Procedia Manufacturing

Volume 1, 2015, Pages 683695

43rd Proceedings of the North American Manufacturing Research
Institution of SME http://www.sme.org/namrc

Influence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy

Machinability
1

Ricardo Augusto Gonalves1,2 and Mrcio Bacci da Silva2

Federal University of Valleys of Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, Brazil.
2
Federal University of Uberlndia, Uberlndia, Brazil.
ricardo.augusto@ict.ufvjm.edu.br, mbacci@mecanica.ufu.br

Abstract
The main purpose of this work is to study the influence of copper content (Cu) in machining
of 6351 aluminum alloy (Al-Si-Mg). The machinability was evaluated from measurements of drilling
torque and drilling thrust force in cutting tool and surface roughness of the machined surface during
drilling process. Samples of 6351 aluminum alloy were produced with different levels of copper (Cu)
(0.07, 0.23, 0.94, 1.43 and 1.93%). Cutting speed and feed rate were varied in five levels (60 to
100 m/min and 0.1 to 0.3 mm/rev). The results showed that increasing the copper content in a Al-SiMg-Cu aluminum alloy increase the precipitation hardening through the stabilization of hardening
phases like Al5Cu2Mg8Si6 and Al2Cu, also the increase in amount of Al2Cu. Thus, the samples of 6351
aluminum alloy with higher copper content, in general, showed higher hardness and ultimate tensile
strength values, while the percentage elongation after fracture was lower. The drilling torque and
drilling thrust force during drilling process increased almost linearly with feed rate increase. The
samples with higher amount of copper (1.43% and 1.93%) led to higher drilling torque and drilling
thrust force for feed rate over than 0.2 mm/rev. Although, the surface finishing of these samples
machined holes was slightly worst.
Keywords: Copper Content, 6351 Aluminum Alloy, Machinability, Machining, Drilling,

1 Introduction
Aluminum is one of the metallic materials most used in metalworking industry and its use has
greatly increased in the aeronautics and automotive areas. Low weight/strength ratio, good electric and
thermal conductivity, mechanical strength and good machinability are some of the properties that
improved their market share. The aluminum due to its excellent qualities has taken important place in
engineering applications, making it the most produced non-ferrous metal in the metallurgical industry.
To attend the necessary requirements for engineering applications, aluminum is usually combined
with other chemicals elements in the alloys form. Aluminum alloys 6XXX series contain silicon (Si)

2351-9789 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the NAMRI Scientific Committee
doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.09.014

Inuence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy Machinability

Goncalves, and Da Silva

and magnesium (Mg) as major alloying elements, and they are present roughly in the proportion
required for the formation of magnesium silicide (Mg2Si), thus making that alloy heat treatable.
Although not as resistant as the alloys of 2XXX and 7XXX series, 6XXX series alloys have good
formability, weldability, machinability and corrosion resistance, with medium strength. Alloys in this
group can be formed in the T4 temper (thermally treated by solution, but not by precipitation) and
hardened after the forming to the properties of the T6 (thermally treated by solution and artificially
aged) by the heat treatment of precipitation. The uses include architectural applications, bicycle
frames, transport equipment, bridges rails and welded structures (ASM, 1992).
The 6351 aluminum alloy as well as 6082 and 6005A alloys contains a superior amount of Mg2Si
than 6063 and 6061 alloys with a substantial silicon excess. A 0.2% Si excess increases the strength of
an alloy containing 0.8% of Mg2Si in about 70 MPa (Tiryakioglu & Staley, 1996).
Beyond silicon and magnesium, other elements in smaller amounts, like iron, copper, manganese,
chromium, zinc, titanium, are also added to Al-Si-Mg series aluminum alloys to give different
properties. When copper (Cu) is added to Al-Si-Mg aluminum alloys, the Al-Cu-Mg-Si alloys family
is formed with several properties and applications. The aging response of these alloys is often complex
due the occurrence of many intermediate phases. Large strength increases can be achieved adding Cu
in Al-Si-Mg alloys, in addition of substantial refinement of precipitate structure (Tiryakioglu & Staley,
1996). Increasing the copper content of 1 to 6%, the tensile strength increases from 152 to 402 MPa
and the hardness increases from 45 to 118 HB (Zeren, Effect of Cooper and Silicon Content on
Mechanical Properties in Al-Cu-Si-Mg, 2005). Man, Jing, & Jie (2007) found that the addition of
0.6% Cu to the 6082AlMgSi alloy clearly increases the peak hardness and reduces the time to reach
the peak hardness. The hardness value of the alloy with 0.6% Cu was always distinctly higher than
that of the alloy without Cu during isothermal treatment at 250 C. According to Jaafar et. al (2011)
the addition of Cu (0.1 wt. %) results in refinement of needle-shaped precipitates and may also
increase the density of precipitates amount. Also Kim et. al (2013), demonstrate that low Cu and Ag
additions enhance the hardness and kinetically accelerate the formation of Mg2Si precipitates, which is
the main hardening phase in Al-Mg-Si alloys.
Due to the wide use of aluminum alloys, mainly in automotive and aeronautic industry, and their
large participation in the market, the producers need more knowledge about the alloys behavior in
manufacturing process to provide more technical data for his clients. In this scenario the machining is
one of the most used processes in the industry.
The machinability can be evaluated by one or more criteria as tool life, metal removed rate, cutting
forces, surface finish, chip shape, temperature, etc. (Trent & Wrigth, 2000). Compared to other
materials, aluminum is easy to machine. However, considering the wide range of available alloys, it is
necessary to go into detail about the characteristics of machining of aluminum alloys (Johne, 1994).
The machinability of 6351 (T6) alloy was investigated and the results showed that machining tools
with PCD (polycrystalline diamond) compared with carbide tools, led to lower feed forces and cutting
forces in addition to better surface finish (Reis & Abro, 2004). Furthermore the amount of silicon in
6351 aluminum alloy has shown influence on cutting force. Smaller values of cutting force were
obtained with 1.2% silicon content. The greater the amount of silicon in the aluminum alloy better is
the surface finishing of the machined part (Da Cunha & Da Silva, 2012). Zedan & Alkahtani (2013)
machining heat-treated (T6) Al10.8Si cast alloys demonstrate that the increase in the levels of Cu
and/or Mg in this alloy has a detrimental effect on drill life. Such an effect may be attributed to the
formation of large amounts of the coarse blocklike Al2Cu phase, together with the formation of thick
plates of the AlSiCuMg phase. Also the chip breakability of the alloys containing the Al2Cu phase
is superior to that of the alloys containing Mg2Si. Thus, combined additions of Cu and Mg are
expected to further refine the size of the chips produced. According to Elgallad et. al (2010) the
addition of Sn or Bi to an Al-2.3Cu-1.2Si-0.4Mg alloy intended for automotive castings decreases its
cutting force and moment significantly, which in turn improves the machinability of the alloy. Also the
addition of Bi increases the fragility of the chip considerably whereas no distinct change in chip

684

Inuence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy Machinability

Goncalves, and Da Silva

characteristics was caused by the addition of Sn. Already Barzani et. al (2015) found that the change
of flake-like eutectic silicon into the refined lamellar structure increased surface roughness and
decreased machinability of Al12Si2Cu cast alloy. However, formation of Bi compound which acts
as lubricant during turning can be more likely a reason to obtain the best surface roughness and lowest
main cutting force value compared to the base and Sb-containing workpieces.
Although there are available data on how the copper addition influence the mechanical properties
of Al-Si-Mg aluminum alloys and the influence of this chemical element in other aluminum alloys
machinability, more research and knowledge is needed about how this copper addition and
consequently modification caused on microstructure and material properties can influence the
behavior of Al-Si-Mg aluminum alloys during machining. Thus, the main objective of this paper is to
study the influence of copper (Cu) in machining of aluminum alloy 6351. The machinability will be
evaluated from measurements of drilling torque and drilling thrust force in cutting tool and surface
roughness of the machined surface.

