GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Courtroom Lighting Criteria Evaluation and Energy Use Study I N D E X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS COURTROOM LIGHTING CRITERIA EVALUATION………………….Section 1 ENERGY EFFECTIVE COURTROOM LIGHTING: An Analysis of Existing Conditions and Recommended Improvements…………………….Section 2 COURTROOM LIGHTING CRITERIA EVALUATION & ENERGY USE STUDY General Services Administration Public Buildings Service Office of Applied Science SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The General Services Administration (GSA) Office of Applied Science and GSA Southeast Sunbelt Region 4, in partnership with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), and the U.S. Department of Energy Federal Energy Management Program have conducted a study of the lighting in six U.S. Federal District courtrooms to determine the source of lighting problems and energy performance. This report is in two parts: data collection and analysis performed by Ove Arup & Partners under the auspices of the National Institute of Building Sciences, and courtroom energy performance performed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). Both efforts were completed under contract to GSA and co-funding for PNNL was provided by USDOE. The reports are attached within. The following is a brief summary of the findings in the reports: 1. In sum, it appears that the source of the problems with courtroom lighting stem from inadequately defined criteria, mistakes in implementing the guidance that is available, and from a lack of understanding of the complex factors that determine how humans perceive lighting. 2. The data collection showed that there was room for improvements in the lighting design for all of the courtrooms, even in those where the lighting was considered satisfactory by the court. 3. The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) requires energy use in Federal facilities to be 30% below ANSI/ASHARE/IESNA Standard 90.1 –2004. Standard 90.1 defines the lighting power density (LPD) that can be used in both courthouses and courtrooms which will significantly impact lighting designs. The 1999 Standard LPD for courtrooms is 1.9 watts/sf and the 30% reduction for the 2004 Standard has yet to be defined. In addition, the prescriptive performance path of Standard 90.1 - 2004 does not account for hours of use, only the connected load. To assure that the final lighting standards are acceptable, the courts should consider actively engaging in the current code development discussions by the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Lighting Subcommittee. 4. Although the lighting design of the courtrooms may meet the design criteria for the amount of light coming from the fixtures (illuminance), the human perception of room brightness is dependent upon how that light is reflected from the surfaces (luminance) in the room. In other words, with the same amount of light, a room L:\PL\PLA\Renee Tietjen\PDF Booklet\Summary of Findings.doc 1 with darker finishes will be perceived as dimmer than one with lighter finishes; hence, darker finishes require more light (and more energy) to be acceptable. It also appears that often the design of the horizontal illuminance in large courtroom spaces has not taken into account the colors of the selected finishes and is therefore under-designed. The relationships between natural and artificial lighting, color of finishes, and energy use is complicated. Development of appropriate educational tools to assist the design teams and the court should be considered to more fully help them understand this interplay of factors. 5. In general, the experience of lighting designers for courtrooms is of the highest quality. However, given the special nature of courtrooms, the courts may wish to consider providing special training and assistance (as noted above), as well as verifying the proposed lighting design through a peer review including analysis of the proposed design to increase the chances of a successful lighting design. 6. Courtroom lighting and energy use can be improved through the use of lighting zones, allowing for more light at the bench and courtroom well and diminishing the amount of light in those areas where the same intensity is not required, such as the jury box and spectator areas. 7. Daylighting can be used successfully in a courtroom (and is useful in reducing energy usage) if provisions are made to control sunlight. However, an analysis of the cost benefit of daylighting be should be carefully evaluated, as controls can be elaborate and expensive. L:\PL\PLA\Renee Tietjen\PDF Booklet\Summary of Findings.doc 2 GSA Courtroom Lighting Criteria Evaluation Task 1 Report GSA Courtroom Lighting Criteria Evaluation Task 1 Report March 2006 This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC party 155 Avenue of the Americas, New York NY 10013 Tel +1 212 229 2669 Fax +1 212 229 1056 www.arup.com Job number 131083 Document Verification Page 1 of 1 Job title Courtroom Lighting Criteria Evaluation Job number 131083 Document title Task 1 Report File reference Document ref Revision Date Filename 051220-task1report-draft2-11x17.doc Draft 1 12/25/05 Description First draft Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Matt Franks Brian Stacy Raj Patel Signature Draft 2 01/24/06 Filename 060124-task1report-draft3-8.5x11.doc Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Matt Franks Brian Stacy Raj Patel Signature Issue 03/01/06 Filename 060301-task1report-final.doc Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Matt Franks Brian Stacy Raj Patel Signature Filename Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Signature Issue Document Verification with Document X:\...\4-05 X:\...\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\060301-TASK1REPORT-FINAL- Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC X:\...\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\060301-TASK1REPORT-FINAL- Issue March 1, 2006 X:\...\ARUP_REPORT\060301-TASK1REPORT-FINAL-COMMENTS.DOC GSA Courtroom Lighting Criteria Evaluation Task 1 Report Contents Page Executive Summary i 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Scope of Work 1 1.2 Study Goals 1 2 Methodology 2 2.1 Energy Analysis 2 3 Definitions and Background 3 3.1 Lighting Units and Quantities 3 3.2 Key Ratios in Lighting 3 3.3 Lighting Equipment 4 4 Current Design Guidelines 5 4.1 U.S. Courts’ Design Guide 5 th 4.2 IESNA Lighting Handbook Guidelines (9 Edition) 5 4.3 Illuminance Recommendations 6 4.4 ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 7 5 Courtrooms 8 5.1 New York, New York (Moynihan) 8 5.2 Montgomery, Alabama (Johnson) 12 5.3 Central Islip, New York (D’Amato) 16 5.4 Tallahassee, Florida (Annex) 20 5.5 Tampa, Florida (Gibbons) 24 5.6 Columbia, South Carolina (Perry) 28 6 Comparative Analysis 32 7 Conclusions 33 8 Recommendations 34 8.1 Illuminance Recommendations 34 8.2 Surface Finishes 34 8.3 Lighting Layers 34 8.4 Lighting Control 34 8.5 Design Confirmation During Construction 34 8.6 Design Validation 34 Appendices Appendix A Courtroom Locations X:\...\4-05 X:\...\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\060301-TASK1REPORT-FINAL- Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC X:\...\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\060301-TASK1REPORT-FINAL- Issue March 1, 2006 X:\...\ARUP_REPORT\060301-TASK1REPORT-FINAL-COMMENTS.DOC GSA Courtroom Lighting Criteria Evaluation Task 1 Report Executive Summary The US Courts have experienced some failures in lighting satisfaction within some of the recently constructed courthouses. A study by the General Services Administration’s Ofice of Applied Sciences through the National Institute of Building Sciences was undertaken by Arup Lighting to evaluate the lighting instalations with respect to the requirements of the US Courts’ Design Guide. Based on these surveys, it was determined that several aspects of the Design Guide should be revised to more clearly define methods to achieve successful courtroom lighting. These include: More specific requirements for illuminance targets o Current illuminace targets are on work surface only – include vertical illuminance targets. o Provide more detailed illuminance targets related to specific task locations Discussion of surface brightnesses o Dark wood surfaces cause contrast problems, which need to be thoroughly studied during the design process. o Modern computer methods provide ways to predict surface brightnesse and should be used. Contrast and luminance ratios o Luminance ratios can vary greatly depending on lighting scheme and surface reflectences. o Luminance is the brightness that is seen by the eye, and hence is as important as illuminance during the design process. Design validation o Physical mock-ups in the past have not included important design considerations due to their cost. o Allow scope for the design team or independent third party, or both, to perform advanced computer modeling to verify the actual end result. We recommend that the Design Guide be revised to incorporate these ideas to ensure successful lighting in future new courthouses X:\...\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\060124-TASK1REPORT-DRAFT3- Page i Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC X:\...\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\060301-TASK1REPORT-X:\...\4-05 Issue March 1, 2006 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\060301-TASK1REPORT-FINAL-X:\...\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\060301-TASK1REPORT-FINAL- X:\...\ARUP_REPORT\060301-TASK1REPORT-FINAL-COMMENTS.DOC GSA Courtroom Lighting Criteria Evaluation Task 1 Report 1 Introduction Arup Lighting has been contracted to perform a survey of lighting installed in recently constructed courthouses, and based on the data collected, evaluate and make recommendations for the requirements of the U.S. Courts’ Design Guide (Design Guide) with respect to lighting. This work was undertaken between September and December 2005, and the results of the surveys and recommendations are presented in this report. 1.1 Scope of Work Our scope of work for the study has been defined by the GSA Scope of Work Document (PR200507070017) which describes the goals of the study. As part of this study, we have visited courthouses in the following locations: New York, New York (Moynihan) Montgomery, Alabama (Johnson) Central Islip, New York (D’Amato) Tallahassee, Florida (Annex) Tampa, Florida (Gibbons) Columbia, South Carolina (Perry) 1.2 Study Goals The goal of this phase of the study is to present the results of the data collection for each individual courtroom and illustrate how this data relates to the requirements of the U.S. Courts Design Guide lighting criteria, as well as recommend changes to the criteria if supported by the data. This study addresses the problem that several of the newly constructed courthouses do not have adequate lighting. This study is to determine if the source of the problem is: Inadequately defined standards. The courtroom as constructed did not meet the U.S. Courts design standards. A combination of the above. X:\...\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\060124-TASK1REPORT-DRAFT3- Page 1 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC 8.5X11.DOC Issue March 1, 2006