Materials Science and Engineering A289 (2000) 54 59 www.elsevier.

com/locate/msea

Aluminum alloy 6069 part II: fracture toughness of 6061-T6 and 6069-T6
F.J. MacMaster a, K.S. Chan a, S.C. Bergsma b, M.E. Kassner c,*
Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX 78224, USA Northwest Aluminum Company, The Dalles, OR 97058, USA c Department of Mechanical Engineering, Oregon State Uni6ersity, Cor6allis, OR 97331, USA
b a

Received 9 February 2000; received in revised form 27 March 2000

Abstract This work investigates the fracture toughness of a new high strength aluminum alloy AA 6069. Earlier work reports that this alloy has higher tensile and fatigue strength and corrosion properties than AA 6061. The results of this research reports that the fracture toughness of 6069-T6, similarly, is comparable or superior to that of 6061-T6 with identical ingot preparation and subsequent forming procedures. 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Aluminum alloy 6069; Fracture toughness; 6061-T6; 6069-T6

1. Introduction 6069 Alloy was developed for application in hot and cold extrusion and forging. The composition of this alloy is listed in Table 1. The alloy has favorable formability with nominal tensile properties listed in Table 2. The 6069-T6 properties after hot or cold extrusion range from about 350 to 450 MPa yield strength and 400 to 475 MPa UTS and 14 20% elongation. This represents a 10 20% increase in strength over 6061-T6 properties (although a few percent decrease in ductility is sometimes observed [1]). The strengthening over conventional 6061-T6 appears to be mostly due to increased b%% [1 3] precipitates. Chakrabarti et al. [2] characterized both the b%% phase and the Q phase in aged Al-Mg Si Cu alloys. 6069-T6 had similar b%% and Q phase morphology and dimensions [1,4], though the latter may not be important for the alloy strengthening [3]. Thus the strength of the two alloys may have identical bases, although the concentration of the precipitates may be different. Also, the concentration of the larger, non-strengthening precipitates is higher in the 6069 due to an increased concen* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-541-7377023; fax: + 1-5417372600. E-mail address: kassner@engr.orst.edu (M.E. Kassner)

tration of elements (such as Mg and Si) exceeding the solubility in Al. The mechanical properties listed in Table 2 compare Air Slip direct chill (ASDC) cast 6069 and 6061-T6. (The properties of conventional (typical non-ASDC) 6061-T6 extrusions are, of course, even lower than ASDC 6061-T6 at 310 UTS, 275 YS and 12% elongation [5].) Particular interest in fracture toughness emerged as the 6069-T6, though having better strength, had only comparable or somewhat lower ductility to 6061-T6 with similar ingot preparation and subsequent extrusion processing. This report summarizes the results of the investigation of the plane-strain fracture toughness of AA6069T6 and AA6061-T6. Standard ASTM KIC and JIC tests were performed on these alloys in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. The materials and the test methods, as well as the fracture toughness results, will be discussed. Limited fractography was performed on the fracture surfaces and used to correlate with the fracture toughness data.

2. Experimental procedure Nominal compositions of AA6069-T6 and AA6061T6 are given in Table 1. All fracture toughness testing was performed by the Southwest Research Institute,

0921-5093/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 5 0 9 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 9 1 8 - 7

F.J. MacMaster et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A289 (2000) 5459 Table 1 Alloy compositions for this study 6061a Si Fe Cu Mn Mg Cr Ti V Ga Sr Be
a

55

6069a 0.79 0.28 0.58 0.02 1.32 0.22 0.048 0.13 0.02

6069b 0.61.2 0.4 max 0.551.00 0.05 max 1.21.6 0.050.30 0.10 max 0.100.30 0.05 max

0.66 0.2 0.24 0.01 0.93 0.05 0.013 0.01 0.01

Mechanical tests, this study. Specication that includes changes accepted by The Aluminum Association as of 30 January 1997.
b

