Aluminum alloy sheet with excellent formability and paint bake hardenability and method for production thereof

Abstract
A sheet of a 6000 type aluminum alloy containing Si and Mg as main alloy components and having an excellent formability sufficient to allow flat hemming, excellent resistance to denting, and good hardenability during baking a coating, which exhibits an anisotropy of Lankford values of more than 0.4 or the strength ratio for cube orientations of the texture thereof of 20 or more, and exhibits a minimum bend radius of 0.5 mm or less at 180° bending, even when the offset yield strength thereof exceeds 140 MPa through natural aging; and a method for producing the sheet of the aluminum alloy, which includes the steps of subjecting an ingot to a homogenization treatment, cooling to a temperature lower than 350° C. at a cooling rate of 100° C./hr or more, optionally to room temperature, heating again to a temperature of 300 to 500° C. and subjecting it to hot rolling, cold rolling the hot rolled product, and subjecting the cold rolled sheet to a solution treatment at a temperature of 400° C. or higher, followed by quenching.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to an aluminum alloy sheet with excellent formability and paint bake hardenability and suitable as a material for transportation parts, in particular, as an automotive outer panel, and a method for producing the same.


BACKGROUND ART

An automotive outer panel is required to have 1) formability, 2) shape fixability (shape of the press die is precisely transferred to the material by press working), 3) dent resistance, 4) corrosion resistance, 5) surface quality, and the like. Conventionally, 5000 series (Al—Mg) aluminum alloys and 6000 series (Al—Mg—Si) aluminum alloys have been applied to the automotive outer panel. The 6000 series aluminum alloy has attracted attention because high strength is obtained due to excellent paint bake hardenability, whereby further gage and weight savings are expected. Therefore, various improvements have been made on the 6000 series aluminum alloy.


Among the properties required for the automotive outer panel, although the shape fixability prefer lower yield strength, the dent resistance prefer higher yield strength. In order to solve this problem, press working are carried out for lower yield strength for shape fixability and dent resistance are improved by excellent paint bake hardenability using a 6000 series aluminum alloy (see JP 5-247610, JP 5-279822, JP 6-17208, etc.).


The 6000 series aluminum alloy has problems relating to the surface quality after forming, such as occurrence of orange peel surfaces and ridging marks (long streak-shaped defects occurring in the rolling direction during plastic working). Surface quality defects can be solved by adjusting the alloy components, managing the production conditions, and the like. For example, a method of preventing formation of coarse precipitates by homogenizing the alloy at a temperature of 500° C. or more, cooling the homogenized product to 450-350° C., and starting hot rolling in this temperature range has been proposed in order to prevent occurrence of ridging marks (see JP 7-228956). However, if the cooling rate is decreased when cooling the homogenized product from the homogenization temperature of 500° C. or more to the hot rolling temperature of 450° C., coarse Mg—Si compounds are formed. This makes it necessary to perform a solution treatment at a high temperature for a long time in the subsequent step, whereby production efficiency is decreased.


In the case of assembling an outer panel and an inner panel material, 180° bending (flat hemming), in which working conditions are severe since the ratio (R/t) of the center bending radius (R) to the sheet thickness (t) is small, is performed. However, since the 6000 series aluminum alloy has inferior bendability in comparison with the 5000 series aluminum alloy, flat hemming cannot be performed in a high press working area.


DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION

The present inventors have examined for further improving formability, in particular, bendability of the 6000 series aluminum alloy. As a result, it has been found that bendability of the 6000 series alloy is affected by the precipitation state of Mg—Si compounds and misorientation of adjacent crystal grains, and also found that bendability has a correlation with the Lankford value, and it is necessary to increase the anisotropy of the Lankford values in order to improve bendability. Furthermore, it has been found that bendability also has a correlation with the intensity ratio (random ratio) of cube orientation {100} <001> of the texture, and it is necessary to allow the texture to have a high degree of integration of cube orientation in order to improve bendability. In order to obtain the above properties, the present inventors have found that it is important to optimize the content of Si and Mg which are major elements of the 6000 series aluminum alloy, and to optimize the production steps, in particular, to appropriately control the cooling rate after homogenization of an ingot.


The present invention has been achieved based on the above findings. An object of the present invention is to provide an aluminum alloy sheet having excellent formability which allows flat hemming, showing no orange peel surfaces and ridging marks after forming, having excellent paint bake hardenability capable of solving the problems relating to shape fixability and dent resistance, and with excellent corrosion resistance, in particular, filiform corrosion resistance, and a method for producing the same.


An aluminum alloy sheet according to the present invention for achieving the above object is a 6000 series aluminum alloy sheet, with excellent bendability after a solution treatment and quenching, and has a minimum inner bending radius of 0.5 mm or less during 1800 bending with 10% pre-stretch, even if the yield strength is further increased through natural aging. Specific embodiments of the aluminum alloy sheet are as follows.


(1) An aluminum alloy sheet comprising 0.5-1.5% of Si and 0.2-1.0% of Mg, with the balance consisting of Al and impurities, or comprising 0.8-1.2% of Si, 0.4-0.7% of Mg, and 0.1-0.3% of Zn, with the balance consisting of Al and impurities, in which the maximum diameter of Mg—Si compounds is 10 μm or less and the number of Mg—Si compounds having a diameter of 2-10 μm is 1000 per mm2 or less.


(2) An aluminum alloy sheet comprising 0.4-1.5% of Si, 0.2-1.2% of Mg, and 0.05-0.3% of Mn, with the balance consisting of Al and impurities, in which the percentage of crystal grain boundaries in which misorientation of adjacent crystal grains is 15° or less is 20% or more.


(3) An aluminum alloy sheet comprising 0.5-2.0% of Si and 0.2-1.5% of Mg, with 0.7Si %+Mg %≦2.2%, and Si %−0.58Mg %≧0.1% being satisfied and the balance consisting of Al and impurities, in which an anisotropy of Lankford values is more than 0.4. The Lankford value r is the ratio of the logarithmic strain in the direction of the width of the sheet to the logarithmic strain in the direction of the thickness of the sheet when applying a specific amount of tensile deformation, such as 15%, to a tensile specimen, specifically, r=(logarithmic strain in the sheet width direction)/(logarithmic strain in the sheet thickness direction). The anisotropy of Lankford values is (r0+r90−2×r45)/2 (r0: r value of a tensile specimen collected in a direction at 0° to the rolling direction, r90: r value of a tensile specimen collected in a direction at 90° to the rolling direction, and r45: r value of a tensile specimen collected in a direction at 45° to the rolling direction).


(4) An aluminum alloy sheet comprising 0.5-2.0% of Si and 0.2-1.5% of Mg, with 0.7Si %+Mg %≦2.2% being satisfied and the balance consisting of Al and impurities, in which an intensity ratio of cube orientation of crystallographic texture is 20 or more.


Specific embodiments of a method for producing the above aluminum alloy sheets are as follows.


(1) A method for producing an aluminum alloy sheet comprising homogenizing an ingot of an aluminum alloy having the above composition at a temperature of 450° C. or more, cooling the ingot to a temperature of 350-500° C. at a cooling rate of 100° C./h or more, starting hot rolling of the ingot at the temperature, cold rolling the hot-rolled product, and subjecting the cold-rolled product to a solution heat treatment at a temperature of 500° C. or more, and quenching.


(2) A method for producing an aluminum alloy sheet comprising homogenizing an ingot of an aluminum alloy having the above composition at a temperature of 450° C. or more, cooling the ingot to a temperature of less than 300° C. at a cooling rate of 100° C./h or more, heating the ingot to a temperature of 350-500° C. and starting hot rolling of the ingot, cold rolling the hot-rolled product, and subjecting the cold-rolled product to a solution heat treatment at a temperature of 500° C. or more, and quenching.


(3) A method for producing an aluminum alloy sheet comprising homogenizing an ingot of an aluminum alloy having the above composition at a temperature of 450° C. or more, cooling the ingot to a temperature of less than 300° C. at a cooling rate of 100° C./h or more, cooling the ingot to room temperature, heating the ingot to a temperature of 350-500° C. and starting hot rolling of the ingot, cold rolling the hot-rolled product, and subjecting the cold-rolled product to a solution heat treatment at a temperature of 500° C. or more, and quenching.


(4) A method for producing an aluminum alloy sheet comprising homogenizing an ingot of an aluminum alloy having the above composition at a temperature of 450° C. or more, cooling the ingot to a temperature of less than 350° C. at a cooling rate of 100° C./h or more, hot rolling the ingot at the temperature, cold rolling the hot-rolled product, and subjecting the cold-rolled product to a solution heat treatment at a temperature of 450° C. or more, and quenching.


(5) A method for producing an aluminum alloy sheet comprising homogenizing an ingot of an aluminum alloy having the above composition at a temperature of 450° C. or more, cooling the ingot to a temperature of less than 350° C. at a cooling rate of 100° C./h or more, heating the ingot to a temperature of 300-500° C. and starting hot rolling of the ingot, cold rolling the hot-rolled product, and subjecting the cold-rolled product to a solution heat treatment at a temperature of 450° C. or more, and quenching.


(6) A method for producing an aluminum alloy sheet comprising homogenizing an ingot of an aluminum alloy having the above composition at a temperature of 450° C. or more, cooling the ingot to a temperature of less than 350° C. at a cooling rate of 100° C./h or more, cooling the ingot to room temperature, heating the ingot to a temperature of 300-500° C. and starting hot rolling of the ingot, cold rolling the hot-rolled product, and subjecting the cold-rolled product to a solution heat treatment at a temperature of 450° C. or more, and quenching.







PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

Effects and reasons for limitations of the alloy components in the Al—Mg—Si alloy sheet of the present invention are described below.


