XIV SIPDA - International Symposium on Lightning Protection – Natal, 2017

University of São Paulo

Institute of Energy and Environment

Mathematical Modeling for Analysis and Design of LPS

Angle Method
Biagione Rangel de Araújo – BRC – Natal, Brasil
[email protected]

Abstract III. MODELING IV . APPROACH FOR THE PROTECTION RADIUS

This paper presents a mathematical approach in the utilization of the Angle Why modeling? From my standpoint, modeling is a tool that allows us to ensure Utilizing the modeling shown at Section III, associated with the mathematical
Method for design and analysis of a LPS – Lightning Protection System. This the determination of the LPS’s Protection Angle, with accuracy and easiness, approach to calculate the protection radius on the reference surface (protected
approach involves: a mathematical modeling to determine the Protection Angles. eliminating the interpolation errors and chart measurements (see Fig. 1). This horizontal distance), it is confirmed that this one behaves like an inverted parable,
Also, show the connection existent between the two methods: the Rolling Spheres assures and unifies the data information of a project by all the individuals involved with the maximum point occurring around 60% of the maximum allowed mast
Method and the Angle Method, to size protection systems against the direct in it: designers and entities or professionals who analyze and approve, with no data height for the class of LPS, as shown on Fig. 10.
incidence of atmospheric discharges on structures and ends with a practical use conflict. Therefore, the mathematical modeling, besides being a tool that makes
of the modeling developed, associated with a mathematical approach to the the job accurate, provides support to the design and the analysis of the protected 35
angle method. volume, making available the chart resources, which improve the understanding 30,4
and the visualization of the deviations/non-conformities and/or conformities, in an 30
h=36,2m
easy and objective way. 24,9
I. INTRODUCTION
25 22,8 IV
. h=27,1m
18,6
20

The mathematical approach for the evaluation and design of LPS projects was A. Curve of the Angles of the Tangents, by the Modeling 15
15,2 III

considered by me when it was demanded to me to issue reports about these 10,1

h=18,1m 12,4 Class of
LPS
systems’ projects in installations of storage stations and transfer of flammable The mathematical modeling for the Tangent Angles (αT) with the vertical mast 10 8,3
II
h=12,1m
fluids. (air-termination ) is given by equation 2 and exemplified for Class II, by Fig. 4: I
5

d (m)
𝑅−ℎ
At that opportunity, I developed a mathematical approach for the utilization of 𝛼𝑇 = 𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 (2)
𝑑
the Rolling Spheres Method, which resulted in the paper: Mathematical Approach For 2< h ≤ R (m)
-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Methodology to Analysis and Design of LPS – Rolling Spheres Method presented at For 0< h ≤ 2 (m) h=2 in (1) and (2) h (m)
the 13th International Symposium on Lightning Protection. Where:
h → is the LPS height. Fig. 10: Representation of the Horizontal Protection (Angle’s Method [1])
With the NBR-5419 coming into effect, parts 1 to 4, on 2015-06-22, the
R→ is the Rolling Spheres’ radius (this is true for all LPS classes);
definition of the protected volume of the LPS by the angle method migrated from
the criterion of fixed angles to a range of height x class of LPS, see TABLE I, for V. EXAMPLE OF PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF MODELING
80
73,5
70
specific protection angles for each LPS height, in function of the class of LPS (see 69,0

αΤ
60

Fig.1).
54,0
50

The practical result of an analysis of the points of the building’s (Fig. 11 and 12)
Class of

90º
40 37,7

TABLE I CAPTORS’ POSITIONING ACCORDING TO PROTECTION LEVEL

41,8 LPS
30

20
22,9 roof and bottom surface (down) using the presented model is shown in Fig. 13.
II
19,5
Protection Angle (a), in function of height (h) αΤ 10
α (°)

Protection Radius -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0,0
P2 20
Level (m) 0 - 20 m 21 - 30 m 31 - 45 m 46 - 60 m h (m) αº (Tan modeling) αº (Standart - Level II) .6

GÁS
ALÇA DE SALVAMENTO

Fig. 3: Rolling Sphere’s Tangent Angle Fig. 4: Tangents Angles for Class II Curves
CASA DE MÁQUINAS
(ELEVADORES)

ÁREA DE RESGATE

(ÁREA DESCOBERTA)

Level I 20 25º 1) 1) 1)
ENT
9.4

1.95
LPS
ALÇAS FIXAS
NA PAREDE

.42

JARDINEIRA

.0
1) 1) 7
Level II 30 35º 25º
1

B. Curve of the Angles of the Secant, by the Modeling

SOBE

JARDINEIRA

.6
Level III 45 45º 35º 25º 1) P1

25
JARDINEIRA

P3
Level IV 60 55º 45º 35º 25º
JARDINEIRA

Only electrogeometric methods are applied, mesh or Faraday Cage.

