and electron den-
sity in long air sparks, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 38, pp. 895–896, 1967.
564 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[27] Orville, R. E., Lightning Spectroscopy, Lightning, Volume 1, Physics of

Lightning, R. H. Golde ed., Academic Press, London, 1977b.
[28] Paxton, A. H., R. L. Gardner and L. Baker, Lightning return stroke: A
numerical calculation of the optical radiation, Phys. Fluids, vol. 29, p. 2736,
1986.
[29] Hill, R. D., Channel heating in return stroke lightning, J. Geophys. Res.,
vol. 76, pp. 637–645, 1971.
[30] Plooster, M. N., Numerical model of the return stroke of the lightning dis-
charge, Phys. Fluids, vol. 14, pp. 2124–2133, 1971.
[31] Hill, R. D., R. G. Rinker, and H. Dale Wilson, Atmospheric nitrogen fixation
by lightning, J. Atmos. Sci., vol. 37, pp. l79–192, 1980.
[32] Hill, R. D., On the production of nitric oxide by lightning, Geophys. Res.
Letts., vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 945–947, 1979.
[33] Borucki, W. J. and W. L. Chameides, Lightning: Estimates of the rates of
energy dissipation and nitrogen fixation, Rev. Geophys., vol. 22, no. 4,
pp. 363–372, 1984.
[34] Chameides, W. L., The role of lightning in the chemistry of the atmosphere,
in The Earth’s Electrical Environment, National Academic Press,
Washington, 1986.
[35] Plooster, M. N., Shock-waves from line sources. Numerical solutions and
experimental measurements. Phys. Fluids, vol. 13, pp. 2665–2675, 1970.
[36] Chameides, W. L., The implications of CO production in electrical dis-
charges, Geophys. Ress. Lett., vol. 6, pp. 287–290, 1979.
[37] Levine, J. S., R. S. Rogowski, G. L. Gregory, W. E. Howell and J. Fishman,
Simultaneous measurements of NOx, NO, and O3 production in a laboratory
discharge: Atmospheric implications, Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 8, no. 4,
pp. 357–360, 1981.
[38] Peyrous, R. and R-M. Lapeyre, Gaseous products created by electrical dis-
charges in the atmosphere and condensation nuclei resulting from gaseous
phase reactions, Atmos. Environ., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 959–968, 1982.
[39] Rehbein, N. and V. Cooray, NOx production in spark and corona discharges,
J. Electrostatics, vol. 51–52, pp. 333–339, 2001.
[40] Wang, Y., A. W. DeSilva, G. C. Goldenbaum and R. R. Dickerson, Nitric
oxide production by simulated lightning: Dependence on current, energy and
pressure, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 103, no. D15, pp. l9149–19159, 1998.
[41] Rahman, M, V. Cooray, R. Montano and P. Liyanage, NOx production in
laboratory discharges, Proc. 29th International Conference on Lightning
Protection, Uppsala, Sweden, 2008.
[42] Rehbein, N., Experimental studies on nitrogen oxide production from spark
discharges in air, Internal Report, Institute of High Voltage Research,
Uppsala University, 1999.
[43] Cooray, V., M. Becerra and M. Rahman, On the NOx generation in corona,
streamer and low pressure electrical discharges, Accepted to be published in
Open Access Atmos. Sci. J, 2008.
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 565

[44] Nicolet, M. On the production of nitric oxide by cosmic rays in the meso-
sphere and stratosphere, Planet. Space Sci., vol. 23, pp. 637–649, 1975.
[45] Cooray, V., The mechanism of the lightning flash, in The Lightning Flash,
ed. V. Cooray, pp. 127–239, Institute of Electrical Engineers, UK, 2003.
[46] Gallimberti, I., The mechanism of long spark formation, J. Phys., vol. 40,
suppl. 7, pp. 193–250, 1979.
[47] Les Renardiéres Group, Research on long air gaps discharges at Les
Renardiéres, Electra, vol. 35, pp. 49–156, 1974.
[48] Jackman, C. H., H. S. Porter and J. E. Frederick, Upper limits on production
rate of NO per ion pair, Nature, vol. 280, p. 170, 1979.
[49] Zipf, E. C. and S. S. Prasad, Evidence for new sources of NOx in the lower
atmosphere, Science, vol. 279, pp. 211–213, 1998.
[50] Rahman, M. and V. Cooray, A study of NOx production in air heated by
laser discharges: Effects of energy, wavelength, multiple discharges and
pressure, Optic. Laser Tech., vol. 40, pp. 208–214, 2008.
[51] Shao, X. M., P. R. Krehbiel, R. J. Thomas and W. Rison, Radio interfero-
metric observation of cloud to ground lightning phenomena in Florida, J.
Geophys. Res., vol. 100, pp. 2749–2783, 1995.
[52] Shao, X. M. and P. R. Krehbiel, The spatial and temporal development of
intracloud lightning, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 101, pp. 26641–26668, 1996.
[53] Thomas, R. J., P. R. Krehbiel, W. Rison, S. J. Hunyady, W. P. Winn, T.
Hamlin and J. Harlin, Accuracy of the Lightning Mapping Array, J. Geo-
phys. Res., vol. 109, no. D14207, doi:10.1029/2004JD004549, 2004.
[54] Schonland, B. F. J., The lightning discharge, in Handbuch der Physik,
vol. 23, pp. 576–628, Springer, New York, 1956.
[55] Schonland, B.F.J., D. J. Malan and H. Collens, Progressive lightning, 2,
Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, vol. 152, pp. 595–625, 1935.
[56] Orville, R. E. and V. P. Idone, Lightning leader characteristics in the
Thunderstorm Research International Program (TRIP), J Geophys. Res.,
vol. 87, no. C13, pp. 11,177–11,192, December 20, 1982.
[57] Wang D., N. Takagi and T. Watanabe, V. A. Rakov, and M. A. Uman,
Observed leader and return-stroke propagation characteristics in the bottom
400 in of a rocket-triggered lightning channel, J Geophys. Res., vol. 104, no.
D12, pp. 14,369–14,376, June 27, 1999.
[58] Idone, V. P. and R. E. Orville, Correlated peak relative light intensity and
peak current in triggered lightning subsequent strokes, vol. 90, pp. 6159–
6164, 1985.
[59] Cooray, V., P. Idone. and R.E. Orville, Velocity of a self-propagating dis-
charge as a function of current parameters with special attention to return
strokes and dart leaders, papers presented at the 1989 International Con-
ference on Lightning and Static Electricity, pp. 1A.3.1–1A.3.9, University of
Bath, England, September 26–28, 1989.
[60] Kodali, V., V. A. Rakov, M. A. Uman, et al., Triggered-lightning properties
inferred from measured currents and very close electric fields, Atmos. Res.,
vol. 76, no. 1–4, pp. 355–376, 2005.
566 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[61] Jordan, D. M. and M. A. Uman, Variation in lightning intensity with height

and time from subsequent lightning return strokes, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 88,
pp. 6555–6562, 1983.
[62] Rakov, V. A. and A. A. Dulzon, Calculated electromagnetic fields of light-
ning return stroke, Tech Elektrodinam., vol. 1, pp. 87–89, 1987.
[63] Thottappillil, R., V. A. Rakov and M. A. Uman, Distribution of charge along
the lightning channel: Relation to remote electric and magnetic fields and to
return-stroke models, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 102, pp. 6987–7006, 1997.
[64] Thottappillil, R., J. D. Goldberg, V. A. Rakov, M. A. Uman, R. J. Fisher and
G. H. Schnetzer, Properties of M components from currents measured at
triggered lightning channel base, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 100, pp. 25711–
25720, 1995.
[65] Rakov, V. and M. Uman, Lightning Physics and Effects, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.
[66] Saba, M. M. F., O. Pinto Jr. and M. G. Ballarotti, Relation between lightning
return stroke peak current and following continuing current, Geophys. Res.
Lett., vol. 33, pp. l23807, doi:10.1029/2006gl027455, 2006.
[67] Idone, V. P., The luminous development of Florida triggered lightning, Res.
Lett. Atmos. Electr., vol. 12, pp. 23–28, 1992.
[68] Rakov, V. A., M. A. Uman, K. J. Rambo, G. H. Schnetzer and M. Miki,
Triggered-Lightning Experiments Conducted in 2000 at Camp Blanding,
Florida, (Abstract), Eos Trans. Suppl., AGU, vol. 81, no. 48, Nov. 28, p. F90,
2000.
[69] Laroche, P., E. Defer, P. Blanchet and C. Thery, Evaluation of NOx pro-
duced by storms based on 3D VHF lightning mapping, ICAE 99 – 11th Int.
Conf. On Atmospheric Electricity, Huntsville, AL(USA), June 07–11, 1999.
[70] Proctor, D. E., Lightning flash with high origins, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 102,
pp. 1693–1706, 1997.
[71] Proctor, D. E., VHF radio pictures of cloud flashes, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 86,
pp. 4041–4071, 1981.
[72] Proctor, D. E., Regions where lightning flashes began, J. Geophys. Res.,
vol. 96, pp. 5099–5112, 1991.
[73] Lojou, J. Y. and K. L. Cummins, On the representation of two- and three
dimensional total lightning information. Conf. on Meteorological
Applications of Lightning Data, San Diego, Cal., Amer. Meteor. Soc., paper
2.4 (2005).
[74] Lojou, J. Y., M. J. Murphy, R. L. Holle and N. W. S. Dimetriades, Now-
casting of thunderstorms using VHF measurements, in Lightning: Principles,
Instruments and Applications, eds. D. Betz, U. Schumann and P. Laroche,
Springer, the Netherlands, 2008.
[75] Coleman, L. M., T. C. Marshall, M. Stolzenburg, et al., Effects of charge and
electrostatic potential on lightning propagation. J. Geophys. Res., vol. 108,
p. 4298, doi:10.1029/ 2002JD002718, 2003.
[76] Morimoto, T., Z. Kawasaki and T. Ushio, Lightning observations and con-
sideration of positive charge distribution inside thunderclouds using VHF
 On the NOx production by laboratory electrical discharges and lightning 567

broadband digital interferometry, Atmos. Res., vol. 76, no. 1–4, pp. 445–454,
2005.
[77] Gallardo, L. and V. Cooray, Could cloud-to-cloud discharges be as effective
as cloud-to-ground discharges in producing NOx?, Tellus, Ser B, vol. 48,
pp. 641–651, 1996.
[78] Dye, J. E., B. A. Ridley, W. Skamarock, et al., An overview of the
Stratospheric – Tropospheric Experiment: Radiation, Aerosols and Ozone
(STERAO) – Deep convection experiment with results for the July 10,
1996 storm, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 105, pp. 10023–10045, 2000.
[79] DeCaria, A. J., E. Pickering, G. L. Stenchikov, et al., A cloud scale model
study of lightning- generated NOx in an individual thunderstorm during
STERAO-A, J. Geo phys. Res., vol. 105, pp. 11601–11616, 2000.
[80] Turman, B. N. and B. C. Edgar, Global lightning distribution at dawn and
dusk, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 87, pp. 1191–1206, 1982.
[81] Christian, H. J, R. J. Blakeslee, D. J. Boccippio, et al., Global frequency and
distribution of lightning as observed from space by the Optical Transient
Detector, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 108, no. D1, p. 4005, doi:10.1029/
2002JD002347, 2003.
[82] Lee, D. S., I. Köhler, E. Grobler, et al., Estimation of global NOx emissions
and their uncertainities, Atmos. Environ., vol. 31, pp. 1735–1749, 1997.
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 15
Lightning and climate change
Earle R. Williams1, Joan Montanya2, Joydeb Saha3 and
Anirban Guha3

Lightning is a widely recognized source of damage and disruption to electrical

power systems worldwide. The climate is changing, with both natural and anthro-
pogenic origins. This chapter is concerned with the response of lightning to changes
in temperature and aerosol loading of the atmosphere that is expected to accom-
pany climate change. In the present climate, lightning is shown to increase with
both temperature and with the boundary layer populations of cloud condensation
nuclei (CCN). In a future climate characterized by the continued consumption of
fossil fuels, the threat from lightning is expected to increase.

15.1 Introduction

Lightning is a natural phenomenon originating in the high voltage differences

encountered in thunderstorms (up to one billion volts) and exhibiting currents as
large as hundreds of kiloamperes. The lightning threat to worldwide energy infra-
structure is widely recognized [1]. Lightning dominates the damage to electrical/
electronic equipment in homes, commercial installations, and industrial facilities.
The total cost is dependent on both the total exposure and the worldwide lightning
activity. Both these contributions to cost are increasing with time as a result of a
growing infrastructure worldwide.
Much attention is given today to extreme events in a warmer climate (e.g., [2]).
This attention serves to place lightning at center stage, to the extent that lightning is
a manifestation of the extreme form of moist convection—largest clouds, strongest
updrafts, and most hazardous precipitation. One can expect volatile behavior in the
tail of any distribution, and for this reason alone, the recent selection of lightning as
a climate variable [3] is most appropriate.

1
Parsons Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), USA
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain
3
Department of Physics, Tripura University, India
570 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

This chapter is concerned with an assessment of how global lightning may

respond to global climate change. This turns out to be a difficult problem. Some
understanding of this difficulty is derived from the limits of our current ability to
understand the general behavior and global distribution of lightning in the present
climate. One particular challenge is that both temperature and aerosol play
important roles in lightning activity in the present climate. Accordingly, this aspect
shall be the point of departure in this chapter.
A global climatology for lightning measured from optical sensors on satellites
in space is shown in Figure 15.1(a). This integration is based on nearly two decades
of observation. The most conspicuous feature of the global distribution is the strong
preference of lightning for land, with a 10- to 20-fold contrast between land and
ocean (see also [4]). The leading factor in this contrast is the number of thunder-
storms, with a secondary contribution from a greater flash rate per storm in the
continental case [6]. Since the majority of the world’s population density and
infrastructure is also over land, this land dominance aggravates the lightning threat.
However, since the lightning is also strongly centered on equatorial regions (for
reasons that are soon to be discussed) where population and infrastructure are
reduced in comparison to higher latitudes in the northern hemisphere, the overall
threat is ameliorated to some extent on a global basis.
Three major continental zones straddling the equator—the Americas, Africa, and
the Maritime Continent (southeast Asia, Indonesia, and northern Australia)—dom-
inate the global lightning activity. The same three zones are also the major players in
the Earth’s global electrical circuit [7,8]. From a climate perspective, the three major
continental zones have previously been ranked in their continentality [9], with Africa
leading, followed by America, and with the Maritime Continent closest to oceanic
behavior. Both the total lightning activity and the aerosol burden in these three
regions follow the same order, whereas rainfall amounts follow the reverse order.
The energy involved with global lightning activity is derived from the much
larger latent heat released when water vapor condenses. Rainfall is also a product of
the condensation process. The global distribution of rainfall (Figure 15.1(b)), more
readily measured than condensation, provides some global measure of the distribution
of latent heat release. In marked contrast with the lightning distribution, rainfall and
latent heat release are as prevalent over the ocean as over the land, but as will be
shown by the evidence in this chapter, the vertical profile of latent heat release is
markedly different between land and ocean. Both thermodynamic and aerosol effects
are at play in this difference, by virtue of their impact on thunderstorm updrafts, and
both are important in considerations of how lightning will respond to climate change.
The traditional explanation [10,11] for the contrast in lightning activity between
land and ocean, aptly illustrated in Figure 15.1(a), is based on thermodynamics: land
is hotter and more unstable to vertical motion. This greater instability over land
pertains to both dry and moist convection. In recent years, a growing body of evi-
dence [12–23] has shown that the atmospheric aerosol, and in particular the CCN that
provides the embryos for cloud droplets, is also playing a key role in this contrast.
The global aerosol population shown in Figure 15.1(c) also shows a prominent land–
ocean contrast, with more polluted conditions over the land. The markedly less
 Lightning and climate change 571

Annual Lightning Activity

Flash Density (flashes/km2)

0.06 0.20 0.60 2.00 6.00 20.00 60.00

Annual Precipitation

Precipitation (mm)

50 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000

Aerosol Optical Depth

0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000

Figure 15.1 Global climatologies of (a) lightning flash density (lightning imaging
sensor), (b) rainfall (NASA TRMM), and (c) aerosol concentration
(as measured with satellite aerosol optical depth). Adapted from [5]
572 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

distinct contrast in aerosol concentration at the land/ocean boundary is a suggestion

that thermodynamics plays the leading role in the land/ocean lightning contrast. Since
climate change will invariably involve a change in both thermodynamics and aerosol,
the physical basis for both controls needs to be explored. The treatment of the ther-
modynamic contribution appears in Section 15.4 and for the aerosol part in
Section 15.5. Ahead of these discussions, some attention is warranted on the work-
ings of the thunderstorm in the next Section 15.2.

15.2 Basics of thunderstorm electrification and lightning

The deepest and most vigorous convective clouds in the atmosphere are thunderstorms,
and extend deeply into the cold portion (defined here at T < 0
C) of the atmosphere
(Figure 15.2). Considerable evidence has accrued [24,25] that the mechanism for
charging a thunderstorm and for the production of lightning flashes is based on the

0° C

Figure 15.2 The mechanism of the thunderstorm: storm cloud with colliding ice
particles and positive electric dipole
 Lightning and climate change 573

collisions of two kinds of particles: small ice crystals and larger graupel particles. Both
ice particles are the product of mixed-phase conditions involving water substance in all
three thermodynamic phases: vapor, liquid, and solid (ice). The liquid phase at “cold”
temperature (T < 0
C) is referred to as supercooled water. The ice crystals form by
diffusion of water vapor in the so-called Bergeron process based on the asymmetry in
equilibrium vapor pressure between liquid and ice. The mass of ice crystals increases at
the expense of the supercooled cloud water. The graupel particles grow by the accretion
of supercooled cloud droplets, which freeze in contact with the graupel surface. The
collisions between graupel particles and ice crystals result in the transfer of negative
charge to graupel and positive charge to the crystals, by a mechanism at the molecular
scale that has long eluded scientists [25,26], but very likely involving mobile protons as
main agents of charge transfer. The descent of negative graupel with respect to positive
ice crystals under gravity sets up the macroscopic positive dipole of the thunderstorm
(Figure 15.2). This hydrometeor-based mechanism of differential charge separation
(based on different fallspeeds of ice crystals and graupel) is immune to the effects of
turbulence, which often shows a strong presence in thunderstorms.

15.3 Thermodynamic control on lightning activity

A number of basic thermodynamic parameters as well as relationships from phy-
sical meteorology deserve discussion when one considers possible changes in
lightning in a changing climate. These items are here addressed in turn.

15.3.1 Temperature
The most commonly used thermodynamic parameter in global climate change is the
temperature of surface air, typically measured at “screen level.” The formal meteor-
ological quantity is “dry bulb temperature” to distinguish it from “wet bulb temperature”
and “dew point temperature” both of which involve the water vapor content of the air.
Traditional estimates of the global mean temperature [27,28] and global warming
involve averages of 4,000–6,000 thermometer readings of dry bulb temperature over the
Earth’s surface. This temperature parameter is also a key factor in other thermodynamic
quantities of interest here: saturation water vapor concentration, convective available
potential energy (CAPE) and cloud base height (CBH), described in greater detail below.

15.3.2 Dew point temperature

The dew point temperature Td is a direct measure of the water vapor concentration
in surface air and is typically measured by cooling a metal surface to a temperature
at which condensation, or “dew,” appears. For water-saturated conditions (i.e.,
inside a cloud), the dew point temperature is equal to the dry bulb temperature T. In
contrast, in a dry desert environment, the dew point temperature can be several tens
of
C lower than the dry bulb temperature.

15.3.3 Water vapor and the Clausius–Clapeyron relationship

The working substance of a thunderstorm is water vapor. Energy is released
when water vapor rises and condenses to form cloud. The latent heat of
574 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

condensation Lv is 2.5  106 J/kg of water, sufficient energy to raise the con-
densate 250 km against gravity if this transformation took place with perfect
efficiency.
The water vapor concentration in the atmosphere in a condition of thermo-
dynamic equilibrium is controlled by temperature in an exponential dependence
known as the Clausius–Clapeyron relation. In differential form:

de  ðT Þ=dT ¼ Lv e  =Rv T 2 (15.1)

where T is the absolute temperature (K), e*(T) is the saturation vapor pressure of
water vapor, and Rv is the gas constant for water vapor (461 J/kg/K). The inte-
gral form of this relationship (see e.g., [29]) in terms of the water vapor mixing
ratio is shown graphically in Figure 15.3. As a rough rule of thumb, the equi-
librium water vapor concentration e*(T) doubles for every 10
C of temperature
increase. This result has much to say about the sparsity of thunderstorms in
polar regions and their predominance in tropical latitudes. A change in tem-
perature of 30
C between equatorial regions and high latitudes amounts to
nearly an order of magnitude difference in available water vapor. A quantitative

100

10

1
Saturation Mixing Ratio (g/kg)

0.1
Supercooled
Water
Ice
0.01

0.001

0.0001
–80 –70 –60 –50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Temperature (ºC)

Figure 15.3 Equilibrium water vapor mixing ratio (g/kg) versus temperature: the
Clausius–Clapeyron relationship
 Lightning and climate change 575

consideration of the global lightning climatology shows that two of every three
lightning flashes lie within 23
of the equator [30].
The slope de*/dT in the Clausius–Clapeyron relationship in (15.1) is a valuable
benchmark for judging results on the response of lightning to temperature on var-
ious time scales (Section 15.4). This slope depends on temperature, but at the mean
Earth surface temperature (14
C), the slope is 7% per 1
C.
Cumulonimbus clouds are the primary agents for transporting water vapor
from the planetary boundary layer in the lower troposphere to the upper tropo-
sphere. Consistent with this general picture, Price [31] has shown variations in
upper tropospheric water vapor correlated with lightning variations over the
African continent.

