Grading Criteria: Economics Tools and Concepts Paper HCS/552 Version 4 1 Grading Criteria Economics Tools and Concepts Paper This assignment is due in Week 3. Content 60 Percent Points Available 9 Points Earned X/9 Additional Comments: · Two to three economic tools are used · Evaluate a current issue or situation Organization / Development 20 Percent Points Available 3 Points Earned X/3 Additional Comments: · Paper is 1,050-1,400 words in length · A minimum of three references are required · The introduction provides sufficient background on the topic and previews major points · The conclusion is logical, flows, and reviews the major points Mechanics 20 Percent Points Available 3 Points Earned X/3 Additional Comments: · The paper, including the title page, reference page, tables, and/or appendices, follows APA guidelines for format as directed by the instructor. The paper is laid out with effective use of headings, font styles, and white space. · Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed, and spelling is correct Total Available Total Earned 15 1 STRUCTURAL LIGHTNING PROTECTION OF AIRPORTS: COMPARISON OF FRANKLIN AIR TERMINAL AND MULTIPOINT DISCHARGE SYSTEMS The art and science of aviation consists of coordinating, communicating and cooperating as much as flying; and airplanes are safe only as long as airports are. A huge threat for an airport is a lightning strike and the consequences of a lightning strike hitting an airport must be carefully examined, for it is highly probable; since an airport is presumably built on a plain topography, with a spatial configuration consisting of empty fields accompanied by a pointy tower and stocked aircrafts. These aspects of airports, especially the tower provides lightning attachment points that are preferentially struck by the lightning. Additional to that fact, a lightning discharge is theoretically able to damage the electronic systems of the tower, the electronic and power systems of the aircrafts that are landing/taking off and power lines [1]. Furthermore; even a random strike to a runway is a high risk for airplanes, since it is able to open a dangerous crater of 0.6 by 0.5 m with a depth of 0.15 m as it happened in India in 2002 [2]. That is why controlling and directing the energy of lightning to protect humans, airport facilities, runways, aircrafts and electronics equipment is a vital obligation that must be studied and exercised very seriously. At that point, there are two main approaches to that problem: Franklin Air Terminal (FAT) and Multipoint Discharge (MD) lightning protection systems (LPS). A critical review of these two approaches reveals that the FAT approach is the more promising solution; because even though the MD system is commercially available it is not reliable and the tests of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reveals no quantitative results that supports the theory behind this approach [3] ...

1. Grading Criteria: Economics Tools and Concepts Paper
HCS/552 Version 4
1
Grading Criteria
Economics Tools and Concepts Paper
This assignment is due in Week 3.
Content
60 Percent
Points Available
9
Points Earned
X/9
Additional Comments:
· Two to three economic tools are used
· Evaluate a current issue or situation
Organization / Development
20 Percent
Points Available
3
Points Earned
X/3
Additional Comments:
· Paper is 1,050-1,400 words in length
· A minimum of three references are required
· The introduction provides sufficient background on the topic
and previews major points

2. · The conclusion is logical, flows, and reviews the major points
Mechanics
20 Percent
Points Available
3
Points Earned
X/3
Additional Comments:
· The paper, including the title page, reference page, tables,
and/or appendices, follows APA guidelines for format as
directed by the instructor. The paper is laid out with effective
use of headings, font styles, and white space.
· Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed, and
spelling is correct
Total Available
Total Earned
15
1

3. STRUCTURAL LIGHTNING PROTECTION OF AIRPORTS:
COMPARISON OF FRANKLIN AIR TERMINAL AND
MULTIPOINT DISCHARGE
SYSTEMS
The art and science of aviation consists of coordinating,
communicating and
cooperating as much as flying; and airplanes are safe only as
long as airports are. A huge
threat for an airport is a lightning strike and the consequences
of a lightning strike hitting an
airport must be carefully examined, for it is highly probable;
since an airport is presumably
built on a plain topography, with a spatial configuration
consisting of empty fields
accompanied by a pointy tower and stocked aircrafts. These
aspects of airports, especially the
tower provides lightning attachment points that are
preferentially struck by the lightning.
Additional to that fact, a lightning discharge is theoretically
able to damage the electronic
systems of the tower, the electronic and power systems of the
aircrafts that are landing/taking
off and power lines [1]. Furthermore; even a random strike to a
runway is a high risk for

4. airplanes, since it is able to open a dangerous crater of 0.6 by
0.5 m with a depth of 0.15 m as
it happened in India in 2002 [2]. That is why controlling and
directing the energy of lightning
to protect humans, airport facilities, runways, aircrafts and
electronics equipment is a vital
obligation that must be studied and exercised very seriously. At
that point, there are two main
approaches to that problem: Franklin Air Terminal (FAT) and
Multipoint Discharge (MD)
lightning protection systems (LPS). A critical review of these
two approaches reveals that the
FAT approach is the more promising solution; because even
though the MD system is
commercially available it is not reliable and the tests of Federal
Aviation Administration
(FAA) reveals no quantitative results that supports the theory
behind this approach [3],
whereas; FAT, the implemented and practiced approach, is the
conventional system for nearly
200 years of structural lightning protection and thus supported
by experimental validations
and empirical data [4].

5. 2
Figure 1: Formation of lightning strike:
Downward leader meets the upward leader
provided by FAT. -[6]
Figure 2: Multipoint Discharge System: Dissipation
Array illustration – [8]
If the two approaches are critically analyzed in terms of
readiness and reliance, the MD system’s lack of reliability is a
certain drawback. The MD system is a proactive device,
whereas
the conventional FAT is a passive system. This means that MDS
is an energy consuming device, which may simply close down
because it depends on a certain source. When it is turned off, it
transforms into an ineffective conventional LPS. Basically, the
MDS technique provides a corona discharge by the elevated
arrays
of sharp points built on top of a structure and that corona

6. discharge either discharges the overhead thundercloud, and
thereby dissipates any possibility of lightning; or discourages a
downward moving leader from attaching to the structure by
reducing the electric field around the array [5]. This procedure
is
sustained by a generator, which continuously charges and
ionizes
the air surrounding the array. On the other hand, The FAT
technique provides lightning attachment points called air
terminals
(or rods) on top of the structures and lightning currents interacts
with those points before any point of the zone of protection.
The
current follows a path beginning with the attachment
point and flows across the down conductor into the
ground counterpoise without damaging the protected
structure [7]. This system is highly reliable because of
its passive and independent configuration that becomes
integrated into the structure and acts as the most

7. 3
Figure 3: Zone of protection: Rolling Sphere Model – [9]
attractive point of attachment of the protected structure without
any sources.
If the two approaches are reviewed within their theoretical
frameworks and its
applicability in practice, the FAT system is clearly a better
solution (it is the conventional
system), since the MD system has not yet been
fully supported by any practical study.
Theoretically, the MD system provides ionized
air molecules that produce an electric current
flow that weakens the electric field around the
dissipation array to a value lower than 1.5- 2.0
kV-m
-1
(breakdown field value)
[10]. This
eliminates the formation of upward moving leader and thus
eliminates the lightning strike to

8. the protected area. However, the MD system tests that were
done by FAA revealed that in
practice dissipation medium prevents only about 50% of
potential strikes and when they fail,
they act like an ineffective conventional system and attract even
the more damaging strikes
because of the mislead electric field manipulations, which is
another failure [11]. Besides that,
because MD system has an umbrella like configuration as it is
shown in Figure 2, another
sharp point at the same height intercepts with the lightning
strike before the MDS [12]. That is
why, it must be practically higher than a FAT, if they are to be
compared with each other;
which is another practical drawback. In FAT system, the
placement of air terminals is
determined by electro geometrical model (EGM) as it is
qualitatively discussed by Mousa
[13]. A simple method that is required for practical implications
of this framework is the
Rolling Sphere Model (RSM) [14] and even though it provides
99% of protection in practice,
it has a theoretical drawback because this method does not
cover the real complexity of

9. electrodynamics theory and functions properly within statistical
ranges and practical limits of
architecture. In other words, any extraordinary lightning
current, striking distance or
4
application height may cause a malfunction and a deeper EGM
analysis may be necessary for
the installation. However, it is not a disadvantage against MDS;
because in theory the MDS
also depends on EGM analysis and in practice it is not even
possible to apply RSM for MD
systems.
When the two approaches are compared with each other about
their feasibility, the
conventional one is practicable and efficient. In theory, the
whole airport can be covered by
both of these approaches. However, the air terminal rod (FAT)
configuration is much easier to
configure than the dissipation array (MDS) thanks to its passive
and simple structure. An
umbrella shaped array of the MDS is an array of barbed wire
with about 700 points and an

10. area of about 3 m
2
[15]. This is not a feasible way to protect especially the
runways.
Moreover, considering that hundreds of each of these systems
would be required to cover all
the runways and buildings; the fact that MDS being an active
electronics device reveals how
complicated and consuming this system would be. On the other
hand; in FAT system, the
proper installation of configuration of wires, down conductors,
counterpoises and air terminal
rods would be enough to protect any required area as it was
reported as an airport LPS case
study at Camp Blanding, Florida [16].
At last, the durability of a system is important under
challenging meteorological
circumstances. Wind is one of the natural consequences of a
thunderstorm, and it is a
drawback to MDS, whereas non-effective to FAT. The MDS
provides corona-produced
charges in order to decrease the electric field around the
dissipation array and eliminate the
formation of upward moving leader. The corona-produced,

11. ionized air shields the array and
therefore reduces the electric field that causes the upward
moving leader. A vertical or a
horizontal wind sweeps away the light, charged ions and as the
ions move away from the
array, their shielding effect reduces and the electric field may
increase as a result. This may
cause a resultant upward moving leader to escape the space
charge cloud and intercept the
5
downward moving leader [17]. This drawback does not occur in
FAT approach, and it
functions as long as it is not physically damaged (in those
extreme cases both systems would
be down so it is not arguable).
The multipoint discharge system (MDS) is a modern,
controversial idea. However, it
has not yet become a feasible and reliable solution for a very
demanding practical purpose
like protecting an airport. On the other hand, the conventional
method of Franklin Air

12. Terminal (FAT) has been used for over 200 years. With
empirical data and theoretical
framework it is proven to be valid and effective in practice.
Standards like RSM have been
developed and the configuration methods have been codified.
There are still a lot to be
understood about lightning strikes and their associated forces,
but for practical engineering
purposes Franklin Air Terminal (FAT) provides 99% protection.
In case of airports, it is
clearly a lifesaving achievement of electrical engineering
history.
REFERENCES:
[1] Tarimer, I. and Kuca, B., “An Overview on the Protection
Measures for Air-Port
Protection in High Density Lightning Regions”, Elektronika Ir
Elektrotechika, 19, 2013, pp
29-32.
[2] Gopalan, T.V., “Lightning Protection of Airport Runway”,
Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, 19, 2005, pp 290-294.
[3] FAA, 1990: 1989 Lightning protection multipoint discharge
systems tests: Orlando,

13. Sarasota, and Tampa, Florida. Federal Aviation Administration,
FAATC T16 Power Systems
Program, Final Rep. ACN-210, pp 48.
[4] Federal lntaregancy Lightning Protection User Group. The
Basis of Conventional
Lightning Protection Technology: A Review of the Scientific
Development of Conventional
Lightning Protection Technologies and Standarts
[5] [6] [7] [17] Uman, M.A. and Rakov, V.A., “A Critical
Review of Nonconventional
Approaches to Lightning Protection”, American Meteorogical
Society, 216, December 2002,
pp 1809-1820
[8] [9] [10] [12] Zipse, D., 1994: Lightning protection systems:
Advantages
and disadvantages. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 30, 1351–1362.
[11] “Lightning strike protection criteria, concepts and
configuration”
Lightning Eliminators & Consultants, Boulder, CO, Rep. LEC-
01- 86.

14. 6
[13] Mousa. A.M. and K.D. Srivastava, "A Revised
Electrogomt~cM odel
for the Termination of lightning Strokes on Ground Objects''.
Pruc. Inter.
Aermppocc and Ground Conference on Lightning and Sinric
Electricity,
Oklahoma City. OK, 342-352. 1988.
[14] Lee, R.H.. "Prote~yt our Plant Against lightning", IEEE
Trurrr. On Indur-
19 Applicarions. Vol. /A-IS. pp. 236~240. 1978.
[15] Rison, V., “Experimental Validation of Conventional and
Non-Conventional Lightning
Protection Systems”, IEEE, 2003, pp 2195-2200
[16] Bejleri, M. and Rakov, V., “Triggered Lightning Testing of
an Airport Runway Lightning
System", IEEE Transaction on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
46, pp 96-101
Student:
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………

15. .……………………………………………………..
Section:
…………………………………………………………………………
………….……………………
ACWR 106
Position Paper Proposal
General Subject Area:
Specific Problem Being Addressed
Specific
Solution
Being Proposed

16. Alternative solution (s) suggested in the literature

17. Append to this sheet, a printout of the first pages of three
sources you think will be useful in the writing of your paper. If
bibliographical information (authors name, publication name,
date of publication etc. is not on this first page, add them) Make
sure that these texts deal with at least two alternative solutions.
Continue on the back of this sheet if necessary.
ACWR 106
Spring 2016
David O’Regan
3-4 pages
Position Paper Assignment
First Draft Due, March 14/15, beginning of class on
turnitin.com
Final Draft Due, March 30/31 beginning of class on
turnitin.com
For this assignment you will write a Position Paper identifying
an important problem or issue in your field and proposing a
specific solution to address this problem or issue. In order for

