|
Fig.1: The Lightning Protection Design Process
|
Step#1: Characteristics of the Structure to Be Protected
|
Step#2: Risk Assessment Study
|
Also, In above Article, I indicated that the risk assessment study can be done by (4) different methods as follows:
Methods Of Calculations For Risk Assessment Study
|
Articles
|
First: Manual Method (Equations And Tables Method) as per IEC 62305-2
|
Design Calculations of Lightning Protection Systems – Part Two |
|
|
|
|
First: Manual Method (Equations And Tables Method) as per NFPA 780
|
|
|
|
Second: Software Method For Performing The Risk Assessment Study
|
|
|
|
Third: Excel Sheets Method For Performing The Risk Assessment Study
|
|
Fourth: Online Calculators Method Used for Need for Lightning Protection calculations
|
|
Step#3: Selection Of External LPS Type and Material
|
Step#4: Sizing of Air Termination System Components
|
In Article " Design Calculations of Lightning Protection Systems – Part Sixteen ", I explained the following points:
- Types and forms of Strike Termination Subsystem,
- Sizing of Air Terminals Based on IEC 62305-3 and Based on BS EN 62305-3,
- Sizing of Natural Air Terminals,
- Positioning / Placement of Air Termination System Components.
- The Class of LPS/LPL influences on the (3) Positioning Methods.
And I explained The Rolling Sphere Method (RSM) in Article " Design Calculations of Lightning Protection Systems – Part Seventeen ".
Today, I will explain in detail the other two Positioning Methods for Air Termination system which are:
- The Protective Angle Method (PAM),
- The Mesh Method.
For more information, please review the following Articles:
Step#4: Sizing and Positioning of Air Termination System Components - Continued
|
2- The Protective Angle Method (PAM)
|
2.1 Application And Usage
The protection angle
method is most commonly used to supplement the mesh method, providing
protection to items protruding from the plane surface (roof mounted
structures like antennas, ventilation pipes) see Fig.2. Where the
protection angle method alone is employed, multiple rods are generally
required for most structures.
|
Fig.2 |
The protection angle
method can be used on (see Fig.3):
- Simple
shaped buildings with flat surfaces,
- Simple
shaped buildings with inclined surfaces, where the height of the rod is the
vertical height, but the protection angle is referenced from a perpendicular
line from the surface to the tip of the rod.
|
Fig.3: Type of Surfaces used with Protection Angle Method |
|
2.2 Differences between the Protection Angle Method and the Simple Cone of
Protection Method
The simple cone of
protection method provided in BS 6651 which apply the simple 45° zone
of protection differ from the protection angle method in the following points:
- The protection angle method uses the height of the air
termination system above the reference plane, whether that be ground or roof
level (note that the height of the air-termination is measured from the
top of the air termination to the surface to be protected),
- In The protection angle
method
the protection angle is not fixed as 45º and can vary,
- The protection angle
method
depends on the class of lightning protection system and its corresponding
rolling sphere.
|
2.3 Relation between the Protection Angle
Method PAM and the Rolling Sphere Method RSM
The
protection angle method is actually a derivative or a
mathematical simplification of the rolling sphere method. This can be
explained as follows (see Fig.4):
- The protection
angle is derived by initially rolling a sphere up to a
vertical air termination e.g. an air rod (AB).
- A line is
then struck from the point where the sphere touches the air rod (A) down to
the reference plane (D), finishing at point C.
- The line
must bisect the sphere (circle) such that the areas (shaded) of over and
under estimation of protection (when compared to the rolling sphere method)
are equal (have the same size).
- The angle
created between the tip of the vertical rod (A) and the projected line is
termed the protective angle alpha (α).
|
Fig.4: Derivation of the Protection Angle Method |
Note:
The above
procedure was applied to each Class of LPS using its corresponding rolling
sphere.
|
2.4 Determination Of Air Rod Protective Angle
The
protective angle afforded by an air rod located on a reference plane can be
determined from Fig.5 or Table#1 in below.
|
Fig.5: Determination of the Protection Angle
|
Table#1: Simple Determination of the Protection Angle |
|
|
2.5 Restrictions for using Protection angle
method PAM
1- The
height of the corresponding rolling sphere radius:
- From above, we find
that the angles for the protection angle method are obtained from a rolling
sphere analysis and this is why the protection
angle method is limited to the maximum
height of the equivalent rolling sphere as in Figure which
identifies the restrictions when using the protective angle method for the
air termination system design.
