See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239735677

Corrosion behaviour of Extruded AA 6005A: Case

History

Conference Paper · May 2012

READS

152

6 authors, including:

C. Bitondo M. Montuori
University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
17 PUBLICATIONS 65 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tullio Monetta Francesco Bellucci

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
83 PUBLICATIONS 402 CITATIONS 178 PUBLICATIONS 1,371 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: C. Bitondo

Retrieved on: 09 June 2016
 Corrosion behaviour of Extruded AA 6005A: Case History
C. Bitondo1, M. Montuori1, F. Castellacci2, M. Grillo2, T. Monetta1 and F. Bellucci1

1
University of Naples Federico II, DIMP, P.le V. Tecchio, Italy
2
Firema Trasporti S.p.A., Via Appia Antica, Caserta, CE, Italy

*ciro.bitondo@gmail.com

Abstract: corrosion behavior and mechanical strength of an aluminum alloy of interest in the
transport were investigated in this paper. An extruded 6005A aluminium alloy, with a complex
geometry, taken from the material used for building the tram operating in the town of Oslo and
stored in the Naples area since 1996, was provided by Firema - Ansaldo spa. The alloy AA
6005A was not exposed to any aggressive environment and never used to repair operating
vehicle. Therefore, it can be considered in the “as received state” and used in this investigation
to evaluate: (i) the susceptibility to both intergranular and pitting corrosion (according to the
[1] [2]
ASTM G110 and UNI EN ISO 15329 ), and (ii) its mechanical properties. Mechanical
strength results were obtained according to static tensile tests by the method specified in
ASTM B557 [3]. Finally, electrical conductivity and surface hardness measurements were also
carried out in order to evaluate the influence of the heat treatment made on the tested
extruded, i.e. T6 state.
Electrochemical and mechanical tests were also carried out on a new AA 6005 A in order to
compare the results with the stored material. Data obtained in this investigation were
compared with those from the field (after exposure to the Oslo environment for several years)
in order to find a correlation between laboratory and real case data, useful for predicting the
lifetime of the tram.
Tests show that the material produced in 1996 has undergone a natural over aging that has
altered the properties, in particular it detects a marked reduction in corrosion resistance.

Keywords: Aluminium, AA6005, Corrosion, Intergranular, Pitting

1. Introduction material used for building the Tram operating in

The alloy AA6061 has been characterized in the
annealed condition [1] to assess the influence on
the corrosion resistance of the T6 heat treatment.
It has been shown that [2] the degree of solubility
of the alloying elements in the AA6061 is well
defined, for which the precipitates containing the
most noble elements of Al may subsequently
promote the corrosion of the alloy. A study of heat
treatment [3] on AA6082 and AA6005 alloys, the
temperature shows a little influence on the part of
the AA 6005. These treatments [4], producing a
homogenization of the precipitates of AA6005. In
addition, [5, 6], has demonstrated the
susceptibility of AA6005 alloy with heat treatment
and aging.
So, in this paper is to analyze a real application of
the alloy AA6005.
2. Materials and methods
The Firema Company provided an extruded
aluminium alloy AA 6005A (composition show in
Tab.1), with a complex geometry, taken from the
Oslo and stored in the Naples area since 1996
(hereinafter we will refer to this batch of material
as "old" – Fig. 1.a). This alloy was not exposed to
any aggressive environment and never used to
repair any operating vehicle. Therefore, it can be
considered in the “as received state” and used in
this investigation to evaluate: (i) the susceptibility
to both intergranular and pitting corrosion
according to the ASTM G110 [7] and UNI EN ISO
15329 [8], and (ii) its mechanical properties. Data
on the mechanical strength will be obtained
according to static tensile tests by the method
specified in ASTM B557 [9]. Finally, electrical
conductivity and surface hardness [10-13]
measurements were also carried out in order to
evaluate the heat treatment made on the tested
extruded, i.e. T6 state. It was subsequently
provided a batch of the same material, produced
in 2010, on that extruded were replicated the
same tests conducted on the first batch of
material (for the batch of material will be referred
to as "new" – Fig. 1.b).

1
 Tab.1 – Composition of AA6005A
Mg Si Fe Cu Mn Cr Mn+ Zn Ti Al An electrochemical method is adopted by the UNI
Cr
0.4- 0.5- 0.35 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.12- 0.2 0.1 B
EN ISO 15329: using a potentio-dynamic
0.7 0.9 0.5 polarization measurement (PD) causes the pitting
potential (Epit) of the material, then performing a
The ASTM G110 provides for the pickling of the potentio-static polarization (PS) to a potential
material in an acidic solution, after a thorough equal to Epit +50 mV. Finally is observed under a
rinsing and drying, must be immersed an aqueous microscope the surface of the material examined
solution containing 57g / l of NaCl (the procedure to check the morphology and the depth of
for the preparation of the specimen and the corrosive phenomenon. The potentio-static test
solution is described in detail in the standard ). duration depends on the content of copper in the
alloy: for 0 <[Cu] <0.25%, the test lasts for a time
of 40min for 0.25% <[Cu] <6.25% of the test
should last for 10min. The extent of corrosion is
evaluated by comparing the maximum depth of
corrosion as reported in a reference table (Tab.
3).,

Tab. 3 – Resistance to corrosion according UNI EN ISO

15329
Resistance to Max depth of
Class
corrosion corrosion µm
a) Excellent 1 0
Good 2 0-100
Satisfactory 3 100-200
Poor 4 200-400
Very poor 5 > 400

3. Results

The material in our possession, painted and

b)
Fig. 1 – a) Material produced in 1996, Old, b)
Material produced in 2010, New
The test specimen must be extracted at
predetermined time intervals (Tab. 2), running a
section in correspondence of a corroded area to
check the amplitude and the morphology of the
corrosive phenomenon. A typical specimen as
shown in Fig. 2.
drawn by a tram in service in the city of Oslo, is
severely degraded: most of the paint is no longer
present on the surface of the foils. Stands out
clearly the phenomenon of "blistering", at the
points where the paint is no longer present there
is a general corrosion of the material (Fig.3).

External surface

Internal surface
Fig.2 – Specimens section

Tab. 2 – Progress of corrosion testing Fig. 3 – Corroded area

Test time, [days]
I Step Subsequent step Next, to verify the presence of intergranular
7 20 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 270 corrosion was cut a section. The metallographic
Old √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ analysis has enabled us to highlight a type of
New √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

2
intergranular corrosion, the depth of which does modest size, has never appeared intergranular
not exceed 140 µm (Fig. 4). corrosion (Fig. 6).
We report measurements of the depth of
corrosion detected and the fraction of area of the
specimen involved, it is possible to understand the
magnitude of the degradation suffered by the old
material. In fact, the pit depth next to assume a
400 µm (Fig. 7.a), and as mentioned above the
intergranular corrosion tends to disappear, the
surface involved grows uniformly (Fig. 7.b).
100µm
a)

100µm

100µm a)
b)
Fig. 4 – Intergranular corrosion

3.1 Corrosion resistance: ASTM G110

The old and the new material showed a very

different corrosion behavior, the first has a strong
caustic effect from the first month of exposure to 100µm
corrosive environment, it is observed pitting and
intergranular corrosion. b)
Fig. 6- New material after a) 60 days, and b) 210 days

500
Depth Pit
Depth Int
400
Depth, µm

300

200
100µm
100
a)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time, days
a)
0.16
0.14 Area Int.%
Area Pit.%
0.12
300µm 0.1
Area, %

0.08
b)
0.06
Fig. 5- Old material after a) 60 days, and b) 210 days
0.04
From the second month then the intergranular 0.02
corrosion disappears to leave the place only to 0
pitting corrosion, as shown in Fig. 5. In contrast, 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
the new material is kept intact for a long time, at Time, days
the end of the test pit, there are only little pit of b)
Fig. 7 – Old Material: a) Depth and b) Area % of
corroded surface, pitting and intergranular.

3
Instead, the new material shows a mild corrosion Tab. 4 - Report test Uni En Iso 15329
that is just over 100 µm of depth (Fig. 8.a), whose Prova Spec. Area, Epit, E PS, Ifin. PS,
2 2
extension is extremely small compared to that cm mV mV A/cm
measured on the new material (Fig. 8.b). PD Old 3,49 -608
New 2,85 -610
-4
500 PS Old 3,09 -560 5,67 * 10
-4
Depth Pit New 3,00 -560 9,78 * 10
400 Depth Int
Depth, µm

300
3.3 Hardness Measurements

200 The measured values of the old material, within

the range 36-40 HRB [12]. Using the conversion
100 table provided by the ASTM E140 [13],
determines a match in terms of Vickers hardness
0 equal to 86-91 HV. Similar measurements were
0 50 100 150 200 250 conducted on new material, the results are
Time, days summarized in Table 5 values in italics indicate
a) the values obtained from the conversion table.
0.16
0.14 Area Pit% Tab. 5 - Hardness Measures
Area Int% HB
0.12 Treat. HRB HV
0.1
10/500
Area, %

T1 46 <<28 51
0.08 Lit.
T5 95 60 107
0.06 36 –
Old 77 – 80 86 – 91
0.04 40
0.02 46 –
New 85 – 86 98 – 99
0 47,5
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time, days 3.4Measurements of conductivity
b)
Fig. 8 – New Material: a) Depth and b) Area % of Conductivity measurements, were carried out
corroded surface, pitting and intergranular according ASTM E1004 [14], results are shown in
Tab.6. The IACS value was converted to MS/m
3.2 Intergranular Resistance: UNI EN ISO 15329 with the conversion factor 1 IACS = 0.58 MS/m.
The electrochemical polarizations (Fig. 9), show Tab. 6 – Conducibility measures
the results of Tab.4. The old material has a depth
Treat. IACS MS/m
of maximum corrosion equal to 86 µm, the new
T1 27,32
material shows corrosion up to 40 µm in depth. Lit.
T5 28,65
0 Old 44,6 – 44,7 25,8 – 25,9
Specimen 1 New 24,9 – 26,0
Specimen 2
-0.5
The new and old alloy, show similar conductivity
value.
E vs SCE, V

-1
3.5 Mechanical properties
-1.5
The tests were made on two lots of specimens,
-2 the first was tested as received, the second was
immersed in the corrosive solution as defined by
ASTM G110, for thirty days. The data reported in
-2.5 -9
10 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 the test are consistent with those provided by the
2
|i|, A/cm certification attached; in the material not subjected
Fig.9 – Potentiodynamic measurement to corrosive bath was found a maximum
resistance (σmax) equal to 298 MPa, with a yield
Thus, according to Tab.3 both materials are stress (σ0.2) equal to 250 MPa. The sample
classified with a good resistance to intergranular immersed in solution for up to three months,
corrosion. reported a σmax average of 300 MPa, therefore,

4
does not manifest a decrease in mechanical
strength. Similarly, were made of the tests of
resistance to fatigue, as show in Fig.10.
3.6 Alloy Composition
The material under investigation (old and new),
chemical analyzes were performed to verify the
exact percentage of alloying elements in the alloy
in question. As can be seen from the Table 7, the
two alloys are almost equal, the only differences
in results has been observed in the percentage of
silicon present. From the data obtained it is
understood that the different behavior of the two
materials, the one "old" and the "new", can’t be
connected to different chemical composition,

Tab. 7 – Alloy Composition

Cr+
Mg Si Fe Cu Mn Cr Zn Ti Al
Mn
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
a) (%)

Old 0.40 1.17 0.19 0.11 0.19 0.14 0,33 0.04 0.04 Bal

New 0.39 0.80 0.16 0.10 0.17 0.11 0.28 0.05 0.03 Bal

4. Conclusion

From the above considerations is apparent that

the new material has excellent corrosion
resistance, which is localized only in some points
to the outer edge of the specimen and with
extremely small dimensions. The material
produced in 1996, however, showed a behavior,
b) in respect of the corrosion process, completely
Fig. 10 - Wohler diagram for the aluminum alloy a) Old
different
and b) New
By analyzing the chemical composition of the two
lots of material, one sees that have almost the
same composition and the same percentage of
alloying. Then the different results obtained in
tests carried out are caused by the difference in
age of the two materials. The lot "old" has been
deposited in warehouses for many years without
any maintenance, this has resulted in an aging
(natural) that it has changed the structure,
particularly at the surface.

The two batches of material, from the point of

Fig. 11 – Specimens failure for fatigue test after 3
months of immersion.
The pre-corroded specimens exhibited, for a fixed
number of cycles, an average reduction of about
8% of the tensile strength compared to specimens
not corroded. This value is more than acceptable
for predicting the durability of structures in which
this alloy is used. In the Fig.11 shows the fracture
surface of the specimens immersed in the
corrosive solution for three months
view of the measures of hardness, showed
different results. The specimen "old" has a
hardness HB 10/500 of 80 against 86 of the
material "new" is always attributed this
discrepancy to the different ages of the two
materials.
An excessive aging of the material favors the
decrease of surface hardness of the alloy, both
favoring the excessive enlargement of the
precipitates, both influencing the corrosion
resistance facilitating the birth of the pit. In this
case, the permanence of the material for fifteen
years in the sheds, caused a redistribution of
alloying elements, such as to lower the hardness
of the workpiece surface and promote corrosion.

5
Another factor that affects the hardness and
strength of the material, and in particular of
aluminum alloys, is the presence of pits, born as a
result of excessive aging of the material. In fact, a
different distribution of precipitates on the surface
of the material, leads to the emergence of sites to
cathodic behavior compared to the alloy
(precipitated copper-rich), generating of corrosion
phenomena that are no longer negligible.
5. Reference
[1] Z. Nikseresht, F. Karimzadeh, M.A. Golozar,
M. Heidarbeigy, Effect of heat treatment on
microstructure and corrosion behavior of Al6061
alloy weldment, Materials and Design 31 (2010)
2643–2648.
[2] Polmear LJ. Light Alloys: Metallurgy of The
Light Metals. 1st ed. Edward Arnold; 1981.
[3] Grazyna Mrowka-Nowotnik, Jan Sieniawski,
Influence of heat treatment on the microstructure
and mechanical properties of 6005 and 6082
aluminium alloys, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 162–163 (2005) 367–372.
[4] N.C.W. Kuijpers, J. Tirel, D.N. Hanlon, S. van
der Zwaag, Quantification of the evolution of the
3D intermetallic structure in a 6005A aluminium
alloy during a homogenisation treatment,
Materials Characterization 48 (2002) 379– 392.
[5] Benjamin Milkereit, Olaf Kessler, Christoph
Schick, Recording of continuous cooling
precipitation diagrams of aluminium alloys,
Thermochimica Acta 492 (2009) 73–78
[6] Gaute Svenningsen a,¤, Magnus Hurlen
Larsen a, Jan Halvor Nordlien b, Kemal
Nisancioglu a, Effect of thermomechanical history
on intergranular corrosion of extruded AlMgSi(Cu)
model alloy, Corrosion Science 48 (2006) 3969–
3987
[7] ASTM G110 “Standard Practice for Evaluating
Intergranular Corrosion Resistance of Heat
Treatable Aluminum Alloys by Immersion in
Sodium Chloride + Hydrogen Peroxide Solution”
[8] UNI EN ISO 15329 “Corrosione dei metalli e
loro leghe - Prova anodica per la valutazione della
suscettibilità alla corrosione intergranulare di
leghe di alluminio trattabili a caldo”
[9] ASTM B557 “Standard Test Methods for
tension testing wrought and cast aluminium and
magnesium alloy products”
[10] ASTM E10 “Standard Test Method for Brinell
Hardness of Metallic Materials”
[11] ASTM E18 “Standard Test Methods for
Rockwell Hardness of Metallic Materials”
[12] ASTM E140 “Standard Hardness Conversion
Tables for Metals Relationship Among Brinell
Hardness, Vickers Hardness, Rockwell Hardness,
Superficial Hardness, Knoop Hardness, and
Scleroscope Hardness”
[13] ASTM E1004 “Standard Test Method for
Determining Electrical Conductivity Using the
Electromagnetic (Eddy-Current) Method”