Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics 260 (2022) 169083

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Optik
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijleo

Study and optimization of lens shape affecting light patterns of

light-emitting diode (LED) street lighting
Jocelynn Kee Xiao Ying a, b, Way Foong Lim a, *
a
Institute of Nano Optoelectronics Research and Technology (INOR), Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia
b
Itramas Manufacturing Sdn, Bhd., No. 542A - 542B, Mukim 1, Lorong Perusahaan Baru 2, Kawasan Perindustrian Perai, 13600 Perai, Pulau
Pinang, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of lens shape towards the light performance from
Lens light-emitting diode (LED) based street light. The other consideration taken into account was the
Shape effect of different light-emitting surface (LES) shapes on the light distribution. Three sets of ex­
Light emitting surface
periments were carried out to figure out the shape of lens as well as the shape of LES suitable to be
Street light
DIALux Evo
used in the street light application. Optical characterization was carried out using the Gonio­
photometer (GO-2000) and Integrating Sphere (PCE-200A). DIALux Evo software was used to
perform simulation by taking the ME4A road lighting requirement set by Tenaga Nasional Berhad
(TNB) as a benchmarking. In comparison, Lens D possessing short rounded rectangular lens
demonstrated a better light performance as compared to long rounded rectangular and triangular
lenses, owing to the acquisition of lesser light trespass problems. Besides, a better light perfor­
mance was demonstrated by square-shaped LES as compared to the round-shaped LES due to the
presence of large surface area that was able to distribute light evenly. Detailed investigation was
presented.

1. Introduction

Street lighting is an essential component of road equipment, sidewalks and pathways [1,2], which has a sizeable impact on traffic
safety and quality of the human environment to provide the sense of security [3–5]. The street lighting would allow the road users or
pedestrians proceed to safety by increasing appetency of the roadside hazards. The advantages of street lighting installations in terms
of road safety, crime prevention, and traffic flow have been exemplified in few studies [3–6]. In order to ensure a good installation, a
road lighting standard is required as a basis for performance metrics such as illuminance or luminance [7,8]. In addition, the capability
of street lighting in improving the day and night time appearance of the environment as well as reduction of glaring effects from other
light sources in the visual environment has been reported [9,10].
The innovation of light-emitting diode (LED) street lighting technology has been built upon years and is growing throughout the
world [1,2,11,12]. It is likely to overtake the use of high pressure sodium vapour (HPS) systems due to its higher luminous efficacy, life
span in addition to its potential in improving visual quality [13,14]. Even though the LED street lighting technology is more advanced
than the HPS system, there remains several disadvantages to the use of LED lights, such as higher cost, unpredictable lifetime, and
excess blue and white glare for human eyes [15,16]. Hence, it is rather challenging in the LED industry for the enhancement of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: way_foong@usm.my (W.F. Lim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2022.169083
Received 23 December 2021; Accepted 8 April 2022
Available online 12 April 2022
0030-4026/© 2022 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
J. Kee Xiao Ying and W.F. Lim Optik 260 (2022) 169083

characteristics and quality of street lighting at considerable cost in the aspects of light efficiency, road surface brightness, illuminance
uniformity and glaring effect whilst fulfilling the road lighting standards and requirements [17,18].
Lighting quality is critical in affecting the visual performance and comfort of the road users. Specifically, the safety of the road users
is dependent on the street lighting performance [19–21]. Thus, optical design of the street lighting becomes very important apart from
the mechanical design. The types of LEDs, circuit route, and secondary optic/lens are amongst the few parameters to be taken into
consideration in the process of optimising street lighting performance, which can be accessed via average road surface brightness,
brightness uniformity, longitudinal brightness uniformity, and threshold increment, commonly known as the glare factor [3–5,22].
With the advancement in science and technology, a light emitting surface (LES) configuration has been developed to replace the
traditional LED design with encapsulation. The reason contributing to the emergence of LES configuration could be associated with the
growth of the thin active layer beneath the emitting surface, and the current is applied with a ring electrode. This LES configuration is
better, owing to the ability to reduce heat generation and potentially improve performance of the LED module as compared to the
traditional LED design [23,24].
The matching of secondary lens with the LED is a topic of interest, which would assist in the improvement of light distribution
pattern suitable for street lighting application. It was reported that the typical light output efficiency of lenses is more than 92% and the
acquisition of higher percentage of the efficiency is an indication of having more lights being emitted from the lens surface, rather than
being trapped inside the lens. Although lens that could avoid glaring effect, light pollution and provide high uniformity are good optics
with perfect light guidance [25], it is subjective to determine the quality of light if the road lighting standards are not used as the
references. Moreover, the shape of lens is also a subject that would influence the light distribution pattern. W. Prommee and N.
Phuangpitak presented four distinct sorts of shapes, including "O" shapes, "I" shapes, oval shapes, and "U" shapes, that produced diverse
light patterns on white sheets representing the street [26]. It was described that the “O” shaped lens would cast a circle of light on one
section of the road while the "I" shape and oval shape lenses provided light across the street area, with the oval lens providing smoother
light than the "I" shape lens. On the other hand, the "U" shape lens would provide smooth rectangular light without over lighting. Other
study revealed that butterfly lenses when being used on double-cluster LEDs could produce a nice light pattern and have an optical
utilisation factor of approximately 43.8%. The light patterns of the butterfly lens, however, were restricted to a road width of 10 m and
a spacing length of 30 m [27]. A cluster of LEDs with total internal reflection (TIR) lenses was covered with a micro lens sheet in
Ref. [28], which would regulate light direction solely into the street. However, the luminaire spacing was too close (21.5 m) for 114 W
LED. On top of the above, double freeform surfaces (DFS) lenses were fabricated based on Snell’s law [29] and the Monte Carlo
technique was employed to improve the lens design. The DFS lenses were shown to give better illuminance uniformity than the
traditional lens. However, the DFS lenses haven’t been tested on road sides.
Keeping in view with the above-mentioned work, different shapes of lens would affect the lighting performance for street lighting.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that not all of the light fixtures are created equal. Despite the fact that research efforts have been
done on selecting the ideal colour temperature and lumen output for the luminaire, incorrect light distribution type would degrade the
lighting performance as the pattern of light emitted by the fixture would rely on the light distribution off the lens. Depending on the
application of the street lighting, some types of distribution would be better suited from one to another.
In this work, different shapes of lenses were used to examine the corresponding effects towards the light pattern emitted from the
LEDs consisting of LES configuration. Thus far, the selected lens for studies in the present work has not been explored previously.
Moreover, the optimised lens would be further investigated with LES of different forms in order to look into the difference in term of
the light pattern.

2. Experimental procedures

In this work, 70 W LED street light was prepared by mounting 50 × 50 mm round and square-shaped LES on the 0.15 mm thick
metal core aluminium printed circuit board (PCB). The light engine was designed based on 4 series and 6 parallel circuits that could
accommodate a total of 24 pieces of LES. The mounting of LES onto the PCB was accomplished by applying adequate amount of solder
paste on the PCB before the surface mounting process (Fig. 1). Subsequently, the PCB with LES was subjected to baking process at
100–110 ◦ C to allow drying of the solder paste. After the PCB baking process, 2 × 2 matrix lenses were mounted to the PCB on the street
lights. Four different shapes of lenses were studied in this work, which were long rounded triangular lens (Lens A) (Fig. 2(a)), rounded
rectangular lens (Lens B) (Fig. 2(b)), and small rounded triangular lens (Lens C) (Fig. 2(c)). Besides, Lens D (Fig. 2(d)) having a similar
shape with Lens B but with shorter width was also used for comparison. All of the lenses were studied onto the round-shaped LES for
optimisation. The optimised lens was then applied onto the square-shaped LES for comparison.
Optical characterization was carried out by using a high precision rotation luminaire Goniophotometer (GO-2000) from Everfine
inside a dark room and run for 15 min to measure light distribution in terms of luminous intensity from the street lights. An input
voltage of 240 V and frequency level of 50 Hz was plugged into the Goniophotometer before running the measurement. Next, the
Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) file was generated from Goniophotometer for DIALux Evo simulation. In order to perform the
simulation, parameters, such as pole distance of 35 m and pole heights of 8 m on a 7 m wide road was used (Fig. 3). Calculation was
performed on a section defined by one pole on one side of the road (single row). The light overhang and boom length was 1 m and
1.5 m, respectively. The light loss factor was 0.80.
In addition, the street lights were also characterised using Integrating Sphere (PCE-200A) with photometric, colorimetric and
electrical parameters test system (380–780 nm) from Everfine to study quality of the light in terms of lumen and colour rendering
index, as well as defining xy chromaticity coordinates and correlated colour temperature (CCT) of the street lights.

