Jump to content

Talk:Aluminium alloy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Corp1117 (talk | contribs) at 20:37, 25 April 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ASTM

User:Georgewilliamherbert's edit summary states that ASTM doesn't cover "structural alloys" except for tubing, and that the ASTM simply resells SAE standards. Neither statements are true. Off the top of my head, I routinely specify ASTM B221 for aluminium bar for structural applications. And although standards organizations have overlapping memberships and read each other's work, they still review and publish independently.--Yannick 03:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The B211 standard states that it uses the standard ANSI H35.1 alloy numbering system, for which SAE produces the actual alloy composition and processing standards. I don't have the full B211 standard, however. Ref / cite within that doc which has actual alloy specs natively, and not a reference to another standard? Georgewilliamherbert 04:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
B221, not B211. But in any case, I'm guessing the SAE standard doesn't include the material testing specs, which are key to the ASTM work. If the standards cross-link to the same composition tables, that's good; it's harmonization of standards. But it doesn't give SAE a monopoly or primacy. Why would ASTM waste their time photocopying a bunch of me-too standards?--Yannick 04:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same composition and processing / heat treatment standards, strength standards, etc. The testing specs aren't part of the alloy's specification per se, though they are part of many uses (alloy 7075 with testing per ...). The SAE standard is the alloy - the rest is specific use and qualification requirements, not the alloy itself. One can do 7075 to the SAE spec without any additional testing. Georgewilliamherbert 05:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But in many critical applications, the mechanical testing is considered an essential part of the alloy's specification. In those cases, 7075 with an ASTM spec is used, and untested materials are rejected. This is largely the raison d'etre of the ASTM specs. Some engineers for some applications use the SAE standards. Other engineers for different applications use the ASTM standards. And then there are AMS specs, EN specs, DIN, etc. Wiping out any reference to standards other than SAE is not justifiable.--Yannick 23:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I checked ASTM B211, B221 and a few others today, and they do include detailed composition tables and processing standards. They do refer to ANSI H35.1 for nomenclature, but H35.1 does not reference any SAE standards. Instead, it has a footnote stating that specific alloys are registered with the Aluminum Association. (Which, by the way, seems to sell some of those industry statistics that might solve the linkspam issue below.) I don't have as much experience with the SAE standards, but there is no doubt in my mind that (a) the ASTM aluminum alloy standards are used independently of the SAE standards, and (b) they cover many shapes other than tubing. There is nothing more "native" about the SAE standards than the ASTM standards.--Yannick 22:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam

Ytrottier, why do you think the reference to Alcoa's aerospace alloys page is linkspam? It's a good list of commonly used aerospace alloys... Georgewilliamherbert 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that these alloys are marketed says nothing about their prevalence in the field. If you want to make statements about which alloys are most commonly used, they should be based on market surveys, not marketing materials. Linking to a vendor is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia, except in very specific circumstances. I don't think this qualifies.--Yannick 04:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a vendor is fine, as long as it's not to an advertising related page. Often vendors are the best descriptive references for something. I'm not a WP newbie. It's hard to do a marketing survey, as most of the details are proprietary and hard to get unless you own the aircraft... Much of it is public, but not sufficiently enough to do a good survey. Georgewilliamherbert 04:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Market survey, not marketing survey. You don't need to own any aircraft for that. Many industry analysts compile data from various manufacturers about their outputs, and publish the statistics. Try a good university library, if you feel it's important to talk about the relative sale volumes of various alloys. If you can't get your hands on a document you can cite, I do not encourage you to do your own market survey; that would be original research. The page you linked to was, at best, an infomercial page, and it did not substantiate your claim that these alloys are most common. At best, we can only say that these alloys are representative.--Yannick 23:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8000 series

I was under the impression that the 8000 series was solely for the Al-Li based alloys, and not just 'others' as this article suggests. Is this right? Mike 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aluminium_alloy&oldid=125935024"