I

I
I
I
I
I
I
NOT !CE

Reproduction of this dorument in car bby ot+.er than naval octivites

is not atuthorized except by spec-n approval o- the Secre:ary of the Navoy
,r the Chief of Naval Operations as ~ppropr, ule. I
"The foilowing Esp,-nogre notice can oe dsregarded uniess this cLOnr0Cit
is pluinly roarked CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET. I
This document contains ,nformat~on offectim the national defen.e of the
United States within the rneon-g of the Espionage Laws, T;tle 1E, Ub.C
Sections 793 and 794. The transmissior on-*e reveloIN,-- d i~s citernts in
any mannet to on mauthorized person is p.ohibited by law.
 THIS REPORT MAY DE RELEASED OUTSIDE OF THE MILITARY Qualified requesters may obtain
DEPARTMENTS AND EXECUTIVE AGENCIES OF THE UNITED copies of this report direct
I STATES GOVERNMENT ONLY WITH PAGES NONE REMOVED free DOC

NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER

PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19112

AERONAUTICAL MATERIALS IABORATORY

REPORT NO. NAEC-AML-2083 DATE 30 Nov 1964

INVESTIGATION INTO THE ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY AND

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF ALUMINUM ALLOYS SUBJECTED
TO ELEVATED TEMPERATURE EXPOSURE

P.-)BU-M ASSIGNMENT NO. 10-40 UNDER BUREAU OF NAVAL

WEAPONS WEPTASK RRMA 02 018/200 1/R0O7 05 01

WILLIAM ALE
PROJECT ENGINEER

PREPARED BY:

ROBERT G. MAHORTER
PROJECT ENGINEER

APPROVED BY: D
+~A 4 AD
FjC.ERTHATL..
CANCAL METALINIRGY BRANCH

F. S. WILLIAMA, SUPERINTENDENT
METALLURGICAL DIVISION
 REPCRT NO. HAEC-AML-2083 I

TABLE OF CONTENTS5
PAGE
ABSTRACT 3

UITRODUCTION 4
EXVEITAL PROCEDURE 4
RNSUMf' AID AJIALSIS 5
CONCUIISIOS 5
EMOC IMATIONS 6

LIST OF TABLES

1 - Results of Test
2 - Conductivity Data for Various Aluminum Alloys

LIST OF PIATES
1 - Electrical Conductivity Measuring Technique

2 - Conductivity vs Yield Strength for Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6

3 - Conductivity vs Yield Strength for Aluminum Alloy 2024-T81
4 - Conductivity vs Yield Strength for Aluminum Alloy 2219-T81 L
5 - Conductivity vs Yield Strength for Aluminum Alloy 7075-T73
6 - Conductivity vs Yield Strength for Aluminum Alloy 2020-T6
7 - Conductivity vs Yield Strength for Aluminum Alloy 7075-T6
8 - Conductivity vs Yield Strength for Aluminum Alloy 7178-T6
9 - Conductivity vs Yield Strength for Aluminum Alloy 7002-T6
10 - Conductivity vs Yield Strength for Aluminum Alloy 7079-T6
11 - Conductivity vs Yield Strength for Aluminum Alloy 2024-T3

S- 2 I

1 EI"
Ca

_
2

- I;
 REPCIRT NO. NABC-AML-2083.R

The relationship between the electrical conductivity (as measured

by Magnatester Conductivity Meter, FIO0 Series) and strength properties

of bare aluminum alloys 7075-T6, 7075-T73, 6061-T6, 7178-T6, 7002-T6,
2024-T81, 2024-T3, 7079-T6, 2020-T6, and 2219-T81 was investigated in
an attempt to correlate conductivity with heat damage to aircraft
structural alloys.

Sr

:11
73

P 1i
 REPORT NO. NAEC-AML-2083

I. INTRODUETION

The Bureau of Naval Weapons has expressed concern over heat damage
to aircraft structures in locations subject to power plant heating.
Since this heat damage occurs at temperatures below that which causes
changes in the paint surface appearance, it is necessary to use some
other parameter to assess the damage. A method which measures the
electri.cal conductivity of the alloy by means of eddy %urrenttechniques
has been suggested and is in fact being used to assess damage to
aluminum alloy 7075-T6 in the A-4 aircraft. It is the purpose of this
investigation to obtain a correlation between conductivity as measured
by the Magnatester F100 Series and strength properties of other aluminum
alloys.

II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The bare aluminum alloys used in this investigation were 7075-T6,

7075-T73, 6o61-T6, 7178-T6, 7002-T6, 2024-T81, 2024-T3, 7079-T6, 2020-T6,
2219-T81.
Tensile test specimens of the above alloys were manufactured from
available material. Most of the alloys were in the form of bare sheet
of various thicknesses. Several alloys, however, were available only as
plate from which round tensile specimens were machined. The form of the
test specimens used for each alloy is given with the results in Table 1.
For each alloy,-the test specimens all had the same orientation with
relation to the rolling direction.

