Weor, 65 (1981) 351 - 358 0 Elsevier Sequoia S.A.

, Lausanne -Printed

351 in the Netherlands

THE EFFECT OF MECHANICAL ON THE EROSION RESISTANCE

SURFACE AND HEAT TREATMENTS OF 6061 ALUMINUM ALLOY

JOSHUA SALIK, DONALD BUCKLEY and WILLIAM A. BRAINARD Lewis Research Center, National Aeronautics OH 44135 (U.S.A.) (Received February 28, 1980) and Space Administration, Cleveland,

Summary

The effects of both mechanical surface treatments and heat treatments on the erosion resistance of 6061 aluminum alloy were studied in order to gain a better understanding of material properties which affect erosion behavior. It was found that mechanical surface treatments have little or no effect on the erosion resistance. This is due to the formation by particle impact of a work-hardened surface layer, independent of the initial surface condition. The erosion resistance of aluminum single crystals was found to be independent of orientation, which is due to destruction of the surface microstructure and formation of a polycrystalline surface layer by the particle impact as observed by X-ray diffraction. Although on solution treatment of annealed aluminum 6061 the increase in hardness is accompanied by an increase in erosion resistance, precipitation treatment (which causes a further increase in hardness) results in a slightly lower erosion resistance.

1. Introduction

In spite of the recent interest in erosion and the numerous studies of the mechanisms involved [ 1 -151, very little work has been done dealing with material properties which affect the resistance to erosion. The most extensive study of erosion resistance of various materials has been reported by Finnie et al. [ 161. Their work covered almost exclusively pure metals, though many of them, and only briefly dealt with alloys and the effect of work hardening and heat treatment on the erosion resistance. It was found that for different pure metals the erosion resistance, defined as the reciprocal of the rate of weight loss during an erosion test, is linearly proportional to hardness. However, work hardening in aluminum, silver, copper and nickel which produced a substantial increase in hardness had no effect on the erosion resistance, and for two types of steel it was found that heat treatment, although increasing the hardness appreciably, caused a slight decrease in the erosion resistance.

352

The aluminum alloy 6061 is a common construction material because of its good strength and very good corrosion resistance [ 171. It was thus of interest to explore possible means of increasing its resistance to solid particle erosion. In the work reported in this paper, the effects of surface and heat treatments on the erosion resistance of this alloy were studied as a part of a general program aimed at gaining a better understanding of the material properties which affect erosion behavior.

2. Materials The samples, 37 mm X 25 mm X 6 mm in size, were prepared from the same stock of 6061 aluminum alloy (1.0% Mg, 0.6% Si, 0.25% Cu, 0.25% Cr). They were annealed for 3 h at 420 C before any tests were run. The solution heat treatment was carried out at 530 C for 6 h and the precipitation treatment was carried out at 178 c: for different times.

3, Experiment&

procedure

Specimens were eroded in a commercial sand-blasting apparatus using spherical glass beads with an average diameter of 15 Mm. Argon was used as the driving gas in order to minimize corrosion effects. The distance between the nozzle and the specimen was 13 mm. The erosion tests were made at normal incidence and except where otherwise stated lasted 10 min. The nozzle diameter was 1.18 mm. Although the values of several experimental parameters such as particle speed and flow rate were not measured, reproducible results were obtained with a variation not exceeding 2.5%. This was not true, however, for tests carried out with a smaller (0.46 mm in diameter) nozzle where large deviations in results were obtained. The validity of weight loss measurements can be questioned on the grounds that particle embedment in the specimen takes place [ 41. However, it has been shown in a previous study [ 151 that this phenomenon is limited to high impact velocities and is negligible at the relatively low particle speeds involved in the present study. A Vickers microhardness tester was used for the microhardness measurements. For surface roughness meas~emen~ a standard profilometer was used. Etching of the samples for metallographic purposes was done with a solution of 5% HF (48%), 10% H2S04 (concentrated) and 85% HzO.

