Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 68:453–464
DOI 10.1007/s00170-013-4743-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Investigating the effects of hard anodizing parameters
on surface hardness of hard anodized aerospace AL7075-T6
alloy using fuzzy logic approach for fretting fatigue
application
E. Zalnezhad & Ahmed A. D. Sarhan & M. Hamdi
Received: 17 February 2012 / Accepted: 7 January 2013 / Published online: 31 January 2013
# Springer-Verlag London 2013
Abstract Aerospace applications and energy saving strate-
gies in general raised the interest and study in the field of
lightweight materials, especially on aluminum alloys. Alumi-
num alloy itself does not have suitable wear resistance. There-
fore, improvements of surface properties are required in
practical applications, especially surface hardness when alu-
minum is in contact with other parts. In this work, first
Al7075-T6 was coated using hard anodizing technique in
different parameters condition and the surfaces hardness
of hard anodizing-coated specimens were measured us-
ing microhardness machine. Second, fretting fatigue life
of AL7075-T6 was investigated for both uncoated and
hard anodized specimens at the highest surface hardness
obtained. Third, a fuzzy logic model was established to
investigate the effect of hard anodizing parameters, volt-
age, temperature, solution concentration, and time on
the anodized AL7075-T6. Four fuzzy membership func-
tions are allocated to be connected with each input of
E. Zalnezhad : A. A. D. Sarhan (*) : M. Hamdi
Center of Advanced Manufacturing and Material Processing,
Department of Engineering Design and Manufacture,
Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
e-mail: ah_sarhan@yahoo.com
M. Hamdi
e-mail: hamdi@um.edu.my
E. Zalnezhad
Faculty of engineering, Islamic Azad University,
Chalous Branch, Iran
e-mail: erfan_zalnezhad@yahoo.com
A. A. D. Sarhan
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Assiut University, Assiut 71516, Egypt
the model. The results achieved via fuzzy logic model
were verified and compared with the experimental re-
sult. The result demonstrated settlement between the
fuzzy model and experimental results with 95.032 %
accuracy. The hardness of hard anodizing-coated speci-
mens was increased up to 360 HV, while the hardness
of uncoated specimens was 170 HV. The result shows
that hard anodizing improved the fretting fatigue life of
AL7075-T6 alloy 44 % in low-cycle fatigue.
Keywords AL7075-T6 alloy . Hard anodizing coating .
Surface hardness . Fuzzy logic model
1 Introduction
Fretting fatigue is a phenomenon which occurs when the
substrate is in contact with other parts while they are sub-
jected to cyclic loads and sliding movements at the same
time [1]. Fretting decreased fatigue life of materials drasti-
cally. The result of fretting in engineering components under
cyclic load is the reduction of life by premature initiation
and propagation of cracks within the contact area.
Aluminum alloy, which has superior mechanical proper-
ties, low cost, light weight, and reliabile, has been widely
used for aircraft engines, fuselage, and automobile parts.
Aluminum 7075-T6 alloy which is used in this research
work has low specific weight and high strength to weight
ratio and also high electrical and thermal conductance. This
alloy is widely used in industry and in particular in aircraft
structure and pressure vessels [2]; however, it is always
subject to different working conditions. Wear and fretting
normally begin when the substrate is in contact with other
454
surfaces and rubbing each other under normal load, causing
share force to act on the surface [3]. Aluminum alloy has
problems of surface damage due to its softness and corro-
sion. Therefore, advances of surface properties are needed in
practical applications.
Hard anodize coating is widely used for this purpose. This
coating is also promising from the standpoint of the possibility
of achieving high hardness, strength, and simultaneously good
protective and decorative surface properties [4]. Anodizing is an
electrochemical process for producing stable oxide films on the
surface of metals. Anodic coating can be produced on aluminum
by using a wide variety of electrolytes with AC, DC, or a
combination of both in order to increase the hardness of metals.
All aluminum alloys do not accept hard anodize coatings
equally well. Hard anodize coatings on alloys with high copper
or silicon content tends to be porous and not very hard. Table 1
lists some of the aluminum alloys that are particularly trouble-
some; these should be avoided [3, 4]. Pure aluminum coating
on the AL7075-T6 using magnetron sputtering technique is a
method to create the possibility of hard anodizing performance
[5]. To improve surface hardness, it requires investigating
surface hardness of hard anodize coating at different parameter
conditions. Hence, reliable systematic approaches to investi-
gate the effects of hard anodize coating parameter for best
surface hardness is thus required [5]. Soft computing techni-
ques are useful when exact mathematical information is not
available. The techniques differ from conventional computing
in that it is tolerant of imprecision, uncertainty, partial truth,
approximation, and metaheuristics [6, 7]. Components of soft
computing include neural networks, fuzzy logics, evolutionary
computation, chaos theory, and perceptron. Compared to other
artificial intelligence methods, development of fuzzy logic is
moderately easier and it does not need many software and
hardware resources. Fuzzy logic is one of the soft computing
techniques that play an important role in input–output param-
eter relationship modeling [8, 9]. The fuzzy modeling tech-
nique is used when subjective knowledge and suggestion by
the expert are significant in defining objective function and
decision variables. Fuzzy logic is preferred in investigating the
coating performance based on the input variables due to
nonlinear condition in the coating process [10]. In this re-
search work, hard anodize coating on Al7075-T6 substrate
was carried out in different parameter conditions. Each
Table 1 List aluminum
alloys which should be Difficult Al alloys for hard anodizing
avoided to hard
anodizing 2011
2017
2024
7075
Cast and wrought alloys with
Cu>4 % or Si>7 %
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 68:453–464
parameter has four levels which include voltage, temperature,
solution concentration, and time. Fuzzy rule-based method
was proposed to investigate surface hardness of hard anodize
coating on AL7075-T6 alloy. The fretting fatigue test was
performed on hard anodized specimens under the best param-
eter conditions that were achieved from the experimental
results and fuzzy logic method.
1.1 Design of experiments
The most important stage in the design of an experiment lies in
the selection of parameters and identifying the experimental
array. In this experiment, with four parameters and four levels
each, the fractional factors design used is a standard L16 (44)
experimental array. This array is chosen due to its capability to
check the interactions among parameters. The parameters and
levels are assigned as in Table 2. The 16 experiments with the
details of combination of the experimental levels for each
parameter (A–D) are shown in Table 3.
1.2 Experimental details
1.2.1 Material
Aluminum 7075-T6 alloy was used in this investigation.
The material’s composition was obtained using EDX appa-
ratus as illustrated in Table 4. From a number of tensile tests,
the yield stress and ultimate strength of Al7075-T6 were
obtained as: σУ =520 MPa and σut =590 MPa, respectively.
Two types of specimen (uncoated and hard anodized) for
fretting fatigue test are used.
1.2.2 Specimen preparation and fretting parts fabrication
Fretting fatigue test specimens were machined with initial
surface roughness Ra =0.6±0.1 μm by lathe turning (CNC
LATHE MACHINE, Miyano, BNC-42C5). The round-
shaped specimens used in this work were prepared in accor-
dance with ISO standard [11]. Fretting fatigue pads were
fabricated from AISI 4140 steel plate with hardness of
346 HV. Substrate material (179 HV) is softer than the pads
but hard anodize coating (360 HV) is harder than pads. The
Table 2 Parameters and levels used in the experiment
Parameters Experimental condition levels
1 2 3 4
A Voltage (V) 10 20 30 40
B Temperature (°C) 0 5 10 25
C Solution concentration (%) 5 10 15 20
D Time (min) 30 60 90 120
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 68:453–464 455

Table 3 Standard L16 (44) experimental array

Experiment Parameters combination

A B C D

1 1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2 2
3 1 3 3 3
4 1 4 4 4
5 2 1 2 3 (a) Fretting fatigue specimen
6 2 2 3 2
7 2 1 3 3
5
8 2 4 2 2
9 3 1 3 4
10 3 2 4 3
11 3 3 1 2
12 3 4 2 1
13 4 3 4 2 (b) Drawing of fretting pad
14 4 4 3 1
15 4 1 2 4 Fig. 1 The fretting fatigue specimen and the fretting pad
16 4 4 2 3
was evacuated to below 2×10−5 Torr before the argon gas
for sputtering was introduced. Here, we used a constant
fretting fatigue specimen and the friction pads drawings are sputtering pressure of 5.2×10−3 Torr. The pure aluminum
illustrated in Fig. 1. The dimensions of drawings are given coating process parameters employed in the present work
in millimeter. A ring-type load cell and bridge-type fretting is shown in Table 5.
pads was designed and manufactured, which can simulate Furthermore, all pure aluminum-coated specimens are sub-
fretting fatigue conditions. Figure 2 shows a schematic view ject to electrochemical conversion of hard anodizing process
of fretting fatigue test setup employed in this present study. using the conditions shown in Tables 2 and 3. At the begin-
ning, substrate cleaning are required to remove all unwanted
1.2.3 Surface treatment surface contamination to prepare the surface for further pro-
cessing. Substrate surface finish is created by etching with hot
All samples for anodizing were initially coated by AL target solutions of sodium hydroxide to remove minor surface
with purity of 99.99 % using magnetron sputtering machine. imperfections. To remove surface oxides, “smut”—which is
The surface of all samples for aluminum coating were a combination of intermetallic, metal, and metal oxides
polished with SiC papers with grits of 800–2,000; after that, remaining on the surface after cleaning/etching, an aqueous
all samples were surface mirrored by diamond liquid and the solution containing an oxidizing inorganic acid, phosphoric
substrate were ultrasonically cleaned in acetone for 14 min, and sulfuric acids, simple and complex fluoride ions, an
thoroughly rinsed with distilled water, and dried using ni- organic carboxylic acid having 1–10 carbon atoms, and man-
trogen gas to avoid contamination. An SG Control Engi- ganese in its oxidation state is used. Finally, a near-mirror
neering Pte Ltd series magnetron sputtering system was finish is created with a concentrated mixture of phosphoric
used to experimentally deposit thin films of metal. This and nitric acids which chemically smooth the surface.
system contained 600 W RF and 1,200 W DC generators After cleaning, aluminum-coated specimens substrate is
with 4″×12″ electrodes 15 cm away from the target. To suspended in electrolytic bath (sulfuric acid at different
easily sputter metals, we designed DC generators. The sub- concentration) as an anode; hence, the current is passed
strate carrier was circular and was rotatable at various through the bath and oxygen is produced at the anode
speeds for required cosputtering deposition. The chamber surface. The equipment used in anodizing process are power
supply, electrolytic solution, anode (substrate material), and
Table 4 Chemical composition of AL 7075-T6 cathode (stainless steel) as shown in Fig. 3. The oxygen
reacts with the substrate to form a thin oxide layer of durable
Cu Si Mg Cr Zn Mn and abrasion-resistant hard anodizing coating; at the same
1.85 0.47 1.8 0.28 4.6 0.06
time, hydrogen is formed at the cathode. The anode and
cathode chemical reaction are as follows;
456 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 68:453–464

DC power supply Acid sulfuric solution

Fig. 3 Schematic of hard anodizing process

natural oxidation. In addition, the hard anodizing coating

(a) Fretting ring layers increases the melting point of the substrate surface
from approximately 650 °C to approximately 2,000 °C,
A pair of springs which is good enough to ensure maintaining the mechanical
Fretting ring
to apply the load properties at higher temperature.
Chuck
1.2.4 Surface measurement

The layers were characterized using scanning electron mi-

croscopy (FE/scanning electron microscope (SEM)-FEG)
and focused ion beam techniques (Quanta FEG250). The
Friction pad
hardness of the layers was determined using microhardness
equipment (HMV Micro Hardness Tester, Shimadzu). The
roughness of uncoated samples was characterized with
roughness tester machine. The adhesion of the pure alumi-
num films was determined using a Micro Material Ltd,
Wrexham, UK. The data are stored in a digital computer
and can be displayed on a screen.

(b) Rotating bending fretting fatiguetest machine 1.2.5 Fretting fatigue test

Fig. 2 Schematic of fretting fatigue test rig The specimens were gripped and loaded rotationally in a
rotating bending fretting fatigue test apparatus (Fig. 2b). By
Anode reaction:

2AL ! 2AL3þ þ 6e

2Al3þ þ ðmetalÞ þ 3H2 O ! Al2 O3 þ 6Hþ Oxide
AL Electrolyte
Cathode reaction:
6Hþ þ 6e ! 3H2 ðgasÞ O2-
H 2O

The schematic of the anodic oxide layer is shown in

Fig. 4. The anodizing process produces an oxide layer
(coating) which is uniform, much harder, and denser than AL3+
H 2O
Table 5 Pure aluminum coating parameters

DC power (W) Temperature (°C) DC bias voltage Time (h)

350 200 75 6
Fig. 4 Schematic of the anodic oxide layer
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 68:453–464 457

adjusting the load screw on a proving ring with a torque driver,

Failure point
the normal contact load between the contact pads and speci-
men was controlled. The fretting fatigue tests were carried out
at constant average contact pressure of 100 MPa. When a
fatigue specimen is subjected to cyclic stresses, fretting be-
tween the contact pads and specimen is generated. The samples
559.23µm
which were used for fretting fatigue test were uncoated and
hard anodized AL7075-T6. Plain and fretting fatigue testing
were carried out at room temperature in a two-point loading 826.21µm
rotating bending machine (R=−1) under constant stress ampli-
tude at a rotational speed of 2,940 rpm. The nominal maximum
cyclic stress was set at value that was expected to result in a
fatigue life of between 104 and 107 cycles and test were Failure point
stopped if the specimen did not fail at 1×107 cycles.
The friction force, created by normal force and sliding
movement between the specimen and pads, and the friction
coefficient were measured by a friction test machine. The
amount of friction coefficient between pads (AISI 4140 steel)
and AL7075-T6 is calculated at around 0.607. The friction
force can be determined from the relation F=μ. In which P is
the contact load calculated by ring shape load cell (Fig. 2a) and
F is the friction force measured from the friction test machine.

1.3 Experimental result

The film-to-substrate adhesion strength was measured quan-

titatively using a scratch tester. A diamond indenter (Rock-
well type) of 25 μm radius applied an initial load zero onto a Failure point
sample. The sliding velocity was 5 μm/s. The load was
increased gradually by 9.2 mN/s. The scratch’s length dur-
ing scratch test was 1,186.36 μm. In the scratch test, critical
load, Lc, could be used to calculate the adhesion strength. In
order to obtain the magnitude of the critical load, acoustic
signal, friction curve, and microscope observation were
utilized. Acoustic signal produced by the delamination of
the film could be used to characterize Lc. Scratch adhesion
testing was performed on a coated sample to measure Lc. Fig. 5 Scratch force (adhesion) testing on a coated sample and the
Scratch force (adhesion) test on a coated sample and the critical load accompany with their force and depth versus distance graphs
critical load accompany with their force and depth versus
distance graphs are shown in Fig. 5. These images basically
show the character of failure of pure aluminum coating on of hard anodized AL7075-T6 alloy in the best parameter
AL7075-T6. condition, some experiments were carried out and the results
The hardness of the hard anodized AL7075-T6 surface are shown in Fig. 7b. The experiments were conducted for
layers was measured using microhardness equipment. Each stress ratio of R=−1 (49 Hz) at a constant contact force of
measurement is repeated three times and the averages are 100 MPa, and working stress amplitudes of 150–300 MPa.
calculated and summarized in Table 6. Figure 6 shows a The relationship between the stress amplitude and the num-
typical example of a hard anodize coating at a voltage of ber of cycles to failure for the all the condition analyzed is
25 V, temperature of 0 °C, solution concentration of 13 %, defined by Eq. 1 [12].
and time of 80 min; it can be seen under SEM that the
b
coating structure is columnar. There are two types of coat- S ¼ AN ð1Þ
f
ing, one pure aluminum on the substrate and hard anodizing
coating in two directions (inside and outside of pure alumi- Where, S is stress amplitude, A is fatigue strength coef-
num coating). In order to investigate the fretting fatigue life ficient, b is fatigue strength exponent, and Nf is number of
458 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 68:453–464

Table 6 Measured surface hardness

Experiment Measured surface hardness (HV) Average surface

hardness (HV)
1st 2nd 3rd 1st

1 241 236 218 230

2 266 273 237 245
3 209 297 243 250
4 185 179 180 181
5 309 297 248 285
6 266 273 255 265
7 336 343 400 360
8 181 200 188 190 (a) SEM micrograph of hard anodizing on pure aluminum
9 308 383 328 340
10 179 165 204 183

Hard Anodizing
Pure Aluminum
11 210 255 246 237
12 198 183 199 193
13 201 181 220 201
14 204 190 259 218
15 209 221 283 238
16 185 212 166 187
Substrate

cycles to failure. S–Nf curve was obtained by least square

fitting relationship in Eq. 1 [12]. Each data point on S/N curve
represents the average of five specimens tested under identical
conditions. Figure 7a and b show the number of cycle to
failure versus stress for plain fatigue and fretting fatigue
(uncoated and hard anodized specimens). As it can be seen
in Fig. 7b, the fretting fatigue life of hard anodized specimens
are improved in comparison to uncoated specimens.
Fracture surfaces of tested specimens were examined
using optical microscopy. Two typical results fractured sur-
face and cross-section for uncoated and hard anodized spec-
imen are illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9. The figure clearly
indicates that the fracture surface consists of two quite
distinct regions; a fatigue zone created by crack propagation
and a tensile region which gives rise to fracture of specimen
when it is sufficiently weakened by the crack zone devel-
opment. The striations due to each stress cycle can be seen
as in Figs. 8b and 9b which show the crack surface of a
failed aluminum 7075-T6 at ×40 magnification along with a
representation of the stress–cycle pattern that failed it. The
occasional large amplitude stress cycles show up as larger
striations than the more frequent small amplitude ones,
indicating that higher stress amplitudes cause larger crack
growth per cycle [13].
1.4 Fuzzy logic-based model to investigate the effects
of hard anodizing parameters on substrate surface hardness
The relationship between input parameters which are voltage,
temperature, solution concentration, and time with the output
(b) SEM micrograph (enlargement of Fig. 5(a))of pure aluminum coating
and hard anodizing on AL7075-T6
Fig. 6 SEM micrograph of hard anodizing on AL7075-T6 at voltage
of 25 V, temperature of 0 °C, solution concentrate of 13 %, and time of
80 min
parameter which is surface hardness of hard anodized
AL7075-T6 were referred to construct the rules. Fuzzy lin-
guistic variables and fuzzy expression for input and output
parameters are shown in Table 7. For each variable, four
membership functions were used which are low, medium,
high, and very high for inputs. The output variable
(hardness) also used four membership function, ranging
from bad, average, good, and excellent.
1.5 Membership functions for input and output fuzzy
variables
In choosing the membership functions for fuzzification, the
event and type of membership functions are mainly depen-
dent upon the relevant event. In this model, each input and
output parameter has four membership functions. Gauss
shape of membership function was employed to describe
the fuzzy sets for input variables. In output variables fuzzy
set, triangular shape of membership functions are used.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 68:453–464 459

