Powder Metallurgy

ISSN: 0032-5899 (Print) 1743-2901 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ypom20

Powder metallurgy processing of Al–Cu–Mg alloy

with low Cu/Mg ratio

R W Cooke, R L Hexemer, I W Donaldson & D P Bishop

To cite this article: R W Cooke, R L Hexemer, I W Donaldson & D P Bishop (2012) Powder
metallurgy processing of Al–Cu–Mg alloy with low Cu/Mg ratio, Powder Metallurgy, 55:1, 29-35,
DOI: 10.1179/1743290111Y.0000000013

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1743290111Y.0000000013

Published online: 12 Nov 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 256

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ypom20

Download by: [Florida Atlantic University] Date: 18 April 2016, At: 11:50
 Powder metallurgy processing of Al–Cu–Mg
alloy with low Cu/Mg ratio
R. W. Cooke1, R. L. Hexemer Jr2, I. W. Donaldson2 and D. P. Bishop*1
The objective of this work was to develop an Al–Cu–Mg alloy with a low Cu/Mg ratio suitable for
press and sinter powder metallurgy (PM) processing. A bulk composition of Al–2?3Cu–1?6Mg was
explored for this purpose. Data revealed that the alloy exhibited a normal response to uni-axial die
compaction with a performance that was aligned with commercial blends. Temperature and tin
content were found to influence the sintering response. Once optimised, near-full theoretical
density was achieved in the sintered product. The alloy was also responsive to T6 heat treatment.
Peak hardness was attained by solutionising at 530uC and then aging at 200uC for 20 h. Tensile
data revealed that the alloy exhibited a very well balanced combination of properties in the T1 and
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 11:50 18 April 2016

T6 tempers. In this sense, relatively high values of yield strength and ultimate tensile strength were
accompanied by wrought-like stiffness and levels of tensile ductility that were abnormally high for
press and sinter aluminium PM alloys.
Keywords: Aluminium powder metallurgy, Die compaction, Sintering, Al–Cu–Mg alloys, Tensile properties, Heat treatment

Introduction of processing. This point was highlighted in a recent

Aluminium alloys are important structural metals that
are used in a broad array of applications. In scenarios
wherein mechanical properties are a key concern,
wrought alloys that contain magnesium and copper are
frequently employed. Denoted as the 2xxx series, these
alloys are highly responsive to heat treatment and can
reach tensile strengths in excess of 400 MPa.1 A key
factor for this class of alloys is the total amount of
copper and magnesium added and the respective ratio of
these concentrations. This feature plays a pivotal role in
mechanical property development as it governs the types
of precipitates that will form during heat treatment.2 In
particular, the relative amounts of phases from the h-
type (CuAl2) and S-type (Al2CuMg) precipitation
sequences. The former are typically the dominant
strengthening agents when a high Cu/Mg ratio exists3
whereas the latter prevail in those that exhibit a lower
value.4 Another distinguishing attribute is the fact that
S-type precipitates tend to nucleate on dislocations
whereas the h-type do not.5 As such, Al–Cu–Mg alloys
with a low Cu/Mg ratio are generally cold worked
between the quenching and aging stages of heat
treatment as this promotes a refined distribution of
precipitates and tangible gains in mechanical properties.
Engineering of the Cu/Mg concentrations such that a
particular precipitate (or mixture thereof) is favoured is
a critical decision that can be premised on a variety of
factors. A principal amongst these is the desired manner
1
Department of Process Engineering and Applied Science, Dalhousie
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
2
GKN Sinter Metals LLC, 3300 University Drive, Auburn Hills, MI, USA
*Corresponding author, email Paul.Bishop@dal.ca
study completed by Boland et al.6 Here, the authors
developed a new aluminium alloy from the Al–Cu–Mg
system specifically designed for a press and sinter style of
powder metallurgy (PM) processing. In this particular
process, powder blends are initially compacted, sintered,
and then gas quenched to ambient temperature. The rate
of cooling experienced during the gas quench is sufficient
to form a super saturated solid solution in the sintered
product. The cooled preforms are then immediately cold
formed (a.k.a. sized) in rigid tooling under high pressure
while the alloy remains in the soft, under aged condition.
This step improves the dimensional tolerances of the
product and increases the concentration of dislocations
in the material through strain hardening. The finished
product is then aged naturally to a stable condition in
the final stage of the production cycle. Akin to
conventional aluminium alloys, natural aging imparts
significant gains in hardness and tensile strength to the
PM product.6,7
Historically, a PM alloy known as AC2014 has been
utilised in this production scenario. This alloy has
relatively high copper content (4?5 wt-%) but a low
concentration of magnesium (0?6 wt-%).8 This repre-
sents a relatively high Cu/Mg ratio of 7?5 : 1 and is
known to favour the precipitation of h-type phases with
an effective absence of those from the S family
(Al2CuMg).6,9 Boland et al. rationalised that as the
PM process involved cold work prior to natural aging, it
would be more advantageous to utilise an alloy that
favoured the precipitation of S-type phases given their
aforementioned tendency to nucleate on dislocations.
This concept led to the development of a new alloy
denoted as PM 2324. With a nominal composition of
Al–4?4Cu–1?5Mg, the alloy has a reduced Cu/Mg ratio

