Fig. 18.23 Aluminum alloy 2014-T6 hinge bracket that failed by SCC in service. (a) Hinge bracket. Arrow indicates crack. (b) Micrograph showing secondary cracking adjacent and parallel to the fracture surface. Keller’s reagent. Original magnification: 250×. Source: Ref 18.21 More

Fig. 29 Variation in rotating beam fatigue for (a) 2024-T4, (b) 7075-T6, (c) 2014-T6, and (d) 7079-T6 alloys. Notches (60°) were very sharp ( K t > 12), with a radius of approximately 0.005 mm (0.0002 in.). Results are from over a thousand rotating beam tests performed in the 1940s More

Fig. 30 Comparison of fatigue strength bands for 2014-T6, 2024-T4, and 7075-T6 aluminum alloys for rotating beam tests. Source: Ref 16 More

Fig. 2.99 Intergranular cracks in a gas turbine disk made of 2014-6 aluminum. Note crack initiation at a corrosion pit (or pits) and branching along grain boundaries, typical of stress-corrosion failure. Source: Ref 2.73 More

Fig. 3.22 Forged aluminum alloy 2014-T6 aircraft component that failed by fatigue. Characteristic beach marks are evident. See also Fig. 3.23 More

Fig. 3.28 TEM of brittle striations in a 2014 aluminum alloy that failed in service. Note the cleavage facets running parallel to the direction of crack propagation and normal to the fatigue striations. Arrow indicates the cracking direction. Source: Ref 3.18 More

Fig. 3.40 Comparison of smooth-rotating/pure-bending fatigue test data for 2014-T6 aluminum in dripping commercial synthetic solution and in room-temperature air. A flow of liquid around the center section of the specimen was supplied by capillary action during the test. Source: Ref 3.37 More

Fig. 2 Pitting corrosion of an aluminum alloy 2014–T6 sheet. Pitting occurred during the manufacturing cycle. Note the intergranular nature of the pit. 150× More

Fig. 29 Aluminum alloy 2014-T6 aircraft nose wheel (a) that failed at the flange. (b) Close-up of tube well on wheel 31. (c) Appearance of flange failure on wheel 67. The topography is typical of other flange failures. (d) Close-up of wheel 31; note indentation (arrow). (e) Close-up of wheel More

Fig. 9.8 Effect of holding time at elevated temperature on residual room temperature strength of 2014-T6. Source: Ref 9.5 More

Fig. 10.15 Ultrasonic technique for detecting early fatigue cracks. (a) Test configuration and specimen. (b) S-N curves for notched 2014-T6 0.60 in. sheet. Source: Ref 10.18 More

Fig. A7.8 S-N curves for three aluminum alloys, R = 0.1. Curves A and B: 7033-T6; curves C and D: 2014-T6; curves E and F: 6061-T6. Source: Ref A7.10 More

Fig. 35 Ductile and brittle striations. (a) Schematic of different types of ductile and brittle striations. (b) Ductile striations in 718 aluminum alloy. (c) Brittle fatigue striations of 2014 aluminum alloy. Note cleavage facets running parallel to direction of crack propagation and normal More

Fig. 12 Relative effectiveness of various protective systems in preventing SCC of susceptible aluminum alloys. Combined data for highly elastically strained specimens of alloys 2014-T651 and 7079-T651 exposed at PI. Judith, RI; Comfort, TX; and New Kensington, PA. Anodized specimens include More

Fig. 3.38 Fracture surface of a corrosion fatigue crack in a rotating bending specimen of 2014-T6 aluminum alloy. (a) Optical photograph showing the origin and beach marks typical of fatigue fracture. (b) Microphotograph of a section through the fatigue origin (arrow). The fracture surface More

reprinted with permission from Ref 21 , Copyright 2014, by the American Physics Society. Source: Ref 21 More

Q ≈ 1.1 P ≈ 0.03 (c) 2014-T6 aluminum ( Ref 4.17 ) σ u = 70 ksi Q ≈ 0.63 P ≈ 0.07 (d) 9Cr-4Co-0.45C steel ( Ref 4.18 ) σ u = 283 ksi Q ≈ 3.8 P ≈ 0.15 More