HomeMy WebLinkAbout12_Nissan Site Plan - Geotech_01.pdf GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
BILLION AUTO PLAZA
THREE AUTO DEALERSHIPS
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
July 1, 2010
Project No. 07-115-03
Prepared for:
Big Sky Land Consulting, PLLC.
5530 Burnt Road
Belgrade, Montana 59714
Prepared by:
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
5440 Holiday Avenue
Billings, Montana 59101
RIMROCK
ENGINEERING, INC. Phone 406.294.8400
5440 Holiday Avenue • Billings, MT 59101 Fax 406.294.8405
July 1, 2010
Big Sky Land Consulting, PLLC
5530 Burnt Road
Belgrade, MT 59714
Attention Mr Tom Henesh
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Report
Billion Auto Plaza
Three Auto Dealerships
Bozeman, Montana
Dear Mr. Henesh�
The attached report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed
Billion Auto Plaza located west of Bozeman, Montana. This investigation encompasses
approximately 25 acres for three new auto dealership buildings and construction of interior
streets and utilities. Our work consisted of subsurface exploration. laboratory testing,
engineering analyses, and preparation of this report.
Based on our work completed to date, we have drawn the following general conclusions
• The 25 acres of the J&D Family Minor Subdivision — Phase 1 and 2 encompassed by
this report is currently covered by 1.0 to 2.0 feet of topsoil and vegetation. The
underlying soils consist of a layer of lean clay ranging in depth from 2.5 to 3 5 feet
below the existing site grades. These fine grained soils are moderately to highly
compressible, have a low potential to swell, have a medium to high plasticity and
were soft to very soft. Beneath the clay layer we encountered silty gravel with sand
and cobbles to the depths explored of 8.0 below existing site grades Groundwater
was encountered in our test pit and test pits at depths ranging from 2.0 to 3.0 feet
below existing site grades during our exploration in June 2010
• Groundwater was encountered in all of the test pits Due to the shallow groundwater
elevations. dewatering for utilities and foundation construction will be required.
Our scope of services did not include designing a dewatering system or the influence
07-115-03 Page 1 of 2 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering, Inc
• of dewatering on existing streets, utilities, or adjacent structures. A dewatering
system should be designed by a competent engineer with experience with
dewatering systems.
• Conventional spread and continuous footings will support the structural loads for the
anticipated buildings if founded in the medium dense to dense native gravels with
sand and cobbles.
These and other conclusions and recommendations, along with restrictions and limitations on
these conclusions, are discussed in the attached report.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you, and look forward to future endeavors. If
you have any questions regarding this report or need additional information or services, please
feel free to call the undersigned.
Sincerely,
RIMROCK ENGINEERING, INC.
���pF MpNT.•
co' BERT WAYNE :*
•* KUKES
• 10
Robert W. Kukds,•P.� '+ �o, Wade Reynolds
Principal Staff Geologist
Enclosures: Report (3 bound copies)
07-115-03 Page 2 of 2 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering, Inc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ..............................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description......................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work ......................................................................................2
1.3 Authorization...............................................................................................................2
1.4 References..................................................................................................................2
2.0 METHODS OF STUDY ...........................................................................................................3
2.1 Field Exploration.........................................................................................................3
2.2 Laboratory Testing......................................................................................................3
3.0 DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................................4
3.1 Site Conditions.............................................................................................................4
3.2 Subsurface Conditions ...............................................................................................4
3.3 Laboratory Test Results .............................................................................................4
3.4 Analytical Methods......................................................................................................5
4.0 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................5
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................6
5.1 Site Clearing and Preparation ....................................................................................6
5.2 Earthwork....................................................................................................................6
5.2.1 General Site Grading....................................................................................6
5.2.2 Temporary Unconfined Excavations............................................................6
5.2.3 Temporary Trench Excavation and Backfill .................................................7
5.3 Foundations................................................................................................................7
5.4 Compaction Requirements.........................................................................................8
5.5 Concrete Slab-on-Grade Construction.......................................................................8
5.6 Pavement Sections.....................................................................................................8
5.7 Site Drainage...........................................................................................8
5.8 Concrete Reactivity.....................................................................................................8
6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES.......................................................................................................9
6.1 Project Bid Documents...............................................................................................9
6.2 Construction Observation/Testing and Plan Review .................................................9
7.0 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................10
APPENDICES
A Plates
B Suggested Specifications for Earthwork
C Application for Authorization to Use
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
PROPOSED BILLION AUTO PLAZA
THREE AUTO DEALERSHIPS
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
11 Project Description
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed Billion Auto
Plaza which includes three auto dealership buildings, interior streets. and utilities shown on the
site map, Appendix A (Plate 2). The type of construction anticipated for the dealership buildings
was not known at the time of this report, but is anticipated to be masonry construction. The
project will also include construction of interior streets and associated utilities.
