320.253 appendix scsu... · 320.253.9940 320.253.3054 braunintertec.com 3900 roosevelt road suite...

320.253.9940

320.253.3054

braunintertec.com

3900 Roosevelt Road

Suite 113

Saint Cloud, MN 56301

Phone:

Fax:

Web:

Braun Intertec Corporation

Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957

AA

/EO

E

March 5, 2012 Project SC-11-06650A Mr. John Frischmann St. Cloud State University 401 4th Avenue South St. Cloud, MN 56301 Re: Column Reinforcing Investigation Eastman Hall St. Cloud State University St. Cloud, Minnesota Dear Mr. Frischmann: This letter provides a summary of the column reinforcement observations we recently conducted. Our testing was conducted on the columns as requested by Steve Clark, project structural engineer with Ericksen Roed & Associates. Our services were provided in accordance with our proposal to Mr. John Frischmann of St. Cloud State University on December 21, 2011, and Purchase Order 136751 issued on January 30, 2012.

Background Mr. Clark requested investigation of the basement and first floor levels of the following: Columns 8 or 10, columns 12 or 14, column 18 and column 51. The column numbers are as noted on the 1929 building plans prepared by C.H. Johnson – Architect.

Results On February 10, 2012, Braun Intertec completed Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and X-Ray (Radiography) to estimate the size and spacing of the reinforcing steel inside the columns. The results in this report are estimates based on past experience using both nondestructive methods and an understanding of the limitations of these methods when used for locating reinforcing steel. The GPR was used to estimate the number and spacing of the horizontal and vertical bars. X-Rays were used to determine approximate size and confirm apparent spacing noted from the GPR. We chose to investigate Columns 10, 14, 18 and 51. Table 1. Column 10

Column 10 Basement

Outside Dimensions (inches) 14 by 14

Number of Vertical Bars 6

Spacing of Vertical Bars Not able to determine due to the circular configuration

St. Cloud State University Project SC-11-06650A March 5, 2012 Page 2

Vertical Bar Diameter (inches) 0.75

Horizontal Bar Size (inches) 0.25

Horizontal Bar Spacing Heli-coiled at 2 inches

Column 10 First Floor







Table 2. Column 14

Column 14 Basement















Table 3. Column 18

Column 18 Basement



Apparent Spacing of Vertical Bars 3




Note – A 6-inch by 6-inch area of concrete was deteriorated from this column, exposing the reinforcement. The vertical and horizontal bar diameter and spacing was physically measured in this area. GPR was used to determine the number of vertical bars.


Outside Dimensions (inches) 21 1/2 by 21 1/2



Vertical Bar Diameter (inches) Not able to determine

Horizontal Bar Size (inches) Not able to determine


X-Ray was not able to be used on this column because of its size. The Iridium 192 source we used is not able to penetrate the column thickness.

Table 4. Column 51

Column 51 Basement









Column 51 on the first floor was inaccessible due to the sheet rock walls on each side of the column. An X-Ray was attempted, but no useable information was obtainable due to the amount of space between the walls and the column.

Remarks We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services, if you have any questions or need additional information or testing, please call Steve Thayer at 320.202.7225. Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION

Steve A. Thayer, PE Associate Principal/Senior Engineer c: Stephen Clark, PE; Ericksen Roed & Associates, Inc. (email) Jason Nordling, AIA; BWBR (email) 06650A letter

320.253.9940320.253.3054braunintertec.com

3900 Roosevelt RoadSuite 113Saint Cloud, MN 56301

Phone:Fax:Web:

Braun Intertec Corporation

Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957

AA

/EO

E

March 5, 2012, Project SC-11-06650

John Frischmann, AIA, LEEDSt. Cloud State University720 4th Avenue South St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498

Re: Geotechnical EvaluationEastman Hall RenovationSt. Cloud State UniversitySt. Cloud, Minnesota

Dear Mr. Frischmann:

We are pleased to present this Geotechnical Evaluation Report for the renovation of Eastman Hall. A summary of our results and recommendations is presented below. More detailed information and recommendations follow the Table of Contents.

Summary of Test Results

We completed one penetration test boring near the southwest corner of the building. The boring encountered about 10 feet of fill underlain by poorly graded sand to a depth of about 24 feet. Lean clay and silty clay were encountered to a depth of about 30 feet. Silty sand was encountered below the clay. Penetration resistances indicated the sands were very loose to medium dense and the clays were rather stiff to stiff. Groundwater was not observed in the boring.

We completed two hand auger borings and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests below the basement floor. The borings encountered naturally deposited sand. The DCP indicated the sand ranged from loose to medium dense. Groundwater was not observed in the borings.

We completed two standard Proctor tests and direct shear tests on samples collected from the hand auger borings. The tests indicated the sands have a friction angle of 36 degrees.

Summary of Analyses

Based on our testing, field observations, review of the existing plans, and site observations, we have determined the ultimate bearing capacity of the soils below several columns within the existing building. The columns are numbered according to the 1929 drawings from CH Johnson – Architect. Following is a summary of our results:

Column 49, ultimate bearing capacity of 8,700 pounds per square foot (psf). Column 50, ultimate bearing capacity of 12,000 psf. Column 23, ultimate bearing capacity of 13,700 psf. Column 12, ultimate bearing capacity of 13,500 psf.

