NRC Publications Archive Archives des publications du CNRC

Designing a test blasting program for an underground building on Subercaseaux, M. I.; Pernica, G.; Van Bers, M. V.

This publication could be one of several versions: author’s original, accepted manuscript or the publisher’s version. / La version de cette publication peut être l’une des suivantes : la version prépublication de l’auteur, la version acceptée du manuscrit ou la version de l’éditeur.

Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:

APT Bulletin, 30, 2-3, pp. 67-73, 1999

NRC Publications Record / Notice d'Archives des publications de CNRC: https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=76c50329-0633-4722-aed6-412e9e89a249 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=76c50329-0633-4722-aed6-412e9e89a249

Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.

L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.

Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at [email protected]. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.

Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à [email protected]. httHU p://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ircU

Designing a test blasting program for an underground building on

Parliament Hill

NRCC-41532

Subercaseaux, M.I.; Pernica, G.; Van Bers, M.V.

December 1999

A version of this document is published in / Une version de ce document se trouve dans:

APT Bulletin, 30, (2-3), pp. 67-73, 1999

The material in this document is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission. For more information visit http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/C-42

Les renseignements dans ce document sont protégés par la Loi sur le droit d'auteur, par les lois, les politiques et les règlements du Canada et des accords internationaux. Ces dispositions permettent d'identifier la source de l'information et, dans certains cas, d'interdire la copie de documents sans permission écrite. Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements : http://lois.justice.gc.ca/fr/showtdm/cs/C-42

Designing a Test Blasting Program for an Underground Building on Parliament Hill

MARiA INES SUBERCASEAUX, GERRY PERNICA, and MARCUS V. VAN BERS

The need for a service building in Canada's Parliamentary Precinct. requiring removal of rock adjacent to existing structures, prompted the development of a program to characterize the dynamic response of Parliament Hill to blasting.

Fig. 2. A nineteenth-century view of the existing library lIeft! and the old building, which was deS1royed by fire in February 1916. Courtesy of National Archives of Canada.

Introduction mons and Senate), was constructed between 1916 and 1927. It replaced the The Parliament Buildings of Canada original structure, which was destroyed sit on Parliament Hill in . An by fire in February 1916. The Parlia• escarpment that overlooks the Ottawa mentary Library, which adjoins the River, the hill is located in the down• Centre Block, was saved by the iron town core of the city just to the west of doors that still separate the two the northern terminus of the 150-km• buildings (Fig. 2). long Rideau Canal (Fig. 1). When The rebuilt Centre Block was de• Ottawa was designated the capital of signed to respect the stylistic character the United in 1858, the hill of the original High Gothic Revival was purchased from the ordnance de• building. The rebuilt structure is, how• partment for the site of the Parliament ever, an original building, whose plan, Buildings. The buildings were con• structural design, and architectural structed from 1859 to 1868 and called decoration belong to the twentieth East Block, Centre Block, the Parliamen• century. The conceptual clarity of the Fig. 1. Overview of Parliament Hill from Hull, tary Library, and . The exist• building plan has its roots in the Ecole Quebec. Openings In the cliffs are ventilation ing Centre Block, which contains both shafts from the new CBUS building. Photo• des Beaux-Arts in Paris. In the Centre chambers of Parliament (House of Com- graph by Jean-Pierre Jerome Block the architects combined Gothic

