Luminous Egress Path Markings

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, January 10, 2011 - 05:22 pm:    Can anyone offer insight on how code requirements for luminous markings are typically spec'd (to comply w/ 2009 IBC, Section 1024)? I'm involved w/ specs for my first high-rise since this provision went into effect. Vertical & horizontal egress paths must have luminous markings in buildings in certain Use Groups w/ occupied floors more than 75 ft. above fire dept vehicle access. My client suggested specifying w/ stairs & railings. However, the requirement extends to floors, walls, doors, frames & hardware. The scope would seem to make it logical to specify this treatment in a separate section, similar to the way firestopping is handled. Experiences with addressing this issue in the specs would be appreciated. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 915 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2011 - 05:53 pm:    I created a section for similar markings (safety zones around machinery) under 10 40 00 Safety Specialties. I would think that these markings could be considered a safety specialty. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 404 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2011 - 06:28 pm:    We have the photoluminescent products scattered about. Project dependent. Some stuff in Section 101473 - CODE SIGNAGE (Our number); or Section 096513 for stair streads; and Section 055100 - DESIGN-BUILD STEEL STAIRS. Design-builder could be designated as the responsible party for treads, cast-in nosing, striping on handrails, etc. Wayne Andy (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 08:55 am:    Door hardware manafacturers have started using photoluminescent markings on exit devices and I believe door frames also. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 827 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 09:52 am:    You should check with your local jurisdiction before writing the section based on the full requirements of the IBC code. Many jurisdictions are not requiring the full implementation. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 357 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 01:17 pm:    It has been suggested that because the local jurisdiction does not require full implementation of certain provisions of the IBC that the project documents can ignore them. I would suggest that unless the local code adoption ordinance specifically modifies these code provisions that the design still needs to conform in all aspects. The risk is that if there is a future problem related to the requirement the design professional could be found liable for the problem. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 828 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 03:39 pm:    Mark, That is exactly what many local jurisdictions are in fact doing, specifically publishing requirements very different from IBC. As I said, people should check to see as typically they don't tell you what you don't need to do even if it is published - you have to find that out for yourself. And its not what someone says, its what is published that counts. And it should be noted that some of these jurisdictions its not that they are saying that you don't need to do it but rather they are requiring only a partial implementation - do the whole thing and you might end up having to remove it. Also, it seems the federal government is not implementing the full IBC version, but on a project by project basis. Mostly they are staying with what is required in their document PBS-P100 which is very much less than the IBC requirements. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 358 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 04:51 pm:    Willian I can understand the local jurisdiction deleting some provisions in the local ordinance but it is unclear why compliance with the IBC even if not mandated would be a problem. Could you provide an example? J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 08:24 pm:    In the most correct sense, when a local jurisdiction adopts a model code, with or without modifications, it ceases to be the IBC and becomes the "City of XXX Building Code." It is compliance with the local code, as administered and interpreted by the authorities having jurisdiction, which is required. In most cases I have seen, everyone still refers to compliance with the IBC, but it is the local building code as adopted by the local government which governs. The local code officials should require compliance with the building code as adopted, but may have relatively wide latitude in interpretation of certain matters. The exception to this rule is when a model code is being used essentially as a "basis for design" document in overseas work. The client may require compliance with the model code without exception. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 829 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2011 - 11:05 am:    Mark, I have been on the side lines as this particular issue has moved through locally here. I don't know the ultimate outcome at this point. One of the points is that these markings will be a maintenance issue over time, especially the tape type if that is chosen to be applied to a walking surface like a stair tread. One might presume to use the paint type product at such a location, but in a back of house area what is going to rule is which happens to cost less in terms of product cost plus installation cost. In addition, its really a redundant exercise. Emergency lighting is required in areas like stairwells, so its not going to be dark there anyway. And just as an exercise, lets tape and paint up one of these stairwells as required, light them up to activate the glowing effect, turn out all the lights. Then you stand in the well lighted corridor and make sure your eyes are conditioned to the nice bright light, open the door to the stair, step in and close the door. If you have never done this before your eyes are going to take a bit to transition to the dark, and the striping is going to be very dramatic, if not disorienting. Have you ever experienced a 'fun house' that happens to have used glow in the dark markings intentionally to confuse? You really don't need to do much, a few angles, and you are lost. A stairwell you and I and most others in our profession may very well have no real problem at this point. But the general public is not you and I. The person at this point is going to be in a small space, dark, with glowing lines outlining things steps, railings, angles going all over the place. They might have better luck closing their eyes if they don't get a chance to practice it on their own. Sure, after even a few seconds your eyes start to adjust and the striping is going to start to be a benefit not just glowing but providing a low level of lighting of its own. However, the last thing you really want to do is have someone hesitate out of confusion or disorientation right after entering the stairwell especially if there are more people behind pressing to move forward. So discussions in the local code groups about modifying this particular requirement are occurring. Not always do they end up modifying it, but its something that needs checking to verify just what is required locally. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 407 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2011 - 11:51 am:    Check out BALCO website. They are all over this like flies on a cow pie. http://www.balcousa.com/photoluminescent-emergency-exit-systems.cfm Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 115 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2011 - 12:00 pm:    I have used a separate Division 10 section for this and let the GC coordinate who does which piece. I was recently in the swimming pool of a public building when the power went out and guess what? Hardly any of those emergency lights worked at all. Good thing we now have iPhones and cell phones to lead us to the locker rooms and emergency exits. The personal light wasn't much help in the shower, but it certainly helped me get dressed. - Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1099 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, January 17, 2011 - 07:45 pm:    that's the idea of the photo luminscent markings -- is that the power is out (for whatever reason) and then the battery backup either doesn't work, is deficient or simply isn't bright enough. I was in my apartment building in LA a couple of years ago when the power went out and all the fire doors slammed shut -- making the hallways absolutely dead-dark. I bought a few emergency flashlights to keep plugged in after that.