Creep and Elevated Temperature Properties of Aluminum

1.0
1.1

Experimental Procedure
Material

Two types of aluminum alloy were supplied by Virginia Tech for the purposes of determining high temperature static and creep properties.

One type of aluminum alloy was formed via extrusion, and is referred herein as Type A. This material was supplied in the form of extruded strips of dimensions 6.60 mm, 50 mm (width) and 600 mm (length).

The other type of aluminum alloy had the same composite as Type A, but was formed by strain hardening (i.e. hot rolled) and in this report is refereed to as Type B. This material was supplied as rectangular plates of dimensions 600 mm 300 mm and two thicknesses. One plate had a thickness of 7.60 mm (referred to herein as B-Thin) and the other with a thickness of 9.90 mm (referred to herein as B-Thick).

1.2
1.2.1

Methodology
Specimen Dimensions

All specimens for high temperature tests were machined into dog-bone shaped coupons. Extruded samples (Type A) had a necked gauge section of 10 mm wide, 6 mm thick and 300 mm long. The strain-hardened aluminum specimen; B-Thin had a necked gauge section of 10 mm wide, 7.60 mm thick and 300 mm long. Specimen from sample B-Thick had a necked gauge section of 10.0 mm wide, 9.90 mm thick and 300 mm long. Figure 1 shows the dogbone shaped test specimens used in this study. The extrusion direction (for Type A) and rolling direction (for Type B) was aligned in the length-wise direction of the specimens.

Figure 1: Dog-bone specimen used for static tests.

1

1.2.2

High Temperature Static Tests

Elevated temperature static tests were performed in tension loading for temperatures ranging between 20 and 460C. The specimens were centrally heated over a 100 mm long section of the gauge region using a temperature-controllable heating device. Prior to loading in tension at a loading rate of 0.5 mm/min, the specimens were allowed to equilibrate at the set test temperature for 10 min. Figure 2 shows the experimental set-up of the high temperature tests. The ends of the specimen show dimples made by the grips of the testing machine. From the calculated stress-strain relationships, the Youngs modulus and 0.2% proof strength of the aluminum alloys were determined.

Figure 2: Experimental set-up for tensile and creep testing. 1.2.3 Creep Tests

Using the same test set-up as the elevated temperature static test shown in Figure 2, high temperature creep tests were performed at constant temperature and constant stress on the dog-bone shaped specimens. The specimens were held at the creep test temperature until they had reached thermal equilibrium, after which they were pre-loaded at a rate of 3 kN/min to the pre-determined applied creep stress. Creep tests were performed for constant stress levels ranging between 15 and 200 MPa at constant temperatures ranging from 20 to 460C for both types of aluminum alloy. The creep behavior (i.e. strain evolution as a function of time) was measured for the entire test until the specimen failed via stress rupture. For Type A specimens, the creep behaviour was measured at temperature ranges and stress levels that allowed the specimens to fail within a short period of time realistic of the duration of a fire on naval vessel (i.e. less than several hours). However, creep tests for sample B-Thick were performed in two sets: (1) constant temperature with varying applied stress and (2) constant applied stress and varying temperature. This procedure was adopted since it allows the
2

extraction of creep parameters for use in thermo-mechanical (analytical and numerical) models.

2.0
2.1
2.1.1

Results
Elevated Temperature Static Properties
Sample A: Extruded Aluminum Alloy

Figure 3 shows the tensile stress-strain curves for selected elevated temperature tests performed for sample A; i.e. the extruded aluminum alloy. For this sample, the test temperatures were varied from 25 to 430C.
300
25 C
o

250

110 C

200

202 C

Stress (MPa)

150

290 C

100

326 C

50

363 C 430 C
o

0 0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

Strain (mm/mm)

Figure 3: Stress-strain curves for sample A. The elastic moduli and 0.2% proof strength of specimens from sample A calculated for different test temperatures are shown in Figures 4 and 5. The mechanical properties decrease with increasing test temperatures. A fitting tanh function was used to mathematically fit the elastic moduli and proof strength to test temperatures using equations (1) and (2), respectively.
E (T ) = E RT E RT tanh (k (T T50% )) 2 2 (1)

0.2% (T ) =

0.2% ( RT ) 0.2% ( RT )
2

tanh (k (T T50% ))

(2)

where E (T ) and 0.2% ( RT ) are the Youngs modulus and the 0.2% proof strength at room temperature, respectively; k is a material fitting constant describing the breath of the property3

temperature dependency and T50% is the temperature at which the room temperature measured property value has dropped by 50%. These values are given for respective propertytemperature dependencies in Figures 4 and 5.
80 70 60

Elastic Modulus (GPa)

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 100 200 300

o

ERT=78.0 GPa k = 0.007207 o T50%= 373.61 C

400

500

600

Temperature ( C)

Figure 4: The effect of temperature on the Youngs modulus of the extruded sample (A).
300

250

0.2% Offset Yield Stress (MPa)

200

150

100
0.2%,RT=285.1 MPa k = 0.008444 o T50%= 283.79 C

50

0 0 100 200 300

o

400

500

600

Temparature ( C)

Figure 5: The effect of temperature on the 0.2% proof strength of the extruded sample (A).
The experimental data obtained from elevated static tests for sample A (elastic moduli and 0.2% proof strength) were compared to a tanh fitting functioning describing the Eurocode 9 data [1,2] and Langhelle and co-workers derived data for aluminum alloy 6082-T651 which is contained in an article published by Fogle et al. [3]. These results are shown in Figures 6 and 7. The degradation in elastic moduli as a function of temperature for the extruded sample is similar to that observed for 6082-T651. However, these data are significantly different from
4

observations made for 5083-H116 alloy specimens previously tested in our research facilities. The proof strength comparison (see Figure 7) of the extruded sample and 6082-T651, however, reveals significant differences in some of their mechanical properties as function of temperature.

1.0

Normalised Elastic Modulus

0.8
Aluminum Type A data

0.6
Eurocode 9 data

0.4

0.2

0.0 0 100 200 300

o

400

500

600

Temperature ( C)

Figure 6: Comparison of experimental Type A Youngs modulus data from this study to Eurocode 9-derived data for the 6082-T651 aluminum alloy [1,2].
1.0

Normalised 0.2% Offset Yield Stress

0.8

0.6

Eurocode 9 data

0.4

Aluminum Type A data

0.2

0.0 0 100 200 300

o

400

500

600

Temperature ( C)

Figure 7: Comparison of experimental proof strength data from this study to Eurocode 9derived data for the 6082-T651 aluminum alloy [1,2].

2.1.2

Sample B: Strain-Hardened (Hot-Rolled) Aluminum Alloy

Tensile stress-strain curves for sample B (both thick and thin) are shown in Figure 8. The elevated temperature static property data for sample B was collected from tests performed at temperatures in the range of 20 to 460C. The elastic moduli and 0.2% proof strength of
5

sample B-Thin and B-Thick tested are shown in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. Similar to observations made for the extruded sample, the mechanical properties (elastic modulus and 0.2% proof strength) decrease with increase in temperature. The same tanh functions used to mathematically describe the relationship between the elastic moduli or the proof strength with temperature (equations 1 & 2) were also used for this data. The rate of mechanical property (elastic modulus and proof strength) degradation with temperature for both B-Thin and BThick specimens is the same, Figure 9.
20 C
o

250
150 C 220 C
o o

200

Stress (MPa)

150

260 C

100

340 C

50
460 C
o

0 0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

Strain (mm/mm)

Figure 8: Stress-strain curves for sample B-Thin.

70 60
B Thick

Elastic Modulus (GPa)

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 100 200 300

o

B Thin

ERT=70.41 GPa k=0.005350 o T50%=285.41 C

400

500

600

Temperature ( C)

Figure 9: Effect of temperature on Youngs modulus of samples B-Thick and B-Thin.

250

0.2% Offset Yield Stress (MPa)

200

150

B-Thick

100

B-Thin

50

0.2%,RT=234 MPa

k=0.009133 o T50%=271.97 C

0 0 100 200 300

o

400

500

600

Temperature ( C)

Figure 10: Effect of temperature on 0.2% proof strength of sample-Thick and B-Thin.
The experimental data for the elastic modulus and 0.2% proof strength for the strain-hardened sample (B) are compared to that of the extruded sample (A) in Figures 11 and 12, respectively. In both cases, the mechanical properties of the extruded sample (A) are superior to those of the strain-hardened sample (B) over the entire temperature range over which elevated temperature static tests were conducted.
80 70 60
Sample A (Extruded)

Elastic Modulus (GPa)

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 100 200 300

o

Sample B (Thin)

Sample B (Thick)

400

500

600

Temperature ( C)

Figure 11: Comparison of effect of temperature on Youngs modulus of aluminum alloys A, BThin and B-Thick.

300

250

0.2% Offset Yield Stress (MPa)

Sample A (Extruded)

200

150
Sample B (Thin)

100

50

Sample B (Thick)

0 0 100 200 300

o

400

500

600

Temperature ( C)

Figure 12: Comparison of effect of temperature on 0.2% proof strength of aluminum alloys A, B-Thin and B-Thick.

2.2
2.2.1

High Temperature Creep Properties

Sample A: Extruded Aluminum Alloy

Selected creep strain curves for the extruded sample (A) at different temperature and stress
100 MPa-290 C 20 MPa-430 C 75 MPa-301 C

conditions are shown in Figure 13. The creep strain is plotted against the logarithm of time.
30 MPa-390 C

0.60
50 MPa-363 C

17.5 MPa-437 C

25 MPa-400 C 40 MPa-363 C 50 MPa-341 C

0.45

Strain (mm/mm)

0.30

0.15

0.00 1 10 100 1000 10000

Log (Time)

Figure 13: Creep curves for the extruded sample (Type A).
The rupture times were converted into Larson-Miller parameters by using the relationship:

200 MPa-200 C

15 MPa-432 C

T(log(t) + C) = LMP

(3)

where T is the absolute isothermal exposure temperature, t the exposure time in hours, and C a material constant; set at a value of 18 in this report. Figure 14 shows the variation of the
8

natural logarithm of applied stress as a function of the Larson-Miller Parameter (LMP). This relationship has been successfully demonstrated to offer a reliable means of constructing creep curves performed within and outside the test matrix; i.e. interpolation and extrapolation [4].
2.4 2.2 2.0

Log ()

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 8000

Log() = 0.32 + 9.90exp(-LMP/5488.76)

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

Larson-Miller Parameter

Figure 14: Relationship between natural logarithm of applied stress and the Larson-Miller parameter.

