The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2019) 104:2459–2471

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04083-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Assessment of the effect of stylus tip radius on milled, bored,

and honed surfaces
C. C. Souza 1 & L. J. Arantes 1 & A. Piratelli-Filho 2 & R. V. Arencibia 1

Received: 22 March 2019 / Accepted: 26 June 2019 / Published online: 8 July 2019
# Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
This paper deals with evaluation of the effect of the stylus tip radius on the roughness parameters on milled, bored, and honed
surfaces of the crankcase of hermetic compressors manufactured in gray cast iron. Roughness measurements were carried out on
machined surfaces of 10 hermetic compressors using a 2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radius. For milled and bored surfaces, Rp, Rv,
Rz, Rt, Ra, Rq, and RΔq roughness parameters were obtained, whereas for honed surfaces, Rk, Rpk, and Rvk were studied. From
the obtained results, it was concluded that for milled and bored surfaces, only the values of RΔq presented statistically significant
differences, considering a confidence level of 95%. However, particular attention should be given to the Rv parameter whose
p values were higher than 0.05, but very close to it. For honed surfaces, the average values of Rpk and Rk parameters were higher
for measurements carried out using a 5-μm stylus tip radius, due to the increase of the peak radius of curvature. No statistically
significant difference related to Rpk, Rk, and Rvk parameters was identified.

Keywords Surface roughness . Contact measurement . Measurement uncertainty . Stylus tip radius

1 Introduction mechanical design and manufacturing [1], as it is a key factor

In machines or mechanisms, parts are assembled to perform
certain functions or tasks. The work is usually done by trans-
mitting power and energy, supporting loads, and transferring
motion through pairs of contacted surfaces of machined com-
ponents [1]. In this context, the surface texture is crucial to
that affects the functionality and reliability of components [2].
The surface roughness directly affects the optical and mechan-
ical properties of the materials. It determines the characteris-
tics of wear, friction, lubrication, corrosion, fatigue, heat trans-
fer, optical properties, fluid flow, and measuring surfaces [3];
adhesion [4, 5]; and fracture toughness and fatigue resistance

Highlights
• The assessment of the effect of stylus tip radius on milled, bored, and
honed surfaces is presented.
• An increase on the stylus tip radius from 2 to 5 μm caused statistically
significant effects on RΔq.
• Rpk and Rk average values tend to increase as the tip radius became
larger.
• For roughness characterization using RΔq and Rv parameters, the use of
smaller stylus tip radius is recommended.

* C. C. Souza 1
Mechanical Engineering Faculty, Federal University of Uberlândia,
claudio.costasouza.05@gmail.com 2121, João Naves de Ávila Avenue, Campus Santa Mônica, Building
5F, Uberlândia, MG 38400-902, Brazil
L. J. Arantes
ljarantes@ufu.br 2
Faculty of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Brasília, University Campus Darcy Ribeiro,
A. Piratelli-Filho
Brasília, DF 70910-900, Brazil
pirateli@unb.br
R. V. Arencibia
rosenda.arencibia@ufu.br

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2460
[6], among others. For this reason, roughness is one of the
most important factors in tribology and it can be used to eval-
uate the quality of a machining operation [7].
Despite the contact roughness measurement limitations, this
technique remains the most widely used for characterizing sur-
faces [2, 5, 6, 8, 9], and the electromechanical roughness tester is
the most used for roughness measurements [10, 11]. According
to Motta-Neto et al. [12], the dominance of the contact roughness
measurement can be attributed to the electromechanical rough-
ness tester portability, the lower acquisition cost, and the high
diagnostic power. The roughness tester portability is of utmost
importance in the production lines, allowing the part roughness
characterization between machining operations. This is essential
to preserve the machining reference.
The main error factors that can affect contact roughness
measurement results are related to the roughness tester, the
workpiece, the operator, the measurement strategy, and the en-
vironment. Each of these factors is related to several sources, as
presented by Dobes et al. [13]. The tip size and geometry, the
roughness tester resolution, and calibration are pointed out as
the main sources associated with the roughness tester.
The dimensions and geometry of the stylus tip occupy a
relevant place among the sources widely commented in the
literature. According to NBR ISO 3274 [14], the tip geometry
can be of cone-spherical or truncated pyramid type and the
radius of the spherical tip can present values of 2 μm, 5 μm,
and 10 μm. The actual roughness profile is impossible to be
obtained due to the size of the stylus tip [15, 16]. The radius of
curvature of the peaks may be increased, and some valleys
may not be detected [15]. On surfaces characterized by deep
and narrow valleys, the stylus tip may not be able to reach the
lower points of the profile [10]. The stylus tip acts as a me-
chanical filter, which causes the effective roughness profiles to
present distortions in relation to the actual profiles [16]. The
value of the Ra parameter can be reduced as the radius of the
stylus tip is increased [17].
However, few studies have been found, reporting the effect
of the dimensions and geometry of the stylus tip on the rough-
ness values. The effect of the stylus tip size on the Ra, Rt, and
Rv roughness parameters was reported by Motta-Neto et al.
[12]. This author carried out a theoretical analysis of two-
dimensional surface profiles in order to show this effect.
From this study, the conclusion was reached that Rt roughness
parameter was the most affected as the stylus tip radius was
increased, whereas Ra was the least affected.
An important contribution reporting the effect of the stylus
tip radius on the Ra, Rq, Rp, Rv, and Rt was made by Motta-
Neto et al. [12]. For the first time, the effect of the stylus tip
radius (2 μm and 5 μm) on the values of roughness amplitude
parameters obtained by an electromechanical surface rough-
ness tester was experimentally quantified. Samples of SAE
1020 carbon steel and gray cast iron, obtained by turning
and milling processes for different cutting conditions, were
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 104:2459–2471
characterized by roughness measurement. The authors con-
cluded that the stylus tip radius did not cause statistically sig-
nificant effects on the Ra, Rq, Rp, Rv, and Rt parameter values
for 54% of all evaluated conditions. For all evaluated param-
eters, the differences between the average values obtained
using a 2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radius were lower than
the values of the associated expanded uncertainty (95%) in
82% of performed experiments.
The results obtained by Motta-Neto et al. [12] are relevant,
since they increased the understanding about the effect of the
stylus tip radius. At the same time, these results leave a ques-
tion about what stylus tip radius should be used during contact
roughness measurement. Considering the wide variety of
manufacturing processes, as well as of roughness parameters,
which can be used to surface characterization, it is essential to
carry out further studies to quantify the effect of the stylus tip
radius. In this context, this work deals with investigation of the
effect of the stylus tip radius on the values of several rough-
ness amplitude parameters (Rp, Rv, Rz, Rt, Ra, and Rq), hybrid
parameter (RΔq), and Rk family parameters (Rpk, Rk, and
Rvk) obtained from three functional machined surfaces of
the crankcase of hermetic compressors. The machining pro-
cesses considered were front milling, boring, and convention-
al honing. The application of different manufacturing process-
es ensures that the roughness profiles have particular charac-
teristics in amplitude, spacing, and density of the elements of
the roughness profile.
Amplitude parameters Rq, Rv, Rz, Rt, Ra, and Rq, covered
by the ISO 4287 standard [18], have been widely commented
in the literature and extensively employed for roughness char-
acterization. For this reason, they are not presented here. The
hybrid parameter RΔq also covered by the ISO 4287 standard
[18] represents the root mean square value of the ordinate
slopes dZ/dX within the sampling length, as indicated in Fig.
1. According to Leach [10], this parameter is useful in painting
and plating applications where the length of surface is impor-
tant for keying. In addition, Nakar and Hirsch [19] stated that
although slope is not a common metric in large-scale surface
treatment industries, it is important in precision applications
such as contact wear, friction, and sealing and Nakar and
Feuermann [20] reported the limitations of using only height
parameters for roughness characterization of very smooth sur-
faces with a roughness average (Ra) lower than 0.2 μm.
For roughness characterization of honed surfaces, the cu-
mulative distribution of surface heights (the Abbott–Firestone
curve) was extensively employed, as shown in Fig. 2. Several
roughness parameters are derived from it, among them the Rk
family parameters. The Rk family parameters (Rk, core rough-
ness depth; Rvk, reduced valley depths; Rpk, reduced peak
height; Mr1, peak material ratio; and Mr2, valley material
ratio) covered by the ISO 13565-2 standard [22] are calculated
from the Abbott–Firestone curve [23]. These parameters have
been extensively employed by Pawlus et al. [24], Anderberg
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 104:2459–2471
Fig. 1 Slopes dZ(X)/dX samples
within a roughness profile
element [18]
et al. [25], Buj-Corral and Vivancos-Calvet [26], Arantes et al.
[27], Pereira et al. [28], and Kanthababu et al. [29] to charac-
terize honed surfaces.
The Rk parameter quantifies the wear rate of the surfaces in
contact and is associated with the intermediate part of the
roughness that would affect the mechanical resistance and
the load-carrying capacity during contacting operations [30].
Rpk represents the average roughness value of the peaks that
are above the minimum contact area of the profile (excluding
any exaggerated peaks), and is associated with the region that
wears on the first contacts between the surfaces. On the other
hand, Rvk indicates the average roughness value of the valleys
that are below the contact area of the profile (excluding any
excessively deep valleys). This parameter is associated with
the surface properties for retaining lubricant [31].
2 Methodology
The effect of the stylus tip radius factor on the roughness
parameters values obtained from front milled, bored, and con-
ventional honed surfaces of the crankcase of hermetic
Fig. 2 Abbott–Firestone curve [21]
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2461
compressor was investigated. The study was based on a
single-factor design. The stylus tip radius factor was investi-
gated on two levels (2 μm and 5 μm). Both stylus tips have a
cone angle of 60° and a skid, with a 3 mm width (Fig. 3), a
6 mm diameter, and a distance to the diamond tip equal to 3
mm.
Experiments were carried out on 10 crankcases manufactured
in gray cast iron. The crankcases were numbered from 1 to 10.
Figure 4 shows an exploded view of the several parts of a spe-
cific model of a hermetic alternative reciprocating compressor.
The three evaluated functional surfaces of the crankcase are in-
dicated in this figure.
The milled surface of the crankcase must have good ma-
chining quality so it can provide proper flatness and roughness
values because it will be coupled to the cylinder gasket and the
valve plate. Conventional honed surface represents the crank-
case cylinder. It was machined by using a multi-spindle hon-
ing machine, Gehring model. A set of three honing tools was
used each with two strokes, the first for roughing (120 mesh),
the second for semi-finishing (270 mesh), and the third for
finishing (600 mesh). The honing parameters were defined
as the roughing honing tool with 550 rpm, semi-finishing
honing tool with 550 rpm, and finishing honing tool with
500 rpm. The depth of the cut was 0.014 mm, and the feed
rate was 300 mm/min [28]. The honed surface of the cylinder
must have roughness, cylindricity, and circularity within a
suitable range to ensure that sufficient metal–metal (cylin-
der–piston) contact can be avoided to the maximum, but also
Fig. 3 Conical stylus shape with a spherical tip having 2 μm and 5 μm of
radius and 60° cone angle [32]
2462 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 104:2459–2471

Fig. 4 Hermetic alternative

reciprocating compressor [33].
Indication of milled, honed, and
bored surfaces evaluated

have roughness capable of accumulating sufficient lubricant
to form a thin film of oil at the cylinder–piston interface by the
presence of dimples or oil pockets. The bored surface of the
crankcase has to have sufficient quality (roughness, diameter,
cylindricity, and circularity) to provide a perfect coupling with
the rotor so when this part can rotate properly with the
crankshaft.
A surface roughness tester, model Surtronic 3+ 112/1590
manufactured by Taylor Hobson, was used to carry out rough-
ness measurements. This equipment has a resolution of 0.01
μm. The calibration certificate declares an expanded uncer-
tainty associated with the roughness tester calibration of
0.05 μm for a coverage factor of 1.96 and a coverage proba-
bility of 95%. During the roughness measurement, the

Fig. 5 Electromechanical surface

roughness tester model Surtronic
3+ (1), crankcase (2), and
measuring table (3) during
roughness measurement of honed
surface (a). Details of milled
surface (b) and bored surface (c)
measurements

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 104:2459–2471 2463

Table 1 Summary of the surface roughness parameters

Parameter name Symbol Definition

Maximum profile peak height Rp Maximum profile peak height within a sampling length
Maximum profile valley depth Rv Maximum profile valley depth within a sampling length
Maximum height of the profile Rz Maximum height of the profile within a sampling length
Total height of the profile Rt Total height
lr of the profile on the evaluation length
Arithmetical mean deviation of the assessed profile Ra Ra ¼ l1r ∫jZ
0 ðxÞjdx, where lr is the sampling length
Root mean square deviation of the assessed profile Rq Standard deviation of the height distribution, defined on the sampling length
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
lr
Rq ¼ l1r ∫0 Z 2 ðxÞdx, where lr is the sampling length
Root mean square slope of the assessed profile RΔq Square root mean slope, dZ/dX, at sampling length
Kernel roughness depth (roughness depth of the core) Rk It is the height of the roughness profile, without taking into account the
elevated peaks or the very deep holes
Reduced peak height (roughness depth of the peaks) Rpk It characterizes the height of the peaks above the kernel zone (Rk) of the profile
Reduced valley depth (roughness depth of the valleys) Rvk It characterizes the depth of the valleys below the kernel zone of the profile (Rk)

roughness tester and the crankcase were placed on a measur-
ing table (Fig. 5).
In accordance with ISO 12085 standard [34], a sampling
length of 0.8 mm was adopted for honed surface and a sam-
pling length of 2.5 mm was considered for milled and bored
surfaces. Five sampling lengths were considered for the milled
and honed surfaces, but only three sampling lengths could be
considered for the bored surfaces because of the total length of
these surfaces. Thus, the evaluation lengths were 4.0 mm for
honed surfaces, 12.5 mm for milled surfaces, and 7.5 mm for
bored surfaces. For milled and bored surfaces, the values of
Rp, Rv, Rz, Rt, Ra, Rq, and RΔq parameters were collected
and the Gaussian filter was applied on the primary extracted
profiles, whereas for honed surfaces, the values of the Rk, Rpk,
and Rvk parameters were analyzed and the double-Gaussian
filter was applied. Five measurement cycles were performed.
Data acquisition was carried out with TalyProfile Gold 4.0
software. For better understanding, Table 1 presents a brief
summary of the evaluated parameters.
All measurements were carried out at a controlled room
temperature of 20.0 °C ± 1.0 °C. The instruments and crank-
cases were maintained at this temperature for approximately
12 h prior to the measurements. The roughness tester was
turned-on 3 h before starting the measurements. The tempera-
ture was monitored by a digital thermo-hygrometer with a res-
olution of 0.1 °C and a nominal range from − 20.0 to 60.0 °C.
The calibration certificate declares an expanded uncertainty as-
sociated with the thermo-hygrometer calibration of 0.3 °C for a
coverage factor of 2.00 and a coverage probability of 95.45%.
The statistical analysis was carried out by applying the anal-
ysis of variance (ANOVA) and by using software Statistica®
7.0. The F test was applied to verify the null hypothesis where
all levels of the stylus tip radius factor produced the same eval-
uated roughness parameter mean (H0: μ1 = μ2).
The measurement uncertainty associated with all rough-
ness parameters was estimated using the GUM-JCGM 100
method [35]. Considering the five measurement cycles per-
formed, the mathematical model proposed to evaluate the
measurement uncertainty associated with all parameters is
given in Eq. (1). More details can be found in the study of
Pereira et al. [28].
P ¼ L þ ΔR þ ΔC þ ΔTr þ ΔD ð1Þ

Fig. 6 Average values of (a) Milled Surfaces (b) Bored Surfaces

amplitude parameters (Rp, Rv, Rz,
Rt, Ra, and Rq) obtained from 45.00 45.00
milled (a) and bored (b) surfaces 40.00 2 μm tip radius 40.00 2 μm tip radius
during the contact roughness 35.00 5 μm tip radius 35.00 5 μm tip radius
Values in (μm)

Values in (μm)

measurement using a 2-μm and a 30.00 30.00

5-μm stylus tip radius. Expanded
uncertainty (95%) represented as
25.00 25.00
an error bar 20.00 20.00
15.00 15.00
10.00 10.00
5.00 5.00
0.00 0.00
Rp Rv Rz Rt Ra Rq Rp Rv Rz Rt Ra Rq

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2464 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 104:2459–2471

Fig. 7 Average values of hybrid (a) Milled Surfaces (b) Bored Surfaces
parameter (RΔq) obtained from
milled (a) and bored (b) surfaces 40.00 40.00
during the contact roughness 2 μm tip radius 2 μm tip radius
measurement using a 2-μm and a
30.00 5 μm tip radius 30.00 5 μm tip radius
5-μm stylus tip radius. Expanded

Values in (°)

Values in (°)
uncertainty (95%) represented as
an error bar 20.00 20.00

10.00 10.00

0.00 0.00
RΔq RΔq

In Eq. (1), P is the measured roughness parameter, L is the
average of values indicated by the roughness tester consider-
ing the five measurement cycles performed, ΔR is the correc-
tion associated with the resolution of the roughness tester, ΔC
is the correction associated with the uncertainty of the rough-
ness tester calibration, ΔTr is the correction associated with
the stylus tip radius, and ΔD is the correction due to the
sample deformation.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Results obtained from milled and bored surfaces
The average values of the amplitude parameters (Rp, Rv, Rz,
Rt, Ra, and Rq) obtained from milled and bored surfaces using
a 2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radius are shown in Fig. 6.
Figure 7 shows the average values of the hybrid parameter
RΔq for both processes. In all figures, the associated expand-
ed uncertainty values (95%) are also shown as an error bar.
Noteworthy is the fact that for all roughness parameters, the
average values were estimated considering 50 measurements.
This strategy was adopted in order to reduce the standard
deviation values, as well as the expanded uncertainty. In this
way, the effect of the tip radius can be better observed.
Collaborators in Motta-Neto et al. [12] carried out five
measurement cycles for obtainment of roughness parameters
Ra, Rq, Rp, Rv, and Rt from turned and milled samples. They
concluded that the differences between the average values
obtained using a 2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radius were lower
than the values of the associated expanded uncertainty (95%)
in 82% of performed experiments, and the factor that most
contributed to the final uncertainty for all roughness parame-
ters was the variability of the readings.
From Figs. 6 and 7, the conclusion was reached that the
average values of the Rp, Rv, Rz, Rt, Ra, and Rq parameters
and those of the hybrid parameter RΔq obtained using a 2-μm
stylus tip radius were similar or higher than those obtained
with a 5-μm stylus tip radius for milled and bored surfaces.
For better understanding, the difference between the average
values obtained using a 2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radius is
shown in Fig. 8. The expanded uncertainty values (95%) as-
sociated with the average values obtained using a 2-μm stylus
tip radius are also shown in Fig. 8. In Fig. 8, it was observed
that the difference values varied from 4.8 % (for Rp) to 10.6%
(for Rv) for milled surfaces, whereas for bored surfaces, the
values were assumed to be from 1.6% (for Ra) to 7.0% (for
Rt). For all roughness parameters, the difference values were
higher for milled surfaces, giving special emphasis to Rp, Rv,
Ra, Rq, and RΔq. This fact can be justified by the pattern
shown by the effective roughness profiles obtained from

Fig. 8 Differences between the (a) Milled Surfaces (b) Bored Surfaces
average values obtained using a 3.00 3.00
2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radius Difference Difference
from milled (a) and bored (b) 2.50 2.50
U(95 %) U(95 %)
Values (μm)

Values (μm)

surfaces. Expanded uncertainty 2.00 2.00

(95%) associated with the average
values obtained using a 2-μm 1.50 1.50
stylus tip radius
1.00 1.00
0.50 0.50
0.00 0.00
Rp Rv Rz Rt Ra Rq RΔq Rp Rv Rz Rt Ra Rq RΔq

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 104:2459–2471 2465

Fig. 9 Roughness profiles obtained from milled surface of crankcase 3 using a 2-μm (a) and a 5-μm (b) stylus tip radius

milled (Fig. 9) and bored (Fig. 10) surfaces of crankcase 3
using a 2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radius. According to
Leach [10], the values of amplitude and hybrid roughness
parameters can be larger when measured with a smaller stylus
tip radius. This can be justified as the smaller tip radius ac-
cesses the narrower regions of the profile valleys more easily.
It was further observed in Fig. 6 a and b that for all ampli-
tude parameters, the error bars that represent the expanded
uncertainty values were partially superimposed. This fact in-
dicates that the ranges of values that can be attributed to the
mensurand are similar for both investigated conditions (2-μm
and 5-μm stylus tip radii).
From Fig. 8, one notes that the difference between the
average values obtained using a 2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip
radius from milled surfaces was smaller than the expanded
uncertainty for Rp, Ra, and Rq, whereas for bored surfaces,

