EQUAL Research Network Meeting 11 th July Emergency Wayfinding, Lighting and Disability

Transcription

1 EQUAL Research Network Meeting 11 th July 2002 Emergency Wayfinding, Lighting and Disability

2 Dr. Geoff Cook Research Group for Inclusive Environments The University of Reading

3 Why are we doing this research? There had been little published research on how all kinds of emergency lighting work in a smoke filled building Current recommendations in BS5266 Parts 1 to 7 are based on research carried out in clear air

4 How did we carry out this research? We used a two storey building, fitted with 6 types of lighting systems. This was uniformly filled with smoke, to a fixed density. Individual subjects were asked to escape, using the different lighting systems provided. Their walking speeds were found using thermal cameras.

5 Plan of escape route

6

7 Who tested the systems? Eighteen people passed through the test facility, eleven women and seven men. They had a mean age of 46.1 years, with a range of 23 to 63 years old. They all had good corrected vision.

8 What lighting systems did we test? Four kinds of wayguidance provision were compared with the British Standard (BS 5266 Part 1) overhead emergency lighting system, and with normal overhead lighting. Wayguidance systems are ones that are typically low mounted and outline the exit route, with frequent direction indicators.

9 Conventional overhead lighting In the corridor this system consisted of six fluorescent luminaires (each with two 18W lamps) mounted on the ceiling. In the stairwell there were two ceiling mounted incandescent luminaires. This system had a minimum illuminance of 20 lux along the route. There was a fluorescent sign mounted at a height of about 1.8 metres on the exit door. There was one externally illuminated sign along the route.

10

11 Emergency overhead lighting This follows British Standard 5266 Part 1, which recommends a minimum of 0.2 lux of illuminance along the emergency escape route. This system had a minimum value of 0.68 lux. The light was provided by six 4 Watt fluorescent luminaires mounted above head height. There was a fluorescent sign on the exit door. There was also one externally illuminated sign along the route.

12

13

14 LED wayguidance system 1 This had wall mounted tracks along the escape route, about 220mm above the floor. Green LEDs every 25mm pointing down onto the floor, and every 100mm pointing upwards to the eye, showing the route. 6 LEDs in each stair nosing, 17 LED arrows. Minimum illuminance of 0.33 lux along the route

15

16

17

18

19 LED wayguidance system 2 As the previous system with 2 exceptions no LEDs in stair nosings in the long corridor the strip was mounted on the floor, reducing the illuminance actually measured on the floor. This gave a minimum illuminance of 0.16 lux, so this part of the route does not meet British Standard 5266, although the rest of the route does.

20

21 Incandescent wayguidance system The light was from very small incandescent lamps, every 100mm, giving a whitish light. The tracks went down both sides of the corridors and stair, and outlined the doorways on the escape route. The minimum illuminance along the route was 0.15 lux. There was a fluorescent sign on the exit door. There was one externally illuminated sign along the route.

22

23 Electroluminescent strips This consisted of a green electroluminescent 24mm wide track mounted on the wall at 1000mm above the floor. The exit door was marked by a vertical strip on the right side, along with an internally illuminated sign. There was another internally illuminated sign, at the T-junction. The minimum illuminance along the route was 0.25 lux.

24

25 Plan of escape route

26

27

28

29 Mean Walking Speed (m/s) Mean walking speed against illuminance on the landing Mean Illuminance (lux) LED2 LED1 Incandescent Electroluminescent Normal Overhead Emergency

30 Mean walking speed against illuminance on the stair Mean Walking Speed (m/s) LED2 LED1 Incandescent Electroluminescent Normal Overhead Emergency Mean Illuminance (lux)

31 Mean Walking Speed (m/s) Walking speed against difficulty for the stair LED2 LED1 Incandescent Electroluminescent Normal Overhead Emergency Very easy Median difficulty of seeing where to go Very difficult

32 Mean walking speed against illuminance in the stairwell Mean Walking Speed (m/s) Mean Illuminance (lux) LED2 LED1 Incandescent Electroluminescent Normal Overhead Emergency

33 Mean walking speed against illuminance in the corridor 1 Mean Walking Speed (m/s) LED2 LED1 Incandescent Electroluminescent Normal Overhead Emergency Mean Illuminance (lux)

34 Mean Walking Speed (m/s) Walking speed against difficulty for the corridor LED2 LED1 Incandescent Electroluminescent Normal Overhead Emergency Very easy Median difficulty of seeing where to go Very difficult

35 Conclusions On the landing The two overhead lighting systems caused people to walk significantly more slowly than three of the wayguidance systems On the stair The two overhead lighting systems caused people to walk more slowly than when using either LED wayguidance system 1 or the electroluminescent wayguidance system

36 Conclusions In the short corridor The overhead emergency lighting caused people to walk significantly more slowly than three of the wayguidance systems. Both LED wayguidance systems let people walk significantly more quickly than under normal lighting. A system that produces almost ten times as much illuminance on the floor from overhead lights causes people to walk more slowly than one which produces it from low mounted strips.

37 Conclusions In the long corridor The overhead emergency lighting causes people to walk significantly slower than the four wayguidance systems. The slowest of the wayguidance systems gives a mean walking speed along this straight level corridor of 0.75 m/s, compared to 0.53 m/s for the overhead emergency lighting.

38 Conclusions In the long corridor Normal overhead lighting also caused people to walk significantly more slowly than when using either of the LED wayguidance systems or the miniature incandescent system. It is to be noted that LED wayguidance system 2, which does not meet BS 5266 in this section of the route, allows people to walk more quickly than overhead emergency lighting which does meet BS 5266.

39 Conclusions In the long corridor the overhead emergency lighting causes people to walk significantly slower than the four wayguidance systems. Normal overhead lighting also caused people to walk significantly more slowly than when using either of the LED wayguidance systems or the miniature incandescent system.

40 Summary The walking speeds of 18 fully sighted people walking through a smoke filled building clearly show that traditional overhead emergency lighting and normal overhead lighting cause people to walk significantly slower than some emergency wayguidance systems, even if those systems do not necessarily meet BS 5266.

41 Some Future Work Wayguidance systems offering tactile and audible information Emergency Signage Legibility and Conspicuity Future Integrated Transport Intermodal Points

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49 The Research Group for Inclusive Environments