See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259576161

Protection of Oil Storage Tanks against Direct Lightning Strikes: Self

Protection Scheme or Standalone LPS?

Conference Paper · October 2013

DOI: 10.1109/SIPDA.2013.6729184

CITATIONS READS

2 11,991

2 authors:

Chandima Gomes Arturo Galvan

University of the Witwatersrand Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas
303 PUBLICATIONS   2,205 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   116 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wind Turbine Lightning Protection View project

Experts for Africa - Graduate Training EE, HV, lightning and electromagnetic compatibility View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chandima Gomes on 06 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2013 International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XII SIPDA), Belo Horizonte, Brazil, October 7-11, 2013.

Protection of Oil Storage Tanks against Direct

Lightning Strikes: Self Protection Scheme or
Standalone LPS?

Arturo Galván D. Chandima Gomes

Instituto de Investigaciones Eléctricas Centre for Electromagnetic and Lightning Protection
Departamento de Transmisión y Distribución Research (CELP)
Cuernavaca, México Department of Electrical & Electronics Engineering
agalvan@iie.org.mx Selangor, Malaysia: chandima@eng.upm.edu.my

Abstract— Lightning protection of oil storage tanks has standards on safety of petrochemical systems specify the
becomes a controversial subject, due to conflicting protection details of many other conditions that enhance the risk of failure
criteria. One such is the sense of using self-protection criteria, of the walls during the process of lightning interception with
relying on the strict fulfillment of the operational conditions,
material thickness and reliable bonding; the other refers to the
tank roof and current passage through tank walls; especially
necessity of standalone lightning protection system (LPS) where when the containers store inflammable petrochemicals.
air terminals are installed in order to avoid any interception Reduction of thickness with time, possibilities of fume leakage,
between the lightning stepped leader and the tank body that presence of non-conducting sealing at joints, internal
could cause hot spots and excessive temperature rise. Each protrusions and irregularities, strike point issues, localized
method has its own advantages and drawbacks. In this paper heating, bound charge problem etc. are several such conditions
these criteria are analyzed with critical view in order to make
appropriate decisions in selecting the most suitable method of
partly or completely overlooked by the standards. In this paper
protection for a given situation. we discuss these issues in detail and analyzed the thermal and
mechanical effects that may be considered in recommending
Keywords: lightning protection, oil storage tanks, self- the minimum thicknesses of storage tank walls to act as
protection, wall thickness
lightning interception and current path system. We also discuss
I. INTRODUCTION the replacement criteria of metallic sheets that will ensure the
safe handling of lightning current when the storage tank itself
It is the common practice at international level to install is treated as the lightning protection system Experiences in
external lightning protection systems (LPS) in buildings and México in this regard have also been discussed in detail with
structures to protect them against lightning direct strikes or side suitable examples.
flashes. However many internationally reputed standards [1-3]
allow metal structures themselves to act as standalone lightning
interception points provided that the thickness of the wall II. OIL STORAGE TANK ACCIDENTS
exceeds certain threshold value. For a given wall material, two
values of minimum thickness are recommended; based on the
There are more lightning-related fires than one could expect in
fact that whether material puncturing in the event of a lightning
the oil industry. Unfortunately, there is not easy way to collect
strike is permissible or not. It has been discussed in the
detailed information about tank fires. Even though each full
literature that even when puncturing is prevented, hot-spot
surface tank fire seems to receive quite a lot of attention on a
effects may pose ignition threats and fire hazard.
local basis, the information given in local media is normally
very limited from a technical point of view. Oil companies
Petrochemical storages and gas/oil pipelines are most often
typically try to minimize the publicity about fire incidents,
considered as self-protected structures against lightning direct
including lightning-related ones, as it might give an impression
strikes, provided that the required minimum thickness is
that these facilities are very hazardous [4].
assured. In many safety codes the minimum thickness of metal
plates is recommended as 4.8 (3/16”) mm for the tank roof to
Impact of lightning over process areas and tanks or vessels may
be considered as the air-termination for interception with
cause severe damage to static or dynamic equipment, possibly
lightning stepped leaders. However, once the storage operation
resulting in loss of containment and multiple and extended
is started it is almost impracticable to monitor the exact
releases of hazardous substances on the ground, as well as to
thickness of the tank walls so that the metal plates can be
fires and explosions [5].
replaced right at the correct time. Furthermore none of the

