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

net/publication/366290110

A Grid in Perspective for Road Lighting Calculations

Article in LEUKOS The Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America · December 2022
DOI: 10.1080/15502724.2022.2135529

CITATIONS READS

3 208

5 authors, including:

Florian Greffier Vincent Boucher

Centre d'études et d'expertise sur les risques l'environnement la mobilité et l'amé… Centre d’études et d’expertise sur les risques, l’environnement, la mobilité et l’am…
31 PUBLICATIONS 130 CITATIONS 52 PUBLICATIONS 228 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Valerie Muzet Sandy Buschmann

Centre d’études et d’expertise sur les risques, l’environnement, la mobilité et l’am… Technische Universität Berlin
47 PUBLICATIONS 233 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Valerie Muzet on 08 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LEUKOS
The Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulks20

A Grid in Perspective for Road Lighting

Calculations

Florian Greffier, Vincent Boucher, Valérie Muzet, Sandy Buschmann &

Stephan Völker

To cite this article: Florian Greffier, Vincent Boucher, Valérie Muzet, Sandy Buschmann &
Stephan Völker (2022): A Grid in Perspective for Road Lighting Calculations, LEUKOS, DOI:
10.1080/15502724.2022.2135529

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15502724.2022.2135529

© 2022 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 15 Dec 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 164

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ulks20
LEUKOS
https://doi.org/10.1080/15502724.2022.2135529

A Grid in Perspective for Road Lighting Calculations

a a b
Florian Greffier , Vincent Boucher , Valérie Muzet , Sandy Buschmannc, and Stephan Völkerc
a
Light and Lighting Research Team, Cerema, Les Ponts-de-Cé, France; bENDSUM Research Team, Cerema, Strasbourg, France; cLighting
Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In road lighting, calculations are made within the rectangular CIE grid while measurements Received 13 April 2022
conducted with Imaging Luminance Measurement Devices (ILMD) have a trapezoidal shape. We Revised 6 October 2022
propose to build a grid that takes the observer’s perspective into account by projecting ellipses of Accepted 8 October 2022
adjustable dimensions than can match human vision or ILMD angular aperture and allow direct
KEYWORDS
comparison with luminance images. Lighting standard criteria definitions remain unchanged and Road lighting quality;
values of average luminance and longitudinal uniformity are equivalent. However, as the grid in calculation grid
perspective describes more finely the luminance distribution, the overall uniformity is lower than
in the classical grid but more representative of observer’s perception. We present in detail our
approach, give the corresponding code, expose calculations performed with this new grid and
show an example of direct comparison between calculations and measurements.

1. Introduction
Discrepancies are often observed between simu­
The design of road lighting installations is per­ lations and experimental measurements regarding
formed according to the specifications of CIE the quality criteria (average luminance, overall and
documents and relevant standards (ANSI/IESNA, longitudinal uniformities) and luminance distribu­
2000; CEN 2015; CIE 2019). To calculate lumi­ tions. These deviations may be due to various
nance-based quality criteria, a rectangular grid of factors:
the relevant area has to be defined. There are
usually three transversal points and a minimum ● uncertainties on light sources distribution
of ten longitudinal points per traffic lane, i.e. typi­ and power,
cally 60 points for two lanes (Fig. 1). This standard ● the use of a standard r-table in calculations
methodology is efficient, very pragmatic for on- instead of a measured r-table,
site punctual measurements and does not need ● planarity defaults,
advanced calculation tools. For more than ● uncertainty of the luminance-measuring
60 years, manual measurements were conducted device,
by luxmeters, then replaced by punctual lumi­ ● methodology of exploitation of the experi­
nance meters and recently by Imaging mental luminance measurement.
Luminance Measurement Devices (ILMD’s).
Nowadays in road lighting design, ILMD’s are In this paper, we will address this last possible
able to produce experimental luminance maps source of discrepancy. Having a common exploita­
like the one in Fig. 2. Their angular resolution tion of ILMD is a first step, available to all and
can be much finer than that of the human eye easy to implement.
(Buschmann et al. 2017; Greffier et al. 2019; On the one hand, the camera provides
Rossi et al. 2017). These on-site images are often a perspective image of the measured area, which
compared with calculations obtained by common has a trapezoidal shape. On the other hand, the
lighting calculation software (Radiance, Dialux, calculations are carried out on a rectangular grid
Relux) that still use the standard grid. defined by the CIE. To match the ILMD

