Analysis of the Effect of Anodizing Time on the Anodizing

Layer Thickness of Aluminum 5052, 6061, and 7075

Atria Pradityana1, a), Farah Khosfirah2, b), Muhammad Lukman Hakim3, c), Ahmat
Safa’at4, d), Eddy Widiyono5, e)

Author Affiliations
1,2,3,4,5
Industrial Mechanical Engineering Department, Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Surabaya
Author Emails
a)
Corresponding author: atriapradityana@gmail.com
b)
farahkhosfirah@gmail.com
c)
lhakimd3mits@gmail.com
d)
safaat@its.ac.id
e)
eddy_w@me.its.ac.id

Abstract. Aluminum is often used in everyday life apart from being corrosion resistant, aluminum also has various
variations. This aluminum variation is called a series, in which each aluminum series is combined with other different
elements. This research focuses on 3 aluminum alloy series, namely 5052, 6061, and 7075. This study aimed to
determine the effect of time on the thickness of the anodizing layer. There are 3 types of tests carried out in this study,
namely XRF (to determine the elemental and oxide composition), SEM (to determine the thickness of the anodizing
layer), and Megger Test (to determine the material's resistance). The results showed that the data with the highest
validation according to linear regression was the layer resistance data of aluminum 7075 anodizing, whereas other data
showed small significance. Overall, the response of each aluminum series is different when the anodizing process is
performed. Aluminum 5052 and 6061 have a saturation point at the anodizing time of 20 min, whereas aluminum 7075
still shows an increase in thickness over time. This is influenced by the elements and oxides in it. Meanwhile, the Megger
test results show that the thicker the oxide layer, the greater the resistance.
Keywords: Aluminium 5052, Aluminium 6061, Aluminium 7075, Anodizing, SEM, XRF, Megger test

INTRODUCTION

Aluminum (Al) is a metal that is widely used in life. Aluminum consists of many series, each of which contains
different alloying elements.[1] The difference in the alloying elements that make up this aluminum alloy causes it to
have different characteristics in each series. The larger the aluminum alloy series, the stronger and harder or brittle
the aluminum; conversely, if the aluminum alloy series, the characteristics are more ductile. As this study focuses on
the 5052, 6061, and 7075 series, the 5052 series will be more ductile than the 6061 and 7075 series, whereas the
7075 series has stronger, harder, and heavier characteristics. When viewed from the alloying elements, the 5052
series contains magnesium, which dominates more than the other alloying elements. Because the nature of
magnesium itself is light and ductile, the presence of magnesium in aluminum alloy 5052 makes the series more
ductile and light. In the 6061 series, the dominant alloying elements are magnesium and silicon, almost the same as
in the 5052 series, which is also composed of magnesium. The 6061 series is also lightweight, but compared to the
5055 series, the 6061 series is stronger. In 7075 series aluminum, zinc (Zn) makes 7075 series aluminum harder,
stronger, and heavier. In addition to the different characteristics, the price of each aluminum series is also different.
The larger the aluminum series, the more expensive it is.
 Given that the radiation process is performed through several stages, each stage affects the final result of the
anodizing process. Each stage must be performed optimally to produce a good anodizing product. In short, the
anodizing process involves opening aluminum pores as a form of coloring preparation, as coloring is performed by
inserting color particles into the aluminum pores.[2] Because the anodizing process involves a chemical reaction, the
duration of the immersion of the specimen in a chemical solution greatly affects the continuity of the anodization.
The use of a strong acid solution as electrolyte speeds up the aluminum oxidation process.[3] The oxidation reaction
experienced by aluminum is the process of opening aluminum pores or the formation of Al2O3. Because of its large
influence on the continuity of the anodizing process, it is necessary to explore deeper by experimenting with how the
effect of the duration of immersion during the anodizing process on the thickness of the anodizing layer results.
Where each series has different alloys, resulting in different material characteristics. This needs to be explored more
deeply about how each aluminum alloy responds to an anodizing treatment. It is hoped that the appropriate and
optimal anodizing treatment for different materials can be identified by knowing the thickness of the anodizing
results for each type of aluminum alloy material.[4]