392
Chang and Lin [6] made the review of 242 accidents of storage
tanks that occurred in industry facilities over last 40 years
(1960-2003). The results show that 74% of accidents occurred
in petroleum refineries, oil terminals or storage. Fire and
explosion account for 85% of the accidents. There were 80
accidents (33%) caused by lightning and 72 (30%) caused by
human errors including poor operations and maintenance.
Other causes were equipment failure, sabotage, crack and
rupture, leak and line rupture, static electricity, open flames,
etc. The study concluded with a terrible thought: Most of those
accidents would have been avoided if good engineering
have been practiced.
reported. Tanks made the top of the hit list in regards to
damage frequency and extent of damage, even though they are
not the most susceptibility to a lightning hit in a facility.
Numerous tank explosions were reported and included full
tanks, empty tanks, partially full tanks, stock tanks, water
tanks, metal, and fiberglass tanks.
Table 1. Apparent susceptibility to lightning strikes and lightning damage of
oilfield facilities. Adapted from [9]

Public information shows tragic scenes of damage and events.

For example, figure 1 [7] shows the lightning struck effect over
a huge storage tank at a South Jersey oil refinery. The lightning
struck a tank containing about 36,000 barrels — about 1.5
million gallons — of xylene, a gasoline blending component.
ARIA database [8] indicates 50 lightning-related events and
their effects recorded in several countries, from 1977 to 2005,
like USA, Germany, China, Russia, Australia, United
Kingdom, Indonesia, Albania, Canada Italy, Bahamas, Greece,
Thailand, Nigeria, Brazil, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco,
Poland, Spain, Peru, among others.

The major factors which increase a given structure´s

susceptibility to be hit by lightning are:

1. Lightning activity (ground flash density) in the site.

2. Height of the structure
3. Degree of isolation.

The content and material of construction play a major role in

Figure1. Lightning struck a huge storage tank at a South Jersey oil refinery.
the effect and damages of a lightning strike. The ability of a
structure to avoid lightning-related damage is directly related
to the ease with which the current can pass the elements of the
structure and be dissipated to earth. A critical situation is when
the lightning current tries to flow in highly resistive materials,
rising to rapid heating and vaporization of the material. That´s
why fiberglass tanks are prone to be vaporized when it is hit
by lightning.

III. LIGHTNING-RELATED RISK OF OIL STORAGE IV. LIGHTNING PROTECTION CRITERIA

TANKS

There is some degree of randomness regarding lightning Lightning protection is a matter of degree, more than an
strikes and there are seldom first-hand witnesses to a hit or the absolute [9]. There are two ways to accomplish the protection:
resulting damage sequence. Consequently, the subject of to guarantee minimum damage as a result of a direct impact,
lightning damage in the oilfield is surrounded by mystery and and/or to avoid direct impact in the protected structure. Two
myth. Unfortunately, lightning protection in the oilfield is lightning protection schemes are possible for the former: (a)
self-protection and (b) non-isolated air terminals. In the latter,
found to be the exception rather than the rule…they are
the only scheme is an isolated system. Isolated and non-
usually installed only after a catastrophic event [9]. There is a isolated lightning protection systems are analyzed in [3].
vast difference between the likelihood of a given structure
actually being hit and the likelihood that the structure will
sustain damage if it is hit. Table 1 provides one ranking of
selected operational equipment by its apparent susceptibility to
being hit, and by the apparent frequency of actual damages

393
A. Self-protection development of hotspots in the tank walls and also ensure that
In this scheme, lightning stepped leader is allowed to intercept there will be no significant current flow in the tank walls.
with the tank roof, thus total lightning current will be injected However, due to the rapidly varying current along the mast in
into the metal structure of the tank. The first return stroke of the event of a lightning will induce certain voltage in the tank
negative lightning strikes, the commonest among cloud-to- walls which will in turn drives current to ground. However this
ground flashes, has impulse currents with a peak value, ip, of current will be much smaller than the current injected by direct
30 kA on average, a peak current derivative, (di/dt)p, of 30 kA / lightning strikes. Lightning bulk current is managed by air
μs on average and continuing current of several hundred of terminals and metallic tank is exposed only to induction
amperes and times of 0,5 s. Thus, interception of lightning voltages and currents.
leader and consequent passage of impulse current may generate
highly localized hotspots, large potential gradients, and
mechanical stresses in the material due to the flow of fast
varying currents. In such situation strong tank walls are
essential to prevent puncturing at the point of strike, joule
heating close to flammable materials and mechanical collapse
due to magnetic forces. Not only real failures but even the
sense of the risk of failure may strongly influence the smooth
operation of the system.