Si is necessary to obtain strength and high paint bake hardenability (BH), and increases strength by forming Mg—Si compounds. The Si content is preferably 0.5-2.0%. If the Si content is less than 0.5%, sufficient strength may not be obtained by heating during baking and formability may be decreased. If the Si content exceeds 2.0%, formability and shape fixability may be insufficient due to high yield strength during press working. Moreover, corrosion resistance may be decreased after painting. The Si content is more preferably 0.4-1.5%, still more preferably 0.5-1.5%, yet more preferably 0.6-1.3%, and particularly preferably 0.8-1.2%.


Mg increases strength in the same manner as Si. The Mg content is preferably 0.2-1.5%. If the Mg content is less than 0.2%, sufficient strength may not be obtained by heating during baking. If the Mg content exceeds 1.5%, yield strength may remain high after a solution heat treatment or additional heat treatment, whereby formability and spring-back properties may be insufficient. The Mg content is more preferably 0.2-1.2%, still more preferably 0.2-1.0%, yet more preferably 0.3-0.8%, and particularly preferably 0.4-0.7%.


Si and Mg are preferably added to satisfy the relations 0.7Si %+Mg %≦2.2%, and Si %−0.58Mg %≧0.1% so that anisotropy of the Lankford values is more than 0.4 and bendability is improved. In order to increase the intensity ratio of cube orientation of the texture to obtain good bendability, Si and Mg are preferably added to satisfy the relation 0.7Si %+Mg %≦2.2%.


Zn improves zinc phosphate treatment properties during the surface treatment. The Zn content is preferably 0.5% or less. If the Zn content exceeds 0.5%, corrosion resistance may be decreased. The Zn content is still more preferably 0.1-0.3%.


Cu improves strength and formability. The Cu content is preferably 1.0% or less. If the Cu content exceeds 1.0%, corrosion resistance may be decreased. The Cu content is still more preferably 0.3-0.8%. If corrosion resistance is an important, the Cu content is preferably limited to 0.1% or less.


Mn, Cr, V, and Zr improve strength and refine crystal grains to prevent occurrence of orange peel surfaces during forming. The content of Mn, Cr, V, and Zr is preferably 1.0% or less, 0.3% or less, 0.2% or less, and 0.2% or less, respectively. If the content of Mn, Cr, V, and Zr exceeds the above upper limits, coarse intermetallic compounds may be formed, whereby formability may be decreased. The content of Mn and Zr is more preferably 0.3% or less and 0.15% or less, respectively. The content of Mn, Cr, V, and Zr is still more preferably 0.05-0.3%, 0.05-0.15%, 0.05-0.15%, and 0.05-0.15%, respectively.


In order to improve bendability by allowing the percentage of crystal grain boundaries in which misorientation of adjacent crystal grains is 15° or less to be 20% or more, Mn is added in an amount of 0.05-0.3% as an essential component.


Ti and B refine a cast structure to improve formability. The content of Ti and B is preferably 0.1% or less and 50 ppm or less, respectively. If the content of Ti and B exceeds the above upper limits, the number of coarse intermetallic compounds may be increased, whereby formability may be decreased. It is preferable to limit the Fe content to 0.5% or less, and preferably 0.3% or less as another impurity.


The production steps of the aluminum alloy sheet of the present invention are described below.


Homogenization condition: Homogenization must be performed at a temperature of 450° C. or more. If the homogenization temperature is less than 450° C., removal of ingot segregation and homogenization may be insufficient. This results in insufficient dissolution of Mg2Si components which contribute to strength, whereby formability may be decreased. Homogenization is preferably performed at a temperature of 480° C. or more.


Cooling after homogenization: Good properties are obtained by cooling the homogenized product at a cooling rate of preferably 100° C./h or more, and still more preferably 300° C./h or more. Since large-scale equipment is necessary for increasing the cooling rate, it is preferable to manage the cooling rate in the range of 300-1000° C./h in practice. If the cooling rate is low, Mg—Si compounds are precipitated and coarsened. In a conventional cooling method, the cooling rate is about 30° C./h in the case of cooling a large slab. However, Mg—Si compounds are precipitated and coarsened during cooling at such a low cooling rate, whereby the material may not be provided with improved bendability after the solution heat treatment and quenching.


If the cooling rate is controlled in this manner, (1) appropriate distributions of Mg—Si compounds are obtained, (2) the percentage of crystal grain boundaries in which misorientation of adjacent crystal grains is 15° or less becomes 20% or more, (3) anisotropy of Lankford values is increased, and (4) the degree of integration of cube orientation is increased, whereby bendability is improved.


The cooling after homogenization must allow the temperature to be decreased to less than 350° C., and preferably less than 300° C. at a cooling rate of 100° C./h or more, preferably 150° C./h or more, and still more preferably at 300° C./h or more. The properties are affected if a region at 350° C. or more is partially present. Therefore, an ingot is cooled until the entire ingot is at 300° C. or less, and preferably 250° C. or less at the above cooling rate. There are no specific limitations to the method of cooling the homogenized ingot insofar as the necessary cooling rate is obtained. For example, water-cooling, fan cooling, mist cooling, or heat sink contact may be employed as the cooling method.


The cooling start temperature is not necessarily the homogenization temperature. The same effect can be obtained by allowing the ingot to be cooled to a temperature at which precipitation does not significantly occur, and starting cooling at a cooling rate of 100° C./h or more. For example, in the case where homogenization is performed at a temperature of 500° C. or more, the ingot may be slowly cooled to 500° C.


Hot rolling: The ingot is cooled to a specific temperature of 350-500° C. or 300-450° C. from the homogenization temperature, and hot rolling is started at the specific temperature. The ingot may be cooled to a specific temperature of 350° C. or less from the homogenization temperature, and hot rolling may be started at the specific temperature.


The ingot may be cooled to a temperature of 350° C. or less and heated to a temperature of 300-500° C., and hot rolling may be started at this temperature. The ingot may be cooled to a temperature of 350° C. or less, cooled to room temperature, heated to a temperature of 300-500° C., and hot-rolled at this temperature.


If the hot rolling start temperature is less than 300° C., deformation resistance is increased, whereby rolling efficiency is decreased. If the hot rolling start temperature exceeds 500° C., crystal grains coarsen during rolling, whereby ridging marks readily occur in the resulting material. Therefore, it is preferable to limit the hot rolling start temperature to 300-500° C. The hot rolling start temperature is still more preferably 380-450° C. taking into consideration deformation resistance and uniform microstructure.


The hot rolling finish temperature is preferably 300° C. or less. If the hot rolling finish temperature exceeds 300° C., precipitation of Mg—Si compounds easily occurs, whereby formability may be decreased. Moreover, recrystallized grains coarsen, thereby resulting in occurrence of ridging marks. Hot rolling is preferably finished at 200° C. or more taking into consideration deformation resistance during hot rolling and residual oil stains due to a coolant.


Cold rolling: The hot rolled sheet is cold rolled to the final gage.


Solution heat treatment: The solution heat treatment temperature is preferably 450° C. or more, and still more preferably 500° C. or more. If the solution heat treatment temperature is less than 500° C., dissolution of Mg—Si precipitates may be insufficient, whereby sufficient strength and formability cannot be obtained, or heat treatment for a considerably long time is needed to obtain necessary strength and formability. This is disadvantageous from the industrial point of view. There are no specific limitations to the solution heat treatment time insofar as necessary strength is obtained. The solution heat treatment time is usually 120 seconds or less from the industrial point of view.


Cooling rate during quenching: It is necessary to cool the sheet from the solution treatment temperature to 120° C. or less at a cooling rate of 5° C./s or more. It is preferable to cool the sheet at a cooling rate of 10° C./s or more. If the quenching cooling rate is too low, precipitation of eluted elements occurs, whereby strength, BH, formability, and corrosion resistance may be decreased.


Additional heat treatment: this heat treatment is performed at 40-120° C. for 50 hours or less within 60 minutes after quenching. BH is improved by this treatment. If the temperature is less than 40° C., improvement of BH is insufficient. If the temperature exceeds 120° C. or the time exceeds 50 hours, the initial yield strength is excessively increased, whereby formability or paint bake hardenability is decreased.


Reversion treatment may be performed at a temperature of 170-230° C. for 60 seconds or less within seven days after final additional heat treatment. Paint bake hardenability is further improved by the reversion treatment.


A sheet material with excellent bendability after the solution heat treatment and quenching can be obtained by applying the above production steps to an aluminum alloy having the above composition. The aluminum alloy sheet is suitably used as a lightweight automotive member having a complicated shape which is subjected to hemming, such as a hood, trunk lid, and door. Moreover, in the case where the aluminum alloy sheet is applied to a fender, roof, and the like, which are not subjected to hemming, the aluminum alloy sheet can be subjected to severe working in which the bending radius is small due to its excellent bendability after pressing the sheet into a complicated shape. Therefore, the aluminum alloy sheet widens the range of application of aluminum materials to automotive materials, thereby contributing to a decrease in the weight of vehicles.


In order to securely improve formability, in particular, bendability, it is preferable to adjust the amount of alloy components, such as Si and Mg, and production conditions so that anisotropy of the Lankford values is 0.6 or more and the intensity ratio of cube orientation of the texture is 50 or more.


The present invention is described below by comparing examples of the present invention with comparative examples. The effects of the present invention will be demonstrated based on this comparison. The examples illustrate only one preferred embodiment of the present invention, which should not be construed as limiting the present invention.


