Loading...
2840 Lone Oak Pkwy - Structural Steel Special Insp. Report"46 'sPw A Structural Steel Special Inspection Finai Report W hite House Clistom Colour Lone Oak Parkway and Lone Oak Drive Eagaii, Minnesota Preparedjor R.J. Ryan Construction Company Project LV-07-00409 May 21, 2007 Braon ]ntertec Corporation 'FIFTY'YEit`R6.; BRMYN INTERTEC M ay 21, 2007 Mr. Matt Gwost R.J. Ryan Constitiction Company I 100 Mendota I Icights Road MendotaHeights,MN 55120 Braun Inlanec Corporalion Phcne 952 945 940Q I 1001 Hompnhire /+vcr.uc 5 Fox 952 9Q5 7020 Llrnoecpn65. PdM1 55436 b^/cb xnvninlnricc<on. Project LV-07-00409 I2c: Stivcturat Steel Special Inspection Procedural and Final Report Submittal White House Custom Colour Lone Oak Parkway and Lone Oak Drive Eagan, Minnesota Denr Mr. Gwost: Please Gnd attached lo ihis procedwal repoR the Shuctural Steei Special Hispcction Final Report for the White Hoiise Custom Colour facility and the supporting Special Inspection Daily Reports. Special Inspection and Testing Procedures The special inspection services were provided by International Code Council (ICC) certifieA special inspectors in accordance with the requirements oFChapter 1700 of the International $uilding Code (IBC) and the project plans and specifications. The purposc of special inspections is to provide a review of the contracrors work designated by the project srructural engineer 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 [o have them, judge, or modify the -- - - -- coestruetion-docurnents:-On}y the structaral engineerof recard-can do this.--- -- As the specia] inspections were compteted, a Special Inspection Daily Report wis prepared to summarize thc results of our inspections and testing. A copy of this report was provided to die contnctor's site representative for their review and records. As part ofthis report, items necding correction or discrepaucies observed from the approved construction documents were noted. Ylnns tcnd SpeclPcations The plans ancl project documents avaiEable at the site were used for our inspections. Visunl Gxaminatimi o1' Field We?ds Visual examination of the field welds was conducted in gcneral accordance with American Welding Socicty (A WS) DL 1-2006, Pigure 5.4 and TaUle 6.1 requirements and the requirements of the project plans and specifications. V isual examination of the )ight gauge metal stud welds was conducted in general accordancc with AWS D1.3-1998, Section 6.0 requirements and the requiremeiits of the project plans and specifications. F3oltecl Connection Observations Botted connection observations were conducted to detemiine if the 6olt holes were fiped and if the splined end of tEie tension con[rol Uolts had sepai-ated from the body of the bolt. Removal of the splined end is a ctirect indicator the bolt Itas Ueen torqued to the minimum snap-off load. Li addition, each connection was observed for fit-up and ro determine if the various plies were in contact with one anotber. -- _.-.? Celebroimg 50 vcarx oJ gm)adi thmiiglt servicc rmd inisi R.J. Ryan Constcuction Company Project LV-07-00409 May 21, 2007 Page 2 Deck Weld Observations L)eck weld observations were conductcd in general accordlnce with AWS D13-1998, Section 6.0 requirements and the requirements of the project plans nnd specifications. 3n lddition, the location and the comple[eness of the sidc tal) fasteners were oUserved and evaluated. Shear Stnds Tn arcas where shear studs were placed over the supporting structural steel members, the size, spacing and soundness oflhe sTUd welds were monitored. Soundness was determined by impacting each stud with a six-pound maul. Sound sEuds "ting" if tkiey are Fully attached to the steel member, whereas unsound studs "thud," Unsound studs were broken off and marked for replacement. The replacement studs were testing in the same manner. Finally, setected sound studs were bent in accordance witii the project requiremenu to further evaluate their soundness. General In performing its scrvices, $raun Intertec used that level ofeare and skili ordinarily exercised by reputable members of its professiov cui•rently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or impfied, is made. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the special inspection and [esting services for this project. After review of the attached Special Inspection Fina] Report, if you have any questions or require additional information, please call Taylor Carlson at 952.995.2518 or Marv Denne at 952.995.2510. Sineerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION r=?'_" - - -- - - - - - -- - 'I'aylot?Tlson ]CC Certified Special Snspector-Structura] Steel and Welding ? Michae .1-ieue E Vice esident-Principal Engineer Attachment: Structural Steel Special fnspection Fina] Repoit c: Mr. arian McCarty, Welman Sperides Architects Mr. Ron LeMere, IIKBM Engineers Mr. Dale Schoeppner, City of Eagazt lnspections Department Mr. Jim Samuclson, Braun Intertec Bmun Inl¢rbc Corporalion f7•cxm 952 V45 2000 I I(7O1 Ilnmpnhrte Avnnvc $ rnx95'L 945 7020 Mmneqoo!,s, AnN 55438 VJeb lwa.n.nter,eccom teel Special Inspection Final Report Eagan. Minnesota _T^Dale: Mav 2l, 2007 A[rention: Mr. Matt Gwost White House Custom Colour Lone Oak Parkway and Lonc Oak Drive Eagaii. Minnesotn Braun lntertec Project: LV-07-00409 )n accordance witli Section 1704 of the Intemational $uilding Code an6 the agreed upon scope of services, special inspections and lesting has been provicfed for the following itcros: The bolted connections detailed in the attaclied Special Inspec[ion Daily Reports were observed in general :e with the requirements of 1he plans and specifications. There arc currcntly no ontstznding or unresolved Structural Welding. 7'he xvelded connections detailed in the atlached Special Inspeciion Daily Reports were observed in generai accorAance with the requirements of the projcct plans nnd spccificaYions. Aiscrepancies were no[ecl and Aceumented. Folbwing the required coirections or review with the structural engineer, the connections wcre found to be acceptable. There ure currently no outstanding or wiresolved structural wclding related issues. The shear studs detailed in the Special Inspection Daily Reports werc observed and tested in geoeral ncwrdance witli the requirements of the projeci plans and specifications. There arc wrrenlly no outstanding or unresolveA shearstud•rela[ed issues. The deck welding and side-lap festeners detailed in the lttached Specinl Inspeclion Daily Repor[s were observed in Scneral nccordance with the requiremcnts of the pruject plans tmd specifications. There are currently no ouislandin Dased upon the inspections and testing perfonned, and the attached repoMs, it is our professional judgment that, to the Uest of our 3cnowledge, the inspected work was performed and completed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and applicable workmaaship provisions of the Intemationai t3uilding Code. Inspecting Firm: Braun Intertec Corporation I hereby certify that this plan, speci6calion or repori was prepared by me or imder my direct supervision and thai I am a duly Licensed Professioizal Lngincer undcr thc laws oCthe State of,?4P1W(ltq&_ Michael M./Keuer, I'L. Vice President-Principal License Number: 15571 May 21, 2007 MFiEUER?Ptvl. E 15571 Altachments: 11hr»iro Spccial Enspcction Daily Itcports i througii ( --------+ Cclebrnting 50 )'enrs nJ'gruuih ihrough xcvoice nnd trust Page _ of _ B RAU N SlDRPT INTERTEC Special fnspection Daily Report ? Cityof AV-?. Report No.: S'?"t°. "L?:}t=y Date of This Report: ?-,/ t? d 7 Projeci Name: L3?SLGs+.?C?i? No.: t--- V- d1 Projed Address: W - L.60. 4,V, C>-{_ Client: --- ?? Clienf Project No.. Weather: T??2T(JI) ' ?-C \7?i FV\ Temp¢rahire: f,'-' Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ? CoMinuovs ? Masonry ? Rebar Piacement ? Fovndations ?$pecial Cases ? Periodic ? Welding & BoBing ? Concreie Placemenf ? Fireproofing Piles & Piers ? Tendon Placement ? $oils Did the orchifecT or engineer authorize chonges to cily approved plons? Yes ?(Lisled Below) No ? Descripfion and location of work completed: W?? 3'" y?,? ?' -"s U. I .{.? ? (k ;'Ik (^(n,IC-B/!l=t.`?=S'1A-1 w.iA ?, n11L k,,.rI., 6 * (,z r:A A i - O List tesfs performed: • Are there any discreponcies noted from this days observations? Yes ? No ? • Are ihere ony oufsionding discrepanciCS on this prolecl? Yes ? No • If yes, see akached Summory Sheet. To the besl of our knowledge, work inspected wps done in occordpnce wifh the approved plons, specifications and opplicoble workmonsAip provisions of the turreni IBC/UBC, except as noled obove. czVt oa,e: -°c - 7 PriniFullName: au??{`???t-s eD ri I.D.No.: White copy fo Braun Interlec file. Blve copy to Project Sife Representative. /--? I'rorulinq engmceringmid rn?irrnm?enud soLrnons smce 1957 Page _ of eRauN SIDRPT I NTE RTEC $pecial inspection Daily Report Report No.: Projed Nome: Project Address: Client Wealher: City of •2 Date of This Report: C7~ 7 - - ?islo?f-"ProjeaNo.: t?Y"O Z-Q9 C3'?q V11, Client Projecf No.: Temperature: -S c r- Type of inspecfion: Inspection Coverage: ? Continvous ? ^Masonry ? Rebor Plocement ? Foundations Periodic ? ,ci Welding & Bolling ? Concrete Placement ? Fireproofing ? Piles & Piers ? Tendon Placemeni ? Soils Ihe archifect or engineer au}horize chonges fo city approved plans? Yes ?(Listed Below) No ? ? Special Coses Description ond locafion of work C --e'ei-'9 ,P.t- a,: ( ( ?ls41. ( ;+L. . vt m ?.'S/'.rr° 'L?'O?wC.'e S . Q) : C fin, 65 et' ueaiay, 36 s d trs ^ -- - - - - - -- _ -- - - - - -- - ? 5 - ??s'%( . '?', ls?i ? ?°-?