APL 2017

The 10th Asia Pacific International Conference on Lightning

May 16 - 19, 2017, Krabi Resort, Krabi, Thailand

The ESE and CVM Lightning Air Terminals: A 25

Year Photographic Record of Chronic Failures
Z. A. Hartono and I. Robiah

Lightning Research Pte. Ltd.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
[email protected]

Abstract the rejection of the ESE/CVM technology by the NFPA

The Early Streamer Emission (ESE) and Collection in 2000. The proposed revised standard was instead
Volume Method (CVM) lightning air terminals have been replaced by the IEC 61024 standard in 2001.
used in Malaysia for over 25 years. Initially, the In order to further mislead the authorities, some
ESE/CVM air terminals were mainly used for the academics form the same university later claimed to have
protection of high-rise and large buildings against direct confirmed the effectiveness of the ESE air terminals [4]
lightning strikes but later they were also applied on small and they subsequently invented a ESE air terminal [5].
and low-rise buildings as well as open spaces. This resulted in the ESE/CVM air terminal being
Bypasses were initially observed on the outer accepted by the government and led to an increase in
perimeter of high-rise and large buildings but later they their use on low-rise buildings such as schools,
were observed to have occurred much closer to the air bungalows, shops, places of worship etc. This
terminals. They were also observed to have occurred on subsequently led to bypasses being observed on the low
low-rise buildings and open spaces as more of these rise buildings, albeit on a smaller scale.
places were installed with the ESE/CVM air terminals. The ESE/CVM air terminals were also installed on
tall masts in order to protect terraced houses and large
Keywords: Lightning, bypasses, early streamer emission, open spaces such as stadiums, school fields, golf courses,
collection volume method, air terminals, structures. public parks and photo-voltaic farms. Consequently,
bypasses and casualties due to lightning have also been
1. Introduction reported at some of these places.
The ESE/CVM air terminals were introduced in This paper highlights some examples of the more
Malaysia as a replacement for the radioactive lightning pertinent bypass events that have occurred over the past
rods which were banned worldwide in the late 1980s [1]. 25 years which clearly demonstrates the chronic failure of
The Dynasphere, a CVM air terminal, was initially the ESE/CVM air terminals to protect all forms of high-
marketed as an ESE air terminal throughout the 1990s but rise and low-rise structures and open spaces.
it was later marketed as a CVM air terminal after the ESE
technology was rejected by the National Fire Protection 2. Common Shapes and Positions of Bypasses
Association (NFPA) in 2000. Bypasses that occurred as a result of lightning strikes
These air terminals were mainly installed on high- to masonry and concrete surfaces come in various shapes
rise and large buildings for protection against direct and sizes depending on the strength of the lightning
lightning strikes but bypasses (i.e. lightning caused current and the material strength of the affected surface.
damages) were observed to have occurred on some of Since the majority of cloud-to-ground lightning
these buildings from 1991. The frequent occurrences of flashes are low current events, the bypasses that resulted
these bypasses suggest that the claimed protection zones on the above mentioned surfaces are usually small in size
of the ESE/CVM air terminals are much smaller than i.e. about 0.5 x 0.5 x0.5 m. The larger bypasses are
those claimed by their inventors and manufacturers. believed to have been caused either by the larger
Although these bypasses have been highlighted since lightning currents or by weak building materials such as
1995 [2], they were repeatedly ignored by the Malaysian unreinforced brick facades and firewalls. In most cases,
authorities due to deceptive information provided by the presence of steel reinforcement bars within the
proponents of the ESE/CVM air terminals in industry and affected building materials help to limit the damages
by an academic from a local public university [3]. Hence, caused by lightning strikes. Figures 2.1 to 2.8 illustrate
the use of the ESE/CVM air terminals continued the common shapes of bypasses in Malaysia.
unopposed even though they did not comply with the The method of identifying the locations of these
national and international lightning protection standards. bypasses on buildings before they occur was first
In 1999, the same academic and his colleagues also published in 1995 [2]. Known as the Collection Surface
attempted to include the non-conventional air terminal Method, it has been applied for the placement of air
technologies in the revised Malaysian lightning terminals in the AS1768:2003 and IEC62305:2006
protection standard, MS939. However, it failed after standards. Since then, the method has been applied in
SIRIM, the national standards body, was informed about various lightning interception studies [6] [7] [8].
 APL 2017
The 10th Asia Pacific International Conference on Lightning
May 16 - 19, 2017, Krabi Resort, Krabi, Thailand

Fig. 2.1. A small bypass located at the corner of the roof of a public
building. This is the most common shape of bypasses seen in Malaysia. Fig. 2.5. A much larger bypass on top of a firewall. The same bypass
shown in fig. 2.4 had been repaired earlier.

