Being called “high maintenance” is probably something most of us would rather avoid, but compared to LED luminaires that’s exactly how High Intensity Discharge (HID) lighting solutions could be described.

Unlike LED luminaires that can provide more than a decade of near maintenance-free sustained illumination, HID systems require much more maintenance over such time frames. The main reason for the differing maintenance needs between the two technologies is differences in the rate of lumen depreciation or the rate at which a light source loses light output over time. While LED luminaires can be designed to have a very low rate of lumen depreciation that eliminates the need to re-lamp over their intended application lives, HID solutions are unable to avoid re-lamping cycles and the associated costs that come along with such required maintenance.

A lighting design process is an effective tool that incorporates product specific lumen maintenance predictions for a given source technology to help predict some level of sustained illumination performance into the future. Lighting designs also assume that the lighting system selected will be properly maintained to avoid illumination levels that fall below their original design intent. For even the best HID sources, it typically means re-lamping every two years for a normal dusk-to-dawn system that operates daily. Should you decide to delay re-lamping you have, in effect, decided to dip below the minimum illumination levels that you had originally set out to deliver. It also means an increase in random lamp outages as lamps begin to burnout at a much faster rate and low light levels increasingly become no light levels.

Unfortunately as budgets become tighter it seems easier to delay or simply eliminate group re-lamping altogether as a means to save money. This, unfortunately, comes at the expense of safety and quality of life concerns.

LED luminaires offer a better solution. In addition to the potential for significant energy savings, there is also the opportunity to significantly reduce maintenance-related expense. These combined savings can help avoid some of the tough budget decisions we face today.

So although we may not always have a choice in terms of avoiding “high maintenance” people, we definitely can avoid the “high maintenance” lighting systems of the past by incorporating LED solutions today.

How are you being proactive and avoiding possible maintenance issues? Share your story.

Those old enough to remember the 1980s may recall then President Ronald Reagan’s, “Trust, but verify” messaging as part of the United State’s Cold War negotiations with the former Soviet Union. While evaluating LED luminaires may not seem as important as dealing with a nuclear arms race, the same “Trust, but verify” philosophy should be used to reduce risk prior to any large scale implementation of LED products.

But what should you verify? To better limit risk it’s important to understand where risk resides. Some typical questions could include:

• How do I know I’ll get the necessary sustained light levels over the duration of my application?
• How do I know that the luminaire mounting is strong enough to withstand vibration over time?
• How do I know the luminaire and its paint finish are durable enough to resist corrosion?

It’s important to understand the difference between specifying product features versus specifying product performance. Specific product features may imply performance, but by themselves fall short of ensuring any specific level of performance. For example, a street light luminaire that advertises a product feature utilizing four mounting bolts, instead of two, may imply a certain level of increased performance. For instance, it may imply resistance to conditions such as vibration. But without credible performance data that specifically addresses vibration resistance, no assumption regarding a product’s resistance to vibration should be made. Specifying product performance removes product features from the specification and puts the focus on what actually reduces risk, some level of product performance.

Lets get back to the questions. Would the level of risk be more greatly reduced by pointing to either product specific features or credible performance data? Well if the movie Jerry Maguire was about a great lighting designer, he would have probably shouted, “Show Me the Data!” There are relevant standards in place that can be referenced to quantify levels of durability for the three questions above and more. Once the necessary performance level is determined and specified, potential suppliers should verify their ability to provide certain levels of performance with credible data so as to reduce risk.

But, what about product warranties – they minimize risk, right? Although warranties are designed to reduce risk, warranties also present certain risks as well. The first risk is based on the strength and credibility of the company offering the warranty in the first place. Two nearly identical five-year warranties may seem equal at first glance, but if there is a high degree of uncertainty that one of the two companies may even survive for five years, it’s unlikely these two warranties would be viewed as equals. Overall product reliability is another factor to consider when determining the potential strength or value of a warranty. Companies with proven performance are probably less likely to experience catastrophic failures on a scale that may jeopardize their ability to honor warranty claims compared to new companies entering the market.

So the goal to managing risk shouldn’t be left solely to a good warranty. Even the best warranties do not eliminate risk, since associated costs may be incurred should warranty claims need to be made. Therefore, specifying performance during the product selection process is the best way to minimize risk. Remember, “Trust, but verify.”