Example 1

Aluminum alloys having compositions shown in Table 1 were cast by using a DC casting method. The resulting ingots were homogenized at 540° C. for six hours and cooled to room temperature at a cooling rate of 300° C./h. The cooled ingots were heated to a temperature of 400° C., and hot rolling was started at this temperature. The ingots were rolled to a thickness of 4.0 mm, and cold-rolled to a thickness of 1.0 mm.


The cold-rolled sheets were subjected to a solution heat treatment at 540° C. for five seconds, quenched to a temperature of 120° C. at a cooling rate of 30° C./s, and additionally heat treated at 100° C. for three hours after five minutes.


The final heat treated sheets were used as test materials. Tensile properties, formability, corrosion resistance, and bake hardenability were evaluated when 10 days passed after the final heat treatment, and the maximum diameter of Mg—Si compounds and the number of compounds having a diameter of 2-10 μm were measured according to the following methods. The tensile properties and a minimum bending radius for formability were also evaluated when four months passed after the final heat treatment. The results are shown in Tables 2 and 3.


Tensile property: Tensile strength (σB), yield strength (σ0.2), and elongation (δ) were measured by performing a tensile test.


Formability: An Erichsen test (EV) was performed. A test material having a forming height of less than 10 mm was rejected. A 180° bending test for measuring the minimum bending radius after applying 10% tensile pre-strain was performed in order to evaluate hem workability. A test material having a minimum inner bending radius of 0.5 mm or less was accepted.


Corrosion resistance: The test material was subjected to a zinc phosphate treatment and electrodeposition coating using commercially available chemical treatment solutions. After painting crosscuts reaching the aluminum base material, a salt spray test was performed for 24 hours according to JIS Z2371. After allowing the test material to stand in a wet atmosphere at 50° C. and 95% for one month, the maximum length of filiform corrosion occurring from the crosscuts was measured. A test material having a maximum length of filiform corrosion of 4 mm or less was accepted.


Bake hardenability (BH): Yield strength (σ0.2) was measured after applying 2% tensile deformation and performing heat treatment at 170° C. for 20 minutes. A test material having a yield strength of 200 MPa or more was accepted.


Measurement of Mg—Si compound: The maximum diameter of Mg—Si compounds was measured by observation using an optical microscope. The distribution of compounds having a diameter of 2-10 μm was examined using an image analyzer in the range of 1 square millimeter (1 mm2) in total provided that one pixel=0.25 μm. The Mg—Si compounds were distinguished from Al—Fe compounds by light and shade of the compounds. The detection conditions were selected at a level at which only the Mg—Si compounds were detected by confirming the compound particles in advance by point analysis.











TABLE 1









Composition (mass %)


















Alloy
Si
Mg
Cu
Mn
Cr
V
Zr
Fe
Zn
Ti
B





1
1.0
0.5





0.17
0.02
0.02
5


2
0.8
0.6
0.02
0.08



0.17
0.02
0.02
5


3
1.1
0.5
0.01
0.08



0.17
0.02
0.02
5


4
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.1 



0.17
0.02
0.02
5


5
1.2
0.4
0.01

0.1


0.17
0.02
0.02
5


6
1.1
0.5
0.01
0.15

0.12

0.13
0.04
0.02
5


7
1.1
0.5
0.4
0.07


0.08
0.15
0.03
0.02
5





Note:


Unit for B is ppm.

















TABLE 2










Corrosion




Formability
resistance
BH













Tensile properties

Minimum inner
Maximum length
σ0.2 after















Test

σB
σ0.2
δ
EV
bending radius
of filiform
BH


material
Alloy
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(mm)
(mm)
corrosion (mm)
(MPa)


















1
1
242
125
31
10.8
0.1
0
211


2
2
245
131
30
10.4
0.2
1.5
220


3
3
243
127
32
10.6
0.1
0.5
214


4
4
274
134
31
10.5
0.2
3.5
221


5
5
257
135
32
10.6
0.2
1.0
217


6
6
259
132
30
10.2
0.3
1.0
208


7
7
268
136
30
10.3
0.2
2.5
223


















TABLE 3









Properties after natural



aging for 4 months














Maximum diameter
Number of compounds with

Minimum inner


Test

of Mg—Si
diameter of 2-10 μm
σ0.2
bending radius


material
Alloy
compound (μm)
(/mm2)
(MPa)
(mm)





1
1
6
550
143
0.2


2
2
8
800
147
0.3


3
3
6
650
142
0.2


4
4
9
720
150
0.3


5
5
5
580
152
0.4


6
6
5
520
151
0.4


7
7
6
600
155
0.3









As shown in Tables 2 and 3, test materials Nos. 1 to 7 according to The present invention showed excellent BH of more than 200 MPa in the BH evaluation. The test materials Nos. 1 to 7 had excellent formability in which the forming height (EV) was more than 10 mm and the minimum inner bending radius was 0.5 mm or less. The test materials Nos. 1 to 7 exhibited excellent corrosion resistance in which the maximum length of filiform corrosion was 4 mm or less.


Comparative Example 1

Aluminum alloys having compositions shown in Table 4 were cast by using a DC casting method. The resulting ingots were treated by the same steps as in Example 1 to obtain cold-rolled sheets with a thickness of 1 mm. The cold-rolled sheets were subjected to a solution heat treatment and quenching under the same conditions as in Example 1, and heat treatment at 100° C. for three hours after five minutes.


The final heat treated sheets were used as test materials. Tensile properties, formability, corrosion resistance, and bake hardenability of the test materials were evaluated when 10 days passed after final heat treatment, and the maximum diameter of Mg—Si compounds and the number of compounds having a diameter of 2-10 μm were measured according to the same methods as in Example 1. The tensile properties and the minimum inner bending radius for formability evaluation were also evaluated when four months passed after the final heat treatment. The results are shown in Tables 5 and 6.











TABLE 4









Composition (mass %)


















Alloy
Si
Mg
Cu
Mn
Cr
V
Zr
Fe
Zn
Ti
B





















8
0.3
0.6
0.01
0.05
0.01


0.2
0.03
0.02
5


9
1.9
0.6
0.01
0.05
0.01


0.2
0.03
0.02
5


10
1.1
0.1
0.01
0.05
0.01


0.2
0.03
0.02
5


11
1.1
1.4
0.01
0.05
0.01


0.2
0.03
0.02
5


12
1.1
0.5
1.5
0.05
0.01


0.2
0.03
0.02
5


13
1.1
0.5
0.02
0.5
0.01


0.2
0.03
0.02
5


14
1.1
0.5
0.02
0.02
0.4


0.2
0.03
0.02
5


15
1.1
0.5
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.4

0.2
0.03
0.02
5


16
1.1
0.5
0.02
0.02
0.01

0.3
0.2
0.03
0.02
5





Note:


Unit for B is ppm.


















TABLE 5











Corrosion






resistance



Tensile properties
Formability
Maximum length
BH















Test

σB
σ0.2
δ
EV
Minimum inner
of filiform
σ0.2 after BH


material
Alloy
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(mm)
bending radius (mm)
corrosion (mm)
(MPa)


















8
8
163
70
30
10.7
0
0.5
125


9
9
265
139
31
10.5
0.5
1.0
224


10
10
157
65
32
10.8
0
1.5
118


11
11
280
141
29
10.2
0.6
1.0
229


12
12
294
132
30
10.6
0.4
5.0
228


13
13
247
130
28
9.7
0.6
1.0
217


14
14
246
128
29
9.6
0.4
1.0
214


15
15
247
129
28
9.8
0.5
1.0
212


16
16
245
132
27
9.5
0.7
1.5
213




















TABLE 6











Properties after natural aging



Maximum
Number of compounds
for 4 months












Test

diameter of Mg—Si
with diameter of 2-10 μm
σ0.2
Minimum inner bending


material
Alloy
compound (μm)
(/mm2)
(MPa)
radius (mm)















8
8
4
300
85
0


9
9
15
1350
158
0.7


10
10
3
260
79
0


11
11
18
2430
159
0.7


12
12
9
880
154
0.5


13
13
12
1250
146
0.7


14
14
8
940
143
0.5


15
15
12
1120
146
0.6


16
16
14
1290
148
0.7









As shown in Tables 5 and 6, test material No. 8 and test material No. 10 showed insufficient BH due to low Si content and low Mg content, respectively. Test material No. 9 and test material No. 11 had insufficient bendability due to high Si content and high Mg content, respectively. Test material No. 12 had inferior filiform corrosion resistance due to high Cu content. Test materials Nos. 13 to 16 had a small forming height (EV) due to high Mn content, high Cr content, high V content, and high Zr content, respectively. Moreover, these test materials showed insufficient bendability.


Example 2 and Comparative Example 2

Ingots of the alloys Nos. 1 and 3 of Example 1 were homogenized at 540° C. for eight hours. The ingots were cooled to the hot rolling temperature after homogenization, and hot rolling was started at the temperatures shown in Table 7. The thickness of hot-rolled products was 4.5 mm. The hot-rolled products were cold-rolled to a thickness of 1 mm, subjected to a solution heat treatment under the conditions shown in Table 7, quenched to 120° C. at a cooling rate of 15° C./s, and additional heat treatment at 90° C. for five hours after 10 minutes. In Example 2 and Comparative Example 2, the ingots were cooled to the hot rolling temperature after homogenization, and hot rolling was performed at this temperature.


The final heat treated sheets were used as test materials. Tensile properties, formability, corrosion resistance, and bake hardenability of the test materials evaluated when 10 days passed after final heat treatment, and the maximum diameter of Mg—Si compounds and the number of compounds having a diameter of 2-10 μm were measured according to the same methods as in Example 1. The tensile properties and the minimum bending radius for formability evaluation were also evaluated when four months passed after the final heat treatment. Electrodeposition coating was performed after applying 10% tensile deformation in the direction at 90° to the rolling direction. The presence or absence of ridging marks was evaluated with the naked eye. The results are shown in Tables 8 and 9.













