Light Pollution and Uplight Ratings

Swatting BUGs

Ian Ashdown, P. Eng., FIES

Chief Scientist, Lighting Analysts Inc.

[ Please send comments to allthingslighting@gmail.com ]

Related Posts

Botanical Light Pollution

Color Temperature and Outdoor Lighting

Mobile Light Pollution

“Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.”

When Rudyard Kipling wrote this line in his poem The Ballad of East and West (Kipling 1892), he was referring to cultural misunderstandings between the British and their colonial subjects in India (where “twain” means two). As a proverb, however, it has worked equally well for the lighting industry and the astronomical research community for the past four decades.

The meeting concerns light pollution, wherein roadway and area lighting contribute to the diffuse sky glow that limits our ability to observe the stars at night. The International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) has campaigned since 1988 to limit the use of outdoor lighting, and to employ luminaires that are designed to limit undesirable spill light. Unfortunately, the equivalent of cultural misunderstandings have until recently worked against this effort.

Those in the lighting industry will be familiar with IES TM-15-11, Luminaire Classification System for Outdoor Luminaires with its BUG (Backlight-Uplight-Glare) rating system (IES 2011); those in the astronomical research community will be familiar with Garstang’s light pollution model (Garstang 1986) and its derivatives. These documents have led to the development of the IDA/IES Model Lighting Ordinance (IDA/IES 2011) by the lighting industry and the lesser-known Pattern Outdoor Lighting Code (Luginbuhl 2010) by the astronomical research community.

Of particular interest to professional lighting designers is the BUG rating system of IES TM-15-11. While the IDA/IES Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) has seen at best sporadic adoption by individual municipalities and states, BUG ratings are integral to the LEED v4 Light Pollution Reduction credit. While it is only one credit, it may make the difference between, for example, LEED Silver and Gold certification.

Related to this is the IDA’s Fixture Seal of Approval program, which “provides objective, third-party certification for luminaires that minimize glare, reduce light trespass, and don’t pollute the night sky.” While it is not directly related to IES TM-15-11 or LEED v4, outdoor luminaires with this “dark-sky friendly” certification are useful in promoting environmental responsibility in building design.

Curiously, recent changes to this program have removed all references to the BUG rating system, replacing it with the much simpler requirement that the luminaires be full-cutoff, or to quote the IDA FSA Web site, “fixtures must emit no light above 90 degrees.” In other words, after campaigning for lighting pollution control and working with the lighting industry through the Illuminating Engineering Society for the past decade or more, the International Dark-Sky Association apparently no longer recognizes the IES BUG rating system.

What happened here … and why is your humble scribe looking guilty?

History – Astronomical Research

Going back to 1973, the astronomer P. S. Treanor wrote a paper called, “A Simple Propagation Law for Artificial Night-Sky Illumination” (Treanor 1973). In it, he developed an empirical equation for the overhead sky brightness at night due to light pollution from a distant city. As befits the astronomical research community, his equation involved Mie scattering from aerosol particles (dust and smoke), atmospheric density, and extinction coefficients – topics not in the lexicon of most lighting designers. The light source was modeled as a single point source with constant intensity.

In 1986, the astronomer R. H. Garstang wrote a paper called, “Model for Artificial Night-Sky Illumination” (Garstang 1986). Again as befits the astronomical research community, his equations involved Rayleigh scattering from air molecules, Mie scattering from aerosol particles, reflections from the ground, and more. Most important, he empirically modeled the luminous intensity distribution of roadway cobrahead luminaires that were prevalent at the time.

Swatting Bugs - FIG. 1

FIG. 1 – Garstang’s luminous intensity function (green line). (Source: Luginbuhl et al. 2009)

In his own words, however, “The choice of the function … is purely arbitrary … these properties seem to be true for most street lights and for at least some other forms of outdoor lighting.”

Swatting Bugs - FIG. 2

FIG. 2 – Typical cobrahead roadway luminaire

… and never the twain shall meet. The lighting industry has relied on measured luminous intensity distributions to characterize luminaires for nearly a century. It would be unthinkable for a lighting researcher to model such distributions with a “purely arbitrary” function that might “seem to be true.”

In Garstang’s defense, however, a metropolis illuminated with randomly oriented cobrahead luminaires circa 1986 probably did have a composite luminous intensity distribution (i.e., for the entire city) that was reasonably approximated by his empirical function. As evidence of this, recent studies by Duriscoe et al. 2013 and others have mostly validated the sky glow predictions made by Garstang’s model.

That, however, was three decades ago. Things have changed.

History – Lighting Industry

The IDA/IES Model Lighting Ordinance has a long and somewhat contentious history. It was first developed by the IDA without significant input from lighting industry. One of the early drafts defined outdoor luminaires in terms of their wattage, with no reference whatsoever to their luminous flux output. East is East and West is West …

An IES meeting of outdoor lighting industry representatives first saw this proposed ordinance as an existential threat, as recorded in the meeting minutes. Eventually however, it was decided that it was better to work with the astronomical research community rather than to fight it. In 2005 therefore, the Joint IDA/IES Task Force was formed to collaboratively develop the MLO.

This led in turn to the development of the Luminaiure Classification System (LCS), published in IES TM-15-07, with the BUG rating system added in 2009 and subsequently revised in IES TM-15-11. The first public review of the MLO occurred in 2009, the second public review in 2010, and the final Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) with User’s Guide document was published in June 2011 (IDA/IES 2011). The BUG rating system of IES TM-15-11 is incorporated in the MLO as Table C, Maximum Allowable Backlight, Uplight and Glare (BUG) Ratings.

Referring to IES TM-15-11, it defines six uplight ratings for luminous flux (maximum zonal lumens) emitted above 90 degrees by the luminaire (Table 1). There are two uplight zones, designated UL for vertical angles 90 to 100 degrees and UH for angles 100 to 180 degrees (FIG. 3).

  U0 U1 U2 U3 U4 U5
UH 0 10 50 500 1000 >1000
UL 0 10 50 500 1000 >1000

Table 1 – IES TM-15-11 Uplight Ratings (maximum zonal lumens)

Swatting Bugs - FIG. 3

FIG. 3 – IES TM-15-11 BUG uplight zones (Source: Chinnis et al. 2011)

The question that must be asked, however, is where did these lumen values come from? The only publicly-available documentation appears to be a Leukos paper titled “IES TM-15 BUG Value-Setting and Adjustment Methodology” (Chinnis et al. 2011). One quote from this paper is of particular significance:

“The BUG values were established by the [IDA/IES MLO Task Force] based on professional experience and analysis efforts with a very wide variety of outdoor lighting applications, including variations in ambient brightness, site geometry and function.”

Referring to the astronomical research comment above, it would be unthinkable for an astronomer to specify values in a standard “based on professional experience and analysis efforts” without providing the data needed for impartial and independent verification.

East is East and West is West … as easy as it may be to poke fun at both sides in this matter, it is not constructive. As long as the BUG rating system is being used as a basis for the LEED v4 Light Pollution Reduction credit, there is a need to understand whether the maximum zonal lumens shown in Table 1 are appropriate.

Sadly, they are not.

Measuring Uplight

A year after IES TM-15-11 was published, another Leukos paper titled “Photometric Imprecision Can Limit BUG Rating Utility” investigated the practical issues of measuring luminaires in the laboratory for BUG uplight ratings (Ashdown 2012). The abstract, while extensive, usefully summarizes the results:

“There are, however, limits to what can be measured in the laboratory. IES TM-15–11 requires that a luminaire with an uplight rating of U0 emits zero lumens into the upper hemisphere, while a U1 uplight rating or a G0 glare rating for high viewing angles requires fewer than 10 lumens. Given that the luminaire is emitting thousands of lumens and that the laboratory room surfaces have a diffuse reflectance of at least two percent, it is physically impossible to measure zero lumens, and extremely difficult to measure fewer than 10 lumens. Consequently, a U0 glare rating can only be obtained by physical examination of the luminaire and post-processing of the measured photometric data. Similarly, a U1 uplight rating or a G0 glare rating for high viewing angles is likely the result of data manipulation.”

The paper explained that “post-processing of the measured photometric data” is indeed a common practice in photometric laboratories. If the laboratory technician can clearly see that the luminaire emits no light at or above 90 degrees, it is entirely reasonable to zero out the data for vertical angles greater than zero degrees, as these only record the diffuse interreflections from the laboratory room surfaces.

Of course, it is also possible that the laboratory technician saw that there was some stray light being emitted into the UL zone, but decided that it was probably less than 10 lumens and so reason enough to zero out the data. (Estimating total emitted lumens simply by looking at a luminaire presumably requires professional experience.)

From an engineering perspective, this is an untenable position. The problem is that if you cannot measure something, then it is pointless to divide it into different categories (in this case U0 through U2 uplight ratings).

Calculating Uplight

Kipling’s pessimism aside, it is possible to reconcile the interests of the lighting industry on one hand and the astronomical research community on the other. The approach is simple: given that Garstang’s light pollution model has been validated, it is entirely straightforward to substitute measured luminous intensity distributions for Garstang’s generic and arbitrary distribution (FIG. 1). It did not make sense to do this in 1986, but it certainly does today with the emphasis on BUG ratings. The question to be answered is, what influence do various UL and UH ratings have on light pollution if you assume that the same luminaires are used throughout an entire metropolis?

To be fair, the astronomical research community has addressed this question in several papers, including Aubé et al. (2005), Aubé (2015), Baddiley (2007), and Cizano and Castro (2000). In particular, an open source software program for sky glow modeling called Illumina imports IES LM-63 photometric data files. The problem, however, is twofold: 1) the papers were written for and published within the astronomical research community; and 2) software programs such as Illumina are sophisticated research tools that are designed to answer more pressing questions than whether the BUG uplight rating lumen values are appropriate.

This need not dissuade us, however. Garstang’s light pollution model is not particularly complicated, and it was clearly described in the original paper. It is also not particularly difficult to implement in software – it was after all originally developed to run on a 1980s-era Apple II computer (Garstang 1986). The only difference is that calculations that likely took days to weeks to run in 1986 now execute in a few seconds.

The result is SkyGlowCalc, a program written expressly to answer the above question for the IDA Task Force (FIG. 4). The software was developed on a volunteer basis in the author’s capacity as a member of the Task Force, mostly because the question itself was inherently interesting.

Swatting Bugs - FIG. 4

FIG. 4 – SkyGlowCalc (Source: Lighting Analysts Inc.)

This program is, of course, more than what Garstang envisioned some three decades ago. In addition to importing IES LM-63 photometric data files, it also allows the user to specify common lamp types with their different spectral power distributions (SPDs). The program then calculates the resultant SPDs of the emitted light contributing to sky glow at a remote observing site. As shown in FIG. 4, the wavelength-dependent effects of Rayleigh scattering greatly increase the blue content at the observing site (dashed line). A more detailed discussion of this is presented in the AGi32 blog article, “Color Temperature and Outdoor Lighting.”

For astronomical purposes, the most important output of this program is the sky brightness or its equivalent limiting visual magnitude. The goal was to take the photometric data files of 63 commercial luminaires from the IDA Fixture Seal of Approval program and see what differences in sky brightness there would be, assuming that all the luminaires emitted the same amount of luminous flux and all other parameters were equal (as shown in FIG. 4). The results of this analysis are shown in Table 2.

UL Uplight Rating LPS CIE HP1 3000K LED 5000K LED
U0 24.4 21.4 19.0 18.7
U1 24.4 21.4 19.0 18.7
U2 24.3 21.3 19.3 18.6

Table 2 – Uplight Rating versus Limiting Magnitude

The visual magnitude of the calculated sky glow determines the faintest stars you can see directly overhead at midnight on a moonless night. With the unaided eye, we can see stars as faint as magnitude 6; telescopes gather more light and so allow us to see fainter stars. The scale is logarithmic, with a difference of 0.1 magnitude representing a difference of approximately 10 percent in photometric intensity. These differences are near the limit of our ability to distinguish differences in intensity.

Simply put, not only can we not measure the differences between U0, U1 and U2 ratings in the laboratory with luminaires, we cannot distinguish the resultant differences in sky glow in the night sky.

Shortly after these results were presented to the IDA Task Force, the decision was made to remove BUG rating requirements from the IDA Fixture Seal of Approval program.

Model Lighting Ordinance

As noted above, the BUG rating system is incorporated in the IDA/IES Model Lighting Ordinance (IDA/IES 2011) as Table C. However, there is a twist that is often overlooked (FIG. 5).

Swatting Bugs - FIG. 5

FIG. 5 – Model Lighting Ordinance Table C-2

Put another way, Table C-2 says that different uplight ratings are permitted for different lighting zones, but only for luminaires that are not used for street lighting or area lighting. In other words, only luminaires with U0 ratings are permitted for street and area lighting (which basically includes all significant outdoor lighting)..

Conclusions

Prior to 2007, roadway luminaires were classified as having cutoff, semicutoff, noncutoff, and full cutoff luminous intensity distributions, with “full cutoff” meaning luminaires with no luminous flux emitted at or above 90 degrees vertical, as well as limited intensity at or above 80 degrees (IES 2011). The BUG rating system was developed by the Joint IDA/IES MLO Task Force to address light pollution issues, thereby replacing these mostly empirical definitions.

It seems, however, that we mostly have come full circle – the International Dark Sky Association no longer makes use of the BUG rating system in its Fixture Seal of Approval program. All that is required is that the luminaires do not emit luminous flux above 90 degrees vertical.

This is not an example of backtracking. Rather, it is how science (and hopefully standards development) works. The IDA executive presumably reviewed the above analysis and concluded that the BUG rating system offers no value to light pollution abatement policies. The FSA program requirements were simply updated in accordance with the best available information. (LEED v4 authors, please take note.)

As for Kipling, the problem has always been that the lighting industry and the astronomical research community speak different languages. The International Dark-Sky Association has been accused in the past of “selling out” to the lighting industry in partnering with the Illuminating Engineering Society, but this is unfair. Having reviewed the original MLO drafts in the 1990s, it was painfully clear that neither side understood the other, from technology to terminology. The Joint IDA/IES MLO Task Force did a credible job of bridging this cultural gap over four years, but “professional experience and analysis” can only go so far. SkyGlowCalc was developed solely to assist both sides in finally bridging the communications gap. (The author is himself an amateur astronomer.)

As for the BUG rating system, it must be remembered that its backlight and glare components (except G0)  are still presumed valid, and so it is still useful in environmentally responsible lighting design. It rightfully retains its position in the IDA/IES Model Lighting Ordinance.

Postscript

The reason why uplight from U0- and U1-rated outdoor luminaires has so little effect on sky glow is simple. Taking the full-cutoff 250-watt metal halide luminaire from IES TM-15-11 as an example, it emits 13,553 lumens downwards. Assuming that the ground has a reflectance (albedo) of 15 percent (Gillet and Rombauts 2001), the amount of light diffusely reflected into the upper hemisphere is 2,033 lumens. The portion of light reflected into the UL zone is 406 lumens, with the remaining 1,627 lumens being reflected into the UH zone. In other words, the luminaire in its natural surroundings has a UL rating of U2 (nearly U3) and a UH rating of U4. Adding a few more lumens of directly-emitted luminous flux will not make any difference.

Together, roadway and outdoor parking luminaires account for over 80 percent of all outdoor lighting on a per-lumen basis (Navigant 2012). If we are to tame light pollution, it must be through a combination of limiting roadway and parking lot illuminance requirements, and perhaps more important employing smart networked lighting technologies to dim or turn off the luminaires when they are not needed.

In the meantime, the twain have hopefully and finally met.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dawn DeGrazio for editorial assistance and historical clarifications.

References

Ashdown, I. 2012. “Photometric Imprecision Can Limit BUG Rating Utility,” Leukos 9(2):79-88.

Aubé, M., L. Franchomme-Fossé, P. Robert-Staehler, and V. Houle. 2005. “Light Pollution Modelling and Detection in a Heterogeneous Environment: Toward a Night Time Aerosol Optical Depth Retrieval Method,” Proc. SPIE Volume 5890.

Aubé, M. 2015. “Physical Behaviour of Anthropogenic Light Propagation into the Nocturnal Environment,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370(1667):20140117.

Baddiley, C. 2007. “A Model to Show the Differences in Skyglow from Types of Luminaires Designs,” Starlight 2007. La Palma, Canary Islands.

Chinnis, D., M. Mutmansky, and N. Clanton. 2011. “IES TM-15 BUG Value-Setting and Adjustment Methodology,” Leukos 8(1):25-39.

Cinzano, P., and F. J. D. Castro. 2000. “The Artificial Sky Luminance and the Emission Angles of the Upward Light Flux,” Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society 71(1):251.

Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2012. 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

Duriscoe, D. M., C. B. Luginbuhl, and C. D. Elvidge. 2013. “The Relation of Outdoor Lighting Characteristics to Sky Glow from Distant Cities,” Lighting Research and Technology 46(1):35-49.

Garstang, R. H. 1986. “Model for Artificial Night-Sky Illumination,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 98:364-375.

Gillet, M., and P. Rombauts. 2001. “Precise Evaluation of Upward Flux from Outdoor Lighting Installations (Applied in the Case of Roadway Lighting),” Proc. International Conference on Light Pollution. Serena, Chile.

IDA/IES. 2011. Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) with User’s Guide. New York, NY: Illuminating Engineering Society.

IES. 2011. IES TM-15-11, Luminaire Classification System for Outdoor Luminaires. New York, NY: Illuminating Engineering Society.

Kipling, R. 1892. The Ballad of East and West, in Barrack-room Ballads. London, UK: Methuen Publishing.

Luginbuhl, C. B., V. E. Walker, and R. J. Wainscoat. 2009. “Lighting and Astronomy,” Physics Today, December, pp. 32-37.

Luginbuhl, C. B. 2010. Pattern Outdoor Lighting Code (USA). Flagstaff, AZ: U.S. Naval Observatory.

Treanor, P. J. 1973. “A Simple Propagation Law for Artificial Night-Sky Illumination,” Observatory 93:117.

 

Color Temperature and Outdoor Lighting

Examining the Limits of CCT

Ian Ashdown, P. Eng., FIES

Chief Scientist, Lighting Analysts Inc.

[ Please send comments to allthingslighting@gmail.com ]

Related Posts

Botanical Light Pollution

Mobile Light Pollution

Light Pollution and Uplight Ratings

UPDATE: Sports field lighting analysis added 15/10/12.

[An edited version of this article was published as “STREET LIGHTS: Light pollution depends on the light source CCT” in the October 2015 issue of LEDs Magazine.]

Most of you will be familiar with the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA), which was founded in 1988 to call attention to the problems of light pollution. It reminds us that light pollution threatens professional and amateur astronomy, disrupts nocturnal ecosystems, affects circadian rhythms of both humans and animals, and wastes over two billion dollars of electrical energy per year in the United States alone.

The IDA’s Fixture Seal of Approval program “provides objective, third-party certification for luminaires that minimize glare, reduce light trespass, and don’t pollute the night sky.” Recent changes to this program have reduced the maximum allowable correlated color temperature (CCT) from 4100K (neutral white) to 3000K (warm white). Previously-approved luminaires with CCTs greater than 3000K will have one year to comply with the new standard.

There are several reasons for this revised CCT limit. One reason is that many people prefer low-CCT outdoor lighting, especially in residential areas. As noted by Jim Benya in his LD+A article “Nights in Davis” (Benya 2015), the City of Davis was obliged to replace newly-installed 4800K street lighting with 2700K luminaires at a cost of $350,000 following residents’ complaints. As was noted in the article, “2700K LEDs are now only 10 percent less efficacious than 4000K,” so there was presumably minimal impact on the projected energy savings.

But another, arguably more important, reason is that high-CCT luminaires contribute more to light pollution on a per-lumen basis than do low-CCT luminaires. This is perhaps best demonstrated by the widely-disseminated graph presented in Luginbuhl et al. (2014) and shown in FIG. 1:

Color Temperature -FIG. 1 FIG. 1 – Overhead scotopic sky brightness ratio (Source: Luginbuhl et al. 2014)

Luginbuhl et al. calculated this graph using a modified version of Garstang’s sky brightness model (Garstang 1986). What it shows is that the light pollution due to 5100K cool-white LED street lighting is approximately twice that of equivalent 2400K warm-white LED street lighting. According to the model, this relationship holds true regardless of the distance from the city to the remote astronomical observing site.

From the perspective of both professional and amateur astronomers as publicly represented by the International Dark-Sky Association, this graph is reason enough to require a maximum CCT of 3000K for the IDA’s Fixture Seal of Approval program.

There is however more to this story. While the graph shown in FIG. 1 may present clear evidence of the relationship between CCT and light pollution, we must remember that its data were calculated rather than measured. The question is whether it is reasonable to trust Garstang’s sky brightness model and its modification by Luginbuhl et al.

Garstang’s Model

Garstang’s sky brightness model is conceptually simple. Referring to FIG. 2, imagine a city C and a distant observer O. The sky glow as seen by the observer is due to light emitted by the city streetlights that is scattered by the air molecules and aerosols in the atmosphere along the path of the observer’s view direction. At any point along this path, the light will be scattered from the volume dV. The sky glow as seen by observer O is simply the sum of the scattered light for all such volumes along the path due to all of the luminaires within the city C.

Color Temperature -FIG. 2

FIG. 2 – Garstang’s sky brightness model

Understanding the mathematics of Garstang’s model requires a reasonably good understanding of atmospheric optics (e.g., Liou 2002). This topic will not be discussed here beyond presenting (without explanation) Garstang’s equation for sky brightness b:

Color Temperature - EQN. 1

What is important for this discussion is that Garstang’s model assumes that the street lighting is monochromatic. He assumed a wavelength of 550 nm as being representative for visual astronomy.

We can have confidence that Garstang’s sky brightness model is reasonably accurate, based on recently-published validation studies by, for example, Duriscoe et al. 2013. With cities ranging from Flagstaff, AZ to Las Vegas, NV however, it is simply not possible to measure the influence of correlated color temperature on light pollution.

Wavelength Dependencies

Light pollution is due to both Rayleigh scattering from air molecules and Mie scattering from aerosols such as dust, smoke, and haze. Rayleigh scattering is strongly wavelength-dependent, with a probability proportional to λ-4, where λ is the wavelength. The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering. Mie scattering is wavelength-independent, which is why the clear sky appears pale blue or white in heavily-polluted urban areas. (As an aside, the average distance a photon of blue light will travel through the atmosphere at sea level before undergoing Rayleigh scattering – its mean free path – is about 50 km. By comparison, the mean free path for a photon of red light is about 200 km.)

Luginbuhl et al. (2014) used these relationships to extend Garstang’s model for visible wavelengths between 400 nm and 700 nm in order to calculate FIG. 1:

Color Temperature - EQN. 1

While justifiable, this modification to Garstang’s model is somewhat ad hoc. In particular, the original model is a gross simplification of an exceedingly complex physical situation. While it has been validated in terms of sky brightness, this says nothing about whether Luginbuhl’s modifications result in similarly accurate solutions.

Radiative Flux Transfer

There have been more advanced light pollution models developed over the intervening thirty years, including Garstang 1991, Cinzano et al. 2000, Gillet et al. 2001, Aubé et al. 2005, Baddiley 2007, Kocifaj 2007, Luginbuhl et al. 2009, Kocifaj 2010, Kocifaj et al. 2010, Cizano and Falchi 2012, Kocifaj et al. 2014, Luginbuhl et al. 2014, and Aubé 2015.

Perhaps the most comprehensive light pollution model developed to date is Illumina, an open source program that was described in Aubé et al. 2005, and which is still under development. Unlike Garstang’s model (which was designed to execute on a 1980s-era Apple II computer), Illumina is a voxel-based radiative flux transfer program that can require weeks of computer time on a supercomputer with several thousand CPUs and terabytes of RAM (Aubé 2015).

The situation is similar to weather prediction models, where a simple model will give you a rough idea of what is going to happen, but it requires a supercomputer to perform massive amounts of data processing in order to have full confidence in the predictions. Simply put, Illumina models light pollution in a manner that would have been inconceivable thirty years ago.

Color Temperature -FIG. 3

FIG. 3 – Illumina calculation model (Source: Illumina Web site)

Unlike Garstang’s model, Illumina explicitly considers diffuse reflections from the ground and in-scattering of scattered light from volumes m into the volumes n visible to the observer. Garstang’s model includes an entirely ad hoc term for double scattering, but it is impossible to determine whether it correctly models the atmospheric optics.

The details of the program, however, are not as important for the purposes of this article as are the results recently reported by its author (Aubé 2015).

Modeling Sky Glow

What Aubé found with Illumina is that the combination of Rayleigh and Mie scattering results in a wavelength dependency described by λ, where α varies from 3.6 to 2.7 as the distance from the city center increases (FIG. 4).

Color Temperature -FIG. 4

FIG. 4 – Wavelength-dependent scattering exponent (Source: Aubé 2015, Fig. 20.)

What FIG. 4 shows is that near the city center, Rayleigh scattering dominates. This is to be expected, as Rayleigh scattering is not directional – the light is scattered equally in all directions, including back down towards the observer.

FIG. 4 also shows that away from the city center, Mie scattering begins to dominate. This is also to be expected, as Mie scattering is directional – the light is preferentially scattered in the forward direction. It is therefore more likely to be scattered to a remote observer as it travels horizontally through the atmosphere.

Sky Glow versus CCT

To apply Aubé’s results to the question of the influence of CCT on sky glow, we first need some representative white light LED spectral power distributions. The following normalized SPDs were digitized from Philips Lumileds’ Luxeon Rebel product catalog (FIG. 5):

Color Temperature -FIG. 5

FIG. 5 – Typical LED spectral power distributions (normalized)

To provide a fair comparison, these SPDs need to be scaled such that the LEDs generate the same luminous intensity. To do this, we multiply the SPDs by the photopic luminous efficiency function at 5 nm intervals (FIG. 6):

Color Temperature -FIG. 6

FIG. 6 – Photopic luminous efficiency function V(l)

and then sum the results to obtain the relative photopic intensities:

CCT Relative Luminous Intensity
2700K 0.88
3000K 1.00
3500K 1.12
4000K 1.17
5000K 0.94

Table 1

Dividing the normalized SPDs by these values gives:

Color Temperature -FIG. 7

FIG. 7 – Typical LED spectral power distributions (constant luminous flux)

What FIG. 7 shows are the different spectral power distributions of the street lighting at city center for each CCT, assuming the same luminous flux output.

Now, using Aubé’s results and assuming an observing site 80 km (50 miles) from the city center, we multiply each 5 nm interval by (λ/550 nm)-2.7 to represent the wavelength dependency (FIG. 8):

Color Temperature -FIG. 8

FIG. 8 – Overhead sky glow spectral power distribution at 80 km

This is precisely what we might expect – blue light is preferentially scattered, bolstering our assumption that high-CCT lighting results in increased sky glow. (These SPDs represent the relative spectral radiance distribution at zenith from the observing site, which is perhaps the most useful definition of sky glow.)

If we assume scotopic (i.e., dark-adapted) visual observing conditions, we need to multiply these SPDs by the scotopic luminous efficiency function at 5 nm intervals (FIG. 9):

Color Temperature -FIG. 9

FIG. 9 – Scotopic luminous efficiency function V’(l)

and sum the results to obtain the relative scotopic zenith luminance. The results are shown in Table 2:

CCT Relative Scotopic Luminance
2700K 0.96
3000K 1.00
3500K 1.04
4000K 1.12
5000K 1.42

Table 2 – Relative sky glow luminance at 80 km

This however is for a remote astronomical observing site, such as a dark-sky preserve. To understand what happens within the city center, we repeat the above procedure with α = 3.6 as per FIG. 4. Rayleigh scattering predominates, as shown by FIG. 10 with its greatly exaggerated blue peaks.

Color Temperature -FIG. 10

FIG. 10 – Overhead sky glow spectral power distribution at city center

When we calculate the relative scotopic luminance of sky glow, however, we find almost identical results (Table 3).

