ANOTHER CODE CHANGE… ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY… OURS … · 2014-09-08 · try and further enhance...

DOORS AND HARDWARE • JANUARY 200622

HERE WE GO AGAIN!

ANOTHER CODE CHANGE…

ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY…

OURS TO GAIN OR LOSE

Behind every new building code change,� there is opportunity. If that’s not already standard wisdom in our industry, it should be!

Once again, we have an opportunity to grow our indus-try and further enhance our standing as life safety pro-fessionals. The New York City (NYC) Building Code now mandates the installation of photoluminescent signs and markings in high-rise (i.e., higher than 75 feet) buildings to facilitate safe emergency exits during building evacu-ations when power and back-up power systems have failed. Placed close to the f loor to a l low v isibi l it y in smoke a nd crowded cond it ions, they are additions to, but do not replace, other signage required under the building code. It is important to note that provisions for photolu-minescent exit path markings already exist as options or guidelines in other codes and standards. While the NYC code is the first to make them mandatory, their value in guiding evacuations along smoke-filled or crowded exit paths ensures it will not be the last.

Adopted in May 2005, reference standard RS 6-1 and 6-1A of the NYC building code establishes technical stan-dards for installation in compliance with New York City Local Law 26 of 2004. These signs and markings must be installed on or before July 1, 2006, in both new and existing high-rises.

Photoluminescent signs and markings (for conve-nience, referred to collectively in this article as “photolu-

minescent systems”) are essentially products that glow in the dark. Photoluminescent material is charged by exposure to ambient light and emits luminescence after the activating light source is no longer available.

The NYC standard calls for photoluminescence both in directional signs pointing to exits and in markings showing outlines of egress paths, stairs, handrails and obstacles. Products to meet these requirements include

a variety of self-adhesive sig-nage and marking systems designed for specific uses, as well as non-slip, traction-tread stair nosings.

Applications for doors and door hardware on egress paths are logical venues for supply by door and hardware distributors. Other photolu-minescent systems required by NYC will extend our reach into less familiar—though not difficult—territory. In

any event, it is certain that photoluminescent systems will be sold as complete packages. Numerous life safety

“experts” and “consultants” are already launching cam-paigns to provide integrated packages. Life safety with regard to doors should be our exclusive domain. But if we fail to act, it is also certain that other trades will preempt our industry and take the door business—and its lucra-tive profit potential—along with their own in supplying photoluminescent systems.

In fact, this general scenario is becoming all too famil-iar to our industry. Because it strikes at our reputation, as well as going straight to our bottom line, it is worth

by: Jerry Heid, AHC/ CSI, Vice President Sales, Zero International

PHOTOLUMINESCENCE

CASTS NEW LIGHT

ON OUR

LIFE SAFETY

CREDENTIALS

FREE ADVERTISER INFORMATION AT: www.thru.to/dhiFREE ADVERTISER INFORMATION AT: www.thru.to/dhi


digressing briefly from our focus on photoluminescent systems to con-sider other lost opportunities. Then we will return to examining more closely this opportunity, including: the life-safety origins and purpose of the NYC standard, its possible impact on standards and codes elsewhere in the country, and its basic product and installation requirements.

Ceding territory, revenues and prestige

It has happened before – all too often. Other trades benefit from our slow reaction time. And unwilling-ness to stretch a bit leads too easily to forfeiting ground. When aluminum/glass-type doors were first installed at building entrances, some door and hardware suppliers took a pass on tackling hardware challenges such as concealed exit devices and floor clos-ers for those doors. In the interven-ing years, other trades moved in to fill the gaps. Now specs typically read

“hardware by others.” Our industry supplies only keyed cylinders; alumi-num, glass and glazing contractors supply the rest.

Similarly, the advent of closed cir-cuit TV and security hardware ulti-mately prompted the formation of a new industry around security and electrical hardware. Instead of our industry’s reluctance to get educated and understand electrical hardware, a more proactive stance could have forestalled that development. Our credibility as life safety and security consultants has suffered. In some states, security contractors have even succeeded in lobbying for state codes mandating their services in place of ours.

Door louvers have t rad it ion-ally been part of our package, but

mechanical contractors are now occa-sionally picking them up and put-ting them in their contracts without being contested. Other threats to our package are code-driven. As we all should be aware, proposals to allow sprinkler systems to supercede cur-rent standards for compartmental-ized fire protection would eliminate requirements for fire doors and relat-

ed hardware, including items such as smoke gasketing.