1.6 Structure of fuzzy rules

A set of 16 rules have been constructed based on the actual

experimental surface hardness of hard anodize coating on
AL7075-T6. Experimental results were simulated in MatLab
software on the basis of Mamdani fuzzy logic which was as
follows:

1. IF (A is L) and (B is L) and (C is L) and (D is L) then

(hardness is average)
2. IF (A is L) and (B is M) and (C is M) and (D is M) then
(a) S/N curve of plain fatigue for uncoated specimens (hardness is average)
3. IF (A is L) and (B is H) and (C is H) and (D is H) then
(hardness is average)
4. IF (A is L) and (B is VH) and (C is VH) and (D is VH)
then (hardness is bad)
5. IF (A is M) and (B is L) and (C is M) and (D is H) then
(hardness is good)
6. IF (A is M) and (B is M) and (C is H) and (D is M)
then (hardness good)
7. IF (A is M) and (B is L) and (C is H) and (D is H) then
(hardness is excellent)
8. IF (A is M) and (B is VH) and (C is M) and (D is M)
then (hardness is bad)
9. IF (A is H) and (B is L) and (C is H) and (D is VH)
(b) S/N curve of fretting fatigue for uncoated and hard anodized specimens then (hardness is excellent)
Fig. 7 Comparison of S/N curve of fretting fatigue for uncoated and 10. IF (A is H) and (B is M) and (C is VH) and (D is H)
hard anodized specimen then (hardness is bad)
11. IF (A is H) and (B is H) and (C is L) and (D is M) then
(hardness is average)
Triangular membership function is generally used and has 12. IF (A is H) and (B is VH) and (C is M) and (D is L)
gradually increasing and decreasing characteristics with on- then (hardness is bad)
ly one definite value [8]. The input variables have been 13. IF (A is VH) and (B is H) and (C is VH) and (D is M)
partitioned according to the experiment parameter ranges. then (hardness is bad)
Membership functions for fuzzy set input voltage, tempera- 14. IF (A is VH) and (B is VH) and (C is H) and (D is L)
ture, solution concentration, and time variable are shown in then (hardness is bad)
Fig. 10a–d, respectively. Membership functions for surface 15. IF (A is VH) and (B is L) and (C is M) and (D is VH)
hardness fuzzy set is shown in Fig. 11. then (hardness is average)

Fig. 8 Fracture surface and Location of friction pads

cross-section view of uncoated
specimens under fretting fatigue

Tensile zone
Fretting
zone

(a) Fracture in uncoated AL7075-T6 specimen (b) Cross-section view of uncoated specimen
after 2,E+06 cycles at 200MPa stress under fretting fatigue
460 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 68:453–464

Fig. 9 Fracture surface and Location of friction pads

cross-section view of hard
anodized specimens
under fretting fatigue

Tensile Zone

Fretting zone

(a) Fracture in hard anodized AL7075-T6 specimen (b) Cross-section view of hard anodized specimen
after 8,E+06 cycles at 200MPa stress under fretting fatigue

16. IF (A is VH) and (B is VH) and (C is M) and (D is H) 2 Discussion

then (hardness is bad)
2.1 The effect of hard anodizing parameters on surface
1.7 Defuzzification hardness

