Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

Creep and Elevated Temperature Properties of Aluminum

1.0 Experimental Procedure

1.1 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 Methodology

1.2.1 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 dog- bone 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.

Type B) was aligned in the length-wise direction of the specimens. Figure 1: Dog-bone specimen used

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 460°C. 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 Young’s modulus and 0.2% proof strength of the aluminum alloys were determined.

0.2% proof strength of the aluminum alloys were determined. Figure 2: Experimental set-up for tensile and

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 460°C 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

Results

2.1 Elevated Temperature Static Properties

2.1.1 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 430°C.

300 25 o C 110 o C 250 202 o C 200 290 o C
300
25
o C
110 o C
250
202
o C
200
290 o C
150
100
326
o C
50
363
o C
430 o C
0
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
Stress (MPa)

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

)

σ

0.2%

=

(

T

E

RT

2

E

RT

2

tanh k T

(

(

T

50%

))

)

=

σ

0.2%

(

RT

)

2

σ

0.2%

(

RT

)

2

tanh

(

(

k T

T

50%

 

(1)

))

(2)

where E(T ) and

σ 0.2%(RT )

are the Young’s modulus and the 0.2% proof strength at room

temperature, respectively; k is a material fitting constant describing the breath of the property-

3

is the temperature at which the room temperature measured

property value has dropped by 50%. These values are given for respective property- temperature dependencies in Figures 4 and 5.

temperature dependency and

T 50%

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 E RT =78.0 GPa k = 0.007207 10
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
E
RT =78.0 GPa
k
= 0.007207
10
T
50% = 373.61 o C
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Elastic Modulus (GPa)

Temperature ( o C)

Figure 4: The effect of temperature on the Young’s modulus of the extruded sample (A).

300 250 200 150 100 σ 0.2%,RT =285.1 MPa 50 k = 0.008444 T 50%
300
250
200
150
100
σ 0.2%,RT =285.1 MPa
50
k
= 0.008444
T
50% = 283.79 o C
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.2% Offset Yield Stress (MPa)

Temparature ( o 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 0.8 Aluminum Type A data 0.6 Eurocode 9 data 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 100
1.0
0.8
Aluminum Type A data
0.6
Eurocode 9 data
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Normalised Elastic Modulus

Temperature ( o C)

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

1.0 0.8 0.6 Eurocode 9 data Aluminum Type A data 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 100
1.0
0.8
0.6
Eurocode 9 data
Aluminum Type A data
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Normalised 0.2% Offset Yield Stress

Temperature ( o C)

Figure 7: Comparison of experimental proof strength data from this study to Eurocode 9- derived 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 460°C. 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 B- Thick specimens is the same, Figure 9.

20 o C 250 150 o C 220 o C 200 150 260 o C
20 o C
250
150 o C
220 o C
200
150
260 o C
100
340 o C
50
460 o C
0
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
Stress (MPa)

Strain (mm/mm)

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

70 60 B Thick 50 40 B Thin 30 20 E RT =70.41 GPa k=0.005350
70
60
B Thick
50
40
B Thin
30
20
E RT =70.41 GPa
k=0.005350
10
T 50% =285.41 o C
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Elastic Modulus (GPa)

Temperature ( o C)

Figure 9: Effect of temperature on Young’s modulus of samples B-Thick and B-Thin.

6

250 200 150 B-Thick B-Thin 100 σ 0.2%,RT =234 MPa 50 k=0.009133 T 50% =271.97
250
200
150
B-Thick
B-Thin
100
σ 0.2%,RT =234 MPa
50
k=0.009133
T 50% =271.97 o C
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.2% Offset Yield Stress (MPa)

Temperature ( o 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) 50 40 Sample B (Thin) 30 Sample B (Thick)
80
70
60
Sample A (Extruded)
50
40
Sample B (Thin)
30
Sample B (Thick)
20
10
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Elastic Modulus (GPa)

Temperature ( o C)

Figure 11: Comparison of effect of temperature on Young’s modulus of aluminum alloys A, B- Thin and B-Thick.

