Safety EdgeSM

Demonstration Project

Menominee County, 

Wisconsin

Field Report

May 4, 2011 
FOREWORD 

The purpose of this field report is to provide a summary of observations made during the hot mix 

asphalt (HMA) Safety EdgeSM project located in Menominee County Wisconsin. These 

observations and data are to be used with similar information from other Safety EdgeSM projects 

to facilitate the development of standards and guidance for Safety EdgeSM construction and long 

term performance. 

All field and laboratory test results, HMA mixture design information and data, observations 

made during paving, and comments provided by construction personnel are included in the Field 

Evaluation Form that is provided as a separate document to this field report. This field report is 

a summary of the observations made on September 15, 2010 and field data measured during 

construction to evaluate the use of three edge devices, compare Safety EdgeSM and non- Safety 

EdgeSM portions along the project, determine the slope of the Safety EdgeSM, recommend 

adjustments to the Safety EdgeSM design if found to be needed, and identify benefits and 

complications with the use of the Safety EdgeSM devices.
ii

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No 3. Recipient’s Catalog No

3. Title and Subtitle

Safety EdgeSM Project, Seaford, Delaware

5. Report Date

 May 4. 2011

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Authors

Paul Littleton and Jagannath Mallela 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

 Applied Research Associates, Inc.

 100 Trade Centre Drive, Suite 200

 Champaign, IL 61820

10. Work Unit No. 

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

 Office of Infrastructure

 Federal Highway Administration

 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

 Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

 Field Report

 September 2010–May 2011

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative: Byron Lord and Mary Huie

Contracting Officer’s Technical Manager: Andy Mergenmeier

16. Abstract

In a coordinated effort with highway authorities and industry leaders, the Every Day Counts initiative serves as a catalyst to 

identify and promote cost effective innovations to bring about rapid change to increase safety of our nations highway 

system, decrease project delivery time, and protect our environment. The Safety EdgeSM concept is an example of one such 

initiative in which the edge of the road is beveled during construction for the purpose of helping drivers who migrate off the 

roadways to more easily return to the road without over correcting and running into the path of oncoming traffic or running 

off the other side of the roadway.

This field report documents the observations made on the construction of Safety EdgeSM on a two lane highway hot mix 

asphalt (HMA) overlay project in Menominee County, Wisconsin. Safety EdgeSM paving devices from two manufacturers 

were demonstrated during this project. Details regarding the performance of each device along with the shape and physical 

properties of the finished Safety EdgeSM are presented for the purpose of understanding what processes and techniques were 

most successful in forming the Safety EdgeSM. 

The findings from this overlay project and other similar ongoing projects form the basis for understanding the construction 

process and material performance necessary to bring this innovation into common highway practice and make our Nation’s 

highways safer. 

17. Key Words

Safety EdgeSM, Slope, HMA, TransTech Shoulder 

Wedge Maker 

18. Distribution Statement

No restriction. 

19. Security Classif.(of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

25

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
iii

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol

LENGTH

(none) mil 25.4 micrometers μm

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm

ft feet 0.305 meters m

yd yards 0.914 meters m

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km

AREA

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 millimeters mL

gal gallons 3.785 liters L

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS

oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t")

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

°F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9

or (F-32)/1.8

Celsius °C

ILLUMINATION

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela per square meter cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

lbf poundforce 4.45 Newtons N

lbf/in2 (psi) poundforce per square inch 6.89 kiloPascals kPa

k/in2 (ksi) kips per square inch 6.89 megaPascals MPa

DENSITY

lb/ft3 (pcf) pounds per cubic foot 16.02 kilograms per cubic meter kg/m3

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol

LENGTH

μm micrometers 0.039 mil (none)

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in

m meters 3.28 feet ft

m meters 1.09 yards yd

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi

AREA

mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2

VOLUME

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz

L liters 0.264 gallons gal

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3

MASS

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T

TEMPERATURE

°C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit °F

ILLUMINATION

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc

cd/m2 candela per square meter 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

N Newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf

kPA kiloPascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2 (psi)

MPa megaPascals 0.145 kips per square inch k/in2 (ksi)

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. (Revised March 2003)
iv

Table of Contents

Page 

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................ 1

Overall Opinion of the Safety EdgeSM ..................................................................................... 1

Slope of the Safety EdgeSM ...................................................................................................... 1

Placement ................................................................................................................................ 1

Compaction ............................................................................................................................. 1

Shoulder Construction ............................................................................................................ 2

HMA Mixture and Safety EdgeSM ............................................................................................ 2

FIELD EVALUATION OF HMA OVERLAY WITH SAFETY EDGESM ............................ 3

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3

PAVEMENT STRUCTURE AND PROJECT CONDITIONS .................................................................... 4

FIELD EVALUATION........................................................................................................................ 5

Slope Measurements ............................................................................................................... 5

Cores ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Nuclear Density Results .......................................................................................................... 7

OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING PAVING WITH SAFETY EDGESM ................................................ 10

Placement/Paving Operations .............................................................................................. 10

Compaction Operations ........................................................................................................ 14

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 14

APPENDIX A DATA TABLES ................................................................................................ A1
1 

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS

This section of the field report provides a summary and listing of important observations made 

during the paving operations, interview with paving personnel and findings from the field 

measurements taken during paving that are expected to have a significant impact on the 

performance of the Safety EdgeSM and non- Safety EdgeSM portions of this project. 