Fig. 10 Roughness profiles obtained from the bored surface of crankcase 3 using a 2-μm (a) and a 5-μm (b) stylus tip radius

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2466 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 104:2459–2471

this result was observed for Rp, Ra, Rq, and RΔq. For all other
parameters, the difference values were higher than the expand-
ed uncertainty. Noteworthy here was that the average rough-
ness and the expanded uncertainty values were estimated con-
sidering 50 measurements in all cases.
From Figs. 9 and 10, it was observed that when a particular
machining process was considered, both profiles were similar,
indicating that there were no visual differences between the
profiles obtained using a 2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radius.
The observed difference can be attributed to the fact that con-
tact roughness measurements with the two stylus tips was
carried out in different places. Nevertheless, when the profiles
obtained from milled and bored surfaces are observed, one
notes clearly that they are different.
From Figs. 9 and 10, it was concluded that the ordinate peak–
valley values were similar for milled and bored surfaces, ranging
from 10 to − 22 μm, whereas the mean spacing between peaks
and/or valleys was significantly lower for bored surfaces. Despite
the existence of a defect in the bored surface, it can be concluded
that this process allowed the obtainment of better surface finish.
Tables 2 and 3 show the ANOVA results obtained for all
roughness parameters measured on milled and on bored sur-
faces, respectively. From Tables 2 and 3, it was concluded
with a 95% confidence level that the stylus tip radius factor
caused statistically significant effects on the RΔq parameter
values only; for all other evaluated amplitude parameters, this
factor did not cause statistically significant effects.
3.2 Results obtained from honed surfaces
The average values of Rpk, Rk, and Rvk obtained from honed
surfaces using a 2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radii are shown in
Fig. 11 a. In this figure, the associated expanded uncertainty
values (95%) are also shown as an error bar. From Fig. 11 a,
one notes that the average values of the Rpk and Rk parameters
obtained using a 2-μm radius stylus tip were significantly
lower than those obtained with a 5-μm radius stylus tip,
whereas the Rvk was higher when measured with this stylus
tip radius. It was further observed in Fig. 11 a that the expand-
ed uncertainty values were significantly higher when a 5-μm
stylus tip radius was used, and for all parameters, the error bars
that represent the expanded uncertainty were partially
superimposed. The behavior presented by Rk, Rpk, and Rvk
differed from that observed for roughness parameters obtained
from milled and bored surfaces, since all the evaluated param-
eters of these surfaces were larger when measured with a
2-μm stylus tip radius.
The difference between the average values obtained using a
2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radius and the expanded uncer-
tainty values (95%) associated with those values obtained
using a 2-μm stylus tip radius are shown in Fig. 11 b. From
Fig. 11 b, the conclusion was reached that the difference be-
tween the average values obtained using a 2-μm and a 5-μm
stylus tip radius was significantly smaller than the expanded
uncertainty for all roughness parameters.

Table 2 ANOVA results for all

parameters measured on milled Experiment Factor Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean squares F value p value
surfaces (single factorial design)
Rp Intercept 1761.114 1 1761.114 582.2144 0.000000
Tr 1.064 1 1.064 0.3516 0.560588
Error 54.447 18 3.025
Rv Intercept 5314.843 1 5314.843 1288.131 0.000000
Tr 16.504 1 16.504 4.000 0.060823
Error 74.268 18 4.126
Rz Intercept 13,202.60 1 13,202.60 1267.831 0.000000
Tr 25.76 1 25.76 2.474 0.133145
Error 187.44 18 10.41
Rt Intercept 21,803.77 1 21,803.77 1395.063 0.000000
Tr 34.95 1 34.95 2.236 0.152119
Error 281.33 18 15.63
Ra Intercept 295.9266 1 295.9266 584.2989 0.000000
Tr 0.3065 1 0.3065 0.6052 0.446694
Error 9.1164 18 0.5065
Rq Intercept 461.4722 1 461.4722 783.0743 0.000000
Tr 0.4676 1 0.4676 0.7934 0.384820
Error 10.6076 18 0.5893
RΔq Intercept 3522.920 1 3522.920 8874.350 0.000000
Tr 6.821 1 6.821 17.183 0.000608
Error 7.146 18 0.397

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 104:2459–2471 2467

Table 3 ANOVA results for all

parameters measured on bored Experiment Factor Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean squares F value p value
surfaces (single factorial design)
Rp Intercept 3256.862 1 3256.862 1771.812 0.000000
Tr 0.714 1 0.714 0.389 0.540824
Error 33.087 18 1.838
Rv Intercept 6470.643 1 6470.643 2766.638 0.000000
Tr 7.663 1 7.663 3.277 0.087004
Error 42.099 18 2.339
Rz Intercept 18,907.56 1 18,907.56 3420.610 0.000000
Tr 12.96 1 12.96 2.345 0.143095
Error 99.50 18 5.53
Rt Intercept 26,087.31 1 26,087.31 2501.759 0.000000
Tr 34.11 1 34.11 3.271 0.087234
Error 187.70 18 10.43
Ra Intercept 575.5357 1 575.5357 2918.340 0.000000
Tr 0.0394 1 0.0394 0.200 0.660118
Error 3.5498 18 0.1972
Rq Intercept 929.8116 1 929.8116 3926.624 0.000000
Tr 0.1472 1 0.1472 0.622 0.440653
Error 4.2623 18 0.2368
RΔq Intercept 10,760.16 1 10,760.16 20,443.02 0.000000
Tr 4.03 1 4.03 7.66 0.012683
Error 9.47 18 0.53

