Three-Dimensional Simulation of Corona Discharge in a Double-Needle System during a Thunderstorm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the authors could: 1. Increase the quality of annotations in drawings. 2. Extend the introduction. 3. Expand the literature review.Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear reviewer 1:
Thanks for your email informing us that our manuscript entitled "Three-dimensional Simulation of Corona Discharge in a Double-needle System During a Thunderstorm" (Manuscript ID: atmosphere-2298170) is due for revision. We appreciate that you gave us a chance of revision to improve our manuscript to a level suitable for publication in your journal. The revision of the article has been marked in red in revised paper, the following is a reply to the reviewer's suggestions.
Point 1: Increase the quality of annotations in drawings.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I have made some modifications to the annotations of some drawings, as shown below.
Figure 1. (A) is a schematic diagram of two building models. (B) is a simplified corona-discharge model diagram for a double-needle system.
Figure 5. Distributions of electric field in double-needle system with or without CD at different heights. (A), (D), (G) Spatial electric field distributions without CD in double-needle system with h = 20 m, 60 m, and 100 m, respectively. (B), (E), (H) Spatial electric field distributions of CD at t = 10 s in double-needle system with h = 20 m, 60 m, and 100 m, respectively. (C), (F), (I) Spatial electric field distributions of CD at t = 20 s in double-needle system with h = 20 m, 60 m, and 100 m, respectively. And the minimum value of z is - h, which is at the ground level.
Figure 6. Side views of distributions of electric-field distortion coefficients of double-needle system with different heights. (A), (D) and (G) represent the distribution maps of the double-needle system without corona with heights of 20 m, 60 m and 100 m respectively. (B), (E) and (H) represent the distribution maps of corona at t = 10 s in double-needle system with h = 20 m, 60 m, and 100 m, respectively. (C), (F) and (I) represent the distribution maps of corona at t = 20 s in double-needle system with h = 20 m, 60 m, and 100 m, respectively. And the value of z is the same as Figure 5.
Figure 7. Electric field at the ground level of the double-needle system with different heights. (A), (D) and (G) represent the distribution maps of the double-needle system without corona with heights of 20 m, 60 m and 100 m respectively. (B), (E) and (H) represent the distribution maps of corona at t = 10 s in double-needle system with h = 20 m, 60 m, and 100 m, respectively. (C), (F) and (I) represent the distribution maps of corona at t = 20 s in double-needle system with h = 20 m, 60 m, and 100 m, respectively.
Figure 8. Shielding effects of double-needle system on ground electric field with and without CD at different times: h = (A) 20 m, (B) 60 m, and (C) 100 m. x represents the distance between object 1 and object 2, with positive to the right and negative to the left.
Point 2: Extend the introduction.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the introduction section to the article and highlighted the added section in red.
Point 3: Expand the literature review.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have expanded the literature as follows.
- Soler, S., Pérez‐Invernón, F. J., Gordillo‐Vázquez, F. J., Luque, A., Li, D., Malagón‐Romero, A., ... & Østgaard, N. (2020). Blue optical observations of narrow bipolar events by ASIM suggest corona streamer activity in thunderstorms. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125(16), e2020JD032708.
- Becerra, M. (2014). Corona discharges and their effect on lightning attachment revisited: Upward leader initiation and downward leader interception. Atmospheric research, 149, 316-323.
- Yuan, S., Jiang, R., Qie, X., Wang, D., Sun, Z., & Liu, M. (2017). Characteristics of upward lightning on the Beijing 325 m meteorology tower and corresponding thunderstorm conditions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122(22), 12-093.
- Goelian, N., Lalande, P., Bondiou-Clergerie, A., Bacchiega, G. L., Gazzani, A., & Gallimberti, I. (1997). A simplified model for the simulation of positive-spark development in long air gaps. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 30(17), 2441.
