Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStructural Steel ,, T • A Structural Steel and Precast Welding Special Inspection Final Report Oak Park Heights City Hall Addition 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Prepared for City of Oak Park Heights Y g • Project SP -09 -01319 June 14, 2010 e Braun Intertec Corporation BRAUN Braun Intertec Corporation Phone: 952.995.2000 NTE RTEC 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Fax: 952.995.2020 Minneapolis, MN 55438 Web: braunintertec.com June 14, 2010 Project SP -09 -01319 Mr. Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Re: Structural Steel and Precast Welding Special Inspection Procedural and Final Report Submittal Oak Park Heights City Hall Addition 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Dear Mr. Johnson: Please find attached to this procedural report the Structural Steel and Precast Welding Special Inspection Final Report for the Oak Park Heights City Hall expansion project and the supporting Special Inspection Daily Reports. Special Inspection and Testing Procedures The special inspection services were periodically provided by International Code Council (ICC) certified special inspectors in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1700 of the International Building Code (IBC) and the project plans and specifications. The purpose of special inspections is to provide a review of the contractor's work designated 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. We also summarized the discrepancies documented in a Discrepancy Log. As needed, we also contacted the project structural engineer for additional clarification on specific issues related to the drawings or discrepancies observed. Plans and Specifications The plans and project documents available at the site were used for our inspections. From time to time, we received plan modifications from the structural engineer. When received, these were used to evaluate the work completed in the field. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 City of Oak Park Heights Project SP -09 -01319 June 14, 2010 Page 2 • Visual Examination of Field Welds Visual examination of the field welds were conducted in accordance with American Welding Society (AWS) D1.1 -2006, Figure 5.4 and Table 6.1 requirements and the requirements of the project plans and specifications. Visual weld examinations of the light -gauge metal studs were conducted in general accordance with AWS D1.3 -1998, Section 6.0 requirements and the requirements of the project plans and specifications. Bolted Connection Observations Bolted connection observations were conducted to determine if the bolt holes were filled, if the correct bolts were used, if the nuts were fully engaged and if the splined end of the tension - control bolts had separated from the body of the bolt. Removal of the splined end is a direct indicator the bolt has been torqued to the minimum snap -off Toad. In addition, each connection was observed for fit -up and to determine if the various plies were in contact with one another. Metal Deck Weld Observations • Metal deck weld observations were conducted in general accordance with AWS D1.3 -1998, Section 6.0 requirements and the requirements of the project plans and specifications. Items reviewed included the quality, size and spacing of the welds. In addition, the location and the completeness of the side -lap fastener installation were observed and evaluated. Anchor Bolt Observations The anchor bolts were observed to determine if they were in place, and if the nuts were installed, fully engaged and snug tight. The base plates were observed to determine if they were in full contact with the adjoining surface. Drilled -In Epoxy Anchors Observations were conducted after the installation of the drilled in epoxy anchors to determine if they were installed at the locations indicated in the construction documents. As part of these observations, we documented that the adjoining plies were in contact with one another and that the nuts were fully engaged and snug tight. General In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express • or implied, is made. BRAUN INTERTEC City of Oak Park Heights Project SP -09 -01319 June 14, 2010 Page 3 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 Taylor Carlson at 952.995.2518 or Mary Denne at 952.995.2510. Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION a J � % Taylor L. Carlson ICC Certified Special Inspector - Structural Steel and Welding d • . euer, P� Vice Presi•ent -Princ pal Engineer Attachment: Structural Steel and Precast Welding Special Inspection Final Report c: Ron Winkler, PE; Winkler Structural Engineers Mr. Jim Butler; City of Oak Park Heights Inspections Department Mr. Randy Engel; Buetow & Associates, Inc. Sarah Mattes; Braun Intertec Mr. Glen Schlichte; Jorgenson Construction Inc. • BRAUN INTERTEC BRAUN Braun Intertec Corporation Phone: 952.995.2000 11001 Hampshire Avenue 5 Fax: 952.995.2020 NTE RTEC Minneapolis, MN 55438 Web: braunintertec.com Structural Steel and Precast Welding Special Inspection Final Report City of: Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Date: June 14, 2010 Attention: Mr. Eric Johnson Project: Oak Park Heights City Hall Addition 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Braun Intertec Project: SP -09 -01319 In accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code, Section 1704 of the International Building Code and the agreed upon scope of services, the required special inspections and testing have been provided for the following items: 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. Structural Field Welding. The welded connections detailed in the attached Special Inspection Daily Reports were observed in general accordance with the requirements of the project plans and specifications. Discrepancies were noted and documented. These connections were found to be acceptable following the required corrections or review by the structural engineer. There are currently no outstanding or unresolved structural welding - related issues. The deck welding and side -lap fasteners detailed in the attached Special Inspection Daily Reports were observed in general accordance with the requirements of the project