Anaheim City Council
September 27, 2022

Pavement Trench Cut Fee
Final Report

NCE Project No. 289.14.30
Feb 2022

Fountain Valley, CA
17050 Bushard St #200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708

City of Anaheim
Public Works Department
200 South Anaheim Blvd
Anaheim, CA 92805

Final Report

Pavement Trench Cut Fee

Anaheim, CA

Feb 2022

Prepared for:

City of Anaheim
Public Works Department
200 South Anaheim Blvd
Anaheim, CA 92805

Prepared by:

Sharlan Montgomery Dunn, Ph.D., P.E.

Project Engineer

Margot Yapp, P.E.

Principal-in-Charge

NCE
17050 Bushard St #200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 848-8897

NCE Project No. 289.14.30

FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
ii

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
iii
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study was to assess and quantify pavement damage caused by utility cuts in the City of Anaheim (City) and to develop an appropriate fee schedule for the City to recover any costs associated with such damage.

To accomplish this, NCE evaluated both the structural and functional damage at 20 test sites with varying functional classes and pavement ages within the City, and reviewed typical street cut permits. The structural evaluation compared deflection measurements and required overlay thicknesses while the functional evaluation compared PCIs and corresponding percent reductions in pavement life.

Key findings of the study include:
 Sixty-five percent of test sites exhibited structural damage in the cut or zone of influence.
 Forty-five percent of test sites needed an average additional overlay thickness of 3.1 inches in the cut or zone of influence to compensate for structural damage.
 On average, the PCI of sections with utility cuts was approximately 20 points lower than those without cuts.
 The average percent reduction in service life due to cuts was 21.3 percent.  Pavements with higher PCIs experienced more functional damage than pavements with lower PCIs.
 Recommended fees were based on functional damage costs for pavements with PCIs greater than 65 or less than 55 and structural damage costs for pavements with PCIs between 55 and 65.

These findings informed the development of a utility cut damage fee schedule for the City of Anaheim, which is provided in the following table.

PCI Fee
Trench or Bore Pit ($/SF) Pothole ($/EA)
> 65 $8.40 $69.30
55 to 65 $11.60 $95.70
< 55 $3.60 $29.70
The information required to implement this fee includes the PCI at the time of cut, the trench and/or bore pit area and the number of potholes. Note that the pothole fee should only be included for potholes relating to boring activities. NCE recommends that the fee schedule be indexed based on inflation and adjusted annually to reflect changing repair costs.

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
iv
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 1

1.1 Damage Mechanisms ....................................................................... 1

1.2 Literature Review ............................................................................ 2 2 Technical Approach ............................................................................ 4 3 Structural Evaluation ......................................................................... 6

3.1 Field Data Collection ........................................................................ 6

3.2 Deflection Results ........................................................................... 7

3.3 Required Overlay Thickness .............................................................. 8

3.4 Fee Calculation ............................................................................. 10 4 Functional Evaluation ....................................................................... 13

4.1 Field Data Collection ...................................................................... 13

4.2 PCI Results .................................................................................. 13

4.3 Reduction in Service Life ................................................................ 16

4.4 Fee Calculation ............................................................................. 17 5 Fee Implementation ......................................................................... 19

5.1 Trench and Bore Pit Z-Factors ......................................................... 20

5.2 Area Affected by Potholes ............................................................... 21

5.3 Recommended Fee Schedule ........................................................... 22

5.4 Comparison with Other Agencies ..................................................... 23

5.5 Estimated Revenue ........................................................................ 25 6 Summary ......................................................................................... 26 7 References ....................................................................................... 27 Appendix A
Summary of Utility Cut Studies
Appendix B
Deflection Data and Overlay Calculations
Appendix C
Z-Factor Tables
Appendix D
Affected Area per Pothole
Appendix E
Estimated Fees for Example RCPs

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanisms ........................................................ 2 Figure 2. Study Methodology ......................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Example Test Site .......................................................................... 5 Figure 4. FWD Testing Layout ........................................................................ 6 Figure 5. Deflection Trends Organized by No-Cut PCI ........................................ 8 Figure 6. Deflection and Required Overlay Thickness for Briarvale Avenue ............ 9 Figure 7. Deflection and Required Overlay Thickness for Magnolia Avenue ............ 9 Figure 8. Differences in Overlay Thickness ..................................................... 10 Figure 9. Comparison of No-Cut and Cut PCIs ................................................ 15 Figure 10. Propagating Cracks Near Patch on Knott Avenue .............................. 15 Figure 11. Pavement Deterioration Curves for Streets in Anaheim ..................... 16 Figure 12. Pavement Deterioration Curves for Streets in Anaheim ..................... 17 Figure 13. Example Trenching, Boring, and Potholing Activities ......................... 20 Figure 14. Example Trench Z-Factor Calculation ............................................. 21 Figure 15. Example Bore Pit Z-Factor Calculation ............................................ 21 Figure 16. Example Pothole Affected Area Calculation ...................................... 22

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Experimental Matrix ......................................................................... 5 Table 2. Additional Overlay Cost .................................................................. 11 Table 3. Tiered Utility Cut Fee Schedule Based on Structural Evaluation ............. 12 Table 4. PCI Data ...................................................................................... 14 Table 5. Percent Reduction in Life and Corresponding Equivalent Cost ................ 18 Table 6. Tiered Utility Cut Fee Schedule Based on Functional Evaluation ............. 18 Table 7. Tiered Fee Schedule Based on Structural and Functional Evaluation ....... 19 Table 8. RCP Breakdown by Month and Street Cut .......................................... 20 Table 9. Recommended Tiered Fee Schedule .................................................. 22 Table 10. Utility Cut Fee Schedule Comparison ............................................... 24

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
1 1 Introduction
Utility companies often need to cut existing pavements to install, access, and service underground equipment. Ideally, all underground utility maintenance would be performed prior to pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction so that new pavement structures will not be cut. However, despite the best coordination, utility cuts cannot always be avoided; unanticipated work is often required to maintain essential public services.

With this in mind, local agencies have sought answers to the following questions:
 How do utility cuts affect pavement performance?
 If pavement performance is reduced, what is the corresponding financial impact?
To answer these questions, public agencies and utility companies have sponsored engineering investigations and studies (Todres and Baker 1996). Although some of these are available for review, many such studies are performed in-house or by consulting companies and are therefore unpublished or difficult to access. In addition, the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance can vary significantly based on site- and agency-specific information.

The purpose of this study was to assess and quantify pavement damage caused by utility cuts in the City of Anaheim (City) and to develop an appropriate fee schedule for the City to recover any costs associated with such damage.

1.1 DAMAGE MECHANISMS
The impact of utility cuts on pavement performance can vary significantly depending on a variety of factors, such as:
 Existing pavement condition, structure, and age
 Location, orientation, and extent of the utility cut
 Environmental factors
 Traffic loads
 Restoration practices and standards
Furthermore, quantifying utility cut impacts also depends on local maintenance treatments and costs. Therefore, to really understand the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed.

Underground utility work can damage pavements in three general ways, as illustrated in Figure 1. First, cutting a pavement structure creates an entry point for water, which can damage the underlying pavement layers. Second, removing pavement layers creates a plane of weakness where the pavement structure may not be adequately supported laterally – particularly during underground utility

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
2 maintenance, but also after restoration. This lack of lateral support can cause the trench sidewalls to bulge into the trench and weaken the material under the existing pavement. This weakened area is known as the zone of influence. Third, repairing the pavement can introduce roughness if the quality of the repair does not closely match the adjacent pavement structure. Rough pavements can cause vehicles to bounce, which creates greater loads on the pavement and leads to more rapid deterioration (Tarakji 1995, Wilde et al. 2002).

Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanisms
These damage mechanisms can reduce the condition and structural capacity of a pavement, which reduces the pavement life within and adjacent to the utility cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Multiple utility cuts on the same street or within a small area can magnify this impact (San Francisco Department of Public Works 1998, Tarakji 1995).

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
In previous studies, researchers have used deflection testing, condition surveys, and statistical analyses to quantify the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance. The performance impacts are typically expressed as a loss of structural capacity and/or a decrease in pavement condition. Results have shown that utility cuts can reduce pavement life by 15 to 55 percent, which consequently costs local agencies millions of dollars in premature street repair and remediation expenses. Studies have also shown that underground utility work affects not only the excavated area, but often weakens the adjacent pavement. The affected area, or zone of influence, varies based on agency and location but may extend as much as 4 to 5 feet beyond the edge of the cut.

To help restore some of the lost structural capacity and pavement life caused by cutting pavement, many agencies have put restoration standards in place.

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
3 Restoration standards in California typically include a T-Cut along with a restoration treatment that may be as extensive as treating the full lane for the entire affected block with a thin mill and overlay or surface seal.

The City of Anaheim’s current restoration Standard Detail 132 requires utility cuts be repaired with a T-Cut. In general, for arterial streets, a 2-inch T-Cut mill and overlay extends widthwise to the edge of the affected travel lane and a minimum of 15 feet beyond the beginning and ending trench edges. For local streets, the restoration treatment is either a 2-inch mill and overlay or a slurry seal, depending on the pavement condition index (PCI). The mill and overlay T-Cut generally extends widthwise 12-inches beyond the edge of the trench and 15 feet beyond the beginning and ending trench edges. The slurry seal is applied from curb to curb and includes crack cleaning and sealing prior to application.

To recover the cost of pavement damage associated with performing underground utility work, many agencies impose utility cut fees. In California, these fees are typically based on factors such as functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse).

Although a utility cut study was previously performed for the City of Anaheim in 1994 (IMS 1994), a pavement cut fee schedule was not implemented.

Appendix A provides a detailed literature review of previous studies on the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance, as well as additional details gathered from California agencies on restoration standards and other policies established to address pavement degradation caused by utility cuts.

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

TECHNICAL APPROACH A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
4 2 Technical Approach
The impact of utility cuts on pavement performance can be quantified in two forms:

1. Structural deterioration – reduced pavement strength

2. Functional deterioration - shortened pavement service life Since utility cuts can cause damage to pavements both structurally and functionally, both types of evaluations are crucial in developing a fee to compensate for appropriate damages. Therefore, for this study parallel quantification and analysis of both structural and functional deterioration were used to identify in-situ damage and inform the development of an appropriate utility cut fee schedule. The flowchart shown in Figure 2 outlines the study methodology.

Figure 2. Study Methodology
Field data were collected at 20 sites throughout the City. As shown in Figure 3, each test site included a section with a utility cut and an adjacent section without a cut (hereinafter referred to as a “no-cut” section). The cut and no-cut test sections were typically 100 feet long and one or more lanes wide and were located as close to each other as reasonably possible, considering other cut locations and traffic- control needs.

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

TECHNICAL APPROACH A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
5 Figure 3. Example Test Site
To ensure the results would be generalizable and representative of City streets, the test sites were selected to include a balanced representation of all functional classifications (arterial, collector, and residential) and cover a wide range of pavement ages at the time of the cut. Table 1 lists the breakdown of test sites by functional classification and pavement age at the time of cut.

Table 1. Experimental Matrix
Functional
Class
Pavement Age at Time of Cut
(Years)
No. of Test
Sites
Arterial
0-5 2
6-10 2
11-15 2
>15 1
Collector
0-5 2
6-10 -
11-15 2
>15 2
Residential
0-5 2
6-10 2
11-15 2
>15 1
Total 20

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
6 3 Structural Evaluation
The relative loss of structural capacity caused by utility cuts can be evaluated by comparing the deflection measurements and required overlay thicknesses of similar sections (i.e., the same pavement structure, traffic demands, environmental conditions) both with and without cuts. Pavements with higher deflection measurements represent weaker pavement structures. Weaker pavement structures require thicker overlays, thus increasing the cost of rehabilitation.

The following subsections present the process and results involved in collecting, analyzing, and comparing deflection measurements and required overlay thicknesses during the structural evaluation portion of this study. These data were then used to develop a fee structure to recover the costs of the structural damage to pavements caused by utility cuts.

3.1 FIELD DATA COLLECTION
At each set of test sites (cut and no-cut sections), NCE performed falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing in general accordance with the California Test Method 356 (Caltrans 2013). During testing, the FWD delivered a nominal 9,000-pound impulse load to the pavement surface and measured the resulting pavement response in terms of deflection using a geophone directly under the load. A minimum target of 21 deflection measurements were taken at each of three measurement locations, as shown in Figure 4:
a) Within the no-cut section
b) Two feet from the edge of the cut (within the zone of influence) c) Within the cut section

Figure 4. FWD Testing Layout

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
7 Since the City’s restoration Standard 132 requires a full lane-width restoration on arterials, the exact edge of the trench at the test sites was unknown. NCE therefore performed deflection testing 2 feet from the edge of the cut to see if structural damage was occurring outside the restoration area.

Additionally, coring was performed within the no-cut section and the original asphalt concrete (AC) thickness was measured.

3.2 DEFLECTION RESULTS
Comparing the deflection data across the 3 measurement locations identifies the relative loss of structural capacity resulting from the presence of utility cuts. For example, a section exhibiting damage due to a cut would have higher deflections in the cut or zone of influence than in the no-cut section.

Figure 5 shows the average measured deflections for each test site organized by the PCI of the site’s no-cut section (see section 4 for more information on no-cut PCI). Sections exhibiting damage due to cuts are represented by red lines. Green lines represent sections where the deflections in the cut and zone of influence were lower than the deflections in the no-cut section, meaning the repair and restoration were performing well at the time of testing. The one blue line represents a test section with no significant difference in the average deflections between the three measurement locations at the time of testing.

Based on the deflection data, 65 percent of test sites showed structural damage in the cut or zone of influence (red lines in Figure 5), 30 percent of test sites showed a structural improvement in both the cut and zone of influence compared to the no- cut section (green lines in Figure 5), and 5 percent of sites showed no discernable structural difference between the three measurement locations (blue line in Figure 5).

Analysis of the deflection data revealed no significant difference or trends based on functional classification or pavement age at the time of cut. However, analysis of the deflection data based on the PCI of the no-cut section resulted in three trends:

1. Test sites with a no-cut PCI greater than 65 exhibited a negative effect – sections showed damage due to utility cuts.

2. Test sites with a no-cut PCI between 55 and 65 exhibited a mixed effect – some sections showed damage due to cuts while others did not.

3. Test sites with a no-cut PCI less than 55 exhibited a positive effect – the restoration of the cut was performing equally well or better than the no-cut section.

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
8 Figure 5. Deflection Trends Organized by No-Cut PCI

3.3 REQUIRED OVERLAY THICKNESS
The required overlay thickness for each of the three measurement locations (no- cut, zone of influence, and cut) were calculated for each test site per the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2018).

Design inputs were as follows:
 Traffic Index (TI) (based on information provided by the City) o Arterials – 9.5
o Collectors – 8.5
o Residentials - 6.5
 Existing AC thickness
o No-cut – Measured core thickness
o Zone of influence – Measured core thickness
o Cut – Measured core thickness +1 inch (based on the City’s restoration standard detail 132)
 Deflection data obtained through FWD testing (see Section 3.2) Red: Cut or zone of influence with higher deflections than no-cut Green: Cut and zone of influence with lower deflections than no-cut Blue: No significant difference

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
9 Tables summarizing the deflection data as well as the overlay calculations are provided in Appendix B.

Two examples of sections exhibiting damage due to utility cuts are provided. Note that if a cut damages a pavement structure, then the cut and/or zone of influence will require a thicker overlay than the no-cut section. Figure 6 shows the results for Briarvale Avenue, where the cut and zone of influence would need 4.8-inch and

4.2-inch overlays, respectively, to meet structural capacity for a TI of 6.5. In contrast, the no-cut section would require only a 0.1-inch overlay.

Figure 6. Deflection and Required Overlay Thickness for Briarvale Avenue Figure 7 shows the results for Magnolia Avenue, where the no-cut section would need an overlay of 0.6 inches, while the zone of influence and cut would need overlays of 1.5 and 4.2 inches, respectively, to satisfy structural capacity for a TI of

9.5. Figure 7. Deflection and Required Overlay Thickness for Magnolia Avenue

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
10 Figure 8 summarizes the differences in overlay thickness between the no-cut section and the maximum value of either the cut or zone of influence for all test sites. The data are organized by the PCI of the no-cut section.  Red bars indicate test sections that required a thicker overlay to compensate for a loss in structural capacity at the cut or zone of influence compared to the no-cut section.
 Green bars indicate that the repaired cut was performing better than the no- cut section.
 PCI values shown without bars indicate that no overlay thickness was required for that section per Caltrans HDM at any of the measurement locations.

It was observed that 45 percent of the sites would need an average of 3.1 inches of additional overlay in the cut or zone of influence to compensate for the loss in structural capacity due to utility cuts.

Figure 8. Differences in Overlay Thickness

3.4 FEE CALCULATION
Table 2 lists the additional required overlay thickness for all test sites, which represents the difference between the required overlay thickness for the no-cut section and the maximum required overlay thickness at the cut or zone of influence. The additional required overlay thickness is zero if no overlay was required at any of the measurement locations (no-cut, zone of influence, and cut)

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
11 or if both the cut and zone of influence were performing better than the no-cut section.

The cost of the additional required overlay thickness, also provided in Table 2, was calculated using the following typical costs, which were based on recent rehabilitation projects performed in the City:
 Hot Mix Asphalt: $80 per ton
 Cold Plane Milling: $0.30 per square foot
 Other Costs (e.g. concrete repairs, ADA upgrades): 65% of mill and overlay costs
 Design/Engineering/Contingency: 30% of mill and overlay costs Table 2. Additional Overlay Cost
Site
ID
Functional
Classification PCI No-Cut Add’l Overlay
Thickness* (in.)
Add’l Overlay
Cost ($/SF)
CAM Residential 96 0.0 -
IRV Residential 93 0.0 -
GIB Collector 92 0.0 -
KAI Residential 89 1.1 $1.74
SOU Collector 85 0.0 -
BRO Arterial 81 0.8 $1.47
MAG Arterial 79 3.5 $4.38
ANA Arterial 71 5.8 $6.82
NOH2 Arterial 70 0.0 -
MIR Collector 70 0.6 $1.26
OLI Collector 66 0.0 -
KNO Arterial 64 1.1 $1.80
NOH Arterial 62 0.0 -
TER Residential 61 0.0 -
SAN Collector 59 0.0 -
BRI Residential 57 4.7 $5.60
LAP Arterial 55 7.1 $8.24
MID Residential 55 3.2 $4.04
VAN Collector 51 0.0 -
WIN Residential 50 0.0 -
*Difference between overlay thickness of no-cut section and maximum of cut or zone of influence.

Table 3 presents a tiered fee schedule for all City streets based on the structural evaluation. These fees represent the average of the additional overlay costs for each of the three identified PCI ranges.

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
12 Table 3. Tiered Utility Cut Fee Schedule Based on Structural Evaluation PCI Fee ($/SF)
> 65 $1.42
55 to 65 $2.81
< 55 -

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
13 4 Functional Evaluation
Functional deterioration is evaluated in terms of the Pavement Condition Index or PCI, which ranges from 0 to 100. Pavement in excellent condition has a PCI above 85, pavement in good condition has a PCI between 70 and 84, pavement in fair condition has a PCI between 50 and 69, pavement in poor condition has a PCI between 25 and 49, and pavement in failed condition has a PCI below 25.

The PCI is calculated from pavement distress data collected through visual inspection surveys. The degree of pavement deterioration is affected by the types of distresses present as well as their severity and quantity. A section exhibiting functional deterioration due to a utility cut will have a PCI lower than that of its paired no-cut section.

The following subsections present the process and results involved in the functional evaluation portion of this study, including collecting distress data, calculating and comparing the PCI values for the cut and no-cut sections, and calculating and comparing the corresponding reductions in service life. These data were then used to develop a fee structure to recover the costs of functional damage to pavements caused by utility cuts.

4.1 FIELD DATA COLLECTION
At each set of test sites in the City, NCE performed separate distress surveys for the cut and no-cut sections. Distress surveys were performed in accordance with ASTM D6433 (ASTM 2020) and included identification of each distress type and severity, as well as a measurement of the extent. The PCIs for both the cut and no- cut sections were then calculated per ASTM D6433.

4.2 PCI RESULTS
Table 4 lists the calculated no-cut and cut PCIs for all test sites. At all locations the no-cut PCI was higher than the cut PCI, thus indicating the presence of functional deterioration due to cuts at all test sites. This trend is illustrated in Figure 9, which shows the cut PCI compared to the no-cut PCI with a diagonal line illustrating a one-to-one relationship, which all data points lie above.

On average, the PCI of the no-cut sections was 70.3, while the average PCI of the cut sections was 50. This drop in PCI is in part due to the presence of the cut but is also contributed to by additional longitudinal and transverse cracking and fatigue cracking near the cut. On average, the sections with cuts had nearly 1 percent more fatigue cracking than the sections without cuts. Figure 10 shows propagating longitudinal and transverse cracking near the patch on Knott Avenue.

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
14 Table 4. PCI Data
Site ID Functional
Classification PCINo-Cut PCICut
BRO
Arterial
81 65
NOH 62 40
KNO 64 57
MAG 79 59
LAP 55 33
NOH2 70 59
ANA 71 50
SAN
Collector
59 47
MIR 70 48
GIB 92 75
SOU 85 75
OLI 66 59
VAN 51 44
TER
Residential
61 53
KAI 89 75
MID 55 51
BRI 57 41
CAM 96 89
WIN 50 39
IRV 93 72

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
15 Figure 9. Comparison of No-Cut and Cut PCIs

Figure 10. Propagating Cracks Near Patch on Knott Avenue As in the structural evaluation, functional class and pavement age at the time of cut were not significant predictors of the difference between the cut and no-cut PCIs in the functional evaluation.
0204060801000 20 40 60 80 100PCI - No CutPCI - Cut

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
16 4.3 REDUCTION IN SERVICE LIFE
A reduction in PCI corresponds to a reduction in remaining service life (RSL) of a pavement. A pavement’s RSL is the number of years until it falls into failed condition (i.e., a pavement’s RSL reaches zero when the PCI drops below 25).

Based on the AC family deterioration curves in StreetSaver® (a pavement management decision-support tool used by the City), shown in Figure 11, arterials have a total service life of approximately 26 years, collectors have a total service life of 30 years, and residentials have a total service life of 34 years.

Figure 11. Pavement Deterioration Curves for Streets in Anaheim For each test site, the percent reduction in service life due to utility cuts was estimated using the StreetSaver® family deterioration curves. For example, Briarvale Avenue, a residential street with no cuts had a PCI of 57, which corresponds to an effective pavement age of 22 years. In contrast, the paired section that had been cut had a PCI of 41, which corresponds to an effective pavement age of 29 years. Consequently, the service life of the pavement was reduced by approximately 7 years by cutting the pavement. This corresponds to a reduction in service life of 20.6 percent (7 years/34 years). This calculation was performed for all test sites and the resulting percent reductions in life were plotted relative to the PCIs of the no-cut sections (See Figure 12).

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
17 The percent reduction in service life ranges from 5.9 to 38.2 percent and has an average value of 21.3 percent. As shown in Figure 12, the data exhibit an increasing trend – as the PCI of the no-cut, or original pavement, increases, the reduction in service life also increases. This means more functional damage is done to pavements that are in good condition than to those that are in worse condition.

Figure 12. Pavement Deterioration Curves for Streets in Anaheim

4.4 FEE CALCULATION
To quantify the cost impacts of the reduction in service life due to cuts, the estimated percent reduction in life was multiplied by typical pavement reconstruction costs for the City, which were obtained from the City’s recently updated pavement management decision tree1:
 Arterials: $8.78 per square foot
 Collectors: $8.22 per square foot
 Residentials: $6.33 per square foot
For example, Briarvale Ave (site ID BRI), had a 20.6 percent reduction in service life. For a residential street, the typical cost of pavement reconstruction is $6.33 per square foot. Therefore, the cost corresponding to the reduction in service life

1 A pavement management decision tree maps out the City’s typical maintenance and rehabilitation treatment strategies by functional class and pavement condition. 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%0 20 40 60 80 100% Reduction in LifePCI - No Cut

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
18 due to the cut is $1.30 per square foot (0.206*6.33). Table 4 presents the percent reduction in life due to cuts and the corresponding equivalent cost.