- Lisf fests periormed: • Are there ony discrepancies noted froin rhis day's obsenolions? Yes ? No `=l? • Are ihere any ootstanding discrepancies on this project$ Yes ? No • If yes, see attached Sommary Shee1. To the best of our knowledge, work inspecTed was done in occordance with ihe opproved plans, specifications and opplicable workinanship provisions of } e current IBC/UB excepf as noted obove. ?,,,_.........r-•... . Signed: . ? - Dote: Print Full Nome: _( ?t•.? py('L,ph{?r-? 1.o. r,o.: 5zY2.caSZ-P3 S White copy To Braun Intertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Represenlative. Pmvi<ling engincr.ring nnd envirmmnen[rd solutirnu since 1957 G ` "C. I., S ?c'?C? -'ri..A .b1N ?.?P.I1S ..._ .1.?.`1? 1..-b Pa9e ___ of'__ BRAuN SIDRP7 I NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report city or Report No.; Dato of This Repori: ?^C7 1 Project fJame: " Project No_: ? Project Address: l.. P (c??/ Clienh Gient Project No.: Weother. YYki??t.? Temperatvre: Type oflnspection: Inspeclion Coverage: ? Conlinuous ? Masonry ? Rebor Placement ? Foundations ? Spedal Cases ? Periodic PrWelding & Bolting ? Concrete Placemenf ? Fireproofing 0 Piles & Piers El Tendon Placeineni ?$oils Did the architect or engi neer aufhorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ? ?Listed Below) No ? Lisi tesfs performed: • Are ihere ony discraportcies noted from this day's observotions$ Yes ? No? • Are Ihere ony outsFanding discreponcies on ihis projecT2 Yes ? No • If yes, see attached Summary Sheet. To ihe best of ow knowledge, work inspeded was done in accordance with ihe approved plons, specrfimfions ond applicable workmonship provisions of the cvrrent IBC/UBC, except as noted above. Signed: ? Date: Print FuN Name: IQ?CQr???n I.D. No.: ?AZ ^SJE?:, White copy fo Broun lnferfec file. 81ue copy to Projed Site Represenfative. Prooidirg cngdnecring und envirmmienrul soLuions since 1957 Pa,ye of Gf, B R A UN SIDRPT I NTE RTEC Special Inspection bqily Report ciry of -Eaes'a?v"- Report No.: ?eIt:* 44?' Date of This Reporl: ?' ' J r d? cy Projecf Name. ?G (:(? projecf No.: _??.•' !/^,°`• °? Q J Project Address: ?"B1'Z ?Li. ? L?. Oak ? k ua y C)ienY: Clienl Project No.: Wealher: ? [d4) v( Temperalvre: ? Type of Inspection: Inspeclion Coverage: ?rnrn Continuous ?,-,( Masonry ? Rebar Placement ? Foundations ? Special Gases ? Periodic-- - ifJ Welding 8 Daiting ? Concrele Plocemenf ? Fireproofing ? Piles & Piers ? Tendon Plocement ? $oils Did the architect or engineer authorize changos ro ciry approved plnns? Yes 0(l.istod Below) No ? Description and location of work completedLj/ r "' C - ? 2 ? .5" • Are there ony discrepancies noted from this days observafions2 Yes 0 No? • Are there any outstanding disa•epancies on fhis projecf$ Yes ? No • If yes, see attached Summory Sheet. To fhe besl of our knowledge, work inspecfed was done in accordance with fhe approved plans, spetifitations and opplita6le workmonship provisions of ihe currenf IBC/UBC, except as noied above. Signed: K Date; Q- 3 -•O`r Print Full Name: e.? I sin;n I.D. No.: ?,r???ygZ^ $?j Whife copy to Braun lntertec fite. Blue copy to Projed Sife Represenfative. Providing engincerinq mul enoirmimen«d anlu[iow sincc 1957 --V AA60 eq :2 ? 'to -- 15 .b 6r-r -uAt-ufo f:ctltik 6z4@v. 6t?A L-Ce.,4. Pa9e2 or _-?r BRAUN SlDRPT2 I NTE RTEC Continuation of Special Inspectian Dpily Report City of A Report No.: S+ `4t[ pote oF This Report: 'q-I 3^?o? Project Name p kG•>5re...??e(evf+ Project No.: G-. V OT ??V!f0I Nofe: 7 his ;s a coniinuation of o repoA. 7he first page of ifris repoA has informotion which should nof be separafed from ihis i coMinoaiion) D (S ? " 8 ? ??- ?x? .?;+?+no?•scfie??E^,eS To ihe besi of oui knowledge, work inspected was done in accordance with ihe approved plons, specifications and applicable workmonship provisions of ihe current IBC/UBC, excepf as nofed above. Signed: (??(, Of"C4??_Sa1^,_ Dafe: -Q-7 Print FulI Nome: I.D. No: -s.?.Yg,i(na it Whife copy io Sraun InteAec file. Bfue copy to Projeci Site Represeniative. Pr?w?diriy en?dneernig and cmummimenuil <nlutipns since 1957 Page 1_ of I B RAU N SIDRPi I NTE RTEC Spetial (nspection Daily Report Report No.: Projecl Name: Projecl Address: ciryof l1baaav. _ ??,,,D?ate of This Report ??`??^'??SL',-C, .- ?o e{ cY No : - i co-a-1 ClienY Clienl Projecl No,: Weat6er. S V V1.?M1rt? ?_ Temperatore: ? 7ype of Inspection: inspettion Coveruge: ? Confin?ous ? Masonry ? Re6ar Placemenf ? Foundations ? Speciol Coses VrPeriodic ?Welding & Bofling ? Concrefe P(acement ? Fireproofing Piles & Piers ? Tendon Placement ? $oils Did fhe archiled or engi neer authorize changes fo ti ty approved plans? Yes ? (Listed 6elow) No 0 -K- Description ond locotion of work completed: Lisl fests pehormed: . Are there ony discrepancies noted from ihis doys observations$ YesZl No ? • Are fhere any oulslanding discrepancies on fhis projed? Yes ? No ? • If yes, see attoched Summory Sheet. To ihe best of our knowledge, work inspectod wos done in occordance with ihe approved plons, specificotions and applicable workmanship provisions of he current IBC/UBC, ezcept as noted o6ove. ? Signed: ? Q DoTe: ?q-.l(p-9? Prini Full Nome: -???-1?pC"'CQ(`?SOrL I.D. No.: aw-, White copy to Bravn Intertec file. BIue copy to Projeci Sile Represenfafive. I'maitiinq miginechingnnd environmental solutirnis since 1957 Swd,? ec. ?+-o IM>,n m Page ` of /. BRauN SIDRPT INTERTEC Special inspection Daily Report .? City of to- Report No.: S+-Pl8 (#cp Dafe of This Re rt: d Projecl Name: 6115 a d?_ l'-? . J` Proiect No.: ? ? -fS?-0Os oft Projecf Address: Client: Q J?avv?_ Client Project No.: Weather. 5 UwhM ° Temperature: Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ? Confinuous ? Masonry ? Rebar Plocemen! ? Fovndo}ions ?$pecial Cases Of Periodic 0 Welding & BoHing ? Conuete Placemenf ? Pireproofing ? Piles & Piers ? Tendon Placement ? Soils Did fhe orchitect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plons? Yes ?(Lisled Below) IJo El Destripfion and location of work completed- List tests performed: • Are there any discrepancies noted irom ihis doy's observafions? Yes ? No • Are fhere ony outstanding discrepanties on ihis projecf$ Yes ? • If yes, see attached Svmmary Sheet. To the best of our knowfedge, work inspected was done in occordonce wiih fhe opprovod plans, speciiications and opplicable workmanship provisions of the curreM IBGUBC, except as noted above. Signed: Dnte: ? G/_lq F0-7 r ? Prinf Full Name: [ q„??61"'?? ?+?y I.D. No.: -v 4Vhite copY to 8roun Jntertec file. B7ue copy to Projed Site Representative. Providing engnieering nnd enoirmuncrttnl soGrzirnu since 1957 1 a 0 F.'FY: BRAUN INTERTEC coQ January 5, 2007 Mr. Rich Kerber CSM Corporation 500 Washington Avrnue South Minneapolis,MN 55475 71 . . ; Re: Earthwork Observations and Testing Report Waters Armex PR-8, Building # 7 Noriheast of the Lone Oak Road and Lone Oak Drive Fiagan, Minnesota Dear Mr. Kerber: 6roun Interlec Corpomfien 1826 Buerkle Rcwd $omi Paul. MN 551 10 Project SP-06-01298A (,^j ( Llo:ki- Pirone 651487324? rnx 6514871812 VJeb' brnu?intene,r,mm We recently perfixmed excavation observations and compaction lesting services during site grading for the above referenced project. The attached report summarizes the results of our observations and compaction tests. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. IF you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, pleasc call us at 651.487.3245. Sineerely, BRAUN INTER"I'L'C CORYORATION Sarah Teufert -Engineer= iri "Prainiii ? -"'-- --- -- - - - S Professional CertiTication I herby certify that this report was prepared under my direct supervision and lhat I am a duly Licensed P ofessional Engineer un?kli4"j"l,i?? laws t ofMinnesota. 0 ,,•?`?".'•.... h!fss'? ? • :Fti ; UCEIJSEO si--? S : pppFESSlO?lAlt = Robert ]. sen, PE £NGINEER ; Vice President- Principal Engineer LicenseNumber: 19943 ?'?9r••. 19943 ? o,t? 7anuary 5, 2007 0? Attactunent: Building Pad Prcparation Keport Compaction Tests c. Jack Gratkin, RJ Ryan Jim Samuelson, Braun Intertcc - Lakeville -'---------- -- ----?- -- --- - ----e Celebrming 50 ycars of grn¢u[h [hrmtgh servicc and enut Earthwork Observatians and Testing Waters Annex PR-8, Building # 7 Eagan, Minnesota Introduction Braun Intertec Corporation provided excavaUon observations and compaction testing services during building pad and pazking Sot subgrade preparation For the Waters Aruiex PR-8, Building # 7 in Eagan, Minnesota. Our services commenced on November 27, 2006, and are ongoing. This report summarizas the results of those services. The purpose of our abservations was to evaluate the soils in the excavation boUoms for support of backfill, fill and anticipated structural loads. The pwpose of the compacGon testing was to determine if rhe-f?ll-materialsplacedonxiaissite-have-beencompactedlaptajecr __p?d$catinnQ Background Prior to site grading, Braun Intertec pert'ormed a GeotechnicaE evaluation throughout the entire development that consisted of 28 soil horings. The boring results were summarized in ow Geotechnical Bvaluation Repor[ dated August 31, 2006 under project number SP-06-01298. Of the soil borings perfomied for that evaluation, 6 soil borings were performed in the building and pavement azeas for Building # 7. Also included in that evaluation were soil borings performed in 1499 and 2000, 3 of those boring were located within the building pad and pavement areas of Buitding # 7. The soila borings generaAy encountered about 112 to 2 fcet of topsoil. In 5 of the 9 borings, existing fill (or possible fill) was encountered that extended to depths of about 2'h to 21 feet, and consisted mosdy of clayey soils that often contained roots or organic material. However, alluvial deposits consisting of clays and sand were ? ? Y--- -- -- --- --- also encountered ia3-of the borin drilled-extending to zdePLh-of-] 1 feet.-The-borinSs $?erall I terrninated in glacial soils consisling of clayey glacial till, but also local areas of sandy glacial outwash. Groundwater was not observed in the majority of the borings performed on this site within the hollow- stem auger in the ground. I-Iowevsr, one soi] boring did encountered water at a depth of 28 feet (elevation 864 '/z). In the report, we indicated that the fill and organic soils were unsuitable for building support and should be removed from the building pad area. Additionally, the sandy alluviurry being loose and locally very loose, were considered marginally stable for support of buildings and, at a minimum> ehould be surface compacted priar to the placement of backfill, additional required £ill or structural elements. For paved areas, our report indicated that topsoil, swamp deposits and existing organic Till should also be removed from direcdy below pavement subgrade elevaiions so that pavements can be supported on texturally consistent, uniformly competent alluvium, glacial till or eompacted backfill. CSM Corporation Project SP-06-01298A 7anuary 5, 2007 Page 3 Deslgn Information Our understanding Building # 7 wiil be a single story, slab-on-grade sWcture. Anticipated loads for the single story structure will be for individual columns ranging up to 150 kips and peruneter wall loads rangittg up 41dps per ]ineal foot. The finished floor elevation for the proposed building is 875.5. The project will also include bihuninous pavement. ExcavaEion Observations Observation Procedures Our observation services during the earthwork pliase for Building #7 of the project included, but were not necessarily limi[ed lo the following: • Examine the materials exposed in excavation sidewalls and bottoms. • Evaluate the suitability of materials at and slightly below the bottoms of the excavations for support of the backfill and structural loads. • Chkt}iatttw-a-excavatians?ereau yoverstzed"ts pravide"1a s- To aid in our observations, numerous hand auger probes, using a 1 1/2-inch diameter screw-type hand auger, were extended about 3 feet below the excavation bottoms. Auger cuttings were visually and manually classified in accordance with ASTM procedures. The force required to advance the auger was used to judge the relative strength of the underlying materials. In addition to the hand auger probas, a dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) was afso used to evaluate bearing capacity of the underlying soils. The DCP is a manually operated insuument consisting of a 1.2- inch diameter cone mounted on a 0.75-inch diameter rod. The instrument has a 10-pound weight that falls 24 inches to drive the wne into the ground. The number of blows required fo advance the cone 6 inches is recorded and the values obtained were used to judge the soil's relative strengNi. For this project, the DCP tests were conducted at random locarions within the excavation bottoms to a depth of about 3 Field Observations Frattalone Companies, Tnc. performed the earthwork for Building # 7. Building Pad Preparation Ganerally, the building pad preparation consisted o£ the removing the existing fill and topsoil. Following the removal of any unsuitable soils as detailed in the Geotachnical Evaluation Report, hand auger probes and DCPs were extended below the bottoms of the excavations approximately 3 feet, The probes generally encountered silfy sand, which were judged to be naturally deposited and appeared to be in a medium dense to very dense condition. The soil profiles observed appeared to be similar to those encountered in the soil borings. The soils encountered by our probes both with the hand auger and DCPs appeared to be suitable to support the backfill, fill and anticipated building toads. CSM Corporation Project SP-06-01298A ranUaty s, 2007 Page 4 Based on elevations of the excavaHon bottoms determined with a hand level and measurements from offset staking set by others, the excavations for the building pad appeared to have been adequately oversized at least 1 foot laterally for each foot of fill required below the £ootings (1:1 over sizing). Based on the elevations of the excavation bottom, excavation elevations ranged from about 863 %z to 873 %x feet. The deeper excavations were located along the northeast footing line (near our Boring ST-10 i) and along the northwest footing line (near our Boring ST-102) of the building pad area. Excavation tapered up in to the southeastern poriion of the buslding (nearing our Boring ST-10). Attached is a sketch that shows the approximate limits of the excavations and spot elevations of the base of the excavation. Pavement Preparation Currently, subgrade prepuation has been completed in the pavement uea in the area the retaining wall thai is locazed on the southeast portio¢ of the parldng lot. Most of the parking lot-azea was cut to proposed grades and the soils exposed within the suhgrade appeared to consist of relatlvely dense mineral soils. However, there are still two remaining areas located in the southern parking lot that will need to be addressed when conditions pennit. The first being located in the southeast por[ion of the lot where organic deposits were encountered in the soil borings; and the second being in a low area in the central parEioeref-the-satathem parkitzb-?ai-aggEeximately 38-€eet set?4k?€4he-prepese&-bai!&'t:,g: :'r. ? a,..^.??sLan? that those coirections will be completcd in the next week. Compaction Tests Procedures Compaction tests were performed with a nuclear density meter on fill materials placed on this site. The fill materials consisted primarily of pooxly gradcd sand wiih silt, intermixed with clayey sand. The densities recorded were compared to the maximum standard Proctor densities (detemrined according to ASTM Test Method D698) for the appropriate backfill. Test Results Thus far, a total of 36 compaction cests were performed oa backCill and fill materials placed in the bnirdi ng and parrcing lot areas- Kesults of our oompaction fes[s were forwaided-as they becaene available: -- The test results indicated fhat backfill and fip materials placed within the building pad area were compacted to at least 98 percent of standard Proetor density. Summary Based on the results of our earthworlc obseavations, it is our opinSon that unsuitable materials were adequately removed from the building pad area and that the underlying soils aze suitable for support of the backfill, fiil and proposed structural loads. However, additional subgrade coaections as lndicated above are xequired within the pavement azeas. The compaction test results indicate that the backfill and fill maferials tested met the project compaction specifications. Based on the results of our observations and tests, to the best of our knowledge, and with the exception of the two pavement areas discussed previously, the site grading was per£onned in general accordance with the recomxnendations contained m the Geotechnical Report dated August 31, 2006. CSM Corporation Projact SP-06-01298A January 5, 2007 Page 5 At the time of this report, a thorough proof-roll was not performed to evaluate the stability of the subgrade soils in the building and pavement areas. Based on our observations of the equipment hauling across the subgrade, with the exception of the two pavcment areas addressed above, the subgrade soils appeared to be rather stable. However, considering that the subgrade soils consist o£ silty and clayey soils, which are susceptible to disturbance as a resutt of moisture, frnst action and construction equipment, when the subgrade soils thaw on this site, it should be anticipatecl that some subgrade stabilization will be required. Remarks We have attempted to make observations and perform test representative of the work executed, but have not observed or tested each and every increment of the work. Tn performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express ox implied, is made. ' ?- ? ` ST-1 8.? _ •?, ? . _ _ `? f . . , sbv ? ? ? . : _. ' ? ? i ,, c ? . . - .. , / . o :,? . ? . .. . , . ?• . ? ` ? /?•: ? k?ss?a?? ? - ; . E .?p ??._ . ? •103 \ r ? • ?I ?., ST-1a ? ?, avE?s,?«t wt ? oarc a ioa.wN e:. ; . t IAvo•o , Waters Annex PR-8 (Build' Soil Conecrion Bottom Ele g#7) ations B RAY N` ' I SNCL I I U1 DWG Np SP-06-0I298A INTERTEC BRAUN INTERTEC Client: CSM CorDOraE3on 500 Wnshin2ton Aveaue South Suiie 3000 Minneapolis. MN 55415 Field Tes[ iaction Tests d ASTM D 2922 0-0129RA :ers Amiez Mass grading Phasc f of Lone Qak Pk%vy and Lnne Oak Dr. cn, MN Wet Water fn Place I Relative Specif'tecl Retut Densiry Content Moisture 1rI PlnceDry L:umpaction ?yfinimum Tesi OC Date Sm1ID (pe? (pcn % Densiry(pcfl (?o) Compacrionl 1 II/27/06 P-Ol 142.0 13.0 10 2 11/27/06 P-01 143.0 13.0 9 3 11127/06 P•02 140.0 15.0 13 4 11/27106 P-03 119.0 10.0 6 5 1 I127/06 P-02 136.0 14.0 12 6 31/27106 P-02 137.0 14.0 11 7 11/29106 P-03 143.0 11.0 8 Key: A= Test rcsults compty with 6petlfiwtic B= Tut resut¢ do nac comply aith sptt C= Test resulm comply with air-wids sp 130 9R 98 171 99 98 124 102 98 129 98 98 122 100 9$ 123 101 98 132 100 98 DT = Direct Transmission ons 8S - Back Scauw Report Date: 1 t/30/06 Braun Insimmcnt Standard Standard I\lakc Model ID Density Woismre Trozkr 3430 31160 3.143 689 Commem5 7est Mode Probt Braun /.e- L....\ /--- 1-1 Ae..r1 /:..\ 1..??..........? 1M1 c:-lA A DT 12 31160 7aworski,Ja,son A DT 12 31I60 Jaworski.Jason A UT 32 31160 Jaworski,Jason A DT 12 31160 lau•orski.lason A AT 12 31160 Jawofski, 7ason A ?T 12 31160 Jaworski, Jason A DT R 31160 taworski, 7ason Tut 1D Tul Location Location Descripti on Elevation Refercnce Elevauoo I SWCtural Fill: Building Pad t wesf, 5 feet soueh Building K7, 80 fee' ? 