Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of lightning return-stroke models
University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1607-2493
University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
1993 (English)In: Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, ISSN 2169-897X, E-ISSN 2169-8996, Vol. 98, no D12, p. 22903-22914Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Five return-stroke models, each allowing the use of measured channel-base current and return-stroke speed as inputs for the computation of channel current distribution and remote electric field, are compared and evaluated using 18 sets of three simultaneously measured triggered lightning features: channel-base current, return-stroke speed, and electric field at a distance of about 5 km from the channel base. The experimental data were acquired during a triggered lightning experiment at the NASA Kennedy Space Center, Florida, in 1987 and were reported in part by Willett et al. (1989) and Leteinturier et al. (1991). The models compared are the transmission line (TL) model, the modified transmission line (MTL) model, the traveling current source (TCS) model, the Diendorfer-Uman (DU) model, and the modified Diendorfer-Uman (MDU) model. The TL, MTL, DU, and MDU models each predict the measured initial electric field peaks with an error whose mean absolute value is about 20%; the TCS model has a mean absolute error about twice that value. For the prediction of overall measured field wave shape, none of the models is clearly preferred, although for the model parameters assumed, the MDU model gave the best wave shape match. Most of the return strokes that exhibited very narrow sharp initial peaks in the measured electric field waveforms had a maximum rate of rise of channel-base current closer to the peak of the measured channel-base current waveform than did return strokes not exhibiting these sharp field peaks. The calculated fields from the TL and the MTL models do not have narrow sharp peaks similar to those found in many of the measured fields, while the fields calculated from the TCS, DU, and MDU models had somewhat similar peaks in most of the cases where those peaks were found in the measured fields. On the basis of the comparison of the five models, we recommend the TL model for calculating the peak channel-base current from the measured initial peak electric field because the TL model provides a similar or better result from a simpler mathematical relation.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
1993. Vol. 98, no D12, p. 22903-22914
National Category
Other Electrical Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Information Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-238759DOI: 10.1029/93JD02185OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-238759DiVA, id: diva2:1262287
Available from: 2018-11-10 Created: 2018-11-10 Last updated: 2018-11-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full texthttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/93JD02185

Authority records BETA

Thottappillil, Rajeev

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Thottappillil, Rajeev
In the same journal
Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres
Other Electrical Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Information Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 8 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf