View
653
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Melanie Taylor, IALD, LEED BD+C; WSP Lighting
Design
Dan Blitzer, LC; The Practical Lighting Workshop
Ruth Taylor, IES; Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory
Partnerships link energy efficiency & lighting quality
Understanding NGL
Judging criteria and the lighting design practice -observation and data
Key findings from the most recent competitions
Trends and outliers in NGL results over time
What’s ahead for NGL: sharper focus and in-depth evaluation
Inclusive rather than exclusive
Performance evaluation with extensive documentation More time and resources than most
designers can afford
Judged in characteristic applications and “hands on”
Diverse, professional judging panel
Approach
Criteria
Installations
Evaluations
Selecting Winners
Organized by application
Product Evaluation Installed and lighted
Table top (2nd fixture)
Documentation
Process Independent judgment
Preliminary scoring
Discussion and decision
Post judging analysis & verification
9
• NGL Minimum efficacy requirements typically match (higher in 2015) DLC
DLC
• Products are submitted through LF to enter the competition
LED Lighting
Facts
• Documentation is reviewed by LF and NGL technical staff
LF/NGL Doc
Review
• Judges evaluate products in-situ
NGL In-Person Judging
• Additional testing or review is conducted as needed before awards are announced
NGL Awards
www.ngldc.org
Notes from the
judges are key.
Criteria – what and why
Installations in intended applications
Deconstruction – understanding
serviceability
Documentation
Get the facts
Check the facts
Know what you’re looking at and why
In-person evaluation:
Color
Illuminance
Light distribution
Glare control
Serviceability
Controllability
Value
Aesthetic appearance
Bonus points
Documentation analysis:
• Luminaire Efficacy
• Lumen maintenance
Evaluation is based on visual evaluation of the color appearance,
consistency, and rendering of the installed luminaire.
Color Rendering versus lighting output
Color Rendering of specific colors
Spectrum of LEDs can be modulated, plant
growth lighting is an example.
Color temperature a edge of beam
Color temperature between nodes in linear fixtures, grazers in particular
Move back to warm, 2700K, now that we can use an efficient source with that color temp
Horizontal and/or vertical illuminance for the
application must be appropriate according to
accepted lighting practice.
Somewhat related to efficacy but more
subjective
Appropriate for the application
Narrow, dim spot of light may be
exactly appropriate for a bar counter
Evaluation based on visual evaluation of the uniformity and
contrast provided by the luminaire.
Striations and shadows
Outer beam of light
Sharp cut-off at edge of beam
Appropriate for the application
Luminaire brightness is evaluated in
conditions as similar as possible to
the intended application to assess
discomfort glare and contrast.
Glare bombs!
Multi-module vs single module
Quality is revealed when looking at
glare control
Does affect light output
Entries must demonstrate attention to specifier and user concerns about follow-
on service and replacement in the event of component failure and replacement
of LED modules at end of life.
Must be able to describe replacement of modules and drivers to clients
Is it accessible in place?
Are instructions clear?
May want to replace to higher efficacy/similar output module in the future
Purchase price is compared to other traditional
sources for the intended application.
Is the move to LED worth the initial cost?
Costs can vary dramatically for very
similar fixtures.
Make sure options chosen match the
application, each option affects cost.
Evaluation is based on subjective
evaluation of the aesthetic appearance
and style of the installed luminaire.
Quality and construction
Leveraging LED module advantages –
small size, point source, controllable
Appropriate for application
Dimmability – color constancy, dimming range, dimming smoothness, start
conditions, and other criteria
Look at entire system
Range of dimming
Flicker, color shift, jumping, short dimming range
Multiple control options
Innovation - taking advantage of the unique LED characteristics
Fixture designed for LEDs
Leverage LED module characteristics
Does not need to be 2’ x 4’
LEDS are changing our Industry
Quality has improved quickly
LED efficacy will help us meet ambitious energy goals
More innovation to come
Will it perform as claimed?
Will it perform as expected for its intended us?
Will it perform as claimed/expected over time?
Will it dim as claimed/expected?
Will contractors have issues with installation?
Will it have color consistency issues across products and over time?
At end-of-life, will it be disposed of in a responsible manner?
How does its performance compare with other products?
General• Luminaire specification sheet• Product photos/marketing materials
LED Lighting Facts documentation• LM-79 test report (including sphere data) LM-80 test report on LED package/module/array LED package/module/array specification sheet ISTMT on submitted model ENERGY STAR TM-21 Calculation
Other• Installation/serviceability statement • Driver specification sheet/dimming interface spec
sheet (DMX, how to address)• Product warranty/end-of-life statement
LED Spec Sheet
LM-80 Report
ISTMT Report
TM-21 Calculation
Lumen Maintenance %
• Not a lifetime metric
• % light output after a
specified time vs. initial
output
• Measures source only - in
thermal environment of
luminaire
Lifetime Metric
• Includes all system
components
– Electronics
– Optics
– Thermal management
– Housing
No industry standard for lifetime is yet available.
A lot of interest in NGL!
Improving efficacy is real
Light output is increasing . . . Usefulness too.
Color may not be the concern it was
Color quality for outdoor can improve further
Serviceability remains an issue – focus for 2015
Controllability remains an issue – focus for 2015
2014 All
Intents 267 1,644
Judged 153 879
% of intents judged 57% 53%
Awards 61 318
% of judged awarded 40% 36%
ALL
PR
OD
UC
TS:
IND
OO
R
Year AVG lm/W AVG CRI AVG lm
2008 38 83 980
2009 45 81 1,292
2010 49 81 1,651
2012 59 81 2,856
2013 70 82 3,928
2014 79 83 5,405
ALL
PR
OD
UC
TS:
OU
TDO
OR
Year AVG lm/W AVG CRI AVG lm
2008 45 73 4,011
2009 48 74 3,595
2010 60 73 4,647
2012 68 75 6,647
2013 100 76 11,375
All Entries
AWARDED
Outdoor Indoor
All
Awarded
Outdoor Indoor
All
Awarded
Outdoor Indoor
All
Awarded
Lm/W CRI
2014 All BIC/Rec All BIC/Rec
Downlights 71 71 83 82
Troffers 100 96 82 85
Industrial 101 100 81 81
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014
High energy impact categories
• Troffers
• Downlights
• Linear Pendants
Low energy impact categories
• Accent
• Decorative
• Wall
Percent of Entries and Winners
YearEfficacy Requirement (lm/W)
Avg. Efficacy Winners (lm/W) # 0f Winners
Do
wn
lig
hts
2008 35 46 62009 35 54 62010 35 49 92012 45 56 92013 50 NA 02014 55 71 12
Acc
en
t
2008 no min 29 62009 35 38 52010 35 40 112012 35 53 92013 40 59 72014 45 63 9
Tro
ffer/
Uti
lity 2008 no min 72 1
2009 35 52 12010 35 48 12012 60 87 102013 80 93 132014 85 97 8
Higher efficacy requirements
Limited categories
Digital controls
More in-depth serviceability evaluation
Main performance criteria stays the same
Focus on color tuning (indoor) and pedestrian scale
(outdoor)
Push the envelope – higher efficacy minimums
Focus on key issues
Controls
Serviceability
Fewer entries for more focused evaluations
More realistic installations for more accurate evaluations
LIGHTFAIR International 2015 – DOE SSL Booth
LIGHTFAIR NGL Presentation - Monday May 4, 2-5 pm
Time and Money: Installation and Serviceability of LED
Luminaires
Recommended