2.2.2

Sample B: Strain-Hardened (Hot-Rolled) Aluminum Alloy

Creep curves collected for sample B-Thick at a constant temperature of 350C under varying stress levels in the range 70 to 125 MPa are shown in Figure 15.
0.4
125 MPa

115 MPa

105 MPa

95 MPa

0.3

Creep strain

0.2

0.1

0.0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Time (s)

Figure 15: Creep curves for the Type B-Thick alloy at a constant temperature of 350C under different stress level loadings.
9

70 MPa

II ) was determined. The From the curves shown in Figure 15, the steady creep strain rate ( II ) was then plotted against the logarithm of stress at 350C, Figure natural logarithm of the ( II ) on the natural logarithm of the applied stress, ln() 16. There is a linear dependency of ln ( from which a value of n = 3.96 as contained in (II ) = A n exp(Q / RT ) is obtained from the slope.
-8

-9 ln (strain rate) = 3.96*ln () - 28.73 -10

ln (strain rate)

-11

-12

-13

-14 4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

ln ()

II ) versus ln( ) at 350C for the Type B -Thick alloy. Figure 16: Plot of ln (
In addition, the natural logarithm of the strain at time t = 0, ( 0 ) , was also plotted against the natural logarithm of the applied stress, Figure 17. The data is scattered and no mathematical expression could be used to describe this data set. The same observation was made in our previous studies wherein a different alloy 5083-H116 was investigated [5].
-3.4 -3.5 -3.6

ln (strain at zero)

-3.7 -3.8 -3.9 -4.0 -4.1 -4.2 4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

ln ()

Figure 17: Plot of ln ( 0 ) versus ln() for the extruded Type B-Thick alloy.
10

From another set of experiments, creep curves obtained at a constant stress of 70 MPa at different temperatures in the range of 350 to 420C are shown in Figure 18. Due to the limited sample size and the variability in the behaviour of the test specimens, only a limited number of creep test data sets were usable.
0.5
365 C 410 C 405 C 350 C
o o o o

Creep strain

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

400 C

0.4

Time (s)

Figure 18: Creep curves for the Type B-Thick alloy at a constant stress of 70 MPa at different temperatures.

II ) was determined. The From the curves shown in Figure 18, the steady creep strain rate ( II ) was then plotted against the inverse of the absolute test natural logarithm of the ( II ) on the inverse of temperatures, (1/T), Figure 19. There is a linear dependency of ln (
absolute test temperature (1/T). The activation energy, Q, calculated from the slope of the curve is 163 kJ/mol. By taking the natural logarithm of (II ) = A n exp(Q / RT ) , the intercept of the plot of ln(strain rate) versus ln() can be used to calculated the frequency factor, A. A value of 16.76 s-1 was determined for the parameter A.

11

-8.5 -9.0 -9.5 -10.0 -10.5 -11.0 -11.5 -12.0 -12.5 0.00148 0.00152 0.00156
-1

ln(strain rate)

ln(strain rate) = 19.5377 - 19655.3347*(1/T)

0.00160

1/T(K )

II ) versus 1/T for the Type B-Thick alloy. Figure 19: Plot of ln (
The natural logarithm of the strain at time t = 0, ( 0 ) , was also plotted against 1/T, Figure 20.
-3.0 -3.5 -4.0

ln(strain at zero)

-4.5 -5.0 -5.5 -6.0 -6.5 0.00148 0.00152 0.00156

-1

0.00160

1/T (K )

Figure 20: Plot of ln ( 0 ) versus1/T for the Type B-Thick alloy.

The data is scattered and no mathematical expression could be used to describe this data set. The same observation was made in our previous studied wherein a different ally 5083-H116 was investigated [5].

12

References
1. EN 1999:1-1, 2009, Eurocode 9 Design of Aluminum Structures Part 1-1: General Rules, British Standard. 2. EN 1999-1-2:2007, 2009, Eurocode 9 Design of Aluminum Structures Part 1-2: Structural Fire Design, British Standard. 3. Fogle, E.J., Lattimer, B.Y., Feih, S., Kandare, E., Mouritz, A.P., Case, S.W. Compression load failure of aluminum plates due to fire, Engineering Structures Journal, Submitted 2011. 4. Feih, S., Kandare, E., Lattimer, B.Y., Mouritz, A.P. Structural analysis of compression deformation and failure of aluminium in fire, Journal of Structural Engineering. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000313. 5. Feih, S., Kandare, E., Mouritz, A.P. Aluminium creep data and modelling approaches, CRC-ACS TM 10025, June 2010.

13