Overall Opinion of the Safety EdgeSM

• The TransTech Shoulder Wedge Maker and two Carlson devices (Prototype #2 and 

Prototype #3) were demonstrated on this project. The Carlson prototype #1 was not part 

of this project. Only the TransTech and Carlson prototype #2 devices were observed 

during paving. The Carlson prototype #3 was implemented on this project after the site 

visit. All three devices had varying degrees of success. The TransTech device was 

bolted to the screed while the Carlson devices were part of the end gate. The Carlson 

devices were mounted to the lower edge of the end gate and utilized the length of the end 

gate to apply compaction to the slope face of the Safety EdgeSM. This approach provided 

adequate elevation control of the Safety EdgeSM and had the benefit of sealing the slope 

face and producing a smooth appearance which may extend the life of the edge by 

slowing water infiltration at the edge. None of the devices had a negative impact on the 

paving operations nevertheless, the following bulleted items call attention to remaining 

issues. 

Slope of the Safety EdgeSM

• The average slope of the Safety EdgeSM was 35°, 33°, and 36° for the TransTech, Carlson 

Prototype #2 and Prototype #3 respectively. The shape of the slopes were relatively 

consistent in the observed test sections but in all cases the slopes were higher than the 

targeted 30°. 

Placement 

• The Carlson's end gate devices proved to be the least intrusive on the paving crew in that 

the screed operator's typical end adjustments automatically controlled the edge. 

• The TransTech device, on the other hand, required periodic vertical adjustment made 

from the screed operator by hand in addition to the operators typical adjustments. 

Compaction 

• The HMA mix density was slightly higher and the air voids slightly lower adjacent to the 

edge of the mat for the non- Safety EdgeSM section in comparison to the Safety EdgeSM

sections. This result is contrary to other projects where the Safety EdgeSM sections had 

slightly higher in-place density or similar density when compared to the non- Safety 

EdgeSM section. The reasons for this result are not known as the roller patterns employed 

on this project were the same on the Safety EdgeSM and non- Safety EdgeSM sections. 
2 

Shoulder Construction

• The aggregate shoulder width on this project varied from 1 to 4 ft and plans called for an 

additional 1.5 inches of new granular material to be placed on the shoulder to level the 

grade flush with the pavement surface. New granular shoulder material was not placed 

during the site visit so direct observations could not be made. 

• No problems were observed or expected regarding the shoulder and the Safety EdgeSM as 

the new HMA overlay, including the Safety EdgeSM, was placed over the existing HMA 

pavement. 

HMA Mixture and Safety EdgeSM

• Segregation was not observed on this project, either at the longitudinal joint or at the 

edge. 

• In the areas inspected, the Safety EdgeSM covered the edge of the existing pavement 

preventing a true measurement of the mat thickness at the Safety EdgeSM. 

This project presents the opportunity to evaluate the long term performance in terms of 

maintenance efforts and life cycle costs of the Safety EdgeSM placed by different types of 

devices. 
3 

FIELD EVALUATION OF HMA OVERLAY WITH SAFETY EDGESM

Introduction

A series of field tests were carried out to assess the placement and condition of the HMA overlay 

along route STH 55 with and without the use of the Safety EdgeSM device. The objective or 

purpose of this field study was to evaluate the quality of the in-place HMA material and Safety 

EdgeSM by investigating three issues or features.

1. Correct use of Safety EdgeSM device during paving. 

2. Safety EdgeSM versus non- Safety EdgeSM portions of project. 

3. Slope of the Safety EdgeSM. 

This project was located in Menominee County on STH 55 from the intersection with STH 47 

near Keshena and extending north 18.5 mi (project stationing 100+50 to 1080+70). The location 

of the project is shown in Figure 1. The maximum posted speed limit was 55 mph. The 

contractor was Northeast Asphalt (NEA). 

Project Location

Figure 1. Project location.
4 

Pavement Structure and Project Conditions

The existing pavement was two lanes of 4-inch HMA over a crushed aggregate base. The lane 

width was 11 ft for the existing roadway and was planned to be 11-ft wide after construction 

except in a few isolated areas the pavement was planned to be widened to 12-ft lanes. The 

aggregate shoulder varied from 1 to 4-ft wide for both the existing and new pavement. New 

construction consisted of milling the existing pavement 0.5 inches deep and placing a 2-inch

HMA overlay. The asphalt mix design was a 12.5 mm Superpave Nd 40 design and included 

RAP and recycled asphalt shingles. WisDOT has experience with using recycled asphalt 

shingles. Plans for the shoulder specified a 0.75-inch nominal size dense graded aggregate 

placed 1.5 inches thick, the contractor planned to use clean pit run crushed gravel. A schematic 

of pavement cross sections is shown in Figure 2. 

This overlay project included several long tangent sections and well shaped shoulders, suitable 

for demonstrating the Safety EdgeSM which was built on both the northbound and southbound 

lanes for the length of the project. The slope was designed to be 30°. Details or drawings for the 

construction of the Safety EdgeSM were not included in the plans. The Safety EdgeSM

specification was included in the contract via addendum. 