67 68 APT BULLETIN

Revival and Beaux-Arts classicism into a about 25,000 m' of horizontally bedded Objectives and Initial Considerations single modern building and created 45 limestone rock, some situated within 3m Controlled bbstl11g was considered the spel'ially designed rooms, each with of the Centre Block foundation wall. only practical method to remove the unique architectural features and era fts• The volume of rock required that blast• majority of the estimated 25,000 m' of manship. lI1g be used, since only a ten-week pe• bedrock from the CBUS site due to the The Senate occupies the east half of riod during the Parliament's summer very restrictive ten-week excavation the building and the House of Com• recess was allotted for the entire excava• window I]uly-August) permitted by the mons the west half. The two sectors are tion. Speaker of the House of Commons. A separated by primary public areas, the In early 1996 the Parliamentary test blast program was initiated to estab• Hall of Honour and Confederation Precinct Directorate (PPD) of Public lish safe blasting criteria and procedures Hall, both situated on the central axis. Works and Government Service Canada for the excavation of CBUS during the These areas lead to the Parliamentary (PWGSC) asked the Heritage Conserva• summer of 1997; ro evaluate the response Library, also located on the central axis tion Program (HCP), an architectural of all heritage structures on Parliament at the north end of the building. Centre and engineering conservation group Hill affected by the CBUS blasts; and to Block has been designated a National within PWGSC, to participate in a test determine attenuation characteristics of Historic Site and Classified, the highest blast program with Golder VME Ltd. blast-induced ground vibrations on designation under the Federal Heritage (GVME), a member of the CBUS con• Parliament Hill. The program was con• Review policy. sultant team, and the National Research ducted during August 1996. After nearly eighty years, space and Council Canada (NRC), a government The followmg preliminary steps were services within Centre Block became research and development organization, undertaken to implement the test blast inadequate for an expanded Parliament. ro characterize the dynamic response of program while respecting the heritage In the late 1980s, a Centre Block Under• Parliament Hill to blasting. The pro• designation of Parliament Hill. These ground Services (CBUS) facility was gram was designed to obtain this vital included proposed to mitigate pressure on service information whilst protecting Parlia• space within the building. Construction ment Hill from the effects of the test • a literature survey ro retrieve informa• of this two-story building at the rear of blasts. tion (expenence and standards) on Centre Block required the removal of blasting adjacent ro heritage structures • discussions with architectural and engineering consultants to ascertain the extent, depth, and location of the .'- excavation • a survey of the buildings with the maintenance and operational staff to establish the overall state and condi· tion of building components and acceptable procedures for monitoring both the interior and exterior of the buildings review of historical and modern documents on the structural and architectural makeup of the various buildings on Parliament Hill and on the condition of the escarpment • tour of the Parliamentary Library and Centre Block with a House of Commons curator to examine the most historically, politically, and architecturally sensitive areas within the Library and along the perimeter ---lCSlJS ｲｏｻＩｬｊ＾ｾｉＱＧＬＧｔ c=J HOARDfNG ｏｌｉｔｾｉｎｾ of the Centre Block adjacent to the C:J OCI"""rrON ｓｦｔＨｾ CBUS site.

Selection of blast sites. Two sites, each ...... __.__...｟ｾｾｾｾｾＭＭｬ about ＸＰｭｾＬ were selected within the Flg.3 Plan shOWing CBUS test-blast locations Courtesy of Golder VME limited. DESIGNING A TEST BLAST PROGRAM 69

