HANSEN & HENNEBERG

RDGIVENDE INGENIRER

Danish Power Consult

Estonia Paide Street Lighting Project

Lighting calculations for typical streets and luminaires

3784not001, Rev. 2, 4.11.2003

Prepared: Peder bro

Checked: Allan Ruberg

HANSEN&HENNEBERG
Vibevej 20 Tel
KbenhavnAS
DK 2400 Kbenhavn NV

Approved: Allan Ruberg

45 38 16 50 00
CVR-nr. 13 59 08 85
Fax
45 38 16 50 50
www.hansen-henneberg.dk

Side 2

1 Street types and lighting classes

1.1Performance requirement classes
The European lighting class system as laid down in the EN 13201
Road Lighting requirements1 operates with two main types of
streets (roads):
1. Streets/roads for motorized vehicles of medium to high
speed, where the lighting requirements meet the need of the
drivers for visual conditions.
It is recommended to use the MEW classes in Estonia with
MEW3 as the preferred class for main-streets and
traffic streets/roads.
2. Streets/roads/areas for pedestrians and pedal cyclists with low
traffic intensity and lower driving speed of the vehicles. The
lighting requirements meet the needs of the pedestrians and
pedal cyclists, whereas the drivers must complement with
their own headlights.
The street/road/area-types are residential roads, pedestrian
streets, parking areas, separate foot-/cycleways along type 1
roads etc.
It is recommended to use the A classes in Estonia with
A1 as the preferred class in the inner of cities and
A2 on the calmer and more open areas.
To make the system complete one has also to include requirements
for conflict areas on traffic streets/roads with motorized traffic, i.e.
intersections, roundabouts, queuing areas etc. The CE-classes are
intended for this and fits in with one CE-class for each ME/MEWclass.
The requirements in the A-classes based on hemispherical
illuminance are less demanding for the luminaires than the
requirements of the ME/MEW classes bases on the road surface
luminance.
Choosing the right class for the street/road has great influence on
the cost of the lighting.

1.2The road surface reflection (in ME/MEWclasses)

In the MEW (and the ME) classes the requirement is based on the
road surface luminance as seen by the driver. To be able to
calculate the luminance one has to assume appropriate reflection
properties for the road surface.
1 The standard is in the stage of formal vote as prEN 13201:2002. Final standard
is expected in 2003 or 2004.

Error: Reference source not found

HANSEN & HENNEBERG\...\289044527

Rev. Error: Reference source not found

Side 3

Based on works in the CIE (International Lighting Committee)

there are a number of reflection tables for dry and wet road surfaces
to be used in luminance calculations.
In the calculations below is used:
1 C2 is for the dry road surface
2 W4 is for the wet road surface.
C2 models a rather dark and specular road surface, assumed to be
an appropriate choice for roads in Estonia.
Making the road surfaces brighter would save considerable
amounts of energy making it possible to comply with the
luminance requirements with lower wattages!
N2 and C1 are examples of tables for brighter surfaces as used in
Denmark.

1.3Restrictions on luminaries, G- and D-classes

The EN 13201 also states methods to restrict glare and discomfort
from the luminaries on the road users and on the environment.
The G-class restricts the discomfort glare and the obtrusive light
onto the environment
3 It is recommended that the G-class is
-minimum G4 for all types of roads.
The D-class restricts the discomfort glare and is mainly used where
the lighting serves pedestrians and pedal cyclists.
4 It is recommended that the D-class is
-minimum D5 for roads in class A1 and
-minimum D6 for roads in class A2 (A3 and A4).

Error: Reference source not found

HANSEN & HENNEBERG\...\289044527

Rev. Error: Reference source not found

Side 4

Luminaires and light sources

The luminaries considered below are all for high-pressure sodium
lamps.
Clear tubular bulbs are used for MEW-classes whereas diffuse
bulbs giving more soft light are used for A-classes.
The examples below concentrates on luminaires with flat glass but
also ones with clear bowls are considered.

2.1Philips SGS203
The SGS203 is a good quality luminaire well suited for common
street lighting in countries with a rough climate.
Its top-open facility gives easy access for lamp exchange.
It has adjustable optics in 5 positions giving it optimal performance
in a wide range of applications as seen in the calculations below.
It is available in flat glass screen versions, FG (150W and below)
with low glare and low light onto the environment.
It is also available in versions with a clear bowl screen, PC.
As seen in the calculations below, the performance is among the
best. At the same time the G- and D-class rating is high for most of
the versions.

2.2Philips SGS101 and 102, Malaga

The Malaga is a simpler luminaire than the 203.
It has a clear bowl screen. Versions with flat screen are not
available.
The SGS101 are for lower wattages, i.e. up to 70 W high pressure
sodium (HST/HSE) or up to 125 W Mercury (HME).
The SGS102 are for higher wattages, i.e. 100 W to 250 W.
The housing 101 and 102 are used for two versions of reflector
optics:
5 The original Malaga with a fixed optic.
6 The new version called Streetfighter with adjustable
optics. The SGS102 optics has 5 positions while the
SGS101 has only 3 positions. Only photometric data for
HST light sources have been available for the calculations
below.

Error: Reference source not found

HANSEN & HENNEBERG\...\289044527

Rev. Error: Reference source not found

Side 5

As seen in the calculations below its ability to produce the

luminance uniformity is lower than the ability of the SGS203.
However in the double sided arrangement the Streetfighter
SGS102 adj. 150W HST obtains just as long spacing as the
SGS203 150W HST.
The G- and D-classes are low, so the environmental and glare
restrictions are not complied with.

2.3Indalux IVA1 and -2

The quality of this luminaire is judged as fair. It has a few optical
positions and versions with flat glass screen are available.
It has not been possible to obtain photometric data in a standard
format, so the performance has not been tested in calculations.
(The INDALWIN 4.1 program is not of much help because it
cannot calculate wet road surface luminance and not hemispherical
illuminance.)
The performance of the luminaire is judged to be as the Philips
SGS 101 and 102 or may be as the Glamox MIRA.
The G- and D-class ratings are not known, but hopefully they are
OK with the flat glass screen versions.

2.4Glamox MIRA VTP

The quality of this luminaire is judged as fair. The optic is not
adjustable.
The VTP is has a flat glass screen. (Also a clear bowl version is
available.)
The performance is rather good. Its ability to produce the
luminance uniformity is better than the SGS101/-102 but lower
than the 203.
Tilts are needed to achieve the good performance but the G- and Dclass ratings are high, so it can be used with tilts up to 10 without
breaking the G-class restriction.
Tilts above 5 are not necessary in the A-classes.

2.5SBP S.p.A. MYRA 12/V

The quality of this luminaire is judged as fair. The optic is not
adjustable.
The appearance is considered to be poor (gadget-like).

Error: Reference source not found

HANSEN & HENNEBERG\...\289044527

Rev. Error: Reference source not found

Side 6

The MYRA 12/V has a flat glass screen. (Also a clear bowl version
is available.)
The performance is rather good. Its ability to produce the
luminance uniformity is better than the SGS101/-102 and the
MIRA VTR but lower than the SGS203.
It is not necessary to tilt the luminaire more than 3 or 5 to obtain
good performance, however the G-class restriction (G4) is
maintained until 9 of tilt.
Please note: The photometric curves shown SBPs
internet homepage are not the correct ones. The
calculations below have been based on other
photometric files send directly from SBP S.p.A in Italy.

2.6IGuzzini Argo
This is a luminaire with an attractive appearance (Philips have a
luminaire with same type of appearance SGS363/361).
The house is aluminium (die cast?) and it has a flat glass screen. It
is intended for horizontal mounting.
The protection class is only IP54, where the other luminaries are
IP65.
The optic is not adjustable.
The performance is at the same level as the SGS101/-102, but one
has to remember that the Argo has a flat horizontal screen giving it
high G- and D-class ratings i.e. high environmental rating and high
comfort.
The luminaire is very well suited for lighting class-A1 or A2 in
areas where aesthetics and comfort are important.

Error: Reference source not found

HANSEN & HENNEBERG\...\289044527

Rev. Error: Reference source not found

Side 7

3 Lighting calculations - Common remarks

The maintenance factor of 0,75 applies for all the results.
The luminaires chosen primarily have flat (glass) screen. However
some of them for instance SGS102 and the SGS203 PC have a
clear bowl screen.
Tilts of the luminaries are allowed as long as the G- and D-class
restrictions are complied with.
Performance parameters mentioned in the calculation results:
Lave; Avarage luminance on the dry road surface
Uo; Uniformity min/ave of luminance on the dry road surface
Ul;
Longitudenal uniformity on the dry road surface
Uow; Uniformity min/ave of luminance on the wet road surface

Error: Reference source not found

HANSEN & HENNEBERG\...\289044527

Rev. Error: Reference source not found

Side 8

4 Big Main Road

4.1Using existing poles
Tilt

OH
12 m

Big Main Road, Lighting Class MEW3.

Luminaires mounted on the existing poles with an arm to make overhang OH = 1 m.
Spacing: 35 m.
None of the luminaries are able to comply with the requirements of the lighting class
MEW3 when used in this geometry, i.e. mounted on the existing masts.
The best one is the Philips SGS203 PC 150 W SON-TP, however the luminance level,
Lave is somewhat lower than the requirement and the overhang needs to be at the least 1 m
to meet the wet road uniformity requirement.
For all luminaries the 250W type can reach the required average luminance but not the
uniformities.
In the following table only some of luminaries are shown. The table illustrates that not
even the best luminaries can comply with the MEW3 requirements in the single sided
geometry at the 12 m road width. Heights up to 10 m and tilts up to 10 have been tested.
The table shows which of the requirements give the problems. The SGS203 PC almost
meets the requirements if the uniformity on wet road, Uow is disregarded.
Luminaire
Lamp Pos. Tilt Height Lave
Requirements NOT complied with
HST
[m]
cd/m
W
Spacing 35 m
Lave1,0
Uo0,40
Uow0,15
OH 1m
Philips
SGS203 PC
150
1
5
9
0,7
Lave=0,7
SGS203 PC
150
3
5
9
0,9
Lave=0,9
Uow=0,09
SGS102 adj
150
5
5
10
0,8
Lave=0,8
Uo=0,30
Uow=0,09
SGS102 adj
250
5
5
10
1,58
Uo=0,27
Uow=0,06
Glamox
MIRA VTP
150
10
10
0,78 Lave=0,78 Uo=0,31
Uow=0,11
SBP S.p.A.

Error: Reference source not found Rev. Error: Reference source not found
HANSEN & HENNEBERG\...\289044527

Side 9

MYRA 12/V

150

10

0,7

Lave=0,7

Uo=0,33

Uow=0,14

4.2New poles and double sided arrangement

For the few big main roads of the width 12 m it will be relevant to change the pole
arrangement.
Tilt

-OH

-OH
12 m

Big Main Road, Lighting Class MEW3 all requirements complied with
Double sided arrangement
Luminaire
Lamp Pos. Tilt H
OH Spa- Lave Num. Lum.
Lum.
HST
[m]
cing cd/m per km Price Price per
W
[m]
km
Philips
SGS203 FG
100
5
5
8
-1
40
1,04
50
2365 118250
SGS203 FG
150
5
5
9
-1
48
1,12
41,7
2436 101581
SGS102 adj *
150
4
5
9
-1
48
1,03
41,7
1758
73309
Glamox
MIRA VTP
150
10
9
-1
43
1,14
46,5
2338 108717
IGuzzini
Argo 7860
150
0
9
-1
44
1,00
45,5
4700 213850
SBP S.p.A.
150
5
9
-1
43
1,13
46,5
1239 57614
MYRA 12/V
150
9
9
-1
45
1,08
44,4
1239 55012
MYRA 12/V
*) SGS102 is only G3 (luminous intensity class). G4 at the least is desired.

Error: Reference source not found Rev. Error: Reference source not found
HANSEN & HENNEBERG\...\289044527

Side 10

Small main road

Tilt

OH
8m

Small Main Road, Lighting Class MEW3

Luminaires mounted on the existing poles with an arm to make overhang OH = 0 m.
Spacing: 35 m.
Luminaire
Lamp Pos. Tilt Height Lave
Number Lum.
Lum.
HST
[m]
Cd/m
per km
Price Price per
W
km
Spacing 35 m
OH 0 m
Philips
SGS203 FG
150
3
5
9
1,0
28,6
2436
69670
SGS102 adj * 150
4
10
10
0,89 ** 28,6
Glamox
MIRA VTP
150
10
10
0,90 ** 28,6
2338
66867
SBP S.p.A.
150
3
9
0,94 ** 28,6
1239
35435
MYRA 12/V
*) SGS102 is only G3 (luminous intensity class). G4 at the least is desired.
**) The Lave is a bit below the requirement

