Materials / Compare
Aluminum 6061-T6 vs. FDM PAHT-CF
Compare Aluminum 6061-T6 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 | 276MPasourcetypical, 0.2% offset, .500 in dia specimen | not given (tensile used) |
| Ultimate tensile strength | 310MPasourcetypical3.37x stronger | 92MPasourcetypical |
| Flexural strength | not sourced | 125MPasourcetypical |
| Elongation at break | 17%sourcetypical, in 4D, 0.500 in dia specimen | 8.4%sourcetypical |
| Young's modulus (stiffness) | 68.3GPasourcetypical17.7x stiffer | 3.86GPasourcetypical |
| Density | 2,700kg/m³sourcenominal | 1,060kg/m³sourcetypical |
| Strength to weight | 102kN·m/kg18% higher | 86.8kN·m/kg |
| Stiffness to weight | 25.3MN·m/kg6.95x higher | 3.64MN·m/kg |
| Poisson's ratio | 0.33sourcetypical (handbook physical constant) | not sourced |
| Shear modulus | 25.7GPa | not sourced |
| Bulk modulus | 67GPa | not sourced |
| Speed of sound | 5,030m/s | 1,908m/s |
| Thermal | ||
| Thermal conductivity | 167W/m·Ksourcetypical, 20 °C | not sourced |
| Thermal expansion | 23.6µm/m·Ksourcetypical, mean 20-100 °C | not sourced |
| 100 mm part over a 50 °C swing | 118µm growth | not sourced |
| Specific heat | 896J/kg·Ksourcetypical, at 100 °C | not sourced |
| Heats up and cools (diffusivity) | 69mm²/s | not sourced |
| Thermal shock resistance | 19,159W/m | not sourced |
| Melting point | 582–652°Csourcesolidus-liquidus | 225°Csourcetypical |
| Glass transition | not sourced | 70°Csourcetypical |
| Max service temperature | not sourced | 170°CsourceHDT 1.8 MPa |
| Values for | 6061-T6/T651, Kaiser Aluminum typical properties; Poisson from MIL-HDBK-5J | 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 6061-T6 stronger than FDM PAHT-CF?
Aluminum 6061-T6 is stronger: its yield strength is 276 MPa against tensile strength 92 MPa for FDM PAHT-CF (3x).
Which is lighter, Aluminum 6061-T6 or FDM PAHT-CF?
FDM PAHT-CF is lighter: 1,060 kg/m³ against 2,700 kg/m³ for Aluminum 6061-T6.
Which is stiffer, Aluminum 6061-T6 or FDM PAHT-CF?
Aluminum 6061-T6 is stiffer: Young's modulus 68.3 GPa against 3.86 GPa for FDM PAHT-CF, so the same part in Aluminum 6061-T6 deflects less under the same load.
Which is lighter for the same job, Aluminum 6061-T6 or FDM PAHT-CF?
For the same stiffness or strength: Aluminum 6061-T6 is lighter for a stiff rod or tie (tension), stiff beam (bending), stiff panel or plate, strong rod or tie; FDM PAHT-CF is lighter for a strong beam, strong panel or plate.
| Part that must be | Aluminum 6061-T6 | FDM PAHT-CF |
|---|---|---|
| Stiff rod or tie (tension) | lighter | 6.95x heavier |
| Stiff beam (bending) | lighter | 1.65x heavier |
| Stiff panel or plate | lighter | 2% heavier |
| Strong rod or tie | lighter | 18% heavier |
| Strong beam | 22% heavier | lighter |
| Strong panel or plate | 47% 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).