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

net/publication/216253462

Illuminance Uniformity of Outdoor Sports Lighting

Article  in  LEUKOS The Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America · April 2011
DOI: 10.1080/15502724.2011.10732148

CITATIONS READS
4 764

3 authors:

Kevin William Houser Minchen Wei

Pennsylvania State University The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
101 PUBLICATIONS   914 CITATIONS    65 PUBLICATIONS   499 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Michael Royer
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
23 PUBLICATIONS   254 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Characterizing Color Rendering Perception View project

The validity of CIE Whiteness and Tint equations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kevin William Houser on 17 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]
On: 05 August 2014, At: 07:14
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

LEUKOS: The Journal of the Illuminating Engineering

Society of North America
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulks20

Illuminance Uniformity of Outdoor Sports Lighting

a a a
Kevin W. Houser PE PhD , Minchen Wei & Michael P. Royer
a
The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Architectural Engineering, University
Park, PA 16802.
Published online: 16 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Kevin W. Houser PE PhD, Minchen Wei & Michael P. Royer (2011) Illuminance Uniformity of Outdoor
Sports Lighting, LEUKOS: The Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 7:4, 221-235, DOI:
10.1080/15502724.2011.10732148

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15502724.2011.10732148

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

Illuminance Uniformity of Outdoor Sports

Lighting
Kevin W. Houser1 PE PhD, Minchen Wei1, and Michael P. Royer1

Abstract—This paper analyzes the illuminance uniformity of 30 outdoor

sports fields at various points in their service lives. The study was
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

limited to the fields that employ 1500 W metal halide lamps with a
rated life of 3000 hours. The sample was comprised of 12 soccer fields,
14 baseball fields, and 4 softball fields, all of which are owned and
maintained by municipal parks and recreation departments. Five
uniformity indices were computed for both measured illuminance and
initial design calculations: maximum to minimum ratio (Max:Min),
maximum to average ratio (Max:Ave), average to minimum ratio (Ave:
Min), coefficient of variation (CV), and uniformity gradient (UG).
Measured uniformity was rarely as good as the uniformity predicted by
the design calculations. The uniformity of the baseball and softball
fields was better with hours-of-use, with infields and outfields
exhibiting similar trends. Max:Min, UG, and CV indices, as well as the
illuminance of the transition area between infield and outfield, are
suggested as key evaluation parameters. Group vs. spot lamp
replacement, as-built vs. as-designed, dirt accumulation, and out-
gassing are factors that contribute to sports lighting uniformity.

Keywords—sports lighting, illuminance, uniformity, metal halide lamps,

hours-of-use.

1 INTRODUCTION

A basic goal for sports lighting is to provide an appropriate luminous envi-

ronment for athletes and spectators. Design parameters include quantity of
illumination, discomfort glare, contrast, and illuminance uniformity. Criteria for
sports lighting are often stated in terms of maintained average illuminance,
maximum to minimum illuminance ratio (Max:Min), and coefficient of variation
(CV), all of which are defined below. For example, for IES Class I football fields

1
The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Architectural Engineering, University Park,
PA 16802. Corresponding author: Kevin W. Houser, khouser@engr.psu.edu.

© 2011 The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

doi:

221
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

the horizontal illuminance target is 1000 lx, the Max:Min should not exceed 1.7,
and the CV should not exceed 0.13.
An illuminance survey may be commissioned to verify that a new sports
lighting installation meets the design criteria. However, it is not enough to meet
the design criteria only when a field is new, and design criteria should be met
throughout service life. IES lighting standards [Rea 2000; IESNA 2001] and
other recent works [Houser and others 2010; Lemons and Houser 2010; Lemons
2008] advocate the use of a light loss factor (LLF), which is intended to account
for the decline in average illuminance over time. Change in uniformity over time
is seldom considered and to our knowledge has not been previously documented
or publicly disseminated. The purpose of this work was to characterize the
uniformity of sport lighting systems of different ages and to draw attention to
how and why uniformity might change.

2 BACKGROUND
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

2.1 UNIFORMITY METRICS

Uniformity is particularly important for high-speed sports such as baseball,
softball, ice hockey, and tennis because transient adaptation can hinder visibil-
ity [IESNA 2001]. Superior uniformity is associated with a balanced lighting
distribution, which limits the need for transient adaptation by athletes, specta-
tors, and cameras. Measures of uniformity quantify the variation of illuminance
over the playing area. Several indices can be employed, including:
• Uniformity ratios:
– Maximum to minimum illuminance ratio (Max:Min)
– Maximum to average illuminance ratio (Max:Ave)
– Average to minimum illuminance ratio (Ave:Min)
• Coefficient of variation (CV)
• Uniformity gradient (UG)
Uniformity ratios are based upon only two values, one each for the numerator
and denominator. The most commonly employed ratio for sports lighting is
Max:Min. Max:Min is based on the points of maximum and minimum illumi-
nance within the area of interest. By keeping the extremes within defined limits,
all other points are considered acceptable. When an average illuminance value is
employed, as with Max:Ave or Ave:Min, some areas of the field with very high or
low illuminance may be overlooked due to the averaging process. For this
reason, Max:Ave and Ave:Min are seldom used as sports lighting design criteria.
CV is a statistical measure computed as a ratio of the standard deviation (␴) to
the mean (). When employed to characterize sports lighting illuminance unifor-
mity, CV is computed as:
c
CV ⫽ (1)
x
Where:

␴⫽ 冑冘 n
j⫽1 共x i ⫺ x兲 2
n
(2)

␴⫽standard deviation of the mean

xi⫽illuminance at point i
n⫽the number of points measured (or computed)
x⫽the mean illuminance for n points

222
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

Note that in the above equations, and in all equations provided in this article,
the units of illuminance and dimensional quantities must be consistent. Metric
units may be employed (that is, lux and meters), or US customary units may be
employed (that is, footcandles and feet), but metric and US customary units may
not be combined.
CV does not depend on the extreme values of illuminance, but instead on
points throughout the field. To some extent, CV is regarded as a good indicator
of the overall uniformity. However, CV does not limit outliers or extreme values,
meaning it is possible that the field will still have some locations with very high
or low illuminance. This may be problematic for players, spectators, or cameras.
UG is expressed as a ratio between the illuminance of adjacent measurement
points— up, down, or diagonal— on a rectangular grid. The rate-of-change is
weighed by the distance between the points; it is smaller when distance is larger.

共E adjacent 兲 i
UG i ⫽ ⫻ ⌬d i (3)
E center
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

d i⫺c
⌬d i ⫽ (4)
d reference

Where:
i ⫽ 1, 2, 3, … 8
di– c is the distance between the adjacent point i and the center point (point of
interest)
dreference is the reference distance, which equals the grid spacing

The UG value for each grid point is the highest ratio (that is, the greatest
rate-of-change) among the eight adjacent points. The UG value for the whole field
is the highest UG value of all grid points and therefore characterizes a worst-case
scenario rate-of-change.
UG characterizes how fast illuminance falls off between adjacent points. Even
when illuminance ratios are acceptable, changes in illuminance may be disturb-
ing if they occur over short distances. An object moving from a light to dark space
may appear to change speeds because different adaptation levels affect visual
processing times. This can be problematic for both athletes and spectators of
high-speed sports. Illuminance changes over a short distance may be a problem
for video cameras when they are panned or zoomed.
IES criterion values for horizontal illuminance, Max:Min, CV, and UG are
provided in Fig. 1. Recommended values for UG depend on the speed of play
of the sport. Baseball and softball are classified as high-speed and have a
recommended UG of 1.5 or less. Soccer is classified as medium-speed with a
recommended UG of 2.0 or less. When television cameras or spectators are
expected, the recommended limit for UG is 1.5 for sports of both fast and
moderate speeds.

2.2 FACTORS AFFECTING UNIFORMITY

Uniformity indices are based on the illuminance at grid points on a field. Thus,
any change in the illuminance distribution on a field will affect one or more
measures of uniformity. The illuminance distribution is influenced by factors in
a number of categories including field geometry, lamps, luminaires, and electri-
cal characteristics. Most of these factors have both an initial and temporal effect.
As the change in many of these factors cannot be precisely predicted, it is not

223
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

Fig. 1. Uniformity recommen-

dations for baseball, softball,
and soccer fields as estab-
lished by IES RP-6 – 01 [IESNA
2001].
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

unreasonable to see uniformity changes. However, design factors could help

ensure that uniformity meets specifications throughout the life of the system.