San Antonio, TX (SwRI). Two sections each of both the 6061-T6 and 6069-T6 hot extrusions were supplied to SwRI by the Northwest Aluminum Company, The Dalles, OR. Extrusions were performed by Anodizing Incorporated, Portland, OR, from NWA Air Slip direct chill (ASDC) ingot. For the 6061-T6 rectangular extrusion, the axial length of the sections was approximately 280 mm with a width of 64 mm and a thickness of 50.8 mm. The 6069-T6 circular extrusion was approximately 280 mm long with a diameter of 61 mm. 6061-T6 consisted of 1 h solution anneal at 527C followed by a water quench and 8 h age at 177C. 6069-T6 consisted of 1.5 h solution anneal followed by a water quench and 16 h age at 171C. Fracture toughness tests were performed on specimens in the L-T (L-R) orientation, as well as the T-L (R-L) orientation for both materials. Following the ASTM E399 Standard [6], this nomenclature denes the applied loading axis by the rst letter (L= longitudinal, T = transverse, R= radial) and the direction of crack advance by the second letter. Both KIC and JIC fracture
Table 2 6069-T6 and 6061-T6 tensile properties [1]

toughness tests were performed. Initially, only planestrain KIC tests were to be performed on the two aluminum alloys. However, the results obtained from the initial tests necessitated the addition of limited elastic-plastic JIC testing. Fracture testing was conducted in the Solid and Fracture Mechanics Laboratory at SwRI using a servohydraulic testing workstation. The fracture toughness test procedures used conformed to the relevant ASTM test specications for both plane-strain KIC [6] and elastic-plastic JIC fracture testing [7]. Fracture toughness testing was performed using compact-tension (C(T)) specimens, with the maximum possible size specimen extracted from the extruded alloy. Schematics of the C(T) specimens are illustrated in Ref. [8] along with a description of the orientation to the extrusions. Prior to fracture testing, the specimens were metallographically polished to a mirror nish to aid in visually measuring the crack length during precracking. Crack length was measured on both sides of the specimen with a traveling microscope mounted on precision micrometer stages capable of distinguishing crack length measurements to the nearest 0.025 mm. Precracking was performed at a load ratio of R= 0.1 and at a cyclic frequency of between 2 and 20 Hz. Load shedding was employed during precracking to insure that the crack tip was sufciently sharpened to provide suitable data during fracture testing. The load during precracking was kept below approximately 60% of the anticipated fracture load. The ratio of the initial crack length, a, to specimen width, W, was about 0.5. The fracture toughness tests were conducted at ambient temperature in air under a constant displacement rate of 3.2 10 2 mm s 1. The ASTM E399 test procedure [6] was followed for KIC testing, while the ASTM E813 test procedure was followed for JIC testing [7]. The crack mouth opening was measured using a clip gauge. The applied loads and crack mouth opening

Extrusion direction ASDC ingot 6069-T6 6061-T6 Summary of selected 6069-T6 properties of round bar, bar, and at bar hot extrusions using ASDC ingot Longitudinal Summary of selected properties for cold impact extrusions using ASDC ingot 6069-T6 6061-T6 Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal Transverse

Yield stress

UTS (MPa)

El (%)

NA NA

373 322

408 365

11.7 16.5

435

465

15

395 385 350 350

450 435 395 390

18 16 21.0 23

56

F.J. MacMaster et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A289 (2000) 5459

Fig. 1. J-resistance curves of 6069-T6 and 6061-T6 in the L-T orientation.

displacements were the primary data recorded during fracture testing. Periodic unloading was applied during J testing in order to determine the instantaneous crack length. A computer-automated data processing program developed by Fracture Technology Associates, at Bethlehem, PA, was used to analyze this load displacement data recorded during testing. The critical loads at the onset of crack extension were determined and the appropriate KQ and JQ values were evaluated on the basis of the relevant crack lengths and critical loads. Assessments were made to determine whether the tests resulted in a valid KIC or JIC fracture toughness value, based upon a number of stringent specications for specimen thickness, load ratio, and crack-front straightness listed in ASTM E399 and E813. Testing was continued until the specimens broke into two halves with the KIC tests. Testing was discontinued after the crack had extended by about 1.5 2.5 mm for the J tests. The test specimens were then fatigued to induce small amounts of crack extension for the purpose of delineating the shape and front of the stable crack when the J testing was discontinued. Optical metallography was used to characterize the fracture surfaces. The length of the nal crack was measured at nine locations equally spaced on the fracture surfaces through the thickness of the specimens. These results were used to determine the average crack length and the crack prole at the end of the J tests.