ß 2012 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 11 March 2011; accepted 25 June 2011
DOI 10.1179/1743290111Y.0000000013 Powder Metallurgy 2012 VOL 55 NO 1 29
 Cooke et al. Powder metallurgy processing of Al–Cu–Mg alloy
(2?9 : 1) that imparts a high concentration of S-type
precipitates in the aged product.10 The system per-
formed exceptionally well in an industrial production
environment and exhibited tensile properties that greatly
surpassed those of conventional AC2014 [i.e. 66%
increase in yield strength (YS)].6 Given the clear
importance of the Cu/Mg ratio, the authors now look
to assess Al–Cu–Mg PM alloys with an even lower value
in the hopes of discovering additional alloys of
industrial merit. A nominal alloy composition of Al–
2?3Cu–1?6Mg was employed for this purpose. This alloy
was specifically chosen as it has a Cu/Mg of 1?44 : 1;
exactly half that found in PM 2324.
Experimental techniques
Powder blending was carried out in a Turbula model
T2M mixer with a blending time of 30 min. Compaction
was completed at pressures from 200 to 600 MPa with
an Instron 5594–200 HVL load frame (1000 kN
capacity) in conjunction with floating-die laboratory
tooling. Tests applied to as pressed compacts (rectan-
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 11:50 18 April 2016
gular bars 12?7610631?7 mm) included the measure-
ment of green density and green strength. In the former,
the testing procedure described in Metal Powder
Industries (MPIF) standard 42 was followed.11 Briefly,
the compacts were first weighed in air then infiltrated
with oil under vacuum, dried and weighed a second time
but when suspended in water. A three-point bending
fixture in conjunction with a low range load frame
(50 kN capacity) was used to assess green strength
(MPIF Standard 15).12 Compacts were then sintered in a
controlled atmosphere tube furnace under flowing
nitrogen (99?999%). Specimens were subjected to a
thermal profile that included 20 min holds at 400uC
for de-lubrication and then at 560 to 640uC for sintering.
Specimens were held at the required sintering tempera-
ture within a tolerance of ¡5uC. The sintered compacts
were then gas quenched to room temperature. Sintered
samples were characterised through a number of
techniques. First, sintered density was measured using
the same Archimedes-type procedure applied to green
compacts. Two bars were tested in this manner for each
condition with average values reported.
Information on the microstructural features of
sintered alloys was gathered through use of a Hitachi
S4700 field emission scanning electron microscope
(FESEM) coupled with an Oxford energy dispersive
spectrometer (EDS) for chemical analyses. The FESEM
was operated with an accelerating voltage of 20 kV and
a beam current of 15 mA. Specimens needed for this
purpose were vacuum mounted in epoxy resin, ground
with 600 grit SiC paper, and then polished with 6 and
1 mm diamond followed by 0?05 mm colloidal silica.
Electrical conductivity was maintained using silver
paste. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) was
employed in heat treatment studies. The instrument
was a SDT – Q600 DSC manufactured by TA
instruments. All samples were heated at a rate of
10 K min21 from room temperature to 520uC under
