Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
10/11/2016
1
Influence of texture properties
Luc Goubert, Belgian Road Research Centre
Christian Gottaut, German Federal Highway Research
Institute
Why talk about texture?
Measuring pavement properties, skid resistance,
acoustic quality and rolling resistance:
• Cumbersome measurements
• Constant measurement speed
• Generally: dedicated, expensive, complicated and
delicate equipment
10/11/2016
2
Texture measurements
• Texture in macro- and megatexture range can be
relatively simply, fastly and reliably measured
• At any speed (up to what the equipment allows)
WP4 – DoW
Task 4.1: Influence of texture properties and common descriptors
• What is the current “State of the Art” concerning texture influence on
skid resistance, noise emission and rolling resistance?
• What is the use of enveloping of texture profile curves? And how can it
be improved?
• Do 3D measuring devices yield a significant advantage over traditional
2D devices?
• Which road surface texture descriptors can be used to assess skid
resistance, noise and rolling resistance?
• Is it feasible to complement or replace measurement of these
performance parameters with texture measurements and suitable
models?
10/11/2016
3
Enveloping
Enveloping: von Meier et al
method (1992)• Principle: reducing the second derivative
(smoothening) the profile with an
iterative procedure
• d* = second derivative and is measure
for “elasticity” of the tyre rubber
• The authors propose: d* = 0,054 m-1
10/11/2016
4
Research questions
• Is the Von Meier method able to yield a
reasonable approximation of the
enveloping curve of a texture profile?
• If yes, what would be a good value for
d*?
10/11/2016
5
BRRC experiment
• Two “easy” surfaces: one
with a pronounced positive
and one with a negative
texture
• Measurement of original
profile with profilometer
• Filling voids with suitable
plastic, non sticking
material
• Drive over with real car
tyre and fixing enveloping
surface
• Measuring enveloping
curve with profilometer
Used profiles
18,4 mm
12 12
12
9,2
10/11/2016
6
-6,00
-4,00
-2,00
0,00
2,00
4,00
6,00
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
original
measured
d* = 0,01
d* = 0,006
d* = 0,054
Measured and calculated
profiles
Measured and calculated
profiles (detail)
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
4,50
5,00
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
original
measured
d* = 0,01
d* = 0,006
d* = 0,054
d* = 0,006 m-1 is best fit,
but obviously not OK
10/11/2016
7
Enveloping procedure
Hamet & Klein
J.-F. Hamet & P. Klein, “Road texture and tire noise”, INTERNOISE 2000, Nice, August 2000
Enveloping procedure
Hamet & Klein
J.-F. Hamet & P. Klein, “Road texture and tire noise”, INTERNOISE 2000, Nice, August 2000
10/11/2016
8
New enveloping
algorithm• Proposal: “indentor” algorithm:
– we let a defined area of the 2D profile “indent” into the
rubber of the tyre
– For the points which are indented in the rubber (the peak
areas of the profile):
y(enveloped profile) = y(original profile)
– For the points which are not indented in the rubber (the
valley areas of the profile):
y(enveloped profile) = y(interpolated between the nearest
remaining points of the original profile)
New enveloping
algorithm: principle
Foot print length (FPL)
Indented area (S)
(before the calculation of the area S for each footprint, the slope
is suppressed by subtraction of the regression line (not shown here))
10/11/2016
9
New enveloping
algorithm:principle
Triangular profile
10/11/2016
10
New algorithm on
triangular profile
S = 30 mm² and FPL = 90 mm
Interpolation procedure: cubic Hermite
