Atmospheric Research 217 (2019) 63–72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosres

Improved lightning model: Application to discuss the characteristics of T

upward lightning
Yongbo Tan , Tianxue Zheng, Zheng Shi
⁎

Key Laboratory of Meteorological Disaster, Ministry of Education (KLME), Joint International Research Laboratory of Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC),
Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters (CIC-FEMD), Key Laboratory for Aerosol–Cloud–Precipitation of China
Meteorological Administration, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing 210044, PR China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords:
Upward lightning parameterization scheme
Self-initiated upward lightning
Nearby-lightning-triggered upward lightning
A stochastic discharge parameterization scheme of upward lightning is presented and embedded into an existing
fine resolution two-dimensional thundercloud electrification and lightning model. At present, our lightning
model can simulate not only intra-cloud (IC) lightning and cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning but also upward
lightning. By this improved model, 139 upward flashes originating from the tall structures were obtained. Out of
these upward flashes, 67 cases occur without any nearby preceding lightning discharges (called self-initiated
upward flashes), whereas 72 cases are triggered by the preceding lightning discharges (called nearby-lightning-
triggered upward flashes). The relationship between the initiation of self-initiated upward flashes and thun-
dercloud electrical environment parameters is discussed. The results show that the initiation of self-initiated
upward flashes is related to the weighted average of the lower charge heights (H) and the average of the lower
charge density (D). As D increases, the critical H increases. In addition, the reason for IC lightning or upward
lightning triggering upward lightning is investigated. IC lightning discharges or upward lightning discharges
neutralize the main negative charge region in the cloud and enhance the influence of the lower positive charge
region on the ground electric field.

1. Introduction charge accumulation produced by cloud electrification (Berger and

With the increase of high structures, in particular, tall buildings and
windmills all over the world, upward lightning initiating from tall ob-
jects and propagating toward the charged cloud overhead has received
increasing attention in recent years (e.g., McEachron, 1939; Berger,
1977; Flache et al., 2008; Pichler et al., 2010; Warner, 2010; Jiang
et al., 2014; Saba et al., 2016). As is generally known that an upward
lightning is characterized by an upward leader which is initiated from a
high-grounded building, however there is no definitive explanation
about that what charge structures and meteorological background will
trigger upward lightning yet. In order to further understand this issue,
corresponding studies have been carried out in many countries such as
Austria, America, Brazil, Canada, Germany, and Japan (e.g., Berger
et al., 1975; Suzuki, 1992; Fuchs et al., 1998; Miki et al., 2005; Mazur
et al., 2011; Heidler et al., 2014).
Berger (1967) first raised the question that whether initiation of all
upward lightning is caused by preceding flashes, and he also felt that
the high electric field needed for triggering upward lightning is rapidly
created by an intra-cloud (IC) discharge, rather than from the slower
Vogelsanger, 1969). However, based on the simultaneous observation
of electric fields and high-speed images, Takagi et al. (2006) claimed
that all nine upward leaders observed by them were initiated without
any apparent intra-cloud discharge activity, the observation was carried
out in 2001 and 2003 winter seasons in Hokuriku area of Japan, a fa-
mous place for winter lightning. Therefore, the question whether up-
ward lightning is triggered by preceding lightning activity or is initiated
through the slower charge accumulation still needs to be focused on.
Recently, depending on the study of upward lightning in Japanese
winter thunderstorms, Wang et al. (2008) gave the answer that once the
electric field which surrounds the high-grounded object is large enough,
an upward leader can be initiated no matter whether the electric field is
built-up slowly or created rapidly by a nearby preceding activity. In
addition, they also suggested to classify upward lightning into two
types (“self-triggered” upward lightning and “other-triggered” upward
lightning) according to whether they are triggered by nearby lightning
activity or initiated without any nearby preceding lightning activities.
In this paper, we prefer to use the terms self-initiated upward flashes
and nearby-lightning-triggered upward flashes.

