Evaluation of the use of Al-Mg-Sc system alloys for wings spars in the aerospace sector

ABSTRACT

Alloys of the Al-Mg-Sc system are possible options for use in aircraft aiming to reduce structural weight and fuel consumption, due to the demand for advanced metal alloys with better properties, but at a less attractive cost. Considering the potential of these alloys, the present work aimed to evaluate the use of Scalmalloy® in one aircraft component: wings spars, and the values of desired properties for this component were discussed. The mechanical properties of these alloys were consulted in the Aleris datasheet for alloys 5024 and 5028. Consultations were made to the data in the literature, and subsequent comparisons of values of the mechanical properties and Merit Indexes: E^1/2/ρ, δy^2/3/ρ, E^1/2/Cmρ, δy^2/3/Cmρ between Scalmalloy® and the traditional alloys, using Cambridge Engineering Selector® 2019 software. It can be seen in the results indicated in Ashby diagrams and tables produced that, for wings spars, the Al-Mg-Sc AA5028-H116, produced by additive manufacturing, has the highest index E^1/2/ρ equal to 3.19 and the highest index δy^2/3/ρ equal to 25.313. However, the index E^1/2/Cmρ is equal to 0.17 and the index δy^2/3/Cmρ is equal to 1.35. Therefore, it was found that AA5028-H116 has the potential to replace the traditional alloys, despite its higher price.

Keywords:
Al-Mg-Sc system; Cambridge Engineering Selector^® 2019; Wings spars; Materials selection; Merit indexes; Scalmalloy^®

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the main aspects that make aluminum alloys so attractive as mechanical construction materials, as in structural joints that provide the means of transferring load from one structural element to another [¹], is the fact that aluminum combines with the vast majority of engineering metals as it is a component of so-called metallic alloys. Furthermore, from these combinations, it is possible to obtain technological characteristics adjusted according to the application of the final product. Some alloys are heat treatable and others use cold work as a mechanism to increase their mechanical strength [²]. Generally, a single metal alloy cannot combine all the optimal properties for each required application, so it is necessary to know the advantages and limitations of each one of them to make the best materials selection [³].

Beyond the low density, aluminum alloys have many advantages, such as relatively low melting temperature, low gas solubility (except hydrogen), good machinability and surface finish, good corrosion resistance, and good electrical conductivity. Therefore, the unique combinations of properties provided by aluminum and its alloys lead to the fact that aluminum is one of the most versatile, economical, and attractive materials for a wide range of applications [⁴] that later open precedent for the research and possible use of other advanced aluminum alloys with better possibilities for combinations of properties and manufacturing processes that set future challenges and trends.

Aluminum alloys are widely used in the aerospace industry because they have a unique combination of properties such as low density, corrosion resistance, damage tolerance, and a combination of mechanical strength and formability [⁵]. Al-Mg-Sc system alloys are developed from the 5XXX series with small additions of scandium and constitute these new aluminum alloys developed for structural applications [⁶, ⁷]. From this reality, strong competition in the aerospace industry drives the development of structures that seek to ensure maximum efficiency and minimum cost while maintaining a high level of product safety. Thus, structural efficiency is directly related to the weight of the aircraft, and consequently, the fuel consumption [⁸, ⁹]. As a result, the reduction in fuel consumption provides both a reduction in costs and a lower amount of CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere, and consequently, meets economic and environmental requirements.

The property profile of Scalmalloy^® alloys, which is the trade name for alloys composed of aluminum, magnesium, and scandium, allows a beneficial application in terms of weight and costs for high-performance structural components in aircraft because these metallic alloys have reduced density, better fatigue properties, damage tolerance, as well as adequate static performance compared to traditional 2XXX and 7XXX series alloys that are used in aerospace structures because most of these properties of the Scalmalloy^® are related to the formation of Al₃Sc precipitates that are coherent with the metallic matrix. Thus, these particles are very effective and successful in anchoring dislocations and grain boundaries by increasing the mechanical strength and promoting the stabilization of the microstructure [¹⁰, ¹¹, ¹²]. Furthermore, they have similar densities to aluminum-lithium alloys with the benefit of lower material cost [¹³]. From these characteristics, these alloys have aroused the interest of companies such as Airbus for applications in fuselages [¹⁴, ¹⁵, ¹⁶].

The engineering and design projects are based on a vast number of materials and processes to shape, join, and finish them. Thus, an aspect of the optimized design of any products or systems is to select, from this large group, the materials and processes that best meet the needs of that planning, maximizing their performance and minimizing their cost [¹⁷]. For the design of aircraft components, materials selection represents a vital role for the definition of candidate materials along with their properties in specific structural employments. It is typically executed by considering appropriate functions, objectives, constraints, and independent variables according to the components of a system at the previous design stage prior to computational analysis [¹⁸]. Many studies based on computerized selection for aircraft components using Ashby’s method for materials selection whose procedure is comprised of four different steps (translation, screening, ranking, and documentation) has been developed using, for example, in the landing gear beams among Titanium alloys [¹⁹], and in skin panels among Composite Material Handbook (CMH-17), Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS), and Preliminary Material Properties Handbook (PMP-HDBK) databases [²⁰].

Therefore, considering the potential use of these alloys in aerospace industry, the present work evaluates the use of Al-Mg-Sc system alloys in aircraft wings spars. Furthermore, this paper carries out the following steps: research of the main mechanical properties of wings spars, as well as of the mechanical properties of the Al-Mg-Sc system alloys, as well as of the traditional 2000 and 7000 aluminum alloys series used in this component; use of the Cambridge Engineering Selector^® 2019 software employing appropriate Merit Indexes for wing spars, and comparison between the values of these indexes for the Al-Mg-Sc system alloys and the values of traditional aluminum alloys.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Component choice

For the experimental procedure of this work, it was considered an aircraft component that has different characteristics and requirements for materials selection because it is subjected to different efforts during the flight. This method was used in papers [¹⁹] and [²⁰] that are based on their main functions: landing gear beams and skin panels, respectively. Thus, one structural component was chosen: the wings spars, as can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Wing structural components with spars [²¹].

2.2. Materials selection for the selected component

From the approach of the project requirements and the employ of the Merit Indexes for the wings spars, the materials selection was carried out among the aluminum alloys traditionally used in this component that were approached in the tables with the use of the Cambridge Engineering Selector^® 2019 software to generate Ashby diagrams.

2.2.1. Materials selection for wings spars

According to Table 1 below, the determining variables were established so that the project requirements were assertive.

Table 1
Materials selection project requirements for wings spars [²²].

FUNCTION	Wing spars (light and rigid beams)
OBJECTIVE	Minimize the mass m of the beam
RESTRICTIONS	Length L is specified (geometric constraint)
	Square section shape (geometric constraint)
	The beam must withstand bending loading F without suffering too much deflection, which means that the bending stiffness S is specified as S* (functional constraint)
	Property limits: maximum 2.79 g/cm3 density; and at least 400 MPa of mechanical strength, 140 MPa of fatigue strength, 340 MPa of compressive strength and 30 MPa.m1/2 of fracture toughness.
FREE VARIABLES	Choice of material
	Cross section area A

The objective function for the mass of the beam is given according to equation 1 below [²²]:

(1) $$\text{m = A L p}={\text{b}}^{\text{2}}\text{L p}$$

The bending stiffness S of the beam must be at least S* according to equation 2 below [²²]:

(2) $${\text{S = [(C}}_{\text{2}}{\text{EI)/L}}^{\text{3}}\text{]}\ge \text{S*}$$

Here, C² is a constant. Therefore, the second order moment of area, I, for a beam of the square section is according to equation 3 below [²²]:

(3) $${\text{I = (b}}^{\text{4}}{\text{)/12 = (A}}^{\text{2}}\text{)/12}$$

For a given length L, S* is adjusted by changing the size of the square section. Now, eliminating b (or A) in the objective function for the mass, it has the objective for the mass of the beam when using equations (2) and (3) in the substitution according to equation 4 below [²²]:

(4) $${\text{m = [(12S*L}}^{\text{3}}{\text{)/(C}}^{\text{2}}{\text{)]}}^{\text{1/2}}\cdot \text{(L)}\cdot {\text{(ρ/E}}^{1/2}\text{)}$$

The quantities S*, L, and C₂ are all specified or constants. Therefore, the best materials for a light and rigid beam are those with the highest values of the M-_beam index, according to equation 5 below [²²]:

(5) $${\text{M}}_{\text{light and rigid beam}}=({\text{E}}^{\text{1/2}})/\text{p}$$

When the calculation is repeated with a restriction of strength instead of stiffness, according to equation 6 below, the index is obtained [²²]:

(6) $$\begin{array}{l}{\text{M}}_{\text{light and strong beam}}=({\text{δy}}^{\text{2/3}})/\text{ρ}\\ \end{array}$$

Therefore, for wings spars, the function is light and rigid beam and the most suitable indexes are E^1/2/ρ and δy^2/3/ρ. Furthermore, the minimization of cost rather than weight is achieved by replacing density p with Cm p, where Cm is the cost per kilogram [²³].

2.3. Used materials

2.3.1. Selection of Al alloys with CES 2019

After defining the design requirements for the chosen components, in stage 1 called “Material Tree”, most of the mechanically formed aluminum alloys were considered in the selection with the CES 2019, except the 1XXX and 3XXX series alloys because these two alloys have very low mechanical strength, due to their high ductility, as shown in Figure 2 below. Then, in stage 2 called “Property Restrictions”, a subset of the remaining alloys was chosen that started the materials selection process as shown in Figure 3. Thus, it is important to highlight that these two stages were carried out before the preparation of the material selection maps among aluminum alloys with CES 2019 software.

Figure 2
Subset of total workable aluminum alloys that were initial candidates.

Figure 3
Subset of total workable aluminum alloys that were candidates after passing initial property constraints.

From this preference for the initial aluminum alloys, a total of 213 aluminum alloys were chosen to participate in the selection of the materials, which can be seen in Figure 3.