3. Results The loaddisplacement curves for the KIC tests of AA6069-T6 and AA6061-T6 exhibited small amounts of nonlinearity prior to the maximum load [8]. The amount of nonlinearity was larger in the L-T specimens than in the T-L specimens. The fracture toughness data derived from the load displacement plots are summa-

rized in Table 3. Valid plane-strain KIC results were obtained for both aluminum alloys in the T-L orientation. The KIC for AA6069-T6 is 36.5 MPa m 2, compared to 33.3 MPa m 2 for AA6061-T6. For the L-T orientation, KQ values are reported for both alloys because the fracture toughness levels are high and the thickness requirement for plane-strain fracture was not satised. Invalid plane-strain fracture toughness (KQ) results were also obtained on three of the T-L specimens. The primary reasons that these test results are invalid include: (1) insufcient specimen thickness, t, as tB 2.5 (KQ/|y)2 (where |y is the yield stress) and (2) the ratio of the maximum load, Pmax, to conditional fracture load, PQ, exceeded the required value of 1.1. Table 3 indicates that the L-T specimen exceeded both the thickness and load ratio requirements, while two of the T-L specimens exceeded the required load ratio by small amounts (: 0.9%). JIC fracture toughness tests were performed on the remaining L-T (L-R) specimens in order to meet the plane-strain requirements. Both aluminum alloys displayed nonlinear loaddisplacement behavior [8], which is indicative of crack-tip plasticity and ductile, slow-stable crack growth. The J resistance curves, shown in Fig. 1, illustrate that both materials exhibit ductile tearing and stable crack growth as the fracture resistance increases with increasing crack extension [8]. The J integral values were measured at the blunting line and are reported as JQ values in Table 3. The slope of the JR curves was determined and used to determine the tearing modulus, TR. The results of TR and KQ are also indicated in Table 3. All four J tests satised the thickness and ligament requirements for a valid planestrain test as both the specimen thickness and initial ligaments exceeded 25JQ/|y [7]. Unfortunately, the cracks in all four J test specimens exhibited an uneven crack front that violated the straight-crack requirement specied in the ASTM E813 standard [7]. As a result, all four J tests were judged to be invalid JIC test, as indicated in Table 3. The T-L specimens generally evinced very at fracture surfaces, which is consistent with the lower fracture toughness observed in these materials. The fracture surfaces for both materials in the L-R or L-T orientation exhibited multiple crack fronts and a tortuous crack prole. The fatigue crack precracks evinced a thumbnail shape that was maintained during stable crack growth in both materials. The stable crack growth region was delineated by marker bands formed during fatigue precracking and post-test fatigue, prior to nal fracture by overload. The J tests were judged to be invalid because of excessive curvature in the thumbnail crack during stable crack growth. It was examined whether the planestrain J dominance occurs in a thumbnail crack and the observed crack front unevenness (about 22% variation

F.J. MacMaster et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A289 (2000) 5459

Table 3 Fracture toughness data for AA6069-T6 and AA6061-T6 aluminum alloys Material Orientation Thickness (mm) Specimen ID KIC (MPa m2) Valid KQ (E399) KQ (E813) JQ (kJ m2) Tearing modulusd Valid (TR) Plane-strain J dominancee

6061-T6

L-T

25.3 25.3 25.3 Average 25.3 25.3 25.2 Average 21.5 21.5 21.6 Average 21.6 21.6 21.5 Average

