## 3 Results
### Roughness Data Analysis  
Microtexure data were collected on all samples for both unpolished (R\({}_{\text{A}}\) *, R\({}_{\text{Q}}\) *, R\({}_{\text{Z}}\) *) and polished (R\({}_{\text{A}}\), R\({}_{\text{Q}}\), R\({}_{\text{Z}}\)) conditions. Table 6 summarizes the final roughness values estimated by averaging all longitudinal and crosswise profiles on each sample for a total of about 350 readings for both polishing conditions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Specimen** & **R1** & **R2** & **R3** & **A1** & **A2** & **A3** & **K1** & **K2** & **K3** & **C1** & **C2** & **C3** \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Basalt} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{EAF Slags} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Kinzigite} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{L limestone} \\ \hline BPN * & 62.0 & 60.0 & 58.8 & 62.0 & 57.3 & 58.0 & 58.7 & 58.0 & 55.7 & 47.3 & 50.0 & 52.0 \\ BPN & 57.7 & 54.7 & 54.7 & 58.7 & 53.3 & 53.0 & 50.0 & 50.0 & 48.0 & 38.0 & 38.0 & 42.0 \\ \(\Delta\)_BPN_ = 100 \(\frac{\Delta\)_BPN_ = BPN_ :}{BPN_ :} & \(-7.0\) & \(-8.9\) & \(-5.7\) & \(-5.4\) & \(-7.0\) & \(-8.6\) & \(-14.8\) & \(-13.8\) & \(-13.8\) & \(-19.7\) & \(-24.0\) & \(-19.2\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: British pendulum skid resistance test results. Figure 6: Average \(\Delta\)BPN% (British Pendulum Number) for each aggregate after the accelerated polishing process. Roughness data variation was calculated as the percentage difference between the values registered before and after polishing, as for BPN results. \[\Delta R_{i}=\frac{R_{i}-R_{i}^{*}}{R_{i}^{*}}\times 100 \tag{3}\]  
The abovementioned \(\Delta R_{i}\) (with \(i=a,q,z\)) can be evaluated as a parameter that quantifies aggregate surface evolution due to polishing. The average values estimated for each type of aggregate are shown in Figure 7.  
As it is possible to see in Figure 7, percentage variations are all higher than 5%. In particular, the greatest differences of microtexture before/after polishing were registered for kinginzite (\(\Delta Ri\) from \(-8.1\%\) to \(-9\%\)) and limestone (\(\Delta Ri\) from \(-14.9\%\) to \(-16\%\)). An essentially unchanged micro-peaks configuration surface was observed for basalt and EAF slags, probably because of their hardness, thus confirming the dependence of polishing behavior on mineralogical properties of aggregates. This result \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Before (\(\mu\)m)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**After (\(\mu\)m)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variation (\%)**} \\ \hline
**Samples/Microtexture** & \(\mathbf{R_{A}}\)* & \(\mathbf{R_{Q}}\)* & \(\mathbf{R_{Z}}\)* & \(\mathbf{R_{A}}\) & \(\mathbf{R_{Q}}\) & \(\mathbf{R_{Z}}\) & \(\Delta\mathbf{R_{A}}\) & \(\Delta\mathbf{R_{Q}}\) & \(\Delta\mathbf{R_{Z}}\) \\ \hline R1 & 12.54 & 16.07 & 35.37 & 11.82 & 15.08 & 33.43 & \(-6.15\) & \(-6.56\) & \(-5.78\) \\ R2 & 11.92 & 15.03 & 34.48 & 11.23 & 14.16 & 32.27 & \(-6.19\) & \(-6.13\) & \(-6.85\) \\ R3 & 11.86 & 14.98 & 35.18 & 11.26 & 14.20 & 33.29 & 5.38 & 5.49 & 5.68 \\ \hline A1 & 10.89 & 14.02 & 31.63 & 10.42 & 13.69 & 30.24 & \(-4.49\) & \(-2.40\) & \(-4.59\) \\ A2 & 11.19 & 14.27 & 31.58 & 10.45 & 13.29 & 29.75 & \(-7.13\) & \(-7.38\) & \(-6.13\) \\ A3 & 10.85 & 13.73 & 32.13 & 10.35 & 13.23 & 30.25 & \(-4.76\) & \(-3.76\) & \(-6.22\) \\ \hline K1 & 15.03 & 19.09 & 43.60 & 13.60 & 17.29 & 39.55 & \(-10.54\) & \(-10.39\) & \(-10.24\) \\ K2 & 12.74 & 16.38 & 39.25 & 11.74 & 15.01 & 35.81 & \(-8.59\) & \(-9.17\) & \(-9.61\) \\ K3 & 11.74 & 14.91 & 34.70 & 10.93 & 13.77 & 31.62 & \(-7.41\) & \(-8.26\) & \(-9.74\) \\ \hline C1 & 9.87 & 12.24 & 28.50 & 8.35 & 10.34 & 23.98 & \(-18.17\) & \(-18.31\) & \(-18.86\) \\ C2 & 9.09 & 11.45 & 26.63 & 7.65 & 9.49 & 22.12 & \(-18.81\) & \(-20.68\) & \(-20.16\) \\ C3 & 9.305 & 11.65 & 26.86 & 8.04 & 10.05 & 22.71 & \(-15.69\) & \(-15.88\) & \(-18.29\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} The microtexture indicators marked with (*) refer to the measurements performed before polishing test.  
\end{table}