Intelligent integration of Exit Signs

Architects, construction managers and building managers each have different value systems driving their decisions for which emergency lighting system they will install. We want to take a look at the concerns of each of these perspectives and offer a solution that accomplishes their needed tasks while being eco-friendly. In order to do this it is necessary to understand the basic needs of each group, identify the historically most common sign choice, identify how these choices reflect their value system and then determine if a more suitable and sustainable design of exit sign exists.

Architects and Decorative Exit Signs

Architects want the designs of the building to reflect their skills, style, creativity, and innovations. When it comes to specifying and installing exit signs, historically there have not been too many options that do not distract from the interior design. I may be taking liberties in saying this, but if the building code did not require exit signs and emergency lighting, most lighting designers and architects would opt not have them at all. The reality though is that they are required and that the architectural world could benefit by having knowledge of architecturally pleasing exit signs. Design considerations alone are not the problem. Determining an efficient way to route the wiring to each of the exit signs and emergency lights is time consuming. Depending on the type of building, calculations must be done to determine how the signs and lights impact the load on backup generators, such as the case for high rises or hospitals. In the event that the building is required to running the signs and lights on a generator or inverter, the thoughtfulness of design becomes more complex and the costs associated with the emergency lighting system increases.

From a designers standpoint consider how the decision and treatment of the emergency lighting system impacts not only the cost of designing the building, but the cost of materials such as wire, conduit, junction boxes, dedicated circuits, inverter or generator sizing. Now with the laws requiring both low level exit signs and high level exit signs, the impact is greater.

In addition to this, now consider the cost of running the lights 24/7 for the lifetime of the building and the labor associated with replacing the bulbs or signs after they have expired. Historically Incandescent exit signs were the signs of choice. These signs use up to 40 watts of electricity and bulb life of about 3000-4000 hours. Thankfully LED exit signs, signs of 3-5 watts, have taken over reducing much of the on going costs of running the signs recently. When you consider the full system needed to run an electrical sign this only solves one portion of the equation. Removing the exit signs from the grid, as well as, removing the signs dependency on electricity significantly lowers the cost of the building. This is the beauty of GreenTorch's non-electrical exit signs. Removing electricity from the exit sign removes all the associated costs mentioned here in addition to minimizing points of failure thus improving the safety of the building. In light of the total carbon footprint of a single electrical exit sign system, it makes moving over to tritium or photoluminescent signs a much more viable option.

GREENTORCH PHOTOLUMINESCENT EXIT SIGNS

Electrical safety lighting

• Generator
• inverter
• Conduit
• Dual Circuit
• Light bulbs
• Batteries
• Wire
• Junction Boxes
• Electricians
• 24/7 Electricity