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Atmospheric Physics, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing 210044, PR China.
E-mail address: ybtan@ustc.edu (Y. Tan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.10.011
Received 14 May 2018; Received in revised form 12 October 2018; Accepted 23 October 2018
Available online 25 October 2018
0169-8095/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Y. Tan et al.
Nearby-lightning-triggered upward flashes are common in summer
thunderstorms. At present, there are many researches on this type of
lightning. Saba et al. (2016) analyzed one hundred high-speed video
recordings of negative upward lightning flashes, the results indicated
that all upward flashes are triggered by preceding nearby lightning,
most of them are positive cloud-to ground (CG) flashes. Furthermore,
several hypotheses on how positive CG flashes and IC flashes trigger
upward lightning have also been proposed (Rakov and Uman, 2003a,
2003b; Warner et al., 2012a, 2012b; Zhou et al., 2012). One is that
negative leaders associated with either IC development or following a
positive CG return stroke horizontally propagate toward the triggered
towers. One is that a positive CG return stroke propagates through a
previously formed leader network that is near the triggered towers. The
other is that multiple upward flashes could be triggered by the same IC
lightning discharge, and the number of triggered upward lightning is
largely depended on the horizontal extent of IC lightning discharges.
Nevertheless, self-initiated upward flashes mainly occur during the non-
convective season or the thunderstorm dissipating stage, where the low
electrical charge structure and inactive lightning activities are all fa-
vorable conditions for the slow enhancement of electric field under the
cloud (Takagi et al., 2006; Wang and Takagi, 2012; Zhou et al., 2012;
Liu et al., 2013).
It is worth noting that current research results of upward lightning
mainly come from experimental observations. Taking the limitation of
observation methods and experiment conditions into account, it is
difficult to obtain comprehensive thundercloud electrical parameters
before and after upward lightning occurs. This lead to a result that most
of the research results are the conjectures based on observation data,
and these research results have particularity and uncertainty. In addi-
tion, the initiation of upward lightning is relatively difficult compared
to the initiation of IC lightning or CG lightning. It not only requires tall
structures on the ground, but also requires the electric field at the top of
the structures to exceed a certain threshold. These factors make it more
difficult to obtain a comprehensive data of upward lightning through
observation. Therefore, establishing a corresponding theoretical model
for an in-depth study is necessary. At present, numerical models on
lightning mainly include the following two categories. One is a nu-
merical thundercloud model with extensive parameterizations of elec-
trification mechanisms, which can simulate various types of lightning,
including IC lightning, negative CG lightning, and positive CG lightning
(Mansell et al., 2002; Tan et al., 2006; Guo et al., 2016; Iudin and
Davydenko, 2015, Iudin et al., 2017). However, due to the coarse model
resolution, the ground electric field can hardly reach the initial
threshold of upward lightning. Therefore, the above models cannot si-
mulate upward lightning. The other are physical models without cloud
microphysical process and parameterization schemes of electrification
(Becerra and Cooray, 2006a, 2006b, Becerra et al., 2007; Guo et al.,
2017; Yang et al., 2017), which can simulate the initial process of up-
ward leaders from a variety of ground objects and the connection
process of downward leaders and upward leaders. Such models have
made a great progress on the parameterization schemes of upward
leaders, but these models mainly focus on the connection process be-
tween upward leaders and downward leaders within a small area,
whose scales are far smaller than that of lightning and these models can
hardly discuss the relationship between the characteristics of upward
lightning and the thundercloud electrical environment parameters.
Under this background, we present a stochastic discharge para-
meterization scheme of upward lightning by the equivalent substitution
method and some reasonable assumptions, and embed it into an ex-
isting two-dimensional thundercloud electrification and lightning
model (Tan et al., 2006; Tan et al., 2014b).
In this paper, we first describe the stochastic discharge para-
meterization scheme of upward lightning. Then we make a more de-
tailed classification of upward lightning simulated in our model.
Finally, we investigate the relationships between the average con-
centration of lower charge region and the critical height of lower charge
64
Atmospheric Research 217 (2019) 63–72
region under different electrical charge structures in self-initiation up-
ward flashes and discuss the triggering reason of nearby-lightning-
triggered upward flashes.
2. Simulation methods
In this model, a stochastic discharge parameterization scheme of
upward lightning is built and embedded into an existing two-dimen-
sional thundercloud electrification and lightning model (Tan et al.,
2006, 2014b). The electrification scheme includes modified inductive
(Ziegler et al., 1991; Shi et al., 2016) and non-inductive charging (Shi
et al., 2015), while the parameterization scheme of discharge can refer
to (Tan, 2006, Tan et al., 2006; Tao et al., 2009), allowing us to simplify
our description. Note that a two-dimensional model has been adopted
in this paper due to its ability of simulating the lightning discharge with
high resolution, where 250 m resolution (grid spacing) and 2 s time step
are used to simulate the microphysical and electrification processes in a
70 km × 20 km domain, and a fine resolution of 12.5 m is adopted to
calculate the discharge process (Tan, 2006; Tan et al., 2006). The dis-
tortion of ambient electric field caused by tall structures is the main
reason for triggering upward lightning. Tan et al. (2014a) presented
that the spatial resolution of the simulation domain has a positive
correlation with the distortion of electric field at the top of a building.
In other words, it is hard to reach the initiation and propagation
threshold of upward lightning in a coarse resolution for 3-dimensional
domain. That is why a two-dimensional fine resolution is used in the
lightning model.
2.1. Upward lightning parameterization
The parameterization scheme of upward lightning also needs to
consider the initiation of upward lightning, the propagation of upward
lightning, the termination of upward lightning, and the calculation of
induced charges in the channel. These are consistent with the para-
meterization schemes of IC and CG lightning. However, upward light-
ning is triggered from the high-grounded objects and generally propa-
gates in one direction to the charged cloud, unlike IC and CG lightning
that are initiated from the clouds and propagate in two different di-
rections. Therefore, the initiation and propagation of upward lightning
will be described in detail.
2.1.1. Initiation of upward lightning
It is commonly assumed that upward lightning is triggered from tall
structures (Rakov and Uman, 2003a; Rakov and Uman, 2003b; Warner,
2012; Smorgonskiy et al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2014). Upward lightning
initiating from the low-rise structures is rarely observed. Because, the
electric field at the top of a low-rise building can hardly meet the initial
threshold of upward lightning (Standler and Winn, 1979; Chauzy and
Raizonville, 1982; Qie et al., 1994), while the distortion of ambient
electric field caused by a tall building can satisfy the initial threshold of
upward lightning (Diendorfer et al., 2009; Guimarães et al., 2014). That
is why a 250-m grounded building is designed in our model. Taking the
difference between the initiation of self-initiated upward lightning and
the initiation of nearby-lightning-triggered upward lightning into ac-
count (the inception of self-initiated upward lightning will be affected
by the corona space charges), their initiation thresholds will be set
respectively. Firstly, according to the Peek's law (Peek, 1929), for
hemispherical capped lightning rods, the electric field for the onset of
glow corona Ecor is 3 MV/m under the standard condition (Aleksandrov
