Recessed lighting / Title 24 energy compliance

Started by bstephens6 on 14 July 2007. 7 replies.

Originally posted at johnlsayers.com, topic 9116.

Good morning! I am really stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. We are in the middle of building a commercial rehearsal space and are trying to balance solid sound isolation against city/state code. We had to go with a title 24 (mandatory energy compliance) which only allows us 1.2 watts/sq.ft. We have a 4 room complex. each room is approx. 180 sq.ft. This only allots us 170-180 watts of lighting per room. We would have liked to have gone with track lighting but even the low voltage tracks would have only allowed us a maximum of 3-4 bulbs. The title 24 is based off of potential ballast/transformer usage not the actual wattage of the bulb. We were also denied surface mount lights due to sprinkler compliance. Here is our room design
External image, not preserved — original: http://www.livemusicianscoop.com/pics/wall_design.jpg
External image, not preserved — original: http://www.livemusicianscoop.com/pics/celing.jpg
Now for the bad part... :( We are being forced to go with 26 watt fluorescent can lights, 6-8 per room. This completely compromises our sound isolation. It is too late in the process to go back for redesign so now we need to find a way to work with these. Is there something we can do to use these lights which minimizes sound leakage? Thank you so much. Hey Keith I see you are in Sac., right down the road and over the hills.... BEN
bstephens6 wrote:
We were also denied surface mount lights due to sprinkler compliance.
Althuogh I can understand that your lights cannot sit side by each with a sprinkler head - it cannot be possible that you can't use surface mounted fixtures - fit within the layout of the sprikler head grid - and still meet code. Whoever is telling you this is mistaken. everything that creates an obstruction has to do with distance of travel (from the head) AND the size of the obstruction itself - . It just isn't as cut and dry as they are telling you....
We are being forced to go with 26 watt fluorescent can lights, 6-8 per room. This completely compromises our sound isolation. It is too late in the process to go back for redesign so now we need to find a way to work with these.
I don't think it's going to be as big a deal as you're making it out to be Use 6" recessed cans andjust insulate the heck out of them with thermafiber (you'll need cans certified to allow the insulation). Rod
Rod thanks for the reply. We had an inspector tell us that any light fixture above 1" of the tip of the sprinkler head or lower would be a code violation. Maybe he was just having a day with us! who knows.... I do appreciate the info on the thermafiber. Do you have any suggestions on the type of thermafiber that would get the job done witout too much of an overkill? Boy these stidos are a lot of work..... and FAITH! Thanks again Rod your expertise has already saved me loads of money! I will definately be making a donation to the JS forum. BEN
Can you do wall sconces? Those are obviously surface mount and wouldm't obstruct the sprinklers... :roll: --Keith :mrgreen:
Hey Keith, I noticed you were in Sacramento. I am in Santa Rosa about an ! hr 15 min away. Hows the weather? :) About the wall sconces.. My original thought was to use them, but I thought that unless they were dimmable, flourcent lighting at head level would kill the mood. There is also the heavy vibration factor of the live music. Unfortunately unless we resubmit the title 24 to the city and go through another 2-3 weeks of waiting we are stuck with the design we got. I wish I would have done a little more research before accepting in good faith what the title 24 desgner had told. We are starting electrical on Thurs. of this week. Do you know the type of thermafiber that Rod was refering to? I think this is going to be the better of the two evils at this point! Thanks for the reply. BEN
Ben, standard rockwool.......... 4pcf-nothing special or fancy. Rod
Rod thanks for again for the reply! Could I box the fixtures in by using 2 pieces of 2 x 10s perpendicular to the joists, thus creating a square or rectangle around the fixtures? Then stuffing this boxed cavity with thermafiber? I could then fill the rest of the ceiling cavity with regular R 19 insulation. Or do you think I need to use the thermafiber througout the whole of the ceiling joists? I am thinking cost.... Thanks. BEN
bstephens6 wrote:
Rod thanks for again for the reply! Could I box the fixtures in by using 2 pieces of 2 x 10s perpendicular to the joists, thus creating a square or rectangle around the fixtures? Then stuffing this boxed cavity with thermafiber? I could then fill the rest of the ceiling cavity with regular R 19 insulation. Or do you think I need to use the thermafiber througout the whole of the ceiling joists? I am thinking cost.... Thanks. BEN
Ben, Boxing in wold be fine - in fact - make a fairly large box (joist width by double joist width - add 2 or 3 layers of drywall to the top of the box (tight to the bottm of decking) then install light and fill remaining of box with rockwool....... fuluffy fiberglass for remainnig ceiling - this will get some mass at the top of your weak point........ Rod