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