Talk:Aluminium alloy

message: User:Georgewilliamherbert's edit summary states that ASTM doesn't cover "structural alloys" except for tubing, and that the ASTM simply resells SAE standards. Neither statements are true. Off the top of my head, I routinely specify ASTM B221 for aluminium bar for structural applications. And although standards organizations have overlapping memberships and read each other's work, they still review and publish independently.--Yannick 03:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The B211 standard states that it uses the standard ANSI H35.1 alloy numbering system, for which SAE produces the actual alloy composition and processing standards.  I don't have the full B211 standard, however.  Ref / cite within that doc which has actual alloy specs natively, and not a reference to another standard?  Georgewilliamherbert 04:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: B221, not B211. But in any case, I'm guessing the SAE standard doesn't include the material testing specs, which are key to the ASTM work. If the standards cross-link to the same composition tables, that's good; it's harmonization of standards. But it doesn't give SAE a monopoly or primacy. Why would ASTM waste their time photocopying a bunch of me-too standards?--Yannick 04:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same composition and processing / heat treatment standards, strength standards, etc.  The testing specs aren't part of the alloy's specification per se, though they are part of many uses (alloy 7075 with testing per ...).  The SAE standard is the alloy - the rest is specific use and qualification requirements, not the alloy itself.  One can do 7075 to the SAE spec without any additional testing.  Georgewilliamherbert 05:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But in many critical applications, the mechanical testing is considered an essential part of the alloy's specification. In those cases, 7075 with an ASTM spec is used, and untested materials are rejected. This is largely the raison d'etre of the ASTM specs. Some engineers for some applications use the SAE standards. Other engineers for different applications use the ASTM standards. And then there are AMS specs, EN specs, DIN, etc. Wiping out any reference to standards other than SAE is not justifiable.--Yannick 23:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I checked ASTM B211, B221 and a few others today, and they do include detailed composition tables and processing standards. They do refer to ANSI H35.1 for nomenclature, but H35.1 does not reference any SAE standards. Instead, it has a footnote stating that specific alloys are registered with the Aluminum Association. (Which, by the way, seems to sell some of those industry statistics that might solve the linkspam issue below.) I don't have as much experience with the SAE standards, but there is no doubt in my mind that (a) the ASTM aluminum alloy standards are used independently of the SAE standards, and (b) they cover many shapes other than tubing. There is nothing more "native" about the SAE standards than the ASTM standards.--Yannick 22:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASTM 

message: Ytrottier, why do you think the reference to Alcoa's aerospace alloys page is linkspam?  It's a good list of commonly used aerospace alloys... Georgewilliamherbert 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking to a vendor is fine, as long as it's not to an advertising related page.  Often vendors are the best descriptive references for something.  I'm not a WP newbie.  It's hard to do a marketing survey, as most of the details are proprietary and hard to get unless you own the aircraft...  Much of it is public, but not sufficiently enough to do a good survey.  Georgewilliamherbert 04:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Market survey, not marketing survey. You don't need to own any aircraft for that. Many industry analysts compile data from various manufacturers about their outputs, and publish the statistics. Try a good university library, if you feel it's important to talk about the relative sale volumes of various alloys. If you can't get your hands on a document you can cite, I do not encourage you to do your own market survey; that would be original research. The page you linked to was, at best, an infomercial page, and it did not substantiate your claim that these alloys are most common. At best, we can only say that these alloys are representative.--Yannick 23:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam 

message: I was under the impression that the 8000 series was solely for the Al-Li based alloys, and not just 'others' as this article suggests.  Is this right? Mike 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 8000 series is an open category, used for compositions not covered by any of the other 7. Sigmund 15:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 8000 series