In Figure 3, for the wings spars, the following property limits were specified: a maximum of 2.79 g/cm³ of density because this level is in the range to the density of aluminum and its alloys; at least 400 MPa of mechanical strength because this value is low enough not to exclude traditional alloys like 2024-T3, and 2524-T3; 140 MPa of fatigue strength because this level is close to the smallest fatigue strength of aluminum alloy 7075-T6; 30 MPa.m^1/2 of fracture toughness because this value is similar to the smallest fracture toughness of aluminum alloy 7075-T6, and 340 MPa of compressive strength because this value is the minimum of traditional aluminum alloys that are used in wings spars. Thus, these constraints resulted in a subset of only 27 alloys that advanced to the next steps from the initial 213 aluminum alloys.

2.3.2. Selection of Al alloys from Aleris datasheet and literature

After selecting the most appropriate materials for the design requirements of this work, the mechanical properties of the Al-Mg-Sc AA 5028-H116 system alloy, which is a more promising second-generation alloy than AA 5024-H116, were consulted in the Aleris company datasheet. Furthermore, queries were made to the data of the bibliographic references that are present in Tables 2 and 3, which also include the AA 5028-H116 datasheet. From this, Merit Indexes containing the mechanical properties of AA alloy 5028-H116 were calculated and compared with Merit Indexes containing the mechanical properties of alloys, which are traditionally used in the aerospace sector, using Cambridge Engineering Selector^® 2019 software and compiled tables, to select the best materials in the evaluated component in this work according to the objectives of minimizing mass and cost.

Table 2
Values of mechanical properties required for wings spars and their respective alloys.

ALLOY	TENSILE STRENGTH (MPa)	YIELD STRENGTH (MPa)	YOUNG’S MODULUS (GPa)	ELONGATION (%)	FRACTURE TOUGHNESS k1c (MPa. m1/2) TL LT ORIENTATIONS	FATIGUE STRENGTH (MPa)	REFERENCE
AA2024-T3	427–483	289–350	73,1–73.7	10–21	33–41 36	175–180	[9, 24,25,26,27,28,29, 30,31,32,33]
AA2524-T3	420–445.4	303–340.3	68.1	19–24	40 (TL)	216	[28, 31,32,33,34]
AA7050-T7	531	430–462	71.7	7–8	29–30 31–35	138	[26,27,28, 35, 36]
AA5028-H116	575–590	525–580	70–74	10–14	35 35	400	[37,38,39,40,41,42]
AA8090-T8	515–555	450–508	77	5–8	28–30 31–35	100–150	[43,44,45]
AA8091-T6	510–555	440–495	76.4	10.2	30–32 33–37	100–150	[46]
AA2090-T8	531–617	520–586	76	5–7	28 31–44	110–220	[43, 44, 47]
AA7075-T6	490–572	420–510	70.33–71.7	5–11	24–27 27–30	150–155	[24, 26,27,28,29,30, 36, 48]
AA7475-T6	485–586	415–510	68–71.7	9–14	37–41 43–46	200–205	[49,50,51]
AA5182-H19	340–420	295–395	68–71	1–6	22 35	110–150	[52,53,54,55,56]
AA2026-T3	455–510	317.16–372	73.77	11	49.4–57.1 (LT)	200– 206.8	[57,58,59,60]
AA7075-T73	476–505	393–435	71–72	8	28.6 32	100–200	[48, 49, 61, 62]
AA7075-T76	490–534	414–460	69–72	6–8	22 35	100	[63,64,65]
AA7475-T7	462–538	490–532	69–72	9–14	33–45 52–55	200–205	[26,27,28, 35, 49]

Table 3
Corrosion resistances required in the component and their respective alloys.

COMPONENT	ALLOY	CORROSION RESISTANCE	REFERENCE
Wings Spars	AA2024-T3	Low in industrial and marine environments, except in Alclad condition.	[9, 24, 26, 28,29,30,31,32,33, 66]
		The localized one is smaller than that of the AA 2524-T3.
Wings Spars	AA7075-T6	The exfoliation and the one under stress are less than AA 7050-T7.	[24, 26, 28,29,30, 36, 48]
Wings Spars	AA2524-T3	Low in industrial and marine environments, except in Alclad condition.	[28, 31,32,33,34]
		The localized one is larger than that of AA 2024-T3.
Wings Spars	AA7475-T7	The exfoliation and the one under stress are less than AA 7050-T7.	[26,27,28,29, 35, 49]
Wings Spars	AA7050-T7	The exfoliation and the one under stress are greater than AA 7075-T6 and AA 7475-T6.	[26,27,28, 35, 36]
Wings Spars	AA 5028-H116	High strength and better than the strengths of 2XXX and 7XXX series alloys.	[13, 41, 42, 67]
Wings Spars	AA 8090-T8	Shows pitting and intergranular corrosion in acidic environments.	[68]
Wings Spars	AA 8091-T6	Shows pitting and intergranular corrosion in acidic environments.	[46]
Wings Spars	AA 2090-T83	Higher than the strengths of AA 2024-T3 and AA 7075-T6 and excellent resistance in atmospheric environment for a long time.	[69]
Wings Spars	AA 5182-H19	Excellent. Very good for wet and marine environments	[54, 56]
Wings Spars	AA 7475-T6	Same as AA 7075-T6 in atmospheric environment, exfoliation and stress corrosion.	[49]
Wings Spars	AA7075-T7351	Low under low voltage in all voltage directions. The exfoliation and the one under stress are less than AA 7050-T7.	[49, 61]
Wings Spars	AA7075-T7651	Low in stress corrosion. In general, it is good without protection in industrial environment or sea water. Resistant to exfoliation.	[63, 64]
Wings Spars	AA2026-T3	Similar to AA 2024-T3. That is, low in the industrial and maritime environments, except in the Alclad condition.	[58]
		The localized one is smaller than that of the AA 2524-T3.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Results of selection alloys by CES

3.1.1. Results for wings spars

In stage 3, by placing the line with slope 2 referring to the index for light and rigid beam ${\text{M}}_{\text{light and rigid beam}}=({\text{E}}^{\text{1/2}})/\text{p}$ in a position that includes traditional representatives such as AA 2024-T351 and AA 7075 T61510/1, 19 of the 27 alloys passed this stage as can be seen in Figure 4 below and the ellipses above this line were not highlighted because they did not pass stages 1 or 2.

Figure 4
Ashby diagram relating Young’s modulus and density of pre-selected aluminum alloys using the index ${\text{M}}_{\text{light and rigid beam}}=({\text{E}}^{\text{1/2}})/\text{p}$ as candidates to be used in wings spars.

Furthermore, in stage 3, when placing the line with slope 1.5 referring to the index for light and strong beam $\begin{array}{l}{\text{M}}_{\text{light and strong beam}}=({\text{δy}}^{\text{2/3}})/\text{ρ}\\ \end{array}$ in a position that includes traditional representatives such as AA 2024-T351 and AA 7075-T61510/1, 16 of the 19 alloys passed this index as shown in Figure 5 below and the ellipses above this line were not highlighted because they did not pass stages 1 or 2.

Figure 5
Ashby diagram relating mechanical strength and density of pre-selected aluminum alloys using the index $\begin{array}{l}{\text{M}}_{\text{light and strong beam}}=({\text{δy}}^{\text{2/3}})/\text{ρ}\\ \end{array}$ as candidates to be used in wings spars.

Another stage was generated by showing the ratio of the remaining 16 candidates according to cost/unit of stiffness and cost/unit of strength according to the indexes Cmρ/E^1/2 and Cmρ/δy^2/3 respectively. In addition, so that the graph would not be congested, only 9 of the 16 final alloys were highlighted as shown in Figure 6 below, but all 16 alloys were included in the one shown in Table S1.

Figure 6
Ashby diagram relating the indexes Cmρ/E^1/2 and Cmρ/δy^2/3 for pre-selected candidate alloys to be used in wings spars.

3.2. Results of Al alloys selection on the Aleris datasheet and literature

From this, according to the literature [⁵, ⁹, ¹³, ²⁴,²⁵,²⁶,²⁷,²⁸,²⁹,³⁰,³¹,³²,³³,³⁴,³⁵,³⁶,³⁷,³⁸,³⁹,⁴⁰,⁴¹,⁴²,⁴³,⁴⁴,⁴⁵,⁴⁶,⁴⁷,⁴⁸,⁴⁹,⁵⁰,⁵¹,⁵²,⁵³,⁵⁴,⁵⁵,⁵⁶,⁵⁷,⁵⁸,⁵⁹,⁶⁰,⁶¹,⁶²,⁶³,⁶⁴,⁶⁵,⁶⁶,⁶⁷,⁶⁸,⁶⁹], for the wings spars, the required properties are higher yield strength, modulus of elasticity, fatigue resistance limit, moderate fracture toughness, and lower resistance to fatigue crack growth. Tables 2 and 3 list compilations of bibliographical references relating the aircraft component analyzed in this work with the typically used alloys, the promising alloy of the Al-Mg-Sc system AA 5028 H-116 and their respective values of mechanical properties and resistance to corrosion required for them.

3.2.1. Results for wings spars on the Aleris datasheet and literature

3.3. Analysis of the obtained results

After the initial stages of selection for the wings spars, there was a materials selection that included the alloys that best met the respective requirements. Thus, after this initial step of the sorting process, the materials that passed were then ranked in descending order according to the design restriction limits of Table 4, which is illustrated in Figures 7 and 8 below.

Table 4
Classification of the remaining aluminum alloys for the wings spars.

ALLOY	DENSITY ρ (g/cm3)	YIELD STRENGTH (MPa)	FATIGUE STRENGTH (MPa)	FRACTURE TOUGHNESS k1c (MPa. m1/2) TL LT ORIENTAÇÕES	COST (U$/kg)	E1/2/ρ (GPa1/2/g/cm3)	δy2/3/ρ (MPa2/3/g/cm3)	E1/2/Cmρ (GPa1/2/U$/kg)	δy2/3/Cmρ (MPa2/3/U$/kg)
AA2024-T3	2.75	455	177.5	37 36	3.38	3.11	16.99	2.53	13.82
AA2524-T3	2.75	432.7	216	40 (TL)	3.38	3.00	17.07	2.44	13.88
AA5028-H116	2.66	582.5	400	35 35	50	3.19	25.31	0.17	1.35
AA7475-T7	2.75	535.5	202.5	39.2 44.45	3.38	3.05	23.24	2.48	18.9

• *Index values are based on average values of the properties of the alloys in question.