METHOD

The experimental method used in this study and its implementation-required materials and equipment is as follows:
Materials Equipment
HNO3 25% Power Supply
NaOH 5% Wires
H2SO4 20% Cup (10 pieces)
Cleaner Measuring cup
DFAL Stopwatch
Aluminium 5052 10 mm x 10 mm x 10 mm (6 pieces) Latex Gloves
Aluminium 6061 10 mm x 10 mm x 10 mm (6 pieces) Plastic zipper
Aluminium 7075 10 mm x 10 mm x 10 mm (6 pieces) Scouring paper
Air
Color
Pb Plate

Experimental Procedure

Specimen Preparation
This preparatory stage includes the preparation of the tools and materials used in the research. Ensure that the
test object has dimensions that resemble the illustration to facilitate the radiation process. This study used 3 types of
materials, namely aluminum 5052, 6061, and 7075, with dimensions of 10 mm x 10 mm x 10 mm. This size is
adjusted to the maximum dimensions that can be tested by SEM. Before the object is anodized, it is necessary to
sand it to even out the surface of the test object.
In addition to the preparation of the test object, preparation was also carried out at this stage in the form of
composition testing with the XRF test to determine the constituent elements of the aluminum alloy from the series
taken in this study. This will also make it easier to determine the research output by relating the composition of the
alloy elements to the properties of the aluminum alloy in the anodizing process. In this stage, components are also
prepared to support the anodizing process, namely aluminum wire. An aluminum wire is used to clamp the test
object so that the electric current can properly propagate to the test object. Solution preparation for a series of
anodizing processes is also performed at this stage.
Anodizing Process
If the information, theory, and an overview of the implementation of the anodizing process are well understood,
and the tools and materials have been prepared, then the anodizing process will be carried out, which includes
several stages, namely Cleaning, Desmut, DFAL, Desmut, Anodizing, Dyeing, and Sealing by Rinsing (rinsing with
clean water) at each transition stage. In this study, there were variations in the treatment located at the anodizing
stage, namely, by varying the time of immersion of the test objects in the electrolyte solution into five variations: 10,
15, 20, 25, and 30 min.
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

XRF Test Results

XRF testing is used to determine the elements and oxides that make up a material. In this study, the elemental and
oxide contents of each aluminum series (5052, 6061, and 7075) and the results of the anodizing layer thickness test
were determined. The following are the results of the XRF test:

TABLE 1. Percentage of the 5 Largest Elements and Oxides

Based on data from the XRF test laboratory, five types of elements and oxides were obtained with the largest
percentage of the three aluminum series. The elements comprise Al (Aluminum), Ca (Calcium), Mg (Magnesium),
Fe (Fero), and P (Phosphor). While oxides are the five elements after combining with the element O (Oxygen) so the
5 kinds of oxides with the largest percentage are Al2O3, CaO, MgO, Fe2O3, and P2O5. Similar to the literature review
regarding the influence of elements on the characteristics of Aluminum. So, it is important to know what percentage
of each element will be the comparative data on the thickness of the anodizing layer.[5]

SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) Test Results

The SEM testing was conducted at the Energy and Environment Laboratory, Research Center, Sepuluh
Nopember Institute of Technology, Surabaya. Based on the surface appearance of the raw material from each
aluminum series, morphologically or visually it can be seen that aluminum 5052 has a more fibrous or rougher
surface compared to aluminum 6061 and aluminum 7075. This can be influenced because the larger the aluminum
series, the harder the mechanical properties.[6] The harder the mechanical properties, the smoother the surface of the
test object, regardless of the treatment applied during the surface cutting or smoothing process. The anodizing
treatment will form an oxide layer of aluminum, which then forms pores too. This will cause the aluminum surface
that has been anodized to look rougher, with holes, or to form bumps.[7]

FIGURE 1. SEM Test Results of Raw Materials Surface (a) Aluminum 5052, (b) Aluminum 6061, and (c) Aluminum 7075
 TABLE 2. SEM Test Result of Anodizing Layer Thickness