2
J. Kee Xiao Ying and W.F. Lim Optik 260 (2022) 169083

Fig. 1. (a) Round-shaped and (b) Square-shaped LES mounted on PCB.

Fig. 2. (a) Long rounded triangular lens (Lens A), (b) rounded rectangular lens (Lens B), (c) small rounded triangular lens (Lens C), and (d) short
rounded rectangular lens (Lens D).

3
J. Kee Xiao Ying and W.F. Lim Optik 260 (2022) 169083

Fig. 3. Road profile used for simulation.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Comparison studies for different shapes of TYPE II-S on round-shaped LES

Fig. 4 shows the intensity distribution, which was also known as the light pattern or light distribution obtained from the Gonio­
photometer between Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C respectively. It could be noticed that the average beam angle for Lens A (87.5⁰) (Fig. 4
(a)) was wider as compared to Lens B (Fig. 4(b)) and Lens C (Fig. 4(c)), which gave 77.3⁰ and 79.4⁰, respectively. The acquisition of a
wider average beam angle for Lens A suggested that the light distribution brought by the street light to the ambient air by using this
lens would be wider and thus covering a larger road width as well as the pole-to-pole distance. Each colour in the intensity distribution
diagram below referred to as the light distribution angle at C0/180, C30/210, C60/240 and C90/270 in C plans. Besides that, the
intensity distribution results justified that by using rectangular shape of lens, its average beam angle is narrower than triangular shape
of lens.
Based on Table 1, the BUG (Backlight, Uplight, Glaring) ratings for these three different shapes of lenses were calculated by its
highest rating according to the maximum zone lumens for each backlight, uplight and glaring subzone. The lowest number in its BUG
rating (rank from 0 until 5) determines the maximum lighting zone in which the fixture may be used. Overall, the lower the BUG rating,
the fewer light trespass problems the fixture will cause. After investigation, the three different lenses could achieve a B2-U2-G2 rating.
Since all the three lenses achieved the same BUG rating, the total of light trespass in lumens was taking into account for each zone.
However, it was found out that Lens B has lesser light trespass on the Backlight, as represented by BVH, BH, BM, and BL as well as

Fig. 4. Intensity distributions diagram between (a) Lens A, (b) Lens B and (c) Lens C.

4
J. Kee Xiao Ying and W.F. Lim Optik 260 (2022) 169083

Table 1
The results of BUG light trespass in lumens for Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C.
BVH BH BM BL UH UL FVH FH FM FL

Lens A 27.332 782.810 1829.500 734.580 76.752 6.956 34.096 1454.600 3544.100 1174.000
Lens B 36.324 716.380 1358.200 615.970 74.775 6.414 54.947 1695.000 3601.800 1330.000
Lens C 38.740 845.700 1476.200 727.360 86.555 7.639 24.155 1616.000 4123.400 1197.900

Uplight zone, as represented by UH and UL when compared to Lens A and Lens C (Table 1) while Lens A performed well in glaring, as
represented by FVH, FH, BVH, and BH. Hence, Lens B showed a better lens performance in lighting and less light trespass from the
street light as it enabled a precise control over the light emitted from the LES. The acquisition of a better performance by Lens B could
be attributed to the shape of the lens, which was in rectangular shape as compared to the other two lenses. Thus, the lens would be able
to transmit and refract the light evenly from the round-shaped LES to the ambient air. Moreover, it was specified that rectangular shape
of lens was able to reduce the light trespass and distributed the light evenly, which could be proven by referring to the beam angle at
C30–210, C60–240 and C90–270 plane presented in Fig. 4(a). The light spread evenly at the average of 44◦ − 59◦ when Lens B was
used.
Further investigation was carried out to explore which type of lenses would be suitable to be used according to the road
requirement set by Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), whereby the street lights must comply to ME4A road lighting requirements. Based
on Table 2, it could be observed that only Lens B achieved all the road lighting requirements. This observation suggested that lens with
rounded rectangular shape was able to give a better light performance than the other two triangular lenses.
Although it was explained that the Lens A was able to cover larger road width as well as the pole-to-pole distance, however the
DIALux Evo simulation results did not show a better light performance in road lighting. With the changes of road parameters, such as
increasing or decreasing the pole distance and pole height, Lens A still did not show any improvement in the road lighting (Table 3).
Unlike Lens C, by increasing pole height to 10 m, this lens showed a better performance in road lighting as shown in Table 4. The
findings summarized that Lens A was not suitable to be used in street light application. Apart from the investigation shown by the
Goniophotometer and also DIALux Evo simulation, the luminous flux measurement from the Integrating Sphere Photometer could be
taken into consideration.

Table 2
The DIALux Evo simulation results between Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C.
Maintained Luminance, Overall Uniformity Longitudinal Uniformity Threshold Increment Value Edge Illuminance Ratio
Lm ≥ 0.75 Uo ≥ 0.4 Ul ≥ 0.6 TI ≤ 15 EIR≥ 0.3

Lens A 0.96 0.43 0.29 6 0.52

Lens B 1.14 0.56 0.61 10 0.41
Lens C 0.98 0.55 0.48 9 0.58

Table 3
The DIALux Evo simulation results of Lens A with different parameters on pole distance and pole height.
Lens A

Pole Distance (m) 35 35 35 40 40 40

Pole Height (m) 8 10 12 8 10 12
Maintained Luminance, Lm ≥ 0.75 0.96 0.81 0.70 0.84 0.71 0.61
Overall Uniformity, Uo ≥ 0.4 0.43 0.57 0.65 0.34 0.5 0.6
Longitudinal Uniformity, Ul ≥ 0.6 0.29 0.45 0.57 0.2 0.35 0.47
Threshold Increment, TI ≤ 15 6 4 3 7 4 3
Edge Illuminance Ratio, EIR ≥ 0.3 0.52 0.65 0.71 0.52 0.65 0.71

Table 4
The DIALux Evo simulation results of Lens C with different parameters on pole distance and pole height.
Lens C

Pole Distance (m) 35 35 35 40 40 40

Pole Height (m) 8 10 12 8 10 12
Maintained Luminance, Lm ≥ 0.75 0.98 0.81 0.69 0.86 0.71 0.6
Overall Uniformity, Uo ≥ 0.4 0.55 0.71 0.78 0.45 0.62 0.73
Longitudinal Uniformity, Ul ≥ 0.6 0.48 0.69 0.74 0.35 0.58 0.7
Threshold Increment, TI ≤ 15 9 6 5 10 7 5
Edge Illuminance Ratio, EIR ≥ 0.3 0.58 0.66 0.72 0.58 0.66 0.72

5
J. Kee Xiao Ying and W.F. Lim Optik 260 (2022) 169083

Comparison of luminous flux between Lens A, Lens B and Lens C

on round-shaped LES
8400
8200

Luminous Flux (Lumens)

8000
7800
7600
Lens A
7400
Lens B
7200
Lens C
7000
6800
6600
1 2 3 4
Number of Test

Fig. 5. A comparison of luminous flux between (a) Lens A, (b) Lens B and (c) Lens C on round-shaped LES.

Fig. 6. The CIE diagram between (a) Lens A, (b) Lens B, and (c) Lens C on round-shaped LES.

Based on Fig. 5, it can be inferred that by using Lens A on the street light application, it has the higher luminous flux in lumens than
Lens B and Lens C. This could be related with the average beam from Fig. 4. The wider the beam angle of the light distribution, the
higher the luminous flux would be obtained. Fig. 6(a), (b) and (c) show the chromaticity diagram between Lens A, Lens B and Lens C.
All the three chromaticity coordinates (x,y) (Table 5) obtained from the Integrating Sphere for all the street lights with different shapes
of lenses were slightly different, which subsequently resulted in a slightly different of correlated colour temperature (CCT) also. Owing
to the minute difference in the average beam angle, the changes of CCT value between the Lens A, Lens B, and Lens C were negligible.
Hence, this observation suggested that the effect brought by the shape of lens towards chromaticity coordinates as well as the CCT
value was not severe.

Table 5
The chromaticity coordinates and CCT results between Lens A, Lens B and Lens C on round-shaped LES of LEDs.
x y CCT

Lens A 0.4382 0.4052 2990

Lens B 0.4382 0.4056 2992
Lens C 0.4376 0.4055 3001

6
J. Kee Xiao Ying and W.F. Lim Optik 260 (2022) 169083

3.2. Comparison for different types of Lens B on round-shaped LES

According to Fig. 7(a) and (b), the light distribution obtained for Lens D was wider than Lens B. The average beam of Lens D was
109.9º while for Lens B was 77.3º. This could be attributed to the longitudinal classification of Lens D as a medium type, which would
allow a wider and efficient spread from closer distances than a short longitudinal classification (Lens B). Hence, Lens D would be able
to cover a larger road width as compared to Lens B. Table 6 presents the light trespass for Lens B and Lens D. The BUG rating for Lens D
was determined to be B3-U2-G3 when comparing with Lens B (B2-U2-G2). Both the lenses were similar in shape but varying in term of
dimension, whereby Lens B was slightly longer than Lens D. This has thus justified that bigger rectangular shape of lens would perform
well in distributing light evenly.
Although Lens B showed a lesser light trespass from the street light as compared to Lens D, according to the DIALux Evo software,
the road lighting requirements value obtained was lower than Lens D. Based on Table 7, both Lens B and Lens D lenses fulfilled all the
road lighting requirements. However, Lens D was able to achieve higher value in terms of maintained luminance, longitudinal
luminance uniformity and also edge illuminance ratio. Meanwhile, Lens B was able to control the glaring effect as compared to Lens D.
This further supported that larger size of the rectangular shape of lens was able to reduce glaring effect. As a result, Lens D was selected
in this research as it fulfilled better in the road lighting requirements based on TNB road parameters with ME4A road lighting
requirements.

Fig. 7. The intensity distributions diagram between (a) Lens B and (b) Lens D.

Table 6
The BUG light trespass in lumens for Lens B and Lens D.
BVH BH BM BL UH UL FVH FH FM FL

Lens B 36.324 716.380 1358.200 615.970 74.775 6.414 54.947 1695.000 3601.800 1330.000
Lens D 54.306 1047.900 1866.600 967.050 79.144 6.899 55.680 1369.400 3068.700 1248.800

Table 7
The DIALux Evo simulation results between Lens B and Lens D on round-shaped LES.
Maintained Luminance, Overall Uniformity Longitudinal Uniformity Threshold Increment Value Edge Illuminance Ratio
Lm ≥ 0.75 Uo ≥ 0.4 Ul ≥ 0.6 TI ≤ 15 EIR≥ 0.3

Lens B 1.14 0.56 0.61 10 0.41

Lens D 1.15 0.42 0.73 15 0.49

7
J. Kee Xiao Ying and W.F. Lim Optik 260 (2022) 169083

Comparison of luminous flux between Lens B and Lens D on round-

shaped LES
8000
7900

Luminous Flux (Lumens)

7800
7700
7600
7500
Lens B
7400
Lens D
7300
7200
7100
7000
1 2 3 4
Number of Test

Fig. 8. The comparison of luminous flux between (a) Lens B and (b) Lens D on round-shaped LES.