et al., 2001; Guo and Zhang, 2017; Guo et al., 2017), and considering
the difference between corona onset and leader inception, we choose 7
MV/m as the electric field for the initiation of nearby-lightning-trig-
gered upward lightning (E0). As mentioned above, tall structures have a
great distortion on the ambient electric field. Tan et al. (2014a) pre-
sented an electric field intensification factor Kr, which represents the
ratio of the distorted electric field to the original ambient electric field
Y. Tan et al.
in continuous space. Kr is associated with not only the height but also
the width of a building. Therefore, a universal relation was presented as
Formula (1), based on the estimated Kr of all building patterns in
continuous space.
Kr (H , W ) = 14.5797H 0.7478W 0.0124
(1)
where H is height and W is width. It can be found that the value of Kr
(H, W) is mainly contributed by height, the effect of the width on Kr (H,
W) is very small. In this paper, H is 250 m and W is 12.5 m (there are
many choices for these two parameters, as long as they are favorable for
the initiation of upward lightning). Thus, Kr (H, W) can be calculated by
Formula (1).
Kr (H , W ) = 14.5797 × 250 0.7478 × 12.5 0.0124 878
At the initial threshold (E0) of 7 MV/m and the electric field in-
tensification factor (Kr) of 878, the ambient electrical field E required
for initiating upward lightning is:
E0 7000
E= = kV / m 8kV / m
K r (H , W ) 878
Although tall structures have a great distortion on the ambient
electric field, Tan et al. (2014a) presented that the spatial resolution of
simulation domain is positively correlated with the electric field in-
tensification factor Kr. Therefore, taking the resolution of our model
(12.5 m) into consideration, the distorted electric field at the top of the
250-m building still cannot reach 7 MV/m in our model. Based on these
factors, we can only adopt the equivalent substitution method that the
ambient electric field of 8 kV/m is chosen to be the criterion for the
initiation of nearby-lightning-triggered upward lightning without si-
mulating the distortion process. This means that when the ambient
electric field at the top of a 250-m building in the model reaches 8 kV/
m, nearby-lightning-triggered upward lightning would initiate from this
building. Secondly, due to the negative effect of corona space charges
on the electric field near the top of the building, the initiation threshold
of self-initiated upward lightning will be larger than the initiation
threshold of nearby-lightning-triggered upward lightning. According to
the research results proposed in Aleksandrov et al. (2002, 2005) and
Bazelyan et al. (2008), the corona shielding coefficient 1.4 is chosen to
replace the effect of corona space charges on the electric field near the
top of the building. Therefore, the ambient electric field of 11.2 kV/m is
chosen to be the initiation threshold of self-initiated upward lightning.
There may be some error between the initiation thresholds and the
corresponding electric field thresholds in the actual environment (such
as the determined electric field value for the inception of upward
lightning observed by Zhou et al. (2012) and Becerra et al. (2018)).
As we all know, thunderclouds keep moving throughout the thun-
derstorm, and the strong electric field under the thunderclouds is
usually in a very small domain. Therefore, the initiation of upward
lightning is much more difficult than that of IC lightning or CG light-
ning. In this paper, in order to obtain more upward lightning flashes,
the location of the building in the model is not fixed. Based on the
model setting above, as long as the ambient electric field of a certain
point at the altitude of 250 m reaches the initiation thresholds, the
building will be set there. If there are multiple points meeting the
condition, the building will be located where the ambient electric field
is the largest.
Some researchers have found that positive and negative leaders are
different in initiation and propagation (D'Alessandro and Gumley,
2001; Solomon et al., 2001). However, the differences of initiation and
propagation threshold between positive leaders and negative leaders
are not given in detail. At present, most of the models do not take the
differences between positive and negative leaders into account (e.g.,
Heldson et al., 1992; Mansell et al., 2002; Iudin et al., 2017). Therefore,
these differences will not be considered in our model.
65
Atmospheric Research 217 (2019) 63–72
2.1.2. Propagation of upward lightning
Upward lightning has a bifurcation structure, which is similar to IC
lightning and CG lightning. Therefore, the propagation of upward
lightning will also adopt the stochastic discharge parameterization
scheme (Mansell et al., 2002; Tan, 2006; Tan et al., 2006). When the
potential gradient between the lightning channel and the environment
exceeds the propagation threshold (Ecrit) of upward lightning, the
lightning channel will expand. Because the temperature of the leader
top is so high that the air near the leader top is highly ionized, so the
propagation threshold of the upward leader is much smaller than the
initial threshold. In our model, 150 kV/m (the same for both positive
and negative leader) is chosen as the propagation threshold of upward
lightning referring to Tan et al. (2006b; 2014b). This value is effective
and largely determined by our spatial resolution of 12.5 m. If there are
multiple points meeting the propagation threshold of the upward
leader, lightning channels will stochastically choose one point as the
extension point. The treatment method for the stochastic propagation of
the upward lightning channel are in agree with the method of Mansell
et al. (2002).
Our model simulates the step-by-step propagation of the lightning
from an initiation point. When the potential gradient between the po-
sitive leader tips and the ambient grid points exceeds −150 kV/m (the
physical sign convention is adopted for the polarity of the electric field
in this paper), one new channel segment may be added to the existing
positive leader channel. Similarly, when the potential gradient between
the negative leader tips and the ambient grid points is smaller than
150 kV/m (where positive and negative signs stand for the direction
rather than the numerical value), one new channel segment may be
added to the existing negative leader channel (Mansell et al., 2002; Tan
et al., 2007). It is generally known that upward lightning is originated
from the top of a building, and the building connected to the ground is
considered as a good conductor without resistance. Therefore, upward
lightning is usually a one-way propagation process. Taking the above
factors into consideration, when the absolute value of potential gra-
dient exceeds 150 kV/m, the upward leader channel will add a new grid
point. If the potential gradient is positive, the polarity of the leader is
positive. Referring to Mansell et al. (2002), the leader channel is treated
as a conductor with resistance, thus the simulated leader channels are
assumed to have a nonzero internal electric field of 500 V/m (defined as
Eint). Once the new channel point has been chosen, the potential of the
point is given as follow:
m
(m ) = ref s Eint · di (2)
i=1
where s stands for the polarity of the leader channels, and ϕref is the
reference potential of the initiation point. m is the segment number
away from the initiation point, and di is the length of each segment.
Considering the influence of the channel on the potential distribution of
the environment (both extended leader channels and the building are
the fixed boundary), the ambient potential distribution should be up-
dated after each extension (Tan et al., 2006; Tan et al., 2007).
2.1.3. Termination of the leader and calculation of the induced charge
When the absolute values of the potential gradient between all
channel points and their ambient grid points are smaller than the
propagation threshold or the leader propagate to the border (except the
ground), the upward leader will be terminated.
In our scheme the lightning channel is regarded as a conducting
channel. After the lightning is over, the Lightning channel will induce
charges. According to Poisson's equation, the induced charge on the
channel is given by
= 2
(3)
where ε is the electric permittivity, ρ is the net charge density at grid
points. Each hydrometeor category receives charges released by light-
ning in proportion to its total surface area, regardless of preexisting
Y. Tan et al. Atmospheric Research 217 (2019) 63–72

charge (Ziegler and MacGorman, 1994). Subsequently, these charges Table 1

will be transported to other places in the simulation domain by the Details of the six selected upward flashes.
intra-cloud microphysical processes and affect the subsequent discharge Thunderstorm cases Classification Charge PLPW(MV) RL/U
processes. structure

UL1 SEET SUNL A Dipole −63.2 66.7%

2.1.4. Definition of upward lightning
UL2 SEET SUPL B Tripole 36.8 45.3%
Currently, upward lightning is not strictly defined, therefore we will UL3 SEET SUNL C Inclined tripole −275.3 21.7%
give a definition based on the length of the lightning channels. In our UL4 SEET TUPL C Inclined tripole 64.8 45.7%
model, if the length of lightning channels is more than 2 km, this pro- UL5 SEET TUPL B Tripole 51.3 50.4%
cess will be defined as an upward flash, other discharge behaviors UL6 NJ812 TUPL B Tripole 161.3 46.3%

whose propagation distances are less than 2 km will not be defined as

PLPW: The maximum potential of lower potential well.
an upward flash in our simulations. Note that the channel length of
RL/U: The ratio of the magnitude of lower charge to that of upper charge.
2 km is chosen as the criterion of upward lightning based on the
average cloud base height in the model.
(defined as UL2) shown in Fig. 1b belongs to self-initiated upward
positive lightning under the tri-pole charge structure (defined as SUPL
2.2. Cases studies of thunderstorms
B). The upward lightning (defined as UL3) shown in Fig. 1c belongs to
self-initiated upward negative lightning under the inclined tri-pole
Two thunderstorms are chosen for lightning simulations. One is a
charge structure (defined as SUNL C). UL1, UL2, and UL3 are all from
mountain storm from SEET (Studies of Electrical Evolution in
the SEET case. The corresponding distributions of potential for these
Thunderstorms), conducted in July and August of 1999 at the Langmuir
three upward lightning flashes are shown in Fig. 1d, e and f, respec-
Laboratory for Atmosphere Research in the mountains of central New
tively. Fig. 2 contains two upward lightning flashes. The upward
Mexico (Coleman et al., 2003), and the atmospheric sounding profiles
lightning (defined as UL4) shown in Fig. 2a belongs to nearby-light-
on 31 July 1999 came from National Centers for Environmental Pre-
ning-triggered upward positive lightning under the inclined tri-pole
diction grids data near the observing site (defined as SEET case). The
charge structure (defined as TUPL C). The upward lightning (defined as
elevation of the experimental site located on a hillside is about 3 km,
UL5 and UL6 respectively) shown in Fig. 2b and c both belong to
the charge structure of this thunderstorm is low similar to the Japanese
nearby-lightning-triggered upward positive lightning under the tri-pole
winter thunderstorm. The other is a supercell storm under a mesoscale
charge structure (defined as TUPL B). Though UL5 and UL6 are clas-
convective system. We used the sounding profile in Nanjing, China at
sified as the same type of upward lightning, they are from the SEET case
PM 12:00 on 12 August 2011 (defined as the NJ812 case), the details of
and NJ812 case respectively. One is the mountain thunderstorm, the
NJ812 case can be found in Shi et al. (2015). The data used as input for
other is the plain thunderstorm, their similarities and differences will be
the simulation are temperature, relative humidity, atmospheric pres-
described below. The distribution of potentials for these two upward
sure, and wind profile. These two thunderstorm cases are a mountain
lightning flashes are shown in Fig. 2d, e and f.
thunderstorm and a plain thunderstorm, representing two kinds of
As shown in Fig. 1, UL1 occurs during the dissipating stage of
sounding curves respectively.
thunderstorms and propagates into the main negative charge region.
In this study, the initial disturbance of the model is a temperature
The main negative charge region is close to the ground. According to
and humidity bubble disturbance with a horizontal radius of 5 km and a
the results given in Table 1, the magnitude of the main negative charge
vertical radius of 1 km. The center of the disturbance is 1 km away from
for UL1 is comparable to that of the upper positive charge. UL2 occurs
the center of the model domain. In order to obtain more simulation
during the mature stage of thunderstorms and propagates into the lower
cases of upward lightning, the maximum temperature and relative
positive charge region. Similar to UL1, the magnitude of the lower
humidity of the bubble disturbance center are constantly adjusted to
positive charge for UL2 is also comparable to that of the main negative
produce more charge backgrounds. It should be noted that this paper
charge. UL1 and UL2 are both self-initiated upward flashes, and they
focuses on the relationship between the characteristics of upward
are all simulated by the SEET case (the msl of ground is about 3 km)
lightning and the thundercloud electrical environment parameters,
that has a low cloud base height like the Japanese winter thunderstorm.
where the charge backgrounds for initiating upward lightning are not
Meanwhile, they both include the following features. One is that the
artificially set, which are provided by the dynamic-microphysics frame
lower charge region is closer to the ground, which makes the electric
and the electrification process (Shi et al., 2015), and they will change as
field of the ground larger. The other is that the magnitude of lower
the charged particles in the thunderclouds change.
charge is comparable to that of the upper charge, and the ratio of the
magnitude of lower charge to that of upper charge (RLP) is greater than
3. Simulation results
45.3%. These results are consistent with Wang et al. (2008). UL3 is a
special upward lightning, which propagates into the main negative
3.1. Several types of upward lightning
charge region. The charge structure in Fig. 1c is inclined, where the
lower positive charge region locates at the lower left of the main ne-
A large number of upward lightning flashes have been simulated by
gative charge region, which makes the main negative charge region
adjusting the parameters of bubble disturbance. Based on the classifi-
exposed to the ground. In addition, the range of the main negative
cation of upward lightning made by Wang et al. (2008), the simulation
charge region is much larger than that of the lower positive charge
results are further classified into five main types. From each of the five
region, and RLP is only 21.7%. UL1 and UL3 both are upward negative
types of upward lightning, we select one or two representative cases for
flashes. The former propagates into the lower negative charge region,
analysis below. Table 1 shows the details of the six selected upward
while the latter extend into the main negative charge region. However,
flashes. In addition, some special upward lightning also be simulated,
as shown in Fig. 1d and f, the lower potentials for these two upward
which will be introduced later. It is worth to be noticed that the SEET
negative flashes are both negative. The negative potential shown in
case is a mountain thunderstorm, the average elevation of the ground is
Fig. 1d is easy for us to understand. However, why the lower potential
about 3 km, and the ordinate of all Figures in this paper stands for the
shown in Fig. 1f is also negative? The main reasons are that the lower
height above mean sea level (msl). Fig. 1 contains three upward
positive charge region in Fig. 1c is much smaller than the main negative
lightning flashes. The upward lightning (defined as UL1) shown in
charge region, which makes the main negative charge region play an
Fig. 1a belongs to self-initiated upward negative lightning under the
important role in the formation of the negative potential. After the
dipole charge structure (defined as SUNL A). The upward lightning

66
Y. Tan et al. Atmospheric Research 217 (2019) 63–72

Fig. 1. (a, b, and c) Upward lightning channel structure and distribution of space charge and (d, e, and f) electric potential. Fig. 1a and d are UL1, Fig. 1b and e are
UL2, and Fig. 1c and f are UL3. The purple diamonds represent the initiation points of upward lightning flashes, the purple channels represent upward positive
leaders, and the blue channels represent upward negative leaders. In Fig. 1a, b, and c, black solid lines are for positive charge and dashed lines are for negative charge
with contour values starting at ± 0.1 nC/m3 with intervals of 0.5 nC/m3. In Fig. 1d, e, and f, black solid lines represent positive potential and dashed lines represent
negative potential with contour values starting at 0 MV. The distributions of charge and electric potential are all from coarse resolution (250 m) model. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 2. (a, b, and c) Upward lightning channel structure and distribution of space charge and (d, e, and f) electric potential. The details are same as those in Fig. 1.
Fig. 2a and d are UL4, Fig. 2b and e are UL5, and Fig. 2c and f are UL6.

initiation of UL1 and UL3, their leaders both enter the negative po-
tential well (potential extremum region). The potential wells attract the
leaders of opposite polarity into the central area and prevent their
outward expansion (MacGorman et al., 2001; Tan, 2006). As shown in
Table 1, the maximum potentials of lower negative potential wells
(PLPW) for these two upward negative flashes are less than −63.2 MV
(reference potential of the ground is 0 MV).
In observation, nearby lightning activities produce a strong instant
electric field, which will trigger upward flashes in a few milliseconds to
hundreds of milliseconds (Zhou et al., 2012), but there is still not a clear
definition on the nearby-lightning-triggered upward flashes in our
model (Because there is no time factor for the lightning simulated in our
model). In order to make the definition of the upward flashes simulated
in the model close to the actual observation, we define that upward

