Content uploaded by O. S. Es-Said
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by O. S. Es-Said on Mar 26, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Digital Commons@
Loyola Marymount University
and Loyola Law School
Mechanical Engineering Faculty Works Mechanical Engineering
2-1-2009
Evaluation of the Eects of Powder Coating Cure
Temperatures on the Mechanical Properties of
Aluminum Alloy Substrates
C. Maldonado
D. Diaz
J. Ranallo
R. Painter
W. Dahir
See next page for additional authors
is Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mechanical Engineering at Digital Commons@
Loyola Marymount University
and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mechanical Engineering Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Digital
Repository Citation
Maldonado, C.; Diaz, D.; Ranallo, J.; Painter, R.; Dahir, W.; Hassouna, D.; Gayer, B.; Toss, E.; Martinez, I.; Stoyanov, P.; Ogren, J.; Lee,
E. W.; Piatkowski, D.; and Es-Said, Omar S., "Evaluation of the Eects of Powder Coating Cure Temperatures on the Mechanical
Properties of Aluminum Alloy Substrates" (2009). Mechanical Engineering Faculty Works. Paper 19.
hp://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/mech_fac/19
Recommended Citation
Maldonado, C., Diaz, D., Ranallo, J., Painter, R., Dahir, W., Hassouna, D., Gayer, B., Toss, E., Martinez, I., Stoyanov, P., Ogren, J., Lee,
E.W., Piatkowski, D., Hilty, J., and Es-Said, O. S., 2009, "Evaluation of the Eects of Powder Coating Cure Temperatures on the
Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Alloy Substrates," Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, 18(1), pp. 70-78.
Authors
C. Maldonado, D. Diaz, J. Ranallo, R. Painter, W. Dahir, D. Hassouna, B. Gayer, E. Toss, I. Martinez, P.
Stoyanov, J. Ogren, E. W. Lee, D. Piatkowski, and Omar S. Es-Said
is article is available at Digital Commons@
Loyola Marymount University
and Loyola Law School: hp://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/mech_fac/19
Evaluation of the Effects of Powder Coating Cure
Temperatures on the Mechanical Properties
of Aluminum Alloy Substrates
C. Maldonado, D. Diaz, J. Ranallo, R. Painter, W. Dahir, D. Hassouna, B. Gayer, E. Toss, I. Martinez, P. Stoyanov,
J. Ogren, E.W. Lee, D. Piatkowski, J. Hilty, and O.S. Es-Said
(Submitted December 27, 2007; in revised form May 15, 2008)
The effects of curing temperature, based on new, low-temperature powder coating methods and traditional
high-temperature powder coating methods, were studied. Heat-sensitive aluminum alloys (2024-T3, 6061-
T6, and 7075-T6) were subjected to two different heat-treatment cycles, which were based on temperatures
of 121 and 204 °C. Findings indicate that although both cure temperatures achieved powder coatings
adhesion and thickness appropriate for industrial uses, the high-temperature cure treatment negatively
affected the mechanical properties.
Keywords age hardenable aluminum alloys, degradation of
mechanical properties, low-temperature cure powder
(LTCP), solvent-borne paints
1. Introduction
Powder coatings are considered for replacing conventional
solvent-borne paints in more applications as the performance of
the powders is enhanced and as environmental restrictions
become greater. Powder coatings are zero emission coatings
that are durable and fulfill the performance requirements for
most NAVAIR equipment (Ref 1,2). The curing step is critical
for the powder coating. Currently, a new powder coating
process has been developed to apply coatings to heat-sensitive
alloys at a considerably low curing temperature, 120 C.
Accordingly, typical cure temperatures range from 121 to
230 C with a cure time of up to 30 min once parts reach
temperature. When a part is cured and cooled to room
temperature, it can continue to be processed or assembled.
Powder coatings are an environmentally preferred option for
the application of corrosion protective coatings. The production
and maintenance facilities that apply coatings are the ones
under pressure from environmental regulators to reduce their
output of volatile and hazardous air pollutants; hence, they are
likely to apply powder coatings to as much of their production
as possible. The consequences of the loss of temper to the
aluminum substrate due to heating during the powder coating
cure process should be studied. Loss of temper, and the
resulting loss of strength, of the components will have a
negative effect on part performance, and strength is reduced
below design requirements (Ref 2).
