Proprietary deflection tracks?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 194 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 09:45 am:    Our office is being inundated by mailings from Metal-Lite and last week I had an in-office meeting with a representative for Sliptrack Systems. I need input from your collective minds! As background, our office master specifies light gauge deflection tracks generically but also lists both Metal-Lite "The System" and Fire Trak Corp. “Deflection Trak" as CONTRACTOR OPTIONS. The mass mailings from Metal-Lite specifically identify FireTrak in their cover letter as being twice the cost of their product (and my opinion is, so?) and of course, how their product is better and should be the only one considered. The second page of the Metal-Lite mailing is the one that I am questioning and confused about. According to this "open letter", it claims that Metal-Lite has "prevailed" in the lawsuit between the Brady "SlipTrack" product and then lists a whole bunch of court cases (this open letter is NOT dated). When I went to Metal-Lite's website, it appears that all of these court cases are old (or at least older than 2006). The Brady/Sliptrack representative was in our office last week with their literature and an industry announcement piece that indicates that on June 29, 2006 the U.S. patent office has given Brady/Sliptrack a new patent AND that all other slotted track manufacturers are considered infringers ... "anyone who manufactures or sells [any style of] slotted track will infringe Brady's new patent regardless of how the slotted track is installed. The new patent is now in the process of being printed by the Patent Office and will issue in August, 2006". Has anyone else been receiving this information? Talking with some project architects here in the office, their opinion is that I should include all of them and not worry about it ... George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 241 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:29 am:    Fire Trak Lawsuit for a discussion from 2004 on the same topic. Unless you are convinced that one product is superior in performance to all the others, specify the deflection track generically, and let the contractor figure out if he wants to buy somebody's ready made product, or just build it himself. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 119 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:03 pm:    A generic specification is not an option due to the availible fire tests. It is my understanding that if the expected deflection is more than a moderate amount the generic systems are not rated. On a 25' span using a LL deflection criteria of L/360 you need to accomodate a deflection of 0.833 inch. Having the contractor fabricate a track assembly that is patented is not an option. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 242 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:19 pm:    ...but Mark, doesn't the head of wall firestopping assembly maintain the rating on a field assembled deflection track? I thought some of those (firestopping) products allow close to 1" movement. Or am I missing something here? Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 64 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:28 pm:    Also look at Cemco's product - Firestik. http://www.firestik.us/ As a former rep in firestopping and fireproofing and involved in some testing, this looks like a simple solution. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 239 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 02:28 pm:    Not all tested deflection track assemblies offer the same deflection performance. Many only allow 1/2" and while others allow 3/4". After coordination with structural, spec what is tested for the deflection required by the project. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 186 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 02:33 pm:    We have received some of the same mailings. Rather than have the manufacturers "duke it out" on my time or on my projects, I removed both of them from our specifications. There are plenty of other very suitable products out there that accomplish the same thing - allowing deflection of the structure at the head of the wall. Two of the products that we have retained (for exterior wall CFMF) are the runner-and-clip system, and the double track system. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 02:25 pm:    Another issue with this is the cyclic testing, as I understand it. Allowing the contractor to field fabricate something that looks like it should work, does not mean that it will work. The proprietary systems go through a rigorous testing - including a 500 cycle deflection requirement as I recall - and the a hose stream test... Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 73 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 11:24 am:    Another issue to be concerned about is the special application of a high rise residential or apartment occupancy; flat slab concrete structure with acoustically rated and fire-rated partitions separating units. If one were to specify generically, the appearance of the head of wall at this location would vary depending on whose product (or site-built) was selected. Some of these solutions are not appropriate for the interior of a luxury apartment/condo wall-ceiling finish. What do you want to see up there? Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 08:01 pm:    Beware of including these systems as "options" for projects where the A/E team scope includes design and calc for interior walls systems for permitting - such as Cal OSHPD (hospital projects). Leaving the option in means you need to provide designs and supporting calcs for each system; something you might not have planned on doing. Also, it may create a "Deferred Approval" scenario where the permit is not issued until the system is selected. If you provide standard nested long leg top track details and specs with reference to UL assemblies you will always know what you are getting. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 123 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 03:06 am:    The problem is that while the nested track solution can structurally accommodate the deflection the fire rating may not be consistent with the expected deflections.