Full report

Original page 1

NASA/TM—2004–213604 Aluminum-Scandium Alloys: Material Characterization, Friction Stir Welding, and Compatibility With Hydrogen Peroxide (MSFC Center Director’s Discretionary Fund Final Report, Project No. 04 –13) J.A. Lee and P.S. Chen Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama ERING D E IR IN E G C N T E O R C A F T S E M R EEDD E T S N E E A M R P C O H L E T EV EC D HNOLOGY December 2004

Original page 2

The NASA STI Program Office…in Profile Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the advancement of aeronautics and space science. The NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) Program Office plays a key part in helping NASA maintain this important role. The NASA STI Program Office is operated by Langley Research Center, the lead center for NASA’s scientific and technical information. The NASA STI Program Office provides access to the NASA STI Database, the largest collection of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. The Program Office is also NASA’s institutional mechanism for disseminating the results of its research and development activities. These results are published by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which includes the following report types: • TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of completed research or a major significant phase of research that present the results of NASA programs and include extensive data or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of significant scientific and technical data and information deemed to be of continuing reference value. NASA’s counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers but has less stringent limitations on manuscript length and extent of graphic presentations. • TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific and technical findings that are preliminary or of specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, working papers, and bibliographies that contain minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive analysis. • CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and technical findings by NASA-sponsored contractors and grantees. • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected papers from scientific and technical conferences, symposia, seminars, or other meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA. • SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, technical, or historical information from NASA programs, projects, and mission, often concerned with subjects having substantial public interest. • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English-language translations of foreign scientific and technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission. Specialized services that complement the STI Program Office’s diverse offerings include creating custom thesauri, building customized databases, organizing and publishing research results…even providing videos. For more information about the NASA STI Program Office, see the following: • Access the NASA STI Program Home Page at http://www.sti.nasa.gov • E-mail your question via the Internet to help@sti.nasa.gov • Fax your question to the NASA Access Help Desk at 301–621–0134 • Telephone the NASA Access Help Desk at 301–621–0390 • Write to: NASA Access Help Desk NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 7121 Standard Drive Hanover, MD 21076–1320 301–621–0390

Original page 3

NASA/TM—2004–213604 Aluminum-Scandium Alloys: Material Characterization, Friction Stir Welding, and Compatibility With Hydrogen Peroxide (MSFC Center Director’s Discretionary Fund Final Report, Project No. 04 –13) J.A. Lee and P.S. Chen Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center • MSFC, Alabama 35812 December 2004 i

Original page 4

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank R. Carter for performing the friction stir welding; M. Domack, P. Magnusen and T. Langan for hydrogen peroxide test coupons; and J. Quinn for programmatic insights into the integrated system test of an air-breathing rocket. This work was funded in FY 2003 from the Center Director’s Discretionary Fund program at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (Project No. 04–13). TRADEMARKS Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identification only. This usage does not constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Available from: NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 7121 Standard Drive Hanover, MD 21076–1320 301–621–0390 ii National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 703–487–4650

Original page 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Hydrogen Peroxide Impact on Design of Propulsion Systems and Storage Tanks ................. 2 1.2 Classifications for Material Compatibility With Hydrogen Peroxide ..................................... 4 2. EXPERIMENTAL ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Alloy Development ................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Candidate Materials ................................................................................................................. 7 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Mechanical Properties ............................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Chemical Compatibility With Hydroden Peroxide ................................................................. 8 3.3 Friction Stir Welding ............................................................................................................... 11 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 13 APPENDIX A—PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING THE COMPATIBILITY OF MATERIALS WITH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE BY IMMERSION IN LIQUID AND VAPOR AT CONTROLLED TEMPERATURES ...................... 14 A.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 14 A.2 Sample Size ............................................................................................................................ 14 A.3 Apparatus ................................................................................................................................ 14 A.4 Cleaning and Passivation ........................................................................................................ 14 A.5 Sample Screening ................................................................................................................... 15 A.6 Test Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 15 A.7 Results .................................................................................................................................... 16 A.8 Stability Test ........................................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX B—PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING HYDROGEN PEROXIDE STABILITY ... 17 B.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 17 B.2 Apparatus ................................................................................................................................ 17 B.3 Preparation of Test Flask ........................................................................................................ 17 B.4 Test Procedure for Concentration Above 35 Percent Hydrogen Peroxide ............................. 17 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 19 iii

Original page 6

LIST OF FIGURES 1. Artist rendering of the air breathing X–43B Hyper-X vehicle ............................................. 2 2. X–43B configuration layout for the H2O2and JP–7 fuel tank ............................................. 3 3. Synergistic strengthening effect of Sc and Zr additions ....................................................... 6 4. Typical microstructures for experimental alloys: (a) cast and (b) cold rolled at × 200 magnification .......................................................................................................... 6 5. Strengths of candidate materials compared to 5254 baseline alloy ...................................... 9 6. (a) Vial contains 90 percent grade H2O2and test coupons, and (b) isothermal microcalorimeter is used to determine the H2O2decomposition rate .................................. 10 7. (a) FSW and (b) the pin tool’s geometric design .................................................................. 11 8. Cross-sectional view of an FSW joint for C557 alloy .......................................................... 12 9. HAZ across an FSW joint for C557 alloy ............................................................................. 12 iv

