luminous egress path marking systems

[cda]

a few articles on luminous egress path marking systems::

http://www.ronblank.com/courses/jgb10a/jgb10a.pdf

based on 101: check page six

http://www.ul.com/global/documents/corporate/aboutul/publications/newsletters/thecodeauthority/tca_issue_2_2011.pdf

and as always the lovely Lori::: ahead of the game as usual

http://idighardware.com/2011/05/luminous-egress-path-markings/

 

[AegisFPE]

These systems are the subject of discussion in Washington State, due to a state amendment to IFC Section 4604 and varying code language in the General section of 4604.

In the draft text of IFC 4604.1, the code text referenced Sections 4604.1 through 4604.21. Today, the final code text references Sections 4604.1 through 4604.23.

As the state amendment is through 4604.21, there is some question as to whether the correction to the base code should extend to the state amendment. In such case, Stairway Floor Number Signs and Egress Path Markings may not be required for existing buildings.

 

[Oldfieldguy]

Consider that this provision was put into the 2009 IFC and IBC by the NYC Department of Buildings in response to the first WTC attack and the power grid failure in the N.E. that occurred in 2007. In the code change analysis, the proponents stated that they experienced close to a 70% failure of generators and transfer switches for emergency lighting systems. I can understand the failure of the generators and transfer switches in the first WTC attack. I don't understand a 70% operational failure because the power grid. That's a pretty poor performance rate for a life safety system and tells me building owners were not maintaining these systems in accordance with NFPA 110. So if the owners aren't maintaining generators and transfer switches, how will a luminous egress path marking system offer more reliability if they too are not maintained?

The other issue I have is Section 4604.21 exempts R-2 occupancies. I guess the condo/apartment owners in NYC are a pretty powerful lobbying group because they were able to keep Group R-2s out of the model code. I look at the list of all the effected occupancies and wonder why Group R-2 is not included in the group.

 

[FM William Burns]

Will have to dig through some of my old proposals to 101 MOE committee for inclusion into 101 back in 99-03. Nice to see it's finally gaining speed and being more widely accepted by RDP's and juristictional officials as part of the MOE. I told them so

Sure had fun in committee meetings with the guys all wearing white socks with "red" exit colored on them.......thanks for the memories.