CONTACT Vincent Boucher vincent.boucher@cerema.fr Light and Lighting Research Team, Cerema, 23 Avenue Amiral Chauvin, 49136 Les Ponts-de-
Cé, France
© 2022 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built
upon in any way.
2 F. GREFFIER ET AL.
Fig. 1. Standard grid definition.
Fig. 2. Luminance measurement map from the standard observer’s perspective.
experimental results and the calculations with the
standard CIE 6 × 10 grid, several methodologies
are possible, like:
a. Stretching the trapezoidal shape to transform
it in a rectangular one. Then, the grid points
are calculated by a rectangular shape, or
b. Projecting the grid points in the ILMD tra­
pezoidal shape.
The method a. involves transforming the
imaged field from a trapezoidal shape to
a rectangular one (Buschmann et al. 2020). This
mathematical transformation is called
a rectification and requires interpolations that
have an impact on the measurements (Boucher
et al. 2021).
The method b. does not transform the measured
field but needs to define the grid points according

to the parameters as height, line of sight, pixel size,
focal length. It is finally a way to take into account
the observer’s perspective at the price of many
geometrical calculations.
The final step, common for both methods, is
to average luminances within areas of dimen­
sions about 2’x20’ (arcminutes) centered on the
grid points. These dimensions are a requirement
of (CIE 2011) but its justification is related to
(AFNOR 2006) for tunnel lighting that does not
provide additional justification nor references.
Whatever the method, the fine angular resolu­
tion of ILMD is lost because the luminance dis­
tribution is finally described by only 6 × 10
values.
In this paper, we expose a method of direct
comparison between experimental luminance
image and calculation. This method will not
resolve the discrepancies often observed due to
lack of knowledge of some parameters (real source
power, exact source tilt, planarity default, road
surface r-table, . . .). But our aim is to propose
and diffuse a method that do not induce deviations
due to the mathematical process. Therefore, in our
approach, the measured luminance map is not
transformed to match a calculation grid, but con­
versely adapts the calculation to the measurement.
The general principle is the following. Instead of
the classic grid, a grid based on observer’s perspec­
tive and a given angular aperture is used.
● The positions of the grid points are defined as
the centers of ellipses projected from the
observer’s position with given angular aper­
tures in the longitudinal direction and in the
Fig. 3. Ellipses projection from observer’s eye.
LEUKOS 3
transverse direction (Fig. 3). Angular aper­
tures can be chosen to simulate the observer’s
vision, then ellipses represent the retinal cells
projection on the road surface. Whether they
are known, apertures can fit the ILMD ones.
For ILMD measurements, (CEN 2015)
recommends an angular aperture in the
range [1’, 2’].
● Taking observer’s position as a reference, the
first line of the grid is constructed by ellipses
projection in front of the observer. It corre­
sponds to the center of the driving lane. This
first line (star markers in Fig. 4) is used to the
longitudinal uniformity calculation as defined
in standards.
● The whole grid is generated adding ellipses
next to the first line according to the ellipses
width. As the ellipses width increases with
distance, the grid owns more ellipses at the
beginning of the mesh than at the end, trans­
lating the perspective view.
The grid in perspective owns some hundreds
of points describing more finely the luminance
distribution than the classical grid. It adapts the
calculation to the field of view and generates
a trapezoidal grid more convenient to fit ILMD
images. Moreover, the three classical road light­
ing criteria definitions are unchanged.
Our goal here is to describe in detail our
approach and to give the corresponding code
so that it becomes available to all. We also pre­
sent results on calculations under several light­
ing situations and an example of comparison
between measurement and calculation.
4 F. GREFFIER ET AL.
Fig. 4. Points coordinates within the grid in perspective (ApL = 2’, ApT = 20’).
2. Perspective grid construction
In the following we describe step by step the con­
struction of the grid. All the variables implied and
the Matlab® code lines are explained. The entire
code is available in Appendix A.
First we need to define some scene parameters: the
road width, the spacing between two luminaires, the
observer’s position and the apertures of ellipses. In this
example, the axis origin states at 60 m from the obser­
ver (see Fig. 3) and angular apertures are fixed to 2’.
%variables definition
Spacing = 20 ; % spacing between two luminaires
in m
Wr = 6; % road width in m
Obs.X = -60 ; % longitudinal observer’s position
in m
Obs.Y = [4 2] ; % transversal observer’s positions
in m
Obs.Z = 1.5 ; % observer’s eye height in m
ApL = 2/60 ; % Longitudinal Aperture in degree
ApT = 2/60 ; % Transversal Aperture in degree
First, we calculate the abscissas of ellipses’
centers. The first center abscissa Xp(1) is shifted
from the 60 m line by a half of the longitudinal
aperture. A bit of trigonometry leads to the
following expression:
%abscissas of ellipses’ centres
Xp = Obs.Z/tand(atand(Obs.Z/abs(Obs.X))-1/
2*ApL) ; % first centre abscissa
Then abscissas Xp(i) are calculated recursively
with a decreasing projection angle substracting the
longitudinal aperture each time. Results are stored
in a vector Xp while the calculated center stands in
the calculation area.
while Xp(end)<(Spacing + abs(Obs.X)) % abscissas
into the calculation area
Xp = [Xp ; Obs.Z/tand(atand(Obs.Z/Xp(end))-ApL)] ;
end
Xp = Xp(1:end-1) ;% delete the last value outside the
area
Output vectors are instantiated. They corre­
spond to centers’ coordinates for two separate
observer’s positions, one in the center of the
fast lane and the other in the center of the
slow lane.
Xp_FL = [] ; % Abscissas of points for fast lane
observer’s position
Yp_FL = [] ; % Ordinates of points for fast lane
observer’s position
Xp_SL = [] ; % Abscissas of points for slow lane
observer’s position
Yp_SL = [] ; % Ordinates of points for slow lane
observer’s position