Figure 7
Figure illustrating the relationship of the indexes E^1/2/ρ and δy^2/3/ρ for the classified alloys for the wings spars with mass minimization.

Figure 8
Figure illustrating the relationship of the indexes E^1/2/Cmρ and δy^2/3/Cmρ for the classified alloys for the wings spars with cost minimization.

From the Ashby diagrams, tables, and figures that compile the properties and Merit Indexes of the alloys in question, in the case study of the wings spars, it can be inferred that the alloy of the Al-Mg-Sc system AA5028-H116 which was Additively Manufactured by Laser Powder Bed Fusion [³⁵,³⁶,³⁷,³⁸] or Melt-Spinning [³⁹, ⁴⁰] process, compared to AA alloy 7075-T6, has 0.52% higher mechanical strength limit, 5% higher yield strength limit, fracture toughness 45.83% higher in TL orientation and 29.6% higher in LT orientation, equivalent elongation, equivalent Brinel hardness, and 166.7% higher fatigue strength limit. Thus, consequently, when analyzing the Merit Indexes table, it can be seen that the Al-Mg-Sc system alloy AA5028-H116 has the highest index E^1/2/ρ equal to 3.19, and the highest index δy^2/3/ρ equal to 25.313, which shows the superiority of AA5028-H116 compared to the remaining alloys in the classification concerning the mechanical properties involved in them. However, due to the high cost of 50 U$/kg of the Al-Mg-Sc system alloys, the E^1/2/Cmρ and δy^2/3/Cmρ indexes of the AA5028-H116 alloy are on average approximately 6.84% and 8.88% respectively of the E^1/2/Cmρ and δy^2/3/Cmρ indexes of the other alloys for spars, which shows the disadvantage of using this alloy about the added price, not only of the 2XXX and 7XXX alloys but concerning the price of the aluminum-lithium alloys AA8090-T851 and AA8091-T6, it has a cost advantage that is 61.35% of the price of the aluminum-lithium alloys.

4. CONCLUSIONS

In this work, the following actions were carried out sequentially: research of the main mechanical properties for the wings spars, consultation of the literature on the mechanical properties of alloys of the Al-Mg-Sc system and of the 2XXX and 7XXX series that are traditionally used in this component considered, use of the Cambridge Engineering Selector^® 2019 software and employ of Merit Indexes, and comparison of the values of these indexes for the alloys of the Al-Mg-Sc system with the values of the traditional alloys.

The Al-Mg-Sc system alloy AA5028-H116 is the aluminum alloy processable by Melt-Spinning or Laser Powder Bed Fusion that has the highest E^1/2/ρ index equal to 3.19 and the highest δy^2/3/ρ index equal to 25.313. It can be concluded that it has the potential to replace the aluminum alloys AA2024-T3, AA2524-T3, and AA7475-T7, which are manufactured in the form of sheets or extruded profiles used in aircraft wings spars because it has superior mechanical properties and specific mechanical properties related to a lower density. However, the index E^1/2/Cmρ is equal to 0.17 and the index δy^2/3/Cmρ is equal to 1.35, which shows the disadvantage of the cost of the AA5028-H116 alloy, and it was the decisive method to declare the AA5028-H116 alloy as a potential option of use in the wings spars despite its higher cost.

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES/ PROEX) for financial support.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

