VISUAL RESULTS OF COMPARISON CASE STUDY. Warehouse view with applying luminaires and their light distribution around the establishment.

Transcription

1 HIGHBAY COMPARISON IN WAREHOUSE APPLICATION CASE STUDY VISUAL RESULTS OF COMPARISON CASE STUDY Warehouse view with applying luminaires and their light distribution around the establishment. Warehouse view with light distribution curves Warehouse view with isothermal indication of lux Page 1

2 IINNO Ltd. 6/6/2017 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF COMPARISON CASE STUDY Height of warehouse: m, Reflection factors: Ceiling 70.0%, Walls 50.0%, Floor 20.0%, Light loss factor: 0.80 Workplane Surface Workplane Result Surface No. 1 Result 2 Workplane Perpendicular illuminance [lx] Height: m, Wall zone: m 1 Workplane Perpendicular illuminance [lx] Height: m, Wall zone: m Average (Target) Min Max Min/average Min/max Average (Target) Min Max Min/average Min/max 242 (200) 223 (200) Quantity No. 2 Quantity W LED Highbay light Light output ratio: 99.62% Lamp luminous flux: lm Luminaire luminous flux: lm Power: W Luminous efficacy: lm/w HPS 400W Highbay fixture Light output ratio: 68.94% Lamp luminous flux: lm Luminaire luminous flux: lm Power: W Luminous efficacy: 52.2 lm/w Colorimetric data 160W LED Highbay light: CCT 4000 K, CRI 80 Colorimetric data HPS 400W Highbay fixture: CCT 4000 K, CRI 40 Total lamp luminous flux: lm, Total lamp luminous flux: lm, Total luminaire luminous flux: lm, Total Load: W, Total luminaire luminous flux: lm, Total Load: W, Luminous efficacy: lm/w Luminous efficacy: 52.2 lm/w Lighting power density: 2.13 W/m² = 0.88 W/m²/100 lx Lighting power density: 5.72 W/m² = 2.56 W/m²/100 lx (Ground area m²) (Ground area m²) Consumption: 1050 kwh/a of maximum kwh/a Consumption: 2850 kwh/a of maximum kwh/a Page 2

3 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND COST ANALYSIS OF COMPARISON CASE STUDY Page 3

4 TABLE OF RESULTS FOR COMPARISON CASE STUDY POWER W W LAMP LUMINOUS FLUX lm lm LUMINAIRE LUMINOUS FLUX lm lm LUMINOUS EFFICACY lm/w 28.3 lm/w LIGHT OUTPUT RATIO 99.62% % TOTAL LAMP LUMINOUS FLUX lm lm TOTAL LUMINAIRE LUMINOUS FLUX lm lm TOTAL LOAD W W ENERGY CONSUMPTION 1050 kwh/a 2850 kwh/a COSTS 312 /a 849 /a LUX MEAN VALUE (TARGET FOR OFFICE REQUIREMENT=200lx) 242 lx 223 lx COMPARISON CONCLUSION: The case study of the first luminaire (160W LED Highbay light), presents severe advantages over that of the second case study's luminaire (HPS 400W Highbay fixture). This first case provides a more efficient solution, which leads to lower energy consumption and thus lower cost at an annual basis. The unit and total lamp luminous flux values of the first case may be lower compared to that of the second case but the unit and total luminaire values of the first one show 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. Page 4

5 HIGHBAY COMPARISON IN WAREHOUSE APPLICATION CASE STUDY ADDITIONAL VISUAL RESULTS OF COMPARISON CASE STUDY Warehouse side-view and light distribution outside the office-container. Warehouse front-view and light ditribution between the storage racks Warehouse rare-view and light ditribution around the storage racks Page 5