Structural loads were not available at the time of this report being issued and were estimated to
have continuous wall loads of 5 to 6 kips per lineal foot for long-term loading conditions for
masonry construction. We have estimated interior column loads of 50 to 60 kips for long term
loading conditions. Cuts and fills for building pad construction may be on the order of 3 to 4 feet
with over excavation requirements in the footing locations.
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed development with respect
to the observed subsurface conditions, and to provide our preliminary geotechnical
recommendations and opinions as outlined in our proposal dated June 7, 2010, summarized
below.
• General soil and groundwater conditions at the project site. with emphasis on how
the conditions are expected to affect the proposed construction;
• Suggested specifications for earthwork construction, including site preparation
recommendations, a discussion of reuse of existing near surface soils as structural
or non-structural fill, and a discussion of remedial earthwork recommendations, if
warranted,
• Recommendations for temporary excavations and trench backfill.,
• Conventional shallow spread foundation design including soil bearing values,
minimum footing depth, resistance to lateral loads and estimated settlements.
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
• Concrete reactivity potential of site soils;
• Structural pavement sections for asphaltic concrete,
• Subgrade preparation for slab-on-grade concrete.
Our scope of services consisted of background review, site reconnaissance, field exploration,
laboratory testing. engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. This study did not
include evaluations of site seismicity, liquefaction, faulting, or other potential geologic or
environmental hazards.
1.3 Authorization
Authorization to proceed with our work on this project was provided on June 10, 2010.
1.4 References
The following information was provided to Rimrock Engineering in the course of this study and
serves as the basis of our understanding of the project type and scope_
• Preliminary Site Plan of Billion Auto Plaza. This map showing the proposed location
of the interior subdivision streets was provided by Genesis Engineering and is the
basis for the Site Map on Plate 2 of this report
• Google Earth Maps. Bozeman. Montana (2010) — Gallatin Co.. (Satellite Image) This
image was the basis for the Vicinity Map shown on Plate 1 of this report.
• Site Photos taken by Rimrock Engineering during our field exploration in June 2010.
2.0 METHODS OF STUDY
2.1 Field Exploration
Our selection of field exploration locations was based on the anticipated project layout and site
access. The subsurface exploration consisted of excavating ten (10) test pits in the proposed
construction area using a rubber tired backhoe. The test pits were completed in-lieu of
borings due to the inclement weather and the inaccessibility of the site with a truck
mounted drill rig due to the soft soil conditions and the high water table. Test pit depth
was 8.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Locations of the test pits are shown on the Site
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering, Inc
Map (Plate 2, Appendix A), were staked by Genesis Engineering, Inc. These locations should
be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.
Soil conditions encountered are presented on the test pit logs which are included as Plates 3
through 12. A description of the Unified Soil Classification System used to identify the site soils
and a test pit log legend are presented on Plates 13 and 14 (Appendix A).
Field personnel logged the soil conditions exposed in the test pit excavations and collected bulk
samples for laboratory testing After the test pit excavations were completed, they were
checked for groundwater and backfilled with excavated soil using the equipment at hand.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing is useful for evaluating both index and engineering properties of soils.
Typical index tests evaluate soil moisture content, soil particle gradation and plasticity
characteristics. We have performed/will perform laboratory testing on selected soil samples to
assess the following:
• Soil Classification (ASTM D422, D1140, D4318, D2487, and D2488)
• Moisture Content (ASTM D2216)
• California Bearing Ratio (ASTM D1835)
In addition, the following analytical tests were performed by Pace Analytical Laboratories.