Fig. 2.2. A small bypass on top of a facade with the lightning impact
point at the wall end.

Fig. 2.6. A very large bypass on the parapet wall, photographed in

1991. The building had just been installed with a CVM air terminal.

Fig. 2.3. A small bypass on top of a firewall with the lightning impact
point located away from the wall end.

Fig. 2.7. A bypass on top of a pointed facade.

Fig. 2.4. A larger bypass on top of a firewall. Fig. 2.8. A bypass on top of a curved facade.
 APL 2017
The 10th Asia Pacific International Conference on Lightning
May 16 - 19, 2017, Krabi Resort, Krabi, Thailand

3. Bypasses to High-Rise and Large Buildings struck more than once per year. For example, the
While bypasses have been observed on most high- Univ360 apartment in Kuala Lumpur was struck at least
rise (>25m) and large buildings installed with the six times over a period of two years resulting in three
ESE/CVM air terminals, they mainly occurred at the major bypasses.
corners of the roof which is located some distance away
from the air terminals. However, since hundreds of these
buildings have now been installed with the ESE/CVM air
terminals, a growing number of these bypasses have been
found to occur at a distance of less than 10m from the air
terminals, as shown by the following pictures.

Fig. 3.4. The Univ360 apartment was struck at least six times within a
period of two years. The arrows indicate the locations of the major
bypasses. See also figs 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5.

Fig. 3.1. A bypass near a CVM air terminal. The building has been
struck about six times before this bypass occurrence.

Fig. 3.5. The ESE air terminal installed on the Univ360 apartment and
located at the center of the roof (circle in fig. 3.4).

4. Bypasses to Buildings installed with more

than one ESE/CVM Air Terminals
Due to the high rate of failures of the ESE/CVM air
Fig. 3.2. A bypass on one end of a façade near an ESE air terminal. A terminals, a significant number of high-rise and large
similar bypass also occurred at the opposite end of the same building. buildings around the country have been installed with two
or more air terminals. However, these buildings were
later found to have been struck and damaged by
lightning, some repeatedly. This is clear evidence that the
use of multiple ESE/CVM air terminals is incapable of
protecting such buildings from direct lightning strikes.

Fig. 3.3. A bypass on one corner of the roof of the elevator motor room
near an ESE air terminal. Another bypass had occurred earlier at one of
the distant corners of the same building.

Most high-rise and large buildings installed with the

ESE/CVM air terminal seem to have been struck by
lightning at least once within four years of being Fig. 4.1. A 100m high apartment building with multi-level roofs
installed with two CVM air terminals (arrowed).
constructed. Some buildings were found to have been
 APL 2017
The 10th Asia Pacific International Conference on Lightning
May 16 - 19, 2017, Krabi Resort, Krabi, Thailand

Fig. 4.6. A low-rise college building installed with one ESE and one
CVM air terminals.
Fig. 4.2. Although located between two CVM air terminals, several
bypasses was observed on this section of the upper level roof.

Fig. 4.3. Multiple bypasses were observed on the lower level parapet
walls located near the CVM air terminal.
Fig. 4.7. The same building installed with two ESE/CVM air terminals
Bypasses have also been observed on low-rise (arrowed) and photographed without a bypass in 2010.
buildings installed with more than one ESE/CVM air
terminals. Although the occurrences of bypasses on these
buildings are less frequent than those on the high-rise
buildings, they also provide clear evidence of the
ineffectiveness of these air terminals.

Fig. 4.8. The same building observed with a bypass (arrowed) in 2015.

