Abstract
Quality evaluation of a material’s surface is performed through roughness analysis of surface samples. Several techniques have been presented to achieve this goal, including geometrical analysis and surface roughness analysis. Geometric analysis allows a visual and subjective evaluation of roughness (a qualitative assessment), whereas computation of the roughness parameters is a quantitative assessment and allows a standardized analysis of the surfaces. In civil engineering, the process is performed with mechanical profilometer equipment (2D) without adequate accuracy and laser profilometer (3D) with no consensus on how to interpret the result quantitatively. This work proposes a new method to evaluate surface roughness, starting from the generation of a visual surface roughness signature, which is calculated through the roughness parameters computed in hierarchically organized regions. The evaluation tools presented in this new method provide a local and more accurate evaluation of the computed coefficients. In the tests performed it was possible to quantitatively analyze roughness differences between ceramic blocks and to find that a quantitative microscale analysis allows to identify the largest variation of roughness parameters Raavg, Rasdv, Ramin and Ramax between samples, which benefit the evaluation and comparison of the sampled surfaces.
Highlights
The most traditional technique of vertical closure of buildings is masonry lined with coating mortar
It is common for reading and, in this case, laser-scan (LiDAR) equipment to produce a cloud of erroneous points[15], which can lead to computation errors, either in the roughness computation or in the reconstruction of 3D surfaces
The proposed tools are effective for the analysis and evaluation of roughness following the concepts defined in the reference works[6,11], and bring a new and advantageous perspective on the analysis of surface roughness, as they allow a localized and detailed assessment of roughness coefficients of surfaces and at the same time facilitate comparative analysis among different sample surfaces
Summary
The most traditional technique of vertical closure of buildings is masonry lined with coating mortar. It is agreed that the substrate roughness should be analyzed at two scales: the macroscale (on the order of millimeters), visualized in the form of protuberances, recesses, and superficial imperfections that allow mechanical anchorage on the surface, and the microscale (on the order of micrometers), where adherence occurs predominantly through chemical interactions between the atoms or molecules of the mortar and the substrate[4,5]. On this scale, there are few papers and several knowledge gaps. Three-dimensional (3D) evaluations of roughness are unusual and are typically presented as figures representing the surface topography[14], but these are not quantitative, which results in an empirical specification of a parameter representing the roughness of the substrate and generates a roughness coefficient that cannot be extrapolated to other surfaces
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
