Abstract--An assumption of complete spatial randomness has

been used to obtain analytic expressions that describe the

probability that the closest lightning strike is within any
distance of an arbitrary point or a simulated power line, if the
area density of strikes in the region is known. Preliminary
tests of these functions show that they describe experimental
data rather well, but such tests are limited by the accuracy of
the measurements.
I. INTRODUCTION
ATED, wideband lightning sensors [1] similar to those
used in the U.S. National Lightning Detection Network
(NLDN) [2,3] have been used in many countries for many
years, and the resulting data provide accurate estimates of the
area-density of cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning flashes under
individual storms and over larger regions on monthly,
seasonal, and annual time scales (see, for example, [4] and the
references therein). Here, we will show how knowledge of the
average area density of strikes, N
g
, in a region can be used to
estimate the chances that a strike has occurred within any
given distance of a random point or line segment in that region.
II. NEAREST-STRIKE TO A POINT
We begin by supposing that we know the average area-
density of strikes, N
g
, and we want to know the chances that
any strike has occurred within a distance, R, of any origin
(chosen at random) in that region. We assume that each strike
is a random event and that the spatial pattern of the strike
points has a homogeneous Poisson distribution, i.e., N
g
has
complete spatial randomness. With this assumption, we can
use the method outlined in [5, 6] to derive the probability
density, w(r), for the nearest strike being within a distance r
and r + dr of the origin, i.e.

'

'

dr r and r between
strike a IS y there Probabilit
r within is strike
NO y that Probabilit
) ( dr r w
or

This work was supported in part by the NASA Kennedy Space
Center, Grant NAG10-302.
E. Philip Krider is with the Institute of Atmospheric Physics,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 USA. (e-mail:
krider@atmo.arizona.edu)
( ) ( ) 1
0
when 2
r
0
)dr' w(r' 1

,
_

dr' r' w
g
prdr N w(r)dr .
Solving this equation, we obtain the nearest-neighbor
distribution,

,
_

2
g
N exp
g
N 2 ) ( r rdr dr r w
. (1)
Using (1), it is straightforward to show that the most probable
nearest-neighbor distance is
g
2
1
N
r
probable
most

, the mean is
g
N
r
2
1
, and the variance is
( )
( )
.
0683 . 0
4
4
g
N
g
N
r Var

The integral of (1) describes the probability that the closest

strike is within a distance R,
' ) ' ( ) (
0

R
dr r w R P ,
or

)
2
g
N exp( 1 ) ( R R P
. (2)
Now, if P is specified, (2) can be solved for R,
[ ]
2 / 1
) 1 ln(
g
N P R . (3)
It should be noted that in cases where 1
2
<< R N
g
,
equation (2) reduces to
2
) ( R N R P
g
.
III. NEAREST-STRIKE TO A LONG LINE SEGMENT
One can use the same ideas to derive the probability that
the closest (random) strike is between horizontal distance, h,
and h + dh (on either side) of a long line of length, L,
Lh) N ( Ldh N p(h)dh g g 2 exp 2 . (4)
On the Chances of Being Struck
by Cloud-to-Ground Lightning
E. Philip Krider, Member, IEEE
G
0-7803-7967-5/03/$17.00 2003 IEEE
Paper accepted for presentation at 2003 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference, June 23th-26th, Bologna, Italy
With (4), the most probable h is zero, the mean is
g
LN
h
2
1
, and the variance is ( )
( )
2
2
1
g
LN
h Var .
An integral of (4) gives the probability that the closest strike is
within a distance H of the line,
( ) LH) N ( H P g 2 exp 1 , (5)
and if P and L are specified, then

g
LN P H 2 ) 1 ln( . (6)
In cases where 1 2 << LH N
g
, then (5) becomes
LH N H P
g
2 ) ( .
IV. COMPARISON WITH LIGHTNING DATA
Figure 1 shows the spatial pattern of 7205 CG lightning
flashes that were recorded by the NLDN near Denver, Colo-
rado, over a 5-year period. Here, each dot shows the most
probable location of the first return stroke in each flash (see
the Appendix in [2]), and in the following we will refer to these
points as events. (Note: we have made no corrections for an
imperfect NLDN detection efficiency or for the multiple
attachment points that commonly occur in CG flashes [7].)

