Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F620) Anneal Cooling Rate

Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F620) Anneal Cooling Rate

Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F620) Anneal Cooling Rate

I have the dubious honor of trying to assess the impact to several of our technical standards which turned into pandora's box. Turns out we have three vendors annealing using three different sets of parameters. As we are generally satisfied with the product(s) I see no reason to upset the apple cart so in reality I'm just trying wrap my head around the potential differences. While the temperature varies somewhat between the procedures they all fall within the parameters for AMS 4931 (1300-1400 deg F); the difference that may be the most important is that there are three different cooling methods (note: AMS 4931 specifies in air). (1) is in air, (2) is using nitrogen under positive pressure and (3) is in vacuum. I imagine you could claim (1) and (2) are equivalent lacking additional information but (3) is a definitive outlier. Should there be a difference expected?

RE: Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F620) Anneal Cooling Rate

There could be a difference. The cooling in vacuum does concern me.
You may need to test more than just tensile properties, things such as toughness and fatigue may be good indicators.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

RE: Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F620) Anneal Cooling Rate

Develop a test plan and find out.

RE: Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F620) Anneal Cooling Rate

Sorry for not following up. The biggest concern here isn't so much the difference between the three methods because the parts are independent of each other (aside from referencing a common standard). Likewise, the cooling in vacuum isn't in itself a problem since that's "how it's always been done". However, the vendor also changed the heat dwell time at some point and I'm not (yet) aware that there was an assessment for that change or any communication to my company (we didn't revise the drawing, but it wasn't specific enough in the first place).

There is, obviously, a concern that somehow we have several interpretations of a 'standard' but that's a different dragon to slay.

In any case, I'm consulting with people above my pay grade later this week.

Thanks for the input.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close