Ordinates of ellipses’ centers can now be calcu­
lated for each abscissa. As they depend on observer’s
transverse position, the procedure for the fast
lane will be repeated for the slow lane (given in
Appendix A). The first ordinate corresponds to the
center of the given lane. A counter is also initialized
to keep track of the number of centers on each side of
the center of the lane. It will be used to construct
a mask representing the grid seen by the observer.
%ordinates of ellipses’ centres
for x = 1:length(Xp)
% fast lane
Yp = Obs.Y(1) ;% first centre ordinate
c1=-1;% count centres on the left side of the first
centre
% (seen from the observer)
Ordinates Yp(i) are calculated recursively from
the first center adding the transversal aperture
each time. They stand on the left side of the first
center seen from the observer. Results are stored in
a vector Yp in descending order while the calcu­
lated ordinate is inside the road width.
while Yp(1)<Wr % ordinates into the road width
Yp = [Xp(x)*tand(atand(Yp(1)/Xp(x))+ApT) ; Yp] ;
c1=c1+1;
end
Yp = Yp(2:end) ;% delete last value outside the road
width
Then ordinates Yp(i) corresponding to the right
side of the first center are calculated by subtracting
the transversal aperture each time.
c2=-1;% count centres on the right side of the first
centre (seen from the observer)
while Yp(end)>0 % ordinates into the road width
Yp = [Yp ; Xp(x)*tand(atand(Yp(end)/Xp(x))-
ApT)] ;
c2=c2+1;
end
Yp = Yp(1:end-1) ; % delete last value outside the
road width
At this point, all ordinates have been calcu­
lated for each abscissa. They can be stored in the
output vectors taking care of vectors dimensions
and of the axis origin.
Xp_FL = [Xp_FL ; Xp(x)*ones(length(Yp),1)+Obs.X] ;
Yp_FL = [Yp_FL ; Yp] ;
Besides the grid points coordinates used for
further calculations, an image (in pixels) seen by
the observer is also constructed. It will allow
LEUKOS 5
a direct comparison with experimental measure­
ments. The image is initialized once the first row
of centers is calculated. The image is defined as
an array of dimensions: number of abscissas by
number of ordinates at the first abscissa. As the
number of ellipses decreases with distance by the
perspective effect, the image will finally look like
a trapezoid surrounded by zeros.
if x==1
% image seen from observer’s position
center_lane_FL=c1+1; % index of central row
Mask_FL=zeros(length(Xp),length(Yp),‘logical’);
% mask initialisation
end
Mask_FL(length(Xp)-x+1,center_lane_FL-c1:
center_lane_FL+c2)=1;
%fill image at given indices
The same procedure is repeated for the slow
lane observer’s position.
Calculations can now be done at (Xp_SL,
Yp_SL) positions for an observer in slow lane
and at (Xp_FL,Yp_FL) positions for an observer
in fast lane. Figure 4 presents results of previous
calculations for the slow lane observer’s position
(with ApT = 20’ to be drawable). Star markers
represent the line in front of the observer.
Mask_SL and Mask_FL matrices can be filled
with calculated luminances to compare with ILMD
images. Note that the longitunal and transverse
aperture parameters, ApL and ApT, can be
adjusted to exactly match the imaging system if
needed. Figure 5 shows the image Mask_SL with
ApL = 2’ and ApT = 20’ where (Xp_SL, Yp_SL)
crosses are superimposed.
3. Calculations with the grid in perspective
To assess the impact of using the grid in perspective
instead of the classical CIE one, simulations were
conducted with both approach on 10 different light­
ing situations. The seven CIE situations proposed in
(CIE 2019) with standard r-table R3 (CIE 2001) and
three French experimental situations evaluated during
the Lumiroute® experiment (Muzet et al. 2019) with
LED or Metal Halide luminaires and experimental
r-tables obtained on site with Coluroute device
(Muzet et al. 2008). The parameters of the 10 lighting
situations are given in Appendix B.
6 F. GREFFIER ET AL.
Fig. 5. Mask of the grid in perspective seen by the observer (ApL = 2’, ApT = 20’).
All calculations are made with Ecl_R,
a lighting calculation engine developed by
Cerema (Greffier et al. 2021).
For both approaches, the lighting quality
criteria of (CEN 2016) were performed:
● The average luminance is calculated as the
arithmetic mean of the luminances obtained
at the grid points.
● The overall uniformity, Uo, is calculated as
the ratio of the lowest luminance to the
average luminance in the field of calculation.
● The longitudinal uniformity, Ul, is calculated as
the ratio of the lowest to the highest luminance
in the longitudinal direction along the center-
line of each lane. The observer’s position should
be in line with the row of calculation points.
All the results are presented in the Table 1. The
deviations in percentage between the two grids are
computed using (Xperspective – Xclassical)/Xclassical * 100,
where X stands for average luminance and unifor­
mities. As expected, the average luminance varies
very little between the classical and perspective
grids. Indeed, the average value is not very sensitive
to the number of calculation points. The longitudinal
uniformity is also not very sensitive to the grid
change as about the same number of longitudinal
points are used. On the other hand, the overall uni­
formity is always higher with the classical grid. The
perspective grid containing a larger number of cal­
culation points, the luminance distribution is ana­
lyzed more finely than with 60 points. This explains
why the extreme values (min and max) are different
and lead to lower overall uniformities. If angular
apertures are chosen to simulate the vision, this
overall uniformity seems more representative of the
observer’s perception because it is closer to the eye
angular resolution.
4. Measurement vs calculation
A comparison of simulated luminance and mea­
surement with ILMD has been conducted on the
test case LUMIROUTE® 4. Luminaires stand at
a height of 9 m with a spacing of 29 m. The road
width is 5.7 m. The road reflection characteristics
have been measured by taking drill core samples
and measuring the r-table in laboratory according
to (CIE 2001). Road surface exhibits a Q0 = 0.066
and S1 = 1.10 and the corresponding r-table is
used for the following ECL_R calculations.
 LEUKOS 7