2 Methodology and Experimental Procedures

Five bars of 6351 (T6) aluminum alloy thermal treated (solubilized and artificially aged) with
different levels of copper was manufactured by the Brazilian Aluminum Company (CBA) especially
for this work. Samples of 6351 aluminum alloy were produced with different levels of copper (Cu)
(0.07, 0.23, 0.94, 1.43 and 1.93%), and have chemical compositions of other alloying elements
practically constant within the range recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) for this alloy (as Tab. 1). The specimens used for drilling tests were prepared with
dimensions 150 mm x 40 mm x 28 mm.
Table 1: Chemical composition of 6351 aluminum alloys samples

Al
(%)

Si
(%)

Fe Cu
(%) (%)

Mn
(%)

Mg
(%)

98.06

0.80

0.19 0.07

0.44

0.40

0.003 0.006 0.026

97.92

0.77

0.17 0.23

0.48

0.41

0.003 0.006 0.030

97.02

0.88

0.21 0.94

0.50

0.41

0.003 0.006 0.026

96.54

0.88

0.21 1.43

0.49

0.41

0.003 0.005 0.030

96.06

0.87

0.21 1.93

0.49

0.40

0.003 0.005 0.027

(*) ASTM

Samples

3
4

Alloy

6351

0.7-1.3 0.5 0.10 0.4-0.8 0.4-0.8

Cr
(%)

Zn
(%)

0.2

Ti
(%)

0.2

(*) reference value relative to the standard NBR ISO 209 (ABNT - Brazilian Standard
The drilling tests were carried out on a machining center Romi Discovery 760. The cutting tool
was a Dormer drill A920 HSS-Co with 6.35 mm diameter and 130 drill point angle (Fig. 1).
Cutting speed and feed rate were varied in five levels (60 to 100 m/min and 0.1 to 0.3 mm/rev). For
each cutting condition a test was conducted with two replications, the results present the average
values of torque, feed force and surface roughness obtained. An emulsion of vegetable base oil
Vasco1000 was used as cutting fluid with 7% concentration applied as flood.
The equipment used for the measurement of drilling torque and drilling thrust force consists of a
rotating dynamometer Kistler, model 9123C1211, amplifier and signal conditioner Kistler, model
5019A, signal acquisition card NI PCI-6036E and LabVIEW 7.6 software from National Instruments.

685

Inuence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy Machinability

Goncalves, and Da Silva

In Fig. 1 are shown the cutting tool, specimen and rotating dynamometer mounted on the machine
tool. The values of roughness parameter Rq (root mean square deviation) were obtained using a Form
Talysurf 50 profilometer by Taylor Hobson Precision with cut-off 0.8 mm and a measuring length of 8
mm.

Figure 1: Cutting tool, specimen and rotating dynamometer mounted on the machine tool

To characterize the mechanical properties of the five samples of 6351 alloy aluminum hardness
and tensile tests were performed. The Vickers hardness was determined using a Wolpaert Universal
tester with 20 kg load using a pyramidal diamond indenter with a square base in a time of 30 s. The
tensile tests were performed in a universal testing machine with 300 kN Shimadzu. Three specimens
for each sample of 6351 aluminum alloy were machined with measures specified by the standard NBR
6152 (ABNT - Brazilian Technical Standard Association, 2002).
The microstructure analysis of the 6351 aluminum alloy samples with different copper contents
was characterized by a TM3000 Hitashi scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped with X-ray
energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS) systems. The polished samples were etched by Kellers reagent.

3 Results
3.1 Microstructures
In Fig.2 are shown the (SEM) microstructures of the five samples of 6351 aluminum alloy with
different contents of copper with 400x magnification. Porosity in aluminum alloys is classified into
two kinds: (i) macroporosity (~110 mm), which is mainly comprised of massive shrinkage cavities,
and occurs in long-freezing range alloys, caused by failure to compensate for solidification shrinkage,
and (ii) microporosity (~1500 m), distributed more or less homogeneously, due to the failure to feed
interdendritic regions, and the precipitation of dissolved gases (i.e., gas porosity) (Samuel, Doty,
Valtierra, & Samuel, 2013). In all aluminum alloys samples investigated was observed the two types
of porosity like marked in yellow arrows in Fig. 2.
As mentioned previously, the addition of copper in Al-Mg-Si alloys form numerous intermediate
phases. According to Ji, Guo, & Pan (2008) the main phases in the as-cast microstructure of an AlMg-Si alloy with 0.3% Cu are Mg2Si, Si, Al5Cu2Mg8Si6 (Q), Al5FeSi, -Al(MnCrFe)Si and CuAl2.
During the homogenization process, most of Al2Cu, Q and Mg2Si are dissolved, and plate-like Al5FeSi
particles are transformed into multiple, spherical -Al(MnCrFe)Si particles. In a first analysis it was
found -Al(MnCrFe)Si constituents present in an irregular shape such as light grey Chinese script-like
marked in black arrows in Fig. 2. In detail is shown in Fig. 3 the microstructure with EDS analysis for
the sample 5 (1.93% Cu). It can be observed the main phases light grey Chinese script-like
Al(MnCrFe)Si, dark grey block-like Al2Cu and white Al5Cu2Mg8Si6 (Q) plates and particles.

686

Inuence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy Machinability

Goncalves, and Da Silva

Figure 2: SEM Microstructures of the 6351 aluminum alloy samples with different copper content;
porosity (yellow marked); Al(MnCuFe)Si constituent (black marked)

687

Inuence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy Machinability

Goncalves, and Da Silva

Al(MnCrFe)Si

Al5Cu2Mg8Si6

Al2Cu

Figure 3: EDS analysis for aluminum alloy sample 5 with 1.93% Cu

3.2 Hardness
The average Vickers hardness and their standard deviations for the five samples of 6351
aluminum alloy with different copper content are shown in Fig. 4. Analyzing that graph these samples
can be divided into three groups. In the first group the samples S1 and S2 which contain copper
content up to 0.23% showed the lowest hardness values among the five samples, 107.7 HV and 108.3
HV respectively. Since the standards deviations of these measures overlap is not possible to say that
exist a statistical difference between the hardness of them. The second group is formed by the sample
S3 having the copper content of 0.94%. The sample that has the intermediate copper content among
the five samples also showed intermediate hardness of 112 HV. And finally, the third group was
formed by samples S4 and S5 with higher copper content of up to 1.93%; they showed higher
hardness values among the five samples, 121 HV and 125 HV, respectively. With increasing Cu
content, the hardness increases due to precipitation hardening (Zeren, Karakulak, & Gumus, 2011).
This happens because increasing Cu stabilizes the Al5Cu2Mg8Si6 and Al2Cu phases and also increases
the amount of Al2Cu, hardening phases in these aluminum alloys (Chakrabarti & Laughlin, 2004).
Again, as the standard deviations of measures overlap is not possible to say that exist a statistical
difference between the hardness of them. In general the average hardness of the aluminum alloy tends
to increase with increasing content of copper. An increase in the amount of 0.07% to 1.93% caused a
16% increase in the average hardness of the alloy (107.7 HV to 125 HV).

688

Inuence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy Machinability

Goncalves, and Da Silva

Vickers Hardness (HV)

130
125
S1 - 0.07% Cu
120

S2 - 0.23% Cu

115

S3 - 0.94% Cu
S4 - 1.43% Cu

110

S5 - 1.93% Cu
105

100

Figure 4: Vickers Hardness of 6351 aluminum alloy samples

3.3 Tensile Tests

In Tab. 2 are presented the average values of the mechanical properties obtained in the tensile tests
carried out on five samples of 6351 aluminum alloy with different amounts of copper. In the Fig. 5 is
present the curve strength versus percentage elongation after fracture for one specimen of each sample
in order to better illustrate the behavior of deformation caused by the load application to the different
samples.
Table 2: Average values of the mechanical properties obtained in the tensile tests for the five samples of
aluminum alloy 6351

