|
|
 |
Did you know ? |
 |
1. Schools
: Did you know that your children are not protected ?
In many countries (France, Portugal, etc.) there are at present no
regulations requiring schools to install lightning protection, or even to
evaluate the risk! Other countries (Germany, Spain, etc.), aware of the
risk and relatively low cost of installing lightning protection, have
already taken appropriate measures.
It is not however due to the lack of examples of accidents and incidents :
Saix primary and nursery school near Toulouse (15 January 1998): Lightning strike on the roof causing a major fire
Félix Gouin primary school at Istres: Lightning strike in the playground
Joncquière nursery school at Fos sur Mer: Lightning strike in the playground
How many more accidents must there be before action is taken ?
|
 |
2. Radioactivity
Did you know that almost 40,000
radioactive lightning conductors
are still installed on French
roofs?
Their sale and installation
has been banned since 1996.
Before this date, radioactive
lightning conductors were widely
used as elements for lightning
protection as their technology
at the time was the most
appropriate. Contrary to Spain
and England, who took the
necessary measures to remove
these radioactive lightning
conductors as soon as they were
banned, there is no regulation
in France requiring industrials
and administrations to remove
them. Storage solutions, under
ANDRA's (National Agency for the
Management of Radioactive Waste)
control, for this type of
radioactive waste are now
operational.
|
 |
3. Protection by natural components
Natural components of the structure are too often incorrectly used
as protection elements :
En effet :
Networks at the bottom of excavations
are all too often used for earth rods ;
Minimum roof thicknesses are too commonly ignored (3 mm for
areas where a fusion point is unacceptable);
Pylons are too rarely fitted with a dedicated earth rod, albeit a must; |
 |
FAQ
|
 |
- Are tests carried out in laboratories on early streamer emission lightning conductors transposable to natural sites ?
Current recordings were taken in different conditions: in the laboratory, in-situ – provoked strikes and in-situ – natural strikes. They show similar forms thus proving the likeness of the phenomena.
- Does the tracer speed influence protection radii ?
The speed of the falling tracer is defined in NF C 17-102. These values are based on in-situ scientific studies. The protection radius is dependent on this speed. Experience of real protection zones observed in the field confirms the validity of the model and the adopted tracer speed values.
- What happens if a rising tracer is emitted and the energy of the ambient field is insufficient for its propagation ?
For propagation, the field, when the rising tracer is initiated, must be greater than or equal to the propagation field. The operating principle of early streamer emission lightning conductors takes into account this condition.
- Is there a limit to the initiation advance given by early emission streamer devices ?
Standards limit the initiation advance to 60 µs.
- How can non-captured impacts on protected sites be explained ?
By principle, lightning protection cannot be 100% effective whatever type of protection system is used: mesh cage, single point, early streamer emission, etc.
However, experience shows that the probability of a non-captured impact when using an early emission streamer device, correctly sized and installed in compliance with standards, is very low and its consequences are always minor as they are due to lower intensity lightning strikes (see electrogeometrical model).
- Is it possible to model lightning strike capture ?
Yes, there are several mathematical models allowing lightning strike capture to be simulated. The best known is the electrogeometrical model which is the easiest to use. The others are :
Rizk model
Lalande model
Dellera-Garbagnati model
Other models are currently under study.
|
ese
conductor
lightning
protection
storm
tracer
ionization
surge
arrester
volt
|
|
|