Download document () of 20
Send email
Download
You have exceeded the download limit
Need: Older people: Eyesight is known to deteriorate with age, thus reducing the speed at which signage can be identified.
Solution: Careful consideration of lighting placement throughout the building – consider higher, uniform illumination throughout. Give extra-thought to hazards like stairs.
Need: They may also be less mobile.
Need: Physically disabled: may be less mobile and/or less able in other ways.
Solution: Consider higher illumination, particularly at potential hazards and building intersections, to support with more complex evacuation.
Need: Cognitive disabilities: A dramatic reduction of lighting could cause panic and uncertainty
Solution: Maintaining 100% of light levels in an emergency could help reduce stress and shock.
Need: Young adults: where ‘partying’ is frequent, can lead to implications for alertness and engagement.
Solution: Consider higher illumination of escape routes.
Need: Can also be generally slower to respond in an emergency.
Solution: ‘Pulsing’ exit signs could be used to encourage people to get moving.
Need: General public: Unfamiliar with a new space, they may panic or cause crush scenarios if they simply follow the crowd or escape the same way they went in.
Solution: May require maintained (always on) emergency lighting to ensure that escape routes and exits are clearly lit at all times. As well as familiarisation, this is critical to aid safe evacuations where there is no power failure.
Tasks can be safely stopped under reduction of illuminance to very low levels (typically 0.5Lux from 300-500 depending on the task).
Illumination type typically needed: escape, anti-panic
Tasks can be safely stopped at practically any time by interacting with a control panel. Illumination is typically required on both the control panel and task to safely stop and evacuate.
Illumination type typically needed: high risk
Tasks cannot be immediately stopped or take a long time to do so. Full illumination over a whole area may be necessary.
Illumination type typically needed: standby (which allows a process to continue at full efficiency).
Examples
Stadiums, theatres, large public gatherings
Risks
Crush, terrorism, overall time for evacuation increased
Implications
Examples
Mixed-use schemes, residential, office blocks
Risk
High overall time for evacuation
Implications
Examples
Churches, warehouses, public halls, universities
Risk
Implications
Lifecycle total cost of ownership (TCO) is key for any building owner or operator installing an emergency lighting system. Like many commercial investments, it’s a trade-off between how much the system will initially cost to design and build (CAPEX) and the operating costs (OPEX) involved over its lifetime.
Lifecycle total cost of ownership (TCO) is key for any building owner or operator installing an emergency lighting system. Like many commercial investments, it’s a trade-off between how much the system will initially cost to design and build (CAPEX) and the operating costs (OPEX) involved over its lifetime.
The bar chart shows how CAPEX, installation, testing/inspection and battery replacement costs break out as a percentage of TCO when comparing self-contained manual and self-test systems with a CBS solution with integrated automatic testing over 25 years.
| Manual test Self-contained |
Centrally monitored Self-contained |
Centrally monitored Central battery system |
|
| Capital luminaires & equipment |  |
 |
 |
| Installation |  |
 |
 |
| Battery replacements |  |
|
 |
| Testing and inspection |  |
Simply testing an emergency lighting system – whether manually or by using automatic technology – does not constitute a maintenance programme sufficient to ensure people can evacuate safely, as well as meet compliance standards. Building owners and operators need robust processes in place so that faulty equipment is quickly repaired or replaced, and that any new products or components needed to deliver the necessary performance and satisfy all regulations.
While some builder owners may choose to take on testing/maintenance responsibilities and arrange simple repair or replacement themselves, most – especially when it comes to larger systems – will choose an annual service contract with their emergency lighting supplier company. This approach ensures that competent, fully trained engineers manage all aspects of testing and maintenance, as well as arrange any repairs or replacements using OEM components to high compliance standards.
This is likely to be a low-risk setting with most tasks easily stopped safely with a low level of luminance. A combination of escape and anti-panic luminaires would be appropriate, with additional lighting recommended should the office receive frequent visitors unfamiliar with its layout.
While the lecture theatre is also likely to be low risk from a task perspective, its users are mainly students. While they may be familiar with its layout, a risk assessment has indicated the potential for them to respond more slowly in the event of an emergency incident. ‘Pulsing’ increased affordance escape and anti-panic luminaires may be the solution in this scenario to aid fast recognition of exit signs.
Although materials and goods production at normal lighting levels may be fairly low risk, the sudden loss of general lighting and luminance reduction to escape levels could disorientate workers and result in injury from power tools, lines or conveyors and forklift trucks etc. High-risk task illumination to 10% of general lighting conditions in suitable locations enables tasks to be safely halted. Dangerous heavy industry environments with continuous processes not easily shut down – like foundries – will require a generator with battery backup to provide almost indefinite run times.
Every application of emergency lighting presents unique challenges with the final system design underpinned by a full risk assessment. Here are just some of the background and legislative details system designers need to take into account:
