Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Structural Testing & Inspection Schedule SPeCial.Stractural Testuig and Inspection Program Sninniary Schedule Project Name Orono Senior Housing Project No. . Location Orono,MN Permit No, _ (I) Projia N.1e441(2) " , Type of 1 Report ASSignecl Section Article .. ...Description(3) Inspector(4) Frequency(5) _„.. Firm(6) SO."47 Concrete Reinforcement Peri-tithe " TA S0.1, ' 3.14 cast-in-Place Oinerete SI-S Periodic -TA 033000 . SO:1 • ReinfereedMaionrY ' Si-S '''''''' Pet.i4c TA SO 1 3.3 S6tural§,eer sts — • ; idi - 7 TA - 051200 SOJ . Backfill&Compaction _ Periodic • _ TA :Notes: This schedule shall be filled out and included in the SPeeial:Stnieuiral Testing and InspectiOn Program. (1) Permit No.to be provided by the Building Official. (2) " Referenced to the specific technical scope section in the program.. (3) Use descriptions per]BC Chapter 17,as adopted by Minnesota State Budding Code: -(4) (SI-T)Special Inspector‘•Technician,(ST-S)Special Inspector-Structural Engineer (5) Weekly,monthly,PecIPstrin4Pectien,Pc7 floor,etn (6) {TA)TestingAgeney: Firm contracted:to:perform serviees. ACKNOWLEDOEMBNTS Each appropriate iepresentative Abell sign beleyv.: / Firm: Date. ripv Contractor: Alp' - up Pirm: Actortifr-) Date:- sr/Trail " • 'fclf e-170c.10ATEr-> ADate: • SER. Firm:Heigq.s4*Associats Inc Date: sLs!. .,z;1111V Firm; 44i27.-,/L/4-C Date: ,' •Agr' 0/ SI FirmA' - ,60-04...rh Date / :. .f‘r/44..,, 2. „• TA: Date: If requested by onfOneeriarohitect of record or building.official, the individual names of-nii?prospective,special inspectors and The work they intend to observe shalt be identified. Legend! sER Snactund Enginees!of itceprd B7-71' ppccial Inspeictor.:-:rechnic44 TA:7 Testi!Ig Age!ley SI S Special Inspector— E;igineer. f*FabOFittei Accepted for the Building Department By Date- - _ TEL 651.292.1123 RFIGSTAIJ FAX 651.292.8015 Field Report & Associates, Inc. Professional Engineers Date: 09/01/2011 192 West 9th Street Project: Orono Senior Housing St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Location: Orono, MN To: Greg Woollums Pope Associates Contractor: Kraus Anderson 1255 Energy Park Drive St. Paul, MN 55108-5118 Owner: Kraus Anderson Weather: 65 degrees F, Sunny Present At Site: Keith Ringold Jared Reigstad The following was noted: A. Work Completed: 1.) Foundations: 50% • 90% of the exterior foundations and foundation walls are complete. • 0% of the interior foundations are complete. • 0% of the canopy foundations are complete. 2.) Level 1: 0% 3.) Level 2: 0% 4.) Roof: 0% B. Issues to Note: 1.) As discussed on site, post-installed anchors rods can be used for the interior strip footings, and exterior pad footings. C. Pending Issues: There are no pending issues at this time This report should not be misunderstood as a final inspection approval report or a final checklist. Our walk-through observations were not detailed inspections. See the special inspector's reports for detailed inspection results and for any other issues to be corrected. Please call if you have any questions regarding this report. Jared M Reigstad Project Manager Reigstad &Associates C: Jim Beckwith KA, Keith Ringold KA, file J:\Reigstad Projects\Pope Architects\Orono Senior Housing\Construction Administration\Photos and Field Reports12011-11-03 OSH—Field Observation Report#2.doc TEL RFIIQSTAP FAX 651.292.1123 Field Report & Associates, Inc. Professional Engineers Date: 11/03/2011 192 West 9th Street Project: Orono Senior Housing St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Location: Orono, MN To: Greg Woollums Pope Associates Contractor: Kraus Anderson 1255 Energy Park Drive St. Paul, MN 55108-5118 Owner: Kraus Anderson Weather: 45 degrees F, Sunny Present At Site: Keith Ringold Jared Reigstad Gordon Reigstad The following was noted: A. Work Completed: 1.) Foundations: 100% • 100% of the building foundations are complete. 2.) Level 1: 95% • Structural stud walls and posts have been placed, but not sheathed; exterior walls only sheathed on the exterior. • Area of Refuge 50% complete. 3.) Level 2: 95% • Structural walls and posts are placed, but not sheathed; exterior walls only sheathed on the exterior. 4.) Roof: 50% • Roof trusses are placed on half of the building; sheathing is placed on half of these trusses. • Detail 4 and 5 on S7.1 were not followed appropriately for strapping the roof trusses down to the walls and lintels. This was discussed on site, and issues 1 and 2 below are solutions. 5.) Canopy: 50% • 100% of the canopy foundations are complete. • 50% of the canopy superstructure is complete. J:\Reigstad Projects\Pope Architects\Orono Senior Housing\Construction Administration\Photos and Field Reports\201 1-11-03 OSH-Field Observation Report#2.doc TEL 3 BE I -STAR FAX 651.292.8015112 & Associates, Inc. Professional Engineers 192 West 9th Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 B. Issues to Note: 1.) As discussed on site, a metal strap needs to be placed from the top plate to the stud at 32" o.c. at the roof interior corridor and exterior walls. Use a Simpson SSP for fastening a double top plate to single stud per the attached document. 2.) A metal strap needs to be placed at the ends of all lintels (lintel to post below) at the roof interior corridor and exterior walls. Use a Simpson LSTA18 per the attached document. 3.) A metal strap needs to be placed from the LVL's in the mechanical area well to the top stud plate at the roof interior corridor walls at 4'-0" o.c. Use Simpson TSP for fastening to a double top plate per the attached document. 4.) The L5 lintel supporting the roof at the main entrance at the stairway currently spans the entire opening at the corridor. Per S1.3, a (4) 2x6 post needs to be added under the L5 lintel at mid-span and needs to be carried below to the foundation. This report should not be misunderstood as a final inspection approval report or a final checklist. Our walk-through observations were not detailed inspections. See the special inspector's reports for detailed inspection results and for any other issues to be corrected. Please call if you have any questions regarding this report. Jared M Reigstad Project Manager Reigstad &Associates C: Jim Beckwith KA, Keith Ringold KA, file J:\Reigstad Projects\Pope Architects\Orono Senior Housing\Construction Adnministration\Photos and Field Reports\2011-11-03 OSH—Field Observation Report#2.doc Billi,IGSTAB FAX 051.292.1015 & Associates, Inc. Professional Engineers 192 West 9th Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Photo 01: Overall view of construction progress 1 dX' ''' ''" g1r1i'r I- i .41.- -,';4107/11 ,,ii ' .-'', . iiil---_. ,41 II ._ 7��. ... -6 i-'114-----f' k k�'*'rt" r1' t: • ' s ( '4 Sl � .gym r .. 1111 1,4 iIfYa'l pFwM�' ' r. - ii I ', -" a, - ''P - lr II I II S Z Z% sm ate, , III , T Photo 02: Corridor roof truss bearing and lintel i , 1. - 44-k-=--- ''''' _= = 1 Add Simpson SSP i.)-c ' +i 1Add Simpson LSTA18 Strap per Issue#1 �al" Strap per Issue #2. kvf,T, ir-,',1- , r,,, 41. Ilt iiii Pi f.,:jikLip,_,.:'1, at _-4 -e" II r 1 r ✓"• ! ■ J:1Reigstad Projects\Poli:Architects\Orono Senior Housing\Construction Administration\Photos and Field Reports\201 1-1 1-03 OSI-1—Field Observation Report 02.cloc ii)j rJ PFJ FAX f AX 651.202.8015 & Assoeiates,Inc. Professional Engineers 192 West 9th Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Photo 03 Mechanical area well LVL's Add Simpson TSP Strap per Issue#3 IIIz' " 'llil l III_ e Ilii= ' -;-, e sl Pp ktr >tlx y I i. _- t ,p F tIa yil K .1lIf - 1 ii I jIrhd� � w I l' 1s 1_ ,.... , r rc��01III� '-01 � — - 1"� rIll 'NC iIll -,I..skr _ ) � i _ � W Photo 04:L5 lintel supporting roof at main entrance - s fig'+ r� V - -:p- a II & & x gill 4 If ' Admd=_ „ as Ie� it 'c ' =t` y post per ssu I�t`IH r� I�� a �t-• 'sal, . al.u, ill llIlIrH' Illl'P j" t 'JI�. 7' � II R ,';..- -Pit, r�.. �p 4. E V� f k s s':. ' r !st 4 ;i - hl I ' - . k ,. 0 c Lf, t _ d IlllHhir� "I " � c t ... ; rc ._ s _ m,.41,,,A " �-.� `�:S ;A J:\Reigstad Projects\Pope Architects\Orono Senior Housing\Construction Administration\Photos and Field Reports\2011-I 1-03 OSH—Field Observation Report#2.doc DSP/SSP/SP/SPH/RSP4/TSP Stud Plate Ties http://www.strongtie.com/products/connectors/DSP-SSP-SP-SPH-R... 1' ` iNr . =;ce 4- _ .9 0 SSP Typical SSP erDSP Typical DSP U.S.Patent Installed to Sill U.S.Pate Installed to Top PI 4.-' 7,065,932 Plate 7,065,932 Plate 7,356,973 (DSP similar for 7,356,973 (SSP similar for Dow - • Single Stud) 6,11/tg,, a 1. 4j 1,1'1.1 (.._ � TS' Typical TSP _gpicalTSP --&, Installed to Top stalled to Sill 13/8" P Plate frSS1 IS S 1:14 man ) 14,1 t� Si ,At Tr) .. x r5s%*44.5 TSP -- x.rio VE Pte'rt) 2€ To rbE R v Fop o Ib,T7 of Vt., o I pLATE 2 of 7 11/3/2011 1:04 PM DSP/SSP/SP/SPWRSP4/TSP Stud Plate Ties http://www.strongtie.com/products/connectors/DSP-SSP-SP-SPH-R... roll over images below to see larger image r Side(� L r.) ft iiC (��'�r,,�E tri 1 I/ ' PO' ,w go load vi �,,a ,fl r ..vd he opt ; '1„111041 �I loKl.s Eire.t, / I loads are t.,oplir3 ,p494.*. 4'. ;W nulled to on ; 1 at anteri:ne of too ,; , I is p pati, ' - tale floc:flo 29,, j y{V 8:, r '_! SP1 SP1 Nailing Typical SP2 Typical SP4 e510,10,„,„ Profile Installation Installation MrPd i o- = (SPH similar) A" ul"f %` 1 j. - • Ili k. ... °, illl l" .10dx1'Vs'Nails Typical SPH4R Typical SP5 Installation 1: Installation 2: d Each Side installed on hstalled Typical RSP4 Typical RSP4 '"' of Stud bottom of 2x (SP3 similar Stud to Single Stud to Double stud wall(Sill installed at Bottom Plate Top Plate plate double plate) U.S.Patent (See anchorage not 5,697,725 footnote 4) shown) SSP/DSP/TSP Load Table: See code report listings below .top Ea These products are available with additional corrosion protection.Additional products on this page may also be available with this option,check with Simpson Strong-Tie for details. Dim. Fasteners 060)Uplift Loads (16O) Model Double No. W L Studs Double Single Top Plate Single Sill Plate Top Plate Sill Plate DF/SP/SPF DF/SP SPF/HF SSS' 4-10dx1'/z 3-10dx1'h — 350 — — SSP 1% 6'14 + - 1-10dx1'V 420 325 4-10d 1Q{ — 435 — — - 1-10d 455 420 8-10dx1'/z 6-10dx1/ — 775 — — DSP 2�'a 6"1c — 2-10dx1'/z 660 545 8-10d 6-10d — 825 — ,�� - 2-10d — 825 . 600 6-10dx1'14 — 3-10dx1'14 470s 425 TSP 1% 7% 910dx11/,.-10dx1' — 7554 — — 61 Qd 1015' 1. Allowable loads have been increased 60%for wind or earthquake loading;no further increase allowed. 2. When cross-grain bending or cross-grain tension cannot be avoided,mechanical reinforcement to resist such forces should be considered. 3. Allowable loads for DSP installed to a rim joist are 660 lbs. (DF/SP),545 lbs.(SPF/HF). 4. Noted values only apply to DF/SP members.For SPF values,multiply by 0.86. 5. Southern pine allowable uplift load is 585 lbs. 6. NAILS: 10d=0.148"dia.x 3"long, 10dx1 1/2=0.148"dia.x 1 1/2"long. See other nail sizes and information. SP/SPH/RSP Load Table: See code re_port list ags below .iop 1.1 These products are available with additional corrosion protection.Additional products on this page may also be available with this option,check with Simpson Strong-lie for details. These models are approved for installation with the Strong-Drive SD Structural-Connector screw. 3 of 7 11/3/2011 1:04 PM HRS/ST/PS/HST/HTP/LSTA/LSTI/MST/MSTA/MSTC/MSTI Strap Ties http://www.strongtie.com/products/connectors/HRS-ST PS-HST LS... ,: i„ ,-, Yt• i','1.- . i. 11-.1 01T1T . . t. i „, ; 1 I41.. 1 rl , . Ii71-',.'ii rrrr r,: rt ri'7711 1 Mr7 , 1 ...._i,.. ,'- . 'I . 1 L. r-1, tif 1 i' I li:iri-li 0, 01 ,, 1 i ? v ILITiLi ! Ve .-13, ..,: 1-: •II. 111 ,1 i 7141;.01 : 1,1I ,111 ; h . i..lai 0 dI.1 I 11'1] I r, ir,i i • 1, 1 A.: t 1 toSit Or ts Sr SS\3E. 1:t"Z. , 0 t I 1 P' t *61"rwOrik•Pb „ ........................... . r . ' . t k , .. . . . . roll over images below to see larger image :„...; .'': •-- ,,, :.".'z r l']. :=::: .7;- _--45t2g,- ..i: ;,;v Le k 4, t, ..„ MSTC28 . El; ST2115 F--' HTP37Z 1-IST ,,- '''''''''4- : ''''t'r.'-i- i4t;-,-,,,,,, .:': • ' ., , -- lif01011. P, Rr \ . t14.fV.- HRS HRS416Z Typical MST1 lrsta Ration (MIT hanger shown) LSTI similar 2 of12 11/3/2011 1:20 PM HRS/ST/PS,HST/HTP/ISTA/LSTI/MST/MSTA/MSTC/MSTI Strap Ties http://www.strongtie.comlproducts/connectors/HRS-ST-PS-HST-LS... M�II Typical LSTI Typical HRS Installation Installation roll over images below to see larger image I.._. L 61 Typical LSTA Installation(hanger not shown) 0 0 • fl 0 i Bend strap one time only a W til PS218 and P5418 2' ' 1 V.,' _ �1_ p'°_ PS720 31/4" 11/2' PS Typical PS720 Installation Model Material Dim, Bolts No. Thickness Gauge W L Qty Dia PS218 2 18 4 3 PS418 7 ga 4 18 4 % PS720 6%a 20 8 'V2 PS strap design loads must be determined by the Designer for each installation.Bolts are installed both perpendicular and parallel-to-grain. Hole diameter in the part may be oversized to accommodate the HDG. Designer must determine if the oversize creates an unacceptable installation. roll over images below to see larger image flails arejt 11 I :-.:-,,,t._14 riot rCQUir@d F ,�p� c in the urn r� e s ,.143.1--X >t -...._ bard area g.I�11t 11^ IIF t III uMGi llll�illl{ N'�,'�41�N . e fir.' 111!'1111„11'11 ;j': Typical Detail with Strap Installed Over Floor-to-Floor rte' SheathingTie Installation showinga Men naIrng life t the Strap over v Clear Span 0S8:pt ood,i:$ 1111 , a 2Y`long nail !it.-1 �N':x,7.,1-r triMP I.' WE KIEEO lb S1HD 5 � (..\4L.(..\4L. u short „VIN Il Ete 8 l 1 �h 3 of 12 11/3/2011 1:20 PM HRR/ST/PS/HST/HTP/LSTA/LSTI/MST/MSTA/MSTC/MSTI Strap Ties http://www.strongtie.com/products/connectors/HRS-ST PS-HST-IS... Allowable Allowable Model Dimensions Fasteners Tension Loads I Tension Loads No. Ga (Total) (OFJSP) 1 (SPF/HF) W i L (160) (160) ...._r_. LSTA9 1% 9 8-10d 740 635 LSTA12 D 12 10-10d 925 795 LSTA1 - is I • • LSTA18 1 l ' 18 �"� � ' 14-10d 1235 1110 LSTA21 11/41 21 16-10d LSTA24 20 11/4 24 18-10d 1235 1235 ST292 216 19%. 12-16d 1265 1120 ST2122 2%6[ 12t% 16-16d 1530 1505 ST2115 4 j1616 11-16d 660 660 ST2215 2/61166/6 20-16d 1875 1880 LSTA3O 11/4 30 22-10d 1640 1640 LSTA36 1'% 36 24-10d 1640 1640 LSTI49 3% 49 32-10dx11/2 2975 2555 1ST173 33/ 7348-10dx1''h 4205 3830 '__�. MSTA9 18 El MSTA12 12 10 1% 9 8-10d 750 645 -10d 940 810 at MSTA15 15 12-10d 1130 970 MSTA18 i D 18 14-10d 1315 1130 MSTA21 t 1% 21 16-10d 1505 1290 MSTA24 t 1% 1 24 18-10d 1640 1455 MSTA30 1%T 30 22-10d 2050 1820 i 36 2050 MSTA36 � I la 26-10d 22050 4�. MSTA49 I 11/4 49 26-10d 2020 2020 S 2 5 2%6' 16%6 20-16d 2095 1900 ST6224 ; 2'/,6 23%6 28-16d 2540 2540 ST9 1/ 9 $ 16 - ' d885 760 ST12 1 16 1'/ 11% 10-16d 1105 950 ST1811 173! 14-16d 1420 1330 ST22 1% 216/ 18-16d 1420 1420 MSTC28 3 281/4 36-16d sinkers 3455 2980 r MSTC40 3 401/4 52-16d sinkers 4745 4305 MSTC52 3 52'/ 62-16d sinkers 4745 4745 HTP37Z1 3 7 20-10dx1'l 1850 1600 MSTC66 _ _�_._.... 7 3 65/a 76-16d sinkers 5860 5860 MSTC78 14 3 1 77% 76-16d sinkers 5860 5860 ST6236 2%6133% 40-16d 3845 3845 HRS6 j 0% _ 6 6-10d 605 525 P HRS8 ' 11 ( 8 10-10d 1010 880 HRS12 1% 12 14-10d 1415 1230 -- MSTI26_ 216; 26 26-10dx1'1 2745 2325 MSTI36 ' 12 2'/6, 36 36-10dx1!!���3800 3220 5of12 11/3/20111:20 PM A Non-Structural Steel Special Inspection Final Report Orono Senior Housing Facility 875 Wayzata Boulevard Orono, Minnesota Prepared for Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Project BL-11-01014A March 13, 2012 Braun Intertec Corporation 1 •,i f5 Lt I, c� Braun Intertec Corporation Fr',one 952 x/95-2050 � Fa ,(j 1 Hampshle Avenue S Fox 952 2 2020 Mi�meaar,lu MN 55438 Woo 1) inintert.ccox March 13, 2012 Project BL-11-01014A 1 s' ; r Mr.Jim Beckwith a' Kraus-Anderson Construction Company 525 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55404-1077 Re: Non-Structural Steel Special Inspection Procedural and Final Report Submittal } } , Orono Senior Housing Facility 875 Wayzata Boulevard ' 4'% Orono, Minnesota Dear Mr. Beckwith: Please find attached to this procedural report the Non-Structural Steel Special Inspection Final Report for the above referenced project and supporting Special Inspection Daily Reports for your review and records. Special Inspection and Testing Procedures The special inspection services were provided by International Code Council (ICC) certified special 4 " inspectors in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17 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 contractor's 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 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. As part of this report, items needing correction or discrepancies observed from the approved construction documents were noted. Plans and Specifications The provided plans and specifications or the plans available at the site were used for our inspections. Summary of Special Inspections and Material Observations and Tests Soil Evaluation and Testing Braun Intertec Completed a Geotechnical Evaluation Report for this project on March 18, 2011 under the project number BL-11-01014.The borings performed encountered a variety of geologic materials including Providing engineering andenvironmental solutions since 1957 Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Project BL-11-01014A March 13, 2012 Page 2 topsoil and existing fill soils underlain by glacially deposited poorly graded sands and lean clays. Swamp deposits were also encountered outside of the building footprint in areas of the site underneath fill soils. As a part of our evaluation we recommended that the fill soils be removed from the building pad and oversize area. During grading a drain field was encountered in the area of the building's southern wing.The aggregate trenches for the drain line were also removed from within the building pad during soil corrections.Soil corrections for the building pad ranged from about 1 to 5 feet below existing grades during removal of fill soils. In the area of the building canopy on the east side of the building, the canopy footings will be supported by helical anchors or drilled piers which extend through fill and swamp deposits to a depth of 15 feet. 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, dynamic cone penetrometers and/or static cone penetrometers.These tasks were performed to determine if the observed and tested soils were consistent with those encountered by the geotechnical borings performed for the project, and suitable for support of the design structural loads. The hand auger borings were drilled with a 1 1/2-inch-diameter hand auger.The borings were advanced in 2-to 4-inch increments to depths of 2 to 4 feet below subgrade elevations or excavation bottoms (shallower penetrations typically occurred where larger gravel,cobbles and boulders 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. Soil exposed at footing subgrade elevations were tested, observed, and judged suitable for support of the design allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot(PSF). Concrete Reinforcement We initially reviewed the reinforcement and dowel requirements on the project structural drawings and shop drawings, if available. Information reviewed included bar size, bar length, bar spacing, bar location, splice lengths and dowel placement. This information was then used to determine if the inplace reinforcement was placed in accordance with the requirements of the project plans and specifications. We also noted if the inplace 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. Fresh Concrete Testing Routine tests to determine the plastic concrete's slump, temperature and air content were done during each pour. In addition, concrete cylinders were cast at rates specified in the project specifications to evaluate the concrete's compressive strength. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Project BL-11-01014A March 13, 2012 Page 3 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 were forwarded to the interested parties under a separate cover as they became available. 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 Brad McCarter at 952.995.2268, or Gregg Jandro at 952.995.2270. Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Bradley,J. McCarter, PE Preje Engineer Gregg R.Jandro, PE, PG Vice President—Principal Engineer Attachment: Non-Structural Steel Special Inspection Final Report c: Keith Ringold, Kraus Anderson Construction Company Jared Reigstad, Reigstad &Associates, Inc. Steve Johnston, Rho Development Consulting Dan Neudecker, Pope Associates, Inc. Rx • o.�"-:3F:AU Vi Braun Intertec Corporation Phone 952.995.2000 I�� 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Fax 952-995-2020 , TERTEC Minneapolis MN 55438 Web brauninlertec.corn Non-Structural Steel Special Inspection Final Report Page 1 of 2 City of: Orono Date: March 13, 2012 4(1 Attention: Jim Beckwith Project: Orono Senior Housing Facility 875 Wayzata Boulevard Braun Intertec Project: BL-11-01014A In accordance with 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 The required testing in the field and laboratory has been completed. 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. Observations and testing of the structure subgrades and excavation bottoms indicated that the exposed soils were consistent with those encountered by the geotechnical borings performed for this project. Footing subgrade soils were judged suitable for support of the design allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 PSF. There are no outstanding or unresolved soils-related issues. 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. j There are no outstanding or unresolved concrete-related issues. sa 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. Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Project BL-11-01014A March 13, 2012 Page 2 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 Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. • Bradley . McCarter, PE Protcyingineer License Number: 48478 T March 13, 2012 "^T ..0 ..04.s 'b Attachments: Non-Structural Steel Special Inspection Daily Reports Daily Field Notes Page 1 of 2 B RAU N I NTE RTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: BL-11-01014A Report No.: 01 Location: Orono, MN Date: August 16, 2011 Personnel Classification Regular Hours Overtime Hours Brad McCarter, PE Project Engineer 2.50 0.00 Scott Rodman Tech III 2.50 0.00 Areas and work performed this day: Arrived on site to observe test pit excavations in the general area of the building pad to evaluate subgrade soils in relation to soil borings from Geotechnical Evaluation performed by Braun Intertec. Test pits excavated to the south and , west of the building footprint encountered native glacial tills similar in nature to what was encountered in soil borings. Test pits were then excavated in the area of the east wing of the building. Boring ST-104 drilled in this general area encountered about 19 feet of organic, swamp depostied soils and was drilled about 30 feet off of the proposed building corner due to interference form tfie pre-existing building on site. Test pits were excavated between the approximate locaiton of ST-104 and the corner of the east wing of the proposed building. Organic soils were encountered within test pits outside of the proposed building footprint; however, the test pit excavated along the1ooting line of the east wing did not encounter these unstable soils. Therefore,we do not feel that soil corrections relative to organic, swamp deposited soils will need to be performed in this area of the proposed building. Prior to departure, samples of the on-site borrow were obtained for laboratory Proctor testing for use during compaction testing. Braun personnel will return to the site tomorrow once stripping and grubbing areeomplete to evaluate building pad subgrade prior to placement of structural fill. leather: Sunny / -78 degrees Performed By: Brad McCarter Submitted To: Jim Beckwith (Kraus-Anderson) Date: August 16, 2011 • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 • BRAUN Page 2- of z- not-dsan 4107 I NTE BTEC Daily Soil Observation Notes Project No.: OA- ` %\ - d 1a k40, Date: 1I‘..4.•7-c�1\ Report No.: Project Name: c S-+1 Project Location: cf-A - -> 'c'"01P--S. Client: k n r Temp/Weather: '''.+►`+"-*A l Project Manager: 'F7 f vCrl G- - Time Arrived: k‘ Departed: 1.--2-7. , ' Soil Areas Observed: `Building Pad ❑ House Pad 0 Roadway 0 Pkng/walks 0 Footing 0 Proof Roll /❑ Other (describe) Soil report available? 11 Yes 0 No Report reviewed? Yes ❑ No Report prepared by: ,.� Get copy Benchmark: / Benchmark elevation: _____ Benchmark provided by: — Finish floor elevation: evkk,er Bottom of footing elevation Bottom of excavation elevation: -- Approved plans available? * k�-S,. Specified compaction: ..--- Fill source: — Oversizing appears adequate? (%_NA 0 Yes 0 No Soils observed agree with Soils report? *Yes 0 No Soils appear adequate for design loads? ' Yes 0 No Proposed project bearing capacity (psf): Contractor notified of results? Yes 0 No Name of person notified: V, , . l -) Was a copy of this report left on site? 0 Yes 0-..No If so, whom was it submitted to? lA f I I ' I I I I ! 1 I ' I III , ' ,. I I _ I ' ` —:i1 111111111111111...".—, 1 11111111.11111.111.1 :. ■M1■■11 111111=111 Alli"1111 III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111 .-.11W Onifilillill..*: 1 1 lir 1 I ruw,..4 ,T1F::,, r Pv\Or 1 11 111/11, i e.: I - Notes/Comments: 0 li ��all ry 1 _- iln r !-mon- , 11raraI c2-7 ! Write bottom elevation`s, date excavated,oversizing and type of bottom soils on sketch Performed By: 1 C1.1 Reviewed By: Date: 'a(Vc11k This is a preliminary report and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence over,those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 • Page k of l • B R A U N ant-thon 4/07 I NTE BTEC Daily Soil Observation Notes Project No.: \ Q a ve\ IN, Date: 'f -- I t% Report No.: 1.1-- Project Name: ec' +-ter `iC' . r Project Location: C- -e. --ems ��1t� Client: ('�` vS - N-2-r.---17—• Temp/Weather: r---)`qC--v' Project Manager: - • z----. —��-tr- Time Arrived: - --TV--Ak>s Departed: ---- Soil Observation Areas Observed: ›(-Building Pad 0 House Pad 0 Roadway 0 Pkng/walks O Footing 0 Proof Roll 0 Other (describe) Soil report available? Yes 0 No Report reviewed? 1Yes 0 No Report prepared by: , Get copy Benchmark: _ Benchmark elevation: Benchmark provided by: Finish floor elevation: '\ç/ , Bottom of footing elevation.( Bottom of excavation elevation: Approved plans available? -v-.S Specified compaction: Fill source: _, ,,k..,r Oversizing appears adequate? NA 0 Yes 0 No Soils observed agree with Soils report? %Yes 0 No Soils appear adequate for design loads? % Yes 0 No Proposed project bearing capacity(psf): :T Contractor notified of results? Yes 0 No Name of person notified: V_, 1 o�� C Was a copy of this report left on site? 0 Yes '-No If so, whom was it submitted to? j I 111 ( I 1 CI I T � l ge- ...,,•01.. II.7 III _ v-- - 11 MilLa' ',,,._ " P1111111114 :..,� 4 - t ... .,, - l iF-.