Table 5. Percent Reduction in Life and Corresponding Equivalent Cost Site
ID
Functional
Classification PCINo-Cut Reduction
in Life (%)
Reduction in Life
Cost Equivalent
($/SF)
CAM Residential 96 8.8 $0.56
IRV Residential 93 38.2 $2.42
GIB Collector 92 30.0 $2.47
KAI Residential 89 26.5 $1.68
SOU Collector 85 20.0 $1.64
BRO Arterial 81 26.9 $2.36
MAG Arterial 79 34.6 $3.04
ANA Arterial 71 30.8 $2.70
NOH2 Arterial 70 19.2 $1.69
MIR Collector 70 33.3 $2.74
OLI Collector 66 13.3 $1.10
KNO Arterial 64 11.5 $1.01
NOH Arterial 62 26.9 $2.36
TER Residential 61 11.8 $0.75
SAN Collector 59 16.7 $1.37
BRI Residential 57 20.6 $1.30
LAP Arterial 55 26.9 $2.36
MID Residential 55 5.9 $0.37
VAN Collector 51 10.0 $0.82
WIN Residential 50 14.7 $0.93
Table 6 presents a tiered fee schedule for all City streets based on the functional evaluation. These fees represent the average of the service life reduction for each of the three PCI ranges identified (Section 3.2).

Table 6. Tiered Utility Cut Fee Schedule Based on Functional Evaluation PCI Fee ($/SF)
> 65 $2.04
55 to 65 $1.36
< 55 $0.88

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE IMPLEMENTATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
19 5 Fee Implementation
Since utility cuts can cause damage to pavements both structurally and functionally, both types of evaluations are crucial in developing a fee to compensate for appropriate damages. Table 7 lists the tiered fee schedules resulting from the structural and functional evaluations previously discussed. To compensate for both forms of damage to the pavement from utility cuts, the maximum fee in each PCI range is recommended with the fee rounded up to the nearest 10 cents. This yields the farthest column on the right in Table 7. As indicated, fees for pavements with a PCI greater than 65 and less than 55 are based on functional damage while fees for pavements with PCIs between 55 and 65 are based on structural damage.

Table 7. Tiered Fee Schedule Based on Structural and Functional Evaluation PCI Proposed Fee ($/SF)
Structural Evaluation Functional Evaluation Recommended > 65 $1.42 $2.04 $2.10
55 to 65 $2.81 $1.36 $2.90
< 55 - $0.88 $0.90
It is important to note that structural and functional damage does not occur linearly or with respect to each other. For example, in the City, less structural damage occurs when cuts are made to pavements in good condition (the existing pavement withstands the lack of lateral support better) and when poor pavements are cut (significant structural life is already used such that the repair and restoration practices followed by the City may add structural capacity to the pavement). Fair pavements receive the most structural damage.

To account for all damage done to a pavement by a cut, the recommended fees should be multiplied by the area of cut pavement as well as the area surrounding the cut pavement within the zone influence.

However, to simplify the implementation process, the City was interested in a damage fee that could be multiplied by the cut area only. To support this modification, Right of Way Construction Permits (RCP) were reviewed for 3 months within the last 3 years. The months were selected by the City as representative of typical months. Table 8 lists the total number of RCPs received in the selected months as well as the narrowed scope of RCPs that only pertained to cutting the streets for utility work.

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE IMPLEMENTATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
20 Table 8. RCP Breakdown by Month and Street Cut
Month Total RCPs Received Street Cut RCPs
April 2019 201 14
Jun 2020 137 49
May 2021 112 20
Total 450 83
Of the 83 RCPs identified as street cuts, 10 were for trenches only; 12 were for trenches with potholes; 6 were for borings only; 49 were for borings with potholes; 5 were for trenches, borings, and potholes; and 1 was for potholes only. Example Trenching, boring, and pothole activities are shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Example Trenching, Boring, and Potholing Activities The following subsections describe how the cut and affected area for trenches, bore pits, and potholes was determined from the RCPs and how the affected area was converted to a representative Z-factor for trenches and bore pits.

5.1 TRENCH AND BORE PIT Z-FACTORS
The 27 permits for trench utility work were reviewed and the trench dimensions were identified. Trench widths ranged from 1 to 2 feet. The lengths ranged from 9 to 4,182 feet, with an average of 218 feet. Based on a zone of influence extending at least 2 feet from the edge of the cut, the affected area for each trench was calculated by adding 2 feet to each trench dimension. A Z-factor, which represents the ratio of the affected area (including the cut and zone of influence) to the cut area was calculated by dividing the affected area by the trench cut area. Figure 14 shows an example trench cut and Z-factor calculation. The trench cut area is shown in dark gray with the associated zone of influence in light gray.

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE IMPLEMENTATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
21 Figure 14. Example Trench Z-Factor Calculation
Using data from all 27 permits, a weighted average Z-factor per square foot of trench was calculated to be 4.08.

Similarly, the 60 permits that included borings were reviewed and the bore pit dimensions were identified. The total length of borings was not evaluated since cuts to the pavement structure are not made along the entire length, but instead are only made at the bore pits. Common bore-pit dimensions were 3 feet by 6 feet, but widths ranged from 1 to 5 feet and lengths from 1 to 9 feet. On average, there were 5 to 6 bore pits per permit. Based on a zone of influence extending at least 2 feet from the edge of the cut, the affected area for each bore pit was calculated by adding 2 feet to each bore-pit dimension. The bore-pit Z-factor was calculated by dividing the affected area per bore pit by the corresponding bore pit area. Figure 15 shows an example bore pit and Z-factor calculation. The bore pit area is shown in dark gray with the associated zone of influence in light gray.

Figure 15. Example Bore Pit Z-Factor Calculation
Using data from all 60 permits, a weighted-average Z-factor per square foot of bore pit was calculated to be 4.07. The trench and bore pit dimensions, as well as the calculated affected areas and Z-factors, are provided in Appendix C.

5.2 AREA AFFECTED BY POTHOLES
The 67 permits for utility work including potholes were reviewed and the pothole dimensions were identified. Potholes were generally one of two sizes – 2 feet by 2 feet square, or 8-inches in diameter – but some were as large as 3 feet by 5 feet.

The number of potholes varied greatly by permit with some permits having only 1 pothole and others having upwards of 80 potholes. As with the trenches and bore pits, the affected area for each pothole was estimated based on a zone of influence extending approximately 2 feet from the edge of the cut. Figure 16 illustrates an

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE IMPLEMENTATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
22 example pothole and affected area calculation with the pothole shown in dark gray and the associated zone of influence shown in light gray. The average affected area per pothole was 33.1 square feet. The pothole dimensions and corresponding affected area are provided in Appendix D.

Figure 16. Example Pothole Affected Area Calculation

5.3 RECOMMENDED FEE SCHEDULE
Considering the average Z-factor for both trenches and bore pits was very similar (4.08 vs. 4.07), NCE used a Z-factor of 4 for both types of utility cuts. The recommended utility cut damage fees previously presented in Table 7 were multiplied by this standard Z-factor to obtain an appropriate fee for trenches and bore pits. The resulting rate should be multiplied by the trench or bore-pit area to obtain the appropriate damage fee. Similarly, the recommended fee in Table 7 was multiplied by an average affected area per pothole of 33 square feet to obtain a standard per-pothole fee. The resulting recommended tiered fee schedule is provided in Table 9.

Table 9. Recommended Tiered Fee Schedule
PCI Proposed Fee
Trench or Bore Pit ($/SF) Pothole ($/EA)
> 65 $8.40 $69.30
55 to 65 $11.60 $95.70
< 55 $3.60 $29.70
For utility work involving trenches, potholes are typically performed along the trench path in advance of trenching to locate utilities. Consequently, the pothole locations will later be included within the trench area. To ensure that fees are not applied twice for the same cut area, pothole fees should not be applied to trench utility work. For boring projects, potholes are also typically performed along the boring path to locate utilities; however, this pavement area will not be cut again later during boring activities. Therefore, projects involving borings should include fees for potholes.

Since these recommended fees are based on 2021 costs, the fees should be indexed based on inflation and adjusted annually to reflect appropriate cost

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE IMPLEMENTATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
23 changes. On an as needed basis, a sum of money, in an amount determined by the City Engineer to be sufficient to pay for required improvements, may be paid to the City constituting compliance with existing restoration standards.

5.4 COMPARISON WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Table 10 summarizes utility cut fees for agencies throughout California. These fees are based on factors such as those discussed in this report, including functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse). The fees, in dollars per square foot, are multiplied by the utility cut area to obtain a dollar value representing the damage done to the pavement.

As shown, the proposed fee range for the City of Anaheim aligns closely with the fees listed for several cities and counties – particularly, the City of Sacramento and the City of Los Angeles. When comparing fees among different agencies, it is important to remember that the overall pavement condition and standard structures vary among agencies, which will in turn influence the impact of cuts on pavement performance.

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE IMPLEMENTATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
24 Table 10. Utility Cut Fee Schedule Comparison
Agency Criteria Range, $/SF
Anaheim (2021) PCI $3.60-$11.60
Ukiah (2021)
(Implementation in
Progress)
Type of Street, Size of Cut, Age of
Pavement $0.50-$4.25
Pacifica (2021)
(Implementation in
Progress)
Type of Street, Size of Cut, Age of
Pavement $0.50-$4.00
City and County of San
Francisco (1998) Age of Pavement $1.00-$3.50
Sacramento County
(1999), Elk Grove
(2020), Santa Cruz
(2003)
Trench Depth, Type of Street, PCI, Type
of Cut
$1.80-$3.90
(Longitudinal Cut and Trench Depth <4ft)
$2.36-$7.80
(Transverse Cut and Trench Depth <4ft)
$1.80-$5.91
(Longitudinal Cut and Trench Depth >4ft)
$3.60-$11.82
(Transverse Cut and Trench Depth >4ft)
Sacramento (1997) Type of Cut, Pavement Age
$1.00-$3.50 (Longitudinal Cut)*
$2.00-$7.00 (Transverse Cut)*
Modesto (2020) PCI $0.0-$2.50
Patterson (2020) PCI $0.00-$7.30
Santa Ana (1999) Type of Street and Age of Pavement $6.21-$13.68 Los Angeles (2018) Type of Street $8.24-$19.44
*Fee per lineal feet instead of per square foot

U TILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

FEE IMPLEMENTATION A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
25 5.5 ESTIMATED REVENUE
As mentioned, utility cut fees represent a way for local agencies to recover the cost of pavement damage associated with underground utility work. Using the recommended fee schedule for trenches, bore pits, and potholes presented in Table 9, the corresponding fee for each of the 83 utility cut RCPs was calculated. The total fees for all 83 RCPs is $133,348. Assuming the 3 months of RCP data reviewed for this study are representative of typical months, then the estimated annual revenue from utility cut damage fees would be approximately $0.5 million. A list of the RCPs and their corresponding fees is provided in Appendix E.

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

SUMMARY A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
26 6 Summary
The purpose of this study was to assess and quantify pavement damage caused by utility cuts in the City of Anaheim (City) and to develop an appropriate fee schedule for the City to recover any costs associated with such damage.

To determine appropriate utility cut fees, this study measured and analyzed both the structural and functional damage at several test sites within the City and reviewed typical street cut permits. The study yielded the following results:
 Sixty-five percent of test sites exhibited structural damage in the cut or zone of influence.
 Forty-five percent of test sites needed an average additional overlay thickness of 3.1 inches in the cut or zone of influence to compensate for structural damage.
 On average, the PCI of sections without cuts was approximately 20 points higher than those with utility cuts.
 On average, sections with cuts had nearly 1 percent more fatigue cracking than sections without cuts.
 Pavement condition was the best indicator of how much damage was caused by utility cuts. Three PCI zones were identified as having varying effects on utility cut damage:

1. PCI greater than 65

2. PCI between 55 and 65

3. PCI below 55
 The percent reduction in life due to cuts was on average 21.3 percent.  Pavements with higher PCIs experienced more functional damage than pavements with lower PCIs.
 Recommended fees were based on functional damage costs for pavements with PCIs greater than 65 or less than 55 and structural damage costs for pavements with PCIs between 55 and 65.
 The estimated revenue from utility cut damage fees is approximately $0.5 million per year.

The resulting fee schedule represents the cost corresponding to the maximum damages (structural or functional) caused by utility cuts. The information required to implement this fee includes the PCI at the time of cut, the trench and/or bore pit area and the number of potholes. Note that the pothole fee should only be included for potholes relating to boring activities. NCE recommends that the fee schedule be indexed based on inflation and adjusted annually to reflect appropriate costs.

UTILITY CUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND FEE DEVELOPMENT

REFERENCES A NAHEIM, CA
FINAL REPORT F EB 2022
27 7 References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2020. ASTM D6433: Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. California Test 356:

Method of Test to Obtain Flexible Pavement Deflection Measurements for Determining Pavement Rehabilitation Requirements.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. Highway Design Manual.

Infrastructure Management Services, Inc. (IMS) 1994. Estimated Pavement Cut Surcharge for the City of Anaheim, California, Arterial Highway and Local Streets.

San Francisco Department of Public Works. 1998. The Impact of Excavation on San Francisco Streets. Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco and Blue-Ribbon Panel on Pavement Damage.

Stevens, L., M.T. Suleiman, B.R. Schafer, H. Ceylan, and K.A. Videkovich. 2010.

Investigation of Improved Utility Cut Repair Techniques to Reduce Settlement in Repaired Areas, Phase II. Iowa Department of Transportation and Transportation Research Board.

Tarakji, G. 1995. The Effects of Utility Cuts on the Service Life of Pavements in San Francisco. Volume I. Department of Public Works, San Francisco State University.

Todres, H.A. and P.E. Baker. 1996. “Utilities Conduct Research in Pavement Restoration.” APWA Reporter 63(10).

Wilde, W.J., C.A. Grant, and P.K. Nelson. 2002. Manual for Controlling and Reducing the Frequency of Pavement Utility Cuts. Office of Program Administration. Federal Highway Administration.

Appendix A

S UMMARY OF UTILITY CUT STUDIES

MEMORANDUM
Date: 1/19/2022
To: Jason Theim – City of Anaheim
From: Sharlan Montgomery Dunn, Debaroti Ghosh, Margot Yapp – NCE Subject: Summary of Utility Cut Studies and Policies
Job Number: 289.14.30

INTRODUCTION
Utility companies often need to cut existing pavements to access and service their underground equipment. Ideally, all underground utility maintenance would be performed prior to pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction so that cuts are never made in new pavement structures. However, despite the best coordination, utility cuts cannot always be avoided because unanticipated work is often required to maintain essential public services.

Over the last 30 years, local agencies have been interested in understanding and quantifying the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance as well as the corresponding financial impacts. To obtain this information, public agencies, as well as utility companies, have sponsored engineering investigations and studies (Todres and Baker 1996). Many such studies are performed in-house or by consulting companies and are therefore unpublished or difficult to access. These studies often use deflection testing, condition surveys, and statistical analyses to quantify reduced pavement performance as a loss in structural capacity and a decrease in pavement condition. To manage the identified impacts, many studies have recommended restoring additional area surrounding the cut, increasing the overlay thickness, or imposing a restoration fee on utility companies.

These studies and recommendations have led to an increase in public policies that 1) compensate local agencies for the loss of pavement life caused by utility cuts through a utility cut fee, and 2) achieve more acceptable performance of repair work following underground utility access and maintenance through rigorous utility cut restoration standards and moratoria, or “no cut”, periods.

This technical memorandum discusses the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance, details the importance of adequate utility cut restoration, and summarizes the policies in place by various California agencies to address pavement degradation caused by utility cuts.

February 8, 2022

IMPACT OF UTILITY CUTS
The impact of utility cuts on pavement performance can vary significantly based on site- and agency-specific information. Such variables can include the existing pavement condition, structure, and age; location, orientation, and extent of the utility cut; environmental factors; traffic loads; and restoration practices and standards.

Quantification of utility cut impacts further depend on local maintenance treatments and costs. Therefore, to really understand the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed.

That said, underground utility work can damage pavements in three general ways as illustrated in Figure 1. First, the act of cutting a pavement structure creates an easy- access point for water to enter the pavement structure and damage the underlying pavement layers. Second, the removal of the pavement layers creates a plane of weakness where the pavement structure may not be adequately supported laterally – particularly during underground utility maintenance, but also after restoration. Third, the quality of the repair may not match the adjacent pavement structure, thus introducing roughness into the pavement. Rough pavements can cause vehicles to bounce, which creates greater loads on the pavement and leads to more rapid deterioration (Tarakji 1995; Wilde et al. 2002).

Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanisms
These deterioration mechanisms reduce the condition and structural capacity of a pavement, which reduces the life of the pavement within and adjacent to the utility cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Multiple utility cuts on the same street or within a small area can magnify this impact (Department of Public Works 1998, Tarakji 1995).

Reduction in Pavement Life
In the mid-1990s, San Francisco completed a study on the effect of utility cuts on the life of pavement (Tarakji 1995) and confirmed that additional damage was caused. Other

February 8, 2022

cities, including Austin, Cincinnati, Salt Lake City, Philadelphia, and Phoenix, conducted similar foundational studies and found that utility cuts not only reduced the expected life of the streets but consequently cost local agencies millions of dollars in premature street repair and remediation expenses (Arudi et al. 2000; Bodocsi et al. 1995; ERES 1990; NCE 2003; Peters 2002; Wilde et al. 1996).

For example, Bodocsi et al. (1995) reported that new asphalt pavements, which are typically designed to last between 15 and 20 years, once cut can lose as much as 8 years of pavement life. Other studies performed in Austin, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Phoenix estimated between 15 and 20 percent reductions in pavement life due to utility cuts (AMEC 2002; CHEC 1997; IMS 1994; Shahin and Associates 2017; Wilde et al. 1996). For a typical pavement design life of 20 years, this represents a loss of 3-4 years of pavement life.

Additional factors such as cold climates and multiple excavations can increase the impact of utility cuts. For example, utility cuts in areas subject to freeze-thaw conditions were estimated to reduce pavement life by 20 percent (AMEC 2002; Stevens et al. 2010).

Streets with multiple excavations for utility work were estimated to reduce a pavement’s life by 30 to 55 percent (Shahin and Associates 2017; Tarakji 1995; Tiewater 1997).

Statistical data reported by the Department of Public Works in San Francisco (1998) showed that the pavement condition rating decreases as the number of utility cuts increases. For example, the pavement condition index (PCI) for a newer pavement was reduced from 85 to 64 as the number of utility cuts increased to 10 or more.

Zone of Influence
As previously mentioned, a utility cut can result in a loss of lateral support to the existing pavement structure surrounding the perimeter of the trench. This can cause the trench sidewalls to bulge into the trench and weaken the material under the existing pavement.

This weakened area is termed the zone of influence, is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Zone of Influence

February 8, 2022

Various studies have used deflection testing to investigate the loss of pavement strength near utility cuts, estimate the zone of influence, and provide recommendations on restoration (Bodosci et al 1995; Shahin 1999; CHEC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; NCE 2000, 2003). Such studies showed a substantial loss of strength in the zone of influence around the utility cut area (Stevens et al. 2010). For example, studies performed in Union City and Los Angeles showed that the deflection values within the zone of influence were 41- 74 percent higher than in uninfluenced pavement (CHEC 1998; Shahin and Associates 2017).

These studies also indicated that the zone of influence varies by agency and location but is most often 4 to 5 feet from the edge of the trench. Table 1 summarizes research estimating the zone of influence.

Table 1. Summary of Zone of Influence Research
Agency Investigator Publication
Year
Zone of Influence
from Trench Edge
(feet)
Alameda Co, CA CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2000 5.5 Calgary, Canada Karim et al. 2014 3.3
Cincinnati, OH Bodosci et al. 1995 3
Iowa
Department of
Transportation
Stevens et al. 2010 4
Los Angeles, CA Shahin and Associates 2017 2.5 to 10
(average of 5.2)
San Mateo Co,
CA CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999 5
Seattle, WA Nichols Consulting Engineers 2000 At least 2 Springville, UT Guthrie et al. 2015 4
Union City CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998 4 to 7
An extensive field and laboratory study by Iowa State University researchers concluded that the loss of lateral support in the zone of influence is a critical factor in the restoration of utility trenches (Jensen et al. 2005).

February 8, 2022

IMPORTANCE OF UTILITY CUT RESTORATION
As discussed previously, utility cuts can affect pavement performance in and adjacent to the cut area. The excavation equipment and process can also damage the pavement adjacent to the cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Simply backfilling the excavated area will not restore and match the strength and performance of the original material. Therefore, for long-term pavement performance within and adjacent to utility cuts, adequate repair and restoration is necessary.

It is difficult to restore cut pavement to a condition and performance level matching the surrounding pavement. When the repaired pavement condition varies from the existing pavement condition, the result can be a rough surface. Even if the pavement surface is smooth and consistent at the time of the repair, the materials may settle and deteriorate differentially over time. This leads to surface roughness, which then leads to more rapid deterioration (Noel and Tevlin 2012; PEI 1996; Stevens et al. 2010; Wilde et al. 1996).

Utility cut restoration involves performing a treatment, in addition to adequate filling and compaction of the excavated area, to restore the pavement life and maintain the pavement’s structural capacity and performance. Restoration often includes a T-Cut as well as another treatment, such as an overlay or surface seal, that extends beyond the length of the T-Cut arm. This restoration combination is illustrated in Figure 3.

T-Cuts involve cutting back a portion of the pavement surface beyond the edge of the trench to better protect the zone of influence and bridge the plane of weakness. Such repairs have been found advantageous in the restoration of utility cut trenches by alleviating the effects of the lateral support loss due to the excavation (Peters 2002; Stevens et al. 2010). Research has shown that the thickness of the restoration, the quality of materials used, and the placement and compaction methods of fill materials are key factors in ensuring strong pavement performance in future years (Jensen et al. 2005; Stevens et al. 2010 Todres and Baker 1996).

February 8, 2022

Figure 3. Example Restoration Plan.

Restoration Standards in California
Table 2 summarizes the restoration standards held by several city and county agencies throughout California. The specific restoration requirements vary depending on the length of the utility cut, existing PCI, functional classification, and age of the pavement.

Although the use of the T-Cut is widespread among these standards, the additional surface restoration requirements range from no additional treatment beyond the T-Cut to full lane replacements for the entire affected block. For example, the cities of Oakland and San Francisco require a full block restoration depending on the length of the utility cut. Other agencies require only 6 to 24 inches of restoration beyond the edge of the T- Cut. The most common restoration treatment in California is a mill and overlay to a minimum specified depth.

The final required restored pavement thickness also varies among agencies. These final thickness standards are included in Table 2 as the final asphalt thickness over the trench and provide insight into how standards vary throughout California. The typical requirement is for the new restored pavement to conform to the existing pavement thickness over the trench, but additional thickness is sometimes required.

February 8, 2022

Table 2. Summary of Restoration Standards in California Agencies Agency T-Cut
Required
T-Cut Arm
Width
(in.)
Surface Restoration
Requirement Beyond
T-Cut
Restoration
Treatment
Final Asphalt
Thickness Over
Trench (in.)
Alameda Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
Anaheim Yes
Arterials:
full-lane
width

Locals: 12
Locals with cut length
<650 ft: None

Locals with cut length
>651 ft: As indicated in
Restoration Treatment
Column
PCI ≥ 60: Slurry
Seal from curb to
curb
PCI<60: 2-in. Mill
and Overlay from
gutter to trench
limit
Existing thickness +

1.25 or
Match existing
thickness if ≥ 16 in.