Original page 7

LIST OF TABLES Selected physical properties of highly concentrated H2O2................................................... 3 1. 2. Effect of heat on decomposition rate of H2O2...................................................................... 3 3. Compatibility assessment of selected alloys for H2O2storage tanks ................................... 5 4. Chemical compositions (wt. %) of candidate alloys ............................................................. 7 5. Typical mechanical properties of candidate alloys ............................................................... 8 6. H2O2compatibility assessment of current class 1 materials ................................................ 10 7. FSW tensile strength and joint efficiency ............................................................................. 12 8. FSW results in low contamination at the welding joint ........................................................ 12 v

Original page 8

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS Al aluminum AOL active oxygen loss CDDF Center Director’s Discretionary Fund Cr chromium Cu copper FSW friction stir welding HAZ heat-affected zone HNO3 nitric acid H2O2 hydrogen peroxide Hyper-X Hypersonic-X IMC isothermal microcalorimeter ISTAR integrated system test of an air-breathing rocket Mg magnesium Mn manganese MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center NaOH sodium hydroxide O2 oxygen RBCC rocket-based combined cycle Sc scandium Ti titanium TM Technical Memorandum Zn zinc Zr zirconium vi

Original page 9

NOMENCLATURE C initial fraction H2O2 C1 initial concentration (H2O2stability) d1 density at initial temperature W1 initial net weight (active oxygen loss); initial flask weight (H2O2stability) W2 final net weight (active oxygen loss); final flask weight (H2O2stability) vii

Original page 10

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ALUMINUM-SCANDIUM ALLOYS: MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION, FRICTION STIR WELDING, AND COMPATIBILITY WITH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (MSFC Center Director’s Discretionary Fund Final Report, Project No. 04–13) 1. INTRODUCTION This Technical Memorandum (TM) describes the development of high-strength aluminum (Al) alloys for fuel tanks and air frame applications that are chemically compatible with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) propellant. These new high-strength alloys could represent an enabling material technology for the development of NASA’s next generation of Hypersonic-X (Hyper-X) vehicles, where flight weight reduction is a critical requirement. These Hyper-X vehicles are being studied as air-breathing hypersonic research vehicles that feature a lifting body configuration with a rocket based combined cycle (RBCC) propulsion system.1This task supports three main Engineering Directorate’s thrust areas at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC): (1) Advanced cryogenic tank area for materials’ compatibility with H2O2 systems, including metallic liners and permeation barriers, (2) advanced structures and materials area for lightweight and high specific strength Al alloys, and (3) advanced manufacturing in the space transportation area for welding of advanced Al alloys compatible with H2O2propellant. As shown in figure 1, this work directly supports the product line for NASA’s Hyper-X flight test air-breathing vehicles such as the X–43B, which is an integrated system test of an air-breathing rocket (ISTAR) flight demonstrator.2The flight-type ground test engine sized specifically for the X–43B uses JP–7 fuel and 90 percent concentrated liquid H2O2as an oxidizer. When highly concentrated H2O2 is allowed to decompose in the combustion chamber, the H2O2rapidly decomposes into steam (water) and oxygen (O2) and releases a large amount of heat that can be used as an oxidizer in a bipropellant mode, for thrust in monopropellant mode, and as the working fluid for pressurization in a turbine drive. Currently, conventional 1060 and 5254 materials are the baseline Al alloys for H2O2fuel tanks and integral structures, but their yield strengths are relatively low at 17 ksi. Being non-heat-treatable alloys, these materials may not be suitable for advanced lightweight tanks or airframes due to low specific strengths. 1

Original page 11

Figure 1. Artist rendering of the air breathing X–43B Hyper-X vehicle. 1.1 Hydrogen Peroxide Impact on Design of Propulsion Systems and Storage Tanks H2O2has a water-like appearance but is very chemically active as an oxidizer, and is highly soluble in water at all proportions; the usual commercial forms are from 3 to 30 percent aqueous solution. For rocket propulsion applications, high concentrations of H2O2solutions of >70 percent are used since they are stable at room temperature. When properly contained in chemically compatible vessels, H2O2 has a very weak decomposition rate. A concentration of 90 percent grade H2O2was selected for the X–43B vehicle, with an active O2content of 42.3 percent. Table 1 shows some selected physical properties for highly concentrated H2O2. When highly concentrated H2O2comes in contact with incompatible materials like heavy metals or various organic compounds, or mixes with certain impurities, it produces O2gas and decomposition heat. The decomposition rate increases about 2.2 times for each 10 °C increase in temperature from 20 to 100 °C. Table 2 shows the effect of heat on the decomposition rate. At near room temperature, the rate of decomposition is ≈1 percent per year. This rate increases exponentially to 1 percent per week if the temperature is allowed to rise to 66 °C (151 °F), and could result in a rapid pressure increase in a closed system. Indications of H2O2decomposition are: pressure buildup by activation of pressure relief valves, visible rapid bubbling, temperature increase, gas or steam evolution, and possible explosion when pressure relief is inadequate. Pressure buildup will occur very rapidly in a closed system and excessive pressure buildup can result in ruptured storage tanks, fuel tanks, or feed lines. Using H2O2could have an impact on propulsion system and storage tank designs. Figure 2 shows the X–43B vehicle configuration layout for the H2O2tank and the JP–7 fuel tank. 2

