Home
Store
Membership
Codes, Standards & Guidelines
Education
Certification & Testing
 
 

Bulletin Board Archive

Bookmark and Share
ICC Bulletin Board   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» ICC Bulletin Board » Code Chat » Building and Residential Codes -- Non-Structural Issues » Armstrong Seismic RX system vs. USG

   
Author Topic: Armstrong Seismic RX system vs. USG
miguele3
Contributor


 - posted      Profile for miguele3           Edit/Delete Post 
Armstrong has the Seismic RX suspension system which has the BERC 2 (Beam End Retaining Clip) that allows you to use 7/8" perimeter trim. It's based on ESR-1308. USG argues that "In the vast majority of seismic applications, only 2" wall molding will meet code requirements. However in certain narrowly defined applications, local building officials may approve use of 7/8" wall molding without pop rivets is tees are secured at the perimeter with a seismic attachment clip." Then they go on to introduce their ACM7 Seismic clip which is a modification of the BERC clip. The funny thing is my sample of the USG clip references the same ESR-1308 which from what I can tell is only for the Armstrong clip.

What is USG up to? Are building officials in the D,E,F seismic zones allowing the BERC system with 7/8" perimeter trim?

--------------------
Miguel

Posts: 82 | From: San Francisco | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kilitact
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
2
 - posted      Profile for Kilitact           Edit/Delete Post 
ESR-1308 appears to be for the Armstrong system, good question, how can the AHJ approve this. Is an ACM7 part of a listed assembly?

--------------------
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

Posts: 1056 | From: oregon | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
miguele3
Contributor


 - posted      Profile for miguele3           Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry, I don't have an answer. My hunch is that USG is very anxious about the BERC 2 system, but I have no proof.

--------------------
Miguel

Posts: 82 | From: San Francisco | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mike Myers
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
5
 - posted      Profile for Mike Myers           Edit/Delete Post 
It appears that USG does not want to expend the effort or expense to have their product examined. Therefore I would deny the application as having insufficient evidence of compliance as an alternate method.

--------------------
Michael E. Myers, MCP, CBO

Posts: 341 | From: South Carolina | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Shim
Frequent Contributor


 - posted      Profile for Shim           Edit/Delete Post 
Guys, you're worrying about nothing.

Ceiling grids are virtually identical. The clip is a generic peice of metal.

Posts: 775 | From: Central California | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
miguele3
Contributor


 - posted      Profile for miguele3           Edit/Delete Post 
As an update: The clip appears to have been an earlier generation Armstrong clip stuffed into the USG submittal. But the concern about using the Armstrong still stands with the issues USG is saying in their literature. My Armstrong rep. came by and stands by the BERC 2 clip.

USG does have a clip as well but it is not L- shaped but more of a T-shape

--------------------
Miguel

Posts: 82 | From: San Francisco | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kilitact
Frequent Contributor


Member Rated:
2
 - posted      Profile for Kilitact           Edit/Delete Post 
Shim, do you approve products in Califonia??

--------------------
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

Posts: 1056 | From: oregon | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bob Delaney
Junior Contributor


Rate Member
 - posted      Profile for Bob Delaney           Edit/Delete Post 
I just attended a presentation that USG's technical folks gave to our association. I have to disagree with Mike Myers. I learned from USG's presentation that they have committed significant resources to seismic testing and also test their individual seismic components. They have an ESR report (ESR-1222) and a resource center online. I think they have more respect for the code, local interpretation and life safety. Perhaps that comes across to you as them being "anxious" I believe they are being responsible.

Miguele, I suggest you take a look at the strength of the BERC clip. USG openly showed us the test results of their ACM7 (T-Shaped) clip and it clearly performed significantly better. We analyzed both clips (by hand) and the ACM7 feels much more robust.

Bob

Posts: 2 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
miguele3
Contributor


 - posted      Profile for miguele3           Edit/Delete Post 
I will take a look at their clip. Thanks

--------------------
Miguel

Posts: 82 | From: San Francisco | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


ICC Home Page

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3