Figure 2. Pavement cross sections.
5 

The northbound lane and about a quarter of the southbound lane had been paved with the 

TransTech device prior to the site visit. Rain delays during the site visit limited field 

observations to only a few hours during which time the contractor utilized the TransTech and the 

Carlson Prototype #2 devices. The Carlson Prototype #3 device was used several days later. 

Field Evaluation 

Three Safety EdgeSM test sections and one non- Safety EdgeSM control section were established 

in the southbound lane approximately 11.5 mi north of Spirit Rock. Spirit Rock is a well known 

cultural landmark on STH 55. The following summarizes the pavement sections: 

• Test Section #1. This section was paved with the TransTech device and was 1,000-ft 

long from Sta 823+12 to Sta 813+12. 

• Test Section #2. This section was paved with the Carlson Prototype #2 device and was 

600-ft long from Sta 809+00 to Sta 803+00 at 50 ft south of the highway turn out. 

• Test Section #3. This section was paved with the Carlson Prototype #3 device and was 

1,000-ft long from Sta 381+00 to 371+00. 

• Control section. This section was paved with standard screed and end gate and had no 

Safety EdgeSM. The section was 1,000-ft long from Sta 800+00 to Sta 790+00. 

Slope Measurements

Slope measurements were recorded on test section #1, #2, and #3 at 25-ft intervals using a 

straight-edge and ruler to measure the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the Safety EdgeSM

as shown in Figure 3. Slope measurements are listed in Table 1 (all tables are located at the end 

of this report). The following summaries the average slope measurements. 

Pavement Section Slope

Test Section #1 35°

Test Section #2

Test Section #3

33°

36°
6 

Vertical 

Dimension

Horizontal 

Dimension

Figure 3. Slope measurement technique. 

Accurate Safety EdgeSM thickness measurements were not possible due the new overlay 

extending over the edge of the existing pavement and exaggerating the edge thickness.

Cores 

Three pairs of cores were cut from each test section. The laboratory-determined densities from 

these cores serve to calibrate the nuclear density measurements. Laboratory density was 

determined from the bulk specific gravity at saturated surface dry test condition. Each pair of 

cores were taken from the center of the mat where the maximum number of roller passes 

occurred and adjacent to the edge where fewer roller passes were made. Tables 2 and 3 include a 

summary of these test results; core thickness and bulk specific gravities (saturated surface dry) 

converted to bulk densities. 

Figure 4 shows a comparison of the core densities taken along the edge and near the center of the 

lane for the Safety EdgeSM and control sections. As expected, the densities near the center of 

lane are significantly higher than along the edge of the mat. 
7 

Figure 4. Comparison of core densities adjacent to the edge and at the center of the lane.

Nuclear Density Results 

Density tests were conducted using a nuclear density gauge in backscatter mode for 60 second 

test durations. The tests were conducted adjacent to the edge and at the center of the lane at 50-ft 

intervals and at the location of each core. Figure 5 shows a comparison of the nuclear densities 

and densities measured on the cores. As shown, there is close correlation between the nuclear 

and core densities. 

125.0

130.0

135.0

140.0

145.0

150.0

125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0 145.0 150.0

Core Density, Center of Lane, pcf

Core Density, Adjacent to Edge, pcf

Safety Edge Sections Control Line of Equality
8 

Figure 5. Comparison of the nuclear densities and core densities.

Adjustment factors were determined from correlating the nuclear density readings and the core 

laboratory density results shown in Table 3. The factors were used to adjust the nuclear density 

gauge readings to be consistent with the densities that were measured in the laboratory. The 

following summarizes the adjustment factors determined for this project. 

Location Adjustment Factor

Adjacent to the edge 1.013

Center of lane 1.003

As shown, the value near the center of the lane is closer to unity than the value near the edge. 

The adjusted or corrected densities using the correction factors are also listed in Table 4. 

As expected, the results of the nuclear density tests of each test section show the densities 

adjacent to the edge were lower than the densities at the center of the lane. The control section 

had a slightly higher average density value (137.1 pcf) adjacent to the edge compared to the 

average density of all the Safety EdgeSM sections (134.9 pcf) even though the rolling pattern was 

125.0

130.0

135.0

140.0

145.0

150.0

125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0 145.0 150.0

Nuclear Gage Density Reading, pcf

Core Density, pcf 

Adjacent to Edge Center of Lane Line of Equality
9 

assumed to have been the same for all the sections. Test sections #1 and #2 were observed as 

receiving identical rolling patterns and based on discussions with the contractor, the rolling 

pattern would have been the same for test sections #3 and #4. The paving of the latter two test 

sections occurred after the site visit and was not directly observed. 

Figure 6 shows a comparison of the nuclear densities taken adjacent to the edge and at the center 

of the lane. Figure 7 compares the air voids (as calculated from the density test results and the 

maximum theoretical mix density). The two figures show the densities were lower and the air 

voids were higher adjacent to the edge than away from the edge. 

Figure 6. Comparison of the nuclear densities adjacent to the edge 

and at center of the lane.

125

130

135

140

145

150

125 130 135 140 145 150

Nuclear Gage Density Reading, Center of Lane, pcf

Nuclear Gage Density Reading, Adjacent to Edge, pcf

Section #1 Section #2 Section #3 Control
10 

Figure 7. Comparison of the air voids adjacent to the edge and at the center of the lane. 