Fig. 9. The CIE diagram between (a) Lens B and (b) Lens D on round-shaped LES.

Fig. 8 depicts a comparison of luminous flux between Lens B and Lens D on round-shaped LES. As expected, it was found out that the
luminous flux demonstrated by Lens D was higher than the Lens B, which was in agreement with the aforementioned fact that Lens D
was having larger beam angle of light distribution. Based on Fig. 9 and Table 8, the CCT of Lens D was warmer as compared to Lens B.
The xy coordinates for Lens D was higher than Lens B, which led to the acquisition of 2973 K as the CCT for Lens D. The attainment of a
larger difference of CCT in this study was due to the size of the lens shape between Lens B and Lens D. As mentioned, the rounded

Table 8
The chromaticity coordinates and CCT results for Lens B and Lens D.
x y CCT

Lens B 0.4382 0.4056 2992

Lens D 0.4398 0.4065 2973

8
J. Kee Xiao Ying and W.F. Lim Optik 260 (2022) 169083

rectangular shape of Lens D was slightly shorter than Lens B. Hence, different size of the same lens shape would contribute to difference
in CCT. In short, the warm white colour demonstrated by using Lens D lenses was warmer than using Lens B lenses.

3.3. Comparison between round-shaped LES and square-shaped LES

Based on the two sets of experiment above, round-shaped LES was used to investigate subsequently on the suitability of shape and
size of lens to fulfil the TNB road parameters with ME4A road lighting requirements and Lens D was selected. For this category of
experiment, square-shaped LES was used to compare with the round-shaped LES to investigate the effect of LES shape on the light
distribution and also the road lighting requirements. The square-shaped LES has a larger surface area as compared to the round-shaped
LES.
Fig. 10 presents the light distribution pattern obtained from the Goniophotometer. The difference in terms of the average beam
angle was minute. The average beam angle for round-shaped LES and squared-shaped LES are 109.9º and 110.2º, respectively. The
BUG rating of the round-shaped LES obtained was B3-U2-G3 while the BUG rating for square-shaped LES achieved was B2-U2-G2
(Table 9). This finding validated that the square-shaped LES was able to fewer light trespass problems the fixture will cause.
Square-shaped LES enabled luminaires to maximize system-level photon efficacy performance for street light application as compared
to round-shaped LES. This could be due to the surface area of phosphor surface on square-shaped LES was wider that delivered a higher
flux and efficacy for directional lighting application on street light.
By referring to Table 10, both round and square-shaped LES achieved the road lighting requirements. The results obtained also
showed that the square-shaped LES has higher value in Uo , less glaring (TI) and higher EIR. As an overall result, square-shaped LES
performed better in light distribution, which could be confirmed by the threshold increment obtained by square-shaped LES (13),
which was lesser than that of round-shaped LES.
Fig. 11 illustrates the flux measurement between round-shaped LES and square-shaped LES. It could be seen that the flux mea­
surement on the square-shaped LES was higher than the round-shaped LES in each sample testing, supporting the above discussion
regarding the large surface area of square-shaped LES to possess a more even light spread in the area of illumination as compared to the

(
a) (
b)

Fig. 10. The intensity distributions diagram between (a) round-shaped LES and (b) square-shaped LES.

Table 9
A comparison of BUG light trespass in lumens for round-shaped LES and square-shaped LES.
BVH BH BM BL UH UL FVH FH FM FL

Round-shaped LES 54.306 1047.900 1866.600 967.050 79.144 6.899 55.680 1369.400 3068.700 1248.800
Square-shaped LES 31.486 967.030 1846.600 948.710 75.364 6.557 66.054 1455.900 3095.600 1242.800

9
J. Kee Xiao Ying and W.F. Lim Optik 260 (2022) 169083

Table 10
The DIALux Evo simulation results between round-shaped LES and square-shaped LES.
Maintained Overall Longitudinal Threshold Edge Illuminance
Luminance, Uniformity Uniformity Ul ≥ 0.6 Increment Value TI Ratio EIR ≥ 0.3
Lm ≥ 0.75 Uo ≥ 0.4 ≤ 15

Round- 1.15 0.42 0.73 15 0.49

shaped
LES
Square- 1.09 0.43 0.68 13 0.53
shaped
LES

Flux measurement between round-shaped LES and square-shaped

LES
8050

8000
Luminous Flux (Lumens)

7950
Round-shaped LES

Square-shaped LES
7900

7850

7800
1 2 3 4

Fig. 11. A comparison of luminous flux between round-shaped LES and square-shaped LES.