- Bazelyan, E. M., & Drabkin, M. M. (2003, July). Scientific and technical basis for preventing lightning strikes to earthbound objects. In 2003 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting (IEEE Cat. No. 03CH37491) (Vol. 4, pp. 2201-2208). IEEE.
- Rizk, F. A. (2010). Analysis of space charge generating devices for lightning protection: Performance in slow varying fields. IEEE transactions on power delivery, 25(3), 1996-2006.
- Chalmers, J.A. (1976). Atmospheric Electricity. second ed. pp. 451–499.
- Aubrecht, L., Koller, J., & Stanek, Z. (2001). Onset voltages of atmospheric corona discharges on coniferous trees. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 63(18), 1901-1906.
- Aubrecht, L., Stanek, Z., & Koller, J. (2001). Corona discharge on coniferous trees-spruce and pine. Europhysics Letters, 53(3), 304.
- Antunes de Sá, A., Marshall, R., Sousa, A., Viets, A., & Deierling, W. (2020). An array of low‐cost, high‐speed, autonomous electric field mills for thunderstorm research. Earth and Space Science, 7(11), e2020EA001309.
- Soula, S., & Chauzy, S. (1991). Multilevel measurement of the electric field underneath a thundercloud: 2. Dynamical evolution of a ground space charge layer. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 96(D12), 22327-22336.
- Standler, R. B., & Winn, W. P. (1979). Effects of coronae on electric fields beneath thunderstorms. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 105(443), 285-302.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
see attached document for comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear reviewer 2:
Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We reallly appreciate all your generous comments and suggestions! According to your adcive, we amended the relevant part in manuscript and the part of the manuscript that needs to be revised suddenly is highlighted in red. All of your questions are answered one by one.
Point 1: Line 40-41, “initiation, charge structure, and propagation of lightning leaders…” No relevant citations are given for this part of the motivational statement, and it should be deleted.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made modifications to the content and added relevant references, as shown below.
CD has some effects on the initiation and propagation of lightning leaders and on the distrubution of the electric field near the ground[7,8], and in-cloud CD can also occur isolated from lightning and can detected from space[9].
- Pérez-Invernón, Francisco J., and Alejandro Malagón-Romero. (2022). "Editorial for the Special Issue “Advances in Atmospheric Electricity”" Atmosphere 13, no. 11: 1829.
- Romanovskii, Oleg A., and Olga V. Kharchenko. (2022). "Atmospheric and Ocean Optics: Atmospheric Physics III" Atmosphere 13, no. 11: 1912.
- Soler, S., Pérez‐Invernón, F. J., Gordillo‐Vázquez, F. J., Luque, A., Li, D., Malagón‐Romero, A., ... & Østgaard, N. (2020). Blue optical observations of narrow bipolar events by ASIM suggest corona streamer activity in thunderstorms. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125(16), e2020JD032708.
Point 2: Line 42-43: “the process of lightning stroke” As above, this is not justified in the citations and should be deleted.
Response 2: Thank you for your advice. We have considered that the relevant references may not have been cited here, which is not convincing. Therefore, we have added relevant references here, and the list of references is as follows.
- Becerra, M. (2014). Corona discharges and their effect on lightning attachment revisited: Upward leader initiation and downward leader interception. Atmospheric research, 149, 316-323.
- Yuan, S., Jiang, R., Qie, X., Wang, D., Sun, Z., & Liu, M. (2017). Characteristics of upward lightning on the Beijing 325 m meteorology tower and corresponding thunderstorm conditions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122(22), 12-093.
Point 3: Line 62: suggest changing “two” to "two or more".
Response 3: Thanks. We have changed “two” to "two or more"
but their model did not consider two or more buildings.
Point 4: Line 72: “the height of the building from the ground” Please clarify, is this the height of the building or the height of the pin (rod) tip? Figure 1A is not very clear on this. specify so that others might be able to apply your results.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have provided a more specific definition of the variable description, hoping to express it more clearly.
in which the main geometric variables are h, the height of either building’s tip, and d, the distance between tips.
