The URL can be used to link to this page

940 Lone Oak Rd - Special Inspection Final Report $lOG �ir�/Z��.pS < , Special Inspection Final Report Ecolab Pilot Plant—Exterior Replacement 940 Lone Oak Road Eagan, Minnesota Prepared for Ecolab Inc. Project 614-08547 December 19, 2014 Braun Intertec Corporation R�VIEWED �hr: � tz t� ► Eagen Buitding Inspsct��s Divtaion B�� Braun Intertec Corporation Phone:952.995.2000 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Fax: 952.995.2020 INTE RTE� Minneapolis,MN 55438 Web: braunintertec.com The Science You Build On. December 19,2014 Project B14-08547 Mr. Dale Alexander Ecolab Inc. 370 Wabasha Street North Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re: Special Inspection Procedural and Final Report Submittal Ecolab Pilot Plant—Exterior Replacement 940 Lone Oak Road Eagan, Minnesota Dear Mr.Alexander: Please find attached to this procedural report Special Inspection Final Report for the Ecolab Pilot Plant Exterior Replacement project and the supporting Special Inspection Daily Reports. Special Inspection and Testing Procedures The special inspection services were periodically provided by International Code Council (ICC)certified special inspectors and experienced technicians in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 17 of the International Building Code(IBC)and the project plans and specifications. The purpose of special inspections is to provide a review of the contractor's work designated as needing special inspection under the guidelines of the IBC to determine compliance with the approved construction documents. The special inspector doesn't have the responsibility or authority to, nor is it the intent of special inspections to have them,judge or modify the construction documents. Only the structural engineer of record can do this. As the special inspections were completed,a Special Inspection Daily Report was prepared to summarize the results of our inspections and testing. A copy of this report was provided to the contractor's site representative for their review and records. Plans and Specifications The plans and project documents available at the site were used for our inspections. Soil Evaluation and Testing A Geotechnical Evaluation was not performed for the project. Braun Intertec technicians performed shallow hand augers,which indicated the soils were capable of supporting the presumptive bearing pressures that the structural engineer used for project design.The evaluation performed by our technicians f�lEO�; Ecolab Inc. Project B14-08547 December 19, 2014 Page 2 does not constitute a Geotechnical Evaluation, and because of the limited extents of our evaluation,greater risks remain,which are assumed by the owner. Soils exposed at structure subgrade elevations and in excavations were visually evaluated,while those below subgrade elevations and excavation bottoms were evaluated using hand auger borings and dynamic cone penetrometers. These tasks were performed to determine if the observed and tested soils are suitable for support of the design structural loads. The hand auger borings were drilled with a 11/2-inch-diameter hand auger. The borings were advanced in 2-to 4-inch increments to depths of 2 to 3 feet below subgrade elevations or excavation bottoms (shallower penetrations typically occurred where larger gravel and cobbles were present). The auger was then withdrawn from the borehole to obtain cuttings. The soils encountered in the borings were classified in general accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Description and Identification of Soils(Visual/Manual Procedures).°Preliminary estimates of soil consistency and density were also evaluated based on resistance to penetration of the hand auger,and the turning resistance. ', The dynamic cone penetrometer(DCP)tests were completed using a solid metal rod fitted with a 13/8-inch diameter conical point. The point is driven into the soil with a 12-pound weight falling 20 inches.The number of blows required to drive the point each 6-inch increment was recorded and then used to correlate the soils' relative density,consistency or compaction with that determined or estimated from the geotechnical borings,and also used as a basis to estimate the suitability of the soils to support the design loads. This test procedure was generally used when granular soils were exposed at subgrade elevations or in excavation bottoms. Concrete Reinforcement We initially reviewed the reinforcement and dowel requirements on the project structural drawings and shop drawings, if available. Information reviewed included steel grade, bar size, bar length, bar spacing, bar location,splice lengths and dowel placement. This information was then used to evaluated whether if the in place reinforcement was placed in accordance with the requirements of the project plans and specifications. We also noted if the in place reinforcement was free of rust,scale and soil. Concrete Placement Observations Concrete placement observations were performed to monitor the procedures being used by the contractor and to determine if they were consistent with typical industry standards and the requirements of the plans and specifications. Fresh Concrete Testing We observed that the mix shown on the concrete delivery ticket was as specified for this use and that the mix was placed within the specified time limits. Routine tests to measure the plastic concrete's slump, temperature and air content were performed during each pour. In addition,concrete cylinders were cast at rates specified in the project specifications to evaluate the concrete's compressive strength. B��IN I i�JTE I�TEC Ecolab Inc. Project B1A�-085�7 December 19,2024 Page 3 Concrete Compressive Strength T+esting The concrete cylinders were tempo�arily stored at the site and then returned tr�our laboratary for maist cur�ng and testing.The results of the concrete compressive strength testing have been farwarded ta the interested parties under a separate caver as they became available. Genera! in performing its services, Braun infertee used that level of care and skiil ordinarily exercised by reputable members af its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty,express or implied, is made. Thank you for the oppoetun�ty ta provide the special inspectian and testing services far this project. After review of the attached Special lnspection Final Report,if you have any questions or require additionai infarmation,ptease call Eric Dagenhardt(edagenhardt@braunintertec.cam)at 612.875.2053 or Chris Kehl at 952.995.2386. Sincerely, BRAUN (NTERTEC CQRP4RATI�N �� ` ; � fric 1. Da hardt, E Staff ineer � r'�� Christopher R. Keh1, FE Principa(-Seniar Engineer Attachment. Special Inspection Fina! Repo�t c: Jim Roed,Ericksen,Roed&Associates, inc. Timothy Sessions, BWBR Architects,Inc. Jeremy Kocak,Adoifson&Peterson, Inc. Craig Novaczyk,City af Eagan �� 1NTERTEC' B �� Braun Intertec Corporation Phone:952.995.2000 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Fax: 952.995.2020 � �TE RTE� Minneapolis,MN 55438 Web: braunintertec.com The Science You Build On. Special Inspection Finai Report Page 1 of 1 City of: Eagan Date: December 19,2014 Attention: Mr. Dale Alexander Project: Ecolab Pilot Plant—Exterior Replacement 940 Lone Oak Road Eagan, Minnesota Braun Intertec Project: B14-08547 In accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code,Section 1704 of the International Building Code and the agreed upon scope of services,the required special inspections and testing has been provided for the following items: Soils A Geotechnical Evaluation was not performed for this project. Based on the observations and testing we performed; it appears that the soils are capable of the net allowable bearing pressure of up to 2,500 pounds per square foot.The testing and observations we performed,does not constitute a Geotechnical Evaluation.The compaction testing done during placement of backfill and additional required fill indicated the procedures used by the contractor were adequate to compact the backfill and fill, and meet the project requirements. Concrete The required testing in the field and in the laboratory has been completed.The results have been forwarded under separate cover.The compressive strength testing indicates the concrete placed has met the project requirements.The placement procedures used were judged to have met the project requirements.There are no outstanding or unresolved concrete-related issues. Reinforcing Steel The reinforcement placement detailed in the attached Special Inspection Daily Reports was observed according to the requirements of the project plans and specifications.There are no outstanding or unresolved reinforcing steel-related issues. a�,/t:o� . ' . � . . .. . . ... ..� { l; �Oi11�iC1Y��CII$ Pro}ect B24-Q8547 Recember 19,2014 Page 2 Cat1C�USlOt1 Based upan the inspections conducted,the testing performed and the attached reports,it is our I�, pro€essiona!judgment that,ta the best of our knowledge,the inspected v+rork was perfarmed and II campleted in accordance with the approved plans,specifieations and applicable workmanship pravisions 'i af the Minnesota State Building Code and the lntemational Building Code. I, i lnspecting Firm: Braun Intertec Corporation �'i i hereby certify that this plan,speci�cation ar report was � prepared by me or under my direct supenrision and that 1 am a duly Licensed Professianal Engmeer under the laws af the State of Minnesota, �«��+ �ti��'`�{}��4tN ��({ s�*"a�� .. `!`�1�5�,1+ *4;41 � �,..!t�fiR R,t Christapher R,Kehl, PE x,�,; �� :�'� . .'�.. Principal-Senior Engineer �'��.� 4� •��: t° ,�'4 License`Number: 43459 `�t.�,��•„��`«.,•.�,��`ti,;`` December 19,2014 '�lr,,;��'SS}O�;�tti�0 Attachments: Special (nspection Daily Reports 1 thraugh 6 BRAUN 6.25, Rev.1 Issue:11J5/13 � S��cial Ins�ection Dail� Re�c�� . �� 1 Page 1 of�3. �� .. � , e� Repork No.: ;1 Observation Date: 7.1,�4/2014 ,., � ProjectName: � � Pih�#��t��d�[�r��tlarc�s�i� ProyectNo.:; 814-08547 F, .x _._�, _,.w u�,,_��,,, _ � _w,.,�.�v_ , � _: ___ , ProjectAddress: �f��i�,�I�yS��. ' Breun Intertec PM,; EI'IC Dagenhai'dt b Ciient: '�� "�'_ � Client Rrojeet Na.;� � � � �� ,�a F v.�,� �A,e,_ �.: ,„ .x � . > r. _.. __ ._ _.�_� Weather: =��r�r 7emperature:� 36 °� Fc�+4u��Y . . ; �res��c�G�tee��: _(Notes� ° Periodic �� ` � 5ods t � e,. , ,___ ��m_ �__�„ ,��,� ,�,._._,e,��.�,� �.�_ __� - _ ��.. . Periodic � Con+xdero�s#x�t#km _� , _ a_ _,_. ,v,_� _ _ _..,�,. � _ , ..� � _ . Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to approved plans? No (If yes,iist details below) Oescription ar►d locatFoa of work perforn�ed: �aa �,�,,,,, � �� f._� . „�„_ e„�.,� � .,�.�;�,�.��w�,_�.�u,.,,�_.� � . ,,„x�p�� ' Observed soils,and reinfiorcing for tfie new loadiag dodc footir�gs located on the SE building corner.Soils encountered were � ' mostly�at�ve poorlygraded sands with siR.DCP test results indicate ihe soils appear suitable for 2,500 PSf bearing capaciry as � ; indicated an the project structural plan sheet 290. No frost v�ras abserved at this time. � � i � � � � � � � � � � � � � � . � _ ...__� List tests performed: _., � _� �,.� , ,.�r , � _ �. �,� Hand augers,DCPs,frost checks.Concrete testing,Set#1 � •Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? No � � •Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? No. -If yes,see attached Summary Sheet. • Report Discussed with and Given to Contractor? Yes Report Emailed to: _ _. _ .., � _ � ��,_a ,,_ - �� r,x��,,,,�_� .,�rv v„ _ e,e ,�.� � � . � � _ � _ ea _ M�, � � ��.-_�., . �e �. �_ _r .� �_� ��,, ,R � a To the best of our knowledge,work inspected was done in accordance with the approved plans,specifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the current IBC,except as noted above. _ . Signed: �' � ��;� qu02E«� S�,dT7' I.D.No 5309884 � �A�= a�,� �� ,� ...,�,,,,.� - """` Providing engii�eenng and environmen�a(sofutions since 195T ��'�`�� '�� 6.25, Rev.1 Issue:11/S/13 �` d,,,�., t:. �. Speciai tnspection Daily Report City of Eagan �ag� �. �� . �.��. � Report No.: `2 � � �� ' Observation Date: �.�f��f�{}�,4�� g Project Name �Ecolab PNoi3�lar�Y-�terior Repiacement�� Aroject No.: ��,�=C3�� Project Address. ��#��ct��ry�t1�1 y��. � Braun Intertec PM:� �C�� t`(�C�� Client: � � ° � Ciient Project No.:� � �� Weather. �qear � e,_ , � � e� � ��, � Temperature: ,�'�� Frequency }. Inspection Coverage � (Notes� _ _. ` Periodic �— =Concrete caristrucEi6n �� ", � . o, �� . � �.� � � ., _.�. , � � � ,._,o, - _ „ �, , , � ° ;: . � - t , �. ._ _ � _ �, � � _. Did the architect or engineer authorfze changes to approved plans? No (If yes,list detaiis be(ow} Description and location of work performed: �-Observed concrete�:ptacer , ' 6.25, Rev.1 Issue:ll(Sj13 �t 'i, Specia) Inspectian Daily Report City of: �Eagan �a�e � �� :i ,N,,,,a�.� ,,F w,,,,, �,�. ��,�,ti�,,,�,��U�.r,,w� ., „vv„� ..v� _.�,, .�_,... .,,,�, �� Report No.: >� j t�rse�atintt�ate:{ ��,�2�/2�};14' ' � Project Name v�tab�'��t�� tiac'��?�i��tt� j Project No.:� ��f�+8547 � ProjectAddress. ��;� .#��y��, � �� Braun Intertec PM:� �C�� tt��i� ' Client: �ts�c Cllent ProJect No.: � _; ° .�� .�� Weather: :�� ; �� . _ ,; . , Temperature.� �.1� :`°� �� ,e , ,�..� , ,.m..,.��_.�.s ,�, _ . . .. Frequency % Inspection Coverage ; (Notes) s Per�odic, ;""r . ��'SoNs� "� __._ _ _ _ � , , �� , , . _ ,` � ��°°.�°�-�i � " � g � �, ,� - _, _ Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to approved plans? (If yes,list details below} Description and location of work performed: � Performed compactio��tests�on�niall 6ackfill ioside tfie new dock a�ea�nd o��the outdoor walking ramp.Test r Its t�� ` or exceeded the required 98%speci�ications. � � =� � � �, , < , � ; _ g .,�, 3 : ,. ° '� .' .�,. �� , , . :" .� � �_ �.: , �,.� 6 i: > ,_ �, ,, - , . g r � - , �- .,. ' : t,,,, .. € / j' / / � / � %. � � � � � � : # � t � . . . ... '..��:� � � g j . � ,.� - �� 1 .�„' . -.; s>� :.. � �: , ., ,8 i�." F. .: � � � A - . , .. , . . � .. . �. . ,„ , . . . � .. }� ��r ' .� . . . . , . . � i o , � � � � ....-...a^�s�-� wv�� -.�.§:��,�......Y.-a- . . ... a....�r�� ,R.�.»�,r�.� List tests performed: ��-- ,� ,, .-°� ,. -� �Nuclear Den"sityTesting and Proctor Pickup �� ` � � � �� , ��H.u,�.�.�, e��, •Are there any discrepancies noted from tfiis day's observations? No •Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? No -If yes,see attached Summary Sheet. • Report Discussed with and Given to Contractor? No Report Emailed to: �� e��. �,n w� a..,�,�"�. v_� ,,,�� ,,,,� � �� . , � , ��.H� � � � �..�� ,.�f ,„� � � �� ,� � o„�,., , �„�� To the best of our knowledge,work inspected was done in accordance with the approved plans,specifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the current IBC,except as noted above. � � � signed: �� Petersen, Brad i.o.No.: � ` �� . , _ _ . _ _ � ___ _ _ ` . Provrdmg engineering and environmentai solutions since 1957 " ��!!` 6,25, Rev.l Issue:11J5J13 \ _ \. x �, S��cial Insp��on Dai�� E��ort Gty of: `��gat� Page � of`� �_ �� _,�� _ .. , _: Report No.: q y � t�b�rati�n�at�.i 12J2/2014 ProJect Name: �coiab Pi1at Plant-fxterior Replacemeni Pt't��+ett l+Itu. 814-08547 . Projed Address =940 Lane Oak Raad,Eagan,MN 55121 � �� ' �t�i�t.lt�t�ttec�tl.= E1'ic[J��e�tlh8�dt ' . ._., - _ � �P_ , ,e .. _ � „�, �,we _�� m _.e, _,� �, a�.m � �. � � Client: �£tola6�inc � _ ��s#;�t� �cs�.; �_ „��,��s��,.�. �� „_„_ _� _�,� � ��.� _.,: Weatfier: ��y 1`�rs��re�r'a�ure.; 14 "F _. _ __ _ iF�a±��►e�uuy lr� '" �i , :�1��`t��. . �T� So�ls , .�.r��,��a� ' - �� m. ,.�� ,_m, .�, � ,x. ..,��, ��._, � _ ._ _ _:r _ ee._.., �€ , _ �� Concxete construction �� _._..... __ _ ; Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to approved plans? No (If yes,list details below) Description and locaYion of work performed: _ k�� ,�.._, e.r,m, ��,��,�� -- A �, .__ __ _,��_, �� Observed the rebar construction,and the placement af tfie concrete for the loading dack slab on the Southeast corner of the j � building. ° �� _ � � � � � � �� ; , ; �. e _ ,. _,ee _. _� _m � � i � � � � I ` _, ��a. g __. _.,. _ ,..,.. _ �� I Listtests pe►formed: ,,,,�.� � �� ,,...., �_ � ,,,��. � .. zn� Rebar inspection a�d Cancrete testing 5et#3 z i •Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? No � •Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? No -If yes,see attached Summary Sheet. • Report Discussed with and Given to Contractor? No Report Emailed ta: � � �- - .- � � ,_ o_ e�TV„ , �� ,�� . � �� 3 � � �a ��..,,._. ,�� ,�, � � _ „��_m _ _ ,.„ �� r • , ,� ,_ ,_m_,_ _ m , _�. ,,,.,. �. 4 �,�.�„y, � , � , . �-�, „-. ... .. .,m.�.w-...--�-.- .g J v ��' ,e _. -�.. f..: .� . .. . . � To the best of our knowledge,work inspected was done in accordance with the approved plans,specifications and appficabie workmanship provisions of khe current IBC,except as noted above. . . �', Signed; --' � � ��.AND�c�ri $corr� I.D.No ._ _. __ , _— - Providrng engrneering and enw'ronmental so(utions since 1957 r� �� m t�r��W�� , � G.25, Rev.i Issue:li/S/13 dk�� y� � f 8 $y . t Special Inspection Daily Report �'��: ; �� Page 1 of 1 ; . ...._,., •, _ _, Report No.: � _ . ::. ; Observation Date: 12/8J2014 _ . , ...v.__.,, __ .. � �n�, ,. , �. � Project Name: ��cu1�h Pilot Plant ��er�oc ReplaCe�eia# � Projeet No.:� 814-08547 �,� _. ,,,�a ,,�_ w.�.,�� ., ..�„ ym . . �,,,�� .�m ,, �_�,�m , .�-�o, _., , _ � Projert Address: '940 Lone Oak Raad,�agan,MN 55121 ; Braun Intertec PM.. EriC Dagenha rdt u.e �„ ,.. ..,�., , .. =,d,��.