Fig. 4.4. Two second generation CVM air terminals (arrowed) installed 5. Bypasses at Open Spaces
on a low-rise public building. Mast mounted ESE/CVM air terminals have also
been used to provide protection for open spaces such as
playing fields, botanical parks, golf courses and photo-
voltaic farms. Bypasses to ground-mounted solar panels
and lightning related injuries/deaths at stadiums and
playing fields have been reported at some these locations
and these incidences demonstrated that the air terminals
are incapable of providing protection at ground level.
For example, in a reported lightning incident at a
solar farm, several solar panels mounted about 1.5m
above ground were struck by lightning although they
were located within the claimed protection zone of one of
several ESE air terminals that were installed throughout
Fig. 4.5. A bypass was observed on the corner of the roof (arrowed). the farm.
See fig. 2.1 for a close-up picture of the bypass.
 APL 2017
The 10th Asia Pacific International Conference on Lightning
May 16 - 19, 2017, Krabi Resort, Krabi, Thailand

Fig. 5.4. The Malacca university stadium grandstand and field where
the student was struck and killed by lightning.

Fig. 5.1. One of several mast-mounted ESE air terminals installed at a

photo-voltaic farm where a bypass had occurred.

Fig. 5.5. The ESE air terminal mounted on one of the grandstand’s
metallic pillars.

6. Frequency of Bypasses
Fig. 5.2. Two of the bypasses on the center portion of a solar panel that From observations made to a large number of high-
was struck by lightning. rise and large buildings, it is estimated that most of these
buildings have been struck at least once within four years
of being installed with the ESE/CVM air terminals.
Therefore, it is possible to make a statistical model of this
occurrence based on the assumption that an average of
25% of the above buildings are struck for the first time by
lightning annually (see Table 1) where:
A: the number of new high-rise and large buildings
installed with the ESE/CVM air terminals per year
B: the cumulative number of these buildings installed
with the ESE/CVM air terminals
C: the number of buildings displaying the initial
Fig. 5.3. One of the bypasses located at the edge of the solar panel. The bypasses occurring at the rate of 25% per year
blob of melted metal (arrowed) on the aluminum frame suggests that it D: the cumulative number of buildings displaying at
was caused by a very high temperature event, such as a lightning stroke. least one bypass
E: the overall percentage of buildings displaying at least
In 2012, a university student was struck and killed by one bypass
lightning on a football field in front of a stadium TABLE I
grandstand. The metallic roof of the grandstand needed Percentage of buildings with initial bypasses by year of usage
no protection against lightning but it had been installed YEAR 1 2 3 4 5
with a pole-mounted ESE air terminal whose claimed A 100 100 100 100 100
protection zone covered the entire football field adjacent B 100 200 300 400 500
to the grandstand. C 25 50 75 100 100
The unfortunate death of the student, Mohd Ridwan D 25 75 150 250 350
Jamal, clearly suggests that playing fields and similar
E 25% 38% 50% 63% 70%
open spaces that have been installed with the ESE/CVM
YEAR 6 7 8 9 10
air terminals are unsafe during thunderstorms.
The above incidences strongly suggest that mast A 100 100 100 100 100
mounted ESE/CVM air terminals do not provide the large B 600 700 800 900 1000
protection zones claimed by their inventors and that their C 100 100 100 100 100
application in such a manner constitute a public safety D 450 550 650 750 850
hazard. E 75% 79% 81% 83% 85%
 APL 2017
The 10th Asia Pacific International Conference on Lightning
May 16 - 19, 2017, Krabi Resort, Krabi, Thailand