The roughness profiles obtained from honed surfaces of
crankcase 3 using a 2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radius are
shown in Fig. 12. From Fig. 12, it was observed that both
profiles were similar. The observed difference can be attribut-
ed to the fact that contact roughness measurements with the
two stylus tips were carried out in different places. The
Abbott–Firestone curves related to both roughness profiles
are presented in Fig. 13.
From Fig. 12, it was also observed that the ordinate values
of peaks and valleys were lower than 1 μm, and the mean
spacing between peaks and/or valleys was significantly lower
than that found in roughness profiles of milled and bored
surfaces. Figure 13 shows that Rk, Rpk, and Rvk parameters
were higher when the honed surface of crankcase 3 was mea-
sured with a 5-μm stylus tip radius. This result is not in agree-
ment with the expected ones.
Table 4 shows the ANOVA results obtained for all
roughness parameters measured on honed surfaces. From
Table 4, the conclusion was reached that with a 95% con-
fidence level, the stylus tip radius factor did not cause
statistically significant effects on Rpk, Rk, and Rvk
parameters.

(a) Honed Surfaces (b) Honed surfaces

0.800 0.20
2 μm tip radius
Difference
Values in (μm)

5 μm tip radius
Values in (μm)

0.600 0.15 U(95 %)

0.400 0.10

0.200 0.05

0.000 0.00
Rk Rpk Rvk Rpk Rk Rvk
Fig. 11 Average values of Rk family parameters obtained from honed a 2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radius from honed surfaces and expanded
surfaces during the contact roughness measurement using a 2-μm and a uncertainty (95%) associated with the average values obtained using a 2-
5-μm stylus tip radius, and the expanded uncertainty (95%) represented μm stylus tip radius (b)
as an error bar (a). Difference between the average values obtained using

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2468
Fig. 12 Roughness profiles obtained from the honed surface of crankcase 3 using a 2-μm (a) and a 5-μm (b) stylus tip radius
4 Discussion
This research has shown that the stylus tip radius factor caused
statistically significant effects on the RΔq hybrid parameter
obtained from milled and bored surfaces. For all evaluated
amplitude parameters (Rp, Rv, Rz, Rt, Ra, and Rq), this factor
did not cause statistically significant effects, as well as for Rk
family parameters (Rk, Rpk, and Rvk). The results obtained for
amplitude parameters are in accordance with those shown by
Motta-Neto et al. [12]. Particular attention should be given to
the Rv parameter whose p values were higher than 0.05, but
very close to it.
A surprising result was observed in relation to the fact that
for honed surfaces, the average values of Rpk and Rk param-
eters obtained using a 2-μm stylus tip radius were lower than
those obtained with a 5-μm stylus tip radius. The behavior
presented by Rk and Rpk differed from that observed for all
amplitude roughness parameters obtained from milled and
Fig. 13 Abbott–Firestone curves
obtained from the honed surface
of crankcase 3 using a 2-μm (a)
and a 5-μm (b) stylus tip radius
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 104:2459–2471
bored surfaces, since all the evaluated parameters obtained
from these surfaces were bigger when measured with a
2-μm stylus tip radius. Novaski [9], Leach [10], and Lee and
Cho [11] reported about the limitations related to obtaining a
roughness profile closer to the real for larger tip dimensions.
From Fig. 12, one notes that the effective profiles obtained
from the honed surface contain several peaks and valleys
whose slopes are steeper than 45°. According to Bhushan
[8], this kind of profiles would be more or less misrepresented
by a stylus instrument. Leach [10] highlighted another fact
that may have contributed to obtain this result. According to
this author, when the probe tip goes through a peak, its trajec-
tory tends to be more rounded than the peak geometry as
indicated in Fig. 14. Noteworthy here is that the Rpk repre-
sents the average roughness value of the peaks that are above
the minimum contact area of the profile (excluding any exag-
gerated peaks). In Fig. 14, it was observed that a larger tip
radius tends to round more of profile peaks. This effect
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 104:2459–2471 2469

Table 4 ANOVA results for all

parameters measured on honed Experiment Factor Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean squares F value p value
surfaces (single factorial design)
Rpk Intercept 1.781209 1 1.781209 427.4856 0.000000
Tr 0.005896 1 0.005896 1.4151 0.249672
Error 0.075001 18 0.004167
Rk Intercept 5.682206 1 5.682206 905.1168 0.000000
Tr 0.004147 1 0.004147 0.6606 0.426966
Error 0.113002 18 0.006278
Rvk Intercept 1.702245 1 1.702245 725.9211 0.000000
Tr 0.000171 1 0.000171 0.0727 0.790482
Error 0.042209 18 0.002345

increases, as the tip radius becomes larger. Consequently, the
Rpk parameter is affected.
The Rvk average values obtained with both stylus tip radii
were similar, whereas the Rv average values were different. The
Rvk parameter indicates the average roughness value of the
valleys that are below the contact area of the profile (excluding
any excessively deep valleys). In this way, the effect caused by
the increase on the stylus tip radius from 2 to 5 μm was not
enough to alter the Rvk values, since the deep valleys (more
difficult to be access by a 5-μm stylus tip radius) were excluded
during the Rvk estimation. In contrast, the presence of these
valleys caused a reduction on Rv values on the order of
10.6% for milled surfaces when a 5-μm stylus tip radius was
used, whereas for the bored ones, this reduction was of 6.7%.
Another point of utmost importance is the number of
roughness measurement that should be carried out. This work
reported the average roughness and the expanded uncertainty
associated values considering 50 measurements. Even under
these conditions, where the standard deviation value associat-
ed with the arithmetic mean is expected to be stabilized, the
difference between the average values obtained using a 2-μm
and a 5-μm stylus tip radius was higher for Rp, Ra, and Rq.
This result can be particularly useful for research purposes.
The number of measurement should be enough in order to
minimize the effect of the variability of readings, as this factor
usually constitutes the main contribution to the final uncer-
tainty during roughness measurements.
The results here presented can be useful for those cases
when the hybrid RΔq parameter is used for characterizing
the surfaces, since an increment on the tip radius from 2 to
5 μm caused a statistically significant effect on its average
values. Particular attention should be given to the Rv parame-
ter measurements for which the p values were higher than
0.05, but very close to it. For roughness characterization using

