Figure 1.
Anodizing system: (1) Power supply, (2) Voltmeter, (3) Ammeter, (4) Amp-Hour meter, (5) Computer, (6) Anode, (7) Cathode, (8) Air agitation, (9) Cooling system, (10) Heating system, (11) Electrolytic solution.
Figure 1.
Anodizing system: (1) Power supply, (2) Voltmeter, (3) Ammeter, (4) Amp-Hour meter, (5) Computer, (6) Anode, (7) Cathode, (8) Air agitation, (9) Cooling system, (10) Heating system, (11) Electrolytic solution.
Figure 2.
Average wt. loss, mg, versus average final voltage, V. The triangle shape represents the average wt. loss and the square, the average final voltage. A reduction in wt. loss with lower final voltage is noticed in MS1 and MS2.
Figure 2.
Average wt. loss, mg, versus average final voltage, V. The triangle shape represents the average wt. loss and the square, the average final voltage. A reduction in wt. loss with lower final voltage is noticed in MS1 and MS2.
Figure 3.
(
a–
j). Secondary SEM images (100,000×) of the surface morphology reveal circular pores created in the anodization process, respectively, in Base (
a,
b), OS1 (
c,
d), OS2 (
e,
f), MS1 (
g,
h), and MS2 (
i,
j) processes. Left images show specimens anodized for 10 min and right images show specimens anodized for 30 min. Computations were conducted with software ImageJ [
59].
Figure 3.
(
a–
j). Secondary SEM images (100,000×) of the surface morphology reveal circular pores created in the anodization process, respectively, in Base (
a,
b), OS1 (
c,
d), OS2 (
e,
f), MS1 (
g,
h), and MS2 (
i,
j) processes. Left images show specimens anodized for 10 min and right images show specimens anodized for 30 min. Computations were conducted with software ImageJ [
59].
Figure 4.
(a–f). EIS spectra obtained for unsealed specimens anodized for 30 min in processes Base (a), OS1 (b), OS2 (c), MS1 (d), MS2 (e), and Bode Plots (f).
Figure 4.
(a–f). EIS spectra obtained for unsealed specimens anodized for 30 min in processes Base (a), OS1 (b), OS2 (c), MS1 (d), MS2 (e), and Bode Plots (f).
Figure 5.
(a–t). Large-scale SEM images (30,000× magnification) of the coating surface were obtained with the use of back-scattered electrons (BSE) imaging and secondary electrons (SE) imaging: 10 kV under LED for SE images and BED-C for BSE images were used, and with a height of the specimen stage, WD, of 10 mm. Specimens anodized respectively in [Base]: (a) 10-min SE, (b) 10-min BSE, (c) 30-min SE, (d) 30-min BSE; [OS1]: (e) 10-min SE, (f) 10-min BSE, (g) 30-min SE, (h) 30-min BSE; [OS2]: (i) 10-min SE, (j) 10-min BSE, (k) 30-min SE, (l) 30-min BSE; [MS1]: (m) 10-min SE, (n) 10-min BSE, (o) 30-min SE, (p) 30-min BSE; and [MS2] (q) 10-min SE, (r) 10-min BSE, (s) 30-min SE, (t) 30-min BSE.
Figure 5.
(a–t). Large-scale SEM images (30,000× magnification) of the coating surface were obtained with the use of back-scattered electrons (BSE) imaging and secondary electrons (SE) imaging: 10 kV under LED for SE images and BED-C for BSE images were used, and with a height of the specimen stage, WD, of 10 mm. Specimens anodized respectively in [Base]: (a) 10-min SE, (b) 10-min BSE, (c) 30-min SE, (d) 30-min BSE; [OS1]: (e) 10-min SE, (f) 10-min BSE, (g) 30-min SE, (h) 30-min BSE; [OS2]: (i) 10-min SE, (j) 10-min BSE, (k) 30-min SE, (l) 30-min BSE; [MS1]: (m) 10-min SE, (n) 10-min BSE, (o) 30-min SE, (p) 30-min BSE; and [MS2] (q) 10-min SE, (r) 10-min BSE, (s) 30-min SE, (t) 30-min BSE.
Figure 6.
(a–e). Secondary SEM images (30,000×) of specimens anodized in Base (a), OS1 (b), OS2 (c), MS1 (d), and MS2 (e) processes; for 10 min, left image, and for 30 min, right image. The EDS analysis was performed at 12 sampling sites in flat, non-pitted regions of the anodic coating. Sites labeled 1–4 are representations of the 12 sites chosen. The EDS spectrum shown on the adjacent image is data for site 1.