2.2.1 GEOMETRY FACTORS

When the installation is different from the design, uniformity should be expected
to be different from the initial computed values. For example, site conditions
may be different from expectations leading to a change in the height, location, or
quantity of poles. Differences between as-designed and as-built conditions
inevitably affect the initial illuminance distribution. Luminaires can get out of
alignment over time because of weather (freeze thaw cycles, wind) and as a result
of the earth settling under or around poles.

2.2.2 LAMP FACTORS

The lumen output of 1500 W metal halide lamps is significantly affected by tilt
[Houser and other 2010, Lemons 2008]. In many sport applications lamps are
operated at angles where the arc tube orientation differs from the lamp’s rated
position. There is also evidence that the lamp lumen depreciation curve is
dependent upon tilt angle [Houser and others 2010, Lemons 2008]. Thus, due to
the various aiming angles for a given field, lamp lumen depreciation will vary
from lamp to lamp resulting in reduced uniformity beginning immediately, and
possibly becoming more variable over time.
The method of relamping also affects uniformity over time. Despite recommen-
dations to group relamp [IESNA 2001], spot relamping is still most common
[Houser and others 2010]. Uniformity will be affected since new lamps have
greater lumen output than old lamps. Burnouts that have not been replaced also
affect uniformity.

2.2.3 LUMINAIRE FACTORS

Luminaire dirt depreciation and optical changes to the luminaires also alter
uniformity. Dirt on the surface of luminaires will scatter light and thus change
the intensity distribution. This effect will become more pronounced over time
unless regular cleaning occurs. Dirt accumulation may vary from one luminaire

224
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

to the next, depending upon exposure. Permanent changes to the photometric

distribution may occur as a result of metallic salts off-gassing from the lamp or
from the off-gassing of internal luminaire components. Such impurities may
corrode the luminaire reflector and the interior surface of the lens. Both of these
factors make the photometric distribution more diffuse than when new.

2.2.4 ELECTRICAL FACTORS

Supply voltage and ballasts characteristics may also contribute to uniformity
both initially and over time. Voltage drop may occur due to long conductor runs,
and poles furthest from the distribution panel may have lower voltages than the
nearer poles. This can differentially reduce lamp lumen output.

3 METHODS
This paper makes use of an existing dataset of sport field illuminance surveys
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

[Houser and others 2010] to study illuminance uniformity of fields of different

ages. The methods are briefly summarized below; please refer to the original
work for a complete description. Grids were established on each field to coincide
with the grids used for photometric calculations. Illuminance was measured at
each grid point. Ancillary data was also collected including operating hours, the
physical layout of the poles and luminaires, the number of burnouts, the
number of the lamps installed, differences between the design drawings and
as-built conditions, and voltage. All measurements and procedures were in
accordance with the IESNA Guide for Photometric Measurements of Area and
Sports Lighting Installations [IESNA 2004], the IESNA Recommended Practice for
Sports and Recreational Area Lighting [IESNA 2001], and the IESNA Approved
Guide for Identifying Operating Factors Influencing Measured vs. Predicted
Performance for Installed Outdoor High Intensity Discharge (HID) Luminaires
[IESNA 2006].
Thirty-seven fields were measured including 13 soccer fields, 8 softball fields,
and 16 baseball fields. Six of the 37 fields were excluded from the original
analysis because either: the hours-of-use data were unreliable; as-built condi-
tions varied considerably from the original drawings; or because it was believed
that reaiming occurred [Houser and others 2010]. In this paper, one additional
field was excluded from analysis. The hours-of-use for the excluded field was
9537 hours, considerably longer than that of the other fields whose hours-of-use
were all less than 5000 hours. Thus, the data reported here are based on 30
outdoor sports fields comprised of 12 soccer fields, 4 softball fields, and 14
baseball fields. Note that soccer fields have only one principal playing area,
whereas softball and baseball fields have an infield and outfield, each with
different design criteria.
To assess uniformity at a given time, the five uniformity indices computed from
illuminance measurements were compared with computed values from the
initial design. Ratios were computed by dividing the measured value by the
calculated value. For example, the Max:Min Measured-to-Computed Ratio was
computed as:

Max:Min Measured
Max: Min Measured to Computed Ratio ⫽ (5)
Max:Min Computed
A Max:Min Measured-to-Computed Ratio of 1.0 indicates that the measured
uniformity was identical to the design value. A value greater than 1.0 indicates

225
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

that the measured uniformity was worse than the initial design value. A value
less than 1.0 indicates that the measured uniformity was better than the initial
design value. This is true for all five ratios that were studied. Summary data is
provided in Fig. 2. The measured-to-computed ratios described above are
presented in the last five columns.

