10 minute read
About IES Publication LP-16-22, Documenting Control Intent Narratives and Sequences of Operations
By James R. Benya, PE, FIES, FIALD
In the February 2023 issue of designing lighting (dl), I reported on a lighting controls system disaster at the Minnechaug Regional High School, a state-of-the-art energy-efficient building that, due to the failure of a 2014-era custom lighting control system, ironically caused all the lights in the school to operate continuously. The intent of that story was to highlight the complexity of the design, construction, commissioning, and management challenges of today’s lighting controls systems, which, in this case, stood out so significantly that it was parodied on Saturday Night Live.
In the October 2023 issue, I picked up the topic again, writing about lighting controls as a “layer” of lighting design that is added to the layers of lighting that I described in the June 2023 issue and in my textbook, Lighting Design Basics. 1
In three words, controls really matter.
Truth is, technology and lighting controls have always been made for each other. Lighting controls, after all, employ electrical power and control circuits that combine with a multitude of possible human and system interactions to produce the intended amount of light at the right time, and then to otherwise save energy and dim or turn lighting off when not needed. Technological advances, especially in dimming and color changing, allow for the ever-evolving use of light to alter the perception and mood of spaces and scenes, to create visual effects and messages, and to adjust lighting qualities that benefit the wellness of living beings in each space. The basic lighting controls principles and lighting theory work in almost every form of human environment, from the control of video images to the illumination of the interiors and exteriors of buildings. What controls a pixel on a computer screen is a close relative of the digital controller for a night club floor light or the photocell that controls a streetlight.
But prior to the energy crisis of 1973, lighting controls were mostly manual. Other than theatrical lighting, the vast majority of lighting controls were on-off switches. Lights were left on all night to heat commercial buildings and light the building at night.
Lighting energy codes first appeared in the late 1970s, embracing lighting controls as a keystone of reducing lighting energy use. With each periodic update, they became more stringent. And they worked!
In the “Energy Advisor” column of LD&A, May 2018, I wrote, “Our work is done here.” I showed how energy codes and lighting efficiency were intertwined with industry innovations, and energy codes’ impacts reduced lighting energy use by nearly 90% since energy efficiency became an issue in 1973. Savings were the result of using LED light sources, efficient driver electronics, reduced lighting power density allowance, and mandatory lighting controls. Thanks to the combinations of LEDs and lighting controls, lighting systems now use less than 10% of the energy used for lighting in 1973 (yes, 90% savings).
What has really changed since 1973 was the leadership and structure of the entire lighting industry. Previously, our industry was oriented around three main lamp suppliers and a heavy industrial base consisting of transformer and ballast makers, lighting fixture manufacturers, and a few manufacturers of switches, all inserted into wiring systems built from heavy stamped steel boxes and steel conduit. To solve the energy efficiency challenge, lighting technology had to lighten up in many ways. So, it was not a surprise that the technology-strong semiconductor industry stepped in to capitalize on the opportunities in lighting as a huge untapped market.
No matter where he or she works, today’s lighting designer has a broad choice of a number of lighting control systems and companies. Almost all manufacturers offer products with similar features and capabilities because, foremost, they must comply with the applicable electrical and energy codes. But, it is up to the lighting designer and electrical engineer to establish the criteria to narrow the options.
For example, commercial office buildings “churn” with almost constant remodeling, suggesting a lighting control system that is easily changed, reconnected, and reprogrammed. In a hotel, where remodeling is uncommon, lighting controls need to be robust, reliable, low maintenance, and user-friendly. Above all, the questions of interconnectivity, data collection, remote management, and programmability need to be addressed. Since many of these features are almost free, it is easy to wind up with lighting controls having fabulous but unwanted capabilities. Or worse, unreliable and needing constant maintenance.
Specifying a lighting control system today is also challenging because the choices and capabilities are almost unlimited. Moreover, for reasons of intellectual property, lighting control systems are often significantly different in appearance, wiring methods, and capabilities that vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, although, in the end, they meet the same codes.
As a general rule, I think lighting designers should produce a lighting design with controls in mind. But the electrical plans showing and specifying lighting and controls generally need to be prepared and stamped by either the electrical engineer or the electrical contractor.
If the lighting designer is proactive and hands-on with respect to controls, he or she might take charge and develop plans and specifications including controls for the approval and use of the engineer or contractor. Some may even have a specific manufacturer or system in mind. But there are a lot of buildings, especially those churning office buildings or everyday schools or clinics, where design choices are cost-driven, and minimally code-compliant controls are needed.
From my experience as both an electrical engineer and as a lighting designer, I think there are three distinctly different ways to specify a lighting control system:
• Proprietary. During the working drawings phase of design, the lighting designer and/or the electrical engineer choose a manufacturer with whom to work. This is usually the result of product reputation, marketing, features, and their professional relationship with a sales representative. The manufacturer may also take over the development of the lighting plans to best apply their products. The chosen rep has the advantage of being able to charge full price for the system and their related services (see sidebar). Aside from the cost, I prefer this method because I can count on the follow-up services of the manufacturer, which has proven cost-effective on a number of major projects, especially when the project aspired to a high-performance standard like ZNE, LEED, or WELL.
• Code compliance and lowest cost. This leaves the choice of the lighting controls up to the contractor, who will usually find the least expensive choice by pitting sales agencies and distributors against one another based on price. This method, sometimes called “design-build,” places the local lighting sales teams in competition to design the controls to meet code for the lowest cost of labor and materials. To the manufacturer, this method tends to keep prices competitive and may place them in a position to up-sell features and services only once their products are selected. However, there is a risk of the contractor taking the lowest price from a marginal manufacturer or unresponsive sales agency. I have successfully used this method for straightforward lighting designs with relatively simple controls and features, but I remain wary when project requirements are critical.
• Performance. In today’s market, competing lighting controls manufacturers offer options and choices that, in the mind of the lighting designer, may employ different technology but are capable of similar performance. For example, one manufacturer may offer wired systems using 0-10V generic drivers, and another may employ digital drivers like DALI-1, DALI-2, or Ecosystem. Some competing manufacturers may offer wireless connectivity using generic technology like Bluetooth or a proprietary wireless system. This method can be used to gain the best competitive price among a limited number of manufacturers while controlling cost and not risking a commissioning disaster.
Regardless of which method you choose, you will need to describe the lighting control system in your plans and specifications. With all of the competing technologies of the past thirty years and the crossover language between architectural and theatrical2 lighting, the greatest challenge in lighting controls today is having a common language and related standards. Other than the shorthand DMX skills of theatrical and concert lighting designers, stagehands, and riggers, I found most digital lighting control systems in early 21st century years to have proprietary wiring and programming and unique application methods.
After several installations that were nightmares to make operational, I chose to have favorites. For example, three times in the past decade I have had clients contact me to service their lighting controls, all of which were advanced technology and more than 10 years old. Fortunately, I kept good records and was able to help them, in one case even having the Palm PDA with the original programming in the file!
Given this history, I attended a kick-off meeting of the IES Control Narratives Task Group at the 2019 IES Annual Conference.3 Members of the group include lighting designers, electrical engineers, manufacturers, and other experts experienced with the challenges of designing, specifying, and/or commissioning lighting controls and with the battle scars to prove it.
Fully aware of the competing approaches to control functions and communications for lighting and the many misconceptions among designers and installers, they properly realized that, for starters, the industry needed a common language to describe lighting controls for contemporary and future buildings and an accompanying dictionary of standard terms and concepts. It had to embrace all the possibilities that had been (and hopefully would be) dreamed up by the industry as companies raced to make competing systems comprised of both proprietary and common technologies.
Beginning with basic concepts like what is a “zone,” the lexicon had to address any lighting control function or approach using a non-proprietary term while circumventing terms and concepts that might embody or promote specific intellectual property. All, of course, while preserving the rights of companies and investors.
So, I was impressed with the fact that in 2022, IES published and received ANSI certification of IES Publication LP-16-22, Lighting Controls, Documenting Control Intent Narratives and Sequences of Operations. Developed by the Task Force and the Committee, LP-16-22 provides a complete organization of lighting control choices suitable for almost every building type and likely lighting control choice. Let me share some simple advice – get it, learn it, use it ■
Commissioning a Lighting System
As with any intelligent system, lighting control systems must be commissioned (sometimes called “CX”) by a person or a team that is familiar with the code requirements, design settings, and features of the lighting for the project. The commissioning process includes setting time functions, adjusting sensitivity settings of sensors, setting switch and slider functions, and generally testing all lighting controls to ensure compliance with both code and the intent of the design.
Although CX can be a comprehensive process involving all building systems, depending on the project’s size and complexity, the lighting control system should be commissioned by persons familiar with the system in addition to settings and functions. The work includes troubleshooting and fixing wiring errors and component failure. Also, the commissioning process should result in the delivery of complete documentation of the lighting controls, their settings, and special considerations to the property owner, including a backup method in case of a system or subsystem failure.
References
1. Lighting Design Basics, Wiley, first, second and third editions, with the late Mark Karlen and Christina Spangler. I did not contribute to the current fourth edition.
2. Theatrical lighting embraced a standard digital lighting control system called “DMX” (officially titled USITT DMX512). DMX512 was conceived at the 1986 USITT Annual Conference in Oakland, California. Before DMX512, most manufacturers had their own dimmer control protocols that were proprietary and incompatible with other manufacturers' equipment. From that session, a project started that resulted in USITT DMX512Digital Data Transmission Standard for Dimmers and Controllers. It remains the industry standard for lighting controls connectivity and function including ongoing updates and necessary modernization while contemplating connectivity of legacy products and designs. Source: USITT
3. A formal part of the IES Lighting Control Systems Committee.
