International Construction Specialty Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (ICSC) (5th : 2015)

A case study on the use of LED temporary construction lighting system Huang, Yi Jie; Lin, Ken-Yu; Angeley, Jeff Jun 30, 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52660-Huang_Y_et_al_ICSC15_135_Temporary_Construction_Lighting_System.pdf [ 227.97kB ]
52660-Huang_Y_et_al_ICSC15_135_Temporary_Construction_Lighting_System_slides.pdf [ 4.72MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52660-1.0076347.json
JSON-LD: 52660-1.0076347-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52660-1.0076347-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52660-1.0076347-rdf.json
Turtle: 52660-1.0076347-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52660-1.0076347-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52660-1.0076347-source.json
Full Text
52660-1.0076347-fulltext.txt
Citation
52660-1.0076347.ris

Full Text

5th International/11th Construction Specialty Conference 5e International/11e Conférence spécialisée sur la construction    Vancouver, British Columbia June 8 to June 10, 2015 / 8 juin au 10 juin 2015   A CASE STUDY ON THE USE OF LED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LIGHTING SYSTEM Yi Jie Huang 1, Ken-Yu Lin2, 4 and Jeff Angeley3 1 FTI Consulting, USA 2 Department of Construction Management, University of Washington, USA 3 Capital Project Office, University of Washington, USA 4 kenyulin@uw.edu Abstract: Adequate lighting is a necessity on construction sites not just for work completion, but also for the work quality, worker safety, and project productivity. This paper discusses the problems associated with traditional temporary lighting on construction sites and presents a case study on using LED temporary construction lighting as a potential solution. Various studies have shown that the traditional methods of providing temporary lighting are inadequate due to their non-compliance with OSHA requirements; visual discomfort; constant maintenance; and impacts to productivity, safety and health.  On the other hand, studies have shown that using LED as a source of temporary construction lighting provides benefits over the traditional lighting system, even though such uses are still rare within the industry. Using LED for temporary construction lighting, however, is subject to the high initial materials cost and other drawbacks. To this end, the objective of the research is to provide a deeper understanding of LED temporary construction lighting and ascertain its benefits and limitations through a case study. The study involves the University of Washington’s Bothell Science and Academic Building Project. The study involves interviews with both the lighting system vendor and onsite project personnel; survey questionnaire distributed to the field workers; and cost analysis of the LED temporary lighting system. The case study concluded that the benefits of using LED temporary construction lighting outweighed its limitations, but the individual cost savings may belong to different parties and may not necessarily be passed on to the owner depending on the contractual arrangements.  1 BACKGROUND Adequate lighting is important on the construction site not just for work completion, but also for the work quality, worker safety and productivity of the workers. Whilst construction sites can be lit by natural lighting, temporary lighting is usually required to supplement the natural lighting especially for enclosed work areas, during early/late work hours, and around evacuation egress. Often, a general contractor would place the duty of providing and maintaining temporary general lighting (and temporary power) under its electrical contractor’s scope of works and include it as part of the electrical bid package. Whilst task lighting has always been the responsibility of individual subcontractors, the scope of temporary general lighting has always been ambiguous with the level of illumination required not being clearly defined in the contract provisions.  Various studies have shown that the traditional methods of providing temporary lighting are inadequate. Non-compliance with the regulatory illumination standards during daylight hours was found (Smith and 135-1 Azhar, 2007) and only very high wattage light sources (e.g. 400 W metal halides) spaced at an appropriate distance could achieve the illumination standards (Smith, 2008). However, high wattage light sources are very bright, creating glares, shadows, and visual discomfort. The traditional method of temporary lighting also creates safety concerns. It is not uncommon that the lamps would burn out from overloaded source of energy, expose workers to high voltage wires, or become tripping hazards because of the extension cords and wires attached. Based on field observations and experiences, workers’ productivity tends to be negatively impacted with the use of traditional methods of temporary lighting. The traditional method requires constant moving of the lamps, resulting in the lamps being dropped, broken, or smashed easily. Oftentimes workers are required to replace the damaged lamps, or to locate, move and set-up task lighting due to the insufficient illumination of the general temporary lighting. The last area of concern is worker health. When light bulbs break, workers cleaning up the broken bulbs might be exposed to the escaping Mercury vapor or UV rays commonly seen in compact fluorescent lights. Due to the problems associated with the traditional method of providing temporary lighting, the Capital Project Office at the University of Washington (UW) deployed the use of low voltage temporary LED lighting system to replace traditional temporary lighting on the UW Bothell Phase 3 (“UWB P3”) – Bothell Science and Academic Building project. This is the first west coast installation of low-voltage LED temporary construction lighting system in the U.S. Construction for the 74,000 square foot UWB P3 building consists of four levels and one basement and was delivered using the GC/CM (General Contractor / Construction Manager) and EC/CM (Electrical Contractor / Construction Manager) approach to have the general contractor and electrical contractor on board early. While studies have shown that there are benefits of using low voltage LED lighting system over the traditional methods to provide temporary lighting, there are limitations as well with the most significant one being the high initial system cost. To this end, this paper: (1) introduces the case study background, (2) describes how the LED lighting system was deployed in the studied project UWB P3, (3) discusses data collected through interviews, survey questionnaires, and cost estimates, and (4) presents findings and concluding remarks. It should be noted that as most of the data collected are of qualitative nature, the case study discussion and results although were produced following a scientific procedure are still subject to human bias.  2  DEPLOYMENT OF THE LOW VOLTAGE TEMPORARY LED LIGHTING SYSTEM AT UWB P3 The FLEX SLS lighting system by Clear-Vu Lighting was deployed at UWB P3 to provide temporary construction lighting to all corridors and stairwells, as well as individual rooms where necessary. A typical setup comprises of 450-watt power systems, LED modules with 10’ whips, a T connector and low voltage (24V) cables. As this system made use of low voltage, the temporary lighting power cables and drivers could be designed to be embedded within the concrete slab, with only the whips and LED light fixtures dropped and exposed below the ceiling deck. Installation of the temporary LED construction lighting system at UWB P3 was undertaken in a three-stage process, including pre-construction estimate, planning for the lighting and controller setups, and the physical installation. During the pre-construction estimate, the electrical contractor estimated that 285 LED light fixtures would be needed based on the site conditions and layout, considering that each LED module’s coverage is roughly 17 ft by 17 ft. During lighting and controller setup planning, layout of the MEP was examined to determine possible locations that did not run across known MEP services. Locations of the walls that reached all the way to the bottom of the concrete deck were also taken into consideration, as they would block any light source once the walls were erected. Due to the capacity of the drivers, the number of LED fixtures connected to each driver was limited and therefore impacted routing of the cables, the number of drivers required to be installed per floor, and the number of circuits required to be run per floor. Upon confirmation of the locations of the fixtures and drivers, approximate measurements of their distances from gridlines were taken to aid the physical installation. During the physical installation, based on the approximate dimensions from the gridlines, the forms had to be drilled through so that the inserts could be placed within the concrete deck for both the fixtures and the whip. Coordination with ironworkers was necessary as the cables were installed concurrently with the reinforcement bars. During concrete pour, the electrical contractor would station a “pour watch” to ensure that the cables do not get damaged or pulled back into the slab during the pour. After the concrete has cured, upon stripping of the formwork, 135-2 the LED fixtures were installed on the floor slab and energized immediately to provide temporary lighting for that floor. Figure 1 illustrates how a LED fixture was deployed below a ceiling deck at UWB P3.  Figure 1: Temporary LED lighting fixture dropped and exposed below ceiling deck  (courtesy of Nelson Electric) 3 DATA COLLECTION To verify the benefits and limitations of using the LED fixtures as construction temporary lighting at UWB P3, data were collected via various approaches to triangulate common themes. Site interviews providing qualitative data were conducted with the project management staff from the UW CPO, general contractor, and electrical contractor. The interview data can be summarized into six themes as described in Table 1.  Table 1: Themes from the interview data Theme Description Immediate use of temporary lighting The temporary lighting system could be energized immediately upon the stripping of the formwork, way before MEP rough-ins Light reflection off drywall Drywalls would reflect the LED light and brighten up surrounding spaces as the internal partitions being erected Workers drilling into embedded cables Workers drilling through the slab for their works would accidentally drilled through the embedded cables Upward lighting requirement The LED lights were generally hung faced downwards but upward lighting is required for HVAC works Duration of use of temporary lighting Due to the ease of light fixture removal, the temporary lighting could be used until permanent lighting was turned on Contractual requirement Temporary lighting as “means and methods”, up to the general contractor’s discretion  135-3 A survey was administered to solicit worker input on the lighting requirements specific to their tasks and on how the LED lighting fixtures compared to the traditional methods. Based on the 19 responses received, in overall, the workers appeared to have had a more positive experience with LED lighting as compared to the traditional lighting, consistent with the interview results. Based on the ratings of both systems (on a scale of 1 to 5), the average rating of LED lighting’s attributes (e.g. visual comfort) ranged from 3.5 to 4.0 as compared to an average rating of 2.4 to 3.2 for traditional lighting’s attributes. Particularly, plumbers were in more agreement in their ratings than other trades. The electricians, on the other hand, had mixed reviews as to whether working in LED lighting was a more positive experience than traditional lighting. Estimated cost data were obtained (see Table 2) to compare the costs of providing a temporary metal halides lighting system and a temporary LED lighting system to meet the OSHA 5 foot candle requirements for UWB P3.  As the electrical contractor had never tracked these cost categories for temporary metal halides lighting systems used in the past, estimates from a different electrical contractor, Clear-Vu, and NECA Manual of Labor Units were also consulted to provide a basis of comparison and to establish a range of possible costs. Table 2: Summary of total cost comparison between LED and metal halides systems Categories LED Metal Halides Materials $53,953 $40,990 Installation $30,915 $26,757 Maintenance $3,324 $26,985 Removal $3,836 $10,228 Energy $3,442 $24,527 Total $95,470 $129,488  4 STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Use of the temporary LED lighting system does provide better illumination and minimizes the other identified problems of safety (less hazards), productivity (less maintenance required), and health (less risk of mercury and UV exposure). In addition, the case study revealed that use of the temporary LED lighting system allowed immediate use of temporary lighting on site as it could be energized upon the stripping of the formwork, allowing the building to be fully lit up at least one to two months earlier than it would have been in a traditional temporary lighting setting. However, it was also revealed that the temporary LED lighting system required additional pre-construction planning; more time and labor was required for installation, including additional works such as coordination with iron workers. These resulted in higher installation costs. Whilst the cost comparison showed that the temporary LED lighting system had lower overall costs, it is pertinent to note that the individual cost savings may belong to different parties and may not necessarily be passed on to the owner depending on the contractual arrangements. Verticality of a trade’s work space and the trade’s type of tasks also seemed to potentially influence the workers’ experience with LED lighting system. References Smith, B.W. and Azhar, S. 2007. Inadequate and Unsafe Temporary Lighting in Buildings under Construction: Risks, Challenges, and Solutions. 4th International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century, Gold Coast, Australia, CITC: 373-380. Smith, B. W. 2008, Temporary Construction Lighting of Buildings: An Evaluation of Four Techniques, both Qualitative and Quantitative, Intl Journal of Construction Education and Research, 4(2): 132-149. 135-4  5th International/11th Construction Specialty Conference 5e International/11e Conférence spécialisée sur la construction    Vancouver, British Columbia June 8 to June 10, 2015 / 8 juin au 10 juin 2015   A CASE STUDY ON THE USE OF LED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LIGHTING SYSTEM Yi Jie Huang 1, Ken-Yu Lin2, 4 and Jeff Angeley3 1 FTI Consulting, USA 2 Department of Construction Management, University of Washington, USA 3 Capital Project Office, University of Washington, USA 4 kenyulin@uw.edu Abstract: Adequate lighting is a necessity on construction sites not just for work completion, but also for the work quality, worker safety, and project productivity. This paper discusses the problems associated with traditional temporary lighting on construction sites and presents a case study on using LED temporary construction lighting as a potential solution. Various studies have shown that the traditional methods of providing temporary lighting are inadequate due to their non-compliance with OSHA requirements; visual discomfort; constant maintenance; and impacts to productivity, safety and health.  On the other hand, studies have shown that using LED as a source of temporary construction lighting provides benefits over the traditional lighting system, even though such uses are still rare within the industry. Using LED for temporary construction lighting, however, is subject to the high initial materials cost and other drawbacks. To this end, the objective of the research is to provide a deeper understanding of LED temporary construction lighting and ascertain its benefits and limitations through a case study. The study involves the University of Washington’s Bothell Science and Academic Building Project. The study involves interviews with both the lighting system vendor and onsite project personnel; survey questionnaire distributed to the field workers; and cost analysis of the LED temporary lighting system. The case study concluded that the benefits of using LED temporary construction lighting outweighed its limitations, but the individual cost savings may belong to different parties and may not necessarily be passed on to the owner depending on the contractual arrangements.  1 BACKGROUND Adequate lighting is important on the construction site not just for work completion, but also for the work quality, worker safety and productivity of the workers. Whilst construction sites can be lit by natural lighting, temporary lighting is usually required to supplement the natural lighting especially for enclosed work areas, during early/late work hours, and around evacuation egress. Often, a general contractor would place the duty of providing and maintaining temporary general lighting (and temporary power) under its electrical contractor’s scope of works and include it as part of the electrical bid package. Whilst task lighting has always been the responsibility of individual subcontractors, the scope of temporary general lighting has always been ambiguous with the level of illumination required not being clearly defined in the contract provisions.  Various studies have shown that the traditional methods of providing temporary lighting are inadequate. Non-compliance with the regulatory illumination standards during daylight hours was found (Smith and 135-1 Azhar, 2007) and only very high wattage light sources (e.g. 400 W metal halides) spaced at an appropriate distance could achieve the illumination standards (Smith, 2008). However, high wattage light sources are very bright, creating glares, shadows, and visual discomfort. The traditional method of temporary lighting also creates safety concerns. It is not uncommon that the lamps would burn out from overloaded source of energy, expose workers to high voltage wires, or become tripping hazards because of the extension cords and wires attached. Based on field observations and experiences, workers’ productivity tends to be negatively impacted with the use of traditional methods of temporary lighting. The traditional method requires constant moving of the lamps, resulting in the lamps being dropped, broken, or smashed easily. Oftentimes workers are required to replace the damaged lamps, or to locate, move and set-up task lighting due to the insufficient illumination of the general temporary lighting. The last area of concern is worker