Fig. 12. The CIE diagram between (a) round-shaped LES and (b) square-shaped LES.

10
J. Kee Xiao Ying and W.F. Lim Optik 260 (2022) 169083

Table 11
The chromaticity coordinates and CCT results for round-shaped LES and square-shaped LES.
x y CCT

Round-shaped LES 0.4398 0.4065 2973

Square-shaped LES 0.4437 0.4079 2920

round-shaped LES. As a large surface area of LES would be able to maximize the light output and distribution, and thus an increase in
the luminous flux was obtained.
Fig. 12 shows the chromaticity diagram between round-shaped LES and square-shaped LES. The xy coordinates for square-shaped
LES was higher than round-shaped LES, which resulted in the colour temperature at 2920 K (Table 11). The finding showed that by
using square-shaped LES with Lens D, a warmer colour of warm white could be obtained.

4. Conclusion

Different shapes of lenses were experimented in this work. Results showed that the beam angle obtained by triangular shape of lens
was wider than rectangular shape of lens. However, BUG rating and DIALux Evo simulation revealed that a better light performance
was demonstrated by Lens B, suggesting that rectangular shape of lens was able to reduce light trespass as compared to triangular
shape of lens. Nonetheless, findings from integrating sphere showed that lens shape did not contribute to changes in CCT. When
comparing between Lens B and Lens D having the same shape but dissimilar in term of having smaller size for Lens D, a better BUG
rating was displayed by Lens D. Besides, DIALux Evo simulation results showed that the Lens D was able to cover a larger road width.
This optimum lens when tested on round-shaped LES and square-shaped LES to study the effects of different LES shapes towards the
light distribution, a higher quality in light performance was displayed by the square-shaped LES as a result of the large surface area
provided by the square-shaped LES as compared to the round-shaped LES. In summary, lens D was the most suitable lens to be deployed
for street light application.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge ITRAMAS Manufacturing Sdn Bhd. for providing financial support.