F61e-L1 F61e-L2 F61e-L3 F61e-T1 F61e-T2 F61e-T3 F69e-L1 F69e-L2 F69e-L3 F69e-T1 F69e-T2 F69e-T3

48.7

Noa,b 44.8 48.9 46.9 Yes Nob Nob Noa,b 59.7 62.2 61.0 Yes Yes Noa 66.0 70.7 68.4 56.0 64.1 60.1 10.5 14.7 12.6 Noc Noc Yes Yes 47.4 55.5 51.9 28.8 39.5 34.2 9.1 12.5 10.8 Noc Noc Yes Yes

48.7 33.1 33.0 33.6 33.3 54.5

T-L

6069-T6

L-T (L-R)

54.5 35.8 35.1 38.7 36.5

T-L (R-L)

Crack length and thicknessB2.5 (KQ/|y)2. Pmax/PQ\1.10: F61e-L1 (1.20), F69e-L1 (1.18), F61e-T2 (1.11), F61e-T3 (1.11). c Crack front unevenness\7% of crack length (thumbnail cracks); crack extension variation from edge to center\2% of width. d TR = (E/| 2) (dJ/da), where |o = (1/2)(|y+|UTS) is the ow stress, E is Youngs modulus, and dJ/da is the linear slope of the J resistance curve. 0 e JQ/|ymyt510 for plane-strain J dominance [4].
b

57

58

F.J. MacMaster et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A289 (2000) 5459

[8]) renders the JQ measurement meaningless. Previously, Nakamura and Parks [9] examined the conditions for J dominance in thin cracked plates using three-dimensional nite-element analysis. Their results indicate that the local J (Jlocal) along a straight crack in a thin plate is not uniformly distributed along the crack front. Instead, Jlocal is highest at the center (midsection) of the thin plate and its value is larger than that of the far eld, Jfar. In contrast, Jlocal is the lowest with a value less than Jfar at the free surfaces of the specimens. A plot of the ratio of Jlocal/Jfar as a function of relative distance normalized by specimen thickness, in Fig. 2, shows a prole that is reminiscent of the shape of a thumbnail crack. The Jlocal/Jfar value differs by 30% for the surfaces and the midsection for an elastic crack, and the difference is increased to as much as 80% for an elastic-plastic crack subjected to a normalized load of J/|ymyt= 2, where my is the yield strain and t is the specimen thickness. Additional results including those for a fully plastic crack in a thin plate are given by Nakamura and Parks [9]. Based on these results, Nakamura and Parks established that plane-strain J dominance in a thin plate requires J/|ymyt 510 [9]. The initial crack front of the fatigue precrack was relatively straight. Upon loading in the J test, the midsection of the specimen is expected to sustain a higher local J compared to the two surfaces based on the 3D effect analyzed by Nakamura and Parks [9]. As a result, the crack front at the midsection is expected to extend before those portions of the crack front near the free surfaces. The consequence is more crack extension in the midthickness than near the free surfaces, leading to a thumbnail crack. On the basis of the 3D FEM results, an uneven crack front is to be expected in the J tests, even when plane-strain J dominance is satised.

The amount of crack front variation observed in the test specimens is considerably less than that expected on the basis of the Jlocal/Jfar distribution observed in the 3D FEM results [9], as shown in Fig. 2. In addition, J/|ymyt5 1.3 in the J tests performed in this study, compared to J/|ymyt5 10 required for plane-strain J dominance. The specimen thickness for the J tests in this study is more than 7.5 times larger than that required for meeting the plane-strain J dominance criterion proposed by Nakamura and Parks [9]. Based on these considerations, plane-strain J dominance occurred in the J tests of the two aluminum alloys and the JQ values should be considered valid JIC values despite the uneven crack front. Since small-scale yielding applies to the J tests, the KQ values calculated from J test results in Table 3 should also be valid KIC values and they are in agreement with the KQ values determined using the E399 test procedures. The JR curves indicate that both aluminum alloys exhibit ductile stable crack growth and the fracture resistance increases with increasing crack extension. The resistance-curve behavior might have contributed to the higher Pmax that invalidates some of the KIC tests for the T-L specimens. If ductile stable crack growth is considered, the Pmax/PQ criterion would be irrelevant and the KQ results for the T-L orientation F61e-T2, F61e-T3 tests (see Table 3) may also be considered valid KIC results and justied on the basis of the JR curves.