The aluminum alloy samples used for this study were 2024-
T3, 6061-T6, and 7075-T6. Each of these aluminum alloys is
widely used by the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force, and
the commercial sector. These heat-sensitive alloys are used for,
but not limited to, tow tractors, portable generators, and air
conditioners that cool the cockpits of aircraft (Ref 2).
This article illustrates how much strength can be lost in the
substrates even using newer coating technologies designed to
do just that—protect the strength of the substrate. There are
undoubtedly susceptible parts processed with the higher cure
temperatures that are at risk for failure.
In this study, the objective was to perform the following:
1. Analyze the properties of each of the alloys with low-
temperature cure powder (LTCP) at 121 C for 30 min.
Also, the properties of conventional powder coatings
cured at 204 C for 12 min and the properties of the
uncoated substrate base metal will be analyzed.
2. Compare the effects of heating the aluminum alloys in a
pre-heated furnace versus placing them in a room temper-
ature furnace containing alloys that are gradually heated
with the furnace to the desired temperature.
3. Study the effect of 1, 3, and 5 cycles of low (121 C/
30 min) and high (204 C/12 min) temperature heat treat-
ments on the mechanical and electrical properties of the
three alloys.
4. Examine the interface between coating and substrate of
alloys coated with LTCP and conventional powder.
2. Feasibility Study on the 6061-T6 Alloy
Prior to fixing the limits of the LTCP and conventional
powder temperatures, a feasibility study was carried out on the
C. Maldonado, D. Diaz, J. Ranallo, R. Painter, W. Dahir,
D. Hassouna, B. Gayer, E. Toss, I. Martinez, P. Stoyanov,
J. Ogren, J. Hilty, and O.S. Es-Said, Mechanical Engineering
Department, Loyola Marymount University, 1 LMU Drive, Los
Angeles, CA 90045; E.W. Lee, Naval Air Systems Command,
Naval Air Warfare Center, Patuxent River, MD 20670-1908; and
D. Piatkowski, Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare
Center, Lakehurst, NJ 08733. Contact e-mail: oessaid@lmu.edu.
JMEPEG (2009) 18:70–78 ASM International
DOI: 10.1007/s11665-008-9256-y 1059-9495/$19.00
70—Volume 18(1) February 2009 Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
weakest alloy (6061-T6) as compared to the 2024-T3 and 7075-
T6. The purpose of this study was to generate a family of
curves that would highlight the change or degradation of
mechanical properties for the range of powder coating cure
temperatures.
Two used AM2, Al 6061-T6, aircraft landing mats were
supplied by the NAVY at Lakehurst, NJ. The mats are hollow
extrusions with a top and bottom surface supported by
stiffeners. Bars were cut from the provided panels, Fig. 1(a)
and (b). These bars were then milled into tensile samples,
Fig. 1(c). Samples were cut from the top and bottom surface
between the stiffeners. The as-received mats included a green
solvent-borne paint, Fig. 1(b), conventional coatings on the top
and bottom surfaces. Samples were thermally exposed to a test
matrix temperatures/times in an oil bath (Fig. 1c). Following
immersion in the oil bath, samples were air-cooled at room
temperature and cleaned in an alcohol bath. The coatings were
then removed using a sanding belt.
Samples were machined from the top and the bottom of the
panels for testing. Electrical conductivity measurements were
preformed using Auto Sigma 3000 conductivity tester. The
mechanical tensile properties were evaluated by using an
Instron 4505 universal testing machine. The thermal processing
test matrix is shown in Table 1. It covers the times and
temperatures of interest for conventional cure powder coatings
as well as the temperature range of interest for developmental
low temperature, cure powder coatings (Ref 1,2).
The as-received mats had different properties: a reduction of
16-20% in ultimate strength, a reduction of 18-20% in yield
strength, and an increase of 20% in conductivity (Table 2)as
compared to the reference data, of 290 MPa (42 ksi), 241 MPa
(35 ksi), and 30% IACS (Ref 3,4). The reason for the reduction
of properties is that the provided mats had been exposed to
heavy Air Force and Navy transport aircraft since the mid-
sixties in the Vietnam War (Ref 2). The mats used in this study
were randomly selected.
Samples subjected to temperatures from 120 to 210 C had
values of ultimate strength and yield strength similar to the
as-received specimens of 6061-T6 aluminum. At 210 Cat
30 min, the yield and ultimate strengths were slightly lower
than the as-received values. At temperatures above 210 C,
degradation in the mechanical properties of the alloy was
observed at time durations of 15 min or longer. The results for
the increase in conductivity and decrease in tensile properties at
the 230 C heat treatment are shown in Fig. 2(a)-(c). The top
surface exposed to the stress and exhaust gases display lower
strength as compared to the bottom surface.
It is reasonable to cure powder coatings on the 6061
aluminum alloy with temperatures ranging from 120 to 210 C
and at any time frame less than or equal to 30 min, without
degradation to the mechanical properties of the alloy. Accord-
ingly in this study, the LTCP and conventional powder methods
had the limits of 120 and 204 C.
3. Materials, Processing, and Testing
The chemical compositions for the three aluminum allows
are shown in Table 3(Ref 3). Sheets of the three aluminum
alloys—2024-T3, 6061-T6, and 7075-T6—were marked and
Fig. 1 (a) Cross-sectional view of Marine Corp AM2 mat, (b) as-received landing mat, and (c) tensile samples being removed from oil bath
Table 1 Thermal processing of 6061 AM2 mats
Temperature, °C
Time, min
5 1015202530
120 X X
150 XXXXX
160 XXXXX
170 XXXXX
180 XXXXXX
190 XXXXXX
200 XXXXXX
210 XXXXXX
220 XXXXXX
230 XXXXXX
Table 2 Average data for as-received 6061
Ultimate,
MPa (ksi)
Yield,
MPa (ksi)
Conductivity,
%IACS
Top 246.7 (35.8) 221.2 (32.1) 47.5
Bottom 259.1 (37.6) 228.8 (33.2) 47.7
Note: Each data point is an average obtained for six samples tested
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance Volume 18(1) February 2009—71
shearedinto30·60 cm (1¢·2¢) sections and sprayed using a
Corona gun with electrostatically charged powder coatings. Two
of the coated sections of each alloy were then cured in the
conventional fashion at 204 C for 12 min. Two other coated
sections were cured using the low-temperature method at 121 C
for 30 min (LTCP). These coated panels were received for testing.
A60·120 cm uncoated section of each alloy was received
and used in baseline property testing and for multiple exposure
tests (objectives 2 and 3). Each of the uncoated samples was
then cut into small rectangles (Fig. 3) and identified as one of
the following cycles for each type of aluminum alloy: 1 cycle, 3
cycles, and 5 cycles for both the low-temperature and high-
temperature heat treatments (Fig. 4).
The uncoated samples were heat treated at 121 C for
30 min or 204 C for 12 min for the different cycles.
Samples of each alloy were heat treated at 121 Cona
ceramic plate with thermocouples embedded under each sample.
The samples were placed in an unheated oven and then heated
with the oven until the alloys had reached 121 C. The alloys
were then baked for 30 min (Process A). Other samples were
placed in a pre-heated furnace in the same arrangement on a
ceramic plate as previously described. When the temperature of
the alloy reached 121 C, they were timed for 30 min and
removed (Process B). All sets of samples were air-cooled.
Samples of each alloy were also subjected to the same procedure
outlined above but at 204 C with a 12-min time bake period.
Process A indicates that the sample is placed in the furnace at
room temperature and experiences a gradual rise in temperature
until the target 121 and 204 C temperatures are reached.
Process B, on the other hand, indicates that the sample is placed
in the oven already maintained at the target temperature.
The high- and low-temperature cycles were repeated with
sets of three samples for both 3 and 5 cycles for processes A
and B.
