The URL can be used to link to this page

610 Opperman Dr - 2010-04-14 Special Inspection Final Report for Data CenterA Special Inspection Final Report Thomson Reuters F Data Center Remodel (F -S200) 610 Opperman Drive Eagan, Minnesota Prepared for Thomson Reuters Project BL -10 -00105 April 9, 2010 Braun Intertec Corporation [ DECEC\VE5 APR 1 4 2010 BRAUN INTERTEC Mr. William Janvrin Thomson Reuters 610 Opperman Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Re: Special Inspection Procedural and Final Report Submittal Thomson Reuters F Data Center Remodel (F -5200) 610 Opperman Drive Eagan, Minnesota Dear Mr. Janvrin: Plans and Specifications Observation and Testing Summary Braun Interfec Corporation 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55438 April 9, 2010 Project BL -10 -00105 Phone: 952.995.2000 Fax: 952.995.2020 Web: braunintertec.com Please find attached to this procedural report the Special Inspection Final Report for the F Data Center Remodel (F -5200) and the supporting Special Inspection Daily Reports. Special Inspections and Testing Procedures The special inspection services were provided by International Code Council (ICC) certified special inspectors in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 1700 of the International Building Code (IBC), the Special Inspection and Testing Schedule and /or the project plans and specifications. The purpose of special inspections is to provide a review of the contractors work designated by the project structural engineer as needing special inspection under the guidelines of the IBC, to determine compliance with the approved construction documents. The special inspector does not 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. As part of this report, items needing correction or discrepancies observed from the approved construction documents were noted. The provided plans and specifications available at the site were used for our inspections. From time to time, we have received plan modifications from the project structural engineer. When received, these have been used to evaluate the work completed in the field. 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, • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Thomson Reuters Project BL -10 -00105 April 9, 2010 Page 2 bar location, splice lengths and dowel placement. This information was then used to determine 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 excessive rust, scale and soil. Drilled - In Epoxy Rebar Observations of the installation of the drilled in epoxy rebar were conducted to determine if they were installed at the locations indicated in the construction documents. Items observed included the placement, depth of embedment, cleanliness of the drilled hole and the application of the epoxy adhesive. 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 Routine tests to determine 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. Concrete Compressive Strength Testing The cast concrete cylinders were temporarily stored at the site and then returned to our laboratory for moist curing and testing. The results of the concrete compressive strength testing have been forwarded to the interested parties under a separate cover as they became available. Masonry Construction Observations Prior to conducting the observations, the special inspector reviewed the construction documents and any associated approved submittals. As construction began, the construction of mortar joints and the location of reinforcement and connectors was observed for compliance with the requirements of the project plans and specifications. The inspection program included determining the size and location of structural elements in addition to the type, size, and location of anchors, including other details of anchorage of masonry to structural members, frames or other construction for compliance. We also determined if the specified size, grade and type of reinforcement was used and if the protection of masonry was in compliance with the guidelines of the IBC. Prior to grouting, the cleanliness of the grout space, placement of reinforcement and connectors, grout and construction of mortar joints were observed. Placement of the grout was observed for conformance with the requirement of the specifications. Concrete Masonry Prism Testing The hollow core masonry prisms were cast by the contractor and tested in general accordance with ASTM C1314: Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms. The samples were temporarily stored at the site and returned to our laboratory for compressive strength testing. The results for the BRAUN INTERTEC compressive strengths of the masonry prisms were forwarded to the interested parties under separate cover as they became available. Concrete Masonry Grout Testing The grout prisms cast were tested in general accordance with ASTM C1019: Standard Test Method for Sampling and Testing Grout. The samples were temporarily stored at the site and returned to our laboratory for compressive strength testing. The results for the compressive strengths of the grout prisms were forwarded to the interested parties under separate cover as they became available. Bolted Connection Observations Hex -head bolting observations were performed to determine if the correct bolts were used and if the nuts were fully engaged. Random bolts were selected at each connection to determine if the nuts were snug tight. This was done using a wrench and cheater bar. Finally, each hex -head bolted connection was observed for fit -up and to determine if the various plies were in contact with one another. General In 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 or implied, is made. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the special inspection and testing services for this project. After review of the attached Special Inspection Final Report, if you have any questions or require additional information, please call Chris Kehl at 952 - 995 -2386, or Ron Shaffer at 952 - 995 -2234. Sincerely, BRAU INTERTEC CORPOR I N " Christoph-r R. Kehl, PE Project Engineer Ronald A. Shaffer, PE Senior Engineer- Associate Attachment: Special Inspection Final Report c: Mark Mielke, Van Sickle, Allen & Associates Chris Novaczyk, City of Eagan Mike Yelm, Holder Construction Company SpecInspFinalRpt Thomson Reuters Project BL -10 -00105 April 9, 2010 Page 3 BRAUN INTERTEC 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. Structural Masonry The required structural masonry observations and testing detailed in the attached Special Inspection Daily Reports have been completed in general accordance with the requirements of the project plans and specifications. There are no outstanding or unresolved structural masonry- related issues. Bolting The bolted connections detailed in the attached Special Inspection Daily Reports were observed in general accordance with the requirements of the plans and specifications. There are currently no outstanding or unresolved bolted connection - related issues. Drilled -In Epoxy Anchor Bolts The drilled -in epoxy rebar connections detailed in the attached Special Inspection Daily Reports were observed in general accordance with the requirements of the plans and specifications. It was noted that special inspections of the epoxy anchors at the roof level framing were not performed. The Structural Engineer was informed and after load testing a portion of the anchors the anchors, the anchors were considered acceptable based on the criteria given by the engineer and the issue is considered closed. There are currently no outstanding or unresolved drilled in epoxy anchor - related issues. BRAUN INTERTEC Special Inspection Final Report City of: Eagan Date: April 9, 2010 Project: Thomson Reuters -F Data Center Remodel (F -S200) 610 Opperman Drive Eagan, Minnesota Braun Intertec Project: BL -10 -00105 Braun Intertec Corporation 1 1001 Hampshire Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55438 Attention: Mr. William Janvrin Phone: 952.995.2000 Fax: 952.995.2020 Web: braunintertec.com In accordance with Section 1704 of the International Building Code and the agreed upon scope of services, the required special inspections and testing have been provided for the following items: Page 1 of 2 • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Conclusion Based upon the inspections performed, the testing completed and the attached Special Inspection Daily Reports, it is our professional judgment that, to the best of our knowledge, the inspected work was performed and completed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, structural engineer provided modifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the International Building Code. Inspecting Firm: Braun intertec Corporation I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Lice edlIPkkekssional Engineer NN1 under the laws of the�.