Fire Technology

, Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 581–606 | Cite as

Fire Safety of Grounded Corrugating Stainless Steel Tubing in a Structure Energized by Lightning

  • Bryan Haslam
  • Donald Galler
  • Thomas W. Eagar


Corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) has been used for more than 20 years as a replacement for conventional black iron gas piping. CSST has a thinner tubing wall and is susceptible to damage from lightning activity when discharges enter a structure, potentially resulting in perforation of the CSST wall and fire ignition. Grounding has been promoted by CSST manufacturers as a solution to this problem. We use modeling and simulation of voltage potentials and arc currents to evaluate the effects of grounding on the voltage potential across CSST, which can result in arc initiation, and charge through the arc, which can result in melting and perforation of the CSST wall. Our results show multiple scenarios where a 10 kA 10 × 350  s current waveform with 1 \(\Omega \) grounding of the CSST still results in voltages greater than the arc initiation threshold of 25 kV and charge through the arc greater than 1.2 C, the perforation threshold we measured. For the case where lightning enters the structure through an outdoor light fixture or chimney, the presence of a grounding wire increases the charge through the arc from 0.13 C to 2.22 C. These results indicate that good grounding of CSST will not necessarily prevent arc initiation nor perforation of the CSST wall by lightning. Good grounding may in fact exacerbate the problem of lightning damage to CSST depending on where lightning enters the building and the electrical parameters of the path to ground.


Lightning Corrugated stainless steel tubing Ignition Gas piping 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding Statement

This study was funded in its entirety by the authors in the interest of fire safety.


  1. 1.
    American Gas Association (1991) Interior fuel gas piping system using corrugated stainless steel tubing. ANSI/AGA LC-1-1991. American National Standards InstituteGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Durham RA, Durham MO (2012) Does corrugated tubing + lightning = catastrophic failure? IEEE Trans Ind Appl 48(4):1243–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rivest DW (2006) Conductive jacket for tubing. US Patent 7,044,167, 16 May 2006Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lightning Protection Institute (2008) NFPA 54 (National Fuel Gas Code) to include bonding requirements. LPI Tech Lett 10(10)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Fire Protection Agency (2015) NFPA 54: national fuel gas codeGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Association of State Fire Marshals (2012) NASFM launches nationwide yellow CSST safety campaignGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    United States Senate (2012) Senate resolution 483: commending efforts to promote and enhance public safety on the need for yellow corrugated stainless steel tubing bondingGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hammerschmidt A, Ziolkowski CJ (2013) Validation of installation methods for CSST gas piping to mitigate indirect lightning related damage. Technical report, Gas Technologies InstituteGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stringfellow MF (2013) Validation of installation methods for CSST gas piping to mitigate indirect lightning related damage: computer simulations of bonding effectiveness. Technical report, PowerCETGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rakov VA, Uman MA (2003) Lightning: physics and effects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berger K, Anderson RB, Droninger H (1975) Parameters of lightning flashes. Electra 41:23–37Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson RB, Eriksson AJ (1980) Lightning parameters for engineering application. Electrica 69:65–102Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heidler F, Zischank W, Flisowski Z, Bouquegneau C, Mazzetti C (2008) Parameters of lightning current given in IEC 62305—background, experience and outlook. In: 29th international conference on lightning protection, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (2010) IEC 62305–1: protection against lightning. American National Standards InstituteGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rakov VA (2012) Lightning discharge and fundamentals of lightning protection. J Light Res 4:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gamerota WR, Elisme JO, Uman MA, Rakov VA (2012) Current waveforms for lightning simulation. IEEE Trans Electromagn Compat 54(4):880–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rakov VA, Borghetti A, Bouquegneau C, Chisholm WA, Cooray V, Cummins K, Diendorfer G, Heidler AF, Hussein, Ishii M, Nucci CA, Piantini A Jr, Pinto O, Qie X, Rachidi F, Saba MMF, Shindo T, Schulz W, Thottappillil R, Visacro S, Zischank W (2013) Cigre technical brochure on lightning parameters for engineering applications. In: International symposium on lightning protection (XII SIPDA), Belo HorizonteGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bazelyan EM, Raizer YP (2000) Lightning physics and lightning protection. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fisher RJ, Schnetzer GH (1993) 1993 triggered lightning test program: Environments within 20 meters of the lightning channel and small area. Technical report, Sandia National LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASM International (1990) The ASM handbook, vol 1, 10th edn. ASM InternationalGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Uman M (2010) The art and science of lightning protection. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hagenguth JH (1949) Lightning stroke damage to aircraft. Trans Am Inst Electr Eng 68(2):1036–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brick RO (1968) A method for establishing lightning-resistance, skin-thickness requirements for aircraft. In: Proceedings, (1968) lightning and static electricity conference, AFAL-TR-68-290 PART II. Florida, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chemartin L, Lalande P, Peyrou B, Chazottes A, Elias PQ, Delalondre C, Cheron BG, Lago F (2012) Direct effects of lightning on aircraft structure: Analysis of the thermal, electrical and mechanical constraints. Aerosp Lab J AL05-09Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pereira CE, Snow SC, Dargi MM (2014) LT-14-3900: test report of lightning direct effects tests on CSST samples. Lightning Technologies, an NTS Company, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guthrie M, Rousseau A (2011) Design of a low impedance grounding system for telecom applications. In: BICSI winter conference, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Joffe EB, Lock K-S (2010) Grounds for grounding: A circuit to system handbook. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rousseau A, Guthrie M, Rakov V (2010) High frequency earthing impedance measurements at Camp Blinding, Florida. In: 30th international conference on lightning protection, CagliariGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lim SC, Choun LW, Gomes C, Ab Kadir MZA (2013) Environmental effects on the performance of electrical grounding systems. In: 7th International power engineering and optimization conference, LangkawiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations