Delta S. Mall Towers - Lighting Research Center · South Mall Towers is an apartment com-plex for...

DDEELLTTAAPortfolioDemonstration and Evaluation of Lighting Technologies and Applications • Lighting Research Center

Lighting Case Studies ▲ Volume 2, Issue 4

South Mall Towers ApartmentsAlbany, New York

Type:Senior residential facility

Site Sponsors:Capital Area Consortium on Aging and DisabilityNew York State Energy Researchand Development AuthorityNortheast UtilitiesPhilips Lighting

2

Project ProfileSouth Mall Towers is an apartment com-plex for seniors and disabled adults inAlbany, New York, built in 1974. Thecomplex consists of two ten-story towers.The upper nine floors in each tower areprivate apartments. The ground floor ofeach tower houses common areas, admin-istrative offices, and building servicesspaces. The two towers have a shelteredgarden area between them but are other-wise surrounded by busy urban streets.

Most of South Mall Towers’ residents areseniors with low or moderate incomes,although some are young people with dis-abilities. Residents range in age from 20 to90 years. A significant proportion of theresidents are disabled in some way; aboutone-quarter of the residents are partiallysighted.

The complex consists of two types ofapartments, one-bedroom apartments and

“alcove” apartments, where the bed is setin an alcove off the living room. (ThisDELTA Portfolio examines only the morepopular one-bedroom apartments.) Bothtypes have an entryway, a bathroom, anda kitchen area connected to a diningarea/living room.

Three factors influenced the decision torelight South Mall Towers: • The previous lighting was coming to the

end of its useful life and neededreplacement.

• The sponsors strongly believed thatimproving the lighting would lead to abetter quality of life for the residents.

• The sponsors expected that better light-ing would enhance the appearance ofthe complex and would lead to a higheroccupancy level.

South Mall Towers also proved to be anideal site for testing lighting principles forsenior facilities. As part of this project, theLighting Research Center produceddesigns for renovating lighting in both thecommon areas and apartments. Thesedesigns used different types of lightingequipment, but all followed principlesbased on the optical characteristics of theaging eye. As people age, light is increas-ingly absorbed and scattered in the eye.Increased absorption means that seniorsbenefit more from higher illuminancesthan young people. Increased scatteringmeans seniors are more sensitive to glarethan younger people, and they see lessclearly. Increased absorption and scatter-ing together render seniors less able tomake fine color discriminations. The newlighting was designed to provide morelight on all the surfaces of the rooms, toincrease illuminances at task locations, tocontrol glare, and to use better color ren-dering light sources.

South Mall Towers Apartments, Albany, New York

3

Portfolio Lighting Case Studies

● Lighting Objectives

● Provide lighting that improves the visual capabilities ofseniors.

● Provide lighting that seniors find attractive and comfortable.

● Use energy-efficient lighting products to minimize the lightingpower density.

● Use reliable lighting products to minimize maintenance costs.

▲Lighting and Control Features

▲ Uniform Illumination. Suspended direct / indirect luminaires using fluo-rescent lamps distribute light evenly across the ceiling and walls, whiledirectly illuminating the tables in the community room. In the corridors,ceiling luminaires are closely spaced to ensure uniform illumination. Inthe apartments, a component of indirect lighting is used to spread lightover the whole room.

▲ Glare control. Direct view of lamps is limited by using indirect lighting,baffles on the downward component of the lighting, and fascias andvalances for wall-mounted lighting.

▲ Task lighting. Luminaires are positioned to provide high illuminances inplaces where difficult visual tasks are performed, for example, on coun-ters in apartment kitchens, on the administrative office counter, and onthe bulletin board.

▲ Energy efficiency. Primary light sources are all fluorescent, either linear orcompact fluorescent, operated on electronic ballasts wherever possible.Occupancy sensors reduce corridor light levels when no one is present.

▲ Environmental responsibility. The T8 fluorescent lamps installed have alow mercury content.

▲ Flexible control. Compact fluorescent lamp ballasts that allow three-levelswitching provide individual control of table and floor lamps in apart-ments. Linear fluorescent lighting in the community room can bedimmed with a wallbox dimmer as needed.

▲ Brightness adaptation. Lobby cove lighting dims after dark to reduce thedifference in brightness between the outdoors and the lobby at night.

Seniors are more likely than younger peopleto be partially sighted and to suffer fromshallow, fragmented sleep. Exposure to brightlight can help overcome the effects of someforms of partial sight and can improve thequality of sleep. The challenge for the light-ing designer is to provide bright light expo-sure without visual discomfort. At South MallTowers, this problem was solved by provid-ing an electric skylight in the mail area opento the community room. The light output ofthe skylight is variable, the maximum illumi-nance at the eye being 300 fc (3200 lx). Thelarge acrylic prismatic panels minimizeglare. The residents’ initial response to thislight therapy area has been positive.

7' - 0"

3' -

0"

Section through electric skylight

4

Project Specifications:Common AreasWhen South Mall Towers was built in 1974, theprincipal light source used in the common areaswas the 40-W T12 CW (cool-white) fluorescentlamp operated on a magnetic ballast. In 1990, autility-sponsored retrofit changed these lamps to34-W T12 CW fluorescent lamps operated onelectronic ballasts. These lamps had a correlatedcolor temperature (CCT) of 4100 K and a color-rendering index (CRI) of 62. In 1998, the lightingsystems evaluated for this report were installed.Now the principal light sources are 32-W T8 low-mercury rapid-start (RS) fluorescent lamps, operat-ed on electronic ballasts. These lamps have a CCTof 3500 K (neutral) and a CRI of 75. Many ofthese lamps are driven by dimming electronic bal-lasts, either a two-wire continuous-dimming bal-last for easy retrofit with a companion wall-boxdimmer (types CA, CB), or a 0- to 10-V controlballast where time clocks or occupancy sensorstrigger either maximum or minimum output (typesCD, CI, CL). Both kinds of dimming ballasts arecapable of dimming the lamps to 8% of maxi-

mum light output. All other T8 lamps are drivenwith instant-start, high power factor (HPF), lowtotal harmonic distortion (THD) electronic ballasts.

In addition, the new design uses many luminaireswith compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) driven byelectronic ballasts. Decorative round ceiling-mounted luminaires use CFQ26W lamps, deco-rative pendants in the lobby use FT18W lamps,and recessed wall washers use FT40W lamps.All the lamps have a CCT of 3500 K (neutral) anda CRI of 82. All electronic ballasts are RS, HPFwith an end-of-life sensing safety feature.

CA Pendant-mounted up/downlight (60% up;40% down), two fluorescent lamps incross section. Rounded extruded alu-minum housing, 3.5” x 12” (89 x 310mm), assembled in rectangular configura-tions. Electronic dimming ballasts. Down-ward aperture uses white-painted alu-minum baffles, 1.5” (38 mm) high by 3”(76 mm) on center. Lamps: (2) F32T8/735per 4’ (1220 mm) length.

