## 3 Indoor Lighting Simulations
### Lighting Project
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Photopic Illuminance (lux)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**76 cm**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**120 cm**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **E\({}_{\text{H-MED}}\)** & **E\({}_{\text{H-MAX}}\)** & **E\({}_{\text{H-MIN}}\)** & **E\({}_{\text{H-MED}}\)** & **E\({}_{\text{H-MAX}}\)** & **E\({}_{\text{H-MIN}}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{0\%} & Intensive & 547 & 622 & 442 & 113 & 180 & 30 \\ \cline{2-9}  & Lambertian & 427 & 464 & 414 & 123 & 169 & 71 \\ \cline{2-9}  & Extensive & 469 & 539 & 454 & 146 & 214 & 100 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{30\%} & Intensive & 572 & 647 & 469 & 169 & 230 & 94 \\ \cline{2-9}  & Lambertian & 460 & 492 & 450 & 204 & 259 & 149 \\ \cline{2-9}  & Extensive & 504 & 568 & 491 & 208 & 279 & 164 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{50\%} & Intensive & 600 & 675 & 497 & 196 & 262 & 115 \\ \cline{2-9}  & Lambertian & 510 & 524 & 491 & 242 & 289 & 197 \\ \cline{2-9}  & Extensive & 542 & 600 & 531 & 246 & 310 & 212 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{80\%} & Intensive & 671 & 749 & 561 & 260 & 343 & 166 \\ \cline{2-9}  & Lambertian & 596 & 600 & 594 & 334 & 374 & 288 \\ \cline{2-9}  & Extensive & 643 & 684 & 635 & 340 & 393 & 315 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{80\% up and 0\% down} & Intensive & 616 & 691 & 517 & 181 & 242 & 110 \\ \cline{2-9}  & Lambertian & 529 & 549 & 524 & 233 & 288 & 185 \\ \cline{2-9}  & Extensive & 572 & 626 & 563 & 236 & 309 & 188 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{0\% up and 80\% down} & Intensive & 613 & 683 & 525 & 211 & 276 & 133 \\ \cline{2-9}  & Lambertian & 452 & 503 & 435 & 175 & 242 & 100 \\ \cline{2-9}  & Extensive & 534 & 618 & 512 & 246 & 315 & 203 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Relationship between the horizontal photopic illuminance (lux) in the work plane (76 cm) and the vertical photopic illuminance (lux) in the pupillary plane of the eye (120 cm). The variation in these values with the spatial distribution curves of the luminaires and with the reflectance of the environment is shown. The preceding results were calculated under the assumption that the observer is static. The same analysis can be performed for a dynamic observer with the ability to rotate his or her corneal plane around a vertical axis (horizontal plane located 120 cm from the floor) (Figure 5). The results are shown in Table 4, where, to simplify the analysis, a wall reflectance of 80% was exclusively selected. These values clearly reflect a real situation in which the subject rotates his or her neck while, for example, performing an activity. Depending on the spatial location of the luminaire and the angle of vision, diverse illumination reaches the corneal plane, and as a consequence the melanopic contribution changes. In another step, a more realistic scenario has been added. That is, the dynamic situation has been completed with a rotation with respect to a horizontal axis passing through the corneal vertex (120 cm from the floor), simulating a reading position (Figure 6). To avoid excessive and repetitive simulations, two limit values of reflectance in the work plane (76 cm from the floor) are considered (Table 5). The reflectance of the surfaces that is observed by a subject influences the illuminance at the eye level. Not only the reflectance of the wall or ceiling can elevate or diminish the amount of the light that reaches the corneal surface. To perform a more accurate simulation, the time that a subject spends looking in each position could be analyzed with an eye tracker. This approach could be useful to analyze realistic exposition times during working time.