Error: Reference source not found Rev. Error: Reference source not found
HANSEN & HENNEBERG\...\289044527

Side 11

The following luminaries do not comply with the MEW3 requirements with heights of 10
m and below and tilts of 10 and below.
Luminaire
Lamp Pos. Tilt Height Lave
Requirements not complied with
HST
[m]
cd/m
W
Spacing 35 m
Lave1,0
Uo0,40
Uow0,15
OH 0m
Philips
SGS 102
150
5
10
0,8
Lave=0,8
Uow=0,11
SGS102 adj
250 * 5
10
10
1,86
Uow=0,09
SGS203 PC
250
1 5-10
10
2,0
Uow=0,10
Glamox
MIRA VTP
250
10
10
1,7
Uow=0,12
SBP S.p.A.
MYRA 12/V 250 * 10
10
1,8
Uo=0,38
Uow=0,11
iGuzzini
Argo 7860
150
10
0
0,8
Lave=0,8
Uo=0,38
Uow=0,13
Argo 7861
250
10
0
1,7
Uo=0,38
Uow=0,13
*) These luminaries are only G3 (luminous intensity class). G4 at the least is desired.

Error: Reference source not found Rev. Error: Reference source not found
HANSEN & HENNEBERG\...\289044527

Side 12

6 Inner road
For inner roads where the illumination is intended for pedestrians and cyclists, lamps with
diffuse bulbs are recommended, because of the more soft light. The lamps with diffuse
bulbs makes the luminaires less effective but it does not matter because the A lighting
classes are less demanding than the ME/MEW classes.

Tilt

OH
11 m

Inner street, Lighting Class A1 or A2

The requirements in the A-classes apply on the whole profile i.e. carriageway, verge,
walkway etc. in this case 11m in total.
Luminaires mounted on the existing poles. Spacing: 35 m.
The height is not critical. Also higher pole heights are applicable and for most of the
luminaries also lower pole heights.
The examples in the table below comply with class A1 however the SGS102 is not
recommended because of its very low D-class.
Luminaire
Lamp Pos. Tilt Height
Glare Ehs-ave Number Lum.
Lum.
HSE
[m]
index
lx
per km
Price Price per
W
class
km
Spacing 35 m
D5
5 lx
OH 1 m
Philips
SGS203 FG
100
5
5
6
D5
6,5
28,6
2365
67639
SGS102
100 *** 5
6
D3*
5,8
28,6
1639
46875
Glamox
MIRA VTP
100
5
6
D5
5,3
28,6
2238
64007
SBP S.p.A.
5
6
D5
5,6
28,6
1204
34434
MYRA 12/V ** 100
Iguzzini
Argo 7668 s* 100
0
6
D6
5,3
28,6
4500 128700

Error: Reference source not found Rev. Error: Reference source not found
HANSEN & HENNEBERG\...\289044527

Side 13

The examples in the table below comply with class A2, however the SGS203 FG and the
SGS101 has a bit too low D-class.
Luminaire
Lamp Pos. Tilt Height
Glare Ehs-ave Number Lum.
Lum.
HSE
[m]
index
lx
per km
Price Price per
W
class
km
Spacing 35 m
D6
3 lx
OH 1 m
Philips
SGS203 FG
70
2
5
6
D5*
3,5
28,6
2175 62205
SGS101
70 *** 5
6
D5*
3,1
28,6
1213 34692
Glamox
MIRA VTP
70
5
6
D6
3,1
28,6
2100 60060
SBP S.p.A.
MYRA 12/V
70
5
6
D6
3,3
28,6
989 28285
Iguzzini
Argo 7668 s*
70
0
6
D6
3,5
28,6
4400 125840
*)
Glare restriction not complied with
**) Calculations for MYRA 12/V HSE 100W have been base on photometric file for
HME 80W as no better is available
***) The fixed optic version of Malaga SGS101 or 102 has been used in the calculation
with the HSE light source.
s* These wattages are on special request.

Error: Reference source not found Rev. Error: Reference source not found
HANSEN & HENNEBERG\...\289044527