CB Ceiling-mounted striplight, 8’(2440 mm) long, one fluorescentlamp in cross section. Striplightconcealed behind job-built woodfascia. Electronic dimming bal-lasts. Lamps: (2) F32T8/735

CC Wall-mounted downlight lumi-naire, 6” x 6” x 8’ long (150 mm x150 mm x 2440 mm), one fluores-cent lamp in cross section. Down-light aperture has 3/4” high x 3/4”on center (18 mm x 18 mm)white-painted aluminum baffles. Lamps: (2) F32T8/735

CD Simulated skylight with T8 fluores-cent lamp striplights, dimmingballasts, and prismatic lenses.Skylight (see page 3) used forexperimental light therapy.(Results not addressed in this pub-lication.)

Techniques

LOBBY CORRIDORCG

CH

LOBBYCG

0' 2' 4' 8' 12'

0m 1m 2m 4m

CF

CB

CF

CF

CDCK

CJ

CI

CC CE

CACA

COMMUNITY ROOMLIGHTTHERAPY

ROOM

CA

CB

NORTH

Lighting plan, common areas

12"

8"

5


Wattage

Input wattages for luminaires include ballastwatts and are estimated from manufacturers’published literature. All calculations were basedon the following values:

T8 fluorescent lamps (with 2- or 3-lamp elec-tronic continuous-dimming ballast, at full lightoutput)

F32T8 (4’): 35 W per lamp

T8 fluorescent lamps (with 2-lamp electronic 0-10V control dimming ballast, at full light output)


T8 fluorescent lamps (with 2-lamp non-dimminginstant-start electronic ballast, at full light output)


CFL lamps (electronic ballast)CFQ26: 29 W per lampFT18: 18 W per lamp FT40: 44 W per lamp

CE Surface-mounted downlight, 6” x 4’(150 mm x 1220 mm), two fluorescentlamps in cross section. White-paintedbaffles 1” high x 1” on center (25 mm x25 mm). Lamps: (2) F32T8/735

CF Recessed linear wall washer, 8” x 2’(200 mm x 1220 mm), one CFL in crosssection. White-painted 1” (75 mm) highbaffles. Lamp: FT40W/2G11/RS/835

CG Recessed luminaire, 1’ x 4’ (300 mm x1220 mm), two fluorescent lamps incross section, with white-painted 3” (76mm) high parabolic baffles. Wide lightdistribution perpendicular to lamps; nar-row, lengthwise. Lamps: (2) F32T8/735

CH Recessed downlight, 8” x 4’ (200 mm x1220 mm), two fluorescent lamps incross section, with 3” high white-paint-ed parabolic baffles. Lamps: (2) F32T8/735

CI Striplight, 8’ (2440 mm) or 4’ (1220mm) long, one fluorescent lamp in crosssection, mounted as uplight in lobbycove. Electronic dimming ballast.Lamp: F32T8/735

CJ Pendant-mounted CFL luminaire, withdecorative translucent acrylic bowl, 22”(560 mm) in diameter. Lamps: (4) FT18W/2G11/RS/835

CK Ceiling-mounted semi-direct luminaire,two CFLs in cross section. White-paint-ed egg-crate louver in downlight aper-ture with 1/2”x 1/2”x 1/2” (12 mm x 12mm x 12 mm) cells. Lamps: (2) CFQ26W/G24q/835

CL Surface-mounted “stacklight” luminaire,one fluorescent lamp in cross section,with U-shaped white-painted aluminumbaffles spaced 1” (25 mm) apart. Elec-tronic dimming ballast. Lamp: F32T8/735

DetailsCommon AreasThe lighting in the South Mall Towers commonspaces was replaced in 1998. It was designedto meet the needs of seniors and the partiallysighted by: • Providing more light on all surfaces• Providing even light with minimal shadows• Controlling glare from luminaires.

These principles were implemented by:• Specifying luminaires which control glare bydirecting light onto room surfaces and tasklocations, but not into the eyes of users• Reducing luminaire brightness by specifyingluminaires with baffles or louvers, which oftenappear less glaring than luminaires with lenses,diffusers, or shiny elements that allow a reflect-ed view of the lamp

• Locating luminaires near places where spe-cific tasks are performed, such as over a foodservice counter.

Community Room The communityroom is the social center of South Mall Towers.Residents come here throughout the day formeals, activities, and companionship. Entertain-ment in the form of craft classes, bingo, televi-sion, movies, talks, and birthday parties takesplace in the community room. Residents alsocollect their mail and meet their friends and rel-atives.

The main part of the community room is 60’(18 m) long by 19’ (5.7 m) wide with a ceilingheight of 11.5’ (3.5 m). It is furnished as two

parts; a dining area with institutional-lookingtables and chairs, and a relaxation area whereeasy chairs are arranged around coffee tables.Attached to the main area are a small officearea, a kitchen with servery, and a mailboxarea, all with a ceiling height of 8’ (2.4 m)and are not treated in this publication.

During the day, the lighting of the main areais dominated by daylight admitted throughlarge windows on the north and east walls.Daylight is reduced in winter when 4’ (1.2 m)high sheets of insulating material are placedagainst the lower parts of the windows toreduce discomfort from radiant cooling anddrafts. After dark, the electric lightingbecomes more prominent.

7"

4"

6

Details

Previous conditions The original lighting ofthe community room consisted of ten 4’ x 4’(1.2 m x 1.2 m) ceiling-mounted opal diffuserluminaires, each using six 34-W T12 CW fluo-rescent lamps and three RS electronic ballasts.The small office area and mailbox area off thecommunity room were primarily lighted with

the same wraparound fluorescent lamp lumi-naires used in the lobby and corridors. Afterdark, the space appeared dim, but evenly light-ed, with some glare.

New conditions The old acoustical ceiling inthe Community Room was replaced during the

lighting renovation, in order to maximize theamount of reflected light in the space.Up/down lights (type CA) were installed 2’ (0.6 m) from the ceiling, in three 8’ x 12’ rec-tangles (2.4 m x 3.6 m). These brighten up theceiling and upper parts of the walls, and thelamp brightness on the bottom side is blockedby white baffles. This luminaire provides mostof the task and ambient lighting in the space.In the small office and in the alcove at the edgeof the room, there is a simple valance luminairethat draws attention to the bookshelves. This iscreated with a fluorescent striplight concealedwith an 8” (200 mm) tall wood fascia. Wall-mounted over the window to the kitchen is an8’ long (2.4 m) luminaire (type CC), directinglight down onto the food service counter.

The mailroom has been remodeled into a lighttherapy area that opens to the CommunityRoom (see sidebar on page 3).