Defuzzification is the conversion of a fuzzy quantity to a The selection of the hard anodizing conditions is essen-
precise value, just as fuzzification is the conversion of a tial for fabricating composite thin films. The most impor-
precise value to a fuzzy quantity. Seven methods are avail- tant parameters affecting the deposition rate and surface
able in the literature to be used by researchers for defuzzify- hardness are the voltage (in volts), temperature (in degree
ing methods: centroid, weight average, mean of max, center Celsius), solution concentration (in percent), and time (in
of sum, center of largest area, and first (or last) of maximum minutes).
method. The selection of the method is important and it From the experimental and fuzzy model prediction
greatly influences the speed and accuracy of the model. In results, as it can be seen in Fig. 12a, the surface hardness
this model, the centroid of an area defuzzification method is of hard anodized specimens is low when voltage is at an
used due to wide acceptance and capability in giving more amplitude of 10–25 V. Voltage below this range produces
accurate result compared to the others [14, 15]. In this soft, porous, and thin films. With increasing of voltage from
method, the resultant membership functions are developed 25 to 35 V, the surface hardness of specimens is increased
by considering the union of the output of each rule, which when temperature is kept constant at 0 °C; while with
means that the overlapping area of fuzzy output set is increasing of voltage up to 40 V, the surface hardness
counted as one, providing more result [16]. is decreased again. It is attributed to that at low voltage,
Figure 12a–c are examples to demonstrate the appropri- the movement of ions is slow and less oxygen’s ions
ate assent between parameter change and hard anodize separate from cathode, so less aluminum oxide can be
coating surface hardness values predicted by fuzzy based constructed on the surface of AL7075-T6 aluminum
model. coated in both direction (inside and outside). As the
voltage is increased, the film forms more quickly with
relatively less dissolution by the electrolyte, consequent-
Table 7 Fuzzy linguistic and abbreviation of variables for each ly the film is harder and less porous. At very high
parameter
voltage, there is a tendency for “burning”; this is the
Inputs Range development of excessively high current flow rate at
local areas with overheating areas. On the other hand,
Parameters Linguistic variables with increasing of temperature, the surface hardness is
decreased; it means that the best hardness is achieved at
A Voltage (V) Low (L), medium (M), 10–40
high (H), very 0 °C. The effect of an increase of electrolyte tempera-
B Temperature (C) 0–25
high (VH) ture is directly proportional with the increasing of the
C Solution concentration (%) 5–20
rate of dissolution of the anodic film resulting in thin-
D Time (min) 30–120
ner, more porous, and softer films. Low temperatures
Output
are used to produce hard coatings normally in combi-
Hardness (HV) Bad, average, 180–360
nation with high current density and vigorous agitation.
good, excellent
If temperature is increased further, the maximum
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 68:453–464
Fig. 10 Membership function
for input parameters
Degree of membership
(a) Input variable “A” (Voltage (V))
Degree of membership
(c) Input variable “C” (Solution concentration (%))
thickness is reduced to lower values due to the higher
dissolving power of the electrolyte [17].
The solution concentration also plays important roles in
hard anodize coating to get high value of hardness. With
mixing the oxygen and aluminum, the surface becomes
ceramic and the surface hardness of hard anodized samples
are increased with increasing the solution concentration
from 5 to 13 %; while with more increase in solution
concentration up to 20 %, surface hardness is decreased as
it can be seen in Fig. 12b. This may be because the surface
was more porous. The effect of increasing solution concen-
tration on the coating characteristic is similar to temperature
increase; however, the effect of temperature is more impor-
tant than that of concentration. The increase in concentration
limits the maximum film thickness due to the higher dis-
solving power of the concentrate solutions.
In addition, with increasing the time from 30 to 85 min,
when the solution concentration is around 10–14, the sur-
face hardness is increased as it can be seen in Fig. 12c; this
is attributed to the construction of aluminum oxide hard
film, which can make the coating’s film thicker. But with
Membership function plots
Degree of membership
Output variable “Surface Hardness” (HV))
Fig. 11 Membership function for the output parameter
461
Membership function plots Membership function plots
Degree of membership
(b) Input variable “B” (Temperature (ºC))
Membership function plots
Membership function plots
Degree of membership
(d) Input variable “D” (Time (min))
more increase in the solution concentration, increasing time
can decrease the surface hardness of specimens.
Figure 6 shows the cross-section view of hard anodizing-
coated specimen at the best parameters condition to obtain
the highest hardness. The coating thickness was measured
and found to be approximately 18 μm. Observations on
surface of coatings indicated presence of a relatively little
number of cracks in hard anodizing coating.
2.2 Fretting fatigue and S/N curves
The corresponding plain fatigue and fretting fatigue S/N
curves at contact pressure of 100 MPa are displayed in
Fig. 7a and b, respectively. It is apparent that fretting has a
deleterious effect on the fretting fatigue life of AL7075-T6 in
substrate and coated conditions at all values of the applied
bending stress. Figure 7a shows that fatigue (plain) strength
reduces with increasing stress. Figure 7b shows a comparison
between fretting fatigue life of uncoated and hard anodized
specimens. The reduction of fatigue strength for hard anodiz-
ing coated specimens is less than untreated substrate. On the
other hand, the trend of the effect of hard anodizing depends
on the value of stress. Hard anodize coating has increasing
effect on fatigue life of the specimens in low-stress region at
approximately 220 MPa. It is obvious that the influence of
hard anodizing coating is more performed at lower stress. The
no effect of hard anodize coating at higher stress in fretting
fatigue life may be a result from early initiation of crack of
hard anodizing film due to high-local stress concentration
resulting from bulk stress. The increase in fretting fatigue life
in low-stress region for conditions considering (substrate
hardness, pads material, coating thickness and hardness, and
kind of loading) in this study may be attributed to low coef-
ficient of friction that prevents metal to metal contact, which
may result in higher fretting fatigue life because of retardation
462 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 68:453–464