The coated samples were not subjected to heat-treatment tests,
as they were already heat treated by the manufacturer during the
powder coating process. Conductivity was tested using a Hocking
AutoSigma 3000 electrical conductivity tester. Hardness measure-
ments were determined by using the Rockwell B scale. Tensile
testing was performed using an Instron 4505 machine.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 As-Received Alloys: Comparison Properties
A summary of the standard minimum mechanical and
electrical properties of the three alloys is shown in Table 4,
CONDUCTIVITY v. TIME at 230°C
45
46
47
48
49
50
(a)
(b)
(c)
0
Time at 230°C
Conductivity
YIELD STRENGTH (MPa) v. TIME at 230°C
145
170
195
220
245
270
295
320
Yield Strength (MPa)
145
170
195
220
245
270
295
320
Ultimate Strength (MPa)
ULTIMATE STRENGTH (MPa) v. TIME at 230°C
30 35252015
105
0
Time at 230°C
30 35252015
105
0
Time at 230°C
30 35252015
105
Top
Bottom
Top
Bottom
Top
Bottom
Fig. 2 (a) Conductivity (%IACS), (b) yield strength, and (c) ulti-
mate strength for 6061 aluminum at 230 C (time in minutes)
Table 3 Nominal chemical composition of alloys
2024-T3, 6061-T6, and 7075-T6 (Ref 2,3)
Aluminum alloy Alloying elements (typical percentages)
2024-T3 4.5 Cu, 1.5 Mg, 0.6 Mn
6061-T6 1 Mg, 0.6 Si, 0.25 Cu, 0.25 Cr
7075-T6 5.5 Zn, 2.5 Mg, 1.5 Cu, 0.3 Cr
Fig. 3 Marked rectangular samples on uncoated sheet
72—Volume 18(1) February 2009 Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
AMS-QQ-A-250 [4]. A summary of the mechanical and
electrical properties of the uncoated as-received alloys, low-
temperature cure coated alloys, and the high-temperature cure
alloys is shown in Table 5-7respectively.
For the 2024-T3, the uncoated and LTCP materials
exceeded the standard for yield strength by 14 and 10%,
respectively, while the material subjected to the conventional
(high temperature) powder coating was identical to the
standard. Tensile strength exceeded the standard value by
11% for the uncoated alloy, and approximately 7% for the
coated material. Hardness, for the as-received material in the
coated and uncoated states, was between 4 and 7% higher than
the standard AMS value. The conductivity measurements for
the as-received alloys were all within 3% of the standard. The
Uncoated Alloy Sheet
Longitudinal Samples
No heat treatment
Samples Heat Treated at
400° F/12 min
Samples Heat Treated
at 250° F/30 min
Process B
1,3,5 Cycles
Process A
1,3,5 Cycles
Process B
1,3,5 Cycles
Process A
1,3,5 Cycles
Fig. 4 Organization of uncoated samples for all three alloys heat treating and testing
Table 4 Summary of mechanical and electrical properties of alloys 2024-T3, 6061-T6, and 7075-T6 (Ref 4)
Hardness, HRB Tensile strength, MPa (ksi) Yield strength, MPa (ksi) Conductivity, %IACS Percent elongation
2024-T3 70 434 (63) 290 (42) 30 15
6061-T6 55 290 (42) 241 (35) 43 10
7075-T6 81 538 (78) 469 (68) 33 8
Table 5 Summary of properties of as-received, uncoated material alloys 2024-T3, 6061-T6, and 7075-T6
Hardness, HRB Tensile strength, MPa (ksi) Yield strength, MPa (ksi) Conductivity, %IACS Percent elongation
2024-T3 75 483 (70) 331 (48) 31 20
6061-T6 54 331 (48) 239 (34) 42 18
7075-T6 89 572 (83) 448 (65) 32 16
Table 6 Summary of properties of as-received, coated material alloys 2024-T3, 6061-T6, and 7075-T6 subjected
to low-temperature cure
Hardness, HRB Tensile strength, MPa (ksi) Yield strength, MPa (ksi) Conductivity, %IACS Percent elongation
2024-T3 75 469 (68) 317 (46) 31 20
6061-T6 54 331 (48) 255 (37) 41 18
7075-T6 89 572 (83) 503 (73) 31 15
Table 7 Summary of properties of as-received, coated material alloys 2024-T3, 6061-T6, and 7075-T6 subjected
to high-temperature cure
Hardness, HRB Tensile strength, MPa (ksi) Yield strength, MPa (ksi) Conductivity, %IACS Percent elongation
2024-T3 73 462 (67) 290 (42) 31 21
6061-T6 55 324 (77) 262 (38) 42 16
7075-T6 87 531 (77) 469 (68) 35 14
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance Volume 18(1) February 2009—73
percent elongation for the as-received materials was approxi-
mately 33% higher than the standard AMS value regardless of
the as-received condition (Table 4–7).
For the 6061-T6, the uncoated material was below the
standard AMS yield strength value by less than 2%. Both
the LTCP and conventionally coated materials exceeded the
standard for yield strength by 6 and 9%, respectively. Hardness
values for the as-received materials in all the states for 6061-T6
were within 2% of the standard AMS value. The properties of
the material subjected to the traditional (high temperature)
powder coating were equal to the standard AMS value for
hardness. The conductivity measurements for the as-received
alloys were all lower than the standard accepted values, though
all were within 3%. The percent elongation for the as-received
materials was higher than the standard AMS value regardless
of the as-received condition. The percent elongation of the
uncoated material and the LTCP condition material were
1.8 times the standard AMS value and the material subjected to
the conventional (high temperature) powder cure was 1.6 times
the standard AMS value (Table 4–7).
For the 7075-T6, the yield strength of the as-received
uncoated material was below the standard AMS value by
approximately 5%. The LTCP material exceeded the standard
value by 7%. The as-received, conventionally (high tempera-
ture) coated materials had a yield strength value equal to that of
the standard. Hardness values for the as-received materials in
the uncoated and LTCP states for 7075 T-6 were 10% higher
than the standard AMS value. The mechanical properties of the
material subjected to the traditional (high temperature) powder
coating were higher than the standard AMS value, but within
3%. The conductivity measurement for the as-received,
uncoated alloy was 3% lower than the standard AMS value.
The LTCP material showed a value 6% lower than the standard
AMS value. The conventionally (high temperature) coated
material had a conductivity 13% higher than the standard
accepted value. The percent elongation for the as-received
materials was higher than the standard AMS value regardless of
the as-received condition. The value for percent elongation of
the uncoated material was twice the standard AMS value and
the LTCP condition material was 1.9 times the standard AMS
value. The percent elongation of the material subjected to the
conventional (high temperature) powder cure was 1.8 times the
standard AMS value (Table 4–7).
4.2 Pre-Heated Furnace Versus Gradually Heated Furnace
Effects
Pre-heated furnace versus gradually heated furnace effects
on the resulting mechanical and electrical properties of the three
alloys were similar. Distinctions were not made between
samples treated in the pre-heated ovens versus those treated by
heating simultaneously with the ovens, since they differed by
less than 4%, Table 8. The results for the 6061-T6 alloy are
shown as an example of the level of similarity in the
mechanical and electrical properties between the A and B
heat-treatment methods.
4.3 Effect of Heat-Treatment Cycles
For the 2024 T-3, the as-received uncoated samples showed
a slight decrease in yield strength for the 1 cycle low-
temperature heat treatments (approximately 1%). The 3 cycle
heat treatment resulted in a reduction of 7% from the
as-received yield strength. The 5 cycle low-temperature
treatment had an increase over the 3 cycle treatment, but it
was still 2% below the as-received value. The high-temperature
heat treatment showed a 16% decrease after 1 cycle, but the 3
and 5 cycle treatments gave results higher than the as-received
material by 6 and 20%. Overall, all samples except the 1 cycle
high-temperature treatment met or exceeded the minimum
specifications (Fig. 5and 6). The ultimate strength for each of
the samples of 2024-T3 was consistently within 3% of the
as-received material. The ultimate strength obtained from each
of the samples was above the standard AMS value regardless
of the heat treatment applied (Fig. 7and 8). Hardness was
constant for the uncoated samples that were treated for 1 cycle
at the low temperature. It decreased slightly with subsequent
heat treatments at the low temperature (2% for 3 cycles and 5%
for 5 cycles) and increased moderately (approximately 4%)
after 3 cycles at the high temperature (Fig. 9and 10). Hardness
values were above the standard AMS minimum values for both
temperature treatments. The 2024-T3 was the only substrate to
increase hardness (Fig. 10) during the high-temperature heat
treatment. It should be noted that the yield strength, ultimate
strength, and hardness values all increased, which is probably
due to age hardening of the material which is in the T3 temper
(Ref 5). The conductivity for the 2024-T3 alloy in the
as-received samples exceeded the maximum standard level of
30% IACS. The material subjected to the low-temperature
heat treatment showed a differential of less than 1% from the
as-received value. The material subjected to the high-temper-
ature heat treatment demonstrated an increase in conductivity
from 5% above the as-received level for 1 cycle, up to 29%
above the as-received level for 5 cycles. After all heat
treatments at both the high and low temperatures, the conduc-
tivity was above the standard AMS value (Fig. 11 and 12).
Percent elongation for 2024-T3 increased by 1% for the 3 cycle
low-temperature heat treatment, then fell to 4% below the
as-received level. For high-temperature heat treatment, there
was an initial increase of 2% above the as-received value for
percent elongation for the 1 cycle heat treatment. The 3 and 5
cycle heat treatments showed a dramatic decrease (5 and 9%
Table 8 Properties of alloy 6061-T6 for pre-heated versus concurrent oven heating
Number of
cycles
Oven heating
method
Hardness,
HRB
Tensile strength,
MPa (ksi)
Yield strength,
MPa (ksi)
Conductivity,
%ACS
Percent
elongation
1 Pre-heated 55 331 (48) 276 (40) 44 19
Concurrent 54 331 (48) 269 (39) 44 18
3 Pre-heated 54 324 (47) 276 (40) 44 17
Concurrent 53 331 (48) 269 (39) 44 17
5 Pre-heated 52 324 (47) 276 (40) 45 17
Concurrent 54 324 (47) 269 (39) 45 17
74—Volume 18(1) February 2009 Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
210
260
310
360
410
460
510
560
610
5 cycles3 cycles1 cycleAs Received
Stress (MPa)
2024-T3
6061-T6
7075-T6
Fig. 5 Yield strength for all alloys after low heat treatments, at
120 C
210
260
310
360
410
460
510
560
610
5 cycles3 cycles1 cycleAs Received
Stress (MPa)
2024-T3
6061-T6
7075-T6
Fig. 6 Yield strength for all alloys after high heat treatments, at
205 C
Heat Treatment
210
260
310
360
410
460
510
560
610
5 cycles3 cycles1 cycleAs Received
Stress (MPa)
2024-T3
6061-T6
7075-T6
Fig. 7 Ultimate strength for all alloys after high heat treatments, at
120 C
Heat Treatment
210
260
310
360
410
460
510
560
610
5 cycles3 cycles1 cycleAs Received
Stress (MPa)
2024-T3
6061-T6
7075-T6
Fig. 8 Ultimate strength for all alloys after high heat treatments, at
205 C
Hardness for Heat Treatment at 250°F (120°C)
40
50
60
70
80
90
As Received
Heat Treatment
Hardness (HB)
2024 T-3
6061 T-6
7075 T-6
1 cycle 3 cycles 5 cycles
Fig. 9 Hardness for all alloys after low heat treatments
Hardness for Heat Treatment at 400°F (205°C)
40
50
60
70
80
90
As Received
Heat Treatment
Hardness (HB)
2024 T-3
6061 T-6
7075 T-6
1 cycle 3 cycles 5 cycles
Fig. 10 Hardness for all alloys after high heat treatments
30
35
40
45
50
Conductivity (IACS)
Conductivity for Heat Treatment at 250°F (120°C)
As Received
Heat Treatment
2024 T-3
6061 T-6
7075 T-6
1 cycle 3 cycles 5 cycles
Fig. 11 Conductivity for all alloys after low heat treatments
30
35
40
45
50
Conductivity (IACS)
Conductivity Heat Treatment at 400°F (205°C)
As Received
Heat Treatment
2024 T-3
6061 T-6
7075 T-6
1 cycle 3 cycles 5 cycles
Fig. 12 Conductivity for all alloys after high heat treatments
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance Volume 18(1) February 2009—75
respectively). The 2024-T3 was the only substrate to experience
a significant decrease in percent elongation such that the values
fell below the standard AMS value (Fig. 13 and 14).