67
Y. Tan et al.
flashes triggered by nearby lightning discharges within two steps are
nearby-lightning-triggered upward flashes. As shown in Fig. 2, UL4
propagating into the lower positive charge region is triggered by the
preceding upward lightning discharge shown in Fig. 1c. UL5 and UL6
are triggered by IC lightning discharges and propagate into the lower
positive charge region. UL4, UL5, and UL6 are all nearby-lightning-
triggered upward flashes, where UL5 and UL6 have some similarities,
for example, when these two upward flashes initiate, the thundercloud
top heights in Fig. 2b and c are both 12.2 km, and the charge structures
are both tri-pole. However, the msl of the ground in the SEET case is
3 km, which is far greater than that in the NJ812 case, therefore, the
thundercloud shown in Fig. 2c develops more exuberant. In addition,
UL6 has more channel branches, and the maximum potential of the
lower potential well for UL6 is greater than that for UL5. These dif-
ferences are related to the case adopted for simulation.
UL2, UL4, UL5, and UL6 are all upward positive flashes, their lea-
ders propagate into the lower positive potential wells shown in Fig. 1e,
2d, e, and f. Table 1 shows the maximum potentials of the lower po-
tential wells for them, the maximum potentials are always greater than
36.8 MV. Combining with the analysis on the upward negative flashes
mentioned above, upward leaders in Figs. 1f and 2f propagate into the
lower negative potential wells and form many branches, moreover,
these upward leaders are confined to the lower strong potential wells.
While the other four upward leaders shown in Figs. 1d, e, 2d, and e pass
through the lower positive potential wells and extend to the zero po-
tential line. This phenomenon is probably related to the maximum
potential of the lower potential well, and further research will be car-
ried out in the future. Table 1 shows RLP for the six upward lightning
flashes, except for that for UL3, RLP for other five upward lightning
flashes are all greater than 45.3%. In addition, RLP before the two IC
lightning discharges (triggering UL5 and UL6) are also given, they are
10.1% and 21.5% respectively. RLP when upward flashes occur is sig-
nificantly greater than RLP when upward flashes cannot occur. The
configuration relationship between lower charge and upper charge may
determine whether upward flashes can occur and propagate into the
lower charge region. Quantitative discussion will be given in sub-
sequent studies.
Table 2 shows the frequency of different types of lightning simu-
lated by the SEET case and the NJ812 case. Out of 139 upward flashes,
67 cases are self-initiated upward flashes, 72 cases are nearby-light-
ning-triggered upward flashes, and the SEET case is more favorable for
the initiation of self-initiated upward flashes than the NJ812 case. Ac-
cording to the previous analysis, we think that the lower cloud base
height in the SEET case (mountain thunderstorm) may be the main
reason for this result. Compared with observations (Prentice and
Mackerras, 1977), the ratio of IC to CG lightning flashes is relatively
small, which may be related to excessive upward flashes. Upward fla-
shes neutralize the bottom charge, which causes the CG lightning to be
hard to occur.
3.2. Self-initiated upward flashes
SUNL A and SUPL B are both self-initiated upward flashes. The re-
search on the triggering reason of self-initiated upward flashes has been
carried out all these years. At present, there are some research results
on the triggering reason of self-initiated upward flashes. Becerra et al.
(2007) suggested that the initiation of upward flashes not only depends
Table 2
Frequency of different types of lightning in two thunderstorm cases.
Self-initiated upward flashes Nearby-lightning-triggered upward flashes
Total 67 72
SEET 66 34
NJ812 1 38
68
Atmospheric Research 217 (2019) 63–72
on the thundercloud electric field but also on the height of the building
and the neutral aerosol particle concentration of the site. Zhou (2015)
quantitatively investigate the effect of building height on the initiation
of upward flashes. Because the ambient electric field is chosen to be the
criterion for the initiation of upward flashes, and the magnitude of the
ambient electric field mainly depends on the weighted average of
bottom charge heights (defined as H) and the average of the bottom
charge density (defined as D). Note that the average of the bottom
charge density is calculated by dividing the total surface charge density
of the bottom charge region by the area of the bottom charge region.
The greater D is, the easier it is to initiate upward flashes. The higher H
is, the harder it is to initiate upward flashes. Therefore, we will discuss
how D and H combine to affect the initiation of self-initiated upward
flashes in the following section.
Due to the difference of charge structures between SUNL A and
SUPL B, these two types of upward flashes will be discussed separately.
The relationship between D and H in 45 SUNL A is shown in Fig. 3a. The
coefficient of determination R2 is 0.87. This means that the fitting effect
is very good, and H and D have a good linear relationship. The fitting
function is marked in Fig. 3a. As D increases, the critical H for initiating
the SUNL A also increases. In other words, as D increases, upward
flashes can initiate when H is higher than just when H is low.
SUPL B has the similar characteristics to SUNL A. The relationship
between H and D in 22 SUPL B is shown in Fig. 3b. Although H center
and D have a linear relationship, the coefficient of determination R2 is
only 0.62. This means that the fitting effect for SUPL B is not as good as
the result for SUNL A.
As shown in Fig. 3, H under the dipole charge structure is generally
higher than that under the tri-pole charge structure. H under the dipole
charge structure is mainly in the range of 7 km to 8 km, whereas H
under the tri-pole charge structure is mainly in the range of 5.5 km to
7 km. In addition, D under the dipole charge structure is also overall
greater than that under the tri-pole charge structure. D under the dipole
charge structure is mainly in the range of −0.3 nC/m3 to −0.6 nC/m3,
whereas D under the tri-pole charge structure is mainly in the range of
0.25 nC/m3 to 0.35 nC/m3. The coefficients of the fitting function in
Fig. 3a and b are 2.14 and 8.46 respectively. The main reason for this
difference is that the value of the ambient electric field is not only
proportional to the square of H but also to D. As H increases, H has an
increasing influence on the value of the ambient electric field. As
mentioned above, H and D under the dipole charge structure are gen-
erally greater than those under the tri-pole charge structure. Therefore,
when D increases, the increment of H under the dipole charge structure
is much smaller than that under the tri-pole charge structure.
3.3. Nearby-lightning-triggered upward flashes
Nearby-lightning-triggered upward flashes are assumed to be trig-
gered by preceding lightning discharge activities. What needs to be
emphasized here is that this type of upward flashes can occur not only
during the preceding lightning development, but also after the end of
the preceding lightning (Zhou et al., 2010, 2012; Warner et al., 2012a).
The latter will be discussed in this section. As shown in Fig. 2b and c,
UL5 and UL6 are triggered by preceding IC flashes or upward flashes.
Wang et al. (2008) described the electric field changes (physics sign
convention) associated with the nearby-lightning-triggered upward
flashes from the lightning protection tower. The electric field had first a
IC lightning CG lightning
85 12
40 6
45 6
Y. Tan et al. Atmospheric Research 217 (2019) 63–72

Fig. 3. Relationship between the weighted average of the bottom charge heights and the average of the bottom charge density under the dipole charge structure (a)
and the tri-pole charge structure (b). The abscissa is the average of the bottom charge density. The ordinate is the weighted average of the bottom charge heights. R2
is the coefficient of determination.

IC Initiation Site IC Initiation Site

UL Initiation Site
UL Initiation Site

IC Initiation Site IC Initiation Site

UL Initiation Site
UL Initiation Site

Fig. 4. Distribution of (a and b) electric field and (c and d) electric potential before IC lightning and after IC lightning. Purple diamonds represent the initiation points
of upward lightning (UL), Purple triangles represent the initiation points of IC lightning. Black solid lines are for positive electric field (physics sign convention) and
dashed lines are for negative electric field with contour values starting at ± 0 kV/m. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

positive (negative) change that lasted tens of milliseconds followed by a
negative (positive) change. Taking UL5 as an example, which conforms
the characteristic described above. Fig. 4 give the distribution of (a and
b) electric field and (c and d) electric potential before and after IC
lightning. It can be found in Fig. 4a that the contour value of electric
field around the upward lightning (UL) initiation site is smaller than
8 kV/m at 55.03 min (IC flash occurs at 55.06 min). However, the
contour value rapidly increases and exceeds the initiation threshold
after the occurrence of IC lightning shown in Fig. 4b. This electric field
changes around the UL initiation site can be seen more clearly in Fig. 5.
The electric field at the UL initiation site is about 300 V/m before the
occurrence of IC lightning. Then the IC lightning occurs, which neu-
tralize the main negative charge region shown in Fig. 2b. The electric
field at the IC lightning initiation site decreases quickly accompanying
by a sudden increase of the electric field at the UL initiation site. After
the occurrence of the UL, the lower positive charge region shown in
Fig. 2b is neutralized, and the electric field at the UL initiation site is
reduced to the original level.
Why IC lightning can trigger the upward flash? According to the
above analysis, IC lightning discharges neutralize the main negative

69
Y. Tan et al. Atmospheric Research 217 (2019) 63–72

obtain more general characteristics of upward flashes, more simu-

lations of other regions need to be conducted in the future.
(2) Although the discharge module adopts the fine resolution of 12.5 m,
it is still too low for calculating the distorted electric field around
the top of the building. Therefore, we choose the ambient electric
field as the criterion for the initiation of upward flashes. There are
some errors between the initiation thresholds in our model and
those obtained by observations (Zhou et al., 2012; Becerra et al.,
2018). The main reasons for these errors are the following. One is
that the observed electric field is affected by the topography and
objects, which is larger than the electric field calculated under the
smooth underlying surface of the model. One is that the electric
field in three-dimensional model is larger than that in two-dimen-
sional model, but it is greatly affected by the resolution. When the
Fig. 5. Changes of electric field at the UL initiation site and at the IC lightning
resolution is 12.5 m, the electric field in there-dimensional model is
initiation site. Red line represents the changes of electric field at the UL in-
basically equivalent to that in two-dimensional model. Further-
itiation site, blue line represents the changes of electric field at the IC flash
initiation site. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure le-
more, we increase the initiation thresholds for these two types of
gend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) upward lightning, the simulation results are consistent with that in
our paper. This also illustrates that the initiation thresholds selected
in our paper is suitable for the issues discussed in this study.
charge region in the cloud, which leads to the decrease of the influence
(3) In our model, the influence of the corona space charges on the in-
of the main negative charge region on ground electric field. The lower
itiation threshold for nearby-lightning-triggered upward lightning is
positive charge region plays a major role on the ground electric field. As
simply replaced by an equivalent coefficient without simulating the
shown in Fig. 4c, the lower potential before the IC lightning is mainly
space charge layer. This influence will be discussed by other mem-
negative and the height of the lower potential well center (location of
bers of our team. In addition, our model is a simplified two-dimen-
the lower maximum potential) is 8.2 km, which is too high for upward
sional equivalent model, some settings may differ from current re-
leaders to initiate. However, the lower potential after the IC lightning
search results, and the effect of one lightning discharge is too strong,
shown in Fig. 4d rapidly turns into positive potential, the maximum
which is not conducive to the occurrence of the upward lightning
potential of the lower potential well is about 56.2 MV, and the lower
triggered by positive CG lightning. But these would not change the
potential well is close to the ground. These are all favorable for the
research results obtained in this paper, and they will be resolved as
initiation of TUPL B.
the resolution of the model improves. Of course, it is also the target
Wang et al. (2008) and Lu et al. (2009) both suggested that upward
for our future work. A high-resolution three-dimensional lightning
lightning can trigger other upward lightning of opposite polarity. In our
model is also extremely important for discussing such issues as the
model, this type of upward lightning has been simulated. Fig. 6 gives
connection process at the top of the building.
the distribution of (a and b) electric field and (c and d) electric potential
before and after the preceding UL. The preceding UL is UL3 shown in
5. Conclusion
Fig. 1c. The initiation of UL3 is mainly due to the offset of the center of
the lower positive charge region from the center of the main negative
In this paper, a stochastic discharge parameterization scheme of
charge region. The contour value of electric field around the starting
upward lightning has been presented, and upward lightning discharges
point of UL4 in Fig. 6a and b has a great increase before and after the
are simulated in 12.5 m resolution within two-dimensional domain by
occurrence of UL3. As depicted in Fig. 7, the electric field at the starting
using this scheme. The simulation results have been divided into five
point of UL changes from 4.2 kV/m to −9.8 kV/m after the occurrence
main types, namely self-initiated upward negative flashes under the
of UL3. Then UL4 occurs, the electric field changes from −9.8 kV/m to
dipole charge structure (SUNL A), self-initiated upward positive flashes
−1.7 kV/m. This electric field changes are consistent with that ob-
under the tri-pole charge structure (SUPL B), self-initiated upward ne-
served in Lu et al. (2009). The specific analysis is the same as the up-
gative flashes under the inclined tri-pole charge structure (SUNL C),
ward flash triggered by IC lightning.
nearby-lightning-triggered upward positive flashes under the inclined
In summary, whatever upward lightning is triggered by IC lightning
tri-pole charge structure (TUPL C), and nearby-lightning-triggered up-
or by upward lightning, the triggering reasons are both to weaken the
ward positive flashes under the tri-pole charge structure (TUPL B).
influence of the main negative charge region and increasing the influ-
Where 67 cases are self-initiated upward flashes, 72 cases are nearby-
ence of the lower positive charge region on the ground electric field.
lightning-triggered upward flashes. Self-initiated upward flashes
Note that most of the nearby-lightning-triggered upward flashes ob-
usually contain the following features. One is that their lower charge
served in Brazil and the US by Saba et al. (2016) are associated to
regions are closer to the ground, which makes the electric field of the
preceding positive CG flashes rather than purely to IC flashes or upward
ground large. The other is that they have large lower charge regions,
flashes. However, upward flashes triggered by positive CG flashes have
whose magnitude of charge is comparable to the upper charge regions.
not been simulated within our model, therefore this type of upward
The initiation of self-initiated upward flashes is related to the weighted
lightning can only be discussed in future work.
average of the lower charge heights (H) and the average of lower charge
density (D). As D increases, the critical H increases. In other words,
4. Discussion
when D reaches a higher level, upward flashes can occur when H is
higher than just when H is low. UL5 and UL6 are triggered by IC
In this study, there are some settings and analysis that need to be
lightning discharges. IC lightning discharges neutralize the main ne-
further explained, and some work that need to be improved in the fu-
gative charge region in the cloud and enhancing the influence of the
ture study. The main discussions are as follows:
lower positive charge region on the ground electric field. This is the
main reason for triggering this type of upward lightning. In addition,
(1) Simulation results are all from the SEET case and the NJ812 case,
upward flashes can also be triggered by the nearby preceding upward
the characteristics of upward lightning flashes discussed in this
flash, and the triggering method is similar to the upward flash triggered
paper can only represent that of these two regions. In order to
by IC lightning.

