QSI Methods for Determining the Quality of the Surface Finish of Concrete

Francisco Javier Benito Saorin, Isabel Miñano Belmonte, Carlos Parra Costa, Carlos Rodriguez Lopez and Manuel Valcuende Paya
Additional contact information
Francisco Javier Benito Saorin: Department of Architecture and Building Technoloy, Technical University of Cartagena, Paseo Alfonso XIII, 30203 Cartagena, Spain
Isabel Miñano Belmonte: Department of Architecture and Building Technoloy, Technical University of Cartagena, Paseo Alfonso XIII, 30203 Cartagena, Spain
Carlos Parra Costa: Department of Architecture and Building Technoloy, Technical University of Cartagena, Paseo Alfonso XIII, 30203 Cartagena, Spain
Carlos Rodriguez Lopez: Department of Construction Material, Technological Research Center of Murcia Country, 30820 Alcantarilla, Spain
Manuel Valcuende Paya: Department of Architecture Constructions, Polythenic University of Valencia, Camí de Vera, 46022 Valencia, Spain

Sustainability, 2018, vol. 10, issue 4, 1-14

Abstract: The surface finish of a concrete element may become an index of its quality, relating the external and internal porosity with the mechanical and durability properties. Few methods are used to determine the surface quality of concrete elements. Mention must be made the Quality Surface Index (QSI) proposes a simplified method to quantify the surface occupied by the pores in relation with the total surface inspected, analyzing groups of pores by their diameter. The method of the CIB W29 (Commission W29 “Concrete Surface Finishings”) proposes an inspection of the concrete element and its visual comparison with some standard templates. Finally, the digital processing of images allows the zones with surface defects to be delimited and quantified according to premises of quality introduced into the control software. These three methods are employed in this work and are applied in three concrete walls situated three meters from the observer (M-1, M-2 and M-3). Following the conversion of the results of the method with ImageJ and QSI, the results suppose differences that go from 0.1 tenths (2%) for M-3 up to 0.3 tenths (8%) for M-1. All values are within the obtained range with CIB W29 templates. This can validate the QSI and digital processing methods and allows a quick verification of the results. With the digital method, it is obtained that 23.5% of the total pores of M-1 have a diameter of less than 10 mm 2 and 44% of less than 100 mm 2 . For M-2 and M-3 the proportions of pores with a dimension below 10 mm 2 is of 43.1% and 27.7%, respectively, and that 77.5% and 60.7% are smaller than 100 mm 2 . From all the above it can be highlighted that M-1 is the one with the lowest amount of pores, however the proportion of the largest is greater than for M-2 and M-3. In the case of M-3, although it has a lower proportion of larger pores than M-1, its greater amount means it is the worst in terms of surface finish of the three.

Keywords: surface finish; pores; bubbles and analysis of images (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/931/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/931/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:931-:d:137675

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().