Materials / Compare
Aluminum 5052-H32 vs. FDM PAHT-CF
Compare Aluminum 5052-H32 vs. FDM PAHT-CF strength, stiffness, weight and thermal properties.
| Try it on a partA bracket to run stress or thermal on, free in your browser | Open in LessCAD | Open in LessCAD |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical | ||
| Yield strength | 195MPasourcetypical, 0.2% offset | not given (tensile used) |
| Ultimate tensile strength | 230MPasourcetypical2.5x stronger | 92MPasourcetypical |
| Flexural strength | not sourced | 125MPasourcetypical |
| Elongation at break | 12%sourcetypical43% more ductile | 8.4%sourcetypical |
| Young's modulus (stiffness) | 70GPasourcetypical18.1x stiffer | 3.86GPasourcetypical |
| Density | 2,685kg/m³sourcenominal | 1,060kg/m³sourcetypical |
| Strength to weight | 72.6kN·m/kg | 86.8kN·m/kg20% higher |
| Stiffness to weight | 26.1MN·m/kg7.16x higher | 3.64MN·m/kg |
| Poisson's ratio | 0.33sourcetypical (handbook physical constant) | not sourced |
| Shear modulus | 26.3GPa | not sourced |
| Bulk modulus | 68.6GPa | not sourced |
| Speed of sound | 5,106m/s | 1,908m/s |
| Thermal | ||
| Thermal conductivity | 138W/m·Ksourcebase material: 5052 in O temper (same alloy, annealed); Kaiser typical | not sourced |
| Thermal expansion | 23.8µm/m·Ksourcetypical, mean 20-100 °C | not sourced |
| 100 mm part over a 50 °C swing | 119µm growth | not sourced |
| Specific heat | 963J/kg·Ksourceat 100 °C (212 °F); table covers O, H32, H34, H36, H38 | not sourced |
| Heats up and cools (diffusivity) | 53.4mm²/s | not sourced |
| Thermal shock resistance | 10,822W/m | not sourced |
| Melting point | 605–650°Csourcemelting range | 225°Csourcetypical |
| Glass transition | not sourced | 70°Csourcetypical |
| Max service temperature | not sourced | 170°CsourceHDT 1.8 MPa |
| Values for | 5052-H32, Kaiser Aluminum tube & pipe typical datasheet (mechanical, CTE, melting); MIL-HDBK-5J (Poisson, density, specific heat) | Bambu Lab PAHT-CF, TDS V3.0, printed specimens X-Y, dry state; nozzle 290 °C, bed 100 °C, 100 mm/s, 100% infill; annealed and dried 80 °C for 12 h before testing. |
Every value links to the document that states it. "Not sourced" means no citable source states it (or only a specification minimum); figures computed from it are left out too.
FDM PAHT-CF is 3D printed: its properties depend on build direction and print settings; these are typical values.
Questions
Is Aluminum 5052-H32 stronger than FDM PAHT-CF?
Aluminum 5052-H32 is stronger: its yield strength is 195 MPa against tensile strength 92 MPa for FDM PAHT-CF (2.12x).
Which is lighter, Aluminum 5052-H32 or FDM PAHT-CF?
FDM PAHT-CF is lighter: 1,060 kg/m³ against 2,685 kg/m³ for Aluminum 5052-H32.
Which is stiffer, Aluminum 5052-H32 or FDM PAHT-CF?
Aluminum 5052-H32 is stiffer: Young's modulus 70 GPa against 3.86 GPa for FDM PAHT-CF, so the same part in Aluminum 5052-H32 deflects less under the same load.
Which is lighter for the same job, Aluminum 5052-H32 or FDM PAHT-CF?
For the same stiffness or strength: Aluminum 5052-H32 is lighter for a stiff rod or tie (tension), stiff beam (bending), stiff panel or plate; FDM PAHT-CF is lighter for a strong rod or tie, strong beam, strong panel or plate.
| Part that must be | Aluminum 5052-H32 | FDM PAHT-CF |
|---|---|---|
| Stiff rod or tie (tension) | lighter | 7.16x heavier |
| Stiff beam (bending) | lighter | 1.68x heavier |
| Stiff panel or plate | lighter | 4% heavier |
| Strong rod or tie | 20% heavier | lighter |
| Strong beam | 1.54x heavier | lighter |
| Strong panel or plate | 1.74x heavier | lighter |
For the same stiffness or strength, mass scales with density over stiffness (or strength) raised to a power set by how the part is loaded: 1 for a rod in tension, 1/2 for a beam in bending, 1/3 for a panel (the standard material-selection indices).
Which is more ductile, Aluminum 5052-H32 or FDM PAHT-CF?
Aluminum 5052-H32 stretches further before it breaks: 12% elongation at break against 8.4% for FDM PAHT-CF.