Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 7402–7409

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science and Engineering A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Artificial ageing of Al–Si–Cu–Mg casting alloys

E. Sjölander ∗ , S. Seifeddine
Materials and Manufacturing - Casting, Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, Jönköping University, Box 1026, 551 11 Jönköping, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The T6 heat treatment is commonly used for gravity cast Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys. The influence of the alloy-
Received 14 February 2011 ing elements Cu and Mg and the artificial ageing temperature on the age hardening response were
Received in revised form 13 June 2011 investigated. Artificial ageing was conducted at 170 ◦ C and 210 ◦ C for various times for three alloys,
Accepted 14 June 2011
Al–7Si–0.3Mg, Al–8Si–3Cu and Al–8Si–3Cu–0.5Mg, cast with three different solidification rates (sec-
Available online 21 June 2011
ondary dendrite arm spacing of about 10, 25 and 50 ␮m). The coarseness of the microstructure has a
small influence on the yield strength, as long as the solution treatment is adjusted to obtain complete
Keywords:
dissolution and homogenisation. The peak yield strength of the Al–Si–Mg alloy is not as sensitive to the
Mechanical characterization
Aluminium alloys
ageing temperature as the Al–Si–Cu and Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys are. The ageing response of the Al–Si–Cu
Casting alloy is low and very slow. When 0.5 wt% Mg is added the ageing response increases drastically and a
Age hardening peak yield strength of 380 MPa is obtained after 20 h of ageing at 170 ◦ C for the finest microstructure,
but the elongation to fracture is decreased to 3%. The elongation to fracture decreases with ageing time
in the underaged condition as the yield strength increases for all three alloys. A recovery in elongation
to fracture of the Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy on overageing is obtained for the finest microstructure, while the
elongation remains low for the coarser microstructures. The quality index, Q = YS + Kε, can be used to
compare the quality of different Al–Si–Mg alloys. This is not true for Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys, as K depends
on the alloy composition. Overageing of the Al–Si–Mg alloy results in a decrease in quality compared to
the underaged condition.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The T6 heat treatment is commonly used to increase the strength
of gravity cast Al–Si components containing Cu and/or Mg. The T6
heat treatment consists of solution treatment at a high tempera-
ture to dissolve large intermetallic particles and homogenize the
alloying elements, quenching at a high cooling rate to retain a high
concentration of vacancies and solute in solid solution and artifi-
cial ageing at a lower temperature to form fine precipitates. The
age hardening response is the increase in yield strength during
artificial ageing relative the yield strength in the natural aged condi-
tion. Alloy composition, artificial ageing temperature and thermal
history (solution treatment, quench, natural ageing) are the main
parameters influencing the age hardening response.
A large number of ageing curves are available in the literature
[1–7] for Al–Si–Mg alloys. Some examples for ageing at around
170 ◦ C are shown in Fig. 1. The ageing curves show two different
behaviours. One set of curves shows a fast initial ageing response,
while the other set shows a much slower initial age hardening
response. The slower age hardening response appears when an
alloy is natural aged prior to artificial ageing, but time to peak
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 36 101669; fax: +46 36 166560.
E-mail address: emma.sjolander@jth.hj.se (E. Sjölander).
as well as the peak hardness are unaffected [5]. A change of age-
ing temperature within the range 170–210 ◦ C does not influence
the peak yield strength strongly [1,7], while a decrease is obtained
for higher temperatures. There is a change in precipitate from the
␤ (Mg2 Si) phase to the ␤ (Mg2 Si) phase in Al–Cu–Mg–Si alloys at
around 200 ◦ C according to Eskin [8], which could be the reason for
lower peak yield strengths at high ageing temperatures.
Few ageing curves exist in the literature for Al–Si–Cu alloys as
they are of less importance because of their lower age hardening
response compared to Al–Si–Mg and Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys. Ageing
curves from three articles [9–11] show good agreement, see Fig. 2.
A long ageing time, around 100 h at 160 ◦ C, is needed to reach
peak hardness for Al–Si–Cu alloys. Some differences are seen in
reported ageing curves [9–14], which could be because low con-
centrations of Mg increase the age hardening response drastically
and decrease the time to peak hardness [9]. When the ageing tem-
perature is increased the peak condition is achieved faster, but the
peak hardness is decreased [9].
Precursors of the ␪ (Al2 Cu) phase form both in Al–Si–Cu casting
alloys and in Al–Cu wrought alloys at ageing, but the age harden-
ing response per added wt% of Cu is lower in casting alloys [15].
The high dislocation density formed during quenching in Al–Si–Cu
alloys may be a reason for the low age hardening response [9,15].
The ␪ phase forms on dislocations, while the ␪ phase forms far
from the Si particles, where the dislocation density is low. The for-