Contra Costa
Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness +

1.25 Davis Yes 10
Restoration shall extend
10’ before first patch and
10’ beyond last patch and
be the full width of the
affected lanes
Slurry Seal Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Fremont
If Trench
Width
>24 in.
12 None NA
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
If no T-Cut, 12-15
Fresno Co Yes 6
Minimum of 12 in.
beyond the edge of the
T-Cut

1.25-in. Mill and
Overlay Existing thickness
Long Beach Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Los Angeles Yes 12
If pavement age<8 Yrs,
restore 24 in. beyond the
edge of the T-Cut

1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
(or half the existing
asphalt thickness,
whichever is less)
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
Los Angeles
Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
February 8, 2022

Table 2 Cont. Summary of Restoration Standards for California Agencies Agency T-Cut
Required
T-Cut Arm
Width
(in.)
Surface Restoration
Requirement Beyond
T-Cut
Restoration
Treatment
Final Asphalt
Thickness Over
Trench (in.)
Oakland Yes 12
If cut length >0.25*block
length, restore all
affected lanes for the
entire block
PCI >65: Slurry
Seal
PCI ≤ 65: Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
Sacramento Yes 6 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Sacramento
Co Yes 8
If pavement age<5 Yrs,
restore a minimum of 12
in. beyond the edge of
the T-Cut

1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 6 on major
streets)
(min of 4 on minor
streets)
San
Francisco Yes 12
Minimum of 12 in.
beyond the edge of the
T-Cut
or
If cut length >0.25*block
length, restore all
affected lanes for the
entire block
2-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 2)
San Diego
Co Yes
6-12
(Based on
Trench
Width)
6 in. beyond the edge of
the T-Cut

1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness +1
(min of 4)
San Jose Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness +3
Santa Clara Yes 6 None NA Existing thickness (8-
10)

February 8, 2022

UTILITY CUT POLICIES
A detailed 2002 report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration provided methods that agencies can use to reduce and minimize the damage to streets due to the ever-increasing installation and maintenance activities of utility companies (Wilde et al. 2002). Specifically, the report presents three types of policies local agencies can use to improve the quality of utility cut repairs and promote coordination of facilities. These strategies are 1) incentive-based policies, 2) fee-based policies, and 3) regulation-based policies.

Incentive-based policies provide financial or other incentives for using trenchless technology where technically suitable, performing higher-quality pavement cut repairs, making smaller or less-damaging cuts, and coordinating with other utility companies to share trenches or underground resources.

Examples of fee-based policies include requiring a deposit prior to beginning work to protect against poor repairs, assessing financial penalties for non-compliance with restoration standards or for failed repairs within a specified period, implementing a time- based lane rental fee to encourage utility companies to restore traffic access as quickly as possible, and collecting flat-rate or area-based fees to compensate for increased degradation associated with cutting and excavating pavement.

Regulation-based policies do not require fees or provide incentives, but place requirements on the contractor regarding quality of work, and/or restrictions on when and where trenching can be done. Examples include establishing moratorium periods that restrict utility cuts in newly resurfaced pavements for a specified time, requiring pavement restorations to encompass an area larger than the trench area, enhancing inspections, and enforcing restoration specifications.

Utility Cut Fees in California
Fee-based policies have been growing in popularity throughout California as way for local agencies to recoup the cost of pavement damage associated with poor performing underground utility work. Table 3 summarizes several utility-cut fee schedules for various agencies throughout California. These fees are based on factors including functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse). The fees, in dollars per area, are typically multiplied by the utility cut area to obtain a dollar value that represents the damage done to the pavement. In contrast to having a utility cut fee per unit area, the cities of Sacramento and Santa Barbara have fees per linear foot. This fee is multiplied by the length of linear feet cut rather than the affected area to obtain the total fee value.

February 8, 2022

Table 3. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Elk Grove
Trench Depth < 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 70-100 3.90 (long.)

7.80 (trans.)
PCI 26-69 2.20 (long.)

4.40 (trans.)
PCI 0-25 -
All Other
PCI 70-100 2.41 (long.)

4.82 (trans.)
PCI 26-69 1.18 (long.)

2.36 (trans.)
PCI 0-25 -
Trench Depth > 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 70-100

5.91 (long.)

11.82 (trans.)
PCI 26-69 3.34 (long.)

6.68 (trans)
PCI 0-25 -
All Other
PCI 70-100 3.66 (long.)

7.32 (trans.)
PCI 26-69 1.80 (long.)

3.60 (trans.)
PCI 0-25 -
Los Angeles Select Streets 19.44
Local Streets 8.24
Modesto All Streets
PCI 70-100 2.50
PCI 26-69 1.25
PCI 0-25 -
Patterson All Streets
PCI 70-100 7.30
PCI 50-69 5.25
PCI 0-49 -
Sacramento
(Under
revision –
update
anticipated
2022)
Longitudinal Cut
Age <5 3.50*
Age 5 to 10 3.00*
Age 10 to 15 2.00*
Age Over 15 1.00*
Transverse Cut
Age <5 7.00*
Age 5 to 10 6.00*
Age 10 to 15 4.00*
Age Over 15 2.00*
*Fee is per lineal ft instead of per square foot.

February 8, 2022

Table 3 Cont. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Sacramento
Co
Trench Depth < 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 70-100 3.90 (long.)

7.80 (trans.)
PCI 26-69 2.20 (long.)

4.4 (trans.)
PCI 0-25 -
All Other
PCI 70-100 2.41 (long.)

4.82 (trans.)
PCI 26-69 1.18 (long.)

2.36 (trans.)
PCI 0-25 -
Trench Depth > 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay.

PCI 70-100 5.91 (long.)

11.82 (trans.)
PCI 26-69 3.34 (long.)

6.68 (trans)
PCI 0-25 -
All Other
PCI 70-100 3.66 (long.)

7.32 (trans.)
PCI 26-69 1.80 (long.)

3.60 (trans.)
PCI 0-25 -
San Diego
Arterial Streets
Dry Utilities
Age 0-5 1.95
Age 6-10 1.39
Age 11-15 0.84
Age 16-20 0.28
Wet Utilities
Age 0-5 2.80
Age 6-10 2.01
Age 11-15 1.21
Age 16-20 0.41
Major Streets
Dry Utilities
Age 0-5 0.97
Age 6-10 0.69
Age 11-15 0.41
Age 16-20 0.13
Wet Utilities
Age 0-5 1.93
Age 6-10 1.38
Age 11-15 0.74
Age 16-20 0.28

February 8, 2022

Table 3 Cont. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Criteria Fee ($/SF)
San Diego
Cont.

Collector Streets
Dry Utilities
Age 0-5 1.10
Age 6-10 0.85
Age 11-15 0.61
Age 16-20 0.37
Age 21-25 0.13
Wet Utilities
Age 0-5 3.94
Age 6-10 3.06
Age 11-15 2.19
Age 16-20 1.32
Age 21-25 0.45
Residential Streets
Dry Utilities
Age 0-5 1.34
Age 6-10 1.04
Age 11-15 0.74
Age 16-20 0.45
Age 21-25 0.15
Wet Utilities
Age 0-5 1.67
Age 6-10 1.30
Age 11-15 0.93
Age 16-20 0.56
Age 21-25 0.19
City and
County of
San
Francisco
All streets
Age 0-5 3.50
Age 6-10 3.00
Age 11-15 2.00
Age 16-20 1.00
Santa Ana
Arterials Streets
Age of street since last repaving
Age 0-5 Years 13.68
Age 6-10 Years 12.11
Age 11-15 Years 11.39
Age 16-20 Years 9.11
Local Streets
Age of street since last repaving
Age 0-5 Years 9.27
Age 6-10 Years 8.24
Age 11-15 Years 7.74
Age 16-20 Years 6.98
Age 21-25 Years 6.21
Santa
Barbara Co Flat fee $0.75*
*Fee is per lineal ft instead of per square foot.

February 8, 2022

Table 3 Cont. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Santa Cruz
Trench Depth < 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of Construction
or Structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70 3.9 (long.)

7.8 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 2.2 (long.)

4.4 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other Streets
PCI 100 and 70 2.41 (long.)

4.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 1.18 (long.)

2.36 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Trench Depth > 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay.

PCI 100 and 70

5.91 (long.)

11.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 3.34 (long.)

6.68 (trans)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other Streets
PCI 100 and 70 3.66 (long.)

7.32 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 1.80 (long.)

3.60 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Union City Flat fee 17.3
Some agencies allow fee exemptions if the utility work is performed on older pavement or if the work is performed before an upcoming rehabilitation. For example, the City and County of San Francisco waive the fee for utility work performed on pavements with PCIs less than 53 or a pavement age of at least 20 years. The City of Los Angeles does not require utility cut fees on pavements with rehabilitation scheduled within the next year.

February 8, 2022

Moratorium Standards in California
Regulation-based policies, particularly moratoria, have been passed by cities and counties to protect public infrastructure and preserve the life of streets (Wilde et al. 2002).

Moratoria impose a time period after treatment during which utility or other companies may not perform trenching activities. Table 4 summarizes several California agencies with slurry and rehabilitation moratorium standards. If for some reason utility work during a moratorium period is deemed necessary, agencies often impose higher restoration standards and limits than those required after the moratorium period has expired.

For example, Los Angeles County only requires a surface restoration of 24 inches beyond the edge of the T-Cut for non-moratorium streets but requires that the whole block be repaved for moratorium streets. Such strict moratorium restoration standards encourage utility companies to perform underground utility maintenance prior to pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction and discourages utility work in new pavement structures.

February 8, 2022

Table 4. Summary of Moratorium Standards for California Agencies Agency
Slurry
Moratorium
(years)
Rehabilitation
Moratorium
(years)
Restoration Details if Moratorium Work
Approved
Anaheim 1 3
Extensive pavement restoration according to
the utility cut standard
Limits shall be determined by the City Engineer
Commerce 2 5
Pavement restoration shall be a length of not
less than 50 ft either side of the trench edge
lines, either perpendicular or parallel to the
curb line
Encinitas 3 5
Resurface at least the length of excavation
from curb to curb or from curb line to the
raised median
Longitudinal trenches – Extend T-Cut, grind and
overlay over the entire affected lane or lanes
(from curb to curb or from curb to median
curb)
Transverse trenches - Extend T-Cut, grind and
overlay to 10 feet beyond each side of the
trench and over the entire affected lane
Los Angeles None 1 Repave the whole block
Los Angeles Co 2 2 Resurface the entire lane width
Oakland 5 5
Pavement restoration shall match or exceed
the most recent resurfacing pavement section
depth and material or as directed by the
Engineer
Sacramento Co 3 3
Slurry seal half of the roadway at locations
affected by the excavation for a minimum total
length of 1,000 feet
San Diego 3 5
Resurface the entire lane width from street
intersection to intersection and from curb to
curb
San Diego Co 3 3
Resurface the entire width of the affected road
and the method of resurfacing shall be the
same as adjacent pavement
San Francisco 5 5 Resurface all affected lanes for entire width of affected property frontages

February 8, 2022

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Interest in studying and quantifying the impact of utility cuts on road and street performance has increased over the last 30 years. Consequently, public agencies, as well as utility companies, have sponsored engineering investigations and studies to quantify the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance and estimate the corresponding financial impacts.

Research has shown that utility cuts can reduce pavement life by 15 to 55 percent, which consequently costs local agencies millions of dollars in premature street repair and remediation expenses. Studies have also shown that underground utility work affects not only the excavated area, but often weakens the adjacent pavement. The affected pavement varies based on agency and location but is typically 4 to 5 feet from the edge of the trench.

To help restore some of the lost structural capacity and performance due to cutting the pavement, many agencies have set restoration standards. Restoration standards in California typically include a T-Cut along with a restoration treatment that may be as extensive as replacing the full lane for the entire affected block.

To recover the cost of pavement damage associated with performing underground utility work, many agencies impose utility cut fees. In California, these fees are typically based on factors including functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse).

As evidenced by the variety of studies, standards, policies, and fees, the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance can vary significantly based on site-and agency-specific information. Therefore, to really understand and quantify the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed. In addition, utility cut fees should be updated regularly to reflect accurate and current damage costs.

February 8, 2022

REFERENCES
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 2002. Evaluation of Pavement Cut Impacts. League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and Association of Public-Private Utility Service Providers.

Arudi, R., Pickering, B., and Flading, J. 2000. Planning and Implementing a Management System for Street Pavements with Utility Cuts. Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, University of Cincinnati.

Bodocsi, A., Pant, P.D., Aktan, A.E., and Arudi, R.S. 1995. Impact of Utility Cuts on Performance of Street Pavements. The Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati.

CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1997. Utility Cut Damage Assessment for the City of Sacramento. City of Sacramento Department of Public Works.

CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998. Trench Cut Fee Evaluation Study for the City of Union City. City of Union City, Department of Public Works CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999. Trench Cut Evaluation Study for San Mateo County. San Mateo County.

CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2000. Alameda County Trench Cut Study Final Report.

Alameda County.

Department of Public Works. 1998. The Impact of Excavation on San Francisco Streets.

Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco and Blue-Ribbon Panel on Pavement Damage.

ERES International, Inc. 1990. The Effect of Utility Cut Patching on Pavement Performance in Phoenix, AZ.

Guthrie, W.S, Jackson, K.D., and Montgomery, S.R., and Eggett, D.L. 2015. Quantifying the Effect of Utility Cuts on the Remaining Service Life of Flexible Pavements in Northern Utah. City of Springville and Brigham Young University.

Infrastructure Management Systems (IMS), Inc. 1994. Estimated Pavement Cut Surcharge for the City of Anaheim California, Arterial Highway and Local Streets.

Jensen, K. A., Schaefer, V. R., Suleiman, M. T., White, D. J. 2005. Characterization of Utility Cut Pavement Settlement and Repair Techniques. Proceedings of the 2005 Mid- Continent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa.

Karim, M., Rizvi, R., Henderson, V., Uzarowski, L., and Chyc-Cies, J. 2014. Effect ofUtility Cuts on Serviceability of Pavement Assets – A Case Study from the City of Calgary. City of Calgary and Golder Associates.

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. 2000. Impact of Utility Cuts on Performance of Seattle Streets. City of Seattle.

February 8, 2022

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. 2003. Utility Trench Cut Study Final Report. City of Philadelphia Department of Streets.

Noel, E. and Tevlin, A. 2012. Street Preservation Ordinance and Damage Fee. City of San Diego Office of the Independent Budget Analyst.

Pavement Engineering Inc, (PEI). 1996. Utility Cut Impact Study for City of Oxnard.

Peters, T. 2002. City Combats Damage to City Streets Caused by Utility Cuts. Public Works Journal Corporation 133 (4).

Shahin, M.Y. 1999. Report Analyzing Proposed Trench Cut Fee Ordinance. Department of Public Works, Santa Ana.

Shahin and Associates. 2017. Street Damage Restoration Fee Study. City of Los Angeles, Department of General Services, Bureau of Street Services.

Stevens, L., Suleiman, M.T., Schafer, B.R., Ceylan, H., and Videkovich, K.A. 2010.

Investigation of Improved Utility Cut Repair Techniques to Reduce Settlement in Repaired Areas, Phase II. Iowa Department of Transportation and Transportation Research Board.

Tarakji, G. 1995. The Effects of Utility Cuts on the Service Life of Pavements in San Francisco. Volume I, Department of Public Works, San Francisco State University.

Tiewater, P. 1997. “How to Reduce Utility Trenching Costs.” Better Roads. April 1997, pp 18–20.

Todres, H.A. and Baker, P.E., 1996. Utilities Conduct Research in Pavement Restoration.

APWA Reporter, 63(10).

Wilde, W.J., R. O. Rasmussen, and R. Harrison. 1996. City of Austin Guide for a Comparative Cost Assessment of Utility Work Alternatives. Austin, TX.

Wilde, W.J., Grant, C.A., and Nelson, P.K. 2002. Manual for Controlling and Reducing the Frequency of Pavement Utility Cuts. FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-02-%%%

February 8, 2022

Table R.1 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Alameda Co
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57573edf37013b15f0435124/t/5b2 434326d2a734942eb80b7/1529099326535/Design+Guidelines+SD- 2018Jun06.pdf
3/10/2021
Anaheim https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/22954/132 3/10/2021 Contra Costa
Co
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29792/CU01- PDF?bidId=
3/10/2021
Davis https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8217 3/10/2021 Fremont https://www.fremont.gov/DocumentCenter/View/307/sd- 28_LongitudinalTrenchTransverseTrench?bidId=
3/10/2021
Fresno Co
(Page 293)
http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Std- Specifications-April-1-2011-approved-amended-1-1-12.pdf 3/10/2021
Long Beach
http://longbeach.gov/globalassets/pw/media-
library/documents/resources/engineering/standard-plans/100-general- roadwork/section-127---trench-requirements-in-street-right-of-way--as-of- 11-13-17-
3/10/2021
Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/stdplans/s-400/S-477-2_B4778_%20_.pdf 3/10/2021 Los Angeles
Co
(Page 129)
https://pw.lacounty.gov/des/design_manuals/StandardPlan.pdf 3/10/2021 Oakland http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/PWA/o/EC/s/DGP/index.htm 3/10/2021 (See City of Oakland Guidelines and Standards: Street Excavation Rules) Sacramento
(Page 42)
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/DOU/Specs- Drawings/Addendum%202_Final_042412.pdf
3/10/2021
Sacramento
Co
(Page 17)
https://saccountyspecs.saccounty.net/Documents/PDF%20Documents%20 2008/Drawings/Drawings.pdf
3/10/2021
San Francisco
(Page 27) https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/PW-Order-187005-Signed.pdf 3/10/2021 San Diego Co
(Page 38)
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/sdcfa/documents/pre vention/design-standards.pdf
3/10/2021
San Jose
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=37037
3/10/2021 (Cross Section data from personal correspondence with Lorina Popescu, City of San Jose)
Santa Clara
(Page 31) https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=70118 3/10/2021 February 8, 2022

Table R.2 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Elk Grove https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/ElkGrove/html/ElkGrove12/ElkGrove 1209.html
3/11/2021
Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/StdFeeList/StdFeeList.pdf 3/11/2021 Modesto https://www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/View/4817/Development -Fee-Schedule---Engineering_Encroachment 3/11/2021
Patterson https://www.ci.patterson.ca.us/823/Trench-Cut-Permit-and-Program- Informatio 3/11/2021
Sacramento Resolution No. 97-537 A Resolution Establishing Trench Cut Cost Recovery Fees -
Sacramento
Co
http://qcode.us/codes/sacramentocounty/view.php?topic=12-12_09- 12_09_030&frames=on 3/11/2021
San Diego https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/stdamagefeeincrease.pdf 1/19/2022 City and
County of San
Francisco
https://www.sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Excavation_Code.pdf 3/11/2021 Santa Ana
https://www.santa-ana.org/sites/default/files/finance/budget/2020- 2021/June%2016/Proposed%20Misc.%20Fees%20Schedule_COMBINED.06 .16.20_FINAL.pdf
1/12/2022
Santa Barbara
County https://countyofsb.org/pwd/asset.c/224 3/11/2021 Santa Cruz
http://sccounty01.co.santa-
cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/agendas/2003/200 30401-211/PDF/035.pdf
3/11/2021
Union City CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998. Trench Cut Fee Evaluation Study for the City of Union City. City of Union City, Department of Public Works -

February 8, 2022

Table R.3 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Anaheim https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/22954/132 3/11/2021 Commerce Personal correspondence with Daniel Hernandez, City of Commerce 3/11/2021 Encinitas https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment- 2-Resolution-Exhibit-A_clean.pdf 3/11/2021
Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/permits/7_3.pdf 3/11/2021 Los Angeles
Co
https://pw.lacounty.gov/general/faq/index.cfm?Action=getAnswers&FaqI D=JCMtOzVTUCAgCg%3D%3D&Theme=default&ShowTemplate=#:~:text=T he%20County%20has%20a%20two,date%20of%20the%20resurfacing%20p roject.
3/11/2021
Oakland https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nod eId=TIT12STSIPUPL_CH12.12EX 3/11/2021
Sacramento
Co https://sacdot.saccounty.net/Pages/Trenchingandroadcutmoratorium.aspx 3/11/2021 San Diego https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment- 1-San-Diego-County-and-City-Trenching-Moratorium-Information.pdf 3/11/2021 San Diego Co https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment- 1-San-Diego-County-and-City-Trenching-Moratorium-Information.pdf 3/11/2021 San Francisco https://www.sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Moratorium%20Streets. pdf 3/11/2021

Appendix B

DEFLECTION DATA AND OVERLAY CALCULATIONS

City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Broadway
Site ID: BRO
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

24.53 25.64 26.87

3.37 3.81 2.36

27.36 28.84 28.86
28 16 26

3.9 4.2 4.7
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+00 UnCut 101.3 106.6 18.87 22.65
0+08 UnCut 101.6 107.3 20.03 24.04
0+16 UnCut 101.6 104.2 18.39 22.06
0+24 UnCut 101.7 106.2 19.63 23.56
0+32 UnCut 101.9 106.3 19.03 22.84
0+40 UnCut 101.4 108.2 19.77 23.73
0+48 UnCut 101.9 109.3 20.22 24.26
0+56 UnCut 102.3 109.3 22.74 27.29
0+64 UnCut 102.3 109.5 25.04 30.05
0+72 UnCut 102.3 109.6 18.53 22.24
0+77 UnCut 102.4 108.5 17.75 21.29
0+84 UnCut 102.4 107.9 18.68 22.42
0+92 UnCut 102.5 107.7 20.44 24.53
0+99 UnCut 102.2 106.3 20.46 24.55
0+00 UnCut 102.6 109.0 20.4 24.48
0+08 UnCut 103.1 108.5 20.78 24.93
0+17 UnCut 103.7 107.9 20.75 24.9
0+24 UnCut 103.6 107.8 20.51 24.61
0+32 UnCut 103.8 107.8 22.43 26.91
0+40 UnCut 103.6 107.8 22.97 27.57
0+48 UnCut 103.7 108.8 22.59 27.11
0+56 UnCut 103.6 109.1 24.9 29.88
0+64 UnCut 103.5 109.2 29.54 35.44
0+72 UnCut 103.4 109.1 17.61 21.13
0+80 UnCut 103.2 109.2 16.16 19.4
0+86 UnCut 103.3 109.1 17.22 20.67
0+92 UnCut 103.1 108.5 19 22.8
1+00 UnCut 102.7 109.2 17.9 21.48
0+00 Cut 93.2 105.8 20.51 24.62
0+03 Cut 93.5 105.0 19.91 23.89
0+06 Cut 94.1 104.4 20.54 24.65
0+09 Cut 94.6 104.1 21.48 25.77
0+12 Cut 95.0 103.8 19.86 23.84
0+15 Cut 95.5 105.6 20.71 24.85
0+18 Cut 95.8 105.9 21.1 25.32
0+21 Cut 96.4 106.1 19.89 23.87
0+24 Cut 96.9 106.2 21.23 25.48
0+27 Cut 97.1 106.2 21.37 25.65
0+30 Cut 97.5 106.3 20.95 25.13
0+33 Cut 97.7 105.7 21.38 25.66
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+35 Cut 97.8 105.4 21.77 26.13
0+00 Cut 98.0 107.0 23.79 28.55
0+03 Cut 97.8 106.4 23.43 28.12
0+06 Cut 97.9 106.2 24.16 29
0+09 Cut 98.1 105.5 22.05 26.46
0+12 Cut 98.3 105.6 22.32 26.78
0+15 Cut 98.5 105.7 22.84 27.41
0+18 Cut 98.8 105.9 23.23 27.88
0+21 Cut 98.9 106.2 23.72 28.46
0+24 Cut 98.9 106.3 22.94 27.52
0+27 Cut 99.3 106.1 24.32 29.18
0+30 Cut 99.7 106.1 24.86 29.83
0+33 Cut 100.1 106.3 26.74 32.09
0+36 Cut 100.3 105.2 27.1 32.51
0+00 ZI 103.2 102.9 15.73 18.87
0+45 ZI 103.2 111.1 18.59 22.31
0+00 ZI 103.2 111.5 20.77 24.92
0+45 ZI 103.5 110.3 25.37 30.44
0+00 ZI 103.2 109.9 20.46 24.55
0+45 ZI 103.0 109.2 26.23 31.48
0+00 ZI 102.9 109.5 18.7 22.45
0+45 ZI 103.3 108.7 27.4 32.88
0+00 ZI 103.3 110.1 20.16 24.19
0+45 ZI 103.5 109.9 23.77 28.53
0+00 ZI 103.9 109.9 20.34 24.4
0+45 ZI 104.2 109.2 23.36 28.04
0+00 ZI 104.4 109.2 20.25 24.3
0+45 ZI 103.9 110.6 22.19 26.62
0+00 ZI 104.4 109.1 17.75 21.3
0+45 ZI 104.5 111.1 20.78 24.94
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Nohl Ranch Rd
Site ID: NOH
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

23.05 16.11 18.01

8.98 4.63 3.14

30.59 20.00 20.65
26 26 28

5.1 2.1 2.3
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+04 UnCut 83.8 106.1 9.09 10.91
0+12 UnCut 83.9 105.4 8.86 10.63
0+20 UnCut 83.6 106.5 10.5 12.59
0+28 UnCut 83.0 107.7 12.28 14.74
0+36 UnCut 82.9 103.0 17.89 21.46
0+44 UnCut 83.2 104.5 15.21 18.25
0+51 UnCut 83.2 105.8 23.62 28.34
0+61 UnCut 83.3 105.9 25.89 31.07
0+68 UnCut 83.5 106.1 26.47 31.76
0+76 UnCut 83.0 104.1 17.85 21.42
0+84 UnCut 83.0 105.8 34.9 41.88
0+93 UnCut 83.1 105.9 33.35 40.02
0+96 UnCut 83.2 105.1 29.01 34.81
0+04 UnCut 83.7 104.4 24.03 28.84
0+12 UnCut 83.8 106.1 26.93 32.31
0+20 UnCut 83.7 106.9 26.02 31.22
0+28 UnCut 83.5 106.3 21.84 26.21
0+36 UnCut 83.5 106.5 15.95 19.14
0+44 UnCut 83.4 107.0 14.35 17.22
0+52 UnCut 83.4 105.6 16.3 19.56
0+61 UnCut 83.1 105.5 23.59 28.31
0+68 UnCut 83.2 105.3 14.41 17.3
0+76 UnCut 83.1 106.3 13.89 16.67
0+84 UnCut 82.7 105.7 12.01 14.42
0+92 UnCut 82.8 105.5 12.66 15.19
0+96 UnCut 82.7 105.4 12.53 15.03
0+05 Cut 82.4 106.4 11.42 13.7
0+08 Cut 82.6 106.2 11.67 14
0+11 Cut 82.5 106.2 13.11 15.73
0+14 Cut 82.3 105.2 14.83 17.8
0+17 Cut 82.5 106.2 18.62 22.34
0+20 Cut 82.7 104.6 14.49 17.39
0+23 Cut 82.6 103.9 13.7 16.44
0+26 Cut 82.8 103.8 11.89 14.27
0+29 Cut 82.9 104.2 10.94 13.13
0+32 Cut 83.0 105.3 12.64 15.16
0+35 Cut 83.1 105.7 17.56 21.07
0+38 Cut 83.1 105.1 17.45 20.94
0+42 Cut 83.2 104.6 17.39 20.87
0+05 Cut 83.0 107.3 11.34 13.6
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+08 Cut 83.1 106.8 15.03 18.04
0+11 Cut 83.2 106.5 14.15 16.98
0+14 Cut 83.0 106.1 16.03 19.24
0+17 Cut 82.7 106.2 17 20.4
0+20 Cut 83.0 105.2 16.61 19.93
0+23 Cut 83.0 105.0 19.82 23.79
0+26 Cut 83.1 105.3 16.9 20.28
0+29 Cut 82.9 105.2 12.33 14.8
0+32 Cut 83.0 105.5 12.43 14.91
0+35 Cut 83.1 105.6 13.29 15.95
0+38 Cut 83.1 106.1 16.03 19.24
0+42 Cut 82.8 105.2 17.37 20.84
0+45 Cut 82.8 105.5 18.49 22.19
0+48 Cut 82.9 105.6 17.76 21.31
0+00 ZI 92.5 106.8 7.66 9.19
0+02 ZI 91.6 106.7 8.14 9.77
0+04 ZI 90.8 105.3 10.38 12.46
0+06 ZI 90.0 105.2 10.33 12.39
0+08 ZI 89.3 105.4 10.08 12.1
0+10 ZI 88.8 103.0 10.58 12.7
0+12 ZI 88.1 109.8 10.66 12.8
0+14 ZI 87.2 102.3 19.47 23.36
0+16 ZI 86.6 101.8 13.95 16.75
0+18 ZI 86.0 102.1 13.59 16.3
0+20 ZI 85.9 102.5 11.48 13.78
0+22 ZI 85.7 99.8 12.69 15.23
0+24 ZI 85.4 102.9 14.35 17.23
0+26 ZI 85.1 102.8 13.25 15.9
0+28 ZI 84.9 103.0 17.36 20.83
0+30 ZI 84.7 103.8 14.2 17.03
0+32 ZI 84.6 109.5 12.52 15.02
0+34 ZI 84.3 109.1 12.75 15.3
0+36 ZI 84.2 100.7 12.92 15.51
0+38 ZI 84.2 102.0 12.83 15.39
0+40 ZI 84.0 102.5 14.27 17.12
0+42 ZI 84.0 102.8 13.4 16.08
0+44 ZI 83.8 101.7 14.37 17.24
0+46 ZI 84.0 102.6 15.27 18.33
0+48 ZI 84.0 103.1 15.03 18.03
0+50 ZI 83.9 103.0 27.48 32.98
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Knott
Site ID: Knott
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

11.92 13.97 11.92

3.19 4.65 1.66

14.59 17.88 13.32
51 18 23

0.1 1.3 0.1
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+00 UnCut 72.3 79.9 9.79 11.75
0+04 UnCut 72.8 80.2 8.65 10.38
0+09 UnCut 73.0 80.7 9.41 11.29
0+12 UnCut 73.1 80.7 10.23 12.28
0+16 UnCut 73.5 69.0 9.95 11.94
0+20 UnCut 73.8 80.0 9.14 10.96
0+24 UnCut 74.1 80.2 8.8 10.56
0+28 UnCut 74.2 81.1 8.81 10.57
0+32 UnCut 74.5 79.5 8.48 10.17
0+36 UnCut 74.6 79.5 8.05 9.66
0+39 UnCut 74.7 80.6 8.21 9.85
0+44 UnCut 74.9 80.7 7.83 9.39
0+48 UnCut 75.1 79.8 7.95 9.54
0+52 UnCut 75.2 68.2 7.76 9.31
0+56 UnCut 75.3 68.2 7.18 8.62
0+60 UnCut 75.5 68.2 6.72 8.07
0+64 UnCut 75.7 68.2 6.57 7.89
0+68 UnCut 75.9 67.8 6.21 7.45
0+72 UnCut 76.1 67.5 6.06 7.27
0+76 UnCut 76.2 68.0 6.09 7.31
0+80 UnCut 76.3 68.1 6.36 7.63
0+84 UnCut 76.4 69.2 6.69 8.03
0+88 UnCut 76.6 69.1 6.99 8.39
0+92 UnCut 76.8 69.5 7.19 8.62
0+96 UnCut 76.9 69.7 6.88 8.26
0+99 UnCut 77.1 69.0 8.18 9.82
0+00 UnCut 77.4 83.3 11.26 13.51
0+04 UnCut 77.6 83.4 13.2 15.84
0+09 UnCut 77.8 83.4 13.82 16.59
0+13 UnCut 77.9 83.3 13.57 16.28
0+18 UnCut 78.0 79.8 13.05 15.67
0+24 UnCut 78.2 83.8 8.67 10.41
0+28 UnCut 78.3 83.5 9.21 11.05
0+32 UnCut 78.4 84.3 7.83 9.4
0+36 UnCut 78.5 83.8 9.64 11.57
0+39 UnCut 78.6 84.4 13.7 16.45
0+44 UnCut 78.7 84.5 15.1 18.12
0+48 UnCut 78.8 83.9 14.62 17.54
0+52 UnCut 78.9 84.0 12.73 15.28
0+56 UnCut 78.9 84.4 11.5 13.8
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+60 UnCut 78.9 84.3 11.22 13.47
0+64 UnCut 79.0 84.3 12.19 14.63
0+68 UnCut 79.1 84.4 11.98 14.38
0+72 UnCut 79.2 83.8 11.33 13.6
0+76 UnCut 79.3 83.7 10.81 12.97
0+80 UnCut 79.4 83.8 10.61 12.74
0+84 UnCut 79.4 84.5 12.07 14.48
0+88 UnCut 79.6 85.0 13.79 16.55
0+93 UnCut 79.7 84.3 13.7 16.45
0+96 UnCut 79.7 85.2 13.95 16.74
1+00 UnCut 79.9 85.7 12.63 15.16
0+00 Cut 57.8 65.2 13 15.6
0+02 Cut 58.2 67.1 10.66 12.79
0+03 Cut 58.3 65.6 10.25 12.3
0+05 Cut 58.5 65.7 11.5 13.8
0+06 Cut 58.7 66.5 12 14.4
0+07 Cut 58.9 66.5 9.55 11.45
0+09 Cut 59.1 65.2 10.26 12.31
0+10 Cut 59.2 65.4 10.73 12.87
0+12 Cut 59.5 65.8 11.18 13.42
0+13 Cut 59.6 65.2 10.98 13.18
0+00 Cut 60.1 67.3 7.7 9.24
0+02 Cut 60.8 68.5 8.09 9.71
0+03 Cut 61.1 68.3 7.97 9.57
0+04 Cut 61.4 68.1 9.84 11.81
0+06 Cut 61.6 68.8 10.67 12.81
0+07 Cut 61.8 68.5 9.05 10.86
0+09 Cut 62.2 68.8 10.78 12.93
0+10 Cut 62.5 69.1 9.13 10.96
0+12 Cut 62.8 67.2 8.08 9.7
0+14 Cut 63.1 68.7 8.45 10.13
0+04 Cut 80.4 87.4 8.83 10.6
0+07 Cut 80.5 87.0 9.72 11.66
0+10 Cut 80.6 86.5 10.12 12.15
0+00 ZI 64.5 69.7 10.2 12.24
0+02 ZI 64.9 71.1 9.94 11.93
0+03 ZI 65.3 71.7 8.56 10.27
0+04 ZI 65.6 72.1 9.08 10.9
0+06 ZI 65.8 72.4 11.98 14.37
0+07 ZI 65.9 72.5 15.94 19.13
0+09 ZI 66.3 72.6 16.74 20.09
0+11 ZI 66.5 71.5 17.11 20.53
0+12 ZI 66.7 71.2 16.61 19.93
0+13 ZI 67.0 72.1 16.19 19.42
-0+02 ZI 67.7 72.5 15.96 19.16
0+17 ZI 68.0 72.4 9.5 11.4
-0+03 ZI 68.3 73.9 7.94 9.53
0+17 ZI 68.7 72.9 13.99 16.78
-0+03 ZI 69.3 74.7 6.82 8.18
0+17 ZI 69.8 73.4 7.89 9.47
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
-0+04 ZI 69.9 75.0 6.61 7.93
0+17 ZI 70.5 73.8 8.52 10.23
NCE 3
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Magnolia
Site ID: MAG
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

12.79 13.33 16.44

3.76 6.39 12.02

15.95 18.69 26.54
45 23 32

0.6 1.5 4.2
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+00 UnCut 92.7 95.5 8.01 9.61
0+04 UnCut 92.6 95.0 11.31 13.58
0+09 UnCut 92.5 95.3 10.93 13.11
0+11 UnCut 92.7 95.4 10.99 13.19
0+16 UnCut 92.8 96.9 10.88 13.05
0+20 UnCut 92.9 97.2 11.56 13.87
0+24 UnCut 93.0 97.6 11.59 13.9
0+28 UnCut 93.1 97.8 11.95 14.34
0+32 UnCut 93.2 97.1 11.86 14.23
0+35 UnCut 93.4 97.1 12.28 14.73
0+40 UnCut 93.7 97.2 12.42 14.91
0+45 UnCut 93.6 98.3 11.65 13.98
0+48 UnCut 93.7 98.3 11.68 14.02
0+52 UnCut 93.7 97.6 8.35 10.01
0+56 UnCut 93.8 97.2 6.25 7.5
0+60 UnCut 93.6 97.1 5.9 7.08
0+64 UnCut 93.6 97.2 6.22 7.46
0+68 UnCut 93.6 97.4 5.63 6.75
0+72 UnCut 93.4 97.3 5.4 6.48
0+77 UnCut 93.5 97.7 4.87 5.85
0+80 UnCut 93.4 96.6 5.11 6.13
0+84 UnCut 93.3 97.4 6.42 7.7
0+88 UnCut 93.1 97.3 7.94 9.52
0+92 UnCut 93.1 95.4 8.63 10.35
0+96 UnCut 92.8 96.4 8.57 10.28
1+00 UnCut 92.5 96.6 9.04 10.85
0+00 UnCut 92.4 100.1 14.21 17.06
0+04 UnCut 92.4 98.8 15.81 18.97
0+08 UnCut 92.4 98.3 15.53 18.64
0+12 UnCut 92.2 98.7 15.67 18.8
0+16 UnCut 92.1 99.1 14.22 17.06
0+21 UnCut 92.0 99.0 13.02 15.62
0+24 UnCut 92.2 97.1 12.74 15.29
0+28 UnCut 92.3 98.9 11.17 13.4
0+32 UnCut 92.6 99.3 11.27 13.52
0+35 UnCut 92.8 99.0 12.11 14.53
0+38 UnCut 92.9 99.0 12.37 14.84
0+45 UnCut 93.3 100.4 12.41 14.89
0+53 UnCut 93.5 100.0 11.51 13.81
0+60 UnCut 93.6 101.1 12.19 14.62
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+68 UnCut 93.4 100.3 18.18 21.81
0+76 UnCut 93.5 100.2 13.09 15.7
0+84 UnCut 93.4 100.2 10.85 13.02
0+93 UnCut 93.4 99.9 9.63 11.56
1+00 UnCut 93.3 99.6 8.45 10.14
0+00 Cut 90.6 89.3 25.05 30.06
0+02 Cut 90.7 88.6 25.58 30.7
0+05 Cut 90.9 88.3 23.95 28.74
0+08 Cut 91.1 87.6 23.32 27.99
0+10 Cut 91.2 87.4 24.6 29.52
0+13 Cut 91.3 89.2 24.96 29.95
0+15 Cut 91.5 89.2 28.45 34.14
0+17 Cut 91.7 89.5 29.71 35.65
0+20 Cut 91.7 89.6 30.07 36.09
0+23 Cut 92.0 90.0 28.99 34.79
0+25 Cut 92.4 90.1 26.49 31.79
0+28 Cut 92.6 89.0 18.76 22.51
0+02 Cut 92.7 91.6 5.9 7.07
0+05 Cut 92.7 89.5 7.74 9.29
0+08 Cut 92.6 89.2 7.86 9.43
0+10 Cut 92.6 89.4 6.42 7.7
0+13 Cut 92.3 89.6 5.09 6.11
0+15 Cut 92.2 89.9 4.78 5.73
0+17 Cut 92.2 90.3 5.37 6.44
0+20 Cut 92.2 90.4 2.96 3.55
0+23 Cut 92.3 91.2 2.74 3.28
0+25 Cut 92.3 92.5 2.7 3.24
0+03 Cut 92.3 93.7 12.06 14.47
0+05 Cut 92.2 93.0 10.29 12.35
0+07 Cut 92.2 92.4 10.52 12.62
0+10 Cut 92.1 91.2 10.74 12.89
0+13 Cut 92.3 91.2 10.89 13.07
0+15 Cut 92.3 92.3 4.31 5.17
0+18 Cut 92.4 92.2 3.44 4.12
0+20 Cut 92.5 92.3 4.03 4.84
0+23 Cut 92.4 92.5 4.81 5.77
0+25 Cut 92.3 93.0 5.79 6.94
0+00 ZI 92.4 93.7 11.73 14.07
0+34 ZI 92.5 93.3 11.41 13.69
0+00 ZI 92.5 93.1 11.06 13.27
0+34 ZI 92.5 92.8 9.65 11.59
0+00 ZI 92.6 92.5 12.03 14.44
0+34 ZI 92.4 92.9 9.54 11.45
0+00 ZI 92.8 92.9 13.3 15.96
0+34 ZI 92.8 92.6 6.96 8.36
0+00 ZI 92.9 93.1 7.67 9.21
0+34 ZI 92.7 93.0 6.43 7.71
0+00 ZI 92.7 94.3 5.11 6.13
0+34 ZI 92.6 93.5 4.87 5.84
0+34 ZI 92.7 93.5 7.79 9.35
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+34 ZI 92.8 92.6 10.46 12.55
0+34 ZI 92.6 93.3 19.73 23.68
0+33 ZI 92.8 93.3 23.57 28.29
0+33 ZI 92.9 93.7 25.18 30.21
0+00 ZI 92.8 94.2 8.19 9.82
0+34 ZI 92.3 93.6 6.23 7.47
0+00 ZI 92.7 93.8 12.98 15.58
0+34 ZI 92.6 93.7 7.8 9.36
0+00 ZI 92.8 95.8 11.52 13.82
0+34 ZI 92.5 95.6 12.21 14.66
NCE 3
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: La Palma
Site ID: LAP
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

13.71 38.92 43.64

6.21 10.61 20.68

18.93 47.83 61.01
26 18 26

0.1 5.9 7.3
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+04 UnCut 76.9 81.1 6.14 7.37
0+12 UnCut 76.9 88.7 5.37 6.45
0+20 UnCut 77.0 89.6 5.9 7.08
0+28 UnCut 77.0 89.9 7.1 8.52
0+36 UnCut 77.1 90.6 6.78 8.14
0+45 UnCut 77.1 90.8 7.32 8.78
0+52 UnCut 77.1 90.3 9.47 11.36
0+60 UnCut 77.0 90.5 19.13 22.96
0+68 UnCut 77.0 90.9 10.67 12.81
0+76 UnCut 77.0 91.7 9.63 11.56
0+84 UnCut 76.9 91.8 7.61 9.13
0+92 UnCut 76.9 92.1 9.34 11.21
0+96 UnCut 76.8 91.8 9.47 11.37
0+04 UnCut 76.5 93.4 11.14 13.37
0+12 UnCut 76.5 92.0 10.69 12.83
0+20 UnCut 76.5 91.7 7.29 8.75
0+28 UnCut 76.5 91.0 7.56 9.07
0+36 UnCut 76.6 91.0 8.83 10.6
0+44 UnCut 76.5 90.1 9.11 10.93
0+52 UnCut 76.4 90.5 12.85 15.42
0+60 UnCut 76.3 90.6 18.86 22.63
0+68 UnCut 76.0 92.0 21.72 26.06
0+74 UnCut 76.0 92.1 17.78 21.33
0+82 UnCut 76.0 91.5 18.99 22.79
0+90 UnCut 76.0 91.3 20.26 24.31
0+96 UnCut 75.9 92.3 18.09 21.71
0+03 Cut 75.9 92.2 36.82 44.18
0+06 Cut 76.0 90.0 44.05 52.86
0+09 Cut 76.1 87.9 42.53 51.04
0+12 Cut 76.3 88.1 43.06 51.67
0+15 Cut 76.2 86.4 44.35 53.22
0+18 Cut 76.3 84.3 40.33 48.4
0+21 Cut 76.3 80.8 41.36 49.63
0+23 Cut 76.6 75.2 15.31 18.37
0+26 Cut 76.7 72.5 60.24 72.28
0+03 Cut 76.9 91.8 34.75 41.7
0+06 Cut 76.9 90.3 41.12 49.35
0+09 Cut 77.1 88.7 44.51 53.41
0+12 Cut 77.3 87.8 44.84 53.8
0+15 Cut 77.3 87.5 53.28 63.94
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+19 Cut 77.3 86.6 62.05 74.46
0+21 Cut 77.4 86.1 11.72 14.06
0+24 Cut 77.6 85.4 42.76 51.31
0+27 Cut 77.7 82.3 48.19 57.83
0+03 Cut 77.8 92.2 14.79 17.74
0+06 Cut 77.7 91.9 8.05 9.66
0+09 Cut 77.9 90.5 8.21 9.85
0+12 Cut 78.0 89.2 7.71 9.26
0+15 Cut 78.0 87.9 8.8 10.57
0+18 Cut 78.0 91.5 38.75 46.5
0+21 Cut 78.2 88.6 55.51 66.61
0+24 Cut 78.3 91.0 52.42 62.91
-0+02 ZI 78.5 92.5 23.91 28.69
0+32 ZI 78.7 95.1 21.6 25.92
-0+02 ZI 78.9 95.6 24.01 28.81
0+32 ZI 79.3 93.8 23.13 27.76
-0+02 ZI 79.5 95.4 30.88 37.06
0+32 ZI 79.5 95.6 34.72 41.67
-0+02 ZI 79.6 97.0 32.68 39.22
0+32 ZI 79.7 95.3 46.47 55.76
-0+02 ZI 79.8 93.0 27.22 32.66
0+32 ZI 79.8 95.3 41.6 49.92
-0+02 ZI 79.9 94.7 30.66 36.79
0+31 ZI 79.9 93.7 45.81 54.97
-0+02 ZI 79.8 96.4 26.3 31.56
0+32 ZI 79.7 82.6 40.19 48.23
-0+02 ZI 79.6 96.4 22.84 27.41
0+32 ZI 79.6 84.3 32.47 38.97
-0+02 ZI 79.8 96.4 29.99 35.99
0+32 ZI 79.8 72.6 49.38 59.25
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Nohl Ranch Rd 2
Site ID: NOH2
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

4.03 6.55 3.32

0.89 0.63 0.79

4.78 7.08 3.98
26 25 37

0.0 0.0 0.0
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+04 UnCut 85.2 89.4 2.71 3.25
0+12 UnCut 85.8 90.5 2.7 3.24
0+20 UnCut 86.1 92.5 3.03 3.64
0+28 UnCut 86.5 92.7 3.21 3.85
0+35 UnCut 86.9 93.0 3.42 4.1
0+44 UnCut 87.1 92.4 3.01 3.62
0+52 UnCut 87.8 92.6 2.96 3.56
0+60 UnCut 88.1 93.0 2.88 3.46
0+68 UnCut 88.9 92.3 3.07 3.69
0+76 UnCut 89.8 92.7 3.02 3.62
0+84 UnCut 90.4 93.8 2.92 3.51
0+92 UnCut 90.6 93.7 4.02 4.83
0+96 UnCut 90.6 92.3 3.5 4.21
0+05 UnCut 90.1 95.2 2.77 3.33
0+12 UnCut 89.5 94.6 2.88 3.45
0+20 UnCut 89.7 94.7 2.85 3.42
0+28 UnCut 90.3 94.6 3.01 3.62
0+36 UnCut 90.9 95.2 4.71 5.65
0+44 UnCut 91.4 95.0 4 4.8
0+52 UnCut 92.0 95.0 2.88 3.45
0+60 UnCut 92.8 95.2 2.82 3.38
0+68 UnCut 92.8 94.7 3.28 3.94
0+76 UnCut 93.2 94.6 3.24 3.89
0+84 UnCut 94.0 94.5 3.66 4.39
0+92 UnCut 94.5 95.3 5.33 6.4
0+96 UnCut 94.9 94.2 5.31 6.38
0+02 Cut 93.9 97.5 2.09 2.51
0+03 Cut 94.2 96.6 2.12 2.54
0+04 Cut 94.8 96.3 2.05 2.47
0+06 Cut 94.1 96.2 2.29 2.75
0+08 Cut 93.5 97.1 2.48 2.98
0+09 Cut 92.9 96.2 2.43 2.92
0+10 Cut 92.9 95.8 2.26 2.71
0+11 Cut 92.3 95.8 2.17 2.61
0+13 Cut 91.4 96.7 2.19 2.63
0+15 Cut 91.3 95.9 2.34 2.81
0+16 Cut 91.9 94.9 2.37 2.84
0+18 Cut 92.2 95.4 2.5 2.99
0+19 Cut 92.2 95.1 2.86 3.43
0+21 Cut 92.0 94.7 2.45 2.94
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+23 Cut 91.7 94.2 2.54 3.05
0+23 Cut 91.8 94.0 2.5 3
0+25 Cut 91.7 94.0 2.56 3.08
0+27 Cut 91.9 94.6 2.41 2.9
0+29 Cut 92.0 94.9 2.41 2.89
0+31 Cut 92.2 95.4 2.58 3.09
0+34 Cut 92.5 94.6 2.34 2.8
0+36 Cut 92.7 95.2 2.33 2.79
0+38 Cut 92.1 96.2 2.78 3.33
0+40 Cut 91.9 97.1 3.05 3.66
0+43 Cut 92.9 97.0 2.49 2.99
0+45 Cut 93.8 96.9 2.42 2.91
0+47 Cut 94.0 96.7 2.56 3.07
0+50 Cut 94.1 96.2 2.9 3.48
0+52 Cut 94.2 97.2 3.25 3.9
0+54 Cut 93.5 96.5 3.14 3.77
0+57 Cut 93.5 97.1 3.19 3.82
0+58 Cut 94.6 96.6 3.46 4.15
0+60 Cut 92.8 97.7 3.69 4.43
0+62 Cut 93.3 96.8 3.97 4.77
0+64 Cut 93.5 96.7 4.15 4.98
0+67 Cut 94.3 98.4 4.26 5.11
0+69 Cut 95.1 96.8 4.65 5.58
0+00 ZI 96.0 101.5 5.34 6.41
0+02 ZI 96.1 99.3 5.17 6.2
0+04 ZI 95.8 97.7 5.23 6.28
0+06 ZI 95.4 98.7 5.22 6.27
0+08 ZI 95.3 97.6 5.23 6.27
0+10 ZI 95.6 97.8 5.17 6.2
0+12 ZI 96.0 97.2 5.13 6.16
0+14 ZI 96.0 96.4 5.87 7.04
0+16 ZI 95.9 96.4 6.71 8.05
0+18 ZI 96.1 96.4 6.5 7.8
0+20 ZI 95.6 96.8 6.17 7.4
0+22 ZI 95.0 96.6 6.22 7.46
0+24 ZI 94.9 97.4 6.18 7.41
0+26 ZI 94.1 97.5 5.47 6.57
0+28 ZI 94.4 98.9 5.47 6.56
0+30 ZI 94.4 98.2 4.91 5.89
0+32 ZI 94.4 97.7 4.76 5.71
0+34 ZI 95.1 98.2 4.73 5.67
0+36 ZI 94.9 99.2 5.31 6.37
0+38 ZI 94.3 100.2 5.5 6.6
0+40 ZI 94.4 99.7 5.02 6.03
0+42 ZI 94.5 100.7 5.25 6.3
0+44 ZI 94.9 101.3 5.21 6.25
0+46 ZI 94.0 100.2 5.56 6.67
0+62 ZI 94.5 104.7 5.08 6.1
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Anaheim Hills
Site ID: ANA
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