4. Conclusions The fracture toughness of AA6069-T6 and AA6061T6 alloys hot extruded from Air Slip direct chill (ASDC) ingot were determined by performing KIC and JIC tests. The following conclusions were reached: (1) The KIC of AA6069-T6 in the T-L (R-L) orientation is 36.5 MPa m 2 compared to 33.3 MPa m 2 for AA6061-T6 in the T-L orientation. (2) The KQ for AA6069-T6 is 54.5 MPa m 2 in the L-T (L-R) orientation compared to 48.7 MPa m 2 for AA6061-T6 in the L-T orientation. Plane-strain conditions were not met for both alloys in this orientation. (3) The J test results for both AA6069-T6 and AA6061-T6 did not meet the JIC criteria specied in ASTM 813 because of excessive crack front variation due to a thumbnail crack geometry. The test results, however, satisfy the criterion for the plane-strain J dominance criterion established by Nakamura and Parks based a 3D nite-element analysis. The J tests can be considered valid JIC tests based on the criterion proposed by Nakamura and Parks. The KQ calculated from the JQ for AA6069-T6 in the L-T (L-R) orientation is 68.4 MPa m 2 compared to 51.9 MPa m 2 for AA6061-T6 in the L-T orientation.The fracture toughness values of AA6069-T6 are higher

Fig. 2. Ratio of crack length to average crack length, a/aave, compared to ratio of local J, Jlocal, to far-eld J, Jfar, as a function relative distance from the mid-section of the test specimen. Experimental results are compared against 3D FEM results of the crack prole under plane-strain J-dominance conditions in elastic and plastic materials from Nakamura and Parks [9]. Plane-strain J-dominance criterion (J/|ymt t5 10) is met by the J-test since J/|ymyt =1.3).

F.J. MacMaster et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A289 (2000) 5459

59

than those of AA6061-T6 for both the L-T and T-L orientations.

Acknowledgements This work was supported, in part, by funding from the Oregon Joint Graduate Schools of Engineering through the Oregon Metals Initiative.

References
[1] S.C. Bergsma, M.E. Kassner, X. Li, M.A. Wall, Mater. Sci. Eng. A254 (1998) 112. [2] D.J. Chakrabarti, B. Cheong, D.E. Laughlin, in: S.K. Das (Ed.), Automotive Alloys II, TMS, Warrendale, 1998, p. 27.

[3] A. Perovic, D.D. Perovic, G.J. Weatherly, and D.J. Lloyd (to be published). [4] M.E. Kassner, Oregon State University, unpublished data, 1999. [5] J.E. Hatch (Ed.), Aluminum, ASM, Materials Park, OH, 1984. [6] E-399-90: Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials, 1998 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01, Section 3 Metals Test Methods and Analytical Procedures, West Conchohocken, PA, 1998. [7] E-813-89: Standard Test Method for JIC, A Measure of Fracture Toughness, 1995 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 0.301, Section 3 Metals Test Methods and Analytical Procedures, Philadelphia, PA, 1995. [8] F.J. McMaster and K.S. Chan, Fracture Toughness of 6061-T6 and 6069-T6 Aluminum Alloys, Southwest Research Institute Report 18-2753, San Antonio, TX, August 1999. [9] T. Nakamura, D.M. Parks, in: A.J. Rosakis, K. Ravi-Chandar, Y. Rajapukse (Eds.), Analytical, Numerical, and Experimental Aspects of Three-Dimensional Fracture Process, vol. 91, ASME, New York, 1988, p. 227.