Gaining or even holding ground against these kinds of direct and indi-rect challenges takes commitment and initiative. The downside of doing nothing to supply photoluminescent systems is the same as above—oth-ers will step in and close us out. The good news is that the technology is not complex, and NYC’s applica-tion requirements, while extremely detailed, are manageable. Revenue potential for retrofitting NYC build-ings alone is sizable, and the NYC law indisputably sets the optimum stan-dard for the rest of the country. It seems well worth our time to famil-iarize ourselves with photolumines-cent requirements and systems in order to make educated judgments about this particular opportunity.

Purpose and direction

New York City’s standard for pho-toluminescent exit path markings has its origins in both World Trade

Center (W TC) tragedies. Fol low-ing the first attack on WTC in 1993, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the independent agency that owns and managed the com-plex, implemented recommendations for improving safety, which included installing photoluminescent signs and markings. Those systems were largely in place when W TC was attacked again in 2001. A task force convened following the 2001 attack brought together a broad coalition of groups—including both public and private sector experts and survivors of the attack—to review the strin-gent high-rise building and design construction and operating require-ments then in place. Their recommen-dations for modifications to enhance public safety included codifying stan-dards for photoluminescent systems into New York City law.

Richard Picciotto, a retired deputy chief with the New York City Fire Department, provides a unique first-hand perspective on these events. Picciotto was the keynote speaker at our most recent DHI Convention and is the author of a best-selling book, Last Man Down, recounting his unique personal experience at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Picciotto was on the 35th story of the North Tower when the South Tower came down—and on the 6th story when the North Tower collapsed. He spent more than five hours in a small, protected pocket before being rescued.

In Picciotto’s opinion, “Photolu-minescent materials definitely help in the evacuation of a building. This is especially true in high-rise build-ings. Many of the occupants have never been in the stairways and do not know where the stairways and emergency exits terminate.” He

our credibility as life safety and security

consultants has suffered.

JANUARY 2006 • DOORS AND HARDWARE 25

notes that evacuation conditions differed substantially between the two events. Occupants were able to evacuate much more quickly in 2001 largely because power remained on and there was no smoke on the lower f loors. He adds, “Emergency light-ing with photoluminescence would have made a huge difference in 1993, when occupants had to feel their way down stairwells in smoke and total darkness.”

The Picture Beyond NYC

It is important to keep in mind that photoluminescent systems also have a life beyond New York City. The National Fire Protection Asso-ciation (NFPA) first recognized pho-toluminescent exit markings in its 2000 Life Safety Code and incorpo-

rated updated provisions in both the 2003 and 2006 editions of the Life Safety Code and NFPA 5000 Building Construction and Safety Code. Rob-ert E. Solomon, NFPA assistant vice president for building and life safe-ty codes, notes the broad extent of the New York law, which he sees as

“optimum” in its scope and installa-tion detail. By comparison, the NFPA has adopted what he calls “minimum requirements” for exit signs, egress and floor exit path markings. (More specific requirements apply to special amusement buildings that intention-ally operate in dark environments, usually without direct lighting.)

According to Solomon, photolumi-nescent systems fit into one of two options that satisfy NFPA require-ments for exit path markings. He explains, “The first option is an

externally illuminated system, which requires a light source in close prox-imity to the sign and that is usually connected to the emergency lighting facilities as well. The second option is an internally illuminated system, which is self-contained (i.e., the light source emanates from the sign). These systems may derive their light source from a traditional, electrical power circuit that is not connected to an on/off switch. Photoluminescent signs fall into this category since the light source emanates from the sign itself once an external light source has charged the surface. The code includes other back-up or ancillary system requirements that address what NFPA sees as inherent limita-tions in each technology. An impor-tant provision in the codes is that the signs have to satisfy the performance

FREE ADVERTISER INFORMATION AT: www.thru.to/dhi


criteria of UL 924, Standard for Emer-gency Lighting and Power Equipment.”

Solomon also serves on the ASTM subcommittee evaluating photolu-minescent markings. ASTM E2030-04 (“Guide for Recommended Uses of Photoluminescent Safety Mark-ings”) is a recently published guide to recommended use, but is not a stan-dard practice. In Solomon’s view, the companion guide ASTM E2072-04 (“Standard Specification for Photolu-minescent Safety Markings”) is simi-lar to the New York law with regard to detailed performance and installa-tion specifications.

Kimberly Paarlberg, Senior Staff Architect at the International Code Council (ICC), advises that the cur-rent Internat ional Building Code contains no requirements for pho-toluminescent markings in Chapters 10 and 11 governing Means of Egress and Accessibility. (There is a provi-sion for alternative products such as photoluminescence in Chapter 1, Alternative Materials and Methods, which would allow uses such as glow strips on concrete f loors to assist in marking paths across huge inte-rior spaces in warehouses and other unusual spaces.) Current ICC provi-sions for the path of travel when exit-ing buildings include requirements for exit sign illumination, minimum illumination levels and emergency power, as well as various stairway requirements addressing safe egress.

Paarlberg, who handles communi-cations among all parties proposing code changes for Chapters 10 and 11, reports that various proposals con-taining pieces of the New York pho-toluminescent standard have so far been rejected by the ICC voting body. Proper application, uniform enforce-ment, maintenance issues, and the impact of renovations on markings

are among the concerns yet to be resolved. The placement of tactile markings for the visually impaired is also being debated. “To date, a pro-posal for glow strips on steps in stair-wells has received the most activity,” Paarlberg said.

In sum, there are no current plans by the major code bodies to incorpo-rate anything close to the New York

City standard for photoluminescent exit path marking. However, options for photoluminescence already exist-ing in some codes are likely to become more commonplace as code officials gain more experience in the application and inspection of these systems. It is also likely that cost considerations will favor the use of photoluminescence over alternative emergency lighting options in many cases. That’s the ticket for door and hardware suppliers. As codes throughout the rest of the country begin to catch up with New York City, we need to be ready to supply this mate-rial and ensure that it is not already in packages supplied “by others.”

What does the New York standard say?

The flip answer is: more than you really want to know for your gener-al education and, rest assured, more than we intend to cover in this arti-cle. Read on for a practical overview of the major sections of the standard, followed by suggestions for translat-

ing the requirements into part of your hardware package. The code provides very detailed placement instructions and mapping diagrams for signs and marking strips. The figures shown in this article provide representative detail, but of course you will need to refer to the standard itself when sup-plying these products. The photolumi-nescent section of Zero International’s Web site at www.zerointernational.com provides a downloadable PDF of stan-dard RS 6-1 and 6-1A. It is also avail-able at http://www.nyc.gov/html/ dob/html/reference/code_update05. shtml. The following basic requirements are laid out in New York City Local Law 26, Section 27-383 part B, which calls for use of approved photoluminescent material that is “washable, non-toxic, non-radioactive, and if subjected to fire [is] self-extinguishing when the flame is removed.”

1. All doors opening to corridors, to an exit, or to an exit passageway, shall be marked with the word “exit.”

2. Within exit stairs, horizontal exten-sions in exit stairs, horizontal exits, supplemental vertical exits and exit passageways, except within street level lobbies, there shall be direc-tional markings.

3. Required markings for exit paths shall comply with the technical standards for installation and placement to be set forth in a ref-erence standard. Such reference standard shall be designated RS 6-1 and shall be adopted on or before January 1, 2006

Reference standard 6-1 is our focus for the remainder of this overview. (Standard RS 6-1A, referenced previ-ously, includes additional standards required by 6-1.) The first section of 6-1 outlines the minimum per-

...unwillingness to stretch a bit leads too easily

to forfeiting ground.


formance of the photoluminescent materials. It provides technical spec-ifications for: brightness rating (BR), washability, toxicity, radioactivity and flame spread. An additional test is required for UV resistance if prod-ucts are to be used in unfiltered sun-light or exterior weather conditions.

Products must be independently tested and certified for approval by the New York City Department of Build-ings’ Materials Equipment Accep-tance Division (MEA). MEA labels are required on all installed products.

The second part of RS 6-1 deals with the minimum requirement for place-ment of photoluminescent products. For our purposes, we begin on famil-iar turf by summarizing the require-ments for door signs and markings. Photoluminescent signs and markings are required on or next to:

1. Doors opening to exits or exit pas-sageways,

2. Doors opening to corridors that act as required exit passageways connecting two vertical exits, and

3. Doors serving as horizontal exits.

Door Signs (Figure D)A couple of definitions are needed

here. “Final exit doors” lead direct-ly to the exterior or to a street-level lobby. “Intermediate exit doors” are doors used in the egress direction (including both vertical and horizon-tal exits, as well as transition pas-sageways) but do not lead directly to the exterior or street-level lobby.

For intermediate and final exit doors, signs must be mounted on the wall directly adjacent to the door. Signs for all other doors can be installed either on the wall surface, on the door itself, or in both places.

Figure A shows the parameters for placement of signs in both loca-

tions. The 18-inch line above the fin-ish floor for placement of the top of signs extends to 26 inches for instal-lations in existing buildings, where necessary because of molding, base-boards or similar features. (The stan-dard provides numerous exceptions for existing buildings, i.e., buildings with plans approved prior to July 1, 2006), most of which we will not address here.) Signs are required on both doors in pair configurations.

Arrows showing the direction of travel to final exit (example in Fig-ure B) are required on wall-mounted signs but can be omitted from doors mounted on the doors. Signs for final exit doors contain supplemen-tal directional text (example in Fig-ure C). Except in existing buildings, doors along egress paths that lead to dead ends (such as mechanical rooms and storage closets) require photolu-minescent signs reading “NOT AN EXIT.” (Figure D)

Figure APlacement for Door Signs

Figure BIntermediate Exit Door SignWall-Mounted/ Exit Left Arrow

Figure CFinal Exit Door SignExit Through Lobby

Figure DDoor SignNot an Exit

Figure EDoor Hardware MarkingLatch Type and Door Bar Type

Figure EDoor Hardware MarkingsLatch Type and Door Bar Type

Figure FDoor Frame Markings

Figure APlacement for Door Signs

Figure BIntermediate Exit Door SignWall-Mounted/ Exit Left Arrow

Figure CFinal Exit Door SignExit Through Lobby

Figure DDoor SignNot an Exit

Figure EDoor Hardware MarkingLatch Type and Door Bar Type

Figure EDoor Hardware MarkingsLatch Type and Door Bar Type

Figure FDoor Frame Markings


Door Hardware Markings (Figure E)

Door hardware on all intermedi-ate and final exit doors requires a minimum of 16 square inches (406 mm2) of photoluminescent mate-rial to mark the door handle. It can be placed behind, immediately adja-cent to, or on the door handle and/or escutcheon. Where a panic bar is installed, a stripe at least one inch (25mm) wide must extend along the entire length of the actuating bar or touchpad.

Door Frame Markings (Figure F)The top and sides of the door

frame of all intermediate and final exit doors must be marked with a solid and continuous stripe of pho-toluminescent material from one to two inches (25 mm to 51 mm) wide. The stripes may be placed on walls surrounding the frames if the door molding does not provide enough flat surface on which to locate the stripe. The dimensions, distances and loca-tions of the required markings must be consistent and uniform on all doors on the route to the exterior of the building.

Other requirements of RS 6-1 will take us into specification sections

where we do not usually have reason to go. The standard spells out mini-mum requirements for placement of photoluminescent markings within vertical and horizontal exits (includ-ing extensions and supplemental exits as defined by the NYC Building Code), and within exit passageways. Markings are not required in street level lobbies, exterior stairs, or exte-rior balconies. In general, dimensions, distances and placement of markings must be uniform throughout the same exit. RS 6-1 provides specifi-cations for width, length, placement and overlap as appropriate for each category of photoluminescent mark-ings within these exits.

Steps (Figures G & H)The entire horizontal leading edge

of each step is to be marked with a solid and continuous stripe of photo-luminescent material (Figure G).

For steps in existing buildings, the leading edge stripe must extend to within two inches (51mm) of both sides of the step. Alternatively, side edge markings providing returns extending along the leading edge can be used on both horizontal sides of each step (Figure H).

Leading Edge of Landings (Figure G)

Photoluminescent stripes must be placed along the leading edge of all landings, such as the platforms at the top of stairs. The specifications are the same as for steps, except that the stripes may extend the full length of the leading edge of the landing, and there are no exceptions for existing buildings.

Handrails (Figure I)The top surface of all handrails

must be marked with a solid and con-tinuous stripe of photoluminescent material extending along their entire length, including handrail extensions and newel post caps. For buildings with plans approved prior to July 1, 2006, handrails are not required to be marked.

Floor Perimeter Demarcation Lines (Figures J)

Placed close to the f loor on both sides of egress paths, these lines are intended to outline the paths. All parts of the exit path, includ-ing stair landings, must be marked, except for the sides of stairs and areas leading to obstructions or dead ends. The demarcation lines must be

Figure GStair and Landing Edge Markings

Figure HSide Edge Markings


Figure IHand Rail Markings

Figure JFloor Demarcation Lines

Figure KObstacle Marking

Figure KObstacle Markings

Figure LDirectional SignProgress to the Right

Figure MTRACTION TREAD™ Stair Nosing


solid and continuous stripes, which may be interrupted to accommodate obstructions such as conduits, mold-ings, corners or bends. The lines may be mounted on the wall (Figure J) or placed on the floor.

Obstacles (Figure K) Obstac les such as standpipes,

hose cabinets, wall projections, and restricted height areas that project

more than four inches into egress paths must be outlined with alternat-ing bands of photoluminescent mate-rial and black, angled at 45 degrees.

Directional Signage Upon Enter-ing an Exit, at Transfer Levels and Where Egress Direction is Not Clear (Figure L)

The standard requires the place-ment of directional signs at the

entrance to every stairwell or exit on exit paths so that opening the door does not obstruct their visibility. These signs are to include an arrow indicating the direction of travel. Placement location is the same as for door signs—top edge of the signs must be no more than eighteen inch-es (457 mm) above the finished floor. Existing buildings are exempt from the directional sign requirement, except for below-grade stories.

Directional signs including arrows indicating the direction of travel must also be mounted on the wall at trans-fer levels and wherever egress direc-tion is not clear. Examples of those locations include turns along hori-zontal extensions, transition points from vertical to horizontal direction, and “T” intersections.

What happens next?

Armed with basic education about photoluminescent signs and mark-ings, our first priority as an indus-try should be to make sure these systems become part of our package. You have probably ascertained from the preceding recap that various products required by the New York standard could be furnished by elec-tricians handling the exit signs, con-tractors pouring the steps and using stair nosings, or miscellaneous met-als contractors. Any of those groups, along with specialty photolumines-cent or safety contractors could step in and take the whole package, unless we get there first.

Offering good-quality product is an important pre-requisite to enter-ing the competitive fray. The main-tenance standard in RS 6-1 requires building owners to inspect all sig-nage and markings annually and promptly repair or replace any that




























www.thru.to/dhi


are missing, damaged or loose; show signs of wear; or are missing MEA labels. Other sections give guidance for owners—but provide no man-dates or specifications—in assess-ing building conditions and product needs for abrasion resistance, adhe-sion, and slip-resistance. Obviously all are important to prolonging ser-vice life, and products offering supe-rior performance can help minimize maintenance costs and headaches. For example, high-traffic stairwells will subject adhesive marking strips to heavy abuse. Stair nosings with profiled grooves, rubber inserts and photoluminescent integrated into the outside-edge grooves, provide a more durable, as well as non-slip, solution.

How do we specify these photolu-minescent systems? There are cer-tainly practical issues that will have

to be worked out, and probably can best be worked out through hands-on experience. The new CSI master spec (2004) has added Section 101443 for Photoluminescent Signs. But where do photoluminescent markings go—or photoluminescent stair nosings? It is possible that various requirements will end up in Miscellaneous Metals or even Concrete.

In order to pull these requirements together in our package, we will need look for them—and ask for those sec-tions if missing from specifications. With the basic information in hand, all of the photoluminescent products can be supplied as required hard-ware. Adding door signage and mark-ings for door hardware and frames is easy. Compiling counts for demarca-tion lines, stair markings, stair nos-ings and signs at non-door locations

will require procedures that are out-of-the-ordinary —including linear footage calculations and counting steps. But those procedures require no special expertise and will quickly become familiar.

Actual experience over time may point to better alternatives to these pre-liminary approaches. The urgent need at present is to avoid letting another opportunity slip away—as well as preventing further erosion of our life safety credentials. DHI continues to promote our role as the foremost life safety experts for door openings and related items. Putting muscle behind that claim requires taking the lead in educating ourselves, architects and end-users about code changes that affect life safety and our business. Let’s be proac-tive about photoluminescence. We all stand to benefit.


ANOTHER CODE CHANGE… ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY… OURS … · 2014-09-08 · try and further enhance...

Documents

Transcript of ANOTHER CODE CHANGE… ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY… OURS … · 2014-09-08 · try and further enhance...