TABLE 7







Cooling rate
Hot rolling
Solution heat




after
start
treatment


Test

homogenization
temperature
condition


material
Alloy
(° C./h)
(° C.)
(° C.)-(sec)



















17
1
150
370
550-3


18
1
800
450
520-5


19
3
200
400
530-7


20
3
600
440
550-5


21
3
2000
470
560-3


22
1
30
420
550-3


23
1
70
400
550-3


24
1
200
550
520-7


25
3
150
410
450-3


26
3
20
450
520-5




















TABLE 8









Formability
Corrosion















Tensile properties

Minimum

resistance
BH
















Test

σB
σ0.2
δ
EV
inner bending
Occurrence
Maximum length of
σ0.2 after


material
Alloy
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(mm)
radius (mm)
of ridging mark
filiform corrosion (mm)
BH (MPa)



















17
1
243
123
30
10.7
0.1
None
1.0
210


18
1
248
126
31
10.6
0
None
1.5
218


19
3
244
125
31
10.5
0
None
0.5
215


20
3
249
127
30
10.4
0
None
0.5
216


21
3
252
129
31
10.5
0.1
None
0.5
215


22
1
195
80
30
10.8
0
None
1.0
180


23
1
207
92
30
10.7
0
None
1.0
188


24
1
245
127
31
10.5
0.2
Observed
0.5
220


25
3
201
92
32
10.5
0
None
2.0
162


26
3
210
105
31
10.7
0
None
1.5
185


















TABLE 9









Properties after natural



aging for 4 months














Maximum diameter
Number of compounds

Minimum inner


Test

of Mg—Si
with diameter of
σ0.2
bending radius


material
Alloy
compound (μm)
2-10 μm (/mm2)
(MPa)
(mm)















17
1
8
470
141
0.2


18
1
7
630
143
0.1


19
3
6
570
142
0


20
3
6
660
142
0.1


21
3
6
750
142
0.1


22
1
22
1800
97
0


23
1
17
1520
108
0


24
1
8
1360
146
0.3


25
3
15
2520
106
0


26
3
26
2400
127
0









As shown in Tables 8 and 9, test materials Nos. 17 to 21 according to the present invention showed excellent tensile strength, BH, formability, and corrosion resistance, and maintained excellent bendability after natural aging for four months. Test materials Nos. 22, 23, and 26 had low tensile strength since the cooling rate after homogenization was low. Moreover, these test materials showed insufficient BH. Ridging marks occurred in test material No. 24 due to grain growth during hot rolling since the hot rolling temperature was high. Test material No. 25 had a low tensile strength and inferior BH due to a low solution heat treatment temperature.


Example 3 and Comparative Example 3

Aluminum alloys having compositions shown in Table 10 were cast by using a DC casting method. The resulting ingots were homogenized at 540° C. for six hours and cooled to room temperature at a cooling rate of 300° C./h. The ingots were then heated to a temperature of 400° C. Hot rolling was started at this temperature. The ingots were hot-rolled to a thickness of 4.0 mm, and cold-rolled to a thickness of 1.0 mm.


The cold-rolled sheets were subjected to a solution heat treatment at 540° C. for five seconds, quenched to a temperature of 120° C. at a cooling rate of 30° C./s, and additionally heat treated at 90° C. for three hours after five minutes.


The final heat treated sheets were used as test materials. Tensile properties, formability, corrosion resistance, and bake hardenability of the test materials were evaluated when 10 days passed after final heat treatment, and the maximum diameter of Mg—Si compounds and the number of compounds having a diameter of 2-10 μm were measured according to the same methods as in Example 1. The tensile properties and the minimum bending radius for formability evaluation were also evaluated when four months passed after the final heat treatment. The results are shown in Tables 11 and 12.










TABLE 10







Al-
Composition (mass %)


















loy
Si
Mg
Zn
Cu
Mn
Cr
V
Zr
Fe
Ti
B





















17
1.0
0.5
0.18





0.17
0.02
5


18
0.9
0.6
0.28





0.17
0.02
5


19
1.1
0.45
0.2
0.01
0.01



0.14
0.02
5


20
1.0
0.5
0.15
0.03
0.04
0.1


0.15
0.02
5


21
1.1
0.6
0.2
0.02
0.03

0.1

0.17
0.02
5


22
1.2
0.7
0.25
0.01
0.05
0.2

0.08
0.14
0.02
5


23
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.02
0.08



0.16
0.02
5


24
1.6
0.6
0.2
0.02
0.07



0.16
0.02
5


25
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.01
0.15



0.16
0.02
5


26
1.1
1.4
0.2
0.01
0.08



0.16
0.02
5


27
1.1
0.5
0.04
0.02




0.16
0.02
5


28
1.1
0.5
0.6
0.01
0.1 
0.1


0.16
0.02
5


29
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.02
0.07



0.5
0.02
5





Note:


Unit for B is ppm.

















TABLE 11










Corrosion




Formability
resistance













Tensile properties

Minimum inner
Maximum
















Test

σB
σ0.2
δ
EV
bending radius
length of filiform
BH σ0.2 after


material
Alloy
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(mm)
(mm)
corrosion (mm)
BH (MPa)


















27
17
243
124
30
10.8
0
0.5
208


28
18
247
126
30
10.6
0.1
1.5
210


29
19
246
128
31
10.8
0
1.0
213


30
20
247
125
31
10.6
0
1.5
209


31
21
249
127
30
10.6
0.1
1.5
211


32
22
251
129
29
10.5
0.2
1.5
214


33
23
186
75
31
10.8
0
0
149


34
24
254
137
30
10.9
0.3
1.0
216


35
25
182
77
32
11
0
1
172


36
26
280
142
29
10.2
0.6
1.0
229


37
27
245
128
30
10.4
0
2.0
215


38
28
247
132
29
10.6
0
3.0
218


39
29
252
134
28
9.4
0.4
1.5
221


















TABLE 12









Properties after natural



aging for 4 months














Maximum diameter
Number of compounds

Minimum inner


Test

of Mg—Si
with diameter of
σ0.2
bending radius


material
Alloy
compound (μm)
2-10 μm (/mm2)
(MPa)
(mm)















27
17
8
560
142
0.1


28
18
9
820
144
0.2


29
19
7
540
145
0.1


30
20
8
810
145
0.1


31
21
8
820
144
0.1


32
22
9
830
146
0.2


33
23
6
380
93
0


34
24
12
890
156
0.5


35
25
5
250
94
0


36
26
18
2430
158
0.7


37
27
8
710
144
0.1


38
28
7
860
150
0.2


39
29
8
1140
150
0.5









As shown in Tables 11 and 12, test materials Nos. 27 to 32 according to the present invention showed excellent BH of more than 200 MPa in the BH evaluation. The test materials Nos. 27 to 32 had excellent formability in which the forming height (EV) was more than 10 mm and the minimum inner bending radius was 0.2 mm or less. The test materials Nos. 27 to 32 exhibited excellent corrosion resistance in which the maximum length of filiform corrosion was 2 mm or less.


On the contrary, test material No. 33 and test material No. 35 showed insufficient BH due to low Si content and low Mg content, respectively. Test material No. 34 and test material No. 36 exhibited insufficient bendability due to high Si content and high Mg content, respectively. Test materials Nos. 37 and 38 exhibited inferior filiform corrosion resistance due to low Zn content and high Zn content, respectively. Test material No. 39 had a small forming height (EV) due to high Fe content. Moreover, the test material No. 39 showed insufficient bendability.


Example 4 and Comparative Example 4

Ingots of the alloy No. 17 of Example 3 were homogenized at 540° C. for five hours. The ingots were cooled and hot-rolled to a thickness of 5.0 mm under conditions shown in Table 13. The hot-rolled products were cold-rolled to a thickness of 1.0 mm, subjected to a solution heat treatment under conditions shown in Table 13, quenched to 120° C. at a cooling rate of 150° C./s, and additionally heat treated at 80° C. for two hours after five minutes. In Example 4 and Comparative Example 4, the ingots were cooled to the hot rolling temperature after homogenization, and hot rolling was started at this temperature.


The final heat treated sheets were used as test materials. Tensile properties, formability, corrosion resistance, and bake hardenability of the test materials were evaluated when 10 days passed after final heat treatment, and the maximum diameter of Mg—Si compounds and the number of compounds having a diameter of 2-10 μm were measured according to the same methods as in Example 1. The tensile properties and the minimum bending radius for formability evaluation were also evaluated when four months passed after the final heat treatment. Electrodeposition coating was performed after applying 10% tensile deformation in the direction at 900 to the rolling direction. The presence or absence of ridging marks was evaluated with the naked eye. The results are shown in Tables 14 and 15.













TABLE 13







Cooling rate
Hot rolling
Solution heat




after
start
treatment


Test

homogenization
temperature
condition


material
Alloy
(° C./h)
(° C.)
(° C.)-(sec)



















40
17
300
400
550-5 


41
17
200
470
530-10


42
17
600
440
540-10


43
17
40
450
550-5 


44
17
300
540
520-10


45
17
250
420
450-10




















TABLE 14










Corrosion




Formability
resistance














Tensile properties

Inner
Occurrence
Maximum

















Test

σB
σ0.2
δ
EV
minimum bending
of ridging
length of filiform
BH σ0.2 after


material
Alloy
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(mm)
radius (mm)
mark
corrosion (mm)
BH (MPa)



















40
17
245
125
30
10.7
0
None
0.5
207


41
17
240
124
31
10.8
0
None
1.0
208


42
17
247
128
30
10.7
0
None
1.0
207


43
17
205
97
30
10.8
0
None
1.0
175


44
17
248
129
31
10.5
0.1
Observed
0.5
209


45
17
195
84
31
11.0
0
None
0.5
162


















TABLE 15









Properties after natural



aging for 4 months














Maximum diameter
Number of compounds

Minimum inner


Test

of Mg—Si
with diameter of
σ0.2
bending radius


material
Alloy
compound (μm)
2-10 μm (/mm2)
(MPa)
(mm)















40
17
7
620
141
0.1


41
17
8
750
140
0.1


42
17
7
580
144
0.1


43
17
15
1360
111
0


44
17
7
1550
146
0.2


45
17
18
2420
97
0









As shown in Tables 14 and 15, test materials Nos. 40 to 42 according to the present invention showed excellent tensile strength, BH, formability, and corrosion resistance, and maintained excellent bendability after natural aging for four months. Test material No. 43 had a low tensile strength and insufficient BH since the cooling rate after homogenization was low. Ridging marks occurred in test material No. 44 due to texture growth during hot rolling, since the hot rolling temperature was high. Test material No. 45 had a low tensile strength and inferior BH due to a low solution treatment temperature.


Example 5

Aluminum alloys having compositions shown in Table 16 were cast by using a DC casting method. The resulting ingots were homogenized at 540° C. for six hours and cooled to room temperature at a cooling rate of 300° C./h. The ingots were heated to a temperature of 400° C., and hot rolling was started at this temperature. The ingots were hot-rolled to a thickness of 4.0 mm, and cold-rolled to a thickness of 1.0 mm.


The cold-rolled sheets were subjected to a solution heat treatment at 540° C. for five seconds, quenched to a temperature of 120° C. at a cooling rate of 30° C./s, and additionally heat treated at 100° C. for three hours after five minutes.


The final heat treated sheets were used as test materials. Tensile properties, formability, corrosion resistance, and bake hardenability of the test materials were evaluated according to the same methods as in Example 1 when 10 days passed after final heat treatment. In addition, misorientation distributions of crystal grain boundaries were measured according to the following method. The results are shown in Table 17.


Measurement of misorientation distribution of crystal grain boundaries: The surface of the test material was ground using emery paper and mirror-ground by electrolytic grinding. The test material was set in a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The tilt angle distributions of the crystal grain boundaries were measured by measuring the crystal grain orientation at a pitch of 10 □m using an EBSP device installed in the SEM at an observation magnification of 100 times to calculate the percentage of crystal grain boundaries at 15° or less.











TABLE 16









Composition (mass %)


















Alloy
Si
Mg
Cu
Mn
Cr
V
Zr
Fe
Zn
Ti
B





30
1.0
0.5

0.05



0.13
0.01
0.02
5


31
0.8
0.6
0.02
0.08



0.15
0.01
0.03
7


32
1.2
0.4
0.01
0.08



0.16
0.02
0.02
6


33
1.1
0.5
0.01
0.08



0.19
0.28
0.02
4


34
1.0
0.5
0.7 
0.10



0.16
0.02
0.03
5


35
1.1
0.4
0.01
0.05
0.10


0.17
0.02
0.03
6


36
1.1
0.5
0.01
0.15

0.13

0.13
0.04
0.02
5


37
1.1
0.5
0.5 
0.07


0.08
0.15
0.03
0.02
4





Note:


Unit for B is ppm.



















TABLE 17









Percentage







of crystal



grain

Formability
Corrosion
BH














boundaries
Tensile properties

Minimum inner
resistance
σ0.2
















Test

at 15° or
σB
σ0.2
δ
EV
bending radius
Maximum length of
after BH


material
Alloy
less (%)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(mm)
(mm)
filiform corrosion (mm)
(MPa)



















46
30
38
242
125
32
10.5
0.1
0
213


47
31
35
247
134
31
10.2
0.2
1.3
222


48
32
42
242
125
32
10.7
0.1
0.4
213


49
33
41
242
126
30
10.5
0.1
0
216


50
34
36
278
139
30
10.4
0.1
3.2
225


51
35
43
261
136
32
10.5
0.2
1.2
218


52
36
46
258
129
29
10.4
0.2
1.1
210


53
37
42
265
135
30
10.5
0.2
2.7
222









As shown in Table 17, test materials Nos. 46 to 53 according to the conditions of the present invention showed excellent BH of more than 200 MPa in the BH evaluation. The test materials Nos. 46 to 53 had excellent formability in which the forming height (EV) was more than 10 mm and the minimum inner bending radius was 0.2 mm or less. The test materials Nos. 46 to 53 exhibited excellent corrosion resistance in which the maximum length of filiform corrosion was 4 mm or less.


Comparative Example 5

Aluminum alloys having compositions shown in Table 18 were cast by using a DC casting method. The resulting ingots were treated by the same steps as in Example 5 to obtain cold-rolled sheets with a thickness of 1.0 mm. The cold-rolled sheets were subjected to a solution heat treatment and quenched under the same conditions as in Example 1. The quenched products were additionally heat treated at 100° C. for three hours after five minutes.


The final heat treated sheets were used as test materials. Tensile properties, formability, corrosion resistance, and bake hardenability of the test materials were evaluated when 10 days passed after final heat treatment, and misorientation distributions of crystal grain boundaries were measured according to the same methods as in Example 5. The results are shown in Table 19.










TABLE 18







Al-
Composition (mass %)


















loy
Si
Mg
Cu
Mn
Cr
V
Zr
Fe
Zn
Ti
B





















38
0.3
0.5
0.02
0.06
0.01


0.15
0.02
0.03
5


39
1.7
0.5
0.02
0.05
0.01


0.14
0.03
0.02
6


40
1.0
0.1
0.02
0.04
0.01


0.17
0.02
0.03
4


41
1.1
1.5
0.02
0.05
0.01


0.16
0.03
0.03
5


42
1.0
0.5
0.02
0.06
0.01


0.13
0.6
0.02
4


43
1.1
0.6
1.3
0.05
0.01


0.15
0.03
0.02
6


44
1.0
0.5
0.01
0.5
0.01


0.17
0.03
0.03
4


45
1.0
0.5
0.01
0.06
0.4


0.16
0.02
0.02
5


46
1.1
0.6
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.4

0.14
0.02
0.03
4


47
1.1
0.6
0.01
0.06
0.01

0.23
0.16
0.03
0.02
5


48
1.0
0.6
0.02
0.02
0.01


0.14
0.02
0.03
5





Note:


Unit for B is ppm.



















TABLE 19









Percentage







of crystal



grain

Formability
Corrosion
BH














boundaries
Tensile properties

Minimum inner
resistance
σ0.2
















Test

at 15° or
σB
σ0.2
δ
EV
bending radius
Maximum length of
after BH


material
Alloy
less (%)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(mm)
(mm)
filiform corrosion (mm)
(MPa)



















54
38
27
161
68
29
10.8
0
0.4
123


55
39
42
268
142
31
10.6
0.6
1.1
226


56
40
31
160
68
32
10.7
0
1.6
119


57
41
39
279
140
30
10.2
0.7
1.1
228


58
42
41
248
125
31
10.6
0.2
6.8
220


59
43
35
291
129
29
10.5
0.4
5.5
226


60
44
46
245
128
27
9.5
0.7
0.9
215


61
45
51
244
126
29
9.6
0.8
1.1
213


62
46
48
251
131
28
9.8
0.8
1.0
214


63
47
43
244
130
27
9.5
0.7
1.3
214


64
48
17
243
124
30
10.3
0.8
0.4
210









As shown in Table 19, test material No. 54 and test material No. 56 exhibited insufficient BH due to low Si content and low Mg content, respectively. Test material No. 55 and test material No. 57 exhibited insufficient bendability due to high Si content and high Mg content, respectively. Test material No. 58 and test material No. 59 showed inferior filiform corrosion resistance due to high Zn content and high Cu content, respectively. Test materials Nos. 60 to 63 had a small forming height (EV) and insufficient bendability due to high Mn content, high Cr content, high V content, and high Zr content, respectively. Test material No. 64 exhibited insufficient bendability since the percentage of crystal grain boundaries in which misorientation of adjacent crystal grains was 15° or less was less than 20% due to low Mn content.


Example 6

Ingots of the alloy No. 30 shown in Table 16 used in Example 5 were subjected to homogenization, hot rolling, cold rolling, solution heat treatment, additional heat treatment, and reversion treatment under conditions shown in Table 20 to obtain test materials Nos. 65 to 71. In this example, the ingots were cooled to the hot rolling temperature after homogenization, and hot rolling was started at this temperature. Moreover, the homogenization time was six hours, the thickness of the hot-rolled sheet was 4.0 mm, the thickness of the cold-rolled sheet was 1.0 mm, and the period of time between quenching and additional heat treatment was five minutes. The test material No. 65 was subjected to the reversion treatment at 200° C. for three seconds after the additional heat treatment. The reversion treatment was performed when one day was passed after the additional heat treatment.


Tensile properties, formability, corrosion resistance, and bake hardenability of the test materials were evaluated when 10 days passed after final heat treatment, and misorientation distributions of crystal grain boundaries were measured according to the same methods as in Example 5. The results are shown in Table 21. Electrodeposition coating was performed after applying 10% tensile deformation in the direction at 90° to the rolling direction. The presence or absence of ridging marks was evaluated with the naked eye. As a result, occurrence of ridging marks was not observed at all.














