## 4 Experimental and Analysis Result  
Table 10 displays the summary of the adhesive strength measurements of the different AR conditioned specimens. For each specimen number of the respective AR conditioning, first, the overall average tile (including the non-measurable pieces with cavities) adhesion strength is given. This is followed by the number of tiles with stable adhesion per specimen of the respective AR conditioning and the percentage ratio relative to the entire tile surface (out of 40 total pieces). Next, the average adhesion strength of the total number of pieces with stable adhesion is given. Among those, the number of pieces and ratio of those that passed the ISO standard regulation are outlined, respectively. Based on these results, a comprehensive report was drafted in the form of a graph where the total number of pieces (120 for each AR conditioning) and their adhesion strength results were plotted on a graph for easier visual comparison. Refer to Table 10 and Figure 17 for details. As evidenced by the results shown in Figure 17, the majority of the sectioned tile pieces of AR 100% specimens were able to not only achieve stable adhesion (few with non-measurable tile pieces) but also met the requirements of the ISO standard evaluation criteria. However, in contrast, the results of AR 80 \(\pm\) 2% showed significantly more varied results ranging from non-measurable tile pieces to pieces that meet the ISO standard criteria requirement. For the AR 60 \(\pm\) 2%, there were very few pieces that passed the ISO standard criteria, with the majority of the samples having non-measurable adhesive strength. This result was a reflection of the potential unexpected results of the spot-bonding installation method of tiles, as the averaged pressure load during installation was not sufficient to achieve a stable adhesion dispersed throughout the negative side of the tiles of glob-based spot-bonded tiles. While it was expected that AR 80 \(\pm\) 2% should at least achieve similar \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**AR Conditions** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**AR 60 \(\pm\) 2\%**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**AR 80 \(\pm\) 2\%**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**AR 100\%**} \\ \hline Items & No. 1 & No. 2 & No. 3 & No. 1 & No. 2 & No. 3 & No. 1 & No. 2 & No. 3 \\ Overall average adhesion strength & 0.21 & 0.28 & 0.26 & 0.32 & 0.32 & 0.29 & 0.78 & 0.73 & 0.76 \\ Stable adhesion pieces & 14 (35\%) & 14 (35\%) & 16 (40\%) & 26 (65\%) & 15 (37.5\%) & 24 (60\%) & 40 (100\%) & 36 (90\%) & 36 (90\%) \\ Avg. adhesion strength of the stable adhesion pieces & 0.59 & 0.81 & 0.66 & 0.49 & 0.88 & 0.48 & 0.78 & 0.85 & 0.85 \\ Pieces that meet the ISO standard & 7 (17.5\%) & 13 (32.5\%) & 10 (25\%) & 11 (27\%) & 12 (30\%) & 13 (32.5\%) & 30 (75\%) & 28 (70\%) & 32 (80\%) \\ Entire tile/stable adhesion pieces & 50\% & 92.9\% & 62.5\% & 42.3\% & 80\% & 54.2\% & 75\% & 77.8\% & 88.9\% \\ ratio (\%) & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Tile specimen evaluation analysis result. Figure 16: AR 100% specimen adhesion strength per piece coordinate (average). results to that of AR 100%, the trends of adhesion strength variation throughout the tile surface were closer to that of AR 60 \(\pm\) 2%. Next, the averaged values of all of the parameters in Table 10 were derived and shown in Table 11, and trend lines were provided in Figure 18. As shown below, the overall average adhesion strength of AR 60 \(\pm\) 2% was 0.25 N/mm\({}^{2}\), and AR 80 \(\pm\) 2% was 0.31 N/mm\({}^{2}\), and AR 100% was 0.76 N/mm\({}^{2}\), accordingly. Excluding AR 100% conditioned specimens, AR 60 \(\pm\) 2% and AR 80 \(\pm\) 2% specimens were both on average found not to be able to meet the ISO standard adhesion strength requirement of 0.5 N/mm\({}^{2}\), and it was confirmed that there was a difference of overall adhesion strength by a range of 59-67% across all conditions of AR 60 \(\pm\) 2% to AR 100%. Refer to Table 11 and Figure 18 for details.