2012 International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), Vienna, Austria

On the Concept of Risk in the IEC 62305 ED. 2.0

Takatoshi Shindo
Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI)
Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa Prefecture, J apan
shindo@ criepi.denken.or.jp


Abstract An updated version of the IEC standard on lightning
risk for structures has been issued in 2010. Recently, however, a
paper which criticizes the basic concept of the standard has been
published. In this paper, the validity of the basic concept of the
IEC standard is investigated and problems of the standard are
clarified.
Keywords; Lightning, Risk, IEC 62305
I. INTRODUCTION
The IEC standard 62305 deals with protection measures of
structures against lightning. The first version of the standard
was issued in 2006 and a new edition of the standard was
issued in 2010. (In this paper, hereafter, the term IEC 62305
means this new version unless otherwise stated.) The lightning
risk evaluation method is proposed in the Part 2 of the standard
(IEC 62305-2: Protection against lightning - Part2: Risk
management) [1].
At present, a Maintenance Team (MT9) of the IEC TC 81
has been working to polish up the standard. Recently, however,
a paper critical of the standard has been published [2]. We
hereafter call the reference [2] paper 1. In the paper 1, the
authors have insisted that because the basic concept of the risk
in the standard is wrong, it should be improved. They have also
proposed a new definition of risk in the paper 1.
The aim of this paper is to clarify the difference of the
concepts of risk and to find an appropriate method for
rational insulation design for lightning protection.
II. CONCEPTS OF LIGHTNING RISK
A. Lightning risk in the IEC 62305-2
The definition of lightning risk in the IEC 62305-2 is
shown as follows.
value of probable annual loss (humans or goods due to
lightning, relative to the total value (human or goods) of the
structure to be protected
Following four types of risks are considered in the IEC
62305-2.
R1: Risk of loss of human life in a structure
R2: Risk of loss services to the public in a structure
R3: Risk of loss of cultural heritage in a structure
R4: Risk of loss of economic value in a structure
According to the IEC 62305-2, when we evaluate lightning
risk of a structure, the structure is usually divided into several
zones to make evaluation easier. Basically the division will be
carried out considering the vulnerability to lightning of
different areas in the structure.
The procedure to evaluate the lightning of a structure is as
follows.
At first, in order to calculate lightning risk (R), following
basic equation is used.

Rx =Number of dangerous events per annum (Nx)
Probability of damage to a structure (Px)
Consequent loss (Lx) (1)

where Rx is a risk component for a structure. The risk
components are injury to living beings, physical damage to a
structure, failure of internal systems by direct lightning to the
structure and that by indirect lightning to the structure.
Furthermore, the loss is considered as follows.

Loss (L)
=factor(s) to reducing (or increasing) loss
typical loss value due to one dangerous event
zone factor (2)

The term zone factor shown above is the ratio of number
of persons in a zone (n
z
) to the total number of structure in the
structure (n
t
) multiplied by a ratio of time for which the persons
are present in the zone through a year as shown below.

zone factor =n
z
/n
t
t
z
/8760 (3)
where t
z
is the time in hours per year that persons are
present in the zone.




B. Criticism by the paper 1 on the IEC 62305-2
The main points of the criticism on the IEC 62305-2 stated
in the paper 1 are summarized as follows.
1) The risk defined in the IEC 62305-2 is not the risk but
the loss.
2) The risk can be considered separately for each zone and
it is meaningless to adding the risk value of each zone.
3) Some calculation examples of lightning risk are shown
in the IEC 62305-2. In the example of a hospital, the risk for
the intensive care unit is below the tolerable level, which does
not seem to be reasonable.
4) The risk should be considered by a per unit value. The
zone factor should not be considered to evaluate the risk.

III. DEFINITION OF RISK
Ambiguous meanings have been attached the term risk
and it sometimes leads to confusions. Hereafter, we show some
examples of the definition of risk.

The definition of risk by the Oxford English Dictionary [3]
is as follows.
1. Hazard, danger; exposure to mischance or peril
2. The chance or hazard of commercial loss
In the Websters dictionary [4], risk is defined as follows.
the possibility of loss, injury, disadvantage, or
destruction.

On the other hand, in the IEC standard on dependability
management [5], the term risk is defined as follow.
risk : Combination of the frequency, or probability, of
occurrence and the consequence of a special hazardous event.
There is also a note in the standard as shown below.
Note: the concept of risk always has two elements: the
frequency or probability with which a hazardous event occurs
and the consequence of the hazardous event
As shown above, it is clear stated that the risk includes both
the probability of occurrence and consequences of a specified
hazardous event.
Furthermore, in an ISO standard that deals with risk
management [6], which was issued in 2009, risk is defined as
follows.
effect of uncertainty on objectives
In the Note 4 of the clause, it is also stated that Risk is
often expressed in terms of a combination of the consequence
of an event (including changes in circumstances) and the
associated likelihood of occurrence.
As shown above, inconsistent and ambiguous meanings are
attached to risk at present, which lead to confusion. However,
from the engineering point of view, they are classified into
following two basic concepts;
1) Risk is the probability of the occurrence of damage.
2) Risk is the expected value of loss by the occurrence of
damage
The paper 1 stands on the concept 1 and the IEC 62305-2
apparently stands on the concept 2.
IV. PROPER CONCEPT OF RISK FOR LIGHTNING RISK
MANAGEMENT
Because the main point of discussion in the paper 1 is the
risk for human life, we will deal with the risk for human life
hereafter.
The model of hospital for risk calculation in the IEC 623-
05-2 is shown in Fig. 1 and calculated risk components for
human life in the case of the hospital are shown in Table 1.
As shown the Table 1, the original risk of zone 3 and zone
4 are same if we do not consider the zone factor. It is
reasonable because both areas are in a similar condition.
The aim of risk assessment is to determine what measure
we should take against possible damage. The estimated loss is
therefore important. If the loss is tolerable, we need no
measures; if the loss is quite large, we must take some
measures. Whatever the definitions of risk, the final decision
should be made by the loss.
The IEC 62305-2 states that a building is divided several
zones and risk is defined as the product of the probability of
occurrence of damage and magnitude of loss, which is the
number of persons within the zone when we consider the
human life.
In the paper 1, they have insisted that we should use the
probability of occurrence as an index for necessary measures.
However, if we adopt this concept, we must take some
measures for a zone where there is no person in it. If we have
no information on the number of persons in each zone, the
concept is reasonable. On the other hand, if we know or we can
estimate the number of persons in each zone, it is reasonable to
determine measures considering the number of persons in each
zone and it is unnecessary to take unreasonable measures for a
zone which nobody is in.
In IEC 62305-2, there is a fundamental assumption that we
have information on the number of persons in each zone. On
that condition, the concept of IEC 62305-2 is more reasonable
than that of the paper 1.






Figure 1 Model of a hospital used in the IEC 62305


TABLE 1. Risk components for human life of different zones of the hospital shown in IEC 62305-2 (x 10-5)

R
A
: Risk component (injury to living being - flashes to structure)
R
U
: Risk component (injury to living being - flashes to connected line)
R
B
: Risk component (physical damage to a structure flashes to a structure)
R
V
: Risk component (physical damage to a structure flashes to connected line)
R
C
: Risk component (failure to internal systems flashes to structure)
R
M
: Risk component (failure to internal systems flashes to near structure)
R
W
: Risk component (failure to internal systems flashes to connected line)
R
Z
: Risk component (failure to internal systems flashes to near a line)






Risk
components
Zone1
(Outside)
Zone 2
(Rooms block)
Zone 3
(Operation block)
Zone 4
(Intensive care
unit)
Number of persons 10 950 35 5
Zone factor 0.01 0.95 0.035 0.005
D
1
: Injury to living being by electrical shock R
A
0.009 0.009 0 0
R
U
0 0 0 0
D
2
: Physical damage R
B
0 42.4 0.156 0.022
R
V
0 9.21 0.034 0.005
D
3
: Failure of electrical and electronic
systems

R
C
0 8.484 3.126 0.447
R
M
0 2.413 0.889 0.127
R
W
0 1.841 0.678 0.097
R
Z
0 0 0 0
Total Sumof Risk 0.009 64.37 4.89 0.698
Risk without considering the zone factor
(Total sumof risk / zone factor)
0.9 67.75 139.7 139.6


TABLE 2. Equations to calculate risk components

Equation to calculate risk component Related equations and tables in the IEC 62305-2
R
A

| |
(

=

8760
z
t
z
T t B TA D
A A D
t
n
n
L r P P N
L P N

N
D
: Eq.(A4)
P
TA
: Table B1 P
B
: Table B2
r
t
: Table C3
L
t
: Table C2
R
U

( )
| | | |
(

+ + + =
+
8760
/ / / /
z
t
z
T t LD LD EB TL T DJ P DJ T L P L
u u DJ L
t
n
n
L r C P P P N N N N
L P N N

N
L/P
, N
L/T
: Eq. (A8)
N
DJ /P
, N
DJ /T
: Eq. (A5)
P
TU
: Table B6 P
EB
: Table B7 P
LD
: Table B8 C
LD
: Table B4
r
t
: Table C3 L
t
: Table C2
R
B

(

=

8760
z
t
z
F z f p B D
B B D
t
n
n
L h r r P N
L P N

N
D
: Eq.(A4) P
B
: Table B2
r
p
: Table C4 r
f
: Table C5
h
z
: Table C6 L
F
: Table C2
R
V

| | | |
(

+ + + =
+
8760
) (
/ / / /
z
t
z
F z f p LD LD EB T DJ P DJ T L P L
V V DJ L
t
n
n
L h r r C P P N N N N
L P N N

