See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/310496324

The Unified semantic Glare scale for GR and UGR indexes

Conference Paper · September 2016

DOI: 10.1109/LUMENV.2016.7745536

CITATION READS

1 219

2 authors:

Dariusz Sawicki Agnieszka Wolska

Warsaw University of Technology Central Institute for Labour Protection-National Research Institute
56 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 113 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PEROSH, IndIRUV View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dariusz Sawicki on 18 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The unified semantic glare scale for GR and UGR indexes

Dariusz Sawicki
Warsaw University of Technology
Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warsaw, Poland
Dariusz.Sawicki@ee.pw.edu.pl

6
Agnieszka Wolska

53
Central Institute for Labour Protection
- National Research Institute (CIOP-PIB)

45
Czerniakowska 16, 00-701 Warsaw, Poland
agwol@ciop.pl

.77
16
Abstract The Glare Rating (GR) and Unified Glare Rating (UGR) are practically used
measures of glare, respectively, for the outdoor and indoor workplaces. The glare sensation

.20
at
scale used for outdoors is also different than for indoors. That has been making impossible the
comparison of glare level for outdoor and indoor workplaces, even if the sensation of
le

NV
experienced glare is the same. So the semantic scale should be the same. Based on the set of
ilab

simulations in DIALux the GR and UGR values were determined for the same lighting
conditions and then compared with adequate semantic scales. Some inconsistencies were
ME
found but using Eble-Hankins correction in semantic scale the new unified semantic glare
va

scale has been elaborated and presented in this article.

/LU
is a

Keywords semantic glare scale, UGR, GR, indoor and outdoor workplaces
09

1. Introduction
on

Glare is a one of the main lighting parameters, which decides about illumination quality
.11
htt E vi l pu rsion
ati

and users’ visual comfort. From the other hand glare which occurs in working environment
can affect occupational accident hazards. Therefore glare is mentioned as one of the indirect
10
blic

reasons of occupational accidents [1, 2]. According to the Polish law, the employer is
obligated to carry out risk assessment taking into account lighting parameters of artificial
IEE e fina ve

rg/

lighting. It concerns mainly low visibility of working environment (low illuminance and
illuminance uniformity) and glare. Adequate risk assessment could be done on the base of
EE i.o
s

measurement results which are compared with lighting requirements of particular lighting
Th thor'

standard. There are two main lighting standards which requirements are obligatory for
o
(C p://dx a
) IE .d

employers: for indoor workplaces EN 12464-1 [3] and outdoor workplaces EN 12464-2 [4].
Both standards describe requirements for illuminance and illuminance uniformity which are
Au

measured in the same way (the same illuminance grid system formula and illuminance meter).
But for glare assessment there are two completely different glare indexes. There is one
definition of discomfort glare, no matter the place (indoor or outdoor) it is experienced. But
there are two different indexes for glare assessment for indoor and outdoor workplaces. For
indoor application (except for sport areas) glare is evaluated using Unified Glare Rating -
UGR, but for outdoors and sport areas – using Glare Rating GR. The glare sensation scale
used for indoors is also different than for outdoors. In this way, the comparison of glare level
for indoor and outdoor workplaces could be difficult in many cases, even if the sensation of
experienced glare is the same. This article is the attempt to set the one semantic glare scale for
GR and UGR.
2. Glare: Indexes and Semantic Scales
The subjective sensation of discomfort glare experienced by the observer is related to the
following parameters: source luminance in the direction of the observers eye, solid angle
subtended by the source at the observers eye, the angular displacement of the source from the
observers line of sight and background luminance controlling adaptation level of the
observers eyes [5].
UGR is determined by formula (1) implemented in the European Standard EN 12464-1 [3].

6
 0.25 L2i ⋅ ωi 

53
UGR = 8 log 10  
 L ∑ P2 
(1)
 u i i 

45
where: Li – the luminance of glare source i in the direction of the observer’s eye (cd/m2), ωi –

.77
the solid angle of the glare source i seen from the observer’s eye (sr), Pi – the position index
(Guth’s index) for the glare source i. Lu – the average background luminance (cd/m2).