CCT Relative Scotopic Luminance
2700K 0.96
3000K 1.00
3500K 1.05
4000K 1.14
5000K 1.45

Table 3 – Relative sky glow luminance at city center

This assumes, however, that the observer is completely dark-adapted. In an urban setting, the surrounding street lighting will most likely result in only partial dark adaptation, and so mesopic vision will apply. This means a blending of the photopic and scotopic luminous efficiency functions (FIG. 6 and FIG. 9). With the photopic function being much less sensitive to 450 nm blue light, the differences in relative sky glow luminance at city center will be (depending on the visual adaptation field of the observer) somewhere between that of Table 3 and Table 4, which assumes photopic adaptation:

CCT Relative Photopic Luminance
2700K 0.99
3000K 1.00
3500K 1.01
4000K 1.02
5000K 1.06

Table 4 – Relative sky glow luminance at city center (photopic adaptation)

Of course, with full photopic adaptation, the observer will not be able to see anything but the brightest stars and planets in the night sky, so it is best to rely on Table 3 for comparison purposes.

Given the above, the answer to our question is yes, it is reasonable to trust Garstang’s sky brightness model and its modification by Luginbuhl et al. Aubé’s results, based on the much more comprehensive radiative flux transfer model used by Illumina, basically confirms the relationship between CCT and sky brightness as calculated by Luginbuhl et al. (2014).

Astronomical Considerations

According to Table 2, the increase in scotopic sky brightness for 4000K LEDs compared to 3000K LEDs is only 12 percent. Our perception of brightness, following Steven’s Power Law for extended light sources, means that we would see an increase in perceived sky brightness of only four percent! Surely this is not a reasonable justification for the IDA reducing the maximum allowable CCT from 4100K to 3000K for its Fixture Seal of Approval program?

Professional and amateur astrophotographers would vehemently disagree. Richard Wainscoat, Principal Investigator of the NASA-funded Pan-STARRS search for Near Earth Objects at the University of Hawaii, aptly called spectral power distributions of high-CCT LEDs such as that shown in FIG. 8 the “nightmare spectrum” (Betz 2015). Unfortunately, the peak 450 nm emission is right in the spectral region where natural airglow is low and there are important astronomical hydrogen and oxygen emission lines. Unlike the basically monochromatic emissions of low-pressure sodium lamps, it is impossible to filter out the blue LED emissions with band rejection filters. Limiting the CCT to 3000K reduces the contribution to light pollution in the blue region of the spectrum by a factor of two to three.

Allowing 4100K LEDs may be acceptable for casual stargazing, but not for astronomical research or astrophotography.

Ecological Considerations

According to the Fixture Seal of Approval requirements on the IDA Web site:

The case against blue light is well founded with regard to discomfort glare, circadian rhythm disruption, light scattering, sky glow, and biological system disruption in wildlife.

Outdoor lighting with high blue light content is more likely to contribute to light pollution because it has a significantly larger geographic reach than lighting with less blue light. In natural settings, blue light at night has been shown to adversely affect wildlife behavior and reproduction. This is true even in cities, which are often stopover points for migratory species.

The comment about cities is particularly germane in view of FIG. 10, where the light pollution in the blue region of the spectrum from 5000K LEDs is nearly three times that from 3000K LEDs. (To be fair however, this applies to clear skies only. For cloudy skies, Mie scattering from the water droplets dominates, and so the spectral power distribution of the reflected street lighting is essentially that of the lighting itself. On the other hand, much more light is reflected back towards the ground, greatly increasing light pollution.)

Summary

The purpose of this article was to examine the International Dark-Sky Association’s requirement of LEDs with CCTs of 3000K or less for their Fixture Seal of Approval program. Using recent research results based on a comprehensive light pollution model (Aubé 2015), it was found that the concerns over high-CCT LEDS are well-founded. While 4000K LEDs may be acceptable for casual star-gazing, they are anathema for astronomers and wildlife.

In short, requiring LED street lighting with CCTs of 3000K or less is completely justifiable.

UPDATE 2015/10/12

The analysis presented above assumes a gray world with spectrally neutral reflectance. This is a reasonable assumption in that most roadway surfaces – concrete and asphalt – are not strongly colored. In other words, the light reflected from the ground will have approximately the same spectral power distribution as the incident light.

Suppose, however, that we have an outdoor sports arena with a grass field. The spectral reflectance distribution for Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) is shown in FIG. 11. The pronounced green peak is expected, given the grass-green color. What is more interesting, however, is the relatively low reflectance in the blue region of the visible spectrum.

Color Temperature -FIG. 11

FIG. 11 – Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) spectral reflectance distribution

If we multiply the typical LED spectral power distributions shown in FIG. 7 with the grass spectral reflectance distribution on a per-wavelength basis, the overhead sky glow spectral power distribution at 50 km from the city center becomes that shown in FIG. 12. The blue peaks are still present, but they have been reduced by a factor of four relative to the remainder of the spectral power distribution.