N
L/P
, N
L/T
: Eq. (A8) N
DJ /P
, N
DJ /T
: Eq. (A5)
P
EB
: Table B7 P
LD
: Table B8 C
LD
: Table B4
r
p
: Table C4 r
f
: Table C5 h
z
: Table L
F
: Table C2
R
C

| |
(

=

8760
z
t
z
O LD SPD D
C C D
t
n
n
L C P N
L P N

N
D
: Eq.(A4)
P
SPD
: Table B3 C
LD
: Table B4
L
O
: Table C2
R
M

| |
| |
(

=
(

=

8760
) (
8760
2
4 3 2 1
z
t
z
O S S S S SPD M
z
t
z
O MS SPD M
M M M
t
n
n
L K K K K P N
t
n
n
L P P N
L P N
N
M
: Eq. (A6)
P
SPD
: Table B3
K
S1
: Eq. (B.5) K
S2
: Eq. (B.6) K
S3
: Table B5 K
S4
: Eq. (B7)
L
O
: Table C2
R
W

| | | |
(

+ + + =
+
8760
) (
/ / / /
z
t
z
O LD LD SPD T DJ P DJ T L P L
W W DJ L
t
n
n
L C P P N N N N
L P N N

N
L/P
, N
L/T
: Eq. (A8) N
DJ /P
, N
DJ /T
: Eq. (A5)
P
SPD
: Table B3 P
LD
: Table B8 C
LD
: Table B4
L
O
: Table C2
R
Z

| |
(

+ =

8760
) (
1 1 / 1 / 1
1
z
t
z
O L L SPD T P
Z Z
t
n
n
L C P P N N
L P N

N
1/P
, N
1/T
: Eq. (A10)
P
SPD
: Table B3 P
L1
: Table B9 C
L1
: Table C4
L
O
: Table C2
n
z
: Number of possible endangered persons (victims or user not served)
n
t
: Expected total number of persons (or users served)
t
z
: Time in hours per year that persons are present in a dangerous place

TABLE 3 Example of factors to calculate risk


Input parameter Zone 1
(outside)
Zone 2
(roomblock)
Zone 3
(operation
block)
Zon4 4
(intensive
care unit)
Type of floor r
t
10
-2
10
-5
10
-5
10
-5

Protection against shock (flash to structure) P
TA
1 1 1 1
Protection against shock
(flash to line)
P
TU
1 1 1
Risk of fire r
f
0 10
-2
10
-3
10
-3

Fire Protection r
p
1 1 1 1
Internal special shield K
S2
1 1 1 1
Internal wiring (Power) K
S3
0.2 0.2 0.2
Coordinated SPDs (Power) P
SPD
1 1 1
Internal wiring (Telecom) K
S3
0.01 0.01 0.01
Coordinated SPDs (Telecom) P
SPD
1 1 1
Special hazard h
z
1 5 5 5
D1: due to touch and step voltage L
T
10
-2
10
-2
10
-2
10
-2

D2: due to physical damage L
F
0 10
-1
10
-1
10
-1

D3: due to failure of internal systems L
O
0 10
-3
10
-2
10
-2



V. REMAINING PROBLEMS IN THE IEC 62305-2
Though the basic concept of risk in the IEC 62305-2 is
reasonable, there seems to be some other problems in the
standard.
Firstly, occurrence rates of damage should be known for
risk assessment. There are many tables of parameters for the
calculation on various conditions in the IEC 62305-2. The
equations to calculate lightning risk are shown in Table 2 and
the parameters used in the risk calculation are shown in Table 3.
But the physical background of each value of parameters
shown in the tables is not always clear. The physical
background should be shown for further refinement in future.
Secondly, a method to include the additional losses in
surroundings or environment is described in the Annex C of
IEC 62305-2. The total loss L
FT
is the sum of the initial loss in
the structure L
F
and the loss in the surrounding or environment
L
E
. Although L
F
does not include zone factors, LE includes the
zone factors for the surrounding or environment. This leads to
severe error, which is also indicated by the paper 1. It should
be corrected as soon as possible.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the validity of the concept of risk in the IEC
62305-2 is verified and some remaining problems in the IEC
62305-2 are presented.
An immediate revision of the IEC 62305-2 is required and
the activity of the Maintenance Team (MT9) of IEC TC 81 will
be very important from this point of view.

REFERENCES

[1] IEC 62305-2 Ed.2, Protection against lightning Part 2: Risk
management, 2010
[2] E. U. Landers and A. Kern, Future evolution of risk management for
structures Advancement for the future IEC 62305-2 Ed.3, Proc. of
2011 International Symposiumon Lightning Protection (XI SIPDA),
pp.67-72, Fortaleza, 2011
[3] The Oxford English Dictionary: 2nd edition, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1989.
[4] Websters Third New International Dictionary of the English
Language, Merriam-Webster INC., Massachusetts, 1961.
[5] IEC 60300-3-9, Dependability management -Part 3: Application guide-
Section 9: Risk analysis of technological systems, 1995.
[6] ISO 31000 Risk management -Principles and guidelines 2009.