16
Formula (2) implemented in the European Standard EN 12464-2 [4] allows determining
the value of GR.

.20
at  L 
GR = 27 + 24 log 10  vl0.9  (2)
le
L 

NV
 ve 
ilab

where: Lvl – the veiling luminance (cd/m2) caused by the lighting installation, Lve – the
ME
equivalent veiling luminance of the environment (cd/m2).
va

Formula (2) is applied only in simulation programs, GR hasn’t been measured yet.
/LU
is a

The general formula (3) for glare index (G_Index), is considered [6]. According to this
formula not only indexes like UGR and GR are determined, but also CGI, DGI, VCP, DGP.
09

(LS )a ⋅ (ωS )b
on

G _ Index = ∑ (3)
(LB )c ⋅ f S (θ)
.11
htt E vi l pu rsion

S
ati

where: LS – the luminance of glare source S, ωS – the solid angle in which this light is seen, LB
10
blic

– the equivalent background luminance of field of view, fS(θ) – the position function
IEE e fina ve

depending on angle θ between vector to glare source and line of sight. The exponents a, b, c
rg/

are empirically selected to proper glare index.

EE i.o
s

The quantity of glare index expressing the subjective sensation on a semantic / numerical
Th thor'

scale. But there has been no agreed the only one and perfect scale for subjective sensation of
o
(C p://dx a

discomfort glare until now. The first attempt to rate the psychological level of glare was done
) IE .d

by Hopkinson in 1940. He proposed four criteria of discomfort glare: “just perceptible”, “just
acceptable”, “just uncomfortable” and “just intolerable”. In 1972 the “between criteria” were
Au

introduced [7] and in that way 9 point scale was obtain, which is commonly used for
discomfort glare assessment for indoors. However in some publications we can find scales
based on different number of characteristic points: Wienold and Christoffersen [8] 4-steps
scale, Nazzal, Güler and Onaygil [9] used 5-steps scale, Eble-Hankins [10] used 7-steps scale.
Different glare sensation scales are also assigned for UGR numeric values and in result,
different subjective sensations are assigned to the same numeric value of UGR [11, 12].
Moreover differences between subjective rating of glare and objective measurement of UGR
could exist [13] especially when comparing assessment of young and aged subjects [14]. But
typically the subjective evaluation of discomfort glare is performed using Hopkinson’s scale.
The adequate numeric values of particular discomfort glare index (DGP, CGI, DGI, UGR,
VCP) were assign to each Hopkinson’s criterion [15, 16, 17, 18]. Paper [18] is today the
widest review article, where Authors discussed the factors and parameters related to lighting,
which affect the perception and comfort. It is worth noting that this work has been omitted
GR index even though it is still measure of glare for outdoor workplaces recommended by the
CIE documents and European standard. Results of comparison from [18] is presented in
Table 1. In this table the subjective impression of glare between “just acceptable” and “just
uncomfortable” is “unacceptable” (grey color in Table 1) according to Eble-Hankins findings
[10]. However the range of UGR index in Table 1 is between 10 to 34, it is worth to say that

6
according to CIE publication No 117 [19] the practical range is from 10 to 30 with most

53
lighting systems. This is why the lighting design programs like DIALux calculates UGR only
from that range and if calculated value is bigger that 30 there is only information that

45
UGR > 30.

.77
Table 1. Comparison of Numeric Values for Different Glare Indexes on 9-Point Hopkinson’s Glare Sensation
Scale [18]

16
Glare sensation BGI VCP CGI DGI UGR
Intolerable 31 12 34 30 34

.20
Just intolerable
at 28 20 31 28 31
le
Uncomfortable 25 28 28 26 28
Just
NV
ilab

22 36 25 24 25
uncomfortable
ME
Unacceptable 19 43 22 22 22
va

Just acceptable 16 50 19 20 19
/LU

Perceptible 13 59 16 18 16
is a

Just perceptible 10 67 13 16 13
Imperceptible 7 75 10 14 10
09
on

.11

Table 2. De Boer Rating Scale (1973) [21]

htt E vi l pu rsion
ati

De Boer Glare index Subjective evaluation of glare

10
blic

1 Unbearable
IEE e fina ve

2
rg/

3 Disturbing
EE i.o

4
s
Th thor'

5 Just admissible
o
(C p://dx a

6
) IE .d

7 Satisfactory
Au

8
9 Just noticeable

However there is the second important glare sensation scale. It is 9-point scale with 5-point
verbal descriptors developed by de Boer in 1967, which was verified few times and the last
version was proposed in 1973 (Table 2). The indexes without description i.e. 2, 4, 6, 8 are
interpreted as the evaluation between two neighboring evaluation, for example 2 means
assessment between “unbearable” and “disturbing”. On this scale, contrary to Hopkinson’s
scale, the higher glare index relates to less glare experience. It is worth to notice that there are
some criticism in the literature [12, 20] related to the ambiguity of the term “satisfactory
discomfort” on de Boer scale, because from logical point of view this term is contradictory
and misleading in subjective assessment. Besides how to discriminate subjectively,
“satisfactory” and “just acceptable”? Anyway de Boer discomfort glare scale is the base of
glare rating scale used for outdoor lighting glare assessment. GR index values correspond to
de Boer verbal descriptors of glare, however not for all descriptors (Table 3). The differences
are for: GR=30, where there is expression “noticeable” instead of “satisfactory” and for
GR=10, where there is expression “unnoticeable” instead of “just noticeable”. That
differences were probably the result of criticism of some de Boer’s terms on his scale.

6
The human glare evaluation depends on the subjective perception of glare level. It allows

53
evaluating glare in different lighting conditions, both for outdoor and indoor workplaces. In
this way, for different environment, the subjective perception should correspond to the level

45
of glare in the semantic scale independently of glare index. But if we have a look on the
semantic scale of UGR (Table 1) and GR indexes (Table 3) the difference is easy to

.77
recognize. The scales are different, even if we have a look at the limited range of both scales
used in standards (EN 12464-1 and EN 12464-2) [3, 4]: UGR from 16 to 28 and GR from 40

16
to 55.

.20
at
Table 3. GR Rating Scale (Based on de Boer Scale) [22]
le
Subjective evaluation of glare GR index

NV
ilab

Unbearable 90
80
ME
va

Disturbing 70
60
/LU
is a

55
Just admissible 50
09

40
on

.11

Noticeable 30
htt E vi l pu rsion
ati

20
10

Unnoticeable 10
blic
IEE e fina ve

rg/

3. What Kind of Glare is Related to GR Index ?

EE i.o

The interesting thing is that CIE publication No 112 [22] concerning glare evaluation for
s
Th thor'

outdoor area lighting doesn’t point out the kind of glare which is related to GR index. It states
o

that investigations concerning glare evaluation studied the effect of discomfort glare but
(C p://dx a
) IE .d

lighting parameters (veiling luminances) correlating with these assessment have been used up
to that time for the description of disability glare , that report does not make distinction
Au

between discomfort and disability glare, but use these parameters to describe glare in general
[22]. This is why standard EN 12464-2 [4] contains no mention about the kind of glare related
to GR index. The description of parameters in the formula of GR suggests disability glare,
because veiling luminance is indentified with this kind of glare. But the semantic scale of
glare impression which is presented in Table 3 [22] is based on de Boers scale which is
dedicated to discomfort glare assessment. In one of the most recent publication [23] the
authors simply stated that “GR is used for evaluating discomfort glare in outdoor sports
lighting”. It is worth to notice that the requirements of GR index in that standard (EN 12464-
2) [4] are from the range between 40 and 55 (grey color in Table 3), what reflects discomfort
glare of acceptable level, even not disturbing, what would have suggest the beginning (low
level) of disability glare. That suggests that discomfort glare using GR index should be
limited on outdoor workplaces. According to CIE No 112 [22] recommendations glare is
limited when the maximum value of GR is less than the values of GRMax, presented in
Table 4, depending of type of work.
If the requirements concerning glare limitations could be related to the discomfort glare on
the outdoor workstations it seems also possible to assess the level of discomfort glare using
UGR instead of GR index. It concerns the situations when the assumptions for UGR index
determination are fulfilled. Would the subjective impression of glare related to particular

6
UGR value correspond with adequate glare impression for GR index calculated for the same

53
lighting scene? We will try to answer this question in this article.

