http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?

arnumber=5358701&newsearch=true&queryText=automatic%20lighting
%20system
abstract
Door sensor for automatic lighting control is widely being developed for
energy saving and security purposes. An infrared door sensor based on
electrical and electronics combinational circuit technology is used to
develop the automatic light switching system. The automatic light
switching system will lead to energy saving and efficient energy usage
which could benefit every single individual. Furthermore, the system is
developed with safety environment when switching `ON' or `OFF' the
light during the room occupancy or unoccupancy. Apart from safety
environment, it also comprises manual switching in case user needs to
have light during the day. Basically, this system is designed to be installed
in the restroom.
--Estimating Energy Savings with Lighting Controls
BY CRAIG DILOUIE, ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2013

A survey of two groups of professionals describing themselves as electrical contractors

and energy consultants, conducted by the Lighting Controls Association from its
lightingCONTROL newsletter database, suggests automatic lighting controls are
becoming more popular in lighting retrofits. Respondents reported lighting controls were
considered in over 50 percent and installed in over 30 percent of their projects in 2012.
Forty percent of respondents said the percentage of their projects in which controls were
installed was higher than the previous year, while about half reported it as the same.
Estimating energy savings resulting from installation of more-efficient light fixtures and
lighting systems is fairly straightforward, being based on the difference in wattage.
Estimating energy savings for lighting controls, however, can be challenging, as actual
savings will depend on application characteristics such as occupant behavior, building
design, site orientation, availability of daylight, device settings and level of
commissioning. This variability presents risk, which can make owners balk at investment.
The cost savings impact of time-based automatic shutoff can be relatively simple to
determine, with the major difference between System A and System B being not
wattage, but operating hours. If these numbers are known, energy savings can be
estimated fairly reliably. The average respondent to the Lighting Controls Association
survey reported that intelligent (programmable scheduling) control was installed in about
30 percent of their lighting retrofit projects in 2012. Similarly, the economic value of
institutional task tuning, in which the light level needs in different areas of a space can
be satisfied via dimming for associated energy savings, can be fairly straightforward to
predict.
Other automatic control strategies, from occupancy sensing to daylight harvesting, pose
some uncertainty, being dependent on factors such as variable occupancy patterns and
daylight availability. According to the Lighting Controls Association survey, the average
respondent reported that wall-switch and other occupancy sensors were installed in

more than 60 percent and 40 percent of their firms lighting retrofit projects,
respectively, in 2012. Light sensors for daylight harvesting, meanwhile, was installed in
more than 30 percent of their projects.
Making things more challenging, particularly in new construction, is the current trend
toward more sophisticated lighting control systems in which strategies may be layered.
For example, an open office may see deployed scheduling or zoned occupancy sensors
for automatic shutoff, task tuning in some areas, daylight harvesting near windows, and
personal dimming control for occupants.
According to the Lighting Controls Association survey, about 40 percent of respondents
said they most often base their lighting control energy savings estimates on their
evaluation of the application or personal experience.

What other resources are available that can help with strategies that involve a higher
degree of variability?
There are several paths may be taken: trial installations, manufacturers, benchmarks,
industry research and energy codes.
The trial installation is one of the most useful ways to predict energy savings. In this
case, a partial installation is conducted in a typical space to produce data suggestive of
typical energy savings. For spaces in which occupancy sensors may be appropriate, some
manufacturers offer light loggers, which can be installed to generate data about how
long the lights are left ON while the monitored space is unoccupied. Unfortunately, this
opportunity is not always available; only eight percent of respondents in the Lighting
Controls Association survey said they most often base energy savings for lighting
controls on trial installations.
Manufacturers are another useful resource as they have a great deal of experience and
may have hard data for monitored projects. Note their estimates and case study results

are likely based on control systems designed to produce optimal results. Twenty-one
percent of the survey respondents favor this method.
Benchmarks provide a guidepost of what others have achieved, and therefore can be
useful; these can be learned through networking with industry colleagues and reading
case studies in trade magazines and other media.
Another good source of information is industry research studies evaluating various
control strategies. Eighteen percent of respondents to the Lighting Controls Association
survey most often base their energy savings estimates for lighting controls on these
studies, which may present demonstrated energy savings in a typical application, best
estimates of average savings, or best estimates of savings potential (see Tables 1 and
2). Because these studies represent credible independent research, owners making
investment decisions may regard them with a higher degree of confidence.

Table 1. Sampling of industry research indicating demonstrated, estimated or potential

lighting energy savings for various control strategies and environments. Source:
Lighting Controls Association.

Space Type

Controls Type

Lighting Energy
Savings Demonstrated
in Research or
Estimated as Potential

Private Office

Occupancy sensor

38%

An Analysis of the Energy and Cost

Savings Potential of Occupancy
Sensors for Commercial Lighting
Systems, Lighting Research
Center/EPA, August 2000.

Multilevel switching

22%

Lighting Controls Effectiveness

Assessment, ADM Associates for
Heschong Mahone Group, May 2002.

Manual dimming

6-9%

Occupant Use of Manual Lighting

Controls in Private Offices, IESNA
Paper #34, Lighting Research Center.

Daylight harvesting
(sidelighting)

50% (manual blinds) to

70% (optimally used
manual blinds or
automatic shading
system)

Effect of interior design on the

daylight availability in open plan
offices, by Reinhart, CF, National
Research Council of Canada, Internal
Report NRCC-45374, 2002.

Occupancy sensors

35%

National Research Council study on

integrated lighting controls in open
office, 2007.