-,,� Notes/Comments: , i t , W , i Write bottom elevations,date excavated, oversizing and type of bottom soils on sketch I Performed By: • �.c-- Reviewed By: (--'I Date: elm(+\ This is a preliminary report and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence over,those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page 1 of B R A U N cnn-dtn 4 NTE RTEC G- JJ'-/I Daily Field Notes Project No.: LL- 11" 0 r U 1 E,1 - Date(P- /9— 1 / Report No.: 3 Project Name: V}eVIO SQY►t U✓ PO(i S i rpt c/ Project Location: 11/-Q i10 c /, Client: K4" .s - / a / TempTWeather: � (, �rGtf� jy Project Manager: brad Ale-Cc,,rf)°t' Time Arrived: Departed: Services Performed NCompaction Testing ❑ Concrete Testing 0 Cylinder Pickup ❑ Proctor Pickup ❑ Masonry Pickup ❑ DCP ❑ Other(describe) Density Testing _u. Areas Tested: ❑ Mass Grading ❑ Building Pad ❑ Wall Backfill ❑ Slab Subgrade ❑ Parking/Walks O Utilities ❑ Roadways ❑ Bituminous 0 Other(describe) Method: Nuclear ❑ Sandcone I # of tests: q I Fill Source: , On-site ❑ Imported Tests taken met specification? k Yes ❑ No ❑ Waiting on Proctor results? Contractor notified of test results? AYes 0 No Name of person notified: 1 ,,tI- fi Concrete Testing Information Areas Tested: ❑ Footing O Slab on Grade ❑ Deck 0 Columns/Pier ❑ Walls 7 Pile Cap/Pile Fill 0 Pavement ❑ Curb&Gutter O Other(describe) No. of placements: Yards per placement: Method of placem- t: Set # Cylinder Size Air% Slump Temp Mix Supplier Spec. Strength Workorder# 7 Contractor notified of test results? ❑ Yes ❑ No, Na - of person notified: Overall Remarks/Comments (Explain any concerns,problems or unusual occurrences) Was everything available to test/observe? t L.Yes ❑ No Were there any delays? (Explain below if yes) 0 Yes No Was a copy of this report left on site? Yes ❑ No If so,whom was it submitted to: 7,-u;,4,- Comments: !-er-Po rmfd "/ ( m 4c -iaii -71 -f (fin 4) 1' nk`c-e ` 'A r budolih�lra ,/ )�ch )i • Test i 1-✓tP' `jo-b Specs . D ✓ G Kr — 1 L_ x X=Test )ocQ-I-,c s cc//,►✓ari r rerformed By: /1.� P-12,71-44,441\ Reviewed by: � Date: 17-12g This is a preliminary report and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence,over those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 • Page! Page / of 1 SIDRPT Rev 10/09 BRAUN NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of IOC on v Report No.: Date of This Report: - 7 - / Project Name: QF,,,,,, Si /7/,,,,-",-, Project No.: 64 - // 0/(j/94 Project Address: ,e,1,,,,, /44 .,:e /',. t, jr Client: /C,47 Client Project No.: Project Manager: / ,-.- /7e CG..e4,, Temp/Weather: 2 7 Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous 0 Masonry ,.2:( Rebar Placement 0 Foundations 0 Special Cases L .Periodic 0 Welding & Bolting 6L Concrete Placement 0 fireproofing 0 Piles& Piers 0 Tendon Placement ,, Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No 41 Description and location of work completed: 44rwe i 3-2,./A /�% r lam. e__,.,J.,_ ,��.-cam f 1-.1,7/ ,r /.� /gam i/Z1",-/f.5 7 " �.�..��,y/ 1if"..,.T,! S /Y/,r- GK7/ J /� / / J� P.. �/� �/�/ter /p��-,�,/ 7/a-- List tests performed: 7-;-s>-r G ��� ,-.7,;;/:.-,-,-...._:- 41/6/ 7 fx SGS 7/ .3---z// ✓o , ///-2-67SS • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes 0 No • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes 0 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: Date: Print Full Name: �,��, ,f , r a,// I.D. No.: 5309. -.5 White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page ( of ) BRAUN SIDRPTRev to/ov INTERTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of (3f-or)v Report No.: Date of This Report: Project Name: {�^-5/ Project No.: 64 - f/ 01(j/94 Project Address: 142 41-- 1 _rte Client: Ld4, Client Project No.: -- Project Manager: /7t � ,G y Temp/Weather: '- Type Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous 0 Masonry -j Rebor Placement 0 Foundations 0 Special Cases ® Periodic ❑ Welding&Bolting 4-Concrete Placement 0 Fireproofing 0 Piles&Piers ❑ Tendon Placement &7k Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes 0 (Listed Below) No..Q, Description and location of work completed: / - CO 6/ List tests performed: 1/�`�,� .7 sz-T t✓a 5 ///-2-9/U • Are there any discrepancies noted from this days observations? Yes ❑ No - • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes 0 No-a • If yes,see attached Summary Sheet. To the best of our knowledge,work inspected was clone in accordance with the approved plans,specifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the current IBC,except as noted above. Signed: Date: 'e1 SJ-// Print Full Name: S�Q7l I.D. No.: 5309.eg,`f White copy to Braun lntertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. 5.1 • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page ' of L SIDRPT Rev 10/09 BRAUN NTE BTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of Or-on v Report No.: 7 Date of This Report: g o -‘ Project Name: Oro,.,v Sr, ��aN{ 4 Project No.: ,3L ... // O/b/y4 Project Address: ,4/ I,� ,/, /,� 7h Client: /C� Client Project No.: Project Manager: �, Temp/Weather: Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry f'Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases 4 Periodic 0 Welding & Bolting .8 Concrete Placement 0 Fireproofing 0 Piles& Piers 0 Tendon Placement 0 Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ Description and location of work completed: / / 0�3e/'uc G B'G/��r eztr, / � � � � 9/- Cs�I�Gr /�r' (?rte_ c i., 4?Ji�� , t /et-cr ip List tests performed: /e , 1/g ` 1/13/0/ • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes ❑ No {' .. • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes ❑ No j4 • 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: �� Date: Print Full Name: G t . I.D.ry/72' No.: X30 9 White copy to Braun lntertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page) of j SIDRPT Rev 10/09 BRAUN 'NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of ()con v Report No.: e Date of This Report: ?/ // Project Name: Oro,J S � ' Project No.: 6L - J/ 0/0/Y4 Project Address: Client: �� Client Project No.: �~ Project Manager: inf 1 /7e ��t,�r Temp/Weather: Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: 0 Continuous 0 Masonry -1g Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases ..[Periodic ❑ Welding& Bolting {?- Concrete Placement 0 Fireproofing ❑ Piles& Piers ❑ Tendon Placement eS. Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No-a Description and location of work completed: 25,,„ /'list r 3 '. }. �QrG r�/e /2/Ci ft/►l G v� 7 / List tests performed: y i. l/t J G� �c 9(‘ 7 _5-- ///3.1/, • /1e,-,./r 04:r e • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes 0 No-®' • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes 0 No 13 • 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: c� — ' Date: Print Full Name: t e„/(71/ I.D. No.: 5305. White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page 1 of 1 BRAUN " 4TE RTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: BL-11-01014A Report No.: Location: Orono, MN Date: September 2, 2011 Personnel Classification Regular Hours Overtime Hours Brad McCarter, PE Project Engineer --- Areas and work performed this day: Arrived on site to observe test pit excavation in the area of the entrance canpoy on the east side of'Building Area B.' The purpose of the test pit is to further identify subsurface soils in comparison with what was encountered in the soil borings for use in design of conpoy foundations. The test pit was excavated in the general area of the eastern portion of the canopy(about 60'feet east of building).During test pit excavation subsurface soils generally-consisted of the -following: % w 6) °, 1. ';D Cc. 6 2 This subsurface stratigraphy generally matches that of the soil boring (ST-105)drilled in this area during our geotechnical evaluation. We recommend that foundations for the canopy(likely drilled piers or helical anchors)extend through these unstable fill and organic soils to bear upon underlying stiff, or better, glacial till soils. This will require that foundations for the canopy bear at a depth of about 15 feet in this area to ensure that unstable materials are penetrated. This depth could decrease as foundations move west toward the building; however, the actual bearing depth should be determined at the time of construction. Weather: Sunny- 75 degrees Performed By: Brad McCarter Submitted To: Jim Beckwith - Kraus-Anderson Date: September 2, 2011 • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page 4 of I DFNTS Rev 11/08 B RAU N \lTE RTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: EL 11 I D 111 R Report No.: ID Project Name: Cct / ;� , t& Date: c1 /17 Project Manager: E• ML LAA til Temp/Weather: PR- 1-'0 1 Personnel Classification Regular Hours Overtime Hours Areas and work performed this day: 61r+ rt 1��;I4, Ant%- 15 ,----- 3.m MA(LA ,- des lc't, CvYI vt,t, i a.r S 6 Awl)r. yls,' i ei' r. i 5(v—, p 1- 4c,• • C-S f 2- seAs . 7, 5 h pie fi-- Performed By: "--k,,-- . .-k,`. lifted To: eet/ d- G Thr- This erThis is a preliminary report and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence over,those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page ( of i DFNTS Rev 1 Uoa • BRAUN \ITERTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: "i- R (D l 4 N Report No.: VI Project Name: Ory .�' i�yt/��t L'`� Date: ?f 2 `3 Project Manager: A , 4(,a.. / fff Pit 6,0 Temp/Weather: Personnel Classification Regular Hours Overtime Hours Areas and work performed this day: S /4.0 e 'rV ,,,�;_ 4 r..�, 4 SJ(>` l ��f r �fr►nA - 4c S CcM hs-- S b ', r I C 4• r 1/41(1"1-16 r- 4-cM p , C�5 t- 1 , T s 13 /Kut P%"«fi S,�-e-z.s-r Performed By: Ai-C t,. lifted To: diL This is a preliminary report and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence over,those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page of I • DFNTS Rev 11 to8 BRAUN 'TE RTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: g t, 11 A- Report No.: Project Name: 0 Cy'� rl t� - ( ��`lC1 Date: q (71-3 /if � Project Manager: ,g - ! c.Covr Y- / p/W e .Tem eath r• fr'L 6.0 S Personnel Classification Regular Hours Overtime Hours c\-(AAi. c-h iv Areas and work performed this day: t� c'rl )t"RA, it)ar 44,k. (f fl-p&eit s ? 