12.63 28.17 12.90

1.61 9.69 3.51

13.98 36.31 15.85
25 20 25

0.1 5.9 0.6
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+04 UnCut 66.2 69.6 10.89 13.07
0+12 UnCut 66.1 69.4 11.22 13.47
0+20 UnCut 66.0 70.7 10.81 12.97
0+28 UnCut 65.9 69.9 10.7 12.84
0+37 UnCut 65.6 70.2 11.51 13.82
0+44 UnCut 65.4 72.0 10.91 13.09
0+52 UnCut 65.3 79.1 10.3 12.36
0+60 UnCut 65.1 74.3 10.24 12.28
0+68 UnCut 65.2 69.6 10.86 13.03
0+76 UnCut 65.1 69.9 11.47 13.76
0+84 UnCut 65.0 69.6 11.44 13.73
0+92 UnCut 64.8 71.1 10.32 12.39
0+04 UnCut 64.6 68.5 12.84 15.41
0+12 UnCut 64.5 69.4 13.42 16.11
0+20 UnCut 64.5 70.7 12.89 15.47
0+28 UnCut 64.6 69.4 10.03 12.04
0+36 UnCut 64.6 69.4 9.24 11.09
0+44 UnCut 64.6 70.4 7.79 9.34
0+52 UnCut 64.5 74.8 8.17 9.81
0+60 UnCut 64.5 71.9 8.9 10.67
0+68 UnCut 64.6 68.7 9.76 11.71
0+76 UnCut 64.6 68.6 9.92 11.9
0+84 UnCut 64.5 70.2 9.84 11.81
0+92 UnCut 64.5 69.5 10.01 12.01
0+96 UnCut 64.5 69.9 9.66 11.6
0+02 Cut 64.7 77.1 14.32 17.18
0+03 Cut 64.7 75.0 14.29 17.14
0+04 Cut 64.7 72.5 13.6 16.32
0+06 Cut 64.7 70.9 10.96 13.15
0+08 Cut 64.7 70.3 10.01 12.01
0+09 Cut 64.7 70.1 9.28 11.13
0+10 Cut 64.7 70.4 9.9 11.88
0+12 Cut 64.7 70.5 10.57 12.69
0+14 Cut 64.7 70.9 12.02 14.43
0+02 Cut 64.8 73.7 10.53 12.63
0+04 Cut 64.8 72.1 4.78 5.73
0+06 Cut 64.9 70.0 2.49 2.99
0+12 Cut 65.0 70.2 4.93 5.92
0+14 Cut 65.1 70.6 8.83 10.6
0+16 Cut 65.2 71.1 10.47 12.56
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+18 Cut 65.3 72.6 11.08 13.29
0+20 Cut 65.4 73.5 11.58 13.9
0+22 Cut 65.6 76.3 11.96 14.35
0+24 Cut 65.7 76.5 12.01 14.42
0+26 Cut 65.8 77.5 11.75 14.1
0+28 Cut 66.0 81.2 12.12 14.54
0+30 Cut 66.1 83.4 12.28 14.73
0+32 Cut 66.3 86.5 13.68 16.42
0+34 Cut 66.4 85.5 12.5 15
0+36 Cut 66.7 84.9 12.81 15.37
0+00 ZI 67.2 73.6 14.41 17.29
0+00 ZI 67.4 73.9 16.57 19.89
0+00 ZI 67.7 74.2 11.71 14.05
0+00 ZI 68.2 75.7 11.32 13.59
0+22 ZI 68.8 72.9 17.13 20.56
0+23 ZI 69.0 73.5 17.91 21.49
0+25 ZI 69.0 74.0 19.07 22.88
0+27 ZI 69.1 78.9 17.22 20.66
0+28 ZI 69.2 79.7 18.57 22.28
0+30 ZI 69.4 80.8 22.28 26.73
0+32 ZI 69.5 83.3 22.39 26.87
0+33 ZI 69.6 84.2 25.08 30.1
0+33 ZI 69.8 83.8 24.71 29.65
0+35 ZI 70.0 86.0 28.41 34.09
0+36 ZI 70.2 86.0 34 40.8
0+37 ZI 70.3 85.1 34.04 40.85
0+39 ZI 70.5 84.0 32.92 39.5
0+40 ZI 70.5 82.8 33.79 40.55
0+42 ZI 70.8 81.7 33.5 40.2
0+44 ZI 71.0 78.2 34.45 41.35
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Santa Ana
Site ID: SAN
UnCut Zone of Influence Cut

22.23 20.45 15.75

3.97 3.36 5.75

25.57 23.26 20.58
24 18 21

1.5 0.9 1.3
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+03 UnCut 79.1 105.9 20.11 24.13
0+11 UnCut 79.2 104.8 16.45 19.74
0+20 UnCut 79.3 104.6 17.1 20.53
0+28 UnCut 79.4 103.4 22.4 26.89
0+36 UnCut 79.6 100.2 21.29 25.54
0+44 UnCut 79.5 102.1 19.39 23.27
0+52 UnCut 79.6 99.6 18.99 22.79
0+60 UnCut 79.8 100.9 19.19 23.03
0+67 UnCut 79.6 102.0 21.1 25.32
0+76 UnCut 79.7 99.9 23.06 27.68
0+84 UnCut 79.9 100.5 25.17 30.21
0+92 UnCut 79.6 101.5 24.32 29.18
0+04 UnCut 79.8 105.5 19.84 23.81
0+12 UnCut 79.8 103.3 14.12 16.94
0+20 UnCut 79.9 101.7 13.29 15.95
0+28 UnCut 79.9 102.6 15.23 18.28
0+36 UnCut 79.8 102.2 15.27 18.33
0+45 UnCut 79.9 102.8 15.62 18.74
0+52 UnCut 80.0 98.9 16.12 19.34
0+60 UnCut 80.1 100.3 17.56 21.07
0+68 UnCut 80.1 102.3 14.34 17.2
0+76 UnCut 80.1 99.1 16.49 19.79
0+84 UnCut 80.0 100.8 17.41 20.89
0+92 UnCut 79.9 100.7 20.82 24.98
0+02 Cut 81.7 103.3 18.28 21.94
0+03 Cut 81.7 102.8 17.24 20.68
0+05 Cut 81.7 101.8 14.66 17.6
0+06 Cut 81.7 101.1 6.09 7.31
0+07 Cut 81.7 100.2 5.9 7.08
0+09 Cut 81.5 98.3 9.8 11.76
0+10 Cut 81.5 98.1 14.97 17.96
0+02 Cut 81.0 101.6 17.5 21
0+03 Cut 81.1 100.4 17.89 21.46
0+05 Cut 81.0 98.8 17.22 20.67
0+06 Cut 81.1 98.3 11.16 13.39
0+07 Cut 81.0 98.2 4.15 4.98
0+09 Cut 80.8 98.4 8.65 10.38
0+11 Cut 80.7 96.9 15.68 18.81
0+02 Cut 80.4 99.8 15.37 18.45
0+03 Cut 80.0 99.0 16.63 19.95
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+05 Cut 80.1 97.7 17.01 20.42
0+06 Cut 80.1 97.5 13.58 16.29
0+07 Cut 79.8 97.1 4.37 5.25
0+09 Cut 79.6 96.7 12.12 14.54
0+10 Cut 79.4 96.1 17.36 20.83
-0+02 ZI 79.5 102.4 17.98 21.57
0+16 ZI 79.8 101.8 19.35 23.23
-0+02 ZI 79.9 102.3 17.53 21.04
0+16 ZI 80.0 102.5 19.23 23.08
-0+02 ZI 79.9 102.4 17.39 20.87
0+17 ZI 80.1 101.9 18.97 22.76
-0+02 ZI 80.1 102.2 16.87 20.25
0+17 ZI 80.0 101.7 17.83 21.39
-0+02 ZI 79.6 101.4 15.07 18.08
0+17 ZI 79.4 98.4 18.68 22.42
-0+02 ZI 79.6 100.9 13.73 16.48
0+17 ZI 79.5 99.6 19.88 23.85
-0+02 ZI 79.5 101.2 12.37 14.84
0+17 ZI 79.7 99.1 19.34 23.2
-0+02 ZI 79.7 102.0 11.72 14.07
0+17 ZI 79.7 100.3 19.75 23.7
-0+02 ZI 79.5 101.7 12.02 14.43
0+17 ZI 79.5 100.2 18.98 22.77
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Miraloma
Site ID: MIR
UnCut Zone of Influence Cut

14.94 17.18 11.33

7.12 6.41 6.70

20.91 22.56 16.96
24 18 30

1.3 2.0 0.1
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+04 UnCut 80.5 81.0 11.32 13.59
0+12 UnCut 80.9 77.2 1.74 2.09
0+36 UnCut 81.0 79.8 10.73 12.88
0+44 UnCut 81.0 79.6 10.39 12.47
0+52 UnCut 81.3 78.9 15.21 18.26
0+60 UnCut 80.9 78.6 14.43 17.31
0+68 UnCut 80.6 78.3 8.46 10.15
0+76 UnCut 81.0 78.9 6.29 7.55
0+84 UnCut 81.2 79.0 2.03 2.43
0+92 UnCut 81.0 79.7 1.51 1.81
1+00 UnCut 81.1 79.4 1.36 1.63
0+04 UnCut 79.9 83.8 13.91 16.69
0+12 UnCut 79.8 82.9 15.24 18.29
0+20 UnCut 80.1 81.9 14.33 17.2
0+28 UnCut 80.8 80.9 17.4 20.89
0+36 UnCut 81.3 81.1 14.4 17.28
0+44 UnCut 81.6 81.1 17.89 21.46
0+52 UnCut 82.0 81.4 14.02 16.83
0+60 UnCut 82.3 81.6 15.75 18.9
0+68 UnCut 82.0 82.5 17.64 21.16
0+76 UnCut 81.4 81.9 18.84 22.61
0+84 UnCut 81.0 80.5 17.36 20.83
0+92 UnCut 81.0 80.9 19.08 22.89
0+96 UnCut 80.8 82.1 19.39 23.27
0+02 Cut 78.4 71.8 5.84 7.01
0+03 Cut 78.9 71.5 5.81 6.98
0+05 Cut 79.0 72.1 5.92 7.11
0+06 Cut 79.5 71.7 6.02 7.22
0+07 Cut 79.8 72.5 6.36 7.63
0+09 Cut 79.9 72.4 6.27 7.53
0+11 Cut 79.9 72.9 6.26 7.51
0+12 Cut 79.9 73.1 5.97 7.16
0+13 Cut 79.8 72.8 5.67 6.8
0+15 Cut 79.7 72.9 5.41 6.49
0+16 Cut 79.6 72.9 5.44 6.53
0+17 Cut 79.1 72.4 5.52 6.62
0+19 Cut 78.8 71.9 5.43 6.52
0+21 Cut 79.1 71.9 5.97 7.16
0+22 Cut 78.6 72.0 6.55 7.86
0+23 Cut 78.5 72.0 6.81 8.17
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+25 Cut 78.2 71.9 7 8.4
0+11 Cut 78.4 74.8 13.27 15.92
0+12 Cut 78.6 74.8 12.31 14.77
0+14 Cut 78.5 74.5 11.24 13.49
0+15 Cut 78.3 74.3 5.14 6.16
0+17 Cut 78.0 73.5 5.59 6.71
0+18 Cut 78.0 73.5 10.92 13.1
0+20 Cut 77.4 73.1 11.64 13.96
0+22 Cut 77.6 73.3 12.72 15.27
0+11 Cut 77.4 74.2 24.18 29.01
0+13 Cut 77.8 73.7 23.14 27.77
0+14 Cut 77.9 73.1 12.12 14.55
0+17 Cut 77.9 72.5 16.69 20.02
0+20 Cut 78.2 70.2 22.08 26.5
0+00 ZI 77.9 76.1 6.4 7.68
0+37 ZI 77.8 76.3 11.24 13.49
0+00 ZI 77.7 75.7 5.48 6.58
0+37 ZI 77.8 75.3 9.55 11.45
0+00 ZI 78.1 75.3 9.06 10.88
0+37 ZI 77.9 75.1 13.39 16.07
0+00 ZI 78.0 76.1 14.58 17.5
0+37 ZI 77.9 75.5 12.94 15.53
0+10 ZI 78.5 77.3 15.05 18.06
0+28 ZI 78.6 76.8 13.26 15.91
0+10 ZI 78.6 77.8 15.74 18.89
0+28 ZI 78.7 74.9 14.55 17.47
0+10 ZI 78.3 77.9 14.54 17.45
0+28 ZI 77.7 76.1 13.84 16.6
0+10 ZI 78.2 78.1 20.88 25.06
0+27 ZI 78.7 76.7 17.29 20.75
0+10 ZI 79.0 76.9 25.64 30.77
0+27 ZI 79.4 76.7 24.2 29.04
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Gilbert
Site ID: GIB
UnCut Zone of Influence Cut

10.76 10.55 12.46

3.12 2.82 2.19

13.38 12.91 14.31
26 24 34

0.0 0.0 0.0
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+04 UnCut 63.9 81.0 7.14 8.57
0+08 UnCut 64.0 81.2 7.06 8.47
0+16 UnCut 64.2 78.9 9.75 11.69
0+25 UnCut 64.2 71.2 6.74 8.08
0+32 UnCut 64.4 68.2 6.82 8.19
0+40 UnCut 64.6 75.7 6.23 7.48
0+48 UnCut 64.8 71.1 6.5 7.8
0+56 UnCut 64.9 81.1 6.59 7.91
0+64 UnCut 65.1 82.1 6.71 8.05
0+72 UnCut 65.2 82.7 7.35 8.82
0+80 UnCut 65.2 82.1 7.48 8.98
0+88 UnCut 65.2 81.2 7.32 8.78
0+96 UnCut 65.4 81.0 7.16 8.59
0+04 UnCut 65.8 83.0 14.31 17.17
0+08 UnCut 65.7 83.0 13.97 16.77
0+17 UnCut 65.7 80.2 14.12 16.95
0+24 UnCut 65.9 78.6 9.26 11.12
0+32 UnCut 66.1 70.0 9.34 11.21
0+40 UnCut 66.3 79.8 7.73 9.27
0+48 UnCut 66.3 80.1 8.27 9.92
0+56 UnCut 66.1 82.6 8.52 10.22
0+64 UnCut 66.2 83.3 8.77 10.53
0+73 UnCut 66.1 82.6 9.47 11.37
0+80 UnCut 66.2 82.7 10.83 12.99
0+88 UnCut 66.5 79.3 13.3 15.96
0+96 UnCut 66.6 78.2 12.37 14.84
0+03 Cut 64.4 66.0 9.67 11.61
0+06 Cut 64.5 66.2 9.09 10.91
0+09 Cut 64.5 65.8 10.06 12.07
0+12 Cut 64.4 65.8 13.35 16.03
0+15 Cut 64.3 65.8 12.46 14.96
0+18 Cut 64.2 65.8 9.73 11.67
0+21 Cut 64.1 65.4 9.1 10.92
0+24 Cut 64.0 65.4 8.64 10.36
0+27 Cut 63.8 65.5 8.74 10.49
0+30 Cut 63.7 65.8 9.06 10.87
0+33 Cut 63.7 65.8 9.04 10.85
0+03 Cut 63.5 64.5 7.44 8.93
0+06 Cut 63.4 64.1 8.08 9.69
0+09 Cut 63.4 63.4 12.92 15.51
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+12 Cut 63.4 63.5 14.7 17.64
0+15 Cut 63.4 63.4 8.11 9.73
0+18 Cut 63.3 63.2 9.47 11.37
0+22 Cut 63.2 62.8 11.09 13.31
0+24 Cut 62.5 62.9 11.34 13.61
0+27 Cut 62.4 62.9 11.51 13.81
0+30 Cut 62.5 63.0 11.94 14.33
0+33 Cut 62.6 64.1 11.92 14.31
0+77 Cut 62.7 65.7 11.11 13.34
0+80 Cut 62.8 69.0 12.02 14.42
0+83 Cut 62.8 71.3 12.66 15.19
0+86 Cut 62.8 72.1 12.87 15.45
0+89 Cut 62.8 72.9 11.89 14.27
0+92 Cut 62.7 73.1 11.35 13.62
0+77 Cut 62.8 66.3 8.4 10.08
0+80 Cut 63.0 66.8 8.52 10.22
0+83 Cut 63.1 71.8 9.3 11.16
0+86 Cut 63.2 73.1 9.19 11.03
0+89 Cut 63.2 76.6 9.34 11.21
0+92 Cut 63.3 75.7 8.95 10.74
-0+02 ZI 63.7 67.9 9.37 11.25
0+39 ZI 64.0 67.2 7.99 9.58
0+72 ZI 64.1 66.6 8.1 9.72
0+98 ZI 64.0 74.6 9.35 11.22
-0+02 ZI 64.3 68.2 6.71 8.05
0+38 ZI 64.4 67.9 6.55 7.85
0+72 ZI 64.5 67.6 7 8.4
0+98 ZI 64.5 74.6 7.28 8.73
-0+02 ZI 64.5 68.4 5.92 7.1
0+38 ZI 64.4 67.7 7.26 8.71
0+72 ZI 64.4 67.6 7.94 9.53
0+98 ZI 64.4 74.2 7.64 9.17
-0+02 ZI 64.3 67.0 6.2 7.44
0+38 ZI 64.3 66.7 9.14 10.97
0+72 ZI 64.3 66.4 11.02 13.22
0+98 ZI 64.0 74.6 10.42 12.5
-0+02 ZI 64.0 64.8 6.56 7.87
0+38 ZI 64.0 66.2 10.14 12.17
0+72 ZI 64.0 66.8 10.68 12.82
0+98 ZI 63.6 69.0 11.92 14.3
-0+02 ZI 63.6 69.1 6.4 7.68
0+39 ZI 63.7 67.8 10.19 12.23
0+72 ZI 63.8 67.6 11.43 13.71
0+98 ZI 63.7 77.5 15.74 18.89
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: South Street
Site ID: SOU
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

10.96 9.80 11.90

1.42 1.09 1.17

12.16 10.72 12.89
25 16 30

0.0 0.0 0.0
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+00 UnCut 89.2 96.5 9.54 11.45
0+08 UnCut 89.2 96.7 10.58 12.69
0+16 UnCut 89.3 95.8 10.18 12.22
0+24 UnCut 89.3 94.9 9.59 11.51
0+32 UnCut 89.4 93.5 11.91 14.29
0+40 UnCut 89.5 95.1 9.72 11.67
0+48 UnCut 89.5 94.6 8.95 10.74
0+56 UnCut 89.7 94.1 7.37 8.85
0+64 UnCut 89.8 92.9 7.24 8.69
0+72 UnCut 89.7 92.2 8.53 10.24
0+81 UnCut 89.7 92.2 10.41 12.5
0+88 UnCut 89.7 90.8 10.26 12.31
0+96 UnCut 89.8 89.7 8.34 10.01
0+04 UnCut 89.9 96.2 8.72 10.46
0+12 UnCut 90.0 95.6 8.89 10.67
0+21 UnCut 90.0 93.9 9.58 11.49
0+28 UnCut 90.0 94.1 10.24 12.29
0+37 UnCut 89.8 93.4 10.14 12.17
0+45 UnCut 89.8 92.5 9.6 11.53
0+52 UnCut 89.8 92.4 8.05 9.66
0+60 UnCut 89.7 92.4 7.29 8.75
0+68 UnCut 89.7 92.1 7.81 9.38
0+76 UnCut 89.7 91.6 8.73 10.48
0+84 UnCut 89.6 90.8 9.05 10.86
0+92 UnCut 89.6 89.4 7.67 9.2
0+00 Cut 88.3 96.2 11.66 14
0+02 Cut 88.1 95.9 12.52 15.02
0+03 Cut 88.0 96.6 10.68 12.82
0+04 Cut 88.0 96.5 10.44 12.53
0+06 Cut 88.1 96.8 9.55 11.46
0+07 Cut 88.1 96.3 9.54 11.45
0+09 Cut 88.1 96.8 9.59 11.51
0+10 Cut 88.0 97.1 9.72 11.67
0+12 Cut 87.9 96.7 9.79 11.75
0+14 Cut 87.9 96.5 10.6 12.72
0+16 Cut 87.7 96.4 10.84 13.01
0+18 Cut 87.6 97.1 10.12 12.14
0+20 Cut 87.6 96.9 9.51 11.41
0+22 Cut 87.6 96.0 9.25 11.1
0+24 Cut 87.7 97.5 8.98 10.78
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+00 Cut 87.7 96.7 7.96 9.55
0+02 Cut 87.7 97.4 8.21 9.85
0+03 Cut 87.7 97.1 8.71 10.45
0+05 Cut 87.5 98.4 8.86 10.63
0+06 Cut 87.5 98.3 9.06 10.87
0+07 Cut 87.6 97.8 9.3 11.16
0+09 Cut 87.6 97.8 9.99 11.99
0+11 Cut 87.6 97.5 9.87 11.85
0+12 Cut 87.6 97.9 9.67 11.6
0+14 Cut 87.5 97.6 10.35 12.42
0+16 Cut 87.5 97.8 10.83 12.99
0+18 Cut 87.6 97.1 11 13.2
0+20 Cut 87.7 96.8 10.86 13.03
0+22 Cut 87.8 96.4 10.38 12.46
0+24 Cut 87.9 96.7 9.76 11.71
0+00 ZI 88.2 92.3 9.88 11.86
0+35 ZI 88.2 96.0 9.02 10.82
0+00 ZI 88.4 96.5 7.69 9.22
0+35 ZI 88.5 95.8 8.33 9.99
0+00 ZI 88.7 96.6 6.95 8.34
0+35 ZI 88.7 95.3 7.9 9.48
0+00 ZI 89.0 96.4 6.8 8.16
0+35 ZI 89.0 94.3 7.98 9.57
0+00 ZI 89.2 95.5 7.02 8.43
0+35 ZI 89.3 93.9 8.48 10.18
0+00 ZI 89.4 94.5 7.54 9.05
0+35 ZI 89.6 94.0 8.63 10.35
0+00 ZI 89.6 96.4 8.94 10.73
0+35 ZI 89.7 96.0 7.87 9.45
0+00 ZI 89.7 96.4 9.7 11.64
0+35 ZI 89.7 95.0 7.95 9.54
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Olive
Site ID: OLI
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

21.64 10.04 17.30

6.59 2.38 6.14

27.17 12.04 22.45
28 25 26

3.3 0.0 1.8
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+00 UnCut 76.5 74.9 12.61 15.13
0+04 UnCut 76.7 81.7 15.6 18.71
0+08 UnCut 76.9 74.2 13.72 16.46
0+12 UnCut 76.9 73.7 16.19 19.42
0+17 UnCut 77.1 77.3 14.57 17.49
0+20 UnCut 77.1 74.7 11.84 14.21
0+24 UnCut 77.2 75.7 13.95 16.74
0+24 UnCut 77.3 75.7 13.98 16.78
0+28 UnCut 77.5 79.9 14.3 17.16
0+32 UnCut 77.6 81.9 17.74 21.29
0+36 UnCut 77.6 74.1 22.69 27.23
0+40 UnCut 77.6 76.9 23.97 28.77
0+44 UnCut 77.7 80.0 16.36 19.63
0+44 UnCut 77.8 80.2 26.93 32.32
0+48 UnCut 77.8 76.1 8.26 9.91
0+53 UnCut 77.8 76.2 18.23 21.87
0+56 UnCut 77.8 76.3 17.99 21.58
0+60 UnCut 77.8 75.2 16.54 19.85
0+64 UnCut 77.8 74.5 16.66 19.99
0+68 UnCut 78.0 73.0 14.43 17.32
0+72 UnCut 78.0 72.6 13.96 16.75
0+76 UnCut 78.0 72.8 16.44 19.73
0+80 UnCut 78.0 72.8 19.32 23.18
0+84 UnCut 78.1 86.5 22.55 27.06
0+88 UnCut 78.1 85.8 24.86 29.83
0+93 UnCut 78.1 75.2 20.46 24.55
0+96 UnCut 78.2 75.3 28.27 33.93
1+00 UnCut 78.3 78.3 32.48 38.97
0+00 Cut 82.1 69.5 7.44 8.93
0+02 Cut 82.3 69.6 13.45 16.14
0+04 Cut 82.6 68.2 22.17 26.61
0+06 Cut 82.8 69.4 21.85 26.23
0+08 Cut 83.1 69.5 17.64 21.17
0+10 Cut 83.4 69.9 15.86 19.03
0+12 Cut 83.4 70.0 14.38 17.26
0+14 Cut 83.5 69.8 12.59 15.11
0+16 Cut 83.5 69.7 12.41 14.89
0+18 Cut 83.4 69.7 12.94 15.53
0+20 Cut 83.2 70.2 14.41 17.29
0+22 Cut 83.0 70.3 17.37 20.85
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+24 Cut 82.8 71.2 19.58 23.49
0+26 Cut 82.5 72.5 21.66 26
0+28 Cut 82.1 73.4 21.72 26.07
0+30 Cut 81.8 73.7 19.69 23.62
0+32 Cut 81.5 72.4 17.08 20.5
0+34 Cut 81.3 71.4 16.69 20.03
0+36 Cut 80.9 71.0 15.36 18.43
0+38 Cut 80.7 70.9 13.61 16.33
0+40 Cut 80.5 71.7 11.51 13.81
0+42 Cut 80.3 72.8 8.79 10.55
0+44 Cut 80.2 73.0 7.62 9.14
0+46 Cut 80.2 71.0 6.59 7.91
0+48 Cut 80.1 69.8 5.96 7.15
0+50 Cut 80.1 69.7 6.37 7.64
0+00 ZI 77.8 74.8 9.73 11.67
0+00 ZI 77.7 75.9 9.72 11.66
0+02 ZI 77.4 72.8 6.66 7.99
0+04 ZI 77.3 73.2 6.94 8.33
0+06 ZI 77.1 74.3 11.6 13.92
0+08 ZI 77.0 74.2 12.33 14.79
0+10 ZI 77.0 74.5 12.21 14.65
0+12 ZI 76.9 74.5 11.2 13.44
0+14 ZI 76.9 77.1 11.03 13.24
0+16 ZI 76.7 73.9 8.89 10.67
0+18 ZI 76.8 72.4 8.3 9.96
0+20 ZI 76.7 72.9 8.43 10.11
0+22 ZI 76.6 73.0 8.56 10.28
0+24 ZI 76.6 73.6 8.44 10.12
0+26 ZI 76.5 75.7 7.87 9.45
0+28 ZI 76.4 76.4 7.15 8.59
0+30 ZI 76.4 78.1 6.45 7.74
0+32 ZI 76.3 79.9 6.11 7.33
0+34 ZI 76.2 80.8 6.29 7.55
0+36 ZI 76.2 79.0 6.75 8.1
0+38 ZI 76.2 81.5 7.25 8.7
0+40 ZI 76.2 82.4 7.66 9.19
0+42 ZI 76.2 82.9 7.04 8.45
0+44 ZI 76.2 83.4 6.27 7.53
0+46 ZI 76.2 83.2 6.27 7.52
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Van Buren
Site ID: VAN
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

26.51 25.92 16.38

5.96 4.42 8.74

31.52 29.64 23.73
27 14 24

4.3 3.9 2.3
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+04 UnCut 74.1 65.9 26.46 31.76
0+12 UnCut 73.7 68.4 29.71 35.65
0+20 UnCut 73.2 74.7 30.53 36.64
0+28 UnCut 72.4 78.8 27.95 33.54
0+36 UnCut 72.2 65.7 20.07 24.08
0+44 UnCut 71.8 75.7 18.73 22.47
0+52 UnCut 71.5 70.0 30.26 36.32
0+60 UnCut 71.3 64.3 22.83 27.39
0+68 UnCut 71.2 66.8 22.82 27.38
0+76 UnCut 70.9 68.8 24.57 29.48
0+78 UnCut 70.3 68.0 18.66 22.39
0+82 UnCut 70.1 67.1 23.66 28.39
0+90 UnCut 69.8 79.5 22.05 26.46
0+96 UnCut 69.5 78.8 21.45 25.74
0+06 UnCut 68.2 66.4 19.87 23.85
0+12 UnCut 67.8 68.3 16.54 19.85
0+20 UnCut 67.5 76.0 24.89 29.87
0+28 UnCut 67.3 67.3 26.63 31.95
0+36 UnCut 67.1 65.8 21.69 26.03
0+42 UnCut 66.9 68.8 28.45 34.15
0+52 UnCut 66.7 74.0 21.7 26.05
0+61 UnCut 66.4 66.7 16.34 19.6
0+68 UnCut 66.2 67.4 13.83 16.6
0+76 UnCut 66.1 69.5 14.73 17.68
0+84 UnCut 65.9 70.0 13.91 16.7
0+92 UnCut 65.8 80.2 21.36 25.63
0+96 UnCut 65.7 83.8 16.85 20.22
0+02 Cut 65.6 69.3 25.25 30.3
0+03 Cut 65.6 66.8 25.12 30.14
0+04 Cut 65.7 68.8 23.65 28.38
0+06 Cut 65.6 72.1 12.34 14.81
0+07 Cut 65.5 78.2 6.23 7.48
0+09 Cut 65.5 83.9 7.47 8.96
0+12 Cut 65.5 86.2 19.73 23.68
0+02 Cut 65.6 70.7 21.28 25.53
0+03 Cut 65.5 68.2 14.8 17.76
0+05 Cut 65.6 69.3 10.59 12.7
0+06 Cut 65.8 71.4 5.22 6.26
0+08 Cut 65.9 75.7 4.95 5.94
0+09 Cut 65.9 82.8 10.44 12.53
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+11 Cut 66.0 82.7 17.06 20.47
0+02 Cut 67.1 79.6 23.37 28.05
0+03 Cut 67.1 80.1 19.04 22.85
0+05 Cut 67.2 81.8 4.65 5.58
0+06 Cut 67.3 82.7 4.38 5.26
0+07 Cut 67.4 83.7 11.58 13.9
0+02 Cut 67.6 80.5 19.91 23.89
0+03 Cut 67.6 79.5 16.08 19.3
0+06 Cut 67.6 83.3 4.29 5.15
0+07 Cut 67.8 83.9 6.03 7.23
0+09 Cut 68.1 80.2 14.16 16.99
-0+02 ZI 66.5 67.8 25.86 31.03
0+17 ZI 66.6 86.3 25.66 30.79
-0+02 ZI 66.7 68.8 24.54 29.44
0+16 ZI 66.8 86.0 22.33 26.79
-0+02 ZI 66.9 69.6 25.84 31
0+16 ZI 67.0 85.5 22.39 26.87
-0+02 ZI 67.1 68.8 26.76 32.11
0+15 ZI 67.1 84.2 17.98 21.58
-0+02 ZI 69.0 81.1 18.46 22.15
0+14 ZI 69.2 86.3 17.98 21.58
-0+02 ZI 69.3 82.4 17.91 21.49
0+15 ZI 69.5 89.5 16.63 19.96
-0+01 ZI 70.0 83.3 22.13 26.55
0+15 ZI 70.0 89.7 17.99 21.59
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Terrace Street
Site ID: TER
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

39.25 27.72 14.27

13.15 2.20 2.03

50.30 29.56 15.98
24 20 28

3.5 0.1 0.0
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+00 UnCut 79.1 100.8 31.05 37.26
0+04 UnCut 79.1 99.5 34.61 41.53
0+12 UnCut 79.4 99.1 32.94 39.53
0+36 UnCut 79.6 99.5 50.79 60.95
0+42 UnCut 80.0 98.8 55.29 66.34
0+50 UnCut 80.3 98.9 23.3 27.96
0+58 UnCut 80.6 98.9 34.78 41.73
0+64 UnCut 80.9 98.8 30.97 37.16
0+72 UnCut 81.4 97.1 30.43 36.51
0+80 UnCut 81.4 98.4 34.15 40.98
0+88 UnCut 81.6 99.4 28.57 34.28
0+96 UnCut 81.3 98.0 25.79 30.95
0+04 UnCut 81.5 104.7 37.52 45.03
0+12 UnCut 81.5 102.7 33.8 40.57
0+28 UnCut 81.9 105.5 38.12 45.75
0+36 UnCut 82.3 105.1 52.42 62.9
0+44 UnCut 81.9 104.6 51.1 61.32
0+52 UnCut 81.6 103.3 14.56 17.47
0+60 UnCut 81.5 103.6 19.71 23.65
0+68 UnCut 81.9 104.1 32.82 39.39
0+76 UnCut 81.9 105.5 31.77 38.12
0+84 UnCut 82.0 104.9 20.48 24.57
0+92 UnCut 81.7 104.9 20.51 24.62
0+96 UnCut 81.5 103.1 19.55 23.46
0+01 Cut 82.7 103.2 16.72 20.07
0+03 Cut 82.8 103.3 11.08 13.29
0+05 Cut 82.7 102.1 11.18 13.42
0+06 Cut 82.2 102.0 11.8 14.16
0+07 Cut 82.1 101.2 17.14 20.57
0+35 Cut 81.8 104.6 13.35 16.02
0+36 Cut 81.7 104.2 13.11 15.73
0+38 Cut 81.9 103.7 13.05 15.66
0+39 Cut 81.8 102.5 12.12 14.54
0+40 Cut 81.6 102.3 11.36 13.64
0+02 Cut 81.1 103.1 11.5 13.8
0+03 Cut 81.1 102.4 10.37 12.45
0+05 Cut 81.0 100.8 10.68 12.82
0+06 Cut 80.7 100.5 11.89 14.26
0+35 Cut 80.2 102.5 12.11 14.54
0+36 Cut 80.3 101.7 11.49 13.78
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+38 Cut 80.3 102.5 11.59 13.91
0+39 Cut 80.5 101.4 10.18 12.22
0+41 Cut 80.7 100.4 10.26 12.32
0+02 Cut 80.9 99.2 11.65 13.98
0+04 Cut 80.6 99.5 11.15 13.38
0+05 Cut 80.8 98.0 11.25 13.49
0+07 Cut 80.6 99.1 12.84 15.41
0+35 Cut 80.6 101.5 12.39 14.86
0+37 Cut 80.2 100.7 11.45 13.74
0+38 Cut 80.0 100.8 11.23 13.48
0+40 Cut 79.8 99.9 9.47 11.37
0+42 Cut 79.8 99.3 10.64 12.77
-0+02 ZI 80.4 103.3 24.79 29.75
0+11 ZI 80.5 102.1 22.83 27.4
0+31 ZI 80.6 103.9 21.92 26.3
0+44 ZI 80.7 101.8 22.46 26.95
-0+02 ZI 80.2 102.9 23.21 27.85
0+11 ZI 80.3 100.4 21.99 26.38
0+31 ZI 80.5 101.8 21.44 25.72
0+44 ZI 80.8 100.3 21.72 26.07
-0+02 ZI 81.2 102.9 21.78 26.14
0+11 ZI 81.2 99.6 21.24 25.49
0+31 ZI 81.3 100.9 21.63 25.95
0+44 ZI 81.5 99.2 21.87 26.25
-0+02 ZI 81.3 101.0 23.1 27.72
0+11 ZI 81.1 97.7 22.42 26.91
0+31 ZI 80.5 100.5 22.87 27.45
0+44 ZI 80.6 98.7 22.78 27.33
-0+02 ZI 80.3 100.5 27.77 33.32
0+11 ZI 79.9 95.7 24.92 29.9
0+31 ZI 80.0 100.9 27.35 32.82
0+44 ZI 80.2 98.9 23.84 28.61
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Kaiser Blvd
Site ID: KAI
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

17.47 25.08 18.24

11.69 13.65 10.86

27.29 36.54 27.36
26 16 26

0.1 1.2 0.1
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+04 UnCut 81.8 93.2 5.27 6.32
0+12 UnCut 82.1 92.1 7.61 9.13
0+20 UnCut 82.2 93.7 9.64 11.57
0+28 UnCut 82.7 93.6 8.88 10.66
0+36 UnCut 82.9 93.0 10.53 12.64
0+44 UnCut 83.2 92.8 6.13 7.36
0+52 UnCut 83.6 93.6 4.35 5.22
0+60 UnCut 83.7 93.9 3.5 4.21
0+68 UnCut 83.7 93.8 3.49 4.18
0+76 UnCut 83.5 95.1 2.89 3.47
0+84 UnCut 83.6 93.9 2.52 3.02
0+92 UnCut 83.8 94.2 2.2 2.64
0+96 UnCut 84.3 94.0 2.93 3.51
0+04 UnCut 85.4 96.5 20.22 24.27
0+12 UnCut 85.3 92.1 20.34 24.4
0+20 UnCut 85.3 93.2 20.41 24.49
0+28 UnCut 85.2 93.6 23.05 27.66
0+36 UnCut 85.2 95.3 28.12 33.74
0+44 UnCut 85.7 94.3 26.68 32.01
0+52 UnCut 85.5 95.8 27.16 32.59
0+60 UnCut 85.8 96.6 23.11 27.73
0+67 UnCut 85.9 97.1 24.98 29.98
0+76 UnCut 85.6 97.2 22.11 26.53
0+85 UnCut 85.8 97.0 23.31 27.98
0+92 UnCut 85.6 96.4 24.64 29.57
0+96 UnCut 84.9 95.9 24.43 29.31
0+02 Cut 84.7 92.4 2.74 3.29
0+04 Cut 84.7 91.8 2.67 3.21
0+06 Cut 85.2 89.2 2.68 3.22
0+08 Cut 85.3 88.7 2.63 3.15
0+10 Cut 85.0 88.5 2.53 3.03
0+12 Cut 84.8 88.6 2.83 3.4
0+14 Cut 84.9 87.3 3.1 3.71
0+16 Cut 85.1 87.0 4.39 5.26
0+02 Cut 85.3 99.4 23.79 28.54
0+04 Cut 85.4 97.6 23.6 28.32
0+06 Cut 85.7 97.3 22.21 26.65
0+08 Cut 85.9 97.2 21.93 26.31
0+10 Cut 86.1 96.0 21.85 26.23
0+12 Cut 86.4 96.3 23.09 27.7
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+14 Cut 85.8 95.3 18.51 22.21
0+16 Cut 85.9 93.9 9.49 11.39
0+18 Cut 86.2 93.4 21.21 25.45
0+02 Cut 86.4 97.6 24.39 29.27
0+04 Cut 86.4 95.8 22.33 26.8
0+06 Cut 86.2 95.4 21.13 25.35
0+08 Cut 85.5 93.9 22.65 27.18
0+10 Cut 85.9 93.5 23.46 28.15
0+12 Cut 86.9 91.8 23.61 28.33
0+14 Cut 86.8 90.0 17.89 21.46
0+16 Cut 87.3 89.7 10.51 12.61
0+18 Cut 87.8 90.4 19.99 23.98
0+00 ZI 88.5 98.1 3.43 4.12
0+25 ZI 87.1 93.9 3.21 3.85
0+00 ZI 87.3 98.9 4.08 4.9
0+25 ZI 87.8 97.0 8.3 9.96
0+00 ZI 86.7 97.3 9.99 11.99
0+25 ZI 86.5 96.5 16.46 19.75
0+00 ZI 86.4 97.8 24.8 29.76
0+24 ZI 86.4 97.2 23.59 28.31
0+00 ZI 85.8 99.2 28.07 33.68
0+24 ZI 86.3 96.6 25.19 30.23
0+00 ZI 86.8 99.3 32.01 38.41
0+24 ZI 86.8 94.8 28.61 34.34
0+00 ZI 86.9 99.2 31.74 38.09
0+24 ZI 86.6 96.0 32.36 38.83
0+00 ZI 86.8 100.8 32.49 38.99
0+24 ZI 87.7 96.5 30 36
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Midway
Site ID: MID
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

12.99 29.09 34.32

3.67 3.84 5.55

16.07 32.31 38.98
26 21 19

0.0 1.2 3.2
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+04 UnCut 76.2 100.2 18.22 21.86
0+12 UnCut 74.9 97.1 13.66 16.4
0+20 UnCut 75.1 94.4 11.51 13.81
0+28 UnCut 75.2 95.2 12.72 15.26
0+37 UnCut 75.1 96.0 16.02 19.23
0+44 UnCut 75.2 92.0 11.81 14.17
0+51 UnCut 75.2 96.2 15.93 19.12
0+61 UnCut 75.1 96.9 10.19 12.22
0+68 UnCut 74.7 92.5 11.75 14.1
0+76 UnCut 74.3 92.1 7.78 9.34
0+85 UnCut 74.3 94.0 12.12 14.55
0+92 UnCut 74.2 92.4 11.56 13.87
0+96 UnCut 73.9 93.6 11.85 14.22
0+04 UnCut 73.9 98.8 10.43 12.52
0+11 UnCut 73.9 96.2 9.97 11.97
0+20 UnCut 74.2 94.9 10.53 12.64
0+28 UnCut 74.5 94.2 10.5 12.6
0+37 UnCut 74.5 97.0 9.46 11.36
0+45 UnCut 74.0 96.3 9.05 10.86
0+53 UnCut 74.3 98.3 9.33 11.19
0+60 UnCut 74.4 99.3 13.1 15.72
0+69 UnCut 74.4 98.8 8.41 10.1
0+76 UnCut 74.8 98.2 6.36 7.63
0+84 UnCut 74.8 92.9 5.98 7.17
0+92 UnCut 74.9 98.5 6.71 8.05
0+95 UnCut 75.2 98.4 6.38 7.65
0+02 Cut 75.0 101.2 31.61 37.93
0+03 Cut 74.9 99.9 32.13 38.55
0+05 Cut 74.1 92.2 32.65 39.18
0+06 Cut 73.9 96.2 35.4 42.47
0+07 Cut 73.7 92.0 38.49 46.19
0+64 Cut 73.9 99.0 21.61 25.94
0+65 Cut 73.8 99.0 27.65 33.18
0+67 Cut 73.9 97.7 25.64 30.77
0+68 Cut 74.0 95.8 23.8 28.56
0+70 Cut 74.4 95.8 24.57 29.49
0+02 Cut 74.9 102.5 28.33 34.00
0+03 Cut 75.4 100.6 30.96 37.15
0+05 Cut 75.4 98.2 29.78 35.74
0+06 Cut 76.3 98.6 23.51 28.21
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+07 Cut 76.5 97.1 20.34 24.41
0+63 Cut 76.6 98.0 28.19 33.83
0+64 Cut 77.0 100.7 28.9 34.69
0+71 Cut 77.0 97.6 29.73 35.68
0+72 Cut 76.8 97.1 30.15 36.18
-0+02 ZI 81.2 102.7 25.25 30.31
0+11 ZI 80.6 100.9 21.98 26.37
0+59 ZI 80.5 103.9 27.37 32.85
0+74 ZI 79.6 100.6 25.85 31.02
-0+02 ZI 81.0 102.8 25.29 30.35
-0+02 ZI 81.3 101.3 24.61 29.54
0+11 ZI 81.7 100.9 25.87 31.04
0+59 ZI 80.7 102.6 24.94 29.92
0+73 ZI 80.6 100.8 25.21 30.25
-0+02 ZI 79.8 102.0 28.06 33.67
0+11 ZI 79.5 100.0 28.16 33.79
0+59 ZI 80.0 103.8 21.01 25.22
0+74 ZI 80.7 102.9 23.09 27.71
-0+02 ZI 81.5 106.2 26.05 31.26
0+11 ZI 82.2 101.8 28.05 33.66
0+60 ZI 81.6 106.4 17.73 21.27
0+74 ZI 82.2 103.4 21.64 25.97
-0+02 ZI 83.3 99.9 23.35 28.02
0+11 ZI 83.9 100.3 27.29 32.74
0+59 ZI 84.2 105.8 16.92 20.3
0+74 ZI 84.9 103.3 21.38 25.66
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Briarvale Ave
Site ID: BRI
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

29.99 49.90 48.08

3.90 10.64 15.77

33.27 58.83 61.33
24 26 14

0.1 4.2 4.8
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+04 UnCut 62.8 66.4 26.67 32
0+12 UnCut 62.7 66.5 20.87 25.04
0+20 UnCut 62.9 66.7 23.98 28.78
0+28 UnCut 63.0 66.6 31.02 37.22
0+36 UnCut 63.1 66.5 25.92 31.1
0+44 UnCut 63.2 66.6 24.24 29.08
0+52 UnCut 63.1 66.6 24.49 29.39
0+60 UnCut 63.0 67.0 23.96 28.75
0+68 UnCut 63.0 67.4 24.37 29.24
0+76 UnCut 62.8 66.3 25.81 30.98
0+84 UnCut 62.7 66.5 29.68 35.62
0+92 UnCut 62.8 65.6 24.42 29.3
0+04 UnCut 62.9 65.5 32.89 39.47
0+12 UnCut 62.6 64.5 23.65 28.38
0+20 UnCut 62.6 64.5 24.71 29.65
0+28 UnCut 62.7 64.4 23.05 27.66
0+36 UnCut 62.6 64.5 24.73 29.68
0+44 UnCut 62.7 65.1 20.87 25.05
0+52 UnCut 62.7 64.4 21.95 26.35
0+60 UnCut 62.7 64.5 22.3 26.76
0+68 UnCut 62.7 65.2 30.14 36.17
0+76 UnCut 62.6 65.2 21.02 25.22
0+84 UnCut 62.5 66.2 21.84 26.21
0+92 UnCut 62.2 65.2 27.3 32.76
0+02 Cut 59.3 62.3 19.3 23.16
0+02 Cut 59.2 63.7 43.85 52.62
0+03 Cut 59.2 63.7 40.04 48.05
0+05 Cut 59.2 63.8 35.88 43.06
0+06 Cut 59.4 63.8 34.04 40.85
0+07 Cut 59.5 63.6 35.05 42.06
0+09 Cut 59.5 63.6 35.49 42.59
0+46 Cut 59.7 62.8 76.8 92.16
0+48 Cut 59.8 63.0 81.57 97.89
0+49 Cut 59.8 63.2 79.11 94.93
0+50 Cut 59.8 63.2 69.71 83.65
0+52 Cut 59.8 63.1 45.92 55.11
0+53 Cut 59.9 63.2 39.8 47.76
0+55 Cut 60.0 63.1 32.94 39.53
0+56 Cut 60.0 63.1 31.21 37.45
0+58 Cut 60.1 63.2 32.96 39.55
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+48 Cut 60.2 64.4 64.71 77.65
0+50 Cut 60.2 64.5 89.43 107.32
0+52 Cut 60.2 64.7 114.46 137.35
0+54 Cut 60.2 64.9 110.29 132.35
0+56 Cut 60.2 64.8 111.65 133.98
0+58 Cut 60.2 64.9 118.7 142.44
0+60 Cut 60.1 65.0 117.86 141.44
0+62 Cut 60.2 65.5 116.66 139.99
0+64 Cut 60.3 65.5 105.01 126.01
0+00 ZI 60.5 65.1 40.56 48.67
0+02 ZI 60.5 64.9 46.79 56.15
0+03 ZI 60.5 64.6 45.96 55.15
0+04 ZI 60.5 64.9 53.74 64.48
0+06 ZI 60.7 64.9 47.42 56.9
0+08 ZI 60.8 65.1 59.44 71.33
0+09 ZI 60.9 65.2 58.21 69.85
0+10 ZI 61.1 65.5 52.46 62.95
0+12 ZI 61.2 65.5 39.51 47.42
-0+45 ZI 61.4 64.6 30.6 36.73
-0+42 ZI 61.3 65.2 27.34 32.81
-0+41 ZI 61.3 65.2 28.83 34.6
-0+39 ZI 61.4 64.9 28.06 33.67
-0+37 ZI 61.5 65.1 29.29 35.15
-0+35 ZI 61.7 65.2 30.23 36.28
0+00 ZI 61.8 65.8 37.9 45.48
0+02 ZI 61.8 65.8 43.74 52.49
0+04 ZI 61.9 65.8 40.96 49.15
0+06 ZI 62.0 65.4 45.24 54.29
0+08 ZI 62.2 66.6 45.13 54.15
0+10 ZI 62.2 66.4 42.08 50.5
0+12 ZI 62.3 66.4 42.8 51.36
0+14 ZI 62.5 66.9 42.99 51.59
0+16 ZI 62.7 67.3 41 49.21
0+18 ZI 62.8 67.5 43.35 52.02
0+20 ZI 62.8 68.0 37.42 44.9
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Campton
Site ID: CAM
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

11.95 12.44 11.78

2.72 1.24 2.03

14.24 13.48 13.48
26 16 25

0.0 0.0 0.0
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+04 UnCut 73.1 78.0 11.39 13.67
0+12 UnCut 72.6 85.3 10.96 13.15
0+19 UnCut 73.0 71.3 11.25 13.5
0+28 UnCut 73.4 85.5 11.1 13.32
0+36 UnCut 73.8 87.3 9.2 11.04
0+44 UnCut 74.0 86.5 10.1 12.12
0+52 UnCut 74.2 71.2 9.93 11.92
0+60 UnCut 74.6 74.5 10.39 12.46
0+68 UnCut 74.9 92.8 10.77 12.92
0+76 UnCut 75.0 93.1 3.88 4.65
0+84 UnCut 75.1 71.3 12.47 14.97
0+92 UnCut 75.2 83.1 11.79 14.15
0+96 UnCut 75.4 86.6 12.05 14.46
0+04 UnCut 75.6 92.9 12 14.4
0+12 UnCut 75.7 92.4 11.59 13.9
0+20 UnCut 75.9 75.5 9.97 11.97
0+28 UnCut 76.1 94.1 9.94 11.93
0+36 UnCut 76.2 94.7 8.97 10.77
0+44 UnCut 76.4 92.2 9.81 11.78
0+53 UnCut 76.5 73.8 9.26 11.12
0+61 UnCut 76.8 86.9 8.59 10.31
0+68 UnCut 76.9 95.4 10.26 12.31
0+76 UnCut 76.9 95.7 2.39 2.86
0+84 UnCut 77.0 89.1 11.4 13.69
0+92 UnCut 77.1 95.8 9.52 11.42
0+96 UnCut 77.2 95.9 10 12
0+01 Cut 76.7 85.5 10.22 12.26
0+03 Cut 76.2 84.9 9.42 11.31
0+04 Cut 76.2 85.1 9.13 10.96
0+05 Cut 76.0 85.1 8.95 10.73
0+07 Cut 75.9 83.8 8.56 10.27
0+09 Cut 76.0 86.2 8.16 9.79
0+10 Cut 76.0 84.9 8.23 9.88
0+10 Cut 76.0 84.5 8.33 9.99
0+12 Cut 76.0 83.9 8.76 10.51
0+01 Cut 76.0 87.6 10.04 12.04
0+03 Cut 75.9 87.0 9.54 11.45
0+05 Cut 75.6 86.0 9.33 11.19
0+06 Cut 75.5 84.7 8.65 10.38
0+07 Cut 75.4 86.0 8.29 9.95
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+09 Cut 75.5 86.4 7.96 9.55
0+10 Cut 75.4 85.2 8.08 9.7
0+12 Cut 75.0 83.9 8.54 10.25
0+02 Cut 74.0 81.5 13.22 15.86
0+03 Cut 73.6 80.9 13.08 15.7
0+05 Cut 73.8 80.3 13.3 15.96
0+06 Cut 73.6 78.5 12.08 14.49
0+07 Cut 73.6 78.7 11.48 13.78
0+09 Cut 73.5 81.0 11.03 13.24
0+11 Cut 72.9 78.8 10.41 12.49
0+12 Cut 73.0 78.7 10.58 12.7
-0+02 ZI 72.9 82.4 12.02 14.42
0+15 ZI 73.0 80.9 10.78 12.93
-0+02 ZI 73.3 85.3 9.99 11.99
0+15 ZI 73.2 82.2 9.15 10.98
-0+02 ZI 73.1 85.6 9.49 11.39
0+15 ZI 73.3 83.4 8.37 10.04
-0+02 ZI 73.3 87.3 10.19 12.22
0+15 ZI 73.2 82.8 8.58 10.29
0+01 ZI 73.5 87.4 11.45 13.74
0+03 ZI 73.5 86.1 11.55 13.86
0+04 ZI 73.1 84.5 11.05 13.26
0+05 ZI 72.7 83.3 10.86 13.03
0+07 ZI 72.4 82.7 10.67 12.8
0+09 ZI 72.5 82.1 10.58 12.7
0+11 ZI 72.8 80.5 10.58 12.7
0+12 ZI 72.9 81.1 10.53 12.63
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Winston
Site ID: WIN
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

17.81 12.39 11.85

5.12 3.40 1.78

22.11 15.24 13.34
25 18 24

0.1 0.0 0.0
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+04 UnCut 95.4 106.9 12 14.4
0+12 UnCut 95.4 106.8 12.17 14.6
0+21 UnCut 95.6 105.8 14.61 17.53
0+28 UnCut 95.8 107.9 14.23 17.08
0+37 UnCut 96.1 106.5 13.02 15.62
0+44 UnCut 96.3 106.6 10.26 12.32
0+53 UnCut 96.3 106.2 11.2 13.44
0+60 UnCut 96.3 105.8 9.73 11.68
0+68 UnCut 96.3 104.9 11.44 13.73
0+76 UnCut 96.5 102.3 11.24 13.49
0+84 UnCut 96.6 98.4 15.82 18.98
0+92 UnCut 96.8 94.8 16.04 19.25
0+04 UnCut 97.0 106.8 16.97 20.36
0+13 UnCut 96.9 106.2 17.75 21.31
0+20 UnCut 96.9 105.9 25.19 30.23
0+28 UnCut 96.9 106.7 28.31 33.97
0+36 UnCut 96.9 106.6 15.09 18.11
0+44 UnCut 96.8 106.2 16.29 19.55
0+52 UnCut 96.9 106.4 14.39 17.27
0+60 UnCut 96.8 105.5 12.21 14.65
0+67 UnCut 96.8 105.0 12.37 14.84
0+76 UnCut 96.8 105.2 14.3 17.15
0+85 UnCut 96.7 102.3 15.26 18.32
0+92 UnCut 96.7 100.4 13.15 15.78
0+96 UnCut 96.9 99.1 18.04 21.65
0+02 Cut 95.4 91.1 11.69 14.03
0+04 Cut 95.6 92.6 11.77 14.12
0+06 Cut 95.8 93.6 9.49 11.39
0+08 Cut 95.9 94.1 9.09 10.91
0+10 Cut 96.0 93.8 8.93 10.72
0+12 Cut 96.1 94.9 7.87 9.44
0+14 Cut 96.1 94.7 7.95 9.54
0+16 Cut 96.2 95.8 7.83 9.4
0+18 Cut 96.3 95.7 8 9.6
0+20 Cut 96.3 95.8 9.12 10.95
0+22 Cut 96.3 95.9 10.18 12.22
0+24 Cut 96.3 96.0 11.21 13.45
0+26 Cut 96.3 96.4 11.47 13.77
0+28 Cut 96.2 96.9 10 12
0+30 Cut 96.1 98.1 9.46 11.35
Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
Average Deflection (mils):

NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+32 Cut 95.9 98.7 10.56 12.67
0+04 Cut 96.1 96.2 10.95 13.14
0+07 Cut 96.2 95.9 10.28 12.34
0+10 Cut 96.2 95.8 10.81 12.97
0+14 Cut 96.1 96.4 8.61 10.33
0+18 Cut 95.7 96.9 7.37 8.84
0+21 Cut 95.7 97.3 10.21 12.26
0+24 Cut 95.6 96.6 12.86 15.43
0+27 Cut 95.3 97.1 11.23 13.48
0+00 ZI 94.8 95.9 6.79 8.15
0+02 ZI 94.9 96.2 10.76 12.91
0+04 ZI 95.1 96.3 14.74 17.69
0+06 ZI 95.4 95.8 13.58 16.3
0+08 ZI 95.4 95.2 12.1 14.52
0+10 ZI 95.2 95.6 11.44 13.73
0+12 ZI 95.4 95.8 10.69 12.83
0+14 ZI 95.3 95.3 8.03 9.63
0+16 ZI 95.1 95.8 5.89 7.07
0+18 ZI 95.2 95.7 5.87 7.05
0+20 ZI 94.9 94.8 9.37 11.25
0+22 ZI 94.3 95.5 12.16 14.6
0+24 ZI 94.4 95.6 12.87 15.44
0+26 ZI 94.8 95.4 10.52 12.62
0+28 ZI 94.6 96.0 6.82 8.19
0+30 ZI 94.8 95.4 8.17 9.81
0+36 ZI 95.1 96.3 11.86 14.24
0+37 ZI 95.1 96.4 14.11 16.94
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
FWD Deflections
Street: Irving
Site ID: IRV
No-Cut Zone of Influence Cut

7.72 9.82 10.07

1.66 1.01 2.69

9.11 10.67 12.33
26 21 25

0.0 0.0 0.0
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+00 UnCut 87.3 83.7 8.72 10.47
0+08 UnCut 87.4 82.5 8.24 9.89
0+16 UnCut 87.5 82.5 7.27 8.72
0+24 UnCut 87.6 84.3 8.27 9.92
0+32 UnCut 87.8 83.4 5.98 7.17
0+40 UnCut 87.9 83.4 5.11 6.14
0+48 UnCut 88.1 84.1 5.1 6.12
0+56 UnCut 88.2 83.2 10.06 12.07
0+64 UnCut 88.4 83.6 5.1 6.12
0+72 UnCut 88.6 84.3 5.89 7.07
0+81 UnCut 88.6 87.2 6.99 8.39
0+87 UnCut 88.7 89.3 8.02 9.62
0+96 UnCut 89.0 90.0 7.03 8.44
0+98 UnCut 89.5 92.0 5.19 6.23
0+90 UnCut 89.8 92.0 5.51 6.61
0+82 UnCut 90.1 91.7 6.76 8.11
0+75 UnCut 90.3 90.0 6.34 7.61
0+66 UnCut 90.5 89.3 5.3 6.36
0+59 UnCut 90.8 89.0 5.84 7.01
0+51 UnCut 91.1 88.6 5.34 6.41
0+42 UnCut 91.4 89.2 4.75 5.7
0+35 UnCut 91.7 90.6 4.81 5.78
0+26 UnCut 92.0 91.7 5.4 6.48
0+18 UnCut 92.4 92.8 6.07 7.28
0+10 UnCut 92.6 93.5 7.12 8.54
0+02 UnCut 92.9 94.3 7.11 8.54
0+03 Cut 86.3 90.1 11.93 14.32
0+06 Cut 86.2 89.2 10.29 12.35
0+09 Cut 86.2 87.5 10.15 12.18
0+12 Cut 86.2 86.9 9.55 11.46
0+15 Cut 86.1 86.8 9.23 11.08
0+18 Cut 86.1 83.6 9.43 11.32
0+21 Cut 86.1 82.7 9 10.81
0+24 Cut 86.0 82.8 9.16 11
0+00 Cut 86.0 87.7 15.34 18.41
0+03 Cut 86.0 86.5 9.44 11.33
0+06 Cut 86.0 86.1 7.1 8.52
0+09 Cut 86.0 85.6 6.42 7.7
0+12 Cut 86.1 85.6 6.05 7.25
0+15 Cut 86.1 84.6 5.44 6.52
Average Deflection (mils):

Standard Deviation (mils):
80th% Deflection (Avg + 0.84s) (mils):

Total Test Points:

Overlay Thickness (in.)
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Station Section Air Temp
(oF)
Pvmt Temp
(oF)
FWD Defl.
(mils)
Deflectometer
(mils) Comment
0+18 Cut 86.1 84.3 5.45 6.54
0+21 Cut 86.1 84.0 5.4 6.48
0+24 Cut 86.2 83.9 5.59 6.7
0+24 Cut 86.3 83.5 8.81 10.58
0+21 Cut 86.5 83.6 8.69 10.42
0+18 Cut 86.7 83.9 8.24 9.89
0+15 Cut 86.6 84.3 8 9.6
0+12 Cut 86.7 84.7 7.69 9.23
0+09 Cut 86.6 84.7 7.65 9.18
0+06 Cut 86.5 86.1 7.73 9.28
0+03 Cut 86.5 87.2 8.02 9.62
0+00 ZI 86.9 82.6 9.42 11.3
0+02 ZI 86.9 83.2 9.2 11.04
0+03 ZI 86.9 83.3 9.24 11.09
0+04 ZI 87.0 83.2 9 10.8
0+06 ZI 87.0 83.4 8.56 10.27
0+07 ZI 87.1 83.3 8.17 9.8
0+09 ZI 87.0 84.1 8.64 10.36
0+10 ZI 87.1 83.9 8.76 10.52
0+12 ZI 87.1 83.9 9.09 10.9
0+13 ZI 86.9 83.9 9.06 10.88
0+15 ZI 86.8 83.9 8.18 9.82
0+17 ZI 86.8 84.0 7.53 9.04
0+19 ZI 86.7 84.5 6.96 8.35
0+21 ZI 86.2 85.5 6.98 8.38
0+23 ZI 86.1 85.5 7.12 8.54
0+32 ZI 86.1 89.2 6.8 8.16
0+33 ZI 86.1 87.3 8.18 9.82
0+33 ZI 86.3 86.6 7.34 8.8
0+33 ZI 86.4 87.1 7.63 9.15
0+33 ZI 86.5 87.0 7.72 9.27
0+33 ZI 86.5 87.4 8.31 9.98
NCE 2
City of Anaheim
Overlay Calculations
Street Name(Input)SectionCore Depth (in.)(Input)Core Depth (ft)TB or PCC present?City T.I.(Input)Design Milling depth (ft)Thickness after milling (ft)Thickness after milling (in)Toler. Deflect. (mils) (Table 635.2A)Mean Deflection (mils)(Input)Stand. Dev.(Input)80th% (mils)(Input)Adjusted 80th% for milling% Red. In DeflGE (Table 635.2B) (ft)Required Overlay (ft)Required Overlay (in) UnCut 5.2 0.43 No 9.5 0.00 0.43 5.20 14 24.5 3.4 27.4 27.4 49% 0.61 0.32 3.9 Cut 6.2 0.52 No 9.5 0.00 0.52 6.20 13 26.9 2.4 28.9 28.9 55% 0.74 0.39 4.7 ZI 5.2 0.43 No 9.5 0.00 0.43 5.20 14 25.6 3.8 28.8 28.8 51% 0.66 0.35 4.2 UnCut 8.2 0.68 No 9.5 0.00 0.68 8.20 13 23.1 9.0 30.6 30.6 58% 0.81 0.43 5.1 Cut 9.2 0.77 No 9.5 0.00 0.77 9.20 13 18.0 3.1 20.6 20.6 37% 0.37 0.19 2.3 ZI 8.2 0.68 No 9.5 0.00 0.68 8.20 13 16.1 4.6 20.0 20.0 35% 0.33 0.17 2.1 UnCut 8.9 0.74 No 9.5 0.00 0.74 8.90 13 11.9 3.2 14.6 14.6 11% 0.02 0.01 0.1 Cut 9.9 0.83 No 9.5 0.00 0.83 9.90 13 11.9 1.7 13.3 13.3 2% 0.02 0.01 0.1 ZI 8.9 0.74 No 9.5 0.00 0.74 8.90 13 14.0 4.7 17.9 17.9 27% 0.20 0.11 1.3 UnCut 7.5 0.63 No 9.5 0.00 0.63 7.50 13 12.8 3.8 16.0 16.0 19% 0.10 0.05 0.6 Cut 8.5 0.71 No 9.5 0.00 0.71 8.50 13 16.4 12.0 26.5 26.5 51% 0.66 0.35 4.2 ZI 7.5 0.63 No 9.5 0.00 0.63 7.50 13 13.3 6.4 18.7 18.7 30% 0.24 0.13 1.5 UnCut 3.3 0.28 No 9.5 0.00 0.28 3.30 17 13.7 6.2 18.9 18.9 10% 0.02 0.01 0.1 Cut 4.3 0.36 No 9.5 0.00 0.36 4.30 16 43.6 20.7 61.0 61.0 74% 1.15 0.61 7.3 ZI 3.3 0.28 No 9.5 0.00 0.28 3.30 17 38.9 10.6 47.8 47.8 64% 0.94 0.49 5.9 UnCut 14.9 1.24 No 9.5 0.00 1.24 14.90 13 4.0 0.9 4.8 4.8 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 Cut 15.9 1.33 No 9.5 0.00 1.33 15.90 13 3.3 0.8 4.0 4.0 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 ZI 14.9 1.24 No 9.5 0.00 1.24 14.90 13 6.5 0.6 7.1 7.1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 UnCut 6.3 0.53 No 9.5 0.00 0.53 6.30 13 12.6 1.6 14.0 14.0 7% 0.02 0.01 0.1 Cut 7.3 0.61 No 9.5 0.00 0.61 7.30 13 12.9 3.5 15.8 15.8 18% 0.09 0.05 0.6 ZI 6.3 0.53 No 9.5 0.00 0.53 6.30 13 28.2 9.7 36.3 36.3 64% 0.94 0.49 5.9 UnCut 4.9 0.41 No 8.5 0.00 0.41 4.90 18 22.2 4.0 25.6 25.6 30% 0.24 0.13 1.5 Cut 5.9 0.49 No 8.5 0.00 0.49 5.90 15 15.8 5.8 20.6 20.6 27% 0.20 0.11 1.3 ZI 4.9 0.41 No 8.5 0.00 0.41 4.90 18 20.4 3.4 23.3 23.3 23% 0.15 0.08 0.9 UnCut 7.6 0.63 No 8.5 0.00 0.63 7.60 15 14.9 7.1 20.9 20.9 28% 0.21 0.11 1.3 Cut 8.6 0.72 No 8.5 0.00 0.72 8.60 15 11.3 6.7 17.0 17.0 12% 0.02 0.01 0.1 ZI 7.6 0.63 No 8.5 0.00 0.63 7.60 15 17.2 6.4 22.6 22.6 34% 0.31 0.16 2.0 UnCut 9.1 0.76 No 8.5 0.00 0.76 9.10 15 10.8 3.1 13.4 13.4 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 Cut 10.1 0.84 No 8.5 0.00 0.84 10.10 15 12.5 2.2 14.3 14.3 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 ZI 9.1 0.76 No 8.5 0.00 0.76 9.10 15 10.5 2.8 12.9 12.9 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 UnCut 7.5 0.63 No 8.5 0.00 0.63 7.50 15 11.0 1.4 12.2 12.2 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 Cut 8.5 0.71 No 8.5 0.00 0.71 8.50 15 11.9 1.2 12.9 12.9 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 ZI 7.5 0.63 No 8.5 0.00 0.63 7.50 15 9.8 1.1 10.7 10.7 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 GIB
SOU
LAP
NOH2
ANA
SAN
MIR
BRO
NOH
KNO
MAG
NCE 1
City of Anaheim
Overlay Calculations
Street Name(Input)SectionCore Depth (in.)(Input)Core Depth (ft)TB or PCC present?City T.I.(Input)Design Milling depth (ft)Thickness after milling (ft)Thickness after milling (in)Toler. Deflect. (mils) (Table 635.2A)Mean Deflection (mils)(Input)Stand. Dev.(Input)80th% (mils)(Input)Adjusted 80th% for milling% Red. In DeflGE (Table 635.2B) (ft)Required Overlay (ft)Required Overlay (in) UnCut 8.1 0.68 No 8.5 0.00 0.68 8.10 15 21.6 6.6 27.2 27.2 45% 0.53 0.28 3.3 Cut 9.1 0.76 No 8.5 0.00 0.76 9.10 15 17.3 6.1 22.5 22.5 33% 0.29 0.15 1.8 ZI 8.1 0.68 No 8.5 0.00 0.68 8.10 15 10.0 2.4 12.0 12.0 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 UnCut 5.9 0.49 No 8.5 0.00 0.49 5.90 15 26.5 6.0 31.5 31.5 52% 0.68 0.36 4.3 Cut 6.9 0.58 No 8.5 0.00 0.58 6.90 15 16.4 8.7 23.7 23.7 37% 0.37 0.19 2.3 ZI 5.9 0.49 No 8.5 0.00 0.49 5.90 15 25.9 4.4 29.6 29.6 49% 0.61 0.32 3.9 UnCut 4.1 0.34 No 6.5 0.00 0.34 4.10 27 39.3 13.2 50.3 50.3 46% 0.55 0.29 3.5 Cut 5.1 0.43 No 6.5 0.00 0.43 5.10 24 14.3 2.0 16.0 16.0 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 ZI 4.1 0.34 No 6.5 0.00 0.34 4.10 27 27.7 2.2 29.6 29.6 9% 0.02 0.01 0.1 UnCut 4.1 0.34 No 6.5 0.00 0.34 4.10 27 17.5 11.7 27.3 27.3 1% 0.02 0.01 0.1 Cut 5.1 0.43 No 6.5 0.00 0.43 5.10 24 18.2 10.9 27.4 27.4 12% 0.02 0.01 0.1 ZI 4.1 0.34 No 6.5 0.00 0.34 4.10 27 25.1 13.6 36.5 36.5 26% 0.19 0.10 1.2 UnCut 5.2 0.43 No 6.5 0.00 0.43 5.20 24 13.0 3.7 16.1 16.1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 Cut 6.2 0.52 No 6.5 0.00 0.52 6.20 22 34.3 5.5 39.0 39.0 44% 0.51 0.27 3.2 ZI 5.2 0.43 No 6.5 0.00 0.43 5.20 24 29.1 3.8 32.3 32.3 26% 0.19 0.10 1.2 UnCut 3.3 0.28 No 6.5 0.00 0.28 3.30 29 30.0 3.9 33.3 33.3 13% 0.02 0.01 0.1 Cut 4.3 0.36 No 6.5 0.00 0.36 4.30 27 48.1 15.8 61.3 61.3 56% 0.76 0.40 4.8 ZI 3.3 0.28 No 6.5 0.00 0.28 3.30 29 49.9 10.6 58.8 58.8 51% 0.66 0.35 4.2 UnCut 4.0 0.33 No 6.5 0.00 0.33 4.00 27 12.0 2.7 14.2 14.2 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 Cut 5.0 0.42 No 6.5 0.00 0.42 5.00 26 11.8 2.0 13.5 13.5 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 ZI 4.0 0.33 No 6.5 0.00 0.33 4.00 27 12.4 1.2 13.5 13.5 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 UnCut 7.3 0.61 No 6.5 0.00 0.61 7.30 22 17.8 5.1 22.1 22.1 1% 0.02 0.01 0.1 Cut 8.3 0.69 No 6.5 0.00 0.69 8.30 22 11.8 1.8 13.3 13.3 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 ZI 7.3 0.61 No 6.5 0.00 0.61 7.30 22 12.4 3.4 15.2 15.2 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 UnCut 7.4 0.62 No 6.5 0.00 0.62 7.40 22 7.7 1.7 9.1 9.1 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 Cut 8.4 0.70 No 6.5 0.00 0.70 8.40 22 10.1 2.7 12.3 12.3 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 ZI 7.4 0.62 No 6.5 0.00 0.62 7.40 22 9.8 1.0 10.7 10.7 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 OLI
VAN
TER
IRV
KAI
MID
BRI
CAM
WIN
NCE 2

