1060-H16 and 1060-H24 are variants of the same alloy, 1060 aluminum, primarily composed of 99.6% pure aluminum. While they share the same basic composition and similar physical properties, their mechanical properties differ due to variations in the tempering (heat treatment) process. The main differences lie in strength, formability, and other performance characteristics.
-
1060-H16 aluminum is better suited for applications requiring high tensile strength, better formability, and higher fatigue resistance. It performs excellently in situations where flexibility and mechanical performance under stress are crucial.
-
1060-H24 aluminum is harder, stronger, and ideal for applications where the material needs to resist wear and scratching but does not require significant deformation. For applications with less demanding requirements, it offers a more cost-effective choice.
Ultimately, the choice between 1060-H16 and 1060-H24 depends on the specific requirements of the application regarding strength, flexibility, cost, and formability.
1060-H16 Aluminum vs. 1060-H24 Aluminum Key Differences
|
Property
|
1060-H16
|
1060-H24
|
|
Tensile Strength
|
Higher
|
Lower
|
|
Elongation
|
Better (higher ductility)
|
Lower
|
|
Fatigue Resistance
|
Better
|
Moderate (less suitable for cyclic loading)
|
|
Hardness
|
Softer (more formable)
|
Harder (less formable)
|
|
Workability
|
Excellent for forming and shaping
|
Less suitable for extensive forming
|
|
Cost
|
Higher cost due to enhanced properties
|
More cost-effective
|
|
Best Use
|
Applications requiring flexibility, strength, and fatigue resistance
|
Applications requiring hardness and rigidity, but not heavy deformation
|
1060-H16 Aluminum vs. 1060-H24 Aluminum Formability and Workability
-
1060-H16 Aluminum: With better ductility and lower hardness, 1060-H16 is easier to work with, making it more suited for forming, bending, and shaping processes. Its better elongation allows it to be stretched and deformed without breaking, which is essential for applications like deep-drawing, stamping, or other complex fabrication methods.
-
1060-H24 Aluminum: The H24 temper is harder and less flexible, meaning it’s more challenging to work with in forming operations. Its lower elongation makes it more prone to cracking or breaking during aggressive shaping processes. Therefore, H24 aluminum is often used where extensive forming is not required, and the product’s shape is mostly rigid.
1060-H16 Aluminum vs. 1060-H24 Aluminum Fatigue Resistance
-
1060-H16 Aluminum: The H16 temper offers enhanced fatigue resistance, which is the material’s ability to withstand repeated loading and unloading cycles. This makes 1060-H16 a better choice for applications that will be subjected to cyclic stresses, such as in the automotive or aerospace industries, where parts undergo repeated forces.
-
1060-H24 Aluminum: While still relatively good in terms of fatigue resistance, H24 aluminum does not perform as well as H16 in fatigue scenarios. It’s better suited for static or low-cycle applications where fatigue is not a significant concern.
1060-H16 Aluminum vs. 1060-H24 Aluminum Cost-Effectiveness
-
1060-H16 Aluminum: Due to its enhanced strength and formability, 1060-H16 aluminum tends to be more expensive to produce compared to H24. The higher cost reflects the more intensive processing required to achieve the superior mechanical properties.
-
1060-H24 Aluminum: 1060-H24 is more cost-effective, making it a popular choice for applications where the enhanced properties of H16 are not necessary. Its lower cost can be a major advantage in high-volume production of less demanding products where hardness and wear resistance are prioritized over strength and flexibility.
1060-H16 Aluminum and 1060-H24 Aluminum Mechanical Properties Comparison
|
Property
|
1060-H16 Aluminum
|
1060-H24 Aluminum
|
|
Elastic (Young's, Tensile) Modulus (x 10^6 psi)
|
9.9
|
9.9
|
|
Elongation at Break (%)
|
5.3
|
1.1
|
|
Fatigue Strength (x 10^3 psi)
|
6.5
|
5.5
|
|
Poisson's Ratio
|
0.33
|
0.33
|
|
Shear Modulus (x 10^6 psi)
|
3.7
|
3.7
|
|
Shear Strength (x 10^3 psi)
|
10
|
8.2
|
|
Tensile Strength: Ultimate (UTS) (x 10^3 psi)
|
16
|
14
|
|
Tensile Strength: Yield (Proof) (x 10^3 psi)
|
14
|
11
|
1060-H16 Aluminum and 1060-H24 Aluminum Thermal Properties Comparison
|
Property
|
1060-H16 Aluminum
|
1060-H24 Aluminum
|
|
Latent Heat of Fusion (J/g)
|
400
|
400
|
|
Maximum Temperature: Mechanical (°F)
|
340
|
340
|
|
Melting Completion (Liquidus) (°F)
|
1210
|
1210
|
|
Melting Onset (Solidus) (°F)
|
1190
|
1190
|
|
Specific Heat Capacity (BTU/lb-°F)
|
0.22
|
0.22
|
|
Thermal Conductivity (BTU/h-ft-°F)
|
140
|
140
|
|
Thermal Expansion (µm/m-K)
|
24
|
24
|
1060-H16 Aluminum and 1060-H24 Aluminum Electrical Properties Comparison
|
Property
|
1060-H16 Aluminum
|
1060-H24 Aluminum
|
|
Electrical Conductivity: Equal Volume (% IACS)
|
62
|
62
|
|
Electrical Conductivity: Equal Weight (Specific) (% IACS)
|
210
|
210
|
Other Unclassified Properties
|
Property
|
1060-H16 Aluminum
|
1060-H24 Aluminum
|
|
Base Metal Price (% relative)
|
9.5
|
9.5
|
|
Calomel Potential (mV)
|
-750
|
-750
|
|
Density (lb/ft³)
|
170
|
170
|
|
Embodied Carbon (kg CO2/kg material)
|
8.3
|
8.3
|
|
Embodied Energy (x 10^3 BTU/lb)
|
67
|
67
|
|
Embodied Water (gal/lb)
|
140
|
140
|
Common Calculations Comparison
|
Property
|
1060-H16 Aluminum
|
1060-H24 Aluminum
|
|
Resilience: Ultimate (Unit Rupture Work) (MJ/m³)
|
5.6
|
1.1
|
|
Resilience: Unit (Modulus of Resilience) (kJ/m³)
|
69
|
45
|
|
Stiffness to Weight: Axial (points)
|
14
|
14
|
|
Stiffness to Weight: Bending (points)
|
50
|
50
|
|
Strength to Weight: Axial (points)
|
11
|
10
|
|
Strength to Weight: Bending (points)
|
19
|
18
|
|
Thermal Diffusivity (mm²/s)
|
96
|
96
|
|
Thermal Shock Resistance (points)
|
4.9
|
4.4
|
Products you may be interested in
Users viewing this material also viewed the following
Recommended Content
