Summary Application of the visibility level (VL) concept is extended to street lighting by means of the

1989 Adrian model. Keck put small target visibility (STV), also based on the Adrian model, into a street
lighting application program with certain limitations (plane targets and VL average
). An alternative is given
in this paper in which solid targets, hemispherical and facing the driver, replace the plane targets, and
minimum replaces VL
VL .The concept has been applied to dry road surfaces as defined by the CIE and
average
is now extended to wet road surfaces. Specific designs based on Scandinavian and English practice are
developed to provide guidance by using the VL minimum as a criterion.

Visibility and lighting of wet road surfaces

J Lecocq
Thorn Europhane, Emblissement des Andelys, Route de Paix, BP 504-27705 Les Andelys Cedex, France

List of symbols -
time of exposure of targets: 0.2 s
-

size of targets: 0.18 m X 0.1$ m

VL Visibility levels
Lav Average luminance<3) -
observer distance from targets: 83 m
Ua Overall uniformity of luminance{3> -
surface finish of targets: uniformly diffusing
Ul Longitudinal uniformity of luminance(3) reflection factor p of targets : 0.2.
.D Glare rating index used in Denmark and Sweden
-

Ti Threshold increment He assumed that the targets are plane, vertical, and perpen-
LGseq Equivalent veiling luminance~~? dicular to the axis of the road, and are seen with a constant
Glare control mark{3> angle of subtense by an observer whose position is variable
R 1 to R4, Cl, C2, N2 Dry road surface classificationS(4) but is at a fixed distance from the targets, and who views the
1~4 Wet road surface dassifications<5> target along a line parallel to the orientation of the road.
Moreover, the VL is presented as a single figure, which can be
1 Introduction either a weighted or an unweighted average. This, in the
opinion of the author of this paper, is unwarranted because a
high value of average VL can be obtained even though the tar-
Application of the visibility level (L) concept of Blackwell get may be invisible at some points on the road surface.
can be extended to street lighting thanks to the 1989 Adrian
model. With this it is possible to determine the VL of targets An alternative has been proposed by the author<6). This also
in both negative and positive contrast for a range of lumi- uses the Adrian model, but with no constraints. In addition it
nance levels. replaces the plane target by one that is a faceted hemisphere
with its simulated curved surface facing down the road
towards the observer. This makes the calculations more com-

Likewise VL can be used to characterise the quality of an
installation in terms of safety to motorists by just one figure.
But this is only true if VL is calculated for closely spaced
points on the road surface to enable the absolute minimum
value to be determined.
For his work on VL, Keck(2) developed a computer program
based on the 1989 Adrian Visibility Model in which simpli-
fications were introduced by fixing certain parameters in the
model. This was necessary because of the overwhelming mul-
tiplicity of possible combinations. For this reason, only the
geometrical parameters of the installation layout and the
luminaire light distribution remain as variables in the first
issue of the Keck program. In a subsequent issue, however,
variation of the reflection factor of the target is possible.
In the application of VL Keck chose the following values for
the various parameters: .
plicated compared with those for a plane target (5000 lines of
coding are required in the computer program) but is a better
approach to simulating real objects since it takes into account
the luminance distribution over the surface of the target. It
has been applied to dry road surfaces as defined by the CIE(4),
and has been formulated to give good correlation with the
quality criteria of the luminance method presently in use. At
the same time, it remedies the incomplete VL information
obtained with plane targets when contrast reversal occurs.
This can be verified in a systematic way when the reflection
factor of the target is changed.
In fact, small plane targets have a substantially uniform lumi-
nance which, for a certain reflectance of target, can always be
made equal to the luminance of the road surface which forms
the immediate background. In contradistinction, a hemi-
spherical target (with its curved surface facing towards the
observer, see Figure 1), lit laterally, is never of a uniform
luminance in the direction of the observing motorist, except
in very specific cases. Consequently, this solid target has a

higher probability of being detected. Thus, there is a tempta-

tion to extend the application of the Adrian model to a multi-
-

age of observer: 23 years faceted target in the more difficult case of wet road surfaces.

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015

75
 Reference 7. Thus the minimum permitted value of VL was
taken as 7 for every point (Figure 2). This limit ensures detec-
tion of all targets for the following conditions:
-

age of observer: 30 years

-
time of exposure: 0.35 s

-
size of targets: 0.2 m X 0.2 m
-
surface finish of targets:
uniformly diffusing
-

reflection factor p of targets: 0.2 (or as specified).

Figure 1 Hemispherical target modelling
Some Scandinavian countries have not waited for guidance
from the CIE in extending the application of the luminance
design method to wet road surfaces. This is because in these
countries road surfaces are wet for a considerable proportion
of the time. The limiting values quoted in Table 1 can be
found in their national recommendations. It appears that for
wet road surfaces, the limits of overall and longitudinal uni-
formity are less stringent than those for dry roads. One ques-
tions whether in reality this is in consequence of the limita-
tions of the photometric performance of existing luminaires
and economic constraints, rather than because of perfor-
mance requirements.
In any case, justification of the limits for wet roads, even if
they are only derived on a theoretical basis, seems desirable.
This paper attempts provide guidance for achieving
to
As the observers position is critical when the road is wet and
and therefore reflecting light specularly, a single observer
position is taken, which is located according to the conven-
tion :
-
at60 m from the grid of calculation points for luminance
and VL
-
at one quarter of the width of the road from the nearside
kerb (e.g. from the right-hand side kerb when the rule of
the road is for traffic to be driven on the right)
-
luminaires are in a single row along the opposite side.
Independently of the spacing between consecutive lumi-
naires, a grid of length 60 m is considered with the calcula-
tion points on a 5 m increment along the road. This allows
point luminances and corresponding values of VL to be
defmed for points up to 120 m from the observer, though for
this study the area considered was limited to that between 60
m and 100 m in front of the observer. This last value allows
adequate detection time and stopping distance for a speed
which is equal to or less than 80 km h-1.
3 Example of solution for Scandinavian lighting design
3.1 Initial installation data
an

optimum performance by using VL as a criterion. (a) Road width:

- ~ m with two lanes
2 Basis c~f projects
(b) Road surfaces:
As a first step,a Swedish street lighting project is used for the
-

N2 qo = 0.09 for the dry surface

initial design. Calculations were made in parallel to evaluate -
V~4 q4 = 0.09 for the wet surface
results for wet and dry road surfaces. The proposed single-
sided geometry is in accordance with current practice. (b) Luminaires:
Negative overhang is assumed. Moreover, tilting of the lumi- -
semi-cut off
naires, which is common practice, is kept to a minimum to
limit obtrusive and spill light. -

arrangement: single-sided, off-side (e.g. on the left-

hand side when the rule of the road is for traffic to be
To enable the different results to be compared on the same
driven on the right)
basis, values of the parameters for the Adrian model were the
same as those used in the CETE experiment described in -

mounting height: 8 m

Table 1 CIE and Scandinavian recommendations for roadlighting

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015

76
 Figure 2 Subjective appraisal
versus VL

overhang: 1.5 m from the kerb line

-
tilt: 10.
The spacing is initially 38 m between luminaires, based on
Scandinavian luminance criteria.

3.2 Results
The system of co-ordinates shown in Figure 3 has been used
in the tables. Moreover, the hemispherical multifaceted target
can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Multifaceted target (Small circles represent calculations points.)

3.3 Qptimisation
The obvious way to increase the low values of VL is to make
the overhang positive, so that the luminaires are above the
carriageway. However, with a positive overhang of say 1.5 m,
Figure 3 System of co-ordinates and no other changes, an antagonistic effect becomes appar-
ent between wet and dry roads: a lack of light occurs along
the strip of carriageway behind the luminaires. Nevertheless,
Tables 4 and 5, which were obtained after many trials, pro-
vides an acceptable solution. For this the following additional
Values ofvL are shown in Tables 2 and 3 for plane and hemi- changes have been made:
spherical multifaceted targets. It is clear from Tables 2 and 3 -

choice of a photometric distribution which is symmetri-

that there are values below the minimum desirable value of 7. cal about a vertical plane transverse to the orientation of
Therefore, detection of targets on the road is not ensured the road
even though the normal requirements for average and unifor-
mity of luminance are met. For the wet road surface the rea- -

increase in mounting height (from 8 m to 10 m)

son for this is that light is
largely reflected towards the offside
kerb. -

change in lamp power (luminous flux increased from

7500 lem to 16 0001m)

77
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015
 Table 2 Basic solution (according to Swedish rules)
-
a small increase in spacing (from 38 m to 40 m).
3.4
Interpretation
From different computer simulations it is apparent that VL is
very sensitive to changes in the spacing-to-mounting height
ratio (SHR), and the most convenient solution is obtained by
reducing this ratio from 38/8 (4.75) to 40/10 (4.00).
For dry road surfaces this results in a strong increase in lumi-
nance uniformity, which supports the intuitive belief that a
uniform road surface luminance provides a good background
for detection of an object.
For wet road surfaces the reasoning is somewhat different.
The luminance of the background becomes very variable as a
result of the bright patches on the road formed mainly by
specular reflection of the light from the luminaires. It is well
known that contrast sensitivity increases with background
luminance, as shown here.
However, when an obstacle lies outside an area where there is
littleor no specular reflection (in a single-sided installation,
typically on the lane opposite to the lighting columns) the
area appears relatively dark, and even if its longitudinal uni-
formity of luminance is good, visibility of objects is not neces-
sarily ensured. Thus, increasing the amount of light thrown
across the road does not necessarily solve the problem of the
antagonism between the requirements for wet and dry sur-
faces.
78 Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015
The ideal solution would be to ensure that the wet road sur-
face retains the diffusing properties of the dry surface. This
could provide a supplementary reason for the application of
efficiently draining road surfaces, which are already used to
reduce the spray of water from the wheels of vehicles.
However, for very specular, wet, road surfaces, the only way of
ensuring that the full width of the road surface reflects light
towards the observer looking down the length of the road is
to extend the flashed area of the luminaires in the direction
across the road. This can be achieved by:
-
either increasing the size or number of lamps, and thus
the flashed area transverse to the road
-
or increasing the number of lighting positions (e.g by
adopting an opposite geometry).
More precisely on this last point, in the UK the use of stag-
gered arrangements is common practice. We can imagine this
type of opposite geometry should give better visibility of tar-
gets compared with a single-sided arrangement. Therefore,
another series of calculations was carried out with parameters
similar to those used in Tables 4 and 5 except that a C2 (dry)
road surface was used and the luminaires were tilted up by 5
as in UK practice. The grid position relative to the staggered
arrangement leads to the alternatives shown in Tables 6 - 9,
where the luminaires are indicated by small black circles.
Additionally, the observer is assumed to be at the middle of
the left lane of the road.
 Table 3 Basic solution (according to Swedish rules)
For a C2 road surface, the solution is not satisfactory for satis-
fying the VLmin requirement (whatever the sensible overhang
may be; not only the one used in the tables). This can be
explained by the apparent meandering effect in the lumi-
nance distribution.
For a W4 road surface, on the other hand, the vz.min require-
ment can be easily attained (whatever the overhang chosen).
Thus, the staggered arrangement is not applicable when VL is
employed as the design basis for a C2 road surface with the
given spacing. In contradistinction, a single-side arrangement
with similar parameters and a C2 road surface allows the
VLmin requirement to be met, thus confirming that this
arrangement is preferable since it also gives good results for
the wet condition (W4).
Finally, this presents what is essentially a geometrical prob-
lem of achieving a juxtaposition of bright patches formed by
imperfectly mirrored images of the luminaire as seen by the
observer looking down the road. In addition, the reflection of
quasi-point sources reduces the visibility to an insignificant
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015
level, not only because of the lack of uniformity but because
of the glare produced by these images.
4 Bright targets
The solution used for producing Tables 4 and 5 is correct
only for the detection of dark targets (plane or hemispherical
targets, uniformly diffusing, with a reflection factor of 0.2).
It will be noticed that the glare control mark G and the
threshold increment Ti take on values which are just below
the level of acceptability for an N dry road surface. However,
these relatively low values have not resulted in a sacrifice in
visibility although the same formula was used to calculate the
equivalent veiling luminance (Lse ) for Ti and VL evaluation,
both taking into account the age of the observer.
Anyway, it is possible, in this case, to decrease the cut-off
angle of the luminaires by using a photometric intensity dis-
tribution which is more downwardly directed than the one
used for the example in Tables 2 and 3, while at the same
time maintaining VLmi. 7. =
79
Table 4 Solution satisfying vL~,~ with dark targets
In fact, this situation does not present a problem and it is
more rewarding investigate how the favoured solution
to
behaves when the targets are brighter.
The results given in Reference 6 show that contrast reversal
between targets and background makes the detection of plane
targets impossible because VLmin is zero.
Furthermore, it should be considered that hemispherical
multifaceted targets relate better to real, complex, objects
encountered on the road surface.
To illustrate this phenomenon as it applies to all the parame-
ters and variables used in the example of Tables 4 and 5, the
effect of increasing the reflection factor of the target from 0.2
to 0.5 was investigated. The results are given in Tables 10 and
11. As predicted, plane targets give a misleading indication of
the visibility. However, hemispherical multifaceted targets
allow the conclusion to be drawn that minimum values of VL
are in themselves sufficient to indicate a lack of visibility,
with the resultant possibility that objects may not be detected.
Hence it follows that the proposed solution is unsatisfactory
and needs to be reworked.
Increasing the luminous flux, by the use of lamps of a higher
power, for example, is only a partially successful solution.
Finally, it is again the variation of the ratio SHR which is deci-
sive. By decreasing the spacing, the combination of the
increase of the luminance of the road and the increase of uni-
formity allows VLmin 7 to be obtained for every point on the
=
road for wet and dry surfaces, whatever the reflection factor
80 Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015
..
, . , _ _ - , . ,
may be in the range 0 to 0.5. This leads to an optimum solu-
tion, based on VL calculations, of a spacing of 30 m with a
mounting height of 10 m.
5 Conclusion
On the basis of this last example, the objection can be raised,
mischievously, that the values of the parameters selected for
this application of the Adrian model have been purposely
chosen to illustrate a particular point. This objection is, in
fact, not valid because the parameters have been taken from
an actual experiment.
However, caution has to be taken as the influence of age, time
of exposure, and angular size of the targets have a strong
influence on VL and are such that they can render a solution
for meeting the criterion ofvLmin 7 acceptable or unaccept-
=
able.
For example, the choice of 60 years as the age of the observer
would make the last solution unacceptable. Similarly,
decreasing the age of the observers age to 23 years would
make the previous solution almost acceptable regardless of
the reflection factor of the target.
For these reasons it is necessary to be cautious about the
choice of values for the parameters for VL in calculations
linked to the perception of observers. In sports language the
level of competition is all-important. If the competition is
insufficient, the risk is that very poor luminance uniformity
 Table 5 Solution satisfying VLmm with dark targets
and consequently very poor lighting may be accepted.
However, it must not be forgotten that the VL method cannot
cover all aspects of the motorists visual information under
road lighting.
As regards the validity of the CIE recommendations for wet
road surfaces, there seems to be no clear relationship between
the selected uniformities of luminance and the corresponding
VL. Also, low overall uniformity of luminance does not
increase VL. The envisaged solution suggests that only those
installations with positive overhang are acceptable, though all
of them have an overall uniformity of luminance which is
greater than 0.15 for a W4 road surface. Thus, there is lack of
a suitable criterion for describing the centring of the reflect-
ed light patches seen on a wet road surface.
Finally, as has been shown, to increase the possibility of
reaching the minimum acceptable value of VL it is necessary
to reduce spacing to mounting height ratios from 5 to 3. The
old concepts of cut off and semi-cut off seemed credible
because these ratios had values between 3 and 3.5.
These remarks underline the fact that whatever its light dis-
tribution, the photometric influence of a luminaire is limited.
The recourse to excessively wide spacings (to limit cost) and
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015
to large negative overhangs (to meet specific road equipment
requirements) can lead to unsatisfactory visual conditions in
real-life road lighting installations, as is shown in many cases
by vLmin being too low.
References
1 Adrian W Visibility of targets: model for calculation Lighting Res.
Technol. 21(4) 181-188 (1989)
2 Keck M Small target visibility Computer program circulated to CIE TC-
4.15 (Private correspondence) (1990)
3 Recommendations for the lighting of roads for motorized traffic CIE
Publication 12.2 2nd edn (Paris: Commission Internationale de
lEclairage) (1977)
4 Calculation and measurement of luminance and illuminance in road lighting
CIE Publication 30.2 2nd edn (Paris: Commission Internationale de
lEclairage) (1982)
5 Road lighting for wet conditions CIE Publication 47 (Paris: Commission
Internationale de lEclairage) (1979)
6 LecocqJ Visibility levels in outdoor lighting. Adrian model applied to
spherical cap targets Proc. CIE Conf, Melbourne Vol. 1 part 2 pp48-51
(1991)
7 J and CariouJ Caract&eacute;risation dune installation d&eacute;clairage
M&eacute;nard
public&agrave; partir du contraste dune cible normalis&eacute;e Lux (x)
168 20-22
(1992)
81
 Table 6 Solution with stagggered arrangement: First case
Discussion
It gi Simcrns (Consultant)
In the USA there is much interest in the application of the
concept of small target visibility to the design of road lighting
installations. This is because sTv is the central design criteri-
on in the draft American National Standard practice for road-
way lighting. In the draft, however, road surface luminance is
retained to take account of the deleterious effect of disability
glare from the headlights of oncoming traffic. STAY is also
given coverage in the revision of Reference 8 though reserva-
tions are expressed about its use. So it is evident that we are
going to hear and read a lot more about sTv as the merits of
adopting it as a lighting criterion are hotly debated. The
appearance of Jacques Lecocqs paper at this time is, there-
fore, opportune.
I have had the privilege of using a computer program which
Jacques Lecocq has let me have for calculating VL when such
parameters as age of observer, size and shape of target, as
described in his paper, are varied. As I have only recently
received it I have not yet had the time to carry out any inves-
tigations with it. However, the possibilities are exciting.
Among these is the effect of lowering rz on visibility. I would
liketo ask Jacques Lecocq, whether in the luminance method
of road lighting design it would be possible to trade off reduc-
tion of average road surface luminance against reduction of
Tn This would give manufacturers an incentive to design
82 Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015
road lighting with luminaires really low values ofn. Also the
lower light output ratios of flat glass luminaires could be com-
pensated for.
Perhaps a more problematical question. What does he consid-
er that the future use of vL will be? Will it be used in national
codes of practice or will it remain an interesting research
tool?
Reference
8 International recommendations for the lighting of public thoroughfares
Publication 12.2 (Commission Intemationale de LEclairage) (1977)
Authors response to discussion
From Tables 3 ,and 4 it appears that increasing is largely
compensated by increasing the average road luminance, final-
ly to obtain better VL values. On the other hand, lowering
for an observer of 30 years has a relatively minor effect, and
the corresponding effect in possible lowering of the average
road luminance to obtain equivalent VL values is weak.
However, lowering Ti remains a good means of keeping the
luminance level unchanged for older people. At the same
time, and indirectly, the use of sharp cut-off luminaires with
flat glass is advisable insofar as it is anyway necessary to limit
the spacing to three times the mounting height so as to obtain
a sufficient gradient on hemispherical targets. (This is the
 Table 7 Solution with stagggered arrangement: First case
condition that all targets be seen, whatever their reflection
factor.)
As for the future use of vL, I consider that it offers a supple-
mentary means of detecting a lack of visual perception for wet
conditions where the CIE recommendations remain unsatis-
factory. General use should, I consider, embrace the suggested
srv or other methods of defining VL in road lighting, if only
to check whether or not a lighting solution is correct for visu-
al perception on the road. The luminance method allows the
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015
secure design of a correct solution in more general terms, and
this remains satisfactory at the present time.
Taking account of these two aspects, I feel that the use of both
methods is certainly a good compromise. Furthermore, illu-
minances are the only parameters easily checked in situ, and
allow a determination of whether the real photometric distri-
bution complies with that used in the calculation. This is a
very important point. Thanks to the speed of current micro-
computers, these calculations are possible and not too
demanding.
83
 Table 8 Solution with staggered arrangement: Case 2

84
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015
Table 9 Solution with staggered arrangement: Case 2

85
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015
 Table 10 Same solution as Table 4 for bright targets:
Luminances on N2 road surface (Q,, factor: 0.09)

Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015

86
Tabie 11 Same solution as Table 4 for bright targets:
Luminances on W4 road surface (Q, factor: 0.09)

87
Downloaded from lrt.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on March 11, 2015