flowing nitrogen (100 mL min21). To gain a concise
appreciation of the precipitation events that occurred in
the specimens, a sample of pure (99?99%), annealed
aluminium of the same geometry was initially tested.
The resultant normalised heat flow data were then
subtracted from those acquired for each PM specimen
30 Powder Metallurgy 2012 VOL 55 NO 1
tested so as to isolate heat changes due to precipitate
transitions within the alloy.13 In T6 heat treatment
studies test bars were solutionised at 530uC for 120 min
in air, water quenched, and then aged for various times
at 200uC. Tensile properties were measured on as
sintered dog bones as well as threaded end bars
machined from sintered charpy bars per ASTM stan-
dard E-8M.14 Such tests were performed with the same
load frame used for powder compaction. Here, samples
were loaded at a rate of 2 MPa s21 until failure with an
Epsilon 3542 extensometer affixed to the specimen for
the duration of a test. All tensile data reported represent
an average of at least three individual tests.
Materials
The PM alloy of interest in this study was prepared from
a series of commercially available powders. These
included air atomised aluminium, an aluminium–copper
master alloy, atomised magnesium and atomised tin. All
elemental powders had a minimum reported purity of
99%. Specific details on these powders are given
elsewhere.6 Nominal contents of copper and magnesium
were maintained at 2?3 and 1?6 wt-% respectively. Tin
contents ranged from 0 to 1?5 wt-% with a balance of
aluminium in all instances.
Results and discussion
Die compaction response
All PM processing experiments were completed on a
base alloy that was blended to a nominal bulk
composition of Al–2?3Cu–1?6Mg. Using this formula-
tion, the first set of experiments was dedicated to an
assessment of the powder compaction response.
Included were measurements of the rate of flow,
apparent density of the loose powder, as well as green
strength and density as functions of applied compaction
pressure. The alloy exhibited excellent flow with an
average value of 2?9 g s21 recorded using a Carney flow
meter and a starting powder mass of 25 g. The apparent
density was found to be 1?18 g cc21 using the same
apparatus. A compressibility curve for the alloy is given
in Fig. 1a. A curve typical of many aluminium PM
blends was observed in that density initially increased
sharply with compaction pressure but then began a
gradual plateau at pressures >400 MPa.6,15,16 The
maximum green density achieved was 2?63 g cc21. This
corresponded to y97% of the calculated full theoretical
value (2?73 g cc21).
Over the range of pressures assessed green strength
(Fig. 1b) ranged from 6000 to 10 000 kPa. In an
industrial production scenario, aluminium PM blends
must be free-flowing and exhibit adequate green density/
strength if components are to be fabricated in a robust
manner. As each of these parameters measured for the
experimental alloy was largely equivalent to those
observed in commercially exploited blends such as
AC2014,6,16 the experimental system was deemed to
have an adequate compaction response overall.
Sintering response
Data on the general sintering response of the base alloy
are presented in the following section. Included are the
effects of sintering temperature and tin content on

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 11:50 18 April 2016
1 Data on general compaction performance of Al–2?3Cu–
1?6Mg: a green density and b green strength as func-
tions of compaction pressure
densification behaviour, apparent hardness, and tensile
properties.
Effects of sintering temperature
To assess the effects of sintering temperature, rectan-
gular bars were compacted at 400 MPa and sintered in
flowing nitrogen. All bars were delubricated at 400uC for
20 min and then sintered for the same period of time
(20 min) but at different temperatures. Data on sintered
density as a function of sintering temperature are shown
in Fig. 2. Sintering temperatures (600uC were largely
ineffective as low sintered densities were observed. A
sharp upward trend then occurred over the narrow
temperature window of 600–620uC. Here, sintered
density increased markedly with values of y98% of full
theoretical achieved. Sintered density was then found
to be essentially independent of sintering temperature
up to the maximum temperature considered (640uC).
Apparent hardness varied with sintering temperature in
the same manner (Fig. 3). Here, an upper value of
y81 HRE was attained after specimens were aged at
room temperature to a stable condition. These trends
were believed to correlate to the evolution of a persistent
liquid phase within the compacts. In this regard, the
general behaviour is that more liquid is formed with
increasing temperature. Furthermore, a threshold level
of liquid must be formed in order for the mechanisms of
liquid phase sintering to engage.6,15,17 In this context, it
is postulated that the minimum fraction of liquid phase
was achieved in specimens sintered at 620uC and higher
and that this in turn, prompted the high level of
densification observed.
Cooke et al. Powder metallurgy processing of Al–Cu–Mg alloy
2 Sintered density as function of sintering temperature
for Al–2?3Cu–1?6Mg
3 Apparent hardness as function of sintering temperature
for Al–2?3Cu–1?6Mg
With a sintering temperature of 600uC it was noted
that the sintered density only showed potential signs for
a slight upward trend whereas apparent hardness had
increased appreciably. Thermodynamic calculations
(FACTSage 6?0) confirmed that there should be a
gradual emergence in the quantity of liquid phase
formed as a function of sintering temperature. A
persistent liquid was predicted to first form at 559uC
rising to 8?6 wt-% at 600uC and then eventually, to
21?0 wt-% at 620uC. The small quantity present at 600uC
is believed to have been insufficient for appreciable
densification though conventional mechanisms such as
particle rearrangement. However, it is postulated that it
was enough to rupture the alumina/hydroxide skin on
the aluminium powder particles. This would have then
enabled copper and magnesium to diffuse into these
soft, elemental particles so as to form an alloy and
thereby harden them appreciably. In this scenario, the
final product exhibited improved hardness through the
onset of chemical homogenisation but remained in an
under sintered state owing to the poor final density.
Overall, consistent density and apparent hardness
were achieved in compacts sintered between 620 and
640uC. At the lower end of this range a steep transition
towards poorly sintered compacts transpired. Further-
