Patent Grant
8206517
High strength aluminum alloys, such as 7XXX series aluminum alloys, may be employed in various industries, such as in the military. However, it is difficult to achieve 7XXX alloys that have a good combination of armor piercing (AP) resistance, fragment simulated particle (FSP) resistance and spall resistance.
Broadly, the present disclosure relates to an improved 7XXX series aluminum alloy having an improved combination of armor piercing (AP) resistance, fragment simulated particle (FSP) resistance, and spall resistance.
The new 7XXX series alloy is generally an ingot cast (e.g., direct chill cast), wrought aluminum alloy (e.g., rolled sheet or plate, extrusion, or forging). The alloy generally comprises (and in some instances consists essentially of) zinc, copper and magnesium as main alloying ingredients, with zirconium (or other appropriate element) being added for grain structure control. Some embodiments of the composition of the aluminum alloy are illustrated in Table 1, below.
Alloy 1 comprises (and in some instances consists essentially of) from about 7.0% Zn to about 9.5% Zn, from about 1.3% Mg to about 1.68 wt. % Mg, from about 1.2 wt. % Cu to about 1.9 wt. % Cu, from about 0.01-0.40 wt. % Zr, the balance essentially aluminum and incidental elements and impurities.
Alloy 2 comprises (and in some instances consists essentially of) from about 7.0% Zn to about 8.5% Zn, from about 1.4% Mg to about 1.68 wt. % Mg, from about 1.3 wt. % Cu to about 1.8 wt. % Cu, from about 0.05-0.25 wt. % Zr, the balance essentially aluminum and incidental elements and impurities.
Alloy 3 comprises (and in some instances consists essentially of) from about 7.0% Zn to about 8.0% Zn, from about 1.5% Mg to about 1.68 wt. % Mg, from about 1.4 wt. % Cu to about 1.7 wt. % Cu, from about 0.08-0.12 wt. % Zr, the balance essentially aluminum and incidental elements and impurities.
The alloys of the present disclosure generally include the stated alloying ingredients, the balance being aluminum, optional grain structure control elements, optional incidental elements and impurities. As used herein, “grain structure control element” means elements or compounds that are deliberate alloying additions with the goal of forming second phase particles, usually in the solid state, to control solid state grain structure changes during thermal processes, such as recovery and recrystallization. Examples of grain structure control elements include Zr, Sc, V, Cr, Mn, and Hf, to name a few.
The amount of grain structure control material utilized in an alloy is generally dependent on the type of material utilized for grain structure control and the alloy production process. When zirconium (Zr) is included in the alloy, it may be included in an amount up to about 0.4 wt. %, or up to about 0.3 wt. %, or up to about 0.2 wt. %. In some embodiments, Zr is included in the alloy in an amount of 0.05-0.15 wt. %. Scandium (Sc), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn) and/or hafnium (Hf) may be included in the alloy as a substitute (in whole or in part) for Zr, and thus may be included in the alloy in the same or similar amounts as Zr.
As used herein, “incidental elements” means those elements or materials that may optionally be added to the alloy to assist in the production of the alloy. Examples of incidental elements include casting aids, such as grain refiners and deoxidizers.
Grain refiners are inoculants or nuclei to seed new grains during solidification of the alloy. An example of a grain refiner is a ⅜ inch rod comprising 96% aluminum, 3% titanium (Ti) and 1% boron (B), where virtually all boron is present as finely dispersed TiB2 particles. During casting, the grain refining rod is fed in-line into the molten alloy flowing into the casting pit at a controlled rate. The amount of grain refiner included in the alloy is generally dependent on the type of material utilized for grain refining and the alloy production process. Examples of grain refiners include Ti combined with B (e.g., TiB2) or carbon (TiC), although other grain refiners, such as Al—Ti master alloys may be utilized. Generally, grain refiners are added in an amount of ranging from 0.0003 wt. % to 0.005 wt. % to the alloy, depending on the desired as-cast grain size. In addition, Ti may be separately added to the alloy in an amount up to 0.03 wt. % to increase the effectiveness of grain refiner. When Ti is included in the alloy, it is generally present in an amount of up to about 0.10 or 0.20 wt. %.
Some alloying elements, generally referred to herein as deoxidizers (irrespective of whether the actually deoxidize), may be added to the alloy during casting to reduce or restrict (and is some instances eliminate) cracking of the ingot resulting from, for example, oxide fold, pit and oxide patches. Examples of deoxidizers include Ca, Sr, and Be. When calcium (Ca) is included in the alloy, it is generally present in an amount of up to about 0.05 wt. %, or up to about 0.03 wt. %. In some embodiments, Ca is included in the alloy in an amount of 0.001-0.03 wt % or 0.05 wt. %, such as 0.001-0.008 wt. % (or 10 to 80 ppm). Strontium (Sr) may be included in the alloy as a substitute for Ca (in whole or in part), and thus may be included in the alloy in the same or similar amounts as Ca. Traditionally, beryllium (Be) additions have helped to reduce the tendency of ingot cracking, though for environmental, health and safety reasons, some embodiments of the alloy are substantially Be-free. When Be is included in the alloy, it is generally present in an amount of up to about 20 ppm.
Incidental elements may be present in minor amounts, or may be present in significant amounts, and may add desirable or other characteristics on their own without departing from the alloy described herein, so long as the alloy retains the desirable characteristics described herein. It is to be understood, however, that the scope of this disclosure should not/cannot be avoided through the mere addition of an element or elements in quantities that would not otherwise impact on the combinations of properties desired and attained herein.
As used herein, impurities are those materials that may be present in the alloy in minor amounts due to, for example, the inherent properties of aluminum and/or leaching from contact with manufacturing equipment. Iron (Fe) and silicon (Si) are examples of impurities generally present in aluminum alloys. The Fe content of the alloy should generally not exceed about 0.25 wt. %. In some embodiments, the Fe content of the alloy is not greater than about 0.15 wt. %, or not greater than about 0.10 wt. %, or not greater than about 0.08 wt. %, or not greater than about 0.05 or 0.04 wt. %. Likewise, the Si content of the alloy should generally not exceed about 0.25 wt. %, and is generally less than the Fe content. In some embodiments, the Si content of the alloy is not greater than about 0.12 wt. %, or not greater than about 0.10 wt. %, or not greater than about 0.06 wt. %, or not greater than about 0.03 or 0.02 wt. %.
Except where stated otherwise, the expression “up to” when referring to the amount of an element means that that elemental composition is optional and includes a zero amount of that particular compositional component. Unless stated otherwise, all compositional percentages are in weight percent (wt. %).
This new aluminum alloy achieves an improved combination of armor piercing resistance, fragment simulated particle resistance, and spall resistance, particularly when overaged relative to peak strength, and achieves a tensile yield strength (TYS) that is (i) at least about 10 ksi less than that of peak strength (e.g., in a T74 temper) and/or not greater than 70 ksi. In one embodiment, the alloy is overaged and has a TYS that is at least about 11 ksi less than that of peak strength. In other embodiments, the alloy is overaged and has a TYS that is at least about 12 ksi less than, or at least about 13 ksi less than, or at least about 14 ksi less than that of peak strength. In one embodiment, the alloy is overaged and has a strength of not greater than 70 ksi. In other embodiments, the alloy is overaged and has a strength of not greater than 69 ksi, or not greater than 68 ksi. In one embodiment, the alloy is overaged and has a strength of at least about 64 ksi. In other embodiments, the alloy is overaged and has a strength of at least about 65 ksi, or at least about 66 ksi. In one embodiment, the alloy is overaged and has a strength in the range of 65 ksi to 70 ksi. In other embodiments, the alloy is overaged and has a strength in the range of 65 ksi to 69 ksi, or 66 to 69 ksi, or 66 to 68 ksi. It is anticipated that alloys having a TYS higher than 70 ksi and/or a TYS close to peak strength may be susceptible to AP rounds, FSPs, and/or spalling, as described in further detail below.
As used herein, “armor piercing resistance” and the like means that an armor component produced from the new 7XXX alloy achieves an armor piercing V50 ballistics limit of at least about 2850 feet per second (fps). In one embodiment, the armor piercing resistance is at least 2900 fps. In other embodiments, the armor piercing resistance is a least about 2950 fps, or at least about 3000 fps.
As used herein, “armor piercing V50 ballistics limit” and the like means that the armor component achieves the stated V50 ballistics limit, as defined in MIL-STD-662F(1997) when tested in accordance with MIL-STD-662F(1997), and utilizing the following conditions:
As used herein, “fragment simulate particle resistance” and the like means that an armor component produced from the alloy achieves a fragment simulated particle V50 ballistics limit of at least about 2950 fps. In one embodiment, the armor piercing resistance is at least 3000 fps. In other embodiments, the armor piercing resistance is a least about 3100 fps, or at least about 3200 fps.
As used herein, “fragment simulated particle V50 ballistics limit” and the like means that the armor component achieves the stated V50 ballistics limit, as defined in MIL-STD-662F(1997) when tested in accordance with MIL-STD-662F(1997), and utilizing the following conditions:
In one embodiment, an armor component produced from the alloy is spall resistant. As used herein, “spall resistant” and the like means that, during ballistics testing conducted in accordance with MIL-STD-662F(1997)), no substantial detachment or delamination of a layer of material in the area surrounding the location of impact occurs, as visually confirmed by those skilled in the art, which detachment or delamination may occur on either the front or rear surfaces of the test product.
The overaging of the instantly disclaimed alloy may be completed in a multi-step aging process. In one embodiment, the multi-step aging process is a 3-stage artificial aging practice. The first step in the 3-stage practice is aging in the range of 200° F.-250° F. (e.g., 225° F.) for about 3-5 hours (e.g., 4 hours). The second step in the 3-stage aging practice is aging at a temperature slightly higher (e.g., at least about 20° F. higher) than the first step aging practice, such as in the range of about 225° F.-275° F. (e.g., 250° F.) for about 7-9 hours (e.g., 8 hours). The third step in the 3-step aging practice is aging at a temperature even higher than the second step aging practice (e.g., at least about 60° F. higher), such as in the range of 300° F.-340° F. (e.g., 320° F.) for about 12-16 hours (e.g., 12, 14 or 16 hours).
Prior to aging, the alloy may be produced via conventional techniques. The alloy may be wrought and solution heat treated (e.g., at 850° F.-900° F.) for a sufficient time based on the thickness of the alloy. After heat treatment, the alloy may be quenched and/or stress relieved (e.g., via stretching or compression of 1-5%). The thickness of a forged and heat treated alloy is generally in the range of 1-4 inches.
An alloy having a composition within the bounds of Alloy 1 of Table 1 is forged, solution heat treated, quenched, and artificially aged, as described above. 12×12 inch targets samples are produced from the forged alloy and have an average thickness of 1.653 inches. The samples have a beveled edge. The thickness of the samples is measured at the center of the sample using a coordinate measuring system.
Threat rounds are obtained to test the ballistics performance of the forged alloys. For FSP tests, 20 mm FSP rounds are used. The FSP rounds are manufactured in accordance with MIL-P-46593A. The rounds are hardened steel projectiles machined from 4340 steel and have a blunt nose. The FSP rounds weigh 830 grains, with an overall length of 0.912 inch and a main body diameter of 0.784 inch (all values are average).
The AP rounds are American 0.30 cal APM2 rounds obtained from original U.S. military surplus ammunition. These rounds are hand-loaded to achieve the desired impact velocity. The 0.30 cal APM2 is an armor piercing round including a hardened steel core (Rc 63) contained within a copper/gliding metal jacket. A small amount of lead fill is also present in the round. The 0.30 APM2 rounds weigh about 165 grains with the armor piercing core accounting for about 80 grains.
FSP Testing Conditions
The alloy panels are tested for FSP resistance in accordance with MIL-STD-662F(1997). In particular, the FSP rounds are fired in the Medium Caliber Range. The FSP rounds are fired from rifled barrels without the use of sabots. The impact location and target obliquity are confirmed using a bore-mounted laser. All testing is completed in an indoor facility with the muzzle of the gun approximately 22 feet from the alloy panel targets.
AP Testing Conditions
The alloy panels are tested for AP resistance in accordance with MIL-STD-662F(1997). In particular, the AP rounds are fired utilizing a universal gun mount. A barrel chambered for a 30-06 Springfield cartridge is used to fire the APM2 projectiles. A bore mounted laser is used to align the gun with the desired impact locations on the target and to confirm target obliquity. All testing is completed in an indoor facility with the muzzle of the gun approximately 22 feet from the alloy panel targets.
Measurement of Impact Velocities
Projectile impact velocities are measured using two sets of Oehler Model 57 photoelectric chronographs located between the gun and the target. The spacing between each set of chronographs is 48 inches. A Hewlett Packard HP 53131A universal counter, triggered by the chronographs, is used to record the projectile travel time between screens. Projectile velocity is then calculated using the recorded travel times and the known travel distance. An average of the two calculated values is recorded as the screen velocity. The distance from the center of the screens to the impact location is approximately 4.1 feet. Unlike AP rounds, FSP rounds tend to slow down quickly due to their shape. Deceleration is taken into account by using the formulas for deceleration in AEP-55, “NATO AEP-55 VOL 1 ED 1 PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE PROTECTION LEVEL OF LOGISTIC AND LIGHT ARMOURED VEHICLES VOLUME 1”.
Target Holders
The aluminum alloy targets are held in a rigid target holder. The target holder is constructed out of 2 inches×4.1875 inches structural tubing forming a window frame with two long horizontal supports that are clamped to a large frame. The target is centered in the opening in the target holder—the opening is 10×10 inches. Each of the targets is impacted at the center of the sample.
Witness Panels
Witness panels are used during the test in accordance with MIL-STD-662F(1997). The panels are produced from a 2024-T3 aluminum alloy and have dimensions of 12 inches by 16 inches with a thickness of 0.020 inch. The witness panels are located approximately six inches behind the rear face of the alloy target sample.
Pass/Fail Criteria
Pass/fail for the testing is based on the ability of the armor target samples to stop the threat round and protect an aluminum witness panel located behind the target. If a witness panel is damaged such that light can pass through the witness panel, a complete penetration (fail) of the armor target sample occurs. This damage to the witness plate can be caused by either the projectile or spall. A partial penetration (pass) occurs if the witness panel is not perforated during the test.
FSP Results
Table 2, below, provides the results of the FSP ballistic testing and the corresponding strike velocities. The table is sorted by estimated strike velocity.
Many of the FSP test samples do not span during the test and thus are considered spall resistant.
AP Results
Table 3, below, provides the results of the AP ballistic testing and the corresponding strike velocities. The table is sorted by estimated strike velocity.
All of the AP tests do not spall during the test and thus are considered spall resistant.
Summary of Results
Table 4 provides a summary of the V50 data for the samples. This data is also compared with the minimum values found in military specifications for AA5083 and AA7039. The AA7039 military specification only contains thickness of up to 1.53 inches, so a curve fit is performed to estimate AA7039 values on samples having a thickness of about 1.655 inches. This fit is illustrated in
In other words, the 7XXX alloys of the present disclosure achieve at least about 7% better AP resistance than the closest known prior art alloy of AA7039-T6, while achieving similar FSP resistance (thick sample). The 7XXX alloys are also 19% better in AP resistance than AA5083-H131 and are 11% better in FSP resistance than AA5083-H131. The new 7XXX alloys are also spall resistant, whereas the prior art alloys may not be spall resistant. Typical properties of the new 7XXX alloy, relative to forgings, are provided in Table 5, below.
While various embodiments of the present disclosure have been described in detail, it is apparent that modifications and adaptations of those embodiments will occur to those skilled in the art. However, it is to be expressly understood that such modifications and adaptations are within the spirit and scope of the present disclosure.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3135633 | Hornus | Jun 1964 | A |
| 3305410 | Sublett et al. | Feb 1967 | A |
| 3542606 | Westerman et al. | Nov 1970 | A |
| 3645804 | Ponchel | Feb 1972 | A |
| 3836405 | Staley et al. | Sep 1974 | A |
| 3856584 | Cina | Dec 1974 | A |
| 3881966 | Staley et al. | May 1975 | A |
| 3945860 | Winter et al. | Mar 1976 | A |
| 3947297 | Reimann et al. | Mar 1976 | A |
| 4090011 | Barkman et al. | May 1978 | A |
| 4189334 | Dubost et al. | Feb 1980 | A |
| 4200476 | Dubost et al. | Apr 1980 | A |
| 4294625 | Hyatt et al. | Oct 1981 | A |
| 4323399 | Dubost et al. | Apr 1982 | A |
| 4345951 | Coupry et al. | Aug 1982 | A |
| 4431467 | Staley et al. | Feb 1984 | A |
| 4477292 | Brown | Oct 1984 | A |
| 4488913 | Ferton | Dec 1984 | A |
| 4618382 | Miyagi et al. | Oct 1986 | A |
| 4648913 | Hunt et al. | Mar 1987 | A |
| 4747890 | Meyer | May 1988 | A |
| 4797165 | Bretz et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4816087 | Cho | Mar 1989 | A |
| 4828631 | Ponchel et al. | May 1989 | A |
| 4832758 | Brown | May 1989 | A |
| 4863528 | Brown et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
| 4946517 | Cho | Aug 1990 | A |
| 4954188 | Ponchel et al. | Sep 1990 | A |
| 4961792 | Rioja et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
| 4988394 | Cho | Jan 1991 | A |
| 5047092 | Faure | Sep 1991 | A |
| 5066342 | Rioja et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
| 5108520 | Liu et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
| 5110372 | Faure | May 1992 | A |
| RE34008 | Quist et al. | Jul 1992 | E |
| 5151136 | Witters et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
| 5213639 | Colvin et al. | May 1993 | A |
| 5221377 | Hunt et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5240522 | Tanaka et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5277719 | Kuhlman et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5413650 | Jarrett et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5496426 | Murtha | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5560789 | Sainfort et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5759302 | Nakai et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5865911 | Miyasato et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 6027582 | Shahani et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6048415 | Nakai et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6342111 | Meki et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6595467 | Schmidt | Jul 2003 | B2 |
| 6790407 | Fridlyander et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
| 6972110 | Chakrabarti et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
| 7097719 | Bray et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7214281 | Lulian et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 20020150498 | Chakrabarti et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20030116608 | Litwinski | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20040136862 | Bray et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20050011932 | Ehrstrom et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050058568 | Boselli et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050098245 | Venema et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050150578 | Bes et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050150579 | Chakrabarti et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050189044 | Benedictus et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050269000 | Denzer et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060054666 | Ehrstrom et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060174980 | Benedictus et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060182650 | Eberl et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060191609 | Dangerfield et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20070151636 | Buerger et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20080283163 | Bray et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 677779 | Feb 1999 | EP |
| 377779 | Sep 2001 | EP |
| 829552 | Jul 2003 | EP |
| 1544315 | Jun 2005 | EP |
| 1799391 | Mar 2006 | EP |
| 2853666 | Oct 2004 | FR |
| 2872172 | Dec 2005 | FR |
| 58161747 | Sep 1983 | JP |
| 58213852 | Dec 1983 | JP |
| 5928555 | Feb 1984 | JP |
| 2001335874 | Dec 2001 | JP |
| WO2006086534 | Aug 2006 | WO |
| WO2008156532 | Dec 2008 | WO |