Yield strength
(MPa)
74.1

Ultimate tensile
strength (MPa)
251.3

Breaking Strength
(MPa)
247.5

Percentage elongation after

fracture (%)
6.11

79.2

262.5

258.7

5.91

86.5

262.7

257.9

5.37

95.1

258.4

249.7

4.95

103.7

274.8

273.4

4.92

300

Strength (MPa)

Sample

250

S1 - 0.07% Cu

200

S2 - 0.23% Cu

150

S3 - 0.94% Cu

100

S4 - 1.43% Cu

50

S5 - 1.93% Cu

0
0

Percentage Elongation After Fracture (%)

Figure 5: Strength versus percentage elongation after fracture of 6351
aluminum alloy samples

689

Inuence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy Machinability

Goncalves, and Da Silva

The average values of ultimate tensile strength and its standard deviation are shown in Fig. 6. It
can be seen that the sample S1 with the lowest amount of copper (0.07%) was the one with the lowest
average ultimate tensile strength (251.3 MPa) among the tested samples. In turn, the sample S5 with
higher copper content (1.93%) showed ultimate tensile strength of 274.8 MPa. Comparing samples S1
and S5, which are the extremes with respect to copper content, the increase in copper content of 0.07%
up to 1.93% meant an increase in strength by about 9%. In contrast, samples S2, S3 and S4 with
intermediate levels of up to 1.43% copper showed intermediate values of mechanical resistance in the
range of 258 MPa to 262 MPa, but as the standard deviation of these samples overlap is not possible to
say that there is a real difference between the mean values of resistance shown by these samples.
290

Ultimate Tensile
Strength (MPa)

280
S1 - 0.07% Cu
270
260
250

S2 - 0.23% Cu
S3 - 0.94% Cu
S4 - 1.43% Cu
S5 - 1.93% Cu

240
230

Figure 6: Ultimate tensile strength of 6351 aluminum alloy samples

The average values of percentage elongation after fracture with its standard deviation for the five
samples tested are present in Fig. 7. As performed with hardness values, the five samples can be
divided into three groups. In the first group the samples S1 and S2, which contains the lowest levels of
copper (up to 0.23%) showed the highest values of elongation after fracture in the range of 5.91% to
6.11%. Since the standards deviations of these measures overlap is not possible to say that exist a
statistical difference between them. In the second group sample S3 with intermediate copper content
(0.94%) had intermediate elongation (5.37%) among the five tested samples. And finally, the third
group samples S4 and S5 with higher concentrations of copper (up to 1.93%) had the lowest values of
elongation after fracture in the range of 4.92% to 4.95%. The presence of Cu leads to the formation of
Al2Cu particles, which when refined and dispersed, improve machinability by causing a decrease in
plasticity, and ultimately result in chip embrittlement (Grum & Kisin, 2003). Again, as the standard
deviations of these measures overlap is not possible to say that exist a statistical difference between
the elongations suffered by them. Thus, by comparing samples S1 and S5, which are the extremes in
terms of the amount of copper, it can be observed an apparently small decrease in elongation values of
6.11% to 4.92%. However, this represents that there was a decrease in elongation, and hence the
ductility of about 25% when increased from 0.07% to 1.93% copper content present in the aluminum
alloy 6351.

690

Inuence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy Machinability

Goncalves, and Da Silva

Percentage Elongation
After Fracture (%)

6,4
6,2
6,0

S1 - 0.07% Cu

5,8

S2 - 0.23% Cu

5,6

S3 - 0.94% Cu

5,4

S4 - 1.43% Cu

5,2

S5 - 1.93% Cu

5,0
4,8
4,6

Figure 7: Percentage elongation after fracture of 6351 aluminum alloys

samples

Like discussed for the hardness values, the results of mechanical strength and elongation could be
explained for the increase in precipitation hardening caused by the increasing in Cu content in the
aluminum alloy. Also, increasing the Cu content increase the amount of Cu-rich intermetallic phases,
like block like particles Al2Cu, responsible for hardening these aluminum alloys. So, the samples with
more Cu content showed high mechanical strength and low plasticity.

