{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015966386554621848, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005042016806722689, 'mean_word_length': 5.805714285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of three multiscale methods for topographic analyses

There is a growing demand for high level surface characterization. The functionality of machine parts, such as tribological behavior, depends on the texture of contacting surfaces. The relation between texture parameters depending on the scaling of texture features, finishing process parameters, such as grain sizes for grinding, and functionality of a surface is investigated. Due to the fractal aspect of the studied surfaces, more advanced tools are used for characterization. This article presents a comparison of three different segmentation methods (patchwork, box, and motif) for multiscale decomposition, using different roughness parameters to analyse the texture of polymer samples finished with various abrasive papers from FEPA grade 80 to 4000 to represent varying abrasion on the different scales. The consistencies and discrepancies of the different procedures of multiscale decomposition in the relation between separability of macro and micro abrasions, identification of self-similarity and features or regions on varying scales and the finishing with different abrasive grain sizes have been investigated.