TABLE 20









Homogenization

Solution heat













Cooling rate
Hot rolling
treatment
Additional heat













after
Start

Cooling
treatment
















Test

Temp.
homogenization
temperature
Temp.
Time
rate
Temp.
Time


material
Alloy
(° C.)
(° C./h)
(° C.)
(° C.)
(s)
(° C./s)
(° C.)
(h)



















65
30
540
300
400
550
5
30
100
3


66
30
520
300
400
550
5
30
100
3


67
30
540
200
400
550
5
30
100
3


68
30
540
300
450
550
5
30
100
3


69
30
540
300
400
520
30
30
100
3


70
30
540
300
400
550
5
10
100
3


71
30
540
300
400
550
10
30
60
5






















TABLE 21









Percentage







of crystal


Corrosion



grain

Formability
resistance
BH














boundaries
Tensile properties

Minimum inner
Maximum length of
σ0.2
















Test

at 15° or
σB
σ0.2
δ
EV
bending radius
filiform
after BH


material
Alloy
less (%)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(mm)
(mm)
corrosion (mm)
(MPa)



















65
30
41
237
122
31
10.8
0.1
0.3
226


66
30
47
238
117
30
10.4
0.3
0.6
206


67
30
24
241
124
31
10.7
0.3
0.5
206


68
30
27
245
126
31
10.9
0
0.2
215


69
30
48
235
118
31
10.6
0
0.4
207


70
30
37
239
122
31
10.7
0.2
0.6
208


71
30
35
245
126
31
10.7
0.1
0.2
204









As shown in Table 21, the test materials Nos. 65 to 71 according to The present invention showed excellent tensile strength, BH, formability, and corrosion resistance. Moreover, occurrence of ridging marks was not observed at all.


Comparative Example 6

Ingots of the alloy No. 30 shown in Table 16 used in Example 5 were subjected to homogenization, hot rolling, cold rolling, solution heat treatment, additional heat treatment, and reversion treatment under conditions shown in Table 22 to obtain test materials Nos. 72 to 80. In this example, the ingots were cooled to the hot rolling temperature after homogenization, and hot rolling was started at this temperature. Moreover, the homogenization time was six hours, the thickness of the hot-rolled sheet was 4.0 mm, the thickness of the cold-rolled sheet was 1.0 mm, and the period of time between quenching and additional heat treatment was five minutes. The test material No. 80 was subjected to the reversion treatment at 300° C. for 30 seconds. The reversion treatment was performed when one day passed after the additional heat treatment.


Tensile properties, formability, corrosion resistance, and bake hardenability of the test materials were evaluated when 10 days passed after final heat treatment, and misorientation distributions of crystal grain boundaries were measured according to the same methods as in Example 5. The results are shown in Table 23. Electrodeposition coating was performed after applying 10% tensile deformation in the direction at 90° to the rolling direction. The presence or absence of ridging marks was evaluated with the naked eye. As a result, occurrence of ridging marks was observed in the test material No. 74.














TABLE 22









Homogenization

Solution heat













Cooling rate
Hot rolling
treatment
Additional heat













after
Start

Cooling
treatment
















Test

Temp.
homogenization
temperature
Temp.
Time
rate
Temp.
Time


material
Alloy
(° C.)
(° C./h)
(° C.)
(° C.)
(s)
(° C./s)
(° C.)
(h)



















72
30
450
300
400
550
5
30
100
3


73
30
540
100
400
560
10
30
100
3


74
30
540
50
400
560
20
30
100
3


75
30
540
300
500
550
5
30
100
3


76
30
540
300
400
470
10
30
100
3


77
30
540
300
400
550
5
1
100
3


78
30
540
300
400
550
5
30




79
30
540
300
400
550
5
30
140
72 


80
30
540
300
400
550
5
30
100
3






















TABLE 23









Percentage







of crystal


Corrosion



grain

Formability
resistance
BH














boundaries
Tensile properties

Minimum inner
Maximum length of
σ0.2
















Test

at 15° or
σB
σ0.2
δ
EV
bending radius
filiform
after BH


material
Alloy
less (%)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(mm)
(mm)
corrosion (mm)
(MPa)



















72
30
18
215
102
30
9.3
0.8
1.3
172


73
30
15
225
110
31
10.3
0.7
0.7
195


74
30
11
221
107
31
10.4
0.8
0.8
191


75
30
16
243
127
32
10.6
0.7
0.4
218


76
30
43
209
96
27
9.4
0
1.2
164


77
30
35
213
99
28
9.4
0.7
6.2
183


78
30
32
241
124
31
10.8
0.1
0.3
175


79
30
38
281
165
29
9.6
0.4
0.4
228


80
30
36
181
82
30
9.8
0.2
0.2
153









As shown in Table 23, the test material No. 72 had low EV and insufficient bendability due to a low homogenization temperature. Moreover, the test material No. 72 showed inferior BH. The test materials Nos. 73 and 74 showed insufficient bendability and inferior BH due to a low cooling rate after homogenization. Ridging marks occurred in the test material No. 75 due to inferior bendability since the hot rolling start temperature was high. The test material No. 76 had low strength and low EV due to a low solution treatment temperature. Moreover, the test material No. 76 had low BH. The test material No. 77 showed insufficient EV, bendability, and corrosion resistance due to a low quenching rate after the solution heat treatment. Moreover, the test material No. 77 showed insufficient strength and BH. The test material No. 78 had low BH since additional heat treatment was not performed. The test material No. 79 had low EV since the additional heat treatment was performed at a high temperature for a long period of time. The test material No. 80 had low strength and low BH since the reversion treatment temperature was high. Moreover, the test material No. 80 had low EV.


Example 7

Aluminum alloys having compositions shown in Table 24 were cast by using a DC casting method. The resulting ingots were homogenized at 550° C. for six hours and cooled to 200° C. at a cooling rate of 600° C./h. The ingots were cooled to room temperature, heated to 420° C., and hot-rolled to a thickness of 4.5 mm. The hot rolling finish temperature was 250° C.


The hot-rolled products were cold-rolled to a thickness of 1.0 mm. The cold-rolled sheets were subjected to a solution heat treatment at 540° C. for 20 seconds and quenched to 120° C. at a cooling rate of 30° C./s. The quenched sheets were additionally heat treated at 100° C. for three hours after three minutes.


Tensile performance, anisotropy of Lankford values, bake hardenability (BH), and bendability of the aluminum alloy sheets were evaluated according to the following methods when 10 days passed after the final heat treatment. The results are shown in Table 25.


Tensile performance: Tensile specimens were collected in three directions (at 0°, 45°, and 90° to the rolling direction), and subjected to a tensile test to determine average values of tensile strength, yield strength, and elongation as the tensile performance.


Anisotropy of Lankford values: Tensile specimens were collected in three directions (at 0°, 45°, and 90° to the rolling direction), and subjected to a tensile test to determine the Lankford values r at 15% deformation, and to calculate anisotropy of the Lankford values.


Bake hardenability (BH): Yield strength was measured after applying 2% tensile deformation in the rolling direction and performing heat treatment at 170° C. for 20 minutes. A test material having a yield strength of 200 MPa or more was accepted.


Bendability: A 180° bending test for measuring the minimum bending radius was performed after applying 15% tensile prestrain. A test material having a minimum inner bending radius of 0.1 mm or less was accepted.











TABLE 24









Composition (wt %)


















Alloy
Si
Mg
Zn
Cu
Mn
Cr
V
Zr
Fe
Ti
B





















49
1.0
0.65






0.25
0.03
10


50
1.0
0.48

0.02
0.09



0.17
0.02
5


51
0.91
0.53
0.18
0.01
0.1 



0.18
0.02
5


52
1.0
0.4
0.02
0.72
0.1 



0.18
0.02
5


53
1.6
0.34



0.05


0.18
0.02
5


54
1.1
0.54
0.02

0.05

0.08

0.13
0.01
7


55
0.8
1.1
0.01
0.02
0.07


0.08
0.15
0.02
5





Note:


Unit for B is ppm.

















TABLE 25









Tensile performance
Yield

















Tensile
Yield

strength
Anisotropy
Minimum inner


Test

strength
strength
Elongation
after BH
of Lankford
bending radius


material
Alloy
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(MPa)
values r
(mm)





81
49
246
132
30
212
0.66
0.0


82
50
237
122
31
206
0.73
0.0


83
51
241
130
30
210
0.70
0.0


84
52
266
127
31
220
0.45
0.1


85
53
252
141
31
223
0.62
0.1


86
54
239
132
30
219
0.66
0.0


87
55
254
138
29
226
0.57
0.1









As shown in Table 25, test materials Nos. 81 to 87 according to the present invention excelled in strength and BH, had anisotropy of the Lankford values of more than 0.4, and showed excellent minimum bending properties. Bendability after natural aging for four months was evaluated. As a result, the test materials of all the alloys had a minimum bending radius of 0.0-0.1.


Comparative Example 7

Aluminum alloys having compositions shown in Table 26 were cast by using a DC casting method. The resulting ingots were treated by the same steps as in Example 7. Tensile performance, anisotropy of Lankford values, bake hardenability (BH), and bendability of the aluminum alloy sheets were evaluated according to the same methods as in Example 7 when 10 days passed after the final heat treatment. The results are shown in Table 27.










TABLE 26







Al-
Composition (wt %)


















loy
Si
Mg
Zn
Cu
Mn
Cr
V
Zr
Fe
Ti
B





















56
0.34
0.6

0.01
0.06
0.01


0.2
0.02
5


57
2.4
0.5

0.01
0.06



0.18
0.02
5


58
1.1
0.14

0.01

0.05


0.15
0.02
5


59
0.7
1.4
0.1
0.01

0.05


0.15
0.02
5


60
1.7
1.3

0.01
0.06



0.18
0.02
5


61
1.1
0.48

1.5



0.1
0.18
0.02
5


62
1.1
0.53

0.02
1.2 



0.15
0.02
5


63
1.1
0.53

0.03

0.4 


0.17
0.02
5


64
1.1
0.45

0.02

0.01
0.4

0.22
0.02
5


65
1.1
0.61

0.01



0.3
0.14
0.02
5





Note:


Unit for B is ppm.

