CBUS footptint for the test blasts. Site Monitoring Program locations were chosen so that the ｲ･ｾ sponse to blasting of portions of Parlia• The monitoring program was designed ment Hill adjacent to the excavation to minimize the likelihood of blast• could be suitably captured and charac• induced building damage during the test terized (Fig. 3). In addition, each site blast program, to characterize the re• was positioned within the footprint to sponse of the ground, buildings, and ensure that pedestrian paths along the building components and contents on perimeter of the escarpment were not Parliament Hill to technicaUy feasible levels of blasting, and to establish safe obstructed, access to the House of Com• mons loading dock on the north side of blasting levels (velocity criteria) for the Centre Block was maintained, and buildings on Parliament Hill during the emergency vehicles had access to the excavation of bedrock for CBUS. Centre Block building. All statues were removed to sites outside the areas Instrumentation. A comprehensive hoarded for the tesiS, and underground monitoring network was designed, services sustained only minimal disrup• assembled, and installed by GVME and tions. Existing tunnels running from the NRC, comprising about 135 velocity rear of the Centre Block to the escarp• and accelerometer sensors attached at ment were outside the test areas. 55 locations on the grounds and build• ings (Fig. 4). Sensors were mounted on Pre-blast surveys. Two condition the Parliamentary Library and Centre surveys were conducted prior to the test and West Blocks, in a pedestrian tunnel connecting West and Centre Blocks, on blasts. The first, a detailed examination Fig. 4. Sensors installed on the sidewalk near of the Centre Block and Parliamentary the promontory slope, and on entrances the Centre Block building assessed the effects ｡ｩｲｾｩｮｴ｡ｫ･ Library, was performed by GVME. Pre• to several tunnels just below of blasting on the ground. Photograph by Marfa blast condirion of the two buildings was the top of the escarpment. Twenty-four Ines Subercaseaux, established by photographing and video• subsurface sensors were grouted into the taping interior corridors, stairwells, bedrock at eight locations between the two blast sites and the Centre Block and rooms, offices l chambers along the under the watchful gaze of senior ｔｷ･ｮｴｹｾｳ･ｶ･ｮ perimeter of the buildings nearest the Library. cracks, identified politicians and their staff who work blast sites, and exterior masonry walls during the pre-blast survey and consid• on Parliament Hill. and window frames overlooking the ered representative of the crack set, were sites. Walls, floors, ceilings and windows monitored for differential movement Building locations. About one-hundred cracks, and other defects were noted and using pins, tape, and glass telltales. sensors, attached at fifty locations, were recorded. Areas susceptible to ｭｯｶ･ｾ selected in the Parliamentary Library mem, which would require monitoring Sensor layout. Because the supply of and Centre and West Blocks to assess during the test blasts, were identified. At sensors and recording channels was the effects of the blasts on buildings and the conclusion of the blasts the survey limited, a survey of rooms and offices in to assist in the design of the ｲｯ｣ｫｾｲ･ｭｯｶ｡ｬ was repeated, and the ｰｲ･ｾ and post• the Parliamentary Library and Centre program by establishing safe parameters blast conditions were compared. and West Blocks was undertaken to for blasting. About half the sensors mon• On the second survey an archeologist select the most appropriate interior itored the overall vertical and horizontal examined the thin layer of soil (about locations for the sensors. Several factors motions of the buildings, and half ｭｯｮｩｾ l-m thick I overlaying the bedrock at the were reviewed: tored the response of ｶｩ｢ｲ｡ｴｩｯｮｾｳ･ｮｳｩｴｩｶ･ two blast sites and the condition of a engineering considerations: the need building components and components small air-intake tunnel just to the east of to characterize building and compo• supporting significant heritage objects. the CBUS footprint, which connected nent responses by determining the For example, to monitor building ｲ･ｾ the Ceotrc Block and Library to the face extent, amplitude, and frequency sponse, sensors were installed on the of the escarpment. The survey indicated content of blast-induced vibrations basement floor slab and foundation wall that the foundation of a ｮｩｮ･ｴ･･ｮｴｨｾ 'heritage considerations: the need to of the Centre Block; to monitor objects, century military barracks had been protect architectural, cultural, histori• sensors were mounted on the masonry located near the blast site, directly be• cal, and political elements of building wall of the House Chamber just below hind the Centre Block. The masonry ｴｷｯｾｳｴｯｲｹ ｳｴ｡ｩｮ･､ｾｧｬ｡ｳｳ fabric and the grounds or objens the large, win• tunnel was in relatively good condition, housed within the buildings or on the dows (Fig. 5). Most sensors in each although its opening to both the Library grounds building were placed along the perime• and Centre Block had been bricked over, ter, either adjacent to or nearest the political considerations: the need to CBUS footprint. be mindful thar the program falls 70 APT BULLETIN