441 CAkiC , � s 14-e ,pcor. "(sir"( a ; s/ O, 4e (As 4- I '.' . eS pr, -eco` Performed By: lifted To: ' L A This is a preliminary report and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence over,those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page ( of BRAUN cull-din 4/07 I NTE RTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: 3t--ii- c`O/Y, / Date: /`/- 3- /7 Report No.: . Project Name: �io..-o ,.. "..re ''// e. i 5.:.� f e.7 . Project Location: !/ .2, z..,„< L•.c4., j3-, Client: e/'•e-a.5 --lr tr.r. e 67.-; Ca. Temp/Weather: TDA c/.... -7 Project Manager: ,.-oaf ,4 t _./�.- Time Arrived: Departed: Services Performed ❑ Compaction Testingl Concrete Testing ❑ Cylinder Pickup 0 Proctor Pickup ❑ Masonry Pickup O DCP /C `Other(describe) _dr/r• Density Testing Areas Tested: 0 Mass Grading 0 Building Pad ❑ Wall Backfill 0 Slab Subgrade 0 Parking/Walks ❑ Utilities 0 Roadways ❑ Bituminous O Other(describe) Method: 0 Nuclear 0 Sandcone # of tests: I Fill Source: O On-site O Imported Tests taken met specification? / ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Waiting on Proctor results? Contractor notified of test results? a Yes 0 No Name of person notified: Concrete Testing Information Areas Tested: ❑ Footing 0 Slab on Grade ❑ Deck ❑ Columns/Piers ❑ Walls 7 Pile Cap/Pile Fill ❑ Pavement C 'Curb&Gutter 0 Other(describe) No. of placements: f Yards per placement: Method of placement: G ,1 Set# Cylinder Size/ Air% Slump Temp Mix Supplier Spec. Strength Workorder# /0 41,1..fr 7 O 3 W lo' V3G ! ('G.4 f4.r..,c- 3500 ///P9 k Contractor notified of test results? I� Yes 0 No, Name of person notified: , `)4i,_ 4, ,�/A7 Overall Remarks/Comments (Explain any concerns,problems or unusual occurrences) Was everything available to test/observe? itf Yes 0 No Were there any delays? (Explain below if yes) :/ Yes 0 No Was a copy of this report left on site? feb Yes 0 No /If so,whom was it submitted to: ..s/ etyM '•/ Comments:...5;.4,_„1.„_(.._, 4_ YAc't /.- .-(�/ ,..-," c ..4 /, ,.,Alit_ p•.�/, — th e/ /ill G�I.et ....-til /49.e. 0- a.se. /4-3o - fGi'I4_ ,/r►-s/",-.e/ ' /'...4;:7 leCt. J2..b�f.-..�! �pGoCr� A 6G SOaa.. A.r�/ -"a Asw-✓'d i O/</l�(/l.e-,. / /( Ar / jJO.a- Co., ✓ti� {f / G... . /a f'S.dT k .4/(`f..--- - 4 iikC 1e.. , .11-2.-c., ®r C./ c - -a r 4`c --A S . /G¢,'741- .,../GeA n 0-A A. d a/ ee,eters c es„..-(is . %�..�f /4/..r..1-74...-/e ,,.,<'F'e-,—f. / /.-..Fes.CI ' .s -7A. formed By: ��„� 7 Reviewed by: L6 Date: //- 3 This is a preliminary r rt and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence,over those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page L of 1 BRAUN VIII T-dfri inn INTERTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: 3L// �41)/0/4/4 �� Date: //` 4/47/ Report No.: Project Name: Ae4 2 c/�K.t`O /4-64-5--7'g, Project Location: it af co ,-e.- ras_,_ "�L e Client: /de-44.4,s -- 44'1-'4.---s e` ^ cS� i d�- c` �j /' Temp/Weather: Project Manager: Q'�- `'�Q����^c-f"' G4--- Time Arrived: ,..~ Departed: J� Services Performed ❑ Compaction Testing ❑ Concrete Testing (Cylinder Pickup ❑ Proctor Pickup ❑ Masonry Pickup ❑ DCP 4'Other(describe) 6i4-4-14'o (At- Density /� Density Testing L Areas Tested: ❑ Mass Grading O Building Pod ❑ Wall :ackfill ❑ Slab Subgrade ❑ Parking/Walks ❑ Utilities ❑ Roadways ❑ Bituminous ❑ e her(describe) Method: ❑ Nuclear O Sandcone I #of tests: I Fil .ource: ❑ On-site ❑ Imported Tests taken met specification? ❑ Yes //6 No ❑ Waiting on Proctor results? Contrador notified of test results? ❑ Yes ❑ No Name of person notified: Concrete Testing Information ' Areas Tested: ❑ Footing ❑ Slab on Grade CIDe ❑ Columns/Piers ❑ Walls D Pile Cap/Pile Fill ❑ Pavement ❑ Curb&Gutter ❑ 0, er(describe) No. of placements: Yards per placement: Method of placement: Set# Cylinder Size Air% J Slump Temp Mix Supplier Spec. Strength Workorder# Contractor notified of test results? ❑ Yes ❑ No, Nome of person notified: Overall Remarks/Comments (Explain any concerns,problems or unusual occurrences) Was everything available to test/observe? OrYes ❑ No Were there any delays? (Explain below if yes) ❑ Yes -No Was a copy of this eport left on site? ❑ Yes No If so,whomwasit submitted to: Comments: i'C.-44d10 cf ©/ / G%' U- r--e-- . 17- / /115- , /7 --IZ be/ 77 , Ailie f 54.—e.- 1‘7/ ra.-14.--.4 acfref--, Formed B f Y: Reviewed by: t,;- Date: 1/1 This is a preliminary report and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence,over those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page / of B R A U N ,,„,_(if„aII- I NTE RTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: A-``/ — 4 '/O 1 <4"/ Date:Date: // 7—/7 Report No.: (� Project Name: A' o ri-p ,--_-5;f7--,''o / �S '� Project Location: /41‘.---, L.¢�c..- L, T Client: s-c.-S— _ .. S o-• Temp/Weather: ,�� / .. .-. Project Manager: (.-z—s,/ - -,-r4_ - Time Arrived: / Departed: Services Performed ❑ Compaction Testing ( Concrete Testing ❑ Cylinder Pickup ❑ Proctor Pickup ❑ Masonry Pickup ❑ DCP ❑ Other(describe) Density Testing Areas Tested: ❑ Mass Grading ❑ Building Pad O Wall Backfill O Slab Subgrade O Parking/Walks O Utilities ❑ Roadways ❑ Bituminous ❑ Other(describe) Method: ❑ Nuclear ❑ SandconI #of tests: I Fill Source: ❑ On-site O Imported Tests taken met specification? ❑ Yes O No O Waiting on Proctor results? Contractor notified of test results? ■ Yes O No Name of person notified: Concrete Testing Information Areas Tested: O Footing ❑ Slab on Grade ❑ Deck O Columns/Piers O Walls 7 Pile Cap/Pile Fill ❑ Pavement CCurb&Gutter ❑ Other(describe) No. of placements: / Yards per placement: Method of placement: Set # Cylin, er Size Air% Slump Temp Mix Supplier Spec. Strength Workorder# Contractor notified of test results? fe Yes O No, Name of person notified: Overall Remarks/Comments (Explain any concerns,problems or unusual occurrences) Was everything available to test/observe? ■ Yes O NoWere there any delays? (Explain below if yes) ❑ Yes ,(4,No Was a copy of this report left on site? l'../ Yes ArNo If so,whom was it submitted to: f,.,Y1-� .. s — _ � Comments: ei je.”-ve , G%6'KF`-,e.....4_, /4"zti v -r— 4..c.y., c21:111G*- pl y e 4 fir s.?Q'k_ r /4)es/ s.Wes ®I'C-e sc1c 4' r1 ,ay., /7 m.C- ,5 *' 7L 7`'5 f.t-- l-rt. �-�- /''' 7-,,.gr'G- 5 ,e,..,,/.. lc tet.-.�s� .,..---,...,4--...,,,‘,;.-- €_,..._34,',(' ,. .„,e ---, 7 rformed By: /./ ...----2..........-4 Reviewed by: �-J Date: a This is a preliminary re rt and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommend ons conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence,over those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 I )Page of - BRAUN cm1_dtn 4107 I NTE BTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: . f% -/7 ,il D` yj4 Date: /7"f-l/ Report No.: i 4 Project Name: A sPrrtt O -I '4,, 4S,`�c 7 Project Location: A'"?q/— e Z ce_ Z c Client: .fpm-,.7-S p- ��c-Sev ..d Temp/Weather: �! f" /�`-^ -•- - 7'.- Project y Project Manager: r3-••rte Time Arrived: Departed: Services Performed ❑ Compaction Testing Concrete Testing 11 Cylinder Pickup ❑ Proctor Pickup ❑ Masonry Pickup ❑ DCP ❑ Other(describe) Density Testing Areas Tested: ❑ Mass Grading W Building Pad ❑ Wall Backfill O Slab Subgrade O Parking/Walks ❑ Utilities O Roadways • Bituminous ❑ Other(describe) Method: ❑ Nuclear O Sandcone I # of ests: I Fill Source: ❑ On-site ❑ Imported Tests taken met specification? ❑ Yes O No ❑ Waiting on Proctor results? Contractor notified of test results? ❑ Yes ❑ No Name of person notified: Concrete Testing Information Areas Tested: ❑ Footing ❑ Slab on Grade ❑ Deck ❑ Columns/Piers ❑ Walls D Pile Cap/Pile Fill ❑ Pavement ❑ Curb&Gutter ,1 Other{describe) ,coir w No. of placements: / Yards per placement: Method of placement: &'.744....447-_,:-. Set# Cylinder Size Air% Slump Temp Mix Supplier, Spec. Strength Workorder# " /2 yeg , �.3 x 1( 1/'7 t/ / Ceois�/ te- 35 //o.la o7 Contractor notified of test results? I,/ Yes ❑ No, Name of person notified: , A ,,..,- Overall Remarks/Comments (Explain any concerns,problems or unusual occurrences) Was everything available to test/observe? IJ Yes ❑ No Were there any delays? (Explain below if yes) Yes al No , Was a copy of this report left on site? Yes No If so,whom was it submitted to: , lt.-„e../ ig'7 Comments: 1G,-,e,d i.e." ,j' e,-T 5., Q4.s7 `'e--G/ X07,--5 7/7.--- d/. "rtwlif- c`./ GGA e _ /r v#- Gsiu�-,✓&-- .tet /-- - . spas a.�.moo °0-e-'7/7-- --",r, SIJ 7ta' X � ` 7 - eu:z . <1 rformed By: ���7 Reviewed by: L---S Date: /7—cS This is a preliminary port and is provided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recomm ations conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence,over those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 - BRAUN Page of 1 I NTE RTEC Daily Field Notes Project No.: (2,L - I I - 0101 y/\ Date: II h Z VP Report No.: I —I Project Name: Qv,?V 5c.,,`o- !-e.uc:ti5 F:^c:HI Project Location: I-1,-v) i2 A Lcc L.