Table of Contents

Description Page

A. Introduction......................................................................................................................................1A.1. Project Description..............................................................................................................1A.2. Purpose................................................................................................................................1A.3. Background Information and Reference Documents..........................................................1A.4. Scope of Services.................................................................................................................2A.5. Locations and Elevations .....................................................................................................2

B. Results ..............................................................................................................................................3B.1. Exploration Logs ..................................................................................................................3

B.1.a. Log of Boring Sheets...............................................................................................3B.1.b. Geologic Origins .....................................................................................................3

B.2. Geologic Profile ...................................................................................................................3B.2.a. Geologic Materials .................................................................................................3B.2.b. Groundwater ..........................................................................................................4

B.3. Laboratory Test Results.......................................................................................................4C. Analyses and Recommendations .....................................................................................................4

C.1. Design Details ......................................................................................................................4C.2. Analyses...............................................................................................................................5

C.2.a. Bearing Capacity.....................................................................................................5C.2.b. Settlement..............................................................................................................5

C.3. Discussion............................................................................................................................5C.4. Additional Consultation.......................................................................................................6

D. Procedures........................................................................................................................................6D.1. Penetration Test Boring ......................................................................................................6D.2. Hand Auger Borings.............................................................................................................7D.3. Material Classification and Testing .....................................................................................7

D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification............................................................................7D.3.b. Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................7

D.4. Groundwater Measurements..............................................................................................7E. Qualifications....................................................................................................................................7

E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions....................................................................................7E.1.a. Material Strata .......................................................................................................7E.1.b. Groundwater Levels ...............................................................................................8

E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility............................................................................8E.2.a. Plan Review ............................................................................................................8E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing .................................................................8

E.3. Use of Report.......................................................................................................................8E.4. Standard of Care..................................................................................................................9

Table of Contents (continued)

Description Page

AppendixBoring Location SketchMoisture-Density Relationship (P-01 and P-02)Direct Shear Test (Boring Col. 49 and Boring Col. 50)Descriptive Terminology Log of Boring Sheets ST-1, H-2 and H-3

A. Introduction

A.1. Project Description

This Geotechnical Evaluation Report addresses the renovation of Eastman Hall on the St. Cloud State University campus. The project consists of adding a new floor level within the existing gymnasium area. If the structure is capable, the floor will be supported on the existing columns and footings.

A.2. Purpose

The purpose of our evaluation is to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at selected exploration locations and evaluate their impact on the design of the renovation project.

A.3. Background Information and Reference Documents

To facilitate our evaluation, we were provided with partial copies of the following plans:

Foundation and Basement Plan

First Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

Third Floor Plan

Section C-C Plan

Section and Elevation Plan

The above plans were prepared by CH Johnston – Architect. The date prepared, September 1929, was indicated on only the Section C-C Plan.

We were also provided with the Basement Floor Plan, Slab Drainage, prepared by Legend Technical Services Inc. The date prepared was not indicated.

St. Cloud State UniversityProject SC-11-06650AMarch 5, 2012Page 2

A.4. Scope of Services

Our scope of services for this project was originally submitted as a Proposal to Mr. John Frischmann of St. Cloud State University. We received Purchase Order 136345, as authorization to proceed from SCSU on October 28, 2011. Tasks performed in accordance with our authorized scope of services included:

Staking the boring location and coordinating the locating of underground utilities near the boring.

Performing one penetration test boring to a depth of 30 feet.

Performing two hand auger borings, extended below the basement slab, to depths of 5 to 10 feet.

Performing Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing on the soils in the hand auger borings.

Obtaining bulk samples of the geologic materials encountered in the hand auger borings.

Performing laboratory Proctor and Direct Shear tests on the bulk samples.

Preparing this report containing a sketch, exploration logs, a summary of the geologic materials encountered, results of laboratory tests, and results of bearing capacity and settlement analyses.

A.5. Locations and Elevations

We selected the penetration test and hand auger boring locations. The approximate locations are shown on the sketch in the appendix of this report. The ground elevation at Boring ST-1 was referenced to the first floor of the building. The plans indicate the elevation of this reference is 96.5.


B. Results

B.1. Exploration Logs

B.1.a. Log of Boring SheetsLog of Boring sheets for our penetration test and hand auger borings are included in the Appendix. The logs identify and describe the soils encountered, penetration resistance tests, DCP tests, laboratory tests, and groundwater measurements.

Strata boundaries were inferred from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings. Because sampling was not performed continuously, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may also occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions.

B.1.b. Geologic OriginsGeologic origins assigned to the materials shown on the logs and referenced within this report were based on visual classification of the penetration test samples, penetration resistance testing performed for the project, laboratory test results and available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the site and surrounding area in the past.

B.2. Geologic Profile

B.2.a. Geologic MaterialsWe completed one penetration test boring near the southwest corner of the building. The boring encountered about 10 feet of fill underlain by poorly graded sand to a depth of about 24 feet. Lean clay and silty clay were encountered to a depth of about 30 feet. Silty sand was encountered below the clay. Penetration resistances indicated the sands were very loose to medium dense and the clays were rather stiff to stiff.

We completed two hand auger borings and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests below the basement floor. The borings encountered naturally deposited sand. The DCP indicated the sand ranged from loose to medium dense.


B.2.b. GroundwaterGroundwater was not observed as our borings were advanced. Based on the moisture contents of the geologic materials encountered, it appears that groundwater was below the depths explored.

Seasonal and annual fluctuations of groundwater, however, should be anticipated.

B.3. Laboratory Test Results

Standard Proctor and direct shear tests were conducted on samples from the cuttings of the hand auger borings. The tests were conducted to help estimate the friction angle of the soil. The test results are provided in the appendix of this report.

C. Analyses and Recommendations

C.1. Design Details

Eastman Hall was constructed in about 1929. The building is a three-story structure with a full-depth basement. The second floor has a gymnasium area that extends through the third floor, to the roof level. The first and second floors of the building are structural concrete, supported by concrete columns and spread footings. The third floor and roof are supported on steel columns.

SCSU is considering remodeling Eastman Hall and reconfiguring the building for use other than gymnasium area. The current plan is to construct a new third floor within the current gym area and support the floor on the existing columns. Mr. Stephen Clark, Ericksen Roed & Associates, indicated representative bearing pressures on the column footings will increase from about 6,300 pounds per square foot (psf) to 7,500 psf.

We have attempted to describe our understanding of the proposed construction to the extent it was reported to us by others. Depending on the extent of available information, assumptions may have been made based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the project details, we should be notified. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations.


C.2. Analyses

C.2.a. Bearing CapacityBased on the laboratory tests, soil borings, foundation plan and site observations, we have determined the ultimate soil bearing capacities for several of the existing column pads. The bearing capacities are summarized in the table below.

Column PadFooting Size

(inches)Embedment Depth

(feet)Ultimate Bearing

Capacity (psf)*

49 53 x 53 0 8,700

50 47 x 47 0.9 12,000

23 85 x 91 0 13,700

12 54 x 54 1 13,500

*Ultimate bearing capacity does not include a factor of safety.

C.2.b. SettlementBased on an increase in load of about 20 percent, we anticipate settlement from the new load will be less than 1/2 inch.

C.3. Discussion

We have completed bearing capacity and settlement analysis for footings located near our hand auger borings. The analysis was based on both the existing condition of the footings under a load of 6,300 psf and the planned increase in loading to 7,500 psf. Our analysis considered the soil profile encountered in the hand auger borings and penetration test boring; i.e., loose sands to 4 or 5 feet below the footings, then medium dense to dense sands. The footing size and embedment depth of the existing footings was also a significant input to the analysis.

We have determined that several of the existing footings would have settled about 2/3- to 3/4-inch under the current bearing pressure of 6,300. More importantly, the factors of safety with regard to bearing capacity failure were below 3 for the footings we analyzed. In some cases, the factor of safety was less than 2 1/2, and in one case, less than 2. Increasing the bearing pressure on the footings to 7,500 would, of course, reduce the safety factors further.


For some structures, a safety factor of 2 for footings founded on sand would be adequate. However, considering the planned usage of the renovated building and common practice for assigning factors of safety for bearing capacity failure, it is our opinion that the minimum factor of safety should be 3.

It is difficult to provide a general recommended solution to the bearing capacity issue. The existing footings differ in size, elevation and embedment. A footing embedded well into the sands beneath the floor slab would have a significantly higher bearing capacity than an identical footing bearing at or just below the floor level. Potential options for increasing the safety factor include increasing the bearing capacity of sands (through grouting), increasing the footing sizes, or supporting the footings on deeper soil stratums with installation of helical piles or micropiles below the existing footings.

C.4. Additional Consultation

Due to the unique dimensions, elevations, embedment, loads, etc., we are unable to provide a generalized foundation recommendation. Depending on the individual footing characteristics, some footings may actually be capable of supporting the 20 percent increase in bearing pressure. Adjacent footings may not be capable without improvements of the soils or modifications to the footing.

We recommend additional consultation with the structural engineer. Further analysis and testing for individual footings may be necessary. Based on our current information, it appears chemical grouting the sands below the footings may be the more viable approach toward improving the bearing capacity characteristics of the sands just below the bottom of the foundation levels. However, further analysis may result in several improvement options tailored to the various footing locations.

D. Procedures

D.1. Penetration Test Boring

The penetration test boring was drilled with a truck-mounted core and auger drill equipped with hollow-stem auger. The boring was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586. Penetration test samples were taken at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals. Actual sample intervals and corresponding depths are shown on the boring log.


D.2. Hand Auger Borings

The hand auger borings were drilled with a 2 1/2-inch diameter orchard barrel hand auger. The borings were advanced in 6-inch increments. The auger was then withdrawn from the hole to obtain the cuttings. A dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) was then used to evaluate the density of the soils in the bottoms of the holes. The DCP consists of driving a 1 3/16-inch diameter tip with a 10-pound hammer falling 24 inches. The blows to drive the tip 6 inches are counted and recorded.

