2, page 33, and its Figures (see Annex contrast with because introduce a
distance that not considered 62305.2.
Clause 2.2.2.4.2.1 “Zone protégée”, page 11, where the
Figures 2.1;
The Clause 3.1.3.2, page (see Annex B)
The specification for the necessary safety distance conflict with the requirements specified EN
62305 (see 62305-3, clause 6. See also comment Subclause 2.2);
Annex page 31
The protection model used determine the protected area direct and serious conflict with the
correct use the electro geometrical model used standard (see 62305-1,clause A.4);
- Clause 3.2.2.2 and Annex A);
requirements for positioning air termination system tall structures are entirely disregarded (see
EN 62305-3, clause 5.4);
- sub-clause 2.1, page 10-11 (see Annex B)
the model used determine the protected area conflict with the correct use the electro-
geometrical model and used standard (see 62305-1,clause A.4).2.3.
The requirement minimum total length the earth termination system conflicting with
requirements standard (see 62305-3, clause 5.2.
Requirements the length earth electrodes don’t comply with requirements standard for
type earth arrangement (see EN62305-3, clause 5.2.
See particular Clause “METHODE SELECTION NIVEAU PROTECTION”, page 39,
Tableau “Determination besoin protection niveau protection” block number 5
(see Annex B).5
requirements for positioning air-termination system are essential conflict with those EN
Standard (see 62305-3, clause 5.1.3);
The conflict evident the text the Subclause 2.1 points out the difference with the protected zone valutated 62305-3.1.2.2
The air termination system the 17-102 standard remains essential conflict with the air
termination systems the Standard, because:
- sub-clause 2.4.4.2.3, page (see Annex B)
positioning criteria air termination system conflict with the requirements standard (see
EN 62305-3, clause 5.2.
Annex page 34
The method used for risk evaluation and selection protection level LPS (LPL) conflict with
EN 62305-2.
Provisions types and selection earth electrodes and their arrangements are not accordance
with those 62305.
- sub-clause 2.3.3.3. The arrangement type which shall preferential for lightning protection,
has been entirely disregarded (see 62305-3, clause 5.
See also comment Annexe 17-102.6. See
also the comments above under sub-clause 2.2 and Table 6);
- sub-clause 2.2.2.2) 17-102: detailed comments related principal conflicting clearer:
Avant-Propos (see Annex B).2.1);
Clause 4.
5
.2 and Annex 5.4
dimensions the rod are contradiction with those Standard (see 62305-3, clause
5.2);
Clause 4.3, Table 10, page 63);
Clause 4