During a sunny day in May, the combinationsof daylight and the old electric lighting systemproduced illuminances on the food and coffeetables ranging from 20 to 110 footcandles (fc)[210 to 1100 lux (lx)], the higher illuminancesbeing measured close to the windows. Byitself, the previous electric lighting system deliv-ered an average of only 19 fc (200 lx) of ambi-

Community room showing previous lighting

Perspective of community room. (The values for the new lighting are for electric lighting only.Previous values shown in parentheses include both electric lighting and daylight.)

Community room showing new lighting (type CA)

170 cd/m2

490 cd/m2

130 cd/m2

510 cd/m2

85 fc(94)

110 fc(42)

51 fc(15)

130 fc(20)

4900 cd/m2

43 fc(N/A)

83 fc(N/A)

CA

7


ent light. The new electric lighting alone produces51 to 110 fc (550 to 1200 lx) of ambient light, easi-ly exceeding illuminances recommended in theIlluminating Engineering Society of North America’sRecommended Practice 28, “Lighting and the Visu-al Environment for Senior Living” (see Evaluation).

Lobby The lobby of South MallTowers is a small space, 21’ by 10’with an 8’ ceiling (6.4 m x 3.1 m x2.4 m). On the north side are dou-ble glass entrance doors forming anentry vestibule that reduces heatloss. Two elevator doors open in thewest wall, and a large photomuraldecorates the south wall. The onlyfurnishings are three small chairsand a newspaper vending machine.The lobby is primarily used for cir-culation and for meeting people.

Previous conditions The lobby’sprevious lighting consisted of two 4’(1.2 m) long, ceiling-mounted fluo-rescent luminaires with prismaticwraparound lenses. A third such

luminaire was used to light thevestibule. Each two-lamp luminaireused 34-W T12 CW fluorescentlamps on an electronic ballast. Thephotomural was lighted with twoeyeball-type luminaires, each lumi-naire containing one 65-W incandes-cent floodlight, but was uneven. Indaytime, daylight reaches the lobbythrough the glass doors, making itappear bright and evenly lighted.After dark, however, the lobby light-ing was seen as uneven and glaring.Because seniors’ eyes take longer toadapt to a change in brightness, thedifference in brightness between thelobby and the outdoors made it diffi-cult for residents to see clearly imme-diately after leaving the building.

Lobby showing previous lighting

Lobby showing new lighting (types CI and CJ)

Perspective of lobby, night (previous values shown in parentheses)

18 fc(21)

9 cd/m2

(6)

14 cd/m2

(6)

1840 cd/m2

(6737)

939 cd/m2

(495)

CI CJ

8

Details

New conditions In 1998, the lobby lightingwas replaced with cove lighting (type CI), pen-dants (type CJ), and recessed wall washers (typeCF). The apparent size of the lobby has beenincreased by opening up the plenum to install a2’-6” (0.76 m) high coffer containing two pen-dants for decorative effect. Glare has beenreduced because the whole coffer acts as alarge area light source. The cove lighting isautomatically dimmed to 8% of full light outputat night by a time clock, reducing the brightnessdifference between lobby and outdoors. Thephotomural is now lighted by using tworecessed CFL wall-washing luminaires (type CF)centered 28” (710 mm) from the wall.

After dark, with the cove lighting dimmed, illu-minances on the floor of the lobby are verysimilar to previous values, but the brightness ofthe cove is considerably less than that of theprevious luminaire (see values on illustration onpage 7). As for the photomural wall, illumi-nances are much higher than before, but theilluminance distribution is still uneven, particu-larly at the top of the wall (visible in lobby cor-ridor photos and drawing on page 9).

night. The previous lighting ofthe corridor consisted of three4’ (1.2 m) long fluorescentlamp wraparound luminaires,two luminaires along the corri-dor and one in the small entrylobby. The two short corridorsgiving access to the communityroom were not lighted. Bothday and night, the corridorappeared dim, and the lightwas unevenly distributed.Points of interest received onlyincidental light from the corri-dor lighting.

New conditions Luminaireswere located to make it easierto read notices on the bulletinboard, to read and write whileat the main administrativeoffice counter, to see the payphone push buttons more easi-ly, and to provide more light inthe short corridors giving accessto the community room. The

Lobby corridor The lobbycorridor is one of the main circula-tion routes in South Mall Towers. Itprovides access from the lobbyand elevators to the communityroom, the main administrativeoffice, the laundry room, andanother exit door. It is 64’ (19 m)long by 6’ (1.8 m) wide with an 8’(2.4 m) ceiling. The corridor con-tains the administrative office win-dow/counter, a bulletin boardwhere notices and event advertis-ing are posted, a pay phone, and awater fountain.

Previous conditions Very littledaylight reaches this corridorthrough the small entry lobby, sothe lighting is similar both day and

Lobby corridor, showing previous lighting

Lobby corridor, showing new lighting (type CG)

Perspective of lobby corridor (previous values shown in parentheses)

1629 cd/m2

(6736)

34 cd/m2

(0.7)

13 fc(1.6)

16 fc(1.8)

15 fc(1.6) 32 fc

(2.7)

29 fc(13)

34 fc(17)

CG

9


corridor now is lighted with six recessed 1’x 4’(0.3 x 1.2 m) recessed, baffled luminaires (typeCG), spaced 10’ (3 m) on center. Additional 2’(0.6 m) wall-washing luminaires (type CF) areinstalled in each of the short corridors leadingto the community room and adjacent to thebulletin board. Task lighting over the mainadministrative office counter is provided by tworecessed 9” x 4’ (230 x 1200 mm) fluorescentluminaires (type CH) with baffles.

The new lighting increases average illuminanceon the floor of the corridor and improves uni-formity (new average/minimum illuminance =1.7; previous average/minimum illuminance =5.9). The maximum brightness of the lumi-naires is reduced, thereby reducing glare, whilethe illuminances on work surfaces are dramati-cally increased.

Residential corridor The nine apart-ment floors of South Mall Towers have a seriesof corridors lined with irregularly spaced doors

(see Lighting plan, retrofitted apart-ments, on page 11). One of theseresidential corridors was relightedas part of this project. This corridoris 5.5’ (1.7 m) wide with an 8’ (2.4m) high ceiling. At one end of thecorridor is a small elevator lobby,while at the other a vestibule givesaccess to the street. Residential cor-ridors that are not at street levelhave a large window at their ends.

Previous conditions The residen-tial corridor was lighted 24 hours aday by 4’ (1.2 m) ceiling-mountedluminaires with wraparound opaldiffusers, spaced 16’ to 30’ (4.9 to9.1 m) on center, oriented cross-wise to the corridor. Daylight fromthe end of the corridor contributedlittle to its illuminance, but the win-dows or doors were a disturbingsource of glare during the day. After

Administrative office counter in lobby corridor, showing previous lighting

Administrative office counter in lobby corridor,showing new lighting (type CH)

Perspective of administrative office counter in lobby corridor (previous values shown in parentheses)

29 cd/m2

(2.1)

57 fc(3)

67 fc(5.4)

47 fc(14)

68 fc(3.4)

37 fc(8)

CH

10

dark, the previous lighting was seen as glaringand uneven.