plans and specifications. Discrepancies were noted and documented. Of note is the joist burn through discrepancy documented in Daily Report Number 5. Electronic mail correspondence between the general contractor and the design team indicated the discrepancy needs to be addressed. We were not provided the opportunity to observe the repair, nor were we provided formal documentation that no further action was required. Except for this issue, there are currently outstanding or unresolved decking - related issues. Drilled -In Epoxy Anchor Bolts. The drilled -in epoxy anchor connections detailed in the attached Special inspection Daily Reports were observed in general accordance with the requirements of the plans and specifications. Discrepancies were noted and documented. The procedures used by the contractor to install the drilled in epoxy anchors were not documented by the special inspector as required by the IBC and the 1CC ER documents. We documented that the adjoining plies were in contact with one another and that the nuts were fully engaged and snug tight. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 City of Oak Park Heights Project SP -09 -01319 June 14, 2010 Page 2 • Conclusion Based upon the inspections conducted and the attached 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 Minnesota State Building Code and the International Building Code, except as noted. 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 1 am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer 10drAgag laws of the State of Minnesota. °` , F�M ►NNE�O:`'� I Tq ° ii S 4$ 1 �.Q• •6i r • M U ER, •z- i rk l � - 1 :2 ` Michael M. ' euer, ,. t, 1ST ; w Vice Presi ent- Principal Engine er , License Number: 15571 ; June 14, 2010 Attachments: Special Inspection Daily Report 1 through 12 Summary of Special Inspection Discrepancy Log Winkler Structural Engineers Inc fixes SK -7, SK -8, SK -9, SK -10, SK -11 and SK -18 Jorgenson Construction Email dated April 9, 2010 Struc Steel — Final Report • BRAUN INTERTEC Page ( of BRAUN SIDRPT Rev 9/08 TE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of © a at < � alv N t 4-S Report No.: Date of This Report: _ - 09 Project Name: C.,74-,\ K A Project No.: ' j� —.- ' l') ( 1. 1 Project Address: 1 41 rto, g d a k rl.% ?t „cl, ,U . Client: G; 0.P.O4K`P .t*k 1e 145 Client Project No.: Project Manager: - sCt ravk M a . 4„. Temp/Weather: 5n 1" Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases (Periodic 0 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 ❑ Description and location of work completed: CI t/ T , " f/ ( W � o /� � c,10. viS Per 61r bar ©:s+ b>°etr ;ni �t S - K ra f c -f ►� l�c, S Y(C� �- ;� fi� l,.J �2 (� - 0t "5 t - s 1 - l5 . 5 (ca? yap 5 ta, .6c4e o N 4t 4‘..) -to ©. S -t- S' a G : rt3 1'vti ►"r, w) C:€ q v.e List tests performed: 2- ovx AA W : t 14 I ccZ -9 N 1- 41 $ 2 S • Are there any discrepancies noted from this days observations? Yes El 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 /UBC, except as noted above. Signed l Q ",40 Date: I— e —© cl O rint Full Name: t Qc � m (`-- Cek (•.( ©fry I.D. No.: 62 '!'Z co t2.- White copy to Braun Intertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 , Page 1 of,. % SIDRPT Rev 9/08 BRAUN NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report W City of ftat< PoM 1 [ e n t+5 - 4J 2 Report No.: S � -. Date of This Report: in - 1?).-- o ct Project Name: '(.. -t ` u A i ( Project No.: .?--409 ' b 1 3 t et Proj Project Address: �" `• I t 4( tc98, b a a 21"1. mat. Client: C;-f•- O 0 P 11 Client Project q No.: AAA � Project Manager: 5 / . A,. 't1 r Temp/Weather: • lid 0 F Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases [� Periodic Welding & Bolting ❑ Concrete Placement ❑ Fireproofing / ❑ Piles & Piers ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authoriz /mt. ges to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ Description and location of work co : ed: (T 1 s / / 4 E v ` t l L., { O Tho bPiotr':rng 4C' - C&ckt'Lvke . /-e S5 4k AK ZW s o ,n.. o * S +5. coo- la let. - s e� I i ` O /SS . A/ .'S ua ( kl.) t I c t r - ✓'a4 t` wt - 'Car - wk-ud (C To eIV. 1,4 U•e ! fi -GIS 4 Z. Z - 4 / f Z -4 f 1 4 -- J 8 .a, E -H 9_ &S+ h e ; t + el 6 -a gwl,s ocitA4 -8 w< kz e `(ct #..S • n o d•S treNaNt • List tests performed: • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes�❑i'� 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 /U:C, except as noted above. Signed � Date: l 3 o/ . Print Full Name: - i r q ✓i I.D. No.: 2' ZC 2..- White copy to Braun Intertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 ,t Page ( of i. SIDRPT Rev 9/08 BRAUN TE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of OCx. K ?n k (7:.$ h 4-5 Report No.: -.�,� - S Date of This Report: .) Project Name: r;41 �a (1 Project No.: j 7P.- - j 1 Project Address: / �. j (tea,K 411 al. yd. Client: e, .�. e �R k f < yp4 4,5Client Project No.: Project Manager: _ , - w � Temp/Weather: © F- Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases 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 ❑ Description and location of work completed: j , "(��,, � �. j n t��j t �: 4.46'S ZDttS nit • rk_ 6on.4e.C4 aytjS" y {: . 14 o i +.r GbAtc rcLs , 44 , avt d c Pte- List tests performed: c i ), k .. 1 ( I; rt /.e r S 1-fi a & -u r t ( gngt n.tvirS s ck yttb ' • Are there any discrepancies noted from this days observations? Ye No ❑ • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Ye, "' 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 /UBC, except as noted above. Signed: MIK _is , frL Date: j - 2 d • rintFuIIName:Q / ® j"' Ca r i s © 1I I.D. No.: ,5 Z,l(2 8, a White copy to Braun lntertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page Z of SIDRPT2 Rev 10/03 B RAU N OINTERTEC Continuation of Special Inspection Daily Report city of C)G. \< crk N$ i ii1i-- . Report No.: ` ST'`e. e ..,1*- .,1 Z Date of This Report: 10 "d Project Name: •— • e Project No.: 6 t �� Note: This is a continuation of a report. The first page of this report has information which should not be separated from this )(,..,....-- continuation) lal rl al; ni...,v e 1 cv-aw; V E e ,,,J( -H) - u 0 • 4 e 4 • i • 4 . '") , c) . , _ • 4- -4- to .k 1 c utVo it no+ a (( � u 1( tf�e r +.'G -Lt w 4 1 A i rl and( C I , *s -i~© 6, 6 _ A Pk 8 ri o w t, (.d i ry1 ? iotcit- . 14/31-t) Q �,o,,trk c:14° ( ,P_ • 1 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 /UBC, except as noted above. Signed: / ZrcieN. Da te: /0 Z 0 ` � rint FulI Name: , ( ® Sp Jet I.D. No: -41 1/ zt.. a Z- 8 White copy to Braun Intertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page t of SIDRPT BRAUN 1/410TERTEC Special Inspection Daily Report city of oc ?ej k He, ;itrk, -1-. Report No.: 54-ttj 4 I Date of This Report: 1 0 Z. - Project Name: C Wait Project No.: Ji' - 0 1 - d C t 9 (o Project Address: /4 g � 1� '> ` t {�. k t v j • Client: (.1'4 d © Client Project No.: Weather: .5a.1 t 1 jlk Ol -t-'` Temperature: 5 e' /"' Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases K Periodic e gr 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 ❑ 1 T t' Description and location of work completed: V► r !►• 1 IL ' C7 n � 0 �✓4',6 a ______I --. 1eit.ej0 acs t eAle -• t � ^ �o► +.1'L: 1-L • O •e___, 0 t. . ,1, - ke A. S. Ca • o is ..s ex ,' ra -er- z �, (.� - = (ct. � �c._. d. (5 r VS t r ( V.s-5 r � isn , s 7 , . ot K. 5 k / / g -sk io 71-0 t'; fc-Is�_ 06 c t--- �. u d - -t, - - t?d c -1-- • / r t ( d .C.1v, ©l cira s- ,L rv-/ h Q ("LsGre a:frt.c� • List tests performed: a C Q Ylvl f, e.,+ ."(31r1 g yiek.ot i Y1 tip o & r t 1 w t 4 - f7,wtb id "rl.3 (( ` ` t'N. - 5 /, 7 r .. /!e4 kA i 1p (c ve r4-, tat. On �r . �a ° ' t - 1 6 ,+ 6 1 • a T iii 40' • 'ri ' I ‘ - • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes ❑ Nc.�. ie1.3 t' Yi °L oi.r 7 • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes. No ❑ � � q . �� � • If yes, see attached Summary Sheet. C� L p� 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 / /UBC, except as noted above. Signed: - > '. _ s .� +. AI Date: / 1- 2 - © 0 t Full Name: 0.• I.D. , �� ,/k Ar No.: - SZil Z- L9 CDZ.-` S . White copy to Braun Intertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page l of B RAM N StDRPT • 1 NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of ca.(< Patk H.p .2k +S CI Report No.: ,S+ 4 5 Date of This Report: / ( 3 "�" 0 Project Name: e.. K A t 1 Project No.: 0 C t C) 1 3 t Project Address: , q i S pick K 'Pack ( vd. Client: G• E K O� C KP Z A `le; +s Client Project No.: Weather: G Temperature: ® 13 / 7-:: Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases Er Periodic Er 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 ❑ Description and location of work completed: la - Z r - . d Q . V ♦ A n e /era t orsa. Mc? avt bCAi ©iS+ Z 4-c b e., bv1r1(f -I'-NC IrL cLU`e. + N 5'r _ c1),, d t�P ,t„a � , 1 �� n� . Egg, n ti,Q r c v. �� C~�. �, �s + . m: s S ; n ' � t � P - � - �,� t 5 (4 vt. k e v nk eA S 2 7 /5 7 �a bea. 5 - mat n \-ev -( G t eel H r- 1 11IL fte it - +oirk a o r tM: , Ci a�d .S/(2) 1 ��.ts cle +arts 7 s7 1 ,4%7 ( '> 7 `5'7 ne)CII5cr' aK • Are there arty ascrepancies noted from this days observations? Yes No ❑ • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes No ❑ • If yes, see attached Summary Sheet. � Z (4w a, 3 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 /UBC, except cis noted above. Signed: s.�t _ �- Date: f - ©� . Print Full Name: pj'"6 f � I.D. No.: 55Z &$ 2.( &Z White copy to Braun Intertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page l ' of SIDRPT Rev 10/09 BRAUN I NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report • 1' City of ()a t< 'at-A � H.8 t Ar Report No.: S4-j. ( Date of This Report: / - t Project Name::0bL; ( UjeAlg Project No.: 5"-(•j, - a 1,3 t9 Project Address: < f � (� oak bt`V d • Client: 0 elA, 4- Client Project No.: Project Manager: 1Ati /Katt a Temp/Weather: � j Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases 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 ❑ Description and location of work completed: t J J 5 ve e t (oar tOt°A 11 Dc LA) 0 7') `f' are A5 ck, 4- '?u 411. 4-•-e_ AX P. ct r e c ik‘k A Ce,v7 "?t753_ A5 u■a .` vv_. F c 0,pt, Cb 5 �P �P,-�- �`P• nA o CI : 5 C ry a << v, S /V C3 o :c+4 1 d e..41 C► -4 .'s!-0- -#; List tests performed: • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes ❑ Noeffr • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yesi 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: /y. / ` _ Date: / * Z `7 • 1 0 Print Full Name: I_ -06 Sa rl. I.D. No.: S7.1,1%. l o 34" • White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page / of SIDRPT B RAU N 0 I NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of O /C 4, fc 74 - L Report No.: S W2<./.l 1 *- 7 Date of This Report: P- - 3 - to i 6 Project Name: (1. Par J/p).t 4er e ; 4/ Project No.: 5 f - o , ` n/ / 9 Project Address: f 1' / 6 bo D ak. ,4.. / / '4,7 I . Client: a 4 / 6k ,z/ 4f4.6- Client Project No.: C "F Weather: u sR - , t emperature: a - ,� Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases ET Periodic i 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 ❑ Description and location of work completed: n�.:l.q D ; c:/c :1 !60 J 4 , -s '� ° s c:=2....</ • , . ' k .,_• . .-e.. .'v't. a Dr, A- . 5 / 01-- 6a, ' ia s 4 47k 4.A./ to as. - _"-4) c a) do s ft -' a6 /40.- `o /'s / / /a- ✓a 1/ e,- 4.. ,4- 3 ) p -,>~..€-, ',, Gov/ ik, 4,-, J ®, pi-- 4 /art' / , 1 a ---.A.10 c ic-re .�. S sf_ 0,e., b1,/ ", , /2- / @ - , U c C & "'. C "( goo le c2G, 4(.1 �h:g. s,• et .spe rm,• - d LisHestsperfu rm C- �i IC O'r' 5 5 d` G15 f-7b. 0/ Oh.. / VS712- -./r/8 c%C c / 4 -,� 5 , 4 ) 1 -�'( 6� �e, /u,�r, , el-4( /s� ,s- ia- - tea- , s i. / #1 /` - e4 " /" ! . ��/ s '1 6 is Cia /aae -71-6 i fpm , /,, .�,9- f � n nit r>< L',-) ac‘C�ss' 4s ''grl'" .41s /Gr P � l� • noted from this day's observations? Yes t No ❑ /'" Are there any discrepancies o ed y • 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 /UBC, except as noted above. Signed: ---° s-r -�" Date: d - 3 - Q2o f' 0 f# g rint Full Name: /4 t4S I.D. No.: t er71 V g J — White copy to Braun lntertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page of SIDRPT Rev 10/09 BRAUN NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of Q aK .( • He g: Report No.: , 8 Date of This Report: 3 10 Project Name: C 4 : /' j( Project No.: c1 — C1 t Project Address: / / 8 cR �f"A,> (z i. Client: Client Project No.: Project Manager: Temp/Weather: Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases 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 ❑ Description and location of work completed: �(� • 5 .�- j,ep�"�✓t X d J=s ( ' - o f ?,r 5k - , v s a( - • - 4 gat P4-0, • % as taw C ne 7/- - d 4 - e 5 & r. n. d T b-Crin o b5 ci i`a h g (44 70 , .I't 4-• a Ps • ` ; • •IY.j, .r- "11..k 11. S © f~ vtJ, -iLS a ?t,o, r & It - *P f a ^t S o o ; n 4- -� . n h4- . List tests performed: • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes eri No ❑ • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes .e 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: / f 1Z Date: Print Full Name: ✓ - d1 :1 � ©l l.D. No.: LeZee e,C.) 5 2 White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page 1 of j SIDRPT Rev 10 /09 B RAU TE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of 0 C Report No.: 4- a Date of This Report: -' 0 t Project Name: (3(k'K' a t. ` - (44 CN v No.: ® t'` e5l 1 q Project Address: //( / Lo 8 0.04 .a ed • Client: "t,r-}, -OF ©'Q {.( Client Project No.: Project Manager: C"Q h fit_ erl y,e, Temp/Weather: '30 Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases 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 ❑ Description and location of work completed: lJ v*/ u a ( ;'/( if ; n © )r j ^r 7 a law y1 e c s(Nppan in List tests performed: • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes ❑ No.er • 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. Q 1 /� Signed: %k Date: ?1 — S - ( v Print Full Name: (.4 Yl I.D. No.: � 2[� Z— White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page t of SIDRPT Rev 1 0/09 BRAU NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report • City of QQ )4 �cx.-i k. Report No.: ..4._ ,, 44-/O ' 1 Date of This Report: 1 © -- lO Project Name: 0 Ct.K Gt - k i+D ; .5 C; f ro No.: 5 ©°S _c) 1,3 l Project Address: 1. 4/ /406 e , Client: C c t)7:1--( Client Project No.: Project Manager: Temp/Weather: Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases fZ1 Periodic ZWelding & Bolting ❑ Concrete Placement ❑ Fireproofing ❑ Piles & Piers ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ Description and location of work completed: V Cc 1 c7"141 4- %A) f 1r4 Z p cvet +nth s IJ/ � • I 1� �_ I la 9 1. L1 A 1.A. 1 s — 77 twilit, v L , �• $- o • ATV k yvl. D {-� _ r 1r 1►0 Llo List tests performed: • Are there any discrepancies noted from this days 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 provisions of the current IBC, except as noted above. Signed: 1 t/` Date: — to - ( Q Print Full Name: in to 1-- Cael.Son. I.D. No.: .5 g. 1 1/Z ' 9 ' White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page ( of ^I SIDRPT Rev 10/09 BRAUN 1 NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of c)Cl\e,RO,CAl■ Report No.: s °- .. 1 ( Date of This Report: L- - (e) Project Name: g; �- -� P Oct : 4 f 4(t Project No.: -o°1„ -a 13 Project Address: i t! t8 c �, —P� ., t7ie;'43,1A Client: ".4- ©� nV 4 Client Project No.: Project Manager: r'Qv\ ,M ck. -.- S Temp/Weather: type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases 0 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 ❑ Description and location of work co leted Va Q 6 s G a tr;%.0.-6 le‘'N *e.)+0 f ( d;:s t fi,V vtGi ct 7 S - t r l .- e - e(") w\ e Y\- tA) CA 0S eOL 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 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: r Date: Ci — ( -6 Print Fuu Name: � t9 �. f d e\ I.D. No.: Z '� l.p - Z • White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page ( of t SIDRPT Rev 10/09 BRAUN I NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report • c � 1 , City of C a K 1'cf`� R. , &K 4-5 Report No.: 5-i-- ,e' ( . / e , Date of This Report: .5 — " ( 0 Project Name: 6, . ` 4. 4 C, l & Project No.: 5 2 - 0 ot - V ( 9 Project Address: i (-4,,, 2s 0 t< pal-k, Y.. ci • Client: C.:4 ©c Q eP t- Client Project No.: Project Manager:�t A G �, ., 5 Temp/Weather: ' Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry 0 Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases Periodic Welding & Bolting ❑ Concrete Placement ❑ Fireproofing Piles & Piers 0 Tendon Placement ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ (r Description and location of work completed: 0 d e 5 c, �- Ya� C � e a 0 IA- T S V S - - 4 - c - 0 40,x `C .., k e,s C ov -n . t . 4-.• o ZA ► ' O YI _ i Y■ K._ t 1_41 E ,...A. oh •. 1 O 0,-F'‹ S A . ,g 7- O tQ - c� a , e V C a v I`. T ) � y .. -e,c4- - I'S C- 1"t . ?aAn- (. ` 1 to List tests performed: • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes . ❑ No / ET ."". • 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: /� « Date: S `1 — to Print Full Name: 7 b I'" ".G 1 1, I.D. No.: 'j 2. 4 ( `z, Lp B �— S • White copy to Braun Intertec file. Yellow copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 . Page _1 BRAUN SODIS Rev 6/04 I NTE RTEC Summary of Special Inspection Discrepancies MI Items Needing Correction or Review by the Design Engineer or Architect Project Name:. ©` ark /-/ 2k .4-." C. 4- [-e1 Project Address: The following items must be reviewed and approved by the engineer and /or corrected and /or re- inspected before work can continue in the area. Daily Report Resolution to Date Status Report Date Description Discrepancy Corrected/ O/C No. Observed by fie_ ( 0.0 C.0 t-� W-e !els En tat/7 ►t -Z -09 r a i s . - f-r -S . SK t © i .G - 1ls 1 '� 5 R Ci le-)-13 bar..S0 5-' clic) Y' O4 h o.v' Ena. Vev; 3� react) � 8 , cir , '%- , 3 0 &r,d \ /4 -+ • 6) r✓t.a; et 'pew 1. 1 &c-,'d E a s--/ „....c LA) tu) +0 ervoc3-e3 / ,, t f on ire ti-/"Z_ t-e. 1 e 0 " tO se__. OK 5 -? i I ( C . / . ' 7 5 - 1 4- 0 e n'i k e td W 'f €. o Cs. ` c- re...q. o rieci \A)-e (d tti Cww, , Kt4 4- ' e.5? tC) r Q vt 1,P - 3 t V3 ?6 C tp■.o t 0 ,.© S +- �n , r� v ,• ti `"� b S 4,v-ti t `Z v i" yn �■ e9 to 5 .1 c� c co-ed rak,kas I, Z In. -0et ljt, vi* lbs- 1i -3 m Z%: t,'tt tn1t td.5O .. 0 -{- re C.1- -. - .. c „, aAg 4 r wtct: v. Vf.1 `� 3 'ea C K Z - ( defies t ► 'f57 410 White copy to Braun Intertec file. Blue copy to Contractor. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page BRAUN N SODIS Rev 6(04 TE RTEC Summary of Special Inspection Discrepancies Items Needing Correcti.4143, ;36.4-.5 n or Review by the Design Engineer or Architect Project Name: 0 c& l< 'PL.) r l < Project Address: The following items must be reviewed and approved by the engineer and /or corrected and /or re- inspected before work can continue in the area. Daily Report Resolution to Date Status Report Date Description Discrepancy O/C O/C No. Observed by A n.the!' 11©-f- Co Se & 1 r dljc. rt.54- oc(tot410 Ct I) (v� rot' d cr +-n ®t' 4. hi. btj vepen+ a n, d CltAtI. 'ea eS5 e rti oi•,t, . 411 White copy to Braun Intertec file. Blue copy to Contractor. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 A J • /// E! "A- 123' -2 W12X14 (..c-- tYP BRCs iE - SEE 115'1 ---). / //, TS3X3X - FIELD CUT AND WELD TO BOTH BEAMS r 1110 --...„..‘ / WELD 3 SIDES WITH 1 4" FILLET WELD // // EXIST W12X26 �� '� ----__\ ,\ W12 ROOF 8EAII TO ENO WALLS ..... _ 4 0_,) 1/7 = 1c0° v illk Project: WN�(LER Job: 109066 S TRUCTURAL OAK PARK HEIGHTS Date: 9.28.09 P repared for: 10300 Winter Place 952 / 941-4e 55347 BUETOW 4 ASSOCIATES Sheet: 8K.1 G :101080681SK7.gxd — 09/28/2009 -- 10:30 AM — Scala 1 : 24 • .,` „ 6\......21 r f v / � ( p 0 4 "4 V 3 - W12 INSTALL BRGs PLATE AT END OF WALL. WELD BM TO E n ,c, ,-..... k 4, td s E END OF WALL A it,' i 01 1 EBEARING D ETAIL 1/2" . 1 WINKLER Project: Job: il NI, 109066 STRUCTURAL OAK PARK NEG ITS EFRS Prepared for: Date: 9.28.09 10300 Winter Place Eden Prairie mN 55347 BUETOW 4 ASSOCIATES Sheet: gK8 952 / 941 -4826 G:1 D1080861SK8 -gxd — 09128/2009 -- 10:30 AM -- Sca/ 1 : 24 • r 4,4 IE 1/2' 4' - 5 318" 1" END OF JST 1 1 1 > 3;,i,1" HD STUD PLUMS CUT L4X4X BEWTEEN JSTS LOCATE L SO THAT DECK CAN BE L E:LDED TO IT • 6" O/C ' 600T125 -43 2*4 • 1111 4 1R 111 60 08162 -54 * 24 3X3X 1 4. CONT !BENT TE WELD TO JST • - NER L 600S162 -S4 • 24 600T125 -54 W/ PAIRS OF RAWL DRIVES AT EACH STUD 1 /2 X4X0-8 "W/ 2- I/2 "DIAX4 " / 2 - NELSON l /2" D{A D2L DEFORMED BAR ANCHORS X 6" LONG DRILL 4 EPDXY GROUT TO BOND SEAM .,_ APPUES TQ CsRID 8 9-1, ERE PLATES ARE MISLOCATED SEARING DETAIL NEW PLATES 1 1/2" = P-0 411I1 1111%f Project: INC STRUCTURAL OAK PARK HEIGHTS ENGINEERS Prepared for: 10500 vlMtar Pbcs 55347 BUETOW 4 ASSOCIATES Job: 109066 Date: 918.09 Sheet: gKg G:10108O881SK9.gxd -- O9/28/2009 -- 01 07 PM -- Scale 1 : 24 • • 1/41 2 �r L4X4X' /4 Ci �" STRUTS t L3X3X x 1 1/41 2 REF - 1/S (ID 1/2" = 1.-0„ W Project: Job: 10906 6 STRUCTURAL OAK PARK HEIGHTS ENG$ ERS + Date: 9.25.09 Prepared for: 10300 Nester Plane 9 2 94 12 1 55347 SUETOW 4 ASSOCIATES Sheet: SK1 e G :1D1080661SK10.gxd -- 10/01/2008 - 01:36 PM -- Scale 1 : 24 4 � 3" BOTH SIDES EXIST L 4X4 SPLICE 9! NI X 3X0-4" JST CHORD PLAN VIEW • SPLICE le EXIST L4X4X& /4 COPE L VERT LECsS n i ANGLE SPLICES AT JOISTS GRI 1 ONLY NO SCALE WIWLER Project: Job: 109066 • NI, STRUCTURAL. OAK PARK i- {BGWTS ENGINZERS INC Date: 1013,09 Prepared for: 10300 Winter Plaza 952 F Eden �MN •'55347 BLIETOW 4 ASSOCIATES Sheet: SK IL G:1D1080661SK11.gxd -- 10/13/2009 - 11:18 AM - Scale 1 : 24 • 3/16\ 1 1- O 11 a • • INSTALL L1X4X X 0'-8" TIGHT TO JST SEAT • INSTAL!_ 2 - " DIA HILTI /K271 I 1 HIT HY 1S0 /HIT -ICE INJECTION ADHESIVE ANCHORS W/ THD RODS W/ r 4v3" EMBED FROM FACE OF BLK I I SPACE BOLTS 5I/2" APART I i I I JOIST, EMBED IE AND WALL ARE EXJS11NG DETAIL APPLJES WHERE EVER JOIST BEARS LESS THAN 4" ONTO EXISTING EMBED iE NORTH -I WALL_ - MODIFIED DETAIL 16/55 WWLER Project: Job: 108066 STRUCTURAL OAK PARK HEIGHTS ENGPEERS Date: 10.28.09 411 )111,\\Or Prepared for 1Q300 WMtar Plan•drie 952 / 941-4825 55347 BUETOW t ASSOCIATES Sheet: SKIS G:Dt08066{SK18.gxd -- 10128/2009 - 11:16 AM -- Scale 1:24 , Denne, Marvin From: Carlson, Taylor Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 3:26 PM o: Denne, Marvin Subject: Fw: Oak Park Heights Original Message From: Carlson, Taylor To: Mattes, Sarah Sent: Mon Apr 19 10:31:05 2010 Subject: Oak Park Heights Sarah, here is the correspondence between the EOR, project superintendent and the architect. Taylor Carlson NDE Level II Technician Braun Intertec Corporation 11001 Hampshire Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55438 direct: 952.995.2518 fax: 952.995.2020 email: tcarlson(braunintertec.com • - - -- Original Message From: Glen Schlichte [mailto: glen @jorgensonconstruction.com] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 9:51 AM To: Carlson, Taylor Subject: FW: Document.pdf Glen Schlichte Project Superintendent Jorgenson Construction Inc. OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY HALL PROJECT 14168 Oak Park Blvd No. Oak Park Heights, MN Cell: 612 -363 -3572 Original Message From: Randy Engel [mailto: randy _engel @buetowarchitects.com] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 9:43 AM To: Glen Schlichte Subject: Re: Document.pdf len: I hese issues no longer have to be addressed - the holes are concealed. 1 I . > Can you sign off on the issue with the 3- 1/4" holes that we are not > doing anything with so Braun can close out this job on the structural > part. Ron has done the rest. 0 Glen Schlichte Project Superintendent > Jorgenson Construction Inc. > OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY HALL PROJECT > 14168 Oak Park Blvd No. > Oak Park Heights, MN > Cell: 612 - 363 -3572 > Original Message > From: Ronn Winkler [mailto:winklereng @comcast.net] > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:00 PM > To: glen @jorgensonconstruction.com > Subject: FW: Document.pdf > Glen, > My hand written comments on the attached sheet are correct. > The joist burn holes need to be addressed. > Ronn A. Winkler, P.E. > Winkler Structural Engineers > 10300 Winter Place Eden Prairie, MN 55347 winklerenacomcast.net > 952- 941 -4825 > The items on the attachec sheet are Ok Original Message > From: Glen Schlichte [mailto: glen @jorgensonconstruction.