## 3 Results
### Control Specim Analysis and Experimental Data Processing
#### 3.2.3 Type 3 Test Specimens  
* **Mechanical testing using Universal Testing Machine and TRAPEZIUM (r)X software** (Version 1.3.0 2007-2012 Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan). Prior to testing, width and thickness measurements were taken at three different points on each specimen using a Mitutoyo(r) 500-181-30 caliper, model ID- C150B (Mitutoyo Corporation, Takatsu-ku, Japan) (Figure 9), and an average value was then calculated (Table 5). Furthermore, a gauge length of 25 mm was established for each of the 168 specimens; controlling this parameter was essential to ensure accurate evaluation, especially considering that the specimens did not have identical geometric dimensions (Figure 9). For mechanical testing, the TRAPEZIUM X software was used. The testing machine was configured with a load capacity of 100 kN, and a standard procedure was followed, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|p{56.9 pt}|p{56.9 pt}|p{56.9 pt}|p{56.9 pt}|p{56.9 pt}|} \hline \hline
**M6** & **INITIAL** & **Cycle 1** & **Cycle 2** & **Cycle 3** & **C 4** \\ \hline
**Burnished** **gilding** & & & & & \\ \hline
**Mate gilding** & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Surface micrographs of M6 specimens after abrasion tests across aging cycles. with a displacement rate of 1 mm/min applied to flat specimens until failure (Figure 10). Three valid measurements were obtained, from which an average value was calculated. Based on these data, the software automatically generated a strain-displacement graphic. From this graphic, the engineering stress (_a_) and engineering strain (_b_) were calculated using the following equations:  
\[(a)\ S=\frac{F}{A_{0}}\]  
\[(b)\ \epsilon=\frac{\Delta l}{l_{0}\simeq 25\ \mathrm{mm}}\]  
where \(A_{0}\) is the original cross-sectional area of the specimen before the test begins, \(l_{0}\) is the original gauge length, and \(\Delta l\) is the change in length after the force \(F\) is applied. With these parameters, stress-strain curves were created, recording the mechanical behavior of the materials under tension (Figure 11) [50]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Material** & **Sample** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Width** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Deviation** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Thickness** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Deviation** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline M1 control 1 & M1 MC-1 & 4.88 & 0.0 & 2.04 & 0.1 \\ M1 control 2 & M1 MC-2 & 4.90 & 0.1 & 2.14 & 0.1 \\ M1 control 3 & M1 MC-3 & 4.95 & 0.1 & 2.05 & 0.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The data represent the mean values and standard deviations of the sample dimensions. Source: Authors’ own elaboration, DorART Project, 2025.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Dimensions of test specimens. Figure 10: Placement of specimens between serrated flat jaws. Source: DorART Project, 2025. Figure 9: Measurements of all test specimens. Source: DorART Project, 2025. In specimens M8 and M9, the ends were reinforced with aluminum sheets, as the grips tended to fracture the specimens due to the pressure exerted (Figure 12), thereby complicating the testing process. The data enabled the calculation of the maximum stress and the elastic modulus, along with their respective standard deviations (Table 6), allowing for an assessment of the consistency and reliability of the results obtained throughout the testing cycles (Figure 13).