• ^[1] MARCHEZIN, E., PARDINI, L.C., GUIMARÃES, V.A., “Avaliação do comportamento em fadiga de juntas estruturais de ligas de Al2024T3 coladas com adesivo epóxi”, Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), v. 17, n. 1, pp. 889–900, 2012. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-70762012000100002.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-70762012000100002
• ^[2] BARONY, N.B., JORGE, I.C.S., DA SILVA, Â.S., et al “Comportamento mecânico e textura de chapas finas das ligas de alumínio 5052 e 5050C”, Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), v. 29, n. 2, pp. e20230321, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2023-0321.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2023-0321
• ^[3] ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DO ALUMÍNIO, Guia técnico do alumínio: Tratamento térmico do alumínio e suas ligas, v. 6. 2. ed. São Paulo, ABAL, 2011.
• ^[4] GRUZLESKI, J.E., CLOSSET, B.M., The treatment of liquid aluminium-silicon alloys, Des Plaines, American Foundrymen’s Society, Inc. 1990.
• ^[5] DORWARD, R.C., PRITCHETT, T.R., “Advanced aluminium alloys for aircraft and aerospace applications”, Materials & Design, v. 9, n. 2, pp. 63–69, 1988. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3069(88)90076-3.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3069(88)90076-3
• ^[6] FILATOV, Y.A., YELAGIN, V.I., ZAKHAROV, V.V., “New Al - Mg - Sc alloys”, Materials Science and Engineering A, v. 280, n. 1, pp. 97–101, 2000. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(99)00673-5.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(99)00673-5
• ^[7] LENCZOWSKI, B., HACK, T., WIESER, D., et al, “AlMgSc Alloys for Transportation Technology”, Materials Science Forum, v. 331-337, p. 957–964, 2000. doi: http://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.331-337.957.
  » https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.331-337.957
• ^[8] RAMBABU, P., PRASAD, N.E., KUTUMBARAO, V.V., et al, “Aluminium alloys for aerospace applications”, In: Prasad, N., Wanhill, R. (eds), Aerospace Materials and Material Technologies, Singapore, Springer, pp. 29–52, 2017. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2134-3_2.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2134-3_2
• ^[9] PACCHIONE, M., TELGKAMP, J., “Challenges of the metallic fuselage”, In: 25th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2006. https://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2006/PAPERS/195.PDF, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2006/PAPERS/195.PDF
• ^[10] MALOPHEYEV, S., MIRONOV, S., KULITSKIY, V., et al, “Friction-stir welding of ultra-fine grained sheets of Al - Mg - Sc - Zr alloy”, Materials Science and Engineering A, v. 624, pp. 132–139, 2015. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2014.11.079.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2014.11.079
• ^[11] ZHEMCHUZHNIKOVA, D., MIRONOV, S., KAIBYSHEV, R., “Fatigue performance of friction-stir-welded Al-Mg-Sc alloy”, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions. A, Physical Metallurgy and Materials Science, v. 48, n. 1, pp. 150–158, 2017. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-016-3843-6.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-016-3843-6
• ^[12] SUBBAIAH, K., “Tensile properties and microstructure of friction stir welded cast Al-Mg-Sc aluminum alloy”, Applied Mechanics and Materials, v. 852, pp. 375–380, 2016. doi: http://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.852.375.
  » https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.852.375
• ^[13] ALERIS, Aerospace Aluminum AA5028 AlMgSc, 2015 https://scandiummining.com/site/assets/files/5785/al-2342_012-aktualisierung-br-almgsc-2015-06-03-web.pdf, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://scandiummining.com/site/assets/files/5785/al-2342_012-aktualisierung-br-almgsc-2015-06-03-web.pdf
• ^[14] AIRBUS GROUP, Scalmalloy^®: Aluminum-Magnesium-Scandium Alloy, 2016. https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2016-03-pioneering-bionic-3d-printing, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2016-03-pioneering-bionic-3d-printing
• ^[15] AHMAD, Z., “The properties and application of scandium-reinforced aluminum”, Journal of the Minerals Metals & Materials Society, v. 55, n. 2, pp. 35–39, 2003. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-003-0224-6.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-003-0224-6
• ^[16] DOMACK, M.S., DICUS, D.L., “Evaluation of Sc-Bearing aluminum alloy C557 for aerospace applications”, Materials Science Forum, v. 396-402, pp. 839–844, 2002. doi: http://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.396-402.839.
  » https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.396-402.839
• ^[17] ASHBY, M.F., BRÉCHET, Y.J.M., CEBON, D., et al, “Selection strategies for materials and processes”, Materials & Design, v. 25, n. 1, pp. 51–67, 2004. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3069(03)00159-6.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3069(03)00159-6
• ^[18] ASHBY, M.F., “Materials, bicycles, and design”, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions. B, Process Metallurgy and Materials Processing Science, v. 26, n. 1, pp. 1101–1108, 1995. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02653994.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02653994
• ^[19] ANTUNES, R.A., SALVADOR, C.A.F., OLIVEIRA, M.C.L., “Materials selection of optimized titanium alloys for aircraft applications”, Materials Research, v. 21, n. 2, pp. e20170979, 2018. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5373-mr-2017-0979.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5373-mr-2017-0979
• ^[20] YAVUZ, H. “Materials selection for aircraft skin panels by integrating multiple constraints design with computational evaluations”, Procedia Structural Integrity, v. 21, pp. 112–119, 2019. doi: http://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.prostr.2019.12.092.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2019.12.092
• ^[21] HOMA, J.M., Aeronaves e Motores, https://www.abul.org.br/biblioteca/62.pdf, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.abul.org.br/biblioteca/62.pdf