18. your Position Paper to be successful, both your problem and
solution should be as specific as possible, and your paper
should be written with a specific audience in mind. You may
want to imagine that you are trying to convince a particular
audience to adopt a new technique or tool, approach, or method.
You must include a clear process description and at least one
figure or table in your Position Paper.
Please remember that effective Position Papers should be
written from a reader-centered perspective. This means that you
should consider why the problem is of significance to the
audience, not to you, and why the solution is workable or
appealing to them, not to you. Explain both the problem and the
solution in terms that would be understandable and relatable to
a technical but non-expert audience, such as a doctor, engineer,
or scientist with a different specialty, or an administrator or
executive who majored in the same subject as you did, but who
has not done technical work in many years.
Because they are written for a wide variety of audiences about a
wide variety of subjects, many different topics and tones are
appropriate for Position Papers. You can see examples of more
and less commercial or technical Position Papers here (note: all
of the links below should be live. Please notify me if any of
these links do not work, although you may need to reload them

19. since links launched through word sometimes generate garbage
text when opened the first time):
http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vsphere-vnetwork-ds-
migration-configuration-wp.pdf
http://www.wipro.com/documents/insights/whitepaper/gate_assi
gnment_solution.pdf
http://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/white_papers/wp
279.pdf
http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-
EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/ucm
199994.htm
http://www.onami.us/PDFs/nano-whitepaper.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v40/n5/full/ng0508-523.html
http://www.genome.gov/27530874
Many of these papers are also available on Blackboard with
some others.
Your Position Paper should use material from at least 3 sources
to explain at least two approaches, although you may need to do
additional, general research about your topic, problem, and
solution/approach. Please cite all figures, data, ideas, examples,
words, etc. taken from other sources, as well as following the
conventions for references and citations when referring to

20. previous work in scientific writing.
Note: The problems and solutions in this paper may be a
mixture of your own and ideas you have read in the course of
your research. You are expected to properly acknowledge the
source(s) of ideas encountered in your research as explained
above and in accord with scientific conventions of referencing
and citation as discussed in the textbook and in class. In
addition to obvious forms of academic dishonesty such as
copying and pasting text from the Internet or direct plagiarism
from any other source, examples of unacceptable practices on
this assignment include, but are not limited to:
· Copying both a problem and a solution from an existing paper,
a friend’s paper, a newspaper article, or other source, with or
without attribution
· Paraphrasing or summarizing any portion of your paper from
any source without citation
· Telling your friend exactly how to solve the problem they
have chosen or designing their solution for them
· Allowing your friend to copy your essay or telling them which
strategies are most appropriate for this assignment
· Designing a solution; visual presentations of data such as
graphs, tables or charts; writing equations for a friend or having
someone or something (such as WolframAlpha) do these things

21. on your behalf without acknowledging their contributions.
· Editing a friend’s essay and fixing their errors to give a false
impression of their writing ability
Examples of acceptable practices include:
· Reading multiple sources for background on your issue and
synthesizing them to come up with a problem and/or solution,
using proper citation
· Advocating a solution proposed one or more specific sources,
using proper citation
· Using facts that are common knowledge without attribution
· Brainstorming terms with friends
· Discussing your problem, solution, or the assignment in
general terms with a group of friends
· Discussing the possible topics and problems/solutions and
strategies for research or writing for different types of
audiences with friends
· Directing your friend to resources to help them understand
their problem/solution, the assignment, or brainstorming about
problems/solutions more completely
· Proof-reading a friend’s essay and pointing out errors or typos
Guidelines:
· All papers must follow citation rules of style appropriate for
your particular major

22. · All papers must be typed, double-spaced, and printed on
standard A4 paper. You must use Times New Roman, Calibri,
or another standard font in 12- or 10-point size and the default
margins for your word processing program. You may use either
American or British English spelling and usage, but must be
consistent. That is, if you use “judgement” rather than
“judgment” you must also use “colour” rather than “color,”
“lift” rather than “elevator,” etc.
· Your paper must be carefully proofread and spell-checked and
must not contain any careless errors or typos.
· Papers should use little or no quotation. Most scientific and
technical writing uses quotation rarely, if at all.
· All papers must be bound and pages should be numbered.
· All paraphrased, summarized or quoted material must be
properly attributed to the author.
· If you want me to read a (non-graded, optional) draft of your
paper, please send me a copy at least 24 hours in advance of an
appointment that you can schedule with me by filling in your
details on the sign-up sheet on my office door (SOS 126).