$t e .o ED GINEER Ronald A. Shaffer, ��E�,'• Associate — Senior Qr 1 2115 G License Number: 121Y5, �o i 9j1 i\` \‘ April 9, 2010 Attachments: Special Inspection Daily Reports 1 through 5 Steel Special Inspection Daily Reports 1 through 2 Thomson Reuters Project BL -10 -00105 April 9, 2010 Page 2 BRAUN NTE RTEC BRAUN INTERTEC List tests performed: Report No.: Project Name: Project Address: k. "(t> C� 3./1�,,. 1;4r Client: 7"1 l,s 4 C R.•.r) Project Manager: City of t Date of This Report: \j 1 i 1 1 u Project No.: Client Project No.: Temp /Weather: Type of Inspection: ❑ Continuous ❑ Periodic Inspection Coverage: ❑ Masonry ❑ Welding & Bolting ❑ Piles & Piers • Rebar Placement • Concrete Placement ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Fireproofing ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ ❑ Special Cases Description and location of work completed: V .1 RA0 er- p t / f , , ' L& �„ "k $ • 3 +D $ . ' l , C rDtili P713 4 `7 •'7 ab /56 (- .- wit t1• a ` g• - -J 1�,►t�. ^,. 5.43L-.5 (�b co • I-4, Ak ct.so pub ✓ vtvv- - k 1 6: - o- �1c it_.e i v opt b. Signed: • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes ❑ No • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes ❑ No • If yes, see attached Summary Sheet. To the best of our knowledge, work inspected was done in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable workmanship provisionP the current IBC, except as noted above. Print Full Name: q1 vJ 44. ?t TE(z06' Special Inspection Daily Report rb L-- to OV j o •-c . Date: V11//b I.D. No.: 62 - S S7)3 -- . White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. k" 044°- Idootv2 Page _ of SIDRPT Rev 10/09 Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 BRAUN I NTE RTEC Report No.: Client: Project Manager: List tests performed: moo* I ovvV3 a Signed: Print Full Name: City of Z It oy Per 4j Project Name: --r vvt. �� 5 Project Address: ( o to C e r th v� VVL+'P ) Date of This Report: Project No.: Client Project No.: Temp/Weather: Special Inspection Daily Report 1131 1 QL to Oo toc CA-04.- Z5 Page _ of SIDRPT Rev 1 0/09 Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous Masonry 21 Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Periodic ❑ Welding & Bolting .Concrete Placement ❑ Fireproofing ❑ Piles & Piers ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ ❑ Special Cases Description and location of work completed: 01, r J .j- Plc �.. II►'1� -' 1,4,1A c ` t . 3 cv.0.4 +a ` t L-v 1 0 9 - ► D 8 . Fekba C town 7.s 4o B. 11,-J spec_ . $' I b v-J oP dV`' ` -re4v0 .CN,vslAt ce , v 4 Y N A(L / T , , 044- 0"14 • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes ❑ • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes ❑ No ail • If yes, see attached Summary Sheet. To the best of our knowled. -, work inspected was done in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable workmanship provisions •f e current IBC, except as noted above. Date: I / f I.D. No.: 1 5 z-S£3513 gt{ White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 BRAUN I SITE RTEC City of , Report No.: 3 Date of This Report: Project Name:a,vv,,... Q3 Project No.: Project Address: (ip (2)(4,I Client: CC Scr•� Project Manager: ` Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous Masonry Zriebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Periodic ❑ Welding & Bolting ErConcrete Placement ❑ Fireproofing ❑ Piles & Piers ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ ❑ Special Cases Description and location of work completed: (Ap f v 1/140.40.- S • Lt 4- at,,,- too h tot-t. of �1c.. �,r �1<,ti � 0 0bk0-e9 • lee a R C�r�,., -.sL , n (1 Neer per . C4-6-■e is cev' LAI List tests performed: • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes ❑ No • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes ❑ No • If yes, see attached Summary Sheet. To the best of our knowle. - work inspected was done in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable workmanship provisio jje current IBC, except as noted above. Signed: Print Full Name: !l�1p�j egiEgieu Client Project No.: Temp/Weather: I Date: I.D. No.: Special Inspection Daily Report \tom /, gL t� (AntO'S (AA A_ p recs. . `T�`�•r9 ✓klet.A.S 1/i 0/1/" 6 23 White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. Page _ of SIDRPT Rev 10/09 Providing engineering and environmental solutions