Observations Made During Paving with Safety EdgeSM

This section discusses the observations made during the paving and rolling operations that could 

have a significant impact on the performance of the Safety EdgeSM over time. As stated in the 

Introduction to the Field Report section, the objective of this field study was to evaluate the 

quality of the in-place HMA material and Safety EdgeSM by investigating three features.

1. Correct use of Safety EdgeSM devices during paving. 

2. Safety EdgeSM versus non-Safety EdgeSM portions of project.

3. Slope of the Safety EdgeSM. 

Placement/Paving Operations

During this site visit, field observations were limited to the paving of test sections #1 and #2 in 

which the contractor utilized the TransTech Shoulder Wedge Maker and the Carlson prototype 

#2. Neither device appeared to cause disturbances in the mat or with the shoulder material. Mix 

segregation in the finished overlay was not noticed in the test sections. 

The contractor used a rubber tire Blaw-Knox PF-3200 paver and a Roadtec SB-2500C material 

transfer vehicle to overlay the existing milled HMA pavement. Test section #1 was paved first 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Air Voids, Center of Lane, %

Air Voids, Adjacent to Edge, %

Section #1 Section #2 Section #3 Control
11

with the TransTech device mounted on the screed extension next to the end gate. Next, test 

section #2 was paved with the Carlson prototype #2 device which was quickly installed during a 

short break in paving. This device and Carlson's prototype #3 was a modified end gate with the 

angle of the Safety EdgeSM built into the end gate ski. The end gate ski was flat in the front and 

transitioned to 30° at the back of the ski. While paving with the Carlson prototype #2, the 

TransTech device remained mounted to the paver and was simply raised up and out of the way 

(Figure 8). 

Figure 8. Paving with the Carlson prototype #2 device with the TransTech device is still attached 

but raised and out of the way.

Visual inspection of the slope faces of the first two sections revealed a coarse appearance with 

more gaps between exposed aggregate in section #1 than section #2 which had a smooth or 

sealed appearance. The smooth slope face produced by the Carlson device is thought to be a 

result of extruding the HMA over the length of the end gate ski into the Safety EdgeSM shape 

gradually from no slope near the front of the ski to 30° at the end of the ski. 

Test section #3 was paved after the site visit and photos from WisDOT show a smooth slope face 

similar to section #2. An FHWA engineer on site indicated that before the Carlson Prototype #3 

was sufficiently heated from the fresh HMA the slope face appeared only slightly smoother than 

the slope face produced by the TransTech device. It took roughly 200 ft of paving to heat up the 

end gate ski of the Carlson device after which the slope face became sealed and smooth. Future 
12 

design modifications to the end gate design are expected to include a heating element to preheat 

and maintain the temperature of the device. 

Regardless of which device was used, the shape of the slope faces were consistent throughout the 

test sections. One distinct difference among the edges was the slope face on section #2 

produced by the Carlson Prototype #2 had a 0.25-inch vertical rise or lip as the slope face meets 

the horizontal surface of the mat. The lip may help retain the granular shoulder material. Figure 

9, 10, and 11 show the three finished edges after compaction. 

Figure 9. TransTech edge.
13 

Figure 10. Carlson Prototype #2 edge.

 

Figure 11. Carlson Prototype #3 edge. 

0.25 inch

vertical rise
14 

Compaction Operations

The contractor's breakdown roller was an Ingersoll-Rand dual steel drum DD-110HF operating 

in low amplitude and high frequency mode (the roller vibrator control setting was set for a 2-inch

mat). Typically, one vibratory pass was made hanging 12 inches over the free edge of the mat 

and 6 vibratory passes were made over the rest of the mat. No static passes were made by the 

breakdown roller. The intermediate roller was a Caterpillar PS-150B pneumatic tire roller that 

made 6 to 8 passes, none of which were at the edge. The finish roller was a Bomag BW 11 AS 

dual steel wheel roller. This roller was operated in static mode and made one pass hanging 6 

inches over the free edge and 5 to 7 passes over the rest of the mat. The mat was stable and not 

overly tender under any of the rollers. No tearing or shoving was observed. 

Findings and Conclusions

As stated above, the objective of this field study is to evaluate the quality of the in-place HMA

material and Safety EdgeSM by investigating three features.

1. Correct use of Safety EdgeSM device during paving. 

2. Safety EdgeSM versus non- Safety EdgeSM portions of project. 

3. Slope of the Safety EdgeSM. 

This section of the field report summarizes some of the findings and conclusions made during 

the paving/compaction operations. 

• This overlay project with its long tangent sections and well shaped shoulders was well 

suited for demonstrating the use of the three Safety EdgeSM devices. Each device proved 

to be simple to use and did not greatly impede the paving operations. The Carlson 

devices were quickly attached and simplified the screed operators adjustments during 

paving. 

• The average density adjacent to the edge of the mat in the non- Safety EdgeSM test section 

had a higher density than any of the Safety EdgeSM test sections. This is contrary to other 

demonstration projects in which the Safety EdgeSM device is believed to add to the 

compactive effort at the edge and increase density. 

• The slope of the edges produced by the three devices varied from 33° to 36°. Each 

device produced a uniform edge with unique characteristics. The TransTech device

produced a relatively coarse slope face whereas the slope produced by the Carlson 

devices had a smooth/sealed appearance which may promote increased durability by 

reducing water infiltration at the edge. The Carlson prototype #2 device produced a 0.25-

inch lip on the slope face that may help to retain the shoulder dressing material. 