15.3.4 Convective available potential energy and its

temperature dependence
The maintenance of thunderstorm mixed-phase conditions and the associated
“factory” for ice and electric charge requires an energy source for the updraft. That
energy source is CAPE and is illustrated in Figure 15.4. CAPE is represented as the
area on a thermodynamic diagram involving height (or pressure) and temperature.
This area is bounded on the left by the temperature sounding in the storm envir-
onment and on the right by a “wet bulb adiabat” which is a theoretical prediction
for the temperature of the air in an updraft parcel that is buoyant with respect to the
storm’s environment. At any given altitude, the different between the wet bulb
adiabat and the environment is a measure of the buoyancy force acting on the
updraft parcel of air. The buoyant force per unit mass at an altitude is given simply
as g(DT/T) where DT is the temperature contrast between the updraft and the
environment and where g is the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s2). Since the wet
bulb adiabat is determined by purely thermodynamic quantities of temperature and
dew point temperature of the surface air ingested by the storm to form the updraft,
it would seem that CAPE is also a purely thermodynamic quantity. A complication
arises here, however, making CAPE dependent on both thermodynamic and aerosol
characteristics, and adds to the challenge of disentangling thermodynamic from
aerosol influences on lightning activity. The updraft parcel buoyancy depends not
only on temperature but also on the mass of condensate within the parcel. For
example, if the temperature contrast is 1
C, a typical value, the local cloud
buoyancy force per unit mass is roughly 1/300 g = 0.03% of g. Since the density of
surface air is 1.2 kg/m3, a mass of condensate as small as 4 g/m3 would completely
negate the thermal buoyancy and strongly impact the dynamics of air parcels at that
level. This point will be elaborated on below.
Accurate estimates of condensate mass are lacking in real thunderstorms, and
theoretical CAPE calculations typically resort to two extreme assumptions, neither of
which is entirely satisfied. In the most common pseudo-adiabatic (or “irreversible”)
approach, all the condensate is removed as the updraft parcel ascends (e.g., [13]).
In this situation, only the temperature contrast (and a smaller contribution from the
water vapor component) affects the parcel buoyancy. The implication is that the
576 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

100
θw = 24 25.8 28 –70 –60 –50 –40

EL

150
–30

Moist
Adiabat
200
–20
Temperature
250 Profile

–10
300

0
400
T
10
500
Td 20

w = 16 g kg –1 30
LFC
700

CCL θ = 39 40
850

1000

Figure 15.4 Temperature sounding, wet bulb adiabatic approximation for the
updraft temperature, and the area representing convective available
potential energy (CAPE)

transformation from cloud water to precipitation is very efficient. In the context

with small CCN concentration, typical of clean oceanic conditions. The observation
of initial radar echoes in maritime convection at altitudes of only a few km (and in
the “warm” portion of the troposphere) [32] is evidence of an efficient precipitation
process in clean conditions.
The other extreme assumption in the evaluation of CAPE is that all condensate
is retained as the updraft parcel ascends. The process is reversible and the wet bulb
adiabat has a different mathematical form [33]. The implication is that the trans-
formation from cloud water to precipitation has zero efficiency because the cloud
droplets remain too small to coalesce. This situation is typical of rich CCN con-
centrations, as in polluted continental conditions. In early investigations of tropical
oceanic convection [34,35] the reversible process was favored in computing CAPE,
 Lightning and climate change 577

but it is now recognized that for maritime convection drawing from clean boundary
layer air, the pseudoadiabatic irreversible process was a more appropriate choice.
Given the negative buoyancy contribution of condensate loading, reversible CAPE
is expected to be systematically less than irreversible CAPE. This expectation is
consistent with numerous published results [29,36]. In early considerations of the
reversible and irreversible processes [37], it was concluded that the “differences
between the products of condensation as falling out or being retained are so small
as to be negligible in practice,” but today this difference is acknowledged as being
all important in deep moist convection.
Williams and Renno [36] also showed that CAPE in the current climate was
well predicted by the wet bulb potential temperature of surface air, though different
relationships were apparent for land and ocean. Global maps of wet bulb potential
temperature show that maximum CAPE over land is greater than over ocean. Lucas
et al. [38,39] claimed that CAPE over land was similar to values over ocean but
they did not consider the diurnal variation of CAPE over land. This plays an
important role in the transition of cumulus congestus clouds to thunderstorms over
land, with important contributions from thermodynamics. A global climatology of
CAPE has been prepared [40]. These results also show that CAPE is larger over
continents than over oceans, though no consideration was given to aerosol-related
effects in condensate loading. The land–ocean CAPE contrast is qualitatively
consistent with the land–ocean lightning contrast, but on closer examination
[11,38,41,42], the contrast is not sufficient to account for the order-of-magnitude
contrast in lightning. In the latter work however, precipitation is considered at the
surface rather than in the cold region aloft where electrical energy is generated by
the relative descent of graupel particles with respect to ice crystals. This aspect will
be revisited below in the context of CBH. More recently [39] have shown evidence
for giant sea salt nuclei in suppressing lightning in oceanic convection.
Given the primary role of CAPE in the charge separation and lightning activity of
thunderstorms, the variation of CAPE with temperature on the long-time scale of
global warming is of considerable interest. This problem is nontrivial because the
entire temperature profile is involved, as well as the condensate-related ambiguities of
the wet bulb adiabat. In early work [43] CAPE was postulated to be a climate invariant.
However, many GCM results show CAPE to increase with global warming
[44,45,46,47], and Del Genio et al. [48] have found increases in cumulonimbus velo-
city in climate models in a warmer world. Furthermore, still more recent theoretical
works [42,49,50] support a scaling of CAPE with the Clausius–Clapeyron exponential
temperature dependence. On this basis alone, one expects to have more lightning in a
warmer climate. However, one recent model results [51] shows the opposite result for
the tropics. This contrast in predictions is not well understood at present.
15.3.5 Cloud base height and its influence on cloud
microphysics
The contrast in physical characteristics between land and ocean surfaces exerts an
important influence on the behavior of thermodynamic parameters of surface air.
The contrast in heat capacity and mobility between land and ocean affect the
578 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

surface air temperature, with ocean water and overlying air resisting temperature
increase in response to solar heating, in comparison with dry land surfaces.
The diurnal variation of ocean surface temperature is typically a fraction of 1
C.
In contrast, the diurnal variation of land surface temperature invariably exceeds
1
C but the surface temperatures over deserts can vary by tens of
C. The contrast
in available surface water between land and ocean affects the dew point tempera-
ture and relative humidity of surface air. Land surfaces are generally both hotter
(larger T) and drier (smaller Td) than oceans, and as a consequence of both of these
contributions, the dew point depression of surface air (T  Td), a purely thermo-
dynamic quantity, is invariably larger over land than ocean. [Global maps of day-
time dew point depression (and equivalently CBH) would show marked land–ocean
contrasts as in Figure 15.1(a) and (c).] See [52].
The convenience of cloud physics is that the lifted condensation level (LCL)
and CBH are both proportional to T  Td. If T = Td, the air is saturated (RH =
100%) and the cloud extends downward to the surface. Over oceans, typical CBHs

WT
0° C
Balance
W
Level
WT

(a)

Balance
W WT
Level
0° C
WT

(b)

Figure 15.5 Illustration of typical continental and maritime convection at (a) the
time of radar first echo and (b) at the cumulonimbus stage. The
balance level heights in all cases are also indicated
 Lightning and climate change 579

are 500 m (corresponding to typical relative humidity of 80%), but over land can
vary from 1,000 to 5,000 m (with relative humidity in the range of 70%–20%).
The contrast in CBH between continental and maritime environments is illu-
strated in Figure 15.5(a), for afternoon clouds at the first-radar-echo stage. The
oceanic cloud achieves the first echo while still a warm cloud. In contrast, the con-
tinental cloud with systematically higher CBH is usually extended into the cold
region (< 0
C) of the atmosphere at first-echo stage. The heights of the 0
C iso-
therm are similar for land and ocean, near 4,500 m MSL, but the CBHs differ
markedly for thermodynamic reasons. Figure 15.5(b) shows deeper clouds for both
land and ocean that include the mixed-phase region bounded by the 0
C and 40
C
isotherms where active charge separation can occur under appropriate conditions of
cloud vertical development. The CBHs remain the same and often coincide with the
top of the planetary boundary layer. The cloud widths are different based on obser-
vations showing that continental clouds are broader than maritime ones [11,53,54].
The updrafts in clouds are fundamentally important in regulating cloud
microphysics and electrification. Scaling analysis indicates a sensitive fourth power
relationship of lightning flash rate on updraft speed [55]. Accordingly, modest
changes in CAPE can have substantial effects on lightning flash rate. Figure 15.5
also includes vertical arrows to contrast the updraft speeds in different regions
(including CBH in Figure 15.5(a)) of both shallow and deep convection.
Regarding the subcloud region, Zheng and Rosenfeld [56] have found larger
ascent speeds (by 50%–100%) in the continental boundary layer than the oceanic
one, and larger speeds at CBH, consistent with predictions based on thermo-
dynamics and the contrast in surface properties in Williams and Stanfill [11].
Puzzlingly, model results on deep clouds with greater CBH do not show evidence
for larger updraft speeds [57]. It should be remembered however that the land/
ocean lightning contrast is more strongly controlled by numbers of thunderstorms
than by lightning activity per storm [6].
Earlier studies [53,54] have shown systematically larger updraft speeds in deep
moist continental convection over land than over ocean. The contrast in ascent speeds
is unmistakably linked with a contrast in the ice phase microphysics and lightning
activity between land and ocean, but the explanation for the contrast in ascent speeds
remains a controversial issue [11,41,57]. When thunderstorms over land alone are
examined, lightning flash rate and CBH are positively correlated in global compar-
isons with the lightning imaging sensor in space and with surface thermodynamic
observations of dew point depression [58]. These measurements need to be con-
trolled for CAPE and aerosol variations to narrow down the physical causality.
The formation of precipitation within the updraft of convective clouds is important
because the precipitation can load the updraft, and ultimately reduce the updraft speed.
This issue was raised initially in the context of CAPE, but here one can be more
quantitative by estimating the precipitation content that will offset the effect of thermal
buoyancy. Simple considerations of Archimedean buoyancy show that the force per
unit mass associated with a temperature perturbation DT is simply DT/Tg, where T is
the ambient temperature. The negative buoyancy contribution (again force per unit
total mass) from additional mass loading m in a parcel with mass of air M is simply
580 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

m/(m + M)g. For a parcel at the 0
C isotherm with nominal air density of 0.6 kg/m3,
the condensate loading needed to offset a thermal buoyancy of 1
C is 2.0 g/m3.
Extensive documentation on the detection of first radar echo and the formation
of precipitation in deep convection has come from radar studies (good summary in
Ludlam [32], with additional examples in [59]). The D6 dependence of the radar
cross-section of precipitation particles gives radar considerable sensitivity in detect-
ing the formation of precipitation, given the runaway nature of coalescence of cloud
droplets in the diameter range 25 mm [60] where the rate of droplet coalescence
varies steeply with droplet size as D5. The radar studies have shown that cloud depths
(cloud top height minus CBH) in the 4,000–5,000 m range over continents and as
small as 2,000 m over oceans [32,59] are needed for first echo development. These
radar-based estimates are broadly consistent with aircraft in situ measurements of
cloud depths needed to achieve critical cloud droplet size [60]. The relevance of these
results in the context of Figure 15.5 is that the warm cloud depth in the maritime case
(4,000 m), a thermodynamic effect, is large in comparison with that needed for the
formation of precipitation. In the continental case, this condition is not fulfilled.
These comparisons are consistent with observations of radar first echoes that appear
consistently in the “warm” part of the cloud over oceans, but more typically in the
“cold” part of the cloud over land [32,59,61]. In a more global context, the results are
also consistent with observations that warm precipitating clouds are prevalent over
oceans and scarce over land [11,62]. Still, the conundrum remains between a ther-
modynamic effect and an aerosol effect (Section 15.5). The lower CBHs over ocean
overlie cleaner air with more dilute CCN concentrations [63]. Accordingly, following
the discussion in Section 15.5, the cloud droplets above CBH will be larger and more
prone to form precipitation and radar first echoes at lower heights. Braga et al. [63]
give emphasis to the aerosol effect and neglect the thermodynamic effect.
The formation of precipitation in moist convection is important because it can
then descend with respect to the air parcel in which it forms, and thereby load the
updraft column beneath. (In barotropic conditions typical of tropical convection,
the updraft is vertical.) This is sometimes called “super-adiabatic” loading because
the precipitation condensate is added to the adiabatic condensate at lower levels. (In
baroclinic conditions (Section 15.3.7) more typical of convection at higher lati-
tudes, the updraft can be tilted and then the updraft can unload its precipitation, as
is assumed in the irreversible calculation of CAPE.) Based on observations with a
precipitation radar in space, warm rain clouds over oceans (where the warm cloud
depths are greatest) are capable of achieving precipitation concentrations up to
2–3 g/m3 [62]. These mass loadings are commensurate with cloud buoyancy at the
1
C level as was shown earlier. These superadiabatic loadings represent reductions
in the condensate that is delivered to the mixed-phase region by the updraft, and
where the conversion of supercooled water to ice can invigorate the updraft by the
latent heat of freezing. This process can strongly influence the nature of the vertical
profiles of latent heat release and larger ice-phase hydrometeors and help explain
the marked land–ocean contrasts in differences in lightning (Figure 15.1(a)) and
rainfall (Figure 15.1(b)). In short, the warm rain cells over ocean may be sub-
stantially prevented from becoming thunderstorms by virtue of the raindrop loading
 Lightning and climate change 581

they achieve. Further evidence for this suggestion is found in the next
Section 15.3.6.

15.3.6 Balance level considerations in deep convection

The unloading of the updraft laden with warm rain and the delivery of condensate to
the mixed-phase region are both sensitive to the updraft profile and to the location of
the balance level [64,65], as illustrated in Figure 15.5. Vertically pointing Doppler
radar observations of moist convection show a zero-crossing of mean Doppler velo-
city, with upward motions above and downward motions below. In the maritime case
this balance level is located initially in the warm rain region, whereas in the con-
tinental case [65], its location is often in the mixed phase above. The precipitation
particle fallspeed is balanced by the updraft w at the zero-crossing. Since the fallspeed
of raindrops varies as D1/2 at the balance level, the particle mass (D3) varies as W6,
and the reflectivity contribution varies as D6 or as W12. Following these sensitive
dependences, a reduction in W by 40% (H2) by adiabatic loading in the maritime
case relative to the continental case can cause an 8-fold reduction in mass and a
64-fold (18 dB) reduction in radar reflectivity. Eventually, the supercooled raindrops
will freeze and then one needs to consider the gravitational power contribution from
the ice particles [66] which will scale as D7/2, leading to an 11-fold difference in
gravitational power between the land and ocean case.
Indirect evidence for the severe loading of an updraft by raindrops comes from
experience in vertical mine shafts in South Africa [67–69]. Air that is nearly saturated
with water at 30
C at the bottom of a mineshaft (with vertical extent of 1,500 m) is
forced vertically by a powerful ventilator system. At a vertical air speed near 10 m/s,
matched with the fallspeeds of the largest raindrops, the load on the ventilator system
frequently exceeded its capacity and failed, allowing the suspended water to fall to
the bottom of the shaft in a deluge. In a vertical shaft, no opportunity was afforded for
unloading of the updraft, as in the irreversible thermodynamic process discussed in
Section 15.3.4. In moist convection over the ocean for which the radar first echo
appears below the 0
C isotherm [32,59], this mineshaft experiment is likely applic-
able and is reminiscent of suggestions by Zipser [70] that the updraft speeds in
oceanic cumulonimbus clouds [54] would be limited to the fall speeds of the rain-
drops within them. The mineshaft experiment is also a reminder that vertical updrafts
cannot unload their condensates.
In continental convection in which the radar first echo is found typically above
the 0
C isotherm [32,59], the balance level updraft loading by raindrops near
10 m/s is avoided, and larger ascent rates are possible. Now in the mixed-phase
region, the main hydrometeors are graupel and so the new balance level there
manifest in triple Doppler radar measurements [65] can be substantially higher. In
severe storms, still larger ascent rates are possible, with a balance level accom-
modating the growth of hailstones that may reach softball size in updrafts
approaching 100 m/s. In these situations, a BWER (bounded weak echo region) in
radar observations is indicative of the balance level above and may be two to three
times higher than the balance level in warm rain cells. But in this strongly bar-
oclinic situation (see Section 15.3.6) the updraft is strongly tilted and the hailstones
582 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

can fall out of the updraft. In a special class of supercells (called LP for “low
precipitation” but storms invariably productive of hail) with high CBHs (occa-
sionally with sub-0
C cloud base temperatures), no condensate is lost in a warm
rain process and the adiabatic cloud water is available for the growth of the hail.

15.3.7 Baroclinicity
The pole-to-equator temperature difference is an important consideration for both
weather and climate [71]. The local latitudinal temperature gradient exerts a deci-
ded influence on the organization of thunderstorm activity, and may also affect the
flash rate behavior of thunderstorms. This temperature contrast is set up by the
latitudinal imbalance between the incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun and
the outgoing longwave radiation to space. Instabilities in the prevailing westerly
winds at mid-latitudes draw on the potential energy of the pole-to-equator tem-
perature difference to produce synoptic scale weather disturbances there [72]. The
condition of a latitudinal gradient in temperature is “baroclinicity” and the thermal
wind equation in atmospheric dynamics [71,73] links a baroclinic atmosphere with
a vertical shear in the horizontal wind. This vertical wind shear can tilt the updrafts
of thunderstorms (embedded in these large-scale disturbances) from the vertical,
and thereby strongly influence the unloading of condensates from the updraft.
In the near-equatorial zone of the tropics, the latitudinal temperature gradient
nearly vanishes and the atmosphere is characterized as barotropic rather than bar-
oclinic [73]. Without the organizing effects of vertical wind shear, air mass thun-
derstorms prevail, with an expectation for vertical rather than tilted updrafts. Yoshida
et al. [74] have compared the flash rates of thunderstorm cells in continental and
oceanic zones at different latitudes. In general, the mean flash rates are increasing
with latitude away from the tropics. Bang and Zipser [75,76] have also found that
oceanic convection is more likely to produce lightning in the presence of vertical
wind shear than without it. Some of the most dramatic outbreaks of lightning over the
open ocean occur in the presence of strong baroclinicity [77,78]. These findings may
have explanation for baroclinicity in unloading of the updraft in the warm rain region
of the storms so as to provide greater invigoration of the mixed phase. On this basis,
and with all other factors the same, one might expect to have more lightning activity
globally with a larger pole-to-equator temperature contrast.
Supercells are rotating thunderstorms characteristic of strongly baroclinic
environments in the springtime, and to a lesser extent in the fall, in both northern and
southern hemispheres [79–81]. These storms are parent to a large portion of severe
weather episodes, including strong winds, large hail, and tornadoes [80,81]. Supercell
thunderstorms also produce exceptional total lightning flash rates [58,82–86].

15.4 Global lightning response to temperature on

different time scales
The global temperature is known to vary on a number of natural time scales: the
diurnal, the semiannual, the annual, on the El Nino/La Nina time scale, and on the
 Lightning and climate change 583

11-year time scale of the solar cycle. In understanding global lightning’s response
to climate change on the long-time scale, it is valuable to look for consistent pat-
terns of response on other time scales whose physical origin is better understood. It
is also possible that systematic changes in aerosol may accompany these natural
variations in temperature. Here again, we encounter the problem of disentangling
aerosol and thermodynamic effects [87].

15.4.1 Diurnal variation

On a planet covered with ocean, the variation of global temperature over the 24-h
period of the Earth’s rotation in sunlight is expected to be nil. But based on the
contrasting properties of land and ocean discussed in Section 15.3.5, with pre-
ferential heating of land relative to ocean in response to incoming shortwave
radiation from the Sun, a consistent diurnal variation of global temperature in UT
time is established. The local diurnal variation of surface air temperature typically
shows a maximum value shortly after local noon, whereas the lightning activity
peaks later in the afternoon, near 4 pm [7,8,88,89]. The globally integrated effect is
a consistent global variation of temperature in universal time [90] that would
appear to be the physical basis for the Carnegie curve of atmospheric electricity
[7,8,91–93]. The regions that are sequentially heated by the Sun are the three
“chimneys” of global lightning activity—the Maritime Continent, Africa, and the
Americas, prominently manifest in the climatology of global lightning activity, as
shown in Figure 15.6. In the global surface skin temperature [90] found a peak-to-
peak diurnal variation of 3.0
C for the globe. For a variation in the global lightning
activity of 60% [88,94,95], this amounts to a sensitivity of 20% per
C [9,44,96].
By using surface temperature at airports with hourly variation during a period
of active measurement of ionospheric potential (Vi) of the DC global electrical
circuit, Markson [97,98] established positive correlations between Vi and tropical
continental air temperature on the UT diurnal time scale, with a sensitivity
of 7% per
C.
The variation of aerosol and CCN concentration on the diurnal time scale has
been investigated (e.g., [99]) but observations are insufficient to compile a clima-
tology of UT variation. A climatological variation in storm flash rate in local time
[89] shows a maximum between the time of maximum temperature and the time of
maximum number of storms. This finding is inconclusive in distinguishing ther-
modynamic and aerosol contributions to lightning activity.

15.4.2 Semiannual variation

A consistent repetition of weather twice per year is a foreign concept to mid-
latitude observers but is a very consistent feature of the near-equatorial region over
land [100]. The sensible semiannual variation then in a number of meteorological
quantities is a direct result of the Sun’s traversal of the equator twice per year at
equinoxes [101]. The variation in solar insolation for the global tropics (23

latitude) is 7% (max–min/mean). The corresponding peak-to-peak amplitude
variation in global tropical surface air temperature is about 1
C.
 Lightning Flash Density

Flash Rate Density (f lashes/km2/yr)

0.01 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 50

Carnegie Curve Thunder Area

Arctic Ocean (Maud) 120
120 The World
100

Unit = 104 km2

Percent of Mean

Africa
and Europe North and
110 All Oceans 80 South America
(Carnegie)
60 Asia
and Australia
100
40
Carnegie New
20 Zealand
90
Maud
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (GMT) Time (GMT)

Figure 15.6 The Carnegie curve of atmospheric electricity over 24 h of universal time and a global map showing three continental
lightning chimneys. Global lightning observations are taken from references [95] and [102].
 Lightning and climate change 585

Clear evidence for a semiannual variation in global lightning with the same
phase as the temperature variation has been provided by optical observations of
lightning from space [102]. This signal is most conspicuous when analysis is con-
centrated in the near-equatorial zone. Here the sensitivity of lightning to tempera-
ture is 20%–30% per 1
C. Rainfall observations are also consistent with double
rainy seasons in northern South America and in near-equatorial Africa. The dis-
charge record from the extensive Congo River basin, straddling the equator in
central Africa, also shows a distinct semiannual variation.
Several independent observations of the global electrical circuit (both DC and
AC) show evidence for semiannual signals [92,101,103–105] that are plausibly
linked with the semiannual variation of temperature.
The aerosol contribution to the semiannual variation in global lightning
activity has not been studied. We are presently unaware of long-term investigations
of CCN concentration in the near-equatorial zone over continents that would shed
further light here.

15.4.3 Annual variation

The global distribution of land/ocean area is decidedly asymmetrical in the extra-
tropics [101], with a fivefold greater land/ocean area ratio in the northern than
southern hemispheres. The smaller heat capacity of land relative to ocean assures
that the temperature of the surface air is greater in northern hemisphere summer
than in northern hemisphere winter. This asymmetry is in large part responsible for
the annual variation in mean global temperature, showing a maximum in August
and with peak-to-peak amplitude variation of about 4
C.
Many observations of global lightning have shown a seasonal variation in
phase with this variation in surface air temperature, both in optical observations of
lightning from space [88,94,102] and in surface-based observations of the intensity
of the Earth’s Schumann resonances (e.g., [106,107]). The variation of global flash
rate is nearly a factor of two, and the computed sensitivity of flash rate to tem-
perature is 11% per
C. It has also been established that the major contribution to
global flash rate on the annual cycle is number of thunderstorms rather than mean
flash rate per storm. If temperature is the controlling thermodynamic variable, this
would imply that higher temperature is favorable for more frequent release of
conditional instability rather than in increasing CAPE. It is remarkable to have a
globally integrated quantity that nearly doubles on the annual time scale. This
finding is testament to the volatile nature of lightning in its apparent response to
temperature.
Similar to the discussion on the semiannual time scale (Section 15.4.2), the
contribution of aerosol to lightning activity on the annual time scale has not been
evaluated, for lack of comprehensive observations of the global aerosol climatol-
ogy. It stands to reason that substantially larger CCN concentration will be avail-
able for storm ingestion in northern hemisphere summer than in winter, for the
same reasons pertaining to land/ocean asymmetry, and the dramatic contrast in
aerosol optical depth and CCN between land and ocean (Figure 15.1(c)). New
586 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

methods now under development for the observation of CCN at CBH from satellite
[14] will be particularly valuable in this context.
Ambiguity about the annual phase of the DC global electrical circuit began
when Lord Kelvin observed [108] in the United Kingdom that the Earth’s electric
field was greatest in winter, contrary to the general picture based on global light-
ning activity and temperature. Whipple [7] identified this apparent contradiction
but did not resolve it. Adlerman and Williams [109] pointed out the local effect of
wintertime aerosol (in both hemispheres) in decreasing the electrical conductivity
of the atmosphere and thereby increasing the electric field. A more reliable ground-
based measurement of the DC global circuit is the air-earth current which repre-
sents the product of the electric field and conductivity. For example, long-term
measurements of the air-earth current in Athens [110] have been shown to peak in
August. Seasonal averages of the ionospheric potential [98], the preferred measure
of the DC global circuit, also show a maximum in northern hemisphere summer.

15.4.4 ENSO
Early interest in a strong relationship between the phase of the El Nino-Southern
Oscillation and lightning developed out of analysis of a single magnetic coil recording
of the first resonance mode of Schumann resonances [30], for a single ENSO event (in
1973–1974). A remarkably sensitive response of lightning to temperature was inferred
from this analysis. Though the sign of this response has been corroborated in more
recent work (e.g., [111,143]), the magnitude of the response in the data obtained by C.
Polk is unprecedented, and may not be valid. Based on the global temperature analysis
of Hansen and Lebedeff [27] and the classical analysis of rainfall variations [112]
showing less rainfall over land in the warm phase, the general picture that developed
was one in which all tropical land regions warmed in the El Nino warm phase, with the
major upwelling in the central/eastern Pacific region causing large scale subsidence
over tropical continental regions. This picture is in keeping with reductions in total river
discharge in large drainage basins (Amazon and Congo), serving as continental-scale
rain gauges, straddling the equatorial region [113] in the warm phase. This investigation
was later extended to the Nile and the Ganges [114] River basins, with similar ENSO
phasing. This picture of regional rainfall variability is also consistent with the majority
of multiple ENSO events pictorialized in Allan et al. [115].
The regional behavior of lightning over the ENSO cycle shows somewhat less
consistency overall, but a definite tendency in behavior is evident. This is most
apparent in the Maritime Continent (including southeast Asia, Indonesia, and tro-
pical Australia), where the ENSO studies are most numerous and where lightning is
more prevalent in the warm El Nino phase [116–122]. Generally speaking, in this
part of the world, the warm ENSO phase is also the drier (lower relative humidity
and higher CBH) phase and the more polluted phase. As noted above, the wet cool
phase (La Nina) is more abundant in rainfall. So here again we have the entan-
glement issue of thermodynamics and aerosol. The opposite tendencies for rainfall
and lightning on the ENSO time scale are at first peculiar, but highly variable
lightning/rainfall relationships, temporarily and regionally, are now widely recog-
nized [123,124] and are linked with differences in the vertical development of the
 Lightning and climate change 587

precipitation in the cold part of the cloud. This situation of opposite ENSO phase
relationships for rainfall and lightning has also led to speculation that the two
global electrical circuits (DC and AC) may have opposite tendencies over ENSO
cycles [125,126], though coordinated synchronous measurements are lacking to
check on this prediction. In this context, it seems likely that the contribution of
electrified shower clouds [127–130] will be more potent over land during the cold
La Nina phase, when continental rainfall is greater [115].
In South America, both Chronis et al. [131] and [111] using lightning observa-
tions from space found greater amounts of lightning in northeast Brazil during the
cold La Nina phase. In contrast, Pinto [132] using thunder day observations over
many ENSO cycles found a conspicuous tendency for greater numbers in the warm
El Nino phase. An extreme El Nino event in 1926 has been documented by Richey
et al. [133] and by Williams et al. [134] in the Amazon basin, with exceptional hot
and dry characteristics but no information on lightning activity is available. Chronis
et al. [131] and Sátori et al. [111] agree in finding more lightning in the warm phase
in southern Brazil and eastern Argentina, where the discharge of the Parana River is
also maximum [113]. This region appears to be the southern component of the north–
south rainfall dipole anomaly identified by Grimm and Natori [135]. This distinctly
extra-tropical tendency for greater lightning in the warm phase was found earlier in
Argentina [136] and in the opposite hemisphere by Goodman et al. [137] in the Gulf
of Mexico region of the United States, in a similar range of latitude.
Among three tropical lightning “chimneys” [9], Africa appears to show the
weakest lightning variation on the ENSO time scale. Chronis et al. [131] found some
enhancement in the La Nina phase, whereas Sátori et al. [111] reported a modest
lightning increase in the warm phase. Given Africa’s status as the most distant lightning
chimney from the Pacific Ocean source of convective upwelling, it seems likely that
global scale subsidence would have the least effect on Africa, while leaving con-
spicuous effects on adjacent chimneys Maritime Continent and America. Dowdy [138]
has considered the effect of season on the lightning response to temperature on the
ENSO time scale and this may impact the generality of a simple positive response in
the warm phase. This seasonal aspect has also been discussed by LaVigne et al. [125].
Extreme El Nino events, such as the drought of the century in South America,
can lead to so much warming and drying as to prevent both moist convection and
lightning. Evidence for this situation may be found in the 1926 drought on the
Amazon basin [133,134,139].
Despite the great sparsity of oceanic lightning (recall Figure 15.1(a)), easily dis-
cernible regional variations are discernible on the ENSO time scale. The general ten-
dency for oceans is opposite to that for land: greater lightning over ocean in the cold La
Nina phase [111,140,141]. This has been interpreted on a basis consistent with that for
the warm phase: greater regional subsidence signifies less overall cloudiness, and
hence greater surface heating and greater instability to drive moist convection. This
situation contributes to the heat uptake of the tropical ocean during the La Nina phase.
On a worldwide basis, Satori et al. [111] documented greater lightning in the
ENSO warm phase than in the cold phase. Harrison et al. [142,143] have found
evidence for inferred increases in the global electrical circuit in the warm phase. As
588 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

this book chapter was going to press, evidence for greater global lightning activity
during the 2019 El Nino was evident, followed by reductions in global lightning in
the La Nina years of 2020-2023 (See also [52]).
Recent improvements in understanding lightning variations on the ENSO time
scale Williams et al. [144] have been achieved by considering superlative events in
the Super El Nino category, of the same kind considered earlier by Williams [30]. In
contrast with earlier studies that compare lightning totals in the warm (El Nino) and
cold (La Nina) phase, the full evolution of lightning activity in individual ENSO
events has been considered, including the important transition phase from cold to
warm periods. Although more lightning is present in the warm phase than the cold
phase, as, in earlier work, the peak lightning activity is found in the transition phase,
when the vertical temperature profile is most out of equilibrium with the surface. In
another ENSO study Guha et al. [145], peak lightning activity was also found in the
transition phase, but in that case in the transition from warm to cold periods.

15.4.5 Decadal time scale

Modest changes (0.1%) in the integrated energy output of the Sun have long been
recognized over the 11-year solar cycle, and the corresponding changes in global
temperature have been investigated. The peak-to-peak variation of temperature from
this analysis is about 0.1
C [146–148]. Attempts to see these changes in global records
of thunder day data have been mostly unsuccessful [149,150]. No solar cycle signal has
been found in the Lightning Imaging Sensor/OTD satellite record of global lightning. It
should be noted however that solar cycle variations have been detected in the analysis
of thunder day records at selected stations in Brazil [151] on the basis of wavelet
analysis. Solar cycle variations in the intensity of Schumann resonances at high latitude
are not plausibly explained by temperature-related variations in lightning activity [152].
Koshak et al. [153] studied variations in lightning incidence over the continental
United States (CONUS) in the decadal period 2003–2012. The trend in cloud-to-
ground (CG) lightning was negative over this period, with a 12% decrease from the
interval 2003–2007 compared to the interval 2008–2012. The trend in wet bulb tem-
perature over the CONUS was also negative for the same period but the dry bulb
temperature showed an increase. The total lightning activity measured by the lightning
imaging sensor in space showed no significant trend over the same period. In retro-
spect, the decadal period examined in this study lay within the period now frequently
referred to as the hiatus in global warming (1998–2013). It is also interesting to
speculate about a possible decadal increase in CBH, as the average dry bulb tem-
perature increased and a moisture variable decreased, together entailing an increase in
the dew point depression which is proportional to the CBH. Boccippio et al. [154] had
found a large enhancement in the IC/CG ratio in a region of the CONUS (extending
from eastern Colorado northward through the Dakotas) with elevated CBH [58].

15.4.6 Multi-decadal time scale

For studies on lightning variability on time scales longer than the typical lifetimes
of lightning detection networks, researchers have resorted to the use of thunder day
 Lightning and climate change 589

data (and model calculations: [155]). Thunder day observations have been under-
way at meteorological stations and airports worldwide for more than a century. One
interesting recent application here has focused on an upward lightning trend in the
Sea of Japan [156]. A rough doubling in thunder day counts since 1930 has been
linked with observed increases in sea surface temperature of 1.2
C–2.2
C.
The tendency for the current global warming to predominate at high northern
latitudes is widely recognized [28]. At Fairbanks, Alaska (latitude 64.8
N) both the
temperature and the thunder day counts have been increasing conspicuously [44].
Figure 15.7 includes plots of both quantities with least squares fits for trend. The
number of thunder days has more than doubled in 50 years. Anecdotal reports
indicate that Canadian meteorological stations at the highest latitudes have noted
thunder days for the first time on record.
The long-term record of mean global temperature [27,28,157] based on aver-
aging of surface thermometers shows an increase of the order of 1
C on the 100-
year time scale but is interrupted by shorter intervals when the temperature is flat or
declining with time. The two most notable intervals are the so-called “Big Hiatus”
from 1940 to 1975, and the more recent (and more controversial) hiatus in global
warming from 1998 to 2013. Both these intervals have been addressed recently by
Williams et al. [158]. Appeal was made to previously published thunder day
observations to address the Big Hiatus and separate analyses for both North
America and Siberia show flat or declining counts of thunder days. A 15%
decline in mean annual thunder days is evident from 1940 to 1970.
For the more recent hiatus in global warming, satellite optical observations are
available for nearly the entire interval from the lightning imaging sensor in space.
Several global temperature data sets were examined and it was shown that both the

60.0 20
°F (June–September)

57.5 16
Number of Thunder days per Year

55.0 12
Average Temperature

52.5 8

50.0 4

47.5 0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Time (Years) Time (Years)
(a) (b)

Figure 15.7 Upward trends in (a) temperature and (b) thunder days for
Fairbanks, Alaska. Linear least squares fits are also included to
illustrate these trends
590 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

temperature trend and the trend in global lightning flash rate were statistically flat
during the hiatus period [158]. This period ended with a pronounced El Nino event
in 2015 and a strong resumption in the increase in global temperature [157] that had
been underway between the time of the Big Hiatus and the recent hiatus.
Unfortunately, the Lightning Imaging Sensor is no longer operational in space to
check the lightning behavior in this later period. Overall, the available results are
not inconsistent with the hypothesis that global lightning is responsive to global
temperature.

15.4.7 Hiatus in global warming and “warming hole”

In the study by Williams et al. [158], the regional reductions in temperature and
thunder day activity were interpreted as being part of the “Big Hiatus” in global
warming (1940–1975). However, in light of the evidence for a “warming hole” (a
region not exhibiting a warming trend) over a large portion of the central United
States [159], attributable to changes in agricultural activity, it is possible that the
reductions reported in Williams et al. [158] were more local than global. China also
exhibited a “warming hole” over the multi-decadal period (1910–1949 versus
1970–2009) [159], but the regional behavior of temperature and thunder day
activity there are currently unknown and deserve to be examined.

15.5 Aerosol influence on moist convection and lightning

activity
15.5.1 Basic concepts
When condensation of water vapor occurs during the ascent of air parcels in the real
atmosphere, every cloud droplet that forms is dependent on some nucleus to initiate
its formation. The process is known as heterogeneous nucleation. The subset of the
atmospheric aerosol population that serves this role is called cloud condensation
nuclei (CCN) [160]. Were it not for the ubiquitous presence of CCN throughout the
atmosphere, large departures in water vapor concentrations from the equilibrium
predictions of the Clausius–Clapeyron relation (Section 15.3.4) would develop in a
thunderstorm updraft, and these departures are not generally observed (but see recent
findings in [20]). As an air parcel ascends in a thunderstorm updraft, the adiabatic
cloud water content that appears (enforced by Clausius–Clapeyron) is shared roughly
equally among all the available nucleation sites. This means that the cloud droplet
concentration is matched with the CCN population at CBH, and when the CCN
population is large (polluted conditions) the cloud droplets are smaller than they are
in clean conditions. Since the tendency of cloud droplets to coalesce and form pre-
cipitation particles is strongly dependent on their size [60], the CCN concentration
can be influential on the development of convection [12,13,15,161,162]. The contrast
in conditions for convection growing over clean and polluted boundary layers is
illustrated in Figure 15.8. Three broad ranges of CCN population can be considered:
(1) clean conditions with CCN concentrations typical of maritime air (10–100 per cc),
 Lightning and climate change 591

Maritime Regime

0° C

Clean Large Droplets Depleted Mixed Phase

Boundary Vigorous “Warm” Heavy Rain
Layer Coalescence No Lightning
(a)

Continental Regime

0° C

Polluted Small Droplets Vigorous Thunderstorm

Boundary Suppressed Coalescence Graupel Abundance
Layer Invigorated Mixed Phase Active Lightning
(b)

Figure 15.8 Illustration of the aerosol effect on convection and lightning in clean
and polluted situations

(2) more polluted conditions (a few hundred to 1,000 per cc) typical for continents,
and (3) ultra-polluted conditions with concentration exceeding several 1,000 per cc.
These regimes have been treated in cloud models [162]. Condition (1) may favor
the rapid formation of precipitation and the production of rain, which may ultimately
contribute to the superadiabatic loading of the air parcel (Section 15.3.5). Condition
(2) may enable the retention of condensate in the updraft (consistent with the
assumptions of reversible ascent ([13] and Section 15.3.5)) until the mixed-phase
region is attained. The most polluted condition (3) may lead to cloud droplets so
small that the formation of graupel particles in the mixed-phase region is prevented,
thereby enabling the cloud water to rise as high as the 40
C isotherm, where
homogenous nucleation of the cloud water may occur.

15.5.2 Observational support

A major shortcoming in the evaluation of aerosol effects on convective vigor
and lightning activity, and making detailed comparisons with competing
592 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

thermodynamic contributions, has been the general absence of information on the

CCN concentrations involved in specific situations. The innovative development of
satellite methods, both for observing the cloud droplet sizes from space [163] and
for obtaining the CCN concentration at cloud base height (CBH) [14], is having a
dramatic impact at the time of this writing on the understanding of the influence of
aerosol on cloud microphysics and lightning.
Orville et al. [164] documented an approximate doubling of CG lightning flash
density in the vicinity of oil refineries in the vicinity of Houston, TX, that was
attributed to an aerosol effect. A more elaborate investigation of both thermo-
dynamic and aerosol effects in the same general area [21] shows evidence that the
lightning enhancement there is more likely due to an effect of CCN than to a heat
island effect.
Even in the absence of this direct measurement of CCN, several studies have
appeared that make use of global proxies for aerosol to compare with lightning
activity obtained with other platforms. Stolz et al. [19,165] have used aerosol
estimates from GEOS-chem (www.geos-chem.org) to compare with NASA TRMM
Lightning Imaging Sensor observations to show that aerosol contributions to
lightning activity are comparable with thermodynamic ones. Altaratz et al. [166]
have examined the influence of aerosol (estimated with satellite measurements
of aerosol optical depth) and CAPE on lightning recorded with the World Wide
Lightning Location Network (WWLLN) on a regional basis. They found that
statistically significant increases in lightning activity were associated with more
polluted conditions.
Published examples of perturbations in lightning activity when aerosol is
introduced in maritime convection have produced the most convincing evidence for
aerosol control. In the first case [167] volcanic aerosol documented by satellite was
ingested by oceanic cumulonimbus clouds whose exceptional lightning activity was
documented from space, by and specific controls were placed on thermodynamic
influence. In a more recent study by Thornton et al. [22], a rough doubling of
lightning activity along sharply defined oceanic shipping lanes in Southeast Asia
has been documented with the WWLLN. In this case, it can be shown that the
warming of the sea by engine cooling exhaust water by the sea-going vessels is of
negligible consequence, and diesel exhaust is rich in fine aerosol [168]. The
introduction of rich aerosol concentrations in the pristine environment of the ocean
represents a dramatic change in cloud microphysical conditions, with a maximum
likelihood of manifestation on lightning when none is present in the pristine state.
The collection of different kinds of lightning studies by Yuan et al. [164], Altaratz
et al. [163], Stolz et al. [18], and Thornton et al. [22], all over oceans, may reflect
this more sensitive response of lightning to aerosol in that regime.
One may contrast the aerosol sensitivity in the maritime regime with the
situation with high CBH (and shallow warm cloud depth) over land [58,169,170].
Li et al. [169] concluded that in this regime, there was little change in cloud
microphysical behavior in response to aerosol variations. One reason for this is that
the cloud droplet sizes in the mixed-phase region are already small by virtue of the
proximity to cloud base [60] and the absence of a deep warm rain process to
 Lightning and climate change 593

mediate with aerosol. Without the depletion by warm rain, the cloud water contents
in the mixed-phase region are expected to be large in such continental storms,
promoting the growth of hail and also conditions conducive to thunderstorms with
inverted electrical polarity [58,84,170,171]. Lyons et al. [172] had earlier found
that storms ingesting smoke from fire were exhibiting greater numbers of positive
ground flashes.
Additional evidence that aerosol has a pervasive influence not only on light-
ning but other aspects of meteorology are studies that show reduced activity on
weekends when the anthropogenic contribution to aerosol in industrialized regions
has been shown to be reduced. Weekend effects on rainfall [173], lightning [174],
hail [175], and even tornadoes [175] have been documented in recent years, with
statistically verified results.

15.5.3 Lightning response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Unprecedented reductions in global aerosol occurred in conjunction with the
COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Sanap, 2021) [176]) linked with reductions in fossil fuel
consumption during a lockdown phase beginning in the month of April 2020 in
many sectors of the global economy. Preliminary investigation of the lightning
response to this aerosol reduction, using global VLF networks GLD360 and
WWLLN, as well as ELF (Schumann resonance) methods, have shown lightning
reductions of global scale of the order of 10% in comparisons with adjacent years.
The transition from El Nino to La Nina from 2019 to 2020 makes ambiguous the
interpretation of the lightning reduction however, and here we have entanglement
of aerosol and thermodynamic effects [52].

15.5.4 Work of Wang et al. (2018) on the global aerosol-

lightning relationship
Wang et al. [177] have made valuable use of independent satellite measurements of
aerosol and lightning to investigate the dependence of lightning flash rate on
aerosol conditions for both biomass-burning smoke and for mineral dust aerosol. At
modest values of aerosol optical depth (AOD) (0–0.25), the observed flash rate
increases quasi-linearly with AOD, in both cases. It was not possible however in
this study to completely disentangle thermodynamic from aerosol effects.

15.6 Lightning as a climate variable

Lightning frequency is changing as the climate changes. For example, lightning’s
close relationship to thunderstorms and precipitation makes it a valuable indicator
of storminess, making lightning an instrumental means for monitoring a variable
climate [30,102,178,179]. What’s more, lightning is not only an indicator of cli-
mate change; it also affects the global climate directly. Lightning produces nitrogen
oxides, which are strong greenhouse gases. In recent years, lightning measurements
have become more extensive, and new satellite instruments have further enhanced
measurement coverage [180]. However, lightning monitoring for climate science
594 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

and services is still limited globally and at an early stage of development. To

overcome these shortcomings and to explore the opportunities and challenges of
lightning observations for climate, the scientists involved with the Global Climate
Observing System (GCOS) sought to ensure that data necessary for climate studies
is available to the public. The Commission for Climatology (CCl) of the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) established a Task Team for Lightning
Observations for Climate Applications (TTLOCA) in October 2017. Lightning has
been added to the Global Climate Observing System’s (GCOS) list of Essential
Climate Variables (ECVs) to improve on climate monitoring [3,179].

15.7 Lightning activity at high latitude

Despite the general understanding that lightning activity is greatly diminished at high
latitude relative to the tropics, based on considerations of surface air temperature and
water vapor (Section 15.3.3), lightning can and does occur in the colder polar regions.
For example, consultation of the NOAA GSOD (Global Summary of Day) dataset on
thunder day observations [181] for recent decades shows that 390 surface stations
north of the Arctic circle show at least one thunder day in their records. Following the
Franklin Lecture on “Lightning and Climate” at the American Geophysical Union
meeting in 2012, one Canadian meteorologist reported that thunder days were being
recorded for the first time at the highest latitude stations in recent years.
Some improvement in the characterization of lightning trends in high latitude
regions has been achieved quite recently with regional lightning networks, for both
the Arctic as a whole using a subset of the World Wide Lightning Location
Network [182] and for the State of Alaska [183] using the Alaska Lightning
Detection Network (ALDN). In both cases, the assessment of decadal trends is
compromised by the changes in the networks over time. The quantitative results
from these studies are here discussed in turn below.
Interest in lightning at high latitudes also derives from the role of lightning in
initiating fire in relatively dry forests there [183–186]), and the possibly positive
feedback linked with aerosol and lightning [186].

15.7.1 The Arctic

No region on Earth is warming more rapidly than the Arctic [187]. Recent reports
show a warming rate in surface air temperature that is four times greater than the
rest of the Earth. The leading explanation for this behavior is a positive feedback
effect involving ice albedo, with greater surface absorption of solar radiation as the
ice retreats [188]. The dramatic changes here have prompted recent investigation of
lightning variations with the World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN)
by Holzworth et al. [182]. Since the number of stations in the WWLLN network
has nearly tripled in the last 20 years, Holzworth et al. [182] give more emphasis to
changes in the Arctic lightning as a fraction of the global total, rather than the
actual stroke counts. (The latter counts increase markedly in the period of steepest
increase in the total number of WWLLN receiving stations.) If one takes the Arctic
 Lightning and climate change 595

stroke counts at face value to obtain a lightning sensitivity to temperature over the
past 10 years, over which Ballinger et al. (2021) [187] report a 1.5 C mean increase
in surface air temperature, that amounts to a 300% increase in lightning for 1.5 C,
or 200% per C. Clearly, this value is out of line with other estimates (Section 15.4),
and also points to the problem with time-dependent detection efficiency.

15.7.2 Alaska
Evidence for upward trends in thunder days, surface air temperature, and lightning
activity in recent decades in Alaska can be found in Section 15.4.6 (Figure 15.7),
Bieniek et al. [189] and in Bieniek et al. [183], respectively. The magnitudes of the
temperature trends show the largest values above the Arctic circle, consistent with the
evidence for the pronounced warming of the Arctic noted above. As noted by Bieniek
et al. [189], “the low frequency variability confounds the identification of trends in the
time series of temperature.” Given the network changes over time, the lightning data
are also caveated [189] by the following: “These changes in detection efficiency and
accuracy through the record make the data challenging to use for assessing the varia-
bility and trends of lightning over the historical period.” For best comparison with the
30-year lightning record in Bieniek et al. [183], our selection of representative tem-
perature increase (0.8 C) is based on the 30-year period of summertime (June, July, and
August) temperature in Bieniek et al. [189] coinciding with the months of greatest
lightning activity. Given their estimate of a 17% increase in lightning over the same
period [183, p. 1148] we derive a rough sensitivity of 17%/0.8 C = 21% per C. This
sensitivity is broadly consistent with the estimates obtained in Section 15.4.
Despite the evidence for unparalleled increases in lightning activity at high
latitude in recent years, the total contribution to global lightning from this remote
part of the world is inconsequential. To show this, one can compare the annual
lightning totals recorded by Holzworth et al. [182] and by Bieniek et al. [183] with
the totals in the tropical continental “chimneys” discussed in Section 15.1. The total
flash rates in the tropical chimneys are of the order of 10 flashes per second. In
contrast, the largest annual-averaged WWLLN stroke rate amounts to 8  103
strokes/sec. For Alaska, the peak annual stroke rate is 1  105 strokes/yr, or
3  103 strokes/s. This comparative situation gives the global VLF networks some
superiority over ELF methods in monitoring the changes in high latitude lightning
into the future, so long as the networks are stable with time.