-,r 1-•---'1, O .,.,c ntry Client: IC- A (0,s-1. C,. Temp/Weather: rjr/T< ill Cio447 Project Manager: t' . c11e Cr I« Time Arrived: Departed: Services Performed ❑ Compaction Testing J Concrete Testing ❑ Cylinder Pickup ❑ Proctor Pickup O Masonry Pickup ❑ DCP ❑ Other(describe) Density Testing Areas Tested: ❑ Mass Grading /I Building Pad O Wall Backfill ❑ Slab Subgrade ❑ Parking/Walks ❑ Utilities ❑ Roadways O Bituminous ❑ Other(describe) Method: ❑ Nuclear O Sandcone I #of tests: I Fill Source: ❑ On-site ❑ Imported Tests taken met specification? / ❑ Yes ❑ No O Waiting on Proctor results? Contractor notified of test results? O Yes O No Name of person notified: Concrete Testing Information Areas Tested: ❑ Footing p Slab on Grade ❑ Deck ❑ Columns/Piers ❑ Walls '7 Pile Cap/Pile Fill ❑ Pavement O Curb& Gutter ❑ Other(describe) No. of placements: I Yards per plocement: tN Method of placement: g„ 4N Set# Cylinder Size Air% Slump Temp Mix Supplier Spec. Strength Workorder# 13 L► kc ,v Z,751' 0 RsF LrS6 9 6....,....c-lCV'T umo c, I I -z I -7 zy Contractor notified of test results? Yes ❑ No, Name of person notified: 5cv4 el I4./Ic,,,4cek >f- OJ c.)ti Overall Remarks/Comments (Explain any concerns,problems or unusual occurrences) Was everything available to test/observe? yi Yes ❑ No Were there any delays? (Explain below if yes) O Yes LA9 No Was a copy of this report left on site? )7c.1 Yes O No If so,whom was it submitted to: -. of k- 4 c..J Comments: 4.1 c O1 1--,.. n 1 l / 1 r ex, / �Cci1�c / is ✓e�jl3�C <S F��IA c�;i.�eFC�-C L 0, ,./ -,,t ��,C a c�,o/XH; 1-4.,..)‹., C--e-4 ;1 1 p-Q;c ci p.-''1-.'r..,., c.,-,,c• IA IC c- S q . 1 az-. rx,4'-,o- $0[, r-chic lLP / 4.1„r ,I 1c ( I -,) / ` I Cti C..l nt,. 3G.iTh f�K/ A•+ ]�-hC �'t�� ��tq, +G.� fr_��crc�C t.:G+S T�S�"'� � C/Uuy) Gt,'/ CC,LI N n”d it Tc>,.c . c......c.-ct r-`If,?c-c-r tack c'c,J a- "P ti✓c C 0 4,*rp•2SSi oe, it-S7 a 01• C'tpu•-1C,cs /n.NC,c f 411 ormed By: /, g err c.- Reviewed by: L� Date: /Vt.,/0 This is a preliminary report an.,•:provided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence,over those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page ( of f B R A V N cnu-1fn 4/0 I NTE RTEC Daily Field Notes rroject No.: t3L - 11- 0 I UI y/k Date: 11 /zS/)i Report No.: I Project Name: - o.- f ist t'-,c, / I) Project Location: 1-{t„)... i2 4- Lo cc L.'..-1-,..'1, 0,0„r "IN Client: V- /\ (c..1.j cc. Temp/Weather: --4I' / S u h vI ) Project Manager: .R.,-..d Ai((,,,-Ir— Time Arrived: Departed: Services Performed ❑ Compaction Testing ❑ Concrete Testing 1 Cylinder Pickup ❑ Proctor Pickup ❑ Masonry Pickup ❑ DCP ❑ Other(describe) Density Testing Areas Tested: ❑ Mass Grading ❑ Building Pad • Wall Backfill ❑ Slab Subgrade ❑ Parking/Walks ❑ Utilities ❑ Roadways ❑ Bituminous II Other(describe) Method: ❑ Nuclear ❑ Sandcone I # of tests: I Fil/Source: ❑ On-site ❑ Imported Tests taken met specification? ❑ Yes No ❑ Waiting on Proctor results? Contractor notified of test results? ❑ Yes ❑ No Name f person notified: Concrete Testing Information Areas Tested: ❑ Footing ❑ Slab on Grade Deck ❑ Columns/Piers ❑ Walls Pile Cap/Pile fill ❑ Pavement ❑ Curb& Gutter ❑ Other(describe) No. of placements: Yards per placement: ix Method of placement: Set # Cylinder Size Air% Slum Tem P p Supplier Spec. Strength Workorder# _ . / Contractor notified of test results? ❑ Yes ❑ No, Name of person notified: Overall Remarks/Comments (Explain any concerns,problems or unusual occurrences) Was everything available to test/observe? M Yes ❑ No Were there any delays? (Explain below if yes) ❑ Yes 0 No Was a copy of this report left on site? 50 Yes ❑ No If If so,whom was it submitted to: k,;-IL c( le_ Comments: 0.., 4,1, ,,,'4, S ✓c r„„).� his 1(,�c caast i 1 U,�..4 '�, o ci )t_ . .pr /Y.s. ,h� Lei .-f? 4— c-c/(.(.�1- rR,-.c-c_ r e4/.r�,�.r -1-4.-dL_?• ec.s!' //iCV/ , formed By: "Peer a 11 — Reviewed by: L� Date: 1��Z67/// This is a preliminary report and i rovided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclulions and/or recommendations conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence,over those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page of BRAUN -dfri 3107 I NTE BTEC Daily Field Notes ' rroject No.: 'Z-.-i< - ' /. 7(.7/11 4 Date: 1/249--// Report No.: !'1 Project Name: Qr.- wm ,Sa.1 i . , 7 ws . '-�/ Project Location: 4 / ''-�.-c g-L.`. '71►.. Client: Kra-6.-f— S c' -t O Temp/Weather: `F/ C..-- a- ,_-__..46.7..Project Manager: . - /1 - _-.*--.- Time Arrived: Departed: Services Performed ❑ Compaction Testing ❑ Concrete Testing Cylinder Pickup ❑ Proctor Pickup ❑ Masonry Pickup ❑ DCP ❑ Other(describe) / / Density Testing Areas Tested: ❑ Mass Grading ❑ Building P.d ❑ Wall Backfill ❑ Slab Subgrade ❑ Parking/Walks ❑ Utilities ❑ Roadways ❑ Bitumin. s ❑ Other(describe) Method: ❑ Nuclear ❑ Sandcone I #of tests: / I Fill Source: O On-site ❑ Imported Tests taken met specification? ❑ Yes / ❑ No ❑ Waiting on Proctor results? Contractor notified of test results? ❑ Yes ❑ No (Name of person notified: Concrete Testing Information Areas Tested: ❑ Footing 0/Slab on Grade ❑ Deck ❑ Columns/Piers ❑ Walls Pile Cap/Pile fill ❑ Pavement 0 Curb&Gutter ❑ Other(describe) C No. of placements: Yards per pla5Lment: Method of placement: Set # Cylinder Size Air% Slump /Temp Mix Supplier Spec. Strength Workorder# / i Contractor notified of test results? ❑ Yes ❑ No, Name of person notified: Overall Remarks/Comments (Explain any concerns,problems or unusual occurrences) Was everything available to test/observe? I% Yes ❑ No Were there any delays? (Explain below if yes) ❑ Yes / No Was a copy of this rep rt left on site? ❑ Yes ` No If so,whom was it submitted to: Comments: t 2 D /..e.-1/, ( . e' /4- -.G•-,S- O // .._ _ 77 formed By: r Reviewed by: LI Date: //--9/ This is a preliminary repo nd is provided solely as evidence that field observations and/or testing was performed. Observations and/or conclusions and/or recommendati conveyed in the final report may vary from,and shall take precedence,over those indicated in a preliminary report. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 BRAUN INTERTEC Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 9/22/11 LIMS WO#: 1112514 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-I 1-01014A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 55404-1077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 1 Mix Design: 4167 Date Cast: 08/22/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 2:44 pm Specified Air(%): Not Required Date Received: 08/24/11 Specified Strength(psi): 3,000 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C143) 4 1/4 Truck Number: 450 Measured Air(%): (ASTM C231) 1.9 Ticket Number: 2672040 Concrete Temp.(°F):(ASTM C 1064) 75 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. (°F): 75 Cylinders Cast By: Scott,Andrew P Liquid Added On Site: None Placement Location: Building Exterior,Footing,South half of area B Sample Location/Notes: East side Compression Test Results Field Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cylinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 1-01 8/29/11 2 5 7 44,980 4.02 12.69 3,540 4 N D2 1-02 9/19/11 2 26 28 65,970 4.02 12.69 5,200 4 N EI 1-03 9/19/11 2 26 28 66,740 4.02 12.69 5,260 4 N EI 1-04 9/19/11 2 26 28 65,430 4.02 12.69 5,160 4 N E I * Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C 172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C 1231, Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: D2 The 7 day test result meets or exceeds the 28 day specified strength. E I The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. { Types of Fracture j 4 U \ / / —437 — X /N A 1\1 TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Sep 22 2011 ver 1.3c Page 1 of 1 r BRAUN INTERTEC Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 9/22/11 LIMS WO#: 1112515 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-I 1-01014A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 55404-1077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 2 Mix Design: 4167 Date Cast: 08/24/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 11:50 am Specified Air(%): Not Required Date Received: 08/26/11 Specified Strength(psi): 3,000 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C143) 3 3/4 Truck Number: 559 Measured Air(%): (ASTM C231) 1.8 Ticket Number: 2674052 Concrete Temp.(°F):(ASTM C 1064) 74 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. (°F): 77 Cylinders Cast By: Scott,Andrew P Liquid Added On Site: None Placement Location: Building Exterior,Footing,Area A,North,West and Southwest footings. Sample Location/Notes: Elevator foundation Compression Test Results Field Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cyiinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 2-01 8/31/11 2 5 7 40,860 4.02 12.69 3,220 4 N D2 2-02 9/21/11 2 26 28 70,800 4.02 12.69 5,580 3 N EI 2-03 9/21/11 2 26 28 72,180 4.02 12.69 5,690 4 N EI 2-04 9/21/11 2 26 28 69,180 4.02 12.69 5,450 4 N E I * Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C 172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C1231,Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: D2 The 7 day test result meets or exceeds the 28 day specified strength. E1 The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. Types of Fracture X /\ 'cl\ \ " 1 - TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Sep 22 2011 ver 1.3c Page 1 of 1 BRAUN INTERTEC Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 9/22/11 LIMS WO#: 1112910 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-1I-01014A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 55404-1077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 3 Mix Design: 4167 Date Cast: 08/25/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 12:30 pm Specified Air(%): Not Required Date Received: 08/29/1 I Specified Strength(psi): 3,000 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C143) 4 1/4 Truck Number: 504 Measured Air(%): (ASTM C231) 3.2 Ticket Number: 2675443 Concrete Temp.