iinno ltd. 11/2018...case study's luminaire (2x36w t8 fluorescent fixture). this first case...

Luminaire 1: 32W LED Shop light, 1220x133x49mm

IINNO Ltd. 1/11/2018

SHOP LIGHT COMPARISON IN SUPERMARKET APPLICATION CASE STUDY

Supermarket view with applying luminaires and their light distribution around the room.

Supermarket view with light distribution curves

Supermarket view with isothermal indication of lux

Luminaire 2: 2x36W T8 Fluorescent fixture, 1230x130x120mm

VISUAL RESULTS OF COMPARISON CASE STUDY

Height of room: 4.000 m, Reflection factors: Ceiling 70.0%, Walls 70.3%, Floor 56.1%, Light loss factor: 0.80

WorkplaneSurface Result

Average (Target) Min Max Min/average Min/max

1 Workplane Perpendicular illuminance [lx]Height: 0.800 m, Wall zone: 0.000 m

0.00

No. 1 Quantity 70

2x36W T8 Fluorescent fixture Light output ratio: 78.53% Lamp luminous flux: 6500 lm Luminaire luminous flux: 5105 lm Power: 72.0 WLuminous efficacy: 70.9 lm/W

Colorimetric data 2x36W T8 Fluorescent fixture: CCT 4000 K, CRI 80

Total lamp luminous flux: 455000 lm,

Total luminaire luminous flux: 357350 lm, Total Load: 5040.0 W,

Luminous efficacy: 70.9 lm/W

Lighting power density: 5.04 W/m² = 1.48 W/m²/100 lx

(Ground area 1000.00 m²)

Consumption: 16950 kWh/a of maximum 35050 kWh/a



32W LED Shop lightLight output ratio: 100%Lamp luminous flux: 4847 lm Luminaire luminous flux: 4846 lm Power: 32.5 WLuminous efficacy: 149.1 lm/W

Colorimetric data 32W LED Shop light: CCT 4000 K, CRI 80

Total lamp luminous flux: 339290 lm,

Total luminaire luminous flux: 339220 lm, Total Load: 2275.0 W,

Luminous efficacy: 141.9 lm/W

Lighting power density: 2.28 W/m² = 0.73 W/m²/100 lx

(Ground area 1000.00 m²)

Consumption: 7650 kWh/a of maximum 35050 kWh/a

No. 2 Quantity 70

WorkplaneSurface Result

2 Workplane Perpendicular illuminance [lx]Height: 0.800 m, Wall zone: 0.000 m

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF COMPARISON CASE STUDY



312 (≥ 300) 0.20 469 0.00Average (Target) Min Max Min/average Min/max

0.00341 (≥ 300) 0.03 524 0.00



ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND COST ANALYSIS OF COMPARISON CASE STUDY





Page 5

TABLE OF RESULTS FOR COMPARISON CASE STUDY

POWER 32.5 W 72.0 W LAMP LUMINOUS FLUX 4847 lm 6500 lm

LUMINAIRE LUMINOUS FLUX 4846 lm 5105 lm LUMINOUS EFFICACY 149.1 lm/W 70.9 lm/W

LIGHT OUTPUT RATIO 100.00 % 78.53 % TOTAL LAMP LUMINOUS FLUX 339290 lm 455000 lm

TOTAL LUMINAIRE LUMINOUS FLUX 339220 lm 357350 lm TOTAL LOAD 2275.0 W �5040.0 W

ENERGY CONSUMPTION 7650 kWh/a 16950 kWh/a COSTS ��2293 €/a 5080 €/a

LUX MEAN VALUE (TARGET FOR OFFICE

REQUIREMENT=300lx)

312 lx � 341 lx

COMPARISON CONCLUSION: The case study of the first luminaire (32W LED Shop light), presents severe advantages over that of the second

case study's luminaire (2x36W T8 Fluorescent Fixture). This first case provides a more efficient solution, which leads to lower energy consumption and thus lower cost at an annual basis.

The European Standard EN 12464 for Supermarket lighting application, is met in both cases. The unit and total lamp and luminaire luminous flux values of the first case may be almost the same compared to that of the second case but the first one has lower energy consumption and costs, which indicate a more efficient solution. The LED technology ensures lower consumption in principle, but the technical analysis provided is the clear proof that the first case study is leading to a more sustainable solution for the investment's finance as well as the environmental impact.

The costs are calculated by considering the operating time to be 2453 hours per annum for daily use and 207 hours per annum for nightly use. The first case's cost is less than half of that of the second case thus providing a more cost-efficient solution.



iinno ltd. 11/2018...case study's luminaire (2x36w t8 fluorescent fixture). this first case...

Documents