15.8 Winter-type thunderstorms and lightning

Lightning occurrence in winter thunderstorms has been a concern due to their high
damage potential (e.g., [190]). In the winter cold period (e.g., winter in middle
latitudes), diurnal heating is weak and moisture content is much reduced over land
compared to the warm season. Low-pressure systems are more vigorous and bring
cold air masses from polar and arctic regions southward to mid-latitudes, creating
strong vertical temperature gradients as cold continental air flows over relatively
warm seas and ocean currents. Air parcels near the surface then experience no
596 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

inhibiting warm layers on their way to the equilibrium level, often the tropopause,
and occur over large regions over the sea behind cold fronts. The tropopause is
found between 10 and 15 km at mid-latitudes in summer but can descend to
5–10 km in winter, limiting the vertical extent of convection. Just as in summer,
low-level convergent winds organize the triggering of storms, but over the sea,
these are often found near and upwind of coastlines, where enhanced friction and
sloping terrain create a relative stagnation and ascending flow.
The importance of the moisture source from seas and oceans in winter thunder-
storms deserves a look in the context of the ocean gyres. Every major ocean basin
(North Atlantic, North Pacific, South Atlantic, South Pacific, etc.) contains a basin-
scale closed rotating current: a gyre with clockwise (counterclockwise) rotation in the
northern (southern) hemisphere. The primary drive for these gyres is the zonal wind
stress from prevailing easterly winds in the tropics otherwise known as the trade winds,
and from prevailing westerly winds at mid-latitude. In this near-equatorial portion of
the gyre, the ocean surface is warmed substantially by sunlight and at the western limit
of this equatorial transit, this warm oceanic flow is diverted northward and southward,
depending on hemisphere. Since the surface air over continents is increasingly colder
away from the equator and tends to be moving eastward off the continents at mid-
latitude, one has a consistent situation in all gyres that warm ocean water in this
poleward current is found beneath colder air away from the equator. This configuration
is inherently unstable and can produce vigorous atmospheric convection and thun-
derstorm activity. The Gulf Stream along the North American coast and the Kuroshio
Current along the eastern coast of Asia (China, Japan, Korea, and Russia) are prime
examples in which lightning activity over warm ocean water is prevalent during win-
ter. In contrast, the return current on the eastern boundaries of oceanic gyres, moving
equatorward, is colder than the air overlying it. This situation is stable against con-
vection and accordingly lightning is absent. A prime example is the Eastern Pacific
Ocean. Similar behavior is present in the oceanic gyres of the southern hemisphere.

15.8.1 Effects of global warming on winter thunderstorms

Evidence has accrued that global warming is shifting large-scale extratropical
atmospheric circulation poleward [191–193]. The effect on large-scale ocean gyres
is still not clear. Recently, based on observations of sea surface height and tem-
perature it has been found that the major ocean gyres are also shifting poleward
[194]. Supported by climate model simulations, it seems evident that the observed
shift is likely a response to global warming [195]. The polar shift of the major
ocean gyres and the temperature warming of mid-latitude and polar regions also
suggest a shift in the occurrence of winter thunderstorms. But, on the other hand,
the influence of polar vortex weakening and the meandering of the jet stream
allowing cold air to penetrate to lower latitudes and to produce extreme cold
weather has also been documented. Winter thunderstorms can be common in these
episodes. The suggested reason for this behavior is the shift of the polar vortex from
North America to Eurasia. Studies indicate that in a few decades this asymmetry
will increase and cause more frequent extreme cold episodes [196].
 Lightning and climate change 597

15.9 Storms at the mesoscale

The mesoscale involves a size an order of magnitude larger than the scale of an
individual thunderstorm. The expectation for larger and more frequent storms at the
mesoscale in a warmer world has been given much emphasis in the popular lit-
erature (e.g., [197]). This expectation is based on the general influence of the
Clausius-Clapeyron relation involving the exponential dependence of equilibrium
water vapor on temperature discussed in Section 15.3.3. The largest storms in the
tropics are the tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons), to be discussed in the
next section. The largest storms on planet Earth are found in the extratropical land
areas as Mesoscale Convective Systems (MCSs), and the largest MCSs are
Mesoscale Convective Complexes [198]. These storms will be discussed in the
context of lightning megaflashes in Section 15.12. Seen from a satellite, an MCC is
a roughly circular cloud shield with large size (200–300 km in at least one direc-
tion). An MCC may include squall lines, bow echoes, and/or isolated convective
cells, each of which has its own life cycle. More than 70% of MCSs and all MCCs
evolve from the merger of multiple convective clusters, which resulted in larger
systems than those that developed from a single cluster [199].

15.10 Tropical cyclones

These vast spinning masses of air and moisture have different names in different
parts of the world: “hurricanes” in the Atlantic Ocean, “typhoons” in the western
Pacific Ocean, and “storms” in the southern Pacific and Indian oceans. The tropical
cyclones with the strongest vertical development, often taking the form of Category
4 and 5 storms on the Saffir–Simpson scale, are also the most frequent producers of
lightning in the inner storm core. Accordingly, as we consider the response of
tropical cyclones to climate change, a lightning component to that change is also
expected.
The physical impacts of tropical cyclones are often profound. Wind damage
can be extreme, especially in Category 5 storms with sustained wind in excess of
70 m/s (250 km/hr). Both storm surge effects (with the strong surface wind stress
piling up water) and the abundant rainfall over large coastal areas [200,201] can
lead to extensive flooding. The lightning impact can be considered less serious
because these large storms require the warm ocean presence for their energy sup-
ply, and few persons and ships are in harm’s way there.
Figure 15.9 shows the vertical cross-section (with a 210-mile horizontal
extent) of a Category 5 hurricane (Emily, July 17, 2005, south of Cuba), and serves
to illustrate the three main regions [202]: the eye, the eyewall, and the outer rain-
bands, all of which have physical connections with lightning production in these
storms. The eye of the hurricane is cloud-free air descending over the full vertical
depth of the storm, and so neither condensate nor lightning can occur there. In
marked contrast, immediately adjacent to, and outside the eye, is the eyewall,
where in strong hurricanes like this one the strongest vertical air motion is found,
598 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

INTENSE
EYEWALL EYE EYEWALL THUNDERSTORM
Preliminary Data heavy

Rain Intensity
light

Figure 15.9 A vertical slice through the center of Hurricane Emily (July 17, 2005,
near Cuba) shows the rain structure across 210 miles (340 km) of the
storm. Note the lack of precipitation inside the eye of the storm
compared to the intense eyewall convection just outside of it. The
areas of heaviest rainfall are shown in red, and the lightest are in
blue. The prominent horizontal feature in red is the radar bright band
near 0C and often characterizes the outer rainbands. The rainfall
structure shown here was measured by NASA’s ER-2 Doppler Radar

much like the updraft of an exceptional thunderstorm. The vigor of the eyewall
convection and attendant lightning is often maximum during cyclone intensifica-
tion and falling central pressure (i.e., “deepening”) [203–206].
Further out in radius from the eye, the ascent speed of the air is much reduced,
as evidenced by the red horizontal feature near 5 km altitude: the radar “bright
band”, close to the 0 C isotherm. Ice phase condensate is in evidence above the
bright band to the top of the storm, an important source for charge separation and
lightning in this region. The total vertical extent of the eyewall convection, using
the bright band height as a “yardstick” is 15 km. Here the local lightning flash
densities are much reduced in comparison to the eyewall lightning, but because of
the substantially greater convective area in these outer hurricane rainbands, the
total lightning production generally exceeds that in the eyewall [205,207].
Theoretical considerations of tropical cyclones that treat these storms as giant
heat engines (transporting heat from the warm ocean surface to the cooler upper
troposphere) predict increases in cyclone intensity with global warming [208].
Numerical models also show globally-averaged increases in maximum wind speeds
by 2–11% by the year 2100 [209–211]. Using numerical global climate modeling,
Lynn et al. [212] were among the first to project increases in hurricane intensity by
the end of the century based on simulations of Category 5 Hurricane Katrina under
climate change scenarios. However, difficulties with establishing an upward trend
 Lightning and climate change 599

in the incidence of tropical cyclones in actual observations are similar to that in

establishing an upward trend in global or regional lightning: the natural variability
is great and the data records are relatively short. Despite considerable variability in
tropical cyclone occurrence on multi-decadal time scales (e.g., [213]), the estab-
lishment of a century-scale trend with anthropogenic origin (now well established
in the case of the global record of surface air temperature), has proven challenging
[211,214].
Other studies on these shorter time scales by Holland and Bruyère [215] have
shown that the proportion of Categories 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased at a rate of
25–30% per
C of global warming after accounting for analysis and observing
system changes. This has been balanced by a similar decrease in Categories 1 and
2 hurricane proportions, leading to the development of a distinctly bimodal inten-
sity distribution, with the secondary maximum at Category 4 hurricanes. This
global signal is reproduced in all ocean basins. The observed increase in Categories
4–5 hurricanes may not continue at the same rate with future global warming. The
analysis suggests that following an initial climate increase in intense hurricane
proportions a saturation level will be reached beyond which any further global
warming will have little effect [215].
These results raise the interest in possible increases in tropical cyclone light-
ning activity, given the evidence that the high flash rate scenarios in hurricanes are
generally found in the eyewall region of Categories 4 and 5 storms
[205,207,216,217]). Indeed, the cores of Categories 4 and 5 storms are often so
electrically active [216,217] that they resemble continental supercells. Normally
speaking, oceanic convection is lightning-sparse compared to continental convec-
tion (as discussed earlier in Section 15.1). Both thermodynamic and aerosol-related
explanations for this prodigious electrical activity in eyewall convection have been
proposed. Given the evidence that both the mean rainband flash density and flash
rates in Categories 2 and 3 storms are greater than in categories 4 and 5 [205,207]
in the present climate, the expected temperature-dependent incidence of cyclone
category [215] may lead to rather substantial increases in total tropical cyclone-
related lightning.

15.11 Cloud-to-ocean lightning

The measured peak current in negative polarity cloud-to-ground lightning has been
shown to be greater over ocean than over continents [172,218]. The physical
explanation for this contrast, and why a similar contrast is less apparent for light-
ning with positive polarity, is presently in debate. Predictions for increases in peak
lightning current (also known as lightning “intensity”) to the ocean surface in
response to global warming have appeared [219]. These predictions are based on
expected changes in the chemical and electrical properties of seawater in a warmer
climate [219,220]. For example, increased ocean acidification may result in
increases in hydrogen ions in seawater, thereby modifying the seawater con-
ductivity. As these predictions for increases in peak current are based on
600 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

laboratory-scale experiments [219], and boundary layer experiments with sus-

pended vertical wires [221], it is essential that the equivalent circuit implemented in
these experiments be compared with that of real lightning to place the effect of the
variations in the oceanic electrical medium in proper physical context. Other more
recent studies [222] show evidence that lightning peak current is insensitive to
variations in the conductivity of the ocean. Alternative explanations for larger peak
current in ocean strokes are based on considerations of the differences in cloud
potential in storms over land and over ocean (see [223]), and not on the changes in
medium properties. In any case, the information presently available suggests that
the monitoring of the lightning superbolt population [224] may provide another
useful diagnostic for climate change.

15.12 Lightning superbolts and megaflashes

In searching for evidence in lightning documentation for indicators of climate

change, a sound strategy is to examine the extreme categories of lightning (e.g., [9]).
Two lightning extremes are superbolts and megaflashes. Superbolts are lightning
events with superlative peak current (and/or stroke energy), with corresponding
exceptional brightness. Megaflashes are events with exceptional horizontal extent,
>100 km by present definition [225], and so require large storms to contain them.
Superbolts were first identified optically with the VELA satellite by [226] over the
Pacific Ocean as being 100–1,000 times brighter than ordinary lightning. Much more
recent use has been made of the WWLLN to make a global map of superbolt locations,
where in this case the superbolt is defined in terms of a threshold in VLF radiation
energy (> 1 megajoule) [224]. The majority of these events are located over the
oceans, with a great abundance over the Mediterranean Sea and north Atlantic Ocean
in winter.
With regard to megaflashes, lightning is sometimes casually described as “a
huge spark.” According to the Glossary of Meteorology (American Meteorological
Society 2015), a lightning flash is a transient, high-current electric discharge with
path length measured in kilometers. So how “big” can a lightning flash get? The
length in the vertical dimension is generally limited by the altitude of the main
charge centers in the cloud (typically 6–15 km) and certainly by the cloud top,
rarely more than 20 km high. However, the horizontal extent of a flash within the
cloud can be much longer, reaching “mesoscale” dimensions in large storm systems
[225, 227]). Besides being intrinsically interesting as extreme events, exceptionally
long lightning discharges propagating through the stratiform precipitation region of
a mesoscale convective system (MCS) sometimes produce exceptionally powerful
positive cloud-to-ground flashes (+CGs), which induce several unusual phenom-
ena, including sprites in the mesosphere [228]. Such exceptional CGs result from
extending lightning channels tapping into vast reservoirs of positive charge present
within the MCS stratiform region [229–234]. A frequent scenario involves a
lightning discharge originating near the top of the convective cells in the leading
line (8–10 km altitude) and then traveling rearward and downward, following the
trajectory of descending positively charged ice crystals, often to near the melting
 Lightning and climate change 601

layer [232,235–237]. Some space-based lightning mapping can measure flash

extent and duration continuously over broad geospatial domains. These new
satellite instruments, including the Geostationary Lightning Mappers (GLMs) on
the R-series Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-16 and 17)
and their orbiting counterparts from Europe (the Meteosat Third Generation (MTG)
Lightning Imager) and China (FY-4 Lightning Mapping Imager), have enabled the
establishment of new lightning records. The advent of the 3D Lightning Mapping
Array (LMA) systems [238] confirmed that lightning discharges exceeding 100 km
in length and spawning multiple CGs, of both polarities, often separated by con-
siderable distances, were not uncommon [233].
On the basis of analysis with the Geostationary Lightning Mapper in space,
Peterson et al. [239] identified and validated two lightning megaflash events
accepted as records by the World Meteorological Organization (horizontal mesos-
cale lightning discharges of >100 km in length). Since that publication, the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) has announced a new world record for a
megaflash. The longest single flash covered a horizontal distance of 768  8 km
(477.2  5 miles) across parts of the southern United States on April 29, 2020. A
plan view of this discharge is shown in Figure 15.10, showing that it extends over

GOES16 ABI/GLM 29 April 2020 14:32:39.016 UTC

98˚ W 96˚ W 94˚ W 92˚ W 90˚ W 88˚ W 86˚ W

31.5˚N 31.5˚N

30˚N 30˚N

28.5˚N 28.5˚N

27˚N 27˚N

25.5˚N 25.5˚N

10–2 10–1 10–0 10–1

GLM Flash Extent Density [f lashes/min]

Figure 15.10 Satellite image of record extent of a lightning flash observed with the
Geostationary Lightning Mapper over the southern United States on
April 29, 2020 covered a horizontal distance of 768  8 km
(477.2  5 mi). The horizontal structure (white line segments) and
maximum extent (gold  symbols) of this megaflash are overlaid. As
of this writing, this is the record-setting megaflash for scale
602 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

four separate States (Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida) and the Gulf of
Mexico. Since this distance is more than twice the threshold diameter [198] of a
Mesoscale Convective Complex, it is likely that many of the largest megaflashes
will require these superlative storms for their existence. The association of the
largest lightning flashes with the largest storms suggests that the monitoring of
megaflashes in a warmer climate may be a useful diagnostic for climate change.

15.13 Nocturnal thunderstorms

The great majority of thunderstorms worldwide follow the diurnal variation in local
time that has been discussed in Section 15.4.1, with a typical 4 pm maximum in
activity when thermodynamic and dynamic conditions (e.g., outflow boundaries) are
most favorable. This exclusive afternoon prevalence was assumed in the early ana-
lysis of global thunderstorms [240] that underlies the analysis of the global electrical
circuit [7,8,130]. However, the most spectacular displays of lightning occur in the
contrast of night, in nocturnal thunderstorms. Satellite-based studies at nighttime
[241,242] show that the large land/ocean contrast in lightning prevalence apparent in
daytime is reduced by about a factor of two at nighttime [242]. Thunderstorms that
occur outside the usual afternoon diurnal cycle are of special interest in the lightning
and climate context for two reasons: (1) their existence and the nocturnal land–ocean
contrast provides an additional perspective on the disentanglement of thermo-
dynamics and aerosol, and (2) the global warming signal has been dominated by
nighttime temperatures over certain decadal intervals [243,244], most prominent in
the period 1965 to 1985 for reasons that are not well understood.
It is appropriate first to summarize special configurations of land and water
that are favorable for nocturnal thunderstorms. Nighttime lightning activity may
occur in low-lying areas, both lakes and valleys, adjacent to more mountainous
terrain. Examples from the literature include the large tropical lakes and inland
seas: Lake Victoria in Uganda, Africa [245], and Lake Maracaibo [246,247] in
Venezuela, South America. Another example is when mountainous terrain lies
adjacent to inland seas, as in the Mediterranean Sea [248]. Other examples of
mountains adjacent to valleys productive of nocturnal thunderstorms are Phoenix,
Arizona [249], and Albuquerque, New Mexico (personal observations, 1994) as
well as the mountainous terrain of the Andes in Colombia [88] in South America.
In all of these cases, the favored convective development in the afternoon is found
in the elevated terrain where strong daytime heating of the surface is prevalent. The
cold downdrafts of the ensuing thunderstorms then descend into the valleys and
over lake surfaces to lift the air there and initiate deep convection where only
subsidence from the adjacent mountain convection was present earlier in the day.
The most violent nocturnal convection in the Earth’s atmosphere [250] occurs
in two separate but conjugate regions in the Americas: in the Great Plains of North
America east of the Rocky Mountains, and in Argentina, South America east of the
Andes Mountains [88]. The peculiar phase of the diurnal cycle in Argentinian
thunderstorms was identified in the report on worldwide thunder occurrence in
 Lightning and climate change 603

Brooks [240], and Wallace [251] has systematized the local diurnal cycle in the
Great Plains of North America. Prodigious nocturnal lightning activity in both
areas may ultimately lead to some important reconsideration of the behavior of the
global electrical circuit in universal time [7,8]. In both areas, air in the prevailing
westerly flow is warmed in the afternoon in traversing the respective heated
mountain ranges, and then progresses further east over low-level flow laden with
moisture. The warm air aloft creates a temperature inversion in the local tem-
perature profiles, otherwise known as a capping inversion, which serves to suppress
the afternoon convection while allowing the buildup of temperature and moisture
below the cap throughout the daytime that contributes to a large CAPE [29]. When
the capping inversion weakens and special triggering processes occur at night, the
moist convection develops with exceptional vigor [252,253]. The prominence of
thunderstorms with large hail in the nighttime activity [252] is evidence for
exceptional updrafts in nocturnal convection.
In all of the scenarios described above, the nocturnal thunderstorms described
occur only when the usual afternoon thunderstorms are absent at the same location.
This situation has special implications for the thermodynamic boundary conditions
for the nighttime storms. One implication is that the nighttime air temperatures are
substantially larger on the evenings with earlier afternoon storms [249,253]. There
are two important reasons for this observation. One is that the customary cold
downdraft air was not present. Second, the blanket of boundary layer water vapor
that accumulates continuously in the daytime, and which is not reduced by its
transformation to rainfall in afternoon thunderstorms, serves to reduce the outgoing
longwave radiation that would otherwise serve to cool the Earth’s surface.
It is important to note that these conditions contrast starkly with the usual
nighttime conditions (without thunderstorms) in the tropics when the relative
humidity reaches 100%, the dew point depression vanishes, and dew appears at the
surface (e.g., [53,254]). In such circumstances, the contrast in CBH between land
and ocean would not serve as a viable thermodynamic contributions to the land–
ocean contrast in lightning activity, as discussed in Lucas et al. [38], Williams and
Stanfill [11], and Zipser [41,70]. But an appeal to the literature shows that noc-
turnal thunderstorms do not occur in these circumstances. As one example study in
the Great Plains [253], the development of nocturnal convection is characterized by
the presence of unsaturated air at the surface and an elevated CBH (3.4–3.5 km
MSL) linked with most unstable air that is elevated from the surface. CAPE values
are linked with the most unstable values of wet bulb potential temperature and are
also large (>3,000 J/kg) in the case of nighttime storms. The evidence that noc-
turnal thunderstorms are a subclass of “elevated thunderstorms” that feed on a
source of most unstable air removed from the surface was established earlier by
Colman [255].
Regarding the contribution of aerosol to lightning activity in the context of
nocturnal thunderstorms, generally speaking, one would not expect major changes
in CCN from daytime to nighttime. Accordingly, the reduced land/ocean lightning
at nighttime [242] is likely of thermodynamic origin. Further studies on this issue
are warranted.
604 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

Interest in nocturnal thunderstorms is also of interest in the climate context

because of the earlier idea that most of the global warming was found in nighttime
temperatures [98,243,256] in many regions worldwide. For reasons linked with the
sensitivity of lightning to temperature (Section 15.4), greater lightning activity
might be expected in nocturnal thunderstorms in those periods, though no analysis
specific to nighttime has been undertaken to the author’s knowledge. More recent
global analysis of the DTR [244] shows that the most conspicuous decrease
occurred in the period 1950–1980, roughly coinciding with the so-called “Big
Hiatus” in global warming. If the global temperature trend is flat the decline of
DTR with a flat mean temperature guarantees a decline in the nighttime
temperatures.

15.14 Meteorological control on lightning type

The greater danger to both mankind and infrastructure posed by CG lightning in
comparison with intracloud (IC) lightning motivates some discussion on the
meteorological conditions favoring the former over the latter. A related issue per-
tains to how a changing climate may influence the relative numbers of CG and IC
lightning.
The abundant evidence that CG lightning does not occur until late in the
lightning life cycle of thunderstorms [61] is strongly suggestive that clouds with
substantial width of the main negative charge region are needed to provide a dis-
charge from cloud to ground, and that multistroke CG flashes are more likely, the
greater that width [257]. Narrow storms with extraordinary vertical development
tend to be dominated by IC lightning in the author’s personal experience. But the
meteorological controls on thunderstorm width are still not well tied down.
Conspicuous variations in the IC/CG ratio over the continental United States
have been shown by Boccippio et al. [154]. When the map of this ratio is compared
with the climatology of summertime CBH, it is apparent that the largest IC/CG
ratios are found in a region (eastern Colorado and extending northward into the
Dakotas) with elevated CBH, and also a region where the climatology of CG
lightning shows a diminished incidence of CG flash density (e.g., [153]). It has also
been suggested [258] that CBH may be influencing the latitudinal variation of the
IC/CG lightning ratio. Given the evidence that the surface relative humidity is
quasi-invariant with climate change [259–264], it may also be true that the relative
incidence of CG lightning may not change appreciably in a warmer climate. This
general area of research is in need of further attention.

