Advertisement

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 50–54 | Cite as

Use of Eddy Current Conductivity and Hardness Testing to Evaluate Heat Damage in Aluminum Alloys

  • Erik Mueller
  • Luis Carney
  • Kara Mixson
Tools and Techniques

Abstract

Aluminum alloys are heat treated to provide optimal material properties for use in a variety of applications. However, when exposed to abnormally high temperatures, an evaluation must be performed to determine if the aluminum component has been compromised. Nondestructive evaluation of aluminum alloys, by means of electrical conductivity and hardness tests, can assist in determining the condition of the part. These techniques require experience and engineering judgment to properly interpret the data produced in order to determine whether a part needs to be replaced. This article will elaborate on issues with these nondestructive techniques to help diagnose the condition of aluminum alloys exposed to high temperatures.

Keywords

Aluminum Data interpretation Eddy current Fire damage Hardness testing Heat treated Nondestructive examination 

Notes

Acknowledgments

In accordance with Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations §2635.807(b)(2), the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the National Transportation Safety Board, The US Navy, or the United States of America.

References

  1. 1.
    E.A. Starke Jr., J.T. Staley, Application of modern aluminum alloys to aircraft. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 32(2-3), 131–172 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    I.J. Polmear, M.J. Couper, Design and development of an experimental wrought aluminum alloy for use at elevated temperatures. Metall. Trans. A 19(4), 1027–1035 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.O. Speidel, Stress corrosion cracking of aluminum alloys. Metall. Trans. A 6(4), 631–653 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.T. Summers, Y. Chen, C.M. Rippe, B. Allen, A.P. Mouritz, S.W. Case, Overview of aluminum alloy mechanical properties during and after fires. Fire Sci. Rev. 4(1), 3 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    B.Y. Lattimer, J. Jabra, M. Romios, J. Lai, E. Lee, M. Setiawan, J.R. Ogren, R. Clark, T. Oppenheim, O.S. Es-Said, E.W. Lee, N. Abourialy, W.E. Frazier, J. Witters, The effect of thermal exposure on the mechanical properties of 2099-T6 die forgings, 2099-T83 extrusions, 7075-T7651 plate, 7085-T7452 die forgings, 7085-T7651 plate, and 2397-T87 plate aluminum alloys. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 15(5), 601–607 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Mueller. Relationships among the Metallurgical Condition, Hardness, and the Electrical Conductivity of Aluminum Alloys. Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, Master’s Thesis T 2010, (1967) p. 6808Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D.J. Hagemaier, Evaluation of heat damage to aluminum aircraft structures. Mater. Eval. 40(9), 962–969 (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G.A. Edwards, K. Stiller, G.L. Dunlop, M.J. Couper, The precipitation sequence in Al–Mg–Si alloys. Acta Mater. 46(11), 3893–3904 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    G.E. Dieter, in Annealing of Cold-Worked Metal, ed. by S. Rao Mechanical Metallurgy, 3rd ed., (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986), pp. 233–236Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L.C. Doan, Y. Ohmori, K. Nakai, Precipitation and dissolution reactions in a 6061 aluminum alloy. Mater. Trans. JIM 41(2), 300–305 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.A. Vandermeer, N. Hansen, Recovery kinetics of nanostructured aluminum: model and experiment. Acta Mater. 56(19), 5719–5727 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    N.K. Langhelle, J. Amdahl, Experimental and numerical analysis of aluminium columns subjected to fire. in Proceedings of the Eleventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference., June 17–22, 2001 (Stavanger, Norway), International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, (2001), pp. 406–413Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Standard Test Method for Determining Electrical Conductivity Using the Electromagnetic (Eddy Current) Method, ASTM E1004, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Standard Test Method for Rockwell and Brinell Hardness of Metallic Materials by Portable Hardness Testers, ASTM E110-14, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Standard Test Methods for Rockwell Hardness of Metallic Materials, ASTM E18, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eddy Current Inspection, Metals Handbook Ninth Edition Vol 17Nondestructive Evaluation and Quality Control, ASM International: Metals Park, OH, (1989) pp. 164-179Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    AMS 2658—Hardness and Conductivity Inspection of Wrought Aluminum Alloy Parts, AMS D Nonferrous Alloys Committee, SAE International. Warrendale, PA. (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Calero, S. Turk, Effects of thermal damage on the strength properties of 7050-T7451 and 7075-T7351 aluminium alloys, DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organisation: Victoria, Australia, (2008), DSTO-TR-2104, p. 15Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B.A. Abu-Nabah, P.B. Nagy, Iterative inversion method for eddy current profiling of near-surface residual stress in surface-treated metals. NDT&E Int. 39(8), 641–651 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Materials Laboratory DivisionNTSBWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.NAVAIR Materials Engineering, In-Service Support Center-JacksonvilleNAS JacksonvilleJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations