## 3 Results and Discussion
### Influence of Different Roughness Topography and Force Analysis for Leakage Detection
Accordingly, a leak test was performed for each case. The minimum value of the compressive force was 5175 N, for this value a leakage of 5.960 cm\({}^{3}\)/min was obtained. An increase in the clamping load of the sample by about 20%, i.e., to the value of 6210 N, allowed for the reduction in the leakage value by about 10%, i.e., 5.360 cm\({}^{3}\)/min. The next \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Force [N]**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Leakage [cm\({}^{3}\)/min]**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **6–8 (A–B)** & **3–15 (A–C)** & **4–22 (A–D)** & **5–29 (A–E)** & **7–36 (A–F)** \\ \hline
2280 \(\pm\) 70 & 1.880 \(\pm\) 0.033 & X & 3.300 \(\pm\) 0.056 & 5.900 \(\pm\) 0.073 & 6.407 \(\pm\) 0.078 \\ \hline
3105 \(\pm\) 70 & 1.230 \(\pm\) 0.026 & X & 2.620 \(\pm\) 0.056 & X & X \\ \hline
3365 \(\pm\) 70 & X & X & X & X & 0.940 \(\pm\) 0.023 \\ \hline
3620 \(\pm\) 70 & X & X & X & 2.340 \(\pm\) 0.037 & X \\ \hline
4140 \(\pm\) 70 & X & X & X & X & 0.038 \(\pm\) 0.007 \\ \hline
4400 \(\pm\) 70 & 0.400 \(\pm\) 0.018 & X & 1.240 \(\pm\) 0.025 & X & X \\ \hline
5180 \(\pm\) 70 & X & X & 0.470 \(\pm\) 0.014 & 0.990 \(\pm\) 0.024 & X \\ \hline
6210 \(\pm\) 70 & X & 4.910 \(\pm\) 0.063 & 0.410 \(\pm\) 0.013 & 0.450 \(\pm\) 0.013 & X \\ \hline
7245 \(\pm\) 70 & X & 1.890 \(\pm\) 0.033 & X & X & X \\ \hline
8280 \(\pm\) 70 & X & 0.634 \(\pm\) 0.016 & X & 0.120 \(\pm\) 0.008 & X \\ \hline
9060 \(\pm\) 70 & X & 0.307 \(\pm\) 0.011 & X & X & X \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Forces and leakage for a pair of samples with surface topography parameters from code groups A, C, D, E, and F.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Force [N]**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Leakage [cm\({}^{3}\)/min]**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **13–16 (B–C)** & **11–23 (B–D)** & **12–30 (B–E)** & **14–38 (B–F)** \\ \hline
260 \(\pm\) 70 & X & X & 0.450 \(\pm\) 0.013 & X \\ \hline
520 \(\pm\) 70 & X & X & 0.280 \(\pm\) 0.011 & X \\ \hline
620 \(\pm\) 70 & X & 0.346 \(\pm\) 0.012 & X &set of parts (20-31) was selected from samples belonging to code groups C and E. For the analyzed stages, the test stabilization stage was not reached, and the required pressure value was not maintained for the given compressive forces. Therefore, the test step was not performed due to the lack of stabilization of the pressure in the chamber between the samples. The samples belonging to the pair 21-37 were characterized by surface topography parameters from code groups C and F. For each of the analyzed compressive forces, the test stabilization stage was not reached, and the required pressure value was not maintained. Due to the lack of stabilization of the pressure in the chamber between the samples, the test step was not performed. The study of the impact of the difference in the values of surface topography parameters was continued for code group D together with parts from the other generated groups. Among the discussed cases, we can distinguish pairs of samples 4-22, 11-23, 19-24, 25-26, 27-32, and 28-42. The research for the first four sets has already been presented. The research on the influence of surface topography parameters on tightness was continued for group code E with samples from the other groups. For this purpose, the following sets 5-29, 12-30, 20-31, 27-32, 33-34, and 35-39 were selected. The test results were presented for each of the pairs except for the last one. The final set of tested samples 35-39 consisted of parts with surface topography parameters from code groups E and F. Moreover, code group D was checked with the other samples, which comes from the rest of the coded groups, as shown in Table 10.