4 RESULTS
Figure 3 plots measured-to-computed ratios vs. hours-of-use. The data are
grouped into three categories— baseball and softball infields, baseball and
softball outfields, and soccer fields— because each has different design criteria.
Four logarithmic regression lines were fit to the data, one for each group and one
for the overall data set. While not provided, additional plots showed no signifi-
cant trends based on luminaire manufacturer or field location.
In previous work on light loss for sports lighting [Houser and others 2010],
three correction factors were used to separate field specific variables from those
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

variables specifically associated with light loss: Lamp Burnout Factor (LBF),
Luminaire Installation Factor (LIF), and Geometry Correction Factor (GCF).
These factors served a similar purpose to Field Factor [IESNA 2004], and were
employed to isolate general causes of light loss from field specific conditions. The
same correction factors were used to revise Fig. 3 but meaningful changes were
not observed. In this paper the correction factors were not applied and the data
summarized characterizes in-situ uniformity conditions.
For all five uniformity indices, the overall trend lines illustrate better unifor-
mity with greater hours-of-use. This trend is most pronounced for Max:Min (Fig.
3a) and CV (Fig. 3d). This result was not expected. The trend lines for Max:Ave,
Ave:Min, and UG vs. hours-of-use indicate only a minor improvement over time
and the correlation is very weak in some instances. For all indices, however,
predicted uniformity approaches design conditions beyond 3000 hours.
Both infield and outfield uniformity have a much stronger correlation with
hours-of-use than soccer fields, which have minimal correlation. The trend lines
for all five indices suggest that infield uniformity is almost always closer to the
designed value than outfield uniformity, with the two exhibiting similar trends
vs. hours-of-use.
Note that 11 of the 12 soccer fields were from the same complex and they were
similar to one another. Thus, it is unreasonable to generalize the trends seen for
the soccer fields in this study. The sample of baseball and softball fields includes
multiple locations, luminaire manufacturers, and designers. Therefore, the
results from these field types can be generalized with more confidence.

5 DISCUSSION
Though it would be desirable to have uniformity data measured soon after
construction and to have multiple field surveys per field as the lighting system
ages, the trends across multiple fields with varying hours-of-use supports
inference about uniformity changes. Figure 4 summarizes the percentage of the
fields that failed to meet the uniformity requirements of RP-6 – 01 based on both
the initial design calculations and measured values. While the number of fields
that are designed outside of IES recommendations is concerning, the number
failing to meet design criteria over time is evidence that sports lighting installa-
tions are not performing as desired. The raw data permits an investigation of the
source of such poor performance.

226
 Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

L E U K O S
V O L
0 7
N O
4
A P R I L
2 0 1 1
P A G E S
2 2 1 – 2 3 5

227
Fig. 2. Summary information for the soccer, baseball, and softball fields that were measured.
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

Fig. 3. Measured to computed ratios of uniformity indices vs. hours-of-use.

228
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

Fig. 4. Summary information

showing the percentage of the
fields that failed to meet IES
recommendations for CV,
Max:Min, and UG.

The best-fit regression models shown in Fig. 3 suggest that initial uniformity
levels are always worse than predicted by calculations. While this model
obviously does not represent all fields, the trends come from a representative
sample of municipal sport fields and are suggestive of average conditions. The
trend lines show an improvement in measured-to-computed uniformity during
the life of the system, with uniformity eventually approaching design conditions.
Thought it is not possible to explain definitively the trends in uniformity by
examining the salient factors, it is relevant to understand the effect each may
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

have, both initially and over time.