Conductivity and hardness measurements were made on each material

in the as-received condition. The test specimens were then exposed for
various times at temperatures of 400*F, 500 0 F, and 600*F. Conductivity
and hardness measurements were then made on the exposed specimens.
Following this, the specimens were tensile tested at a strain rate of
approximately 0.035 in/in/min. and the 0.2% yield strength and ultimate
tensile strength were calculated.

The conductivity measurements were made using a Magnatester

Ccnductivity Meter (FlOO Series), Plate 1. The sensitivity od this
instrument was 0.3% IACS and the accuracy is within 1-1/2% of scale
reading. During calibration of the Magnatester, the standard calibration
specimens furnished with the instrument were maintained at the same
temperature as the specimens whose conductivity was to be measured, thus
eliminating a temperature induced error.

14
 REMORT 110. NAEC-AML-2083

TII. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The results obtained in this investigation are given in Table 1.

Since the yield strength is the most useful of the properties investi-
gated, it is plotted as a function of the conductivity for the various
alloys in Plates 1 to 10. Table 2 gives the value of ihe conductivity
and amount of change in the conductivity which corresponds to a 20%
loss in yield strength. The amount of change is a measure of the
ability of the Conductivity Meter to detect a loss in strength.

From the data in Table 2 and Plates 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, it is appar-

ent that no useful correlaticn between conductivity and strength proper-
ties is possible for alloys 6061-T6, 2024-T81, 2219-81, 7075-T73, and.
2C20-T6. In each cf these cases, the change in conductivity between the
original material and that which has been severely reduced in strength
proper-ties by heating is so small that it must be considered non-
reproducible.

Alloys 7075-T6, 7178-T6, 7002-T6, and 7079-T6 give useful correla-

tions between conductivity and yield strength as can be seen from
Table 2 and Plates 7, 8, 9, and 10.
WLile alloy 2024-T3, Plate ll, has a very large change in conduct-
ivity for a 20% loss in yield strength, it is improbable that a uscful
correlation can be obtained since only FLo a high conductivity is a
significant loss in strength observed and. this loss occurs over a very
small conductivity range. A lower conductivity limit could be chosen
to eliminate all damaged structures, but in view of the shape of the
curve, it could cause a replacement of a large number of structures whose
strength was not significantly reduced,

IV. CONCJSIOGNS

1. Heat damage to structures can be correlated to conductivity

readings obtained using a Magnatester Conductivity Meter (F100 Series)
for aluminum alloys 7075-T6. 7178-T6, 7002-T6, and 7079-T6.

2. A similar correlation cannot be made for aluminum alloys 6061-T6.

2024-T81, 7075-T73, 2219-T81) and 2020-T6 due to the small change in
conductivity which occurs due to heat damage.

3. The conductivity of alloy 2024-T3 can be correlated, but such a

correlation would lead to rejects of many heated but unweakened structures
along with those which had been damaged. Above a conductivity of 38%, a
high probability exists that this material has been weakened to below the
as-received strength and tests of other types should be made.

5
 REPORT NO. NAEC-AML-2083

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Magnatester Conductivity Meter (Series

FlOO) be considered for use in detect ..ng heat damage to aluminum alloys
7178-T6, 7002-T6, and 7079-T6 in addition to 7075-T6 alloy

6
 If REPORT NO. NAEC-AML-2O83

j d01coo
"
10000000
0000000
0 C'00000
0000000
0
0
00 00 0
00
0 %D r-. %,Dr-
DLnQ
'..0
a%
0CO(7

-4

0 .- io 4j It 0' 0-4. 0n
-Z -4m0 -n CJ 0' 0l -1
-n 00 tnI

M wl

Q) 9
00 ~ 0 0 00 0 0 o oo o o o o o 00

>4 r. L 0 - 4 m0 w -4a r- M -:r M-D 0V4" %1

wz 0 0
C c 4 C s 0 0rC
l r%;C
C-"
% nTMM-44mmwr --TN4 r- r %

0I

>1 LI LI i
4 L 0X
nt n0 L 0 0) n L 0 0 n M
10 0 ri W L V)0 CNc

0 0'ca.000.