surfaces could not be used. Sensors Each blast was covered with a mini• were either taped or glued to the interior mum of three layers of ｲｵ｢｢･ｲｾｴｩｲ･ blast• surfaces using two-sided tape or non• ing mats to contain the blast and sup• staining glues, (these products were pre• press any potential flyrock. A thin tested in the laboratory). Sensors placed geosynthetic filter fabric was also placed on exterior masonry surfaces were over the mats to contain any small rock attached by screws placed into the fragments that may have been trapped mortar joints. within the rubber mats from previous blasts, Just prior to each blast, the im• Blast Methodology mediate area around the hoarded site was cleared of all pedestrian traffic, and Ten controlled blasts were detonated at a sequence of warning whistles was each blast site between August 12 and sounded. 23,1996. Each blast involved detonat• ing between 10 and 15 50-mm diameter Data Collection and Analysis Fig. 5. The interior of the House of Commons, holes in lifts (depth of blast) of 1.0 to Centre Block, Parliament Hill, 1998. During the 2.0m. Each blast consisted of a series of Sensor signals were collected and stored test blasting, stained-glass windows and decorative elements had to be monitored by smaller blasts, produced by the action of on multi-channel, computer-based data NRC and Golder VMC for blast impact. Photo• delay detonators attached to each of the acquisition and analysis systems. About graph by Jean-Pierre Jerome. holes. Non-electric millisecond detona• thirty seconds of data, commencing tors were used because of the presence about three seconds prior to the start of of radio towers, wireless radios, and each test blast, were collected. Recorded cellular phones and to minimize charge signals were analyzed and displayed weights (amount of explosive material) immediately after each blast to obtain Several monitoring/recording stations per delay. Various timing delays were the response levels at all building loca• were set up in the three buildings to tried to determine the influence of delay tions; to modify, if necessary, previously minimize the length of cables connecting time on the vibrational response of developed blast parameters; and to set sensors to data-acquisition systems. adjacent structures. Cartridge explosive more appropriate data-collection param· Because the buildings were operational, products were also used to avoid inaccu• eters. Vibration data and masonry crack cables were attached to walls and ceil• racies in the accounting of explosive measurements were reviewed after each ings away from pedestrian traffic and material within each blast delay (Fig. 6). blast to evaluate the impact on all struc- normal maintenance activities. Vinyl tape, which would not mark painted or stone surfaces, held the cables in place.

Ground locations. Sensors were mounted at several locations on the promontory slope to gauge the response of the escarpment to the test blasts. The concern focused on the stability of the slope, especially the top thin layer of soil. Past soil slides had left areas void of green vegetation. Twenty-four subsurface sensors were also grouted into the bedrock at eight locations between the two blast sites and the Centre Block and Library to deter• mine the attenuation rate for blast• induced vibrations within the bedrock.

Attachment of building sensors. Sen• sors attached to finished interior (walls and floors) and exterior (stone masonry) surfaces were firmly connected to ob• jects, so as to measure their responses accurately. But strong mechanical de• Fig. 6. Blasting areas outlined in Fig. 3 had to be marked on the ground. Grass was removed, vices or adhesives that would perma• boundaries delineated, and the s'ltes were prepared for the installation of cartridge explosives. nently damage, disfigure, or stain Photograph by Marfa Ines Subercaseaux. DESIGNING A TEST BLAST PROGRAM 71

tures and structural components. While Table 1. Summary of Maximum Velocities Induced by the Test Blasts in Centre this constant review limited the number Block and Parliamentary Library of blasts to two per day, it was consid• ered integral to the testing program. BUILDING LOCATION DIRECTION VELOCITY mm/s

Test Blast Protocol LIBRARY Top of Pinnacle Horizontal 27.5 Mid-Height of Pinnacle Horizontal 6.9 A test blast protocol was developed for the buildings nearest the blast sites to Base of Pinnacle Horizontal 7.9 minimize the likelihood of any blast• Top of Chimney Horizontal 6.0 induced damage going unnoticed. The Ring Truss Supporting protocol was modified following the Dome Lantern Vertical 6.9 second blast at Site 2 to take into ac• count the responses measured in the CENTRE 2nd Story, masonry pinnacles (freestanding vertical BLOCK Floor, North-West Sector Vertical 6.1 cantilevers) of the Parliamentary Library 3rd Story, Floor, NW Sector Vertical 3.7 facing rhe blast site. The following 3rd Story, Floor, SW Sector Vertical 1.8 actions comprised the protocol: 4th Story, Floor, SW Sector Vertical 1.0 visual inspection of building compo• 6th Story, Floor, NW Sector Vertical 0.9 nents and areas adjacent to the blast site following the first blast at each site, each blast producing vibration levels of concern within the build· ings, and each day of blasting 95' LINE EQUATION: v· 2104.5842 • (SOIAr-l.'88) monitoring of existing cracks in the OOEFICIENT or DETERMINATION - 0.633 STANDARD DEVIATION· 0.315 masonry walls of a stairwell at the northwest corner of the Centre Block 1000.00 '" review of blast-induced vibrations and crack measurements after each , 50' test blast , V re-evaluation ｡ｮ､ｾ if necessary, ad• "- 1'-- justment of blast parameters previ• E . \:'

ously developed for the next blast. L 100.00 The following actions were added to . 0 "" the protocol for blasts at Site 2. " " monitoring of existing cracks in the C ! . . exterior masonry walls and pinnacles i . ' . I I " ｾ . "" of the Library 10.00 T . '" up close visual inspection (using a . crane) of the exterior masonry walls y " " . . ' and pinnacles of the Library facing . . the blast site. " ,"- i I .." 'r--- Results 1.00