A comparison of design drawings with field measurements shows that pole
locations were altered for most fields. Though the lighting system design must
meet IES requirements for uniformity and average illuminance levels, a change
in the location of one or more poles will likely have a negative effect on measured
values, both initially and over time.
Lamp performance is likely a key variable affecting change in uniformity over
time. Figure 5 provides the lumen depreciation for nine lamps from five different
manufacturers, illustrating large differences between lamps [Houser and others
2010]. If lamps from different manufacturers are used on the same field,
uniformity would be expected to become worse. However, if initial uniformity is
poor, changes in the luminous flux of individual lamps could actually improve
uniformity.
In contrast to factors that negatively affect uniformity, an increase in lumi-
naire dirt depreciation over time will diffuse the luminous intensity distribution.
This may cause the illuminance distribution on the field to become more uniform
between maintenance. Similarly, off-gassing from the lamp or internal luminaire
components, and the associated etching of interior luminaire surfaces, will
diffuse the intensity distribution. Unlike dirt accumulation, surface etching
cannot be reversed with cleaning.
Relamping, or lake thereof, is likely the cause of the greater variability in
measured uniformity seen in Fig. 3 after 3000 hours. IES recommends group
replacement of lamps at 70 percent of average rated life [IESNA 2004], which
corresponds to 2100 hours for most 1500W metal halide lamps. In the first 3000
hours, half of the initially installed lamps should be expected to be burned out
if no lamps are replaced. Figure 6 provides the number of the lamp burnouts vs.
hours-of-use for the fields surveyed. If group relamping was occurring as per IES
recommendations, Fig. 6 would show an increasing number of failures cycling
over a period of 2100 hours. Rather, the consistently low burnout percentage
confirms that, in practice, group replacement seldom occurs and it is common to
spot relamp when burnouts are noticed by end users. While it may increase
average illuminance levels, this practice will significantly affect uniformity in a
negative way.
Because the values in Fig. 3 are ratios, there are two possible causes for the
apparent trends: design values increasing over time and measured values
decreasing over time. While the first possibility would be an artifact of the data

229
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

Fig. 5. Lumen maintenance

data for common 1500W
metal halide lamps. These
data were obtained by Houser
and his colleagues from the
lamp manufacturers, digi-
tized, and assembled into this
single figure [Houser and oth-
ers 2010].
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

230
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

Fig. 6. Percentage of lamp

burnouts vs. hours-of-use.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

set, the second would implicate true changes in uniformity over time. Figure 7
shows both measured and computed values of Max:Min and CV for infields and
outfields. It is clear that some of the trend seen in Fig. 3 can be attributed to
changes in design values over time, but measured uniformity is also improving
over time. Both Fig. 3 and Fig. 7 indicate a difference in performance for infields
and outfields.
The average illuminance level of infields should be greater than outfields
[IESNA 2004], which is reflected in the measured data. Due to the higher
illuminance level, the infield points typically receive illuminance from a greater
number of luminaires than the points in the outfield. Thus, any change in
luminaire performance, including lamp burnout and replacement, has more
influence on the illuminance distribution in the outfield than the infield,
possibly explaining why outfield uniformity is typically worse than infield
uniformity.
Uniformity performance is not only important for infields and outfields sepa-
rately, but also for the transition area between them. The transition between two
illuminance levels should be gradual [Rea 2000]. Based on a review of the design
calculations, most fields were designed to have a gradual transition between
infield and outfield, with the transition zone defined as the outfield grid points
directly adjacent to the infield. Points in the transition zone should have an
illuminance between the adjacent points in the infield and outfield. However,
most measured values failed to meet this standard. Figure 8a illustrates the
initial design of the illuminance distribution of an example baseball field, while
Fig. 8b illustrates the measured illuminance distribution at 1480 hours for the
same field. Comparing the two data sets shows that the transition zone from the
calculations has not been preserved in the installation.
While one might expect the five measures of uniformity to be correlated, they
typically are not because each index characterizes different aspects of unifor-
mity. The low to fair correlation coefficients, ranging from 0.05 to 0.7, between
the indices for each of the 30 fields examined in this report are realistic.
Although the uniformity indices that were examined can often have different
values, all five have merit. CV is most appropriate as a first order approximation
of the illuminance uniformity since it includes contributions from all points on
the field. However, because extreme values may be masked by CV, it should not

231
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

Fig. 7. Measured and com-

puted values of Max:Min (a)
and CV (b) for the infield and
outfield of softball and base-
ball fields. The horizontal
lines show the IES recom-
mended maximum values.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

232
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

Fig. 8. Example illuminance

distribution of a baseball field
showing the transition area
between the infield and out-
field: (a) initial computed de-
sign values, (b) measured val-
ues at 1480 hours.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

