CALiPER for New

Technologies?

Ruth Taylor
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

PNNL-SA-142465
What We’ll Cover Today
• State of the Industry – Pre-CALiPER
• DOE’s Initial Approach
• CALiPER – How it All Started
• CALiPER Impact
• Applying CALiPER Approach to Other Technologies
• Recommendations, Thoughts

2
CALiPER Started in the SSL ‘Wild Wild West’

• No LM-79 test procedures

• Little understanding of how to
compare products
• Many low efficacy products with
even lower light output
• Virtually no industry
accountability
• False equivalency claims by
many
• Potential for great consumer
disappointment
3
DOE’s Initial
Approach

4
 DOE
Click to SSL Multi-Year
edit Master title style Plan - 2010

SSL Multi-Year Program Plan, March 2010, www.ssl.energy.gov/techroadmaps.html

 DOE SSL Commercialization Support

07/10/2008 Guiding technology advances from

laboratory to marketplace
Initial SSL Programs

7
CALiPER - How It
All Started

8
Original CALiPER Goals
• Provide objective, high quality performance information
• Know performance of market available products
 To support R & D planning
 To support ENERGY STAR
• Inform industry test procedures and
standards development
• Discourage low quality products
• Reduce SSL market risk due to buyer
dissatisfaction from products that
do not perform as claimed
CALiPER Testing Process - 2008
• Quarterly product selection & acquisition
• Multiple independent test labs
• Assembly and analysis of results
 Courtesy sharing of results with manufacturers
 Retesting options
Photo credit: Luminaire Testing Laboratory

• Publication of results
 Summary reports
 Detailed test reports
 Analyses and studies
• “No Commercial Use” Policy
Types of CALiPER Testing
• Basic photometry (following ANSI/IES LM-79-19)
 Integrating Sphere and Goniophotometry
 Luminaire light output, efficacy
 Color qualities (spectral power distribution, CCT, CRI)
 Beam characteristics and intensity distributions
 Electrical measurements, thermal characteristics
 Benchmarking (other light sources)
• Other, non-standardized testing
 “In Situ” Testing (relative measurements)
 Environmental chamber
 Insulated ceiling, recessed can
 Lumen depreciation testing
 Draws from IESNA LM-80 draft
 Exploratory testing
Photo credit:
 Thermal imaging, dimming… Independent Testing Laboratory
Initial Testing

12
 CALiPER Early Testing Results (Rounds 1-5)

• Tests include a wide from to

range of products
• Results show a very Power 0.6 W ↔ 189 W
wide range of
performance
Output 10 lm ↔ 6272 lm

Efficacy 4 lm/W ↔ 62 lm/W

CCT 2600 ↔ >7000

07/10/2008
CRI <50 ↔ 95
CALiPER Benchmarking – 2006/2007

Benchmarking for Downlight Comparisons

900
SSLs 2007
800
Incandescent Range
Light Output (lumens) 700
600
CFL Range
500
400
LED Downlight Fixtures 2007
300
LED Downlight Fixtures 2006
200 Incandescent Downlights
SSLs 2006
100 CFL Downlight Lamps & Fixtures

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Efficacy (Lumens/Watts)

* Values for LED downlights are from CALiPER testing.

** Values for CFL and incandescents are assembled from CALiPER testing, earlier photometric testing and product catalogs.
*** A fixture efficiency of 0.9 is applied to all replacement lamps unless tested inside a fixture.
14
Rapid Progress 2007-2009
• January 2007
 Four (4) pilot tests were completed
 LM-79 was under development
• January 2008
 Finalizing LM-79
 A few independent labs performing LM-79
testing
 Manufacturers starting to listen to ‘absolute
photometry’ concept
• 2009
 Over 200 individual SSL products tested,
many benchmarks
 Loads of info, reports

15
Product Trends - Efficacy
Number of Products

9 43 62 73 77 84 87
100

Luminous Efficacy (lm/W) 90

80
70
60
55
50 52
47
40 40
30 32
29
20 18
10
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Purchase Year
Education was Key

17
Education – Product Comparisons
1800 Round 7 SSL Fixtures, 10-
42W
SSL Fixtures and
1500 Replacement Lamps 3-40W
Incandescent BR and A-
Light Output (lumens) SSL
Incandescents & lamps, 45-75W
1200
Halogens Halogen PAR38 (FL and IR)
Lamps, 50-60W
CFL
CFLs (spiral, pin, CCFL, &
900 reflector), 9-43W

600

300

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Efficacy (lumens/Watts)
Education – Distribution Comparisons

7W 25W 8W 40W 7W 60W 7W 60W

10-39 versus 11-06 versus 10-54 versus 11-04 versus
Incandescent Incandescent Incandescent Incandescent

8W 60W 6W 60W 13W 60W 12W 60W

11-05 versus 11-43 versus 10-55 versus 11-03 versus
Incandescent Incandescent Incandescent Incandescent

BK09-66 10-48
Beam Angle = Beam Angle =
60° 57°
Field Angle = Field Angle =
90° 100°
CBCP = 1033cd CBCP = 561cd

10-49 10-53
Beam Angle = Beam Angle =
60° 69°
Field Angle = Field Angle =
76° 97°
CBCP = 963cd CBCP = 796cd
CALiPER Impact

21
 CALiPER Early Positive Influences
• Testing standards validation &
refinement
• CALiPER Roundtable
interactive meeting of experts
(proceedings on-line)
• Benchmarking traditional
sources
• Market/industry awareness &
involvement
• Improvements in SSL product
literature
• Articles and discussions
07/10/2008
• CALiPER Booth
• Preparation for ENERGY STAR
Early CALiPER Recommendations
• Color: some ‘white’ light products are quite
‘bluish’ or quite greenish
 Both CCT and Duv matter

• Comparisons: absolute ≠ relative photometry

 Compare performance at the luminaire level

• Claims: product literature is often erroneous or

misleading
• Lifetime performance: true, in situ, long-term
performance is still a great unknown
 Initial lumen maintenance results are mixed

• Learning curves: some manufacturers are at

the top, many still just setting foot on the slope

Ascending the SSL

Learning Curve
 CALiPER Shift –
Changing with the
Market

24
SSL Product Growth – Lighting Facts Database
CALiPER Shift in Focus

Shift to Lighting Facts

Verification

Product
Independent LM- Data Report
Selection &
79-08 Testing Analysis Publication
Purchasing

New CALiPER
Focus
CALiPER Reports

Snap Shot Reports • High level summaries using LED Lighting Facts data
• 4 per year each on different product types

Application •
•
Focused on specific product types and design scenarios
Go beyond LM-79 testing

Reports •
•
Include detailed testing reports online
First in the series of deeper dive studies

• Product installations and evaluations

Deeper Dives •
•
Dimming/flicker testing
Stress testing
• Lumen maintenance testing

• Testing/ analysis support as requested

Standards Support • Roundtables to facilitate industry collaboration
• Participation in relevant standards committees
 CALiPER for
Other
Technologies?

28
Applying CALiPER Approach to Other Technologies
• Standards development is critical
• Education is key
• Growth is important - be willing to change with the industry

• Simultaneous approaches might be warranted

29
Simultaneous Approaches Might Be Warranted
 Standards development (round tables, committee involvement)
 Product testing and reporting (CALiPER style)
 In-situ mock-ups (CALiPER exploratory studies)
 User perceptions/acceptance (NGL style)
 Labeling program – eventually? (Lighting Facts)

CALiPER – think consumer reports

LED Lighting Facts – think food labels
NGL – think J.D. Powers
30
Thank you
Ruth Taylor
Ruth.Taylor@PNNL.GOV

31