journal article·2025-12Open access

Opposing Effects of Cu Content‐Regulated Precipitation Behavior and Grain Characteristics on Strength and Fatigue Crack Propagation in Al‐ x Cu‐1.3Li Alloys

Chen‐yang Xun, Xi‐wu Li, Kai Wen, Ya‐nan Li, Chang‐lin Li, Kai Zhu, Guan‐jun Gao, Ying Li, Zhi‐hui Li, Yong‐an Zhang, Bai‐qing Xiong

Advanced Engineering Materials· Volume 27· Issue 23

Abstract

Herein, the mechanical performances of as‐extruded Al‐ x Cu‐1.3Li alloys are examined in relation to the precipitation behavior and grain characteristics, which are influenced by Cu content (3.1, 3.6, 4.1, and 4.6 wt%). The results demonstrated that tensile strength of alloys exhibited a quick increase initially, followed by a plateau, and then a gradual drop during ageing process. Furthermore, tensile strength is improved by increased Cu under peak‐aged state. 4.6Cu alloy showed the highest ultimate tensile strength of 718 MPa, and yield strength of 692 MPa. Nevertheless, fatigue crack propagation (FCP) performance of alloys is adversely affected by elevated Cu under peak‐aged state. When Cu content increased from 3.1 to 4.1 wt%, FCP rate increased gradually from 9.54 × 10 −4 to 2.04 × 10 −3 mm cycle −1 (Δ K = 25–26 MPa m 1/2 ). However, in 4.6Cu alloy, FCP rate became faster and ultimately terminated with Δ K ≈ 16 MPa m 1/2 . Further, alloys with higher Cu showed finer and denser nonshearable T 1 and θ ′ precipitates, wider precipitation‐free zones, and larger discontinuous intergranular precipitates. Additionally, due to refined grains and residual secondary phases induced by excessive Cu atoms, 4.6Cu alloy possessed poorest FCP performance. Hence, 4.1Cu alloy had a more favorable correlation between tensile strength and FCP performance.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Aluminum Alloy Microstructure Properties · Microstructure and mechanical properties · Magnesium Alloys: Properties and Applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

State Key Laboratory of Nonferrous Structural Materials China GRINM Group Co., LTD. Beijing 100088 China

GRIMAT Engineering Institute Co. China GRINM Group Co., LTD. Beijing 101407 China

General Research Institute for Nonferrous Metals Beijing 100088 China

Funding

Beijing Nova Program

References (51)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1007/s11661-012-1155-z10.1007/s11661-012-1155-z ↗
2. Wanhill R. · 2013
3. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.10736310.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.107363 ↗
4. Staley J. · J. Phys. IV. · 1993 · 03 · 179
5. 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.02.03110.1016/j.proeng.2015.02.031 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.04.01010.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.04.010 ↗
7. 10.1007/s11661-005-0231-z10.1007/s11661-005-0231-z ↗
8. 10.1016/j.msea.2020.13983310.1016/j.msea.2020.139833 ↗
9. 10.1007/s12540-023-01439-110.1007/s12540-023-01439-1 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.msea.2016.09.04010.1016/j.msea.2016.09.040 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.msea.2021.14207910.1016/j.msea.2021.142079 ↗
12. D. D.Lu Study on the dependence of fatigue crack propagation behavior of Al‐xCu‐1.5Li‐X alloy on the Cu concentration and microstructures Central South University Changsha2023.
13. 10.1016/j.msea.2023.14515810.1016/j.msea.2023.145158 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.actamat.2016.05.05010.1016/j.actamat.2016.05.050 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.actamat.2013.12.00110.1016/j.actamat.2013.12.001 ↗
16. 10.1007/s12540-019-00446-510.1007/s12540-019-00446-5 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.msea.2018.01.04010.1016/j.msea.2018.01.040 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.10647810.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106478 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.msea.2018.11.01510.1016/j.msea.2018.11.015 ↗
20. 10.1007/978-0-387-76501-310.1007/978-0-387-76501-3 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.msea.2013.06.07510.1016/j.msea.2013.06.075 ↗
22. 10.1007/s11661-020-05631-510.1007/s11661-020-05631-5 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.msea.2016.09.04010.1016/j.msea.2016.09.040 ↗
24. 10.1007/s11661-007-9250-210.1007/s11661-007-9250-2 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.actamat.2012.12.04110.1016/j.actamat.2012.12.041 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.matchar.2023.11355810.1016/j.matchar.2023.113558 ↗
27. Xie Y. · Met. Mater. Trans. A. · 2024 · 896 · 146289
28. 10.1016/j.matchar.2021.11112310.1016/j.matchar.2021.111123 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.matchar.2016.09.03710.1016/j.matchar.2016.09.037 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2007.09.06110.1016/j.scriptamat.2007.09.061 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.01.14810.1016/j.jmrt.2024.01.148 ↗
32. 10.1007/s11340-008-9202-910.1007/s11340-008-9202-9 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.actamat.2019.01.04010.1016/j.actamat.2019.01.040 ↗
34. 10.1016/S1359-6454(03)00363-X10.1016/S1359-6454(03)00363-X ↗
35. 10.1016/j.matchar.2023.11301110.1016/j.matchar.2023.113011 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.actamat.2014.04.04610.1016/j.actamat.2014.04.046 ↗
37. 10.1016/S1359-6454(99)00179-210.1016/S1359-6454(99)00179-2 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.msea.2023.14502310.1016/j.msea.2023.145023 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.actamat.2017.05.02910.1016/j.actamat.2017.05.029 ↗
40. 10.1016/0921-5093(93)90596-710.1016/0921-5093(93)90596-7 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.05.01410.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.05.014 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.actamat.2008.03.02810.1016/j.actamat.2008.03.028 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.msea.2014.11.09410.1016/j.msea.2014.11.094 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.actamat.2016.02.01710.1016/j.actamat.2016.02.017 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.msea.2020.13925310.1016/j.msea.2020.139253 ↗
46. 10.1361/10549719877034173410.1361/105497198770341734 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.msea.2013.05.05310.1016/j.msea.2013.05.053 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2006.08.00510.1016/j.ijfatigue.2006.08.005 ↗
49. 10.1007/BF0266126710.1007/BF02661267 ↗
50. 10.1361/1059949052232910.1361/10599490522329 ↗
51. 10.1016/S1003-6326(13)62766-110.1016/S1003-6326(13)62766-1 ↗