Multilevel switching

16%

Lighting Controls Effectiveness

Assessment, ADM Associates for
Heschong Mahone Group, May 2002.

Daylight harvesting
(sidelighting)

40%

Effect of interior design on the

daylight availability in open plan
offices, by Reinhart, CF, National
Research Council of Canada, Internal
Report NRCC-45374, 2002.

Personal dimming control

11%

National Research Council study on

integrated lighting controls in open
office, 2007.

Occupancy sensor

55%

An Analysis of the Energy and Cost

Savings Potential of Occupancy
Sensors for Commercial Lighting
Systems, Lighting Research
Center/EPA, August 2000.

Multilevel switching

8%

Lighting Controls Effectiveness

Assessment, ADM Associates for
Heschong Mahone Group, May 2002.

Daylight harvesting
(sidelighting)

50%

Sidelighting Photocontrols Field Study,

Heschong Mahone Group, 2003.

Open Office

Classroom

Study Reference

The problem with industry studies is the broad range of numbers can be difficult to
interpret, as different studies may present very different results. For example, a 2003
Lighting Research Center study in two New York City buildings demonstrated 53-60
percent energy savings for bilevel stairwell lighting using an occupancy sensor integrated
into the fixture. A later Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study in four California
buildings demonstrated 40-60 percent energy savings for this approach. And a Pacific

Gas & Electric study at The Fillmore Center in San Francisco demonstrated 66 percent
energy savings.
In an attempt to simplify things, in 2011, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
published A Meta-Analysis of Energy Savings from Lighting Controls in Commercial
Buildings (http://efficiency.lbl.gov), an analysis of 240 energy savings estimates from 88
papers and case studies, focusing on actual field installations as opposed to simulations.
From this data, LBNL produced best estimates of average lighting energy savings for four
primary lighting control strategies:
Occupancy-based control (occupancy sensors, time scheduling): 24 percent
Personal tuning (occupant control of light levels using dimmers, wireless switches,
workstation-specific control, preset scene control): 31 percent
Daylight harvesting (photosensors): 28 percent
Institutional tuning (light levels tuned to space needs by application, reduction of
ballast factor, task tuning, lumen maintenance, group controls): 36 percent
Multiple strategies (any combination of the above): 38 percent

Table 2. LBNL best estimates of average lighting energy savings for various control
strategies based on a review of 240 energy savings estimates published in 88 papers and
case studies. Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2011.
Strategy

Definition

Examples

Occupancy

Lighting status changes Occupancy sensors,

automatically based on timeclocks, energy
presence of people
management system

Personal Tuning

Occupant control of
light levels

Daylight Harvesting

Lighting status changes Photosensors

automatically based on
daylight levels

Institutional Tuning

Light levels tuned to

space needs by
application, ballast
tuning (reduction of
ballast factor), task
tuning, lumen
maintenance, group
controls

Average Savings
24%

Dimmers, wireless
31%
switches, workstationspecific control, preset
scene control
28%

Dimmable ballasts, and 36%

dimmers and switches
used to control group
lighting

Multiple Strategies

Any combination of the above

38%

While these estimates are meaningful, some oversimplification may have occurred. For
example, occupancy sensors and time scheduling have been documented as producing
markedly different levels of energy savings. And available research suggests bilevel
switching can produce higher energy savings than personal dimming control.
Finally, energy codes may provide useful guidance that owners may accept because, like
industry research studies, it too comes from a respected independent authority. Both the
ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2010 energy standard and the California Title 24-2013 energy code
identify advanced control options that can be installed in exchange for a higher interior
lighting power allowance calculated using a power adjustment factor. This factor is
suggestive of energy savings for the given strategy over its controlled lighting load.
For example, if occupancy sensing is installed in a large open plan office, and each
sensors controlled area is 125 sq.ft. or smaller, the power adjustment factor if 0.40,
which is suggestive of 40 percent estimated energy savings. A multiscene programmable
dimming system in a restaurant, meanwhile, has a factor of 0.20, suggested of 20
percent savings.

Table 3. Excerpt from Table 140.6-A, Lighting Power Density Adjustment Factors in
California Title 24-2013. Source: California Energy Commission.

TYPE OF CONTROL

TYPE OF AREA

FACTOR

Partial-ON Occupant Sensing Control

Any area <250 sq.ft. enclosed by

floor-to-ceiling partitions; any size
classroom, conference or waiting
room

0.20

Occupant Sensing Controls in Large

Open Plan Offices

In open plan
offices >250
sq.ft.,: One
sensor
controlling an
area that is:

< 125 sq.ft.

0.40

126 to 250 sq.ft.

0.30

251 to 500 sq.ft.

0.20

Dimming
System

Manual Dimming
Multiscene
Programmable

Hotels/motels, restaurants,
auditoriums, theaters

0.10
0.20

Combined Manual Dimming plus

Partial-ON Occupant Sensing Control

Any area <250 sq.ft. enclosed by

floor-to-ceiling partitions; any size
classroom, conference or waiting
room

0.25

On a final note, achieving energy savings estimates in practice may require

commissioning, including a written controls narrative, verification equipment is installed
and aimed in accordance with approved documents, programming and calibration,
functional testing, Systems Manual, end-user training and a plan for periodic
recalibration. In a 2012 study, the Energy Center of Wisconsin re-commissioned daylight
harvesting controls in 20 spaces and found energy savings to increase from a median 23
percent to 43 percent.
Estimating lighting control energy savings poses more complexity than with light fixtures
and lighting systems, but a number of resources are available to aid in producing
estimates that offer confidence.
Be Sociable, Share!