Point 5: Line 73: Regarding d, ”the distance between them” It would be useful to mention if there is a lower limit on d, and to discuss this a bit. Later, in Figure 2, you calculate for 'buildings' that are 20m, 60m, and 100m high (h) but as close as 100 cm (d=0.1 m) apart, out to 150 m apart. So it seems for small d, this approximates a situation of two very tall thin rods, correct? It is difficult to imagine such tall 'buildings' so close together.Perhaps Figure 1A could be redrafted to depict the possibility of such small d values as those used in the calculations.
Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We have provided our explanation for this as follows.
When the two objects are very close, such two buildings are rare. At this time, the model can be understood as the spacing between two lightning rod or lightning rod arrays.
Point 6: Line 90-91: For correctness, the authors should change "negative-polarity thunderstorm clouds" to "net negative charge aloft in a thunderstorm cloud."
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the modifications according to your suggestion.
In the case of approaching net negative charge aloft in a thunderstorm cloud.
Point 7: Line 98: “are not repeated here.” Please give the citations again here, for these formulae and data.
Response 7: Thank you. We have supplemented the references where the data is located here. The references are as follows.
The formula and data for the Kaptzov hypothesis are not repeated here[32].
- Becerra, M. (2013). Glow corona generation and streamer inception at the tip of grounded objects during thunderstorms: revisited. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 46(13), 135205.
Point 8: Line 130: What is the background electric field used in your calculations? Please show it as a function of t.
Response 8:Thank you. We have supplemented the relevant function expressions in the article. As shown below.
Eb=2t(kV/m),0s≤t≤10s,
Eb=20(kV/m),10s≤t≤20s,
Point 9: Line 131: I think reference [28] is incorrectly applied here. The authors should justify why it is relevant to their statement about CD or remove it.
Response 9: Thank you for your advice. Sorry, we mistakenly cited the literature and have deleted it.
It is closely related to the change of the background electric field and affects the initiation of the leader [36].
- Willett, J. C., Davis, D. A., and Laroche, P. (1999). An experimental study of positive leaders initiating rocket-triggered lightning. Atmos. Res. 51(3–4), 189–219.
Point 10: Line 142-143: It is not clear to me how this statement is supported by Figure 2 since the E used in the simulation is not stated or shown. I think a separate graph of the environmental electric field vs time is needed. Without it, the time axis makes little sense, as there is not any t dependence in the equations listed herein.
Response 10: Thank you for your suggestion. In order to express the relationship between Eb and t more clearly, we have supplemented the time relationship diagram of Eb and t in the text.
Figure 2. The trend of Eb changing with t.
Point 11: Figure 3A-c: I am confused by the curves labelled "Double single needle" Are these, in fact, two-times the Single needle result? This is suggested by the following tect, also. If so, please label them differently, with "2xSingle needle" for example. (Using the word "Double" in these labels is confusing)
Also, as for Fig 2, a time plot of the environmental E would be useful.
Finally, it looks like there is a mistake in the charge axis (y) labels in A-C, it must be microC instead of mC.
Response 11: Thank you for your suggestion. We have redrawn the graphics, changed “Double single needle” to “2*single needle”, and changed “mC” to “microC”.
Point 12: Line 205, reference [29]: Possible additional, better, and more recent references should be included here, e.g,
1) Antunes de Sá, A., Marshall, R., Sousa, A., Viets, A., & Deierling, W. (2020). An array of low‐cost, highspeed, autonomous electric field mills for thunderstorm research. Earth and Space Science, 7(11),
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EA001309
2) Soula, S., & Chauzy, S. (1991). Multilevel measurement of the electric field underneath a thundercloud: 2.
dynamical evolution of a ground space charge layer. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres,
96(D12), 22327-22336. https://doi.org/10.1029/91JD02032
3) Standler, R. B., & Winn, W. P. (1979). Effects of coronae on electric fields beneath thunderstorms.