� ,.._,__.,.,,., ,, m_,>. ,� . ... �� _„ �e. Ciient: ;�� Client ProJect No.:- �� .� , .�� , ,,� ,..�.,m,,,.,_ . ._ .. _ _ _�� _ __ _ � Weather: �� Temperature.: 16 °F Frequency , Itrs�ectkttt�� (Notes) ,._ � � _ _ _ �*�d� ;' Conaete mnstructinn� ,�. { � �, .�� .,,_, �,�. h_ � a. ��„ �.,�, � �_� _. � � �_ � �__ a.. �„� �� o� v. . m ,� �,., ,, ,� �a „�_ �a �o�� a �„� M .� � , Did the arcfiitect or engineer authorize cha�ges to approved plans? No (If yes,Ust details below) Description and location of work performed: _. r_. �� A_. , ..� _ .��.. ,,,,,,. .�, _._ ___�, a.� �, _._ Obsenred reinforcement piacement for loading dack apron south of gridllne 2 from 5.4 to 9 for placement of concrete on ;' � 12/9/2U14. � � � � � � � � � � ; ; _. _ _ � � _ .. � � � ' < _ �_ �,. List tests performed: „� �, . . . � , ,r�. _ _,� .,_.... _ . None - _ _ _ � _��_�- - � ... ,,,. ...m _�� , ,P„_.r.,� . ,� ° _ �� - , ., �_. �d,a_. •Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's ohservations? tdo •Are there any autstanding discrepancies on this project? No -If yes,see attached Summary 5heet. • Report Discussed with and Given to Contractor? No Repo�t Emailed to: _. __ � _�,_ _. _ �� , _ � , �e , v� ,� � �� ., ,,� ,� �z �� : , � � � ___-,_, � � - _ � „ _ . „ „� � � 3 _ ,. � � _ _ _ro a e ��,. w , _ , � . �� To the best of our knowiedge,work inspected was done in accordance with the approved plans,specifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the current IBC,except as noted above. Signed: `� L--y��'"`�'"�`-�� ,p2r,�v scffr,- I.D.No _ _m�__,_.__� �� ,� ��,„ .,� � e - ---- Piovin`ing engrneering and environmenta(solutions srnce I957 \\\`� �: �� E,zs, Rev,1 Iss��;77.Jsj.13 ,t . �,. � ��ecial insp��:°tion Dai1� Re��r� City of: :Eagan �a�e � af�� , � A„_ . .._ ,q..r 9 � f Report No.: � E�bset'�rat[t7n Date:= 1:�9j��119 Projed Name: Ecolab Piiat PlattY fxteryor i2eptacement i�r�ect N+�„� �14-t}85Q�` ProJed Address: 940 lone Qak Road.£agan MN 55121.. ,.. °" , ��au�1�ert�t F!M.: �#'1C D��1dCtlt . �o , __ e , f,� ,_�ua� Client: 'ECislab�'Mc _ _. , . �te�t��c�e�ct No e ,-.� e_ ��.,ti.,, .. „�-_ ��mrt �_�� _, , �__ . Weather: Sunny,� � � ? Terttp�Cetu� � 18 'F _�_ _. , � � __ � , . �� `�+�Y #r�sp�c�tt�:rarrer�� iates� _ `PeriodK` � �� : ,�.,_� „�,,,,,x� .�..,.� �� ' _,�_ �.v> .,, e � � m __ _�� .,,��_. . _ ,. __. ,.,,.� ��o��,�.� . „ ��„vA ��a. �, _. _ � a� � , m �_ �W � . ' � �� ,�_ � Oid the architect o�engineer authorize changes to approved ptans? No (If yes,list detaUs below) Descriptio�and location of work perfo�med: ,,�� N�r��.�„ ��,� �,,_a_. ��.,.... �� a ,__ .. . _� ,� ,. ,.._., Observed concrete ptatemettt far loading dock apron south of gridline 2 from 5.4 to 9. ' ma � � m. _ __u �.�� .,_ , _ _ _ _a ° List tests performed. �e. � � �� ,_a,., _- _. . w__ . _ � �. , � � �_ �; �__ � � .� �� Concrete Testing set#4 � � � , _ _. ,,r� ,� ,._,�,,,_ � ,_ � �. � ._, _ •Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? No •Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Na -If yes,see attached Summary 5heet. • Report Discussed with and Given to Contractor? No Report Emaited to: To the best of our knawledge,work inspected was done in accordance with the approved plans,spec�fications and applicable workmanship provisions of the current IBC,except as noted above, � �� Signed: __ . _ . �rv��, Jason I.b.No ;,_5307203 ..,,.._ .w,,, ..,,. _ _ _ _ Yrovidinq engineerrng and enmionmen�at solufions since 1957