3.4 Drilling Torque

The average drilling torque obtained in the tests is shown in Figures 8 and 9. In Fig. 8 is present
the variation of drilling torque with increase of cutting speed. It is not possible to observe any
tendency of increase or decrease of the torque as the cutting speed increases. For approximately all
cutting speeds, sample S2 with 0.23% Cu, intermediate hardness and mechanical strength, which was
the lower torque values generated during machining. On the other hand samples S4 e S5, which
showed highest values of hardness and strength in addition of lowest elongations, led to higher values
of torque during drilling tests.

Drilling Torque (N.m)

1,20

f = 0.2 mm/rev

1,15
1,10

S1 - 0.07% Cu

1,05

S2 - 0.23% Cu

1,00

S3 - 0.94% Cu

0,95

S4 - 1.43% Cu
S5 - 1.93% Cu

0,90
60

70

80

90

100

Cutting Speed (m/min)

Figure 8: Drilling Torque (N.m) versus cutting speed (m/min)

The behavior of torque increasing the feed rate is present in Fig. 9. In this case it can clearly be
seen that increasing the feed rate causes an almost linear increase in torque during the drilling, with
values of 0.6 N.m for lowest feed rate (0.1 mm/rev) and reaching values between 1.4 and 1.6 N.m for

691

Inuence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy Machinability

Goncalves, and Da Silva

the biggest feed rate (0.3 mm/rev). For the highest values of feed rate, the samples S4 e S5 showed
greater torque values.

Drilling Torque (N.m)

1,7
vc = 80 m/min

1,5
1,3

S1 - 0.07% Cu

1,1

S2 - 0.23% Cu

0,9

S3 - 0.94% Cu

0,7

S4 - 1.43% Cu
S5 - 1.93% Cu

0,5
0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

Feed Rate (mm/rev)

Figure 9: Drilling Torque (N.m) versus feed rate (mm/rev)

3.5 Drilling Thrust Force

Drilling Thrust Force

(N)

The average drilling thrust force obtained is presented in figures 10 and 11. In Fig. 10 there is not a
noticeable variation of the thrust force with increasing cutting speed on drilling. It can be seen that the
samples S4 and S5 with higher copper content provided higher values of thrust force. These are the
samples having higher values of hardness and mechanical strength, and at the same time, a lower
percentage elongation after fracture, and consequently lower ductility.
510
500
490
480
470
460
450
440
430
420

f = 0,2 mm/rev
S1 - 0.07% Cu
S2 - 0.23% Cu
S3 - 0.94% Cu
S4 - 1.43% Cu
S5 - 1.94% Cu
60

70

80

90

100

Cutting Speed (m/min)

Figure 10: Drilling Thrust Force (N) versus Cutting Speed (m/min)

In the Fig. 11 the variation of drilling thrust force due to the increase of feed rate is presented. The
increase in the feed rate increases the area of the material to be sheared, and thus, the thrust force
increases almost linearly. Again the samples with higher copper content showed higher thrust force.
The main factors which influence the machining force are the shear strength of the material in the
primary and secondary shear plans, and also the areas of these shear plans (Machado et. al, 2011).
Thus, the results show that in this case the predominant factor influencing the thrust force component
was the shear strength of the material. Samples S4 and S5 of 6351 aluminum alloy with higher copper
content were those that provided higher values of this force in apparently all cutting conditions. With
respect of ductility, more ductile materials tend to have greatest areas of shear, tending to increase the

692

Inuence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy Machinability

Goncalves, and Da Silva

force components machining. As the samples of the aluminum alloy tested in this study underwent
heat treatment and have a considerable amount of alloy elements, their strain capacity is restricted. So,
the ductility variation caused by the change in copper content of these samples was not a factor that
caused influence in force values, prevailing the difference between the strength of the samples.