Original page 12

Table 1. Selected physical properties of highly concentrated H2O2. H2O2Concentration (wt. %) Properties 70% 90% 99% Active oxygen (%) 32.9 42.3 46.59 Specific gravity @ 25 °C 1.28 1.38 1.43 Boiling point (°C) 125.4 141.2 149 Freezing point (°C) –40.3 –11.5 –1.5 Flash point (°C) None 82–85 73.9 Autoignition in air (°C) 316 169 122 Vapor pressure (mmHg) 10.1 5 2.8 Table 2. Effect of heat on decomposition rate of H2O2. Effect of Heat on Decomposition Temperature Rate °C °F of Decomposition 22 72 66 151 103 218 1% per year 1% per week 2% per day H2O2Tank JP–7 Fuel Tank Figure 2. X–43B configuration layout for the H2O2and JP–7 fuel tank. 3

Original page 13

Using any H2O2system would affect the design of certain types of Hyper-X vehicle’s propulsion system, such as onboard fuel tanks, valves, and pumps, which must be pacified to enhance chemical compatibility. All valves must be compatible and have relief capability with no isolated segments in the feed system to trap any H2O2. H2O2is not an intrinsically hazardous fluid, but it must be contained in a pacification system that is well engineered to remove excessive heat and pressure from the storage and feed system due to decomposition and high-temperature effects. Pacification of storage tanks and feed lines is usually accomplished through various acid baths and exposure to varying degrees of H2O2. An H2O2-based system will impact overall system complexity because of feed system architecture. 1.2 Classifications for Material Compatibility With Hydrogen Peroxide According to FMC corporation’s technical data from Bulletin 104, materials should be classified into categories based on their contemplated types of use. Therefore, all materials are not required to be suitable for indefinite storage, because in applications requiring only short-time contact with H2O2, materials with a lesser degree of compatibility can be employed. To facilitate the material selection on this basis, FMC has developed four categories of material classifications as follows:3 • Class 1: Unlimited use materials—can be used for long-term contact with H2O2as storage containers. • Class 2: Repeated use in short-time contact materials—can be used for either transient contact with the H2O2prior to storage or limited contact prior to use. Such contact is not to exceed 4 hr at 72 °C (160 °F) or 1 wk at 22 °C (70 °F)—typically used for valves and pumps in transfer lines and feed tanks. • Class 3: Short-time contact materials—can be used for repeated contact, but no single contact period should exceed 1 min at 72 °C (160 °F), or 1 hr at 22 °C (70 °F), because sufficient contamination of the H2O2may render it unsuitable for storage. Many class 3 materials indicate satisfactory service at room temperature. However, the material should be pretested prior to use. • Class 4: Not recommended materials—will cause excessive decomposition of H2O2even on shorttime contact and yield corrosion or deterioration on products to form an impact-sensitive mixture with concentrated H2O2. 4

Original page 14

1. EXPERIMENTAL 2.1 Alloy Development The current baseline material recommended for long-term storage of highly concentrated class 1 (>90 percent) H2O2, is 5254 Al alloy, which is wrought and non-heat-treatable Al-magnesium (Mg) alloy. The 5000 series Al-Mg alloys are good candidate materials for structural applications due to their low density, reasonably good weld ability, and excellent corrosion resistance. However, similar to most Al-Mg systems, the 5254 alloy does not have adequate specific strength and density for advanced aerospace applications. Table 3 shows the compatibility assessment of selected alloys for H2O2storage tank applications. As a general rule, the higher strength alloys tend to be incompatible with H2O2for long-term storage applications. Table 3. Compatibility assessment of selected alloys for H2O2storage tanks. Current Materials Yield Strength H2O2 for Tankage Temper 1060 H14 1100 H14 2024 T6 Al–Li 2195 T81 2219 T81 5254 H112 6061 T6 7075 T6 (ksi) Compatibility Class 13 1 17 1 57 3 66 2 50 3 17 1 40 2 73 4 The initial goal was to develop a new experimental Al-Mg-based alloy that has the same class 1 compatibility rating with H2O2, but with a significant improvement in yield strength by a factor of 2–3 times more than 5254. This strategy was designed to modify the chemistry of 5254 alloy by adding scandium (Sc) and zirconium (Zr), which was not perceived to act as catalysts to decompose liquid H2O2. Fine Al3Sc precipitates are known to be coherent with the Al matrix and are expected to contribute to the alloy strength through dislocation-particle interactions.4Scandium also effectively increases the recrystallization temperature for Al. However, simultaneous addition of Sc and Zr has been shown to synergistically promote much higher strengths than either Sc or Zr additions produce alone.5,6 Figure 3 shows the synergistic strengthening effect of Sc and Zr additions for Al. 5