message: I suggest we create separate articles for each alloying system and move all the different alloy articles, 6061, 7075 etc, into their respective alloy series page, e.g. 6xxx series, 7xxx series etc. Otherwise there would be a whole lot of duplicated text for alloys that share the same properties. Sigmund 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Worth talking about at least.  What about the other alloy designation systems (non-wrought alloys, etc)?  Georgewilliamherbert 17:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible to do the same for cast alloys, although the nomenclature is not that standardized. Maybe it's better to create articles with descriptive (ISO) nomenclature such as Al-Cu alloys, Al-Mg alloys, Al-Mg-Si alloys, etc. Then there could be two main sections, one for cast and one for wrought alloys. Sigmund 10:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move individual alloy pages to alloy series

message: This is all interesting info but I don't think it's very relevant to the article. If others do, then they can reinstate it.
 ===Most common alloys, by search engine hits===
 These alloys had the most search engine hits (Google Hits + Altavista Hits / 2). Listed is order for most to least hits. 50 different alloys were checked, the top 15 are shown. 
 the search string for google was "[alloy number] (aluminum OR aluminium) alloy", and the search string for altavista was "[alloy number] NEAR (aluminum OR aluminium) NEAR alloy".
 
 * 6061 aluminium
 * 7075 aluminium
 * 1100 aluminium
 * 6063 aluminium
 * 2024 aluminium
 * 1050 aluminium
 * 2017 aluminium
 * 5052 aluminium
 * 3003 aluminium
 * 1060 aluminium
 * 7005 aluminium
 * 2014 aluminium
 * 6005 aluminium
 * 5182 aluminium
 * 3004 aluminium
--Wizard191 (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally put that in so I could use it as a reference for the aluminium recycling page, i.g. "The top 5 aluminium alloys produced are apparently 6061, 7075, 1100, 6063, and 2024.". Do you know of any other references I can use instead? --98.214.11.170 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but I think your logic is a little flawed. Simply because a search engine or two gives the most results for x, y, z aluminium alloy doesn't mean that it's the most produced alloy. I recommend that you search for production values for aluminium alloys. --Wizard191 (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Statistically speaking (the only flaw was a sample size of two search engines) the deviations between alloy hits was enough to justify the non assertive reference I made about the top 5 alloys in the aluminium recycling page. I do see your point, and agree with you though. Where can I find an authoritative reference for the top 5 aluminium alloys produced? Apparently I'm not searching in the right places because I can't find any.--98.214.11.170 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know where you can find that information, but I just realized that this can't be reinserted because this qualifies as original research (see WP:NOR) --Wizard191 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it does qualify as original research. The problem is, if your a backyard metal caster and hobby machinist like me you don't have access to a spectroscopy machine to determine the alloy type. This makes knowing the production statistics and the properties and applications of the top alloys the next best thing for identifying scrap aluminium to melt.--98.214.11.170 (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section 

message: does anyone know what the numbers mean after the letters? I.E.  7178 HXXX  what do the x's mean?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.190.221 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The XXX are place holders.  The first X can be a 1,2,3, or 4 and designate how the material was processed to the desired property limit .  The second X designates the strength level, with 8 designating full hard, 4 being half hard, and 2 being quarter hard.  The third X designates a special practice/condition within a Hxx practice. The H is for work hardening alloys/products.  In other words, the property level desired is obtained by working the metal.  There are other tempers, including T (solution heat treated, with an array of XXX in its own right), O (full annealed), W  (solution heat treated in process), and F (in process).  This designation system is also used Magnesium Alloys.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.48.113.50 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  heat number 

message: Can somebody add info about protecting from corrosion (powder coating etc), it would be appreciated. Chendy (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrosion Protection 

message: I have a special request for the experts out there.
I'd like to be able to identify alloys so I can check scrap pieces of Aluminum in my garage for suitability for casting, anodizing, welding processes, etc.
Can anybody out there share any tips such as an acid test for the presence of copper?
Rick brade (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum. Please take your inquiry to the WP:HELP DESK. Wizard191 (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Request:  Identification methods. 