0921-5093/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2011.06.036
 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 7402–7409 7403

good examples showing the possibility for formation of different

types of precipitates in Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys. They both added dif-
ferent amounts of Cu (0–4 wt%) to Al–Si–0.5Mg alloys and studied
the age hardening response. Wang et al. [4] report that the harden-
ing precipitates were Q (Al5 Mg8 Si6 Cu2 ), and ␪ (Al2 Cu) for high Cu,
in the peak aged condition and the peak yield strength was shifted
to longer times compared to the Al–Si–Mg alloy. Li et al. [3] on the
other hand report that ␤ (Mg2 Si), and ␪ for high Cu, as well as a
low fraction of Q , were present in the peak aged condition and
the peak yield strength was reached after the same time as for the
Al–Si–Mg alloy. It can be concluded that the kind of precipitates
formed, ␤ or Q , has a large influence on the ageing curve. The
␤ precipitate makes a higher contribution to, and gives a shorter
time to peak strength than the Q precipitates. In wrought alloys
the fraction of the Q phase compared to the ␤ phase is reported to
increase with ageing time, ageing temperature and natural ageing
[8,16,17].
The aim of the present work is to study the influence of as-cast
microstructure, alloying elements and artificial ageing temperature
on the age hardening response. The change in yield strength, ulti-
mate tensile strength (UTS) and elongation to fracture with ageing
time are reported.

2. Material and experiments

Three Al–Si alloys were cast having various Mg and Cu concen-

Fig. 1. Artificial ageing curves for some Al–(7–8)Si–Mg alloys. a) Yield strength and
b) Vickers hardness.
mation of the ␪ phase decreases the Cu concentration available for
formation of the ␪ phase, resulting in a reduction in strength. The
formation of dislocations during quenching has not as large influ-
ence on Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys. The dislocation density is lower and
more uniform due to solid solution hardening of the matrix by Mg,
giving a more homogenous distribution of ␪ phases [9]. Moreover,
coherent Cu and Mg rich precipitates form homogenously in the
matrix regardless of the dislocations [9,11].
Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys show the strongest response to age hard-
ening, but are also the most complex to understand. Two similar
investigations performed by Wang et al. [4] and Li et al. [3] are
trations, as shown in Table 1. Sr modification and grain-refinement
were used. Cylindrical rods (length 18 cm, diameter 1 cm) were cast
in a preheated permanent mould. The rods were remelted with
the gradient solidification technique which gives samples with a
low content of porosity defects thanks to the good feeding. Fur-
ther information about the gradient solidification technique can
be found elsewhere [18]. Different solidification rates were used
to achieve different coarsenesses of the microstructure. Rods with
secondary dendrite arm spacings (SDAS) of approximately 10, 25
and 50 ␮m were produced. Average SDAS values and standard devi-
ations from 40 measurements are given in Table 2 for the three
solidification rates. Tensile test bars with a gauge length of 50 mm
and a diameter of 7 mm were machined from the rods prior to heat
treatment.
Solution treatment was conducted in an electrical furnace at a
temperature of 495 ◦ C for the Cu containing alloys and at 530 ◦ C
for the Al–Si–Mg alloy. The times were chosen depending on the
coarseness of the microstructure in order to achieve complete dis-
solution and homogenization. Solution treatment times of 1 h, 3 h
and 6 h were used for the microstructures with SDAS of 10, 25 and
50 ␮m, respectively. The samples were quenched in 50 ◦ C water
and naturally aged at room temperature for 1 day prior to artifi-
cial ageing in a forced circulation air furnace at 170 ◦ C or 210 ◦ C for

Table 1
Alloy composition in wt%.

Si Cu Mg Fe Ti Al Sr (ppm)

Al–Si–Mg 7.1 0.0 0.33 0.11 0.13 Bal. 351

Al–Si–Cu 7.8 3.1 0.00 0.12 0.13 Bal. 352
Al–Si–Cu–Mg 8.5 3.1 0.47 0.17 0.23 Bal. 350

Table 2
Average SDAS for the three solidification rates; standard deviations within brackets.

Solidification rate (mm s−1 ) SDAS (␮m)

Al–Si–Mg Al–Si–Cu Al–Si–Cu–Mg

0.03 51 (7) 50 (6) 49 (7)

0.3 28 (3) 25 (4) 24 (3)
Fig. 2. Artificial ageing curves for Al–(7–9)Si–Cu alloys. 3 10 (1) 10 (2) 9 (1)
7404 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 7402–7409

various times. The times needed for heating the samples to the solu-
tion treatment temperature (10–15 min) and the artificial ageing
temperature (20 min) are excluded from the recorded times.
The concentration of Cu, Mg and Si in the ␣-Al matrix after
solution treatment was measured using wavelength dispersive
spectroscopy (WDS) to control that dissolution and homogeniza-
tion were completed. Four points in the centre and six points on
the side of secondary dendrite arms were measured for each sam-
ple. The length of Si particles, Fe rich particles, Q particles and Al2 Cu
particles was measured after solution treatment for the three alloys
and the three coarsenesses of the microstructure. A fixed magnifi-
cation was used for each coarseness of the microstructure to be able
to compare the different alloys. Ten frames were used and the three
longest particles of each type were measured in each frame. The
number of measurements is small and is only used as an indication
of the relative size of the particles.
Tensile tests were performed at a constant strain rate of
0.5 mm min−1 using a Zwick/Roell Z100 machine equipped with
a 100 kN load cell and a clip-on 25 mm gauge length extensome-
ter. Samples were tested until fracture, using two tensile test
bars for each ageing condition. Both results are presented for the
yield strength, while UTS and elongation to fracture are for the
sample having the highest UTS. Fracture surfaces were studied
using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive
spectroscopy (EDS). The concentrations of Mg and Si in the ␣-Al
dendrites were measured using WDS on tensile test bars show-
ing deviating yield strengths for the Al–Si–Mg alloy. Samples aged
20 min at 210 ◦ C were used for the concentration measurements.
Eight points in the centre and eight points on the side of secondary
dendrite arms were measured for each sample.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. The Al–Si–Mg alloy
The evolution of yield strength, UTS and elongation to fracture
during ageing at 170 ◦ C and 210 ◦ C are presented in Fig. 3. The yield
strength curves for the Al–Si–Mg alloy aged at 170 ◦ C show good
agreement with the ageing curves taken from the literature shown
in Fig. 1a. The strength is somewhat lower compared to the litera-
ture ageing curves as expected due to the lower Mg concentration
of the alloy. The ageing curves for 210 ◦ C show good agreement
with ageing curves reported by Tiryakioglu et al. [19] for sand cast
Al–Si–Mg alloys having 0.2 and 0.4 wt% Mg aged at 200 ◦ C. The
yield strengths for ageing at 170 ◦ C are about the same for the
three coarsenesses of the microstructure, see Fig. 3a. The differ-
ence between the finest and the coarsest microstructure is 7 MPa
for the peak aged condition. This is in agreement with data reported

Fig. 3. Mechanical properties of the Al–Si–Mg alloy aged at 170 ◦ C (open symbols) and 210 ◦ C (solid symbols). a) Yield strength (results from two occasions are shown for the
finest structure aged at 210 ◦ C), b) UTS, c) elongation to fracture and d) correlation between yield strength and elongation to fracture. The lines are added to guide the eye.
 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 7402–7409
by Caceres et al. [20] for an Sr modified A356 alloy aged at 170 ◦ C
for 6 h having SDAS in the range 17–65 ␮m. For ageing at 210 ◦ C the
yield strength shows some discrepancies with SDAS. Similar yield
strengths were obtained for the two coarser microstructures, while
the finest microstructure had lower strength and a large scatter in
the data (rhombus in Fig. 3a). Repeated heat treatments and tensile
tests were performed for ageing at 10 min, 20 min and 1 h at 210 ◦ C
for the finest microstructure, resulting in higher yield strengths
(crosses in Fig. 3a).
Concentration measurements were performed on the four sam-
ples aged 20 min at 210 ◦ C having the finest microstructure to
investigate the reason for the variation in yield strength. All samples
showed comparable Mg concentrations, 0.31 ± 0.02 wt% Mg, while
the Si concentrations showed some variation. Test bars having
lower yield strength of 194 and 203 MPa had lower Si concentra-
tions of 0.91 ± 0.10 wt% Si and 0.96 ± 0.10 wt% Si compared to test
bars having a higher yield strength of 231 MPa which had Si con-
centrations of 1.07 ± 0.03 wt% Si and 1.13 ± 0.04 wt% Si. It was also
noted that the Si concentration was especially low at the edge of
the dendrites close to the Si eutectic, 0.85 ± 0.05 wt% Si, for samples
having low yield strength. A too slow quench is therefore thought
to be the reason for the lower yield strength obtained for two of the
test bars. Due to lack of material tensile tests could not be repeated
for all ageing times and coarsenesses of the microstructure.
In Fig. 3c the elongation to fracture is seen to decrease with
ageing time as the yield strength increases. The test bars of the
intermediate microstructure showing low elongation at 170 ◦ C
(ageing times of 20 h and 50 h) fractured outside the extensome-
ter, indicating the likely presence of defects. These samples did not
reach necking, which the rest of the samples with the interme-
diate microstructure did. Excluding these results, the elongation
to fracture of the intermediate microstructure seems to follow the
same behaviour as the other two microstructures. However no rea-
son for the low elongation at 210 ◦ C (2 h) was found. It can be
noted that the elongation to fracture continues to decrease on over-
ageing when the yield strength decreases, see Fig. 3d. The ageing
times of the present investigation are too short to observe a clear
increase in elongation to fracture at overageing. Tiryakioglu et al.
[19] has however earlier observed a clear increase in elongation
to fracture for longer ageing times. The total elongation to frac-
ture is lower at overageing than at underageing and the uniform
elongation is observed to be a lower fraction of the total elonga-
tion. This behaviour has earlier been observed by Alexopoulos and
Tiryakioglu [21] for an Al–7Si–0.55Mg alloy.
3.2. The Al–Si–Cu alloy
The ageing curves of the Al–Si–Cu alloy are shown in Fig. 4a and
b. The ageing curves show the same behaviour for the three coarse-
nesses of the microstructure, but the yield strength of the coarsest
microstructure is lower. Ineffective solution treatment might be
the reason for the lower yield strength of the coarsest microstruc-
ture. The solution treatment was 6 h at 495 ◦ C for the coarsest
microstructure as this was thought to be enough to achieve com-
plete dissolution and homogenisation. However a later study [22]
has shown that more than 10 h at 495 ◦ C is needed. After 6 h of
solution treatment at 495 ◦ C the Cu concentration in the matrix is
about 2.4 wt% for the coarsest microstructure, compared to 3.2 wt%
for the two finer microstructures after 1 h and 3 h respectively. A
lower concentration of Cu in solid solution after solution treatment
results in a lower yield strength after artificial ageing, as can be seen
in Fig. 4a–b. A long time is needed to reach peak strength, about
12 h at 210 ◦ C and 170 h or more at 170 ◦ C. The peak yield strength
is influenced by the ageing temperature, being about 31 MPa lower
at 210 ◦ C compared to 170 ◦ C.
7405
Most of the samples having the finest microstructure reached
necking, while some fractured much earlier. Samples of the finest
microstructure fracturing much before necking were excluded
from the results presented in Fig. 4, as the aim of this investigation
is to study the influence of the artificial ageing on the elongation to
fracture and not the influence of defects. For the coarser microstruc-
tures necking was not obtained and all results (except for natural
ageing of the intermediate microstructure which fractured much
earlier than expected) are shown in Fig. 4. The elongation to frac-
ture decreases in the underaged condition as the yield strength
increases, see Fig. 4d. A tendency of an increase in elongation
to fracture at overageing as the yield strength decreases can be
observed. Ageing at 170 ◦ C gives a better combination of yield
strength and elongation to fracture than ageing at 210 ◦ C, for the
two finer microstructures. The scatter in elongation to fracture and
UTS indicates a large content of defects, which was confirmed by
EDS measurements on the fracture surface. Defects having a much
higher oxygen concentration than areas experiencing ductile frac-
ture were identified.
3.3. The Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy
The evolution of yield strength and UTS during ageing at 170 ◦ C
and 210 ◦ C are presented in Fig. 5a and b. The time to peak
strength is a little longer for the Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy compared to
the Al–Si–Mg alloy, 20 h compared to 10 h at 170 ◦ C, indicating
the presence of the Q phase in the Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy. Natural
ageing was used in this investigation which may have influenced
the precipitation kinetics, favouring the formation of the Q phase
[17]. As for the Al–Si–Cu alloy, the coarsest microstructure shows
lower yield strength than the two finer microstructures due to an
ineffective solution treatment. The Cu concentration in the matrix
after solution treatment was 2.2 wt% for the coarsest microstruc-
ture, while it was 3.3 wt% for the two finer microstructures. The Mg
and Si concentrations on the other hand were the same for the dif-
ferent coarsenesses of the microstructure, 0.24 wt% and 0.81 wt%,
respectively. Far from all Mg is dissolved into the ␣-Al matrix, due
to the presence of the Q-Al5 Mg8 Cu2 Si6 phase, which does not dis-
solve during solution treatment at 495 ◦ C. The peak yield strength
is on average 25 MPa lower for ageing at 210 ◦ C compared to 170 ◦ C.
A decrease in peak yield strength for Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys with
increasing ageing temperature has earlier been observed by others
[9,13,23–25]. A higher fraction of Q phases at the higher ageing
temperature [8,17] is a possible explanation for the reduction in
peak yield strength with increasing ageing temperature.
The elongation to fracture reaches a minimum when the yield
strength is at its maximum, see Fig. 5d. For the finest microstruc-
ture the elongation is seen to increase upon overageing. An increase
in elongation on overageing for 319-type alloys has earlier been
reported in the literature [14,23,24]. The elongation to fracture for
the three coarsenesses of the microstructure of the Al–Si–Cu–Mg
alloy have the same trend for ageing times shorter than 10 h and
longer than 100 h for ageing at 170 ◦ C, see Fig. 5c. The two coarser
microstructures have a low elongation to fracture for ageing times
in between. These ageing times corresponds to high yield strengths.
The low elongation to fracture of the two coarser microstructures
is probably caused by a combination of the high yield strength and
larger brittle phases and defects present in the coarser microstruc-
tures compared to in the finest microstructure.
3.4. Age hardening response
The time to peak tpeak , the age hardening response (the differ-
ence in yield strength between the peak aged condition and the
natural aged condition) YS and the yield strength and elonga-
tion to fracture at the peak aged condition for the intermediate
7406 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 7402–7409

Fig. 4. Mechanical properties of the Al–Si–Cu alloy. Yield strength (open symbols) and UTS (solid symbols) at a) 170 ◦ C and b) 210 ◦ C. c) Elongation to fracture and d)
correlation between yield strength and elongation to fracture at 170 ◦ C and 210 ◦ C. The lines are added to guide the eye.

microstructure, are summarized in Table 3. A low age hardening
response was observed for the Al–Si–Cu alloy, 76 MPa at 170 ◦ C
and 44 MPa at 210 ◦ C. An addition of 0.5 wt% Mg changes the
age hardening response completely. The time to peak strength
is decreased from 170 h to 20 h at 170 ◦ C and the age hardening
response is increased to 168 MPa at 170 ◦ C and 138 MPa at 210 ◦ C,
see Table 3. The yield strength of the Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy is more
sensitive to the ageing temperature compared to the Al–Si–Mg
alloy and the difference in age hardening response between the
two alloys is observed to be smaller for ageing at 210 ◦ C compared
to 170 ◦ C.
3.5. Elongation to fracture
The elongation to fracture of the two finest microstructures of
the Al–Si–Mg alloy are comparable, while it is significantly lower for
the coarsest microstructure, see Fig. 3c. This observation is in agree-
ment with results presented by Caceres et al. [20] for a Sr modified
Al–7.5Si–0.4Mg alloy. The elongation to fracture depends strongly
on the ability of Si particles in the Al–Si eutectic to stop the motion
of dislocations according to Caceres et al. [20]. The Si particles are
more homogeneous distributed in a fine microstructure after solu-
tion treatment and the dislocations interact with the Si particles

Table 3
Age hardening response and peak properties for the three alloys.

Time to peak Age hardening response Peak properties for SDAS 25 ␮m

tpeak (h) YS (MPa) Yield strength (MPa)/Elongation (%)

170 ◦ C 210 ◦ C 170 ◦ C 210 ◦ C 170 ◦ C 210 ◦ C

Al–Si–Mg 10 0.3 139 123 231/11 213/12

Al–Si–Cu > 170 12 76 44 206/4 175/6
Al–Si–Cu–Mg 20 2 168 138 375/1 348/1
 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 7402–7409 7407

Fig. 5. Mechanical properties of the Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy aged at 170 ◦ C (open symbols) and 210 ◦ C (solid symbols). a) Yield strength, b) UTS, c) elongation to fracture and d)
correlation between yield strength and elongation to fracture. The lines are added to guide the eye.

individually. Subsequently the dislocations pass the Si particles and
pile up at grain boundaries where the fracture takes place, result-
ing in a high elongation to fracture [20]. In a coarser microstructure
the Si particles form a more continuous barrier for the dislocations
which pile up at the Al–Si eutectic, where the fracture takes place,
resulting in lower elongation to fracture [20]. The situation for the
Cu containing alloys is however different. The finest microstruc-
ture has a significantly higher elongation to fracture compared to
the coarser ones, see Figs. 4c and 5c.
That is, the intermediate microstructure has an elongation to
fracture comparable to the finest microstructure for the Al–Si–Mg
alloy, while it is comparable to the coarsest microstructure for the
Cu containing alloys. The size and distribution of the Si particles
are similar for the different alloys and cannot be the cause of the
difference in behaviour and the cause is instead likely due to the
length of Fe-rich phases after solution treatment. The Cu contain-
ing alloys have longer Fe-rich phases, 20 ± 10 ␮m, compared to the
Al–Si–Mg alloy, 7 ± 2 ␮m, for the intermediate microstructure. The
length of the Fe-rich phases of the Cu containing alloys is thereby
about twice the length of the Si particles. One reason for the dif-
ference is that the ␲-Fe phase, which forms in the Al–Si–Mg alloy
during solidification, transforms into short ␤-Fe phases and Mg in
solid solution during solution treatment [26,27], while the length of
the Fe-rich phases in the Cu containing alloys is unchanged during
solution treatment.
To summarize, when Fe-rich phases are of comparable size
as the Si particles the theory for the Al–Si–Mg alloy derived by
Caceres et al. seems to be valid with a high elongation to fracture
independent of the coarseness of the microstructure for fine
microstructures having SDAS below about 35 ␮m [20]. However,
when longer Fe-rich phases are present, as in the Cu containing
alloys, the elongation to fracture is more sensitive to the coarseness
of the microstructure also for fine microstructures.
The much lower elongation to fracture of the Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy
compared to the Al–Si–Cu alloy is probably due to the higher yield
strength of the Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy. A strong matrix transfers a high
load on brittle phases already at small strains, which makes the
brittle phases crack at low strains, resulting in a low elongation
to fracture [28]. The Q phase remains stable after solution treat-
ment for the Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy. It is however smaller than the
Fe-rich phases and will probably not have a large influence on the
elongation to fracture.
7408 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 7402–7409
Fig. 6. a) Correlation between yield strength and elongation to fracture for Al–Si–Mg
alloys. Data from the present investigation and from the literature [1,19,31]. Solid
symbols are for sand cast or gradient cast with a SDAS of 50 ␮m, while open symbols
are for permanent mould cast or gradient cast with a SDAS of 10 ␮m. b) Correla-
tion between yield strength and elongation to fracture for the Al–Si–Mg alloy and
the Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy aged at 170 ◦ C. NA = natural aged, UA = underaged, PA = peak
aged, OA = overaged.
3.6. Quality index
In Fig. 6a the correlation between yield strength, YS, and elon-
gation to fracture, ε, for Al–Si–Mg alloys is shown for data from
several articles. The quality index used in this investigation is the
one introduced by Din et al. [29], Q = YS + Kε, where K is a mate-
rial constant, which is based on the quality concept introduced by
Drouzy et al. [30]. Alloys with a coarse microstructure (solid sym-
bols) have a low quality, with a quality index of 250–340. Alloys
with a finer microstructure (open symbols) have a higher quality
index of 310–430. The quality is higher in the underaged condi-
tion compared to the overaged condition. This is also valid for the
data set reported by Tiryakioglu et al. [19] where the elongation to
fracture increases on overageing. The slope K was calculated from
data obtained from underaged and peak aged conditions for data
from the literature [1,19,31] and from the present investigation. The
slope has a value of around 10–13 for most data sets, but values up
to 27 were obtained.
For Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys a decrease in quality with increasing
ageing temperature is observed, which is in agreement with data
reported in the literature [14,24,25,32]. A change in precipitates
could be the reason for the decrease in properties. The slope, K,
of the yield strength – elongation curves was calculated and val-
ues ranging from 19 to 60 were obtained. K is alloy dependent
and decreases with increasing Mg concentration and decreasing Cu
concentration. The Q index can therefore not be used to compare
different Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys.
An increase in yield strength generally leads to a decrease in
ductility for a material that exhibits necking [33]. The expected
behaviour is observed for the Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy for the finest
microstructure, where the elongation increases directly after the
peak aged condition when the yield strength decreases, see Fig. 6b.
For the Al–Si–Mg alloy the behaviour is different and the elon-
gation remains low at initial overageing. The formation of small
Si particles in the matrix at initial overageing [2] can be spec-
ulated to be the cause of the lower ductility of the overaged
condition compared to the underaged condition for the Al–Si–Mg
alloy.
The Al–Si–Mg alloy in the underaged condition has a higher
quality than the Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy, see Fig. 6b. Al–Si–Mg alloys are
therefore preferable to Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys, as long as the Al–Si–Mg
alloys can reach the required strength. The maximum yield strength
that can be reached for Al–Si–Mg alloys is around 300–320 MPa
[1,31]. The difference between the alloys however decreases with
increasing yield strength.
4. Conclusions
The ageing response is weakly dependent on the coarseness of
the microstructure when the solution treatment time is adjusted
to achieve complete dissolution and homogenisation.
Ageing of the Al–Si–Mg alloy is well studied and good agree-
ment exists between different studies. The age hardening response
is high and the peak yield strength is not strongly dependent on the
ageing temperature. The quality of the alloy is lower in the overaged
condition compared to the underaged condition.
Ageing of Al–Si–Cu alloys results in a small and slow increase
in yield strength. The peak yield strength is strongly dependent on
the ageing temperature.
Ageing of Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys gives a high and fast ageing
response. The peak yield strength decreases as the ageing tem-
perature is increased. The elongation to fracture of the finest
microstructure increases at overageing, while it remains low for
the coarser microstructures.
The Al–Si–Mg alloy has a better combination of yield strength
and elongation to fracture than the Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloy when the
required yield strength is below about 300 MPa.
Acknowledgement
Krzysztof Kwapisz is gratefully acknowledged for contributing
to the experimental part of the work during his Bachelor Thesis
at the department. The European Project NADIA (New Automotive
components Designed for and manufactured by Intelligent process-
ing of light Alloys) is gratefully acknowledged for financial support.
References
[1] N.D. Alexopoulos, S.G. Pantelakis, Mater. Des. 25 (2004) 419–430.
 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 7402–7409
[2] Zhang, D.L., D. H. StJohn, (1995). “The effect of composition and heat treatment
on the microstructure and mechanical properties of cast Al-7wt%Si-Mg alloys”.
Casting and Solidification of Light Alloys, IMMA, 30-31 Aug 1995, Gold Coast,
pp. 21-25.
[3] Y.J. Li, S. Brusethaug, A. Olsen, Scripta Mater. 54 (2006) 99–103.
[4] G. Wang, Q. Sun, L. Feng, L. Hui, C. Jing, Mater. Des. 28 (2007) 1001–1005.
[5] H. Möller, G. Govender, W.E. Stumpf, Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 20 (2007) 340–346.
[6] D.L. Zhang, Mater. Sci. Forum 217–222 (1996) 771–776.
[7] P.A. Rometsch, G.B. Schaffer, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 325 (2002) 424–434.
[8] D.G. Eskin, J. Mater. Sci. 38 (2003) 279–290.
[9] H.G. Kang, M. Kida, H. Miyahara, K. Ogi, AFS Trans. 27 (1999) 507–515.
[10] W. Reif, J. Dutkiewicz, R. Ciach, S. Yu, J. Krol, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 234–236 (1997)
165–168.
[11] G. Wang, X. Bian, X. Liu, J. Zhang, J. Mater. Sci. 39 (2004) 2535–2537.
[12] P. Ouellet, F.H. Samuel, J. Mater. Sci. 34 (1999) 4671–4697.
[13] R.X. Li, R.D. Li, Y.H. Zhao, L.Z. He, C.X. Li, H.R. Guan, Z.Q. Hu, Mater. Lett. 58 (2004)
2096–2101.
[14] F.J. Tavitas-Medrano, J.E. Gruzleski, F.H. Samuel, S. Valtierra, H.W. Doty, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A 480 (2008) 356–364.
[15] G. Wang, L. Yan, G. Ren, Z. Zhao, Adv. Mater. Res. 146–147 (2011)
1667–1670.
[16] X. Wang, S. Esmaeili, D.J. Lloyd, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 37 (2006) 2691–2699.
[17] X. Wang, W.J. Poole, S. Esmaeili, D.J. Lloyd, J.D. Embury, Metall. Mater. Trans. A
34 (2003) 2913–2924.
7409
[18] S. Seifeddine, PhD, Department of Mechanical Engineering /Component Tech-
nology - Castings, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden, 2006.
[19] M. Tiryakioglu, J. Campbell, J.T. Staley, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 368 (2004) 205–211.
[20] C.H. Caceres, C.J. Davidson, J.R. Griffiths, Q.G. Wang, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 30
(1999) 2611–2618.
[21] N.D. Alexopoulos, M. Tiryakioglu, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 507 (2009)
236–240.
[22] E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) S44–S49.
[23] E. Cerri, E. Evangelista, S. Spigarelli, P. Cavaliere, F. DeRiccardis, Mater. Sci. Eng.
A 284 (2000) 254–260.
[24] C.A. Cloutier, J.W.J.E. Jones, Allison in: SAE 2000 World Congress, Detroit, MI,
USA, 2000, pp. 327–338.
[25] G. Geier, H. Rockenschaub, T. Pabel, M. Hopfinger, Giessereiforschung 58 (2006)
32–48.
[26] A.L. Dons, L. Pedersen, S. Brusethaug, Aluminium 76 (2000) 294–297.
[27] J.A. Taylor, D.H. St John, J. Barresi, M.J. Couper, Mater. Sci. Forum 331–337 (2000)
277–282.
[28] C.H. Cáceres, I.L. Svensson, J.A. Taylor, Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 15 (2003)
531–543.
[29] T. Din, A.K.M.B. Rashid, J. Campbell, Mater. Sci. Technol. 12 (1996) 269–273.
[30] M. Drouzy, S. Jacob, M. Richard, Int. Cast Met. J. 5 (1980) 43–50.
[31] S. Shivkumar, C. Keller, D. Apelian, AFS Trans. 98 (1990) 905–911.
[32] J. Gauthier, P.R. Louchez, F.H. Samuel, Cast Met. 8 (1995) 107–114.
[33] C.H. Cáceres, Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 10 (1998) 293–299.