SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
A report using LED Lighting Facts data to examine the current state of the market for linear luminaires, troffer luminaires, and troffer retrofit kits.
A heat sink for a luminaire includes a central portion having a top surface and a bottom surface. The bottom surface is adapted to receive a lighting arrangement. The heat sink further includes a plurality of arms configured to dissipate heat generated by the lighting arrangement. The plurality of arms extend radially outward from the central portion. Each one of the plurality of arms is substantially arcuate between a proximal end and a distal end.
This report analyzes the independently tested performance of eight germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) upper-room luminaires marketed for use in occupied spaces and purchased between March and June 2023. This type of product is mounted to upper walls or ceilings to treat air in the portion of the room above occupants; this allows for safe use of the room when the device is operating, but requires sufficient air mixing between upper and lower portions of the room. Three of the luminaires used UV-emitting LEDs, and the remaining five luminaires used low-pressure mercury (LPM) lamps. Product testing covered radiometric and electrical performance for each luminaire. Initial performance was measured for all eight products, and four were additionally measured after 100 h and 500 h of operation. Measured performance data allowed for comparison against manufacturer or vendor claims if the tested products included such claims. Some products had no performance data available for a given quantity (e.g., UV-C output power), and only four of the eight luminaires had radiant intensity distribution data files in a standard format (e.g., IES LM-63) available for download from product websites. The lack of publicly available performance data makes it difficult for potential buyers and specifiers to identify suitable products and design GUV systems for their specific applications. When products had performance claims, they were sometimes contradictory (e.g., unexplained differences between multiple power values) or ambiguous (e.g., measurement units conflict with quantity, unclear whether luminaire power or lamp power, unclear whether UV output power or UV-C output power). Three of the eight tested luminaires had claimed output power (i.e., radiant flux) values that exceeded measured values by more than an order of magnitude. There was substantial variation in UV-C radiant efficiency, with a measured range of 0.3–1.9% for LED and 0.4–2.1% for LPM, as shown in Figure 1. For example, the LPM luminaire with 0.4% radiant efficiency would need 5 times the amount of electrical energy used by the LPM luminaire with 2.1% radiant efficiency to produce the same amount of UV-C output power. LPM luminaires that had parabolic reflectors aligned with inclined louvers exhibited substantially higher UV-C radiant efficiency than tested luminaires with other designs, potentially cutting energy use by 75%. These results indicate a substantial opportunity for more energy efficient LPM luminaire designs, while demonstrating that UV LED luminaires can offer comparable UV-C radiant efficiency in this application. This may seem surprising, given that LED emitters have lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM lamps, but the efficiency-throttling louvers that are generally required for LPM luminaires typically are not needed for LEDs thanks to their directionality. However, lateral beam angles (which describe beam width as viewed from above) were 41–83° for LED luminaires versus 89–110° for LPM luminaires. More luminaires may be required if their lateral beam angles are relatively small, and coverage may be poor if UV-C radiant intensity distribution (i.e., beam shape) is not considered when designing systems.
Luminaire dirt depreciation (LDD) data were evaluated for seven luminaires from three different project sites in Philadelphia PA, Minneapolis MN, and Yuma AZ. In each case, the luminaires were removed from the installation, carefully packaged and transported to a photometric testing laboratory, and then tested in the “as-is” or dirty condition, cleaned, and re-tested. In terms of light output, the results showed that the IES RP-36-15 method for estimating LDD was applicable to the LED luminaires evaluated. General claims of lower levels of dirt deprecation (or higher LDD values) for LED luminaires than for luminaires using conventional light sources were not supported by the test data for the LED luminaires in these three projects. While the overall measured lumen depreciation due to accumulated dirt closely matched IES estimates for LDD, the data indicated that the accumulated dirt on the luminaires dramatically altered the luminous intensity distribution of the luminaires, with reductions in intensity of more than 25% at peak angles. These effects on luminous intensity distribution are not accounted for in IES LDD estimates.
Two luminaires were evaluated to determine the light flux density pattern on a horizontal plane surface. NASA supplied both luminaires; one was made by NASA and the other is commercially available. Tests were made for three combinations of luminaire height and luminaire lens material using the NASA luminaire; only one configuration of the commercial luminaire was tested. Measurements were made using four sensors with different wavelength range capabilities. The data are presented in graphical and tabular formats.
The described embodiments relate to multichannel luminaires (102, 212, 404) that employ a color coefficient matrix (CCM) that can be used to adjust an operation of the multichannel luminaires according to their contribution of light to an area (112, 402). The CCM can be generated based on images captured within the area and/or a software simulation that approximates the contribution of light from the multichannel luminaires to the area. Once the CCM has been generated, the CCM can be used to compensate control signals to each multichannel luminaire in order to provide more accurate color rendering and uniform light distribution. Furthermore, feedback from embedded sensors (206) in the multichannel luminaires and/or sensors (116, 208, 210, 418) in the area can provide further basis for compensating control signals according to the qualities of the natural and artificial light entering the area, and the effects of different surfaces (128) on the light.
This report analyzes the independently tested performance of eight germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) upper-room luminaires marketed for use in occupied spaces and purchased between March and June 2023. Three of the luminaires used UV-emitting LEDs, and the remaining five luminaires used low-pressure mercury (LPM) lamps. Product testing covered radiometric and electrical performance for each luminaire. Initial performance was measured for all eight products, and four were additionally measured after 100 h and 500 h of operation. Measured performance was compared against manufacturer or vendor claims. Specifiers and buyers of GUV products need accurate performance claims and data to deploy GUV technology safely and effectively. As with the CALiPER GUV Round 1 report, this CALiPER GUV Round 2 report demonstrates that manufacturers and vendors need significant education and training to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further development of industry consensus standards and guidelines may address testing limitations and improve test methods, product performance, and the accuracy of performance claims.
Lighting designs for architectural (aesthetic) purposes, vision and safety, and plant growth have many features in common but several crucial ones that are not. The human eye is very sensitive to the color (wavelength) of light, whereas plants are less so. There are morphological reactions, particularly to the red and blue portions of the light spectrum but, in general, plants appear to accept and use light for photosynthesis everywhere over the PAR region of the spectrum. In contrast, the human eye interprets light intensity on a logarithmic scale, making people insensitive to significant differences of light intensity. As a rough rule, light intensity must change by 30 to 50% for the human eye to recognize the difference. Plants respond much more linearly to light energy, at least at intensities below photosynthetic saturation. Thus, intensity differences not noticeable to the human eye can have significant effects on total plant growth and yield, and crop timing. These factors make luminaire selection and lighting system design particularly important when designing supplemental lighting systems for plant growth. Supplemental lighting for plant growth on the scale of commercial greenhouses is a relatively expensive undertaking. Light intensities are often much higher than required for task (vision) lighting, which increases both installation and operating costs. However, and especially in the northern regions of the United States (and Canada, Europe, etc.), supplemental lighting during winter may be necessary to produce certain crops (e.g., tomatoes) and very useful to achieve full plant growth potential and crop timing with most other greenhouse crops. Operating costs over the life of a luminaire typically will exceed the initial investment, making lighting efficacy a major consideration. This report reviews tests completed to evaluate the efficiencies of various commercially-available High-Pressure Sodium luminaires, and then describes the results of using a commercial lighting design computer program, Lumen-Micro, to explore how to place luminaires within greenhouses and plant growth chambers to achieve light (PAR) uniformity and relatively high lighting efficacies. Several suggestions are presented which could encourage systematic design of plant lighting systems.
A luminaire for providing configurable static lighting or dynamically-adjustable lighting. The luminaire uses an array of focusing elements that act on light provided via a corresponding array of sources or via an edge-lit lightguide. Designs are provided for adjusting the number of distinct beams produced by the luminaire, as well as the angular width, angular profile, and pointing angle of the beams. Designs are also provided for systems utilizing the adjustable luminaires in various applications.
A luminaire for providing configurable static lighting or dynamically-adjustable lighting. The luminaire uses an array of focusing elements that act on light provided via a corresponding array of sources or via an edge-lit lightguide. Designs are provided for adjusting the number of distinct beams produced by the luminaire, as well as the angular width, angular profile, and pointing angle of the beams. Designs are also provided for systems utilizing the adjustable luminaires in various applications.
A luminaire for providing configurable static lighting or dynamically-adjustable lighting. The luminaire uses an array of focusing elements that act on light provided via a corresponding array of sources or via an edge-lit lightguide. Designs are provided for adjusting the number of distinct beams produced by the luminaire, as well as the angular width, angular profile, and pointing angle of the beams. Designs are also provided for systems utilizing the adjustable luminaires in various applications.
A luminaire for providing configurable static lighting or dynamically-adjustable lighting. The luminaire uses an array of focusing elements that act on light provided via a corresponding array of sources or via an edge-lit lightguide. Designs are provided for adjusting the number of distinct beams produced by the luminaire, as well as the angular width, angular profile, and pointing angle of the beams. Designs are also provided for systems utilizing the adjustable luminaires in various applications.
This project addresses several key barriers to wide-spread adoption of additive manufacturing (AM) technology as applied to solid state lighting luminaires. The solution will utilize cutting edge AM approaches for integrating structure with thermal management solutions, electronic functionality, and optics. The research team (Eaton, Lighting Research Center (LRC) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Xerox Research Centre of Canada (XRCC)) utilize their AM and lighting expertise to investigate breakthrough manufacturing approaches that will significantly reduce cost, eliminate manufacturing process waste, and improve luminaire efficacy. The team has identified critical areas of research and proposed novel technical approaches to achieve these goals. Key areas of focus in Budget Period 1 (BP1) of the project quantified the impact of applying AM methodologies to the main, discrete subsystem components (Heat Sink, Housing, Optics, Electronics). Budget Period 2 (BP2) research explored similar impact on a fully integrated, AM modular luminaire concept. Final Achievement of the Target Metrics for the project are as follows: Material Reduction: achieved > 57.45% (target is 50%) Manufacturing Process: achieved > 51% reduction (target is 50%) Application Efficacy: achieved 126 lm/W (target is 130 lm/W) First Cost vs Baseline: demonstrated 49% improvement in project timing, 59% improvement in man hour savings and 89% worse BOM costs (due to deficiencies in current “state of the art” equipment). The BOM costs improve to 53% savings if state of the art processes and equipment could have been used.
This report documents a DOE study that evaluated the performance of several LED lighting products with claimed efficacies near or exceeding 200 lm/W. The purpose: to validate the claimed efficacy, determine the features or characteristics the products had in common, and identify any performance tradeoffs in luminaires reaching this very high efficacy level. All of the products were industrial luminaires with CCTs of 5000K, and all but one had exposed LED emitters. Overall, photometric testing yielded values reasonably close to manufacturer’ claims, yet evaluations by knowledgeable observers highlighted some key considerations – such as the importance of visual comfort.
The objective of the program is to build an integrated luminaire that is capable of modular assembly, with improvements in efficiency in the driver and light engine. Best in class LEDs are assumed. The team will include GE Global Research, in partnership with Stanford University. The goal is to build a highly integrated lighting solution that meets the DOE goals in 2020 for luminaire efficacy and enables low cost manufacturing in the United States.
This summary report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. A companion full report (DOE 2023) provides additional information and discussion of the tested products, test methods, and results. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products had low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product had LED sources. • Five GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five had LPM sources. Product testing covered radiometric and electrical performance for all 13 products as well as photobiological safety evaluation if product documentation included testable claims. Measurement results enable comparison between products and against manufacturer or vendor claims. Testing identified numerous issues related to the accuracy of claimed GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. When claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three LED products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. Product claim issues were more common among consumer-oriented tower products, but all product types exhibited problems with accurate performance claims. The UV-C radiant efficiency (calculated as UV-C output power divided by electrical input power) of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. This study also identified several testing challenges and limitations. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Whereas integrating spheres are used to quickly measure total radiant flux (i.e., output power) and spectral distribution, goniometers are used to measure radiant intensity distribution (from which radiant flux can be calculated). Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. The integrating sphere accommodated just 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field reflect little to no UV. As a result, the study evaluated only 6 of 13 products in the far field. Electronic files of UV-C intensity data for the other 7 products, which would typically be imported into design software for designing GUV applications, may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances (IES 2022a; CIE 2020). Specifiers and buyers of GUV products need accurate performance claims and data to deploy GUV technology safely and effectively. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training manufacturers and vendors still require to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further industry standards and guidelines may address testing limitations and improve test methods, product performance, and the accuracy of performance claims.
This report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products had low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product had LED sources. • Five GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five had LPM sources. Product testing covered radiometric and electrical performance for all 13 products as well as photobiological safety evaluation if product documentation included testable claims. Measurement results enable comparison between products and against manufacturer or vendor claims. Testing identified numerous issues related to the accuracy of claimed GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. When claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three LED products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. Product claim issues were more common among consumer-oriented tower products, but all product types exhibited problems with accurate performance claims. The UV-C radiant efficiency (calculated as UV-C output power divided by electrical input power) of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. This study also identified several testing challenges and limitations. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Whereas integrating spheres are used to quickly measure total radiant flux (i.e., output power) and spectral distribution, goniometers are used to measure radiant intensity distribution (from which radiant flux can be calculated). Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. The integrating sphere accommodated just 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field reflect little to no UV. As a result, the study evaluated only 6 of 13 products in the far field. Electronic files of UV-C intensity data for the other 7 products, which would typically be imported into design software for designing GUV applications, may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances (IES 2022a; CIE 2020). Specifiers and buyers of GUV products need accurate performance claims and data to deploy GUV technology safely and effectively. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training manufacturers and vendors still require to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further industry standards and guidelines may address testing limitations and improve test methods, product performance, and the accuracy of performance claims.
This report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products used low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One non-portable GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product used an LED source. • Five non-portable GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five used LPM sources. Radiometric and electrical performance was evaluated for all 13 products. Photobiological safety was also assessed for two of the products because their documentation included testable claims. The test results were compared across products and to manufacturer or vendor claims. The testing identified many issues related to the accuracy of reported GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. And when claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. These product claim issues were more numerous with consumer-oriented tower products, but problems with accurate performance claims were found across all products. The UV-C radiant efficiency of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. Several testing challenges and limitations were identified. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. Only 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products could be tested in this sphere. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field are not reflective of UV and therefore could not be used to increase test distance. As a result, 7 of 13 products could not be tested far field. The implication is that electronic files of UV-C intensity data typically imported into design software for designing GUV applications may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances. It is currently unclear if these are industry-wide testing laboratory limitations, and what solutions may exist to address them. Specifiers and buyers of GUV products will need accurate performance claims and data to safely and effectively deploy GUV technology to reduce the transmission of diseases in buildings. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training that is needed for manufacturers and vendors to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further standards and guidelines are needed to improve test methods, address testing limitations, and improve reporting of product performance. Additionally, the wide range in UV-C radiant efficiency of GUV products means there is a large energy-savings opportunity for more energy efficient GUV products.