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
On different approaches to calculating lightning electric fields
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1607-2493
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
2001 (English)In: Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, ISSN 2169-897X, E-ISSN 2169-8996, Vol. 106, no D13, p. 14191-14205Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Three different approaches to the computation of lightning electric fields are compared. These approaches are the traditional dipole (Lorentz condition) technique and two versions of the monopole (continuity equation) technique. The latter two techniques are based on two different formulations of the continuity equation, one used by Thottappillil et al. [1997] and the other by Thomson [1999], the difference between the formulations being related to different treatments of retardation effects. The three approaches involve the same expression for the vector potential but different expressions for the scalar potential. It is analytically shown that the three different expressions for the scalar potential are equivalent and satisfy the Lorentz condition. Further, the three approaches yield the same total fields and the same Poynting vectors. However, expressions in the three approaches for the individual electric field components in the time domain, traditionally identified by their distance dependence as electrostatic, induction, and radiation terms, are different, suggesting that explicit distance dependence is not an adequate identifier. It is shown that the so identified individual field components in the electric field equation in terms of charge density derived by Thottappillil et al. [1997] are equivalent to the corresponding field components in the traditional equation for electric field in terms of current based on the dipole technique. However, the individual field components in the electric field equation based on Thomson’s [1999] approach are not equivalent to their counterparts in the traditional dipole technique equation. Further, in Thottappillil et al.’s [1997] technique and in the traditional dipole technique, the gradient of scalar potential contributes to all three electric field components, while in Thomson’s [1999] technique it contributes only to the electrostatic and induction components. Calculations of electric fields at different distances from the lightning channel show that the differences between the corresponding field components identified by their distance dependence in different techniques are considerable at close ranges but become negligible at far ranges.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2001. Vol. 106, no D13, p. 14191-14205
Keywords [en]
Lightning, Electromagnetic Compatibility
National Category
Other Electrical Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Information Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-238766DOI: 10.1029/2001JD900150OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-238766DiVA, id: diva2:1262297
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/10.1029/2001JD900150

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
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