45
Table 4. General GRmax Recommendations Related to Safety Aspects on Outdoor Workstations [22]

.77
Type of Work GR Max
Very Rough 55

16
Rough-Medium 50

.20
at
Fine 45
le

NV
ilab

4. Similarities and Differences Between GR and UGR Indexes Formulas

One of the questions based on subjective glare assessment for indoor and outdoor
ME
workplaces is: what was the reason of accepting the glare index elaborated for sport areas to
va

outdoor workplaces instead of UGR? There are specific outdoor workplaces and working
/LU

environment where assumptions for GR index determination are not valid [24]. Besides it was
is a

generally stated that GR index couldn’t be verified by measurements. On the other hand, the
possibility of conversion between values of GR and UGR indexes has been proposed [25].
09
on

The question is what would it be if we used UGR index for glare assessment on outdoor
.11

workplaces? The simulations of UGR index and GR index determination for the same lighting
htt E vi l pu rsion
ati

scenes were carried out.

10
blic

The comparison of those two indexes shows similarities :

• Both indexes depend on glare source luminance / veiling luminance caused by glare
IEE e fina ve

rg/

source.
• Both indexes depend on background (adaptation) luminance / equivalent veiling
EE i.o
s

luminance of the environment.

Th thor'

• Dependencies between above mentioned luminances in both formulas is expressed by

(C p://dx a
) IE .d

ratio of glare source luminance measure raised to particular power and environment
luminance measure raised to particular power.
Au

• In both cases the background (adaptation) luminance and equivalent veiling luminance
of the environment could be determined on base of the illuminance measurements.
• In both cases the position index is determined but in different way.
But the comparison of those two indexes shows also differences:
• Different mathematical dependencies in both formulas for luminances determination.
• Glare source dimension omission in GR formula.
• Different consideration of glare source position.
 On the other hand, the evaluation of both GR and UGR indexes is based on the
relationships which use similar or the same parameters. Derivation of calculation formula of
both indexes from the same generalized formula (3) means not only that the same scene can
be analyzed simultaneously with both indexes, but also that the perceptual sensations should
be similarly described using both indexes.

5. Experiments: Set of DIALux Simulations

In order to analyze the dependencies

6
between semantic name of state in glare

53
scales and values of indexes we
conducted experiments including

45
simulation in DIALux software. The
simulations were carried out for the

.77
room of size 4.3 m by 8.6 m. It was a
virtual copy of our laboratory, where

16
we could verify the calculations as a
continuation of previous research in the Fig. 1. Maxi 1x36 W luminaire – the curves of luminous intensity [B25].

.20
same environment [26] concerning GR at
index. As a glare source, we used fluorescent luminaire with frosted and textured glass
le

NV
diffuser (Maxi 1x36 W), manufactured by RZB Rudolf Zimmermann [27]. The curves of
ilab

luminous intensity in planes C0 and C90 for this luminaire are presented in Fig. 1.
ME
The reflection properties of walls, floor and ceiling in simulation were the same as in real
va

laboratory (walls reflectance = 70%). In all simulations (in DIALux software) GR observer
and UGR observer were set in the same point This point was placed on the longitudinal
/LU
is a

symmetry axis of the room. We assumed the same line of sight of both observers.
In order to compare the values of both indexes in the same conditions of observation, the
09

position and setting the source of glare was changed. UGR and GR indexes were therefore
on

calculated for different positions and settings of the light source. We analyzed several
.11
htt E vi l pu rsion

positions of luminaire in the room. In all cases the longitudinal axis of the luminaire was
ati

parallel to the shorter wall of the room, but we analyzed several angular positions according
10

to different value of luminous intensity in observer direction. In each case of luminaire

blic

arrangement (angle and position) we calculated values for GR and UGR indexes. In this way
IEE e fina ve

rg/

we collect a set of values of both indexes for the same point of observation. In the laboratory
we verified distribution of luminance and UGR value using LMK photometer which was
EE i.o

placed in the point that corresponded to point of GR and UGR observer.

s
Th thor'

Additionally we analyzed cases for the same room but with assumption that walls have
(C p://dx a
) IE .d

reflectance equal 20%. Such set of experiments were done using DIALux simulation.
After collecting the values of glare indexes we averaged values in several groups – it
Au

means that for fixed value of UGR, values of GR (corresponding to this UGR value in
different cases) were averaged. This way we created set of points for analysis of functional
dependence between GR and UGR in the same environment.
We assumed that in all cases could be the same worker in the room – in the GR and UGR
observer position. In both cases the lighting installation and environment are the same so the
glare perception should be the same also, regardless of glare index which is used in
calculation. In this way for both GR and UGR indexes, the semantic name of glare perception
must be the same or similar, and correspond to adequate glare subjective sensation.
 The graphical presentation of
relations between calculated in
DIALux values of GR and UGR
indexes are presented on Fig. 2.
The interpretation problem of
semantic scale names which
reflects subjective sensation of
glare in both scales (based on

6
Hopkinson and on de Boer scales)

53
have appeared between “just
acceptable” and “just

45
uncomfortable”. The special
attention should be paid on this

.77
range of scale. It corresponds to
UGR range between 16 and 25 and

16
GR range between 20 and 50. The
simple attempt of introducing

.20
unified scale for those two ranges
would result in a scale presented in
at
Fig. 2. Graphical relation between GR and UGR indexes. Small circles represent
le
Table 5. averaged values from simulations. The blue line represents the simple local

NV
interpolation for UGR range between 16 and 25.
ilab

ME
va

Table 5. An Attempt of Unified Scale for GR and UGR for Ranges: 16<UGR<25 and 20<GR<50
Glare
/LU

GR UGR
is a

sensation
Just
50
admissible
09

Just
on

25
uncomfortable
.11
htt E vi l pu rsion

40 -
ati

Unacceptable 22
10
blic

30 Noticeable
IEE e fina ve

Just
rg/

19
acceptable
Perceptible 16
EE i.o
s

20 -
Th thor'

o
(C p://dx a
) IE .d

The order of glare sensation with bigger level of glare (expressed by bigger glare index)
presented in Table 5 like: “noticeable”, “unacceptable”, “just uncomfortable”, “just
Au

admissible” could lead to misunderstandings. It seems not consistent that the sensation of
“unacceptable” is below “just admissible”. It would be better to exchange “unacceptable” into
“acceptable” for UGR = 22. That would mean the come back to pre-existing scales based on
Hopkinson’s semantic scale. But this scale have no perceptual validation, what was stated by
Geerdinck [12] and Eble-Hankins [10]. This is why in most actual publications [18, 28] the
Eble-Hankins correction [10] is used and for UGR = 22 “unacceptable” sensation is assigned.
We also use the Eble-Hankins correction in our research.
Taking into account the problems related to perceptual interpretation of UGR = 22, the
second attempt of non-linear approximation of glare indexes simulation results were carried
out. The following assumptions were considered:
 • The lowest values of both
glare indexes should be
assigned to the same glare
sensation.
• The function which
describes the relations
between both glare indexes
is monotonic and strictly

6
increasing in considered

53
range

45
• It is possible to extrapolate
for UGR > 34 to make

.77
possible to obtain the
highest values of GR.

16
• The final unified semantic
glare scale must correspond

.20
to clear increase of glare
at
sensation.
le

NV
Fig. 3. Approximation of relations between: GR and UGR indexes and extrapolation
ilab

for UGR>34 values.