• ^[22] ASHBY, M.F., Seleção de materiais no projeto mecânico, Rio de Janeiro, Elsevier, 2012.
• ^[23] ASHBY, M., Materials selection in mechanical design, 2th ed, Oxford, Elsevier 2011.
• ^[24] BRUHN, E.F., BOLLARD, R.H.H., Analysis and design of flight vehicle structures, Ohio, Tri-State Offset Company, 1973.
• ^[25] ALCOA, Alcoa mill products: Alloy 2024 sheet and plate, 2024, https://www.academia.edu/30694831/ALLOY_2024_SHEET_AND_PLATE_EXCELLENT_FATIGUE_PROPERTIES_CONSISTENT_PERFORMANCE, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.academia.edu/30694831/ALLOY_2024_SHEET_AND_PLATE_EXCELLENT_FATIGUE_PROPERTIES_CONSISTENT_PERFORMANCE
• ^[26] VERMA, B.B., ATKINSON, J.D., KUMAR, M., “Study of fatigue behaviour of 7475 aluminium alloy”, Bulletin of Materials Science, v. 24, n. 2, pp. 231–236, 2001. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02710107.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02710107
• ^[27] WARNER, T., “Recently-developed aluminium solutions for aerospace applications”, Materials Science Forum, v. 519–521, pp. 1271–1278, 2006. doi: http://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF. 519-521.1271.
  » https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.519-521.1271
• ^[28] DURSUN, T., SOUTIS, C., “Recent developments in advanced aircraft aluminium alloys”, Materials & Design, v. 56, pp. 862–871, 2014. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.12.002.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.12.002
• ^[29] GLORIA, A., MONTANARI, R., RICHETTA, M., et al, “Alloys for aeronautic applications: state of the art and perspectives”, Metals, v. 9, n. 6, pp. 662, 2019. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/met9060662.
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/met9060662
• ^[30] SLOTA, J., KUBIT, A., TRZEPIECINSKI, T., et al, “Ultimate load-carrying ability of rib-stiffened 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 aluminium alloy panels under axial compression”, Materials (Basel), v. 14, n. 5, pp. 1176, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/ma14051176. PMid:33801553.
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14051176
• ^[31] INDUSTRIAL METAL SUPPLY Co., Aluminum alloys for aerospace, https://www.industrialmetalsupply.com/blog/aerospace-aluminum, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.industrialmetalsupply.com/blog/aerospace-aluminum
• ^[32] QUEIROZ, F.M., TERADA, M., BUGARIN, A.F.S., et al, “Comparison of corrosion resistance of the AA2524-T3 and the AA2024-T3”, Metals, v. 11, n. 6, pp. 980, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/met11060980.
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/met11060980
• ^[33] GOLDEN, P.A., “Comparison of fatigue crack formation at holes in 2024-T3 and 2524-T3 aluminum alloy specimens”, International Journal of Fatigue, v. 21, pp. 211-219, 1999. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-1123(99)00073-0.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-1123(99)00073-0
• ^[34] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization, 2010, https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB2003106632.xhtml, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB2003106632.xhtml
• ^[35] KIM, S.T., TADJIEV, D., YANG, H.T., “Fatigue life prediction under random loading conditions in 7475-T7351 aluminum alloy using the RMS model”, International Journal of Damage Mechanics, v. 15, n. 1, pp. 89–102, 2006. doi: http://doi.org/10.1177/1056789506058605.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1056789506058605
• ^[36] ALCOA, Alcoa mill products: Alloy 7050 sheet and plate, https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/11385307/alloy-7050-plate-and-sheet-alcoa, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/11385307/alloy-7050-plate-and-sheet-alcoa
• ^[37] SPIERINGS, A.B., DAWSON, K., UGGOWITZER, P.J., et al, “Influence of SLM scan-speed on microstructure, precipitation of Al3Sc particles and mechanical properties in Sc-and Zr-modified Al-Mg alloys”, Materials & Design, v. 140, pp. 134–143, 2018. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.11.053.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.11.053
• ^[38] ROMETSCH, P.A., ZHU, Y., WU, X., et al, “Review of high-strength aluminium alloys for additive manufacturing by laser powder bed fusion”, Materials & Design, v. 219, n. 110779, pp. 110779, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110779.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110779
• ^[39] MUHAMMAD, M., NEZHADFAR, P.D., THOMPSON, S., et al, “A comparative investigation on the microstructure and mechanical properties of additively manufactured aluminum alloys”, International Journal of Fatigue, v. 146, pp. 106165, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106165.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106165
• ^[40] SCHIMBACK, D., MAIR, P., KASERER, L., et al, “An improved process scan strategy to obtain high-performance fatigue properties for Scalmalloy^®”, Materials & Design, v. 224, pp. 111410, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.111410.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.111410
• ^[41] MATWEB, RSP Technology RSA-501 AE Aluminum Scandium Super Alloy (Scalmalloy), https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=436f7a56c98446778a8fb769dff7e99d&ckck=1, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=436f7a56c98446778a8fb769dff7e99d&ckck=1
• ^[42] LENCZOWSKI, B., “Airbus Group Innovations, Munich”, Innovative Aluminum Lightweight Technologies for Aerospace Application, 2016, https://www.amap.de/fileadmin/files/Kolloquium/27._Kolloquium/2016_AMAP_Innovative_Aluminium__Blanka_Lenczowski_AGI-AMAP-S.PDF, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.amap.de/fileadmin/files/Kolloquium/27._Kolloquium/2016_AMAP_Innovative_Aluminium__Blanka_Lenczowski_AGI-AMAP-S.PDF
• ^[43] SCHLATTER, S., “Improvements of mechanical properties in aluminum-lithium alloys”, Ruth & Ted Braun Awards for Writing Excellence, pp. 33, 2013.
• ^[44] JOSHI, A., The New generation Aluminium Lithium Alloys, Bombay, Indian Institute of Technology, Metal Web News.
• ^[45] BAUCCIO, M., ASM Metals Reference Book, 3rd ed. Materials Park, OH, ASM International, 1993.