New conditions Because the ceiling is con-crete, the newly installed lighting system waslimited to surface-mounted luminaires andwiring. “Stacklight” luminaires (type CL) arespaced 12’ (3.6 m) on center parallel to thelength of the corridor. These luminaires spreadlight on the side walls, but U-shaped white baf-fles block the direct view of the lamp as resi-dents travel the corridor. Round ceiling-mount-ed luminaires (type CK) are used to distinguishelevator and entry lobbies, as well as turningpoints in the corridors. These CFL units haveopaque sides but feature upward spill light andlouvered downlight to reduce direct glare andthe relative brightness of the luminaire againstthe ceiling.

To save energy, the stacklight luminaires areconnected to three occupancy sensors. Whenany one of the occupancy sensors detectssomeone entering the corridor, all the lumi-naires are turned to full light output. They stayin this condition until 20 seconds after thespace becomes vacant, then revert to 8% of fulllight output. For safety reasons, the luminairesare never fully switched off.

At full output, the new lighting in the corridorprovides higher illuminances on the floor of thecorridor than the previous lighting (see rangeson illustration above). Horizontal illuminancesare more uniform (new average/minimum =1.09 ; previous average/minimum = 2.78 ).Luminaire brightness is also lower, reducingglare from the electric lighting, but the daylightglare is still a problem.

Details

Residential corridor,showing previous lighting

Residential corridor, showing new lighting (type CL)Perspective of residential corridor, new lighting

(previous values shown in parentheses)

1240 cd/m2

(5600)73 cd/m2

(300)19 cd/m2

(3.5)

37 fc(35)

21 fc(20)

11 fc(11)

(underluminaire)

(betweenluminaires)

9 fc(3)

14 fc (13)(under

luminaire)

7 fc (2)(between

luminaires)

8 fc(2)

8 fc(2)

19 cd/m2

(6)

CL

11


Project Specifications:Retrofitted ApartmentsThis phase of the project was designed to testwhether a simple lighting retrofit in the one-bedroom apartments could improve visual con-ditions and energy efficiency. Every apartmentmeasures 600 ft2 (56 m2) with an entryway, hall,separate bedroom, bathroom, storage closet,kitchen, and combined living/dining room. Theshort entryway has a closet on one side. Boththe living/dining room and bedroom have largewindows.

Previous conditions Until 1997, standardincandescent A-lamps of various wattages andT12 CW fluorescent lamps were commonlyused in these apartments. The incandescentlamps were used in surface-mounted frostedglobes in the entryway, hallway, and closet. A-lamps were also used in table lamps provided

by the residents in the bedroom and livingroom. Fluorescent lamps were used in two-lamp 4’ (1.2 m) prismatic wraparound lumi-naires in the kitchen and dining area, and 2’(0.6 m) two-lamp luminaires with yellowingpolystyrene diffusers mounted above the mir-ror in the bathroom.

New conditions In 1997, twelve one-bed-room apartments were temporarily retrofittedwith new lighting. All luminaires were eitherconnected directly to existing electrical boxesor plugged into existing outlets. They used lin-ear or compact fluorescent lamps with warmCCTs (2700 K or 3000 K). The twelve apart-ments received one of two lighting schemes,in order to test alternative products. (The alter-nate luminaires have the same letter code,with a “ ' “added.) Wherever possible, elec-tronic ballasts were used to minimize noise,

flicker, and wattage (types RA’, RB, RC, RD, RE,RE’, RG, and RH’). All other products usedHPF RS magnetic ballasts (type RA) or electron-ically ballasted screwbase CFL products (typesRB’, RD’, RF, RF’, and RG’).

RA Ceiling-mounted CFL luminaire, twolamps in cross section, 1’ x 1’ (300 mmx 300 mm) square, with clear prismaticlens.Lamps: (2) FT18W/2G11/RS/830.

RA'Ceiling-mounted fluorescent lamp lumi-naire, 2’ x 3” (600 mm x 76 mm), twolamps in cross section, with U-shapedacrylic lens; sides of lens are clear pris-matic, bottom is opaque white. Lamps: (2) F17T8/730

TechniquesRETROFITTED APARTMENTS:

MAIN SCHEMERETROFITTED APARTMENTS:

ALTERNATE SCHEME

RF

RD RD'

RG

RA

RE RE'

RA' RH'RC RCRB

CK CL CKRESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR

CK

CF

RB'

RG' RF'

NORTH

0' 2' 4' 8' 12'

0m 1m 2m 4m

Lighting plan,retrofitted apartments

TechniquesRB Ceiling-mounted fluorescent lamp

luminaire, 14” x 4’ (350 mm x 1220mm), two lamps in cross section withsolid, white-painted wood frame andwhite acrylic diffuser panel. Lamps: (2) F32T8/730

RB' Close-to-ceiling up/downlight pen-dant with sandblasted glass diffuserand an etched glass centerpiece.Unit is designed for three medium-base incandescent lamps, butinstalled with three screwbase CFLs.Lamps: (3) Triple tube 23/827

RC Undercabinet fluorescent lamp lumi-naire, 2’ x 5” x 2” (600 mm x 130mm x 51 mm), one lamp in cross sec-tion, with clear prismatic acrylic lens,mounted at front edge of cabinet. Lamp: F17T8/730

RD Close-to-ceiling CFL up/downlight.Cone-shaped opal glass diffuser and1/2” x 1/2” x 1/2” (13 mm x 13 mm x13 mm) aluminum cube louver tocontrol downlight brightness. Lamp: CFM42W/GX24z

RD'Pendant-mounted mostly downlightluminaire, 15” (380 mm) in diameter,with white acrylic diffuser on bottomaperture and lighted reveal. Unit isdesigned for three medium-baseincandescent lamps, but installedwith three screwbase CFLs. Lamps: (3) Triple tube 23/827

RE Wall-mounted fluorescent lamp lumi-naire with opaque front, 6” x 2’ (150mm x 600 mm), two lamps in crosssection, mounted above mirror inbathroom. Up aperture is open; clearacrylic prismatic lens faces down-ward. Lamps: (2) F17T8/730

12

RE' Wall-mounted fluorescent luminaire,6-1/2” x 3’ (160 mm x 900 mm), twolamps in cross section, mountedabove mirror in bathroom. Up aper-ture is open; white acrylic diffuserfaces downward. Front is opaque,with decorative slot for spill light. Lamps: (2) F25T8/730

RF Portable CFL floor lamp with three-way socket designed for incandes-cent lamp. Installed with screwbaseelectronic ballast that allows 3 levelsof light output for replaceable CFLs. Lamp: CFS38W/827