Table 1. Lighting quality criteria calculations with classical and perspective grid.
Classical Grid Grid in Perspective Deviation
fast lane slow lane fast lane slow lane fast lane slow lane
Situation CIE 1 Laverage 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 −4% −4%
Uo 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.12 −16% −19%
Ul 0.56 0.64 0.55 0.64 −2% 1%
Situation CIE 2 Laverage 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 −2% −2%
Uo 0.32 0.35 0.25 0.26 −23% −26%
Ul 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 3% 1%
Situation CIE 3 Laverage 0.55 0.60 0.52 0.58 −5% −4%
Uo 0.52 0.54 0.5 0.51 −5% −6%
Ul 0.68 0.70 0.65 0.71 −3% 2%
Situation CIE 4 Laverage 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.83 −1% −4%
Uo 0.54 0.51 0.47 0.46 −13% −10%
Ul 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0% 1%
Situation CIE 5 Laverage 0.44 0.41 0.42 0.39 −3% −3%
Uo 0.45 0.67 0.43 0.63 −5% −6%
Ul 0.79 0.75 0.79 0.74 0% −2%
Situation CIE 6 Laverage 1.17 1.31 1.09 1.24 −7% −5%
Uo 0.49 0.49 0.47 0.46 −3% −6%
Ul 0.62 0.72 0.61 0.72 −1% 0%
Situation CIE 7 Laverage 0.53 0.58 0.53 0.58 −1% 0%
Uo 0.45 0.46 0.41 0.41 −8% −11%
Ul 0.84 0.91 0.82 0.88 −2% −3%
LUMIROUTE® 1 Laverage 0.89 0.95 0.88 0.94 −1% 0%
Uo 0.56 0.57 0.49 0.48 −12% −14%
Ul 0.84 0.79 0.85 0.77 1% −2%
LUMIROUTE® 2 Laverage 1.21 1.28 1.2 1.26 −1% −1%
Uo 0.61 0.62 0.54 0.54 −11% −13%
Ul 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.79 1% −3%
LUMIROUTE® 4 Laverage 0.71 0.78 0.70 0.77 −1% −1%
Uo 0.66 0.66 0.58 0.56 −13% −15%
Ul 0.77 0.78 0.73 0.77 −4% −1%