Figure 3. Non-Isolated criterion for lightning protection of oil storage tanks

Figure 2. Self-protection criterion for lightning protection of oil storage tanks

B. Non-Isolated System
In this scheme, lightning stepped leader is allowed to intercept
with the air terminal bonded to the tank roof, thus total
lightning current will be injected into the metal structure of the
tank, but hotspot is put away from the metal structure of the
tank to the tip of the air terminal. Effects by the current
passage on the metal structure of the tank are similar to those
given for self-protection scheme. Figure 3 depicts this
protection scheme.

C. Isolated System
In this scheme, isolated metal masts are installed to protect the
storage tanks. These conductors are installed with a minimum
separation, s, from the tanks to avoid arcing between tank and
mast in the event of lightning strike to the mast. The minimum
separation is calculated by the pertinent equation given in [3].
The mast will act as both the air-termination and the down
conductor. A suitable grounding system should be installed at
the earth-termination of the mast in order to disperse the
lightning current readily into the soil masses. The tank walls
and the mast should be electrically bonded at the ground level
to avoid surface arcing. Such isolated LPS will prevent the
Figure 4. Isolated criterion for lightning protection of oil storage tanks
Contrary to some believes, Isolated and Non-Isolated systems
made of air terminals increases the probability that a strike will
occur in the proximity of the installation, but a properly
designed system can offer substantial damage avoidance
protection for many structures. Conversely, an improperly
designed system can aggravate lightning-related problems [9].
Tabla 2 shows the risk conditions for each protection scheme.
For self-protection scheme, where the risk of hotspot is very

394
high, it is important to take steps to reduce damage as the result connections (including cross-section and anti-vandalism
of a lightning strike, side-flash or corona discharge. measures).
Tabla 2. Risk conditions of lightning-related hotspot on the metal structure of
the tank International Standard [3] establishes that the material of
metallic pipes and tanks can be considered itself as air
Bulk lightning
Hotspot at termination (natural components) if thickness meets the value
current at
Scheme structure metal of 4 mm for steel (lesser than 3/16” required by [1] and [2])
structure metal
tank and the temperature rise of the inner surface at the point of
tank
strike does not constitute a danger.
Self-protection High High
Non-Isolated Low High In 2009, a study on lightning effects on above-ground storage
tanks was carried out [11], especially in terms on puncturing
Isolated Low Low effects when stainless and ferrous steel were exposed to a long
duration lightning current. Results of this study indicated that
for a 5 mm thick samples, with both 100 C and 400 C (that is,
According to [3,10], the rolling sphere method is suitable for 200 A or 800 A in 0,5 s) the molten pool volumes were 64
positioning air terminals in all cases, including structures with mm3 for 100 A and 400 mm3 for 400 A. None of the samples
risk of fire and explosions, like oil-storage tanks. Figure 5 in this case were punctured. However, there was a depth of
shows the protection zone of levels I and II (20 and 30 m of penetration of the molten pool: 2.1 mm – 2.5 mm for 100 C
rolling sphere´s radii), as recommended in [10] and [2] and 3,5 mm - 3,7 mm for 400C. According to [11], a threat of
respectively. 200C is considered as an adequately severe level against
which protection is required in the event of lightning direct
strikes. Testing concludes that for 200C steel can be punctured
at 2.5 mm thickness, but at 3.5 mm there is no possibility of
puncture. It is then clear that there is no possibility of a 3/16”
(4.8 mm) steel shell being punctured, and with a safety margin
of at least 1 mm to allow for reduction in thickness due to
corrosion.

As it is shown in figure 6 [11], when lightning arc attaches to

any part of the tank, a certain amount of erosion of the metal
will occur on the metallic surface, causing hot-spots on the
back of thicker metal sheets (inner surface becomes quite
warm). It is recognized that even if puncture does not occur,
the local hot-spot could itself pose an ignition hazard.
Figure 5. Lightning protection by Rolling Sphere Method for oil-storage
tanks, accoridng to [10].