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 12:35 PM > To: 'Ronn Winkler' > Cc: tcarlson @braunintertect.com > Subject: FW: Document.pdf > > Did you ever reply to this e- mail? Taylor from Braun is on site and > wants to close this out. > Glen Schlichte > Project Superintendent > Jorgenson Construction Inc. > OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY HALL PROJECT > 14168 Oak Park Blvd No. > Oak Park Heights, MN Cell: 612 - 363 -3572 > Original Message 2 • F > From: Glen Schlichte [maiito: glen @jorgensonconstruction.com] > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 1:31 PM > To: 'Ronn Winkler' > Cc: 'tcarlson @braunintertec.com' Subject: Document.pdf > Document.pdf > Ron, Can you take a look at this special inspection report from Braun > and initial or let Taylor know you have given you blessing on these > issues. # 3 and #5 are the crucial ones. He knows you looked at 3, but > we have nothing but verbal, and this is not good enough. As for #5, > there were 3 - 1/4" > holes burnt into joist and they want a fix from vulcraft. Randy said > he would call and never did, because I'm not going to have them laugh > at me and say are you kidding me. Randy has agreed to get rid of this > issue. Braun wants to get this cleared up. Thanks, Call me if you have > any questions. 612 > 363 3572. 4 3 1 Page SODIS `BRAUN Rev 6/04 1 NTERTEC Summary of Special Inspection Discrepancies Items Needing Correction or Review by the Design Engineer or Architect Project Name: O C .. '"ark _sj1 5 C,. :4 WA ' 1 Project Address: The following items must be reviewed and approved by the engineer and /or corrected and /or re- inspected before work can continue in the area. Daily s po rt Resolution to Date Status Report Dace Description Discrepancy Corrected/ O/C No. Observed by 1 /O_ I Vtn c. Wt (I5 6) E C6v704) )t -2 -en fir. , -1-1 .1l to - .c. • 5 k 1 t Cd 2 Ie., -3 b00 ■5- -5 014 no-4- 1 c.vC, £v..a. i" t t� reglu : {s-ect 38ot - -. S S ictrr'trr 4 - s K,a 0 &I", fd 1 4- E 1 ,....-0 1,o. 244 • 3 td zo .e d eta+�t.. ?(a Lt_cJ f4 h. E p r y a:., tr., ( &c -,`r1 I t E; W Ito +0 >iA.6e d Vii t ` '. 5 / , r V 1( 't' CA. re r4- L. t -e. 1 e ©'-' cz,K5ise... 11 It S o c 1 7 f e m- w t'f rya..o r, •*td t€ i-ur • P -- i �'d ,, !tvt i`e., . t1 ^'-3 7ro CL..er -6 e. -,- _se,;S+- tilt tle1r.'t`a 54- U•cro%t veyl >v9te5 .tbcq +ed ,usr me R fi vietwel Cj ray%do wt 1_ ri-nwL, am, vie 1 ,1s. isYS Pl•c. t WTI. u _ .3 yet . , - .%: - #1 . 5 t..‘1112-4- k.Ak 1 t3S 0 cot ,+_. 7 •?kcxv + Ly S © to.wt ao ri 4Ae V�e-t or wax) A (,7t-i'd it{ Z.- =I del,. i t 17/57 7 ?eK. "Is 7 • . White copy to Braun Intertec file. Blue copy to Contractor. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page t SODIS RA� N Rev 6/04 ii EC Summary of Special Inspection Discrepancies Items Needing Correction or Review by the Design Engineer or Architect Project Name: c »t t � o k 1Q :2 h 4- C.. ' T` �{ / Project Address: The following items must be reviewed and approved by the engineer and /or corrected and /or re- inspected before work can continue in the area. Dotty Report Resolution to Date Status Report pate Description Discrepancy O/C No. f Observed by I /0— ( v1 d W � 1 d� 5 6,) Ext. te a )1_2_09 1`�fic.c S- u-- •K t a i< 2 -3 ba" S-r-S a in no-t- 1A Nut, Evka. rtt r re et. u ' rsed Wei sciNi ,44. • 3 i(.5 -7.(1 , e d t?Ict -4t, ` Ict tit,J 1-1 "/fir. Ern t et) o tA) t t_o +0 e vv 6e J a cs t '` 1 0 34 -l- t t C /.•P5 NN), C" t`a. re A)' td (:i-vr -e. (3 nir c t vL 0 • 5 11 -3 t 4 T"d o So;S +- t" t` rtvf• Ca taccoed ((. �j Y►"1 z SS; h i4'€ ldS ° C,..off`t e L t-. j 1 . ?`rxvkg 4-fl'C trhwt w-tckZ va4t, Viet �J C7N K z"t c e +c t 17 /57 • White copy to Braun lntertec file. Blue copy to Contractor. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page l of SIDRPT NTERTEC Special Inspection Daily Report city of C,O.K Park tip" Report No.: 6T' ° r 5 Date of This Report: I l " 3 " 4 Q ` Project Name: (. ; kA i ( ,� `D Project No.: b - U 1 3 L Project Address: NN it Qa cm fb K ark Ts. ( vd. Client: �.�-� C C K. }?ed4 ties5 +'S Client Project No.: Weather: Temperature: O ( t Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Reber Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases E. Periodic Er 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 ❑ Description and location of work completed: ai - „,r , . eAs. �, � . +' V . ,a - s atitj. •c:te..lcq`?.-Scr ? ;AS4-a ctwA. ab -i it VeS orw tterc t c terx.- m ? 4-02 c t,.®rel bca►. --" o ;`S+ .b p. bo d"vtA v •e. +0 ii ' _ . t ' • a t Y1` ' •a.r C V; �.l - 3 m: SS ; k t 1 11 \r0 P- c . 5 < r C " .Cc es4- "p (aut. k ev beil S 1%7 +b beA;m'S • rex A t n \-2.v , e, t t t '� H Z — ' . ( • " CA.6 # 4 :*** - 74-111L 41. *- a "tz r , �`-e10 c S jam C40.c1,o. (5 at e+to s 7 s'7, / Ai r 1 4757, 1 1 5? 40G aft • Are there any ai"screpancies noted from this day's observations? Yes No ❑ 1 • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes No ❑ • if yes, see attached Summary Sheet. - �E z otw CI 3 To the best of our knowledge, work inspected was done in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and applkable workmanship provisions of the current IBC/IJBC, except as noted above. Signed: �s.� _ _ � Date: l j - - t)' -1► Print Full Name: orrp j "L e I.D. No.: 5Z 4 X.(0 SZ • White copy to Braun lntertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 19.57 Page j of j SIDRPT •RAUN I N T E RT EC Special Inspection Daily Report City of < C 0.rk H L°,;e 4- SS' Z Report No.: � '4'�,`,� t ! Dote of This Report / 1 Z " C C� Project Name: C W It Project SP " ©1 ~ d 1:"" 1 t Project Address: 1 / L b no. K. V��k 1 Vent • Client: (j+ C; 0 4 Client Project No.: Weather: r . Ai • Temperature: 50 / Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases gr Periodic 7 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 ❑ Description and location of work completed: , a • . - l i �-' (<" e ( ao I n3 e 1:66c1/4441k1 - area ;. Il r© ©' t e tie 'rA m : . air 3. CV - 4i• a a; 7 es ' s ?tr , wit - a., (, om( a.4,....... ok:).* ° f S l CVs , 1 c/ Cier C r- to u _ 00 - ~,L - - d t'4- / r List tests performed:425 C. ©n ~v - y1f et i t1 %t t' & rte } E - - ti..) tt» - Ffi to.wcb 'ry t( '9 ` " e • Soto : .'i1t -1 tA1 ftd li•Pr ZI.4,. ` t' t. G z- 4 ( i N S .�4 L . - _ L ' ..- la , . a vt. t4.,(„ . • • Are there any discrepancies noted from this day's observations? Yes ❑ No.er ea3 {nett- 7 • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yes No ❑ c p u ; eu3 � .. • If yes, see attached Summary Sheet. C• � c / 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/UBC, except as noted above. 2 Signed: - - " it. s ,.,� r.. ri Date: / ( 2 - 0 q Print Full Name: = ► "f " - ; t 44 I.D. No.: - r .J •.1s OZ.. ( 3 .S III 411 White copy to Braun Intertec fife. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 (, • Page 1 of X, • SIDRPT Rev 9/08 RAUN N TE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of Oa K ( ?