The Safety EdgeSM should be inspected after the material for the shoulder has been placed to the 

final pavement elevation. In the long term, special attention should be focused on test section #2 

to determine if the lip on this Safety EdgeSM is effective in retaining the shoulder material and if 

the smooth slope face on test section #2 and #3 impact the pavement performance. 
A-1 

APPENDIX A 

DATA TABLES 
A-2 

This section of the field report provides a listing of the field measurements recorded during the 

paving operations. These data are also included in the detailed evaluation forms. 

Table 1. Safety EdgeSM Slope Measurements.

Section Station Type of Device

Edge Measurements

Width of 

Taper, in

Thickness of 

Taper, in Slope, deg

1 823+12 TransTech 4.5 3.25 36

1 822+87 TransTech 4.625 3.25 35

1 822+62 TransTech 4.5 3.25 36

1 822+37 TransTech 4.75 3 32

1 822+12 TransTech 4.5 3.125 35

1 821+87 TransTech 4.875 3.125 33

1 821+62 TransTech 4.25 3.125 36

1 821+37 TransTech 4.625 3.25 35

1 821+12 TransTech 4.75 3.5 36

1 820+87 TransTech 5.25 3.375 33

1 820+62 TransTech 4 2.75 35

1 820+37 TransTech 4 2.875 36

1 820+12 TransTech 3.875 3 38

1 819+87 TransTech 3.75 2.75 36

1 819+62 TransTech 3.75 2.75 36

1 819+37 TransTech 3.75 2.875 37

1 819+12 TransTech 4 2.875 36

1 818+87 TransTech 3.75 3 39

1 818+62 TransTech 3.75 2.625 35

1 818+37 TransTech 3.5 2.75 38

1 818+12 TransTech 3.875 2.75 35

1 817+87 TransTech 4.25 3 35

1 817+62 TransTech 4.25 2.875 34

1 817+37 TransTech 4.375 3 34

1 817+12 TransTech 4.25 2.875 34

1 816+87 TransTech 4.25 3 35

1 816+62 TransTech 5 3.25 33

1 816+37 TransTech 4.5 3.125 35

1 816+12 TransTech 4.375 3.125 36

1 815+87 TransTech 4.375 3.25 37

1 815+62 TransTech 4.625 3.125 34

1 815+37 TransTech 4.625 3.125 34

1 815+12 TransTech 4 2.625 33

1 814+87 TransTech 4.25 3.625 40

1 814+62 TransTech 4.75 3.625 37

1 814+37 TransTech 5.625 3.625 33

1 814+12 TransTech 6 3.5 30

1 813+87 TransTech 5.25 3.375 33

1 813+62 TransTech 6 3.75 32

1 813+37 TransTech 6 3.75 32

1 813+12 TransTech 5.75 3.5 31

Mean Value 4.5 3.1 35

Standard Deviation 0.7 0.3 2.1

Coefficient of Variation, % 14.6 9.8 6.0
A-3 

Table 1. Safety EdgeSM Slope Measurements (Continued). 

Section Station Type of Device

Edge Measurements

Width of 

Taper, in

Thickness of 

Taper, in Slope, deg

2 809+00 Carlson Prototype #2 3.125 2.125 34

2 808+75 Carlson Prototype #2 3.25 2.125 33

2 808+50 Carlson Prototype #2 2.875 1.875 33

2 808+25 Carlson Prototype #2 3.125 2.125 34

2 808+00 Carlson Prototype #2 3 2 34

2 807+75 Carlson Prototype #2 3.125 2 33

2 807+50 Carlson Prototype #2 3.25 2.125 33

2 807+25 Carlson Prototype #2 3.375 2.125 32

2 807+00 Carlson Prototype #2 3.25 2.125 33

2 806+75 Carlson Prototype #2 3.5 2.25 33

2 806+50 Carlson Prototype #2 3.25 2 32

2 806+25 Carlson Prototype #2 3.125 2 33

2 806+00 Carlson Prototype #2 3.125 1.875 31

2 805+75 Carlson Prototype #2 3 1.75 30

2 805+50 Carlson Prototype #2 3.125 2 33

2 805+25 Carlson Prototype #2 3.125 2 33

2 805+00 Carlson Prototype #2 2.875 2.125 36

2 804+75 Carlson Prototype #2 3.25 2 32

2 804+50 Carlson Prototype #2 2.625 1.875 36

2 804+25 Carlson Prototype #2 2.625 1.875 36

2 804+00 Carlson Prototype #2 3.75 1.875 27

2 803+75 Carlson Prototype #2 3.125 2.375 37

2 803+50 Carlson Prototype #2 3 2.125 35

2 803+25 Carlson Prototype #2 2.375 1.875 38

2 803+00 Carlson Prototype #2 2.625 1.75 34

Mean Value 3.1 2.0 33

Standard Deviation 0.3 0.2 2.4

Coefficient of Variation, % 9.6 7.5 7.1
A-4 

Table 1. Safety EdgeSM Slope Measurements (Continued). 