• Soluble Sulfate Content
Individual laboratory test results can be found on the test pit/excavation logs and on Plates 15
through 18, Appendix A, at the end of this report
3.0 DISCUSSION
3.1 Site Conditions
Access to the project site is provided by Cottonwood Road and Babcock Street. The Billion
Auto Plaza covered by this investigation is surrounded by agricultural land and undeveloped
residential/commercial property. The site is presently undeveloped agricultural land. The
ground surface in the area of the proposed subdivision appears to slopes gradually to the north.
A total relief of approximately ten feet is currently present at the entire project site. Drainage on
the site consisted of sheet flow to the north.
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering, Inc
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
The following paragraphs summarize the results of our field exploration. The test pit/testpit logs
should be reviewed for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions at the locations
explored
• The 25 acres of the J&D Family Minor Subdivision — Phase 1 and 2 encompassed by
this report is currently covered by 1.0 to 2.0 feet of topsoil and vegetation. The
underlying soils consist of a layer of lean clay ranging in depth from 2.5 to 3.5 feet
below the existing site grades. These fine grained soils are moderately to highly
compressible, have a low potential to swell, have a medium to high plasticity and
were soft to very soft. Beneath the clay layer we encountered silty gravel with sand
and cobbles to the depths explored of 8.0 below existing site grades_ Groundwater
was encountered in our test pit and test pits at depths ranging from 2.0 to 3.0 feet
below existing site grades during our exploration in June 2010.
Fluctuations in the level of the groundwater and soil moisture conditions as noted in this report
may occur due to variations in precipitation. land use, irrigation, and other factors
3.3 Laboratory Test Results
Laboratory testing was performed as previously discussed in Section 2.2. The test data were
evaluated in combination with our field exploration information to assess the engineering
properties of the predominant soil types Atterberg limits tests indicated the lean clay soils have
a medium to high plasticity. The sulfate content test results indicated that the soils have a
negligible potential for concrete reactivity.
3 4 Analytical Methods
Field and laboratory data are useful when combined with engineering fundamentals to assess
specific behavior such as bearing capacity, settlement, and other design parameters. The
following approaches were used in developing the conclusions and recommendations presented
in subsequent sections of this report.
• Allowable bearing pressures were computed using Terzaghi's general bearing
capacity formula.
• Settlements were not computed at this time and will be provided when a design level
report is completed.
• Pavement sections were computed using the AASHTO Procedure for Design of
Flexible Pavement Sections.
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering, Inc
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based on the data collected during this assessment and are
subject to the limitations stated in this report. These conclusions may change if additional
information becomes available. Based on the results of our study, no severe soil or
groundwater constraints were observed which would preclude development The following is a
summary of our conclusions.
• The 25 acres of the J&D Family Minor Subdivision — Phase 1 and 2 encompassed by
this report is currently covered by 1.0 to 2.0 feet of topsoil and vegetation The
underlying soils consist of a layer of lean clay ranging in depth from 2.5 to 3.5 feet
below the existing site grades. These fine grained soils are moderately to highly
compressible, have a low potential to swell. have a medium to high plasticity and
were soft to very soft. Beneath the clay layer we encountered silty gravel with sand
and cobbles to the depths explored of 8.0 below existing site grades Groundwater
was encountered in our test pit and test pits at depths ranging from 2.0 to 3.0 feet
below existing site grades during our exploration in June 2010.
• Groundwater was encountered in all of the test pits Due to the shallow groundwater
elevations, dewatering for utilities and foundation construction will be required.
Our scope of services did not include designing a dewatering system or the influence
of dewatering on existing streets, utilities, or adjacent structures. A dewatering
system should be designed by a competent engineer with experience with
dewatering systems.
• Conventional spread and continuous footings will support the structural loads for the
anticipated buildings if founded in the medium dense to dense native gravels with
sand and cobbles.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Site Clearing and Preparation
Prior to construction, surface soils and organic soils should be stripped and removed from the
site or stockpiled for use in non-structural areas. It appears about 1 to 2 feet can be used as a
reasonable estimate for average depth of stripping. Deeper stripping/grubbing of organic soils,
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering. Inc.
tree roots, etc.. may be required in localized areas. Tree root balls should be removed and the
resulting voids backfilled with adequately compacted backfill soil All man-made debris
including dumped fills or trash should be removed from the site The geotechnical engineer
should be present during stripping and site preparation operations to observe stripping and
grubbing depths, and to evaluate whether buried obstacles such as underground utilities, wells,
and foundations are present. Excavations resulting from removal operations should be cleaned
of all loose material and widened as necessary to permit access to compaction equipment.
5.2 Earthwork
52.1 General Site Grading
Site preparation and grading should conform to the requirements contained in this report and in
the suggested specifications which are provided as Appendix B of this report We anticipate
that site grading can be performed with conventional earthmoving equipment. Prior to fill
placement, the exposed native soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of six inches,
moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction in
accordance with the ASTM D698 compaction test method.
Where fill is necessary, it should meet the requirements for structural fill found in Appendix B. It
appears that the existing near surface soils are not generally capable of meeting recommended
requirements for structural fill. Fill placement and compaction requirements presented in
Appendix B should be followed
5.2.2 Temporary Unconfined Excavations
The contractor is ultimately responsible for the safety of workers and should strictly observe
federal and local OSHA requirements for excavation shoring and safety. All temporary slopes
should comply with OSHA requirements for Type A soils near the surface and Type C below
approximately three feet. During wet weather, runoff water should be prevented from entering
excavations.
5.2.3 Temporary Trench Excavation and Backfill
It appears that excavation for footings and utility trenches can be readily made with either a
conventional backhoe or excavator in the native soil. We expect the walls of the footing
trenches in the near surface fine grained soils to stand near vertically without significant
sloughing. If trenches are extended deeper than three feet into the native gravel with sand or
are allowed to dry out, the excavations may become unstable and should be evaluated to verify
their stability prior to occupation by construction personnel. Shoring or sloping of any deep
trench walls may be necessary to protect personnel and provide temporary stability. All
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
excavations should comply with current OSHA safety requirements for Type A soils near the
surface and Type C below three feet (Federal Register 29 CFR, Part 1926).
Backfills for trenches or other excavations within pavement areas should be compacted in six to
eight inch layers with mechanical tampers Jetting and flooding should not be permitted. We
recommend all backfill be compacted to a minimum compaction of 97% of the maximum dry
density as determined by ASTM D698. The moisture content of compacted backfill soils should
be within 2% of the optimum. Poor compaction in utility trench backfill may cause excessive
settlements resulting in damage to the pavement structural section or other overlying
improvements Compaction of trench backfill outside of improvement areas should be a
minimum of 90% relative compaction
5.3 Foundations
Shallow spread footing foundations may be founded directly on the native gravel with sand and
cobbles. Foundations on the native gravel with sand and cobbles may use an allowable bearing
capacity of 4,000 pounds per square foot. Utilizing the structural loads from Section 1.1 we
have estimated settlements of 3/ to 1 inch with differential settlements of one half that amount.
Foundations founded in the native gravel will require dewatering during construction.
Depending on the final design elevations, perimeter drains may be required for all building
foundations or a permanent site dewatering system may have to be designed.
If the building pads are raised, the foundations should be over excavated to the native gravel
and sand layer and built up to foundation elevation with compacted structural fill
Exterior foundations should be embedded a minimum of 4 feet below lowest adjacent exterior
finish grade for frost protection and confinement. Interior footings should be bottomed at least
12 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for confinement. Wall foundation dimensions
should satisfy the requirements listed in the latest edition of the International Residential Code.
Reinforcing steel requirements for foundations should be provided by the design engineer
The allowable bearing pressures, indicated above, are net values, therefore, the weight of the
foundation and backfill may be neglected when computing dead loads. Allowable bearing
pressures may be increased by one-third for short-term loading such as wind or seismic.
Resistance to lateral loads in the gravel with sand soil may be calculated using an allowable
passive equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot and an allowable coefficient of
friction of 0.45 applied to vertical dead loads. Both passive and frictional resistances may be
assumed to act concurrently. An allowable active equivalent fluid pressure of 36 pounds per
cubic foot may be used.
