Airport aprons and port yards don’t fail because “LED isn’t bright enough.”
They fail because the bid package is missing an audit trail: reviewers cannot verify aiming, glare/spill risk, maintained lighting assumptions, or how commissioning will reproduce the design on-site.
This guide explains the tender-ready deliverables for high mast lighting design for airports and ports, with a focus on the two items that most often decide pass/fail in technical review:
1) A clear High Mast Aiming Table (tilt + rotation/azimuth + fixture ID)
2) A complete DIALux/Relux deliverables pack that is reproducible and auditable
Start here:
- Solution overview (system + simulation)
- Product page (for spec & options)
- Tender deliverables hub (what you actually submit)
- Reference projects (sanity check for stakeholders)
- Markets (regional context & common constraints)
Request Engineering Pack (24H) →
See deliverables scope →
Audit trail: BOQ → IES/LDT → DIALux model → aiming table → commissioning → acceptance.
Quick Answer
To submit a high mast lighting tender for an airport apron or port yard that survives technical review:
- Provide a fixture-by-fixture aiming table: mast ID, fixture ID, tilt, rotation/azimuth, optics, target zone
- Provide a DIALux/Relux project file with named calculation areas and maintained assumptions
- Attach IES/LDT photometric files with revision control + mapping table (model → IES filename → DIALux file)
- Add a commissioning & acceptance checklist (tools, tolerance, as-built record)
- Add a maintenance access plan (lowering device or lift strategy + O&M notes)
If you want an audit-ready pack for review (BOQ mapping → IES/LDT → DIALux/Relux → aiming table → acceptance checklist), start here
Download (Templates / Demo)
If your reviewers or EPC team need something they can reuse, request the demo templates (redacted) and we’ll share the same structure we use in tenders:
- Aiming Table (tilt + azimuth) template
- Commissioning & Acceptance checklist template
Request Engineering Pack (24H) →
(Reply with: country + site type (airport/port) + pole height + quantity)
1) What “Tender-Ready High Mast Lighting Design” Means
A tender-ready high mast lighting design is an auditable and reproducible model where any reviewer can trace:
Pole & mounting inputs → luminaire photometrics (IES/LDT) → aiming settings (tilt/rotation) → calculation model (DIALux/Relux) → maintained results → commissioning method → acceptance evidence.
If you can’t show that chain clearly, your bid is vulnerable to comments like:
- “No proof of aiming settings”
- “Results not reproducible / model not provided”
- “Maintained lighting not justified”
- “Glare/spill not addressed (airport/port sightlines)”
- “Commissioning & as-built method unclear”
- “Maintenance access not addressed”
To see what a complete submission looks like (deliverables list + request form)
2) Why Airports & Ports Require an Aiming Table (Not Just a Layout Screenshot)
Aiming table template: fixture ID + tilt + azimuth ensures commissioning can reproduce the model.
For road lighting, many bids survive with a plan view and spacing.
For airport and port high mast floodlighting, reviewers frequently ask:
- Which floodlight points where?
- How will you reproduce the same aiming during commissioning?
- How do you control glare toward pilots, towers, crane cabins, CCTV, control rooms?
- If one luminaire fails, what happens to uniformity in critical zones?
That’s why a high mast aiming table is not “extra.” It’s often a pass/fail deliverable.
If your project requires simulation-backed layout with reproducible aiming
3) Evidence & Standards References (How Reviewers Validate Your Pack)
Final compliance always follows the tender’s specified hierarchy (ICAO/FAA/EN/IES/CIE).
But a strong pack uses internationally common references so your deliverables remain auditable and “non-conflicting.”
3.1 Photometric and maintained-lighting evidence
- IES LM-79: luminaire performance (photometry/electrical) is measured, not claimed
- IES LM-80 + IES TM-21: supports LED lumen maintenance assumptions over time (so maintained results are not “Day-1 marketing”)
Deliverable proof (what to attach):
- LM-79 test report (or equivalent lab photometry)
- LM-80/TM-21 summary used to justify maintained factor inputs in the DIALux/Relux model
Document sensitive sightlines (tower/CCTV/crane cab) and restrict aiming sectors to control glare/spill.