Drilling Thrust Force

(N)

800
vc = 80 m/min

700
600

S1 - 0.07% Cu

500

S2 - 0.23% Cu

400

S3 - 0.94% Cu

300

S4 - 1.43% Cu
S5 - 1.93% Cu

200
0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

Feed Rate (mm/rev)

Figure 11: Drilling Thrust Force (N) versus Feed Rate (mm/rev)

3.6 Surface Roughness

Surface Roughness Rq
(m)

The variation of the surface roughness parameter Rq (root mean square deviation) as a function
of cutting speed is shown in Fig. 12. In general, the higher the strength and hardness of the aluminum
alloy to be machined, the smoother is the surface produced (Johne, 1994). However, in the
experiments, the sample S4 with 1.43% copper, one of the samples with hardness and mechanical
strength intermediate between the tested samples showed the highest roughness values for apparently
all cutting speeds tested. The surface roughness of a machined part depends on several factors, such as
the workpiece material, the tool geometry, feed rate, possible vibrations, and presence of built-up edge
(BUE), among others. In this case, the tool geometry and feed rate used were the same for all alloys in
each test. Vibration signals were not acquired during the tests from external agents. The collected
chips could show traces of BUE, but this will not be discussed in this paper. Another important
observation is that the expected decrease in roughness with increasing cutting speed, because the
missing of built-up edge (BUE) did not occur.
3,5

f = 0.20 mm/rev

3,0
2,5

S1 - 0.07% Cu

2,0

S2 - 0.23% Cu

1,5

S3 - 0.94% Cu

1,0

S4 - 1.43% Cu

0,5

S5 - 1.93% Cu

0,0
60

70

80

90

100

Cutting Speed (m/min)

Figure 12: Surface Roughness Rq (m) versus Cutting Speed (m/min)

693

Inuence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy Machinability

Goncalves, and Da Silva

The Rq roughness showed a significant increase with the feed rate increase (Fig. 13), this behavior
is expected, as the peaks height and the valleys deep of the feed marks tend to increase with the feed
rate increase (Machado, Abro, Coelho, & Da Silva, 2011). In this case, the sample S5 with 1.93%
which have higher hardness and mechanical strength, and low ductility, resulted in the worst surface
finish for apparently all feed rates tested.

Surface Roughness Rq
(m)

3,5
vc = 80 m/min

3,0
2,5

S1 - 0.07% Cu

2,0

S2 - 0.23% Cu

1,5

S3 - 0.94% Cu

1,0

S4 - 1.43% Cu

0,5

S5 - 1.93% Cu

0,0
0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

Feed Rate (mm/rev)

Figure 13: Surface Roughness Rq (m) versus Feed Rate (mm/rev)

4 Conclusions
The investigation about machinability of 6351 aluminum alloy with different levels of copper, has
led to some important conclusions about their behavior during the drilling tests developed in this
work:
Increasing the copper content in a Al-Si-Mg-Cu aluminum alloy increase the precipitation
hardening through the stabilization of hardening phases like Al5Cu2Mg8Si6 and Al2Cu, also the
increase in amount of Al2Cu. Thus, the samples of 6351 aluminum alloy with higher copper content,
in general, showed higher hardness and ultimate tensile strength values, while the percentage
elongation after fracture was lower.
The drilling torque and drilling thrust force increased almost linearly with feed rate increase.
Regardless the influence of copper content in the machinability, it seems that the samples S4 and
S5 with higher amount of copper (1.43% and 1.93%) led to higher drilling torque and drilling thrust
force for feed rate over than 0.2 mm/rev. Although, the surface finishing of the holes of samples S4
and S5 was slightly worst.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thanks the FAPEMIG (Fundao de Amparo Pesquisa do Estado de
Minas Gerais) and CAPES (Coordenao de Aperfeioamento de Pessoal de Nvel Superior) for the
financial support, CBA (Brazilian Aluminum Company) for aluminum alloys specimens, the LEPU
(Laboratory for Teaching and Researching in Machining), the Mechanical Engineering Department of
Federal University of Uberlndia(UFU) and the Science and Technology Institute (ICT) of Federal
University of Valleys of Jequitinhonha e Mucuri (UFVJM).

