Optimization of process variables and corrosion properties of a multi layer silica sol gel coating on AZ91D using the Box–Behnken design

Anti-corrosion silica coating was prepared via the sol–gel method for AZ91D magnesium alloy using tetraethoxysilane and methyltriethoxysilane as precursors. Silica coating was deposited on fluorinated magnesium alloy substrates by dip coating. The surface morphology of the silica coating was charact...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of sol-gel science and technology Vol. 59; no. 3; pp. 640 - 649
Main Authors Nikrooz, Bahaedin, Zandrahimi, Morteza
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Boston Springer US 01.09.2011
Springer
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Anti-corrosion silica coating was prepared via the sol–gel method for AZ91D magnesium alloy using tetraethoxysilane and methyltriethoxysilane as precursors. Silica coating was deposited on fluorinated magnesium alloy substrates by dip coating. The surface morphology of the silica coating was characterized by scanning electron microscope (SEM). The corrosion properties were studied by electrochemical impedance measurements and polarisation technique in 3.5 wt% Sodium chloride solution. The results showed an improvement in the corrosion performance from these coatings. A three-factor, three-level design of experiment (DOE) with response surface methodology including a Box–Behnken design was run to evaluate the main and interaction effects of several independent formulation variables, which included precursor ratios MTES/TEOS (X 1 ), sintering temperature (X 3 ) and sol dilution (X 2 ) which measured the volume of the diluted sol divided by the initial volume of sol. The dependent variables included the corrosion current derived from the polarisation curve (i cor  = Y 1 ) and the coating resistance derived from the Nyquist curve (R coat  = Y 2 ). Optimizations were predicted to yield Y 1 and Y 2 values of 1.57018E–7A cm −2 and 14279 Ω cm 2 , when X 1 , X 2 , and X 3 were 3.36, 1.52 and 222, respectively.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0928-0707
1573-4846
DOI:10.1007/s10971-011-2539-z