0-4

Q) 0w 0 0)

TABLE
I

[ 1C3X4CO4
4 [4r%t F4 M
4 UN4D
PAG

~
1 F3 AE

O UJrM
~
 REPORT NO. NAEC-AML-2O83

4J 4J0000000 0000000 000000 0 00000 0

cdo -Iooo 0000000 aN 0 00 00 0000000

-40

40 co r- - ') n l? - ac 'roD
W)N r- n' r T % -0 IT -T Lnn % D% 0 ITc' -T

.-4NO 0000 00~'00 000L'0tf00 000000ri ' r0 0trLr00 0

IC o - %D %0 -41 M cn C C14 - T-4-- -

C4 4d' inC4Cl~if.
tnc tm L NL 4 4-

0)0

01 nt %c -a I C0 C)- D 00 % I nc c o \%D0a%0%De

o Gco D% nr ra o -% 0r r - r-w
' -r , n cor -' nC4

r4 Jz'.~'.
4

a: 0 tn n0 n0 00t nU D n00U l
C'iJ l
I4 u ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~AL
, 4 4c;c
I4.c c4 4 9c -
z~~MPAGES
~ ~ ~ ~mc ~: 1PG
l T- 2 OF mm-
3 n n mC)cnc nMc
 REPORT NO. NAEC-AML-2083

4JJ0000000 00000000
cou00000000000000

W"I 0000000 00000000

d40 0000000 00000000
> %DtMLn %D 40 -4 0 10 a

0 --* 0W M .#m- %Dm-T J- 4

~ r-
m w
0w t- - II

.41

'41

-Wo-,4 W -4 W-$4-4

0 04
o.
F04i 4C: 40 0 f
-I -4 0 4 -

top 0 00 00C0 0000000

0) 0 0 - 0 0 0 -4m.0 00 0

0 0)
rza cX
0 )Y.

O C14 0OC'4
-4 ~ C141-4

TABLE 1.
PAGE 3 OF 3 PAGES
!
REPORT NO. NAEC-AYL-2083

'CONDUCTIVITY DATA FOR VARIOUS AlUMINUM ALLOYS

Change in Conductivity, IACS Conductivity at 80%

-Alloy for 20. Loss of Yield Strength As-Received Yield Strength

S2219-T81 1 33.5

7002-T6 3.1 36.6

7178-T6 8.0 37.5

2o24-T8! 2.0 39.5

I 7075-T73 2.0 39.5

p6o61-T6 2.0 41. o

7079-T6 3.5 34.5
2024-T3 12.0 41.0

7075-T6 6.0 38.0

2020-T6 1.0 21.5

i
V

., TABLE 2

a.
 REPORT NO. MAEC-AYL-2083

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY MEASURING TECHNIQUE

PHOTO NO: CAN-364603(L)-1l-64 PLA.TE I

 REPORT NO. NAEC-AML-2083

fr

F80% OF
AS RECEIVEO
VALUE

42 I

04
!- 40

r(36

S34

IL -
V ~32

30 CONDUCTIVITY VS. YIELD STRENGTH

ALUMINUM ALLOY- 6061- T6

TABLE 1)
(FOR VARIOUS TIMES AND TDIPERATURES,
2

60
0 0 3040L 500 70 80
YIELD STRENGTH. PSI X 1000

SPLATE 2
 REPORT NO. NAEC-AHL-2083

44

AS80% OF
A RECEIVED
VALUE

.40

1 *38

S36
I..-

34

3 2

30

A
CONDUCTIVITY VS YIELD STRENGTH
28 ALLOY 2024- T81

(FOR VARIOUS TIMES AND TEMPERATURES, TABLE 1)

/0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
YIELD STRENGTH. 1000 PSI
PLATE 3

Agi-
 I I REPORT NO. NAEC-AML-2083

14
I4 4
i

38

'K36 80%9 OF''

AS RECEIVED
SA1TVALUE 8

~34

~32

AC

CONDUCTIVITY VS. YIELD STRENGTH

I 8 ALLOY 2219-T8I1
(FOR VARIOUS TIMES AND TEMPERATURES, TABLE 1)

z2 L I I I II 1 2
20 30 40 50 60
70 so
I| YIELD STRENGTIH.IOOO PSI

PLATE 4
 REPORT NO. NAEC-AML-2083 I
3

441
80% OF
42 AS RECEI VED
VA L UE
I

040

*38

S36

34

"32

30 T
CONDUCTIVITY VS. YIELD STRENGTH A"

28 ALLOY 7075-T73
(FOR VARIOUS TIMES AND TEMPERATURES, TABLE 1)

26 I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
YIELD STRENGTH,I000 PSI

PLATE 5
!I
 REPORT NO. NAEC-AML-2083

42
0 80%1 OF
AS RECEIVED
VALUE
p40

:3710
II

'320

CONDUCTIVITY VS. YIELD STRENGTH

ALLOY 7075-T6
(FOR VARIOUS TIMES AND TEMPERATURES, TABLE 1)