Original page 15

1,000 800 600 Hardness (MPa) 400 200 Al –0, 4Sc –0, 15Zr Al –0, 4Sc 10 102 103 104 105 106 10 s 1 min 10 min Time (s) 1 hr 1 day 1 mo Figure 3. Synergistic strengthening effect of Sc and Zr additions. Analyses for the catalytic effects of Sc, Zr, copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), titanium (Ti), and Mg additions to the Al matrix have shown that these elements may yield only a minor effect on the rate of decomposition for H2O2if they are added in relatively small amounts without surpassing their maximum solid solution in the Al matrix composition. Such elements have been added to several experimental Al-Mg alloys in appropriate amounts. Ingots were cast and rolled into thin sheet metals and test coupons were machined from sheet metals for long-term exposure and mechanical properties testing with H2O2(fig. 4). In addition, the ability to weld the new alloys using friction stir welding (FSW) has also been explored. (a) (b) Figure 4. Typical microstructures for experimental alloys: (a) cast and (b) cold rolled at × 200 magnification. 6

Original page 16

2.2 Candidate Materials Table 4 shows the chemical compositions of four candidate Al-Mg-Sc-bearing alloys, including the 5254 alloy as a baseline reference material. The rationale for selecting these candidate materials is explained as follows: • Successfully developed a new experimental Al-Mg-chromium- (Cr-) based alloy named RX 5000 by adding Sc and Zr. • Strengthened RX 5000 by Mg atoms in solid solution and by cold working in the H112 conditions, which increased yield strength to 42 ksi—nearly 2.5 times stronger than the 17 ksi yield strength of conventional 5254 alloy. • RX 5000 is completely compatible with class 1, 90 percent H2O2. Table 4. Chemical compositions (wt. %) of candidate alloys. Chemical Composition (wt. %) Alloy Mg Zn Cr Mn Cu 5254 3.5 0.2 0.25 0.01 0.05 RX 5000 5.1 0.01 0.35 0.01 0.01 Sc Zr Ti Si Fe Al – – 0.05 0.25 0.2 Balance 0.26 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.08 Balance C557 4.02 0.015 – 0.62 0.003 0.24 0.096 0.023 0.062 0.095 Balance 7X0X 2.16 5.13 – 0.19 – 7X11 2.12 5.27 – 0.19 0.29 0.13 0.19 0.03 – – Balance 0.14 0.21 0.04 – – Balance A search for an existing alloy with similar composition to RX 5000 in commercial production yielded the C557 alloy, which is Al-Mg-Sc-Zr with a slightly higher Mn content than the RX 5000 alloy, without Cr. The chemistry of the C577 rolled sheet is very similar to the Russian alloy 1535 (table 4). The C557 alloy was produced by Alcoa®for commercial scale ingots with the H116 heat treatment to ensure good stress corrosion resistance. Several C577 test panels were later received from Alcoa for FSW and H2O2compatibility testing at MSFC. The characterization of Sc-bearing Al-Mg alloy C577 for aerospace applications was previously documented in the literature for strength-toughness behaviors.7As previously stated, the C557 is also completely compatible with class 1, 90 percent H2O2. Because RX 5000 and C557 alloys are non-heat-treatable, further attempts to increase strength would be limited without further development and/or characterization of heat-treatable Al-Mg-Sc-Zr alloys with the additions of either Zn and/or Cu. Surface Treatment Technologies has characterized two heat-treatable alloys named 7X0X and 7X11 (T. Langan, Presentation at Technical Interchange Meeting, 2003). These two heat treatable alloys are completely compatible with class 1, 90 percent H2O2. 7

Original page 17

1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Mechanical Properties Table 5 shows comparisons of typical mechanical properties of four candidate Al-Mg-Zr-Scbearing alloys, and displays the properties for conventional 5254 alloy as the baseline reference material.87X0X and 7X11 wrought, heat-treatable alloys are more superior in tensile and yield strengths than the 5254 alloy by a large margin; followed by a moderate increase in strength from non-heattreatable alloys, C557 and RX 5000. An important point of reference is that the yield strength and apparent fracture toughness values of C577 are within 10 percent of established values for 2024-T3 sheet.7 Table 5. Typical mechanical properties of candidate alloys. Candidate Yield Strength Tensile Strength Elongation Hardness Alloy Temper (ksi) 7X11 T4 62.6 T6 82.3 T7 66 7X0X T4 61.8 T6 78.5 T7 65.6 C557 H116 47.5 RX 5000 H112 42 0 40 5254 H112 17 0 17 (ksi) (%) (HRB) 83.3 14 78.4 86.8 9.1 88 72 8.6 83.3 80.4 12.2 78.3 84.1 8.2 86.7 70.7 10 81.9 62 12 66 55 15 63 52 17 60 35 25 63 35 27 58 On the other hand, C557 and RX 5000 are inherently more corrosion resistant than 7X0X and 7X11 because they do not contain secondary strengthening precipitates from Mg, Zn, and Cu. Comparisons between 7X0X and 7X11 show a minor increase in strength for the 7X11 alloy, due to the addition of Cu. With the T6 condition, the 7X11’s yield strength is ≈4.8 times higher than the conventional 5254. Since yield and tensile strength are important basic material design properties, figure 5 shows the yield and tensile strengths of all four candidate materials as compared to 5254 baseline alloy. 3.2 Chemical Compatibility With Hydrogen Peroxide FMC personnel conducted chemical compatibility tests for each type of alloy at 66 °C for 7 days in a water bath with controlled temperature, and each set of coupons ran in duplication. The approximate surface area of each coupon is ≈1.75 in2. About 86 mL of H O was used for each run, which made the 2 2 volume ratio roughly equal 0.33 in–1. This coupon was immersed in 0.25 percent surface area-to-H2O2 sodium hydroxide (NaOH) for 20 min and then immersed in 45 percent nitric acid (HNO3) for 1 hr, 8