Image luminance measurements were conducted
using an HDR-ILMD (Boucher et al. 2017) based on
four CMOS cameras to provide a wide range of lumi­
nance. The standard observer’s position according to
(CIE 2019) was used and luminance maps were
recorded with the above mentioned setup. The focal
length of the imaging system is 12.5 mm and the pixel
pitch of the sensor is 5.86 μm, thus the pixel angular
aperture is 1.5’ (averaged over the whole sensor area)
and the measurement field is imaged by 18 × 226
pixels (black trapeze in Fig. 2).
The method b. is first applied in averaging the
luminance over 1.5’ × 20’ (i.e. 1 × 13 pixels)
around each grid point. Figure 6 (left) presents
results of method b. applied on the ILMD image.
Figure 6 (right) presents result of calculation.
In this test case, for the classical 6 × 10 grid, the
measured and calculated road lighting quality criteria
are in very good agreement, with a difference of 1.3%
for luminance and a maximum difference of 7.6% for
overall uniformity. Since all the parameters (light
sources, scene geometry, road surface and measured
area) have been carefully measured, it explains why
calculations are able to reproduce measurements. It
should be noted that this level of knowledge is rarely
achieved in operational conditions.
Applying the perspective method with angular
apertures, ApT and ApL equal to 1.5’, the grid con­
tains 215 points (ellipse centers) at 60 m in transverse
direction, 148 points at 89 m and 19 points in long­
itudinal. Then the image dimension is 19 × 215 pix­
els with a trapezoidal luminance map surrounded by
zeros (see Fig. 7). This dimension is near but not
exactly the experimental image (18 × 226). So the
measured image is resized to fit exactly the calcula­
tion. We have verified that there is no incidence on
results (up to third digit). Figure 7 (left) presents the
ILMD trapezoidal area of Fig. 2 resized to fit exactly
the calculated grid size. Figure 7 (right) presents
result of calculation with ApT and ApL equal to 1.5’.
For the perspective method with a large number
of measurement considered (3444 points), the mea­
sured and calculated road lighting quality criteria are
also in very good agreement, with a maximum dif­
ference of 4%. One minor drawback of this method
is illustrated in Fig.7 (left): it includes the central
8 F. GREFFIER ET AL.
Fig. 6. Measured grid by method b. (left) and calculated grid (right) for the 60 CIE points.
Fig. 7. Measured grid (left) and calculated grid (right) using the grid in perspective.
marking whereas it is not present in the CIE grid.
Here, markings are imaged by 30 pixels representing
less than 1% of the imaged area and their influence
can be considered negligible. If it is not the case,
markings should be removed.
Whatever the number of points considered, average
luminance and longitudinal uniformity are not sensi­
tive to the grid change. However the overall unifor­
mity decreases with the perspective grid as the
luminance distribution is much more finely described
(but remains over the standard threshold of U0 ≥0.4).
We have shown with this example that the CIE light­
ing criteria are still consistent between calculation and
measurement with the perspective method. Finally, there
is no more need to project points in an image frame.
Benefits of the perspective grid are to not induce errors
due to a stretching of the measured data (to fit a rectangle
from a trapeze) and to allow a direct comparison as the
calculation fits exactly the measured image.
5. Conclusion
The comparison of luminance maps cannot be made
directly between experiments and calculations: on the
one hand, the camera provides a perspective image of
the area to be measured, on the other hand, the calcu­
lations are carried out on a rectangular grid defined by
the CIE. To avoid the drawbacks of a comparison
between trapezoidal measurements and rectangular
calculations, we propose to build a grid that takes the
observer’s perspective into account by projecting
ellipses of adjustable dimensions than can match
human vision or imaging system angular aperture
and allow direct comparison with images provided
by an ILMD.
In this paper, we present both the methodology
and a software implementation, providing the
code in appendix.
To test the implementation, lighting quality cri­
teria calculations have been carried out using the
60 points CIE grid and our approach for ten situa­
tions: seven CIE situations and three experimental
ones. Whatever the methodology, the lighting
standard criteria definitions remain unchanged
and we have shown that the values of average
luminance and longitudinal uniformity are equiva­
lent. The luminance distribution is more finely
described using more calculation points, thus

