4.4 Article

Prediction and optimization of electroplated Ni-based coating composition and thickness using central composite design and artificial neural network

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ELECTROCHEMISTRY
卷 51, 期 11, 页码 1591-1604

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10800-021-01602-9

关键词

Central Composite Design; Artificial Neural Network; Electrodeposition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study used an artificial neural network and central composite design model to determine the optimal electroplating conditions for Ni-based alloys, including current density, pH, and temperature. The theoretically optimal conditions were found to be 42 mA cm(-2) current density, pH 4.5, and 50 degrees Celsius. XPS and XRD analyses showed that these conditions would result in homogeneous and compact alloy structures, as well as stable Ni-alloy crystallinity.
The choice of the electroplating conditions of Ni-based alloys has always been a serious research question. In this study, an artificial neural network based on central composite design modelization were used to determine the desired percentage of Ni and the optimum thickness of the coating before passing to the implementation of the work. Three main factors were found to be very important in this process; namely applied current density (I), pH of the bath and the temperature (T) during electrolysis. The optimum conditions generated by the mathematical model proposed in this work were 42 mA cm(-2), pH 4.5 and 50 degrees C for the Ni-alloys (Zn, Co, Cr and W). Theoretically, the optimum amount of Ni and the thickness of the alloy were 40% and 23 mu m, respectively. The SEM images indicated that the optimum (I) would yield homogenous and compact morphologies. Moreover, the XPS investigations revealed that the optimum pH would form a strong Ni bond. Finally, the XRD analysis showed that the optimum T would result in a stable Ni-alloy crystallinity for Zn, Co and Cr. In contrast, Ni-W alloys showed that the amorphous phases were more stable. Graphic abstract

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据