( , ),4- k ( .6 i 1A, 4-5 Report No.: s4,�,� 1 .4 "1 ) Date of This Report: 0 - -`�,(� _a Project Name: e --, / it 11 Project No.: J �-. -- n 17s 1 6 1 Project Address: / j M p t i( i t l< at vd. Client: e.,' o octk k.4A. , Project No.: Project Manager: l,� Qrr51, , , ....1 ., Temp/Weather: Q ©' Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry 0 Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases e Periodic Welding & Bolting 0 Concrete Placement ❑ Fireproofing Piles & Piers ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ Description and location of work completed: //,''t /1 " , ••, .. `coy '41 1=6 ' a: 'C4S , t V LA.') ' . 4, 'Mgt% ...., rti 41 ' 7 4. Li , , a .: . +110: . e R n.-t '` .'S : n.. e i r. 1 4 t o n.- o► e„ - ct.v141 STUritci 6 vt.35 4u.s Ktsp, d 1. ti ! j • I, fir'► • • a e5 - ✓ A 4 sJl _ w . LC / at II VC ` � a © ? +4wf r VAS 2, / 6 4 / ofrt c PY)t de tI. 5 List tests performed: ca•yt ' J4., 1 ( lit); 1< j rstfiut-i- ,ra i rna. tre „e s,. • - , - - i. '• A 1 ••• ' oft e 6 0 '*' t 2 4 1 4 .-- %., ` • , .A.m dr „c . i • Are there any discrepancies noted from this days observations? Ye No ❑ • Are there any outstanding discrepancies on this project? Yea 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 /UBC, except as noted above. Signe .. vi i A i„_, 0 Date: j O — 2. d ” C') 1 Print Full Name: '""raMiet Cat ts a et I.D. No.: ,J ,,(e„ La, 8.2 --'t S • White copy to Braun intertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Page Z ofZ.. SIDRPT2 Rev 1OfO3 •RAUN 1 NTE RTEC Continuation of Special Inspection Daily Report City of a) co< ."Pas- < /-/ 'k-k- , Report No.: Date of This Report: 1t0"Ze "'eft Project Name: CA r4 CYO, ( ( Project No.: - — 6 13l Note: This is a continuation of a report. The first page of this report has information which should not be separated from this continuation) ,-,'Lain eJ cromtyt zip`d E k1Jt lakto7 1 VI ®u P_Avi. arL Q 1t. • • } 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 /UBC, except as noted above. Signed: Z.s�c�" y ti'"` Date: / .- Z `t Print Full Name: (. 1.D_ No: &Z- act 5 2." White copy to Braun Intertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental sottuions since 1957 Page 1 of. SIDRPT Rev 9ro8 RAUN NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of t a ?Oak ► i e k+5 Report No.: 5 -j- e . z Date of This Report: 0 y- 13 -- CI Project Name: C`, . 4� C t c 1( Project No.: S7 -(9 - b13 1 t Project Address: j A( 1 co 6 Oak k Estitd. Client: ('.: •I' CC 0 P E-1 Client Project No.: Project Manager: 5 AAA 4.1- e f, Temp/Weather: - lb 0 F Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Rebar Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases T Periodic rZWelding & Bolting ❑ Concrete Placement ❑ Fireproofing ❑ Piles & Piers ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No 0 Description and location of work completed: ti./ ( J t 0 , 2 4 / ,4 E, V Li y - , � Ilk> • i s 00 , 1 tD . 0 - Oa( 1..9 1 c t `',.` o bS£'rVa'�:614s "'' ° rwt fan tit L1`c.1 {tAS 4 ez z -- mt t--I E 2 - 4 1 4 �- 3 . E -- M 9 wJ CD :S+ , ' L r IA, * ui .. 4 ' a f ' A A i a"Qi r , Tom. • 1 J d, F.1 _ - tiL , . List tests performed: =1 • Are there any discrepancies noted from this dads 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 provisions of the current IBM; C, except as noted above. ■ Signed: / Date: / 0 ^ l3 Print Full Nome: _ ` 0 m A, f, o el I.D. No.: Z Z( b 2 -'gj • Ailk White copy to Braun Intertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 : Page ( of SIDRPT Rev 9/O8 F NTE RTEC Special Inspection Daily Report City of ?& C-t C Report No.: 54.,L,e) Date of This Report: _ L— C) Project Name: :-�- 1,.t[!► j Project No.: {� - -� 6 ` (A tc Project Address: 1 4 1 g c K ;p 4.14, ? „ j , , Client: C.,; ��ypq � t k H�p� f ,c� C lient Project No.: Project Manager: S a s I Ql ' ' ..! Temp/Weather: 5c f Type of Inspection: Inspection Coverage: ❑ Continuous ❑ Masonry ❑ Reber Placement ❑ Foundations ❑ Special Cases V Periodic el Welding & Bolting ❑ Concrete Placement ❑ Fireproofing C ❑ Piles & Piers ❑ Tendon Placement ❑ Soils Did the architect or engineer authorize changes to city approved plans? Yes ❑ (Listed Below) No ❑ c De � scription and location of work completed: V,'CSV , ," j� A 0 b •� A tb yiS 1100 r .G1i (C j ?- P.tvt `C.5• f orPA List tests performed: e. e) on.v :t k 114- • 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 provisions of the current IBC /UBC, except as noted above. Signed n Date: 10-1-0 '3 Print Full Name: (`- -1 (.! t- (, y I.D. No.: '52 £, Z tZ-_ • White copy to Braun Intertec file. Blue copy to Project Site Representative. e Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Eric Johnson , , m: Randy Engel [ randy _engel @buetowarchitects.comj illit: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:58 AM Steve Gansmoe; Glen Schlichte Cc: Eric Johnson; Michael Lueth Subject: FW: Attached Image Attachments: 2403_001.pdf See attached - Responses to resolve these discrepancies must be provided. Forwarded Message From: "Mattes, Sarah" <smattesbraunintertec.com> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:31:39 -0600 To: Randy Engel <randy engelftbuetowarchitects.com> Conversation: Attached Image Subject: FW: Attached Image Randy, Attached are the daily report and the discrepancy log for the Oak Park Heights project. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Sarah Mattes Staff Engineer Braun Intertec Corporation 1826 Buerkle Road int Paul, MN 55110 ) 651.487.7090 ell) 612.685.5304 (fax) 651.487.1812 From: Scan MP -233 [ mailto :scanftraunintertec.com1 Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:21 AM To: Mattes, Sarah Subject: Attached Image End of Forwarded Message 0 1 _______. Eric Johnson om: Randy Engel [ randy _engel @buetowarchitects.comj t: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:52 PM • Steve Gansmoe; Glen Schlichte Cc: Michael Lueth; Ronn Winkler; Eric Johnson; Jimmy Butler Subject: FW: Oak Park Heights Attachments: 3694_001.pdf FYI: Braun Test Results sent directly to Buetow today Forwarded Message From: "Mattes, Sarah" <smattes@ braunintertec.com> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:40:52 - 0600 To: Randy Engel <randy engelRdbuetowarchitects.com> Conversation: Oak Park Heights Subject: FW: Oak Park Heights Hi Randy, This email is a follow -up to our conversation yesterday. Attached are all of our masonry test results for the project (2 of which are grout). Our concrete /masonry expert has been out of the office today to discuss further testing of the in- place grout. However, I believe coring is most likely the only option. I would run the results by the structural as well to see if the lower strength is acceptable for his design. I will let you know once I get more information. Also, in regards to steel inspections, I spoke with our steel inspector and he informed me that there are some outstanding discrepancies that he has informed the onsite Superintendent about and is waiting on a reply. He will be sending all of his dailies to me tomorrow morning and I will pass them along (that might help speed -up the process). iri ally, addressing the concrete cylinder breaks, you should have a total of 20 sets for results. I also just review sets 23 which included some exterior concrete that you should receive shortly. There are a couple sets as well that are v t ting for 7 day breaks that are associated with the existing garage. If you are missing any results let me know and I can resend them. Thanks, Sarah Mattes Staff Engineer Braun Intertec Corporation 1826 Buerkle Road Saint Paul, MN 55110 (ph) 651.487.7090 (cell) 612.685.5304 (fax) 651.487.1812 From: Scan MP - 254 [mailto:scan braunintertec.coml Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:20 PM To: Mattes, Sarah Subject: Oak Park Heights End of Forwarded Message 1 • Date: 06 Oct 20009 Project: Oak Park Heights City Hall Job No.: 108066 Subject: Site visit of 05 Oct 09 By: Ronn A. Winkler, P.E. Ronn Winkler of Winkler Structural Engineers (WSE) visited the site to observe the work in progress. Also present at the site as Glen Schlichte of Jorgenson Construction. The exterior block walls are complete and the brick veneer is in progress. The structural steel is in place but has not yet been detailed. Roof joist erection is nearly complete with perimeter deck angles and the roof over the council chambers in progress. The lower level sand cushion for the slab on grade is in place and forms and wire mesh read for placing the east portion of the slab. With the exception of those items mentioned below, the work appears to conform to the design intent of the contract documents, Item 1: Refer to the beam to column connections at the upper of ends of sloped beams at columns B2, B4, H2 and H4. The bolts are in place but have not yet been torqued. It • appears that the beam clip angles were installed on the beam at a slightly different angle than required because there is a gap between the angles and the columns that is not uniform. Action 1: We do not want to bend the columns when these bolts are tightened. WSE recommends that shim lates be used to prevent bending the columns when the bolts p p 9 are tightened. Item 2: There is a crack in the 8" block wall on grid 1 just west of grid C. Action 2. Schlichte, Winkler and the masonry foreman review and discussed the crack. We agreed that the crack is not due to failure of the wall to resist normal toads and we speculate that the wall may have been impacted by something during steel erection. It is WSE's opinion that this crack is not a cause for concern but, as a precaution, Schlichte will photograph the crack and mark the lower end of the crack so that it can be monitored. WSE recommends that Schlichte report the status of the crack in two to three weeks. Item 3. The anchor bolts for the octagon columns that bear on piers at the main floor elevation are %" diameter. 3" diameter was indicated on the structural drawings and the shop drawings. WINKLER STRUCTURAL. ENGINEERS. INC. Fax: (952)941 9546 Ph: (952) 941 -4825 10300 winter Place Eden Prairie Minnesota 55347 • October 8, 2009 Page 2 Action 3. No action required. The'" diameter bolts are adequate. if you have any questions regarding this memo. Please call WSE. File: 108066 Email: Randy Engle Glen Schlichte • • • • ds CCU/ At Date: 28 Aug 2009 Project: Oak Park Heights E � � Job No.: 108066 Subject: Site Visit of 28 Aug 09 By: Ronn A. Winkler, P.E. Ronn Winkler of Winkler Structural Engineers (WSE) visited the site on 28 Aug 09 to observe the work in progress. Also present at the site was Glen Schlichte of Jorgenson Construction. The exterior lower level concrete walls are in place to plank bearing elevation. The main level precast plank is in place with the exception of two pieces. Block for the elevator shaft is in progress and has been laid up to approximately elevation 108' -0 ". No other block above elevation 100' -0n has been laid. Steel beams for the main level are in place. Steel columns above the main level are 90% complete and one steel roof ridge beam is in place. Excavation and installation of the elevator drain line and sump were in progress. With the exception of these items listed below the work appears to conform to the design intent of the contract documents. Item 1: The fix for the missing embed plate on the concrete pier at grid E8 is satisfactory. Action 1: None required. Item 2: The fix for column H4 that was shipped too short is satisfactory. Action 2: None required. Item 3: There is some honeycombing in the concrete of the concrete piers for the octagon columns. It is minor and not cause for concern. Action 3: None required. Item 4: At plank lap conditions, the gap between the top of the basement walls and the bottom of the plank due to plank camber has not yet been grouted. lit iNKLER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, tNC. Fax: (952) 941 -9546 Ph: (952) 941 -4825 10300 Winter Place Eden Prairie Minnesota 55347 August 31, 2009 Page 2 1 Action 4: Schlichte indicated that the gaps would be grouted as part of the block work. Item 4: Acceptable. Item 5: Winkler has received no special inspection reports to date. Winkler reviewed the filed copies of the special inspections in the job trailer. Action 5: WSE recommends that the Testing Agency be directed to copy WSE and all other required parties directly. If you have any questions about his memo, please do not hesitate to call. File: 108066 Email to: Randy Engel, Glen Schtichte •