Engineering topics

Tuenge, Jason R.

Publications and source records attributed to Tuenge, Jason R..

8 records

DOE OSTI2024

Radiometric Testing of Germicidal UV Products, Round 2: Upper-Room Luminaires (CALiPER Report)

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.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2023

The Energy and Operational Impacts of Using 0-10V Control for LED Streetlights

Lighting systems have historically utilized either a proprietary control method, or one of a handful of standardized methods (e.g., 0-10V, DALI, DMX512) aimed at facilitating vendor interoperability. The utility and market success of the standardized methods has been limited for a variety of reasons. Although 0-10V is presently the most commonly available control interface for indoor and outdoor products in North America – even after the emergence of LED products and “connected lighting systems” with more modern network interfaces and luminaire-level sensors and intelligence – the use of 0-10V methods has significant tradeoffs. For instance, it is difficult to predict relative luminaire light output and input power at any particular control voltage, and performance across luminaires is inconsistent. This study characterizes 23 LED streetlights that claimed dimmability via a 0-10V interface, quantifies the performance variation found in market-available LED drivers, and explores the potential impact of the most recent 0-10V voluntary standard (ANSI C137.1-2022). Notably, the tested products were all manufactured prior to the release of this standard, and thus do not make compliance claims. Variation in response to 0-10V control voltages was expected to be more significant across different make/model luminaires than different units of the same make/model; the test population was structured based on this expectation. The 23 tested luminaires comprised 21 unique make/model streetlights from 14 different manufacturers. Three samples of one make/model streetlight were included in the test population to facilitate a limited exploration of unit-to-unit variation. The 21 unique make/model luminaires contained 20 unique make/model LED drivers from eight different driver manufacturers. Luminaire input power and current were measured at 11 control voltages (0.5 V and 1–10 V in 1 V increments).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2023

The Energy and Operational Impacts of Using 0-10V Control for LED Streetlights

LED lighting is becoming widely adopted and displacing most traditional lighting technologies. However, the traditional methods used to control light sources have not seen similar displacement. Lighting systems have historically utilized either a proprietary control method, or one of a handful of standardized methods (e.g., 0-10V, DALI, DMX512). The utility and market success of the standardized methods has been limited for a variety of reasons. Analog 0-10V methods have long been popular due to their simplicity and low cost of implementation and are presently the most commonly available control interface for indoor and outdoor LED products in North America. The emergence of “connected lighting systems” with more modern network interfaces and luminaire-level sensors and intelligence was anticipated by many to mark the beginning of the end of analog control. However, 0-10V interfaces continue to be prevalent with these more “digital” systems. The use of 0-10V methods has significant tradeoffs. 0-10V standards have historically not explicitly defined the relationship between the luminaire input control signal and output luminous flux for the full control signal range. As a result, it is difficult to predict relative luminaire light output and input power at any particular control voltage, and in practice the performance across LED drivers and the luminaires power is inconsistent. While this inconsistency has long been acknowledged by experts in the field, it is not accounted for in standard practice deployment, and end-users continue to regularly see unexpected and undesirable performance. It is hoped that the results from this study will help the lighting industry and standards developing organizations better understand and possibly resolve the shortcomings of 0-10V products, and consider what is best for the industry – additional incremental improvements to this fundamentally limited analog technology, or fully moving on to existing digital approaches, such as DALI D4i, that deliver accurate and consistent dimming performance across all luminaires in the system and thus guarantee the delivery of expected light levels, and energy and cost savings. Recommendations consistent with these goals are made to lighting and driver manufacturers, lighting software developers, standard developing organizations, and system designers and specifiers.

0-10V↗

DOE OSTI2023

Radiometric Testing of Germicidal UV Products, Round 1: UV-C Towers and Whole-Room Luminaires (CALiPER Full Report)

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.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2023

Radiometric Testing of Germicidal UV Products, Round 1: UV-C Towers and Whole-Room Luminaires (CALiPER Summary Report)

This summary report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. A companion full report 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 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.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

DOE OSTI2020

Specifying Calibration of Environmental Sensors

The emergence of the Internet of Things is resulting in an increased ability of devices and systems to share data and is generating increasing interest in integrating sensors into a variety of devices deployed in the built environment. The value of such data is a function of how the data can be used. Data-producing devices and systems that enable valuable use-cases in turn can be seen as more valuable. Lighting systems are particularly interesting platforms for integrated sensors. Both indoor and outdoor lighting devices are becoming more connected, and their location is often ideally suited for hosting environmental sensors that can characterize the properties of indoor or outdoor spaces in ways that support a wide variety of use cases, from improving air quality to supporting fault diagnostics and prediction. The value of environmental-sensor-driven use-cases and the lighting systems that house them is dependent to some degree on sensor accuracy. Environmental sensors utilize a wide variety of sensing techniques or technologies and have varying accuracy. More-accurate, laboratory-grade products or reference standards are often used to characterize, refine, calibrate, adjust, and monitor devices that are deployed, or are intended to be deployed, in physical spaces of interest. Sensors or reference standards need to be calibrated periodically to ensure that their use yields accurate measurements. Calibration needs, however, vary in sophistication, based on user and use-case requirements. This paper provides guidance for evaluating the performance of environmental sensors so as to ensure that they meet user or use-case needs. It describes best practices that have been developed for a) calibrating sensors to ensure some known level of accuracy, and b) determining whether calibration-laboratory accreditation meets user or use-case needs. Excerpts from laboratory scopes of accreditation are shared to reveal the diversity of terminology and format among them. In an effort to aid those who currently have sensors calibrated or who have new or changing needs for sensor calibration, rationale is provided for why a specification might be used to request calibration services that meet specific needs. Commercially available calibration-service providers that are accredited for environmental-sensor calibration are compared and contrasted, and a specification template that might be used for requesting this calibration is presented. The specification template should be tailored to meet each user’s needs. To illustrate, an example set of environmental-sensor test conditions (reflecting the planned usage of the device to be calibrated) is used to develop a customized calibration specification, and commercially available service providers are assessed in terms of their qualifications for calibration to that particular implementation of the specification template.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2020

Characterization and Analysis of the Energy-Reporting Accuracy of Connected Devices

Emerging energy-efficient building systems increasingly exhibit greater functionality, often requiring multiple operating modes (e.g. white-tunability for lighting products and data traffic for devices with networked, integrated sensors). This increased functionality makes energy consumption estimates more complex. Given that these functions consume energy, the energy performance of such building systems is dependent on what operating modes they use and how much time they spend in each mode. Devices and systems that can report their own energy consumption mitigate this energy-performance uncertainty. This study explores the energy-reporting accuracy of market-available connected electrical outlets. The study considers two residential-market products (five units each, one outlet per unit) and three commercial-market products (two units each, 18 to 24 outlets per unit) with the ability to report power drawn and/or energy consumed by devices connected to their receptacles. The products were purchased through typical market channels. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) conducted testing in December 2018 at its Connected Lighting Test Bed (CLTB), using a custom-developed test setup and method adapted from industry standards. The setup collected energy-consumption data reported by the outlet devices under test (DUTs) at one-minute intervals and compared that data with measurements taken by a reference meter over a range of test conditions. The residential products reported power draw but not interval or cumulative energy consumption. The commercial products reported both power draw and cumulative energy consumption. Relative reporting error (RRE) was calculated for all measurements, and analysis of the results revealed variations across devices and test conditions. The total number of measurements (50 for each residential product, 60 for each commercial product) offers an appreciable comparison of performance at the make/model level. The average RRE of the residential products derived from reported power draw was -0.02% and -1.20%. The average RRE for two of the three the commercial products derived from reported power draw was worse than those of the residential products (-2.40%, -2.72%, -0.36%). The internal integration of power over time, used to calculate cumulative energy consumption, typically occurs at current and voltage sampling rates much higher than once per minute. This suggests that the average commercial-product RRE derived from reported energy consumption should be very consistent and better than performance based on reported power draw. However, the RRE derived from reported energy consumption varied significantly across the three makes of commercial-market products and was uniformly less accurate than performance based on reported power draw. Subsequent analysis identified a number of root causes for this decrease in performance, most of which were related to reporting resolution. The goals of this study are to generate awareness of building systems capable of reporting their own energy consumption, further interest in the value of energy data for a variety of uses, draw attention to how the accuracy of reported metrics can be characterized, and quantify the performance variation found in marketavailable products. The results of this study and subsequent related work may be relevant to stakeholders in industry-specification and standards-development organizations. The methods this study employs could inform test and measurement procedures and performance classifications for connected outlets, lighting products, and other building systems capable of reporting their own energy consumption. The study concludes with stakeholder recommendations, including the following: • Energy-reporting device and system manufacturers developing products that report energy consumption should characterize the accuracy of reported metrics using a reference meter calibrated by an independent laboratory that was accredited by an ILAC MRA signatory (and whose scope of accreditation explicitly covers energy measurement), and should include this information on product data sheets. • Standards and specification development organizations should develop application-specific performance classifications that end users can understand and relate to their energy-data use needs (e.g., 2% accuracy class for utility streetlight energy billing needs, or 10% accuracy class for ESCO performance verification needs). • Current or potential owners, operators, and specifiers of energy-reporting building systems should rigorously analyze the dependency of current and planned energy-data use cases on accuracy, noting in particular the dependence (or lack thereof) on relative vs. absolute accuracy, and on trueness vs. precision (i.e., repeatability), and should communicate use-case needs to industry standards and specification organizations.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2020

Specifying Calibration of Energy-Measuring Equipment

Instruments and standards need to be calibrated periodically to ensure that their use yields accurate measurements. Calibration needs, however, vary in sophistication, based on user expectations. This white paper reviews calibration terminology and standards, and describes best practices that have been developed for a) calibrating measurement equipment to ensure some known level of accuracy, and b) accrediting calibration service providers. Calibration is discussed in the context of metrological traceability, and excerpts from laboratory scopes of accreditation are shared to reveal the diversity of terminology and format among them. In an effort to aid those who currently calibrate measuring equipment or who have new or changing needs for calibrating measuring equipment, rationale is provided for why a specification might be used to request calibration services that meet specific test needs. Given the growing interest in using data to manage the energy consumption of systems, and the increasing number and variety of systems (e.g., building, computing) that can report such information, use cases requiring energy data are used to facilitate further discussion and provide examples. Commercially available service providers who are accredited for energy-measuring equipment calibration are compared and contrasted, and a specification template that might be used for requesting this calibration is presented. The specification template should be tailored to meet each user’s needs. To illustrate, an example set of energy-measuring-equipment test conditions (reflecting the planned usage of the device to be calibrated) is used to develop a customized calibration specification, and commercially available service providers are assessed in terms of their qualifications for calibration to that particular implementation of the specification template.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