Fig. 1. Plot of CG lightning flash locations near Denver, CO from
January, 1995, through December, 1999. There are a total of 4786
strikes in the analysis sub-region shown by the dashed red line.
The data in Figure 1 have a numerical precision of four decimal
digits in latitude and longitude, which translates to a spatial
resolution of about 10 m, but random and systematic errors in
the NLDN typically produce location errors that are of the
order 0.5 to 1 km [2,3]. There were 4786 events within the 16x16
km
2
analysis sub-region (to avoid edge effects) that is outlined
by the dashed line in Figure 1, and the average value of N
g
over that region is 18.7 flashes per km
2
.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of the event-to-nearest-
event distances in the analysis sub-region of Figure 1 and the
measured cumulative distribution. Plots of equations (1) and
(2) with N
g
= 18.7 flashes per km
2
are shown in red and blue,
respectively. The mean and variance of the experimental data
are 115 m and 3720 m
2
, respectively, and the corresponding
values predicted by equation (1) are 116 m and 3650 m
2
.
Fig. 2. The event-to-nearest-event distribution for the spatial pattern
that is within the dashed analysis area of Figure 1. The mean and
variance of the r data are 115 m and 3720 m
2
, respectively.
Fig. 3. The random-origin-to-nearest-event distribution for the same
pattern of events as in Fig. 2. The mean and variance of the r data are
115 m and 3910 m
2
, respectively.
Another way to characterize a spatial pattern of events is to
place a series of random points (origins) within the analysis
area, and then to compute the distribution of the random-
origin-to-nearest-event distances for a large number of origins.
(Note: if the spatial distribution of events is truly uniform and
completely random, this distribution should be the same as the
event-to-nearest-event distribution that is shown in Figure 2.)
Figure 3 shows the random-origin-to-nearest-event distribution
that was computed for the same pattern of events as Figure 2,
using the same number of random origins as there are events in
Figure 2. The mean and variance of the nearest distances are
115 m and 3910 m
2
, respectively, and are very close to the
values that were obtained in Figure 2 (and predicted by
equation (1)).
Figure 4 shows the distribution of nearest-event distances
that was computed by placing 4786 random line segments,
each with a length of 1.0 km, at random locations and with
random orientations into the same pattern of events that was
used to compute Figure 3. The red and blue curves show
equations (4) and (5), respectively, with L = 1.0 km and N
g
=
18.7 flashes per km
2
. The sample mean and variance were 28.5
m and 853 m
2
, respectively, and it should be noted that each of
these values is in good agreement with the predictions of
equation (4), namely 26.7 m and 715 m
2
, respectively.
Fig. 4. Simulated line-to-nearest-event distribution for 4786 random (1.0
km) line segments placed within the same pattern of events that was
used in Figures 2 and 3. The mean and variance of the closest strike
distances, h, are 28.5 m and 853 m
2
, respectively.
V. DISCUSSION
Figures 24 show that equations (1, 2, 4, 5) do describe the
measured, long-term patterns of the nearest-strike distances
rather well, but of course, such tests are limited by the
accuracy of the NLDN measurements on small spatial scales.
The most probable distances are in good agreement with
equations (1) and (4), and the values of the reduced chi-square,
a goodness of fit parameter, are excellent. The sample means
and variances are also in good agreement with model
predictions; in fact, they are well within the 0.5 to 1.0 km
location accuracy of the NLDN.
As examples of possible applications of the above, let us
consider a region that has an average area density of 6.0 CG
strikes per km
2
, a representative value for the annual area
density over much of the U.S. From equations (1) and (3), we
can say that, in such a region, the most probable nearest-strike
distance from any point (or person) will be 163 m, and there is a
50-50 chance of a strike within 192 m and a 10% chance of a
strike within 75 m. From equations (4) and (6), we can also say
that in this region, the average nearest-strike distance from
each 1.0 km line segment is 83 m, each segment has a 50-50
chance of a strike within 57 m, and there is a 10% chance of a
strike within 9 m of each segment.
Of course, the above estimates are really only valid over
spatial scales that range from a few tens of meters on the low
end to tens of kilometers on the upper end. At smaller
distances, the primary factors controlling the strike probability
(in addition to the presence of a lightning leader) are the
number and lengths of the upward connecting leaders, and
these factors depend on the size and geometry of the strike
object [8], the presence and size of any other objects in the
local vicinity of the strike object, and the strength of the
electric field under the downward-propagating leader. At
larger distances, N
g
may not be spatially uniform [9].
If the measurements of N
g
show clusters of strike points,
such as might occur if there has been an unusually active
storm in the region, then the event-to-nearest-event
distributions (like Figure 2) will contain more events at short
distances than our model predicts, and if N
g
contains holes or
regions of reduced area density, then the nearest-neighbor
distributions will contain more large distances. In any case,
even if N
g
is not completely uniform, the assumption of
complete spatial randomness can still be used as the null
hypothesis when applying various statistical tests to identify
and quantify the underlying spatial pattern and to find the
optimum value of N
g
(see, for example, [10-13]).
VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author greatly appreciates the assistance of Kenneth E.
Kehoe in computing the nearest neighbor distributions and in
programming the Monte Carlo simulations. The NLDN data
were provided by Vaisala-GAI, Tucson, AZ. This research has
been supported in part by the NASA Kennedy Space Center
under Grant NAG10-302.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] Krider, E. P., R. C. Noggle, and M. A. Uman, A gated, wide-band
lightning direction finder for lightning return strokes, J. Appl. Met.,
15, 301-306, 1976.
[2] Cummins, K. L., M. J. Murphy, E. A. Bardo, W. L. Hiscox, R. B.
Pyle,, and A. E. Pifer, A combined TOA/MDF technology upgrade
of the U.S. National Lightning Detection Network, J. Geophys.
Res., 103 (D8), 9035-9044, 1998a.
[3] Cummins, K. L., E. P. Krider, and M. D. Malone, The U. S.
National Lightning Detection Network and applications of cloud-
to-ground lightning data by electric power utilities, IEEE Trans. on
EMC, 40(4), 465-480, November, 1998b.

