A Critical Analysis of Red Ceramic Blocks Roughness Estimation by 2D and 3D Methods

Abstract

The method of measuring the roughness of ceramic substrates is not consensual, with unsuccessful attempts to associate roughness with the adhesion of coatings because the ceramic blocks have different areas of contact, shapes, and dimensions of the roughness as well as the extrusion process influences the mechanical anisotropy of the block. The goal of this work is a quantification and comparison of roughness data obtained by 2D and 3D methods, evaluating the variations of results between the measurement methods and formulating a critical analysis regarding the quality of the information obtained with each method. For this propose, four sets of ceramic blocks with different firing temperature were produced, in order to provide groups of blocks with different surface topographies in which the roughness was estimated. The roughness measurements were made in 4608 regions, resulting in 1536 values using 2D method and 3072 values using 3D method. In the 2D method for ceramic blocks, the measurement orientation strongly influences the result, depending on the measurement position and orientation. The 3D method generates a higher average value and allows to identify roughness variations typical of the ceramic block. The roughness estimation of a ceramic block surface must be done using the 3D method.

An improved FFT method for shot peening surface reconstruction

“…(3) Generate the height matrix Z c conforming to the autocorrelation function matrix C by equation (11).…”

“…However, the fact is that surface micro-morphology has an extremely important influence on surface friction, wear and fatigue life [7][8][9][10]. Furthermore, surface roughness parameters have been widely used in many fields such as manufacturing, materials and biology [11][12][13][14]. In addition, the forward physical models usually need to be simulated with the help of finite element software, which is inefficient [6,15].…”

Methodology for evaluation of the influence of roughness and capillary absorption of ceramic blocks on the render’s tensile bond strength

“…When evaluating the roughness on a micrometric scale or less, the surface of the block, which under macroscopic analysis has a smooth appearance, starts to show roughness variations. The roughness is determined in the order of micrometers, using several parameters for its characterization, the most common being the roughness coefficient Ra [22]. Roughness is directly influenced by the characteristics of the material and its manufacturing process.…”

Influence of capillary absorption and roughness of ceramic substrates on the adhesion of cement pastes

“…In terms of adhesion strength, multiple mechanisms influence its behavior, including chemical and physical bonds at atomic and molecular levels, mechanical forces at the nano and microscale, and the extent of contact, which refers to defects at the macroscale (COSTA; CARDOSO; JOHN, 2017;KENDALL, 2001;PAES et al, 2014;SHULTZ;NARDIN, 2003). While numerous studies have been conducted on mortar composition, mechanical properties, and durability (GONZÁLEZ-SÁNCHEZ et al, 2021;HAN et al, 2015;HUANG et al, 2021;ROSA;ARNOLD, 2016;PALOMAR;BARLUENGA, 2018;SENTENA;KREIN, 2018;STOLZ;MASUERO, 2018), the influence of the substrate on adhesive strength requires further investigation (ARNOLD et al, 2021;THAMBOO;DHANASEKAR, 2015;VALENTINI et al, 2022;CARASEK, 2019). Likewise, despite being a multiscale property, bond strength is mostly measured on a macroscale, and there is a need to better understand its behavior across different scales.…”

“…However, this approach does not allow the assessment of the number of peaks and valleys, which is essential for establishing a relationship between roughness parameters and mortar-substrate adhesion. Recent studies have proposed a more advanced method for roughness analysis, which involves generating roughness signatures through three-dimensional analysis at the micrometer level (ARNOLD et al, 2021;TONIETTO et al, 2019).…”