(°F):(ASTM C 1064) 76 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. (°F): 78 Cylinders Cast By: Scott,Andrew P Liquid Added On Site: None Placement Location: Building Exterior,Footing,Area A,Northeast,East and Southeast footings Sample Location/Notes: Northeast corner Compression Test Results Field Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cylinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 3-01 9/1/11 4 3 7 42,180 4.02 12.69 3,320 4 N D2 3-02 9/22/11 4 24 28 62,990 4.01 12.63 4,990 2 N EI 3-03 9/22/11 4 24 28 63,050 4.01 12.63 4,990 2 N EI 3-04 9/22/11 4 24 28 62,230 4.01 12.63 4,930 2 N EI * Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C 1231, Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: D2 The 7 day test result meets or exceeds the 28 day specified strength. El The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. Types of Fracture >< \ ifk \ / / ,..-- I TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Sep 22 2011 ver 1.3c Page 1 of 1 - - - - 1 1 BRAUN INTERTEC Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 9/27/11 LIMS WO#: 1113101 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-11-01014A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 55404-1077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 4 Mix Design: 4167 Date Cast: 08/26/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 11:54 am Specified Air(%): Not Required Date Received: 08/30/11 Specified Strength(psi): 4,000 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C143) 4 Truck Number: 559 Measured Air(%): (ASTM C23I) 3.3 Ticket Number: 2676605 Concrete Temp.(°F):(ASTM C 1064) 78 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. (°F): 78 Cylinders Cast By: Scott,Andrew P Liquid Added On Site: None Placement Location: Building Interior,Foundation Wall,Area B evevator walls Sample Location/Notes: same Compression Test Results Field Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cylinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 4-01 9/2/11 4 3 7 45,010 4.02 12.69 3,550 4 N B2 4-02 9/23/11 4 24 28 64,930 4.01 12.63 5,140 4 N EI 4-03 9/23/11 4 24 28 64,340 4.01 12.63 5,090 4 N EI 4-04 9/23/11 4 24 28 64,870 4.01 12.63 5,140 2 N El * Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C 172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C 1231,Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: B2 The 7 day test result projects that the specified strength will likely be met at 28 days according to a typical age-strength relationship. E 1 The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. Types of Fracture 1 ,/,N /(1/ \ \ / / TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Sep 27 2011 ver 1.3c Page 1 of 1 BRAUN INTERTEC I! Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 10/5/11 f LIMS WO#: 1113518 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-1I-01014A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 55404-1077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 5 Mix Design: 4167 Date Cast: 08/31/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 12:20 pm Specified Air(%): Not Required Date Received: 09/02/11 Specified Strength(psi): 3,000 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C143) 4 Truck Number: 638 Measured Air(%): (ASTM C231) 2.6 Ticket Number: 2678956 Concrete Temp.("F):(ASTM C 1064) 74 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. (°F): 77 Cylinders Cast By: Scott,Andrew P Liquid Added On Site: None Placement Location: Building Exterior,Footing,Area B,North half of the East footing Sample Location/Notes: same Compression Test Results Field Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cylinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 5-01 9/7/11 2 5 7 51,660 4.01 12.63 4,090 3 N D2 5-02 9/28/11 2 26 28 76,290 4.01 12.63 6,040 N EI 5-03 9/28/11 2 26 28 77,380 4.01 12.63 6,130 N EI 5-04 9/28/11 2 26 28 73,100 4.01 12.63 5,790 N EI * Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C 172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C1231,Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: D2 The 7 day test result meets or exceeds the 28 day specified strength. El The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. I- Types of Fracture X /4 \ / /\ TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Oct 05 2011 ver 1.3c Page 1 of 1 BRAUN NTERTEC Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 12/12/11 LIMS WO#: 1115897 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-11-01014A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 55404-1077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 6 Mix Design: 4167 Date Cast: 09/27/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 7:30 am Specified Air(%): Not Required Date Received: 09/28/11 Specified Strength(psi): 4,000 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C143) 5 1/4 Truck Number: 1 Measured Air(%): (ASTM C231) 2.0 Ticket Number: Not Given Concrete Temp.(°F):(ASTM C 1064) 68 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. (°F): 55 Cylinders Cast By: Maki,Brett S Liquid Added On Site: None • Placement Location: Building Interior,Slab on Grade,Area B Sample Location/Notes: x Compression Test Results Field Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cylinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 6-01 10/4/11 1 6 7 49,060 4.02 12.69 3,870 4 N B2 6-02 10/25/11 1 27 28 71,730 4.02 12.69 5,650 4 N EI 6-03 10/25/11 1 27 28 69,440 4.02 12.69 5,470 4 N EI 6-04 10/25/11 1 27 28 74,850 4.02 12.69 5,900 3 N E I * Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C 172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C1231,Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: B2 The 7 day test result projects that the specified strength will likely be met at 28 days according to a typical age-strength relationship. E 1 The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. Types of Fracture X /c1,\ N / 7 r TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Dec 12 2011 ver 1.3c Page 1 of 1 BRAUN INTERTEC Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 12/12/11 LIMS WO#: 1115898 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-11-01014A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 55404-1077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 7 Mix Design: 4167 Date Cast: 09/27/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 9:00 am Specified Air(%): Not Required Date Received: 09/28/11 Specified Strength(psi): 4,000 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C143) 5 1/2 Truck Number: 2 Measured Air(%): (ASTM C231) 2.0 Ticket Number: Not Given Concrete Temp.(°F):(ASTM C 1064) 69 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. (°F): 55 Cylinders Cast By: Maki,Brett S Liquid Added On Site: None Placement Location: Building Interior,Slab on Grade,Area B Sample Location/Notes: SW Corner Compression Test Results • Field Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cylinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 7-01 10/4/11 1 6 7 56,840 4.02 12.69 4,480 4 N D2 7-02 10/25/11 1 27 28 81,500 4.02 12.69 6,420 4 N E1 7-03 10/25/11 1 27 28 81,870 4.02 12.69 6,450 4 N E I 7-04 10/25/11 1 27 28 80,780 4.02 12.69 6,360 4 N E 1 * Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C 1231,Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: D2 The 7 day test result meets or exceeds the 28 day specified strength. El The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. Types of Fracture X4\ \ / / \ TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Dec 12 2011 ver 1.3c Page 1 of 1 BRAUN I NTE BTEC Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 1 1/2/1 l L LIMS WO#: 1116204 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-1 I-01014A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 55404-1077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 8 Mix Design: 4167 Date Cast: 09/29/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 7:30 am Specified Air(%): Not Required Date Received: 09/30/11 Specified Strength(psi): 4,000 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C143) 5 3/4 Truck Number: I Measured Air(%): (ASTM C23 I) 2.2 Ticket Number: Not Given Concrete Temp.