Round 11 Retailer Synopsis The Department of Energy s (DOE) Commercially Available LED Product Evaluation and Reporting (CALiPER) Program has been testing general illumination solid-state lighting (SSL) products since 2006. 1 CALiPER summary reports provide analysis of photometric performance of SSL products, along with discussion of specific factors to consider for different lighting applications. Round 11 of CALiPER testing was conducted from March 2010 to September 2010. In this round, 31 products, representing five product types, were tested following the IESNA LM-79-08 testing method. These product types included: 1. Roadway, arm-mount luminaires, 2. Roadway, post-top luminaires, 3. Linear replacement lamps, 4. High-bay luminaires, and 5. Small replacement lamps (MR16, PAR lamps, A-lamps, and a candelabra lamp). This synopsis will focus on replacement lamps as they are the most relevant to Facts retailer and distributor partners. The SSL products tested in Round 11 exhibited a wide range of performance in efficacy, correlated color temperature, color rendering index, and power factor. This was especially true for replacement lamps. The overall average efficacy for SSL products tested in Round 11 was 57 lm/w, ranging from 26 lm/w to 93 lm/w. The color temperatures were closer to warm and neutral white for replacement lamps and over 5000K for outdoor and high-bay products, partly due to the product options. The average CRI was 75, with slightly better CRI on average in replacement lamps. Average Measured Efficacy of SSL Luminaires & Replacement Lamps Round 11 findings confirm that the average and maximum efficacy has been steadily increasing since CALiPER testing began in 2006. In fact, the minimum efficacy seen in Round 11 is actually higher than the overall average efficacy observed in 2007 (a 26 lm/w minimum in Round 11 versus a 21 lm/w average in 2007). While this round included products with misleading equivalency claims and inaccurate -published performance metrics, a substantial number of products posted accurate performance This was particularly true for products with the Facts label. Small Replacement Lamps Summary DOE tested a wide variety of small replacement lamps in Round 11. Many of the SSL replacement lamps were selected because their performance levels appear to be improving compared to earlier products. Among replacement lamps that carry the Facts label, the performance of all except two matched 1 Summary Reports for Rounds 1-11 are available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/reports.html.
performance However, challenges remain on lamp equivalencies. Several products do not meet standard lamp geometries for the type of lamp they claim to replace and a number of products do not meet average light output levels or beam characteristics of standards bulbs. Omni-directional lamps: Two SSL A-lamps, One SSL candelabra-based lamp, One frosted 60W incandescent A19 lamp The SSL omni-directional replacement lamps achieved similar or increased efficacy levels compared to CFLs. While the SSL A-lamps surpassed the 40W incandescent, none of them achieved the light output or distribution characteristics of the benchmark 60W incandescent A19 lamp. There is also a wide range of performance in every category of incandescent A-lamps on the market. Some s may be justifying inflated equivalency claims by comparing them to products that do not perform as well rather than to averages or published criteria. In other cases, s may be publishing misleading equivalency claims in an effort to deflect the differences in the directionality of incandescent and SSL products, which can result in higher fixture inefficiencies in some applications. Retailers must work to educate consumers on the directional differences in lamps and with s to develop more effective communication on equivalencies. Table 1. CALiPER ROUND 11 Omni-directional Replacement Lamp 10-03 A19-lamp 10-28 A-lamp 10-23 Candelabra / Performance Level 60W incandescent equivalence, does not meet average. 40W incandescent equivalence, does not meet average. Meets (within 5%) performance of 15W incandescent. / Within 10% of claims / Within 5% of claims / Lamp Exceeds diameter for A19 bulb (2 ¾ vs. 2 ⅜ ) / / Only listed for more recent versions of this product. Only listed for 3000K version of this product. / 60W Incandescent & CFL replacement lamp optimized for down light applications Equivalent to 15W, suitable for 25W accent applications. Directional: Two SSL MR16 lamps and two 35W halogen MR16 lamps Overall, there is a continual improvement in light output and efficacy of MR16 lamps. Both MR16 lamps exceeded the efficacy of halogen MR16 lamps. However, neither achieved the light output or CBCP levels of 35W halogens. The better-performing MR16, which is registered with Facts, exceeded performance The MR16 lamp with no Facts label had significantly overstated performance (See table 2, page 3)
Table 2. CALiPER ROUND 11 MR16 Replacement Lamp Performance Level and Equivalence Lamp 10-02 MR16 35W and 50W equivalence, does not meet 20W minimum. 450 lm, 90 lm/w; CALiPER shows 152 lm, 31 lm/w Slightly exceeds max overall length and neck length. Significantly performance 10-30 MR16 / Compares to and exceeds average performance of 20W halogen. / claimed performance levels. Exceeds max length (2.1 vs 1.9 ) and lens height. / Cannot be covered (includes internal fan). One PAR30, Three PAR38, Two AR111 SSL lamps, One ceramic metal halide PAR38 with integral ballast A number of SSL products now meet the light output and beam characteristics of 50-75W halogen PAR lamps, while using 70-80% less power. None of the SSL PAR lamps achieve the light output or efficacy of a 25W ceramic metal halide PAR 38. None of the PAR lamps had overstated performance claims compared to product specifications or Facts labels, although one underperformed by 10-20%. However, consumers could be misled by the two PAR lamps that included exaggerated equivalency Although all of the SSL PAR lamps claimed to be warm-white (2700K) products, none of them actually achieved this color temperature, and three out of four of the SSL PAR lamps would not meet ANSI standards for lamp dimensions. Table 3. CALiPER ROUND 11 PAR38 and AR111 Replacement Lamp 09-112 PAR30 Performance Level (No equivalency ) Meets ~50W halogen 10-04 PAR38 50-90W halogen equivalence, meets 50-55W, not 90W halogen / / Lamp Not standard or diameter length for short or long PAR30. / / D uv (color quality) exceeds ANSI tolerance and has low CRI (64).
