materials

Article
Improving the Mechanical Response of Al–Mg–Si
6082 Structural Alloys during High-Temperature
Exposure through Dispersoid Strengthening
Jovid Rakhmonov 1, * , Kun Liu 1 , Paul Rometsch 2 , Nick Parson 2 and X.-Grant Chen 1, *
1 Department of Applied Science, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi, Saguenay, QC G7H 2B1, Canada;
kun.liu@uqac.ca
2 Arvida Research and Development Center, Rio Tinto Aluminum, Saguenay, QC G7S 4K8, Canada;
Paul.Rometsch@riotinto.com (P.R.); nick.parson@riotinto.com (N.P.)
* Correspondence: jovid.rakhmonov1@uqac.ca (J.R.); xgrant_chen@uqac.ca (X.-G.C.)




Received: 20 October 2020; Accepted: 18 November 2020; Published: 23 November 2020


Abstract: The feasibility and efficacy of improving the mechanical response of Al–Mg–Si 6082
structural alloys during high temperature exposure through the incorporation of a high number of
α-dispersoids in the aluminum matrix were investigated. The mechanical response of the alloys was
characterized based on the instantaneous high-temperature and residual room-temperature strengths
during and after isothermal exposure at various temperatures and durations. When exposed to
200 ◦ C, the yield strength (YS) of the alloys was largely governed by β” precipitates. At 300 ◦ C, β”
transformed into coarse β’, thereby leading to the degradation of the instantaneous and residual YSs
of the alloys. The strength improvement by the fine and dense dispersoids became evident owing to
their complementary strengthening effect. At higher exposure temperatures (350–450 ◦ C), the further
improvement of the mechanical response became much more pronounced for the alloy containing
fine and dense dispersoids. Its instantaneous YS was improved by 150–180% relative to the base alloy
free of dispersoids, and the residual YS was raised by 140% after being exposed to 400–450 ◦ C for
2 h. The results demonstrate that introducing thermally stable dispersoids is a cost-effective and
promising approach for improving the mechanical response of aluminum structures during high
temperature exposure.

Keywords: Al–Mg–Si 6082 alloys; microstructure; high-temperature mechanical properties; residual

mechanical behavior; α-Al(MnFe)Si dispersoids

1. Introduction
Owing to their preferable strength-to-weight ratio, good corrosion resistance, and weldability,
Al–Mg–Si 6xxx alloys (typically 6061 and 6082 alloys) are increasingly used in load-bearing structural
applications, such as land-based vehicles, marine crafts, light rails, bridge decks, off-shore platforms,
and building structures [1–6]. Such aluminum structures can be subjected to unintentional fire
exposures; therefore, fire safety is a major concern in their design and applications [3,4,7].
To evaluate the mechanical behavior of aluminum alloys under fire conditions, different test
methods can be adopted [3], such as transient and steady-state mechanical tests, as well as the creep test.
Based on data from steady-state tests, codes and regulations describing the design requirements for
fire-prone aluminum structures have been established [8]. Owing to the lower melting temperature of
aluminum alloys compared to those of common structural metals (e.g., iron and steel), the temperature
range representative of realistic fire events and relevant for the mechanical properties is 150–450 ◦ C [4].
In addition to the temperature, the exposure period at a given temperature is a key parameter that

Materials 2020, 13, 5295; doi:10.3390/ma13225295 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2020, 13, 5295 2 of 13

determines the resistance of aluminum structures to failure during and after fire. Most studies [7] and
norms [8] indicate that the significant exposure time is between 0.5 and 2 h at a given temperature;
0.5 h refers to the critical time for safe evacuations and 2 h to the time the structure needs to maintain
the adequate strength before the fire is extinguished [3,8]. However, in most studies, the constitutive
behavior of aluminum structural materials at various temperatures and exposure periods have
been assessed without considering the microstructural changes during the fire. Understanding the
evolution of the microstructure and mechanical properties under fire conditions is essential for tailoring
microstructures such that the aluminum structures perform better in fire events. Moreover, the number
of studies of the high-temperature mechanical behavior of Al–Mg–Si alloys under various fire exposure
severities is limited.
Al–Mg–Si 6xxx alloys are heat-treatable alloys, and their primary strengthening mechanism is the
precipitation of nanoscale β”/β’-MgSi precipitates, which significantly increase the room temperature
strength. However, these alloys experience a significant strength drop when exposed to temperatures
higher than 200 ◦ C, since the β”/β’ precipitates are highly sensitive to elevated temperature [9–11].
The damage extent of the properties of aluminum alloys depends on the fire exposure conditions
(temperature and time). The coarsening and subsequent phase transformation of strengthening β”/β’
precipitates in 6xxx alloys are the main factors contributing to the degradation of the mechanical
properties at elevated temperatures [1,3,12].
Recent studies have revealed that the mechanical properties (strength and creep resistance) of
aluminum alloys at elevated temperatures can be substantially improved by introducing a high number
of thermally stable α-Al(MnFe)Si dispersoids (referred as α-dispersoids hereafter) [13–17]. The most
significant advantage of the dispersoid-strengthening over the traditional precipitation-strengthening
in 6xxx alloys is their excellent thermal stability at elevated temperatures. The α-dispersoids can be
formed in an α-Al matrix during the homogenization of Mn-containing 6082 alloys [18,19]. However,
these dispersoids are coarse (diameter ranging from 100–200 nm) and exhibit low density, which leads to
an insufficient strengthening effect [20]. In general, the efficiency of the dispersoid-strengthening effect
depends highly on their size and density. The optimization of homogenization conditions to induce
the precipitation of fine and dense dispersoids will be a new avenue to improve the high-temperature
mechanical properties, which increase the time to failure/collapse of the aluminum 6082 structures,
and hence improve the safety in case of a fire.
Furthermore, the post-fire (residual) mechanical behavior of aluminum structures is a key
parameter that determines the stability and integrity of the entire structure [21]. After the fire,
the aluminum structures (members) might be replaced, repaired, or directly reused, depending on
the severity of the fire damage [2,21]. The residual mechanical behavior of aluminum alloys after
a fire has been investigated in previous studies [2,21]. The residual yield strength (YS) of 6082-T6
alloy exposed to 450 ◦ C and then cooled to room temperature has been reported to be 65 MPa, which
was approximately 20% of the original YS before the high-temperature exposure [21]. The possibility
of retaining fineness and high density of α-dispersoids in the microstructure of 6082 alloys during
thermomechanical processes might also provide the aluminum structures with higher residual strength
and better fire resistance, in light of the highly diminishing strengthening effect of β”/β’ precipitates
upon thermal exposure.
The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate the microstructural evolution and associated mechanical
properties of 6082 structural alloys exposed to different temperatures and times (simulated fire exposure),
and (2) to assess the feasibility and efficacy of enhancing the mechanical response of 6082 structural
alloys by the incorporation of fine and dense α-dispersoids, in addition to the β”-MgSi precipitates,
into their microstructure.

2. Materials and Methods

Two 6082 type alloys (without and with Mn) were prepared and cast in direct chill (DC)-cast billets
with diameters of 101 mm. The chemical compositions of the alloys analyzed by optical emission
Materials 2020, 13, 5295 3 of 13

spectroscopy are provided in Table 1. To promote the precipitation of a large amount of dispersoids [11],
the DC-cast billets of the alloys were heat-treated at a relatively low temperature (400 ◦ C) for 5 h before
the extrusion process [11]; the 0.72Mn alloy treated under this condition is referred to as “0.72Mn(L)”.
In addition, some DC-cast billets of the 0.72Mn alloy were heat-treated at 550 ◦ C for 5 h, which are
hereafter referred to as “0.72Mn(H)”. This typical industrial high temperature homogenization results
in few and coarse dispersoids in the aluminum matrix [18,19]. Before the extrusion, all billets were
inductively heated to 500 ◦ C and then quickly transferred to the extrusion press. The extrusion was
conducted at a ram speed of 10 mm/s to produce rods with diameters of 17.8 mm. Subsequently,
the rods exiting the die traveled through a bath with agitating water, which served as a water quenching
treatment. The rods were then subjected to an artificial aging at 180 ◦ C for 5 h (T5 treatment).