The mathematical modeling for the Secant Angles (αS) with the vertical mast
1)
(air-termination) is given by the equations 3 and exemplified for Class II, by Fig. 6: Fig. 11: 3D View of the example Fig. 12: Top View of the
𝑑 under analysis example under analysis
Table 1 (see Section 5.1.1.2.1 from [5]) 𝛼𝑆 = 𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 (3) CLASS IV
ℎ
For 2< h ≤ R (m) 90
αº Std - P1 (h=0,9 m) = 68º
For 0< h ≤ 2 (m) h=2 in (1) and (3) 80
αº Std - P2 (h=2,9 m) = 41,2º
Where: 70
αº Std - P3 (h=1 m) = 41,2º
h → is the LPS height; 60
R → is the Rolling Spheres’ radius (this is true for all LPS classes).
50
90
α (°)

79,5
80 40
70 65,9
73,5
60 54,7 30
50 54,0 45,0 P1-UP (d=17 m) = 68,2º - Not Protected
Class of 20
P2-Down (d=20,6 m) = 32,9º - Protected
40
LPS
30 37,7
22,9 10
P3-Down (d=25,6 m) = 37,2º - Protected
αS
20 II
10 -
α (°)

- 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 h (m)
αº (Sec modeling) αº (Standart - Level II)
h (m) αº (Class IV) αº P1 αº P2 αº P3 αº Standard

Fig. 5: Rolling Sphere Secant Angle Fig. 6: Secant Angles for Class II Curves Fig. 13: Representation of the Horizontal Protection (Angle’s Method [1])

C. Curve of the Angles of the Bisector, by the Modeling VI . CONCLUSION

Table 1 (see Section 5.1.1.2.1 from [5])

Fig. 1: Protection angle corresponding to the class of LPS Based on the hypothesis that the modeling of Tangents and Secants has The mathematical modeling of Fig. 1’s chart, as demonstrated on Section III and
symmetrical results, we can deduce that the average angles, obtained by the illustrated on Fig. 9, presents a result converging (see Fig.8 and Table II) to the
calculation of the developed models, correspond to the Angles of the Bisectors and criterion of determination of the protection angle established in the [1]. Therefore,
II . DEFINITIONS reproduce the angles shown in Fig. 1, per class LPS. Thus, the average obtained from my standpoint, it can be utilized in a safe way, since it fulfills the requirements
from (2) and (3) results in (4): of the commission of standards that incorporate the Angle Method for the
𝑅−ℎ 𝑑
a) αº (Class I to IV): It is the protection angle corresponding to the LPS class; 𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 +𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 ℎ protection’s design against the direct incidence of atmospheric discharges, as in [1]
𝛼= 𝑑
(4) and [3] or in specific situations defined in [4].
2
b) αºP1... αºPi... αºPn: It is the angle formed by the straight line that connects the For 2< h ≤ R (m)
points P1...Pn to the top of the LPS mast, as illustrated on Fig. 2; For 0< h ≤ 2 (m) h=2 in (1) and (3) The presented modeling points out that the Angle Method has a strong
Where: connection to the Rolling Sphere Method, since all conclusions from ( 1, 2, 3 and 4)
c) αºN: It is measurement defined by [1] (calculated in the modeling) for the LPS
h → is the LPS height; came from the chart representation of this method and the denominators at (2),
mast height in analysis, as illustrated in Fig. 2;
R → is the Rolling Spheres’ radius (this is true for all LPS classes). and the numerators at (3), which result in (4), correspond to the equation that
d) d: It is horizontal protected distance, calculated by the modeling of the Rolling . determines the horizontal protected distance, calculated by this method and given
Spheres Method that is provided by (1) (see [2]): 90
80
at (1).
𝑑 = 2𝑅ℎ − ℎ2 (1)
70
60 Class of Another aspect that this approach allowed us to visualize is illustrated in Fig. 10,
show that the correlation of the protected horizontal distance has not a linear
LPS
Where: 50

relation to the height of the LPS mast, as it was defined in [5], for specific range
40
h → height of the wire air-termination system or air-termination; α 30

R → rolling sphere radius (this is true for all LPS classes). 20

I II III IV
(see TABLE I). The current correlation, from 2 meters in height, behaves like an
10
inverted parable, with the maximum point occurring around 60% of the height of
α (°)

-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 the mast. This is true for all LPS classes.
h (m)

Fig. 7: Rolling Spheres’ Bisector Angle Fig. 8: Protection angle modeling Curves
90
REFERENCES
α
80
αpn TABLE II DEVIATION BETWEEN THE MEASURED 70
ANGLES AND THE CALCULATED ANGLES 60
[1] NBR-5419-3. Lightning protection – Part 3: Physical damage to structures and life hazard.
αpi
50
LPS Class Deviation Span Avg Deviation 40
Class of
LPS
s.l. : ABNT, 22/05/2015.
I -0,4° a +0,2° 0,1° 30 [2] Araujo, Biagione R, Oliveira Jose T. Mathematical Approach Methodology to Analysis and
Pi P1 Pn II -0,8° a +0,7° -0,3° Design of LPS. Balneário Camboriú : 2015 International Symposium on Lightning Protection,
20 I II III IV

II -0,8° a +0,6° 0,1° Sept-Oct. 2015. Vol. 73, XIII SIPDA.

α (°)

10

IV -0,7° a +0,8° 0,1° -

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 [3] IEC 62305-3. Protection against lightning – Part 3: Physical damage to structures and life
Note: Negative values calculated angles by the h (m) hazard. 2010-12. 2.0.
modeling methodology are lower (more
conservative) than the ones directly Fig. 9: Final curves of the model for the [4] NFPA 780. Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems. s.l. : IHS, 2014.
Fig. 2: Angle αºP1.. αº.Pn e Dpi on the reference surface [5] NBR-5419. Protection of structures against lightning – Procedure. s.l. : ABNT, 29/07/2005.
measured (interpolated) on Fig. 1 from [1]. Protection angle to LPS classes

XIV SIPDA - International Symposium on Lightning Protection – Natal, from 02 to 06 October 2017