Gierasimiuk Pawel, Wasilewska Marta, Gardziejczyk Wladyslaw
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Bialystok University of Technology, Wiejska 45E Street, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland.
Materials (Basel). 2024 Aug 22;17(16):4147. doi: 10.3390/ma17164147.
This paper presents issues related to the assessment of the texture of aggregate concrete (EAC) surfaces using various methods for its verification. Microtexture was assessed using the British Pendulum Tester (BPT) and Dynamic Friction Tester (DFT). Two laser profilometers were used to assess macrotexture, circular texture meter (CTM) and stationary laser profilograph (SPL), as well as the commonly known volumetric method. Measurements were carried out on left and right tracks and in between them on five test sections of expressways. Based on the analyses performed, it was found that the results obtained by the DFT were less sensitive to changes in microtexture between individual tracks compared to the results obtained by the BPT. The BPN values in the left track were lower than those in the right track. However, the difference between the DFT20 results in these spots was insignificant. Both MPD and MTD values did not show significant differences between the right and left tracks. However, some differences were observed between the MPD parameters obtained using the CTM and SPL. This resulted from the different frequency and length of the scanned surface profile. However, the differences were at an acceptable level. A very high linear correlation was obtained in the case of BPN and DFT20 values (r - 0.719), and in the case of MPD and MTD values, the correlation was almost certain (r above 0.900). Based on a comparative analysis of the models estimating mean texture depth (MTD/ETD), a significant difference was observed between models based on EAC pavement results and those based on asphalt surfaces.
本文介绍了使用各种验证方法评估集料混凝土（EAC）表面纹理时相关的问题。使用英国摆式摩擦仪（BPT）和动态摩擦测试仪（DFT）评估微观纹理。使用两种激光轮廓仪评估宏观纹理，即圆形纹理仪（CTM）和静态激光轮廓仪（SPL），以及常用的容积法。在高速公路的五个测试路段的左右车辙及其之间进行了测量。基于所进行的分析发现，与BPT获得的结果相比，DFT获得的结果对各个车辙之间微观纹理变化的敏感度较低。左车辙的摆值（BPN）低于右车辙。然而，这些位置DFT20结果之间的差异不显著。左右车辙之间的平均轮廓深度（MPD）和平均纹理深度（MTD）值均未显示出显著差异。然而，使用CTM和SPL获得的MPD参数之间观察到一些差异。这是由于扫描表面轮廓的频率和长度不同所致。然而，这些差异处于可接受的水平。BPN和DFT20值的线性相关性非常高（r = 0.719），而MPD和MTD值的相关性几乎是确定的（r高于0.900）。基于对估计平均纹理深度（MTD/ETD）模型的比较分析，基于EAC路面结果的模型与基于沥青表面的模型之间观察到显著差异。