The yield strength value for the as-received (uncoated)
samples for 6061-T6 was below the acceptable standard AMS
value of 241.2 MPa (35 ksi) for this alloy (Fig. 5and 6). For
the temperature treatments of 6061-T6, there was very little
change in yield strength, less than 7 MPa (<1 ksi), but the
treatment did bring the value above the standard AMS values.
Similar results were obtained at the higher temperature (Fig. 6).
Testing of the 6061-T6 alloy after low-temperature treatments
indicated very little change in ultimate strength, less than
7 MPa (<1 ksi) (Fig. 5). The ultimate strength for 6061-T6
decreased minimally at 5 cycles of high heat (Fig. 8). Ultimate
strengths were above the minimum standard AMS specifica-
tions for both treatment cycles. Hardness values of the
as-received samples (both coated and uncoated) exceeded
standard hardness values. Testing of the 6061-T6 alloy after
low-temperature treatments indicated very little change in
hardness (<1 HRB) (Fig. 9).
A similar trend was present for the 1 and 3 cycle high-
temperature treatments, but after 5 cycles at the high temper-
ature the hardness of the uncoated samples of 6061-T6 fell
below the minimum standard AMS value of 55 HRB (Fig. 10).
Conductivity of the 6061-T6 samples increased after 5 cycles of
low-temperature heat treatments (up 7% from the as-received
value) and showed a mild increase as the number of high-
temperature heat treatments increased (from 4% for 1 cycle to
7% at 5 cycles). Conductivity exceeded the standard AMS
value of 43% IACS after 5 cycles of the low-temperature
treatment and for all cycles of high-temperature heat treatments
(Fig. 12). Testing of the 6061-T6 alloy after low-temperature
treatments indicated very little change in elongation (<1%),
where results of high-temperature testing indicated a higher
drop (approximately 3%) (Fig. 13 and 14). The drop in percent
elongation, hardness, and ultimate strength values are consis-
tent with slight overaging.
For 7075-T6, as with 6061-T6, the yield strength of the
as-received, uncoated samples did not meet the standard AMS
value. Treating with high temperatures decreased the yield
strength significantly for the 3 (13%) and 5 cycle treatments
(24%) (Fig. 6). There was no decrease in yield strength for the
low-temperature treatments (Fig. 5).
Ultimate strength did not decrease significantly with heat
treatments during the low-temperature cure (<1%) (Fig. 7), but
the ultimate strength was compromised and fell below the
standard AMS value at the high-temperature heat treatments
(Fig. 8). Hardness did not decrease significantly (<2%)
with curing treatment at the low temperature (Fig. 9). The
hardness was compromised most prevalently after numerous
high-temperature heat treatments, where it fell below the
minimum standard AMS value after both 3 and 5 cycles
(Fig. 10). Samples subjected to low-temperature treatments
during the experimental process were within 1% of the
conductivity standards (Fig. 11). Like the as-received coated
samples, which had been subjected to a previous high-
temperature cure, the uncoated samples, which were subjected
to the high-temperature cure during experimentation, exceeded
the conductivity standards for 7075-T6 by up to 8% (Fig. 12).
Percent elongation of all as-received samples exceeded the 8%
standard AMS value. Elongation increased from 16% to about
18% for both low and high heat treatments for the 7075-T6
(Fig. 13 and 14). Similar to the 6061-T6 alloy, the drop in
strength and hardness indicates overaging since both alloys
were in the T-6 temper.