The International Building Code Site Class for this project is Class C.
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering,Inc.
5A Compaction Reguirements
The following table lists the compaction requirements for the different types of fill recommended
in this report
TABLE 1
COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS
Structural Fill Beneath Foundations 98% of ASTM D698
Backfill Against Foundations 95% of ASTM D698
Utility Trench Backfill 97% of ASTM D698
5.5 Concrete Slab-on-Grade Construction
Prior to constructing concrete slabs, the upper six inches of slab subgrade should be scarified,
moisture conditioned to within 2% of optimum, and uniformly compacted to at least 95% of
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. All concrete floor slabs should have a
minimum thickness of four inches. Slab thickness and structural reinforcing requirements within
the slab should be determined by the design engineer. At least four inches of crushed base
aggregate should be placed beneath slab-on-grade floors to provide uniform support. The
aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction
If the upper lean clay soils are wet or saturated, they may required 1 foot be over
excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill to provide adequate support of all
concrete slab-on-grade.
We recommend that the base course be placed within three to five days (depending on the time
of year) after moisture conditioning and compaction of the subgrade soil. The subgrade should
be protected against drying until the concrete slab is placed.
In floor slab areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, an impermeable
membrane (e.g. 10-mil thick polyethylene) should be placed as required by the flooring
manufacture recommendations.
5.6 Pavement Sections
The recommended pavement structural sections for the project presented in Table 2 were
calculated using the AASHTO pavement design procedure. Traffic loading was not available at
the time of this and was assumed by Rimrock Engineering, Inc. based on experience with
similar projects Final pavement sections will be calculated when traffic volume information is
available. We are providing a heavy duty pavement section for areas which will have heavy
truck traffic and a light duty section for parking areas. In our analysis, we used an ADT of 500
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering, Inc
vehicles per day with 5% truck traffic for the heavy duty section which results in a traffic loading
condition of 219,579 18-kip equivalent single axle load (18-kip ESAL). For the light duty
pavement section we assumed a loading of 75,000 ESAL's for the 20 design lifetime of the
pavement A CBR value of 5.7 was used for design of the pavement sections.
TABLE 2
PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTIONS
Traffic Condition Recommended Minimum Structural Section*
Light Duty Pavement Section f 3 inches Asphaltic Concrete, 4-inches of 1-1/2 inch Crushed Base
Course and 8 inches of 6" minus subbase
Heavy Duty Pavement Section 4 inches of Asphaltic Concrete, 4-inches of Crushed Base Course
and 10 inches of 6" minus subbase
Aggregate base course thickness may be reduced in each pavement structural section by approximately
20% with the use of a recommended geotextile fabric
Placement and compaction procedures for materials and construction should conform to the
suggested specifications contained in Appendix B of this report. The sections presented in
Table 2 are based on CBR tests performed on selected samples obtained during our
investigation and should be considered preliminary in nature. We recommend verification of soil
conditions as construction progresses so that appropriate revisions can be made if necessary.
Aggregate base course thickness may be reduced in each alternate pavement structural section
by approximately 20% with the use of geotextile fabric meeting AASHTO M 288-2000 class 1
requirements. If this alternative is selected, we can provide addition pavement structural
sections.
The asphalt pavement structural sections presented in Table 2 are designed for the assumed
traffic loadings However, based on our experience in the area, environmental aspects such as
freeze-thaw cycles and thermal cracking will probably govern the life of AC pavements in light
traffic areas. Thermal cracking of the asphalt pavements allows more water to enter the
pavement section which promotes deterioration and increases maintenance costs. It should be
noted that the subgrade soils are likely to be prone to frost action during the winter and
saturation during the wet spring months. The primary impact of frost action and subgrade
saturation is the loss of subgrade and aggregate base strength. Pavement life will be increased
if efforts are made to reduce the accumulation of excess moisture in the subgrade soils.
Consideration should be given to installing subdrainage in the form of trench drains in low
areas. which are daylighted or tied to the storm drain system.