D.3. Material Classification and Testing

D.3.a. Visual and Manual ClassificationThe geologic materials encountered were visually and manually classified in accordance with ASTM Standard Practice D 2488. A chart explaining the classification system is attached. Samples were sealed in jars or bags and returned to our facility for review and storage.

D.3.b. Laboratory TestingThe results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples are noted on or follow the appropriate attached exploration logs. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM or AASHTO procedures.

D.4. Groundwater Measurements

The drillers checked for groundwater as the penetration test boring and hand auger borings were advanced, and again after auger withdrawal. The boreholes were then backfilled as noted on the boring logs.

E. Qualifications

E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions

E.1.a. Material StrataOur evaluation, analyses and recommendations were developed from a limited amount of site and subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from exploration locations continuously with depth, and therefore strata boundaries and thicknesses must be


inferred to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and can be expected to vary in depth, elevation and thickness away from the exploration locations.

Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until additional exploration work is completed, or construction commences. If any such variations are revealed, our recommendations should be re-evaluated. Such variations could increase construction costs, and a contingency should be provided to accommodate them.

E.1.b. Groundwater LevelsGroundwater measurements were made under the conditions reported herein and shown on the exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. It should be noted that the observation period was relatively short, and groundwater can be expected to fluctuate in response to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal and annual factors.

E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility

E.2.a. Plan ReviewThis report is based on a limited amount of information, and a number of assumptions were necessary to help us develop our recommendations. It is recommended that our firm review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications, and evaluate whether the design is as expected, if any design changes have affected the validity of our recommendations, and if our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the designs and specifications.

E.2.b. Construction Observations and TestingIt is recommended that we be retained to perform observations and tests during construction. This will allow correlation of the subsurface conditions encountered during construction with those encountered by the borings, and provide continuity of professional responsibility.

E.3. Use of Report

This report is for the exclusive use of the parties to which it has been addressed. Without written approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects.


E.4. Standard of Care

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.

Appendix

Test specification:

Project:

Remarks:Client:Project No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

No.200Moist.AASHTOUSCSDepth

% <% >PILLSp.G.

Nat.ClassificationElev/

Moisture-Density RelationshipD

ry d

ensi

ty, p

cf

Water content, %

99

101

103

105

107

109

9 11 13 15 17 19 21

ZAV forSp.G. =2.65

Specific Gravity was assumed.Boring Col. 49, 1'-4'12/19/11

St. Cloud State UniversitySC-11-06650

Poorly Graded Sand, fine-medium grained,brown

1.122.65SP

ASTM D 698-07e1 Method B Standard

Eastman Hall Renovation St. Cloud, MN

ST

Source: Sample No.: P-01

TEST RESULTS

3/8 in.

Optimum moisture = 15.0 %

Maximum dry density = 106.2 pcf

Test specification:

Project:

Remarks:Client:Project No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

No.200Moist.AASHTOUSCSDepth

% <% >PILLSp.G.

Nat.ClassificationElev/

Moisture-Density RelationshipD

ry d

ensi

ty, p

cf

Water content, %

100

102

104

106

108

110

8 10 12 14 16 18 20

ZAV forSp.G. =2.65

Specific Gravity was assumed.Boring Col.50, 1'-4'12/19/11

St. Cloud State UniversitySC-11-06650

Poorly Graded Sand, fine-medium grained,brown

2.442.65SP

ASTM D 698-07e1 Method A Standard

Eastman Hall Renovation St. Cloud, MN

ST

Source: Sample No.: P-02

TEST RESULTS

No.4

Optimum moisture = 12.7 %

Maximum dry density = 107.1 pcf

Client: St. Cloud State Univerity

Project: Eastman Hall Renovation

St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN

Sample Number: Boring Col. 49 Depth: 1-4'

Proj. No.: SC-11-06650 Date Sampled:

Sample Type: Remold

Description: POORLY GRADED SAND(SP)

Specific Gravity= 2.65

Remarks: Direct Shear ASTM D 3080

Figure 1

Sample No.

Water Content, %

Dry Density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void Ratio

Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Water Content, %

Dry Density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void Ratio

Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Normal Stress, tsf

Fail. Stress, tsf

Strain, %

Ult. Stress, tsf

Strain, %

Strain rate, %/min.

Initi

alA

t T

est

She

ar S

tres

s, t

sf

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1

2

3

Ver

tical

Def

orm

atio

n, in

.

0.045

0.03

0.015

0

-0.015

-0.03

-0.045

Strain, %

0 3.5 7 10.5 14

Dilation

Consol.

1

23

Ult.

Str

ess,

tsf

Fai

l. S

tres

s, t

sf

0

1

2

3

Normal Stress, tsf

0 1 2 3

C, tsf

, deg

Tan()

Fail. Ult.

0.104

35.8

0.72

0.028

31.0

0.60

1

15.6

101.0

64.8

0.6385

2.41

1.00

23.8

101.2

99.1

0.6352

2.41

1.000.2580.276

1.70.181

12.41.00

2

15.6

101.5

65.7

0.6292

2.41

1.00

23.2

102.3

99.3

0.6178

2.41

0.991.0110.859

1.90.638

12.21.00

3

15.6

100.6

64.2

0.6444

2.41

1.00

23.2

102.5

99.8

0.6148

2.41

0.981.9261.481

2.21.182

12.11.00

Client: St. Cloud State Univerity

Project: Eastman Hall Renovation

St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN

Sample Number: Boring Col. 50 Depth: 1-4'

Proj. No.: SC-11-06650 Date Sampled:

Sample Type: Thinwall

Description: POORLY GRADED SAND(SP)

Specific Gravity= 2.65

Remarks: Direct Shear ASTM D 3080

Figure 2

Sample No.

Water Content, %

Dry Density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void Ratio

Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Water Content, %

Dry Density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void Ratio

Diameter, in.

Height, in.

Normal Stress, tsf

Fail. Stress, tsf

Strain, %

Ult. Stress, tsf

Strain, %

Strain rate, %/min.

Initi

alA

t T

est

She

ar S

tres

s, t

sf

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1

2

3

Ver

tical

Def

orm

atio

n, in

.

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06

Strain, %

0 3.5 7 10.5 14

Dilation

Consol.

1

2

3

Ult.

Str

ess,

tsf

Fai

l. S

tres

s, t

sf

0

1

2

3

Normal Stress, tsf

0 1 2 3

C, tsf

, deg

Tan()

Fail. Ult.

0.092

37.4

0.76

0.006

32.7

0.64

1

13.0

103.3

57.3

0.6015

2.41

1.00

22.6

103.3

99.7

0.6013

2.41

1.000.2580.284

1.50.173

11.91.00

2

13.0

102.6

56.2

0.6130

2.41

1.00

22.9

102.8

99.8

0.6086

2.41

1.001.0110.875

2.50.654

12.51.00

3

13.1

102.1

56.0

0.6207

2.41

1.00

22.7

103.2

99.7

0.6036

2.41

0.991.9261.560

3.31.245

12.41.00

Descriptive Terminology of SoilStandard D 2487 - 00Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes(Unified Soil Classification System)

Rev. 7/07

DD Dry density, pcfWD Wet density, pcfMC Natural moisture content, %LL Liqiuid limit, %PL Plastic limit, %PI Plasticity index, %P200 % passing 200 sieve

OC Organic content, %S Percent of saturation, %SG Specific gravityC Cohesion, psf

Angle of internal frictionqu Unconfined compressive strength, psfqp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf

Liquid Limit (LL)

Laboratory Tests

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex (

PI)

Drilling Notes

Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3 1/4” or 6 1/4”ID hollow-stem augers unless noted otherwise, Jetting water was usedto clean out auger prior to sampling only where indicated on logs.Standard penetration test borings are designated by the prefix “ST”(Split Tube). All samples were taken with the standard 2” OD split-tubesampler, except where noted.

Power auger borings were advanced by 4” or 6” diameter continuous-flight, solid-stem augers. Soil classifications and strata depths were in-ferred from disturbed samples augered to the surface and are, therefore,somewhat approximate. Power auger borings are designated by theprefix “B.”

Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 1 1/2” or 3 1/4”diameter auger and were limited to the depth from which the auger couldbe manually withdrawn. Hand auger borings are indicated by the prefix“H.”

BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetrationtest, also known as “N” value. The sampler was set 6” into undisturbedsoil below the hollow-stem auger. Driving resistances were then countedfor second and third 6” increments and added to get BPF. Where theydiffered significantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/12 for thesecond and third 6” increments, respectively.

WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammerand rods alone; driving not required.

WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rodsalone; hammer weight and driving not required.

TW indicates thin-walled (undisturbed) tube sample.

Note: All tests were run in general accordance with applicable ASTMstandards.

Particle Size Identification

Boulders ............................... over 12”Cobbles ............................... 3” to 12”Gravel

Coarse ............................ 3/4” to 3”Fine ................................. No. 4 to 3/4”

SandCoarse ............................ No. 4 to No. 10Medium ........................... No. 10 to No. 40Fine ................................. No. 40 to No. 200

Silt ....................................... No. 200, PI 4 or below “A” line

Clay ..................................... No. 200, PI 4 and on or above “A” line

Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils

Very loose ................................ 0 to 4 BPFLoose ....................................... 5 to 10 BPFMedium dense ......................... 11 to 30 BPFDense ...................................... 31 to 50 BPFVery dense ............................... over 50 BPF

Consistency of Cohesive Soils

Very soft ................................... 0 to 1 BPFSoft ....................................... 2 to 3 BPFRather soft ............................... 4 to 5 BPFMedium .................................... 6 to 8 BPFRather stiff ............................... 9 to 12 BPFStiff ....................................... 13 to 16 BPFVery stiff ................................... 17 to 30 BPFHard ....................................... over 30 BPF

a. Based on the material passing the 3-in (75mm) sieve.b. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders or both” to group name.c. C

u = D

60 / D

10 C

c = (D

30)2

D10

x D60

d. If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.e. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

GW-GM well-graded gravel with siltGW-GC well-graded gravel with clayGP-GM poorly graded gravel with siltGP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay

f. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.g. If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.h. If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.i. Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

SW-SM well-graded sand with siltSW-SC well-graded sand with claySP-SM poorly graded sand with siltSP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

j. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.k. If soil contains 10 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel” whichever is predominant.l. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.m. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.n. PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.o. PI 4 or plots below “A” line.p. PI plots on or above “A” line.q. PI plots below “A” line.