70
Y. Tan et al.
UL Initiation Site Preceding UL
UL Initiation Site Preceding UL
Fig. 6. Distribution of (a and b) electric field and (c and d) before preceding UL and after preceding UL. Purple diamonds represent the initiation point of UL
triggered, Purple squares represent the initiation point of preceding UL. Preceding UL is the self-initiation upward flash shown in Fig. 1c, UL is the upward flash
triggered by preceding UL. The details are same as those in Fig. 4. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)
Fig. 7. Changes of electric field at the UL initiation site and at the main ne-
gative charge region. Red line represents the changes of electric field at the
initiation site of the triggered UL, blue line represents the changes of electric
field at the density center of the main negative charge region. (For inter-
pretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)
Acknowledgments
The work was supported by National Key Research and
Development Program of China (2017YFC1501504), National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41875003, 41805002), Startup
Foundation for Introducing Talent of NUIST (2016r042), Natural
Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (No.BK20180808) and Natural
Science Fundamental Research Project of Jiangsu Colleges and
Universities (No. 18KJB170010).
71
Atmospheric Research 217 (2019) 63–72
UL Initiation Site Preceding UL
UL Initiation Site
Preceding UL
References
Aleksandrov, N.L., Bazelyan, E.M., Carpenter, R.B., Drabkin, M.M., Raizer, Y.P., 2001.
The effect of coronae on leader initiation and development under thunderstorm
conditions and in long air gaps. J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 34 (22), 3256–3266.
Aleksandrov, N.L., Bazelyan, E.M., Drabkin, M.M., Carpenter, R.B., Raizer, Y.P., 2002.
Corona discharge at the tip of a tall object in the electric field of a thundercloud.
Plasma Phys. Rep. 28 (11), 953–964.
Aleksandrov, N.L., Bazelyan, E.M., Raizer, Y.P., 2005. The effect of a corona discharge on
a lightning attachment. Plasma Phys. Rep. 31 (1), 75–91.
Bazelyan, E.M., Raizer, Y.P., Aleksandrov, N.L., 2008. Corona initiated from grounded
objects under thunderstorm conditions and its influence on lightning attachment.
Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 17 (2), 431–438.
Becerra, M., Cooray, V., 2006a. A self-consistent upward leader propagation model. J.
Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 39 (16), 3708–3715.
Becerra, M., Cooray, V., 2006b. A simplified physical model to deter- mine the lightning
upward connecting leader inception. IEEE Trans. Power Del. 21 (2), 897–908.
Becerra, M., Cooray, V., Soula, S., Chauzy, S., 2007. Effect of the space charge layer
created by corona at ground level on the inception of upward lightning leaders from
tall towers. J. Geophys. Res. 112, D12205. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008308.
Becerra, M., Long, M., Schulz, W., Thottappillil, R., 2018. On the estimation of the
lightning incidence to offshore wind farms. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 157, 211–226.
Berger, k, 1967. Novel observations on lightning discharges, results and research on
Mount San Salvatore. J. Frankl. Inst. 283 (6), 478–525.
Berger, K., 1977. The Earth flash. In: Golde, R.H. (Ed.), Lightning: Physics of Lightning.
Vol. 1. Elsevier, New York, pp. 119–190.
Berger, k, Vogelsanger, E., 1969. New results of lightning observations. Planet.
Electrodyn. 1, 489–510.
Berger, K., Anderson, R.B., Knoninger, H., 1975. Parameters of lightning flashes. Electra
41, 23–37.
Chauzy, S., Raizonville, P., 1982. Space charge layers created by coronae at ground level
below thunderclouds: measurements and modeling. J. Geophys. Res. 87 (C4),
3143–3148. https://doi.org/10.1029/JC087iC04p03143.
Coleman, L.M., Marshall, T.C., Stolzenburg, M., Hamlin, T., Krehbiel, P.R., Rison, W.,
Thomas, R.J., 2003. Effects of charge and electrostatic potential on lightning pro-
pagation. J. Geophys. Res. 108 (D9), 4298. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002718.
D'Alessandro, F., Gumley, J.R., 2001. A “Collection Volume Method” for the placement of
air terminals for the protection of structures against lightning. J. Electrost. 50 (4),
279–302.
Y. Tan et al.
Diendorfer, G., Pichler, H., Mair, M., 2009. Some parameters of negative upward-initiated
lightning to the Gaisberg tower (2000–2007). IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 51
(3), 443–452.
Flache, D., Rakov, V.A., Heidler, F., Zischank, W., Thottappillil, R., 2008. Initial-stage
pulses in upward lightning: leader/return stroke versus M-component mode of charge
transfer to ground. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L13812. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2008GL034148.
Fuchs, F., Landers, E.U., Schmid, R., Wiesinger, J., 1998. Lightning current and magnetic
field parameters caused by lightning strikes to tall structures relating to interference
of electronic systems. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 40 (4), 444–451.
Guimarães, M., Araujo, L., Pereira, C., Mesquita, C., Visacro, S., 2014. Assessing currents
of upward lightning measured in tropical regions. Atmos. Res. 149, 324–332.
Guo, F., Lu, G., Wu, X., Wang, H., Liu, Z., Bao, M., Li, Y., 2016. Occurrence conditions of
positive cloud-to-ground flashes in severe thunderstorms. Sci. China Earth Sci. 59 (7),
1401–1413.
Guo, X.F., Zhang, Q.L., 2017. Effects of geometrical parameters of two height-unequal
adjacent objects on corona discharges from their tips during a thunderstorm. Atmos.
Res. 190, 113–120.
Guo, X.F., Zhang, Q.L., Zhang, J.B., 2017. Improvement of corona discharge model and its
application on simulating corona discharge in the presence of wind. Math. Probl. Eng.
2017, 9853439. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9853439.
Heidler, F., Manhardt, M., Stimper, K., 2014. Self-initiated and other-triggered positive
upward lightning measured at the Peissenberg Tower, Germany. In: Paper presented
in 2014 International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP). IEEE, pp. 157–166.
Heldson, J.H., Wu, G., Farley, R.D., 1992. An intra-cloud lightning parameterization
scheme for a storm electrification model. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 5865–5884. https://
doi.org/10.1029/92JD00077.
Iudin, D.I., Davydenko, S.S., 2015. Fractal model of a compact intracloud discharge. I.
Features of the Structure and Evolution. Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 58 (7),
477–496.
Iudin, D.I., Rakov, V.A., Mareev, E.A., Iudin, F.D., Syssoev, A.A., Davydenko, S.S., 2017.
Advanced numerical model of lightning development: application to studying the
role of LPCR in determining lightning type. J. Geophys. Res. 122, 6416–6430.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD026261.
Jiang, R.B., Qie, X.S. Wu, J, Z., Wang, D.F., Liu, M.Y., Lu, G.P., Liu, D.X., 2014.
Characteristics of upward lightning from a 325-m-tall meteorology tower. Atmos.
Res. 149, 111–119.
Liu, D.X., Qie, X.S., Pan, L.X., Peng, L., 2013. Some characteristics of lightning activity
and radiation source distribution in a squall line over North China. Atmos. Res. 132,
423–433.
Lu, W.T., Wang, D.H., Zhang, Y., Takagi, N., 2009. Two associated upward lightning
flashes that produced opposite polarity electric field changes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36,
L05801. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036598.
MacGorman, D.R., Straka, J.M., Ziegler, C.L., 2001. A lightning parameterization for
numerical cloud models. J. Appl. Meteorol. 40 (3), 459–478.