Table 1. Chemical compositions of experimental alloys (wt.%).

Alloys Mg Si Mn Fe Ti Al
0Mn (base) 0.83 1.01 0 0.22 0.018 Bal.
0.72Mn 0.84 1.02 0.72 0.23 0.016 Bal.

To determine the mechanical behavior of the experimental alloys, compressive YS tests were
conducted with a Gleeble 3800 thermomechanical simulator (Dynamic Systems Inc., Austin, TX, USA)
unit at room and elevated temperatures. The mechanical properties of the three alloy variants to
the thermal exposure were characterized by steady-state mechanical testing [3]. Different exposure
temperatures (200, 300, 350, 400, and 450 ◦ C) and typical two exposure times (0.5 h and 2 h) were
chosen in the experiment. T5-treated rods from the three alloy variants were heated to the target
exposure temperatures with a heating rate of 0.25 ◦ C/s and held either for 0.5 h or 2 h, followed by
water quenching. Cylindrical specimens of 15 mm height and 10 mm diameter were machined from the
thermally exposed extrusion rods. During the Gleeble compression tests, the specimens were heated to
the same target temperature at a rate of 2 ◦ C/s, and held for 180 s to ensure a uniform temperature
distribution. Subsequently, the specimens were compressed at a strain rate of 10−3 s−1 to reach a total
strain of 0.2. Test reproducibility was ensured by testing at least three samples per condition.
An optical microscope (OM, Nikon Instruments Inc., Tokyo, Japan), a scanning electron microscope
(SEM, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) equipped with electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD), and a transmission
electron microscope (TEM, JEOL JEM-2100, Tokyo, Japan) were used to characterize the microstructure
of the alloys. The grain structures after the extrusion and after thermal exposure were investigated by
EBSD (samples were sectioned in the extrusion direction). The precipitates and dispersoids in the alloys
under T5 conditions and after thermal exposure were characterized with the TEM, and TEM thin foils
were obtained by electro-chemical polishing. The characteristics of the β” precipitates (e.g., average
volume (Vp ), number density (Nv ), and volume fraction ( fp )) were quantified with the method in [22].
Moreover, the dispersoids were quantitatively characterized based on their average diameter (D),
number density (Nv ), and volume fraction ( fd ), which were determined according to the methodology
provided in [23].

3. Results

3.1. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties under T5 Conditions

Figure 1 shows the typical TEM images of the experimental alloys under T5 conditions. The results
reveal uniformly distributed, fine, needle-shaped precipitates (approximately 4 nm diameter and
30 nm length) in the aluminum matrix of all three alloy variants. According to their morphology and
size, the precipitates were identified as β” phase [24]. The quantitative results of the β” precipitates
are listed in Table 2. Compared to the 0Mn base alloy, the Mn-containing alloys were characterized by
higher number densities and volume fractions of the β” phase.
because the aging treatment at 180 °C had no effect on the coarsening of the dispersoids. The
dispersoids in the matrix were identified as α-Al(FeMn)Si [10,11], and their quantitative results are
presented in Table 2. The average equivalent diameter ( ) and number density ( ) of the dispersoids
in the 0.72Mn(L) alloy were measured to be 40 nm and 430 µm−3, respectively (versus of 146 nm
Materials
and 2020, 13, 5295
of 11 µm−3 in 0.72Mn(H) alloy), while the volume fractions of the dispersoids (ʄ ) in4 both
of 13

alloys were similar (approximately 0.9%).

Figure 1. Bright-field TEM images of precipitates and dispersoids in aluminum matrices of T5-treated
Figure 1. Bright-field TEM images of precipitates and dispersoids in aluminum matrices of T5-treated
(a) 0Mn, (b) 0.72Mn(H), and (c) 0.72Mn(L) alloys.
(a) 0Mn, (b) 0.72Mn(H), and (c) 0.72Mn(L) alloys.
Table 2. Quantitative TEM results of β” precipitates and α-Al(FeMn)Si dispersoids in three alloys.

β” Phase α-Al(FeMn)Si Dispersoids

Alloy ¯
Vp , nm3 Nv , nm−3 fp , % D Nv , µm−3 fd ,%

0Mn 410 1.26 × 10−5 0.52 - - -

0.72Mn(H) 459 1.40 × 10−5 0.62 146 11 0.91
0.72Mn(L) 468 1.33 × 10−5 0.64 40 430 0.88

A key difference between the TEM microstructures of the various alloy conditions was the presence
of a number of dispersoids in addition to the β” precipitates in the 0.72Mn(H) (Figure 1b) and 0.72Mn(L)
(Figure 1c) alloys. The dispersoids in the 0.72Mn(L) alloy were much finer and denser than those
in the 0.72Mn(H) alloy (see Figure 1b,c and Figure 2). To quantitatively compare the dispersoids,
TEM investigations of the as-extruded Mn-containing alloys were conducted (Figure 2), because the
aging treatment at 180 ◦ C had no effect on the coarsening of the dispersoids. The dispersoids in the
matrix were identified as α-Al(FeMn)Si [10,11], and their quantitative results are presented in Table 2.
The average equivalent diameter (D) and number density (Nv ) of the dispersoids in the 0.72Mn(L)
alloy were measured to be 40 nm and 430 µm−3 , respectively (versus D of 146 nm and Nv of 11 µm−3
Figure 2. alloy),
in 0.72Mn(H) TEM images
whileshowing
the volumeα-Al(FeMn)Si
fractionsdispersoids embedded( fin) aluminum
of the dispersoids matrices of (a)
d in both alloys were similar
0.72Mn(H) and
(approximately 0.9%). (b) 0.72Mn(L) alloys. Images were taken near [001] Al zone axes.

Based on the EBSD results of the as-extruded materials, it could be observed that the 0Mn alloy
Table 2. Quantitative TEM results of β” precipitates and α-Al(FeMn)Si dispersoids in three alloys.
experienced full recrystallization during extrusion because the grains were coarse, equiaxed, and free
of the substructure (Figure 3a) [25].β” <001> recrystallization texture
Aphase highly dominated
α-Al(FeMn)Si in this alloy
Dispersoids
Alloy
(Figure 3a). The average, equivalent
nm 3 diameter
, nm−3 of the grains, % in 0Mn alloy were, measured
µm−3 as ~220, %µm.
By contrast,
0Mn the grain structures
410 of the 0.72Mn(H)
1.26 × 10 –5 and 0.72Mn(L)
0.52 alloys
- exhibited -deformed and fibrous
-
grains elongated along the
0.72Mn(H) 459extrusion1.40 direction
× 10–5 (Figure0.62
3b,c). The146
deformed grains 11 appeared in0.91 one of
the two <111> and <001>
0.72Mn(L) 468directions1.33 parallel
× 10–5to the extrusion
0.64 axis,
40 thereby indicating
430 the evolution
0.88
of <111> and <001> fiber textures during the axisymmetric deformation [26,27]. Evidently, only a
dynamic
Basedrecovery occurred
on the EBSD in the
results 0.72Mn(H)
of the as-extruded andmaterials,
0.72Mn(L)it alloys
could be during the extrusion,
observed andalloy
that the 0Mn the
0.72Mn(L)
experiencedalloy
fullexhibited a lower recovery
recrystallization level andbecause
during extrusion a higherthe
fraction
grainsofwere
substructures (misorientation
coarse, equiaxed, and free
angle
of theranges between
substructure 5◦ and3a)
(Figure 15◦[25].
) thanA did
<001>therecrystallization
0.72Mn(H) alloy.texture highly dominated in this alloy
(Figure 3a). The average equivalent diameter of the grains in 0Mn alloy were measured as ~220 µm.
 Figure 1. Bright-field TEM images of precipitates and dispersoids in aluminum matrices of T5-treated
Materials 2020, 13, 5295 5 of 13
(a) 0Mn, (b) 0.72Mn(H), and (c) 0.72Mn(L) alloys.

Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13

By contrast, the grain structures of the 0.72Mn(H) and 0.72Mn(L) alloys exhibited deformed and
fibrous grains elongated along the extrusion direction (Figure 3b,c). The deformed grains appeared
in one of the two <111> and <001> directions parallel to the extrusion axis, thereby indicating the
evolution of <111> and <001> fiber textures during the axisymmetric deformation [26,27]. Evidently,
only a dynamic recovery occurred in the 0.72Mn(H) and 0.72Mn(L) alloys during the extrusion, and
Figure 2. TEM
theFigure
0.72Mn(L) images showing a α-Al(FeMn)Si dispersoids embedded in aluminum matrices of (a)
2. TEM alloy
imagesexhibited lower recovery
showing α-Al(FeMn)Si levelembedded
dispersoids and a higher fraction
in aluminum of substructures
matrices of (a)
0.72Mn(H) and (b) ranges
(misorientation 0.72Mn(L) alloys. 5°
Images werethan
takendid
nearthe
[001] Al zone axes.
0.72Mn(H) andangle
(b) 0.72Mn(L) between
alloys. Imagesand 15°)
were taken near 0.72Mn(H)
[001]Al zone axes. alloy.

Table 2. Quantitative TEM results of β” precipitates and α-Al(FeMn)Si dispersoids in three alloys.

β” phase α-Al(FeMn)Si Dispersoids

Alloy
, nm
3 , nm−3 ,% , µm−3 ,%
0Mn 410 1.26 × 10–5 0.52 - - -
0.72Mn(H) 459 1.40 × 10–5 0.62 146 11 0.91
0.72Mn(L) 468 1.33 × 10–5 0.64 40 430 0.88

Based on the EBSD results of the as-extruded materials, it could be observed that the 0Mn alloy
experienced full recrystallization during extrusion because the grains were coarse, equiaxed, and free
of the substructure (Figure 3a) [25]. A <001> recrystallization texture highly dominated in this alloy
(Figure 3a). The average equivalent diameter of the grains in 0Mn alloy were measured as ~220 µm.

Figure 3.
Figure EBSD(inverse
3. EBSD (inversepole
polefigure)
figure) maps
maps representing
representing extruded
extruded grain
grain structures:
structures: (a) 0Mn,
(a) 0Mn, (b)
(b) 0.72Mn(H), and (c) 0.72Mn(L) alloys. Note that the EBSD scan area for 0Mn is much larger
0.72Mn(H), and (c) 0.72Mn(L) alloys. Note that the EBSD scan area for 0Mn is much larger than
than for 0.72Mn(H) and 0.72Mn(L) alloys.
for 0.72Mn(H) and 0.72Mn(L) alloys.
Figure 4a displays the compressive true stress-strain curves at room temperature of the alloys in
Figure 4a displays the compressive true stress-strain curves at room temperature of the alloys in
T5 state. Three alloys present similar work hardening behavior at the beginning of the compression
T5 state. Three alloys present similar work hardening behavior at the beginning of the compression
test. With increasing the strain, the stress of the 0.72Mn(L) alloy was moderately higher than that of the
test. With increasing the strain, the stress of the 0.72Mn(L) alloy was moderately higher than that of
0.72Mn(H) alloy, but the stresses of both alloys were remarkably higher than that of the 0Mn base alloy.
the 0.72Mn(H) alloy, but the stresses of both alloys were remarkably higher than that of the 0Mn base
The obtained YSs (determined at 0.2% offset strain) of three alloys are shown in Figure 4b. It is evident
alloy. The obtained YSs (determined at 0.2% offset strain) of three alloys are shown in Figure 4b. It is
that both Mn-containing alloys (0.72Mn(H) and 0.72Mn(L)) exhibited higher YS than the 0Mn base
evident that both Mn-containing alloys (0.72Mn(H) and 0.72Mn(L)) exhibited higher YS than the 0Mn
alloy (310 MPa versus 270 MPa, respectively). The YS of 6082 alloys under T5 conditions was mainly
base alloy (310 MPa versus 270 MPa, respectively). The YS of 6082 alloys under T5 conditions was
mainly controlled by the nanoscale β” precipitates [22]. The higher strength of the Mn-containing
alloys was primarily attributed to the higher number density and larger volume fraction of β”
precipitates in the matrix (Table 2). Probably, the enhanced diffusion of solutes and accelerated
nucleation and growth of β” precipitates in the deformed grains of both Mn-containing alloys led to
the precipitation of a larger fraction of the β” phase than in the recrystallized 0Mn alloy during the
Materials 2020, 13, 5295 6 of 13

controlled by the nanoscale β” precipitates [22]. The higher strength of the Mn-containing alloys
was primarily attributed to the higher number density and larger volume fraction of β” precipitates
in the matrix (Table 2). Probably, the enhanced diffusion of solutes and accelerated nucleation and
growth of β” precipitates in the deformed grains of both Mn-containing alloys led to the precipitation
of a larger fraction of the β” phase than in the recrystallized 0Mn alloy during the subsequent aging
treatment [9]. In addition, the higher strength of the Mn-containing alloys was partially contributed by
their fibrous grain structure and texture compared to the fully recrystallized grains of the 0Mn alloy
(Figure 3). Owing to the relatively large size and low density of dispersoids in the Mn-containing
alloys, the strengthening effect of the dispersoids may have had a minor effect on the room temperature
strength of the
Materials 2020, alloys
13, x relative
FOR PEER to the predominant effect of β” precipitates. The fact that both 0.72Mn(L)
REVIEW 6 of 13
and 0.72Mn(H) alloys under T5 condition exhibited similar YS indicated the limited strengthening
the limited
effect of the strengthening effect
dispersoids in the of the dispersoids
presence in thedensity
of a high number presence of aprecipitates.
of β” high number density of β"
precipitates.

Figure 4. (a) Compressive true stress-strain curves and (b) compressive YS at room temperature of the
4. (a)
Figureunder
alloys T5 Compressive
conditions. true stress-strain curves and (b) compressive YS at room
temperature of the alloys under T5 conditions.
3.2. Instantaneous High-Temperature Strength during Thermal Exposure
3.2. Instantaneous High-Temperature
The typical compressive Strength during
true stress-strain Thermal
curves at 400 Exposure
◦ C are exemplarily displayed in Figure 5a.