message: Link for 'refideas' was broken I corrected it and add new one with addendum.  
I also added two alloys but before adding next ones I might ask: "can I?". And to answer any "why" questions - this is because those two alloys (5754 and 7022) are quite popular in Europe. 
I'd like also to add several alloys like: 2017, 'HOKOTOL', 'GIANTAL', because they are unique and interesting (especially HOKOTOL which has 180 HB - this is 30 HB more than 7075) McDardy (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, feel free to expand the table! The only thing that would be helpful is to supply a reference for each line you add. You can do this by adding Reference information after the name of the alloy. Wizard191 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Refideas' change 

message: 6061 aluminium alloy  substantially duplicates the content of this article and could usefully be merged here for context and to reduce redundancy. Discussing the alloys at one place would give the reader a better understanding of their relative properties and uses. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest merge

message: Nothing about aluminum-silver alloys?
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/silver-undercover-super-metal/
Aluminium alloys versus types of steel
"In general, stiffer and lighter designs can be achieved with aluminium alloys than is feasible with steels. For instance, consider the bending of a thin-walled tube: the second moment of area is inversely related to the stress in the tube wall, i.e. stresses are lower for larger values. The second moment of area is proportional to the cube of the radius times the wall thickness, thus increasing the radius (and weight) by 26% will lead to a halving of the wall stress."
Not true at all.
the second moment of area is inversely related to the stress in the tube wall only when the distance (z in the link given) from the neutral axis to a point of interest is kept constant!
Therefore the conlusion thus increasing the radius (and weight) by 26% will lead to a halving of the wall stress is a false one.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%E2%80%93Bernoulli_beam_theory#Simple_or_symmetrical_bending
sigma = M * z / I = M * r / I
In the formula in the link above, z in this case is same as radius r. Therefore 26% increase of r will lead to new I = 2* old I,
but the new stress = old stress / (1.26)^2 for the same M.
In other words, it's a square relationship, not cubed one.
86.50.116.35 (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silver? 

message: One thing that's not clear is what the definition of e.g. 1350 alloy is.  Specifically, does any uniform aluminium alloy with the specified composition qualify?  Or are there additional qualifications?
By composition, 1199 alloy (99.99% pure) meets the specs for almost all of the 1xxx series, which specify only upper bounds on alloying elements.  May I therefore substitute 1199 anywhere that 1350 is called for?
This seeme wrong because comparing http://www.hmwire.com/New%20PDFs/Aluminum_1199_Information.pdf to http://www.hmwire.com/New%20PDFs/Aluminum_1350_Information.pdf, things like tensile strength differ by a significant factor.  E.g. 10 MPa yield strength for 1199-0 vs. 27.6 MPa for 1350-0.  
In all of the lists of properties I see on-line in various manufacturers' data sheets, it's not clear which properties other than composition are the guaranteed defining properties, and which are merely "typical values" for informational purposes.
Does anyone know? 23.83.37.241 (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are various alloys defined? 

message: In DPA p24 it refers to various aluminium alloys used in aerospace as AA nnnn - with the nnnn seeming to match some in this WP article. Does the "AA" just stand for "aluminium alloy" and is this usage common (or restricted to some industries) or officially sanctioned ? (DPA article refers to AA 2024/2014/5052/6061/7050/7068/7075/2219 (used in first Space Shuttle ET flown)/6063/7475. - Rod57 (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation AA nnnn 

message: I am wondering if you think a section of MnAl could be added? There is considerate research on it. And for instance MnBi has a link, however, it was completely developed as an alloy for a permanent magnet. This is not the case for MnAl (yet) Danielhedlund (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources? How about writing a stand-alone article first - doesn't have to be detailed, just sourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manganese aluminium? 

message: Notability issues. -Lemonaka‎ 12:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Plantsurfer 12:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I added 6111 to the table per its specifications on MatWeb and others. Agree with the merge. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 20:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Agree with merge Pittsburgcarlos (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[6111 aluminium alloy]] into [[Aluminium alloy#6000 series (magnesium and silicon)]]