Programs prepared in Matlab environment were used in order to find proper mathematical
ME
function. The result of approximation and extrapolation of relations between GR and UGR
va

glare indexes is graphically presented in Fig. 3. The analysis of presented in Fig 3

/LU

dependencies lead to unified semantic glare scale (Table 6).

is a

Table 6. The Proposed Unified Semantic Glare Scale for GR and UGR
09
on

Glare
GR UGR
.11

sensation
htt E vi l pu rsion
ati

90 Unbearable
10

Intolerable 34
blic

70 Disturbing
IEE e fina ve

rg/

Just
31
intolerable
EE i.o

Uncomfortable 28
s

Just
Th thor'

50
o

admissible
(C p://dx a
) IE .d

Just
25
uncomfortable
Au

Unacceptable 22
Just acceptable 19
30 Noticeable
Perceptible 16
Just
13
perceptible
Imperceptible
10 10
Unnoticeable
Summary
The unified semantic glare scale both for UGR and GR indexes has been proposed. Until
now both indexes have been based on different scales of glare assessment. GR – on de Boer
discomfort glare scale and UGR – on Hopkinson’s scale. Both indexes are also determined
using different mathematical formulas. But the human glare perception in particular lighting
conditions is independent of the way the glare index formula is calculated. So the semantic
scale should be the same, as it is proposed in this article.
The set of simulations using DIALux were carried out. The assumption was that worker is

6
exposed to glare in particular lighting conditions. For those conditions UGR and GR indexes

53
could be determined. For this reason the semantic description of glare sensation scales should

45
be consistent with human subjective glare perception. The results of simulations allowed us to
elaborate the unified semantic glare scale, which include independent scales which were used

.77
for GR and UGR indexes up to now.
The analysis of currently used semantic glare scales showed that there are some

16
inconsistencies in accepted rules. They concern mainly the names of glare sensation for
particular levels of glare.

.20
at
The general problem related to GR index assessment was fund. There is still lack of
identical interpretation of GR index in different publications. But it is important from the
le

NV
occupational hazard evaluation on outdoor workstation, where this index should be
ilab

determined.
ME
The work on glare assessment for outdoor workplaces should be continued, especially
va

taking into considerations new light sources – LEDs. But the base for further work should be
harmonization of semantic glare scales and evaluation rules.
/LU
is a

Acknowledgment
09

This paper has been based on the results of a research task carried out within the scope of
on

the third stage of the National Programme "Improvement of safety and working conditions"
.11
htt E vi l pu rsion

partly supported in 2014–2016 --- within the scope of research and development --- by the
ati

Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. The Central Institute for Labour Protection -- National
10
blic

Research Institute is the Programme's main co-ordinator.

IEE e fina ve

rg/

References
[1] Wolska, A. Glare as a specific risk factor in working conditions. Przeglad
EE i.o
s

Elektrotechniczny, 2013, Vol. 89 No 1a, pp.142-144.

Th thor'

[2] Babović, P. Occupational accidents as indicators of inadequate work conditions and

(C p://dx a
) IE .d

work environment. Acta Medica Medianae, 2009, Vol. 48 No 4, pp.22-26.

[3] Light and lighting. Lighting of work places. Part 1. Indoor work places. European
Au

Lighting Standard. EN 12464-1: 2011.

[4] Light and lighting. Lighting of work places. Part 2. Outdoor work places. European
Lighting Standard. EN 12464-2: 2014.
[5] Discomfort glare in the interior working environment. CIE Publication No 55, 1983,
Vienna.
[6] Vos, J.J. Reflections on glare. Lighting Research. and Technology. 2003, Vol. 35 No 24,
pp. 163-176.
[7] Hopkinson, R.G. Glare from daylighting in buildings. Applied Ergonomics, 1972, Vol. 3
No 4, pp.206-215.
[8] Wienold, J. Christoffersen, J. Evaluation methods and development of a new glare
prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras. Energy and
Buildings, 2006, Vol. 38, pp. 743-757.
[9] Nazzal, A. Güler, Ö. Onaygil, S. Subjective experience of discomfort glare in a daylit
computerized office in Istanbul and its mathematical prediction with the DGIN method.
The bulletin of the Istanbul Technical Univeristy, 2004, Vol, 54 (3), pp. 96-107.
[10] Eble-Hankins, M. Subjective impression of discomfort glare from sources of non-
uniform luminance. Dissertation, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, 2008.