calculated and measured overall uniformity tends
to decrease but it is more representative of the
driver’s perception. A trapezoidal mask is also
generated and is used to fit ILMD images.
The example of the comparison between calcu­
lation and measurement shows the advantages of
the perspective grid. Increasing the resolution
could allow other quality criteria to be considered.
For example, the standard deviation of the lumi­
nance distribution could be used to represent
a more representative overall uniformity than the
ratio of two values. Gradient calculations in the
longitudinal and transverse directions could also
become uniformity criteria in these dimensions.
They might be more representative of visual com­
fort than the track axis alone. This work now
needs to be consolidated by multiple comparisons
between calculations and measurements to con­
firm the trends. We hope that researchers in the
field will use this new grid to explore its potential.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Cerema “Tremplin Europe &
International” under Grant Savaphor-2020.
ORCID
Florian Greffier http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7745-6629
Vincent Boucher http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2299-4168
Valérie Muzet http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0026-6592
References
AFNOR. 2006. FD CEN/CR 14380—Éclairagisme—Éclairage
des tunnels. Plaine Saint-Denis (France): Association
française de normalisation.
ANSI/IESNA. 2000. American national standard practice for
roadway lighting. New-York (USA): Illuminating
Engineering Society. RP-8-00.
Boucher V, Buschmann S, Greffier F, Muzet V, Voelker S. 2021.
Keeping the benefit of ILMD’s high resolution in measuring
road lighting quality parameters. CIE 2021 Midterm Meeting
and Conference. p. 431–41. doi:10.25039/x48.2021.OP55.
Boucher V, Dumont E, Dronneau R, Fournela F, Greffier F. 2017.
High dynamic range imaging Luminance measuring device
LEUKOS 9
(HDR-ILMD) and applications in motion. Proceedings of
CIE 2017 Midterm Meetings and Conference on Smarter
Lighting for Better Life; Jeju Island, Republic of Korea:
International Commission on Illumination, CIE. p. 923–32.
doi: 10.25039/x44.2017.
Buschmann S, Steblau J, Voelker S. 2017. New image based
measurement method of reflective properties of road
surfaces. CIE 2017 Midterm Meetings and Conference on
Smarter Lighting for Better Life. p. 284–93. doi:10.25039/x44.
2017.OP39.
Buschmann S, Völker S, Schumacher H. 2020. Steigerung der
Energieeffizenz in der Straßenbeleuchtung durch
Entwicklung und Evaluierung einer nutzflächenbezogenen
Beleuchtung : schlussbericht StEffi. Technische Universität
Berlin. doi:10.2314/KXP:1751371913.
CEN. 2015. EN 13201-3:2015. Road lighting—Part 3 : calcu­
lation of performance. Brussels (Belgium): CEN.
CEN. 2016. EN 13201-4:2016. Road lighting—Part 4 : methods
of measuring lighting performance. Brussels (Belgium): CEN.
CIE. 2001. CIE 144:2001—Road surface and road marking
reflection characteristics. Vienna (Austria): International
Commission on Illumination (CIE).
CIE. 2011. CIE 194:2011—On site measurement of the photo­
metric properties of road and tunnel lighting. Vienna
(Austria): International Commission on Illumination (CIE).
CIE. 2019. CIE 140:2019 road lighting calculations. 2nd ed.
International Commission on Illumination (CIE). doi:10.
25039/TR.140.2019.
Greffier F, Charbonnier P, Tarel J-P, Boucher V, Fournela F.
2015. An automatic system for measuring road and tunnel
lighting performance. Proceedings of 28th Quadrennial
Session of the CIE, CIE 216, Manchester, UK. p. 1647–56.
Greffier F, Muzet V, Boucher V, Fournela F, Dronneau R. 2019.
Use of an imaging luminance measuring device to evaluate
road lighting performance at different angles of observation.
PROCEEDINGS OF the 29th Quadrennial Session of the
CIE. p. 553–62. doi:10.25039/x46.2019.OP75.
