## 6 Results and Discussion  
For the purposes of this study, the primary parameter monitored in Alternatives 1 and 2 was the illuminance, while in Alternatives 3 and 4 both illuminance and uniformity of illumination were assessed. Table 3 displays the illuminance distribution of the artificial lighting through the course of the isolux lines on the reference plane, providing a graphical interpretation of the most and least illuminated areas in the space. Figure 11: Determination of maintenance factor according to Option No. 2—Dialux (**left**) and Relux (**right**). Explanatory note: The maintenance factor of the luminaire is 0,84 in European notation and 0.84 in U.S. notation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Dialux** & **Relux** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Illuminance distribution of artificial lighting on the reference plane through isolux lines in all simulation alternatives. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Dialux** & **Relux** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Cont. According to the defined isolux interpretation scale, in the Dialux program, the illuminance is satisfactory if the monitored space is represented by beige (600 lx), orange (900 lx), or brown (1100 lx) colors. For the monitored spaces--AT1, AT2, and AT3--an illuminance level above 600 lx is considered satisfactory. In the Relux program, the isolux interpretation scale uses a different color scheme compared to the Dialux program, where dark green and blue shades are considered satisfactory. Within the monitored spaces, the illuminance was also deemed satisfactory. The parameter of illuminance in all four alternatives was also assessed quantitatively. In Alternatives 1 and 2, the number and exact positions of the luminaires were retained. This design was chosen for economic efficiency, as the investment costs would involve purchasing new luminaires and the execution of the dismantling and installation of the new lighting system. In Alternatives 1 and 2, the illuminance values exceeded the normative requirements by double (Figure 12). This result negatively impacts long-term energy consumption, making it necessary to also analyze the luminance at the specified positions (AT1, AT2, and AT3) from a photometric perspective. For Alternative 1, the average lighting levels are 1064 lx (Dialux) and 1066 lx (Relux), while for Alternative 2, they are 1113 lx (Dialux) and 1119 lx (Relux). In both cases, a deviation of approximately 5% was observed when using different options for the maintenance factor (fixed and calculated). This indicates a risk of oversizing the lighting system when relying on a pre-set maintenance factor. Consequently, an increase in illuminance values based on an incorrect determination of the maintenance factor could negatively impact energy consumption. Over time, this could lead to unnecessary oversizing, resulting in energy waste. In Alternatives 3 and 4, the number of luminaires was reduced, which positively affects energy consumption. However, this leads to higher initial costs associated with redesigning the electrical installation system and the new layout of the lighting system. Despite this, these alternatives also met the normative requirement of a minimum illuminance level of 500 lx (Figure 13). Figure 12: Graphical interpretation of illuminance values for model solutions—Alternatives 1 and 2. By reducing the number of lamps in Alternatives 3 and 4, a lower energy demand was achieved, which can be further reduced through the accurate determination of the maintenance factor, as seen in the previous two alternatives. Even for Alternatives 3 and 4, a deviation of approximately 5% was identified when using fixed versus calculated maintenance parameters, once again highlighting the risk of oversizing the lighting system, which would increase energy consumption. Comparing the achieved illuminance values for each alternative using the software solutions, the deviations ranged from 0.18% to 1.67%, which is negligible in practice.