3.2 Glare / spill control logic (airport & port sightlines)
- IES TM-33 (BUG method): a common framework for backlight/uplight/glare discussion and control strategy
- CIE glare/spill principles (CIE documents are widely used to justify glare/obtrusive light narrative)
Deliverable proof (what to attach):
- Restricted aiming sector note (where glare is sensitive)
- Shield/visor/louver configuration per fixture group (if used)
3.3 Road / industrial task lighting references (port lanes, service roads)
- EN 13201 (road lighting framework) and/or IES roadway/industrial recommended practice (often referenced in industrial/port road zones)
Deliverable proof (what to attach):
- Named calculation areas + target criteria (Avg/Min/Uniformity)
- Maintained results (not only initial)
3.4 Structural / durability references (often required in ports/coastal sites)
- EN 40: lighting columns / pole structural practices
- ISO 1461: hot-dip galvanizing coating reference for corrosion protection (common in coastal port environments)
- IEC 60598 (luminaire safety), IEC 60529 (IP rating), IEC 61000 (EMC) as typical safety/robustness references where required
Deliverable proof (what to attach):
- Pole structural calculation / statement (as required by tender)
- Galvanizing statement (coating / corrosion protection) when coastal/port environment is specified
How to write it in a bid:
Not as a standards list—write it as a deliverables chain:
“Provide LM-79 photometry + LM-80/TM-21 depreciation logic + BUG/glare narrative + DIALux model file + aiming table + commissioning checklist.”
If you need the ready-to-submit evidence pack, request it here
4) High Mast Aiming Table Requirements (Minimum Fields)
A usable high mast aiming table must include:
- Mast ID (M1, M2, M3…)
- Fixture ID on the crown (Ring A – F01 / Level 2 – F03, etc.)
- Mounting height (m)
- Arm length / bracket offset (m)
- Tilt angle (°)
- Rotation / azimuth (°), referenced to True North or a defined site axis
- Target zone (Apron A, Yard Lane B, Gate 03, Crane Lane…)
- Optics / beam type (narrow/medium/wide, asymmetric if applicable)
- Glare control (visor/louver/shield)
- Notes (restricted sectors, aiming tolerance, CCTV/tower line constraints)
Aiming reference rule (avoid rejection)
Pick ONE reference and keep it consistent across all tables and models:
- True North azimuth (0–360°), or
- Site axis (0° = parallel to runway centerline / yard main axis)
Tilt controls vertical aim; azimuth controls horizontal rotation—both must match the simulation model.
5) Aiming Table Template (Copy-Paste Tender Appendix)
Table A — High Mast Aiming Table (Template)
| Mast ID | Fixture ID | Crown Ring/Level | MH (m) | Arm (m) | Tilt (°) | Rotation/Azimuth (°) | Target Zone | Optics / Beam | Glare Control | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | F01 | Ring A | 25 | 1.5 | 12 | 045 | Apron East | Narrow | Visor | Aim tolerance ±2° |
| M1 | F02 | Ring A | 25 | 1.5 | 10 | 060 | Apron East | Narrow | Visor | |
| M1 | F03 | Ring A | 25 | 1.5 | 8 | 090 | Taxi lane | Medium | Louver | Avoid tower line |
| M2 | F01 | Ring A | 30 | 2.0 | 15 | 210 | Container yard | Medium | None | |
| M2 | F02 | Ring A | 30 | 2.0 | 18 | 235 | Yard crossing | Wide | Louver | Reduce hot spots |
| M3 | F01 | Ring B | 20 | 1.5 | 7 | 330 | Gate area | Medium | Visor | CCTV-friendly |
Commissioning note (must appear under the table):
Final aiming shall be validated on-site using an inclinometer + azimuth tool. Record as-built angles and compare to Table A.