233
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

be the sole measure of uniformity. Max:Min and UG are better for understanding
the most extreme illuminance variations on the field, an important consideration
because play can occur at any point. It could be argued that the lighting on a
field is only as good as the worst area. Max:Ave and Ave:Min are not as valuable
since they are only derived from the point with highest or lowest illuminance. A
field with an acceptable value of Max:Ave may have areas of play with illumi-
nance levels that are unacceptably low.
Sports field owners, luminaire manufacturers, and lighting designers all
desire high performing systems that meet design specifications, both initially
and over time. Houser and others previously made recommendations regarding
what LLF would provide reasonable assurance that the mean illuminance will
meet the desired target throughout the service life of the lighting system. While
a similar factor cannot be determined for uniformity from these data, following
IESNA maintenance and relamping guidelines may help stabilize uniformity.
We recommend both initial and periodic illuminance surveys as a component
of best practices for the operation and maintenance of sports fields. An illumi-
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

nance survey performed in accord with IES procedures typically takes no more
than several hours at the field, several hours to produce a report, and a few
hours of administration. The professional fees associated with this work are
small in comparison to the total cost of a sports lighting system. Such periodic
measurement surveys are especially important and relevant in the case of
performance contracting where a manufacturer has guaranteed a particular
specification over a defined period of time. They may be a prudent investment
since sports lighting systems seldom perform as well as predicted [Houser and
others 2010] and objective data are needed to enforce a performance contract.
Such measurements are best carried out by an unbiased third party using
calibrated measurement instruments. Like all complex systems, sports field
lighting systems will not perform as intended unless they are properly main-
tained.

6 CONCLUSIONS
The overall goal of this paper was to document and disseminate quantitative
information about the illuminance uniformity for a representative sample of
municipal sports fields. Surveys of 30 fields illuminated by 1500 W metal halide
lamps with a rated life of 3000 hours and luminaires from four different
manufacturers were analyzed. Our observations and recommendations related
to illuminance uniformity can be summarized as follows:
• Contrary to expectations, uniformity of the fields in the survey improved over
time. The Max:Min and CV indices showed the most pronounced trends.
• For baseball and softball fields, the transition between the infield and outfield
is important. Although there are no formal criteria for quantifying this
transition zone, it should be considered as part of the design process and in
on-site evaluations of field performance.
• All five indices show different aspects of the uniformity. To ensure acceptable
uniformity it is necessary to characterized both the overall uniformity level and
the worst case. We recommend Max:Min and UG to assess the worst case for
the entire field, and CV to assess the overall uniformity level. These sugges-
tions are consistent with IES recommendations.
• All of the IES uniformity criteria should be met during design and defined as
part of the specification. Furthermore, a lighting survey should be performed

234
 L E U K O S V O L 0 7 N O 4 A P R I L 2 0 1 1 P A G E S 2 2 1 – 2 3 5

as part of the initial commissioning of a field to ensure that all specifications

are met.
• Group replacement of lamps is recommended to maintain both average
illuminance and illuminance uniformity.
• Periodic lighting surveys are recommended as a part of the regular mainte-
nance of the sport field to ensure continued operation within specifications.

REFERENCES
Houser KW, Royer MP and Mistrick RG. 2010. Light Loss Factors for Sports Lighting.
LEUKOS. 6(3):183–201.

IESNA Sports and Recreational Areas Lighting Committee. 2004. IESNA Guide for
Photometric Measurements of Area and Sports Lighting Installations. IESNA LM-5– 04. New
York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.

IESNA Sports and Recreational Areas Lighting Committee. 2001. IESNA Recommended
Practice for Sports and Recreational Area Lighting. IESNA RP-6 – 01. New York: Illuminating
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 07:14 05 August 2014

Engineering Society of North America.

IESNA Subcommittee on Photometry of Outdoor Luminaires of the IESNA Testing Procedures

Committee. 2006. IESNA Approved Guide for Identifying Operating Factors Influencing
Measured Vs. Predicted Performance for Installed Outdoor High Intensity Discharge (HID)
Luminaires. IESNA LM-61– 06. New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.

IESNA Subcommittee on Photometry of Light Sources of the IESNA Testing Procedures

Committee. 2000. IESNA Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements
of High Intensity Discharge Lamps. IESNA LM-51– 00. New York: Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America.

Lemons TM. 2008. Sports luminaire performance and MH lamp tilt factor. Conference
Poster. Annual Conference of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
Savannah, GA. USA.

Lemons TM, Houser KW. 2010. Sports lighting installation design. Conference Poster.
Annual Conference of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. Toronto, ON.
Canada.

Rea MS. Editor. 2000. The IESNA Lighting Handbook Reference and Application. New York:
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.

235

View publication stats