867 I of the north easumI ' mos[ 6udding comet i 2 Structura} Fill: Building Pad Building M7, 40 feet wes6 10 feet 868 sawh of the nonh elastem most 6uilding caner ?I 3 Shucmrel Fi1C Buitding Pad Building i17, 70 kef wes4 4 feet north 867 of the north eastemi most buildmg eoNer i 4 SWCmral FiII: Building Pad Building 1117, 30 feet wes4 5 feei south $70 of the noRh eastem?most building wrner 5 Swccural Fill: Building Pad Building 97, 10 feei west, 5 fen south : 971 of Ne north eastern lmost building comu ; Optimum Mazimum Lab Dry Soil ID Classification Moisture % Dcnsiry (pcO P-Ol SP•SM 7.8 132.9 P-02 SC 10.3 121.5 P-03 SC 7.8 131.4 Page 1 of 3 BRAuw f NTE RTEC Cifent: C5M Corporanon 500 Wuhington Avenue South Suite 3000 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Aetest Test O! 9 t0 I1 12 il 14 I Fie3d CompacHon Tests Fest Method ASTM D 2922 ? Pj oiect: SP•06-01298A Waters Annex Mass grading Phase t NE of Lone Oak Pkwy and Lone Oa& Dr Eagen, MN i Wet Water ln Place ! Relanve Specified Density Content Moisture In Place Bry Compaction Mmimum Date SoiIID (pcD (pco % Densiry{p 11/29/06 P-03 142.0 12.0 9 , 130 11R9/06 P-02 132.0 11.0 10 120 1 V29/06 P-02 139.0 16A l3 , 123 11/29106 P-03 144.0 13,0 10 I lil 11/29/06 P-03 143.0 13.0 10 130 11/29/06 P-01 139.0 5.0 4 '134 11/29/06 P-01 136.0 6.0 a I 131 Kay: A= Tes[ resuhs compty wich speafications S Y Test rauin da no[ comply with speaflaUOna C= Tut resula comply wilh mr-voids specifications Report Date: t U30/06 Rmun (nstniment Standard S2andxrd Make Model fD Density MaisNrc Trozler 3430 31160 3,143 6R9 Comments Test Mode Probe Btaun (see key) (see kry) Depth (in) Insliument ID Field'fechnician 99 98 A DT 12 3 f 160 Jaworski. Jason 99 98 A DT 12 31160 Javwrski, Jason 101 98 A DT 12 31160 laworski,lason f00 99 A DT I? 31160 laworski,Jason 99 98 A DT 12 31160 Jawonki, Jason 101 98 A D7 12 3I160 Jaworski, Jason 99 98 A DT 12 3] 160 laworski, Jason OT - Direet Tnnsmission &S ° Back Scanw Test IB Test Locaiion i Lacstion Description Elevation Reference Elevatlon 8 Structural Fill: Huilding Pad Building 47,160 feet west, 15 feel 868 south oC the north eastem most buifding comer ' 9 SWctural Fill: BWiding Pad Buildmg97, 200 feeE west, 15 [at 868 soutb of [he nonh eastern most building comer 1, 10 Swctural Fill: Budding Pad Building N7, 240 feet wes4 15 feet 869 5outh of the north easiem most , building corner ! t 1 Swtmral Fi11. Building Pad Building d7, 30 feet weSt, 10 !ut 872 SOU[h Of ihe nOrth CBStem mOSI buiiding comer 12 Strvctuml Fill: Building Pad Building p7. RO fat wesi, 10 fcet 871 sou[h of the north eestem mosE 6vilding wmer , -'.....__...._. _......_,..._...., Op[imum Maximum Lab Dry SoiI1D Classification MaisWre% Densiry(pcn P-01 SP-SM 7.8 132.9 P-02 SC 103 12I.5 P-03 SC 718 131.4 Page 2 aC3 BRAUN Field CompacNon Tests Test Method ASTM D 2922 I NTE RTEC ; , Client ProiecC CSM Cotporation SP-06-01298A 500 WashinRton Avenue South Waters Annex Mass grading Phasa I Suite 3000 NE of Lone Oak Pkwy and C,one Oak Dr. Minneapolis, MN 55415 baBen, MN Wet I Wa[er [nPlace , Rdative SpecifiW Retest Densiry Content Moisnue iln Place Dry Compactlon Minimum Tesl Of Date Soil ID (pcf) (pcn % iDensity (pcQ (°) Compaction ( 15 I V29/06 P-0 1 139.0 7.0 S 132 99 98 Key: A=TestresultsoomplywithspaificationY DT=DirxtTtansmis5ion B= Tut rauln do not comply vntF spaifi<aGans 85 - Back Scarcw C° Test rcsuln wmply wi[h nirvvoids speciFicadons Report Date: I 1/30lO6 Braun Instrument Standard Siandard Make Madd [D Dcnsiry Moisnue Troxlcr 3430 31160 3,143 669 Commcnts TestMode Probe A 12 Braun Inskument ID Field 1'echnician 31160 Jaworski.Jason Test ID Tese Lotation Location Descrip6on Elevation Reference Elevation 15 Structural Fill: Bailding Pad Building 1t7, 250 feet west, 5 feet 874 sautM of the nonh i'eutern mosa buildingcomcr 1 Optimum Maximum fab Dry Soil fD Classificaeion Moisture % Densiry (pcQ P-OI SP-SM 1.8 132.9 11-0 GasieCki, Rich 1 approve the document Nrn 30 2006 Richard J Gestccki Vec 2.5 1 Confidential and Proprietary I Page 3 of 3 ,, . BRAUN I NTE RTEC Client: CSM Colporation 500 Washington Avenue South Suite 3000 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Retesl Test Of Date Soi110 16 II130/06 P-03 17 11130106 P•07 IS 1211106 P-02 19 121I/06 P-03 20 121Iro6 p-01 21 12/I/06 P-03 22 I21I106 P-01 I Field CompacEion Tests Test Method AS7 M D 2922 I P' oiect• S?-06-0f 298A WLaters Annex Mass grading Phase I NE of I,one Oak Pkwy and Lone Oak Dr. Eagcn, MN I I Wel Watra in Place I Aelalive Specified Densiry Cantent MoisNre ?