Color Temperature -FIG. 12

FIG. 12 – Overhead sky glow spectral power distribution at 50 km due to grass field

The number of outdoor sports arenas may be relatively small, but they generate a surprising amount of light when they are illuminated at night. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy’s 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization report (DOE 2012), it can be estimated (with reasonable assumptions for typical lamp lumens) that the distribution of outdoor lighting in the United States is:

Outdoor Lighting Percent Lumens
Roadway 48.2
Parking 34.0
Building Exterior 10.2
Stadium 6.0
Billboard 0.8
Traffic Signals 0.7
Airfield 0.1
Railway 0.0

Table 5 – Light pollution sources (approximate)

This is, of course, a global view – light pollution next to a large outdoor sports arena can be a significant concern for residential neighborhoods. The best that can be done is shield the luminaires appropriately, and to turn on the sports field lighting only when it is needed.

In terms of correlated color temperature, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) specifies a minimum CCT of 4000K for football stadiums (FIFA 2007), while the National Football League (NFL) requires a CCT of 5600K (Lewis and Brill 2013). These are arguably acceptable in that green grass fields greatly alleviate the “nightmare spectrum” problem.

(Thanks to Brad Schlesselman of Musco Lighting for providing the grass spectral reflectance distribution and thereby inspiring this analysis.)

References

Aubé, M., L. Franchomme-Fossé, P. Robert-Staehler, and V. Houle. 2005. “Light Pollution Modelling and Detection in a Heterogeneous Environment: Toward a Night Time Aerosol Optical Depth Retrieval Method,” Proc. SPIE Volume 5890.

Aubé, M. 2015. “Physical Behaviour of Anthropogenic Light Propagation into the Nocturnal Environment,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370(1667):20140117.

Baddiley, C. 2007. “A Model to Show the Differences in Skyglow from Types of Luminaires Designs,” Starlight 2007. La Palma, Canary Islands.

Benya, J. R. 2015. “Nights in Davis,” LD+A 45(6):32-34.

Betz, E. 2015. “A New Fight for the Night,” Astronomy 43(6):46-51.

Cinzano, P., and F. J. D. Castro. 2000. “The Artificial Sky Luminance and the Emission Angles of the Upward Light Flux,” Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society 71(1):251.

Cinzano, P., and F. Falchi. 2012. “The Propagation of Light Pollution in the Atmosphere,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 427(4):3337-3357.

DOE. 2012. 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program.

Duriscoe, D. M., C. B. Luginbuhl, and C. D. Elvidge. 2013. “The Relation of Outdoor Lighting Characteristics to Sky Glow from Distant Cities,” Lighting Research and Technology 46(1):35-49.

FIFA. 2007. Football Stadiums: Technical Recommendations and Requirements, 4th Edition. Zurich, Switzerland: Fédération Internationale de Football Association.

Garstang, R. H. 1986. “Model for Artificial Night-Sky Illumination,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 98:364-375.

Garstang, R. H. 1991. “Dust and Light Pollution”, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 103:1109-1116.

Gillet, M., and P. Rombauts. 2001. “Precise Evaluation of Upward Flux from Outdoor Lighting Installations (Applied in the Case of Roadway Lighting),” Proc. International Conference on Light Pollution. Serena, Chile.

Kocifaj, M. 2007. “Light-Pollution Model for Cloudy and Cloudless Night Skies with Ground-Based Light Sources,” Applied Optics 46(15):3013-3022.

Kocifaj, M. 2010. “Modelling the Spectral Behaviour of Night Skylight Close to Artificial Light Sources,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 403:2105-2110.

Kocifaj, M., M. Aubé, and I. Kohút. 2010. “The Effect of Spatial and Spectral Heterogeneity of Ground-Based Light Sources on Night-Sky Radiances,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 409:1203-1212.

Kocifaj, M., and S. Lamphar. 2014. “Skyglow: A Retrieval of the Approximate Radiant Intensity Function of Ground-Based Light Sources,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 443:3405-3413.

Lewis, D., and S. Brill. 2013. Broadcast Lighting: NFL Stadium Lighting. The Design Lighting Group Inc.

Liou, K. N. 2002. An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, Second Edition. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Luginguhl, C. B., D. M. Duriscoe, C. W. Moore, A. Richman, G. W. Lockwood, and D. R. Davis. 2009. “From the Ground Up II: Sky Glow and Near-Ground Artificial Light Propagation in Flagstaff, Arizona.” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 121 (876):204-212.

Luginbuhl, C. B., P. A. Boley, and D. R. Davis. 2014. “The Impact of Light Source Spectral Power Distribution on Sky Glow,” Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer 139:21-26.