Abstract
The metrology of processed wood surfaces is complex due to the presence of wood anatomical cavities, which are a factor of bias in several metrological steps, from the measuring to the evaluation of the surface quality. Wood requires special recommendations, and one regards the use of a robust Gaussian regression filter for filtering the roughness. The filter was previously tested with success on wood surfaces and was used in this paper. Furthermore, a reliable quantification of the processing roughness requires that independent wood anatomical data be removed from the evaluation. The paper presents a method of separating the roughness induced by processing from the wood anatomical structure. It was tested on different wood species, sanded with various grit sizes, and on a plastic material included for comparisons. The results showed similar values of the processing roughness for materials sanded with the same grit size, in spite of their different structures. The method could further be used for optimization of processing parameters at sanding.
Highlights
This study aimed to test the efficacy of the separation method on evaluating the processing roughness of various wood species and of a homogeneous material, plastic, after sanding with different grit sizes
The corresponding roughness parameters and upper which is an indication that the algorithm for separation was sensitive to the grit size
The values for spruce P1000, which shows that the algorithm for separation is sensitive to coefficient of variation is the between the standardspecies deviation the slightly mean value of species
Summary
A processed wood surface and evaluation of its surface roughness may be affected by a large number of factors, including wood species (softwood, hardwood) [1,2,3], types of cells (especially large pores and their arrangement, as well as other cells with thin walls and large lumen) [4,5,6,7,8], differences in local density (for example earlywood–latewood) [3,7,9], type of surface (tangential, radial) [10], direction of processing as related to the grain [11], wood defects (grain deviation, knots, reaction wood–normal wood, others), [3,11,12], moisture content, type of machining (planing, sanding, others) [13], tool characteristics and processing variables [11,14], and type of measuring instrument [15].The lack of specific standardization subjects the metrology of wood surfaces to bias and error [10,11,12,16]. The procedure begins with fitting a polynomial regression to the measured profile in order to remove form errors. The presence in wood of deep anatomical cavities can cause a series of problems; for example, they can disturb the data acquired with some measuring instruments [11,15,18,19], require longer measuring length [20] and adapted measuring resolution [21], distort the primary profile during form removal [4,22], distort the filtered roughness profiles [5,10,11,23,24], and affect the values of roughness parameters [2,25]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