V. FULFILLMENT OF SELF-PROTECTION
CONDITIONS

It is recognized that oil storage tanks are at very low risk of

failure due to lightning strikes if the following issues are
accomplished [1-2]: (a) hatches closed, (b) roofs in good
condition (no holes, no excessively thin areas, no
nonconductive patches, etc.), (c) provide and maintain
pressure vacuum valves or back-flash protection in all vents,
(d) stop tank movements (both filling and emptying) during
electrical storms, (e) provide and maintain inerting or gas
padding. On the other hand, the following should be
guaranteed in order to avoid sparking between conductive
surfaces, especially at points where flammable vapors escape
or accumulate: (1) equipotential bonding in all parts of the
tank, (b) equipotential bonding between tank and the
grounding system, (b) equipotential bonding in all parts of the
ground electrodes, (c) permanent and suitable material and
Figure 6. Effects at the arc attachment point over and under the steel plate
surface [11]
All lightning protection measures given above rely on the
strict fulfillment of the operational conditions, material
thickness and reliable bonding. If some of them are not
fulfilled (change in operation conditions, erosion of material,
and corrosion in bonding connections), the risk of fire and
explosion due to a lightning current can rise to unaccepted
levels. For example, the oil industry in México establishes a

395
replacement criterion of steel sheets of oil storage tanks when
thickness is reduced up to 100 mils (2.54 mm), which
represents a good parameter for mechanical integrity of the
tank. However such criterion could not be sufficient for
preventing metal puncturing or the development of hotspots.
The proposal is upsizing the replacement thickness for
better safety, to a value of 3.5 mm, which can be
considered as a suitable thickness.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Self-protection for oil storage tanks represents the primary
lightning protection scheme. Operational conditions, material
thickness and reliable bonding should be ensured in order to
reduce ignition possibility of such scheme. However, if some
of them are not likely to be fulfilled, it is necessary to
implement isolated air terminals to avoid erosion in the
surface and also inner surface hot-spots at the point of strike.
Remember that isolated structures are more prone to be hit by
lightning, so the next step in protection after guaranteeing self-
protection is modifying the surroundings installing engineered
higher structures, like air terminals (lightning rods) to avoid
direct impact.
To minimize damage to tanks, do not connect an isolated,
pointed and protruding object which could serve as an air
terminal (lightning rod) in series with a resistive material such
as fiberglass.
396
View publication stats
REFERENCES
[1] API Recommended Practice 2003, “Protection Against Ignitions Arising
Out of Static, Lightning and Stray Currents”, American Petroleum
Institute.
[2] NFPA 780 “Standard For The Installation of Lightning Protection
Systems, 2011 edition.
[3] IEC 62305-3 “Protection against lightning – Part 3: Physiscal damage to
structures and life hazards”, 2010 Edition.
[4] H. Persson, A. Lonnermark, “Tank Fires: Review of fire incidents 1951-
2003”, SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, Provning
Forskning, SP Report 2004:14.
[5] E. Renni, E. Krausmann, G. Antonioni, S. Bonvicini, G. Spadoni, V.
Cozzani, “Risk assessment of major accidents triggered by lightning
events”, AIDIC Conferences Series, Vol. 9, 2009.
[6] J. Chang, C. Ling, “A study of storage tank accidents”, Journal of Loss
of Prevention in the Process Industries 19 (2006) 51-59.
[7] Lightning ignites oil refinery storage tank,
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2007-07-12-refinery_N.htm.
[8] ARIA Database, French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable
Development, Appendix 2: Foreign Accidents.
[9] A.J. Welker, “Lightning - Its effects and some simple safeguards in
regards to oilfield operations”, Proceeding of Annual Southwestern
Petroleum Short Course, pp 329-346, 1998.
[10] NMX-J.549-ANCE-2005, “Protection Against Lightning –
Especification, Materials and Measuring Systems. Mexican Standard. In
Spanish
[11] API/EI Research Report. “Verification of lightning protection
requirements for above ground hydrocarbon storage tanks”, First
Edition, Energy Institute, London, 2009.