6
[11] Wolska, A. Sawicki, D. Practical aspects of subjective discomfort glare assessment (in

53
Polish: Praktyczne aspekty subiektywnej oceny olśnienia przykrego). Proc. of the XXII
National Conference on Illumination, Lighting Technique 2013, 21-22 November 2013,

45
Warsaw, Poland.

.77
[12] Geerdinck, L. Glare perception in terms of acceptance and comfort. Graduation Report.
Eindhoven University of Technology, August 2012.

16
[13] Sawicki, D. Wolska, A. Discomfort glare prediction by different methods. Lighting
Research and Technology. 2015, Vol. 47 No 6, pp.658-671.

.20
[14] at
Wolska, A. Sawicki, D. Evaluation of discomfort glare in the 50+ elderly: experimental
study. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health
le

NV
(IJOMEH), 2014, Vol. 27 No 3, pp.444-459.
ilab

[15] Jakubiec, J.A. Reinhart, C.F. The ‘adaptive zone’ – a concept for assessing discomfort
ME
glare throughout daylit spaces. Lighting Research and Technology. 2012, Vol. 44 No 2,
pp. 149-170.
va

[16] Hirning, M. The application of luminance mapping to discomfort glare: a modified

/LU
is a

glare index for green buildings. PhD Thesis. Queensland University of Technology.
2014.
09

[17] Khanh, T.Q. Bodrogi, P. Vinh, Q.T. Winkler, H. (ed), LED lighting: technology and
on

perception. 2015 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.

.11
htt E vi l pu rsion

[18] Carlucci, S., Causone, F. De Rosa, F., Pagliano, L. A review of indices for assessing
ati

visual comfort with a view to their use in optimization processes to support building
10

integrated design. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015, Vol. 47, pp. 1016-
blic

1033.
IEE e fina ve

rg/

[19] Discomfort glare in interior lighting. CIE Publication No 117, 1995, Vienna.
[20] Gellatly, A.W. Weintraub, D.J. User reconfigurations of the de Boer rating scale for
EE i.o
s

discomfort glare. UMTRI-90-20, 1990.

Th thor'

[21] De Boer, J.B. Quality criteria for the passing beam of motocar headlights. Presented at
(C p://dx a
) IE .d

the GTB Meeting in Walldorf, West Germany, 1973.

[22] Glare evaluation system for use within outdoor sports and area lighting. CIE
Au

Publication No 112 1994, Vienna.

[23] Tashiro, T. Kawanobe, S. Kimura-Minoda, T. Kohko, S. Ishikawa, T. Ayama, T.M.
Discomfort glare for white LED light sources with different spatial arrangements.
Lighting Research and Technology. 2015, Vol.47 No3, pp.316-337.
[24] Sawicki, D. Wolska, A. UGR for exterior working environment? Why not. Proc. of the
28th Session of the CIE, June 28 - July 4, 2015, Manchester UK. Vol.1, Part 2,
pp.1617-1622.
[25] Wolska, A. Sawicki, D. The luminance ratio of light sources and background as a
crucial factor in glare index determination – simulation analysis. Proc. of the XIII
 Conference Selected Issues of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, WZEE’2016, 4-8
May 2016 Rzeszów Poland.
[26] Sawicki, D. Wolska, A. Problems related to the angular resolution of the ILMD for GR
index determination. Przeglad Elektrotechniczny, in press.
[27] Product Catalogue. RZB Company, http://www.rzb.de/en/ Retrieved 28.05.2016.
[28] Calculations UGR concepts. AGi32_version_17,
http://docs.agi32.com/AGi32/Content/adding_calculation_points/Calculations_UGR_C
oncepts.htm Retrivied 29.05.2016.

6
53
45
.77
16
.20
at
le

NV
ilab

ME
va

/LU
is a

09
on

.11
htt E vi l pu rsion
ati

10
blic
IEE e fina ve

rg/
EE i.o
s
Th thor'

o
(C p://dx a
) IE .d
Au

View publication stats