SEM Test Result of Anodizing Layer Thickness

Aluminum 5052 Aluminum 6062 Aluminum 7075

Notes: (a) 10 minutes, (b) 15 minutes, (c) 20 minutes, (d) 25 minutes, (e) 30 minutes

FIGURE 2. SEM Test Results for Anodizing Coating Thickness

Effects of Aluminium Elements and Oxides

FIGURE 3. The Correlation of Aluminium Element and Oxide to Maximum Anodizing Layer Thickness
 Based on the graph and the data regression test above, it can be stated that the percentage of Al does not affect the
maximum thickness of the anodizing layer as evidenced by the small R square percentage of 33.4%. Meanwhile,
from the correlation data of Al oxide and maximum thickness, it was found that the greater the Al or Al2O3 oxide
contained in an aluminum material, the greater the thickness of the maximum anodizing result that could be
achieved.

Effects of Calcium Elements and Oxides

FIGURE 4. The Correlation of Calcium Element and Oxide to Maximum Anodizing Layer Thickness

Based on the correlation graph of the percentage of Ca elements to the maximum thickness of the anodizing
layer, the results of the linear regression test show a value of 88.5%, which means that the data has a high validation
value. So it can be stated that the greater the element Ca contained, the smaller the maximum thickness of the
anodizing layer that can be produced in an aluminum series.[8] Based on the correlation data of the percentage of Ca
or CaO oxide on the maximum thickness of the anodizing layer, the data validation value obtained based on the
linear regression test was 90.1%. Thus, the greater the Ca oxide, the smaller the maximum thickness of the resulting
anodizing layer.

Effects of Magnesium Elements and Oxides

FIGURE 5. The Correlation of Magnesium Element and Oxide to Maximum Anodizing Layer Thickness

Based on the linear regression test regarding the correlation data of the percentage of Mg elements on the
maximum thickness of the anodizing layer, the results of a small R square were only 5.2%. Judging from the
correlation data of the percentage of Mg or MgO oxide on the maximum thickness of the anodizing layer, the
Rsquare results obtained from the linear regression test were 91.6%. This means that the data is valid, and the
statement that the greater the MgO contained in aluminum, the greater the maximum thickness of the anodizing
layer that can be produced is true.

Effects of Ferro Elements and Oxides

FIGURE 6. The Correlation of Ferro Element and Oxide to Maximum Anodizing Layer Thickness

Based on the correlation graph of the percentage of Fe elements to the maximum thickness of the anodizing layer,
the results of the linear regression test show a value of 98.3%, which means that the data has a high validation value.
So it can be stated that the element Fe affects the maximum thickness of the anodizing layer that can be achieved
from an aluminum material. The greater the Fe content, the smaller the maximum thickness of the anodizing layer
that can be produced in an aluminum series. Based on the linear regression test regarding the correlation data of the
percentage of Fe oxide on the maximum thickness of the anodizing layer, the small R square results were only 27%.
This means, the data can be said to be invalid. The amount of Fe oxide does not have a significant effect on the
maximum thickness of the anodizing layer.

Effects of Phosphor Elements and Oxides

FIGURE 7. The Correlation of Phosphor Element and Oxide to Maximum Anodizing Layer Thickness

Based on the graph and the data regression test above, it can be stated that the percentage of P elements affects the
maximum thickness of the anodizing layer but is not too significant as evidenced by the percentage of R square
which is 60.6%. The regression test regarding the correlation of P-Oxide and the maximum thickness of the
anodizing layer results in a figure of 56.2%. So that the P oxide does not have a major influence on the maximum
thickness of the anodizing layer of each aluminum series.
 Megger Test Result

FIGURE 8. The Correlation of Resistance Value with Maximum Thickness

Based on the Megger test results table above, the thicker the anodizing layer results, the greater the resistance will
be. Aluminum 5052 has the most minor resistance due to anodizing for 25 min because it produces the thinnest
anodizing layer, which is 3.444 μm with a resistance value of 0.444 GΩ. Meanwhile, when the thickness of the
anodized aluminum layer is at its peak, the amount of resistance also increases. This also happens to aluminum 6061
and 7075, whereas the thickness of the anodizing layer increases, the opposition also increases. So it can be
concluded that the thicker the oxide layer, the stronger the insulating properties.