Poorly graded sand h

Peat

Well-graded gravel d

PI plots on or above “A” line

PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line j

PI 4 or plots below “A” line j

Fin

e-g

rain

ed

So

ils

50%

or

mor

e pa

ssed

the

No.

200

sie

ve

Co

ars

e-g

rain

ed

So

ils

mor

e th

an 5

0% r

etai

ned

onN

o. 2

00 s

ieve

Soils Classification

GravelsMore than 50% of

coarse fractionretained onNo. 4 sieve

Sands50% or more ofcoarse fraction

passesNo. 4 sieve

Silts and ClaysLiquid limit

less than 50

Highly Organic Soils

Silts and claysLiquid limit50 or more

Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor

GroupSymbol

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols andGroup Names Using Laboratory Tests a

Group Name b

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

CL

ML

OLOL

SC

Poorly graded gravel d

Silty gravel d f g

Clean Gravels5% or less fines e

Gravels with FinesMore than 12% fines e

Clean Sands5% or less fines i

Sands with FinesMore than 12% i

Fines classify as ML or MH

Fines classify as CL or CH Clayey gravel d f g

Well-graded sand h

Fines classify as CL or CH

Fines classify as ML or MH Silty sand f g h

Clayey sand f g h

Inorganic

Organic Liquid limit - oven dried

Liquid limit - not dried0.75

Inorganic

Organic

PI plots below “A” line

Lean clay k l m

Liquid limit - oven dried

Liquid limit - not dried0.75

CH

MH

OHOH

Fat clay k l m

Elastic silt k l m

Organic clay k l m n

Organic silt k l m o

Organic clay k l m p

Organic silt k l m q

Cu 6 and 1 C

c 3 C

PT

Cu 4 and 1 C

c 3 C

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 C

Cu 6 and/or 1 C

C 3 C

0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

7

“U” L

ine

“A” L

ine

10

20

30

40

50

60

4 0

ML or OL

MH or OHCL or

OL

CH or

OH

CL - ML

Silt k l m

7

5

6

2

11

15

20

23

24

13

10

14

BITAGGFILL

SP

CL

CL-ML

SM

3 1/2 inches Bituminous4 inches Aggregate BasePoorly Graded Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Silt,trace of gravel, brown, moist.

POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,with GRAVEL, brown, moist, very loose to mediumdense.

(Outwash)

LEAN CLAY with Sand, brown, moist, stiff.(Alluvium)

SILTY CLAY, brown, moist, rather stiff.(Alluvium)

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist,medium dense.

(Glacial Till)End of Boring

Groundwater was not observed while drilling.

Groundwater was not observed with 29 1/2 feet ofhollow-stem auger in the ground.

Groundwater was not observed to a cave-in depth of20 feet immediately after withdrawl of the auger.

Boring then backfilled.

Qp = 2

94.293.9

84.5

70.5

67.5

64.5

63.5

0.30.6

10.0

24.0

27.0

30.0

31.0

LOCATION: 25' North and 10' West of the SWcorner of Eastman Hall

ST-1

METHOD:

BORING:

SCALE:DRILLER:

BPF Tests or NotesWL

Braun Intertec Corporation ST-1 page 1 of 1

3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerM. Nolden 12/6/11 1" = 5'DATE:

L O G O F B O R I N G(S

ee D

escr

iptiv

e T

erm

inol

ogy

shee

t for

exp

lana

tion

of a

bbre

viat

ions

)

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

Description of Materials

SC-11-06650

LOG

OF

BORI

NG

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

STCL

OU

D\2

011\

0665

0.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

3/5

/12

10:5

3

Braun Project SC-11-06650Geotechnical EvaluationEastman Hall RenovationSt. Cloud State UniversitySt. Cloud, Minnesota

Symbol

Elev.feet94.5

Depthfeet

0.0

1*12655

1022242620242530284054

CONCSP

4" Concrete.POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,with Gravel, brown, moist.

(Glacial Outwash)

END OF HAND AUGER.

*blows for 6" of drive from aDCP.

85.0

76.8

0.3

8.5

LOCATION: Column 49.

H-2

METHOD:

BORING:

SCALE:DRILLER:


Braun Intertec Corporation H-2 page 1 of 1

Hand AugerS. Thayer 1" = 4'DATE:


ee D

escr

iptiv

e T

erm

inol

ogy

shee

t for

exp

lana

tion

of a

bbre

viat

ions

)



SC-11-06650

LOG

OF

BORI

NG

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

STCL

OU

D\2

011\

0665

0.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

3/5

/12

11:1

5


Symbol

Elev.feet85.3

Depthfeet

0.0

4*8

11211724202776727976

CONCSP

4" Concrete Slab.POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,with Gravel, brown, moist.

(Glacial Outwash)

END OF HAND AUGER.

*blows for 6" of drive from aDCP.

85.0

78.3

0.3

7.0

LOCATION: Column 50.