I I I I I I
10 20 30 40 50 70 70 80
YIELD STRENGTH, IOCO PSI
PLATE 7
11j REPORT NO. NAhU-AMiL-..-,J

I
ii
42
S~80% or
AS RECEIVED
40

-- Q 36

30

30
S

28 CONDUCTIVITY VS. YIELD STRENGTH

ALLOY 7178- T6
I-- I
(FOR
I
VARIOUS TIMES AND TEJIPERATURES,
I , TABLE 1)
I i i ,
!0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
YIELD STRENGTH. iOOO PSI
PLATE 8
 REPORT NO. NAEC-AHL-2083

40)4o 80% OF
AS RECEIVED
VALUE

-38

00

L34

33

30

CONDUCTIVITY VS. YIELD STRENGTH

ALLOY 7002- T6
!(FOR VARIOUS TIMES AND TE>tPERATURES, TABLE 1)

I I I I I
V !
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
YIELD STRENGTH.IO00 PSI
PLATE 9
 1
I REPORT NO. NAEC-AML-2083

Ii
T
T
F
F
38 8095 OF
io AS RECEI VED

336 -

i t34
'C
IJ
1 S3dzi
- I

CONDUCTIVITY VS. YIELD STRENGTH

28 ALLOY 7079-T6
J (FOR VARIOUS TIMES AND TEMPERATURES, TABLE 1)

II I I
20 30 ,,0 40 50 60 70 80
YIELO STRENGTH.1O00 PSI
P E/
 REPORT Nu. NAEC-AML-2083

AS RECEIVED
VA LUE.

iS

42

40

u38 I

K
cz

'Aj
U

30

CONDUCTIVITY VS. YIELD STRENGTH

28 ALLOY 2024 -T3
(FOR VARIOUS TIMES AND TEMPERATURES, TABLE 1)

I. 1 I I II
I0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
YIELD STRENGTH.I000 PSI

PLATE II

-.. -i Fi
.
 X b.

w Cc
RJ -.0 - -so r
4 .0 l 4C1:1 %Cccl
m 0-. 314 I0a -
L. I CC) 2.- I"4

a. - 2
-0 . C ,. V I L

ur-C' ,0c C,-

8CC1 0.L
W L--- VD * ~ u -a LI. 41 u

Zt 0 CL-- C,
. eZ a 4.4 *1.*

CC C.4 i-L. - W IOI

I- C
-t LJ . 4 -U I a. C
4 t C UA
L 44 C u5W
C-1 CU C - N I 0 - .
C
.14 -*u . 0 * 0J a... U
.-.- 03 0*C
x0 &
.co . LO4,*
0. m.to 'mI 2
* 4I 6L uI C> LO' CLt 3-C I.SC,-CL

C* S D 4m C,,
Ii CO 45 - D .
3O. 00 a. 0,0 L 0
C4 -9 L00
m c a.~ *Ii
x3 CCJ L CO

cc X- C1II 0*1

0 do-0

6.-a To U IDVC- 0

w I vi

4 t 3.10 A 0 4 cc' 3.. AU

Z L L. CD L"

&30 c. CL*-
r-0 J, '04

w. C O. .--
4'00 C .0

0.0. - II * ..- lrCI

.0 u.-. L- 3.u 0 r-
1u* u
4 .*'. 4 -L.'z

-' .-
UL'00 C. -C . e
AX C-L- .1 C I" Cm )- LL * 7 C".. U

C. CC.I. 0 5 .

u. * .0 - C', 0. *- L I C',
-.
Li)..L W3A -C3 vi0%
.-=CU0. 3
o -,-.'-0 u uo r, Z
CL L 24 0.4) .
0.~ ~~~~ .. L. -
a5 91.5
2 L
C 4 --
CD011;0. .

C 0C~o. 0 S(0 OS 0C
t' a
Z I 0.9 C 2W-'. U~ 4. 0a6 3
-4 .- 4 UL. -. 'C -4 4E0 L .C.CIU 0
Li .- 0 4. ac5 -1 LO .OL0

Ou OL 0. OD .L
I* 0-'m, ca 3 C

w.9.
V)L 4L -4 WIM .. ' 3L C4 CV4
1- 0X C3. 2D LC4 C
0- L.
CC n
'W 0 L 0 C` 40 4 , L4 EU a',- a L

4j C.)
a4 ~L - Xu Go 61
*. &4 0
C
,.
L~f
0
ec'
5. -
C
0N.~.

z c
w
40
J
*.
. C
uC
CC 0
L
-
0
-
. 4C'JL.'
"4 - "-
w a,.5 L
-
* * .-
c4'.
L
-
W.C
_
-C4
C
.
40 3
-
0%
'L

73.0- a-U aa CC.

.T .C~~~~C
.- C4 C LI& Ct D
zw 00

C. Best
1k4eiCop