Appendix C

Z-FACTOR TABLES

CITY OF ANAHEIM
No. RCP Date RCP # Description 2019 PCI Width (ft)Length (ft)Trench Area (sf)Affected Area (sf)Z Factor 1 6/24/2020 RCP2020-17242 Trench, Boring & Pothole100 2 89 178 558 3.1 2 5/25/2021 RCP2021-18454 Trench & Pothole 93 1 161 161 825 5.1 3 4/22/2019 RCP2019-15498 Trench 89 2 96 192 600 3.1
4 6/8/2021 RCP2020-17172 Trench & Pothole 86 1 153 153 785 5.1 5 6/11/2020 RCP2020-17190 Trench 80 1 11 11 75 6.8
6 5/19/2021 RCP2021-18421 Trench & Pothole 75 1 83 83 435 5.2 7 6/1/2020 RCP2020-17150 Trench 75 1 200 200 1020 5.1
8 5/4/2021 RCP2021-18356 Trench & Pothole 74 1 94 94 490 5.2 9 6/22/2020 RCP2020-17230 Trench 72 1 62 62 330 5.3
10 6/25/2020 RCP2020-17255 Trench 72 2 119 238 738 3.1
11 6/17/2020 RCP2020-17211 Trench & Pothole 68 1 141 141 725 5.1 12 4/1/2019 RCP2019-15366 Trench & Pothole 64 1 453 453 2285 5.0 13 5/21/2021 RCP2021-18444 Trench & Pothole 62 1 78 78 410 5.3 14 6/25/2020 RCP2020-17246 Trench, Boring & Pothole60 2 71 142 450 3.2 15 5/24/2021 RCP2021-18446 Trench & Pothole 50 1 42 42 230 5.5 16 6/16/2020 RCP2020-17197 Trench 45 1 325 325 1645 5.1 17 6/1/2020 RCP2020-17151 Trench 38 1 48 48 260 5.4
18 6/8/2020 RCP2020-17169 Trench 38 1 65 65 345 5.3
19 6/8/2021 RCP2020-17170 Trench & Pothole 38 1 55 55 295 5.4 20 6/10/2020 RCP2020-17180 Trench & Pothole 38 1 11 11 75 6.8 21 6/17/2020 RCP2020-17210 Trench 38 1.5 2788 4182 15356 3.7 22 6/25/2020 RCP2020-17243 Trench, Boring & Pothole38 2 26 52 180 3.5 23 6/25/2020 RCP2020-17244 Trench, Boring & Pothole38 2 127 254 786 3.1 24 6/25/2020 RCP2020-17245 Trench, Boring & Pothole38 2 46 92 300 3.3 25 6/8/2020 RCP2020-17173 Trench & Pothole 33 1 488 488 2460 5.0 26 5/11/2021 RCP2021-18394 Trench 32 1.5 57 86 336 3.9
27 6/10/2020 RCP2020-17176 Trench & Pothole 19 1 9 9 65 7.2

TRENCH Z-FACTOR TABLE
1/1

CITY OF ANAHEIM
No. RCP DateRCP # Description 2019 PCIWidth (ft)Length (ft)Bore/Receiving Pit (EA)Bore Pit Area (sf)Affected Area (sf)Z Factor 1 4/2/2019RCP2019-15376 Boring & Pothole 100 3 6 2 36 140 3.9 2 4/15/2019RCP2019-15451 Boring & Pothole 100 3 6 2 36 140 3.9 3 4/25/2019RCP2019-15528 Boring & Pothole 100 3 6 3 54 210 3.9 4 5/5/2021RCP2021-18367 Boring 100 3 6 1 18 70 3.9
4 6 2 48 160 3.3
4 4 1 16 64 4.0
6 4/4/2019RCP2019-15393 Boring & Pothole 95 2 3 6 36 252 7.0 7 6/16/2020RCP2020-17196 Boring & Pothole 92 3 6 9 162 630 3.9 8 5/7/2021RCP2021-18390 Boring & Pothole 90 2 3 6 36 252 7.0 9 5/5/2021RCP2021-18366 Boring & Pothole 88 3 6 5 90 350 3.9 10 6/4/2020RCP2020-17163 Boring & Pothole 83 3 6 5 90 350 3.9 11 6/11/2020RCP2020-17183 Boring & Pothole 82 3 6 13 234 910 3.9 3 6 25 450 1750 3.9
3 9 2 54 182 3.4
13 6/17/2020RCP2020-17208 Boring 80 4 4 9 144 576 4.0
14 6/15/2020RCP2020-17193 Boring 80 3 3 6 54 294 5.4
15 6/18/2020RCP2020-17221 Boring & Pothole 80 3 6 2 36 140 3.9 16 6/24/2020RCP2020-17239 Boring & Pothole 80 2 3 4 24 168 7.0 17 5/12/2021RCP2021-18396 Boring & Pothole 79 4 4 2 32 128 4.0 18 5/5/2021RCP2021-18369 Boring & Pothole 74 3 6 5 90 350 3.9 19 5/14/2021RCP2021-18410 Boring & Pothole 74 2 3 2 12 84 7.0 20 5/19/2021RCP2021-18422 Boring & Pothole 74 3 6 4 72 280 3.9 21 5/27/2021RCP2021-18461 Boring & Pothole 74 3 6 15 270 1050 3.9 22 6/23/2020RCP2020-17234 Boring 72 1 1 3 3 75 25.0
3 6 31 558 2170 3.9
3 9 6 162 546 3.4
3 6 7 126 490 3.9
3 9 1 27 91 3.4
25 6/3/2020RCP2020-17156 Boring & Pothole 60 5 1 1 5 45 9.0 4 6 2 48 160 3.3
4 4 2 32 128 4.0
27 6/29/2020RCP2020-17273 Boring & Pothole 60 3 6 2 36 140 3.9 28 5/14/2021RCP2021-18414 Boring & Pothole 58 3 6 5 90 350 3.9 29 6/18/2020RCP2020-17219 Boring & Pothole 58 3 6 10 180 700 3.9 30 6/1/2020RCP2020-17145 Boring & Pothole 57 2 3 5 30 210 7.0 3 9 1 27 91 3.4
3 6 4 72 280 3.9
3 6 1 18 70 3.9
3 9 2 54 182 3.4
33 6/17/2020RCP2020-17212 Boring & Pothole 48 2 3 4 24 168 7.0 34 6/29/2020RCP2020-17274 Boring & Pothole 48 3 9 3 81 273 3.4 5 26
31 6/30/2020 RCP2020-17280Boring & Pothole
1006/24/2020 RCP2020-17242Trench, Boring &
Pothole
RCP2019-15373
Boring & Pothole23 4/18/2019
32 4/10/2019
24 4/2/2019
RCP2019-15477
61 48
Boring & Pothole
60 53
6/25/2020 RCP2020-17246Trench, Boring &
Pothole
RCP2019-15424 Boring & Pothole

BORE PIT Z-FACTOR TABLE
12 4/18/2019 RCP2019-15474 Boring & Pothole 80
68 1/2

CITY OF ANAHEIM
No. RCP DateRCP # Description 2019 PCIWidth (ft)Length (ft)Bore/Receiving Pit (EA)Bore Pit Area (sf)Affected Area (sf)Z Factor

BORE PIT Z-FACTOR TABLE
35 4/23/2019RCP2019-15509 Boring & Pothole 45 2 3 8 48 336 7.0 36 6/11/2020RCP2020-17191 Boring & Pothole 43 6 6 6 216 600 2.8 37 4/4/2019RCP2019-15390 Boring & Pothole 38 2 3 3 18 126 7.0 38 5/21/2021RCP2021-18442 Boring & Pothole 38 3 6 14 252 980 3.9 39 5/21/2021RCP2021-18441 Boring & Pothole 38 3 6 9 162 630 3.9 40 6/1/2020RCP2020-17148 Boring & Pothole 38 4 4 2 32 128 4.0 41 6/4/2020RCP2020-17165 Boring & Pothole 38 2 3 2 12 84 7.0 2 3 11 66 462 7.0
3 5 2 30 126 4.2
43 6/11/2020RCP2020-17188 Boring & Pothole 38 4 4 13 208 832 4.0 44 6/22/2020RCP2020-17226 Boring 38 3 3 1 9 49 5.4
45 6/22/2020RCP2020-17231 Boring 38 3 3 3 27 147 5.4
46 6/24/2020RCP2020-17241 Boring & Pothole 38 4 4 2 32 128 4.0 4 6 2 48 160 3.3
4 4 1 16 64 4.0
4 6 1 24 80 3.3
4 4 1 16 64 4.0
49 6/25/2020RCP2020-17245 Trench, Boring & Pothole38 4 6 2 48 160 3.3 50 6/25/2020RCP2020-17252 Boring & Pothole 38 3 9 4 135 455 3.4 3 9 1 45 161 3.6
3 6 1 42 286 6.8
52 6/26/2020RCP2020-17257 Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 6 24 216 9.0 53 6/29/2020RCP2020-17270 Boring & Pothole 38 3 6 3 54 210 3.9 54 6/29/2020RCP2020-17271 Boring & Pothole 38 3 6 7 126 490 3.9 55 5/13/2021RCP2021-18407 Boring & Pothole 37 3 6 1 18 70 3.9 56 5/24/2021RCP2021-18450 Boring & Pothole 37 2 2 2 8 72 9.0 3 9 5 135 455 3.4
3 6 1 18 70 3.9
58 5/20/2021RCP2021-18430 Boring & Pothole 30 4 4 2 32 128 4.0 59 4/1/2019RCP2019-15363 Boring & Pothole 29 1 1 4 4 100 25.0 60 6/29/2020RCP2020-17276 Boring & Pothole 38 2 3 6 36 252 7.0 51 57 36
38 42
6/30/2020
386/25/2020 RCP2020-17254Boring & Pothole
RCP2020-17281 Boring & Pothole
47 48
38 6/25/2020 RCP2020-17244Trench, Boring &
Pothole
6/25/2020 RCP2020-17243Trench, Boring &
Pothole
6/9/2020 38 Boring & PotholeRCP2020-17174
2/2

Appendix D

AFFECTED AREA PER POTHOLE

CITY OF ANAHEIM
No. RCP DateRCP # Description 2019 PCIWidth (ft)Length (ft)Potholes (EA)Area (sf)/PotholeAffected Area (sf)/Pothole 1 4/2/2019RCP2019-15376 Boring & Pothole 100 3 5 11 15 63 2 4/15/2019RCP2019-15451 Boring & Pothole 100 3 5 8 15 63 3 4/25/2019 RCP2019-15528Boring & Pothole 100 2 2 3 4 36 4 6/24/2020 RCP2020-17242 Trench, Boring & Pothole100 2 2 11 4 36 5 4/4/2019 RCP2019-15393Boring & Pothole 95 0.67 0.67 15 0.44 22 6 5/25/2021RCP2021-18454 Trench & Pothole 93 2 2 7 4 36 7 6/16/2020RCP2020-17196 Boring & Pothole 92 2 2 25 4 36 8 5/7/2021RCP2021-18390 Boring & Pothole 90 0.67 0.67 20 0.44 22 9 5/5/2021RCP2021-18366 Boring & Pothole 88 2 2 6 4 36
10 6/8/2021RCP2020-17172 Trench & Pothole 86 0.67 0.67 7 0.45 22 11 6/4/2020RCP2020-17163 Boring & Pothole 83 2 2 20 4 36 12 6/11/2020RCP2020-17183 Boring & Pothole 82 2 2 27 4 36 13 4/18/2019 RCP2019-15474Boring & Pothole 80 2 2 82 4 36 14 6/18/2020RCP2020-17221 Boring & Pothole 80 2 2 10 4 36 15 6/24/2020RCP2020-17239 Boring & Pothole 80 0.67 0.67 31 0.45 22 16 5/12/2021RCP2021-18396 Boring & Pothole 79 2 2 3 4 36 17 5/19/2021RCP2021-18421 Trench & Pothole 75 2 2 4 4 36 18 5/4/2021RCP2021-18356 Trench & Pothole 74 2 2 7 4 36 19 5/5/2021RCP2021-18369 Boring & Pothole 74 2 2 23 4 36 20 5/14/2021RCP2021-18410 Boring & Pothole 74 0.67 0.67 10 0.44 22 21 5/19/2021RCP2021-18422 Boring & Pothole 74 2 2 15 4 36 22 5/27/2021RCP2021-18461 Boring & Pothole 74 2 2 47 4 36 23 4/1/2019RCP2019-15361 Pothole 72 0.67 0.67 5 0.44 22 24 4/18/2019 RCP2019-15477Boring & Pothole 68 2 2 91 4 36 25 6/17/2020RCP2020-17211 Trench & Pothole 68 0.67 0.67 2 0.45 22 26 4/1/2019RCP2019-15366 Trench & Pothole 64 2 2 15 4 36 27 5/21/2021RCP2021-18444 Trench & Pothole 62 2 2 13 4 36 28 4/2/2019 RCP2019-15373Boring & Pothole 61 2 2 41 4 36 29 6/3/2020RCP2020-17156 Boring & Pothole 60 0.67 0.67 16 0.45 22 30 6/25/2020RCP2020-17246 Trench, Boring & Pothole 60 2 2 1 4 36 31 6/29/2020RCP2020-17273 Boring & Pothole 60 2 2 1 4 36 32 5/14/2021RCP2021-18414 Boring & Pothole 58 2 2 21 4 36 33 6/18/2020RCP2020-17219 Boring & Pothole 58 2 2 29 4 36 34 6/1/2020RCP2020-17145 Boring & Pothole 57 0.67 0.67 16 0.45 22 35 6/30/2020RCP2020-17280 Boring & Pothole 53 2 2 11 4 36 36 5/24/2021RCP2021-18446 Trench & Pothole 50 2 2 8 4 36 37 4/10/2019 RCP2019-15424Boring & Pothole 48 2 2 1 4 36 38 6/17/2020RCP2020-17212 Boring & Pothole 48 0.67 0.67 13 0.45 22 39 6/29/2020RCP2020-17274 Boring & Pothole 48 2 2 2 4 36

AFFECTED AREA PER POTHOLE
1/2

CITY OF ANAHEIM
No. RCP DateRCP # Description 2019 PCIWidth (ft)Length (ft)Potholes (EA)Area (sf)/PotholeAffected Area (sf)/Pothole

AFFECTED AREA PER POTHOLE
40 4/23/2019RCP2019-15509 Boring & Pothole 45 0.67 0.67 8 0.44 22 41 6/11/2020RCP2020-17191 Boring & Pothole 43 2 2 28 4 36 42 4/4/2019RCP2019-15390 Boring & Pothole 38 0.67 0.67 8 0.44 22 43 5/21/2021RCP2021-18442 Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 35 4 36 44 5/21/2021RCP2021-18441 Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 38 4 36 45 6/1/2020RCP2020-17148 Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 3 4 36 46 6/4/2020RCP2020-17165 Boring & Pothole 38 0.67 0.67 4 0.45 22 47 6/8/2021RCP2020-17170 Trench & Pothole 38 0.67 0.67 7 0.45 22 48 6/9/2020RCP2020-17174 Boring & Pothole 38 0.67 0.67 16 0.45 22 49 6/10/2020RCP2020-17180 Trench & Pothole 38 0.67 0.67 1 0.45 22 50 6/11/2020RCP2020-17188 Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 6 4 36 51 6/24/2020RCP2020-17241 Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 4 4 36 52 6/25/2020RCP2020-17243 Trench, Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 6 4 36 53 6/25/2020RCP2020-17244 Trench, Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 4 4 36 54 6/25/2020RCP2020-17245 Trench, Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 8 4 36 55 6/25/2020RCP2020-17252 Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 42 4 36 56 6/25/2020RCP2020-17254 Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 9 4 36 57 6/26/2020RCP2020-17257 Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 18 4 36 58 6/29/2020RCP2020-17270 Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 7 4 36 59 6/29/2020RCP2020-17271 Boring & Pothole 38 2 2 14 4 36 60 6/29/2020RCP2020-17276 Boring & Pothole 38 0.67 0.67 25 0.45 22 61 5/13/2021RCP2021-18407 Boring & Pothole 37 2 2 2 4 36 62 5/24/2021RCP2021-18450 Boring & Pothole 37 2 2 8 4 36 63 6/30/2020RCP2020-17281 Boring & Pothole 36 2 2 10 4 36 64 6/8/2021RCP2020-17173 Trench & Pothole 33 0.67 0.67 36 0.45 22 65 5/20/2021RCP2021-18430 Boring & Pothole 30 2 2 1 4 36 66 4/1/2019RCP2019-15363 Boring & Pothole 29 0.67 0.67 5 0.44 22 67 6/10/2020RCP2020-17176 Trench & Pothole 19 0.67 0.67 1 0.45 22 2/2

Appendix E

ESTIMATED FEES FOR EXAMPLE RCPS

CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTIMATED FEES FOR EXAMPLE RCPs
No. RCP DateRCP # Description 2019 PCI Trench Area (sf) BorePit Area (sf)Potholes (EA) Fee ($) 1 5/5/2021RCP2021-18367Boring 100 18 151.20$
2 4/2/2019RCP2019-15376Boring & Pothole 100 36 11 1,064.70$ 3 4/15/2019RCP2019-15451Boring & Pothole 100 36 8 856.80$ 4 4/25/2019 RCP2019-15528Boring & Pothole 100 54 3 661.50$ 5 6/24/2020RCP2020-17242Trench, Boring & Pothole100 178 64 11 2,795.10$ 6 4/4/2019 RCP2019-15393Boring & Pothole 95 36 15 1,341.90$ 7 5/25/2021RCP2021-18454Trench & Pothole 93 161 7 1,352.40$ 8 6/16/2020RCP2020-17196Boring & Pothole 92 162 25 3,093.30$ 9 5/7/2021RCP2021-18390Boring & Pothole 90 36 20 1,688.40$ 10 4/22/2019RCP2019-15498Trench 89 192 1,612.80$
11 5/5/2021RCP2021-18366Boring & Pothole 88 90 6 1,171.80$ 12 6/8/2021RCP2020-17172Trench & Pothole 86 153 7 1,285.20$ 13 6/4/2020RCP2020-17163Boring & Pothole 83 90 20 2,142.00$ 14 6/11/2020RCP2020-17183Boring & Pothole 82 234 27 3,836.70$ 15 6/15/2020RCP2020-17193Boring 80 54 453.60$
16 6/17/2020RCP2020-17208Boring 80 144 1,209.60$
17 4/18/2019 RCP2019-15474Boring & Pothole 80 504 82 9,916.20$ 18 6/18/2020RCP2020-17221Boring & Pothole 80 36 10 995.40$ 19 6/24/2020RCP2020-17239Boring & Pothole 80 24 31 2,349.90$ 20 6/11/2020RCP2020-17190Trench 80 11 92.40$
21 5/12/2021RCP2021-18396Boring & Pothole 79 32 3 476.70$ 22 6/1/2020RCP2020-17150Trench 75 200 1,680.00$
23 5/19/2021RCP2021-18421Trench & Pothole 75 83 4 697.20$ 24 5/5/2021RCP2021-18369Boring & Pothole 74 90 23 2,349.90$ 25 5/14/2021RCP2021-18410Boring & Pothole 74 12 10 793.80$ 26 5/19/2021RCP2021-18422Boring & Pothole 74 72 15 1,644.30$ 27 5/27/2021RCP2021-18461Boring & Pothole 74 270 47 5,525.10$ 28 5/4/2021RCP2021-18356Trench & Pothole 74 94 7 789.60$ 29 6/23/2020RCP2020-17234Boring 72 3 25.20$
30 4/1/2019RCP2019-15361Pothole 72 5 346.50$
31 6/22/2020RCP2020-17230Trench 72 62 520.80$
32 6/25/2020RCP2020-17255Trench 72 238 1,999.20$
33 4/18/2019 RCP2019-15477Boring & Pothole 68 720 91 12,354.30$ 34 6/17/2020RCP2020-17211Trench & Pothole 68 141 2 1,184.40$ 35 4/1/2019RCP2019-15366Trench & Pothole 64 453 15 5,254.80$ 36 5/21/2021RCP2021-18444Trench & Pothole 62 78 13 904.80$

CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTIMATED FEES FOR EXAMPLE RCPs
No. RCP DateRCP # Description 2019 PCI Trench Area (sf) BorePit Area (sf)Potholes (EA) Fee ($) 37 4/2/2019 RCP2019-15373Boring & Pothole 61 153 41 5,698.50$ 38 6/3/2020RCP2020-17156Boring & Pothole 60 5 16 1,589.20$ 39 6/29/2020RCP2020-17273Boring & Pothole 60 36 1 513.30$ 40 6/25/2020RCP2020-17246Trench, Boring & Pothole60 142 80 1 2,670.90$ 41 6/18/2020RCP2020-17219Boring & Pothole 58 180 29 4,863.30$ 42 5/14/2021RCP2021-18414Boring & Pothole 58 90 21 3,053.70$ 43 6/1/2020RCP2020-17145Boring & Pothole 57 30 16 1,879.20$ 44 6/30/2020 RCP2020-17280Boring & Pothole 53 99 11 683.10$ 45 5/24/2021RCP2021-18446Trench & Pothole 50 42 8 151.20$ 46 4/10/2019 RCP2019-15424Boring & Pothole 48 72 1 288.90$ 47 6/17/2020RCP2020-17212Boring & Pothole 48 24 13 472.50$ 48 6/29/2020RCP2020-17274Boring & Pothole 48 81 2 351.00$ 49 4/23/2019RCP2019-15509Boring & Pothole 45 48 8 410.40$ 50 6/16/2020RCP2020-17197Trench 45 325 1,170.00$
51 6/11/2020RCP2020-17191Boring & Pothole 43 216 28 1,609.20$ 52 6/22/2020RCP2020-17226Boring 38 9 32.40$
53 6/22/2020RCP2020-17231Boring 38 27 97.20$
54 4/4/2019RCP2019-15390Boring & Pothole 38 18 8 302.40$ 55 6/1/2020RCP2020-17148Boring & Pothole 38 32 3 204.30$ 56 6/4/2020RCP2020-17165Boring & Pothole 38 12 4 162.00$ 57 6/9/2020 RCP2020-17174Boring & Pothole 38 96 16 820.80$ 58 6/11/2020RCP2020-17188Boring & Pothole 38 208 6 927.00$ 59 6/24/2020RCP2020-17241Boring & Pothole 38 32 4 234.00$ 60 6/25/2020RCP2020-17252Boring & Pothole 38 135 42 1,733.40$ 61 6/25/2020 RCP2020-17254Boring & Pothole 38 45 9 429.30$ 62 6/26/2020RCP2020-17257Boring & Pothole 38 24 18 621.00$ 63 6/29/2020RCP2020-17270Boring & Pothole 38 54 7 402.30$ 64 6/29/2020RCP2020-17271Boring & Pothole 38 126 14 869.40$ 65 6/29/2020RCP2020-17276Boring & Pothole 38 36 25 872.10$ 66 5/21/2021RCP2021-18441Boring & Pothole 38 162 38 1,711.80$ 67 5/21/2021RCP2021-18442Boring & Pothole 38 252 35 1,946.70$ 68 6/1/2020RCP2020-17151Trench 38 48 172.80$
69 6/8/2020RCP2020-17169Trench 38 65 234.00$
70 6/17/2020RCP2020-17210Trench 38 4182 15,055.20$
71 6/8/2021RCP2020-17170Trench & Pothole 38 55 7 198.00$ 72 6/10/2020RCP2020-17180Trench & Pothole 38 11 1 39.60$

CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTIMATED FEES FOR EXAMPLE RCPs
No. RCP DateRCP # Description 2019 PCI Trench Area (sf) BorePit Area (sf)Potholes (EA) Fee ($) 73 6/25/2020RCP2020-17243Trench, Boring & Pothole38 52 64 6 595.80$ 74 6/25/2020RCP2020-17244Trench, Boring & Pothole38 254 40 4 1,177.20$ 75 6/25/2020RCP2020-17245Trench, Boring & Pothole38 92 48 8 741.60$ 76 5/13/2021RCP2021-18407Boring & Pothole 37 18 2 124.20$ 77 5/24/2021RCP2021-18450Boring & Pothole 37 8 8 266.40$ 78 6/30/2020 RCP2020-17281Boring & Pothole 36 153 10 847.80$ 79 6/8/2020RCP2020-17173Trench & Pothole 33 488 36 1,756.80$ 80 5/11/2021RCP2021-18394Trench 32 114 410.40$
81 5/20/2021RCP2021-18430Boring & Pothole 30 32 1 144.90$ 82 4/1/2019RCP2019-15363Boring & Pothole 29 4 5 162.90$ 83 6/10/2020RCP2020-17176Trench & Pothole 19 9 1 32.40$