Figure 6.
(a–e). Secondary SEM images (30,000×) of specimens anodized in Base (a), OS1 (b), OS2 (c), MS1 (d), and MS2 (e) processes; for 10 min, left image, and for 30 min, right image. The EDS analysis was performed at 12 sampling sites in flat, non-pitted regions of the anodic coating. Sites labeled 1–4 are representations of the 12 sites chosen. The EDS spectrum shown on the adjacent image is data for site 1.
Figure 7.
(a,b). SEM images (30,000×) utilizing secondary electron (SE) imaging (a) and back scattered electrons (BSE) (b) of a non-anodized specimen. The EDS analysis was performed at eight locations (4 with particles and 4 without particles) to evaluate the surface composition of a non-anodized specimen.
Figure 7.
(a,b). SEM images (30,000×) utilizing secondary electron (SE) imaging (a) and back scattered electrons (BSE) (b) of a non-anodized specimen. The EDS analysis was performed at eight locations (4 with particles and 4 without particles) to evaluate the surface composition of a non-anodized specimen.
Figure 8.
(
a,
b). The amount, wt.%, of (
a) aluminum and (
b) oxygen at the coating surface of specimens anodized in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, and MS2 processes over 10 min and 30 min. Reported values were averaged over 12 sites depicted in
Figure 6.
Figure 8.
(
a,
b). The amount, wt.%, of (
a) aluminum and (
b) oxygen at the coating surface of specimens anodized in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, and MS2 processes over 10 min and 30 min. Reported values were averaged over 12 sites depicted in
Figure 6.
Figure 9.
(a–k). SEM images at 30,000× and EDS mapping images of the surface of (a) an untreated specimen and specimens anodized for 30 min in processes Base (b,c), OS1 (d,e), OS2 (f,g), MS1 (h,i), and MS2 (j,k). Images were obtained using 20 kV under LED. The acquisition time was about 45 min to acquire 200 counts/pixel (top row) and 325 counts/pixel (bottom row). Colors representing elements are as follows: aluminum (red), oxygen (purple), copper (teal), magnesium (pink), manganese (yellow), silicon (orange), iron (lime) and sulfur (green).
Figure 9.
(a–k). SEM images at 30,000× and EDS mapping images of the surface of (a) an untreated specimen and specimens anodized for 30 min in processes Base (b,c), OS1 (d,e), OS2 (f,g), MS1 (h,i), and MS2 (j,k). Images were obtained using 20 kV under LED. The acquisition time was about 45 min to acquire 200 counts/pixel (top row) and 325 counts/pixel (bottom row). Colors representing elements are as follows: aluminum (red), oxygen (purple), copper (teal), magnesium (pink), manganese (yellow), silicon (orange), iron (lime) and sulfur (green).
Figure 10.
(a,b). XRD of the untreated specimen alloy and specimens anodized in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, MS2 process (a) for 10 min and (b) for 30 min. Measurements collected at an incident angle of 20 using a grazing technique.
Figure 10.
(a,b). XRD of the untreated specimen alloy and specimens anodized in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, MS2 process (a) for 10 min and (b) for 30 min. Measurements collected at an incident angle of 20 using a grazing technique.
Figure 11.
(a,b). Computed (a) lattice constants of the fcc structure of crystallites and (b) sizes of crystalline domains for specimens anodized in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, MS2 process for 10 min and for 30 min. Reported values were averaged over all peaks identified in the diffraction pattern and then averaged over three specimens.
Figure 11.
(a,b). Computed (a) lattice constants of the fcc structure of crystallites and (b) sizes of crystalline domains for specimens anodized in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, MS2 process for 10 min and for 30 min. Reported values were averaged over all peaks identified in the diffraction pattern and then averaged over three specimens.
Figure 12.
Coating growth rates, µm/min, in processes Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, and MS2. Anodizing times were 10 min and 30 min. Overall growth rates are shown on the right, black column. Multistep processes, MS1 and MS2, provide the highest overall growth rates.
Figure 12.
Coating growth rates, µm/min, in processes Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, and MS2. Anodizing times were 10 min and 30 min. Overall growth rates are shown on the right, black column. Multistep processes, MS1 and MS2, provide the highest overall growth rates.
Table 1.
Composition, wt.% of AA2024—T3 specimens provided by Anacon 1st Choice, 425 W LA Cadena. Riverside, California. The first row is the bulk composition given by the manufacturer. Secondary and Backscattered SEM images at 30,000× were obtained using 10 kV under LED and the height of the specimen stage, WD, of 10.0 mm to observe the surface morphology and measure the local composition with EDS.
Table 1.
Composition, wt.% of AA2024—T3 specimens provided by Anacon 1st Choice, 425 W LA Cadena. Riverside, California. The first row is the bulk composition given by the manufacturer. Secondary and Backscattered SEM images at 30,000× were obtained using 10 kV under LED and the height of the specimen stage, WD, of 10.0 mm to observe the surface morphology and measure the local composition with EDS.
Elements (wt.%) | Al | Cu | Mg | Mn | Fe | Zn | Si | O |
---|
Manufacturer Data | 92.8 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - |
EDS/Non—Particle Region | 80.2 ± 7.4 | 5.7 ± 1.1 | 4.4 ± 0.9 | 1.1 ± 0.7 | 1.0 ± 0.8 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 6.4 ± 3.8 |
EDS/Particle Region | 65.2 ± 6.3 | 12.3 ± 4.7 | 6.2 ± 3.2 | 2.5 ± 1.6 | 2.4 ± 1.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 10.6 ± 4.6 |
Table 2.
Anodizing processes designed for experiments: a conventional Base process with a constant applied current density and processes with current density applied in one (OS1 and OS2) and five (MS1 and MS2) steps at different magnitudes during the ramp period. The expected values of transferred electric charge computed with the use of Equations (1) and (2).
Table 2.
Anodizing processes designed for experiments: a conventional Base process with a constant applied current density and processes with current density applied in one (OS1 and OS2) and five (MS1 and MS2) steps at different magnitudes during the ramp period. The expected values of transferred electric charge computed with the use of Equations (1) and (2).
Process | Mins | Current Density, A/m2 | Charge, C | Amperage, A |
---|
Base | 30 | 180 | 30,600 | 17 |
OS1 | 10 | 32 | 1800 | 3 |
20 | 180 | 20,400 | 17 |
OS2 | 10 | 111 | 6600 | 11 |
20 | 180 | 20,400 | 17 |
MS1 | 2 | 32 | 360 | 3 |
2 | 40 | 480 | 4 |
2 | 49 | 600 | 5 |
2 | 57 | 600 | 5 |
2 | 65 | 720 | 6 |
20 | 180 | 20,400 | 17 |
MS2 | 2 | 32 | 360 | 3 |
2 | 64 | 720 | 6 |
2 | 95 | 1080 | 9 |
2 | 126 | 1440 | 12 |
2 | 158 | 1800 | 15 |
20 | 180 | 20,400 | 17 |
Table 3.
Thickness (µm) of coatings formed in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, and MS2 processes was measured using an Eddy current meter. Anodic samples for testing were taken during three stages of the process. The samples were taken at 2-min intervals up to and including 10 min, and at the end of the process, 30 min. Statistical analysis of data between processes in Group 1 (Base, OS1, OS2) and Group 2 (MS1, MS2) for the overall process is listed in blue font below.
Table 3.
Thickness (µm) of coatings formed in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, and MS2 processes was measured using an Eddy current meter. Anodic samples for testing were taken during three stages of the process. The samples were taken at 2-min intervals up to and including 10 min, and at the end of the process, 30 min. Statistical analysis of data between processes in Group 1 (Base, OS1, OS2) and Group 2 (MS1, MS2) for the overall process is listed in blue font below.
Thickness (µm) |
---|
Process Time, Min | 0 to 2 | 2 to 4 | 4 to 6 | 6 to 8 | 8 to 10 | 10 to 30 | Overall |
---|
Base | 1.0 ± 0.3 | 1.4 ± 0.4 | 2.0 ± 0.4 | 3.0 ± 0.5 | 4.1 ± 0.4 | 6.8 ± 0.5 | 10.9 ± 0.7 |
OS1 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.3 | 7.7 ± 0.4 | 9.3 ± 0.5 |
OS2 | 0.8 ± 0.3 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 2.0 ± 0.4 | 2.2 ± 0.4 | 2.7 ± 0.3 | 8.0 ± 0.3 | 10.7 ± 0.7 |
MS1 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 0.4 | 1.7 ± 0.4 | 2.0 ± 0.3 | 10.2 ± 0.4 | 12.2 ± 0.4 |
MS2 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 0.4 | 2.2 ± 0.3 | 2.9 ± 0.4 | 9.7 ± 0.4 | 12.6 ± 0.5 |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | | | |
Group 1 | 36 | 10.3 ± 0.9 | 2.7 × 10−14 | 100.8 | 4.2 | | |
Group 2 | 24 | 12.4 ± 0.5 | | | | | |
Table 4.
