In The Groove Machines
Diamond grooving and grinding are being used to restore rough or polished concrete pavements to ultrasmooth conditions and quell noise – but at a price.By Tom Kuennen, Contributing EditorDiamond grooving and grinding of aging portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement renews the pavement, providing a smoother-riding surface while enhancing skid-resistance and reducing pavement noise, experience and research shows.As PCC can be somewhat rough following placement, grooving and grinding also can be applied to virgin PCC pavements to improve IRI smoothness numbers before they’re open to traffic. Closely spaced diamond-coated circular saw blades are at the heart of this self-propelled grooving/grinding machine.That’s because a year earlier, on this section of roadway, both a stone matrix asphalt overlay and a conventional diamond-ground surface were constructed. The project, which extended for approximately 3.8 miles, consisted of overlay of three to four lanes of the existing plain-jointed portland cement concrete pavement roadway in each direction with SMA from Austin Avenue to Kostner Avenue, and from Homan Avenue to Sacramento Boulevard.The conventional diamond grinding was used to retexture the existing continuous reinforced concrete pavement between Kostner and Homan avenues. This diamond grinding was done by a joint venture of Quality Saw and Seal Inc., and Safety Grooving and Grinding.Shortly after completion of the diamond grinding, the project was evaluated for tire/pavement noise using an on-board sound intensity noise measurement device. The diamond-ground and SMA surfaces were comparable in noise level, with the diamond-ground registering at 103.7 dBA and the SMA at 103.4 dBA. (For the article, “IGGA: Agencies specifying diamond saw-cut textures to solve smoothness, noise and safety issues,” in Better Roads, go to.)The diamond grinding on this project received an award for its ride quality, which prompted IGGA to conduct profile testing of both the SMA and diamond-ground surfaces to compare ride characteristics. Ames Engineering of Ames, Iowa, conducted profile testing of three lanes in both directions of Chicago’s I-290, the Eisenhower Expressway, between Austin Avenue and Sacramento Boulevard after diamond grinding (as shown here) was done in 2010.
The profile testing was conducted to compare the stone matrix asphalt ride qualities with those of the conventional diamond-ground pavement.The Ames Engineering profile van measured the profile in each wheel path simultaneously. Two RoLine sensors were mounted on a cross member which attaches to the front bumper, positioned 12 inches above the pavement, and simultaneously the RoLine footprints were positioned 72 inches apart (center-to-center).At the same time that profile measurements were obtained, still photos were taken at approximate 150-foot intervals, allowing correlation between the profile results and a roadway image. The image was captured using a camera mounted to the windshield just below the rear view mirror. Both the images and profile data were linked to GPS coordinates.The research found that the diamond-ground surface had an overall average profile index (zero blanking band) of 20 inch/mile with a standard deviation of 3.9 inch/mile, while the SMA exhibited an overall average of 23.1 inch/mile and a standard deviation of 6.3 inch/mile. While 90 percent of the diamond-ground surface exhibited a profile index of 25 inch/mile or less, only 61 percent of the SMA surface achieved this. Additionally, while 100 percent of the diamond-ground surface can meet a requirement of 30 inch/mile, 10 percent of the SMA surface still would exceed this limit. I-440 concrete pavement preservation project near Nashville included 350,000 square yards of diamond grinding and grooving.The results indicate that the diamond-ground surface was smoother than the SMA overlay by approximately 3 in./mile, and that the smoothness variability was approximately half that of the SMA surface. T mobile beats studio.
(For “Profilometer Testing on Chicago’s I-290: Stone matrix asphalt overlay vs. Conventional diamond grinding,” that ran in Better Roads, go to.) a result of tests at the MnROAD facility. Working through a pooled fund study, several diamond grinding configurations first developed at Purdue University were field-tested on the low-volume road in 2007.
MnROAD staff since has been monitoring them to determine their long term performance with regards to noise, texture and friction. The successful performance of these textures at MnROAD has led to their implementation in several projects in Minnesota and other states.What is Next Generation Concrete Surface?The NGCS is an innovative grooving/grinding technique that provides a long-lasting, noise-reducing surface texture for concrete pavement.“NGCS is a diamond saw-cut surface designed to provide a consistent profile absent of positive or upward texture, resulting in a uniform land profile design with a predominantly negative texture,” IGGA says in its tech brief, Next Generation Concrete Surface. “Conventional diamond-ground surfaces produce a positive or upward texture, although they are still quieter than most other concrete pavement surface textures.”Thus the NGCS is predominantly a level (land) surface with grooves, in different configurations for different end results, rather than a surface with closely spaced parallel ridges featuring irregular “fins.”“The texture is most easily constructed in a two-pass operation using diamond-tipped saw blades mounted on conventional diamond grinding and grooving equipment,” IGGA says. “Testing has shown that these textures can be used for both new construction and rehabilitation of existing surfaces.”Refinement of the NGCS continues.
