1 / 59

Lighting Stakeholder Meeting #2

Lighting Stakeholder Meeting #2. Heschong Mahone Group, Inc. Clanton & Associates, Inc. Integrated Lighting Concepts, Inc. September 21, 2010. 2. NR-3 Indoor Lighting. Summary of current code requirements Typical practice Summary of code change proposals Data/findings

keenan
Télécharger la présentation

Lighting Stakeholder Meeting #2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LightingStakeholder Meeting #2 Heschong Mahone Group, Inc. Clanton & Associates, Inc. Integrated Lighting Concepts, Inc. September 21, 2010

  2. 2 NR-3 Indoor Lighting • Summary of current code requirements • Typical practice • Summary of code change proposals • Data/findings • Specifics of code change proposals • Remaining data collection and analysis • Specific stakeholder requests

  3. Current Code Requirements • Prescriptive or Performance Compliance • Performance – Computer Modeled Total Envelope Compliance (Systems Tradeoffs) • Prescriptive Compliance (Lighting Stands Alone) • Whole Building Method • Building Area Method • Tailored Method

  4. Typical Practice Prescriptive is Typical Practice Building or Area Method used for most spaces Tailored Method Frequently Used for: Retail Museums Hospitality Worship 4

  5. Summary of Code Change Proposals • Reduce Display Lighting LPD’s(tailored) • Base models on CMH (possibly some LED) • Explore Uses of LPD Cap (in line with Washington & ASHRAE 90.1 2010) • Expand/Tighten Control Requirements • Automated Controls – Tailored Compliance • Display Window Controls – Tailored & Area • Expand Daylighting for Retail • Lower minimum foot-print requirement • Tighten 14-foot lay-in ceiling loophole

  6. Summary of Code Change Proposals Tailored Lighting Primary Target Reduce lighting power consumption while maintaining visual performance(display lighting LPD’s CMH) Fewer Tailored Compliance Occupancies Area Category Compliance Fine Tuning Adjustments to accommodate for special requirements previously found in Tailored 6

  7. Data/Findings - Overview • Lighting Practitioner Surveys • Designers, engineers, contractors manufactures, suppliers and owners • Over 1000 distributed - 98 responses • Retail Store Site Surveys • Discount, mainline and up-scale retail • 167 technology surreys • 60 detail surveys for excel models • Modeling; Computer Simulations and Excel • AGI -32 Computer Modeling • Models with LPD technology studies using excel

  8. Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Profile of Practitioners 8

  9. Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Eliminate Tailored Method 9 • No Clear Majority Opinion

  10. Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Tailored Method by Space Type 10 • Used Mostly for Retail, Hospitality & Museum

  11. Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Tailored Compliance Use for Retail 11 • 45% Use Tailored Almost All The Time • 67% Use Tailored Half of the Time NOTE: “Retail 100%” means all designs used Tailored Compliance

  12. Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys CMH & LED Accent Lighting by 2011 12 • 60% Rated “Good Or Better” Note: 2008 Survey 69% said CMH “Good or Better

  13. Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys CMH is an acceptable alternative to Incandescent & Halogen by 2011 13 • 74% Agree

  14. 14 Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Expand Control Requirements Prerequisite for Tailored Compliance • 91% “Good or Better”

  15. 15 Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Use of Controls for Display Windows • 79% “Good or Better” Poor Not Acceptable

  16. Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Expand Daylight Requirements for Retail • 66% “Good or Better”

  17. Data/Findings - Store Surveys High End and Mainline Department Stores - 8 Five in California, One in Washington and Two in Arizona

  18. Data/Findings - Store Surveys LPD’s for High End Upscale Department Stores W: 2.7W • KEY: • Compliance • Washington - 3.0 • T24-05 Tailored • T24-08 Tailored • Lighting System • CFL & T5 with: • HIR 70% • CMH 30% T: 2.3W A: 1.6W

  19. Data/Findings - Store Surveys LPD’s for Mainline and Discount Department Stores W: 1.9W • KEY: • Compliance • ASHRAE 90.1-04 • T24-05 Area Method • Lighting Systems • T8 and Metal Halide with: • HIR 30% • CMH 70% A: 1.6W T: 1.5W

  20. Data/Findings - Store Surveys High End Mall Sites - 5 Two in California Two in Washington and One in Arizona

  21. Data/Findings - Store Surveys LPD’s for Existing High End Retail Shops KEY: Compliance T: T24-08 Tailored W: Wash -2010 A: T24-08 Area Store Size Small Med Large Ave -All T W A

  22. Data/Findings - Store Surveys Outlet Mall Sites - 3 Two in California and One in Washington

  23. Data/Findings - Store Surveys LPD’s for Existing Outlet and Discount Retail KEY: Compliance T: T24-08 Tailored W: Wash - 2010 A: T24-08 Area Store Size Small Med Large Ave -All T W A

  24. 24 Store Surveys – Technology Profiles • Frequency of Latest Technologies Used • Technologies Used for Display Lighting • Technologies Used for Ambient Walls Two in California Two in Washington and One in Arizona

  25. 25 Store Surveys – Technology Profiles Frequency of Technology Use in Retail Stores KEY 1 = Less than 10% 2 = 10% to 30% 3 = 31% to 69% 4 = 70% to 90% 5 = More than 90% Number of stores using latest technology Technology Definition Latest technologies: CMH, LED, T5, Advanced T8, Halogen IR & Triple Tube CFL Two in California Two in Washington and One in Arizona

  26. 26 Store Surveys – Technology Profiles Existing Display Lighting Technologies • 46% Already Using CMH Two in California Two in Washington and One in Arizona

  27. 27 27 Store Surveys – Technology Profiles Existing Ambient & Wall Lighting Technologies • 64% Already Using CFL, T5 and Advanced T8 Two in California Two in Washington and One in Arizona

  28. 28 Store Surveys – Compliance Comparisons • Washington Code LPD’s Versus Title 24 • Washington Code Pass/Fail Versus Title 24 Two in California Two in Washington and One in Arizona

  29. 29 29 Store Surveys – Compliance Comparisons Washington Code LPD Versus Title -24 5.94 5.02 3.20 3.0 2.84 2.80 2.38 2.40 Designed T24-08 Ave. T24-05 Ave. WA 3.0 WA 2010 Average Lighting Power Densities, Actual Versus Allowed for 61 Stores Surveyed

  30. 30 30 Store Surveys – Compliance Comparisons Washington Code Pass/Fail Versus Title -24 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 05 39 37 36 25 24 22 27 27 WA 2010 WA 3.0 T24-08 Comparing Compliance Results for the 61 Stores Surveyed

  31. 31 Computer Modeling & Cost Analysis • Display Lighting Mounting Heights • Ceramic Metal Halide Cost Analysis • LED Test Model for Display Lighting • AGI-32 Detail Models • Basic Small Retail • Up-Scale Retail • Precious Jewelry Two in California Two in Washington and One in Arizona

  32. 32 Computer Modeling & Cost Analysis • Special effects & Decorative Lighting • Incandescent versus CFL chandelier • Incandescent versus CFL & LED pendant • Incandescent versus Halogen sconce • Fluorescent versus LED luminous panels • Automated advanced lighting controls for small retail space Two in California Two in Washington and One in Arizona

  33. 33 33 33 Computer Modeling – Display Lighting AGI-32 Model Various Mounting Heights • CMH Versus Halogen IR at 10 Feet • Equivalent CMH Performance at 15 Feet and 20 Feet 10 – Ft: 248 FC 55W HIR 10 – Ft: 317 FC 23W CMH 15 – Ft: 214 FC 39W CMH 20 – Ft: 292 FC 70W CMH

  34. 34 34 34 Cost Analysis – Display Lighting • Ceramic Metal Halide Versus Halogen IR • All but 20W Dedicated CMH Cost Effective at 7 Years • Criteria Used • Halogen IR base (T-24 2008 model) • 2008 TDV analysis • Time line - 7 years • Low volume luminaire and lamp purchases

  35. 35 35 35 Cost Analysis – Display Lighting • Ceramic Metal Halide Versus Halogen IR • 20W Dedicated CMH also Cost Effective at 15 Years • Criteria Used • Halogen IR base (T-24 2008 model) • 2008 TDV analysis • Time line - 15 years • Low volume luminaire and lamp purchases

  36. 36 36 36 LED Testing – Display Lighting LED Prototypes Versus CMH & Halogen 12W LED B 10deg 490FC 25W CMH 10deg 550FC 47W Halogen 9deg 110FC 11W LED A 7deg 430FC 12W LED D 10deg 390FC 13W LED C 10deg 470FC

  37. 37 37 37 37 Computer Modeling – Basic Small Retail AGI-32 Model Various Technology Solutions MODEL STATISTICS Ambient: 40 FC Walls: 1:1 / 1:2 Ratio Display: 5 to 1 Ratio MODEL PERFORMANCE W Sq. Ft. T24-08 Allowed: 3.65 T24-08 Base: 2.81 CMH Model: 1.53 LED/T5 Model: 1.36

  38. 38 38 38 38 Computer Modeling – Upscale Retail AGI-32 Model Various Technology Solutions MODEL STATISTICS Ambient: 25 FC Walls: 1:1 / 1:2 Ratio Display: 10 to 1 Ratio MODEL PERFORMANCE W Sq. Ft. T24-08 Allowed: 3.65 T24-08 Base: 3.59 CMH Model: 2.47 LED/T5 Model: 2.19

  39. 39 39 39 39 Computer Modeling – Upscale Jewelry AGI-32 Model Various Technology Solutions MODEL STATISTICS Ambient: 25 FC Walls: 1:1 / 1:2 Ratio Case Tops 1:3 Ratio Display: 10 to 1 Ratio MODEL PERFORMANCE W Sq. Ft. T24-08 Allowed: 4.26 T24-08 Base: 4.12 CMH/LED Model: 2.27

  40. 40 40 40 40 Technology Modeling – Special Effects Lighting CFL Versus Incandescent Chandelier & Sconce MODEL STATISTICS Sconce: 2-40W-A vs. 2-15W CFL Chandelier: 4-100W-A vs. 4-29W CFL

  41. 41 41 41 41 Technology Modeling – Special Effects Lighting LED & IR Halogen Versus Incandescent Decorative MODEL STATISTICS Pendent: Incandescent: 1-40W-A19 Fluorescent: 1-10W CFL LED: 1- 7W LED module

  42. 42 42 42 42 Technology Modeling – Special Effects Lighting LED Versus Fluorescent Luminous Panel MODEL STATISTICS Luminous Panel 4 Ft. X 12 Ft. Fluorescent: 180W Linear T8 LED: 72W 4-LED modules

  43. 43 Lighting Controls Cost-effectiveness ADVANCED LIGHTING CONTROLS ANALYSIS MODEL LPD Recap General Lighting: Floor Display: Wall Display: Valuable Display: 0.52W 1.0W 6.2W 11.0W Store Type: 2500 Square Foot Soft Merchandising

  44. 44 Lighting Controls Cost-effectiveness • Advanced Controls Versus Basic Time Clock • Modeled 2500 foot simple retail space • Includes multi task/zone and multi level control with sensors and load shed ability • Cost-effectiveness Recap and Summary LPD Recap General Lighting: Floor Display: Wall Display: Valuable Display: 0.52W 1.0W 6.2W 11.0W

  45. Specifics of Code Change Proposals • Remove Most Space Types from Tailored Except: • Retail, Museums, Hotels, Dinning, Groceries, Worship, Mall Atria, Religious and Convention/Conference • Merge Common Space Types Under Tailored • Hotel, Dinning, Convention/Conference into Hospitality • Retail Merchandise, Groceries and Dining into Retail

  46. Specifics of Code Change Proposals 46 EXAMPLE: Adjustments to Area Category for Functions Removed from Tailored Compliance

  47. Specifics of Code Change Proposals 47 EXAMPLE: Merge Convention/Conference, Dinning, Hotel into Hospitality Category

  48. Specifics of Code Change Proposals 48 • Wall Display LPD lowered from 17.0W to 15.0W • Logic for recommendation • Achievable with use of high efficiency T5 and CMH lamping. • CMH not required to reach compliance in lower ceilings and/or at lower light levels • Designs desiring significantly higher illumination or with high ceilings must use CMH

  49. Specifics of Code Change Proposals 49 • Floor Display LPD lowered from 1.2W to 1.0W • Logic for recommendation • 2008 Model (Mom & Pop) allows for RP-2 compliant lighting without use of CMH • 2008 Model more representative of typical strip/independent retail space. • Lower General lighting LPD in 2008 model can supplement accent allowing 48-55W/IR versus CMH • Designs with less efficient general lighting and desired higher light levels must use CMH

  50. Specifics of Code Change Proposals 50 • Effects LPD lowered from 0.7W to 0.5W • Logic for recommendation • 2008 Model based on standard incandescent (100W A lamps and 40W candelabras) • CFL and LED lighting cost effective for many decorative and effects lighting applications • Array of decorative halogen lamps now available (40W can be replaced with 25W halogen in candelabra base) • Valuable merchandise area LPD lowered from 1.0W to 0.8Wand valuable tops from 16W to 12W • Same rational as for floor display LPD reductions

More Related