Testing results of abrasion resistance, microhardness, acid dissolution and weight loss per micron of specimens anodized in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, MS2 processes. Statistical analysis of data between processes in Group 1 (Base, OS1, OS2) and Group 2 (MS1, MS2) for the overall process is listed in blue font below.
Table 4.
Testing results of abrasion resistance, microhardness, acid dissolution and weight loss per micron of specimens anodized in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, MS2 processes. Statistical analysis of data between processes in Group 1 (Base, OS1, OS2) and Group 2 (MS1, MS2) for the overall process is listed in blue font below.
Process | Wt. Loss (mg) in Abrasion Tests | Microhardness (MPa) | Wt. Loss Per Coating Area (mg/dm2) | % Loss of Total Coating | Wt. Loss Per Micron (mg/µm) |
---|
Base | 39.3 ± 4.1 | 1282.3 ± 57.6 | 181.0 ± 11.3 | 99.6 | 19.3 |
OS1 | 34.8 ± 3.8 | 1147.4 ± 38.3 | 169.0 ± 4.9 | 99.2 | 21.3 |
OS2 | 39.2 ± 4.4 | 1369. 3 ± 20.8 | 186.0 ± 5.7 | 99.9 | 20.2 |
MS1 | 26.7 ± 2.0 | 1398.7 ± 28.1 | 205.0 ± 8.8 | 95.2 | 20.5 |
MS2 | 28.7 ± 3.3 | 1455.1 ± 23.5 | 227.0 ± 5.2 | 96.2 | 21.7 |
Abrasion | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
Group 1 | 18 | 37.8 ± 4.7 | 4.3 × 10−7 | 42.8 | 4.2 |
Group 2 | 12 | 27.7 ± 3.0 | | | |
Microhardness | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
Group 1 | 18 | 1266.4 ± 103 | 2.1 × 10−5 | 26.1 | 4.2 |
Group 2 | 12 | 1426.9 ± 40 | | | |
Acid Dissolution | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
Group 1 | 18 | 178.7 ± 11.0 | 6.4 × 10−9 | 67.2 | 4.2 |
Group 2 | 12 | 216.0 ± 13.8 | | | |
Table 5.
The atomic Al/O ratios in coatings formed by anodization over 10 min and 30 min in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1 and MS2 processes. Statistical analysis of data for anodization in Group 1 (Base, OS1, OS2) and Group 2 (MS1, MS2) processes over 10 min and 30 min is listed in blue font below.
Table 5.
The atomic Al/O ratios in coatings formed by anodization over 10 min and 30 min in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1 and MS2 processes. Statistical analysis of data for anodization in Group 1 (Base, OS1, OS2) and Group 2 (MS1, MS2) processes over 10 min and 30 min is listed in blue font below.
Process | Al/O, 10 min | Al/O, 30 min |
---|
Base | 0.69 ± 0.04 | 0.76 ± 0.05 |
OS1 | 0.73 ± 0.05 | 1.00 ± 0.08 |
OS2 | 0.71 ± 0.05 | 0.86 ± 0.05 |
MS1 | 0.77 ± 0.06 | 0.97 ± 0.06 |
MS2 | 0.79 ± 0.06 | 0.99 ± 0.06 |
Al/O Ratio—10 min | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
Group 1 | 36 | 0.71 ± 0.02 | 2.3 × 10−5 | 21.2 | 4 |
Group 2 | 24 | 0.77 ± 0.06 | | | |
Al/O Ratio—30 min | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
Group 1 | 36 | 0.87 ± 0.12 | 2.0 × 10−4 | 15.9 | 4 |
Group 2 | 24 | 0.98 ± 0.06 | | | |
Table 6.
Pore diameter (nm), interpore separation (nm), and pore density (1/µm
2) in coatings formed by anodization over 10 min and 30 min in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, and MS2 processes. Values were computed from high-magnification SEM images (100,000×) posted in
Figure 3. Computations were conducted with software ImageJ [
59]. Statistical analysis of data between processes in Group 1 (Base, OS1, OS2) and Group 2 (M21, MS2) for pore diameter (10 and 30 min), interpore separation and pore density is listed below. Statistical analysis of data between processes in 10 min and 30 min for the pore diameter is also listed in blue font below.