Real road surface:
C2-section in Nantes
S = 30 mm² and FPL = 90 mm
10/11/2016
11
Calibration of the indentor
enveloping
Overriding with SRTT,
mounted in CPX
Calibration of the indentor
enveloping
OK, but unwanted traces
of sipes
10/11/2016
12
Calibration of the indentor
enveloping
OK, but
unwanted traces
of sipes
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Protruding peaks of
triangular profile
Calibration of the indentor
enveloping
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
60 65 70 75 80 85 90
For P1 tyre:
S ≈ 6 mm²
10/11/2016
13
Enveloping and rolling
resistance
RRC and Lme, Lma
and MPD
Without enveloping
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
ES14
/BRRC_5
0
ES14
/BRRC_8
0
SRTT/B
ASt_
50
SRTT_B
ASt_
80
AAV
4/BASt_
50
AAV
4/BASt_
80
ES16
/BASt_
50
ES16
/BASt_
80
SRTT/T
UG_5
0
SRTT/T
UG_8
0
AAV
4/TU
G_5
0
AAV
4_TU
G_8
0
ES16
/TUG_5
0
ES16
/TUG_8
0
ES14
/TUG_5
0
ES14
/TUG_8
0
Trailer-Tyre-Speed combination
R²
MPD
LMa
LMe
With enveloping
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
ES14
/BRRC_5
0
ES14
/BRRC_8
0
SRTT/B
ASt_
50
SRTT_B
ASt_
80
AAV
4/BASt_
50
AAV
4/BASt_
80
ES16
/BASt_
50
ES16
/BASt_
80
SRTT/T
UG_5
0
SRTT/T
UG_8
0
AAV
4/TU
G_5
0
AAV
4_TU
G_8
0
ES16
/TUG_5
0
ES16
/TUG_8
0
ES14
/TUG_5
0
ES14
/TUG_8
0
Trailer-Tyre-Speed combination
R²
MPD
LMa
LMe
(source: MIRIAM 2011)
10/11/2016
14
IFSTTAR test tracks
Test track Length (m) MPD (mm)
A 214.40 1.27
A’ 47.00 3.40
C1 139.00 0.36
C2 96.40 4.19
E1 245.00 0.94
E2 240.00 1.16
F 238.00 1.56
L1 124.00 0.14
L2 112.00 0.81
M1 223.00 1.44
M2 144.40 1.27
N 184.00 0.41
MPD versus different
enveloping procedures
28
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
A A' C1 C2 E1 E2 F L1 L2 M1 M2 N
MP
D (
mm
)
Test track
original
von Meier (0,054m-1)von Meier (0,006m-1)ind. env. (10 mm²)
ind. env. (6 mm²)
Klein
10/11/2016
15
RRC versus MPD
29
y = 0,1526x + 0,559R² = 0,9613
y = 0,4501x + 0,4915R² = 0,9489
y = 0,2649x + 0,5854R² = 0,9762
y = 0,5392x + 0,4809R² = 0,9527
y = 0,1765x + 0,5723R² = 0,9652
y = 0,3794x + 0,5444R² = 0,9628
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
0,90
1,00
1,10
1,20
1,30
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5
RR
C [
%]
MPD
TUG trailer, P1 tyre, 50 km/h
MPD original
ind. env. (10 mm²)
von Meier (0,006 m-1)
ind. env. (6 mm²)
von Meier (0,054 m-1)
Klein (5,5 Mpa)
real pavements
RRC versus MPD
(original)
30
y = 0,0998x + 0,6051R² = 0,7604
0,40
0,45
0,50
0,55
0,60
0,65
0,70
0,75
0,80
0,85
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8
RR
C [
%]
MPD
TUG trailer, P1 tyre, 50 km/h
10/11/2016
16
RRC versus MPD (von
Meier d* = 0,054 m-1)
31
y = 0,139x + 0,5984R² = 0,7887
0,40
0,45
0,50
0,55
0,60
0,65
0,70
0,75
0,80
0,85
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4
arw
1b C
r [%
]
MPD
TUG trailer, P1 tyre, 50 km/h
RRC versus MPD
(Hamet & Klein)
32
y = 0,2389x + 0,5984R² = 0,8435
0,40
0,45
0,50
0,55
0,60
0,65
0,70
0,75
0,80
0,85
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
RR
C [
%]
MPD
TUG trailer, P1 tyre, 50 km/h
10/11/2016
17
RRC versus MPD
(indentor with S = 6 mm²)
33
y = 0,3341x + 0,5607R² = 0,8551
0,40
0,45
0,50
0,55
0,60
0,65
0,70
0,75
0,80
0,85
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8
RR
C [
%]
MPD
TUG trailer, P1 tyre, 50 km/h
RRC versus MPD
(original)
34
y = 0,1166x + 1,0265R² = 0,5639
0,80
0,90
1,00
1,10
1,20
1,30
1,40
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8
RR
C [
%]
MPD
BRRC trailer, H1 tyre, 50 km/h
10/11/2016
18
RRC versus MPD
(indentor with S = 6 mm²)
35
y = 0,4474x + 0,9511R² = 0,8327
0,80
0,90
1,00
1,10
1,20
1,30
1,40
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8
RR
C [
%]
MPD
