In addition to the conventional Franklin Rod,many non-conventional air terminals are being used as lightning protection devices.As cited in previous works,these non-conventional devices emit space charge in the vicini...In addition to the conventional Franklin Rod,many non-conventional air terminals are being used as lightning protection devices.As cited in previous works,these non-conventional devices emit space charge in the vicinity of the terminals during the process of lightning stroke.A number of factors affect the performance of these lightning protection devices,among them are geometry and dimension of the devices,location of the device above the ground,height of the cloud above the ground,and polarity of the lightning stroke.The performance of these lightning protection devices has been a topic of discussion by researchers for many years.Some studies focused on the magnitude of emission current from these devices as a criterion to evaluate their performances.The critical flashover voltage(CFO)between the devices and a metal screen simulating cloud can also be used as another criterion to evaluate the performance of the devices.Laboratory measurements were conducted in controlled conditions on different types of lightning protection devices to compare their performance.Four different types of devices were used in the present study:Franklin Rod,TerraStat models TS 100,TS 400,and Spline Ball Ionizer.The study focused on the CFO voltage of the air gap between devices and the metal screen.The CFO voltage was evaluated using standard switching and lightning impulses.The measurements were recorded for positive as well as negative polarity.The air gap between the devices and metal screen was selected at 2 m and 3 m.The results obtained provide a better understanding of the electrical performance of lightning protection devices.展开更多
We present a comparison of data obtained during testing of lightning protective system of a residential structure in rocket-triggered lightning experiment at the International Center for Lightning Research and Testing...We present a comparison of data obtained during testing of lightning protective system of a residential structure in rocket-triggered lightning experiment at the International Center for Lightning Research and Testing(ICLRT)at Camp Blanding,Florida,and current surge generator experiment at Rzeszow University of Technology in Poland.Three different configurations of LPS were tested in Poland with the dc grounding resistances of the entire system 4.09 Ω(LPS 1a),1.65 Ω(LPS 1b),and 2.88 Ω(LPS 2).For LPS 1a with three ground rods the value of the peak current entering the electrical circuit neutral was about 56% of the injected current peak,and for LPS 1b with two additional ground rods and two 5 m long buried horizontal conductors it was about 16%.For LPS 2 with five ground rods interconnected by a buried loop conductor this ratio was 21%.The current waveshapes in the ground rods differed from the injected current waveshapes and the current waveshapes in other parts of the test system,especially,for poorer-grounding LPS 1a.The surge-generator results are consistent with those of triggered-lightning experiments at Camp Blanding,Florida(DeCarlo et al.,2008 [2]).展开更多
文摘In addition to the conventional Franklin Rod,many non-conventional air terminals are being used as lightning protection devices.As cited in previous works,these non-conventional devices emit space charge in the vicinity of the terminals during the process of lightning stroke.A number of factors affect the performance of these lightning protection devices,among them are geometry and dimension of the devices,location of the device above the ground,height of the cloud above the ground,and polarity of the lightning stroke.The performance of these lightning protection devices has been a topic of discussion by researchers for many years.Some studies focused on the magnitude of emission current from these devices as a criterion to evaluate their performances.The critical flashover voltage(CFO)between the devices and a metal screen simulating cloud can also be used as another criterion to evaluate the performance of the devices.Laboratory measurements were conducted in controlled conditions on different types of lightning protection devices to compare their performance.Four different types of devices were used in the present study:Franklin Rod,TerraStat models TS 100,TS 400,and Spline Ball Ionizer.The study focused on the CFO voltage of the air gap between devices and the metal screen.The CFO voltage was evaluated using standard switching and lightning impulses.The measurements were recorded for positive as well as negative polarity.The air gap between the devices and metal screen was selected at 2 m and 3 m.The results obtained provide a better understanding of the electrical performance of lightning protection devices.
文摘We present a comparison of data obtained during testing of lightning protective system of a residential structure in rocket-triggered lightning experiment at the International Center for Lightning Research and Testing(ICLRT)at Camp Blanding,Florida,and current surge generator experiment at Rzeszow University of Technology in Poland.Three different configurations of LPS were tested in Poland with the dc grounding resistances of the entire system 4.09 Ω(LPS 1a),1.65 Ω(LPS 1b),and 2.88 Ω(LPS 2).For LPS 1a with three ground rods the value of the peak current entering the electrical circuit neutral was about 56% of the injected current peak,and for LPS 1b with two additional ground rods and two 5 m long buried horizontal conductors it was about 16%.For LPS 2 with five ground rods interconnected by a buried loop conductor this ratio was 21%.The current waveshapes in the ground rods differed from the injected current waveshapes and the current waveshapes in other parts of the test system,especially,for poorer-grounding LPS 1a.The surge-generator results are consistent with those of triggered-lightning experiments at Camp Blanding,Florida(DeCarlo et al.,2008 [2]).