Table 6.
Pore diameter (nm), interpore separation (nm), and pore density (1/µm
2) in coatings formed by anodization over 10 min and 30 min in Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, and MS2 processes. Values were computed from high-magnification SEM images (100,000×) posted in
Figure 3. Computations were conducted with software ImageJ [
59]. Statistical analysis of data between processes in Group 1 (Base, OS1, OS2) and Group 2 (M21, MS2) for pore diameter (10 and 30 min), interpore separation and pore density is listed below. Statistical analysis of data between processes in 10 min and 30 min for the pore diameter is also listed in blue font below.
Process | Pore Diameter, nm, 10 min | Pore Diameter, nm, 30 min | Interpore Separation, nm, 30 min | Pore Density, 1/µm2, 30 min | |
---|
Base | 18.3 ± 4.8 | 33.4 ± 9.2 | 43.34 ± 0.57 | 615.2 ± 16.2 | |
OS1 | 16.5 ± 4.1 | 26.7 ± 6.7 | 23.64 ± 0.70 | 2067.9 ± 120.4 | |
OS2 | 18.4 ± 6.4 | 29.3 ± 7.2 | 39.16 ± 0.34 | 753.1 ± 12.05 | |
MS1 | 17.7 ± 5.3 | 24.9 ± 6.1 | 22.85 ± 0.85 | 2214.7 ± 161.6 | |
MS2 | 17.9 ± 4.8 | 34.9 ± 5.6 | 23.05 ± 0.98 | 2176.6 ± 179.3 | |
Pore Diameter—10 min | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
Group 1 | 217 | 18.2 ± 10.5 | 8.6 × 10−1 | 0.03 | 3.9 |
Group 2 | 160 | 17.7 ± 9.0 | | | |
Pore Diameter—30 min | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
Group 1 | 192 | 28.0 ± 9.6 | 1.0 × 10−2 | 6.2 | 3.9 |
Group 2 | 120 | 32.1 ± 8.5 | | | |
Pore Diameter—10 min vs. 30 min | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
10 min | 390 | 17.9 ± 8.9 | 3.6 × 10−12 | 50.1 | 3.9 |
30 min | 312 | 29.6 ± 9.5 | | | |
Interpore Distance | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
Group 1 | 9 | 35.4 ± 9.0 | 5.0 × 10−3 | 11.1 | 4.7 |
Group 2 | 6 | 22.9 ± 1.0 | | | |
Pore Density | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
Group 1 | 9 | 1146 ± 700 | 3.0 × 10−3 | 12.8 | 4.7 |
Group 2 | 6 | 2203 ± 188 | | | |
Table 7.
Data on the applied anodizing current, initial and final voltage, and measurements of charge for each step of Base, OS1, OS2, MS1 and MS2 processes. The presented values were averaged over three runs.
Table 7.
Data on the applied anodizing current, initial and final voltage, and measurements of charge for each step of Base, OS1, OS2, MS1 and MS2 processes. The presented values were averaged over three runs.
Process | Mins | Amperage, A | Charge, C | Initial Voltage, V | Final Voltage, V |
---|
Base | 30 | 17 | 29,800.0 ± 2332.2 | 15.7 ± 0.5 | 16.0 ± 0.2 |
OS1 | 10 | 3 | 1710.0 ± 98.1 | 5.8 ± 0.2 | 9.0 ± 0.3 |
20 | 17 | 19,755.0 ± 347.6 | 15.8 ± 0.2 | 16.3 ± 0.6 |
OS2 | 10 | 11 | 6005.0 ± 97.9 | 13.6 ± 0.4 | 14.6 ± 0.1 |
20 | 17 | 18,852.0 ± 282.4 | 15.5 ± 0.2 | 17.3 ± 0.2 |
MS1 | 2 | 3 | 333.0 ± 27.3 | 5.4 ± 0.2 | 7.4 ± 0.5 |
2 | 4 | 444.0 ± 25.7 | 8.6 ± 0.2 | 8.9 ± 0.6 |
2 | 5 | 563.0 ± 16.2 | 9.2 ± 0.2 | 9.5 ± 0.3 |
2 | 5 | 598.0 ± 36.8 | 9.8 ± 0.1 | 10.2 ± 0.1 |
2 | 6 | 716.0 ± 94.2 | 10.5 ± 0.2 | 10.8 ± 0.1 |
20 | 17 | 20,165.0 ± 266.9 | 14.1 ± 0.1 | 15.9 ± 0.1 |
MS2 | 2 | 3 | 339.0 ± 16.8 | 5.5 ± 0.5 | 7.5 ± 0.7 |
2 | 6 | 705.0 ± 22.9 | 9.3 ± 0.5 | 10 ± 0.6 |
2 | 9 | 998.0 ± 63.5 | 11.2 ± 0.4 | 11.5 ± 0.4 |
2 | 12 | 1410.0 ± 84.2 | 13.0 ± 0.7 | 13.2 ± 0.6 |
2 | 15 | 1715.0 ± 114.2 | 13.5 ± 0.7 | 14.1 ± 0.7 |
20 | 17 | 19,965.0 ± 201.3 | 14.4 ± 0.4 | 16.0 ± 0.4 |
Table 8.