15.15 The global circuits as monitors for destructive

lightning and climate change
The conductive Earth and the conductive ionosphere sandwich the more elec-
trically insulating atmosphere to form two global electrical circuits. In the classical
DC global circuit, a quasi-steady DC voltage of 250 kV known as the
 Lightning and climate change 605

“ionospheric potential” [98,265,266] is maintained between the Earth and iono-

sphere by electrical source currents from thunderstorms and electrified shower
clouds [130,267–269] that together provide about 1000 amperes globally. For the
AC global circuit, otherwise known as Schumann resonances [107,269–275], the
insulating space between two spherical conductors serves as a giant waveguide that
supports resonant electromagnetic waves maintained continuously by the vertical
charge transfers enacted by global lightning activity. The naturally occurring
waveguide signals are manifest in two ways: as the “background” Schumann

Classical DC Global Circuit

Vi

(a)

Schumann Resonances
Electric
Height

Magnetic
(b) Height

Figure 15.11 Illustration of the two global electrical circuits: (a) the classical DC
global circuit, and (b) the AC global circuit, otherwise known as
Schumann resonances
606 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

resonances consisting of the overlapping waveforms of ordinary lightning produced at

rates of order 100 per second globally, and as the transient resonances (or “Q-bursts”)
produced by exceptional mesoscale lightning with global rates of only a few per
minute, but which singlehandedly ring the global waveguide to amplitude levels that
dominate all the other lightning contributions combined. Simple illustrations of the
two global circuits are shown in Figure 15.11. The simultaneous behavior of the two
global circuits has been considered recently by Williams et al. [276].
The two global circuits provide natural frameworks for global monitoring. In the
case of the DC global circuit [98,263,264,277], the ionospheric potential is a measure
of all the electrified weather underway at any time, including thunderstorms and
electrified shower clouds that provide current to the ionosphere without producing
lightning. For the AC circuit, the background resonances can be monitored at multiple
stations (of the order of ten stations) to produce chimney-resolved measures of light-
ning activity in units of coul2km2/sec [275,278–280]. The AC global circuit can also
be used to locate and monitor the special population of mesoscale lightning flashes
worldwide that are most damaging to mankind and infrastructure, by virtue of their
exceptional charge transfers and their long continuing currents [281–288].
Conventional lightning detection networks operating in the LF and VLF range do not
have sufficient low-frequency bandwidth to identify particularly hazardous ground
flashes with long continuing current and large charge moment change.
Early attempts to evaluate the DC and AC global circuits as diagnostics for
global temperature were made by Williams [30] for the AC global circuit and by
Markson and Price [289] and Markson [97,98] for the DC global circuit. A sub-
stantial challenge remaining is to provide for the continuous monitoring of both
global circuits over the long time scales that are relevant to climate change (One
approach for the continuous monitoring of air-earth current over large areas would
be the use of long bare-wire transmission lines that are out of regular service).
When this problem is overcome, comprehensive diagnostics of global weather will
be available in the electromagnetic field.

15.16 Expectations for the future

The foregoing discussion has given emphasis to the response of lightning to climate
variables on a number of time scales as well as the growing body of evidence
supporting an important role of aerosol in cloud electrification and lightning. On
the basis of this body of evidence, one may speculate about changes in lightning
and its effect on mankind and infrastructure in the future. As global warming
proceeds, uncertainties remain about what quantities are invariant and what quan-
tities are changing. Inferences about changing quantities are often based on their
behavior in the current climate, but still uncertainties remain.
If total water vapor in the Earth’s atmosphere follows the Clausius–Clapeyron
relationship, one expects greater total water and more condensate in a warmer world,
and given the need for condensates for lightning, greater lightning is expected. Global
climate models [262,263,290] do show increased precipitation in a warmer world,
 Lightning and climate change 607

though this change is regionally dependent. It must also be recognized that the nature
of the precipitation increase is important and that an increase in warm rain alone is
unlikely to be accompanied by an increase in lightning.
Given the evidence for CAPE as a driver for lightning in the present climate,
more lightning is expected in a warmer climate if CAPE increases. Early speculation
showed CAPE to be a climate invariant [43]. Romps et al. [291] have predicted
increases over the CONUS in a warmer climate on the basis of both increases in
CAPE and increases in precipitation. More recent global climate models show larger
CAPE in warmer climates [44]. Theoretical calculations in equilibrium atmospheres
[292] show CAPE scaling with the Clausius–Clapeyron relationship. Estimations of
CAPE changes in the western United States based on the advection of dry desert area
over the moist boundary layer with origin in the Gulf of Mexico also lead to pre-
dictions that CAPE should scale with Clausius–Clapeyron [49]. For all of these rea-
sons, one expects greater lightning in a warmer world.
A frequent assumption in the climate community is that surface relative
humidity is a climate invariant [259,264]. This assumption is based in part on the
empirical evidence in the present climate for a quasi-fixed relative humidity near
80% over large areas of the tropical oceans, with an associated CBH for moist
convection near 500 m. If the ocean surface temperature were to increase globally,
the mean dew point temperature would also increase so as to keep the dew point
depression (T – Td) and the associated CBH (above local terrain) both constant. But
the height of the 0
C isotherm would increase following a presumed lifting along a
dry adiabat. Accordingly, the warm cloud depth (distance between the 0
C iso-
therm and the CBH) would increase. Based on findings in the current climate that
the lightning flash rate is decreasing with increased warm cloud depth, in this
scenario, one might expect less lightning in the warmer world. However, the CAPE
change in this scenario also deserves consideration. The expected increases in both
T and Td both contribute to increases in the wet bulb potential temperature of the
boundary layer, a result that certainly favors greater CAPE in the current climate.
But the ultimate CAPE change depends also on the change in the overall tem-
perature profile in a warmer climate, and this aspect is indeterminate in the context
of the foregoing assumptions.
One recent study [51] predicts less tropical lightning in a warmer world. The
prediction is model-based and with the finding that less ice phase is reaching the upper
portion of the troposphere where active charge separation is known to occur. More
information about this model, and in the context of expected changes in warm cloud
depth, is needed to understand this result. Other recent observations on extremes in
tropical rainfall in a warmer climate showing enhancements exceeding the simple
predictions based on Clausius–Clapeyron [293] would seem to contradict the model
predictions of Finney et al. [51]. Further discussion on this issue and predictions for the
behavior of lightning in a warmer climate can be found in Yair [294].
Given the recent evidence for an important role of CCN in increasing lightning
activity in the present climate [23], one can surely speculate about changes in
lightning in a more polluted world on the basis of this effect. China for example
continues to undergo major industrialization and with a major reliance on coal
608 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[295] and so one can expect an increasing aerosol production from that region
alone. From what is known at present, the lightning enhancements are expected
over a finite range of CCN concentrations, from typical oceanic concentrations of a
few per cc to up to about 1,000 per cc [21,23]. Above that level (typical of con-
tinental conditions described in Section 15.5), the lightning activity is expected to
flatten and then decrease, for reasons that are evident in model calculations [162].
An assessment of where the world stands relative to this important threshold will be
much aided by a new satellite method for the estimation of CCN concentration at
CBH [14].

References
[1] Cooray, V. (ed.), Lightning Protection (Series: IET Power and Energy,
Institution of Engineering and Technology – IET, London, 2010.
[2] Herring, S.C., N. Christidis, A. Hoell, J.P. Kossin, C.J. Schreck III, and P.A.
Scott (eds.), Explaining extreme events of 2016 from a climate perspective,
Special Supplement to the Bull. Am. Met. Soc., 99(1), S1–S157 2018,
doi:10.1175/BAMS-ExplainingExtremeEvents2016.1.
[3] Aich, V., R. Holzworth, S.J. Goodman, Y. Kuleshov, C. Price, and E.
Williams, Lightning: a new essential climate variable, EOS, 99, 2018,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EO104583.
[4] Virts, K.S., J.M. Wallace, M.L. Hutchins, and R.H. Holzworth, Highlights of a
new ground-based, hourly global lightning climatology. Bull. Amer. Meteor.
Soc., 94, 1381–1391, 2013. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00082.1
[5] Kinne, S., Remote sensing data combinations-superior global maps for
aerosol optical depth, in A. Kokhanovsky and G. de Leeuw (eds.), Satellite
Aerosol Remote Sensing Over Land, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 361–380,
2009 (Chapter 12).
[6] Boccippio, D.J., S.J. Goodman, and S. Heckman, Regional differences in
tropical lightning distributions, J. Appl. Met., 39, 2231–2248, 1999.
[7] Whipple, F.J.W., On the association of the diurnal variation of electric
potential gradient in fine weather with the distribution of thunderstorms over
the globe, Quart. J. Roy. Met. Soc., 55, 1–17, 1929.
[8] Whipple, F.J.W. and F.J. Scrase, Point discharge in the electric field of the
Earth, Geophys. Mem., Lond., 68, 1–20, 1936.
[9] Williams, E.R., Lightning and climate: a review, Atmos. Res., 76, 272–287,
2005.
[10] Humphreys, W.J., The Physics of the Air, Dover Publications, New York,
NY, 1964.
[11] Williams, E. and S. Stanfill, The physical origin of the land-ocean contrast in
lightning activity, C. R.—Phys., 3, 1277–1292, 2002.
[12] Rosenfeld, D. and W.L. Woodley, Closing the 5-year circle: From cloud
seeding to space and back to climate change through precipitation physics, in
W.-K. Tao and R. Adler (eds.) , Cloud Systems, Hurricanes, and the Tropical
 Lightning and climate change 609

Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), Meteorol. Monogr., 51, 59–80, 2003

(Chapter 6).
[13] Rosenfeld, D., U. Lohmann, G.B. Raga, et al., Flood or drought: How do
aerosols affect precipitation?, Science, 321, 1309–1313, 2008.
[14] Rosenfeld, D., Y. Zheng, E. Hashimshoni, et al., Satellite retrieval of cloud
condensation nuclei concentrations by using clouds as CCN chambers,
PNAS, 113(21), 5828–5834., 2016, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.
1514044113.
[15] Venevsky, S., Importance of aerosols for annual lightning production at
global scale, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 14, 4303–4325, 2014.
[16] Yang, X., Z. Yao, and Z. Li, Heavy air pollution suppresses summer thun-
derstorms in central China, J. Atmos. & Solar-Terrestrial Phys., 95, 28–40,
2013, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2012.12.023.
[17] Yang, X. and Z. Li, Increases in thunderstorm activity and relationships with
air pollution in southeast China, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, 1835–1844,
2014, doi:10.1002/2013JD021224.
[18] Stolz, D.C., S.A. Rutledge, W. Xu, and J.R. Pierce, Interactions between the
MJO, aerosols and convection over the Central Indian Ocean, J. Atmos. Sci.,
74, 353–374, 2017, doi:10.1175/JAS-D-0054.1.
[19] Stolz, D.C., S.R. Rutledge, J. Pierce, and S. van den Heever, A global
lightning parameterization based on statistical relationships between envir-
onmental factors, aerosols, and convective clouds in the TRMM climatol-
ogy, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 122, 7461–7492, 2017.
[20] Fan, J., D. Rosenfeld, Y. Zhang, et al., Substantial convection and pre-
cipitation enhancements by ultrafine aerosol particles, Science 359, 411–
418, 2018.
[21] Hu, J., D. Rosenfeld, A. Ryzhkov, et al., Polarimetric radar convective cell
tracking reveals large sensitivity of cloud precipitation and electrification
properties to CCN, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 124, 12194–12205, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030857.
[22] Thornton, J.A., K.S. Virts, R.H. Holzworth, and T.P. Mitchell, Lightning
enhancement over major shipping lanes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44(17), 9102–
9111, 2017, doi:10.1002/2017GL074982.
[23] Wang, Q., Z. Li, J. Guo, C. Zhao, and M. Cribb, The climate impact of
aerosols on lightning: Is it detectable from long-term aerosol and meteor-
ological data? Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 12797–12816, 2018.
[24] Takahashi, T., Riming electrification as a charge generation mechanism in
thunderstorms, J. Atmos. Sci., 35, 1536–1548, 1978.
[25] Takahashi, T., S. Sugimoto, T. Kawano, and K. Suzuki, Riming electrifica-
tion in Hokuriku winter clouds and comparison with laboratory observations,
J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 431–447, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0154.1.
[26] Reynolds, S.E., M. Brook, and M. Gourley, Thunderstorm charge separation,
J. Meteorol., 14, 426–436, 1957.
[27] Hansen, J.E. and S. Lebedeff, Global trends of measured surface air tem-
perature, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345–13372, 1987.
610 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[28] Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo, Global surface temperature
change, Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4004, 2010, doi:10.1029/2010RG000345.
[29] Emanuel, K. A., Atmospheric Convection, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
580 pp., 1994.
[30] Williams, E.R., The Schumann resonance: a global tropical thermometer,
Science, 256, 1184–1187, 1992.
[31] Price, C., Evidence for a link between global lightning activity and upper
tropospheric water vapor, Nature, 406, 290–293, 2000.
[32] Ludlam, F.H., Clouds and Storms: The Behavior and Effect of Water in the
Atmosphere, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA,
1980, 405 pp.
[33] Iribarne, J.V. and W.L. Godson, Atmospheric Thermodynamics, D. Reidel,
Dordrecht, 1981, 259 pp.
[34] Betts, A.K., Saturation point analysis of moist convective overturning, J.
Atmos. Sci., 39, 1484–1505, 1982.
[35] Xu, K.-M. and K.A. Emanuel, Is the tropical atmosphere conditionally
unstable?, Monnthly Weather Rev., 117, 1471–1479, 1989.
[36] Williams, E.R. and N.O. Renno, An analysis of the conditional instability of
the tropical atmosphere, Monthly Weather Rev., 121, 21–36, 1993.
[37] Brunt, D., Physical and Dynamical Meteorology, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1952.
[38] Lucas, C., E.J. Zipser, and M.A. Lemone, Convective available potential
energy in the environment of oceanic continental clouds: correction and
comments, notes and correspondence, J. Atmos. Sci., 51, 3829–3830, 1994.
[39] Pan, Z., F. Mao, D. Rosenfeld, et al., Coarse sea spray inhibits lightning.
Nat. Commun. 13, 4289. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31714-5, 2022.
[40] Riemann-Campe, K., K. Fraedrich, and F. Lunkeit, Global climatology of
convective available potential energy (CAPE) in ERA-40 reanalysis, Atmos.
Res., 93, 534–545, 2009.
[41] Zipser, E.J., Some views on “hot towers” after 50 year of tropical field
programs and two years of TRMM data, in Meteorological Monographs,
American Meteorological Society, Washington, DC, pp. 49–58, 2003
(Chapter 5).
[42] Romps, D. M., A.B. Charn, R.H. Holzworth, W.E. Lawrence, J. Molinari, &
D. Vollaro. CAPE times P explains lightning over land but not the land-
ocean contrast. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 12,623–12,630. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080267, 2018.
[43] Emanuel, K.A., J.D. Neelen, and C.S. Bretherton, On large-scale circulations
in convecting atmospheres, Quart. J. Roy. Met. Soc., 120, 1111–1143, 1994.
[44] Williams, E.R., Lightning and Climate, Franklin Lecture (invited) Fall
Meeting, American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, December, 2012,
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/events/franklin-lecture-ae31a-lightning-and-
climate-video-on-demand/.
[45] Ye, B., A.D. Del Genio and K.-W. Lo, CAPE variations in the current cli-
mate and in a climate change, J. Climate, 11, 1997–2015, 1998.
 Lightning and climate change 611

[46] Singha, M.S., Z. Kuang, E.D. Maloney, W.M. Hannah , and B.O. Wolding,
Increasing potential for intense tropical and subtropical thunderstorms under
global warming, PNAS, 114, 11657–11662, 2017.
[47] Chen, J., A. Dai, Y. Zhang, K.L. Rasmussen, Changes in Convective
Available Potential Energy and Convective Inhibition under Global
Warming, J. Climate, 33, 2025–2050, 2020.
[48] Del Genio, A.D., Y. Mao-Sung and J. Jonas, Will moist convection be
stronger in a warmer climate? Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L16703, 2007,
doi:10.1029/2007GL030525.
[49] Agard, V. and K. Emanuel, Clausius-Clapeyron scaling of peak CAPE in
continental convective storm environments, J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 3043, 2017,
doi:10.1175/JAS-D-16-0352.1.
[50] Seeley, J.T. and D.M. Romps, Why does tropical convective available
potential energy (CAPE) increase with warming?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42,
10,429–10,437, 2015, doi:10.1002/2015GL066199.
[51] Finney, D.L., R.M. Doherty. O. Wilde, D.S. Stevenson, I.A. MacKenzie, and
A.M. Blyth, A projected decrease in lightning under climate change, Nature
Clim. Change, 8, 210–213, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1038/S41558-018-0072-6.
[52] Williams, E.R., Lightning’s Response to Thermodynamics and Aerosols on
Different Time Scales, Invited presentation for Annual Meeting of the
American Meteorological Society, Denver, CO, January 11, 2023.
[53] Byers, H.R. and R.R. Braham, The Thunderstorm Project, U.S. Weather
Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 1949.
[54] Lemone, M.A. and E.J. Zipser, Cumulonimbus vertical velocity events in GATE.
Part I: diameter, intensity and mass flux, J. Atmos. Sci., 37, 2444–2457, 1980.
[55] Boccippio, D.J., Lightning scaling relations revisited, J. Atmos. Sci., 59,
1086–1104, 2001.
[56] Zheng, Y. and D. Rosenfeld, Linear relation between convective cloud base
height and updrafts and application to satellite retrievals, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 42,6485–6491, 2015, doi:10.1002/2015GL064809.
[57] Hansen, Z.R. and L.E. Back, Higher surface Bowen ratios ineffective at
increasing updraft intensity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42(23), 10,503–10,511,
2015, doi:10.1002/2015GL066878.
[58] Williams, E.R., V.C. Mushtak, D. Rosenfeld, S.J. Goodman, and D.J.
Boccippio, Thermodynamic conditions favorable to superlative thunder-
storm updraft, mixed phase microphysics and lightning flash rate, Atmos.
Res., 76, 288–306, 2005b.
[59] Williams, E., D. Rosenfeld, N. Madden, C. Labrada, J. Gerlach, and L.
Atkinson, The role of boundary layer aerosol in the vertical development of
precipitation and electrification: Another look at the contrast between
lightning over land and over ocean, 11th Int’l Conf. on Atmospheric
Electricity, Guntersville, AL, June 7–11, 1999.
[60] Freud, E. and D. Rosenfeld, Linear relation between convective cloud drop
number concentration and depth for rain initiation, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D-
2207, 2012, doi:10.1029/2011JD016457.
612 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[61] Mattos, E.V., L.A.T. Machado, E. Williams, S.J. Goodman, R.J. Blakeslee, and
J. C. Bailey, Electrification life cycle of incipient thunderstorms, J. Geophys.
Res., 122(8), 4670–4697, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025772.
[62] Liu, C. and E.J. Zipser, “Warm rain” in the tropics: deasonal and regional
distributions based on 9 yr of TRMM data, J. Climate, 22, 767–779, 2009,
doi:10.1175/2008CLI2641.1.
[63] Braga, R.C., D. Rosenfeld, R. Weigel, et al., Further evidence for CCN aerosol
concentrations determining the height of warm rain and ice initiation in con-
vective clouds over the Amazon basin, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 14433–14456,
2017.
[64] Atlas, D., The balance level in convective storms, J. Atmos. Sci., 23,
635–651, 1966.
[65] Lhermitte, R. and E. Williams, Thunderstorm electrification: a case study,
J. Geophys. Res., 90(D4), 6071–6078, 1985, doi:10.1029/JD090iD04p06071.
[66] Williams, E. and R. Lhermitte, Radar tests of the precipitation hypothesis for
thunderstorm electrification, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 10984–10991, 1983.
[67] Lambrechts, J.d.V., The value of water drainage in upcast mine shafts and fan-
drifts, J. Chem., Metal. Mining Soc. South Africa, 56, 307–324 and 383–387, 1956.
[68] Carte, A.E., Mine shafts as a cloud physics facility, in Proc. Int’l Conference
on Cloud Physics, Toronto, Canada, August 26–30, 1968.
[69] Carte, A.E. and P.E. Lourens, Water year 1970: Convention on water for the
future; South Africa (Republic) 1970, Studies of Cloud and Rain in Mine
Shafts, Department of Water Affairs, 1970.
[70] Zipser, E.J., Deep cumulonimbus clouds in the tropics with and without
lightning, Monthly Weather Rev., 122, 1837–1851, 1994.
[71] Lindzen, R.S., Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1990.
[72] Charney, J.G., The dynamics of long waves in a baroclinic westerly current,
J. Meteorol., 4, 135–162, 1947.
[73] Wallace, J.M. and P.V. Hobbs, Atmospheric Science: An Introductory
Survey, Academic Press, London, 1977.
[74] Yoshida, S., T. Morimoto, T. Ushio and Z. Kawasaki, A fifth-power relationship
for lightning activity from Tropical Rainfall Mission satellite observations, J.
Geophys. Res., 114, D09104, 2009, doi:10.1029/2008JD010370.
[75] Bang, S.D. and E.J. Zipser, Differences in size spectra of electrified storms
over land and ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42(16), 6844–6851, 2015,
doi:10.1002/2015GL065264.
[76] Bang, S.D. and E.J. Zipser, Seeking reasons for the differences in size
spectra of electrified storms over land and ocean, J. Geophys. Res., 121,
9048–9068, 2016.
[77] Orville, R.E., Cloud-to-ground lightning in the Blizzard of ’93, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 20, 1367–1370, 1993.
[78] Pessi, A.T. and S. Businger, The impact of lightning data assimilation on a
winter storm simulation over the North Pacific, Ocean Monthly Weather
Rev., 137, 3177–3195, 2009.
 Lightning and climate change 613

[79] Bluestein, H.B., Synoptic-Dynamic Meteorology in Midlatitudes, Vol. II:

Observations and Theory of Weather Systems, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1993.
[80] Doswell, C.A., III, Severe Convective Storms, Meteorological Monographs,
Vol. 28, Number 50, American Meteorological Society, Washington, DC, 2001.
[81] Ludlam, F.H. Severe Local Storms: A Review, in Severe Local Storms,
Meteorol. Monograph No. 27, American Meteorological Society,
Washington, DC, 1–30, 1963.
[82] Emersic, C., P.L. Heinselman, D.R. MacGorman, and E.C. Bruning,
Lightning activity in a hail-producing storm observed with phased-array
radar, Monthly Weather Rev., 139, 1805–1825, 2011.
[83] Korolev, A., G. McFarquhar, P.R. Field, et al., Mixed-Phase Clouds:
Progress and Challenges, Meteorological Monographs, American
Meteorological Society, Washington, DC, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1175/
AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-17-0001.1.
[84] Rust, W.D., D.R. MacGorman, E.C. Bruning, et al., Inverted-polarity elec-
trical structures in thunderstorms in the Severe Thunderstorm Electrification
and Precipitation Study (STEPS), Atmos. Res., 76, 247–271, 2005,
doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2004.11.029.
[85] Stough, S.M., L.D. Carey, C.J. Schultz, and P.M. Bitzer, Investigating the
relationship between lightning and mesocyclonic rotation in supercell thun-
derstorms, Weather Forecasting, 32, 2237–2259, 2017.
[86] Williams, E.R., The electrification of severe storms, 527–561, in C. A.
Doswell, III (Ed.), Severe Convective Storms, American Meteorological
Society, Washigton, DC, 561 pp., 2001.
[87] Blakeslee, R.J., K.T. Driscoll, D.E. Buechler, et al., 1999. Diurnal lightning
distribution as observed by the Optical Transient Detector (OTD), in 11th
International Conf. on Atmos. Elec., Proceedings, NASA/CP–1999–209261,
742–745, Guntersville, AB, June 7–11, 1999.
[88] Blakeslee, R.J., D.M. Mach, M.G. Bateman, and J.C. Bailey, Seasonal var-
iations in the lightning diurnal cycle and implications for the global electric
circuit, Atmos. Res., 135–136, 228–243, 2014.
[89] Williams, E.R., K. Rothkin, D. Stevenson, and D. Boccippio, Global light-
ning variations caused by changes in thunderstorm flash rate and by changes
in the number of thunderstorms, J. Appl. Met. (TRMM Special Issue), 39,
2223–2248, 2000.
[90] Price, C., Global surface temperature and the atmospheric electric circuit,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 20, 1363–1366, 1993.
[91] Burns, G.B., A.V. Frank-Kamenetsky, O.A. Troschichev, E.A. Bering, and
B.D. Reddell, Interannual consistency of bi-monthly differences in annual
variations of the ground-level, vertical electric field, J. Geophys. Res., 110,
D10106, 2005, doi:10.1029/2004JD005469.
[92] Burns,G.B., A.V. Frank-Kamenetsky, B.A. Tinsley, et al., Atmospheric global
circuit variations from Vostok and Concordia electric field, J. Atmos. Sci., 74,
783–800, http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0159. 1, March 1, 2017.
614 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[93] Israel, H., Atmospheric Electricity, Vol. II, Israel Program for Scientific
Translations, Ltd, ISBN 0 7065 1129 8, 1973.
[94] Bailey, J.C., R.J. Blakeslee, D.E. Buechler, and H.J. Christian, Diurnal
lightning distributions as observed by the Optical Transient Detector
(OTD) and the Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS). Proceedings of the 13th
International Conf. on Atmos. Elec., Vol. II, pp. 657–660. Organized by the
International Commission on Atmospheric Electricity (ICAE/IAMAS/
IUGG): August 13–17, 2007, Beijing Friendship Hotel, China, 2007.
[95] Cecil, D.J., D.E. Buechler, and R.J. Blakeslee, Gridded lightning climato-
logy from TRMM-LIS and OTD: dataset description, Atmos. Res.,
135–136, 404–414, 2014.
[96] Williams, E.R., Global circuit response to temperature on distinct time scales: a
status report, in M. Hayakawa (ed.), Atmospheric and Ionospheric Phenomena
Associated with Earthquakes, Terra Scientific Publishing, Tokyo, 1999.
[97] Markson, R., Ionospheric potential variation from temperature change over
continents, Proceedings of the 12th International Conf. on Atmos. Elec.,
Vol I, 283–286, Versailles, France, June 9–13, 2003.
[98] Markson, R., The global circuit intensity: its measurement and variation
over the last 50 years, Bull. Am. Met. Soc., 223–241, 2007, doi:10.1175/
BAMS-88-2-223.
[99] Phillipin, S. and E.A. Betterton, Cloud condensation nuclei concentrations
in Southern Arizona: instrumentation and early observations, Atmos. Res.
43, 263–275, 1997.
[100] Kendrew, W.G., The Climates of the Continents, Oxford University Press,
London, 3rd ed., New York, 473 pp., 1942.
[101] Williams, E.R., Global circuit response to seasonal variations in global
surface air temperature, Monthly Weather Rev., 122, 1917–1929, 1994.
[102] Christian, H.J., R.J. Blakeslee, D.J. Boccippio, et al., Global frequency and
distribution of lightning as observed from space by the Optical Transient
Detector, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4005, 2003, doi:10.1029/2002JD002347.
[103] Füllekrug, M. and A. Fraser-Smith, Global lightning and climate variability
inferred from ELF field variations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 2411–2414,
1997.
[104] Hogg, A.R., Air-earth current observations in various localities, Arch.
Meteor., 3, 40–55, 1950.
[105] Sátori, G. and B. Zieger, Spectral characteristics of Schumann resonances
observed in Central Europe, J Geophys Res., 101, 29663–29669, 1996.
[106] Nickolaenko, A.P., G. Sátori, B. Zieger, L.M. Rabinowicz, and I.G.
Kudintseva, Parameters of global thunderstorm activity deduced from the
long-term Schumann resonance records, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys., 60,
387–399, 1998.
[107] Sátori, G., V. Mushtak, and E. Williams, Schumann resonance signatures of
global lightning activity, in H.-D. Betz, U. Schumann and P. Laroche,
(eds.) Lightning: Principles, Instruments and Applications, Springer,
New York, NY, pp. 347–386, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4020-9078-3.
 Lightning and climate change 615

[108] Kelvin, Lord, Atmospheric electricity, in Royal Institution Lecture, Papers

on Electricity and Magnetism, 1860 pp. 208–226.
[109] Adlerman, E.J. and E.R. Williams, Seasonal variations of the global elec-
trical circuit, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 29679–29688, 1996.
[110] Retalis, D., Study of the air-earth electrical current density in Athens, Pure
Appl. Geophys., 136, 217–233, 1991.
[111] Sátori, G., E. Williams, and I. Lemperger, Variability of global lightning
activity on the ENSO time scale, Atmos. Res., 91, 500–507, 2009b.
[112] Ropelewski, C.F. and M.S. Halpert, Global and regional scale precipitation
patterns associated with the El Nino/Southern oscillation, Monthly Weather
Rev., 115, 1606–1626, 1987.
[113] Amerasekera, K.N., R.F. Lee, E.R. Williams, and E.A.B. Eltahir, ENSO and
the natural variability in the flow of tropical rivers, J. Hydrol., 200, 24, 1997.
[114] Whitaker, D.W., S.A. Wasimi, and S. Islam, The El Nino-Southern
Oscillation and long-range forecasting of flows in the Ganges, Int. J.
Climatol., 21, 77–87, 2001.
[115] Allan, R., J. Lindesay, and D. Parker, El Nino Southern Oscillation and
Climatic Variability, CSIRO Publishing, Australia, 1996, 405 pp.
[116] Hamid, E.Y., Z.-I. Kawasaki, and R. Mardiana, Impact of the 1997–98 El
Nino events on lightning activity over Indonesia, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28,
147–150, 2001.
[117] Kulkarni, M.K., J.V. Revadekar, H. Verikoden, and S. Athale,
Thunderstorm days and lightning activity in association with El Nino, Vayu
Mandal, 41, 39–43, 2015.
[118] Kumar, P. and A.K. Kamra, Impact of the 1997–98 and 2002–03 ENSOs on
lightning activity in South/Southeast Asia, Atmos. Res., 118, 84–102, 2012.
[119] Manohar, G.K, S.S. Kandalgaonkar and M.I.R. Tinmaker, Thunderstorm
activity over India and Indian southwest monsoon, J. Geophys. Res., 104,
4169–4188, 1999.
[120] Saha, U., D. Siingh, S.K. Midya, R.P. Singh, A.K. Singh, and S. Kumar,
Spatio-temporal variability of lightning and convective activity over south
southeast Asia with an emphasis during El Nino and La Nina, Atmos. Res.,
197, 150–166, 2017.
[121] Tinmaker, M.I.R., M.V. Aslam, S.D. Ghude, and D.M. Chate, Lightning
activity with rainfall during El Nino and La Nina events over India, Theor.
Appl. Climatology, 130, 391–400, 2017.
[122] Yoshida, S., T. Morimoto, T. Ushio and Z. Kawasaki, ENSO and con-
vective activities in Southeast Asia and western Pacific, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 34, L21806, 2007, doi:10.1029/2007GL030758.
[123] Petersen, W.A. and S.A. Rutledge, Regional variability in tropical con-
vection: observations from TRMM, J. Climate, 14, 3566–3586, 2001.
[124] Williams, E., S. Rutledge, S. Geotis, N. Renno, E. Rasmussen, and T.
Rickenback, A radar and electrical study of tropical ‘hot towers’, J. Atmos.
Sci., 49, 1386–1395, 1992.
616 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[125] LaVigne, T., C. Liu, W. Deierling and D. Mach, Relationship between the
global electric circuit and electrified cloud parameters at diurnal, seasonal
and interannual time scales, J. Geophys. Res., 122, 8525–8542, 2017,
doi:10.1002/2016JD026442.
[126] Peterson, M., W. Deierling, C. Liu, D. Mach, and C. Kalb, A TRMM/GPM
retrieval of the total mean source current for the global electrical circuit, J.
Geophys. Res., 122, 10025–10049, 2017, doi:10.1002/2016JD026336.
[127] Liu, C., E.R. Williams, E.J. Zipser, and G. Burns, Diurnal variation of
global thunderstorms and electrified shower clouds and their contribution
to the global electrical circuit, J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 309–323, 2010.
[128] Rycroft, M.J., A. Odzimek, N.F. Arnold, M. Fűllekrug, A. Kulak, and T.
Neubert, New model simulations of the global atmospheric electric circuit
driven by thunderstorms and electrified shower clouds: the roles of light-
ning and sprites, J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys., 69, 2485–2509, 2007.
[129] Williams, E.R. and G. Sátori, Lightning, thermodynamic and hydrological
comparison of the two tropical continental chimneys, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr.
Phys., 66, 1213–1231, 2004.
[130] Wilson, C.T.R., Investigations on lightning discharges and on the electric
field of thunderstorms, Phil. Trans. A., 221, 73–115, 1920.
[131] Chronis, T.G., S.J. Goodman, D. Cecil, D. Buechler, F.J. Robertson, and J.
Pittman, Global lightning activity from the ENSO perspective, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 35, L19804, 2008, doi:10.1029/2008GL034321.
[132] Pinto, O., III, Thunderstorm climatology of Brazil: ENSO and Tropical
Atlantic connections, Int’l J. Climatology, 35(6), 871–878, 2015,
doi:10.1002/joc.4022.
[133] Richey, J.E., C. Nobre, and C. Deser, Amazon discharge and climate
variability: 1903–1985, Science, 246, 101–103, 1989.
[134] Williams, E., A. Dall’Antonia, V. Dall’Antonia, et al., The drought of the
century in the Amazon Basin: an analysis of the regional variation of
rainfall in South America in 1926. Acta Amazonica, 35(2), 231–238, 2005.
[135] Grimm, A. M. and A. Natori, Climate change and interannual variability of
precipitation in South America, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L19706, 2006,
doi:10.1029/2006GL026821.
[136] Bruick, Z.S., K.L. Rasmussen, A.K. Rowe and L.A. McMurdie,
Characteristics of Intense Convection in Subtropical South America as
Influenced by El Niño–Southern Oscillation, Mon. Wea. Rev., 147, 1947–
1966, 2019.
[137] Goodman, S.J., D.E. Buechler, K. Knupp, D. Driscoll, and E.E. McCaul,
Jr.,The 1997–98 El Nino event and related wintertime lightning variations
in the southeastern United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 541–544, 2000.
[138] Dowdy, A.J., Seasonal forecasting of lightning and thunderstorm activity in
tropical and temperate regions of the world, in Nature, Scientific Reports,
11 Feb, 2016, doi:10.1038/srep20874.
[139] Marengo, J.A., E.R. Williams, L.M. Alves, W.R. Soares, and D.A.
Rodriguez, Extreme seasonal climate variations in the Amazon basin:
 Lightning and climate change 617

droughts and floods, in L. Nagy, B.R. Forsberg and P. Artaxo (eds.),

Interactions between Biosphere, Atmosphere and Human Land Use,
Ecological Series 227, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2016 (Chapter 4).
[140] Wu., Y.J., A.B. Chen, H.H. Hsu, et al., Occurrence of elves and lightning
during El Nino and La Nina, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L03106, 2012,
doi:10.1029/2011GL049831.
[141] Wu., Y.J., H.H. Hsu, A.B. Chen, and K. -M. Peng, Revisiting oceanic elves
and lightning occurrence rate during El Niño and La Nina episodes in a 10-
year time frame, Terr. Atmos. Ocean Sci., 28, 571–581, 2016, doi:10.3319/
TAO.2016.07.28.01.
[142] Harrison, R.G., M. Joshi and K. Pascoe, Inferring convective response to El
Nino with atmospheric electricity measurements at Shetland, Environ. Res.
Lett., 6, 1–3, 2011.
[143] Harrison, R.G., K.A. Nicoll, M. Joshi and, E. Hawkins, Empirical evidence
for multidecadal scale global atmospheric electric circuit modulation by the
El Nino-Southern Oscillation, Environ. Res. Lett., 17, 124048, 2022,
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aca68c.
[144] Williams, E., T. Bozóki, G. Sátori, et al., Evolution of global lightning in
the transition from cold to warm phase preceding two Super El Niño
Events, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 126, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1029/
2020JD033526.
[145] Guha, A., T. Banik, R. Roy, and B.K. De, The effect of El Nino and La
Nina on lightning activity: its relation with meteorological and cloud
microphysical parameters, Natural Hazards, 85, 403–424, 2017.
[146] Camp, C.D. and K.K. Tung, Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed
by the composite mean difference projection, Geophys. Res. Lett. 34,
L14703, 2007, doi:10.1029/2007GL030207.
[147] Tung, K.K. and C.D. Camp, Solar cycle warming at the Earth’s surface in
NCEP and ERA-40 data: a linear discriminant analysis, J. Geophys. Res.,
113, D05114, 2008, doi:10.1029/2007JD009164.
[148] Zhou, J. and K.K. Tung, Deducing multidecadal anthropogenic global warm-
ing trends using multiple regression analysis, J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 9–14, 2013.
[149] Brooks, C.E.P., The variation of the annual frequency of thunderstorms in
relation to sunspots, Quart. J. Roy. Met. Soc., 60, 153–165, 1934.
[150] Kleymenova, E.P., On the variation of the thunderstorm activity in the solar
cycle, Glav. Upirav. Gidromet. Scuzb., Met. Gidr., 8, 64–68, 1967.
[151] Pinto, O., III, O. Pinto, Jr. and I.R.C.A. Pinto, The relationship between
thunderstorm and solar activity for Brazil from 1951 to 2009, J. Atmos. Sol.
Terr. Phys., 98, 12–23, 2013.
[152] Williams, E.R., Comments on “11-year cycle in Schumann resonance data
as observed in Antarctica” by Nickolaenko et al. (2015), Sun Geosphere,
11, 75–76, 2016.
[153] Koshak, W.J., K.L. Cummins, D. E. Buechler, et al., Variability of CONUS
lightning in 2003–12 and associated impacts, J. Appl. Met. Clim., 54, 15–
41, 2015.
618 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[154] Boccippio, D.J., K. Cummins, H.J. Christian, and S.J. Goodman, Combined
satellite- and surface-based estimation of the intracloud–cloud-to-ground
lightning ratio over the continental United States, Mon. Wea. Rev., 129,
108–122, 2001.
[155] Price, C. and D. Rind, A simple lightning parameterization for calculating
global lightning distributions, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 9919–9933, 1992.
[156] Yamamoto, K., T. Nakashima, S. Sumi, and A. Ametani, About 100 years sur-
vey of the surface temperatures of Japan Sea and lightning days along the coast,
in Int’l Conf. on Lightning Protection, Estoril, Portugal, 25–30 September, 2016.
[157] Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, G.A. Schmidt, K. Lo, and A. Persin, Global
temperature in 2017, NASA GISS website, 2018.
[158] Williams, E., A. Guha, R. Boldi, H. Christian, and D. Buechler, Global
lightning activity and the hiatus in global warming, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr.
Phys., 189, 27–34, 2019.
[159] Alter, R.E., H.C. Douglas, J.M. Winter and E.A.B. Eltahir, Twentieth century
regional climate change during the summer in the central United States attrib-
uted to agricultural intensification, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45 1586–1594, 2018.
[160] Houghton, H.G., Physical Meteorology, MIT Press, New York, NY, 1985.
[161] Altaratz, O., I. Koren, Y. Yair, and C. Price, Lightning response to smoke
from Amazon fires, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L07801, 2010, doi:10.1029/
2010GL042679.
[162] Mansell, E.R. and C.L. Ziegler, Aerosol effects on simulated storm elec-
trification and precipitation in a two-moment bulk microphysics model, J.
Atmos. Sci., 70, 2032–2050, 2013.
[163] Rosenfeld, D. and I. Lensky, Satellite-based insights into precipitation
formation processes in continental and maritime convective clouds, Bull.
Am. Met. Soc., 79, 2457–2476, 1998.
[164] Orville, R.E., G. Huffines, J. Nielson-Gammon, et al., Enhancement of
cloud-to-ground lightning over Houston, Texas, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28,
2597–2600, 2001.
[165] Stolz, D.C., S.R. Rutledge, and J.R. Pierce, Simultaneous influences of
thermodynamics and aerosols on deep convection and lightning in the tro-
pics, J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 120(12), 6207, 2015.
[166] Altaratz, O., B.A. Kucienska, G.B. Kostinski, Raga and I. Koren, Global
association of aerosol with flash density of intense lightning, Env. Res.
Lett., 114037, 2017.
[167] Yuan, T., L.A. Remer, K.E., Pickering and H. Yu, Observational evidence
of aerosol enhancement of lightning activity and convective invigoration,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L04701, 2011, doi:10.1029/2010GL046052.
[168] Keskinen, J. and T. Ronkko, Can real-world diesel exhaust particle size
distribution be reproduced in the laboratory? A critical review, Air Waste
Manag. Assoc., 60, 1245–1255, 2010, doi:10.3155/1047-3289.60.10.1234.
[169] Li, Z., F. Niu, J. Fan, Y. Liu, D. Rosenfeld, and Y. Ding, Long-term
impacts of aerosols on the vertical development of clouds and precipitation,
Nature Geosci., 4, 888–894, 2011.
 Lightning and climate change 619

[170] Pawar, S.D., V. Gopalakrishnan, P. Murugavel, N.E. Veremey, and A.A.

Sinkevich, Possible role of aerosols in the charge structure of isolated
thunderstorms. Atmos. Res., 183, 331–340, 2017.
[171] Qie, X., T. Zhang, G. Zhang, T. Zhang, and Z. Kong, Electrical char-
acteristics of thunderstorms in different plateau regions of China, Atmos.
Res., 91, 244–249, 2009.
[172] Lyons, W.A., T.E. Nelson, E.R. Williams, J. Cramer, and T. Turner,
Enhanced positive cloud-to-ground lightning in thunderstorms ingesting
smoke, Science, 282, 77–81, 1998.
[173] Bell, T.L., D. Rosenfeld, K.-M. Kim, J.-M Yoo, M.-I. Lee, and M.
Hahnenberger, Midweek increase in U.S. summer rain and storm heights
suggest air pollution invigorates rainstorms, J. Geophys. Res., 113, 2008,
doi:10.1029/2007JD008623.
[174] Bell, T.L., D. Rosenfeld and K.-M. Kim, Weekly cycle of lightning: evi-
dence of storm invigoration by pollution, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L23805,
2009, doi:10.1029/2009GL040915.
[175] Rosenfeld, D. and T.L. Bell, Why do tornadoes and hailstorms rest on week-
ends?, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D20211, 2011, doi:10.1029/2011JD016214.
[176] Sanap, S.D., Global and regional variations in aerosol loading during
COVID-19 imposed lockdown, Atmos. Environ., 246, 1–12, 2021.
[177] Wang, Q., Z. Li, J. Guo, C. Zhao, and M. Cribb, The climate impact of
aerosols on lightning: Is it detectable from long-term aerosol and meteor-
ological data? Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 12797–12816, 2018.
[178] Price, C. Thunderstorms, lightning and climate change, in Lightning:
Principles, Instruments and Applications, Springer, New York, NY,
pp. 521–535, 2009, doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9079-0_24S
[179] Füllekrug, M., E. Williams, C. Price, et al., Sidebar 2.1: Lightning. In Blunden, J.
and T. Boyer, (eds.), State of the Climate in 2021. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 103,
S79–S81, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1175/2022BAMSStateoftheClimate.1.
[180] Yang, J., N. Liu, M. Sato, G. Lu, Y. Wang, and G. Feng, Characteristics
of thunderstorm structure and lightning activity causing negative and
positive sprites, J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 123, 8190–8207, 2018,
doi:10.1029/2017jd026759.
[181] Lavigne, T., C. Liu , and N. Liu, How does the trend in thunder days relate
to the variation of lightning flash density? J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 124,
4955–4974, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029920.
[182] Holzworth, R.H., J.B. Brundell, M.P. McCarthy, A.R. Jacobson, C.J.
Rodger, and T.S. Anderson, Lightning in the Arctic, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
48, e2020GL091366, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091366
[183] Bieniek, P.A., U.S. Bhatt, A. York, et al., Lightning variability in dyna-
mically downscaled simulations of Alaska’s present and future summer
climate, J. Appl. Met. Clim., 59, 1139–1152, 2020.
[184] Veraverbeke, S., M.B. Rogers, L.M. Goulden, et al., Lightning as a major
driver of recent large fire years in North American boreal forests, Nat.
Climate Change, 7, 529–534, 2017.
620 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[185] York, A., U. Bhatt, R. Thoman, and R. Ziel, Wildland fire in high latitudes,
Arctic report card, NOAA, 2017, https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-
Card-2017/ArtMID/7798/ArticleID/692/Wildland-Fire-in-High-Latitudes.
[186] Liu, Y., E. Williams, Z. Li, et al., Lightning enhancement in moist con-
vection with smoke-laden air advected from Australian wildfires, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 48(11), e2020GL092355, 2021.
[187] Ballinger, T.J., J. E. Overland, M. Wang, et al., Surface Air Temperature, Arctic
Essays, 2021, doi: 10.25923/53xd-9k68. https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/
Report-Card-2021/ArtMID/8022/ArticleID/948/Surface-Air-Temperature.
[188] Pithan, F and T. Mauritsen, Arctic amplification dominated by temperature
feedbacks in contemporary climate models, Nature Geosci., 7, 181–184,
2014, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2071.
[189] Bieniek, P.A., J.E. Walsh, R.L. Thoman, and U.S. Bhatt, Using climate
divisions to analyze variations and trends in Alaska temperature and pre-
cipitation, J. Clim., 27, 2800–2818, 2014.
[190] Montanyà, J., F. Fabró, O. van der Velde, et al., Global distribution of
winter lightning: a threat to wind turbines and aircraft, Nat. Hazards Earth
Syst. Sci., 16, 1465–1472, 2016, doi:10.5194/nhess-16-1465-2016.
[191] Chen, G., J. Lu, and D.M. Frierson, Phase speed spectra and the latitude of
surface westerlies: Interannual variability and global warming trend, J.
Clim., 21(22), 5942–5959, 2008.
[192] Archer, C.L., and Caldeira, K., Historical trends in the jet streams. Geophys.
Res. Lett., 35, L08803, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033614.
[193] Yin, J., A consistent poleward shift of the storm tracks in simulations of
21st century climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18701, 2005, https://doi.org/
10.1029/2005GL023684.
[194] Norris, J. R., R.J. Allen, A.T. Evan, M.D. Zelinka, C.W. O’Dell, and S.A.
Klein, Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record, Nature,
536(7614), 72–75, 2016.
[195] Yang, H., G. Lohmann, U. Krebs-Kanzow, et al., Poleward shift of the
major ocean gyres detected in a warming climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 47,
e2019GL085868. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085868, 2020.
[196] Matsumura, S., K. Yamazaki, and T. Horinouchi, Robust asymmetry of the
future Arctic polar vortex is driven by tropical Pacific warming. Geophys. Res.
Lett., 48, e2021GL093440, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093440.
[197] Hansen, J., Storms of My Grandchildren, Bloomsbury, New York, NY, 2009.
[198] Maddox, R.A., Mesoscale convective complexes, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
61, 1374–1387, 1980.
[199] Jirak, I., W. Cotton, and R. McAnelly, Satellite and radar survey of
mesoscale convective system development, Monthly Weather Rev., 131.
2428, 2003, 10.1175/1520-0493(2003)131<2428:SARSOM>2.0.CO;2.
[200] Walsh, K.J.E., M. Fiorino, C.W. Landsea, and K.L. McInnes, Objectively
determined resolution-dependent threshold criteria for the detection of
tropical cyclones in climate models and reanalyses, J. Clim., 20(10), 2307–
2314, 2007, doi:10.1175/jcli4074.1.
 Lightning and climate change 621