more, it is desirable to sinter aluminium PM alloys at
the lowest temperature possible in order to mini-
mise microstructure coarsening and the concomitant
Powder Metallurgy 2012 VOL 55 NO 1 31
 Cooke et al. Powder metallurgy processing of Al–Cu–Mg alloy
4 Net dimensional change of Al–2?3Cu–1?6Mg as function
of tin content
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 11:50 18 April 2016
5 Sintered density as function of tin content for Al–
2?3Cu–1?6Mg–xSn. All specimens sintered at 630uC for
20 min
degradation in tensile properties that can often
ensue.10,16 To balance these considerations and maintain
a relatively robust sintering cycle, an intermediate
temperature of 630uC was adopted for all subsequent
sintering trials.
Effects of tin content
Minor additions of tin are known to impart an improved
sintering response in a number of aluminium PM
alloys.6,10,16,18,19 To determine if this concept was
applicable to the base alloy in this study, blends were
prepared with tin contents ranging from 0?1 to 1?5 wt-%.
All specimens were rectangular bars compacted at
400 MPa and sintered at 630uC. Data on the net
dimensional change (length direction only) as a function
of tin content are shown in Fig. 4. This feature expanded
by an average amount of z0?38% in the absence of tin.
However, the width and thickness of these same tin-free
specimens shrank by 1?24 and 2?86% respectively
culminating in a net gain in density relative to that of
the green compacts (Fig. 1a). With the addition of as
little as 0?1 wt-% tin, swelling in the length direction was
reversed to a state of contraction at a level of 0?63%;
concurrently, comparable levels of shrinkage in the
width and thickness dimensions were maintained. The
maximum contraction occurred at 0?5% tin with lesser
gains noted at concentrations of 1?0 and 1?5%.
Corresponding data on sintered density as a function
of tin content are shown in Fig. 5. These values trended
32 Powder Metallurgy 2012 VOL 55 NO 1
6 Sintered microstructures observed in sintered samples
that contained a 0, b 0?2 and c 1?0 wt-% tin
in a manner similar to that of dimensional change. In
this sense, gains in this attribute were also realised with
fractions of tin on the order of 0?1–0?5% and then
declined slightly thereafter. Near full density was
achieved peaking at 99?2% of theoretical. The apparent
hardness for peak density samples was improved to
84 HRE as compared to 81 HRE in the absence of tin
(Fig. 3).
Micrographs of the unmodified base alloy as well as
those that contained 0?2 and 1?0 wt-% tin are shown in
Fig. 6. All of the microstructures exhibited a minor
amount of residual porosity (black) consistent with
sintered density measurements (Fig. 5). Secondary
(bright) phases were also present in each alloy but were
most prevalent in the alloy that contained 1 wt-% tin. In
all instances, the secondary phases were found to be
enriched in aluminium together with copper, magnesium
and/or tin. Concise chemical analysis of these features
proved impractical with EDS techniques given the
relatively small size of the features. The principal
constituent in all of the images was a-aluminium grains
(dark grey matrix). Assays for this feature were feasible
through EDS analyses and are given in Table 1. Each
reported value represents an average of 10 assays

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 11:50 18 April 2016
a YS/UTS; b elongation to failure
7 T1 tensile properties of Al–2?3Cu–1?6Mg as functions
of tin content: all specimens sintered at 630uC for
20 min
completed at random locations throughout the mount.
The same three elements were detected in all of the
grains analysed, aluminium, copper and magnesium. Tin
was not found in the grains consistent with the negligible
solid solubility predicted in the Al–Sn binary phase
diagram.20 The alloy dilute in tin (0?2 wt-%) exhibited
average amounts of copper and magnesium that were
comparable to the tin-free specimen. However, the
concentrations of these same elements were appreciably
less when the bulk tin content was increase to 1 wt-%.
Tensile property data were also acquired as a function
of tin content as shown in Fig. 7. These results
confirmed that tangible gains were attained in most
properties with select tin additions. The benefits were
most pronounced at the lower levels of tin. The highest
average values for ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and
YS were 240 and 158 MPa respectively and these
occurred with an addition of 0?2 wt-%. Both of these
properties then declined steadily with further increases
in tin content. At the higher levels assessed (>1 wt-%)
the properties became inferior to the base alloy without
any tin added. These observations can be explained by
collating data on sintered density together with micro-
structural observations.
First, small additions of tin prompted a significant
increase in sintered density and tensile strength. Given
that tensile strength scales directly with density for
sintered PM alloys the upward trends in YS and UTS at
low levels of tin are justified. Although sintered density
peaked with 0?5 wt-% tin and then remained relatively
Cooke et al. Powder metallurgy processing of Al–Cu–Mg alloy
constant up to 1?5 wt-%, YS and UTS were both in a
state of steady decline over this entire range. This
indicated that secondary factors had engaged and were
offsetting the benefits of heightened density. Evidence of
this was present in SEM findings. Here, high levels of tin
(1 wt-%) prompted a partitioning effect of sorts wherein
portions of the added copper and magnesium were
displaced from the a-aluminium grains and into coarse,
intergranular secondary phases. This presents a signifi-
cant disruption to the principal strengthening agent in
the alloy; namely, precipitation hardening. For this
mechanism to transpire, maximised concentrations of
magnesium and copper must be maintained with the a-
aluminium grains upon cooling from the sintering
temperature so as to enable the subsequent precipitation
and growth of strengthening phases such as S-type
(CuMgAl2) and h-type (CuAl2) during post-sinter
natural aging. Reducing the amount of copper and
magnesium present would have scaled with a direct
reduction in the concentration of precipitated phases
and ultimately lowered YS and UTS. It is expected that
this same effect would have transpired for all levels of tin
considered. However, the extent of partitioning was
relatively minor at low concentrations of tin (Table 1).
So much so, that any associated loss in precipitate
concentration was overshadowed by the positive gains
that came as a result of increased sintered density
(Fig. 5).
The increased propensity for copper and magnesium
portioning was further substantiated through thermo-
dynamic calculations (FACTSage 6?0). Here it was
predicted that the amount of liquid phase at 630uC
would have increased linearly from 33 wt-% in the
absence of tin up to 44 wt-% when 1?5 wt-% tin was
present. The copper and magnesium concentrations of
the liquid were largely static (5 and 2?6 wt-% respec-
tively) while the amount of tin increased. In this
scenario, progressively larger amounts of copper and
magnesium were ultimately retained in the solidified
remnants of the liquid phase within the sintered
microstructure (consistent with Fig 6a–c) thereby result-
ing in reduced concentrations of these important
elements within the a-aluminium grains.
Tensile ductility was also improved significantly with
the addition of tin (Fig. 7b). The highest values again
transpired at the dilute end of the concentration range
having increased to nearly 6% as compared to only 3?8%
in the absence of tin. In prior studies by MacAskill
et al.,21 the sintering response of Al–Mg–Sn PM alloys
was investigated. It was noted that sintered Al–Mg
alloys exhibited poor tensile ductility. Mechanistically,
this was ascribed to the nitridation that occurred on the
surface of aluminium powder during sintering. This was
Table 1 Average EDS analyses of a-aluminium grains in
sintered alloys of Al–2?3Cu–1?6Mg that contained
various concentrations of tin
Average chemistry of
a-aluminium grains/wt-%
Bulk tin
content/wt-% Al Cu Mg
0 Bal. 2.35¡0.37 1.44¡0.19
0.2 Bal. 2.30¡0.43 1.39¡0.10
1.0 Bal. 1.56¡0.58 1.06¡0.11
Powder Metallurgy 2012 VOL 55 NO 1 33
 Cooke et al. Powder metallurgy processing of Al–Cu–Mg alloy
8 Net mass loss in sintered compacts of Al–2?3Cu–
1?6Mg–xSn as function of tin content. All specimens
sintered at 630uC for 20 min
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 11:50 18 April 2016
9 Normalised heat flow trace recorded from sample of
Al–2?3Cu–1?6Mg–0?2Sn in T1 temper
identified through a series of tests including the
measurement of net mass changes incurred as a result
of sintering. The authors then went on to determine that
this effect was reduced considerably when an optimal
level of tin was added thereby prompting an increase in
ductility. It is postulated that a similar scenario
transpired in this work. Evidence of this was gathered
through inspection of net weight loss data versus tin
content (Fig. 8). This plot indicated that the specimen
devoid of tin exhibited a mass change of 1?42%. The
difference between this value and the amount of
lubricant added (1?50%) comes as a result mass gain
through nitridation. Tin additions >0?2 wt-% shifted
the net mass change to a nominal value of 1?47%. This
was appreciably closer to the starting lubricant concen-
tration and implied that the extent of nitridation was
reduced in these particular alloys. As such, the attenua-
tion of increased ductility in tin bearing specimens was
justified.
Heat treatment
Data from prior sections indicated that the most
promising alloy chemistry was Al–2?3Cu–1?6Mg–
0?2Sn. The T6 heat treatment response of this alloy
was then investigated as a potential means to invoke
further mechanical gains. Initially, a sample of the as
sintered alloy (T1 temper) was analysed using DSC
techniques. The resultant heat flow data are shown in
Fig. 9. The feature of principal interest was the broad
endothermic peak found in the upper temperature
regime. In heat treatable aluminium alloys this type of
34 Powder Metallurgy 2012 VOL 55 NO 1
10 Age hardening curve developed for Al–2?3Cu–1?6Mg–
0?2Sn. Specimens solutionised at 530uC for 2 h, water
quenched, and aged at 200uC for times indicated
peak is denoted as a dissolution trough and is synon-
ymous with the formation of a solid solution when pre-
existing precipitates are dissolved.22 The end of the
trough corresponds to the completion of dissolution
reactions and as such, the temperature employed for
solutionising. In this context, DSC data indicated that
dissolution was complete in the PM alloy at 530uC.
Additional specimens of the PM alloy were then
solutionised at 530uC, water quenched, and aged for
different times at 200uC. The resultant age hardening
curve is shown in Fig. 10. A peak hardness of 61 HRB
(97 HRE) was attained after an aging time of 20 h. This
hardness was significantly higher than that observed in
the T1 temper (81 HRE). A summary of the correspond-
ing tensile properties achieved at peak hardness (T6
temper) versus the T1 temper is shown in Table 2. Data
derived from as sintered dog bones as well as fully
machined threaded end bars are included for compar-
ison purposes. For each specimen type considerable
increases in YS, UTS and Young’s modulus E occurred
as a result of T6 processing. A concomitant reduction in
tensile ductility also transpired as expected. These
findings confirmed that the T6 process parameters
identified through DSC studies and age hardening
experiments were appropriate for the alloy.
For a given temper, considerable differences in the
properties measured for dog bones and machined
specimens were observed. This variable was found to
affect all properties in the same manner unlike T1/T6
heat treatment wherein strength attributes increased yet
ductility decreased. The differing response is believed to
be the result of geometric inconsistencies in the as
sintered dog bone specimens. In this regard, sintering
had inevitably caused a modest level of distortion in
these particular specimens. This is frequently encoun-
tered in as sintered PM products wherein liquid phase
Table 2 Comparison of tensile properties for Al–2?3Cu–
1?6Mg–0?2Sn as measured from sintered dog
bones versus machined specimens
Specimen YS/ UTS/ E/ Ductility/
type Temper MPa MPa GPa %
Dog bones T1 158¡6 239¡11 51.3¡4.6 5.8¡1.0
Machined T1 189¡3 304¡12 65.8¡4.8 7.7¡1.2
Dog bones T6 263¡6 303¡8 49.9¡5.3 3.0¡0.7
Machined T6 279¡3 347¡3 68.8¡2.5 5.4¡0.8

sintering is employed.23 Gripping the bars for tensile
testing would have forced the specimen into a condition
of true axial alignment and imparted a pre-load/strain
before actual testing began. This would have acted
directly against the values of engineering stress–strain
recorded when the test itself was completed. As a result,
all measured values acquired from dog bone specimens
fell below the true properties of the material.
Conversely, distortion was not an issue with the
machined bars as all features were held within a
maximum allowable tolerance of ¡25 mm. This con-
sistency all but eliminated the occurrence of pre-loading
and the error associated with it. Hence, the tensile
properties derived from machined specimens were not
only higher, but also more representative of the true
performance of the alloy. Overall, tensile data derived
from machined bars confirmed that the alloy exhibited a
well balanced combination of properties in both
tempers. In this sense, relatively high values of YS and
UTS were accompanied by wrought-like stiffness
(y70 GPa) and tensile ductility that was abnormally
high for press and sinter Al–Cu–Mg P/M alloys wherein
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 11:50 18 April 2016
values of 1–3% are typical.6,18
Conclusions
From the work completed in this study the following
conclusions have been reached.
1. A novel Al–Cu–Mg alloy with a low copper to
magnesium ratio was successfully developed and pro-
cessed through press and sinter PM technology.
2. The base alloy of Al–2?3Cu–1?6Mg responded well
to uni-axial die compaction achieving levels of green
strength and green density that were comparable to
commercial aluminium PM blends.
3. The alloy also exhibited a strong sintering
response. Optimal densification was achieved by sinter-
ing at 630uC for 20 min.
4. Minor additions of tin had a positive influence on
sintered density, apparent hardness, and T1 tensile
properties. A concentration of 0?2 wt-% provided the
best balance of these properties. Excessive amounts
prompted a reduced concentration of copper and
magnesium in the a-aluminium grains that lowered YS
and UTS.
5. The alloy was responsive to T6 heat treatment.
Optimal parameters included solutionising at 530uC and
artificial aging at 200uC for 20 h.
6. The highest strength version of the alloy exhibited
a YS of 279 MPa, UTS of 347 MPa and an elongation
to failure of 5?4%.
Cooke et al. Powder metallurgy processing of Al–Cu–Mg alloy
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge funding
assistance provided by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council through the Auto21
Networks of Centers of Excellence via Grant
No. C202-CPM.
References
1. ‘ASM handbook’, (ed. L. A. Abel et al.), 10th edn, Vol. 2, 62–122;
1990, Metals Park, OH, ASTM International.
2. I. J. Polmear and M. J. Couper: Metall. Trans. A, 1988, 19A, 1027–
1035.
3. S. P. Ringer, B. T. Sofyan, K. S. Prasad and G. C. Quan: Acta
Mater., 2008, 556, 2147–2160.
4. S. C. Wang and M. J. Starink: Acta Mater., 2007, 55, 933–941.
5. R. N. Wilson and P. G. Patridge: Acta Metall., 1965, 13, (12),
1321–1327.
6. C. D. Boland, R. L. Hexemer Jr, I. W. Donaldson and D. P.
Bishop: Int. J. Powder Metall., 2011, 47, (1), 39–48.
7. D. P. Bishop, R. M. McNally and T. Geiman: ‘PM aluminum &
light alloys for automotive applications’, 177–185; 2000, Detroit,
MI, MPIF.
8. ‘Annual book of ASTM standards 2005, Section 2 – non-ferrous
metal products’, (ed. S. A. Arendt and S. J. Bailey), Vol. 2.05, 312–
314; 2005, Metals Park, OH, ASTM International.
9. D. Kent, G. B. Schaffer and J. Drennan: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2005,
A405, (1–2), 65–73.
10. C. D. Boland, R. L. Hexemer Jr, I. W. Donaldson and D. P.
Bishop: in press, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2011.
11. ‘Standard test methods for metal powders and powder metallurgy
products’, Standard 42, MPIF, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2002.
12. ‘Standard test methods for metal powders and powder metallurgy
products’, Standard 15, MPIF, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2002.
13. A. K. Gupta, D. J. Loyd and S. A. Court: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2001,
A301, 140–146.
14. ‘Annual book of ASTM standards 2005, section three – metals test
methods and analytical procedures’, (ed. S. A. Arendt and S. J.
Bailey), Vol. 3.01, 86–109; 2005, Metals Park, OH, ASTM
International.
15. D. P. Bishop, B. Hofmann and K. R. Couchman: ‘Advances in
powder metallurgy and particulate materials’, Vol. 1, Part 12, 87–
100; 2000, Princeton, NJ, Metal Powder Industries Federation.
16. D. W. Heard, I. W. Donaldson and D. P. Bishop: J. Mater.
Process. Technol., 2009, 209, 5902–5911.
17. R. M. German: ‘Sintering theory and practice’; 1996, New York,
NY, John Wiley and Sons Inc.
18. T. B. Sercombe and G. B. Schaffer: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1999, A268,
(1–2), 32–39.
19. Kondoh, A. Kimura and R. Watanabe: Powder Metall., 2001, 44,
(2), 161–164.
20. A. J. McAlister and D. J. Kahan: ‘Binary alloy phase diagrams’,
167–168; 1986, Metals Park, OH, ASM .
21. I. A. MacAskill, R. L. Hexemer, I. W. Donaldson and D. P.
Bishop: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2010, 210, 2252–2260.
22. M. J. Starink: Int. Mater. Rev., 2004, 49, (3–4), 191–226.
23. J. Liu and R. M. German: Met. Mater. Trans. A, 1999, 30A, (12),
3211–3217.
Powder Metallurgy 2012 VOL 55 NO 1 35