In The Groove Machines Free
At the January 2014 Transportation Research Board (TRB) meeting in Washington, D.C., researchers described an automated groove identification and measurement methodology that can reliably judge surface/groove conditions as the NGCS ages.“Since the grooved texture may deteriorate over time, the measurement of groove dimensions becomes an indispensable tool for NGCS’s long term performance evaluation,” say Kelvin C. Wang, Lin Li, Qiang Joshua Li, and Paul Tikalsky, P.E., Oklahoma State University-Stillwater, and Larry Scofield, P.E., IGGA, in their peer-reviewed paper, Automated Groove Identification and Measurement for Next Generation Concrete Surface (NGCS) Using 3D Pavement Data at 1mm Resolution.“The NGCS surface is the new non-porous concrete texture introduced in the last 20 to 30 years, which is a hybrid texture that resembles a combination of diamond grinding and longitudinal grooving for concrete pavement,” the authors say. “Since October of 2007, there are 17 surfaces in 10 states in which evaluation of its performance is ongoing. Some of the NGCS sections are monitored to evaluate their effectiveness in noise reduction and safety improvement over time. The presence of the downward or negative texture can decrease tire-pavement noise by 6 dBA, which is equivalent to 75 percent of noise reduction.”Traditional point laser-based profiling system is used to measure pavement transverse grooves, the authors write.
“However, this technique is incapable of evaluating longitudinal grooves that are used in NGCS,” they say. Alternatively, they propose an automated groove identification and measurement methodology for NGCS using 1mm resolution 3D pavement surface data collected from the recently developed PaveVision3D Ultra System.“A template-matched groove identification algorithm is proposed to detect and identify the longitudinal grooves for NGCS,” they say. “Subsequently, the groove dimensions are estimated based on an established procedure. Comparing the constructed NGCS groove dimensions with the estimated dimensions derived from this research, it is demonstrated that the proposed algorithm is robust in detecting longitudinal NGCS grooves and estimating their dimensions. Further research is anticipated to investigate the groove dimensions on NGCS’s noise level and safety performance over time.”Read about shot blast texturing at.
In The Groove Machine
That same year, upon the release of the demo, the band attended a Kings X show. (Ear Candy tour)That evening the band gave their promo-pack to KX, for possible tour-support consideration. A CD was obviously included.Two years later KX released their “Tape Head” CD. The opening track was called ‘Groove Machine’.The song was undeniably similar to Monster Dogs track called ‘Slacker’.Why bring it up now, you may ask? After reading a rather arrogantly worded interview with Dug Pinnick, bassist of Kings X on ‘‘.Dug states his feelings on song writing as well as his methods.
It became obvious that Monster Dog was indeed victim to his writing skills.If this were about money.The band would have found the resources to pursue the matter years ago.Lesson.Don’t EVER give your music to another creative entity. Regardless of how universally respected they may be. Monster Dog does hold a copyright on its demoBut, let the public decide.“Imitation is not flattery when it is not credited or unrecognized.”Here’s the interview quote from Dug Pinnick to which the above reader is referring:And there is an anxiety that happens also when I sit down to write. I’m going, ‘Oh God, what am I gonna come up with?’ And then all of a sudden the floodgates fly open, because I start thinking of all the music I’ve listened to for the last 60-some years. And so I just find the things that I love, steal them, change them around a little bit, and call them my own. Basically what all of us musicians are is just plagiarists.
We just write what we’ve heard. We never come up with anything original. The more information you get, the more you can make music that will fool everyone to think that it’s original. Get what I’m saying?Now let’s compare the tunes.
Here’s “Slacker” by Monsterdog:And here’s “Groove Machine” by King’s X:Even as a HUGE King’s X fanboy and a lover of all things Dug Pinnick forever and always, it’s pretty hard to deny the similarities there, especially in light of the Monster Dog anecdote and Dug’s quote. But you know what? Even if Pinnick did steal that riff, he not only changed it up and made it his own, but he made it better; his version has a subtle complexity that the original just doesn’t.
And, as Pinnick said above, pretty much all musicians do this sort of thing on a regular basis.What do you think? Is it plagiarism or is it different enough to stand on its own?
In The Groove Machine For Sale
Chime in below.