BRRC trailer, H1 tyre, 50 km/h
RRC versus MPD
(indentor with S = 6 mm²)
36
y = 0,4474x + 0,9511R² = 0,8327
0,80
0,90
1,00
1,10
1,20
1,30
1,40
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8
RR
C [
%]
MPD
BRRC trailer, H1 tyre, 50 km/h
10/11/2016
19
R² for RRC versus MPD
(50 km/h)
37
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
0,90
1,00
raw von Meier 0,054 von Meier 0,006 indentor 10 indentor 6 Hamet & Klein
R²
enveloping method
P1-TUG
H1-TUG
H1-BRRC
R² for RRC versus MPD
(80 km/h)
38
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
0,90
raw von Meier 0,054 von Meier 0,006 indentor 10 indentor 6 Hamet & Klein
R²
enveloping method
P1-TUG
H1-TUG
H1-BRRC
10/11/2016
20
R² for RRC versus LMe
(50 km/h)
39
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
raw von Meier 0,054 von Meier 0,006 indentor 10 indentor 6
R²
enveloping method
P1-TUG
H1-TUG
H1-BRRC
R² for RRC versus LMe
(80 km/h)
40
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
raw von Meier 0,054 von Meier 0,006 indentor 10 indentor 6
R²
enveloping method
P1-TUG
H1-TUG
H1-BRRC
10/11/2016
21
2D/3D devices
TL 5 (2-D)T3Dk (3-D)
2D/3D Devices
10/11/2016
22
43
For an oriented texture it is nearly
impossable for a 2-D device to make
reliable measurements in the direction
of orientation.
The high amount of data acquired
with one measurement leads to a
higly statistical significance
Benefits of 3D
amount of data (measured in a few seconds)
40120 (2D) / 1310720 (3D)
44
Polished mastic asphalt with drilled
holes to isolate the flow-induced noise
effects
Texture measurementResulting noise
Nearly impossible to calculate from single „texture
line“ values, but a 3D representation allows a (time
consuming) computational calculation
Benefits of 3D
10/11/2016
23
Texture and skid resistance
projector
camera
measuring
principle measuring resultdevice
10/11/2016
24
47
y(T3Dk) = 1.491x + 0.103R² = 0.76
y(T3Dg) = 0.764x + 0.256R² = 0.56
y(TL5) = 1.098x + 0.221R² = 0.68
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
MP
Do
(m
m)
µSKM,60 (–)
T3Dk-MPDo
T3Dg-MPDo
TL5-MPDo
TL 5
only 2-D device but
medium resolution (~0,001 mm,
Spot size ~0,1 mm)
y(T3Dk) = 1.547x - 0.050R² = 0.67
y (T3Dg)= 0.757x + 0.202R² = 0.45
y(TL5) = 1.117x + 0.124R² = 0.58
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
MP
Do
(m
m)
µSKM,20 (–)
T3Dk-MPDo
T3Dg-MPDo
TL5-MPDo
T3Dg
3D-device with a big measuring
field, but a relative low resolution
(~ 0,04 mm)
T3Dk
small 3D-device with a high
resolution (~ 0,001 mm)
48
Skid resistance and MPD
highe
rsp
eed
(SKM
)
lowest
resolution
highest
resolution
medium
resolution
10/11/2016
25
Conclusions (enveloping)
– The existing “simple” enveloping method of von Meier e.a. does not
yield a realistic enveloping profile
– The d* parameter proposed by the authors is not representative for
the P1 tyre (a realistic value has been determined in ROSANNE)
– A simple and suitable for standardization enveloping “indentor”
enveloping method has been proposed, yielding realistic enveloped
profiles (close to result very sophisticated Hamet & Klein method)
– Correlation of RRC for P1 and H1 tyres with MPD improves in some
cases significantly with the new enveloping procedure, up to
excellent R²
– “performance” of indentor enveloping appears comparable with
sophisticated Hamet & Klein method
– But in some cases enveloping doesn’t work
Conclusions (3D and skid
resistance)– 3D measurements are necessary for assessing the texture influence on
noise in the case of anisotropic pavements
– Regarding the correlation skid resistance and MPD: it gets better with
a higher resolution (regardless 2D or 3D)
10/11/2016
26
ROSANNE
Thanks for your attention!