7

300 250 Sample A (Extruded) 200 150 Sample B (Thin) 100 Sample B (Thick) 50
300
250
Sample A (Extruded)
200
150
Sample B (Thin)
100
Sample B (Thick)
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.2% Offset Yield Stress (MPa)

Temperature ( o C)

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

2.2 High Temperature Creep Properties

2.2.1 Sample A: Extruded Aluminum Alloy

Selected creep strain curves for the extruded sample (A) at different temperature and stress

conditions are shown in Figure 13. The creep strain is plotted against the logarithm of time.

0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 1 10 100 1000 10000 Strain (mm/mm) 50 MPa-363 C
0.60
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
1
10
100
1000
10000
Strain (mm/mm)
50 MPa-363 C
100 MPa-290 C
20 MPa-430
75 MPa-301 C
30 MPa-390 C
17.5 MPa-437 C
40 MPa-363 C
50 MPa-341 C
25 MPa-400 C
15 MPa-432 C
200 MPa-200 C

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:

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 1.8 1.6 1.4 Log(σ) = 0.32 + 9.90exp(-LMP/5488.76) 1.2 1.0 8000 9000
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
Log(σ) = 0.32 + 9.90exp(-LMP/5488.76)
1.2
1.0
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
Log (σ)

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 350°C under varying

stress levels in the range 70 to 125 MPa are shown in Figure 15.

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Creep strain 125 MPa
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Creep strain
125 MPa
115 MPa
105 MPa
95 MPa
70 MPa

Time (s)

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

9

From the curves shown in Figure 15, the steady creep strain rate (

natural logarithm of the ( )

was determined. The

was then plotted against the logarithm of stress at 350°C, Figure

on the natural logarithm of the applied stress, ln(σ)

is obtained from the

εɺ

II

)

εɺ

II

16. There is a linear dependency of ln(

εɺ

II

)

from which a value of n = –3.96 as contained in ( slope.

εɺ

II

)

=

A

σ

n

exp( Q / RT )

-8 -9 ln (strain rate) = 3.96*ln (σ) - 28.73 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14
-8
-9
ln (strain rate) = 3.96*ln (σ) - 28.73
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
ln (strain rate)

ln (σ)

Figure 16: Plot of ln(

εɺ

II

)

versus ln(σ ) at 350°C for the Type B -Thick alloy.

, 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].

In addition, the natural logarithm of the strain at time t = 0, ( )

ε

0

-3.4 -3.5 -3.6 -3.7 -3.8 -3.9 -4.0 -4.1 -4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7
-3.4
-3.5
-3.6
-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 (strain at zero)

Figure 17: Plot of ln (

ε

0

)

ln (σ)

versus ln(σ) 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 420°C 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 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Creep strain 410
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Creep strain
410 o C
405 o C
400 o C
365 o C
350 o C

Time (s)

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

From the curves shown in Figure 18, the steady creep strain rate (

was then plotted against the inverse of the absolute test

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

, the intercept of

the plot of ln(strain rate) versus ln(σ) can be used to calculated the frequency factor, A. A

curve is 163 kJ/mol. By taking the natural logarithm of (

was determined. The

natural logarithm of the ( )

on the inverse of

εɺ

II

εɺ

II

)

)

εɺ

II

εɺ

II

)

=

A

σ

n

exp( Q / RT )

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 ln(strain rate) = 19.5377 - 19655.3347*(1/T) -12.0 -12.5
-8.5
-9.0
-9.5
-10.0
-10.5
-11.0
-11.5
ln(strain rate) = 19.5377 - 19655.3347*(1/T)
-12.0
-12.5
0.00148
0.00152
0.00156
0.00160
ln(strain rate)

Figure 19: Plot of ln(

εɺ

II

)

1/T(K -1 )

versus 1/T for the Type B-Thick alloy.

The natural logarithm of the strain at time t = 0, (

ε

0

)

, was also plotted against 1/T, Figure 20.

-3.0 -3.5 -4.0 -4.5 -5.0 -5.5 -6.0 -6.5 0.00148 0.00152 0.00156 0.00160 ln(strain at zero)
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0
-4.5
-5.0
-5.5
-6.0
-6.5
0.00148
0.00152
0.00156
0.00160
ln(strain at zero)

Figure 20: Plot of ln (

ε

0

)

1/T (K -1 )

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