4. Results and discussion In the first set of experiments the effect of various mechanical surface treatments on the erosion resistance was examined. Several samples of 6061

363 TABLE 1 Surface properties and erosion of 6061 alloy subjected Surface treatment Surface roughness (Pm) Annealed Cold roiled Ground Sand blasted Glass bead blasted Alundum blasted Shot peened Variable 0.76 0.37 3.68 2.29 4.06 Out of range

to various mechanicJ

treatments

Microhardness (kgf mmP2) 41 48 50 74 76 110 131

Weight loss on a 10 min erosion test (g) 0.0410 0.0418 0.0405 0.0417 0.0412 0.0414 0.0419

alloy were subjected to the surface treatments listed in Table 1, after which their surface roughness and microhardness were measured and they were erosion tested under the conditions described in Section 3. The results obtained are listed in Table 1. From these results it is clear that the erosion resistance is insensitive to the mechanical surface treatments listed. This is probably because any effect that the surface condition may have on the erosion resistance is limited to the very first stages of erosion and, after the few outermost layers have been removed, all the samples irrespective of their initial condition have an identical surface condition resulting from the impact of the eroding particles. The nature of the surface resulting from particle impact has been investigated in a previous study ] 151 where the formation of a work-hardened surface layer as a result of impact by a single large particle was detected. The same observation was made in the present study using a continuous stream of small particles. Cross sectioning of an eroded sample followed by etching revealed the existence of a work-hardened layer, which is shown in Fig. 1. It is with this work-h~dened layer that the erodant particles interact. Thus the erosion resistance is not determined by the initial or bulk hardness of the eroded specimen but rather by the hardness that its surface attains as a result of the repeated impact by the eroding particles. This was also demonstrated by the erosion behavior of aluminum single crystals. Three aluminum single-crystal samples with three different orientations, (loo), (110) and (ill), were prepared from the same stock and then erosion tested for 2 min. It might have been expected that the different atomic planes with different atomic densities and cohesive forces would give rise to different erosion resistances. However, the results listed in Table 2 clearly show that the erosion rate is the same, within experimental error, for all three orientations. This, again, is probably due to the formation of a deformed recrystallized surface layer with which the erodant particles interact and which is identical for all the three crystals. The existence of such a deformed recrystallized layer is demonstrated by the X-ray back-reflection photographs obtained from the (110) sample before and after erosion, which aluminum

Fig. 1. Cross section at the bottom of the crater formed by the erosion of annealed 6061 alloy that had been etched with a 5% HF (48%), 10% H,SC 14 (concentrated) and 85% Hz0 solution. TABLE 2 Erosion of aluminum single crystals Orientation Weight loss on a 2 min erosion test (g) 0.0120 0.0115 0.0118

000) (110) (111)

are shown in Fig. 2. It is seen that the impact of the eroding particles resulted in des~ction of the surface mi~rost~cture and tran~o~ation to a pofycrystalline surface as a result of recrystallization. The energy of the impacting particles is sufficient to bring about the recrystallization. Thus, all crystal surfaces are essentially polycrystalline and therefore give the same erosion resistance. Next, the effect of heat treatment on the erosion resistance was studied. Several samples of 6061 alloy were subjected to the heat treatments listed in Table 3. The resulting microstructures are shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen that no significant change in grain size has taken place as a result of the heat treatments. Thus, gram size is excluded as a possible reason for changes in erosion resistance. The Rockwell E test was used for hardness measurement in this case since the heat treatment resulted in a very rough surface which did not enable microhardness measurements to be made. The samples were erosion tested under the conditions described in Section 3 and the results are summarized in Table 3. The most prominent feature of the results is that, although the solution treatment which brought about a sharp increase in

(4

(b)

Fig. 2. X-ray diffraction pattern obtained from a (110) Al single crystal (a) before erosion and (b) after erosion.

TABLE 3 Hardness and erosion of 6061 alloy subjected to various heat treatments Heat treatment Annealed Solution treated Aged for 15 min Aged for 30 min Aged for 1 h Aged for 2 h Aged for 4 h Aged for 7 h Hardness (Rockwell E) 14 67 77 83 81 77 73 68 Weight loss on a 10 min erosion test (g) 0.0422 0.0326 0.0329 0.0331 0.0348 0.0361 0.0370 0.0384

hardness also resulted in a higher erosion resistance, the precipitation treatment which caused a further increase in hardness resulted in a poorer erosion resistance. Thus, although for pure metals the erosion resistance is proportional to hardness, this is not generally true for alloys. The reason for this behavior is not yet fully understood and calls for further investigation.

5. Conclusions On the basis of the results of this investigation, the following conclusions can be drawn. (1) The effect, if any, of surface mechanical treatments on the erosion resistance of 6061 aluminum alloy is limited to the very first stages and, after the outermost layers have been eroded, the impact of particles results in the formation of a surface work-hardened layer independent of the initial surface condition.

356

(c)

(4

(e)

(0

(d

(h)

Fig. 3. Microstructure of 6061 aluminum alloy: (a) annealed; (b) solution treated; (c) precipitation treated for 15 min ; (d) precipitation treated for 30 min ; (e) precipitation treated for 1 h; (f) precipitation treated for 2 h; (g) precipitation treated for 4 h; (h) precipitation treated for 7 h.

(2) The erosion resistance of aluminum single crystals is independent of orientation which is due to destruction of the surface microstructure caused by the impact of the eroding particles, resulting in surface recrystallization. (3) Although on solution treatment of aluminum 6061 the increase in hardness is accompanied by an increase in the erosion resistance, precipitation treatment results in a slightly lower erosion resistance in spite of the increase in hardness. Thus the close relationship between hardness and erosion resistance found in pure metals cannot be generalized to include alloys.

References
I. Finnie, Erosion of surfaces by solid particles, Wear, 3 (1960) 87 - 103. J. G. A. Bitter, A study of erosion phenomena, I, II, Wear, 6 (1963) 5 - 21, 169 - 190. G. L. Sheldon and I. Finnie, On the ductile behavior of nominally brittle materials during erosive cutting, J. Eng. Znd., 89 (1966) 387 - 392. J. H. Neilson and A. Gilchrist, Erosion by a stream of solid particles, Wear, 11 (1968) 111 -122. G. P. Tilly, Erosion caused by airborne particles, Wear, 14 (1969) 63 - 79. J. E. Goodwin, W. Sage and G. P. Tilly, A study of erosion by solid particles, Proc., Inst. Mech. Eng., London, Part 1, 184 (15) (1970) 279 - 292. G. P. Tilly and W. Sage, The interaction of particle and material behaviour in erosion processes, Wear, 16 (1970) 447 - 465. C. E. Smeltzer, M. E. Gulden, S. S. McElmury and W. A. Compton, Mechanisms of sand and dust erosion in gas turbine engines, Rep. RDR-1625-6, August 1970 (Solar, San Diego, CA; Contract USAAVLABS-TR-70- 36, AD-876584). G. L. Sheldon and A. Kanhere, An investigation of impingement erosion using single particles, Wear, 21 (1972) 195 - 209.

358 10 G. P. Tilly, A two stage mechanism of ductile erosion, Wear, 23 (1973) 87 - 96. 11 I. M. Hutchings and R. E. Winter, Particle erosion of ductile metals: a mechanism of material removal, Wear, 27 (1974) 121 - 128. 12 I. M. Hutchings, R. E. Winter and J. E. Field, Solid particle erosion of metals: the removal of surface material by spherical projectiles, Proc. R. Sot. London, Ser. A, 348 (1976) 379 - 392. 13 I. Finnie and D. H. McFadden, On the velocity dependence of the erosion of ductile metals by solid particles at low angles of incidence, Wear, 48 (1978) 181 - 190. 14 J. Salik and W. A. Brainard, Adhesive material transfer in the erosion of an aluminum alloy, NASA Tech. Memo. 79265, 1979. 15 W. A. Brainard and J. Salik, A scanning electron microscope study of the normal impingement erosion of ductile metals, NASA Tech. Paper E-085, 1979. 16 I. Finnie, J. Wolak and Y. Kabil, Erosion of metals by solid particles, J. Mater., 2 (1967) 682 - 700. 17 Metals Handbook, Vol. 1, American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 8th edn., 1961, p. 945.