A municipal sports-complex parking lot, South Dakota
The customer, a public works department working with an outside engineering consultant, asked for a lighting design for a sports-complex parking lot. The design was produced and delivered in AGi32. We then ran the same lot through the Runnax engine to see whether it reaches the same verdict on its own.
What the customer asked for
- Average illuminance
- Eavg ≥ 1.0 fc
- Uniformity
- Avg:Min ≤ 3.3
- Luminaire
- 75 W, 13,000 lm, 3000 K, mounted at 25 ft · 15 heads
- Calculation grid
- 271 points, 20 ft spacing, at grade, light loss factor 1.0
The criteria come from the customer's email and were confirmed by the project's sales engineer; we don't hold the original specification document.
Results on the same 271 points
| Eavg | Avg:Min | Verdict | Headroom | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delivered design (AGi32) | 1.2159 fc | 3.1998 | Pass | 3.04 % |
| Runnax engine | 1.2367 fc | 3.1312 | Pass | 5.11 % |
Headroom is the tighter of the two criteria. The engine reads 1.7 % higher on average than the delivered file. Against an AGi32 direct-light run of the same lot, the engine's minimum, average and maximum agree within 0.5 % (details). Values are computed from all 271 unrounded points; rounding the report's displayed values first would give a different uniformity.
The customer accepted the design and placed the order.
Limits of this case
- Direct light only. The engine's result is not a point-by-point reproduction of the delivered AGi32 file.
- Not an RP-8 or code-compliance statement.
- The 3.04 % headroom belongs to this lot. It says nothing about lots with less margin.