Obviously, the alloys

The typical show almost
compressive no work hardening
true stress-strain curves atbehaviour
400 °C areatexemplarily
high temperature.
displayed Figure 5b,c
in Figure
shows the instantaneous YS of the three alloys at various temperatures
5a. Obviously, the alloys show almost no work hardening behaviour at high temperature. Figure 5b,c and thermal exposures for
0.5 andthe
shows 2 h. For both thermal
instantaneous exposure
YS of the times,atthe
three alloys strength
various of the alloys
temperatures anddecreased with increasing
thermal exposures for 0.5
exposure temperature. At 200 ◦ C, all alloys thermally exposed for 0.5 h displayed a similar YS of
and 2 h. For both thermal exposure times, the strength of the alloys decreased with increasing
approximately 220 MPaAt
exposure temperature. (Figure
200 °C, 5b).
allWith
alloysincreasing
thermallyexposure
exposed time to 2h h,
for 0.5 the YS ofathe
displayed 0Mn YS
similar alloyof
increased
approximatelyslightly
220toMPa225(Figure
MPa, while the Mn-containing
5b). With increasing exposurealloys time
displayed
to 2 h,athe
slight
YS decrease
of the 0Mn in alloy
their
strength,
increasedand the 0.72Mn(L)
slightly to 225 MPa, alloy showed
while the lowest strength
the Mn-containing alloys(202 MPa) (Figure
displayed 5c).decrease in their
a slight
◦
Compared
strength, and theto0.72Mn(L)
the strengths
alloy determined
showed the lowest at 200 strength
C, the strengths
(202 MPa)of(Figure 5c).alloys at 300 ◦ C
all three
decreased significantly. The YS atdetermined ◦
300 C andat the200
thermal exposure of of
0.5all
h varied between
Compared to the strengths °C, the strengths three alloys at 70
300and°C
80 MPa. With increasing exposure time to 2 h, the alloys experienced a
decreased significantly. The YS at 300 °C and the thermal exposure of 0.5 h varied between 70 and 80 further reduction in their
YSs.
MPa.Interestingly,
With increasing the 0.72Mn(L)
exposure time alloyto began to show
2 h, the alloysitsexperienced
advantage in a terms
furtherofreduction
strength, and its YS
in their of
YSs.
70 MPa for a 2 h exposure was higher than those of the other two alloys. The
Interestingly, the 0.72Mn(L) alloy began to show its advantage in terms of strength, and its YS of 700.72Mn(H) alloy exhibited
the
MPasharpest
for a 2 hdecrease
exposure inwas
its YS (48 MPa).
higher In addition,
than those the YS
of the other twoof the 0Mn
alloys. alloy
The reached 64
0.72Mn(H) MPa.
alloy exhibited
With further
the sharpest increasing
decrease temperature
in its YS (48 MPa). In to 450 ◦ C,the
upaddition, theYS
strength of allalloy
of the 0Mn alloysreached
continued to decrease.
64 MPa.
The instantaneous YS of thetemperature
With further increasing 0Mn alloy decreasedup to 450 °C,sharply at suchofhigh
the strength temperatures
all alloys continuedand attained
to decrease.
only 11 MPa after an ◦
The instantaneous YS exposure
of the 0Mn at 450
alloyC; this represented
decreased sharply at onlysuch5%high
of the YS after theand
temperatures exposure
attained at
only◦ C.
200 11 The
MPa0.72Mn(L) alloy showed
after an exposure at 450 the°C; highest YS at these
this represented onlyhigh
5%temperatures;
of the YS afterits YSexposure
the values atateach200
temperature
°C. The 0.72Mn(L)for both exposure
alloy showed times
the were
highestsimilar.
YS atSpecifically,
these high the YS values ofitsthe
temperatures; YS0.72Mn(L)
values at alloy
each
after 2 h exposure reached 52, 40, and were
31 MPa at 350,Specifically,
400, and 450 ◦
temperature for both exposure times similar. theC, YSrespectively,
values of the which were much
0.72Mn(L) alloy
higher
after 2 hthan those of
exposure the 0.72Mn(H)
reached 52, 40, and and 310Mn
MPaalloys
at 350,at400,
theand
corresponding temperatures.
450 °C, respectively, whichFor instance,
were much
after being ◦
higher thanexposed
those oftothe400–450
0.72Mn(H) C, theandYS0Mnvalues of the
alloys at0.72Mn(L) alloy were
the corresponding 60%–75% andFor
temperatures. 150%–180%
instance,
after being exposed to 400–450 °C, the YS values of the 0.72Mn(L) alloy were 60%–75% and 150%–
180% higher than those of the 0.72Mn(H) and 0Mn alloys, respectively. This demonstrates that the
addition of Mn and the formation of thermally stable dispersoids had a great impact on the
instantaneous YS at high temperatures (350–450 °C).
Materials 2020, 13, 5295 7 of 13

higher than those of the 0.72Mn(H) and 0Mn alloys, respectively. This demonstrates that the addition
of Mn and the formation of thermally stable dispersoids had a great impact on the instantaneous YS at
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13
high temperatures (350–450 ◦ C).

(a)Typical
Figure5.5.(a)
Figure Typical compressive
compressive true stress-strain
true curves
stress-strain at 400at◦ C
curves and°C
400 (b,c)
andinstantaneous YS of three
(b,c) instantaneous YS
alloys at various temperatures, measured after being exposed to the test temperature for
of three alloys at various temperatures, measured after being exposed to the test temperature for (b) 0.5 h and
(c) 0.5
(b) 2 h.h and (c) 2 h.

3.3. Residual Room-Temperature Strength after Thermal Exposure

3.3. Residual Room-Temperature Strength after Thermal Exposure
The residual mechanical properties of the aluminum structure after the fire are a key parameter for
The residual mechanical properties of the aluminum structure after the fire are a key parameter
evaluating the stability and integrity of the structure as well as the possibility of repair, reinforcement,
for evaluating the stability and integrity of the structure as well as the possibility of repair,
and reuse [2,21]. To characterize the residual mechanical response, compressive YS tests were conducted
reinforcement, and reuse [2,21]. To characterize the residual mechanical response, compressive YS
on the alloys at room temperature after their exposure to elevated temperatures for two exposure times
tests were conducted on the alloys at room temperature after their exposure to elevated temperatures
(0.5 and 2 h). The results are shown in Figure 6.
for two exposure times (0.5 and 2◦ h). The results are shown in Figure 6.
After the exposure at 200 C, the three experimental alloys still exhibited high residual YSs,
After the exposure at 200 °C, the three experimental alloys still exhibited high residual YSs,
ranging between 280 and 300 MPa, which were at a similar level as the YSs under T5 conditions
ranging between 280 and 300 MPa, which were at a similar level as the YSs under T5 conditions
(Figure 4). Increasing the exposure time to 2 h exerted a negligible effect on the YSs of the alloys
(Figure 4). Increasing the exposure time to 2 h exerted a ◦negligible effect on the YSs of the alloys
(Figure 6b). These results implied that the exposure to 200 C for the investigated exposure times had
(Figure 6b). These results implied that the exposure to 200 °C for the investigated exposure times had
no apparent deleterious effect on the mechanical properties of the aluminum structures. Therefore,
no apparent deleterious effect on the mechanical properties of the aluminum structures. Therefore,
they could be reused after fire.
they could be reused after fire.
Consistent with the high-temperature YS results, the exposure of the alloys to 300 ◦ C resulted in a
Consistent with the high-temperature YS results, the exposure of the alloys to 300 °C resulted in
significant reduction in the residual YS (Figure 6). After thermal exposure for 2 h, the 0.72Mn(L) alloy
a significant reduction in the residual YS (Figure 6). After thermal exposure for 2 h, the 0.72Mn(L)
reached a YS of 150 MPa, which largely exceeded those of the 0Mn and 0.72Mn(H) alloys (residual
alloy reached a YS of 150 MPa, which largely exceeded those of the 0Mn and 0.72Mn(H) alloys
YSs of 105 and 95 MPa, respectively). It was evident that the residual YSs of the three alloys after the
(residual YSs of 105 and 95 MPa, respectively). It was evident that the residual YSs of the three alloys
exposure to 300 ◦ C were only 35%–45% of the original YSs under T5 conditions.
after the exposure to 300 °C were only 35%–45% of the original YSs under T5 conditions.
At higher exposure temperatures (350–450 °C), the residual YS of the 0.72Mn(L) alloy remained
basically constant at the level of 115–120 MPa regardless of the exposure temperature and time. By
contrast, the 0.72Mn(H) alloy exposed to 350 °C for 0.5 h exhibited a residual YS of 95 MPa.
Furthermore, with increasing exposure temperature to 400–450 °C and exposure time to 2 h, the
residual YS of this alloy decreased until it stabilized at 80 MPa. The residual mechanical response of
Materials 2020, 13, 5295 8 of 13

At higher exposure temperatures (350–450 ◦ C), the residual YS of the 0.72Mn(L) alloy remained
basically constant at the level of 115–120 MPa regardless of the exposure temperature and time.
By contrast, the 0.72Mn(H) alloy exposed to 350 ◦ C for 0.5 h exhibited a residual YS of 95 MPa.
Furthermore, with increasing exposure temperature to 400–450 ◦ C and exposure time to 2 h, the residual
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13
YS of this alloy decreased until it stabilized at 80 MPa. The residual mechanical response of the 0Mn
alloy showed the worst performance. For instance, the 0Mn alloy exposed to 350 ◦ C for 2 h attained a
the 0Mn alloy showed the worst performance. For instance, the 0Mn alloy exposed to 350 °C for 2 h
residual YS of 68.5 MPa; however, following the exposure to 400–450 ◦ C, the residual YS decreased
attained a residual YS of 68.5 MPa; however, following the exposure to 400–450 °C, the residual YS
to 49 MPa, which represented only 18.5% of the original YS obtained prior to the high-temperature
decreased to 49 MPa, which represented only 18.5% of the original YS obtained prior to the high-
exposure. Hence, the 0.72Mn(L) alloy is a promising candidate for fire-susceptible aluminum structures,
temperature exposure. Hence, the 0.72Mn(L) alloy is a promising candidate for fire-susceptible
owing to its 50% and 140% higher residual YSs after exposures to 400–450 ◦ C for 2 h than those of the
aluminum structures, owing to its 50% and 140% higher residual YSs after exposures to 400–450 °C
0.72Mn(H) and 0Mn alloys, respectively.
for 2 h than those of the 0.72Mn(H) and 0Mn alloys, respectively.

Residualroom
Figure6.6.Residual
Figure roomtemperature
temperatureYS YSofofthe
theexperimental
experimentalalloys;
alloys;all
allalloys
alloyswere
werepre-exposed
pre-exposedto
tothe
the
test temperature for (a) 0.5 h and (b) 2
test temperature for (a) 0.5 h and (b) 2 h.h.

4. Discussion
4. Discussion
Typically, Al–Mg–Si 6082 alloys experience predominant strengthening by the precipitation of
Typically, Al–Mg–Si 6082 alloys experience predominant strengthening by the precipitation of
nanoscale precipitates (particularly β”), which are formed during aging treatment [21]. Therefore,
nanoscale precipitates (particularly β”), which are formed during aging treatment [21]. Therefore, the
the precipitate stability during high temperature exposure determines the capacity of the aluminum
precipitate stability during high temperature exposure determines the capacity of the aluminum
structures to bear a certain amount of load, i.e., its strength during and after a fire [1]. With the addition
structures to bear a certain amount of load, i.e., its strength during and after a fire [1]. With the
of an adequate Mn to 6082 alloys and the appropriate heat treatment, a large number of thermally
addition of an adequate Mn to 6082 alloys and the appropriate heat treatment, a large number of
stable α-Al(FeMn)Si dispersoids can be formed during homogenization [11,20]; these contribute
thermally stable α-Al(FeMn)Si dispersoids can be formed during homogenization [11,20]; these
to preserving the high-temperature strength through dispersoid strengthening [10,11] and delayed
contribute to preserving the high-temperature strength through dispersoid strengthening [10,11] and
restoration processes [25]. The extent of microstructural and mechanical stability of the aluminum
delayed restoration processes [25]. The extent of microstructural and mechanical stability of the
alloys during high temperature exposure depends on the temperature and time [1].
aluminum alloys during high temperature exposure depends on the temperature and time [1].
At 200 ◦ C, the overall instantaneous and residual YSs of all three alloys are still high and
At 200 °C, the overall instantaneous and residual YSs of all three alloys are still high and
comparable, indicating that the β” precipitates formed during aging (T5 condition) control the strength
comparable, indicating that the β” precipitates formed during aging (T5 condition) control the
of the alloys. In other words, the mechanical properties of the three alloys after exposures to 200 ◦ C are
strength of the alloys. In other words, the mechanical properties of the three alloys after exposures to
not markedly deteriorated yet. The 0Mn alloy exhibits a slight increase in the instantaneous YS with
200 °C are not markedly deteriorated yet. The 0Mn alloy exhibits a slight increase in the instantaneous
prolonged thermal exposure, unlike the Mn-containing alloys (Figure 5). This can be explained by
YS with prolonged thermal exposure, unlike the Mn-containing alloys (Figure 5). This can be
considering the precipitation structures under T5 conditions. Owing to the slower precipitation rate
explained by considering the precipitation structures under T5 conditions. Owing to the slower
of the β” phase in the 0Mn alloy with recrystallized grain structure than that in the Mn-containing
precipitation rate of the β” phase in the 0Mn alloy with recrystallized grain structure than that in the
alloys with deformed grain structures, less dense and relatively finer β” precipitates were observed
Mn-containing alloys with deformed grain structures, less dense and relatively finer β” precipitates
in the former alloy (Table 2). The prolonged exposure time for 2 h at 200 ◦ C causes a further growth
were observed in the former alloy (Table 2). The prolonged exposure time for 2 h at 200 °C causes a
of the β” precipitates in the 0Mn alloy, thereby slightly increasing the YS relative to the value of
further growth of the β” precipitates in the 0Mn alloy, thereby slightly increasing the YS relative to
the 0.5 h exposure. However, the Mn-containing alloys exhibit the over-aging phenomenon after a
the value of the 0.5 h exposure. However, the Mn-containing alloys exhibit the over-aging
longer exposure. The higher amount of energy stored in the Mn-containing alloys (0.72Mn(L)) in the
phenomenon after a longer exposure. The higher amount of energy stored in the Mn-containing
form of dislocations and subgrain boundaries (Figure 3) accelerates the coarsening of β” precipitates,
alloys (0.72Mn(L)) in the form of dislocations and subgrain boundaries (Figure 3) accelerates the
coarsening of β” precipitates, thereby resulting in a moderate decrease in the strength and lower YS
compared to that of the Mn-free 0Mn alloy.
The three alloys exposed to 300 °C exhibit significant strength reductions, which indicates
relevant changes in the strengthening precipitates. In fact, the TEM results of the alloys exposed to
300 °C for 2 h reveal the presence of coarse rod-shaped precipitates (Figure 7), which were identified
 and denser than those in the Mn-containing alloys (Figure 7). The difference in the sizes and densities
of the β’ precipitates between the 0Mn and Mn-containing alloys is likely associated with their initial
as-extruded grain structures and, more specifically, with the higher rate of solute diffusion in the
Materials
deformed 13, 5295of the Mn-containing alloys, which results in a quick coarsening of the β’ precipitates
2020,grains 9 of 13
during thermal exposure [9]. This also explains why the 0Mn alloy possesses a higher YS than the
0.72Mn(H) alloy (for instance, 65 MPa versus 47 MPa after 2 h exposure at 300 °C, respectively). The
thereby resulting in a moderate decrease in the strength and lower YS compared to that of the Mn-free
β’ precipitates in the 0.72Mn(L) alloy are the same as those in the 0.72Mn(H) alloy. However, the
0Mn alloy.
0.72Mn(L) alloy possesses a high number of fine α-dispersoids in the matrix (Figure 7c). It is evident
The three alloys exposed to 300 ◦ C exhibit significant strength reductions, which indicates relevant
that the dispersoids show no coarsening tendency during the thermal exposure and thus provide
changes in the strengthening precipitates. In fact, the TEM results of the alloys exposed to 300 ◦ C for
additional strength. Therefore, this alloy exhibits the highest instantaneous YS after a 2 h exposure
2 h reveal the presence of coarse rod-shaped precipitates (Figure 7), which were identified as β’ phase
(70 MPa; Figure 5). Moreover, the residual YS at 300 °C of this alloy is also substantially higher than
based on their size and morphology [24]. The coarse β’ precipitates are known to be less effective in
those of the other two alloys (Figure 6) owing to the complementary strengthening effect of the
alloy strengthening [24,28,29]. Moreover, by comparing the characteristics of the β’ precipitates of the
dispersoids.
various alloys, it can be observed that the β’ precipitates in the 0Mn alloy are finer and denser than those
At higher exposure temperatures (350–450 °C), the microstructures of the alloys keep changing
in the Mn-containing alloys (Figure 7). The difference in the sizes and densities of the β’ precipitates
with decreasing strength of the alloys. Figure 8 shows the typical TEM microstructure of the
between the 0Mn and Mn-containing alloys is likely associated with their initial as-extruded grain
0.72Mn(L) alloy exposed to 400 °C for 2 h. The Mg2Si precursor precipitates experience significant
structures and, more specifically, with the higher rate of solute diffusion in the deformed grains of
changes; they are transformed into µm-sized equilibrium β-Mg2Si particles (Figure 8a), while the α-
the Mn-containing alloys, which results in a quick coarsening of the β’ precipitates during thermal
dispersoids show no apparent coarsening (Figure 8b), because their dimensions are comparable to
exposure [9]. This also explains why the 0Mn alloy possesses a higher YS than the 0.72Mn(H) alloy (for
those in the as-extruded materials (Figure 2). The relatively high diffusion rates of Mg and Si in the
instance, 65 MPa versus 47 MPa after 2 h exposure at 300 ◦ C, respectively). The β’ precipitates in the
aluminum matrix at such high temperatures cause the transformation of Mg2Si precursor precipitates
0.72Mn(L) alloy are the same as those in the 0.72Mn(H) alloy. However, the 0.72Mn(L) alloy possesses
into coarse equilibrium β particles, which lost their major strengthening effect [24]. In this case, the
a high number of fine α-dispersoids in the matrix (Figure 7c). It is evident that the dispersoids show
presence of thermally stable α-dispersoids contributes effectively to the strength of the Mn-
no coarsening tendency during the thermal exposure and thus provide additional strength. Therefore,
containing alloys, becoming the dominant strengthening mechanism. Therefore, the dispersoid-free
this alloy exhibits the highest instantaneous YS after a 2 h exposure (70 MPa; Figure 5). Moreover,
0Mn alloy has very low instantaneous and residual YSs at elevated temperatures, while the 0.72Mn(L)
the residual YS at 300 ◦ C of this alloy is also substantially higher than those of the other two alloys
alloy with fine and dense dispersoids has superior instantaneous and residual YSs, which results in
(Figure 6) owing to the complementary strengthening effect of the dispersoids.
the best mechanical response among the three alloys.

Figure 7. Bright-field TEM images of (a) 0Mn, (b) 0.72Mn(H), and (c) 0.72Mn(L) alloys exposed to
Figure 7. Bright-field TEM images of (a) 0Mn, (b) 0.72Mn(H), and (c) 0.72Mn(L) alloys exposed to 300
300 ◦ C for 2 h after T5 treatment.
°C for 2 h after T5 treatment.
At higher exposure temperatures (350–450 ◦ C), the microstructures of the alloys keep changing
with decreasing strength of the alloys. Figure 8 shows the typical TEM microstructure of the 0.72Mn(L)
alloy exposed to 400 ◦ C for 2 h. The Mg2 Si precursor precipitates experience significant changes; they
are transformed into µm-sized equilibrium β-Mg2 Si particles (Figure 8a), while the α-dispersoids
show no apparent coarsening (Figure 8b), because their dimensions are comparable to those in the
as-extruded materials (Figure 2). The relatively high diffusion rates of Mg and Si in the aluminum
matrix at such high temperatures cause the transformation of Mg2 Si precursor precipitates into coarse
equilibrium β particles, which lost their major strengthening effect [24]. In this case, the presence
of thermally stable α-dispersoids contributes effectively to the strength of the Mn-containing alloys,
becoming the dominant strengthening mechanism. Therefore, the dispersoid-free 0Mn alloy has very
low instantaneous and residual YSs at elevated temperatures, while the 0.72Mn(L) alloy with fine and
dense dispersoids has superior instantaneous and residual YSs, which results in the best mechanical
response among the three alloys.
 Materials 2020, 13, 5295 10 of 13
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13

Figure
Figure 8. 8.
Bright-field TEM
Bright-field TEMimages showing
images showing (a)(a)
coarsened
coarsenedβ-Mg 2Si 2particles
β-Mg andand
Si particles (b)(b)
α-Al(FeMn)Si
α-Al(FeMn)Si
dispersoids
dispersoids in 0.72Mn(L)
in 0.72Mn(L) alloy
alloy exposed
exposed to 400 °C ◦for
to 400 C for
2 h2after
h after
T5 T5 treatment.
treatment. Images
Images werewere taken
taken near
near
[001]
[001] Al zone
Al zone axes.
axes.

The grain structures of three

the three alloys ◦ C for 2 h)
The grain structures of the alloys after after the high-temperature
the high-temperature exposure exposure
(400 °C(400for 2 h) were
were investigated
investigated with EBSD with (Figure
EBSD (Figure
9). The 9).0Mn
The 0Mn
alloyalloy maintains
maintains fullyfully recrystallized
recrystallized grain
grain structure
structure
(Figure
(Figure 9a)9a) because
because recrystallization
recrystallization hashas already
already occurred
occurred during
during extrusion
extrusion (Figure
(Figure 3a).
3a). The The average
average
equivalent diameter of grains in 0Mn alloy is ~220 µm, which is quite the same as that of theof
equivalent diameter of grains in 0Mn alloy is ~220 µm, which is quite the same as that as-the
as-extruded
extruded 0Mn 0Mn alloyalloy (Figure
(Figure 3a). This
3a). This implies
implies that that no appreciable
no appreciable graingrain
growthgrowth occurred
occurred during
during thethe
high-temperature exposure. The 0.72Mn(H) alloy retains a large part
high-temperature exposure. The 0.72Mn(H) alloy retains a large part of the recovered grain structure of the recovered grain structure
with
with somesome recrystallized
recrystallized grains
grains onon thethe grain
grain boundaries
boundaries (see(see arrows
arrows in in Figure
Figure 9b).
9b). AsAs previously
previously
mentioned,the
mentioned, the 0.72Mn(H)
0.72Mn(H)alloy contains
alloy containsa number of α-dispersoids,
a number which promote
of α-dispersoids, which the promote
recrystallization
the
retardation owing to their pinning effect; nevertheless, it is less effective
recrystallization retardation owing to their pinning effect; nevertheless, it is less effective than that of than that of the 0.72Mn(L)
thealloy. The fact
0.72Mn(L) thatThe
alloy. the fact
0.72Mn(H)
that thealloy exhibitsalloy
0.72Mn(H) a higher
exhibitsresidual
a higherYS than the 0Mn
residual YS thanalloy theat 0Mn
higher
exposure
alloy at higher temperatures (350–450 ◦ C; Figure
exposure temperatures (350–450 6) °C;
can Figure
be partially
6) canattributed
be partially to their recovered
attributed grain
to their
structures, which enable better subgrain and strain hardening [9]. On
recovered grain structures, which enable better subgrain and strain hardening [9]. On the other hand, the other hand, the 0.72Mn(L)
thealloy maintains
0.72Mn(L) alloyitsmaintains
deformedits and fibrous grain
deformed structure
and fibrous grain(Figure 9c) owing
structure (Figure to 9c)
the owing
strong to pinning
the
effect of a large number of α-dispersoids, which inhibit recrystallization
strong pinning effect of a large number of α-dispersoids, which inhibit recrystallization during the during the high-temperature
exposure. The stable
high-temperature and high
exposure. The residual
stable and YSs high
at these high temperatures
residual YSs at theseare contributed
high temperatures to a certain
are
extent by the
contributed to anon-recrystallized
certain extent bygrain the structure owing to the
non-recrystallized subgrain
grain strengthening
structure owing to effect.
the subgrain
at a low exposure temperature (200 ◦ C), the fine nanoscale β” precipitates control
In brief,effect.
strengthening
theInstrength
brief, atof a Al–Mg–Si
low exposure 6082temperature
alloys, and (200 the mechanical
°C), the fine properties
nanoscaleofβ” aluminum
precipitates structural
control alloys
the
remainof
strength almost undeteriorated.
Al–Mg–Si 6082 alloys, With
andincreasing exposure
the mechanical temperature
properties to 300 ◦ C, structural
of aluminum the β” precipitates
alloys
transformed
remain almost into coarse β’ precipitates,
undeteriorated. With increasing therebyexposure
resulting temperature
in a significant toreduction
300 °C, the in β”
theprecipitates
alloy strength.
Owing to a into
transformed largecoarse
numberβ’ofprecipitates,
fine and dense dispersoids,
thereby the 0.72Mn(L)
resulting in a significantalloy begins
reductionto showin theits superior
alloy
mechanical response and exhibits remarkably higher instantaneous and
strength. Owing to a large number of fine and dense dispersoids, the 0.72Mn(L) alloy begins to show residual YSs than the base 0Mn
alloy and 0.72Mn(H) alloy, owing to the complementary strengthening
its superior mechanical response and exhibits remarkably higher instantaneous and residual YSs than effect of the thermally stable
◦ C), the Mg Si precursor precipitates transform
thedispersoids.
base 0Mn alloy At higher
and exposure
0.72Mn(H) temperatures
alloy, owing (350–450
to the complementary 2 strengthening effect of the
into coarse equilibrium
thermally stable dispersoids. At β-Mg Si particles and lose their strengthening
2 higher exposure temperatures (350–450 °C), effect. Moreover,
the Mg2Si theprecursor
strength of
the base 0Mn
precipitates alloy decreases
transform into coarsewith increasing β-Mg
equilibrium exposure temperature,
2Si particles and loseandtheir
the alloy possesses very
strengthening low
effect.
instantaneous
Moreover, and residual
the strength YSs at
of the base 0Mnhigh temperatures.
alloy decreases with On the other hand,
increasing the dispersoids
exposure temperature, showandno
theapparent coarsening
alloy possesses veryandloweffectively
instantaneous contribute to alloy
and residual strength.
YSs at high Therefore,
temperatures. the On
0.72Mn(L)
the other alloy
hand,with
◦
thefine and denseshow
dispersoids dispersoids exhibits
no apparent the best mechanical
coarsening and effectivelyresponse at 350–450
contribute to alloy C among
strength. theTherefore,
three alloys.
the 0.72Mn(L) alloy with fine and dense dispersoids exhibits the best mechanical response attreatments
Hence, introducing thermally stable dispersoids by appropriate Mn alloying and heat 350–450
°Ccan be a cost-effective
among the three alloys. and promising approach for
Hence, introducing improving
thermally thedispersoids
stable mechanical responseby appropriateof aluminumMn
structural
alloying andalloys
heat during
treatmentshighcantemperature exposure. and promising approach for improving the
be a cost-effective
mechanical response of aluminum structural alloys during high temperature exposure.
Materials 2020, 13, 5295 11 of 13
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 13

Figure EBSD
Figure9. 9. EBSD(inverse pole
(inverse figure)
pole maps
figure) of (a)of0Mn,
maps (b) 0.72Mn(H),
(a) 0Mn, and (c)and
(b) 0.72Mn(H), 0.72Mn(L) alloys, exposed
(c) 0.72Mn(L) alloys,
400 ◦ C to
toexposed for4002 h. Note that the EBSD scan area for 0Mn is much larger than for 0.72Mn(H)
°C for 2 h. Note that the EBSD scan area for 0Mn is much larger than for 0.72Mn(H) and
0.72Mn(L) alloys.alloys.
and 0.72Mn(L)

5.5.Conclusions
Conclusions
• The
 addition of MnofinMn
The addition a typical high-temperature
in a typical homogenization
high-temperature treatment
homogenization produced
treatment a number
produced a
of α-Al(FeMn)Si dispersoids in the 0.72Mn(H) alloy, which improved the mechanical
number of α-Al(FeMn)Si dispersoids in the 0.72Mn(H) alloy, which improved the mechanical response
during thermal exposure at 350–450 ◦ relative to that of the Mn-free base alloy. Moreover,
response during thermal exposure C at 350–450 °C relative to that of the Mn-free base alloy.
the low-temperature homogenization
Moreover, the low-temperature treatment resulted
homogenization in a high
treatment density
resulted in aof finedensity
high dispersoids
of finein
the 0.72Mn(L) alloy, which further improved the mechanical response substantially.
dispersoids in the 0.72Mn(L) alloy, which further improved the mechanical response
• low exposure temperature (200 ◦ C), the instantaneous and residual YSs of the alloys were
At a substantially.
 At governed
mainly a low exposure
by thetemperature (200 and
β” precipitates, °C), the instantaneous and residual
mechanical properties of theYSs of the alloys
aluminum were
structural
mainly governed by the β” precipitates, and the mechanical properties
alloys were not markedly affected compared to their original strength under T5 condition. of the aluminum
• structural
At a high alloys
exposure were not of
temperature 300 ◦ C, the
markedly affected comparedtransformed
β” precipitates to their original strength
into coarse under T5
β’ precipitates,
condition.
thereby resulting in a significant reduction in the alloy strength. The strength improvement due
 the
to Atpresence
a high exposure
of fine andtemperature of 300 °C,
dense dispersoids the β”quite
became precipitates
evident,transformed
because theinto coarse β’
instantaneous
precipitates,
and residual thereby
strengths resulting
of the in a significant
corresponding reduction in
alloy (0.72Mn(L)) thehigher
were alloy strength.
than those The
of strength
the alloys
improvement due to the presence of fine and
without dispersoids (0Mn) or with coarse dispersoids (0.72Mn(H)). dense dispersoids became quite evident,
because the instantaneous and residual ◦ strengths of the corresponding alloy (0.72Mn(L))
• At higher exposure temperatures (350–450 C), the Mg2 Si precursor precipitates transformed into
were higher than those of the alloys without dispersoids (0Mn) or with coarse dispersoids
coarse equilibrium β-Mg2 Si particles and lost their strengthening effect, while the dispersoids
(0.72Mn(H)).
resisted the coarsening and became the dominant strengthening contributor. The 0.72Mn(L) alloy
 At higher exposure temperatures (350–450 °C), the Mg2Si precursor precipitates transformed
containing fine and dense dispersoids displayed far superior instantaneous and residual YSs
into coarse equilibrium β-Mg2Si particles and lost their strengthening effect, while the
compared to the other two alloy variants and therefore the best mechanical response during high
dispersoids resisted the coarsening and became the dominant strengthening contributor. The
temperature exposure.
0.72Mn(L) alloy containing fine and dense dispersoids displayed far superior instantaneous
• The presence
and residualof thermally
YSs compared stable dispersoids
to the other twoeffectively retarded
alloy variants the recrystallization
and therefore during
the best mechanical
highresponse
temperature exposure, which improved
during high temperature exposure. the high-temperature mechanical properties to a
certain
 Theextent.
presence of thermally stable dispersoids effectively retarded the recrystallization during
high temperature exposure, which improved the high-temperature mechanical properties to
a certain extent.
Materials 2020, 13, 5295 12 of 13

Author Contributions: J.R.: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft; K.L.:
Methodology, Validation, Writing—Review and Editing; P.R.: Methodology, Resources, Writing—Review and
Editing; N.P.: Methodology, Resources, Writing—Review and Editing; X.-G.C.: Methodology, Writing—Review
and Editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
under Grant No. CRDPJ 514651-17 and Rio Tinto Aluminum through the Research Chair in the Metallurgy of
Aluminum Transformation at the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Summers, P.T.; Chen, Y.; Rippe, C.M.; Allen, B.; Mouritz, A.P.; Case, S.W.; Lattimer, B.Y. Overview of
aluminum alloy mechanical properties during and after fires. Fire Sci. Rev. 2015, 4, 3.
2. Chen, Z.H.; Lu, J.; Liu, H.B.; Liao, X.W. Experimental investigation on the post-fire mechanical properties of
structural aluminum alloys 6061-T6 and 7075-T73. Thin Wall Struct. 2016, 106, 187–200.
3. Maljaars, J.; Soetens, F.; Katgerman, L. Constitutive model for aluminum alloys exposed to fire conditions.
Met. Mater. Trans. A 2008, 39A, 778–789.
4. Fogle, E.J.; Lattimer, B.Y.; Feih, S.; Kandare, E.; Mouritz, A.P.; Case, S.W. Compression load failure of
aluminum plates due to fire. Eng. Struct. 2012, 34, 155–162.
5. Hu, J.; Zhang, W.; Fu, D.; Teng, J.; Zhang, H. Improvement of the mechanical properties of Al–Mg–Si alloys
with nano-scale precipitates after repetitive continuous extrusion forming and T8 tempering. J. Mater. Res.
Technol. 2019, 8, 5950–5960.
6. Sekhar, A.P.; Mandal, A.B.; Das, D. Mechanical properties and corrosion behavior of artificially aged Al-Mg-Si
alloy. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 1005–1024.
7. Kaufman, J.G. Fire Resistance of Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys: Measuring the Effects of Fire Exposure on the
Properties of Aluminum Alloys; ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA, 2016.
8. European Center for Standardization. Design of Aluminium Structures. Part 1–2: Structural Fire Design;
European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
9. Sigli, C.; De Geuser, F.; Deschamps, A.; Lepinoux, J.; Perez, M. Recent advances in the metallurgy of aluminum
alloys. Part II: Age hardening. Comptes Rendus Phys. 2018, 19, 688–709.
10. Gupta, A.K.; Lloyd, D.J.; Court, S.A. Precipitation hardening in Al-Mg-Si alloys with and without excess Si.
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2001, 316, 11–17.
11. Fang, X.; Song, M.; Li, K.; Du, Y. Precipitation Sequence of an Aged Al-Mg-Si Alloy. J. Min. Met. B 2010,
46, 171–180.
12. Gross, C.T.; Isheim, D.; Vaynman, S.; Fine, M.E.; Chung, Y.W. Design and Development of Lightly Alloyed
Ferritic Fire-Resistant Structural Steels. Met. Mater. Trans. A 2019, 50A, 209–219.
13. Liu, K.; Ma, H.; Chen, X.G. Enhanced elevated-temperature properties via Mo addition in Al-Mn-Mg 3004
alloy. J. Alloys Compd. 2017, 694, 354–365.
14. Liu, K.; Chen, X.G. Evolution of Intermetallics, Dispersoids, and Elevated Temperature Properties at Various
Fe Contents in Al-Mn-Mg 3004 Alloys. Met. Mater. Trans. B 2016, 47, 3291–3300.
15. Liu, K.; Chen, X.G. Development of Al–Mn–Mg 3004 alloy for applications at elevated temperature via
dispersoid strengthening. Mater. Des. 2015, 84, 340–350.
16. Li, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, X.G. Microstructure, elevated-temperature mechanical properties and creep resistance
of dispersoid-strengthened Al-Mn-Mg 3xxx alloys with varying Mg and Si contents. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2017,
708, 383–394.
17. Rakhmonov, J.; Timelli, G.; Fabrizi, A.; Bonollo, F. Effect of V and Zr microalloying, and heat treatment on
microstructure and mechanical properties of secondary Al-7Si-3Cu-0.3Mg alloy. Int. J. Mater. Res. 2018,
109, 1099–1112.
18. Du, Q.; Poole, W.J.; Wells, M.A.; Parson, N.C. Microstructure evolution during homogenization of Al-Mn-Fe-Si
alloys: Modeling and experimental results. Acta Mater. 2013, 61, 4961–4973.
19. Li, Y.J.; Arnberg, L. Quantitative study on the precipitation behavior of dispersoids in DC-cast AA3003 alloy
during heating and homogenization. Acta Mater. 2003, 51, 3415–3428.
Materials 2020, 13, 5295 13 of 13

20. Li, Y.J.; Muggerud, A.M.F.; Olsen, A.; Furu, T. Precipitation of partially coherent α-Al(Mn,Fe)Si dispersoids
and their strengthening effect in AA 3003 alloy. Acta Mater. 2012, 60, 1004–1014.
21. Liu, Y.; Liu, H.B.; Chen, Z.H. Post-fire mechanical properties of aluminum alloy 6082-T6. Constr. Build. Mater.
2019, 196, 256–266.
22. Engler, O.; Marioara, C.D.; Aruga, Y.; Kozuka, M.; Myhr, O.R. Effect of natural ageing or pre-ageing on the
evolution of precipitate structure and strength during age hardening of Al–Mg–Si alloy AA 6016. Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 2019, 759, 520–529.
23. Qian, F.; Jin, S.B.; Sha, G.; Li, Y.J. Enhanced dispersoid precipitation and dispersion strengthening in an Al
alloy by microalloying with Cd. Acta Mater. 2018, 157, 114–125.
24. Edwards, G.A.; Stiller, K.; Dunlop, G.L.; Couper, M.J. The precipitation sequence in Al-Mg-Si alloys. Acta
Mater. 1998, 46, 3893–3904.
25. Mahmoodkhani, Y.; Wells, M.A.; Poole, W.J.; Grajales, L.; Parson, N. The Development of Grain Structure
During Axisymmetric Extrusion of AA3003 Aluminum Alloys. Met. Mater. Trans. A 2015, 46, 5920–5932.
26. Chen, J.Q.; Poole, W.J.; Parson, N.C. The effect of through thickness texture variation on the anisotropic
mechanical response of an extruded Al-Mn-Fe-Si alloy. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2018, 730, 24–35.
27. Kaneko, S.; Murakami, K.; Sakai, T. Effect of the extrusion conditions on microstructure evolution of the
extruded Al-Mg-Si-Cu alloy rods. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2009, 500, 8–15.
28. Roy, S.; Allard, L.F.; Rodriguez, A.; Porter, W.D.; Shyam, A. Comparative Evaluation of Cast Aluminum
Alloys for Automotive Cylinder Heads: Part II-Mechanical and Thermal Properties. Met. Mater. Trans. A
2017, 48A, 2543–2562.
29. Nie, J.F.; Muddle, B.C. Microstructural design of high-strength aluminum alloys. J. Phase Equilib. 1998,
19, 543–551.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).