H-3

METHOD:

BORING:

SCALE:DRILLER:


Braun Intertec Corporation H-3 page 1 of 1

Hand AugerS. Thayer 1" = 4'DATE:


ee D

escr

iptiv

e T

erm

inol

ogy

shee

t for

exp

lana

tion

of a

bbre

viat

ions

)



SC-11-06650

LOG

OF

BORI

NG

N:\

GIN

T\PR

OJE

CTS\

STCL

OU

D\2

011\

0665

0.G

PJ B

RAU

N_V

8_CU

RREN

T.G

DT

3/5

/12

11:1

5


Symbol

Elev.feet85.3

Depthfeet

0.0

FFE Estimation for Eastman

Area Cost

1.1 Commons Areas $209,200

1.2 Pharmacy $41,100

1.3 Information Technology $10,000

1.4 Building Support $12,545

Area Subtotal $272,845

2.1 Patient Reception/Business Office/Administration $50,920

2.2 Medical Records $1,600

2.3 Student Health Services $331,725

2.4 Laboratory $64,804

2.5 Radiology $275,100


3.1 Counseling

Area Subtotal

4.1 Health Education/U Choose Student Services $108,250


5.1 Human Performance Lab $413,850


TOTAL $1,519,094

1.1 Common Areas

Room/Area Unit NSF Total NSF Est Cost/Unit Total Cost

Check In/Reception 4 75 300 $1,000.00 $4,000.00

Self Check-in Kiosk 7 20 140 $2,500.00 $17,500.00

Multipurpose Room 1 650 650 $15,000.00 $15,000.00

Commons Area/Intro Waiting Area 1 200 200 $11,300.00 $11,300.00

Public Restrooms 2 200 400 $100.00 $200.00

Lactation Room 1 75 75 $4,150.00 $4,150.00

Locker/Shower Rooms 2 350 700 $0.00

Triage Room 0 100 0 $5,260.00 $0.00

Treatment Room 3 120 360 $2,350.00 $7,050.00

Gathering Space/*Café/Retail - Allowance 1 1500 1500 $100,000.00 $100,000.00

Exterior Patio - Allowance 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00

*Not including kitchen equipment

TOTAL FOR AREA $209,200.00

1.2 Pharmacy


Waiting 1 180 180 $3,500.00 $3,500.00

OTC Retail Sales 1 160 160 $1,000.00 $1,000.00

Presscription Pick-up/Drop-off 4 60 240 $1,750.00 $7,000.00

Dispensing/Computer Work Stations 4 60 240 $4,000.00 $16,000.00

Drug Storage 1 200 200 $6,000.00 $6,000.00

Pharmacist Office 1 90 90 $5,000.00 $5,000.00

Consultation Room 1 90 90 $2,000.00 $2,000.00

Record Storage 1 180 180 $600.00 $600.00


1.3 Info Tech


IT Office 1 80 80 $5,500.00 $5,500.00

Data Closets 3 80 240 $1,500.00 $4,500.00


1.4 Bldg Support*


Storage 1 80 80 $0.00

Mechanical 1 3150 3150 $0.00

Electrial 1 500 500 $0.00

Data 1 150 150 $0.00

Clean Holding 1 150 150 $1,025.00 $1,025.00

Soiled Holding 1 150 150 $565.00 $565.00

Receiving 1 300 300 $7,730.00 $7,730.00

Custodial 1 120 120 $3,225.00 $3,225.00

Trash 1 100 100 $0.00

Recycling 1 100 100 $0.00

*Need major building maintenance equipment (floor scrubbers, waxer, vacuums, etc)