• ^[46] WANG, Y., ZHAO, G., “Hot extrusion processing of Al-Li alloy profiles and related issues: a review”, Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, v. 33, n. 1, pp. 64, 2020. doi: http://doi.org/10.1186/s10033-020-00479-7.
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s10033-020-00479-7
• ^[47] ASM INTERNATIONAL, Metals Handbook Vol.2: Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special-Purpose Materials, 10th ed., Estados Unidos, ASM International, 1990.
• ^[48] GABRIAN, T. 7075 Aluminum: Get to know its properties and uses, https://www.gabrian.com/7075-aluminum-properties/, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.gabrian.com/7075-aluminum-properties/
• ^[49] ALCOA, Alcoa mill products: alloy 7475 sheet and plate, https://datasheets.globalspec.com/ds/4484/AlcoaNorthAmericanRolledProducts, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://datasheets.globalspec.com/ds/4484/AlcoaNorthAmericanRolledProducts
• ^[50] MATWEB. Aluminum 7475-T651, 2022. https://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=6810de82af5b4b0b9803fd7c75361c19, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=6810de82af5b4b0b9803fd7c75361c19
• ^[51] BUCCI, R.J., “Selecting aluminum alloys to resist failure by fracture mechanisms”, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, v. 12, n. 3, pp. 407–441, 1979. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7944(79)90053-5.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7944(79)90053-5
• ^[52] MATWEB-MATERIAL PROPERTY DATA, Aluminum 5182-H19, 2022, https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=9ef482b0015a483194bcaf3d53e2bf52, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=9ef482b0015a483194bcaf3d53e2bf52
• ^[53] MAKEITFROM. 5182-H19 Aluminum, 2020, https://www.makeitfrom.com/material-properties/5182-H19-Aluminum, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.makeitfrom.com/material-properties/5182-H19-Aluminum
• ^[54] MATWEB-MATERIAL PROPERTY DATA. 5182-H19 Non-Heat Treatable Al Wrought Alloy, 2022, https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=9ef482b0015a483194bcaf3d53e2bf52&ckck=1, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=9ef482b0015a483194bcaf3d53e2bf52&ckck=1
• ^[55] INFOMET, Biblioteca Metais & Ligas de Alumínio/informações técnicas, https://www.infomet.com.br/site/metais-e-ligas-conteudo-ler.php?codAssunto=53, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.infomet.com.br/site/metais-e-ligas-conteudo-ler.php?codAssunto=53
• ^[56] EN 573-3 Grade AW-5182-H19, Matmatch GmbH, 2022. https://matmatch.com/materials/alky1369-en-573-3-grade-aw-5182-h19, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://matmatch.com/materials/alky1369-en-573-3-grade-aw-5182-h19
• ^[57] JIN, Y., CAI, P., TIAN, Q.B., et al., “An experimental methodology for quantitative characterization of multi-site fatigue crack nucleation in high-strength Al alloys”, Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, v. 39, n. 6, pp. 696–711, 2016. doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12411.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12411
• ^[58] ALCOA, Alcoa mill products: Alloy 2026 products, https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/21985853/2026-tech-sheetpdf-alcoa, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/21985853/2026-tech-sheetpdf-alcoa
• ^[59] ALCOA, Alcoa mill products: Alloy 2099-T83 and 2099-T8E67 Extrusions, https://www.spacematdb.com/spacemat/manudatasheets/Alloy2099TechSheet.pdf, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.spacematdb.com/spacemat/manudatasheets/Alloy2099TechSheet.pdf
• ^[60] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HANDBOOK, Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures, 1995. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA295150.pdf, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA295150.pdf
• ^[61] MONSALVE, A., PAEZ, M., TOLEDANO, M., et al, “S-N-P curves in 7075 T7351 and 2024 T3 aluminium alloys subjected to surface treatments”, Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, v. 30, n. 8, pp. 748–758, 2007. doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2695.2007.01134.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2695.2007.01134.x
• ^[62] SMOJVER, I., IVANČEVIĆ, D., “Numerical simulation of bird strike damage prediction in airplane flap structure”, Composite Structures, v. 92, n. 9, pp. 2016–2026, 2010. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.12.006.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.12.006
• ^[63] MATWEB-MATERIAL PROPERTY DATA. AA Standards Grade 7075 T7651, 2022, https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?MatGUID=4f19a42be94546b686bbf43f79c51b7d, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?MatGUID=4f19a42be94546b686bbf43f79c51b7d
• ^[64] ALCOA, Alcoa mill products: Alloy 7075 plate and sheet, http://www.calm-aluminium.com.au/Documents/alloy7075techsheet.pdf, accessed in August, 2021.
  » http://www.calm-aluminium.com.au/Documents/alloy7075techsheet.pdf
• ^[65] JABRA, J., ROMIOS, M., LAI, J., et al, “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”, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, v. 15, n. 5, pp. 601–607, 2006. doi: http://doi.org/10.1361/105994906X136142.
  » https://doi.org/10.1361/105994906X136142
• ^[66] MOURITZ, A.P., Introduction to aerospace materials, Cambridge, Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2012.
• ^[67] VOREL, M., HINSCH, S., KONOPKA, M., et al, “AlMgSc alloy 5028 status of maturation”, In: 7th European Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences, pp. 1–9, 2006.
• ^[68] ABDULBASET, A.F., HATAB, A.M., “Corrosion behavior of the 8090-T851 aluminum alloy”, Journal of Engineering Research, v. 6, pp. 1-2, 2006.
• ^[69] MATWEB-MATERIAL PROPERTY DATA, Alloy 2090-T83 Sheet Technical Data, 2022. https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=a79a000ba9314c8d90fe75dc76efcc8a, accessed in August, 2021.
  » https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=a79a000ba9314c8d90fe75dc76efcc8a

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  03 Feb 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  17 Oct 2024
• Accepted
  03 Dec 2024