A summary of the maximum velocities induced by the test blasts in the Centre Block and Parliamentary Library is : ,I given in Table 1, using a few locations, in various portions of the two buildings, 0.10 which were mosr affected by the blasts. 1.0 10.0 100.0 West Block responses are not given since SQUARE ROOT SCALED DISTANCE (1ll/)(;crl/2) velocities at monitored locations were less than 1 mm/s and therefore posed no Fig, 7, Ground vibration attenuation characteristics. Courtesy of VME limited 72 APT BULLETIN

threat to the fabric of that structure. Table 2. Recommended Vibration exhibited high-frequency characteristics Blast-induced velocities in the Centre Criteria for Blasting for Buildings at both ground and building locations, Block and Library indicated that the Adjacent to the CBUS Excavation prudence dictated establishing pinnacles, vertical cantilevers on the frequency-dependent vibration criteria exterior of the Library, underwent the FREQUENCY VIBRATION L1MITSt due to the possibility of producing largest motions (up to 28 mm/s) to the RANGE, Hz mm/s substantial and potentially more damag• test blasts, These sensitive masonry Centre Library of ing lower·frequency responses (<20 Hz) elements were, therefore, chosen to limit Block Parliament at some locations in both buildings. the size and closeness of blasts to the Velocity limits for all other structures, < 10 5 3 Library during the planned excavation and underground services and tunnels for CBUS, The largest responses within 10 to 40 5 to 40 3t017.5 were set at 50 mm/s. the Centre Block were recorded in its northwest corner, the portion of the > 40 40 17.5 Blast parameters and procedures. building nearest the two blast sites. Using the established ground attenua• t Vibration limits (peak particle velocity) for the Responses within the Centre Block two heritage structures are specified for the bed- tion characteristics and building vibra• decreased rapidly with distance from the rock direcdy in front of the foundation wall. tion criteria, minimum blast to building top of the foundation wall closest to the distances were calculated for the excava• blast site. To limit blast·induced effects tion of the CBUS site adjacent to the on the building, the foundation wall was Centre Block and Library. A charge selected as the Centre Block element that during the blasting program. Measure• weight of 0.5 kg/delay was assumed, would, in conjunction with the ｰｩｮｮ｡ｾ ments taken during a three-day period based on the minimum weight required des, govern the design of blasts in the prior to the commencement of blasting to remove a 1.0-m lift (thickness of CBUS footprint. Finally, because blast• also showed similar amounts of move• rock) during the test blast program. The induced responses for the Centre Block ment. However, no attempt was made to minimum distances determined the and Library contained primarily high• determine the effect of environmental amount of bedrock along the perimeter frequency components, vibration criteria conditions (namely, temperature and of the two buildings that needed to be for these buildings could be set at eco• humidity) on measured crack ､ｩｳｰｬ｡｣･ｾ removed by methods other than blast• nomically feasible levels for blasting. ments either prior to or during the test ing, such as hoe ramming. Calculations blast progtam. also indicated that about half of the Delay intervals. While a 25 ms delay CBUS site could be removed in 2.0-m was used for all ten blasts at Site 1, Ground attenuation. A scaled-distance lifts. different intervals were tried at Site 2 to relationship, which describes the rate at The scaled-distance equation was speed up the blast (shorter duration), as which ground vibration levels at the also used in 1997 by the CBUS blasting well as to slow it down. Increasing the CBUS site decay with increasing distance contractor to calculate acceptable charge duration of the blast by increasing the from a blast, was established from the weights for various blast distances to the delay between groups of holes did not monitored subsurface responses (Fig. 7). two buildings from within the CBUS appear to have any noticeable beneficial The regression line, which was obtained footprint. Three zones, using different effect on the vibration intensities or from the set of bedrock responses, was blast depths and charge weights, were frequencies recorded in the adjacent expressed as PPV = 2104(SD)-1.488, ultimately established by the contractor. structures. It was evident, however, thar where PPV =:; peak particle velocity It was further recommended that: a minimum delay interval of 25 ms (mmls), SD = scaled distance (dIW0.5), blasts should be designed using a should be incorporated into the blasting d = distance in meters from blast, minimum delay interval of 25 illS operations for CBUS due to the scatter W = charge weight (weight in kg of in delay times that was recorded be• explosive material per delay). blast hole diameters should be lim· tween successive detonations by the ited to 64 mm array of subsurface sensors. Recommendations for only cartridge explosives and non• CBUS Excavation electric initiators should be used Crack monitoring. Lateral and diagonal displacements measured across selected Vibration criteria. Table 2 shows vibra• hydraulic drills equipped with oper· cracks, typically less than 0.1 mm wide, tion criteria recommended for the Cen• ating dust collectors and noise sup• were no greater than those measured tre Block and Parliamentary Library, pressors should be used between control points, indicating that based on the ground attenuation charac• a minimum of three layers of blasting movements across cracks were compara• teristics and the response of the struc• mats should be placed over each blast ble to those occurring elsewhere in the tures during the test blast program. area masonry. Nevertheless, cracks did show Although the vibrations recorded evidence of both opening and closing during the test blast program typically DESIGNING A TEST BLAST PROGRAM 73

