Stairwell lighting typically operates continuously at full output despite very low, intermittent use. Simple occupancy sensors that turn fixtures on and off are not used due to building code requirements that prohibit zero light levels, even when unoccupied.
A bi-level product line demonstrated by the New York State Energy Research and Development Agency (NYSERDA) and the PIER Program uses an ultrasonic occupancy sensor to detect motion in areas like stairwells and corridors. During unoccupied periods, the lamps are dimmed to as low as 5% of normal. An adjustable time delay can be used to maximize energy savings based on usage patterns. Currently, the Uniform Building Code requires minimal lighting of one foot-candle (fc) for emergency egress in all stairwells. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has already adopted a new minimum illuminance level of 10 fc during all occupied times. This technology mitigates the energy increase required to achieve such illumination levels while remaining code compliant well into the future.
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
| Darwin Hall, Sonoma State University |
|
Cogen Building, UCLA |
|
Citrus College Learning Center |
OBJECTIVE:
To find out the best applications for the bi-level stairwell lighting system through monitoring energy savings, maintenance costs, and life cycle cost-benefit analysis
APPLICATIONS:
- Stairwells
- Corridors
- Storerooms
- Restrooms
DESCRIPTIONS / FEATURES:
- Energy savings: 40-80% annual energy savings; over 20 years, fixture can yield savings of 10,000 kWh
- Luminaire operates at two lighting levels
- Maintains a low light level when the space is unoccupied and quickly switches to full light output only when occupancy is detected
|
| |
 |
| Pre-retrofit |
 |
| Post-retrofit |
|
|
DEMONSTRATION LOCATION:
Butte College
Facilities Building, 23 units installed
Performance results/energy savings:
50% savings compared to T12
~11,300 kWh savings per year
Date of Install: Fall 2007
Timeframe of testing/evaluation: Winter 2008
Partners:
California Community Colleges, LaMar Lighting Co., Inc.
Sponsors: California Energy Commission
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
| Pre-retrofit |
 |
| Post-retrofit |
|
|
DEMONSTRATION LOCATION:
California State University Northridge
Sierra Tower, 16 units installed
Performance results/energy savings:
78% savings compared to two T8 fixtures
~12,000 kWh savings per year
Date of Install: Fall 2005
Timeframe of testing/evaluation: Winter 2005
Partners:
California State University, LaMar Lighting Co., Inc., University of California
Sponsors: California Energy Commission
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
| Pre-retrofit |
|
| Post-retrofit |
|
|
DEMONSTRATION LOCATION:
Citrus College
Learning Center, 12 units installed
Performance results/energy savings:
75% savings compared to standard T8
~4,300 kWh savings per year
Date of Install: Fall 2007
Timeframe of testing/evaluation: Fall 2007
Partners:
California Community Colleges, LaMar Lighting Co., Inc.
Sponsors: California Energy Commission
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
| Pre-retrofit |
 |
| Post-retrofit |
|
|
DEMONSTRATION LOCATION:
Cypress College
Learning Resource Center, 19 units installed
Performance results/energy savings:
60% savings compared to standard T8
~4,800 kWh savings per year
Date of Install: Fall 2007
Timeframe of testing/evaluation: Fall 2007
Partners:
California Community Colleges, LaMar Lighting Co., Inc.
Sponsors: California Energy Commission
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
| Pre-retrofit |
 |
| Post-retrofit |
|
|
DEMONSTRATION LOCATION:
San Diego State University
Professional Studies and Fine Arts Building, 29 units installed
Performance results/energy savings: xx%
45% savings compared to T12
~6,600 kWh saved per year
Date of Install: Fall 2005
Timeframe of testing/evaluation: Fall / Winter 2006
Partners:
California State University, LaMar Lighting Co., Inc., University of California
Sponsors: California Energy Commission
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
| Pre-retrofit |
|
| Post-retrofit |
|
|
DEMONSTRATION LOCATION:
Sonoma State University
Darwin Hall, 27 units installed
Performance results/energy savings:
48% savings compared to standard T8
~6,100 kWh savings per year
Date of Install: Summer 2006
Timeframe of testing/evaluation: Fall 2006
Partners:
California State University, LaMar Lighting Co., Inc., University of California
Sponsors: California Energy Commission
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
| Pre-retrofit |
 |
| Post-retrofit |
|
|
DEMONSTRATION LOCATION:
University of California, Irvine
Engineering Tower, 38 units installed
Performance results/energy savings:
42% savings compared to T12
~7,600 kWh savings per year
Date of Install: Fall 2006
Timeframe of testing/evaluation: Fall 2006
Partners:
California State University, LaMar Lighting Co., Inc., University of California
Sponsors: California Energy Commission
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
| Pre-retrofit |
|
| Post-retrofit |
|
|
DEMONSTRATION LOCATION:
University of California, Los Angeles
Bunche Hall, 50 units installed
Cogeneration Building and Facilities Management Offices, 48 units installed
Performance results/energy savings:
Bunche Hall:
69% savings compared to standard T8
~20,800 kWh savings per year
Cogeneration Building and Facilities Management
58% savings compared to standard T8
~13,000 kWh savings per year
Date of Install: Fall 2005
Timeframe of testing/evaluation: Fall / Winter 2005
Partners:
California State University, LaMar Lighting Co., Inc., University of California
Sponsors: California Energy Commission
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
| Pre-retrofit |
 |
| Post-retrofit |
|
|
DEMONSTRATION LOCATION:
University of California Office of the President
1111 Franklin St., Oakland, CA, 32 units
Performance results/energy savings:
60% compared to standard T8
~9,000 kWh savings per year
Date of Install: Fall 2005
Timeframe of testing/evaluation: Winter 2006
Partners:
California State University, LaMar Lighting Co., Inc., University of California
Sponsors: California Energy Commission
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
| Pre-retrofit |
 |
| Post-retrofit |
|
|
DEMONSTRATION LOCATION:
University of California, Riverside
Aberdeen-Inverness Dormitory, 38 units installed
Performance results/energy savings:
94% compared to incandescent
~47,000 kWh savings per year
Date of Install: Summer 2006
Timeframe of testing/evaluation: Fall 2006
Partners:
California State University, LaMar Lighting Co., Inc., University of California
Sponsors: California Energy Commission
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
| Pre-retrofit |
 |
| Post-retrofit |
|
|
DEMONSTRATION LOCATION:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Cheadle Hall, 10 units installed
Performance results/energy savings:
60% savings compared to standard T8
~2,800 kWh savings per year
Date of Install: Fall 2005
Timeframe of testing/evaluation: Fall 2005
Partners:
California State University, LaMar Lighting Co., Inc., University of California
Sponsors: California Energy Commission
|
| |
|
|
|
RESULTS:
- Cost effective for retrofit, remodeling, and especially new construction applications
- Drastically reduced average fixture wattage reduces peak demand
- Improved lighting quality, easy to install
STATUS: The University of California/California State University (UC/CSU) and Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) Partnership Program has identified incentives for this technology that range from $90 to $120 per fixture.
The LaMar Occusmart VO Series bi-level stairwell fixture is currently available from LaMar Lighting Co., Inc. There are multiple fixture types in the Occusmart series.
REFERENCE:
|
Projects 