health. When light bulbs break, workers cleaning up the broken bulbs might be exposed to the escaping Mercury vapor or UV rays commonly seen in compact fluorescent lights. Due to the problems associated with the traditional method of providing temporary lighting, the Capital Project Office at the University of Washington (UW) deployed the use of low voltage temporary LED lighting system to replace traditional temporary lighting on the UW Bothell Phase 3 (“UWB P3”) – Bothell Science and Academic Building project. This is the first west coast installation of low-voltage LED temporary construction lighting system in the U.S. Construction for the 74,000 square foot UWB P3 building consists of four levels and one basement and was delivered using the GC/CM (General Contractor / Construction Manager) and EC/CM (Electrical Contractor / Construction Manager) approach to have the general contractor and electrical contractor on board early. While studies have shown that there are benefits of using low voltage LED lighting system over the traditional methods to provide temporary lighting, there are limitations as well with the most significant one being the high initial system cost. To this end, this paper: (1) introduces the case study background, (2) describes how the LED lighting system was deployed in the studied project UWB P3, (3) discusses data collected through interviews, survey questionnaires, and cost estimates, and (4) presents findings and concluding remarks. It should be noted that as most of the data collected are of qualitative nature, the case study discussion and results although were produced following a scientific procedure are still subject to human bias.  2  DEPLOYMENT OF THE LOW VOLTAGE TEMPORARY LED LIGHTING SYSTEM AT UWB P3 The FLEX SLS lighting system by Clear-Vu Lighting was deployed at UWB P3 to provide temporary construction lighting to all corridors and stairwells, as well as individual rooms where necessary. A typical setup comprises of 450-watt power systems, LED modules with 10’ whips, a T connector and low voltage (24V) cables. As this system made use of low voltage, the temporary lighting power cables and drivers could be designed to be embedded within the concrete slab, with only the whips and LED light fixtures dropped and exposed below the ceiling deck. Installation of the temporary LED construction lighting system at UWB P3 was undertaken in a three-stage process, including pre-construction estimate, planning for the lighting and controller setups, and the physical installation. During the pre-construction estimate, the electrical contractor estimated that 285 LED light fixtures would be needed based on the site conditions and layout, considering that each LED module’s coverage is roughly 17 ft by 17 ft. During lighting and controller setup planning, layout of the MEP was examined to determine possible locations that did not run across known MEP services. Locations of the walls that reached all the way to the bottom of the concrete deck were also taken into consideration, as they would block any light source once the walls were erected. Due to the capacity of the drivers, the number of LED fixtures connected to each driver was limited and therefore impacted routing of the cables, the number of drivers required to be installed per floor, and the number of circuits required to be run per floor. Upon confirmation of the locations of the fixtures and drivers, approximate measurements of their distances from gridlines were taken to aid the physical installation. During the physical installation, based on the approximate dimensions from the gridlines, the forms had to be drilled through so that the inserts could be placed within the concrete deck for both the fixtures and the whip. Coordination with ironworkers was necessary as the cables were installed concurrently with the reinforcement bars. During concrete pour, the electrical contractor would station a “pour watch” to ensure that the cables do not get damaged or pulled back into the slab during the pour. After the concrete has cured, upon stripping of the formwork, 135-2 the LED fixtures were installed on the floor slab and energized immediately to provide temporary lighting for that floor. Figure 1 illustrates how a LED fixture was deployed below a ceiling deck at UWB P3.  Figure 1: Temporary LED lighting fixture dropped and exposed below ceiling deck  (courtesy of Nelson Electric) 3 DATA COLLECTION To verify the benefits and limitations of using the LED fixtures as construction temporary lighting at UWB P3, data were collected via various approaches to triangulate common themes. Site interviews providing qualitative data were conducted with the project management staff from the UW CPO, general contractor, and electrical contractor. The interview data can be summarized into six themes as described in Table 1.  Table 1: Themes from the interview data Theme Description Immediate use of temporary lighting The temporary lighting system could be energized immediately upon the stripping of the formwork, way before MEP rough-ins Light reflection off drywall Drywalls would reflect the LED light and brighten up surrounding spaces as the internal partitions being erected Workers drilling into embedded cables Workers drilling through the slab for their works would accidentally drilled through the embedded cables Upward lighting requirement The LED lights were generally hung faced downwards but upward lighting is required for HVAC works Duration of use of temporary lighting Due to the ease of light fixture removal, the temporary lighting could be used until permanent lighting was turned on Contractual requirement Temporary lighting as “means and methods”, up to the general contractor’s discretion  135-3 A survey was administered to solicit worker input on the lighting requirements specific to their tasks and on how the LED lighting fixtures compared to the traditional methods. Based on the 19 responses received, in overall, the workers appeared to have had a more positive experience with LED lighting as compared to the traditional lighting, consistent with the interview results. Based on the ratings of both systems (on a scale of 1 to 5), the average rating of LED lighting’s attributes (e.g. visual comfort) ranged from 3.5 to 4.0 as compared to an average rating of 2.4 to 3.2 for traditional lighting’s attributes. Particularly, plumbers were in more agreement in their ratings than other trades. The electricians, on the other hand, had mixed reviews as to whether working in LED lighting was a more positive experience than traditional lighting. Estimated cost data were obtained (see Table 2) to compare the costs of providing a temporary metal halides lighting system and a temporary LED lighting system to meet the OSHA 5 foot candle requirements for UWB P3.  As the electrical contractor had never tracked these cost categories for temporary metal halides lighting systems used in the past, estimates from a different electrical contractor, Clear-Vu, and NECA Manual of Labor Units were also consulted to provide a basis of comparison and to establish a range of possible costs. Table 2: Summary of total cost comparison between LED and metal halides systems Categories LED Metal Halides Materials $53,953 $40,990 Installation $30,915 $26,757 Maintenance $3,324 $26,985 Removal $3,836 $10,228 Energy $3,442 $24,527 Total $95,470 $129,488  4 STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Use of the temporary LED lighting system does provide better illumination and minimizes the other identified problems of safety (less hazards), productivity (less maintenance required), and health (less risk of mercury and UV exposure). In addition, the case study revealed that use of the temporary LED lighting system allowed immediate use of temporary lighting on site as it could be energized upon the stripping of the formwork, allowing the building to be fully lit up at least one to two months earlier than it would have been in a traditional temporary lighting setting. However, it was also revealed that the temporary LED lighting system required additional pre-construction planning; more time and labor was required for installation, including additional works such as coordination with iron workers. These resulted in higher installation costs. Whilst the cost comparison showed that the temporary LED lighting system had lower overall costs, it is pertinent to note that the individual cost savings may belong to different parties and may not necessarily be passed on to the owner depending on the contractual arrangements. Verticality of a trade’s work space and the trade’s type of tasks also seemed to potentially influence the workers’ experience with LED lighting system. References Smith, B.W. and Azhar, S. 2007. Inadequate and Unsafe Temporary Lighting in Buildings under Construction: Risks, Challenges, and Solutions. 4th International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century, Gold Coast, Australia, CITC: 373-380. Smith, B. W. 2008, Temporary Construction Lighting of Buildings: An Evaluation of Four Techniques, both Qualitative and Quantitative, Intl Journal of Construction Education and Research, 4(2): 132-149. 135-4  A	  Case	  Study	  on	  the	  Use	  of	  LED	  Temporary	  Construc9on	  Ligh9ng	  System	  Yi	  Jie	  Huang	  1,	  Ken-­‐Yu	  Lin2	  and	  Jeff	  Angeley3	  1	  FTI	  Consul9ng,	  USA	  2	  Department	  of	  Construc9on	  Management,	  University	  of	  Washington,	  USA	  3	  Capital	  Project	  Office,	  University	  of	  Washington,	  USA	  1	  The	  Context	  Natural	  Ligh9ng	  Temporary	  Ligh9ng	  Task	  Ligh9ng	  Project	  Owner	  G.C.	  Electrical	  Sub	  General Req. Bid Package Egress Lighting 2	  Tradi9onal	  Temp.	  Ligh9ng	  Setup	  	  Incandescent lamps (100W or 150W) suspended from the slab deck at a  10’ x 10’ grid.  (Smith, 2007) Suspended compact fluorescent lamps,  (Clear-Vu Lighting, www.clearvulighting.com) 3	  Tradi9onal	  Temp.	  Ligh9ng	  Setup	  	  Wobble lights with cords on the ground on site (www.probuiltlighting.com) 4	  Tradi9onal	  Temp.	  Ligh9ng	  Setup	  Suspended metal halides (Smith 2007) 5	  Low	  Voltage	  LED	  Ligh9ng	  Setup	  http://clearvulighting.com/portfolio/flex-sls-achieves-university-washingtons-safety-sustainability-goals-increased-light-levels-improved-safety-reduced-operationalmaintenance-costs-environmental-responsi/# 6	  Comparison	  Criteria	   Tradi1onal	   LED	  Illumina9on	   ä	   ã	  Glare	  and	  Glow	   ä	   p	  Maintenance	   ä	   ã	  Produc9vity	   ä	   ã	  Safety	   ä	   ã	  Health	   ä	   p	  Energy	   ä	   ã	  Sustainability	   ä	   ã	  Ini9al	  Material	  Cost	   ã	   ä	  Installa9on	   ã	   ä	  7	  Case	  Study	  Project	  •  UW	  Bothell	  Phase	  3	  (UWB	  P3)	  –  Loca1on:	  Bothell,	  WA	  –  Facility	  Size:	  75,000	  ^2	  (=	  7000	  m2)	  –  Type	  of	  Project:	  	  •  Academic	  Building	  •  New	  Construc9on	  –  Construc1on	  Dura1on:	  17	  Months	  –  Total	  Project	  Cost:	  $68	  Million	  USD	  http://pm.uw.edu/cpo/cpoutlook/uw-bothell-discovery-hall http://pm.uw.edu/cpo/cpoutlook/uwb-celebration-and-tour 8	  LED	  Ligh9ng	  Setup	  @	  UWB	  P3	  •  Mee9ng	  the	  5	  foot	  candle	  OSHA	  requirement	  Temporary lighting whips and light fixtures dropped and exposed below ceiling deck Temporary lighting power cables installed within concrete slab 9	  Pre-­‐construc9on	  Es9mate	  Description  Unit Quantity Size of project  Sq ft 74,000 Ceiling height  ft 15 Desired illumination per loor  fc 5 LED module spacing  ft 17 LED module coverage  17ft x 17 ft Sq ft 289 LED modules needed 74,000 / 289 nos 256 285 Preliminary estimate of number of LED modules needed using Clear-Vu calculator 10	  Planning	  11	  Installa9on	  12	  Data	  Collec9on	  Interview with lighting manufacturer Site interviews with project staff Survey questionnaires distributed to workers on site Cost information derived from the electrical sub and others 13	  Interview	  Findings	  •  Immediate	  use	  of	  temp.	  ligh9ng	  •  Reflec9on	  of	  light	  off	  drywall	  •  Drilling	  into	  embedded	  cable	  •  Upward	  ligh9ng	  requirement	  •  Dura9on	  of	  use	  of	  temp.	  ligh9ng	  •  Temp.	  ligh9ng	  contractual	  requirements	  14	  Survey	  Findings	  •  21	  response	  (of	  which	  19	  were	  analyzed)	  •  Agreement	  level	  (1~5	  Liker	  scale)	  Description Average rating LED lighting TRAD lighting Amount of light provided 3.70 2.69 Consistent and well distributed 3.50 2.38 Productive 3.75 2.94 Visually comfortable 3.84 2.73 Safe operation of work 4.00 3.20 Distracted from work 2.43 3.25 More disruption 2.10 3.06 More coordination efforts 2.10 3.13 15	  Survey	  Findings	  (cont.)	  ¢ plumber ¢ electrician ¢ framer ¢ painter ¢ carpenter ¢ mechanical insulator ¢ laborer acoustic ¢ ceiling 16	  Cost	  Analysis	  Items LED ($) Metal Halides ($) Materials 53,952.80 40,990.00 Installation 30,914.70 26,757.22 Maintenance 3,324.36 26,984.88 Removal 3,835.80 10,228.00 Energy 3,442.21 24,527.12 Total 95,469.87 129,488.02 > $22,375 > $28,750 $29,343 to $45,906 > $7,360 =$109,997 17	  Conclusion	  •  5	  FC	  OSHA	  requirement	  is	  not	  met	  •  Some	  issues	  were	  caused	  by	  how	  the	  tradi9onal	  ligh9ng	  systems	  were	  deployed	  •  Ascertained	  known	  LED	  temp.	  ligh9ng	  benefits	  •  Allowed	  immediate	  use	  of	  temp.	  ligh9ng	  •  LED	  required	  addi9onal	  pre-­‐construc9on	  planning	  and	  higher	  installa9on	  cost	  •  If	  5	  FC	  were	  to	  be	  met,	  the	  cost	  of	  LED	  is	  comparable	  if	  not	  less	  •  However,	  cost	  saving	  might	  belong	  to	  different	  par9es	  18	  Acknowledgement	  •  Jeff	  Angeley	  	  –  Senior	  Construc9on	  Manager,	  UW	  CPO	  •  Yi	  Jie	  Huang	  –  Senior	  Consultant,	  FTI	  Consul9ng	  •  Brian	  Aske,	  	  –  Project	  Manager,	  Lease	  Crutcher	  Lewis	  •  Bruce	  W	  Smith	  –  Professor,	  McWhorter	  School	  of	  Building	  Science,	  Auburn	  University	  •  Tim	  Nelson	  –  Nelson	  Electric	  19	  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52660.1-0076347/manifest

Comment

Related Items