The above statistical model suggests that at least buildings obtained by TUV Hessen have neither been
80% of all the high-rise and large buildings installed with revealed for scrutiny nor independently verified for
the ESE/CVM air terminals have been struck at least once relevance in the study.
by lightning by the year 2000 i.e. a decade after the study
began. This figure explains the high rate of buildings that 8. Summary and conclusion
have been observed with bypasses in 2004 [1]. This paper presents a brief summary of the chronic
Interestingly, a statistical study of bypasses to new failures of the ESE/CVM air terminals encountered in
buildings in Malaysia that were installed with the CVM Malaysia during the past quarter century of observation.
air terminals was recently conducted in Canada by Haller The failures documented vary from bypasses that
and Woyczynski in 2016 [9]. These buildings had occurred on photo-voltaic panels installed just 1.5m
reportedly been inspected independently by a German above ground level to multiple bypasses that occurred at
firm, TUV Hessen, between 2010 and 2012. The study the corners of high-rise structures.
concluded that only 12.5% of the buildings inspected The observed growing number of bypasses occurring
during the two year observation period were struck and very close to the ESE/CVM air terminals provides clear
damaged by lightning. They remarked that this value is in evidence that they do not provide any enhanced zone of
contradiction with the figure of 80% reported above. protection as claimed by their inventors and vendors.
However, the Canadian study did not provide any Hence the use of the ESE/CVM air terminals should be
physical data of the buildings inspected by TUV Hessen. considered a public safety hazard and should be
There was no specific information regarding the height of discontinued.
the buildings and the type of material used for the For enhanced safety of buildings, the ESE/CVM air
construction of the roofs. Hence it is not possible to terminals should be replaced with conventional air
evaluate the data in order to make a proper comparison terminals positioned and installed in full compliance with
between the Canadian study with that of the Malaysian the IEC62305 standard. Such practice will enable the
study which was based mainly on high-rise buildings. lightning flash to be intercepted by the conventional air
An earlier statistical study on the effectiveness of the terminals with an estimated efficiency of 98% [7] [8].
CVM air terminal was also conducted in Malaysia in
2002 [10]. However, the raw data of this study, which References
was submitted earlier to Standards Australia, had been [1] Z. A. Hartono and I. Robiah, “Conventional and Un-conventional
independently reviewed and was shown to be dubious in Lightning Air Terminals: An Overview”, ACEM Forum on
nature since some of the buildings in the study had metal Lightning Protection, Kuala Lumpur, January 2004
[2] Z. A. Hartono and I. Robiah, “A Method of Identifying the
cladded roof while other buildings were included because Lightning Strike Location on a Structure”, Int. Conference on
they had abnormally high lightning counter readings [11]. Electromagnetic Compatibility, Kuala Lumpur, April 1995
This led Standards Australia to reject the CVM from the [3] H. Ahmad, “Kilat dan Perlindungan (Lightning and Protection)”
revised Australian standard, AS1769:2003. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 1998, pp. 46–48.
[4] E. E. Ngu and A. Darus, “A study on the early streamer emission
A follow-up statistical study using some of the lightning protection system”, Masters of Engineering thesis,
original Malaysian raw data was again conducted in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 2004
2006. This study included more buildings that have been [5] H. Ahmad, “Study on the early streamer emission mechanisms
installed with the CVM air terminals [12]. Again, no raw aided by laser radiation ionization process”, Research Vote No.
74276, 2007.
data was provided concerning the new buildings nor their [6] M. Becerra, V. Cooray and Z. A. Hartono, “Identification of
associated lightning counter readings. However, an Lightning Vulnerable Points on Complex Grounded Structures”,
analysis of the available data suggests that a significant Journal of Electrostatics, August 2007
number of new buildings with abnormally high counter [7] J. Dudas and M. Dudas., “Software for Lightning Protection
System Diagnosis according to IEC 62305”, 29th ICLP, Uppsala,
readings had been selected for this study in order to Sweden, June 2008
support the claimed efficiency of the CVM system [13]. [8] A. Kern, C. Schelthoff and M. Mathieu, “Probability of lightning
strikes to air-terminations of structures using the electro-
geometrical model theory and the statistics of lightning current
7. Discussion parameteters” 30th ICLP, Cagliari, Italy, September 2010
From the above long term study of bypasses to [9] H. S. Haller and W. A. Woyczynski, “Interception effciency of
ESE/CVM air terminals, more physical evidence have CVM-based lightning protection systems for buildings and the
been discovered which strongly suggests that these air fractional Poisson model”, Open Access Library, Cornell
University, 2016
terminals are incapable of providing protection against [10] N. I. Petrov and F. D’Alessandro, “Assessment of protection
lightning to high-rise structures as well as to objects at system positioning and models using observations of lightning
ground level. strikes to structures”, Proc. of the Royal Soc. A, February 2002.
Attempts by the vendors to use multiple ESE/CVM [11] Z. A. Hartono and I. Robiah, “An analysis of the data contained in
the paper “Field validation of an air terminal placement method’”,
air terminals also failed to protect these structures from Report submitted to the Australian lightning protection study
being struck by lightning. Therefore, the ESE/CVM air group, EL024, January 2002.
terminals are considered a total failure in protecting [12] F. D’Alessandro and N. I. Petrov, “Field study on the interception
structures and open spaces from being struck by efficiency of lightning protection systems and comparison with
models”, Proc. of the Royal Soc. A, January 2006.
lightning. [13] Z. A. Hartono and I. Robiah, “Case studies on the performance of
Furthermore, the study by Haller and Woyczynski commercial-grade lightning event counters”, Proceedings of Asia
can be considered as invalid since the primary data of the Pacific EMC Symposium; Singapore; May 2008.