First versus subsequent return-stroke current and field peaks in negative cloud-to-ground lightning discharges

[1] We examine relative magnitudes of electric field peaks of first and subsequent return strokes in negative cloud-to-ground lightning flashes recorded in Florida, Austria, Brazil, and Sweden. On average, the electric field peak of the first stroke is appreciably, 1.7 to 2.4 times, larger than the field peak of the subsequent stroke (except for studies in Austria where the ratio varies from 1.0 to 2.3, depending on methodology and instrumentation). Similar results were previously reported from electric field studies in Florida, Sweden, and Sri Lanka. For comparison, directly measured peak currents for first strokes are, on average, a factor of 2.3 to 2.5 larger than those for subsequent strokes. There are some discrepancies between first versus subsequent stroke intensities reported from different studies based on data reported by lightning locating systems (LLS). The ratio of LLS-reported peak currents for first and subsequent strokes confirmed by video records is 1.7 to 2.1 in Brazil, while in the United States (Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and the Great Plains) it varies from 1.1 to 1.6, depending on methodology used. The smaller ratios derived from the LLS studies are likely to be due to poor detection of relatively small subsequent strokes. The smaller values in Austria are possibly related (at least in part) to the higher percentage (about 50% versus 24–38% in other studies) of flashes with at least one subsequent stroke greater than the first. The effects of excluding single-stroke flashes or subsequent strokes in newly formed channels appear to be relatively small.

[1]  M. Saba,et al.  Negative cloud‐to‐ground lightning properties from high‐speed video observations , 2005 .

[2]  V. P. Idone,et al.  Lightning return stroke velocities in the thunderstorm research international program (TRIP) , 1982 .

[3]  Gerhard Diendorfer,et al.  Lightning characteristics based on data from the Austrian lightning locating system , 1998 .

[4]  Vladimir A. Rakov,et al.  Review of lightning properties from electric field and TV observations , 1994 .

[5]  V. Rakov,et al.  Lightning: Physics and Effects , 2007 .

[6]  Vladimir A. Rakov,et al.  NATIONAL LIGHTNING DETECTION NETWORK : POST-UPGRADE STATUS , 2005 .

[7]  V. Cooray,et al.  Some features of lightning flashes observed in Sweden , 1994 .

[8]  Osmar Pinto,et al.  Relation between lightning return stroke peak current and following continuing current , 2006 .

[9]  Vladimir A. Rakov,et al.  Pulse trains that are characteristic of preliminary breakdown in cloud‐to‐ground lightning but are not followed by return stroke pulses , 2008 .

[10]  Marco Aurélio O. Schroeder,et al.  Statistical analysis of lightning current parameters: Measurements at Morro do Cachimbo Station , 2004 .

[11]  V. Cooray,et al.  Characteristics of lightning flashes observed in Sri Lanka in the tropics , 1994 .

[12]  Kenneth L. Cummins,et al.  National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN) performance in southern Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma in 2003–2004 , 2007 .

[13]  Vladimir A. Rakov,et al.  Long continuing current in negative lightning ground flashes , 1990 .

[14]  Vladimir A. Rakov,et al.  Lightning subsequent-stroke electric field peak greater than the first stroke peak and multiple ground terminations , 1992 .

[15]  Vladimir A. Rakov,et al.  Some properties of negative cloud‐to‐ground lightning flashes versus stroke order , 1990 .

[16]  Martin A. Uman,et al.  Continuing current in negative cloud‐to‐ground lightning , 1989 .

[17]  K. Berger Parameters of lightning flashes , 1975 .

[18]  G. Diendorfer,et al.  Flash Multiplicity and Interstroke Intervals in Austria , .