References

[1] A. Haans, Y.A.W. de Kort, Light distribution in dynamic street lighting: two experimental studies on its effects on perceived safety, prospect, concealment, and
escape, J. Environ. Psychol. 32 (2012) 342–352.
[2] S. Yoomak, A. Ngaopitakkul, Optimisation of lighting quality and energy efficiency of LED luminaires in roadway lighting systems on different road surfaces,
Sustain. Cities Soc. 38 (2018) 333–347.
[3] A.T. Murray, X. Feng, Public street lighting service standard assessment and achievement, Socioecon. Plann. Sci. 53 (2016) 14–22.
[4] A.T. Ergüzel, A study on the implementation of dimmable street lighting according to vehicle traffic density, Optik 184 (2019) 142–152.
[5] M. Beccali, M. Bonomolo, V.L. Brano, G. Ciulla, V.D. Dio, F. Massaro, S. Favuzza, Energy saving and user satisfaction for a new advanced public lighting system,
Energy Convers. Manag. 195 (2019) 943–957.
[6] A.A. Mansour, O.A. Arafa, Comparative study of 250W high pressure sodium lamp operating from both conventional and electronic ballast, J. Electr. Syst. Inf.
Technol. 1 (2014) 234–254.
[7] S. Fotios, R. Gibbons, Road lighting research for drivers and pedestrians: the basis of luminance and illuminance recommendations, Light. Res. Technol. 50
(2018) 154–186.
[8] X. Hu, K. Qian, Optimal design of optical system for LED road lighting with high illuminance and luminance uniformity, Appl. Opt. 52 (2013) 5888–5893.
[9] P. Tomczuk, Assessment of the state of pedestrian crossing lighting on the basis of field measurements of luminance, Prz. Elektrotech. 89 (2013) 266–269.
[10] M.-S. Kong, M.-S. Jung, Study of the optical system sesign of a reflective LED stand to reduce glare, Korean J. Opt. Photonics 31 (2020) 334–343.
[11] D.S. Dorr, A. Mansoor, A.G. Morinec, J.C. Worley, Effects of power line voltage variations on different types of 400-W high-pressure sodium ballasts, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl. 33 (1997) 472–476.
[12] R. Carli, M. Dotoli, R. Pellegrino, A decision-making tool for energy efficiency optimization of street lighting, Comput. Oper. Res. 96 (2018) 223–235.
[13] A.T. Dale, M.M. Bilec, J. Marriott, D. Hartley, C. Jurgens, E. Zatcoff, Preliminary comparative life-cycle impacts of streetlight technology, J. Infrastruct. Syst. 17
(2011) 193–199.
[14] L. Tähkämö, L. Halonen, Life cycle assessment of road lighting luminaires - comparison of light-emitting diode and high-pressure sodium technologies, J. Clean.
Prod. 93 (2015) 234–242.
[15] A. Sȩdziwy, Sustainable street lighting design supported by hypergraph-based computational model, Sustain 8 (2016) 1–13.
[16] F. Leccese, G. Salvadori, M. Rocca, Critical analysis of the energy performance indicators for road lighting systems in historical towns of central Italy, Energy
138 (2017) 616–628.
[17] R. Carli, M. Dotoli, E. Cianci, An optimization tool for energy efficiency of street lighting systems in smart cities, IFAC-Pap. 50 (2017) 14460–14464.
[18] F. Marino, F. Leccese, S. Pizzuti, Adaptive street lighting predictive control, Energy Procedia 111 (2017) 790–799.
[19] C.C. Da Fonseca, R.P. Pantoni, D. Brandão, Public street lighting remote operation and supervision system, Comput. Stand. Interfaces 38 (2015) 25–34.
[20] N. Nithya, M. Hemalatha, GSM based cost effective street lighting application, Procedia Eng. 30 (2012) 737–741.
[21] I. Moreno, Illumination uniformity assessment based on human vision, Opt. Lett. 35 (2010) 4030–4032.
[22] L. Moretti, G. Cantisani, P. Di Mascio, Management of road tunnels: construction, maintenance and lighting costs, Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 51 (2016) 84–89.
[23] V.K. Khanna, Fundamentals of Solid-State Lighting: LEDs, OLEDs, and Their Applications in Illumination and Displays, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2014.

11
J. Kee Xiao Ying and W.F. Lim Optik 260 (2022) 169083

[24] John D. Bullough, Nicholas P. Skinner, Evaluation of light emitting surface and light emitting diodes roadway luminaires, Nov. 2019, Accessed: Sep. 25, 2021.
[Online]. Available: 〈https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/trans-r-and-d-repository/C-18–03_Final_Report.pdf〉.
[25] Y.-D. Lin, Y.-H. Liu, Y.-J. Sun, X.-Y. Zhu, J.-S. Lai, I. Heynderickx, Model predicting discomfort glare caused by LED road lights, Opt. Express 7 (2000) 363–370.
[26] W. Prommee, N. Phuangpitak, Illuminance and luminance for LED street light optic designs: Comparison between big lens and small lens, GMSARN Int. J. 10
(2016) 41–46.
[27] Y.C. Lo, K.T. Huang, X.H. Lee, C.C. Sun, Optical design of a Butterfly lens for a street light based on a double-cluster LED, Microelectron. Reliab. 52 (2012)
889–893.
[28] X.-H. Lee, I. Moreno, C.-C. Sun, High-performance LED street lighting using microlens arrays, Opt. Express 21 (2013) 10612–10621.
[29] H. Wu, X. Zhang, P. Ge, Double freeform surfaces lens design for LED uniform illumination with high distance-height ratio, Opt. Laser Technol. 73 (2015)
166–172.

12