Mansell, E.R., MacGorman, D.R., Straka, J.M., 2002. Simulated three-dimensional bran-
ched lightning in a numerical thunderstorm model. J. Geophys. Res. 107 (D9), 4075.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD000244.
Mazur, V., Ruhnke, L.H., Warner, T.A., Orville, R.E., 2011. Discovering the nature of
recoil leaders. In: Paper Presented at 14th International Conference on Atmospheric
Electricity, International Conference on Atmospheric Electricity. Brazil, Rio de
Janeiro.
McEachron, K.B., 1939. Lightning to the empire state building. J. Frankl. Inst. 227 (2),
149–217.
Miki, M., Rakov, V.A., Shindo, T., Diendorfer, G., Mair, M., Heidler, F., et al., 2005. Initial
stage in lightning initiated from tall objects and in rocket-triggered lightning. J.
Geophys. Res. 110, D02109. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004474.
Peek, F.W., 1929. Dielectric Phenomena in High-Voltage Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Pichler, H., Diendorfer, G., Mair, M., 2010. Some parameters of correlated current and
radiated field pulses from lightning to the Gaisberg Tower. IEEJ Trans. Electr.
Electron. Eng. 5, 8–13.
Prentice, S.A., Mackerras, D., 1977. The ratio of cloud to cloud-ground lightning flashes in
thunderstorms. J. Appl. Meteorol. 16 (5), 545–550.
Qie, X.S., Liu, X.S., Soula, S., Chauzy, S., 1994. Influence of ion attachment on vertical
distribution of electric field and charge density under thunderstorm. Ann. Geophys.
12, 1218–1228.
Rakov, V.A., Uman, M.A., 2003a. Upward lightning initiated by ground-based objects. In:
Lightning: Physics and Effects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U. K., pp.
176–182 Chap. 6.
Rakov, V.A., Uman, M.A., 2003b. Winter lightning in Japan. In: Lightning: Physics and
Effects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U. K., pp. 308–320 Chap. 8.
Saba, M.M., Schumann, C., Warner, T.A., Ferro, M.A.S., Paiva, A.R., Helsdon, J., Orville,
R.E., 2016. Upward lightning flashes characteristics from high-speed videos. J.
Geophys. Res. 121 (14), 8493–8505. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025137.
72
Atmospheric Research 217 (2019) 63–72
Shi, Z., Tan, Y.B., Tang, H.Q., Sun, J., Yang, Y., Peng, L., Guo, X.F., 2015. Aerosol effect on
the land-ocean contrast in thunderstorm electrification and lightning frequency.
Atmos. Res. 164, 131–141.
Shi, Z., Tang, H.Q., Tan, Y.B., 2016. Effects of the inductive charging on the electrification
and lightning discharges in thunderstorms. Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci. 27, 241–251.
https://doi.org/10.3319/TAO.2015.12.10.01(A.
Smorgonskiy, A., Rachidi, F., Rubinstein, M., Diendorfer, G., Schulz, W., 2013. On the
proportion of upward flashes to lightning research towers. Atmos. Res. 129, 110–116.
Solomon, R., Schroeder, V., Baker, M.B., 2001. Lightning initiation-conventional and
runaway breakdown hypotheses. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 127 (578), 2683–2704.
Standler, R.B., Winn, W.P., 1979. Effects of coronae on electric fields beneath thunder-
storms. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 105 (443), 285–302.
Suzuki, T., 1992. Long term observation of winter lightning on. Japan Sea coast. Res. Lett.
Atmos. Electr. 12, 53–56.
Takagi, N., Wang, D., Watanabe, T., 2006. A study of upward positive leaders based on
simultaneous observation of E-fields and high-speed images. IEEJ Trans. Fundam.
Mater. 126 (4), 256–259.
Tan, Y.B., 2006. Numerical Simulations of the Relationship of the Lightning Discharge
with the Space Charge and Potential Distribution in Thundercloud. in Chinese. PhD
dissertation. University of Science and Technology of China.
Tan, Y.B., Tao, S.C., Zhu, B.Y., 2006. Fine resolution simulation of the channel structures
and propagation features of intra-cloud lightning. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L09809.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025523.
Tan, Y.B., Tao, S.C., Zhu, B.Y., Ma, M., Lu, W.T., 2007. A simulation of the effects of intra-
cloud lightning discharges on the charges and electrostatic potential distributions in a
thundercloud. Chin. J. Geophys. 50 (4), 916–930.
Tan, Y.B., Guo, X.F., Zhu, J.R., Shi, Z., Zhang, D.D., 2014a. Influence on simulation ac-
curacy of atmospheric electric field around a building by space resolution. Atmos.
Res. 138, 301–307.
Tan, Y.B., Tao, S.C., Liang, Z.W., Zhu, B.Y., 2014b. Numerical study on relationship be-
tween lightning types and distribution of space charge and electric potential. J.
Geophys. Res. 119, 1003–1014. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD019983.
Tao, S.C., Tan, Y.B., Zhu, B.Y., Ma, M., Lu, W.T., 2009. Fine resolution simulation of
cloud-to-ground lightning and thundercloud charge transfer. Atmos. Res. 91,
360–370.
Wang, D., Takagi, N., 2012. Characteristics of winter lightning that occurred on a
windmill and its lightning protection tower in Japan. IEEJ Trans. Power Energy 132
(6), 568–572. https://doi.org/10.1541/ieejpes.132.568.
Wang, D., Takagi, N., Watanabe, T., Sakurano, H., Hashimoto, M., 2008. Observed
characteristics of upward leaders that are initiated from a windmill and its lightning
protection tower. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L02803. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2007GL032136.
Warner, T.A., 2010. Observations of simultaneous multiple upward leaders from tall
structures. In: Paper Presented at 30th International Conference on Lightning
Protection. University of Bologna, Cagliari, Italy.
Warner, T.A., 2012. Observations of simultaneous upward lightning leaders from multiple
tall structures. Atmos. Res. 117, 45–54.
Warner, T.A., Cummins, K.L., Orville, R.E., 2012a. Upward lightning observations from
towers in Rapid City, South Dakota and comparison with national lightning detection
network data, 2004-2010. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D19109. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2012JD018346.
Warner, T.A., Saba, M.M.F., Ridge, S., Bunkers, M., Lyons, W.A., Orville, R.E., 2012b.
Lightning-triggered upward lightning from towers in Rapid City, South Dakota. In:
Paper Presented at 4th International Lightning Meteorology Conference. Vaisala,
Boulder, Colo.
Yang, N., Zhang, Q., Hou, W., Wen, Y., 2017. Analysis of the lightning attractive radius
for wind turbines considering the developing process of positive attachment leader. J.
Geophys. Res. 122, 3481–3491. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD026073.
Zhou, B.W., 2015. Numerical Simulation of Upward Lightning Trigger and Spread. in
Chinese. Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing,
Jiangsu, China.
Zhou, H., Diendorfer, G., Thottappillil, R., Pichler, H., Mair, M., 2010. Simultaneous
current and electric field observations of upward negative leaders initiated from the
Gaisberg Tower. In: Paper Presented at 2010 Asia-Pacific Symposium on
Electromagnetic Compatibility. Tsinghua Univ., Beijing.
Zhou, H., Diendorfer, G., Thottappillil, R., Pichler, H., Mair, M., 2012. Measured current
and close electric field changes associated with the initiation of upward lightning
from a tall tower. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D08102. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2011JD017269.
Ziegler, C.L., MacGorman, D.R., 1994. Observed lightning morphology relative to mod-
eled space charge and electric field distributions in a tornadic storm. J. Atmos. Sci.
51, 833–851.
Ziegler, C.L., MacGorman, D.R., Dye, J.E., Ray, P.S., 1991. A model evaluation of non-
inductive graupel-ice charging in the early electrification of a mountain thunder-
storm. J. Geophys. Res. 96, 12833–12855. https://doi.org/10.1029/91JD01246.