Greffier F, Muzet V, Boucher V, Fournela F, Lebouc L,
Liandrat S. 2021. Influence of pavement heterogeneity and
observation angle on lighting design : study with new metrics.
Sustainability. 13(21):11789. doi:10.3390/su132111789.
Muzet V, Greffier F, Nicolaï A, Taron A, Verny P. 2019.
Evaluation of the performance of an optimized road sur­
face/lighting combination. Light Res Technol. 51
(4):576–591. doi:10.1177/1477153518808334.
Muzet V, Paumier J-L, Guillard Y. 2008. COLUROUTE :
a mobile gonio-reflectometer to characterize the road surface
photometry. 2nd CIE Expert Symposium on « Advances in
Photometry Abd Colorimetry », CIE x033. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/279258920_COLUROUTE_a_
mobile_gonio-reflectometer_to_characterize_the_road_sur
face_photometry.
Rossi G, Iacomussi P, Radis M. 2017. Metrological characteriza­
tion of ILMD for smart lighting applications. Proceedings of
CIE 2017 Midterm Meetings and Conference on Smarter
Lighting for Better Life. p. 218-27. doi:10.25039/x44.2017.
OP31.
10 F. GREFFIER ET AL.
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Grid calculation code
%variables definition
Spacing = 20 ; % spacing between two luminaires in m
Wr = 6; % road width in m
Obs.X = -60 ; % longitudinal observer’s position in m
Obs.Y = [4 2] ; % transversal observer’s positions in m
Obs.Z = 1.5 ; % observer’s eye height in m
ApL = 2/60 ; % Longitudinal Aperture in degree
ApT = 2/60 ; % Transversal Aperture in degree
%abscissas of ellipses’ centres
Xp = Obs.Z/tand(atand(Obs.Z/abs(Obs.X))-1/2*ApL) ;%
first centre abscissa
while Xp(end)<(Spacing + abs(Obs.X)) % abscissas into
the calculation area
Xp = [Xp ; Obs.Z/tand(atand(Obs.Z/Xp(end))-ApL)] ;
end
Xp = Xp(1:end-1) ;% delete the last value outside the area
Xp_FL = [] ; % Abscissas of points for fast lane observer’s
position
Yp_FL = [] ; % Ordinates of points for fast lane observer’s
position
Xp_SL = [] ; % Abscissas of points for slow lane observer’s
position
Yp_SL = [] ; % Ordinates of points for slow lane observer’s
position
%ordinates of ellipses’ centres
for x = 1:length(Xp)
% fast lane
Yp = Obs.Y(1) ;% first centre ordinate
c1=-1;% count centres on the left side of the first centre %
(seen from the observer)
while Yp(1)<Wr % ordinates into the road width
Yp = [Xp(x)*tand(atand(Yp(1)/Xp(x))+ApT) ; Yp] ;
c1=c1+1;
end
Yp = Yp(2:end) ;% delete last value outside the road width
c2=-1;% count centres on the right side of the first centre
% (seen from the observer)
while Yp(end)>0 % ordinates into the road width
Yp = [Yp ; Xp(x)*tand(atand(Yp(end)/Xp(x))-ApT)] ;
c2=c2+1;
end
Yp = Yp(1:end-1) ; % delete last value outside the road
width
Xp_FL = [Xp_FL ; Xp(x)*ones(length(Yp),1)+Obs.X] ;
Yp_FL = [Yp_FL ; Yp] ;
if x==1
% image seen from observer’s position
center_lane_FL=c1+1; % index of central row
Mask_FL=zeros(length(Xp),length(Yp),’logical’); % mask
initialisation
end
Mask_FL(length(Xp)-x+1,center_lane_FL-c1:
center_lane_FL+c2)=1; %fill image at given indices
% slow lane
Yp = Obs.Y(2) ; % first centre ordinate
c3=-1;% count centres on the left side of the first centre %
(seen from the observer)
while Yp(1)<Wr
Yp = [Xp(x)*tand(atand(Yp(1)/Xp(x))+ApT) ; Yp] ;
c3=c3+1;
end
Yp = Yp(2:end) ; % delete last value outside the road
width
c4=-1;% count centres on the right side of the first centre
% (seen from the observer)
while Yp(end)>0
Yp = [Yp ; Xp(x)*tand(atand(Yp(end)/Xp(x))-ApT)] ;
c4=c4+1;
end
Yp = Yp(1:end-1) ; % delete last value outside the road
width
Xp_SL = [Xp_SL ; Xp(x)*ones(length(Yp),1)+Obs.X] ;%
abscissas coord.
Yp_SL = [Yp_SL ; Yp] ;% ordinates coord.
if x==1
% image seen from observer’s position
center_lane_SL=c3+1; % index of central row
Mask_SL=zeros(length(Xp),length(Yp),’logical’); % mask
initialisation
end
Mask_SL(length(Xp)-x+1,center_lane_SL-c3:
center_lane_SL+c4)=1; %fill image at given indices
end
 LEUKOS 11

