| Literature DB >> 25243225 |
Masoumeh Dorraj1, Azmi Zakaria2, Yadollah Abdollahi1, Mansor Hashim1, Seyedehmaryam Moosavi3.
Abstract
In ZnO-based low voltage varistor, the two essential features of microstructure determining its nonlinear response are the formation Bi-enriched active grain boundaries as well as a controlled ZnO grain size by secondary spinel-type phases. Besides, the microstructure and phase composition are strongly affected by the dopant concentration during sintering process. In this study, the optimal dopant levels of Bi2O3, TiO2, and Sb2O3 to achieve maximized nonlinear electrical property (alpha) were quantified by the response surface methodology (RSM). RSM was also used to understand the significance and interaction of the factors affecting the response. Variables were determined as the molar ratio of Bi2O3, TiO2, and Sb2O3. The alpha was chosen as response in the study. The 5-level-3-factor central composite design, with 20 runs, was used to conduct the experiments by ball milling method. A quadratic model was established as a functional relationship between three independent variables and alpha. According to the results, the optimum values of Bi2O3, TiO2, and Sb2O3 were obtained 0.52, 0.50, and 0.30, respectively. Under optimal conditions the predicted alpha (9.47) was calculated using optimal coded values from the model and the theoretical value is in good agreement with the value (9.43) obtained by confirmation experiment.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25243225 PMCID: PMC4163321 DOI: 10.1155/2014/741034
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
The five-level experimental design of the three additives, Bi2O3, TiO2, and Sb2O3, as ceramic initial powders used in ZnO-based low-voltage varistor. The data was presented by coded and actual values.
| Run | Type | Coded variable | Actual variable |
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Bi2O3 | TiO2 | Sb2O3 | Actual value | Predicted value | ||
| 1 | Factorial | −1 | −1 | −1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 7.19 | 7.10 |
| 2 | Factorial | +1 | −1 | −1 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 6.62 | 5.82 |
| 3 | Factorial | −1 | +1 | −1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 4.82 | 4.55 |
| 4 | Factorial | +1 | +1 | −1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 3.45 | 3.46 |
| 5 | Factorial | −1 | −1 | +1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 6.97 | 6.42 |
| 6 | Factorial | +1 | −1 | +1 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 5.95 | 5.67 |
| 7 | Factorial | −1 | +1 | +1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 3.65 | 3.90 |
| 8 | Factorial | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 3.80 | 3.34 |
| 9 | Axial | −1.682 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 7.36 | 7.49 |
| 10 | Axial | +1.682 | 0 | 0 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 5.29 | 5.94 |
| 11 | Axial | 0 | −1.682 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 6.77 | 7.53 |
| 12 | Axial | 0 | +1.682 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 3.41 | 3.43 |
| 13 | Axial | 0 | 0 | −1.682 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 3.51 | 3.94 |
| 14 | Axial | 0 | 0 | +1.682 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 2.91 | 3.26 |
| 15 | Central | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 8.93 | 9.10 |
| 16 | Central | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 9.30 | 9.10 |
| 17 | Central | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 9.39 | 9.10 |
| 18 | Central | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 9.83 | 9.10 |
| 19 | Central | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 8.85 | 9.10 |
| 20 | Central | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 8.46 | 9.10 |
Experimental ranges and levels of the effective variables in initial ceramic powders.
| Symbol | Variable | Unit (%) | Level of variables | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1.682 | −1 | 0 | 1 | +1.682 | |||
|
| Bi2O3 | mol | 0.16 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.84 |
|
| TiO2 | mol | 0.16 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.84 |
|
| Sb2O3 | mol | 0.13 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.47 |
ANOVA of quadratic model.
| Source | Sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean square |
|
| Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 100.24 | 9 | 11.14 | 28.79 | <0.0001 | Significant |
|
| 2.89 | 1 | 2.89 | 7.47 | 0.0211 | — |
|
| 20.30 | 1 | 20.30 | 52.46 | <0.0001 | Significant |
|
| 0.55 | 1 | 0.55 | 1.41 | 0.2623 | — |
|
| 0.018 | 1 | 0.018 | 0.046 | 0.8346 | — |
|
| 0.14 | 1 | 0.14 | 0.37 | 0.5590 | — |
|
| 5.2 | 1 | 5.2 | 1.3 | 0.9715 | — |
|
| 10.30 | 1 | 10.30 | 26.62 | 0.0004 | Significant |
|
| 23.70 | 1 | 23.70 | 61.24 | <0.0001 | Significant |
|
| 54.58 | 1 | 54.58 | 141.06 | <0.0001 | Significant |
| Residual | 3.87 | 10 | 0.39 | |||
| Lack of fit | 2.72 | 5 | 0.54 | 2.35 | 0.1846 | Not significant |
| Pure error | 1.15 | 5 | 0.23 | |||
| Corrected total |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.9628 | Standard deviation | 0.62 | |||
| Adjusted | 0.9294 | Coefficient of variation % | 9.84 | |||
| Predicted | 0.7793 | PRESS | 22.98 | |||
| Adequate precision | 13.279 | |||||
Figure 1Predicted nonlinearity versus actual nonlinearity.
Figure 2Pareto chart showing the importance of the additives and their interactions on alpha.
Figure 3Three-dimensional surfaces plot: (a) effects of Bi2O3 and TiO2 on the alpha (Sb2O3 = 0.29 mol%); (b) effects of Bi2O3 and Sb2O3 on the alpha (TiO2 = 0.4 mol%); (c) effects of TiO2 and Sb2O3 on the alpha (Bi2O3 = 0.44 mol%).
The model experimental predicted and validated values of alpha at the prediction conditions.
| Bi2O3
| TiO2
| Sb2O3
| Alpha | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted condition | 0.44 | 0.4 | 0.29 | 9.47 (predicted) |
| Validated condition | 0.44 | 0.4 | 0.29 | 9.43 ± 0.42 (actual) |
Figure 4XRD patterns of the ceramic core of ZnO validated varistor made at the predicted conditions.
Figure 5The microstructure of the validated varistor morphology.
Figure 6The EDX of etched validated varistor surface.