[AR] Re: New Al Alloy
- From: George Herbert <george.herbert@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:44:58 -0700
Extrusion plants aren't exactly cheap, Keith...
And the mold design for closed forms (hollow tubing, etc) is nontrivial...
I am enamored of 5059 for welded structures, and some of the people here
have used it. I'm lusting after trying some friction stir welded + aged
7075-T4 -> T5.
But for most of us those are fairly silly optimizations most of the time.
I'm looking at this new alloy...
-george
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> "if I didn't have to start w/ an ingot."
>
> All you need is an extrusion plant. :-)
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > If one wants to replace 6061, look to 2095, 2199 and the like. If it
> were
> > available as tube, Al-Li could replace my existing 6061-T6 solid rocket
> tube
> > with 1/2 the wall thickness and accordingly 1/2 the weight...and a little
> > more propellant as a bonus. Even at current prices, I would make that
> trade
> > if I didn't have to start w/ an ingot.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Oct 30, 2013, at 15:34, Nathan Mogk <nm8911@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > What interested me is not the slightly higher strength, but the fact
> that it
> > was higher strength on an alloy that is specifically intended to replace
> > 6061. Whether that translates to rockets/tanks is yet to be seen on
> specific
> > properties. The release did mention wear resistance as a driving
> > requirement.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Jonathan Goff <jongoff@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Nathan,
> >>
> >> There are already several alloys with more than 16.5% higher strength
> than
> >> 6061-T6. The questions for rocket stuff is thermal conductivity,
> solidus,
> >> high temperature strength, etc. Not just raw room-temperature strength.
> For
> >> instance 7068-T6 has a yield strength of almost 100ksi (vs ~40ksi for
> 6061),
> >> and has 190ish W/m*K thermal conductivity (compared to like 160ish
> W/m*K).
> >> But it's solidus is only something like 485C (compared to 560ish C for
> >> 6061), which means its high temperature strength/creep characteristics
> are
> >> probably quite a bit worse than 6061.
> >>
> >> If this is a 6xxx series alloy with good thermal conductivity, and
> similar
> >> solidus to 6061, it might be a good replacement. Ultimately, it would be
> >> interesting to see someone do a detailed thermal analysis of a rocket
> engine
> >> using some of the various potential aluminum alloys to see which
> combination
> >> of factors really matters most. I have some hunches, but not being
> actively
> >> in the rocket world anymore I don't really have the time to investigate.
> >>
> >> Would be really interested if someone wanted to do some sort of
> simplified
> >> analysis though and publish it on aRocket though!
> >>
> >> ~Jon
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Nathan Mogk <nm8911@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Apparently Alcoa recently unveiled a new alloy for use in truck wheels
> >>> that is 16.5% stronger than 6061. This may be an interesting alloy for
> >>> rockets when they let it into the market. There wasn't any real detail
> in
> >>> the press release that I saw, and they didn't mention (and I didn't
> look up)
> >>> what heat treatment of 6061 they are comparing with.
> >>>
> >>> Here is the press release
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.asminternational.org/portal/site/www/NewsItem/?vgnextoid=3a23ccc1c26e1410VgnVCM100000621e010aRCRD
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@xxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