CONCLUSION

Based on the research that has been done, namely the anodizing process of 3 different types of aluminum series,
namely Aluminum 5052, 6061, and 7075 with time variations of 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 minutes, the output data is
obtained in the form of varying anodizing layer thicknesses. The first data regarding the effect of time on the
thickness of the anodized aluminum 5052 layer, the value of the anodized layer thickness showed an increase in 10 -
20 minutes and then decreased again. For aluminum 6061, when it is anodized for 10-20 minutes it also shows an
increase in thickness and then decreases again. The latest data regarding the thickness of the anodized aluminum
7075 layer shows a graph with an upward trend and there is no saturation point From these three data, it is
understood that the response of each aluminum series to anodizing treatment is different. This is because the
elements and oxides contained in each aluminum series are different. The element that has the greatest impact is the
element Al itself. The purer the aluminum or the greater the percentage of Al elements, the more reactive an
aluminum is in forming an oxide layer or the thicker the oxide layer resulting from the anodizing process. Other
elements and oxides that influence are Ca, Mg, Fe, and P, but their significance is not as great as that of Al because
the percentage of these alloying elements is relatively small. Furthermore, from the Megger Test, it was found that
the thicker the anodizing layer, the higher the resistance value or the more insulating it is. This is because the formed
oxide layer blocks the flow of electricity so that the material is insulating, whereas the raw aluminum material was
originally conductive.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this research cannot be separated from the role of many parties. The author would like to
thank Mrs. Atria Pradityana and Mr. Muhammad Lukman Hakim as supervisors who helped during this final project
research. The author's gratitude also goes to family and friends who have supported them until the end.

REFERENCES

1. Caing, “Pengaruh Titanium Pada Karakteristik Aluminium Alloy,” pp. 10–47, 2009.
2. D. Masruri, “Seminar Nasional-XVIII Rekayasa dan Aplikasi Teknik Mesin di Industri Kampus ITENAS-
Bandung,” pp. 1–7, 2019.
3. R. Nurendra and R. H. Rahmanto, “Analisis Pengaruh Kuat Arus Listrik Dan Waktu Proses Anodizing Pada
Outer Tube Front Fork Model Xy Terhadap Ketebalan Lapisan,” J. Ilm. Tek. Mesin, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 36–40,
2018, [Online]. Available: https://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/jmpm/article/view/5355.
4. A. Z. Arifin, “Pengaruh Variasi Konsentrasi Larutan Asam Sulfat (H2So4) Pada Proses Anodizing Dengan
Bahan Alumunium Seri 1Xxx,” J. Mesin Sains Terap., vol. 06, pp. 01–74, 2016.
5. S. Cahyo, “Pengaruh Variasi Waktu Anodizing Terhadap Struktur Permukaan, Ketebalan Lapisan Oksida Dan
Kekerasan Aluminium 1xxx,” pp. 1–12, 2016, [Online]. Available: https://www.ptonline.com/articles/how-to-
get-better-mfi-results.
6. A. dan D. D. R. Muhammad Alief Rizal Romadhoni1, “Analisa Pengaruh Perubahan Rapat Arus terhadap
Pembentukan Passive Layer Al 2 O 3 pada Proses Hard Anodizing Material QQA-250/4, AMS 4037,” vol. 6,
no. 2, pp. 277–282, 2017.
7. A. Adhiksana, M. Irwan, and A. Sulasih, “Hidrolisis Sekam Padi Menjadi Asam Oksalat,” pp. 4–6, 2017.
8. I. Tsamroh, A. Suprapto, and P. Eka Setyawan, “Optimasi Parameter Anodizing pada Aluminium 6061 dengan
Metode Taguchi,” Semin. Nas. Teknol. Fak. Tek. Unmer Malang, pp. 113–116, 2020.