(Table 3, continued) Performance Level 10-11 PAR38 75W halogen equivalence, meets 65-70W halogen 10-29 PAR38 BK09-111 PAR38 09-114 AR111 10-01 AR111 No equivalency Meets ~85W halogen / Compares to 60W HIR and 90W standard halogen. (No equivalency ) Does not meet equivalence of 45W halogen. equivalent output up to 75W halogen. Meets ~45W halogen Overstates performance by 15-20% / Meets light output and efficacy, but incorrect CCT (labeled 2700K, measured 4056K)* Lamp Slightly exceeds max overall length. Slightly too short neck + skirt length. / Meets CCT and CRI, but not light output and efficacy. / Meets light output and efficacy; incorrect CCT* / / Not applicable. 600 lm, 40 lm/w; CALiPER shows 451 lm, 30 lm/w / performance Irregularities in product wiring. Two samples had different, nonstandard connectors. / Adjustable power product (3 wattage levels), tested at highest power setting. Somewhat performance. Added weight of the device may cause instability of a free-standing portable lamp. (Heavy.) Ceramic Metal Halide with integrated ballast Significantly product performance. * Note that after receiving test results on product 10-29, two additional samples were ordered to determine whether the incorrect CCT was an on-going problem. While these samples were received too late to be LM-79 tested, visual inspection shows that the samples from a more recent batch have the correct CCT (~2700K). Linear Replacement Lamps Summary DOE tested six SSL 4-foot linear replacement lamp products in Round 11. This product category experienced a number of failures, which resulted in the need for more product examples. Of the four SSL linear replacement lamps with the Facts label, three met or exceeded their Facts claims for light output and efficacy, and one missed the Facts claim by about 9 percent (The 9% efficacy difference is within the Facts allowed tolerances). All six SSL linear replacement lamps met or exceeded claims for light output in lumens, disregarding samples that malfunctioned, and four out of six of the SSL linear replacement lamps met or exceeded efficacy levels claimed by the
. Both of the fluorescent benchmarks also failed to fall within fluorescent tolerances for white light. The majority of the linear replacement lamps tested in Round 11 did not meet product ratings or claims regarding color qualities. While claims about light output and efficacy are increasingly more accurate, misleading statements about product equivalency are still being published. Many factors such as cost, reliability, and light distribution should also be considered when comparing SSL linear lamps to fluorescent alternatives. To provide comparable light output to the singlelamp fluorescent troffer, two SSL lamps would be required, which would increase cost. Additionally, SSL linear replacement lamps pose a significant challenge because they are not designed to be mounted or powered in existing fluorescent troffers. The majority of SSL linear replacement lamps require maintenance, such as the removal of the troffer ballast, to function correctly. The challenges associated with retrofitting troffers raises cost, safety, and standards issues. These issues are being reviewed by DOE, NEMA, CSA, UL, and other lighting organizations that wish to provide clear guidance for buyers on SSL linear lamps. The linear replacement lamps tested in Round 11 achieved respectable efficacy levels and the product category shows progress. Despite this, SSL linear replacement lamps are still not achieving the same light levels and distribution as fluorescent products and have cost and reliability issues. Using two SSLs to replace a single-lamp troffer may be a viable solution in some cases, but SSL linear lamps will not typically be the most cost-effective or reliable option. Conclusion The rapid evolution of SSL products has resulted in new and increasingly diverse versions of products in the market, and it can be difficult to determine the performance of any particular product. However, claims about product performance metrics are becoming more accurate, especially when the provides an LM-79 test report or submits the data to Facts. Facts is not a complete guarantee that a product will perform as the promises, but CALiPER testing shows an increased chance that a product will meet or exceed claims when carrying this label. Buyers should be wary of all product life claims due to the range of behaviors observed in long-term operation of SSL and the rapid rate of change in SSL technology. Lumen depreciation is only one of many possible failures in SSL luminaires and replacement lamps. Although some products are achieving high levels of lumen maintenance after long hours of operation, many products fail much more rapidly through lumen depreciation, color shift, driver failure, or other modes of failure.