Appendix B. CIE and LUMIROUTE® Situations

Situation CIE 1

Luminaire Source Type Fluo compact

Photometry Sit1.xls
Height 4m
Spacing 20 m
Overhang 2m
Tilt 0°
Power 24 W
Flux 1 800 lm
Arrangement Single-sided Left
Maintenance Factor 0.8
Road Surface Standard R3
Width 10 m
Lanes 2
Observer Observation angle 1°

Situation CIE 2

Luminaire Source Type Fluo compact

Photometry Sit2.xls
Height 4m
Spacing 20 m
Overhang 2m
Tilt 0°
Power 24 W
Flux 1 800 lm
Arrangement Staggered
Maintenance Factor 0.8
Road Surface Standard R3
Width 10 m
Lanes 2
Observer Observation angle 1°
12 F. GREFFIER ET AL.

Situation CIE 3

Luminaire Source Type High-pressure Sodium

Photometry Sit3.xls
Height 10 m
Spacing 45 m
Overhang 0m
Tilt 5°
Power 100 W
Flux 10 500 lm
Arrangement Single-sided Left
Maintenance Factor 0.8
Road Surface Standard R3
Width 7.5 m
Lanes 2
Observer Observation angle 1°

Situation CIE 4

Luminaire Source Type High-pressure Sodium

Photometry Sit4.xls
Height 8m
Spacing 35 m
Overhang 0m
Tilt 5°
Power 100 W
Flux 10 500 lm
Arrangement Staggered
Maintenance Factor 0.8
Road Surface Standard R3
Width 7m
Lanes 2
Observer Observation angle 1°
 LEUKOS 13

Situation CIE 5

Luminaire Source Type High-pressure Sodium

Photometry Sit5.xls
Height 12 m
Spacing 54 m
Overhang 0m
Tilt 5°
Power 100 W
Flux 10 500 lm
Arrangement Opposite
Maintenance Factor 0.8
Road Surface Standard R3
Width 10.5 m
Lanes 3
Observer Observation angle 1°

Situation CIE 6

Luminaire Source Type High-pressure Sodium

Photometry Sit6.xls
Height 18 m
Spacing 75 m
Overhang −2.25 m
Tilt 5°
Power 250 W
Flux 32 000 lm
Arrangement Central
Maintenance Factor 0.8
Road Surface Standard R3
Width 7m
Lanes 2
Observer Observation angle 1°
14 F. GREFFIER ET AL.

Situation CIE 7

Luminaire Source Type High-pressure Sodium

Photometry Sit7.xls
Height 10 m
Spacing 40 m
Overhang 0m
Tilt 5°
Power 90 W
Flux 13 000 lm
Arrangement Single-sided Left
Maintenance Factor 0.8
Road Surface Standard R3
Width 8m
Lanes 2
Observer Observation angle 1°
 LEUKOS 15

Situation LUMIROUTE® 1

Luminaire Source Type LED

Photometry Lumiroute1.xls
Height 9m
Spacing 30 m
Overhang −0.62 m
Tilt 0°
Power 50 W
Flux 3 500 lm
Arrangement Central
Maintenance Factor 1
Road Surface S1Lumi1P1BrT36
Width 6.5 m
Lanes 2
Observer Observation angle 1°

Situation LUMIROUTE® 2

Luminaire Source Type LED

Photometry Lumiroute2.xls
Height 9m
Spacing 30 m
Overhang −0.62 m
Tilt 0°
Power 66 W
Flux 4 600 lm
Arrangement Central
Maintenance Factor 1
Road Surface S2Lumi2P1BrT36
Width 6.5 m
Lanes 2
Observer Observation angle 1°
16 F. GREFFIER ET AL.

Situation LUMIROUTE® 4

Luminaire Source Type Metallic iodide

Photometry Lumiroute3&4.xls
Height 9m
Spacing 29 m
Overhang −1.42 m
Tilt 5°
Power 140 W
Flux 6 950 lm
Arrangement Central
Maintenance Factor 1
Road Surface S4TemoinP2BrT36
Width 5.7 m
Lanes 2
Observer Observation angle 1°

View publication stats