• blasting mats should be covered with prior experience in similar sensitive deadline, safely, within budget, and with a filter fabric similar to that used environments and provide references. no apparent damage to the historic during the test blast program fabric of Parliament Hill. The test blast program cost tess than 10% of the cost • the perimeter of the excavation Conclusion of the excavation and proved to be a should be line drilled and wall• Blasting parameters and procedures useful means by which to achieve a safe control blasting techniques, such as were re-evaluated at the conclusion of and practical blasting operation, safe• buffer blasting, smooth-wall blasting, the test blast program and refined blast• guard the heritage features of Parliament or cushion blasting, should be em• ing parameters were developed. The Hill, and minimize the impact to politi• ployed in perimeter locations. final excavation plan was designed by cians, sta ff, and visitors. the blasting contractor using these pa• Blasting contractor. The blasting con• rameters and procedures and executed MARIA INES SUBERCASEAUX, M.Sc.A., tractor should submit, for approval, a during the summer of 1997. Monitoring is a conservation architect with the Heritage complete blasting plan describing pro• indicated that vibration limits, estab• Conservation Program, RPS CH/EC. posed blast methodology. This should lished for the excavation, were exceeded GERRY PERNICA, B.A.Sc., M.A.Sc., Ph.D., include details on patterns, hole diame• by only one of the 279 blasts that were is with the National Research Council Canada. ter, explosive products, initiation sys• needed to remove the 25,000 m' of rock MARCUS V. VAN BERS, B.Sc., M.Eng., IS tems, size of blasts, and matting details. from the CBUS footprint. The excava• with Golder VME Limited Canada. The blasting contractor should be pre• tion was completed in just under eight approved at the tendering stage. The weeks. The work was finished two contractor should include details of weeks before the September 15, 1997

LFG LANDMARK FACILITIES GROUP, INC. ENGINEERING/DESIGN SERVICES CLIMATE CONTROL, ANALYSIS & DESIGN Offering engineering & design services for the special needs of collections and the facilities that house them. • Precision Climate Control • Electrical Systems • Lighting Design The Christman Company • Fire Safety National Historic Preservation Services • Humidistatic Systems Specialists in the Planning and Management of • Plumbing Systems Complex Preservation Projects - $5 to $100 Million

For further information. contact: Cost Estimating Ph as ing/Seh eduling Landmark Facilities Group, Inc. Construction & Program Management 252 East Avenue East Norwalk, CT 06655 (203) 866-4626 fax (203) 866-8019 408 Kalamazoo Plaza, lansing. MI 48933 Phone 517.482.1488 fax 517.482.3520 Email [email protected] --