Direct answer
Tennis court lighting design begins with court dimensions and orientation, class of play, pole positions and mounting heights, and the boundary condition — not with a fixture count. Those inputs set the calculation grid, the aiming geometry and the achievable uniformity. A layout offered before they exist is an estimate, and it will change once the calculation is run.
Who this is for
Club managers and boards evaluating a court lighting purchase, park and recreation directors specifying municipal courts, school and university facilities staff, and the consulting engineers and contractors who review the submittal on their behalf.
Inputs required before a conclusion can be reached
•Number of courts, court dimensions and the playing area to be lit, including the run-back and side-run actually used.
•Court orientation and the position of each court relative to the others in a bank.
•Class of play, or the governing criteria named in the project documents. Recreational, club and competitive play carry different target criteria, and the difference is not a preference.
•Existing pole positions, heights and condition, or the proposed layout where poles do not yet exist.
•Mounting height constraints, including any height limit imposed by zoning, an association covenant or the owner's engineer.
•Available voltage and phase, and the location of the service.
•Controls requirement: switching, dimming, zoning by court, scheduling, and whether commissioning is in scope.
•Boundary condition: distance to the nearest residential property line, roadway or adjacent facility, and any local spill, glare or curfew ordinance.
A design produced without these inputs is an estimate. Duvon identifies which inputs are missing rather than substituting assumptions.
How the layout governs the result
The pole layout is the design decision with the largest effect on the calculated result, and it is usually fixed before a fixture is selected — either because the poles already exist, or because court geometry and property lines leave few positions available.
Two consequences follow, and both are commonly misunderstood at the point of purchase.
The first is that uniformity is largely a function of geometry. Uniformity ratios describe the relationship between the average, minimum and maximum calculated illuminance across the grid. Moving a pole, or changing a mounting height, changes those ratios more than changing a fixture does. Where an existing layout produces poor calculated uniformity, adding output does not correct it; it raises the average while leaving the ratio close to where it was.
The second is that mounting height and boundary distance work against each other. Raising the mounting height generally improves calculated uniformity on court and reduces the glare angle for a player looking toward a source. It also raises the aiming point, which can increase calculated spill beyond the fence unless the optic and aiming are adjusted for it. On a court close to homes, the boundary condition frequently governs the design, and the on-court result is optimised within that constraint rather than the other way round.
For courts in a bank, the complex is modelled as one system. Fixtures on a shared pole between two courts contribute to both, and evaluating a single court in isolation misstates both the calculated result and the fixture count.
What gets evaluated, and how each figure is labelled
Figure | Label | What it means here |
Maintained average illuminance on the principal playing area | Calculated | Produced by the photometric model at the stated grid, with the light-loss factor applied |
Minimum illuminance and uniformity ratios | Calculated | Average-to-minimum and maximum-to-minimum at the stated grid |
Spill illuminance at defined boundary points | Calculated | At points agreed with the owner, usually the property line or a fence line |
Delivered lumens, wattage, optic, weight and EPA | Specified | From the current specification sheet for the exact model and configuration |
ETL or DLC status | Listed | From the third-party directory record, with the identifier and the verification date |
Post-installation readings | Field-measured | Only where a measurement was actually taken, with date, instrument, responsible person and operating condition recorded |
These labels are not interchangeable, and a proposal that mixes them cannot be compared with one that does not.
Retrofit versus new construction
Where existing poles are reused, two separate questions arise. Whether the proposed fixtures produce acceptable calculated results at the existing pole positions and heights is a photometric question, and Duvon answers it. Whether the pole and its foundation can carry the new fixture EPA and weight is a structural question, and only the owner's engineer can answer it. Duvon publishes EPA and weight per model so that verification can be performed. A retrofit quoted without that verification is quoted on assumption.
Evidence example
[EVIDENCE REQUIRED — one of the following must be attached before this article publishes: a redacted Duvon photometric report for a multi-court tennis facility showing the grid, the light-loss factor applied, calculated average and minimum illuminance, uniformity ratios and calculated spill at defined boundary points; or a worked example built from a published model file with every assumption stated. The example must retain the assumptions. A results table without the assumptions is not evidence.]
What can change the answer
Class of play and the criteria adopted by the governing authority; court orientation and the run-back actually used; the number of courts and whether poles are shared; mounting height limits; the distance and sensitivity of the boundary; surface colour and fence type; the light-loss factor and the maintenance interval assumed; the controls strategy; and the exact optic and configuration proposed. Change any one of these and the calculated result changes.
Verification checklist
1.Does the proposal state the calculation grid, its spacing and the area covered?
2.Is the light-loss factor stated, with its basis?
3.Are calculated average, minimum and uniformity ratios all shown, rather than an average alone?
4.Are spill values calculated at points on the actual property line, and are those points identified?
5.Does the fixture schedule name exact orderable model numbers, quantities, optics and mounting heights?
6.Is aiming documented by fixture and by pole?
7.Are listing records identified per model, with a verification date?
8.For a retrofit, does the proposal state who is verifying pole structural capacity, and has that person been engaged?
9.Is every figure labelled calculated, specified, listed, reported or field-measured?
10.Is the person who prepared the calculation named, and the person who reviewed it?
Duvon's role and limits
Duvon manufactures the lighting system, prepares the project photometric calculation, documents the fixture schedule and aiming, calculates spill at defined boundary points, publishes model records and IES files, and supplies submittal documentation. Duvon does not perform structural analysis of poles or foundations, does not install, does not determine whether a calculated spill value satisfies a local ordinance, and does not guarantee field light levels from a calculation. Installation is subcontracted.
Sources
•Illuminating Engineering Society, Recommended Practice: Lighting Sports and Recreational Areas (ANSI/IES RP-6).
Next step
Send court drawings, pole information and the boundary condition for a project photometric calculation. → /photometric-study/