694

Inuence of Copper Content on 6351 Aluminum Alloy Machinability

Goncalves, and Da Silva

ABNT - Brazilian Standard Technical Association. Standard ABNT NBR ISO 209, Aluminum and
Alloys Chemichal Composition, 2010.
ABNT - Brazilian Technical Standard Association. Standard ABNT NBR 6152, Metallic Materials
Tensile Test at Room Temperature, 2002.
ASM. Metals Handbook Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special-Purpose
Materials Volume 2 (10th Ed.) USA: ASM International, 1992, ISBN 0-87170-378-5 (v.2).
Barzani MM, Sarhan AA, Farahany S, Ramesh S and Maher I. Investigating the machinability of Al
SiCu cast alloy containing bismuth and antimony using coated carbide insert. Measurement
2015; 62: 170-178.
Chakrabarti DJ and Laughlin DE. Phase relations and precipitation in AlMgSi alloys with Cu
additions. Progress in Materials Science 2004; 49: 389-410.
Da Cunha DF and Da Silva MB. Effect of silicon content of aluminum alloy 6351 in turning process.
Int. Mech. Eng. Cong. & Exposition. Houston, USA: ASME, 2012.
Elgallad EM, Samuel FH, Samuel AM and Doty HW. Machinability aspects of new AlCu alloys
intended for automotive castings. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2010; 210: 17541766.
Grum J and Kisin M. Influence of the microstructure on surface integrity in turning - part I: the
influence of the size of the soft phase in microstructure on surface-roughness formation.
International Journal of Machine Tools andManufacture 2003; 43: 1535-1543.
Jaafar A, Rahmat A, Hussain Z and Zainol I. Effect of Mg, Si and Cu content on the Microstructure of
6000 series aluminum alloys. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2011; 509: 8632-8640.
Ji Y, Guo F and Pan Y. Microstructural characteristics and paint-bake response of Al-Mg-Si-Cu alloy.
Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China 2008; 18: 126-131.
Johne P. Machining of products. Talat Lecture 3100, Brussels: European Aluminum Association
(EAA), 1994. p. 138.
Kim J, Marioara CD, Holmestad R, Kobayashi E and Sato T. Effects of Cu and Ag additions on agehardening behavior during multi-step aging in AlMgSi alloys. Materials Science and
Engineering A 2013; 560: 154-162.
Machado R, Abro AM, Coelho RT and Da Silva MB. Theory of Materials Machining (2nd Ed.).
So Paulo: Blucher, 2011, ISBN 978-85-212-0606-4.
Man J, Jing L and Jie SG. The effects of Cu addition on the microstructure and thermal stability of an
AlMgSi alloy. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2007; 437: 146-150.
Reis DD and Abro AM. The machining of aluminium alloy 6351. Journal of Engineering
Manufacture 2004, 219 Part B.
Samuel AM, Doty HH, Valtierra S and Samuel FH. Defects related to incipient melting in AlSiCu
Mg alloys. Materials and Design 2013; 52: 947-956.
Tiryakioglu M and Staley JT. Handbook of Aluminum - Physical Metalurgy and Process - Volume 1.
New York: Marcerl Dekker Inc, 1996.
Trent EM and Wrigth PK. Metal Cutting (4th Ed.). USA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000, ISBN 07506-7069-X.
Zedan Y and Alkahtani S. Influence of the microstructure on the machinability of heat-treated Al
10.8% Si cast alloys: Role of copper-rich intermetallics. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 2013; 213: 167-179.
Zeren M. Effect of Cooper and Silicon Content on Mechanical Properties in Al-Cu-Si-Mg. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 2005; 169: 292-298.
Zeren M, Karakulak M and Gumus S. Influence of Cu addition on microstructure and hardness of
near-eutectic Al-Si-xCu-alloys. Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China 2011; 21:
1698-1702.

695