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 105(443), 285-302.
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49710544319
Response 12: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the participating literature you have listed to this article.
Point 13: Line 207: Why only a single d is calculated? And why 150 m? Can the authors briefly discuss any results at smaller d, perhaps at the end of the section
Response 13: Thank you for your comment. The following are our explanations for your doubts and we hope to resolve them.
This paper is mainly to explore when the distance between two needles is, any one of the two needles can be equal to an independent lightning rod of the same height. In the previous study, it can be found that the closer the distance between two needles is, the greater the degree and scope of their mutual influence. Therefore, we choose the farthest distance to study, and explore the minimum value of this distanced.
Point 14: Line 208: In Figure 4, how does the z-axis relate to h? It is not clear, and I do not find it stated, whether z=0m is at the ground? If z=0m at the ground, the results for z<0m should not be shown. If z=0m at the top of the building, then the lowest value of z shown in these plots must be labeled and should be at the ground (e.g, should be -20m, -60m, and -100m for the three values of h)
Response 14: Thank you for your comment. Sorry, we didn't express it clearly. The following are our relevant explanations, hoping to help you re understand.
In the model established in this article, the position of the building tip is z=0, and the buildings are all in the area of z<0. Therefore, for double needle systems of different heights, the lowest values corresponding to z are - h. , h in this article is the height of the building, which is a scalar value. Due to the height of the double-needle system studied in this article being up to 100m and down to only 20m, in order to compare the changes in corona current at the tips of different height double-needle systems and maintain the aesthetics of the images, the position corresponding to the lowest value of z is not shown in the figure.
Point 15: Line 220: To be clear, insert "the larger" again here, “the larger the field enhancement range above and the larger the field shielding...
Response 15: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made corresponding modifications in the text according to your requirements.
At the same time, the higher the value of h, the larger the field enhancement range above and the larger field shielding range below.
Point 16: Line 230-231: This sentence seems to be a mistake (leftover from instructions?)
Response 16: Thank you. Sorry, it was our expression mistake. We have made new modifications to the sentence, as shown below.
Where Ecorona is the electric field with CD and Eoriginal is that without CD (i.e., due to the building itself).
Point 17: Line 232, Figure 5 and 6: These nice figures could be improved with more obvious shading levels. It is almost impossible to see the different scales of red and blue intensity. More colors or improved delineation between shades would bring out the results better; this is especially important close to the tips. In fact, I would strongly encourage the authors to show also these regions near the tips at expanded scale (similar to Figure 6 but for the z value of the tip height), since the enhancements in these regions are of extreme importance. Also, the axis labels need units, and the relation of z to h must be stated. (As for Figure 4, it seems that z=0m at the building top. If so, then the lowest values of z shown should be -h.)
Response 17: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made relevant modifications according to your request, and the following is our explanation for the issue you raised.
For double-needle systems of different heights, the minimum value of z is - h.
Point 18: Line 232: I do not understand the meaning of "top view" although I can guess (from comparison to Figure 5) it is showing the result at the ground. Please explicitly give the z-value for each set of these plots. If z=0m is at the ground, then this reviewer is completely confused by your results!
Response 18: Thank you for your suggestion. Sorry for the confusion caused by your lack of clarity in our expression. It is showing the result at the ground level of the double-needle system with different heights, and the minimum value of z is - h, which is at the ground level.
Point 19: Line 255: Enhancement and shielding ranges: Are these example values given in the text supposed to be the horizontal ranges at the maximum? or at a particular z value? Are they per building or total for the two buildings? Please clarify. It is too hard to understand what you are trying to convey.
Response 19: Thank you. Sorry, we did not express it clearly. The following is our explanation and relevant modifications have been made in the article.
The example values given in the text are all calculated under specific z-values. This values are the total for the two buildings.