Section Station Type of Section

Edge Measurements

Width of 

Taper, in

Thickness of 

Taper, in Slope, deg

3 800+00 Carlson Prototype #3 3.6 2.16 31

3 799+75 Carlson Prototype #3 3.84 2.4 32

3 799+50 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.8 37

3 799+25 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.92 39

3 799+00 Carlson Prototype #3 3 2.28 37

3 798+75 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.92 39

3 798+50 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.8 37

3 798+25 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 2.04 40

3 798+00 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.8 37

3 797+75 Carlson Prototype #3 3 2.52 40

3 797+50 Carlson Prototype #3 3 2.4 39

3 797+25 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.92 39

3 797+00 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.8 37

3 796+75 Carlson Prototype #3 3 1.92 33

3 796+50 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.8 37

3 796+25 Carlson Prototype #3 3 2.52 40

3 796+00 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.68 35

3 795+75 Carlson Prototype #3 3 2.16 36

3 795+50 Carlson Prototype #3 3 2.4 39

3 795+25 Carlson Prototype #3 3.6 2.64 36

3 795+00 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.8 37

3 794+75 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.68 35

3 794+50 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.8 37

3 794+25 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.68 35

3 794+00 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.68 35

3 793+75 Carlson Prototype #3 3.6 2.4 34

3 793+50 Carlson Prototype #3 3 2.16 36

3 793+25 Carlson Prototype #3 3.6 2.64 36

3 793+00 Carlson Prototype #3 3 2.16 36

3 792+75 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.68 35

3 792+50 Carlson Prototype #3 3.6 2.64 36

3 792+25 Carlson Prototype #3 3.6 2.76 37

3 792+00 Carlson Prototype #3 3 2.16 36

3 791+75 Carlson Prototype #3 3.6 2.52 35

3 791+50 Carlson Prototype #3 3 2.28 37

3 791+25 Carlson Prototype #3 2.4 1.56 33

3 791+00 Carlson Prototype #3 3 1.92 33

3 790+75 Carlson Prototype #3 3.6 2.16 31

3 790+50 Carlson Prototype #3 3.6 2.64 36

3 790+25 Carlson Prototype #3 3 1.92 33

3 790+00 Carlson Prototype #3 3 2.4 39

Mean Value 2.9 2.1 36

Standard Deviation 0.5 0.3 2.4

Coefficient of Variation, % 16.9 16.2 6.6
A-5 

Table 2. Core Thickness Measurements.

Section

1

Lane Direction

Southbound

Station

821+62

Type of Section

TransTech

Core Thickness, inch

A – Adjacent 

to Edge

3.11

B – 3 feet 

from Edge

--

1 Southbound 818+12 TransTech 3.15 3.79

1 Southbound 814+62 TransTech 2.38 --

2 Southbound 808+50 Carlson Prototype #2 2.48 2.84

2 Southbound 807+00 Carlson Prototype #2 2.46 3.35

2 Southbound 805+00 Carlson Prototype #2 3.12 3.60

3 Southbound 379+50 Carlson Prototype #3 1.83 2.91

3 Southbound 376+00 Carlson Prototype #3 2.78 1.62

3 Southbound 372+50 Carlson Prototype #3 1.99 3.80

4 Southbound 789+50 Control 1.67 2.79

4 Southbound 795+00 Control 2.81 2.83

4 Southbound 791+50 Control

Mean, in. 

4.63

2.70

5.05

3.26

Standard Deviation, in. 

Coefficient of Variation, % 

0.79 0.90

29.21 27.61

Table 3. Nuclear Density Adjustment Ratios; Core Density/Nuclear Density.

Section Lane Direction Station Type of Device

Density of Cores Nuclear Density Values Adjustment Ratio

A – Adjacent 

to Edge

B – Center of 

Lane

A – Adjacent 

to Edge

B – Center of 

Lane

A – Adjacent 

to Edge

B – Center of 

Lane

1 Southbound 821+62 TransTech 139.0 143.8 137.0 143.6 1.015 1.001

1 Southbound 818+12 TransTech 139.5 145.3 139.4 145.0 1.001 1.002

1 Southbound 814+62 TransTech 139.9 146.3 139.3 145.2 1.004 1.008

2 Southbound 808+50 Carlson Prototype #2 142.8 145.3 133.3 144.5 1.071 1.006

2 Southbound 807+00 Carlson Prototype #2 133.8 145.1 132.3 144.8 1.011 1.002

2 Southbound 805+00 Carlson Prototype #2 137.8 145.1 135.1 145.2 1.020 0.999

3 Southbound 379+50 Carlson Prototype #3 134.7 144.5 133.1 144.2 1.012 1.002

3 Southbound 376+00 Carlson Prototype #3 130.9 145.3 130.0 143.8 1.007 1.010

3 Southbound 372+50 Carlson Prototype #3 133.6 143.7 133.2 145.0 1.003 0.991

4 Southbound 798+50 Control 134.6 143.9 134.3 143.4 1.002 1.003

4 Southbound 795+00 Control 135.5 145.0 134.3 144.0 1.009 1.007

4 Southbound 791+50 Control 133.7 146.3 133.6 144.9 1.001 1.010

Mean Value, pcf 136.3 145.0 134.6 144.5 1.013 1.003

Standard Deviation, pcf 3.4 0.9 2.8 0.6 0.019 0.005

Coefficient of Variation, % 2.5 0.6 2.1 0.4 1.905 0.522
A-6 

Table 4. Nuclear Gauge Readings.

Section Lane 

Direction Station Type of Device

Nuclear Densities, pcf Adjusted Nuclear Densities, pcf

Edge Thickness 

from Cores, in.

