DOE Part III-LED产品测试流程标准翻译：Page-10

888888

4. 推算方法 Projection Method
       在2015年7月的SNOPR中，DOE提出了一个新的流明维护预测程序，解决了许多利益相关者对2014年6月和终身SNOPR提案的担忧。该建议主要基于IES TM-28-14行业标准，并提供了一个简单、直接和灵活的计算方法，基于LED灯的流明维护记录趋势。然而，DOE提出了某些修改意见，使预测方法符合DOE对测试程序的需求，以确保一致的、可重复的结果。80 FR at 39653. EEAs和CA IOUs支持DOE纳入IES LM-84-14和IES TM-28-14，指出测量和预测LED灯的流明维持率的重要性，而不仅仅是LED光源。(EEAs, No. 43 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 44 at p. 4) CA IOUs补充说，DOE的建议将鼓励更长的测试时间，这将在测试期间发现早期产品故障。CA IOUs还指出，该建议将帮助制造商做出更准确的寿命声明。(CA IOUs, No. 44 at p. 4)
       In the July 2015 SNOPR, DOE proposed a new lumen maintenance projection procedure that addressed many of the stakeholder concerns regarding the June 2014 and lifetime SNOPR proposals. The proposal was largely based on the IES TM–28–14 industry standard and provided a simple, straightforward, and flexible calculation based on the recorded trend in lumen maintenance of an LED lamp. However, DOE proposed certain modifications so that the projection method meets DOE’s need for a test procedure that ensures consistent, repeatable results. 80 FR at 39653. EEAs and CA IOUs supported DOE’s inclusion of IES LM–84–14 and IES TM–28–14, citing the importance of measuring and projecting lumen maintenance for LED lamps rather than just LED sources. (EEAs, No. 43 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 44 at p. 4) CA IOUs added that DOE’s proposal will encourage longer test durations, which will identify early product failures during testing. CA IOUs also noted that the proposal will help manufacturers make more accurate lifetime claims. (CA IOUs, No. 44 at p. 4)

      然而，飞利浦和NEMA不同意能源部关于参考IES LM-84-14和IES TM- 28-14进行流明维持测试和寿命预测的建议。他们评论说，工业界仍在广泛使用IES LM-80-08和IES TM-21-11，并表示目前的建议将导致严重的认证和测试延迟，导致制造商的测试负担，并最终扼杀快速发展的产品周期中的创新。(飞利浦，第41号，第3页；NEMA，第42号，第3页）NEMA还指出，IES LM-80-08和IES TM-21-11允许将一个LED光源的测试结果用于使用该LED的每个产品，这就缩短了整个产品线的测试时间。NEMA断言，由于IES LM-84-14是一个新的标准，制造商对它的经验较少，因此IES LM-84-14是否会比IES LM-80-08更准确地预测流明维持率还不得而知。最后，NEMA建议DOE让制造商选择按照IES LM-80-08和IES TM-21-11或IES LM-84-14和IES TM-28-14来认证灯具，这样可以给照明行业足够的时间来熟悉新标准。(NEMA, No. 42 at pp. 3-4)
      However, Philips and NEMA disagreed with DOE’s proposal to reference IES LM–84–14 and IES TM– 28–14 for lumen maintenance testing and lifetime projections. They commented that industry is still widely using IES LM–80–08 and IES TM–21–11 and indicated that the current proposal would cause significant certification and testing delays, result in manufacturer test burden, and ultimately stifle innovation in a rapidly evolving product cycle. (Philips, No. 41 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 42 at p. 3) NEMA also noted that IES LM–80–08 and IES TM–21–11 allow for test results of one LED source to be used for each product that uses that LED, which shortens test time for the entire product line. NEMA asserted that because IES LM–84–14 is a new standard and manufacturer experience with it is low, it is unknown if IES LM–84–14 will more accurately predict lumen maintenance than IES LM–80–08. Lastly, NEMA recommended DOE give manufacturers the option to certify lamps under IES LM–80–08 and IES TM–21–11 or IES LM–84–14 and IES TM–28–14, which would give the lighting industry sufficient time to be familiarized with the new standards. (NEMA, No. 42 at pp. 3–4)

      DOE指出，正如它在之前的几份SNOPRs中指出的那样，测量和预测整个灯的性能而不是LED光源，对于有关灯指标的测试程序来说是更准确的。其他的LED灯部件可能会在LED光源低于其初始光输出的70%之前导致灯失效，因此，LED灯的寿命不应该仅仅由LED光源的流明维持率来估算。虽然NEMA注意到IES LM-80-08和IES TM-21-11允许将一个LED光源的测试结果用于使用该LED光源的每个产品，但这种方法可能无法准确描述这些产品的寿命。例如，包含在组装灯中的其他电气元件也可能影响寿命，但在只测试LED源时，这种影响将无法体现。虽然NEMA声称业界仍然广泛使用LED光源来估计寿命，但能源之星要求测试整个灯来确定寿命，而且大多数集成的LED灯已经获得能源之星的认证。因此，DOE不能允许使用两种不同的方法（即LM-80-08/TM-21-11和LM-84-14/TM-28-14），因为它们会对同一个灯产生不同的结果。
      DOE notes, as it has in several previous SNOPRs, that measuring and projecting the performance of the entire lamp rather than the LED source is more accurate for a test procedure concerning lamp metrics. Other LED lamp components may cause lamp failure before the LED source falls below 70 percent of its initial light output, and therefore, it is undesirable for the lifetime of LED lamps to be approximated by the lumen maintenance of only the LED source. While NEMA notes that IES LM–80–08 and IES TM–21–11 allow for test results of one LED source to be used for each product that uses that LED source, that approach may not accurately characterize the lifetime of those products. For example, other electrical components included in the assembled lamp may also affect the lifetime but this effect would not be captured when testing only the LED source. Although NEMA claims that industry is still widely using the LED source to approximate lifetime, ENERGY STAR requires testing of the whole lamp to determine lifetime and the majority of integrated LED lamps are already certified to ENERGY STAR.15 Finally, DOE must adopt a test procedure that provides reliable, repeatable, andconsistent results. As such, DOE cannot allow two different methods (i.e., LM– 80–08/TM–21–11 and LM–84–14/TM– 28–14) to be used because they will generate different results for the same lamp.