Point 20: Line 261-262: Please define "shielding effect" as presented in Figure 7 and Table 2, since it is given there as a percentage, rather than as the N coefficients defined above. Also, when giving the ranges of the shielding effect (in Table 2 and in text), at various percentages, please state if this is a range around each of the two buildings or the total range for the two buildings. Finally, in Figure 7, the x-axis is labeled "Distance between two buildings /m" ins which case, why are values less than 0m included? Maybe just plot the positive distances. Negative values of d do not make sense to this reviewer.
Response 20: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Sorry for our expression mistake, we have made new revisions in the text.
Figure 8. Shielding effects of double-needle system on ground electric field with and without CD at different times: h = (A) 20 m, (B) 60 m, and (C) 100 m. x represents the distance between object 1 and object 2, with positive to the right and negative to the left.
Point 21: Line 303: I strongly suggest restating your main parameters here of h being height of the buildings or needles and d being their separation distance. The section will stand much better if you do so.
Response 21: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the modifications according to your suggestion, as shown below.
The h is the height of either building’s tip and the d is the distance between two tips.
Point 22: Line 317: I suggest breaking this sentence (at ‘and’) and restating what you are trying to convey:. For Qdouble ~~ 2Qsingle, the required value of d...
Response 22: Thank you. We have made corresponding modifications in the text according to your suggestion.
For Qdouble ≈ Qsingle, the required value of d increases with both h and t.
Point 23: Line 323: Should replace “weaker” with “smaller” for clarity.
Response 23: Thanks. We have replaced “weaker” with “smaller”.
However, the higher the value of h, the smaller the CD shielding range on the ground.
Point 24: Line 327-328: Change "enhanced" and "enhancement" to "increased" and "increase" to reduce possible confusion (since you use enhancement for coefficients N > 1).
Response 24: Thank you for your comment. We have changed "enhanced" and "enhancement" to "increased" and "increase".
With CD, the shielding effect on the ground electric field is increased, and the higher the value of h, the greater the increase.
Point 25: Line 331: Here and next instance, “ca.” should be "about" or "roughly".
Response 25: Thank you. We have made the modifications according to your suggestion.
The range of the CD shielding effect of the 20-m-high double-needle system on the ground electric field is about 70 m, which is 8.8 times that without CD. However, the range of the CD shielding effect of the 100-m-high double-needle system is about 150 m, which is just 1.5 times that without CD.
Point 26: Line 334-225: “…valuation of detectors possibly of atmospheric electric field.” Could cite again here:Antunes de Sá, A., Marshall, R., Sousa, A., Viets, A., & Deierling, W. (2020). An array of low-cost, highspeed, autonomous electric field mills for thunderstorm research. Earth and Space Science, 7(11), https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EA001309
Response 26: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have cited the literature in the corresponding position of the article according to your suggestion.
In conclusion, the effect of CD on the ground electric field cannot be neglected, which provides a basis for future lightning warning and the evaluation of detectors of atmospheric electric field[38].
38.Antunes de Sá, A., Marshall, R., Sousa, A., Viets, A., & Deierling, W. (2020). An array of low‐cost, high‐speed, autonomous electric field mills for thunderstorm research. Earth and Space Science, 7(11), e2020EA001309.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript by Guo et al. presents a method to estimate the inception of corona discharges in buildings structures during the passage of a thunderstorm. In particular, they applied a published method to the case of a double-needle system representing two buildings. Although the novelty of the work is "average", the results can be useful for the community, especially for building protection against electric discharges. The manuscript is clear and I recommend it for publication in Atmosphere after consideration of some minor comments:
- Abstract: It is difficult following the abstract with so many symbols/variables. I recommend writing the abstract without them. Of course, they can be then introduced and used in the main text.
