920 Apollo Rd - Ltr re: Crane Study Permit#98147MEYER BORGMAN JOHNSON
March 9, 2011
John Young
Paramount Real Estate Corporation/TCN Worldwide
3601 Minnesota Drive, Suite 925
Bloomington, MN 55435
Dear Mr. Young:
Crane Study for Apollo Industrial Park (mbj # 11.348.0)
Eagan, Minnesota
81.04 PEA /r - E40 4014e7
As requested, we have studied the effects of the proposed crane on the existing building structure at the
920 Apollo Road facility. The proposed crane is an overhead crane with a three ton rated capacity, 248
feet of travel, and an approximate bridge girder span of 40' -3 ". The proposed crane runway is vertically
supported on crane columns (by Stewart Engineering) bearing on the existing concrete slab -on- grade and
laterally supported by the existing precast wall panels and structural steel building columns. Our
understanding of the proposed crane is based on conversations with you and Mike Stewart of Stewart
Engineering, and on drawings provided to us via e-mail that include the following:
• Unsigned and undated existing structural drawings SO, S I and S2 prepared by Betker /Stangeland.
• Unsigned architectural drawings Al thru A4 dated 01/21/11 prepared by WCL Associates, Inc.
• Crane Clearance Diagram (one sheet) dated 01/19/11 prepared by Stewart Engineering and Sales
Co.
Load calculations were performed based on a 6,000 lb maximum wheel load per direction from Mike
Stewart of Stewart Engineering & Sales in lieu of the 7,5001b maximum wheel load shown on Stewart
Engineering's Crane Clearance Diagram. In addition, a crane railway self - weight of 99 plf was used
based on conversations with Mike Stewart. Our calculations show the design crane structure loading onto
the existing structure to be as follows:
• Maximum vertical crane column reaction = 19,200 lbs
• Transverse crane runway reaction to existing precast wall panels = 1,800 lbs
• Transverse crane runway reaction to existing steel columns = 900 lbs
• Longitudinal crane runway reactions to the existing structure were not calculated (x- bracing is to
be provided by Stewart Engineering).
In addition, we modeled the effect of the proposed crane loading on the existing building structure. Our
findings and recommendations are as follows:
• The existing structural steel columns (existing Grid D) are capable of safely supporting the
transverse crane runway loading without additional reinforcement at an elevation of 22 feet above
the finished floor elevation. The connection between the runway structure and the existing
building columns (by others) should be detailed to allow for relative vertical deflection between
the crane and building columns.
12 South Sixth Street, Suite 810 Minneapolis, MN 55402 www.mbjeng.com 612.338.0713 SEE STRUCTURE.
John Young
March 7, 2011
Page 2 of 2
The existing concrete pad footings supporting building columns (existing Grid D) are capable of
safety supporting the vertical crane column surcharge at a distance of 2' from the existing column
centerline (as proposed by WCL/Stewart).
We recommend the Owner contact the original precast wall panel supplier and have them verify
the capacity of the existing panels to safely support both the transverse loads from the crane
runway and the lateral soil pressure caused by the vertical crane column surcharge loading
(19,200 Ibs per crane column). We do not have sufficient information on the existing precast wall
panels to be able to make this determination.
We recommend an 18 "xl 8" base plate (3/4" minimum thickness) be used to support the crane
support columns in lieu of the 10 "xl0" plates shown by Stewart Engineering in order to provide a
safe effective soil bearing area in the likely case that the existing slab condition is not exactly as
shown on the drawings. Common problems with slab -on -grade construction include variable soil
compaction, uneven grading and misplacement of the reinforcement (mesh is often found in the
bottom of the slab). The Owner should be made aware that while the use of larger base plates will
reduce the risk of cracking, it will not eliminate it. Where cracking of the existing slab occurs, the
stability of the slab should be monitored to prevent an unsafe condition from developing.
If you should have any questions or co
Sincerely,
ey r Bo an Johnson
tor, P.E.
Proje t Eftgineer, Associate
Daniel E Murphy, P.E.
Senior P incipal
Cc:
file
Date
T ents regarding our findings, please do not hesitate to contact us.
I hereby ce
or report was
direct supervi
teed Professio
the State of
this plan. epecificati
ed by me oz under my
nd that I am a duly Regis -
npineer under the laws of
states.