It is suggested that a fretting fatigue crack forms at the

region where the frictional shear stress on contact surface
locally concentrates. Thus, the decrease in fatigue life by the
fretting damage is considered to be due to the decrease in
crack initiation life caused by the local stress concentration
caused by fretting, and the acceleration of the initial crack
propagation by fretting [14, 18–20]. As one of the main
mechanisms of acceleration of initial crack by fretting, the
wedge effect where the wear debris goes into the small initial
fretting fatigue crack is considered [15, 21]. However, if the
Temperature (˚C)
crack is fully filled with the wear debris, it is considered that
Voltage (V) the effect is decreased because the wear debris cannot go into
the crack furthermore.
(a) Surface hardness in relation to change of Voltage (A) The action of fretting causes considerable damage to the
and Temperature (B)
specimen surface. Figures 8a and 9a show the appearance of
the fretting scars on substrate and hard anodized specimens.
It can be observed that the extent of the fretting damage
include hard anodize coating is less than that in the sub-
strate. This effect may be due to increased hardness due to
hard anodize coating of the surface.
It is clear that during plain fatigue, cracks originate
randomly at one or several points around the periphery of
the specimen case while during fretting, cracks inevitably
start from the same location at point adjacent the leading
edge of the fretting areas where the bending stress and the
induced shear stress highest. Crack propagation occurs from
Voltage (V)
two sides resulting in the appearance of a final fracture area
Solution concentrate% of the specimen as shown in Figs. 8b and 9b.

(b) Surface hardness in relation to change of Voltage (A) and 2.3 Investigate the fuzzy model accuracy and error
Solution concentrate (C)

After the fuzzy rules were constructed, other new five ex-
perimental tests from separated experiment were carried out
to investigate the fuzzy model accuracy and error as shown
in Table 8. The individual error percentage was obtained by
dividing the absolute difference of the fuzzy predicted and
measured values as shown in Eq. 2 where ei is individual
error, Hm is measured value, and Hp is predicted value [16].




Hm  Hp

ei ¼  100% ð2Þ
Hm

Meanwhile, accuracy was calculated to measure the

Solution concentrate% Time (min) closeness of the fuzzy predicted value to the measured
value. The model accuracy was the average of individual
(c) Surface hardness in relation to change of Solution accuracy as shown in Eq. 3 where A is the model accuracy
concentration (C) and Time (D) and N is the total number of dataset tested.




Hm  Hp

Fig. 12 The surface hardness obtained by fuzzy logic in relation to
parameters change 1 XN
A¼ 1  100% ð3Þ
N i¼1 Hm

of crack initiation resulting from lower stress concentration The error for dataset result was calculated and the model
compared to the substrate. accuracy for fuzzy logic was determined. The experimental
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 68:453–464 463

Table 8 Accuracy and error of the fuzzy logic model

No of experiment Parameters (inputs) Surface hardness result (output) (HV) Error (%) Accuracy (%)

Measured surface hardness Fuzzy predicted surface hardness

A B C D 1st 2nd 3rd Average

1 15 2 7.5 40 268 195 228 230 241 4.76 95.24

2 25 3 12.5 50 281 256 317 285 296 3.86 96.14
3 27 15 16 70 193 231 207 210 217.5 3.57 96.43
4 35 18 17 80 188 205 208 200 212.5 6.25 93.75
5 37 22 18 100 170 172 198 180 191.5 6.40 93.60
Accuracy of model=95.032

condition, surface hardness results, and fuzzy model predicted
value are shown in Table 8. The highest percentage of error for
fuzzy model prediction is 6.4 %. The low level of errors shows
that the fuzzy surface hardness results were very close with
actual experimental surface hardness values. Table 8 also shows
that the fuzzy model accuracy is 95.032 %. The value of
accuracy shows that the proposed model can predict the surface
hardness of hard anodize coating on AL7075-T6 satisfactorily
as it can be seen in Fig. 13a–c.