RF' Portable CFL table lamp with three-way socket designed for incandes-cent lamp. Installed with screwbaseelectronic ballast that allows 3 levelsof light output for replaceable CFLs. Lamp: CFS38W/827

RG Portable CFL torchiere, 6’ (1.8 m).Integral switches permit three levelsof light: one lamp, two lamps, or allthree. Lamps: (3) FT36W/2G11/830

RG'Portable CFL floor lamp, with three-way socket and electronic ballast thatallows 3 levels of light output forreplaceable CFL lamp. Lamp: CFS38W/827

RH'Ceiling-mounted fluorescent lumi-naire, 5” x 2’ (130 mm x 600 mm),one lamp in cross section, with L-shaped clear acrylic linear prismaticlens. Lamp: F17T8/RE730

WattageInput wattages for luminaires include ballast watts and were estimated frommanufacturers’ published literature. All calculations were based on the following values:

T8 fluorescent lamps (electronic ballast)F17T8 (2’): 20 W per lamp for 2-lamp

ballastF17T8 (2’): 17 W per lamp for 1-lamp

ballastF25T8 (3’): 23 W per lamp for 2-lamp

ballast F32T8 (4’): 29 W per lamp

Compact fluorescent lamps:FT18: 21 W per lamp for 2-lamp

magnetic ballast FT36: 35 W per lamp for 2-lamp

electronic ballast CFS38: 34 W per lamp for

electronic stepped-dimming ballastCFM42: 48 W per lamp for electronic

ballast

Screwbase compact fluorescent lamps(integral electronic ballast)

Triple tube 23: 23 W per lamp


13

DetailsRetrofitted ApartmentsThe residents at South Mall Towers spend a lotof time in their apartments. Typically, they are inand out of their apartments in the mornings andearly afternoons, but by mid-to-late afternoonthey retire to their apartments for the day. Theretrofitted lighting was designed to providemore light without glare.

BathroomPrevious conditions The previous fluorescentlamp luminaire was mounted above the mirrorover the sink. Illuminances elsewhere in thebathroom were low (see ranges on illustrationsat right).

New conditions The retrofitted luminairesare also mounted over the mirror, but bothtypes RE and RE’ have an opaque panel facingthe viewer. This panel blocks much of thedirect glare and sends more light upward toproduce diffuse indirect light on the face andbody. These luminaires distribute light more

widely around the bathroom, increasing illumi-nance on the body, sink, and elsewhere in thebathroom (see ranges on illustrations above andat right).

Bathroom, showing previous lighting Bathroom, showing new lighting (type RE')

Perspective of bathroom, new lightingconditions (previous values shown

in parentheses)

Perspective of bathroom, new lightingconditions (previous values shown

in parentheses)

RE

RE'

Bathroom, showing new lighting (type RE)

32–43 fc on face(19–42)

19–25 fc on body(11–23)2–10

fc(1–9)

5–7 fc inside cabinet(3–7)

7–17fc

(4–6)

3–8 fc(1–6)

11–14 fc(6–7)

37–65 fc on face(16–79)

10–20 fc inside cabinet(3–8)

9–34 fc(4–13)

4–13 fc(1–5)

7–18 fc(1–8)

14–31 fc(6–12)

DetailsBedroomPrevious conditions Typical lighting con-sisted of one or two portable table or floorlamps, furnished by the residents and fittedwith 60- to 100-W A-lamps. Illuminanceswere low in the main part of the bedroomsand in the closets (see ranges on illustrationbelow).

New conditions Both retrofit luminaireswere chosen to provide more light, widelydistributed in the bedrooms, to minimizeglare. The CFL torchiere (type RG) increased

illuminances in the bedrooms and inthe closets when used at full light out-put. The floor lamp (type RG’) providedsomewhat less light in the bedroomand in the closet (see ranges on illustra-tion at left).

KitchenPrevious conditions A central ceil-ing-mounted wraparound fluorescentluminaire provided low illuminanceson the working surfaces in a typicalkitchen.

New conditions Narrow-profileundercabinet lighting is a key feature of

Kitchen, previous lighting conditionsKitchen, new lighting conditions

(types RD and RB)

14

Perspective of bedroom (previous values shown in parentheses)

Perspective of bedroom (previous values shown in parentheses)

Bedroom, new lighting conditions (type RG)

Bedroom, previous lighting conditions Bedroom, new lighting conditions (type RG')

2–22 fc(0.2–4)

0.5–4 fc(1–5)insidecloset

1–5 fcinside cabinet(1–5)

1–9 fc(0.5–6)

12–19 fc(2–5)

12–22 fc(1–5)

5–12 fc(1–2)

RG'

RG

nets, with its lens facing the back wall, so thatthe direct glare of the lens is never visible. Bothtypes of ceiling-mounted luminaires (types RBand RB’) maintain or increase illuminances inthe space (see ranges on illustrationsabove).

Living/Dining roomPrevious conditions These areaswere lighted by a ceiling-mountedwraparound fluorescent luminaireover the dining area, as well as by theresidents’ own incandescent tablelamps. The previous luminaire overthe table was perceived as too bright(see ranges on illustration at right).

New conditions The retrofittedluminaires were chosen to be moreresidential in appearance, providemore light around the room, andreduce luminaire brightness. Unfortu-nately, the close-to-ceiling CFL lumi-naire (type RD) over the table had a


15

Kitchen, new lighting conditions(types RB' and RD')

Perspective of kitchen (previous values shown in parentheses)

Perspective of kitchen (previous values shown in parentheses)

Perspective of living/dining room (previous values shown in parentheses) (types RF and RF')

faulty ballast, produced poor illuminances, andwas poorly received by residents. The pendantluminaire (type RD’) performed well, andtogether with the CFL table lamp near the sofa(type RF’), produced more light on the floor,walls, and sofa. This retrofitted pendant lumi-naire (type RD’) is much less bright than theprevious wraparound luminaire. The perfor-mance of the three-way floor lamp (type RF) issimilar to that of the CFL table lamp on thefloor and walls, but it puts a much higher illu-minance on the sofa.

the retrofitted lighting. It provides lighton the countertops without causingglare. The luminaire (type RC) ismounted at the front edge of the cabi-

Living/dining room, new lighting conditions (type RF)

24–26 fc(15–24)

36–44 fc(20–25)

19–24 fc(21–39)

21–29 fc(24–33)

16–27 fc(11–38)

19–20fc

(16–22)

19–32 fc(17–29)

51–180 cd/m2

(23–120)

20–160 fc(18–29) 16–38 fc

(14–24)

15–26 fc(17–28)

17–28 fc(19–30)

20– 29 fc

(15–23)

270–4700cd/m2

(1200–2700)

3–46 fc(1–46)

740–810 cd/m2

(208–298)

4–18 fc(5–8)

36–50fc

(7–38)

7–11 fc(6–10)

RB

RB'RD'

RF'RF

Project Evaluation

16

Common AreasEnergy Impact DELTA used manufacturers’data to calculate lighting power densities(LPDs). LPDs for the new lighting are consis-tently higher at full light output than those ofthe previous lighting installation. This is notbecause the new installations are inefficient,but because they provide more light and usemore luminaires to place additional light onspecific surfaces, such as the bulletin board inthe lobby corridor. The benefits of providingthese higher illuminances are evident in the res-idents’ positive evaluations. Automatic controlsreduce these illuminances when they are notrequired in the lobby and the residential corri-dors. In the residential corridor, the LPD of thenew lighting is reduced to less than that of theprevious lighting.

Note: DELTA did not perform environmentaland economic benefit analyses for the commonareas because most of therenovated spaces havehigher LPDs than the pre-vious conditions. Thispublication instead focuseson the benefits of lightingquality in senior livingfacilities.

Installation Costs Thenew lighting in the com-mon areas of South MallTowers cost $36,000,including the prime lighttherapy space, whichtranslates to approximately$10/ft2 ($110/m2). Theluminaires cost $3/ft2

($32/m2), labor to installlighting and controls cost$5/ft2 ($54/m2), and specialballasts and controls costapproximately $2/ft2

($22/m2). This was a smallexperimental project; if thelighting design wereapplied to a larger area

The vast majority of the residents consid-ered the new lighting to be good or verygood, and much better than the previouslighting; they rated it more suitable forreading and other activities, brighter, moreeven, and more comfortable both by dayand night. Perception of glare was the onlyfactor for which residents noted no differ-ence between the previous and new light-ing installations. Both previous and newlighting was described as glaring by about20% of the residents; this problem may bedue to increased light scatter in the agingeye that makes some people sensitive tothe amount of light, no matter how it isdelivered, or it may be a lack of under-standing of the term “glare.” It is notablethat perceptions of glare did not increasedespite the increased illuminance pro-duced by the new lighting.

Common Areas and Retrofitted Apartments—Lighting Power Densities

Previous Total New Total ASHRAE/IESb

Common Total Area Connected Previous Connected Total In-Usea Allowed LPDSpaces (ft2) Load (W) LPD (W/ft2) Load (W) LPD (W/ft2) LPD (W/ft2) (W/ft2)

Community Room 1224 1930 1.58 2378 1.94 — 1.8Lobby 291 310 1.07 490 1.68 1.36 1.0Lobby Corridor 506 180 0.36 640 1.26 — 1.3

Residential Corridor 1288 700 0.52 829 0.64 0.48 1.3

Previous Total New Total FrequentlyRetrofitted Total Area Connected Previous Connected Total Used Spacesc Pattern Bookd

Apartments (ft2) Load (W) LPD (W/ft2) Load (W) LPD (W/ft2) LPD (W/ft2) LPD (W/ft2)

Main Scheme 2400 4160 1.73 3180 1.33 1.33 2.0(4, total)Alternate Scheme 4800 7448 1.55 5504 1.15 1.23 2.0(8, total)Whole Building 61,200 98,668 1.61 73,814 1.21 — —(if retrofit wereapplied to whole building)

a In-Use = These spaces are illuminated 24 hours per day, but are dimmed during nighttime hours. Wattages are reduced to reflect dimming.b ASHRAE = American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers. Although ASHRAE/IES does not apply to residential facilities, LPD’s were drawn

from the category “Nursing Homes” for comparison only. IES=Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.c Including only kitchen, living/dining room, bedroom, and bathroom. See “Retrofitted Apartments—Energy Impact.” This compares to 1.57 W/ft2 for the previous

frequently used spaces. See page 18.d LPDs in typical American homes, including kitchens, living rooms, bedrooms, and bathrooms, based on data from Lighting Pattern Book for Homes (1996)

1 W/ft2 = 10.76 W/m2

and luminaires were purchased in larger quanti-ties, all costs would have been reduced.

Residents’ Responses The DELTA team sur-veyed the residents of South Mall Towers aboutthe lighting before and after the new lighting wasinstalled in the common areas. Ninety-two resi-dents completed the questionnaire for the previ-

ous lighting, and seventy-four replied after thenew lighting was installed. They were asked fortheir opinions on the quality of the lighting, itssuitability for different tasks, and how the newlighting compared with the previous lighting.

“The lighting has added much to theinside beauty of this senior center andenhanced the dignity of its residents.”

–South Mall Towers resident


17

Residents’ Visual Capabilities To testwhether the new lighting installation had anyeffect on the visual capabilities of seniors, 6 to 8residents volunteered to carry out visual perfor-mance tests under the previous lighting andunder the new lighting. The tests measured:

• the smallest detail that could be resolved at a distance of 20’ (6.1 m) (distance visualacuity)

• the smallest print size that could be read at19” (480 mm) (near visual acuity)

• the lowest luminance contrast that could bedetected for a constant size target (thresholdcontrast)

• the minimum amount of color saturation thatwas needed to recognize a specific color

• the speed with which residents could see anumber of small blocks scattered on thefloor.

The table below gives the range of values ofeach of these measurements for the samegroup of people under the previous and thenew lighting.

Overall, the new lighting in the communityroom, the lobby, and the lobby corridor pro-

duces improved visual capabilities relative tothe previous lighting. For the tests in theseareas, most of the residents showed animprovement in performance under the newlighting, although a few showed no change.The only space where visual capabilities didnot improve was in the residential corridor.This can probably be explained by the similarity of illuminance provided by the previous and new lighting in this space andthe presence of uncontrolled glare from adoorway at the end of the corridor that wasstudied.

LIGHTING SURVEY: COMMON AREASPercentages of Senior Residents Who Agree:

Community Lobby ResidentialRoom Lobby Corridor Corridor

Previous New Previous New Previous New Previous New

Lighting is good or very good by day 40 91 42 92 46 95 55 91Lighting is good or very good after dark 22 96 25 90 34 92 50 92New lighting is much better

than previous by day — 84 — 82 — 79 — 80New lighting is much better

than previous after dark — 89 — 82 — 79 — 80There is enough light for reading 70 98 — — 75 98 — —There is enough light to play bingo,

puzzles, crafts 77 95 — — — — — —There is enough light to see faces 90 98 88 98 86 98 87 93Lighting is even after dark 40 94 57 98 60 92 68 90Lighting is comfortable by day 62 99 — — — — — —Lighting is comfortable after dark 43 96 — — — — — —Lighting is glaring after dark 25 25 12 21 15 19 12 25Lighting is of good color after dark 42 99 — — 61 96 70 96

Common Areas—Visual Performance Tests

Community Room Lobby ResidentialPerformance Test after dark Lobby Corridor Corridor

Distance visual acuity (min arc) Prev: 1.0–3.0 — Prev: 1.4–3.4 Prev: 0.8–4.2(smaller is better) New: 0.6–1.7 — New: 0.6–2.3 New: 0.6–4.2

Near visual acuity (print point size) Prev: 6–12 Prev: 6–12 Prev: 6–13 Prev: 8–24(smaller is better) New: 4–12 New: 5–12 New: 5–10 New: 6–24

Minimum detectable luminance Prev: 0.02–0.05 — — —contrast (lower is better) New: 0.01–0.02 — — —

Chroma required for color Prev: 2.9–3.6 — — —recognition (lower is better) New: 2.4–3.1 — — —

Number of blocks detected — — Prev: 0.9–2.5 Prev: 0.3–2.2per second (higher is better) — — New: 1.0–3.3 New: 0.6–2.5

“I just like the lighting in the hallways. Ilike the community room. It is such animprovement all the way round. I work inthe community room five days a week,and I enjoy the lights every day.”


“The lighting is a lot brighter, and you cansee peoples’ faces and where you arewalking.”


“The new lighting makes the apartmentsmuch easier to rent.”

–South Mall Towers Executive Director

Project Evaluation

18

Maintenance and Product PerformanceThe initial installation of the residential corridoroccupancy sensors proved to be a problem.One occupancy sensor was originally set tooperate all 4’ (1.2 m) long luminaires together,so that all the luminaires were at 100% lightoutput when the corridor was occupied. How-ever, the corridor was too long for a singleoccupancy sensor to pick up movement. Threesensors were then wired together so that if anysensor detected movement, all lights wereswitched to full output. Unfortunately, the elec-trical contractor had limited experience in thewiring of controls, and this logic required amore sophisticated wiring scheme than theelectricians could handle. After several unsuc-cessful attempts to correct partial switching, anew electrical contractor was hired to followwiring instructions from the manufacturer. Thecorridor lighting now works as intended.

South Mall Towers has experienced only onemajor problem with product performance sincethe new lighting was installed. The lampsinstalled in the pendant luminaires (type CJ) inthe lobby failed after fewer than a thousandhours. These lamps were returned to the manu-facturer, who declared them to be part of adefective batch and supplied replacements. Thereplacement lamps have been operating satis-factorily for approximately one year.

Retrofitted ApartmentsEnergy Impact DELTA adopted manufactur-ers’ data to calculate the power demand of theluminaires used in the previous lighting and thenew lighting. Because each apartment had dif-ferent luminaires brought in by the residents,DELTA calculated the LPD for the apartments asthe average of the total power demand for thetwelve one-bedroom apartments divided bytheir combined floor area. The resulting LPD isan average value for the twelve apartments.The luminaires contributing to the calculatedLPD in each apartment were the fixed lightingand all portable luminaires that the residentssaid they used regularly. For the retrofitted

lighting, one of the previous portable luminaireswas replaced by a new CFL portable luminaire.The LPD for the previous lighting was 1.61W/ft2 (17.3 W/m2), while LPDs for the newlighting were 1.33 W/ft2 (14.3 W/m2) for onedesign and 1.15 W/ft2 (12.4 W/m2) for the other.However, these LPD reductions may be mis-leading because some luminaires are used formore hours per day than others. Luminaires inthe entryway, hall, and pantry are rarely used,while living/dining area, kitchen, bathroom,and bedroom luminaires are used for thelongest periods. Recalculating the LPDs forthese frequently used areas only gives an LPD for the previous lighting of 1.57 W/ft2

(16.9 W/m2) and 1.33 W/ft2 (14.3 W/m2) and1.23 W/ft2 (13.2 W/m2) for the two retrofittedinstallations.

Note: DELTA did not perform a life-cycle costand environmental analysis for the retrofittedapartments because some installations weretemporary, usage patterns and occupancy var-ied widely, and different types of heating/cool-ing systems were used throughout the apart-ments. This publication focuses instead on the benefits of lighting quality in senior livingfacilities.

Installation Costs Four sets of lighting equip-ment were purchased, installed, and evaluated;the equipment was then moved to a second

and third set of apartments, for a total of twelveretrofitted apartments. The cost of the four setsof material and initial installation on the firstfour apartments was approximately $5100, orapproximately $2/ft2 ($22/m2) for luminaires andlamps, and $0.12/ft2 ($1.30/m2) for installation.

Residents’ Response The DELTA team con-ducted structured interviews with the residentsof the twelve one-bedroom retrofitted apart-ments. The table below gives the percentage ofresidents expressing positive, negative, and neu-tral views about the previous and new lighting.

Overall, the residents were neutral or dissatis-fied with the previous lighting of their apart-ments. Those who were neutral thought the pre-vious lighting was adequate. Those who were

negative were usually dissatisfied with theamount of light. The majority of residents likedthe new retrofitted lighting. Those who wereneutral liked some parts and not others. No onewas totally negative about the new lighting.

Residents were dissatisfied with the previousbathroom lighting. Many of the acrylic lenseshad yellowed, reducing light output. Some resi-dents had removed the lenses to increase theamount of light. In contrast, residents weremuch more enthusiastic about both new formsof bathroom lighting. They thought the new

LIGHTING SURVEYPercentages of People Expressing Positive, Neutral and Negative Opinions

Retrofitted Apartments: Previous Previous Previous New New NewArea Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral NegativeWhole apartment 8 50 42 75 25 0Bathroom 0 33 67 75 8 17Bedroom 50 25 25 64 9 27Kitchen 0 17 83 59 8 33Dining area 8 33 59 42 16 42Living room 42 50 8 58 25 17


19

lighting was “much brighter,” lighting thewhole bathroom without glare or shadows.

The previous lighting in the bedroom wasfurnished individually by each resident. Mostresidents had one or more table lamps. Notsurprisingly, most of the residents consideredtheir previous lighting at least adequate, ifnot satisfactory. Even so, those who receivedthe CFL torchiere (type RG) appreciated hav-ing the additional light. They commentedthat the torchiere brightened the whole bed-room without glare and made it easy to seeinto closets and dressers. A few thought thatthe maximum light output setting made the

bedroom too bright, but were happy withthe lower output settings. A few objected tothe high-tech style of the torchiere and con-sidered it unsuitable for a residence. Thealternative CFL floor lamp (type RG’) wasalso appreciated, even though the additionalilluminance provided was less than that pro-duced by the torchiere. However, some resi-dents were concerned that the switch (at thebase of the lamp socket) was difficult toreach from a seated position.

Residents vary in how frequently they usetheir kitchens. Some are active cooks, andothers prepare food only occasionally. Mostresidents thought the previous lighting of thekitchen was poor because often they wereworking in their own shadows, particularlyat the sink. Residents complained about

glare and insufficient light to see intokitchen cabinets. They appreciated the light-ing of both retrofitted designs, which madethe kitchen look brighter, especially whenthe undercabinet lighting was used. Resi-dents who had the close-to-ceiling pendant(type RB’) liked the glow on the ceiling. Theundercabinet lighting was considered effec-tive because it helped them see stove con-trols, food labels, medicine labels, and othersmall print. Some thought the lighting distri-bution could be improved by directing morelight to the front of the counter top ratherthan the back.

The residents were not satisfied with the pre-vious lighting of the dining area. They con-sidered the fluorescent lamp wraparoundluminaire inappropriate for a dining area. Inaddition, some said the lighting was toobright and glaring, while others said thelighting of the dining table was too dim. Thenew lighting was considered better, particu-larly the pendant luminaire (type RD’). Theclose-to-ceiling luminaire (type RD) was crit-icized for providing insufficient light; thisresult was expected because the ballast wasfaulty.

The previous lighting of the living room wasprovided by the wraparound fluorescentluminaire over the dining area together withwhatever lighting the residents already had.Again, the residents were broadly satisfiedwith the previous lighting in the living room.For most people the new lighting (types RFand RF’) provided only a slight improve-ment. Residents appreciated the three levelsof light output provided by the electronicballast.

Maintenance and Product PerformanceDELTA did not evaluate maintenance andproduct performance of the lighting in theretrofitted apartments because the installa-tions were temporary. However, it is worthnoting that the fluorescent lamps usedrequire low maintenance because of longlamp life.

Lessons Learned• Lighting designed with the requirementsof seniors in mind can enhance their quali-ty of life. The new lighting installations inthe common areas and retrofitted apart-ments were considered by the residents tobe much better than the previous installa-tions and produced improvements in theresidents’ visual capabilities. Residents saythey spend more time socializing with oth-ers in the community room.

• Improving the lighting in a space canalter the way seniors use the space. Whenlight levels are very uneven in a living room,for example, residents tend to use only thewell-lighted areas. When light levels arehigher and more uniform, residents are ableto use more of the space.

• Retrofitted fluorescent lamp luminaireswere well received by residents. A thought-ful retrofit design using fluorescent lampscan improve the amount and distribution oflight without introducing such factors aspoor color, flicker, and noise.

• Combining a dimming system and occu-pancy sensors is an effective way to saveenergy in an intermittently used spacewhere some lighting is necessary for safetyreasons. The lighting system in the second-floor residential corridor was well-liked bythe residents. The controls reduce light out-put to 8% of full whenever the corridor isunoccupied for 20 seconds. This schemesaves energy and avoids having residents step out of their apartments into a dark cor-ridor.

• Look for contractors who are experi-enced with installing unusual equipmentcombinations. The contractors on this pro-ject made several attempts to coordinateoccupancy sensors and the dimming systemin the second floor residential corridor. Theywere familiar with occupancy sensors anddimming ballasts separately, but not familiar

On the new lighting in the bathroom—“Everybody wishes they had a light like this.”

On the new lighting in the bedroom—“It’s beautiful. When (the torchiere) is on the whole room lights up.I can see everything better, including the dresser.”

Copyright © 1999, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. All rights reserved. Neither the entire publication nor any of the information contained herein may be duplicated or excerpted in any way in any otherpublication, database, or other medium and may not be reproduced without express written permission of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Making copies of all or part of this publication for any purpose

other than for undistributed personal use is a violation of United States copyright law.

ISSN 1075-3966 Printed on recycled paper

For publications ordering information contact:Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York 12180-3590 • FAX (518) 276-2999

Phone: (518) 276-8716 • e-mail: [email protected] • World Wide Web: www.lrc.rpi.edu


CREDITSSouth Mall Towers Contact: Tim DormadyCACAD Contact: David Hornick, MDNYSERDA Contact: Marsha WaltonNU Contact: Peter MorantePhilips Contact: Joe McCormickElectrical Contractors: Empire Electrical

Contractors (Common Spaces), RichBracket Electric (Retrofitted Apartments),McBain Electric (Troubleshooting)

Lighting Design: Lighting Research Center

Luminaire Manufacturers:Types CA, CC, CE, CL: LitecontrolTypes CB, CI, CF: Columbia LightingType CJ: Trend LightingTypes CK, RD: Shaper LightingTypes CG, CH, RB, RB’, RD’, RE’:LightolierType RA: Zumtobel Staff LightingTypes RA’, RC, RE: The Robert GroupTypes RF, RF’, RG’: Ceralon LightingType RG: NeoRay LightingType RH’: Sentinel LightingBallasts: Philips Lighting, SoliumOccupancy Sensors: The Watt Stopper

Material Donations: Lightolier, Litecontrol,Lutron Electronics, NeoRay Lighting,Philips Lighting, Shaper Lighting, Solium

DELTA Portfolio Graphic Design andProduction: JSG Communications, Inc.

Photographers: Randall Perry Photography(Renovated common spaces); Robert KerrPhotography (Retrofitted apartments);Kevin Simonson (Previous conditions,common spaces)

DELTA MEMBERSConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

Northeast Utilities SystemLighting Research Center

DELTA STEERING COMMITTEECraig Ciranny, Patricia Glasow, Roger Knott,

Mitchell Kohn, Peter Morante, Frank Napoli, Marsha Walton

with combining these two types of equipmentin the same system.

• Commissioning can be difficult when multi-ple controls influence the same luminaires.Commissioning the lighting installation in thesecond-floor residential corridor was time-con-suming because it was difficult to adjust thesensitivity of an individual occupancy sensoruntil the other sensors had been isolated. Someprovision for trouble-shooting multiple controlsshould be included in the control systemdesign.

• Better lighting for seniors may use moreenergy. Improved uniformity and higher illumi-nances often necessitate higher lighting powerdensities than would be found in typical resi-dential facilities. It is important to offset this byusing automatic lighting controls and energy-efficient lighting systems.

DELTA Portfolio Lighting Case StudiesVolume 2, Issue 4South Mall Towers Apartments,

Albany, New York

Site Sponsors:Capital Area Consortium on Aging

and Disability (CACAD)New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority (NYSERDA)

Northeast Utilities System (NU)Philips LightingLighting Research Center (LRC)

August 1999

Program Directors: Naomi Miller, Sandra Vasconez

Reviewers: Russell Leslie, Mark ReaProject Coordinator: Linda SanfordPublication Manager: Judith BlockEditor: Claudia HunterResearch Associate: Jennifer BronsEvaluation Team Leader: Peter BoyceEvaluation Team: Naomi Miller, Linda Sanford,

Dalia Kairiukstiene, Rita KoltaiTechnical Assistance: Barbara Hamilton,

Dalia Kairiukstiene, Ben Koyle, Devki RajGuru,Javier Ten

Delta S. Mall Towers - Lighting Research Center · South Mall Towers is an apartment com-plex for...

Documents

Transcript of Delta S. Mall Towers - Lighting Research Center · South Mall Towers is an apartment com-plex for...