- When the
structure/air rod/mast, relative to the reference plane, is greater in height
than the appropriate rolling sphere radius, the zone of protection afforded
by the protection angle is no longer valid (see Fig.6).i.e. the
protective angle method is only valid up to the height of the appropriate
rolling sphere radius.
|
Fig.6 |
For example:
if the design was to a structural LPS Class II, and the structure’s height
was 50m, then using the appropriate rolling sphere of 30m radius would leave
the upper 20m needing lightning protection. If an air rod or a conductor on
the edge of the roof was installed then a zone of protection angle could not
be claimed because the rolling sphere had already identified that the upper
20m was not protected. Thus the protective angle method is only valid up to
the height of the appropriate rolling sphere radius.
2- the
height of the reference plane
If
air-termination rods are installed on the surface of the roof to protect
structures mounted thereon, the protective angle α can be
different. In Fig.7 the roof
surface is the reference plane for protective angle α1. The
ground is the reference plane for the protective angle α2. Therefore
the angle α2 according
to Figure and Table is less
than α1.
|
Fig.7 |
|
2.6 Shapes of Protection Zones Provided By Protection Angle
Method PAM
The protection zone can have on of the following
shapes according to the used type of
Air-terminations (rods/masts
and catenary wires) (see Fig.8) :
|
Fig.8: Shapes of Protection Zones Provided By Protection Angle Method |
1- Cone-Shaped:
The protective angle afforded by an air rod is
clearly a three dimensional concept, Therefore a simple air rod is assigned a
cone of protection by sweeping the line AC at the angle of protection a full
360º around the air rod.
2- Tent-Shaped:
At each end of the catenary conductor (A) a cone of
protection is created relative to height h. A similar cone is created at
every point along the suspended conductor. It should be noted that any sag in
the suspended conductor would lead to a reduction in the zone of protection
at the reference plane. This produces an overall ‘dog bone’ shape at the
reference plane.
|
2.7 Applications of protection using the Protection Angle Method
Protection
Angle Method PAM can be used with different types of Air-terminations
(rods/masts and catenary wires) with one condition that these
Air-terminations must be located so the volume defined by the protection
angle covers the structure to be protected.
Application#1: Protection
Angle Method with Air rods or free standing masts
Protection Angle
Method with Air rods or free standing masts can be used in either isolated or
non- isolated air-termination systems on roof-mounted structures as follows:
A- For isolated
air-termination systems on roof-mounted structures:
- Air-termination rods as shown
in Fig.9 are suitable for
protecting smaller roof-mounted structures (with electrical equipment).
They form a “cone-shaped” zone of protection and thus prevent a direct
lightning strike to the structure mounted on the roof.
|
Fig.9 |
- The separation distance s
must be taken into account when dimensioning the height of the air
termination rod.
B- For non- isolated
air-termination systems on roof-mounted structures:
- If the system does not
need to be isolated from the structure then air rods fitted to the roof of
the structure could be employed. See Fig.10A.
|
Fig.10: non- isolated air-termination systems on roof-mounted structures |
- In a non-isolated system,
an air rod (or multiple air rods) may be used to protect larger items of roof
mounted equipment from a direct strike. See Fig.10B
- The height of the air rods
utilized is now a function of the protection angle (Class of LPS), the
spacing between the air rods and the height above a particular reference
plane.
Application#2: Protection Angle Method with Catenary (or
suspended) conductors
One or more catenary conductors
may be utilized to provide a zone of protection over an entire structure (See
Fig.11).
|
Fig.11: Protection Angle Method with Catenary (or suspended) conductors |
Application#3: Protection Angle Method with Meshed conductor
network
As with the rolling sphere
method a meshed conductor network must be mounted at some distance above the
roof. This is in order to provide an effective zone of protection using the
protective angle method (See Fig.12).
|
Fig.12: Protection Angle Method with Meshed conductor network |
|
2.8 Advantages and disadvantages of Protection Angle
Method PAM
A- Advantages:
- Its
simplicity in application.
B- Disadvantages:
- It is a
further simplification of the rolling sphere method, hence may not be as
reliable or efficient. Because the protection angle method is limited in
application to heights that are equal to or less than the corresponding
rolling sphere radius,
- Where the protection
angle method alone is employed, multiple rods are generally required for most
structures,
- Its main usage is to show the
effectiveness of the designed protection system more than determination of
which parts of a structure require protection.
|
3.1 Usage
Mesh
Method used for protection of plane (flat) roof structures and should not be used on
curved surfaces. so, it can be used on the following surfaces regardless
of the height of the structure (see Fig.13):
- A horizontal flat-roof
structure,
- A sloped-roof structure,
- A compound flat roof
structure,
- A compound shed roof
structure such
as industrial roofs,
- Vertical sides of
tall buildings for protection against flashes to the side.
|
Fig.13: Types of Surfaces used with Mesh Method |
|
3.2 Conditions for Application of Mesh Method Protection
The mesh
method is considered to protect the whole bound
surface if the following (5) conditions are verified:
Condition#1:
Air-termination
conductors are positioned on:
- Roof edge lines,
- Roof overhangs,
- Roof ridge lines, if the slope of
the roof exceeds 1/10 (5.7°).
