← Back to Volume 8, Issue 6

Comparison of Electric-Field Distributions Above Conventional and Early Streamer Emission Lightning Rods Under Thunderstorm Electric Fields

Bin Hu, Shifan Shan, Jiajia Pan
Vol.8, No.6, pp.33-39, 2026 DOI: 10.62051/ijmee.v8n6.04 September 3, 2026
Download PDF
Abstract: The electric field above a lightning-rod tip is an important parameter for evaluating its lightning-interception performance. In this study, two-dimensional axisymmetric electrostatic models of a conventional lightning rod and an ESE lightning rod were established using the finite-element method. The electric-field distributions within 2 m above the rod tips were calculated under different thunderstorm background electric fields and installation heights. The results showed that the electric field decreased rapidly with distance from the tip and increased with both background electric field and installation height. Under the same conditions, the electric field above the ESE lightning rod was higher than that above the conventional lightning rod, particularly in the near-tip region. The electric-field difference above the ESE and conventional lightning rods increased with increasing background electric field, while its sensitivity to installation height gradually decreased at greater installation heights. These results provide a quantitative basis for comparing the electric-field enhancement characteristics of conventional and ESE lightning rods.
Keywords: Lightning Rod, Early Streamer Emission, Electric-field Distribution, Thunderstorm Background Electric Field, Finite-element Calculation
APA Citation: Bin Hu, Shifan Shan, Jiajia Pan (2026). Comparison of Electric-Field Distributions Above Conventional and Early Streamer Emission Lightning Rods Under Thunderstorm Electric Fields. International Journal of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, 8(6), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.62051/ijmee.v8n6.04

References

  1. Bazelyan, E. M., Raizer, Y. P., & Aleksandrov, N. L. (2008). Corona initiated from grounded objects under thunderstorm conditions and its influence on lightning attachment. Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 17(2), 024015. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963 0252/17/2/024015.
  2. Becerra, M., & Cooray, V. (2006). Time dependent evaluation of the lightning upward connecting leader inception. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 39(21), 4695 4702. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022 3727/39/21/022.
  3. Lalande, P., Bondiou Clergerie, A., Bacchiega, G., & Gallimberti, I. (2002). Observations and modeling of lightning leaders. Comptes Rendus Physique, 3(10), 1375 1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1631 0705(02)01410 1.
  4. Saba, M. M. F., & et al. (2023). Upward leaders initiated from instrumented lightning rods during the approach of a downward leader in a cloud to ground flash. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 128, e2022JD038082. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022jd038082.
  5. Shostak, V., Petrenko, T., Janischewskyj, W., & Rachidi, F. (2012). Electric field within lightning protection volume in presence of a descending leader. Electric Power Systems Research, 85, 82 89. https://doi.org/10. 1016/ j. epsr. 2011. 11.010.
  6. Aleksandrov, N. L., Bazelyan, E. M., D'Alessandro, F., & Raizer, Y. P. (2005). Dependence of lightning rod efficacy on its geometric dimensions—a computer simulation. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 38(8), 1225 1238. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022 3727/38/8/014.
  7. Dellera, L., & Garbagnati, E. (1990). Lightning stroke simulation by means of the leader progression model. I. Description of the model and evaluation of exposure of free standing structures. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 5(4), 2009 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/61.103684.
  8. Petrov, N. I., & Waters, R. T. (1995). Determination of the striking distance of lightning to earthed structures. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 450(1940), 589 601. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1995.0105.
  9. Rizk, F. A. M. (2009). Modeling of lightning exposure of buildings and massive structures. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 24(4), 1987 1998. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrd.2009.2028791.
  10. Cooray, V., & Becerra, M. (2012). Attractive radii of vertical and horizontal conductors evaluated using a self consistent leader inception and propagation model—SLIM. Atmospheric Research, 117, 64 70. https://doi.org/ 10. 1016/ j. atmosres.2012.05.008.
  11. Akyuz, M., & Cooray, V. (2001). The Franklin lightning conductor: Conditions necessary for the initiation of a connecting leader. Journal of Electrostatics, 51 52, 319 325. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304 3886(01)00144 4.
  12. Rizk, F. A. M. (1990). Modeling of transmission line exposure to direct lightning strokes. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 5(4), 1983 1997. https://doi.org/10.1109/61.103683.
  13. Becerra, M., & Cooray, V. (2006). A simplified physical model to determine the lightning upward connecting leader inception. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 21(2), 897 908. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrd.2005.858769.
  14. Becerra, M., & Cooray, V. (2006). A self consistent upward leader propagation model. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 39(16), 3708 3715. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022 3727/39/16/023.
  15. Allen, N. L., Cornick, K. J., Faircloth, D. C., & Kouzis, C. M. (1998). Tests of the ‘early streamer emission’ principle for protection against lightning. IEE Proceedings—Science, Measurement and Technology, 145(5), 200 206. https://doi.org/10.1049/ip smt:19982109.
  16. Pecastaing, L., Reess, T., de Ferron, A., Souakri, S., Smycz, E., Skopec, A., & Stec, C. (2015). Experimental demonstration of the effectiveness of an early streamer emission air terminal versus a Franklin rod. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, 22(2), 789 798. https://doi.org/10.1109/tdei.2014.004712.
  17. Ozdemir, A., & Ilhan, S. (2023). Experimental performance analysis of conventional and non conventional lightning protection systems—Preliminary results. Electric Power Systems Research, 216, 109080. https://doi.org/ 10. 1016/ j. epsr.2022.109080.
  18. Van Brunt, R. J., Nelson, T. L., & Stricklett, K. L. (2000). Early streamer emission lightning protection systems: An overview. IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, 16(1), 5 24. https://doi.org/10.1109/57.814846.
  19. Uman, M. A., & Rakov, V. A. (2002). A critical review of nonconventional approaches to lightning protection. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 83(12), 1809 1820. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams 83 12 1809.
  20. Cooray, V. (2018). The similarity of the action of Franklin and ESE lightning rods under natural conditions. Atmosphere, 9(6), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9060225.
  21. Duval Messien. (n.d.). Your solution against lightning: SATELIT®+G2 Early Streamer Emission System [Report]. Duval Messien.
  22. Cooray, V., Rakov, V. A., & Theethayi, N. (2007). The lightning striking distance—Revisited. Journal of Electrostatics, 65(5 6), 296 306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elstat.2006.09.001.