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
5.7 Site Drainage
Final elevations at the site should be planned so that drainage is directed away from all
foundations. Parking areas should be sloped and drainage gradients maintained to carry all
surface water off the site.
5.8 Concrete Reactivity
Analytical testing of selected soil samples was performed to assess the potential for adverse
reactivity with concrete. Soluble sulfate tests were performed to evaluate potential sulfate
attack against Portland Cement Concrete. Soluble sulfate contents were observed to be less
than 0,10%. Therefore, the potential for sulfate attack appears to be negligible and
conventional Type II cement may be used according to Table 1904.3 of the 2006 International
Building Code and ACI 318.
6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
6.1 Project Bid Documents
It has been our experience during the bidding process, that contractors often contact us to
discuss the geotechnical aspects of the project. Informal contacts between Rimrock
Engineering and an individual contractor could result in incorrect or incomplete information
being provided to the contractor. Therefore, we recommend a pre-bid meeting be held to
answer any questions about the report prior to submittal of bids. If this is not possible,
questions or clarifications regarding this report should be directed to the project Owner or his
designated representative. After consultation with Rimrock Engineering, the project Owner (or
his representative) should provide clarifications or additional information to all contractors
bidding the job
6.2 Construction Observation/Testing and Plan Review
The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate
program of tests and observations will be made during construction to verify compliance with
these recommendations. These tests and observations should include. but not necessarily be
limited to, the following:
• Observations and testing during site preparation and earthwork.
• Observation of footing trench excavations.
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering, Inc
• Observation and testing of construction materials.
• Consultation as may be required during construction.
We also recommend that project plans and specifications be reviewed by us to verify
compatibility with our conclusions and recommendations. Additional information concerning the
scope and cost of these services can be obtained from our office.
The review of plans and specifications and the field observation and testing by Rimrock
Engineering are an integral part of the conclusions and recommendations made in this report. If
we are not retained for these services, the Client agrees to assume Rimrock Engineering's
responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during construction
7.0 LIMITATIONS
Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field explorations. laboratory tests.
and our understanding of the proposed construction. The study was performed using a mutually
agreed upon scope of work. It is our opinion that this study was a cost-effective method to
evaluate the subject site and evaluate some of the potential geotechnical concerns. More
detailed, focused, and/or thorough investigations can be conducted. Further studies will tend to
increase the level of assurance, however, such efforts will result in increased costs. If the Client
wishes to reduce the uncertainties beyond the level associated with this study, Rimrock
Engineering should be contacted for additional consultation.
The soils data used in the preparation of this report were obtained from test pit/test pits made
for this investigation. It is possible that variations in soils exist between the points explored.
The nature and extent of soil variations may not be evident until construction occurs. If any soil
conditions are encountered at this site which are different from those described in this report,
our firm should be immediately notified so that we may make any necessary revisions to our
recommendations. In addition, if the scope of the proposed project, locations of structures, or
building loads change from the description given in this report. our firm should be notified
This report has been prepared for design purposes for specific application to the Billion Auto
Plaza project in accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice at the time the
report was written. No warranty, express or implied, is made.
Other standards or documents referenced in any given standard cited in this report, or otherwise
relied upon by the authors of this report, are only mentioned in the given standard; they are not
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering, Inc.
incorporated into it or "included by reference," as that latter term is used relative to contracts or
other matters of law.
This report may be used only by the Client and for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time
from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on- and off-site). or other factors including
advances in man's understanding of applied science may change over time and could materially
affect our findings Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after 36 months from its
issue. Rimrock Engineering should be notified if the project is delayed by more than 24 months
from the date of this report so that a review of site conditions can be made, and
recommendations revised if appropriate
It is the Client's responsibility to see that all parties to the project including the designer,
contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of
information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the Contractor's
option and risk. Any party other than the Client who wishes to use this report shall notify
Rimrock Engineering of such intended use by executing the "Application for Authorization to
Use" which follows this document as an appendix. Based on the intended use of the report.
Rimrock Engineering may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report
be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the Client or anyone else will
release Rimrock Engineering from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any
unauthorized party.
07-115-03 July 1, 2010
Rimrock Engineering,Inc