Air Voids, %

A – Adjacent to 

Edge

B – Lane 

Center

A – Adjacent to 

Edge

B – Lane 

Center

A – Adjacent to 

Edge

B – Lane 

Center

1 SB 823+12 TransTech 134.5 142.8 136.25 143.29 11.5 6.9

1 SB 822+62 TransTech 134.5 141.3 136.25 141.79 11.5 7.9

1 SB 822+12 TransTech 137.3 144.7 139.09 145.20 9.6 5.6

1 SB 821+62 TransTech 137.6 143.6 139.39 144.10 3.11 9.4 6.4

1 SB 821+12 TransTech 136.9 146.1 138.68 146.61 9.9 4.7

1 SB 820+62 TransTech 131.3 146.0 133.01 146.51 13.6 4.8

1 SB 820+12 TransTech 133.7 145.1 135.44 145.60 12.0 5.4

1 SB 819+62 TransTech 137.3 147.4 139.09 147.91 9.6 3.9

1 SB 819+12 TransTech 134.7 144.2 136.45 144.70 11.3 6.0

1 SB 818+62 TransTech 135.1 144.4 136.86 144.90 11.1 5.8

1 SB 818+12 TransTech 139.4 145.0 141.21 145.50 3.146 8.2 5.4

1 SB 817+62 TransTech 133.0 144.9 134.73 145.40 12.4 5.5

1 SB 817+12 TransTech 134.0 143.9 135.74 144.40 11.8 6.2

1 SB 816+62 TransTech 135.2 146.5 136.96 147.01 11.0 4.5

1 SB 816+12 TransTech 133.9 146.3 135.64 146.81 11.9 4.6

1 SB 815+62 TransTech 134.1 144.7 135.84 145.20 11.7 5.6

1 SB 815+12 TransTech 131.2 144.8 132.91 145.30 13.6 5.6

1 SB 814+62 TransTech 139.3 145.2 141.11 145.70 2.375 8.3 5.3

1 SB 814+12 TransTech 133.1 146.8 134.83 147.31 12.4 4.3

1 SB 813+62 TransTech 133.0 144.9 134.73 145.40 12.4 5.5

1 SB 813+12 TransTech 134.1 144.2 135.84 144.70 11.7 6.0

Average Value, pcf 134.9 144.9 136.7 145.4 2.9 11.2 5.5

Standard Deviation, pcf 2.3 1.4 2.3 1.4 0.4 1.5 0.9

Coefficient of Variation, % 1.7 1.0 1.7 1.0 15.1 13.5 16.4

Table 4. Nuclear Gauge Readings (Continued). 

Nuclear Densities, pcf Adjusted Nuclear Densities, pcf Air Voids, %

Section Lane 

Direction Station Type of Device Edge Thickness 

A – Adjacent to from Cores, in.

Edge

B – Lane 

Center

A – Adjacent to 

Edge

B – Lane 

Center

A – Adjacent to 

Edge

B – Lane 

Center

2 SB 809+00 Carlson Prototype #2 133.9 142.3 135.64 142.79 11.9 7.2

2 SB 808+50 Carlson Prototype #2 133.3 144.5 135.03 145.00 2.477 12.2 5.8

2 SB 808+00 Carlson Prototype #2 129.7 139.2 131.39 139.68 14.6 9.2

2 SB 807+50 Carlson Prototype #2 133.5 144.4 135.24 144.90 12.1 5.8

2 SB 807+00 Carlson Prototype #2 132.3 144.8 134.02 145.30 2.455 12.9 5.6

2 SB 806+50 Carlson Prototype #2 132.0 143.0 133.72 143.50 13.1 6.7

2 SB 806+00 Carlson Prototype #2 135.7 144.1 137.46 144.60 10.7 6.0

2 SB 805+50 Carlson Prototype #2 134.4 145.8 136.15 146.31 11.5 4.9

2 SB 805+00 Carlson Prototype #2 136.1 146.8 137.87 147.31 3.118 10.4 4.3

2 SB 804+50 Carlson Prototype #2 135.1 145.2 136.86 145.70 11.1 5.3

2 SB 804+00 Carlson Prototype #2 133.6 145.2 135.34 145.70 12.0 5.3

2 SB 803+50 Carlson Prototype #2 133.3 148.2 135.03 148.71 12.2 3.4

2 SB 803+00 Carlson Prototype #2 135.0 144.0 136.76 144.50 11.1 6.1

Average Value, pcf 133.7 144.4 135.4 144.9 2.7 12.0 5.8

Standard Deviation, pcf 1.7 2.2 1.7 2.2 0.4 1.1 1.4

Coefficient of Variation, % 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.5 14.0 9.4 24.5

Maximum Specific Gravity of Mix (Gmm): 2.466 Max. Density, 

pcf: 153.9

Adjustment Ratios for Nuclear 

Gauge:

A= 1.013

B= 1.003
A-7 

Table 4. Nuclear Gauge Readings (Continued). 

Nuclear Densities, pcf Adjusted Nuclear Densities, pcf Air Voids, %

Section Lane 

Direction Station Type of Device Edge Thickness 

A – Adjacent to from Cores, in.