Original page 18

and finally conditioned in 35 percent H2O2for 24 hr before the compatibility test in 90 percent H2O2. Appendix A shows the procedure used by FMC for determining the compatibility of materials with H2O2by immersion in liquid and vapor at controlled temperatures. Appendix B shows the procedure for determining the stability of H2O2. Figure 6(a) shows test coupons immersed in a typical test vial that contains 90 percent H2O2. Figure 6(b) shows the isothermal microcalorimeter (IMC), which is another method used to determine decomposition rate. The IMC determines the difference between the background thermal energy of the H2O2before and after the sample is added in the vial. The IMC was used at MSFC to determine the active oxygen loss (AOL) percent of the H2O2. 100 Yield Strength (ksi) 90 Tensile Strength (ksi) 80 70 60 50 Strength (ksi) 40 30 20 10 0 7X11–T6 7XOX–T6 C557–H116 RX5000–H112 5254–H112 Candidate Alloys Figure 5. Strengths of candidate materials compared to 5254 baseline alloy. The results of the H2O2compatibility test are shown in table 6, which was performed using procedures outlined by FMC in appendices A and B. Four types of Al-Mg-Sc-bearing alloys were tested, plus a fifth type of sample C577 that was taken from an FSW joint. For each type of material, two coupons were required to conduct the test. A blank control test was also run in parallel for each type of alloy for monitoring the system contributions to the results. Changes in weight and concentration of the H2O2 solution were measured in the presence of coupons to calculate relative AOL percent. In table 6, the ∆AOL percent represents the measured difference between the sample’s AOL and the blank’s AOL, which displays the true effect of the coupon on H2O2decomposition. 9

Original page 19

(a) (b) Figure 6. (a) Vial contains 90 percent grade H2O2and test coupons, and (b) isothermal microcalorimeter is used to determine the H2O2decomposition rate. Table 6. H2O2compatibility assessment of current class 1 materials. H2O2 H2O2 Coupon Coupon Start Weight Final Weight Run No. ID Weight (g) Loss (g) Assay (%) AOL (g) AOL (%) ∆AOL (%) Loss (g) Stability (%) G0380–138–1 Blank–1 119.48 0.036 90.21 0.097 0.192 – – 99.65 G0380–138–2 Blank–2 119.85 0.034 90.21 0.097 0.19 – – G0380–138–3 RX 5000–1 119.71 0.053 90.2 G0380–138–4 RX 5000–2 119.99 –0.214 89.9 0.115 0.226 0.035 0 99.16 0.166 0.326 0.135 0 G0380–138–5 C557–1 119.64 0.444 89.87 0.464 0.913 0.722 0.0001 98.24 G0380–138–6 C557–2 120.44 0.427 89.9 G0380–146–1 Blank–3 120.82 0.156 89.9 0.438 0.856 0.665 0.0002 0.268 0.524 – – 99.79 G0380–146–2 Blank–4 122.34 0.058 89.94 0.209 0.403 – – G0380–146–3 7X0X–1 119.29 0.073 90.05 0.151 0.297 –0.248 –0.0001 99.51 G0380–146–4 7X0X–2 119.88 –0.009 89.91 0.196 0.384 –0.161 –0.0001 G0376–20–1 Blank–5 119.7 –0.5 90.23 0.113 0.222 – – 99.62 G0376–20–2 Blank–6 120 0 90.67 0.08 0.157 – – G0376–20–3 7X11–1 119.4 0.1 90.58 0.173 0.34 0.151 –0.0003 99.29 G0376–20–4 7X11–2 121.1 0.1 90.58 0.175 0.339 0.15 –0.0004 G0376–20–5 FSW C557–1 120.9 0.1 90.6 0.165 0.319 0.13 –0.0003 99.57 G0376–20–6 FSW C557–2 119.6 0 90.56 0.141 0.277 0.088 –0.0003 Each candidate material has shown a stability value that is similar to the value from a blank test run >99.6 percent, which did not have any coupons in them. This is the baseline for the test results because H2O2solutions may be slightly different from batch to batch, depending on the containers and varying temperature control from test to test. Blank samples served as references to eliminate all the noises. The results indicate that all candidate materials can be classified as class 1. FSW samples were also extracted from the welding surface area and tested for compatibility. The data also showed that an FSW joint has a stability of class 1, 99.57 percent. These data confirm the notion that FSW has 10