Notes:
- If the slope of the roof exceeds
1/10, parallel air-termination conductors, instead of a mesh, may be used
provided the distance between the conductors is not greater than the required
mesh width.
- As modern research on
lightning inflicted damage has shown, the edges and corners of the roofs are
most susceptible to damage. So on all structures particularly with flat
roofs, the perimeter conductors should be installed as close as possible to
the outer edges of the roof as is practicable.
Condition#2:
The
mesh size of the
air-termination network is in accordance with Table#2.
LPL
|
Mesh Size
|
I
|
5 m x 5 m
|
II
|
10 m x 10 m
|
III
|
15 m x 15 m
|
IV
|
20 m x 20 m
|
Table#2: Mesh size for mesh method.
Condition#3:
No
metallic structures protrude outside the volume protected by air-termination
systems
Notes:
- The protection
provided by meshed conductors not placed in full accordance with the mesh
method, e.g., those raised above the building surface, should be determined
with an alternative design method, i.e., PAM or RSM, applied to the
individual conductors.
- If the RSM is used, Table#3 provides a simple
rule of thumb for determining what minimum distance above the building
surface the mesh conductors would be required to be raised in order to
conform to the rolling sphere method. It can be seen that this distance is
0.31, 0.83, 1.24 and 1.66 m for mesh method grids spaced to requirements of
LPL I, II, III and IV respectively.
|
Table#3 |
Condition#4:
From
each point, at least two separate paths exist to ground/earth termination
system (i.e. no dead ends), and these paths follow the most direct routes
Note:
- Larger number of down-conductors
results in reduction of the separation distance and reduces the
electromagnetic field within the building.
Condition#5:
The
air-termination conductors follow, as far as possible, the shortest and most
direct route.
|
3.3 Using Natural Components In Mesh Method
- Natural components may be used for part of the mesh
grid, or even the entire grid system if the required minimum
dimensions for natural components of the air-termination system are complied
with the conditions stated before in Article " Design Calculations of Lightning Protection Systems – Part Sixteen " part: Sizing of Natural Air
Terminals.
- Also we can use the ridge
and the outer edges of the structure as a part of the mesh grid, so the individual meshes can
be sited as desired (see Fig.14).
|
Fig.14: Using Gutter as a part of the Mesh Grid |
|
3.4 Special Cases for Protection by Mesh Method
1- Mesh method on
Vertical sides of tall buildings for protection against side flashes
The mesh method is
recommended for the protection of the sides of tall buildings against flashes
to the side as follows:
Case#1: For Buildings
above 60 m High
- The topmost 20 % of lateral
surfaces should be equipped with air terminals (like a mesh with the same
size). For the
part of this surface to be protected which is below 60 m the protection can
be omitted.
- The same placement
rules used for roofs should apply to the sides of the building. While the
mesh method is preferable, particularly if using natural components, protection is
permitted using horizontal rods
and rolling sphere method. However, horizontal rods on most structures
are impractical due to window washing access equipment, etc.
Notes:
- For structures between 60 m and
75 m in height, the area protected need not extend below 60 m.
- If sensitive parts (e.g.
electronic equipment) are present on the outside of the wall in the upper
part of the building, they should be protected by special air-termination
measures, such as horizontal finials, mesh conductors or equivalent.
Case#2: For Buildings Less Than 60 m High
- Note that for
structures less than 60 m high the risk of flashes to the sides of the
building is low, and therefore protection is not required for the vertical
sides directly below protected areas.
Note for Buildings Taller
Than 30 m:
- For buildings taller
than 30 m, additional equipotential bonding of internal conductive parts
should occur at a height of 20 m and every further 20 m of height. Live
circuits should be bonded via SPDs.
2- Adjacent areas to the
mesh
- The protective area
provided by the mesh method is the area bounded by the mesh. The protection
to areas adjacent to the mesh (e.g. building sides and lower structural
points) is determined by the protection angle method or rolling sphere method
(see Fig.15).
|
Fig.15: The protection to areas adjacent to the mesh |
- If there are external
areas of the structure situated in heights which are higher than the radius
of corresponding rolling sphere, an air termination system has to be
installed applying the mesh method (see Fig.16).
|
Fig.16: external areas of the structure with heights more than the radius of corresponding rolling sphere |
|
In the next Article, I will list The Best Recommendations for Positioning of Air Terminals. Please, keep following.
No comments:
Post a Comment