TABLE 27









Tensile performance
Yield

















Tensile
Yield

strength
Anisotropy
Minimum inner


Test

strength
strength
Elongation
after BH
of Lankford
bending radius


material
Alloy
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(MPa)
values r
(mm)

















88
56
152
83
29
123
0.62
0.0


89
57
263
148
31
231
0.34
0.6


90
58
162
85
30
132
0.62
0.0


91
59
249
138
29
194
0.26
0.6


92
60
270
154
28
230
0.31
0.6


93
61
283
147
30
243
0.38
0.7


94
62
253
141
29
227
0.26
0.6


95
63
242
133
28
218
0.32
0.5


96
64
239
135
29
217
0.22
0.6


97
65
242
141
28
220
0.15
0.7









As shown in Table 27, test material No. 88 and test material No. 90 exhibited low strength and insufficient BH due to low Si content and low Mg content, respectively. Test material No. 89 had high strength due to high Si content, whereby anisotropy of Lankford values was decreased and bendability was insufficient. Test material No. 91 had a small anisotropy of Lankford values since the value for (Si %−0.58Mg %) was smaller than 0.1%, whereby minimum bendability was insufficient.


Test material No. 92 had a small anisotropy of Lankford values since (0.7Si %+Mg %) exceeded 2.2%, whereby bendability was insufficient. Test materials No. 93 to 97 had a small anisotropy of Lankford values due to high Cu content, high Mn content, high Cr content, high V content, and high Zr content, respectively, whereby bendability was insufficient.


Example 8 and Comparative Example 8

The alloy No. 50 shown in Table 24 was cast by using a DC casting method. The resulting ingots were homogenized at 540° C. for 10 hours and cooled to 250° C. at cooling rates shown in Table 28. The ingots were then cooled to room temperature. The ingots were heated to the temperatures shown in Table 28 and hot-rolled to a thickness of 4.2 mm. The hot rolling finish temperature was 280° C. The hot-rolled products were cold-rolled to obtain sheets with a thickness of 1.0 mm. Only test material No. 107 was cold-rolled to a thickness of 3.0 mm and subjected to process annealing at 450° C. for 30 seconds.


The cold-rolled sheets were subjected to a solution heat treatment at 550° C. for 10 seconds and quenched to 120° C. at a cooling rate of 30° C./s. The quenched sheets were additionally heat treated at 100° C. for three hours after three minutes. Tensile performance, anisotropy of Lankford values, BH, and bendability of the aluminum alloy sheets obtained by these steps were evaluated according to the same methods as in Example 7.


For the evaluation of ridging marks, tensile specimens were collected in the direction at 90° to the rolling direction and subjected to 10% tensile deformation and electrodeposition coating. The presence or absence of ridging marks was then evaluated.


The results are shown in Table 29.











TABLE 28






Cooling rate after
Hot rolling start


Condition
homogenization (° C./h)
temperature (° C.)

















a
550
420


b
200
400


c
3000
430


d
480
480


e
480
360


f
380
550


g
3000
530


h
50
400


i
30
520


j
550
420






















TABLE 29









Tensile performance
Yield

Minimum


















Tensile
Yield

strength
Anisotropy
inner



Test

strength
strength
Elongation
after BH
of Lankford
bending
Occurrence of


material
Condition
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(MPa)
values r
radius (mm)
ridging mark


















98
a
230
121
30
210
0.55
0.0
None


99
b
218
118
31
207
0.62
0.0
None


100
c
234
132
30
226
0.58
0.1
None


101
d
241
130
31
230
0.51
0.1
None


102
e
225
123
32
219
0.67
0.0
None


103
f
236
127
31
227
0.45
0.3
Observed


104
g
238
131
29
222
0.33
0.3
Observed


105
h
212
107
31
193
0.25
0.5
None


106
i
231
125
30
214
0.18
0.6
Observed


107
j
224
118
29
204
0.1
0.4
None









As shown in Table 29, test materials Nos. 98 to 102 according to The present invention excelled in strength and BH, had an anisotropy of Lankford values of more than 0.4, and showed excellent minimum bending properties.


On the contrary, ridging marks occurred in test materials Nos. 103 and 104 due to a high hot rolling temperature. Test material No. 105 had a small anisotropy of Lankford values due to a low cooling rate after homogenization, whereby bendability was insufficient. Ridging marks occurred in test material No. 106 due to a high hot rolling temperature and a low cooling rate after homogenization. Moreover, the test material No. 106 had a small anisotropy of Lankford values, whereby bendability was insufficient. Test material No. 107 had a small anisotropy of Lankford values since process annealing was performed, whereby bendability was insufficient.


Example 9

The alloy No. 50 shown in Table 24 was cast by using a DC casting method. The resulting ingots were homogenized at 550° C. for eight hours and cooled to 200° C. at a cooling rate of 500° C./h. The ingots were cooled to room temperature, heated to 400° C., and hot-rolled to a thickness of 4.2 mm. The hot rolling finish temperature was 260° C.


The hot-rolled products were cold-rolled to obtain sheets with a thickness of 1.0 mm. The cold-rolled sheets were subjected to a solution heat treatment at 550° C. for four seconds and quenched to 120° C. at a cooling rate of 40° C./s. The quenched sheets were additionally heat treated at 100° C. for two hours after two minutes.


The aluminum alloy sheets obtained by these steps were subjected to measurements of tensile strength, yield strength, elongation, Lankford value r, yield strength after BH, and minimum bending radius in the directions at 0°, 45°, and 90° to the rolling direction by using the same methods as in Example 7 when seven days passed after the final heat treatment. Anisotropy of Lankford values r was calculated and the presence or absence of ridging marks was evaluated. The results are shown in Table 30. As shown in Table 30, excellent properties were obtained in all the directions.















TABLE 30












Minimum




Tensile performance
Yield

inner
















Angle to
Tensile


strength


Anisotropy
bending
Occurrence


rolling
strength
Yield
Elongation
after BH
n
r
of Lankford
radius
of ridging


direction
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(MPa)
value
value
values r
(mm)
mark





 0°
241
128
23
227
0.26
0.66
0.61
0.0
None


45°
225
112
37
205
0.29
0.18

0.0
None


90°
234
122
30
221
0.27
0.92

0.0
None









Example 10

Aluminum alloys having compositions shown in Table 31 were cast by using a DC casting method. The resulting ingots were homogenized at 550° C. for six hours and cooled to 200° C. at a cooling rate of 450° C./h. The ingots were then cooled to room temperature, heated to 420° C., and hot-rolled to a thickness of 4.5 mm. The hot rolling finish temperature was 250° C.


The hot-rolled products were cold-rolled to obtain sheets with a thickness of 1.0 mm. The cold-rolled sheets were subjected to a solution heat treatment at 540° C. for 20 seconds and quenched to 120° C. at a cooling rate of 30° C./s. The sheets were additionally heat treated at 100° C. for three hours after three minutes.


The aluminum alloy sheets were subjected to a tensile test when 10 days passed after the final heat treatment. Bake hardenability (BH), intensity ratio (random ratio) of cube orientation, and bendability were evaluated according to the following methods. The results are shown in Table 32.


Intensity ratio of cube orientation: The intensity ratio of cube orientation was calculated by a series expansion method proposed by Bunge using an ODF analysis device in which the expansion order of even-numbered terms was 22 and the expansion order of odd-numbered terms was 19.


Bake hardenability (BH): Yield strength was measured after applying 2% tensile deformation and performing heat treatment at 170° C. for 20 minutes. A test material having a yield strength of 200 MPa or more was accepted.


Bendability: A 180° bending test for measuring the minimum bending radius was performed after applying 15% tensile prestrain. A test material having a minimum inner bending radius of 0.2 mm or less was accepted.











TABLE 31









Composition (wt %)


















Alloy
Si
Mg
Zn
Cu
Mn
Cr
V
Zr
Fe
Ti
B





















66
1.0
0.62






0.24
0.03
10


67
1.0
0.46

0.01
0.08



0.16
0.02
5


68
0.94
0.53
0.18
0.01
0.10



0.15
0.02
5


69
1.0
0.42
0.04
0.75
0.10



0.15
0.02
5


70
1.6
0.36



0.06


0.15
0.02
5


71
1.1
0.54
0.02

0.05

0.09

0.12
0.01
7


72
0.9
1.1
0.01
0.02
0.07


0.07
0.14
0.02
5





Note:


Unit for B is ppm.


















TABLE 32









Tensile performance
Yield
Intensity

















Tensile
Yield

strength
ratio of
Minimum inner


Test

strength
strength
Elongation
after BH
cube
bending radius


material
Alloy
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(MPa)
orientation
(mm)





108
66
244
130
31
208
63
0.1


109
67
238
123
31
207
82
0.0


110
68
239
128
31
212
57
0.1


111
69
263
125
30
222
38
0.2


112
70
252
147
31
226
44
0.2


113
71
241
134
30
221
78
0.1


114
72
253
136
30
228
27
0.2









As shown in Table 32, test materials Nos. 108 to 114 according to the present invention excelled in strength and BH, had an intensity ratio of cube orientation of more than 20, and showed excellent minimum bending properties. Bendability after natural aging for four months was measured. As a result, the test materials of all the alloys had a minimum bending radius of 0.4 or less although the yield strength exceeded 160 MPa.


Comparative Example 9

Aluminum alloys having compositions shown in Table 33 were cast by using a DC casting method. The resulting ingots were treated by the same steps as in Example 10. Tensile performance, bake hardenability (BH), intensity ratio of cube orientation, and bendability of the aluminum alloy sheets were evaluated according to the same methods as in Example 10 when 10 days passed after the final heat treatment. The results are shown in Table 34.











TABLE 33









Composition (wt %)


















Alloy
Si
Mg
Zn
Cu
Mn
Cr
V
Zr
Fe
Ti
B





















73
0.37
0.62

0.01
0.06
0.01


0.22
0.02
5


74
2.4
0.61

0.01
0.06



0.17
0.02
5


75
1.1
0.13

0.01

0.05


0.14
0.02
5


76
0.7
1.8
0.1
0.01

0.05


0.14
0.02
5


77
1.7
0.46

1.5 



0.12
0.17
0.02
5


78
1.1
0.55

0.02
1.3 



0.14
0.02
5


79
1.1
0.54

0.03

0.4 


0.17
0.02
5


80
1.1
0.47

0.02

0.01
0.4

0.24
0.02
5


81
1.1
0.63

0.01



0.3 
0.13
0.02
5





Note:


Unit for B is ppm.


















TABLE 34









Tensile performance
Yield
Intensity

















Tensile
Yield

strength
ratio of
Minimum inner


Test

strength
strength
Elongation
after BH
cube
bending radius


material
Alloy
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(MPa)
orientation
(mm)

















115
73
148
79
30
119
51
0.0


116
74
261
147
31
228
16
0.6


117
75
155
75
29
127
66
0.0


118
76
270
149
29
283
14
0.6


119
77
281
145
29
244
8
0.7


120
78
251
140
29
228
14
0.6


121
79
243
132
27
220
15
0.6


122
80
236
133
29
218
12
0.6


123
81
238
139
29
222
17
0.7









As shown in Table 34, test material No. 115 and test material No. 117 had low strength and insufficient BH due to low Si content and low Mg content, respectively. Test material No. 116 and test material No. 118 showed high strength since (0.7Si %+Mg %) exceeded 2.2% due to high Si content and high Mg content, respectively. As a result, the degree of integration of cube orientation was decreased, whereby bendability was insufficient.


The degree of integration of cube orientation was decreased in test materials Nos. 119 to 123 due to high Cu content, high Mn content, high Cr content, high V content, and high Zr content, respectively, whereby bendability was insufficient.


Example 11 and Comparative Example 10

The alloy No. 67 shown in Table 31 was cast by using a DC casting method. The resulting ingots were homogenized at 550° C. for five hours and cooled to 250° C. at a cooling rate shown in Table 35. The ingots were heated to a temperature shown in Table 35 and hot-rolled to a thickness of 4.4 mm. The hot rolling finish temperature was 250° C. The hot-rolled products were cold-rolled to obtain sheets with a thickness of 1.0 mm. Annealing process was performed at 400° C. for two hours after hot rolling under a condition “t”.


The sheets were subjected to a solution heat treatment at 550° C. for five seconds and quenched to 120° C. at a cooling rate of 30° C./s. The quenched sheets were additionally heat treated at 100° C. for three hours after three minutes. Tensile performance, BH, intensity ratio of cube orientation, and bendability of the aluminum alloy sheets obtained by these steps were evaluated according to the same methods as in Example 10.


For the evaluation of ridging marks, tensile specimens were collected in the direction at 90° to the rolling direction and subjected to 10% tensile deformation and electrodeposition coating. The presence or absence of ridging marks was then evaluated.


The results are shown in Table 36.











TABLE 35






Cooling rate after
Hot rolling start


Condition
homogenization (° C./h)
temperature (° C.)

















k
550
420


l
200
430


m
3500
410


n
500
470


o
450
350


p
360
540


q
2000
520


r
50
410


s
25
530


t
500
420




















TABLE 36









Tensile performance
Yield


















Tensile
Yield

strength
Intensity
Minimum inner
Occurrence


Test

strength
strength
Elongation
after BH
ratio of cube
bending
of ridging


material
Condition
(MPa)
(MPa)
(%)
(MPa)
orientation
radius (mm)
mark


















124
k
232
122
29
213
77
0.0
None


125
l
224
120
31
206
85
0.0
None


126
m
232
131
30
227
73
0.1
None


127
n
241
131
31
232
70
0.1
None


128
o
225
123
31
220
83
0.0
None


129
p
235
126
30
224
35
0.3
Observed


130
q
230
126
28
218
28
0.3
Observed


131
r
214
109
30
190
11
0.5
None


132
s
233
123
30
213
7
0.6
Observed


133
t
226
118
30
208
15
0.4
None









As shown in Table 36, test materials Nos. 124 to 128 according to the present invention excelled in strength and BH, had an intensity ratio of cube orientation of more than 20, and showed excellent minimum bending properties.


On the contrary, ridging marks occurred in test materials Nos. 129 and 130 due to a high hot rolling temperature. Test material No. 131 had a small degree of integration of cube orientation due to a low cooling rate after homogenization, whereby bendability was insufficient. Ridging marks occurred in test material No. 132 due to a high hot rolling temperature and a low cooling rate after homogenization. Moreover, the test material No. 132 had a small degree of integration of cube orientation, whereby bendability was insufficient. Test material No. 133 had a small degree of integration of cube orientation since process annealing was performed, whereby bendability was insufficient.


INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY

According to The present invention, an aluminum alloy sheet having excellent bendability which allows flat hemming, excellent bake hardenability, and excellent corrosion resistance, and a method for producing the same can be provided. The aluminum alloy sheet is suitably used as a lightweight automotive member having a complicated shape which is subjected to hemming, such as an automotive hood, trunk lid, and door.

Claims
  • 1. An aluminum alloy sheet with excellent formability and paint bake hardenability, which comprises Si and Mg as major alloy components, in which an anisotropy of Lankford values is more than 0.4.
  • 2. The aluminum alloy sheet with excellent formability and paint bake hardenability according to claim 1, which comprises 0.5-2.0% of Si and 0.2-1.5% of Mg, with the proviso that the relationships 0.7 Si %+Mg %≦2.2% and Si−0.58 Mg %≧0.1% are satisfied, and the balance consisting of Al and impurities.
  • 3. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 2, which further comprises up to 0.5 mass % of Zn.
  • 4. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 2, which further comprises at least one of up to 1.0 mass % of Mn, up to 0.3 mass % of Cr, up to 0.2 mass % of V and up to 0.2 mass % of Zr.
  • 5. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 3, which further comprises at least one of up to 1.0 mass % of Mn, up to 0.3 mass % of Cr, up to 0.2 mass % of V and up to 0.2 mass % of Zr.
  • 6. The aluminum alloy sheet of claim 2, which further comprises up to 1.0 mass % of Cu.
  • 7. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 2, which further comprises at least one of up to 1.0 mass % of Mn, up to 0.3 mass % of Cr, up to 0.2 mass % of V and up to 0.2 mass % of Zr and up to 1.0 mass % of Cu.
  • 8. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 2, which further comprises at least one of up to 0.1 mass % of Ti and up to 50 ppm of B.
  • 9. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 2, which further comprises at least one of up to 1.0 mass % of Mn, up to 0.3 mass % of Cr, up to 0.2 mass % of V, and up to 0.2 mass % of Zr and at least one of up to 0.1 mass % of Ti and up to 50 ppm of B.
  • 10. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 2, which further comprises up to 1.0 mass % of Cu and at least one of up to 0.1 mass % of Ti and up to 50 ppm of B.
  • 11. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 2, which further comprises at least one of up to 1.0 mass % of Mn, up to 0.3 mass % of Cr, up to 0.2 mass % of V and up to 0.2 mass % of Zr, and up to 0.1 mass % of Cu and at least one of up to 0.1 mass % of Ti and up to 50 ppm of B.
  • 12. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 3, which further comprises up to 1.0 mass % of Cu.
  • 13. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 3, which further comprises at least one of up to 1.0 mass % of Mn, up to 0.3 mass % of Cr, up to 0.2 mass % of V and up to 0.2 mass % of Zr and up to 1.0 mass % of Cu.
  • 14. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 3, which further comprises at least one of up to 0.1 mass % of Ti and up to 50 ppm of B.
  • 15. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 3, which further comprises at least one of up to 1.0 mass % of Mn, up to 0.3 mass % of Cr, up to 0.2 mass % of V and up to 0.2 mass % of Zr and at least one of up to 0.1 mass % of Ti and up to 50 ppm of B.
  • 16. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 3, which further comprises up to 1.0 mass % of Cu and at least one of up to 0.1 mass % of Ti and up to 50 ppm of B.
  • 17. The aluminum alloy sheet according to claim 3, which further comprises at least one of up to 1.0 mass % of Mn, up to 0.3 mass % of Cr, up to 0.2 mass % of V and up to 0.2 mass % of Zr, and up to 1.0 mass % of Cu and at least one of up to 0.1 mass % of Ti and up to 50 ppm of B.
Priority Claims (7)
Number Date Country Kind
2001-091979 Mar 2001 JP national
2001-091980 Mar 2001 JP national
2001-295633 Sep 2001 JP national
2002-063118 Mar 2002 JP national
2002-063119 Mar 2002 JP national
2002-077794 Mar 2002 JP national
2002-077795 Mar 2002 JP national
Parent Case Info

This is a division of Ser. No. 10/468,971, filed Aug. 22, 2003, which was the national stage of International Application No. PCT/JP2002-002900, filed Mar. 26, 2002, which International Application was not published in English.

Divisions (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 10468971 Aug 2003 US
Child 12077854 US