[201] Camelo J, T.L. Mayo and E.D. Gutmann, Projected climate change impacts
on Hurricane storm surge inundation in the Coastal United States, Front.
Built Environ., 6, 588049, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2020.588049.
[202] Atlas, D., K.R. Hardy, R. Wexler, and R.J. Boucher, On the origin of hur-
ricane spiral bands: Technical Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical
Meteorology, Mexico. Geofis. Int., 3, 123–132, 1963.
[203] Williams, E.R., Meteorological Aspects of Thunderstorms, in H. Volland
(Ed.), CRC Handbook on Atmospheric Electrodynamics, Vol. I, CRC Press,
London, 1995.
[204] Squires, K. and S. Businger, The morphology of eyewall lightning out-
breaks in two Category 5 hurricanes, Monthly Weather Rev., 136(5), 1706–
1726, 2008, doi:10.1175/2007mwr2150.1.
[205] Pan, L.X., X. S. Qie, D.X. Liu, et al., The lightning activities in super typhoons
over the Northwest Pacific, Sci. China (Ser. D), 53(8), 1241–1248, 2010.
[206] Plotnik, T., C. Price, J. Saha, and A. Guha, Transport of water vapor from
tropical cyclones to the upper troposphere, Atmosphere, 12, 1506, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ atmos12111506.
[207] Pan, L.X., X. Qie and D. Wang, Lightning activity and its relation to the
intensity of typhoons over the Northwest Pacific Ocean, Adv. Atmos. Sci.,
31(3), 581–592, 2014, doi: 10.1007/soo376-013-3115-y.
[208] Emanuel, K.A., The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate, Nature,
326(6112), 483–485, 1987, doi:10.1038/326483a0.
[209] Emanuel, K., Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past
30 years, Nature, 436, 686–688, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03906.
[210] Knutson, T., J. McBride, J. Chan, et al., Tropical cyclones and climate change,
Nature Geosci., 3, 157–163, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo779.
[211] Knutson, T., S.J. Camargo, J.C.L. Chan, et al., Tropical cyclones and cli-
mate change assessment: Part I. Detection and attribution, Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc, 100(10), 1987–2007, 2019 doi:10.1175/bams-d-18-0189.1
[212] Lynn, B.H., R. Healy, and L.M. Druyan, Investigation of Hurricane Katrina
characteristics for future, warmer climates, Clim. Res., 39, 75–86, 2009,
doi:10.3354/cr00801.
[213] Vecchi, G.A. and T.R. Knutson, On estimates of historical North Atlantic
tropical cyclone activity, J. Clim., 2008(14), 3580–3600, 2008, doi:10.1175/
2008jcli2178.1
[214] USGCRP, Fourth National Climate Assessment, 1–470, 2018.
[215] Holland, G. and C.L. Bruyère, Recent intense hurricane response to global
climate change. Clim. Dyn., 42, 617–627, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00382-013-1713-0.
[216] Shao, X.-M., J. Harlin, M. Stock, et al., Katrina and Rita were lit up with
lightning, EOS, 86(42), 398–399, 2005.
[217] Fierro, A.O., X.-M. Shao, T. Hamlin, J.M. Reisner and J. Harlin, Evolution
of eyewall convective events as indicated by intracloud and cloud-to-
ground lightning activity during the rapid intensification of Hurricanes Rita
and Katrina, Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 1492–1504, 2010.
622 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[218] Cooray, V., R. Jayaratne and K.L. Cummins, On the peak amplitude of light-
ning return stroke currents striking the sea, Atmos. Res., 149, 372–376, 2014.
[219] Asfur, M., C. Price, J. Silverman, and A. Wishkerman, Why is lightning
more intense over the oceans?, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 252, 105259, 2020.
[220] Asfur, M., J. Silverman, and C. Price, Ocean acidification may be
increasing the intensity of lightning over the oceans, Sci. Rep., 10, 21847,
2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79066-8
[221] Montanya, J., F. Molina, Pol, A. Marcelo, et al., Small scale simulation of
lightning using vertical wires deployed by drones: on the land and sea peak
current asymmetry, in Int’l Conf. on Lightning Protection, Cape Town,
South Africa, 2022.
[222] Cooray, V., M. Rubinstein and F.A. Rachidi, Self-consistent return stroke
model that includes the effect of the ground conductivity at the strike point.
Atmosphere, 13, 593, 2022.https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13040593.
[223] Chronis, T., K. Cummins, R. Said, Climatological diurnal variation of
negative CG lightning peak current over the continental United States, J.
Geophys. Res.,Atmos., 120, 582–589, 2015, doi: 10.1002/2014JD022547.
[224] Holzworth, R.H., M.P. McCarthy, J.B. Brundell, A.R. Jacobson, & C.J. Rodger,
Global distribution of superbolts, Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres, 124, 9996–10,005. https://doi.org/10.1029/ 2019JD030975, 2019.
[225] Lyons, W.A., E.C. Bruning, T.A. Warner, et al., Megaflashes: just how
long can a lightning discharge get?, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 101, E73–
E86, 2019, BAMS-D-19-0033.1, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0033.1.
[226] Turman, B.N., Detection of lightning superbolts, J. Geophys. Res., 82,
2566–2568, 1977, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC082i018p02566.
[227] Vonnegut, B., O.H. Vaughan Jr., M. Brook, and P. Krehbiel, Mesoscale
observations of lightning from the space shuttle, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
66, 20–29, 1985, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1985)066<0020:
MOOLFS>2.0.CO;2.
[228] Franz, R.C., R.J. Nemzak, and J.R. Winkler, Television image of a large
upward electrical discharge above a thunderstorm system, Science, 249,
48–51, 1990.
[229] Marshall, T.C. and W.D. Rust, Two types of vertical electrical structures in
stratiform precipitation regions of mesoscale convective systems, Bull.
Amer. Meteor. Soc., 74, 2159–2170, 1993, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0477(1993)074 2.0.CO;2.
[230] Stolzenburg, M., W.D. Rust, B.F. Smull, and T.C. Marshall, Electrical structure
in thunderstorm convective regions: 1. Mesoscale convective systems. J.
Geophys. Res., 103, 14 059–14 078, 1998, https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD03546.
[231] Williams, E.R., The positive charge reservoir for sprite-producing light-
ning, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 60, 689–692, 1998.
[232] Carey, L.D., M.J. Murphy, T.L. McCormick, and N.W.S. Demetriades,
Lightning location relative to storm structure in a leading-line, trailing-
stratiform mesoscale convective system, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D03105,
2005, doi:10.1029/2003JD004371.
 Lightning and climate change 623

[233] Lyons, W. The meteorology of transient luminous events—an introduction

and overview, in Part of the NATO Science Series II: Mathematics, Physics
and Chemistry, 2006. 10.1007/1-4020-4629-4_2.
[234] Williams, E.R., The global electrical circuit: a review. Atmos. Res., 91,
140–152, 2009.
[235] Ely, B.L., R.E. Orville, L.D. Carey, and C.L. Hodapp, Evolution of the total
lightning structure in a leading-line, trailing-stratiform mesoscale con-
vective system over Houston, Texas. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D08114, 2008,
https://doi.org /10.1029/2007JD008445.
[236] MacGorman, D.R., D. Rust, T. Schuur, et al., TELEX: the thunderstorm
electrification and lightning experiment, Bull. Am. Met. Soc., 89, 997–1013,
2008, doi:10.1175/2007BAMS2352.1.
[237] Lang, T., P. Stéphane, R. William, et al., WMO world record lightning
extremes: longest reported flash distance and longest reported flash
duration. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98,1153–1168, 2017, doi:10.1175/
bams-d-16-0061.1.
[238] Thomas, R.J., P.R. Krehbiel, W. Rison, et al., Accuracy of the lightning
mapping array, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D14207, 2004, https://doi.org/
10.1029/2004JD004549.
[239] Peterson, M.J., T.J. Lang, E.C. Bruning, et al., New WMO certified
megaflash lightning extremes for flash distance (709 km) and duration
(16.73 seconds) recorded from space. Geophys. Res. Lett., 47,
e2020GL088888, 2020. doi:10.1029/2020gl088888
[240] Brooks, C.E.P., The distribution of thunderstorms over the globe, Geophys.
Mem. London, 24, 147–164, 1925.
[241] Kotaki, M. and C. Katoh, The global distribution of thunderstorm activity
observed by the Ionospheric Sounding Satellite (ISS-b), J. Atmos. Terr.
Phys., 45, 833, 1983.
[242] Orville, R.E. and R.W. Henderson, The global distribution of midnight
lightning: December 1977 to August 1978, Mon. Wea. Rev., 114, 2640–
2653, 1986.
[243] Kukla, G. and T.R. Karl, Nighttime warming and the greenhouse effect,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 27, 1468–1474, 1993.
[244] Thorne, P.W., M.G. Donat, R.J.H. Dunn, et al., Reassessing changes in diurnal
temperature range: Intercomparison and evaluation of existing data set estimates,
J. Geophys. Res., Atmos., 121, 5138–5158, doi:10.1002/2015JD024584, 2016.
[245] Henderson, J.P., Some aspects of climate of Uganda with special reference
to rainfall, E. African Meteor. Dept. Memoirs, 2, No 5, 1–16, 1949.
[246] Albrecht, R.I., Where are the lightning hot spots on Earth?, Bull. Am. Met.
Soc., 97, 2051–2068, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00193.1.
[247] Bürgesser, R.E., M.G. Nicora, and E.E. Avila, Characterization of the
lightning activity of “Relampago del Catatumbo”, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr.
Phys., 77, 241–247, 2012, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2012.01.013.
[248] Neumann, J., Land breezes and nocturnal thunderstorms, J. Meteorol., 8,
60–67, 1950.
624 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

[249] Hales, J.E., Jr., On the relationship of convective cooling to nocturnal

thunderstorms at Phoenix, Mon. Wea. Rev., 105, 1609–1613, 1977.
[250] Zipser, E.J., C. Liu, D.J. Cecil, S.W. Nesbitt and D.P. Yorty, Where are the
most intense thunderstorms on Earth?, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 87(8),
1057–1071, 2006, doi:10.1175/BAMS-87-8-1057.
[251] Wallace, J.M., Diurnal variations in precipitation and thunderstorm fre-
quency over the conterminous United States, Mon. Wea. Rev., 103, 406–
419, 1975.
[252] Reif, D.W. and H.N. Bluestein, A 20-year climatology of nocturnal con-
vection initiation over the central and southern Great Plains during the
warm season, Mon. Wea. Rev., 145, 1615–1639, 2017.
[253] Wilson, J.W., S.B. Trier, D.W. Reif, R.D. Roberts and T.M. Weckwerth,
Nocturnal elevated convection initiation of the PECAN 4 July hailstorm,
Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 243–262, 2018.
[254] Dessens, J., Severe convective weather in the context of a nighttime global
warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 1241–1244, 1995.
[255] Colman, B.R., Thunderstorms above frontal surfaces in environments with
positive CAPE. Part I: a climatology, Mon. Wea. Rev., 118, 1103, 1990.
[256] Vose, R.S., D.R. Easterling and B. Gleason, Maximum and minimum
temperature trends for the globe: An update through 2004, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 32, L23822, 2005, doi:10.1029/2005GL024379.
[257] Williams, E.R., E.V. Mattos and L.T. Machado, Stroke multiplicity and
horizontal scale of negative charge regions in thunderclouds, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 43, 5460–5466, 2016, doi:10.1002/2016GL068924.
[258] Mushtak, V.C., E.R. Williams and D.J. Boccippio, Latitudinal variations of
cloud base height and lightning parameters in the tropics, Atmos. Res., 76,
222–230, 2005.
[259] Dai, A., Recent climatology, variability, and trends in global surface
humidity, J. Clim., 19, 3589–3606, 2006.
[260] Held, I.M. and B.J. Soden, Water vapor feedback and global warming,
Annual Rev. Energy Environ., 25, 441–475, 2000.
[261] O’Gorman, P.A. and C.J. Muller, How closely do changes in surface and
column water vapor follow Clausius-Clapeyron scaling in climate change
simulations? Env. Res. Lett., 5, 025207, 2010, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/
025207.
[262] Soden, B.J. and I.M. Held, An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled
ocean–atmosphere models, J. Clim., 19, 3354–3360, 2006a.
[263] Soden, B.J. and I.M. Held, Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to
global warming. J. Clim., 19, 5686–5699, 2006b.
[264] Byrne, M.P. and P.A. O’Gorman, Trends in continental temperature and
humidity directly linked to ocean warming, Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci., 115,
4863–4868, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722312115, 2018.
[265] Markson, R., L.H. Ruhnke and E.R. Williams, Global scale comparison
of simultaneous ionospheric potential measurements, Atmos. Res., 51,
315–321, 1999.
 Lightning and climate change 625

[266] Mühleisen, R., The global circuit and its parameters, 467–476, in H.
Dolezalek and R. Reiter (eds.), Electrical Processes in Atmospheres,
Steinkopff, Darmstadt, 1977.
[267] Bering, E.A., A.A. Few and J.R. Benbrook, The global electric circuit,
Physics Today, 51, 24–30, 1998.
[268] Chalmers, J.A., Atmospheric Electricity, 2nd ed., Pergamon Press, London,
1967.
[269] Williams, E.R., The global electrical circuit: a review, Atmos. Res., 91,
140–152, 2009.
[270] Heckman, S., E. Williams and R. Boldi, Total global lightning inferred
from Schumann resonance measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 31775–
31779, 1998.
[271] Madden, T.R. and W.B. Thompson, Low-frequency electromagnetic
oscillations of the Earth-ionosphere cavity, Rev. Geophys., 3, 211, 1965.
[272] Nickolaenko, A.P. and M. Hayakawa, Resonances in the Earth-ionosphere
Cavity, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, 2002.
[273] Polk C., Schumann resonances, in H. Volland (ed.), CRC Handbook of
Atmospherics, Vol. I, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL., pp. 55–82, 1982.
[274] Sentman, D.D., Schumann resonances, in H. Volland (ed.), Handbook of
Atmospheric Electrodynamics, Vol. I, CRC Press, 408 pp., 1995
(Chapter 11).
[275] Williams, E.R. and E.A. Mareev, Recent progress on the global electrical
circuit, Atmos. Res., 135–136, 208–227, 2014.
[276] Williams, E., R. Boldi, R. Markson and M. Peterson, Comparative behavior
of the DC and AC global circuits, in XVI International Conference on
Atmospheric Electricity, Nara city, Nara, Japan, 17–22 June, 2018.
[277] Mühleisen, R.P., New determination of the air-earth current over the ocean
and measurement of ionospheric potential, PAGEOPH, 84, 112–115, 1971.
[278] Dyrda, M.A., M. Kulak, M. Mlynarczyk, et al., Application of the
Schumann resonance decomposition in characterizing the main African
thunderstorm center, J. Geophys. Res., Atmospheres, 119, 13338–13349,
2014.
[279] Williams, E., V. Mushtak, A. Guha, et al., Inversion of multi-station
Schumann resonance background records for global lightning activity in
absolute units, Fall Meeting, American Geophysical Union, San Francisco,
CA, December, 2014.
[280] Prácser, E., T. Bozóki, G. Sátori, E. Williams, A. Guha and H. Yu,
Reconstruction of global lightning activity based on Schumann Resonance
measurements: Model description and synthetic tests, Radio Science, 54,
254–267, 2019.
[281] Guha, A., E. Williams, R. Boldi, et al., Aliasing of the Schumann resonance
background signal by sprite-associated Q-bursts, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys.,
165–166, 25–37, 2017.
[282] Hobara, Y., E. Williams, M. Hayakawa, R. Boldi and E. Downes, Location
and electrical properties of sprite-producing lightning from a single ELF
626 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

site, in M. Fullekrug, E.A. Mareev and M.J. Rycroft (eds.), Sprites, Elves
and Intense Lightning Discharges, NATO Science Series, II, Mathematics,
Physics and Chemistry, Vol. 225, Springer, New York, NY, 2006.
[283] Huang, E., E. Williams, R. Boldi, et al., Criteria for sprites and elves based
on Schumann resonance observations, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 16943–16964,
1999.
[284] Kemp, D.T., The global location of large lightning discharges from single
station observations of ELF disturbances in the Earth-ionospheric cavity, J.
Atmos. Terr. Phys., 33, 919–928, 1971.
[285] Kemp, D.T., and D.L. Jones, A new technique for the analysis of transient
ELF electromagnetic disturbances within the Earth-ionosphere cavity. J.
Atmos. Terr. Phys., 33, 567–572, 1971.
[286] Ogawa, T., Y. Tanaka, M. Yasuhara, A.C. Fraser-Smith and R. Gendrin,
Worldwide simultaneity of occurrence of a Q-type ELF burst in the
Schumann resonance frequency range, J. Geomag. Geoelectr., 19, 377–
384, 1967.
[287] Williams, E.R., W.A. Lyons, Y. Hobara, et al., Ground-based detection of
sprites and their parent lightning flashes over Africa during the
2006 AMMA campaign, Quart. J. Roy. Met. Soc., 136, 257–271, 2010
(Special Issue: Advances in understanding atmospheric processes over
West Africa through the AMMA field campaign).
[288] Yamashita, K., Y. Takahashi, M. Sato and H. Kase, Improvement in
lightning geolocation by time-of-arrival method using global ELF network
data, J. Geophys. Res., 116, A00E61, 12 PP, 2011, doi:10.1029/
2009JA014792.
[289] Markson, R. and C. Price, Ionospheric potential as a proxy index for global
temperature, Atmos. Res., 51, 309–314, 1999.
[290] Allen, M.R. and W.J. Ingram, Constraints on future changes in climate and
the hydrologic cycle, Nature, 419, 224–232, 2002.
[291] Romps, D.M., J.T. Seeley, D. Vollaro and J. Molinari, Projected increase in
lightning strikes in the United States due to global warming, Science, 346,
851–854, 2014.
[292] Romps, D.M., Clausius-Clapeyron scaling of CAPE for analytic solutions
to RCE, J. Atmos. Sci., 73, 3719–3737, 2016.
[293] Guerreiro, S.B., H.J. Fowler, R. Barbero, et al., Detection of continental-
scale intensification of hourly rainfall extremes, Nature Climate Change, 8,
803–808, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0245-3.
[294] Yair, Y., Lightning hazards to human societies in a changing climate, Env.
Res. Lett., 13, 123002, 2018.
[295] Huaichuan, R., Globalisation, Transition and Development in China: The
Case of the Coal Industry, Routledge, London, 2004.
 Index

absolute peak amplitude 181 backflashover 325, 346

active region 8 back-of-the-envelope calculation 153
adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) 111 Barbosa kernel 254
advection mixing 55 baroclinicity 582
advective forms 41 Barthe–Molinié scheme 63
aerosol effects 570 beads 442
aerosol optical depth (AOD) 593 Bergeron process 573
aggregation 27 Berger’s data 177–8
Agrawal, Price, and Gurbaxani model Bessel function 245, 247, 251
295–6 bi-directional discharge 6
Alaska 595 bi-directional probes 342
Alaska Lightning Detection Network bi-Gaussian function 384
(ALDN) 594
Big Hiatus 589, 604
Alfvén wave branch 489
bin microphysics 27, 29
ambient temperature 547
BLT (Baum, Liu, Tesche) equations 303
Ampère’s law 381, 383
blue jets (BJ) 426, 448–58, 528
analytical expression 103
blue starters (BSs) 427, 448
analytical solutions 305
basic properties and morphology of
annual variation 585–6
448–51
antenna-mode 293
bolt-from-the-blue (BFB) 454
antenna-theory (AT) models 157, 174,
292 Boltzmann’s constant 56, 80, 83
Arctic 594–5 Boltzmann’s equation 82, 86, 90
Atmosphere-Space Interactions Boolean operations 88
Monitor (ASIM) 416, 462 branching algorithm 63
attachment coefficient 2 branch points 209–18
avalanche-to-streamer transition 133, breakdown streamers 9
438 breakeven electron 59
average length of grid mesh 63 buildings 338–40
axial symmetry 94 bulk microphysics 27–8
axisymmetric model 25 Burst and Transient Source Experiment
azimuthal magnetic field 256–9, 333 (BATSE) 461
628 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

capping inversion 603 circuit theory-based simulation 347

carbon dioxide 1 circuit theory models 158, 164
carrot sprite 429 classical state-space equation 247
Cartesian coordinates 25, 99, 482 classical telegrapher’s equations 295
cascade models 160 Clausius–Clapeyron relationship
channel-base current 157 573–5, 590
channel-base lightning current climate change 570
statistics 157 global circuits as monitors for
charge continuity 40–2 604–6
charge density 431 climate variable 593–4
charge mixing ratio 40 cloud base height (CBH) 573
charge moment change (CMC) 430 cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) 590
charge simulation method 15 cloud droplets 27, 52
charging processes in clouds cloud flashes 548, 556–8
applications 64 cloud models 23, 31–2
charge structure and lightning type cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning 36,
66–70 375, 429, 588
ion and inductive mechanisms cloud-to-ocean lightning 599–600
64–5 CN Tower Lightning Studies Group
non-inductive graupel–ice (CNTLSG) 182
sensitivity 65 coalescence 27
electrification modelling 33–7 cold cloud models 27
lightning parameterizations 58 cold electrical discharges 527
pseudo-fractal lightning 62–3 collisional ice–ice mechanism 30
stochastic lightning model 60–2 collision integral 82
model descriptors 24 collision kernel 49
basic terminology 24–6 column of charge 133
cloud models 31–2 Commission for Climatology (CCl)
electrification mechanisms 30–1 594
terms related to microphysics Communications/Navigation outage
26–30 Forecasting System (C/NOFS)
parameterization of electrical 496
processes 37 compact intracloud discharges (CIDs)
charge continuity 40–2 396
inductive charging mechanism Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory
51–4 462
non-inductive graupel–ice computational methods 157
collision mechanism 42–51 Comsol Multiphysics 86–7
small ion processes 54–7 connecting leader 134
circuit models 160 orientation of 150
 Index 629

conservation of charge 40 cylindrical coordinates 167

constant non-zero reflection cylindrical plasma channel 19
coefficients 158
continuing current (CC) 429, 546–8, dancing sprites 429
554 dark discharge 81
continuity equations 26, 40 dart leader 548
anelastic form 31 data processing 498–502
convection–diffusion equations 92 decadal time scale 588
convective available potential energy dedicated algorithms 171–2
(CAPE) 573, 575–7 delta function 167
convective charging hypothesis 36 diffusivity 56
convective mechanism 64 digital simulations 326
conventional breakdown threshold dip angle 392
430–1, 438
Dirac function 245, 246, 260
Cooray formula 172–3, 243, 260–2,
Dirichlet conditions 62
285
Dirichlet type 113
Cooray–Rubinstein approximation
172 discharge plasma conductivity 120
Cooray–Rubinstein (CR) formula discharge processes 546
172–3, 243–56, 264, 285 corona discharges 9–10
corona current 108 electron avalanche 2–4
corona discharges 9–10, 86, 112, 527, leader discharges 11–13
529 leader inception based on thermaliza-
corona electrode 100 tion of discharge channel 18–19
corona model 87–99 low-pressure electrical
corona region 99 discharges 11
cosmic rays 1, 55 mathematical modelling of positive
leader discharges 13–18
Coulomb forces 10
streamer discharges 4–8
Courant criterion 119
thermalization 10–11
Courant–Friedrichs-Lewy condition
117 dispersion relation 480–5
COVID-19 pandemic 593 distributed-circuit models 291
critical impulse flashover voltage distribution function 83
(CFO) 325 diurnal variation 583
critical radius and critical streamer domain transformation technique 114
length concepts 137–8 Doppler radars 25, 32
Cumulonimbus clouds 575 Doppler velocity 581
curl operator 328 Doppler wind fields 32
cutoff frequencies 487–8 down-coming negative stepped leader
cutoff of tweek sferics 496 150
630 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

downward propagating waves 159 charge continuity 40–2

D-region ionosphere 460 inductive charging mechanism
D-region ionospheric profiles 389 51–4
of different slopes and ionospheric non-inductive graupel–ice
reflection heights 392 collision mechanism 42–51
effect of Earth’s magnetic field small ion processes 54–7
392–6 electric field 2–3
typical daytime/nighttime integral equation 164
ionospheric profiles 389–92 radial component of 216–17
drift-diffusion equations, solving 111 vertical component of 213–16
drift-diffusion model 85 electric potential 62
drift velocity 4 electrification mechanisms 30–1
of secondary electrons 111 electrification modelling 33–7
drop–droplet separation probability 64 electrification processes
ducts 478 inductive 30
dynamic mesh 111 non-inductive 30
electrodynamic equations 436
Earth-ionosphere waveguide (EIWG) electrogeometrical model (EGM) 136,
375, 384, 444, 476 145–8
narrow bipolar events 396–9 electromagnetic field computation 165
VLF/LF signal of lightning EM expressions for perfectly conducting
fields propagation 384 ground 166
different D-region ionospheric comparison between different
profiles 388–96 engineering models 168–71
Earth’s curvature 384–6 effect of the tower 171
ground conductivity 386–8 turn-on term 167–8
Earth’s atmosphere 1 for finitely conducting ground 171
Earth’s curvature 375, 384–6 dedicated algorithms 171–2
Earth’s magnetic field 378, 381 numerical methods 173–4
Earth’s Schumann resonances 585 simplified approaches 172–3
Eckersley’s dispersion law 491 electromagnetic field interaction 291
effective ionization coefficient 2 with buried cables 311
Einstein coefficient 408 field-to-buried cables coupling
Einstein relation 56 equations 311–14
electrical discharge 1 frequency-domain solutions
electrical gas discharges 77 314–15
electrical processes lightning-induced disturbances
parameterization of 37 315–16
calculating the electric field 37–40 time-domain solutions 315
 Index 631

Agrawal, Price, and Gurbaxani Elves doublets 416, 460

model 295–6 energetic in-cloud pulses (EIPs) 416
analytical solutions 305 engineering models 157–8, 291
application to lightning-induced current distribution along the
voltages 306–11 channel as predicted by 161–3
coupling to complex networks on distributed source representation
302 158–60
frequency-domain solutions of elevated strike object 160–1
302–3 lightning current data and associated
inclusion of losses 298–9 electromagnetic fields 174
multiconductor lines 299–301 Berger’s data 177–8
Rachidi model 296–7 data from short towers 176–7
Rusck model 297–8 data from tall towers 181–90
single-wire line above a perfectly data obtained using short towers
conducting ground 294 178–81
Taylor, Satterwhite, and Harrison experimental data 175–6
model 294–5 on lumped series voltage source
time-domain solutions 303–5 160
transmission line theory 292–3 reflection coefficients at top and
electromagnetic (EM) fields 376 bottom of strike object 163–4
electromagnetic field theory 342 engineering return-stroke models
electromagnetic models 164, 174, 291 157–8
electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) 375, ENSO 586–8
417, 458 equations of electron motion 480–5
electromagnetic transient program equivalent charges 113
(EMTP) 164, 308, 326, 347 Essential Climate Variables (ECVs)
electron avalanches 2–4, 80–2, 109, 594
133 Eulerian models 32
electron cyclotron resonance 487 European Cooperation for Lightning
electron mobility 378 Detection (EUCLID) 187
electron multiplication 8 experimental data 151, 175–6
electron-neutral collision frequency Extended Rusck Model (ERM) 348,
378 364
electron streamer 80–2 extrapolation method 164
electrosphere 39
electrostatic energy 123 FD-FCT technique 112
electrostatics equation 88 field-to-buried cables coupling
elevated strike object 160–1 equations 311–14
elliptic equations 31, 39 field-to-transmission line coupling
Elves 428, 458–60, 528 equations 299, 303
632 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

field-to-transmission line coupling gas

models 166 charged species in 78–9
final jump condition 134 discharge plasma 82–6
finite-differences (FD) methods 109, dynamic models 291
111, 113 losses of charged species in 79–80
finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) gas discharge problems, solving 86
technique 173–4, 285, 292, 304,
computer implementation of corona
375
model 87–99
finite element method (FEM) 111,
positive corona between coaxial
339, 375
cylinders 99–104
fluid model 77
positive corona in rod-plane elec-
flux-corrected transport (FCT) 111 trode system 104–9
flux-correction 111 simulations of corona in air 86–7
flux forms 41 Gaussian spatial distribution 453
flux-limiting 111 Gauss integral 252
FORMOSAT-2 satellite 444, 450, 459 Gauss method 251
FORTRAN routines 112 Gauss numerical method 252
Fourier transform 245 Gauss’s law 37
fractal formula 63 general oblique propagation 485–9
Frank-Condon factor 408 geomagnetic field 392
Franklin rod 15 geometry function 115
free electrons 80, 435 Geostationary Lightning Mappers
free space waves 488–9 (GLMs) 601
frequency-dependent soil parameters gigantic jets (GJs) 427, 448
267–8, 273–7 development of 451–3
frequency-domain solutions 174, models of 453–8
302–3, 314–15
global aerosol-lightning relationship
Fukui tower in Japan 187 593
fulchronograph 175 Global Climate Observing System
full-scale power lines 326 (GCOS) 594
full simulation model 24, 31 global digital elevation model version
full-wave ray theory 384 2 (GDEM V2) 400
fully developed jet (FDJ) 451 global warming on winter
thunderstorms 596
Gaisberg Tower in Austria 181 glow corona 9
Gamma function 247 glows 442
Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) 462 Gnomes 428, 460
gantry model 346 Godunov’s method 111
Gardner’s magnetic link sensor 175 gradient operators 82
 Index 633

Green’s functions 202, 302, 314 Helmholtz equation 206, 228

for electromagnetic field 228–32 Hermitian glow 9
lightning return stroke over-ground Hermitian sheath 9
electromagnetic field 208–9 heterogeneous nucleation 590
for overground electromagnetic field Hiatus in global warming 590
204–8 homogeneous wave equation 259
Sommerfeld’s integrals 209 hot electrical discharges 527
theory 203–4 hybrid electromagnetic/circuit theory
GREMPY code (GRanada 158
ElectroMagnetic PYthon simu- hybrid electromagnetic model (HEM)
lator) 417 158, 164
Grenet–Vonnegut mechanism 64 hydrometeors 30
groudwave 386
ground admittance 299, 301 ice multiplication 27
ground-based European Lightning ideal current 159
Detection Network (EUCLID) ideal fields 232
493 Imager of Sprites and Upper
ground-based measurements 425 Atmospheric Lightning
ground conductivity 386–8 (ISUAL) 430
ground-Cooray formula 259–62 image theory 165
grounded structure 133 inclusion of losses 298–9
ground lightning flashes 547 indirect strokes 347
continuing currents 554 analysis of complex situations
leaders 548–52 357–63
M components and K processes theoretical models 347–57
553–4 inductive charging mechanism 51–4
model of 547–8 initial continuous current (ICC) 175–6
return strokes 552–3 integral tail 214
in typical negative ground flash intermediate distances 279–83
555–6 internal gravity wave (IGW) 459
ground losses International Center for Lightning
on induced overvoltages 308–11 Research and Testing (ICLRT)
on overvoltages due to a direct strike 315, 326
306–8 International Reference Ionosphere
ground resistivity 333 (IRI) model 378, 389, 408
gyrofrequency vector 392 International Space Station (ISS) 416,
428
Heaviside function 250, 260 interpolation function 92
Heaviside unit-step function 159 intra-cloud (IC) lightning 375, 416,
Heidler’s functions 255 448
634 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

intra-cloud (IC) process 436 ground-based observations of IARs

inverse exponential (IE) distribution at middle latitude 498
28 dependence on geomagnetic
inverse Fourier transform algorithm activity 502–3
213, 304 morphological characteristics of
inverse Laplace transform 245, 246 503–7
ion and inductive mechanisms 64–5 observations and data processing
ion cyclotron whistlers 492 498–502
ionization coefficient 125 seasonal and diurnal variations of
SRS parameters 502
ionization potential 78
ionospheric potential 605
ionization processes 2, 4
ionosphere/magnetosphere 476 Jianghuai Area Sferic Array (JASA)
lightning effects on 516–17 396
lightning-induced whistlers in 477 Joule heating 77
characterization of 479–80 J-process 548
diagnosis of magnetospheric
electron density profile 491–2 kinematic model 24, 32
dispersion relation 480–5 kinetic approach 82
equations of electron motion K processes 553–4
480–5
general description of 477–9 Lagrangian models 32
general oblique propagation Lagrangian reference 40
485–9 Lalande’s stabilization field equation
longitudinal and perpendicular 138–9
propagation 485–9 Langevin equation 376
Maxwell’s equations 480–5 Laplace transform 245
satellite observations of nonducted Lax–Wendroff algorithm 304
whistlers in 492 leader inception model of Becerra and
satellite observations of short- Cooray (SLIM) 139
fractional hop (0+) whistlers leader inception models 137
492–6 critical radius and critical streamer
whistler propagation and length concepts 137–8
dispersion 489–91 Lalande’s stabilization field equation
ionospheric Alfvén resonator (IAR) 138–9
445, 476, 496 leader inception model of Becerra
brief history and general introduction and Cooray 139
of 496–8 Rizk’s generalized leader inception
excitation, by nearly thunderstorms equation 138
508–16 leaders 12, 548
generation mechanisms of 507–8 attachment models 139–42
 Index 635

charge distribution 153 nocturnal thunderstorms 602–4

corona sheath 548–50 storms at the mesoscale 597
discharges 11–13 superbolts and megaflashes 600–2
NOx production in hot core of 550–2 thermodynamic control on lightning
potential 153 activity 573
progression models 139 balance level considerations in
propagation models 150 deep convection 581–2
leader tip potential function 144 baroclinicity 582
leading jet (LJ) 451 cloud base height and its
influence on cloud microphysics
Les Renardiéres Group 153
577–80
lifted condensation level (LCL) 578
convective available potential
lightning 569 energy and temperature
activity at high latitude 594 dependence 575–7
Alaska 595 dew point temperature 573
Arctic 594–5 temperature 573
aerosol influence on moist water vapor and Clausius–
convection 590 Clapeyron relationship 573–5
basic concepts 590–1 thunderstorm electrification and
global aerosol-lightning 572–3
relationship 593 tropical cyclones 597–9
lightning response to COVID-19 winter-type thunderstorms 595
pandemic 593 lightning activity 460
observational support 591–3
Gnomes and Pixies 460
as climate variable 593–4
terrestrial gamma-ray flashes 461–3
cloud-to-ocean lightning 599–600
transient atmospheric events 460–1
global circuits as monitors for
lightning bipole pattern 70
destructive lightning 604–6
lightning channel model 331–3
global lightning response to
temperature on different time lightning current moment 444, 539
scales 582 lightning electromagnetic field
annual variation 585–6 homogeneous soil 243
decadal time scale 588 azimuthal magnetic field 256–9
diurnal variation 583 Cooray–Rubinstein (CR) formula
ENSO 586–8 244–56
Hiatus in global warming 590 ground-Cooray formula 259–62
multi-decadal time scale 588–90 vertical electric field 256–9
semiannual variation 583–5 horizontally stratified ground 262
warming hole 590 far distances 268–77
meteorological control on lightning near and intermediate distances
type 604 265–8
636 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

for two-layer horizontally downward lightning flash 133

stratified ground 263–5 inclination of leader channel 152
vertically stratified ground 277 leader inception models 137
far distances 283–4 critical radius and critical streamer
intermediate distances 279–83 length concepts 137–8
near distances 278–9 Lalande’s stabilization field
for two-layer vertically stratified equation 138–9
ground 277–8 leader inception model of Becerra
lightning electromagnetic field and Cooray 139
calculation 201 Rizk’s generalized leader
lossy and horizontally stratified inception equation 138
ground 228 leader progression and attachment
Green’s functions for electro- models 139–42
magnetic field 228–32 main assumptions of SLIM 152–3
lightning electromagnetic field orientation of connecting leader 150
232–3 orientation of stepped leader 148–50
reflection coefficient R 233–6 potential of stepped leader channel
lossy ground with constant electrical and striking distance 142
parameters 202
Armstrong and Whitehead 142
branch points 209–18 leader potential extracted from
over-ground electromagnetic field charge neutralized by return
203–9 stroke 142–4
underground electromagnetic field striking distance based on leader
218–21 tip potential 144–5
lossy ground with frequency- striking distance 135–7
dependent electrical parameters upward lightning flash 133
221
lightning-induced electron
numerical simulation of over- precipitation (LEP) 417, 446
ground electromagnetic field
226–7 lightning intensity 599
soil conductivity and permittivity lightning interaction with ionosphere
on frequency 222–6 D-region ionosphere 376
underground lightning electro- 2D symmetric polar model 381–3
magnetic field 226–7 3D spherical model 378–81
lightning electromagnetic pulse lightning EM field propagation over
(LEMP) 292, 339 a mountainous terrain 400–3
lightning flash optical emissions of lightning-
comparison of EGM against SLIM induced transient luminous
145–8 events 403–16
connection between leader potential parameterization of lower
and return stroke current 150–2 D-region ionosphere 376–8
 Index 637

earth-ionosphere waveguide 375 M components 553–4

narrow bipolar events 396–9 medium voltage (MV) networks 335
VLF/LF signal of lightning EM megaflashes 600–2
fields propagation 384 Meso-NH model 36
lightning parameterizations 58 mesoscale convective systems (MCSs)
pseudo-fractal lightning 62–3 70, 597, 600
stochastic lightning model 60–2 mesosphere 436
lightning return stroke channel 291 meteorological control on lightning
lightning return stroke models 157, 291 type 604
lightning return stroke parameters 272 Meteosat Third Generation (MTG)
lightning striking model 134, 153 601
linear system solver 96 method of moments (MoM) 157, 174,
LIOV-EMTP code 339, 349, 364 292
microphysics 24–5
logarithmic function 299
mid gap streamer 6
longitudinal propagation 485–9
mixed-phase models 27
left-handed polarized wave 486
model-dependent attenuation function
right-hand polarized wave 485–6
159
lossless transmission line 157
modeling lightning strikes to tall
lossy soil 201
structures 157
lower D-region ionosphere 378, 417
electromagnetic field computation
low-frequency approximation 490 165
low precipitation (LP) 582 electromagnetic models 164
low-pressure electrical discharges 11 engineering models 158–64
low-voltage (LV) terminals 335 hybrid electromagnetic model 164
lumped series voltage source 160 Model Navigator window 87
modified transmission-line model with
MacCormack’s method 111 exponential current decay
magnetic field 217–18 (MTLE) 163, 255, 384, 401
magnetic link 174 Modular Multi-spectral Imaging Array
magnetospherically reflected (MR) (MMIA) 462
whistlers 492 Modular X- and Gamma ray Sensor
Marshall–Palmer distribution 28 (MXGS) 462
mathematical modelling of positive Mount San Salvatore in Lugano 176
leader discharges 13–18 MTLL models 163
Maxwell approaches 243 multi-avalanche mechanism 81
Maxwell–Bolzmann statistics 78 multiconductor lines 299–301
Maxwell’s curl equations 268, 376 multi-decadal time scale 588–90
Maxwell’s equations 157, 171, 291–2, multigrid method (MG) 116
327, 436, 480–5, 511
638 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

narrow bipolar events (NBEs) 376, non-inductive graupel-ice

386, 396, 416–17 sensitivity 65
narrow bipolar pulses (NBPs) 396 nonlinear D-region ionosphere 376
Neudorf E-field measurement station 401 Norton’s approximation 202
Neumann type 113 nose whistler 478
nitrogen oxides (NOx) 37, 527 nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NEMP)
in discharges containing long- 302
duration currents 546–7 nucleation 27
in electron avalanches 529–30 numerical methods 173
in ground lightning flashes 547 finite difference time domain
continuing currents 554 technique 173–4
leaders 548–52 method of moments 174
M components and K processes numerical modelling 23, 70
553–4 numerical Poisson solvers 39
model of 547–8 numerical simulations of non-thermal
return strokes 552–3 electrical discharges
in typical negative ground flash electro-physical processes in gaseous
555–6 medium under electric fields 77
production by cloud flashes 556–8 charged species in gas 78–9
production by laboratory sparks 538 dynamics of densities of charge
radius of spark channels 538–40 carriers in discharge plasma 80
in spark channels 541–2 electron avalanche and streamer
80–2
in sparks as function of energy
544–6 losses of charged species in gas
79–80
in sparks with different current
wave-shapes 542–4 hydrodynamic description of gas
discharge plasma 82–6
volume of air heated in spark
channel and internal energy solving gas discharge problems 86
540–1 computer implementation of
production by lightning flashes corona model 87–99
558–60 corona in air 86–7
production in streamer discharges positive corona between coaxial
530–2 cylinders 99–104
using corona discharges 529 positive corona in rod-plane
nocturnal thunderstorms 602–4 electrode system 104–9
non-inductive charging processes 30 streamer discharges in air 109
non-inductive graupel–ice collision negative streamer in weak homo-
mechanism 42 geneous background fields 123–6
general formulation 49–51 positive streamer in weak homo-
geneous background field 117–23
parameterized laboratory results 42–9
 Index 639

oblique propagation 488 Pockels on Mount Cimone in Italy 174

Alfvén wave branch 489 Poisson’s equation 39, 62, 85, 92,
free space waves 488–9 112–13, 117
whistler-mode branch 489 polarization spectrum 499
observational support 591–3 positive streamer 6, 530
Ohm equation 376 potential–distance diagram 152
one-and-one-half dimensional potential of stepped leader channel and
model 35 striking distance 142
one-dimensional continuity equation Armstrong and Whitehead 142
111 leader potential extracted from
one-dimensional FDTD method 173 charge neutralized by return
one-dimensional model 25–6 stroke 142–4
one-dimensional (1-D) radial striking distance based on leader tip
system 18 potential 144–5
1.5D model 113 preliminary breakdown 547
onset streamers 9 primary avalanche 81
optical-electrical converter 348 propagation model 145
optical sensors 570 pseudo-fractal lightning 62–3
Ostankino tower 181–2 pulse voltages 331
over-ground electromagnetic field 203
quadratic finite elements 87
overhead lines 333–4
quasi-electrostatic (QE) field 431
parameterizations 23 quasi-free-space mode 488
partial differential equations (PDE) 84 quasi-image method 173
particles distribution function 82 quasi-neutral layer 118
particle tracing 32 quasi transverse electromagnetic
(quasi-TEM) 293
Paulino kernel 254
Peek’s formula 103
Rachidi model 296–7
Peissenberg tower in Germany 162, 169
radial electric field 201
phase velocity 485
radiated electromagnetic fields 157
photoionization 19
radiation transfer theory 110
piecewise cubic interpolation method
radio active gases 1
92
radius of spark channels 538–40
pilot system 13–14
rainfall 570
Pixies 428, 460
random number 61
plasma ball 439
rational approximation (RA) 247
plasmasphere 480
red sprite/sprite 425
plasma spot 118
reduced electric field 403
plasma waves 479
640 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

reference current 160 lightning surges in power lines 343

Reference Line 350 with direct strokes 343–7
reflected sky waves 386 with indirect strokes 347–63
reflection coefficient R 233–6 scale model technique 326
at top and bottom of strike object scaling analysis 579
163–4 scattered current 297
refractive index 485 Schumann resonance region 496, 605
relative permittivity 201 secondary electrons 8
relativistic runaway electron avalanche self-consistency 158
(RREA) 462 self-consistent leader inception 145
remote electromagnetic fields 157 self-consistent model 85, 134
return stroke channel 2, 331, 547 semi-analytical models 439
return-stroke models 157, 291, 552–3 semiannual variation 583–5
return-stroke speed 157 short-circuit current 160
Reuven Ramaty High-Energy Solar single-moment schemes 28
Spectroscopy Imager (RHESSI)
single-phase distribution line 334
462
slab-symmetric models 25–6
Riemann sheet 265
SLIM 145–8, 152–3
riming 27
small ion processes 54–7
Rizk’s generalized leader inception
equation 138 Snell’s law 259, 490
rocket-triggered lightning technique soil conductivity and permittivity on
326 frequency 222–6
Romberg method 213 Sommerfeld’s integrals 171, 201,
209–10, 244, 255, 263, 285
runaway electron 59
SP98 simulation 66
Rusck model 297–8, 348
space charge density 114
S91 simulations 66 space leader 13–14
Säntis telecommunication tower in spark channels 541–2
Northeastern Switzerland 188 spark discharge channel model 544
Sato’s equation 85 spatial distribution 157
scale modeling 327–9 spatial–temporal distribution 158
electromagnetic environment 329 spatial variations 26
buildings 338–40 spectral resonance structures (SRSs)
ground resistivity 333 477, 499
lightning channel 331–3 splintering 27
overhead lines 333–4 split explicit method 31
surge arresters 335–8 sprite discharge 425
transformers 334–5 sprite halos 428
transmission line towers 340–3 sprites 429, 528, 533
 Index 641

basic properties and morphology of Test Line 351

429–30 theoretical models 347–57
development 433–5 thermal equilibrium 10
ELF/VLF electromagnetic fields thermalization 10–11, 528
produced by 443–6 thermodynamic effects 583
inner structure and color of 441–3 thermodynamic equation 32
on ionosphere 446–8 thermodynamic fields 24
mechanism of sprite nucleation thermodynamic model 134
430–3
thermodynamic processes 544
models 435–41
thermo-hydrodynamic model 18, 138
stability field 117
three-dimensional model 25
stepped leader 133, 547
three-dimensional (3D) spherical
approaches 133 FDTD model 378–81
orientation of 148–50 3-D FDTD method 363
step-wise ionization 85 3D Lightning Mapping Array (LMA)
stochastic lightning model 60–2 systems 601
streamer discharges 4–8 thunderstorm charge distribution 25
streamer inception criterion 139 thunderstorm-created ionization
streamer stem 11, 14 processes 528
streamer to leader transition 134 thunderstorms 537
striking distance 135–7 tiger Elve 459–60
strong very high frequency (VHF) 396 time-domain solutions 303–5, 315
structured rectangular grids 113 Toronto CN Tower in Canada 160
subdomain settings 92 Townsend approximation 437
super-adiabatic loading 580 Townsend’s first ionization
superbolts 600–2 coefficient 2
surge arrester model 335–8 Townsend’s ionization coefficient 78
Townsend’s or dark discharge 81
Task Team for Lightning Observations trade winds 596
for Climate Applications trailing jet (TJ) 451
(TTLOCA) 594 transformers 334–5
Taylor, Satterwhite, and Harrison transient atmospheric events 460–1
model 294–5
transient ground resistance matrix 304
TCS models 163
transient luminous events (TLEs) 403,
Telegrapher’s equations 295 425
temporal distribution 157 translational energy 10
temporal variations 26 transmission cone 490
terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs) transmission line (TL) model 163,
416, 461–3 293, 331, 348
642 Lightning electromagnetics: Volume 2

transmission line (TL) theory 292–3, warming hole 590

316 wave equation of electromagnetic
transmission line towers 340–3 waves 484
transverse propagation 486 waveguide mode theory 375
extraordinary wave 486–7 Weibull distributions 226
ordinary wave 486 Welch’s method 498
Trichel pulses 10 wet bulb adiabat 575
Trolls 428, 435 whistler-mode branch 478, 486, 489
tropical cyclones 597–9 wildfire technique 59
turbulent mixing 55 Wilson’s selective ion capture
2D cylindrical coordinates 114 mechanism 33
two-dimensional model 25 wind fields 24
two-dimensional (2D) symmetric polar wind turbine generator systems 326
FDTD model 378–81 winter-type thunderstorms 595
World Magnetic Model (WMM) 392
undisturbed current 159 World Meteorological Organization
upward lightning flashes 133–4 (WMO) 594, 601
upward propagating waves 159 world wide lightning location network
(WWLLN) 495, 592, 594
Van Leer’s approach 111
vector fitting (VF) technique 247, 250 Yee discretization scheme 268
velocity space 82
vertical electric field 201, 256–9 zero charge/symmetry 94
vibrational energy 10 zero-crossing 169–70
zero-dimensional cloud models 25
Wait’s formula 278–9, 282 zero order diffusion 111
warm cloud models 27 zeroth moment 28