4.4 The Interface Between Coating and Substrate of Alloys
Coated with LTCP and Conventional Powder
In examining the microstructure of the coated samples, all
were found to have uniform adhesion of the powder coating.
The thickness of the coating on each substrate varied, with the
7075-T6 coating at approximately 150 lm and the 6061-T6
coating at approximately 200 lm for both conventional and
low-temperature cures as illustrated in Fig. 15.
Thickness of the powder coating on the 2024-T3 substrate
varied from 100 lm for the sample cured using the
experimental low temperature to approximately 300 lm for
the sample prepared using the traditional cure process
(Fig. 16).
Closer examination with the naked eye and the metallurgical
microscope showed a variation of thickness on each side of
each sample. This may have been caused by a difference in
temperature when the coating was applied or the wattage used
in operating the corona gun. A uniform adhesion of the powder
coating was observed for all three alloys.
5. Conclusions
1. The mechanical and electrical properties of 2024-T3,
6061-T6, and 7075-T6 were within the acceptable stan-
dard AMS values for both low-temperature cure and
high-temperature cure as-received coated plates.
2. For the uncoated samples heated in a pre-heated furnace
versus a non-preheated furnace, the mechanical and elec-
trical properties were similar (<4% difference) for all
three alloys.
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Percent Elongation (%)
Percent Elongation Heat Treatment at 250°F
(120°C)
As Received
Heat Treatment
2024 T-3
6061 T-6
7075 T-6
1 cycle 3 cycles 5 cycles
Fig. 13 Percent elongation for all alloys after low heat treatments
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Percent Elongation (%)
Percent Elongation Heat Treatment at 400°F
(205°C)
As Received
Heat Treatment
2024 T-3
6061 T-6
7075 T-6
1 cycle 3 cycles 5 cycles
Fig. 14 Percent elongation for all alloys after high heat treatments
76—Volume 18(1) February 2009 Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
3. The effect of 1, 3, and 5 cycles of low-temperature
(121 C for 30 min) heat treatment was almost negligible
on the mechanical and electrical properties of 6061-T6,
2024-T3, and 7075-T6 alloys.
4. The effect of 1, 3, and 5 cycles of high temperature 204 C
for 12 min was significant: 6061-T6 and 7075-T6 showed
overaging trends (7075-T6 showed more pronounced over-
aging) while 2024-T3 showed age hardening trends.
5. The interface between coating and substrate of alloys
coated with LTCP and conventional powder was found
to have uniform adhesion of the powder coating for all
samples, regardless of the alloy.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the National Science Foundation for
providing the RET supplement to the NSF grant #EEC-0353668
which enabled this work to be performed. Ms. Esther Bolding and
Ms. Mary Poats are the program managers. The authors would also
like to thank Ms. Jasmin Abdulla for preparing the manuscript.
Fig. 15 Coating thickness of 7075-T6 and 6061-T6: (a) 6061-T6, high-temperature cure, and (b) 7075-T6, high-temperature cure
Fig. 16 Varied coating thicknesses of 2024-T3: (a) low-temperature cure and (b) high-temperature cure
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance Volume 18(1) February 2009—77
References
1. G. Merfeld, 120 C Cure, Durable, Corrosion Protection Powder
Coatings for Temperature Sensitive Substrates, General Electric Global
Research, 2005
2. Program Progress Report #6 For Phase I Option, Advanced Nonskid
Coating System, Unpublished, 2006
3. Metals Handbook Eighth Edition, vol. 1. Properties and Selection of
Metals, American Society for Metals, Ohio, 1977, p 865
4. AMS-QQ-A-250, Aerospace Material Specifications, SAE, Warrendale,
PA, 1998
5. E.W. Lee and T. Oppenheim, et al., The Effect of Thermal Exposure on the
Electrical Conductivity and Static Mechanical Behavior of Several Age
Hardenable Aluminum Alloys, Eng. Fail. Anal. J., 2007, 14, p 1538–1549
78—Volume 18(1) February 2009 Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