2.1 Reception Business Admin


SHS Director Office 1 180 180 $8,000.00 $8,000.00

SHS Associate Director Office 1 120 120 $8,000.00 $8,000.00

SHS Administrative Assistant 1 100 100 $5,500.00 $5,500.00

Work Room 1 120 120 $2,420.00 $2,420.00

Cashier 3 60 180 $4,000.00 $12,000.00

Insurance Billing/Coder 2 120 240 $5,000.00 $10,000.00

Insurance Advocate 1 120 120 $5,000.00 $5,000.00


2.2 Medical Records


Inactive Storage 1 50 50 $600.00 $600.00

Supply Storage 1 100 100 $1,000.00 $1,000.00


2.3 Health Services


Waiting Room 1 450 450 $15,000.00 $15,000.00

Appointment Desk 2 60 120 $2,760.00 $5,520.00

Conference Room 1 300 300 $4,700.00 $4,700.00

MD Office 1 150 150 $5,500.00 $5,500.00

NP Office 3 180 540 $5,500.00 $16,500.00

PA Office 2 120 240 $5,500.00 $11,000.00

Medical Director's Office 1 150 150 $8,000.00 $8,000.00

Nursing Manager 1 90 90 $8,000.00 $8,000.00

Referrals/Manager's Office 1 150 150 $5,500.00 $5,500.00

Work Room 1 120 120 $2,500.00 $2,500.00

Exam Rooms 18 110 1980 $7,760.00 $139,680.00

Consult Rooms 4 110 440 $5,260.00 $21,040.00

Nursing Station 4 150 600 $3,000.00 $12,000.00

Triage Nurse 2 110 220 $1,750.00 $3,500.00

Observation 1 110 110 $10,000.00 $10,000.00

Procedure Room 1 200 200 $14,220.00 $14,220.00

Injection Room 1 110 110 $3,000.00 $3,000.00

Supply Storage 1 150 150 $1,205.00 $1,205.00

Clean Utility 1 150 150 $1,025.00 $1,025.00

Soiled Holding 1 100 100 $3,065.00 $3,065.00

Patient Toilets 4 65 260 $100.00 $400.00

Staff Break Room 1 500 500 $7,145.00 $7,145.00

Building Services* 1 40 40 $33,225.00 $33,225.00


*Includes emergency call system

2.4 Lab


Lab Subwait 1 150 150 $2,000.00 $2,000.00

Reception 1 60 60 $250.00 $250.00

Phlebotomy Work Space 1 120 120 $320.00 $320.00

Phlebotomy Stations 2 110 220 $520.00 $1,040.00

Patient Toilet 1 65 65 $100.00 $100.00

Staff Toilet 1 65 65 $100.00 $100.00

Laboratory 1 400 400 $55,744.00 $55,744.00

Office 1 90 90 $4,750.00 $4,750.00

Storage 1 120 120 $500.00 $500.00


2.5 Radiology


Subwait 1 120 120 $0.00

Radiography Exam Room 1 450 450 $275,000.00 $275,000.00

Dressing Room 1 75 75 $0.00

Toilet 1 65 65 $100.00 $100.00

Technician Work Room 1 100 100 $0.00

Control Area 1 100 100 $0.00

Viewing/Consultation 1 75 75 $0.00

Storage 1 100 100 $0.00

Wheelchair Storage 1 25 25 $0.00


4.1 Health Education/U Choose Student Services


Health Educator Office 2 120 240 $8,000.00 $16,000.00

U Choose Administrator Office 1 120 120 $8,000.00 $8,000.00

Coordinator Office 2 100 200 $5,500.00 $11,000.00

Offices 3 100 300 $5,500.00 $16,500.00

Health Promotion Marketing 1 120 120 $5,000.00 $5,000.00

Peer Ed Area 1 350 350 $18,500.00 $18,500.00

Resource Area/Husky Neighbors 1 500 500 $6,900.00 $6,900.00

Storage Space 1 400 400 $1,000.00 $1,000.00

Classroom 1 700 700 $17,100.00 $17,100.00

Graduate Assistant/Student Workspace 1 850 850 $7,850.00 $7,850.00

Staff Toilet 2 65 130 $100.00 $200.00

Student Toilet 2 65 130 $100.00 $200.00


5.1 Human Performance Lab

Room/Area Item Comments Total NSFEst Cost/Unit Total Cost

Conference Room Table 1 $1,500 $1,500

Chairs 12 $200 $2,400

White board 4 $200 $800

Stress Testing Treadmill Trackmaster TMX425 2 $5,000 $10,000

PC EKG Software

See Iworks, Welch Allyn, Cardiosoft, Quinton,

Medgraphics 2 $4,000 $8,000

AED Defibrillator Medtronic LifePak 1 $2,000 $2,000

Biochem Lab

Refridgerator/Freez

er 1 $800 $800

Prep table 2 $150 $300

Chairs 6 $100 $600

Lactate analyzer YSI 1 $15,000 $15,000

Body Composition Dexa Scan

See dexascanners.com (current models are

Lunar (GE), Norland (Siemens), Hologic) 1 $40,000 $40,000

Exam table 2 $500 $1,000

lockers (6) 3 $500 $1,500

Towel dispensers 4 $50 $200

Coat rack 3 $50 $150

Water filter 1 $600 $600

Water pump 1 $300 $300

UWW Tank (cut and weld old tank) 1 $500 $500

mirror 2 $100 $200

Gait Analysis Treadmill AMTI Force-Sensing Tandem Treadmill 1 $145,000 $145,000

Quality digital video

camera Basler or better 2 $750 $1,500

Studio lights and

tripods See B&H 2 $300 $600

24" monitor 1 $300 $300

Power

Cycle Ops with

Power Tap Ergometer 1 $1,500 $1,500

Bike roller Bike roller 1 $200 $200

Anat/Phys Lab Class BioPac Station http://www.biopac.com/ 4 $4,000 $16,000

Misc

Digital

thermometer Model that will work with existing probes 3 $0

USB Data

Acquisition Station Computer, AD, terminal block, software 1 $5,000 $5,000

Tools Drill press Check out Grizzly Co. 1 $800 $800

Table saw 1 $900 $900

Band saw 1 $1,000 $1,000

Combination

sander 1 $800 $800

Metal cutting

bandsaw 1 $900 $900

Mig Welder 1 $1,200 $1,200

Office furniture Desks 12 $300 $3,600

Partitions 12 $100 $1,200

Computer stations 12 $2,500 $30,000

Chairs 16 $200 $3,200

Filing cabinets 16 $100 $1,600

Receptionist center 1 $4,000 $4,000

Central

Printer/Copy 1 $1,500 $1,500

Moving Classroom

Treadmill desks

w/treadmills http://www.lifespanfitness.com/ 24 $2,000 $48,000

Smart classroom 2 $25,000 $50,000

Classroom tables 1st or 3rd floor 16 $200 $3,200

Classroom chairs 30 $200 $6,000

$413,850