(°F):(ASTM C 1064) 67 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. (°F): 55 Cylinders Cast By: Maki,Brett S Liquid Added On Site: None Placement Location: Building Interior,Slab on Grade,Area A South Half Sample Location/Notes: SW Corner Compression Test Results Fieid Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cylinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 8-01 10/6/11 1 6 7 48,580 4.02 12.69 3,830 4 N B2 8-02 10/27/11 1 27 28 66,580 4.02 12.69 5,250 4 N E 1 8-03 10/27/11 1 27 28 68,690 4.02 12.69 5,410 4 N E I 8-04 10/27/11 1 27 28 65,180 4.02 12.69 5,140 4 N E I * Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C1231,Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: B2 The 7 day test result projects that the specified strength will likely be met at 28 days according to a typical age-strength relationship. El The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. Types of Fracture X \ / / \ ,-- TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Nov 02 2011 ver 1.3c Page 1 of 1 BRAUN INTERTEC Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 11/2/11 LIMS WO#: 1116537 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-11-01014A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 5 5404-1 077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 9 Mix Design: 4167 Date Cast: 09/30/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 7:30 am Specified Air(%): Not Required Date Received: 10/04/11 Specified Strength(psi): 4,000 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C143) 6 Truck Number: I Measured Air(%): (ASTM C231) 2.0 Ticket Number: Not Given Concrete Temp.(°F):(ASTM C 1064) 68 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. (°F): 56 Cylinders Cast By: Maki,Brett S Liquid Added On Site: None Placement Location: Building Interior,Slab on Grade,Area A North Half Sample Location/Notes: SW Corner of North half Compression Test Results Field Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cylinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 9-01 10/7/11 4 3 7 53,850 4.02 12.69 4,240 4 N D2 9-02 10/28/11 4 24 28 79,080 4.02 12.69 6,230 4 N EI 9-03 10/28/11 4 24 28 77,560 4.02 12.69 6,110 4 N E I 9-04 10/28/11 4 24 28 78,280 4.02 12.69 6,170 4 N EI * Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C1231,Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: D2 The 7 day test result meets or exceeds the 28 day specified strength. E I The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. Types of Fracture X \ 7 / \ I- TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Nov 02 2011 ver 1 3c Page 1 of 1 BRAUN NTERTEC is L Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 12/12/11 LIMS WO#: 1119980 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-11-01014A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 55404-1077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 10 Mix Design: 4364 Date Cast: 11/03/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 11:40 am Specified Air(%): 6.5+/- 1.5 Date Received: 11/04/11 Specified Strength(psi): 3,500 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C143) 3 3/4 Truck Number: 817 Measured Air(%): (ASTM C23I) 7.0 Ticket Number: 2733292 Concrete Temp.(°F):(ASTM C 1064) 68 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. ("F): 40 Cylinders Cast By: Justin Kolander Liquid Added On Site: None Placement Location: Paving,Curb&Gutter,Curb and walk north of building entrance Sample Location/Notes: same Compression Test Results Field Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cylinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 10-01 11/10/11 1 6 7 42,260 4.02 12.69 3,330 4 N B2 10-02 12/1/11 I 27 28 55,320 4.02 12.69 4,360 4 N EI 10-03 12/1/11 1 27 28 61,060 4.02 12.69 4,810 4 N EI 10-04 12/1/11 1 27 28 60,130 4.02 12.69 4,740 4 N EI " Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C 172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C 1231,Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: B2 The 7 day test result projects that the specified strength will likely be met at 28 days according to a typical age-strength relationship. El The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. Types of Fracture X ./ . / /\k\ \ ........„....... TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Dec 12 2011 ver 1.3c Page 1 of 1 BRAUN INTERTEC Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 12/12/11 LIMS WO#: 1120275 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-11-010 I 4A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility li 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 55404-1077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 11 Mix Design: 4364 Date Cast: 11/07/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 8:54 am Specified Air(%): 6.5+/- 1.5 Date Received: 11/08/11 Specified Strength(psi): 3,500 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C143) 4 Truck Number: 773 Measured Air(%): (ASTM C231) 7.4 Ticket Number: 2735060 Concrete Temp.(°F):(ASTM C 1064) 66 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. (°F): 38 Cylinders Cast By: Justin Kolander Liquid Added On Site: None Placement Location: Paving,Curb&Gutter,West and South sides if center parking lot area Sample Location/Notes: west curb of center lot area Compression Test Results Field Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cylinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 11-01 11/14/11 1 6 7 39,730 4.00 12.57 3,160 4 N B2 , 11-02 12/5/11 1 27 28 55,210 4.02 12.69 4,350 4 N EI 11-03 12/5/11 1 27 28 55,060 4.02 12.69 4,340 4 N EI 11-04 12/5/11 1 27 28 56,920 4.02 12.69 4,480 4 N EI I * Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C 172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C1231,Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: B2 The 7 day test result projects that the specified strength will likely be met at 28 days according to a typical age-strength relationship. E I The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. Types of Fracture ) 1\1( \\ \ / 7 _ X ZN _ TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Dec 12 2011 ver 1.3c Page 1 of 1 • BRAUN INTERTEC Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 12/12/11 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder LIMS WO#: 1120407 Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-11-01014A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 55404-1077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 12 Mix Design: 4364 Date Cast: 11/08/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 8:30 am Specified Air(%): 6.5+/- 1.5 Date Received: 11/09/11 Specified Strength(psi): 3,500 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C 143) 3 Truck Number: 444 Measured Air(%): (ASTM C231) 6.3 Ticket Number: 2735892 Concrete Temp.(°F):(ASTM C 1064) 61 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. (°F): 35 Cylinders Cast By: Justin Kolander Liquid Added On Site: 10 GAL Water(per 5.00 cu.yds.) Placement Location: Paving,Sidewalk,Sidewalk NE of building ent. Sample Location/Notes: same as placement Compression Test Results Field Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cylinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 12-01 11/15/11 1 6 7 47,550 4.00 12.57 3,780 3 N D2 12-02 12/6111 I 27 28 63,980 4.01 12.63 5,070 2 N E I 12-03 12/6/11 I 27 28 59,000 4.01 12.63 4,670 4 N E I 12-04 12/6/11 1 27 28 62,480 4.01 12.63 4,950 4 N E I * Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C 172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C 1231. Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: D2 The 7 day test result meets or exceeds the 28 day specified strength. El The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. Types of Fracture � \ _ WI finYk \ \ TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Dec 12 2011 ver 1.3c Page 1 of 1 BRAUN INTERTEC Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder Report Date: 12/30/11 LIMS WO#: 1121724 Test Method: ASTM C39,4x8 Cylinder Client: Jim Beckwith Project: BL-11-01014A Kraus-Anderson Construction Company Orono Senior Housing Facility 525 S 8th St Highway 12 and Luce Line Trail Minneapolis,MN 5 5404-1 077 Orono,MN 55391 Field Test Conditions and Results ASTM C31* Set Number: 13 Mix Design: 4364 Date Cast: 11/23/11 Supplier: Cemstone Time Cast: 9:04 am Specified Air(%): 6.0+1- 1.0 Date Received: 11/28/11 Specified Strength(psi): 4,000 Measured Slump(in.):(ASTM C143) 2 3/4 Truck Number: 693 Measured Air(%): (ASTM C23 I) 5.0 Ticket Number: 2744205 Concrete Temp.(°F):(ASTM C 1064) 64 Cylinders per Set: 5 Air Temp. (°F): 33 Cylinders Cast By: Taylor,Reece Liquid Added On Site: None Placement Location: Building Exterior,Slab on Grade--Sidewalk,Patio located on west side of building.(Plan North) Sample Location/Notes: Sampled after 5 yds were dispensed 13'W of Club Room 109.(Plan North) Compression Test Results Field Lab Test Max. Cylinder Cylinder Break Cure Cure Age Load Diameter Area Strength Fracture Capping Remarks Sample No. Date (days) (days) (days) (pounds) (in.) (sq.in.) (psi) Type Method** Code(s) 13-01 11/30/11 5 2 7 36,170 4.01 12.63 2,860 5 N B2 13-02 12/21/11 5 23 28 67,250 4.02 12.66 5,310 5 N EI 13-03 12/21/11 5 23 28 63,650 4.02 12.66 5,030 5 N EI 13-04 12/21/11 5 23 28 65,150 4.02 12.66 5,150 5 N EI * Concrete sampled in accordance with ASTM C172 **Capping Method:N=ASTM C1231,Unbonded Caps S=ASTM C617,Sulfur Caps Break Remarks: B2 The 7 day test result projects that the specified strength will likely be met at 28 days according to a typical age-strength relationship. El The average 28 day test result meets or exceeds the specified strength. Types of Fracture X z\ ,ick\\ \ 7 7 \ TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 McCarter,Brad I approve the document Dec 30 2011 ver 1.3c Page 1 of 1