My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003-09-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2003
>
2003-09-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2010 3:17:34 PM
Creation date
6/16/2005 3:09:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/25/2003
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />13 <br /> <br />curves. Lamp correction factors were applied, based on tbe types of lamps actually <br />in use at the time of measurement. Measured and calculated data were then compared <br />to produce typical examples of in-service- depreciation. <br />Comparison of the point-by-point grid measurements witb calculated initial design <br />data for tbe 10 locations showed light losses ranging from 18 to 72 percent. The aver- <br />age was 49 percent for an average system age of nearly 8 years. Depreciation for in- <br />stallations as old as 7 years averaged 47 percent, and systems 8 to 15 years old aver- <br />aged 54 percent. <br />All of tbe below-luminaire readings in 10 sections were compared witb calculat~d <br />initial illumination for this point, and depreciations of 35 to 73 percent were found. The <br />overall average light loss was51 percent, as measured by this rough approximation <br />method, which thus compared favorably witb tbe 49 percent average from tbe grids. <br />In-service uniformity ratios (average-to-minimum) found in the grid measurements <br />were worse tban the calculated initial values in all but 2 cases. The average change <br />was 58 percent for those that became worse. At one location where grid readings were <br />made, the nearby contributing luminaires were cleaned and new grid readings taken. <br />The direct effect of this cleaning was to increase tbe average illumination from 0.45 to <br />0.50 HFC (an increase of 10 percent). However, tbe cleaning wors~ned tbe average-to- <br />minimum uniformity ratio, from 9:1 before tt} 10:1 after. <br />The first 10 test sections involved practices of burnout replacement of lamps ratber <br />tban group replacement. In practically all of tbese cases, tbe only luminaire cleaning <br />performed was at the time of lamp replacement (or pole lmockdown). In fairness to <br />the cooperating agencies in this study, it should be reported that several were beginning <br />programs of improved maintenance. <br />Deprectation factors were also compared at 4 locations of equal age (4.5 to 4.7 years). <br />Two systems had burnout replacement and luminaire washing only at burnout, and the <br />otber 2 had group replacement at 16,000 hours (about every 4 years) plus annual wash- <br />ing. An average depreciation of 54 percent was found for the poor maintenance systems <br />versus only 36 percent for the group maintenance. This offers evidence in favor of <br />group replacement programs, which are endorsed by most engineers. However, de- <br />preciation in uniformity ratio was just as bad under one maintenance system as another. <br />The city of Philadelphia requires its maintenance contractor to regularly test mer- <br />cury lamps removed from service during group replacement programs. The testing <br />involves comparison against "standard" lamps, and data are tabulated on the percentage <br />of lumen output of tbe lamp being.tested. The date of lamp installation is placed on tbe <br />base, and the date of removal is known. It is, therefore, possible to compare months <br />in service witb lumen output (expressed as percentage of a 100 percent standard). <br />Data from 804 such tests were secured from tbe contractor. Findings are given in <br />Table 2. Wide variations can appear early in lamp service. Most group replacement <br />is performed at a 3- to 4-year lamp life. The extremes in output of 40 to 94 percent, <br />as compared witb tbe 78 percent average for this length of life, are equivalent to a <br />range of -49 to +21 percent of tbe average. The range for all lamp ages, as compared <br />with the 67 percent overall average, is an example of what might be expected in the <br />field under a burnout replacement program; this variation was -52 to +33 percent. <br />These laboratory findings were compared with the below-luminaire readings from <br />each freeway route section. The field readings were expressed as a percentage of- the <br />average of the 2 lamps at tbe "typical" test locations. This was done separately for <br />each of the 8 routes so tbe problem of different types of luminaires would be eliminated. <br />The extreme reading variations were tben averaged. The limits tbus found ranged from <br />a low of -49 percent to a high of +66 percent for tbe routes with burnout replacement <br />systems. The range was -40 to +69 percent for tbe group replacement routes. <br />The field data show an excellent fit witb tbe laboratory findings on tbe low end of tbe <br />scale but a poor fit on the upper end. They are sufficiently in agreement, however, to <br />suslain tbe hypotbesis that freeway illumination usually varies about 50 percent on <br />either side of any "nominal" value measured in the field. <br />The :1::50 percent variation occurs under ideal conditions of constant geometry and <br />spacing to mounting height ratios. When the actual spacing and variable-roadway width <br />differences (such as those that occur at ramp entry or exit points) are considered, an <br />even wider rangt exists in the hypothetical "average" HFC. <br /> <br />,~ <br /> <br />'.I~ <br />'I <br />1 <br />"1 <br /> <br />1,1 <br />, <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />.1 <br />,i,l <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />:i <br />"1 <br /> <br />-!!'~':, <br /> <br /> <br />j <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.