Charge transferred per unit thickness of an anodic coating, C/µm. The samples were taken at 2-min intervals up to and including 10 min, and at the end of the process, 30 min for processes Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, and MS2. Statistical analysis of data between processes in Group 1 (Base, OS1, OS2) and Group 2 (M21, MS2) for the overall process is listed in blue font below.
Table 8.
Charge transferred per unit thickness of an anodic coating, C/µm. The samples were taken at 2-min intervals up to and including 10 min, and at the end of the process, 30 min for processes Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, and MS2. Statistical analysis of data between processes in Group 1 (Base, OS1, OS2) and Group 2 (M21, MS2) for the overall process is listed in blue font below.
Charge per Unit Thickness (C/µm) |
---|
Process Time, Min | 0 to 2 | 2 to 4 | 4 to 6 | 6 to 8 | 8 to 10 | 10 to 30 | Overall |
Base | 2040.0 | 5100.0 | 3400.0 | 2040.0 | 1854.5 | 3000.0 | 2733.9 |
OS1 | 855.0 | 1140.0 | 855.0 | 1710.0 | 1140.0 | 2565.6 | 2308.1 |
OS2 | 1501.3 | 3002.5 | 1501.3 | 6005.0 | 2402.0 | 2356.5 | 2323.1 |
MS1 | 1110.7 | 888.6 | 804.3 | 2993.5 | 2386.7 | 1977.0 | 1870.5 |
MS2 | 1695.0 | 783.3 | 2495.0 | 2014.3 | 2450.0 | 2058.2 | 1994.6 |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | | | |
Group 1 | 9 | 2455 ± 227 | 1.0 × 10−4 | 30.3 | 4.7 | | |
Group 2 | 6 | 1920 ± 74 | | | | | |
Table 9.
Coating efficiency, ηox, of anodization, average voltage, V, and work, kJ, calculated for Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, and MS2 processes. Statistical analysis of data between processes in Group 1 (Base, OS1, OS2) and Group 2 (M21, MS2) for the overall process is listed in blue font below.
Table 9.
Coating efficiency, ηox, of anodization, average voltage, V, and work, kJ, calculated for Base, OS1, OS2, MS1, and MS2 processes. Statistical analysis of data between processes in Group 1 (Base, OS1, OS2) and Group 2 (M21, MS2) for the overall process is listed in blue font below.
Process | Coating Efficiency, (ηox) | Average Voltage, V | Work (kJ) | | |
---|
Base | 0.201 ± 0.006 | 15.9 ± 0.2 | 14,334 ± 152 | | |
OS1 | 0.233 ± 0.005 | 13.2 ± 0.2 | 10,475 ± 219 | | |
OS2 | 0.211 ± 0.001 | 15.6 ± 0.1 | 12,926 ± 127 | | |
MS1 | 0.245 ± 0.011 | 13.0 ± 0.1 | 10,862 ± 85 | | |
MS2 | 0.267 ± 0.003 | 13.7 ± 0.4 | 12,039 ± 299 | | |
Efficiency | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
Group 1 | 9 | 0.215 ± 0.015 | 1.7 × 10−5 | 26.8 | 4.7 |
Group 2 | 6 | 0.256 ± 0.015 | | | |
Average Voltage | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
Group 1 | 9 | 14.9 ± 1.3 | 2.0 × 10−2 | 6.5 | 4.7 |
Group 2 | 6 | 13.3 ± 0.7 | | | |
Work | | | | |
Groups | Count | Average | P0.05 | F | |
Group 1 | 9 | 12,578 ± 1700 | 1.5 × 10−1 | 2.3 | 4.7 |
Group 2 | 6 | 11,450 ± 796 | | | |