[4] Orville, R. E., and G. R. Huffines, Cloud-to-ground lightning in the
United States: NLDN results in the first decade, 1989-98, Mon.
Wea. Rev., 129, 1179-1193, 2001.
[5] Chandrasekhar, S., Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy,
Rev. Mod. Physics, 15, 1-89, 1943.
[6] Krider, E. P., Spatial distribution of lightning strikes to ground
during small thunderstorms in Florida, Proceedings of the 1988
International Aerospace and Ground Conference on Lightning and
Static Electricity, April 19-22, 1988, Oklahoma City, OK, NOAA
Special Report, 318-323, 1988.
[7] Valine, W. C., and E. P. Krider, Statistics and characteristics of
cloud-to-ground lightning with multiple ground contacts, J.
Geophys. Res. , 107 (D20), AAC 8, 1-11, 2002.
[8] Petrov, N. I., and F. DAlessandro, Verification of lightning strike
incidence as a Poisson process, J. Atmos. and Solar Terrestrial
Phys., 64, 1645-1650, 2002.
[9] Finke, U., Space-time correlations of lightning distributions,
Monthly Weather Review, 127, 1850-1861, 1999.
[10] Ripley, B. D., Spatial Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1981.
[11] Diggle, P. J., Statistical Analysis of Spatial Point Patterns,
Academic Press, New York, 1983.
[12] Ripley, B. D., Statistical Inference for Spatial Processes, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 1988.
[13] Cressie, N., Statistics for Spatial Data, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1993.
VIII. BIOGRAPHY
E. Philip Krider received his B.A. degree in
physics from Carleton College, Northfield, MN, in
1962 and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physics
from The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, in
1964 and 1969, respectively.
He is a Professor in and former Head/Director
of the Department of Atmospheric
Sciences/Institute of Atmospheric Physics at The
University of Arizona where he teaches and
specializes in research on the physics of lightning,
lightning detection, lightning protection, cloud electricity, and other
problems in atmospheric electricity. He is the author or co-author of
over 130 scientific papers and 8 patents.
Dr. Krider is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU)
and the American Meteorological Society (AMS), and in 1985 he
received the AMS Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Advance
of Applied Meteorology. Dr. Krider is a former Co-Chief Editor and
Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Associate Editor of the
Journal of Geophysical Research, and he is past-President of the
IUGG/IAMAS International Commission on Atmospheric Electricity.