Edge

B – Lane 

Center

A – Adjacent to 

Edge

B – Lane 

Center

A – Adjacent to 

Edge

B – Lane 

Center

3 SB 381+00 Carlson Prototype #3 129.9 142.3 131.59 142.79 14.48 7.20

3 SB 380+50 Carlson Prototype #3 131.6 144.0 133.31 144.50 13.37 6.10

3 SB 380+00 Carlson Prototype #3 132.4 143.4 134.12 143.90 12.84 6.49

3 SB 379+50 Carlson Prototype #3 133.1 144.2 134.83 144.70 1.825 12.38 5.96

3 SB 379+00 Carlson Prototype #3 134.3 145.9 136.05 146.41 11.59 4.86

3 SB 378+50 Carlson Prototype #3 129.4 141.4 131.08 141.89 14.81 7.79

3 SB 378+00 Carlson Prototype #3 131.5 142.1 133.21 142.59 13.43 7.33

3 SB 377+50 Carlson Prototype #3 134.5 143.8 136.25 144.30 11.46 6.23

3 SB 377+00 Carlson Prototype #3 131.6 144.2 133.31 144.70 13.37 5.96

3 SB 376+50 Carlson Prototype #3 131.7 143.0 133.41 143.50 13.30 6.75

3 SB 376+00 Carlson Prototype #3 130.0 143.8 131.69 144.30 2.783 14.42 6.23

3 SB 375+50 Carlson Prototype #3 129.3 141.2 130.98 141.69 14.88 7.92

3 SB 375+00 Carlson Prototype #3 129.9 141.3 131.59 141.79 14.48 7.86

3 SB 374+50 Carlson Prototype #3 127.2 141.3 128.85 141.79 16.26 7.86

3 SB 374+00 Carlson Prototype #3 128.8 142.3 130.48 142.79 15.21 7.20

3 SB 373+50 Carlson Prototype #3 130.9 143.2 132.60 143.70 13.83 6.62

3 SB 373+00 Carlson Prototype #3 128.9 144.0 130.58 144.50 15.14 6.10

3 SB 372+50 Carlson Prototype #3 133.2 145.0 134.93 145.50 1.986 12.31 5.44

3 SB 372+00 Carlson Prototype #3 133.1 144.5 134.83 145.00 12.38 5.77

3 SB 371+50 Carlson Prototype #3 130.7 141.3 132.40 141.79 13.96 7.86

3 SB 371+00 Carlson Prototype #3 132.7 142.3 134.43 142.79 12.64 7.20

Average Value, pcf 131.2 143.1 132.9 143.6 2.2 13.6 6.7

Standard Deviation, pcf 1.94 1.37 1.96 1.38 0.5 1.3 0.9

Coefficient of Variation, % 1.48 0.96 1.48 0.96 23.3 9.4 13.4
A-8 

Table 4. Nuclear Gauge Readings (Continued).

Nuclear Densities, pcf Adjusted Nuclear Densities, pcf Air Voids, %

Section Lane 

Direction Station Type of Device Edge Thickness 

A – Adjacent to from Cores, in.

Edge

B – 3 feet from 

Edge

A – Adjacent to 

Edge

B – Center of 

Lane

A – Adjacent to 

Edge

B – 3 feet from 

Edge

4 SB 800+00 Control 133.6 134.4 135.34 134.87 12.05 12.36

4 SB 799+50 Control 133.5 144.2 135.24 144.70 12.11 5.96

4 SB 799+00 Control 132.6 143.4 134.32 143.90 12.71 6.49

4 SB 798+50 Control 134.3 143.4 136.05 143.90 1.67 11.59 6.49

4 SB 798+00 Control 134.5 143.2 136.25 143.70 11.46 6.62

4 SB 797+50 Control 133.5 145.8 135.24 146.31 12.11 4.92

4 SB 797+00 Control 137.8 146.7 139.59 147.21 9.28 4.33

4 SB 796+50 Control 134.3 143.6 136.05 144.10 11.59 6.36

4 SB 796+00 Control 135.1 145.9 136.86 146.41 11.06 4.86

4 SB 795+50 Control 137.3 142.7 139.09 143.19 2.809 9.61 6.94

4 SB 795+00 Control 134.3 144.0 136.05 144.50 11.59 6.10

4 SB 794+50 Control 137.5 148.2 139.29 148.71 9.48 3.36

4 SB 794+00 Control 135.4 145.6 137.16 146.10 10.86 5.05

4 SB 793+50 Control 135.7 143.6 137.46 144.10 10.67 6.36

4 SB 793+00 Control 135.0 146.0 136.76 146.51 11.13 4.79

4 SB 792+50 Control 136.3 146.2 138.07 146.71 10.27 4.66

4 SB 792+00 Control 136.7 146.4 138.48 146.91 10.01 4.53

4 SB 791+50 Control 133.6 144.9 135.34 145.40 4.63 12.05 5.51

4 SB 791+00 Control 134.4 145.9 136.15 146.41 11.52 4.86

4 SB 790+50 Control 136.2 146.8 137.97 147.31 10.34 4.27

4 SB 790+00 Control 140.1 148.8 141.92 149.32 7.77 2.97

Average Value, pcf 135.3 144.7 137.1 145.2 3.0 10.9 5.6

Standard Deviation, pcf 1.82 2.90 1.84 2.91 1.5 1.2 1.9

Coefficient of Variation, % 1.34 2.00 1.34 2.00 49.2 11.0 33.7