6) DIALux/Relux Deliverables Checklist (What Tender Reviewers Expect)
A pretty screenshot is not proof. A tender-ready DIALux high mast lighting report must include inputs, outputs, and reproducibility.
Tender-ready DIALux/Relux deliverables: inputs, maintained results, and reproducibility files.
6.1 Inputs (evidence the model is built correctly)
- Site plan / CAD / scaled drawing
- Pole locations (coordinates or dimensioned layout)
- Mounting height + arm length + luminaire count per mast
- IES/LDT photometric files: file name + revision/date
- Maintenance / depreciation assumptions (LLMF/LSF/LDD or equivalent) supported by LM-80/TM-21 logic where applicable
- Surface reflectance assumptions (if relevant)
- Target criteria: Avg/Min/Uniformity and zone definitions
6.2 Outputs (what must be shown)
- Named calculation areas (apron zones, yard lanes, gates, service roads)
- Maintained results (not just initial)
- Illuminance metrics + uniformity metrics
- Isolux contour maps + false-color plots
- Notes on glare/spill strategy for sensitive sightlines (tower/CCTV/crane cab/pilot approach viewpoints)
6.3 Reproducibility (the audit trail)
- DIALux/Relux project file (or export)
- Aiming table consistent with the model
- Luminaire schedule + file mapping (Model code → IES filename → DIALux file name)
For a real example of “system design + simulation deliverables”
7) The Missing Piece That Prevents Tender Disqualification: The Mapping Table
If your tender reviewer cannot trace “BOQ item → luminaire → IES file → DIALux model → aiming settings,” your bid is easy to reject.
Table B — Mapping (Model → IES/LDT → DIALux → Aiming)
| Item / Zone | Luminaire Model | Optics | IES/LDT Filename (Rev) | DIALux File | Aiming Table Ref | Qty | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apron East | HM-FL-xxx | Narrow | HM-FL-xxx_NARROW_R1.ies | Apron_East_v1.evo | Table A (M1) | 12 | Visor required |
| Yard Lanes | HM-FL-yyy | Medium | HM-FL-yyy_MED_R2.ies | Yard_Lanes_v3.evo | Table A (M2) | 16 | |
| Gate Area | HM-FL-zzz | Medium | HM-FL-zzz_MED_R1.ies | Gate_Area_v2.evo | Table A (M3) | 8 | CCTV-friendly |
If you want us to deliver this as a tender appendix pack, request here
8) Commissioning Checklist (Aiming Reproducibility + Acceptance Proof)
Commissioning proof: aiming tolerance + tool logs + as-built records reduce disputes and delays.
Commissioning is where many airport/port high mast projects fail: the design may be correct, but the field aiming is not.
Table C — Commissioning & Acceptance Checklist (Tender Appendix)
| Item | Requirement | Evidence / Record |
|---|---|---|
| Mast foundation & plumb | Verticality within tolerance | Survey record |
| Fixture ID labeling | Fixture IDs match aiming table | Photo record |
| Tilt verification | Tilt within ±2° (or specified) | Inclinometer log |
| Rotation verification | Azimuth within ±3° (or specified) | Azimuth tool log |
| Night aiming validation | Confirm no critical glare/spill | Checklist + photos |
| Measured checkpoints | Lux meter spot checks at key points | Measurement sheet |
| As-built deliverables | Final aiming + deviations recorded | Signed as-built table |
9) Maintenance Access (The Real O&M Cost in Airports and Ports)
High mast systems are judged not only by lighting numbers, but by long-term operability:
- Access method: lowering system vs lift truck
- Cleaning & inspection interval: optics, fasteners, corrosion edges
- Spare parts policy: drivers, SPD, modules
- Safety: lockout, grounding checks, fall protection
- Serviceability: estimated replacement time per luminaire (once lowered)
High mast system scope: floodlight optics, aiming accessories, SPD, brackets, and serviceability options.
To see the hardware/solution scope for high mast systems
10) Real-World Case Patterns (Non-sensitive, Tender-Relevant)
Case 1 — West Africa Port Yard: “Layout passed, commissioning failed”
Context: 25–30 m high masts with multiple floodlights for a container yard.