since I957 BRAUN 1 NTE RTEC City of d-- Report No.: Project Name: fl rw . P % Project Address: t ► O Client: Project Manager: Date of This Report: Project No.: Client Project No.: Special Inspection Daily Report 20 f l� , gL « vo \05 Temp/Weather: ef-v Page _ of SIDRPT Rev 10/09 Type of Inspection: ❑ Continuous ❑ Periodic Inspection Coverage: ❑ Masonry ❑ Welding & Bolting ❑ Piles & Piers ..ET-Rebar Placement .Concrete Placement ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Fireproofing ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ ❑ Special Cases Description and location of work completed: V f1.4—ei Pio vs sly coo- d- P l 4 .pU_., 10-et . " ' -�,e� 'F�+�� L1 S &w . f.a e t #t Dl t.1.4-4 e7 •i�Bo,rc . 64- �,. 00 � L ten,,, .........t 4.. . 1 V' 1 ,p \(►s. 1),10 P b Mips List tests performed: Signed: • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes ❑ No • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes ❑ No • If yes, see attached Summary Sheet. To the best of our knowled workmanship provisions Print Full Name: work inspected was done in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable current IBC, except as noted above. Date: j / I.D. No.: S2.9Z' 3• qp White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 BRAUN I NTE RTEC Report No.: Project Name: 4 ,nA �}.� Project Address: CAB D Client: Project Manager: C44,n\ ""°" 1 List tests performed: Signed: Print Full Name: x10 -I 40625\3 x 5 City of r✓t- ggt PIN QjJ Date of This Report: Project No.: Client Project No.: Temp/Weather: Date: Special Inspection Daily Report Yes No Yes ❑ No /LI /1b QL to oo 1&S Type of Inspection: ❑ Continuous ❑ Periodic Inspection Coverage: ❑ Masonry ❑ Welding & Bolting ❑ Piles & Piers Rebar Placement ja. Concrete Placement ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Fireproofing ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ ❑ Special Cases Description and location of work completed: (Lover i .t �, p� t e $ — sUe t. Ca...• , sue. -*t. eA.t.eto P bl . st�e.a-. `T,.,4JI , C-444 1 s owN114i COvtwatt gs a .. - U • Are there any discrepancies noted from this days observations? • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? • If yes, see attached Summary Sheet. To the best of our knowledge . ork inspected was done in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable workmanship provision /.f current IBC, except as noted above. I.D. No.: £ z 5 -. 4 White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. ZS° Page _ of SIDRPT Rev 10/09 Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 r BRAUN 1 NTE RTE City of ga.V. Report No.: Skeet Date of This Report: Project Name: Vey 1-tr, ($ Zero Project No.: Project Address: L /bp) ? Prrvytavt Client: c� Project Manager: Temp/Weather: Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ sonry Periodic Welding & Bolting ❑ Piles & Piers ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Concrete Placement ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Fireproofing ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ ❑ Special Cases Description and location of work completed: a- - �pS'r►1 �i 'o >$t,± S u List tests performed: Print Full Name: 0 Signed: A Y‘. ocfi: , ;et_ A rs C. . Client Project No.: 32 b 4 5 " Zait (j Pak (,‘e? -i- Date: 4- Yes No ❑ Yes No White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. A-1-t o • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? • If yes, see attached Summary Sheet. 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. 2 l — ( / fi t I.D. No.: & Z I SFr" Page E of t SIDRPT Rev t 0/09 Special Inspection Daily Report I'3 L. - (e-. - is Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 BRAUN INTERTEC City of (,,.,aq pt 'A-- Report No.: 61- >o,�(*'.2 p Project Name: 7-41014450 Ct V .�-G+5 El Z:0 Project Address: to l 0 ty't wtAH. pc Client: Project Manager: (� � S kek Signed: l Print Full Name: Date of This Report: Project No.: Client Project No.: Temp/Weather: Special Inspection Daily Report 2- /(P-/(9 Date: Z.- / CC (Q White copy to Braun tntertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. -00105 8 Description and location of work completed: RR 4 75/4*-107pa V w . S4- Page / of oe SIDRPT Rev 10/09 Type of Inspection: ❑ Continuous F Periodic Inspection Coverage: ❑ Masonry ❑ Reber Placement si zr Welding & Bolting ❑ Concrete Placement Piles & Piers ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Fireproofing ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ ❑ Special Cases 6•e.. V1 3 vts et t ke.;1 1.i_ x 4.32-3 4r 145 t t ' ° to 61 C 3 04-44- 0/ • o 7 Q ■2P U M' d S. n e) •e c ei w 141 n • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes '— No ❑ • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes ❑ • If yes, see attached Summary Sheet. 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. No I.D. No.: EIS.. '' -Zt9 z.— Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 BRAUN I N TE RTE City of 6Qc Ot. v1 / 4 - Project Name: lowtS6n' tU ef`S EsZez Project Address: Client: Project Manager: Report No.: Type of Inspection: ❑ Continuous (, r Periodic Inspection Coverage: ❑ Masonry f Welding & Bolting !❑ Piles & Piers ❑ Reber Placement O Concrete Placement ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Fireproofing ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ ❑ Special Cases Description and location of work comple ah CIA " Cdue.re. R a� List tests performed: • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yese.' No ❑ • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes ❑ No ❑ • If yes, see attached Summary Sheet. 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: ��✓`��d +/� _ Print Full Name: Special Inspection Daily Report Date of This Report: 13L -to-- o Ol c Project No.: Client Project No.: Temp/Weather: • t --2 1- ! e) . -h es Date : - ! C 1 White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. I.D. No.: J •47..vg t a - Z- Page Z of SIDRPT Rev 10/09 Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Thomson Reuters Data Center 610 Opperman Drive Building F Eagan, MN 55123 RFI #: 003 Answer Company Answered B y TiePoint Engineering, PC Bob Reid 810 Gleneagles Court, Suite 208 Baltimore, MD 21286 Co- Respondent Author RFI Number Subject Steel Layout and Weld Clad Cost Impact Not Sure Cost Impact Comments Cc: Company Name Ouestian Please reference sheets $-24)4, S-4:02 and 00 ,4404 l POP sketches. 1. Please locate W8x24 beam on 8 -2.04 as clouded on the attached PDF document. 2, Please clarify if two (2) or three t33 kickers are.required at 7/11 and 8/H on sheet S -2,04, 3. Please clarify the welding intent and type of weld. on 3NS -4;.02 as clouded on the attached PDEdocument 4. On 51S -4.02, confirm dimenslons to be used are.shown in detail 3/A=3ti1, 5 On 5/S -4.02, please clarify the connection Intent for post and 08 opposite. The section appears to four (4) separate connection angles and an extra 3116 fillet weld (seeattac hed PDF document). Suggestion Amount Sched Impact Not Sure; Prolog Manager Printed Hsi Request for Information 003 Detailed, RFts without Routing Information Grouped by Ft5i Number Project # 0907700 Tel: Fax: Discipline 04, Structural Author Company Holder Construction Company 3333 Riverwood Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339 Contact Name Copies Notes Category Days Dwg Impact Not Sure Holder Construction Comp anyy. Date Created: 12/2112001 Authored `By' Eric Durham Sched Impact Comments Dwg Impact Comments Date Required: 12/2312009 Answer Date Artsweredt ATINA SEE PLAN RROW TO INDICATE ECTION) 1NC EL= 111E -4" E Pte: FOR TUBE RAIL. AT CORNER SEE 9/S -4.02 HSS 3x3x3/1 Vii, FOR POST SPACING SEE 9/S -4.02 HSS 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 x 3/16 x t y -5" SPLICE, WELD N) 1.3x34/16x0 If FAR SIDE) Iv 1/20 DIA. A.325-11 roo 7 4 4111/ F, Lt.trAarimi... 2).1-3x3x3/ TOO 1 ‘2" DIA M254 et4 fiSS 3x3x3/16 SCREEN PORT e-11" OP MAX,. PL tits sat (N) 6 (N) PL 3/4x1.2xE-0* Yt/ (4) 3/4" DIA THREADED RODS, DRILL & EPDXY 3", 1b110 -(E) stm, SEE S-1.01 FOR DPO SYSTEM CLikittfy aArtiCto 04,44 94.'sop t P-est-%G+vs fkrmeas Stioto (4) SePtifi-pire. . T!P ®F (N) MECH TING, QTE 1, SEE SHEET S-1.01 FOR STRUCTURAL NOTES. 2. EDGE DISTANCE IS 1 I/2" U.N.°. 3, BOLT SPACING IS U.N.O. 4. ALL BOLT HOLES ARE 13/16" DIA FOR air DIA A325—N BOLTS U.N.O. 5. FIELD YIELOSZIribl ARE AN ALTERNATE TO BOLTING. CONTRACTOR T COORDINATE INSTAUER * FABRICATOR. CONTRACTOR pa TOUCH UP WELDS PER SPECIFIATION. CONNECTION DETAIL 3/8" DIA ITILTI HIT IF( 1,50 NAX EPDXY ANCNORS 4 /// 4 1/2" SIBED IN DECK FLUTE Of.014 S U WX Oran.110 I CIO 0*-6" WO , O-51/2' 06 3/4° CAP PL. W/ (4) 3/4" LIlA A325—N BOLTS CIO ROOFING ... , - 2 I 1/4 lA 2 2 1/4 (E) 4 SEE P1AN (E) Wu COL, SEE PLAN 3/4' V-0" (N) (2) 3/4" DA 0.325—N BOCIS EA END O (2. IMMO alETIONS. WI Tir GUSSET PCS