- Line 42: In-cloud corona discharges can also occur isolated from lightning an can be detected from space:
Soler, S., Pérez‐Invernón, F. J., Gordillo‐Vázquez, F. J., Luque, A., Li, D., Malagón‐Romero, A., ... & Østgaard, N. (2020). Blue optical observations of narrow bipolar events by ASIM suggest corona streamer activity in thunderstorms. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125(16), e2020JD032708. - Lines 53 - 62:
Some studies have proposed the existence of a relationship between optical emissions and electric current, which can be interesting here as you estimate the electric current in corona discharges:
https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098938
https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037883 - Lines 85 - 87: For the Kaptzov hypothesis, please add: N.A. Kaptzov,Electrical phenomena in gases and vacuum (in Russian), Moscow: Ogiz, 1947 - Line 100: "sphere of ions"? ionosphere can be misunderstood as a region of the atmosphere - Equation (2): Please explain clearer: Why do you considerer only positive ions and not electrons? - Tables: Something is wrong with the tables. There are some vertical words (results...) than are not aligned with the tables.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear reviewer 3:
Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Three-dimensional Simulation of Corona Discharge in a Double-needle System During a Thunderstorm" (Manuscript ID: atmosphere-2298170). Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. What needs to be revised in the text is highlighted in red. The responses to the comments are presented following.
Point 1: - Abstract: It is difficult following the abstract with so many symbols/variables. I recommend writing the abstract without them. Of course, they can be then introduced and used in the main text.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have taken your suggestion and changed the symbols and variables in the abstract to their full names.
Abstract: The effect of corona discharge from buildings or structures on the surrounding atmospheric electric field is very important in the measurement of urban atmospheric electric field and the early warning of lightning. However, most previous studies were focused on independent buildings, with little research on three-dimensional building groups. Therefore, based on three-dimensional numerical simulation technology, this paper uses a double-needle system to simulate the characteristics of thunderstorm corona discharge from two equal-height buildings separated by a variable distance. The shielding effect of the double-needle system on the ground electric field is evaluated both with and without corona discharge, and the main conclusions are as follows. 1) The larger the distance between the two needles, the closer the peak corona current from each tip of the double-needle system to that from an independent lightning rod at the same height. When the peak corona current from each tip of the double-needle system equals the peak corona current from an independent lightning rod at the same height to some level approximation, the distance between the two needle systems is determined by the needle height at this time. 2) For the distance between the two needles is 0.1 m, the corona charge released by the double-needle system is almost equal to that released by an independent lightning rod. With the corona charge released by the double-needle system is approximately twice as much as that released by an independent lightning rod, when the distance between the two needles is increased to a certain value that increases with the needle height and the time of corona discharge. 3) The greater the value of the time of corona discharge, the stronger the shielding effect of the corona discharge on the ground electric field and the larger the shielding range, but the greater the value of the needle height, the smaller the shielding range. 4) Compared with the shielding effect with no corona discharge, that with corona discharge is greater, but the greater the value of the needle height, the less the enhancement. For example, for corona discharge with the time is 10 s, the needle height is 20 m and the shielding range is ca. 70 m, which is 8.8 times that without corona discharge; however, for the needle height is 100 m, the shielding range is ca. 150 m, which is only 1.5 times that without corona discharge.
Point 2: - Line 42: In-cloud corona discharges can also occur isolated from lightning an can be detected from space: Soler, S., Pérez‐Invernón, F. J., Gordillo‐Vázquez, F. J., Luque, A., Li, D., Malagón‐Romero, A., ... & Østgaard, N. (2020). Blue optical observations of narrow bipolar events by ASIM suggest corona streamer activity in thunderstorms. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125(16), e2020JD032708. - Lines 53 - 62:
Response 2: Thank you for your guidance and suggestions. We have added your suggested content to the article.
CD has some effects on the initiation and propagation of lightning leaders and on the distrubution of the electric field near the ground[7,8], and in-cloud CD can also occur isolated from lightning and can detected from space[9].
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