3 Conclusion

In this research work, first, hard anodize was coated on

(a) Comparison of fuzzy logic model prediction with the experimental results
(b) The fuzzy model accuracy percentage
(c) The fuzzy model error percentage
Fig. 13 Comparison of fuzzy logic model prediction with the experi-
mental results for surface hardness of hard anodize coating on AL7075-
T6, the accuracy, and error percentage
AL7075-T6 samples at different parameters condition and
hardness of all samples were measured by microhardness
machine. The parameters of this study include voltage, tem-
perature, solution concentration, and time. Second, prediction
of surface hardness of hard anodizes coating on
AL7075-T6 alloy was investigated at same parameters
condition using fuzzy logic technique. Third, plain fa-
tigue and fretting fatigue test of two types of specimens,
uncoated and hard anodized, were carried out for inves-
tigating the fatigue and fretting fatigue life of speci-
mens. From the experimental and computational
results, the following conclusions are obtained:
1. Fretting decreases the fatigue life of AL7075-T6 alloy
drastically. The deduction of the fatigue life is attributed
to the introduction of shear stress on the surface though
contact between the fretting pads and the substrate.
2. Hard anodize coating improved fretting fatigue life
of AL7075-T6 alloy at low stress. However, toward
higher stress levels, the extent of increase in fatigue
life deduced and at applied bending stress of ap-
proximately 210 MPa; it was observed that hard
anodize coating in fretting fatigue life nearly has
no effect slightly.
3. Hard anodize coating can be used as one method to
improve the fretting fatigue life of AL7075-T6 at low
service loads.
464
4. Pure aluminum coating using magnetron sputtering
technique on the surface of substrate is improved the
ability of AL7075-T6 for acceptance of become hard
anodized.
5. In the hard anodize coating on AL7075-T6 alloy, using
voltage (25–30 V), temperature (0 °C), solution concentra-
tion (13 %), and time (90 min) are recommended to obtain
the highest surface hardness for the specific test range
360 HV; while the hardness of uncoated samples was
170 HV.
6. The fuzzy model percentages of error and accuracy
were found to be 6.4 and 95.032 %, respectively. It is
indicated that the fuzzy logic prediction model could be
used to predict the surface hardness of the coated thin
film of hard anodize coating on AL7075-T6 alloy in a
very accurate manner.
Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge financial support
under the University Malaya Research Grant (grant no.: UM.TNC2/RC/
AET/GERAN (UMRG) RG133/11AET) from the University of Malaya,
Malaysia.
References
1. Sadeler R, Atasoy S, Arici A, Totic Y (2009) The fretting fatigue
of commercial hard anodized aluminum alloys. J Mater Eng
Perform 18(9):1280–1284
2. Majzoobi GH, Jaleh M (2007) Duplex surface treatment on AL7075-
T6 alloy against fretting fatigue behavior by application of titanium
coating plus nitriding. Mater Sci Eng A 452–453:673–681
3. Ezuber HA, Houd E, Shawesh F (2008) A study on the corrosion
behaviour ofaluminium alloys in sea water. Mater Des 29:801–805
4. Camargo AM, Voorwald HJ (2007) Influence of anodization on
fatigue strength of 7050-T7451 aluminium alloy. Fatigue FractEng
Mater Struct 30:993–1007
5. Kelly PJ, Abu-Zeid A, Arnell RD, Tong J (1996) The deposition of
aluminum oxide coatings by reactive unbalanced magnetron sput-
tering. Surface Coat Tech 86–87(1):28–32
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 68:453–464
6. Chandrasekaran M, Muralidhar M, Murali Krishna C, Dixit US
(2009) Application of soft computing techniques in machining
performance prediction and optimization: a literature review. Int J
Adv Manufac Tech 46(5–8):445–464
7. Shamshirband S, Kalantari S, Bakhshandeh Z (2010) Designing a
smart multi-agent system based on fuzzy logic to improve the gas
consumption pattern. Sci Res Essays 5(6):592–605, 18 March
8. ASM Jaya, SZM Hashim, and MN AbdRahman (2010) Fuzzy
logic-based for predicting roughness performance of TiN coating.
10th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and
Applications. 978-1-4244-8136-IEEE.
9. Leung RWK, Lau HCW, Kwong CK (2003) An expert
system to support the optimization of ion plating process:
an OLAP- based fuzzy-cum-GA approach. Expert Sys App
25:313–330
10. Hasmi K, Graham ID, Mills B (2006) Data selection for turning
carbon steel using fuzzy logic. J Mater Proc Tech 135(4):44–58
11. ISO Standard (2010) Metallic materials—rotating bar bending
fatigue testing. ISO International
12. Basquin LOH (1910) The exponential law of endurance tests, proc.
ASTM 10(2):P625
13. Norton RL (2010) Machine design, an integrated approach.
Worecester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA
14. Mugadu A, Hills DA, Nowell D (2002) Modifications to a
fretting-fatigue testing apparatus based upon an analysis of
contact stresses at complete and nearly complete contacts. Wear
252:475–483
15. Fatigue Failures, Failure Analysis and Prevention, Vol 11 (2002)
ASM Handbook, ASM International
16. Oktem H, Erzurumlu T, Erzinchanli F (2006) Prediction of minimum
surface roughness in end milling mold part using neural network and
genetic algorithms. Int J Materials Design 27:735–744
17. Shahzad M, Chaussumier M, Chieragatti R, Mabru C, Rezai-Aria
F (2011) Surface characterization and influence of anodizing
process on fatigue life of Al 7050 alloy. Int J Mater Des 32:3328–
3335
18. Araujo JA, Nowell D (2002) The effect of rapidly varying contact
stress fields on fretting fatigue. Int J Fatigue 24:763–775
19. Jin O, Mall S (2004) Effect of slip on fretting behavior: experi-
ments and analysis. Wear 256:671–684
20. Lin SK, Lee YL, Lu MW (2001) Evaluation of the staircase and
the accelerated test methods for fatigue limit distributions. Int J
Fatigue 23:75–85
21. Hirata H, Maejima M, Saruwatari K, Shigeno H, Takaya M (1996)
Rotational bending fatigue of anodized coating of aluminum of
aluminum. J Surf Finish Soc 47(4):376