(n Place Dry Compaction Minimum cPco (Pcf) "/o Density (P< 139.0 10.0 8 I 129 I42.0 11.0 8 131 134.0 14.0 12 ' 120 140.0 10.0 7 I 130 137.0 7.0 5 i 131 140.0 11.0 8 00 139.0 9.0 6 'i i31 Key: ii A= Tcst rosulb comply wiM specifica[ions B= Tesi rosWfa do mt comply with spwifiutions C=Test rasults comply with airvoids spai ficxtiant (%) Compactic 98 98 100 93 99 98 99 98 99 98 99 98 99 98 DT - Diroct Trens BS = Back Swuer Report Date: 12/4/06 9rxun Instrument Standard Standard Make :'rtodel 1D Densiry Moisture Troxler 3430 31160 3,143 6R9 Comments Tat Mode Probe Braun (tee key) (see key) Depth (in) Inswment ID Field Technician A DT 12 31160 faurortki, ]aton A DT 12 31160 laworski, lason A DT 12 31160 Jaworski, Jason A DT 12 31160 7aworski, Jason A DT 12 31160 faworski, Iason A pT 12 31 160 laworski, Juon A DT 12 31160 Iaworski, lazon Test iD Test Location ? i Looation Description Elevation Reference Elevation I5 StrucNral Fill: Sui[ding Pad Building 97: 250 fieet west, 60 feet 867 south of the northeast building cortwr 17 Structural Fill: Building Pad 8uilding #7: 250 feet west. 90 fce[ 865 112 south of the northe'ast bmlding comer 18 Structural Fill: Building Ped Buitding #7; 200 feet west, 60 fttt 868 south of tha northqast buildmg comer 19 Stnicmrzl Fill: Building Pad Building N7: 230 ket west, 90 Poct 869 south of the norttw'6st Luilding comer 20 Sirucnual Fili: Building Pad Building #7: 180 feet west. 60 Cat 867 south of the nonheist building oomer 21 Swcmral Fill: Huilding Pad Building #7: 150 feel west, 60 feet 867 swth of the northesst 6uilding comer 22 Strutmnl Fill: Building Pad Building #7; 10 feet eest, 100 fxi SGS south of the northwest building comer Optimum Maximum Lab Dry SoilfD Clazaificuion Moismre°.G Densiry(pco P-01 SP-SM 7.8 132.9 P-02 SC 10.3 121.5 P-03 SC 7.8 131.4 Ver. 2.5 I Confidrntial and Proprictflry I Page I of 2 ?= h^ B RA u N Field Test I I NTE RTEC Ctienc CSM Corporation 500 WashinAton Avenue South Suue3000 Mianeapolis, MN 55415 paction Tests d ASTM D 2922 ters Annex Mass grading Phase I of L,one Oak Pkwy and Lone Oak Dn en, MN Report Date: I 2/4/06 Braunlnshument Standard Standard Make Model ID Density Moisture Trozlet 3430 31360 3,143 689 Wet RetesE Density Tat Of Date Soil [D (pcf) Water Contrnt (pco In Place I Moisnve In P3ace Dry %. Densiry (PCD Relahve Compaction (°) Specifed Minimum Compaction (%) Comments (sa key) Test Mode (Sa key) Probe Depth (i 2; 12/1l06 P•01 141.0 10.0 7 ? 13) 99 98 A DT 12 24 12/IPo6 P-01 140.0 8.0 6 I 132 94 98 A DT 12 Key: I, A- Tat results camply with apecificetiona DT = Direct Tradsmiuion B= Test resula do noe comply with specificuions BS - Bet]e Scattir C= Test resul¢ campiy with eirvvoids specifications ? i li II I , I Trsl ID Test Location Lowtion Description Elevation Refcrence Hlevation 23 Stnictural fill: Building Pad Building d7: 50 f t cas410 feei 871 south o( thc northviest building comcr t easf, 40 Poet 24 Struaural Fill: Bvilding Pad Building :7: 20 fee 371 I sauth of the northwest building comer I Brsun nunentlD FieldTCChniciai 31160 )awarski, lason 3 E 160 Jaworski, Iason Optimum Maximum Lab Dry SoiIID Clnssification Moiswm % Densiry(pco P-Ot SP•SM 78 132.9 Gastecki. Rich I approve the dxument Oec Oa 2006 R ichard .t Gastccki Ver.2.5 1 Con(den[ial and Proprietxry I Page 2 0(2 BRAuN I NTE RTEC Client: CSM Corporation 500 Washington Avenue South Suite 3000 Minneapolis, ytN 55415 I Field Compaction Tests Test Method ASTM D 2922 -01298A ? Annex Mass grading Phase T l,one Oak Pkwy and Lone Oak llr MN wet Water In Place Rerest Density Contertt Mois4ure Test Of Date SoiIID (pef) (pco % 25 1714106 P-02 135.0 I3.D 10 26 1214/06 P-02 134.0 12.0 10 27 17I4106 P-02 132.0 13.0 II 28 12/4/06 P-02 134.9 110 II 29 1214106 P-02 134.0 14.0 I! 30 1214/06 P-02 132.0 13_0 I[ Key: A= Twt resuits toroply with 5pecifitapons 6= 7est resulu do not comply wah spxiFications C- Test resalt6 compty with air-wids specifications Rclatire Speci(ied Place Dry CompacGon Minimum Sensity (Pcfl (°/a) Campacdon ? 122 ]00 98 I 122 700 98 119 98 98 ' 121 100 98 120 99 98 119 98 98 D7 = Direct Trensmission 85 - Baek Seauer Report Date: 12/5106 ? .. Braun [nstrument Standazd Standard Make Model ID Densiy Moisture Troxler 3430 31160 3,143 689 Commenls Test Mode Pmbe Braun (see key) (see key) DeptG (in) lnsWment ID Fidd'Iechnician A DT 12 31160 Jaworski, 7azon A DT 12 31160 laworski,lason A DT 12 31160 Iaworski, Sazon A DT 12 31160 Jawonki, Jason A DT 12 31160 laworski, Jason A DT 12 31160 Jawarski, Juon Test ID Test Location Location Descripti0n Elevation ReFerence Elevation 25 St'ucmral Fill: Building Pa3 80 Ceet eazt, 80 feO'soulEi ofthe 870 northwest comer o8 building #7 26 SWCmral Fil!• Building Pad 80 feet east, 90 fee4l? south ofthe 871 aorthwest wmer o? building N7 27 Swmurel Fill: Building Pad SO feet east, 120 Feet south oCthe 867 northwest comer o1t building N7 28 Strvcmral Fill: Suilding Pad 40 feet east, 60 fee?south of the 874 nofthwest wmer ofj building N7 29 Strucmral FiIL• Building Pad 100 feet eaat, 60 feet muth of the 874 northwest wmer ofi building 97 30 Strucwral Fill: Budding Pa6 70 fect east, 120 fegl south of fhe 869 notthwesE comer of buiiding N7 (3ptimum Maximum Lab Dry Soil ID Cla55ifcation MoisNre °k Density (pcQ P-02 SC 10.3 121.5 Gastecki, Rich ! approve the dacument Dac 05 2006 Richazd f Gastecki ver. a.s Confidential and Proprietary Page 1 of ] I