Original page 20

a potential for welding Al-Sc-bearing alloys with minimal material contamination that could affect the compatibility with H2O2in the weld joint area. 3.3 Friction Stir Welding FSW is a relatively new joining process that was originally developed and patented by the Welding Institute of Cambridge, England.9Since 1993, FSW has been studied and demonstrated by researchers for Al alloys and metal matrix composites.10FSW can be best described in conventional terms as a combination of extrusion and forging of metals at elevated temperatures. This process is considered a solid state process and does not require the need for gas shielding or filler metals. FSW consists of a rotating, nonconsumable pin tool that is slowly plunged into the bond line until the pin tool’s shoulder is in intimate contact with the work piece. As the tool rotates and moves forward along the bond line, the material on the bond line begins to heat and is forced to flow around the rotating tip to consolidate on the pin tool’s backside. This heat source is developed mainly because of local friction and plastic deformation while keeping the pin tool’s shoulder in intimate contact with the work piece at all times. Figure 7 shows FSW and the pin tool’s geometric design. (b) (a) Figure 7. (a) FSW and (b) the pin tool’s geometric design. Interestingly, FSW has the potential for welding Al-Sc alloys because the processing temperature occurs well below the metal’s melting point, thereby eliminating the undesirable chemical reactions, which could reduce material contaminations that may affect the compatibility with H2O2in the weld joint area. Figure 8 shows a cross-sectional view of an FSW joint for C557 alloy. The hardness measurement was taken across the crown side of the weld zone as shown in figure 9. The yield and tensile strengths were slightly reduced in the heat-affected zone (HAZ) by overheating from the FSW process. However, the FSW strength efficiency of >90 percent is excellent when compared with relatively hightemperature fusion joining processes such as arc welding. Table 7 shows the FSW tensile strength and joint efficiency for candidate Al-Mg-Sc-bearing alloys. Because the FSW process does not require gas shielding or filler metals, welding joints have less contamination than arc welding (table 8). 11

Original page 21

Figure 8. Cross-sectional view of an FSW joint for C557 alloy. 65 55 45 Hardness (HRB) 35 10 20 30 40 Distance (mm) 50 60 70 80 90 Figure 9. HAZ across an FSW joint for C557 alloy. Table 7. FSW tensile strength and joint efficiency. Joint Efficiency Weld Joint Ultimate (Weld Ultimate Tensile Strength/Base Metal Candidate Tensile Strength Alloy Temper (ksi) 7X11 T7 66.2 7X0X T7 63.6 C557 H116 53.4 RX 5000 H112 48.6 Ultimate Tensile Strength) (%) 91.9 90 86 88.3 Table 8. FSW results in low contamination at the welding joint. H2O2Stability After 7 Days @ 66 °C Compatibility Alloy (%) Classification No sample 99.65 Reference FSW C557 joint 99.57 Class 1 12

Original page 22

1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this work was to develop a new Al-Mg-based alloy that has the same class 1 compatibility rating with H2O2, similar to conventional 5254 alloy, but with a significant improvement in yield strength. Several Al-Mg-Sc-based alloys have been successfully developed and/or characterized and tested for H2O2compatibility. Analysis for the catalytic effects of Sc, Zr, Cu, Zn, Mn, Ti, and Mg additions to the Al matrix has shown that these elements may yield only a minor effect on the decompose rate of H2O2, provided that they are added in relatively small amounts, without surpassing their maximum solid solution in the Al matrix. The preliminary test data indicate that all of these alloys are chemically stable (inert) when exposed to 90 percent H2O2. With the T6 condition, the 7X11 heat-treatable alloy’s yield strength is about 4.8 times higher than the conventional 5254 yield strength, while maintaining excellent H2O2 compatibility similar to the class 1 5254 alloy. Moreover, test data show that these alloys can be welded successfully using FSW. 13

Original page 23

APPENDIX A—PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING THE COMPATIBILITY OF MATERIALS WITH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE BY IMMERSION IN LIQUID AND VAPOR AT CONTROLLED TEMPERATURES A.1 Introduction Compatibility testing and evaluation of materials with H2O2is conducted by immersing material samples either in H2O2for 4 wk at 30 °C (86 °F), if it cannot be tested at higher temperature, or 1 wk at 66 °C (150.8 °F). The percent loss of active O2is calculated from the decreased weight of oxide concentration and the decreased weight of the system. The AOL, together with an appraisal of the condition of the tested material, is used to govern the selection and recommendation of suitable materials for use with H2O2. A.2 Sample Size A 3 in × 0.5 in × 0.0625 in sample strip is normally used to provide an evaluation of both liquid and vapor phase attack. Surface-to-volume ratio is calculated for the wetted area only. A 1.5 in × 0.5 in × 0.0625 in sample strip will be used only for the material tested under a continuously wetted condition. A volume of 74 mL of liquid H2O2will be used for this test, which yields an apparent sample surface area of 1 in2of test surface to 42.8 mL of H O . This approximates the 0.33 in /in surface-to-volume 2 3 2 2 ratio (0.33 in–1) of the wetted surface of a standard drum containing 250 lb of H O . If it is necessary 2 2 to test a sample that is not the standard 3 in × 0.5 in × 0.0625 in wetted surface, retaining this apparent surface-to-volume ratio will help interpret the results. For liquids, a 5-mL sample is used; for greases, a sample of ≈5 g is smeared on the inside of the test flask. A.3 Apparatus The following elements are used in the compatibility testing process: • 125 mL pyrex kjeldahl flask • 110 °C drying oven • 66 °C (150.8 °F) at ±0.5 °C water bath • 30 °C (86 °F) at ±0.5 °C water bath • Aluminum foil to cover flasks • Distilled water with conductivity of <2 μmho cm. A.4 Cleaning and Passivation A.4.1 Glassware Prior to use, all glassware is immersed in a 10 percent NaOH solution for 1 hr at room temperature, rinsed with distilled water, immersed in a 10 percent HNO3solution for a minimum of 3 hr, 14

Original page 24

and finally rinsed with distilled water. The mouths of the flasks are then covered with clean aluminum foil and the flasks are dried in a 110 °C oven. A.4.2 Metals Aluminum samples are scrubbed with a warm detergent solution and then immersed at room temperature in N/15 NaOH for 15–20 min. Then they are washed and immersed for 45 min to 1 hr at room temperature in 45 percent HNO3, and finally washed with distilled water, then pretreated with 35 percent H2O2at 20–22 °C (68–72 °F) for 8–24 hr. Stainless steel samples are scrubbed with trichlorethylene to remove grease, rinsed with water, allowed to drip dry, immersed in 70 percent HNO3for 4–5 hr at room temperature, washed with clean, potable water, and finally washed with distilled water and pretreated with 35 percent H2O2. Special treatments for stainless steels that have not responded well to the above passivation technique are detailed in the FMC’s Bulletin 104. A.4.3 Plastics Plastics and elastomer samples are thoroughly scrubbed in 0.5 percent solution of Nacconal, a synthetic detergent, rinsed with distilled water, exposed to a 10 percent HNO3water solution at 20–22 °C for 1 hr, then pretreated with 35 percent H2O2at 20–22 °C (68–72 °F) for 8–24 hr. A.4.4 Samples Handling During the final rinsing, gloves or tongs should be used so samples are not touched with bare fingers. It is convenient to wash strips on a pyrex funnel as a handling medium, taking care to wash all areas. The strip is dried between two sheets of filter paper at room temperature or in a 50 °C oven and then placed in a test flask, which is immediately covered with aluminum foil. A.5 Sample Screening Prior to quantitative testing, a new or untried material is immersed, after chemical pretreatment, in 75 mL of H2O2at room temperature for 24 hr. Violent decomposition, combustion, solution, or dimensional changes are watched for. If no unusual action occurs, the sample is then subjected to a screening at 66 °C (150.8 °F) for 24 hr. A.6 Test Procedure The prepared screened sample is placed in a passivated 100-mL kjeldahl flask, which is rinsed with a small volume of H2O2. The weight of the flask is measured to ±0.1 g. H2O2of known strength (75 mL) is added to the flask, the Al covering replaced, and the flask again weighed. The initial weight of H2O2solution is the difference in the two weights. The flasks are placed in a constant temperature water bath for 1 wk at 66 °C (150.8 °F) and 4 wk at 30 °C (86 °F). The flask and its contents are then removed and cooled to room temperature, weighed, and a sample of the H2O2withdrawn to determine concentration. These tests are run in duplication. 15

Original page 25

A.7 Results The percent of AOL is calculated as follows: Percent AOL = (W1–W2)/(CW1 × 0.470) × 100 percent , (1) where W1 = initial net weight W2 = final net weight C = initial fraction H2O2. Qualitative observations are also made and recorded concerning such effects as discoloration of the H2O2and apparent changes in the physical properties of the test material. Physical property changes include: • For metals—any corrosion, staining, or surface change during or after test. • For plastics—any blistering, swelling, distortion, changes in flexibility, color, transparency, or tear resistance. A.8 Stability Test Following the compatibility test, a sample of the remaining H2O2is removed and subjected to a stability test at 100 °C (212 °F) for 24 hr, according to the procedure presented in appendix B. 16

Original page 26

APPENDIX B—PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING HYDROGEN PEROXIDE STABILITY B.1 Introduction This test is done to determine the storage stability of H2O2, and runs for 24 hr at 100 °C (212 °F). For materials evaluation, this test is run on the remaining H2O2after the compatibility tests. B.2 Apparatus The following elements are used in the stability determining process: • Constant temperature baths at 100 °C (212 °F) ±1 °C. • Thermometer zero to 150 °C (302 °F) ±1 °C. • 50-mL volumetric flask with fused 4-in neck extension. • Distilled or deionized water and aluminum foil to cap the mouth of the flask. • Laboratory balance. B.3 Preparation of Test Flask The flasks are filled with 10 percent NaOH solution for 1 hr at room temperature, rinsed with tap water and refilled with 35 percent H2SO4for 3 hr at room temperature. The flasks are thoroughly rinsed with distilled water and filled with H2O2for 4–6 hr. The H2O2is poured out and the flasks are capped with aluminum foil without any rinsing. B.4 Test Procedure for Concentration Above 35 Percent Hydrogen Peroxide Measure exactly 50 mL of H2O2of a known concentration into a cleaned and conditioned, special extended neck, 50-mL volumetric flask and weigh. Cap with glass cap or aluminum foil, immerse in the constant temperature bath at 100 °C (212 °F) and continue the test for 24 hr as above. After 24 hr, remove the flask from the bath and remove the cap and reweigh it on the balance used for the initial weighing. The difference is the AOL. The tests run in duplication. Normal stability of H2O2is 98 to 99 percent. Samples having stability below 90 percent should be closely watched. If stability is below 80 percent, H2O2should be dumped. Calculate the stability as follows: 50(d1)(C1)( .0 47) − (W1 − W2 ) = percent stability , (2) 50(d1)(C1 )( .0 47) where d1 = density at initial temp C1 = initial concentration W1 = initial weight W2 = final flask weight. 17

Original page 27

REFERENCES 1. Orton, G.: “Air-Breathing Hypersonic Research at Boeing Phantom Works,” AIAA–2002–5251, 11th AIAA/AAAF International Conference, Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies, Orleans, France, September 29–October 4, 2002. 2. Quinn, J.: “ISTAR: Project Status and Ground Test Engine Design,” AIAA–2003–5235, 39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, July 20–23, 2003, Huntsville, AL. 3. “Materials of Construction for Equipment in Use With Hydrogen Peroxide,” Bulletin No. 104, pp. 6, 7, FMC, 1966 Revision. 4. Kendig, K.; and Miracle, D.: “Strengthening Mechanisms of an Al-Mg-Sc-Zr Alloy,” Acta Materialia, Vol. 50, pp. 4165–4175, 2002. 5. Yin, Z.; Pan, Q.; Zhang, Y.; and Jiang, F.: “Effect of Minor Sc and Zr on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Al-Mg Based Alloys,” Mater. Sci. & Eng., Vol. A280, pp. 151–155, 2000. 6. Filatov, Y.; Yelagin, V.; and Zakharov, V.: “New Al-Mg-Sc Alloys,” Mater. Science & Engineering, Vol. A280, pp. 97–101, 2000. 7. Domack, M.; and Dennis, D.: “Evaluation of Sc-Bearing Aluminum Alloy C557 for Aerospace Applications,” NASA/TM—2002–211633, Langley Research Center, VA, April 2002. 8. ASM Specialty Handbook for Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys, The Materials Information Society, ASM International, J.R. Davis, (ed.), p. 679, 1993. 9. Thomas, W.M.: “Friction Stir Butt Welding,” U.S. Patent 5,460,317, October 1995. 10. Lee, J.: “Friction Stir Welding for Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites,” NASA/TM—1999– 209876, Marshall Space Flight Center, AL, December 1999. 19

Original page 28

Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operation and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE December 2004 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Technical Memorandum 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Aluminum-Scandium Alloys: Material Characterization, Friction Stir Welding, and Compatibility With Hydrogen Peroxide (MSFC Center Director’s Discretionary Fund Final Report, Project No. 04 –13) 6. AUTHORS J.A. Lee and P.S. Chen 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546–0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER M–1127 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPO NUMBER NASA/TM—2004 –213604 Prepared by The Materials, Processes, and Manufacturing Department, Engineering Directorate 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category 26 Availability: NASA CASI 301–621– 0390 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This Technical Memorandum describes the development of several high-strength aluminum (Al) alloys that are compatible with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) propellant for NASA Hypersonic-X (Hyper-X) vehicles’ fuel tanks and structures. The yield strengths for some of these Al-magnesium-based alloys are more than 3 times stronger than the conventional 5254-H112 Al alloy, while maintaining excellent H2O2compatibility similar to class 1 5254 alloy. The alloy development strategy is to add scandium, zirconium, and other transitional metals with unique electrochemical properties, which will not act as catalysts, to decompose the highly concentrated 90 percent H2O2. Test coupons are machined from sheet metals for H2O2long-term exposure testing and mechanical properties testing. In addition, the ability to weld the new alloys using friction stir welding has also been explored. The new high-strength alloys could represent an enabling material technology for Hyper-X vehicles, where flight weight reduction is a critical requirement. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES hydrogen peroxide, aluminum alloys, scandium, zirconium, friction stir 28 welding 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 20 16. PRICE CODE 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unlimited Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 298-102