Fig. 14 Effects of the stylus tip

radius on the Rpk parameter

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2470
the Rpk, Rk, and Rvk parameters, the 2-μm and 5-μm stylus tip
radii can be used indistinctly. However, the use of tips with
larger radii, for example 10 μm, may imply statistically sig-
nificant effects due to the increase in the radius of curvature of
the peaks.
5 Conclusions
This paper reported the investigation of the effect of the stylus
tip radius factor on the values of several roughness parameters
obtained from different machined surfaces of the crankcase of
hermetic compressors. The stylus tip radius was investigated in
two levels (2 μm and 5 μm). The machining processes consid-
ered were front milling, boring, and conventional honing. For
milled and bored surfaces, the values of Rp, Rv, Rz, Rt, Ra, Rq,
and RΔq parameters were collected, whereas for honed sur-
faces, the values of the Rk, Rpk, and Rvk parameters were ana-
lyzed. The following conclusions can be drawn from this work:
For milled and bored surfaces:
1. The analysis of variance indicated that with a 95% confi-
dence level, the stylus tip radius factor caused statistically
significant effects on the RΔq hybrid parameter obtained
from milled and bored surfaces; for all evaluated ampli-
tude parameters, this factor did not cause statistically sig-
nificant effects. Particular attention should be given to the
Rv parameter for which the p values were higher than
0.05, but very close to it.
2. The average values of the Rp, Rv, Rz, Rt, Ra, and Rq
parameters and of the hybrid parameter RΔq obtained
using a 2-μm stylus tip radius were similar or higher than
those obtained with a 5-μm stylus tip radius for milled and
bored surfaces.
3. For all amplitude parameters, the error bars that represent-
ed the expanded uncertainty (95%) values were partially
superimposed, indicating that the ranges of values that can
be attributed to the mensurand are similar for both inves-
tigated conditions (2-μm and 5-μm stylus tip radii).
For honed surfaces:
4. The analysis of variance indicated with a 95% confidence
level that the stylus tip radius factor did not cause statisti-
cally significant effects on the roughness parameters Rpk,
Rk, and Rvk. In this way, for roughness characterization
using the Rpk, Rk, and Rvk parameters, a 2-μm and a
5-μm stylus tip radius can be used indistinctly.
5. The average values of the Rpk and Rk parameters obtained
using a 2-μm stylus tip radius were lower than those ob-
tained with a 5-μm stylus tip radius, whereas the Rvk
values were similar for both investigated conditions.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 104:2459–2471
6. The expanded uncertainty values were significantly
higher when a 5-μm stylus tip radius was used, and for
all parameters, the error bars that represent the expanded
uncertainty were partially superimposed.
7. The difference between average values obtained using a
2-μm and a 5-μm stylus tip radius were significantly
smaller than the expanded uncertainty for the three eval-
uated roughness parameters.
Funding information The authors would like to thank the Brazilian fi-
nancing agencies Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível
Superior (CAPES), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e
Tecnológico (CNPq), and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de Minas
Gerais (FAPEMIG) for supporting the development of this research.
References
1. Li CG, Dong S, Zhang GX (2000) Evaluation of the anisotropy of
machined 3D surface topography. Wear 237:211–216. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0043-1648(99)00327-0
2. Chand M, Mehta A, Sharma R, et al (2011) Roughness measure-
ment using optical profiler with self-reference laser and stylus
instrument—a comparative study. Indian J Pure Appl Phys 49:
335–339.
3. Bhushan B (1996) Tribology and mechanics of magnetic storage
devices, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
4. Pastewka L, Robbins MO (2014) Contact between rough surfaces
and a criterion for macroscopic adhesion. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:
3298–3303. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320846111
5. Müser MH (2016) A dimensionless measure for adhesion and effects
of the range of adhesion in contacts of nominally flat surfaces. Tribol
Int 100:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2015.11.010
6. Proudhon H, Fouvry S, Buffière JY (2005) A fretting crack initia-
tion prediction taking into account the surface roughness and the
crack nucleation process volume. Int J Fatigue 27:569–579. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2004.09.001
7. Jang DY, Choi YG, Kim HG, Hsiao A (1996) Study of the corre-
lation between surface roughness and cutting vibrations to develop
an on-line roughness measuring technique in hard turning. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 36:453–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/0890-
6955(95)00074-7
8. Bhushan B (2000) Modern tribology handbook. Volume 1.
Chapter 2: Surface roughness analysis and measurement techniques
9. Novaski O (2014) Introdução à Engenharia de Fabricação
Mecânica, 2nd edn. Edgard Blücher, São Paulo
10. Leach RK (2014) The measurement of surface texture using stylus
instruments. Meas Good Pract Guid No. 37 100
11. Lee D-H, Cho N-G (2012) Assessment of surface profile data ac-
quired by a stylus profilometer. Meas Sci Technol 23:12. https://doi.
org/10.1088/0957-0233/23/10/105601
12. Motta-Neto WS, Leal JES, Arantes LJ, Arencibia RV (2018) The
effect of stylus tip radius on Ra, Rq, Rp, Rv, and Rt parameters in
turned and milled samples. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 99:1979–
1992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2630-5
13. Dobes J, Leal JES, Profeta J, de Sousa MM, Neto FPL, Piratelli-
Filho A, Arencibia RV (2017) Effect of mechanical vibration on Ra,
Rq, Rz, and Rt roughness parameters. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 92:
393–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0137-0
14. ISO (1996) ISO 3274:1996, Geometrical product specifications
(GPS)—surface texture: profile method—nominal characteristics
of contact (stylus) instruments. 13
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 104:2459–2471
15. Poon CY, Bhushan B (1995) Comparison of surface roughness
measurements by stylus profiler. AFM and non-contact optical pro-
filer. Wear 190:76–88
16. Yoshida I, Tsukada T (2006) Uncertainty of wavelength limitation
due to stylus tip radius for engineering surface texture based on
wavelength and amplitude by FFT. Wear 261:1225–1231. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2006.03.006
17. Song J, Renegar TB, Soons J, Muralikrishnan B, Villarrubia J,
Zheng A, Vorburger TV (2014) The effect of tip size on the mea-
sured Ra of surface roughness specimens with rectangular profiles.
Precis Eng 38:217–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.
2013.07.001
18. ISO - International Organization for Standardization (1997) ISO
4287 Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—surface texture:
profile method—terms, definitions and surface texture parameters.
25.
19. Nakar D, Hirsch B (2018) Electropolishing effect on roughness
metrics of ground stainless steel: a length scale study. Surf Topogr
Metrol Prop 6:17. https://doi.org/10.1088/2051-672X/aa9bf8
20. Nakar D, Feuermann D (2016) Surface roughness impact on the
heat loss of solar vacuum heat collector elements (HCE). Renew
Energy 96:148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.04.041
21. Blateyron F (2013) Characterisation of areal surface texture.
Chapter 2: Area field parameters. 15–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-642-36458-7
22. ISO (1996) ISO 13565-2:1996 Geometrical product specifications
(GPS)—surface texture: profile method; surfaces having stratified
functional properties—part 2: height characterization using the lin-
ear material ratio curve. 6
23. Arola DD, Yang DT, Stoffel KA (2001) The apparent volume of
interdigitation: a new parameter for evaluating the influence of sur-
face topography on mechanical interlock. J Biomed Mater Res ban-
ner 58:519–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.1049
24. Pawlus P, Cieslak T, Mathia T (2009) The study of cylinder liner
plateau honing process. J Mater Process Technol 209:6078–6086.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2009.04.025
25. Anderberg C, Pawlus P, Rosén B-G, Thomas TR (2009) Alternative
descriptions of roughness for cylinder liner production. J Mater
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2471
Process Technol 209:1936–1942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmatprotec.2008.04.059
26. Buj-Corral I, Vivancos-Calvet J (2011) Roughness variability in the
honing process of steel cylinders with CBN metal bonded tools.
Precis Eng 35:289–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.
2010.11.004
27. Arantes LJ, Fernandes KA, Schramm CR, Leal JES, Piratelli-Filho
A, Franco SD, Arencibia RV (2017) The roughness characterization
in cylinders obtained by conventional and flexible honing process-
es. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 93:635–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00170-017-0544-2
28. Pereira LC, Arencibia RV, Schramm CR, Arantes LJ (2017)
Assessment of the effect of cutting parameters on roughness in
flexible honed cylinders. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95:181–196.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1200-6
29. Kanthababu M, Shunmugam MS, Singaperumal M (2009)
Identification of significant parameters and appropriate levels in
honing of cylinder liners. Int J Mach Mach Mater 5:80–96.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMMM.2009.023114
30. Stout K, Sullivan P, Dong W, et al (1993) The development of
methods for the characterisation of roughness in three dimensions.
31. Paulo Davim J (2012) Computational methods for optimizing
manufacturing technology. Models and techniques, 1st edn. IGI,
Hershey
32. Mitutoyo (2016) Guia Rápido para Instrumentos Surftest de
Medição de Precisão. Surftest (Rugosímetros) 2
33. EMBRACO (2012) Desafios da Engenharia Mecânica: Uma Visão
Industrial. 36
34. ISO (2013) ISO 12085:1996 Geometrical product specifications
(GPS)—surface texture: profile method—motif parameters. 17
35. BIPM, IEC, IDCC et al (2008) JCGM 100:2008 Evaluation of
measurement data—guide to the expression of uncertainty in mea-
surement. 134
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com