Failure: DIALux screenshots were provided, but no aiming table. On site, aiming was done “by eye,” creating hot spots near traffic lanes and dark bands between stacks.
Correction: Issued a fixture-ID Aiming Table (tilt/rotation) and updated the DIALux model to match.
Outcome: Re-aiming iterations reduced from multiple nights to 1 night, with measurable checkpoints replacing subjective complaints.
Case 2 — Airport Apron Edge: “Glare complaint triggered redesign risk”
Context: High masts near apron boundary and service road.
Failure: Discomfort glare toward a sensitive line (tower/CCTV direction); shields/aiming restrictions not documented.
Correction: Added glare-control narrative (shield type + restricted aiming sector), re-ran maintained results, documented sightline constraints.
Outcome: Fix remained aiming + accessories (not pole replacement), protecting schedule and budget.
Case 3 — Coastal Port: “Corrosion + access became the real cost”
Context: Coastal humidity cycles with salt-laden air.
Failure: Maintenance access unclear; early corrosion at interfaces/fasteners.
Correction: Documented access method + corrosion protection references + inspection intervals.
Outcome: Emergency maintenance visits reduced after O&M became planned and repeatable.
Want to show “proof by references” in your bid? Link similar projects
11) What You Should Request From the Client (So Your Design Is Correct)
Before finalizing layout and aiming, request:
- Priority zones (apron, taxi boundary, yard lanes, gates, service roads)
- Obstruction map (cranes, buildings, towers, CCTV)
- Required criteria (Avg/Min/Uniformity) and acceptance method
- Height constraints (wind load, aviation constraints, clearances)
- Power constraints (grid / hybrid options if relevant)
- Maintenance constraints (availability of lift trucks, preferred lowering systems)
If your markets have different constraints and tender habits
FAQ
Q1: What is an aiming table in high mast lighting?
A fixture-by-fixture instruction sheet listing tilt and rotation/azimuth (plus fixture IDs and target zones) so the design can be reproduced during commissioning.
Q2: Why is tilt + rotation/azimuth necessary for airport apron and port yard lighting?
Because floodlights are directional; without documented aiming, field teams aim by eye, causing hot spots, dark bands, and glare, and results become non-auditable.
Q3: What are DIALux high mast lighting report deliverables?
A tender-ready pack includes project file, named calculation areas, maintained results, isolux plots, and an audit trail linking IES/LDT files + aiming settings.
Q4: What standards support maintained lighting assumptions?
Common references include LM-79 for measured performance and LM-80/TM-21 for lumen maintenance logic, aligned to tender requirements.
Q5: How do you handle glare control in airports and ports?
Use aiming constraints + optics + visors/louvers/shields and document sensitive sightlines (tower/CCTV/crane cab/pilot viewpoints) in the design narrative and commissioning checklist.
Q6: What is the best acceptance method for high mast lighting?
As-built aiming records + lux meter spot checks at agreed checkpoints + signed commissioning checklist.
Q7: What is “DIALux EVO file deliverables” in a tender?
It typically means the re-openable project file (EVO) plus the exported report PDF so reviewers can reproduce inputs (mounting, aiming, IES/LDT revision) and verify outputs.
Q8: DIALux vs Relux for high mast lighting—does it matter?
Most tenders accept either, but what matters is reproducibility: project file provided, calculation areas named, maintained assumptions stated, and aiming table consistent with the model.
Q9: What is the best approach for high mast lighting in a container terminal?
Define zones (lanes, crossings, stacking areas), control glare to crane cabins/CCTV, and use a mapping + aiming table so commissioning reproduces the simulation.
If your airport/port tender must survive review and be reproducible on-site, you need more than a render:
✅ Aiming table (tilt/rotation) + fixture IDs
✅ DIALux/Relux model + maintained assumptions
✅ IES/LDT mapping + audit trail tables
✅ Commissioning + as-built acceptance checklist
✅ Maintenance access & O&M notes
