Materials / Compare
Aluminum 1100-O vs. DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel
Compare Aluminum 1100-O vs. DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel strength, stiffness, weight and thermal properties.
| Try it on a partA sample part to run stress or thermal on, free in your browser | Open in LessCAD | Open in LessCAD |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical | ||
| Yield strength | 35MPasourcetypical, O, 0.0625 in specimen | 861MPasourcemean, as built, horizontal (N=72) |
| Ultimate tensile strength | 90MPasourcetypical, O | 886MPasourcemean, as built, horizontal (N=72) |
| Elongation at break | 35%sourcetypical, O, in 4D | 19.9%sourcemean at break, as built, horizontal |
| Young's modulus (stiffness) | 69GPasourcetypical | 197GPasourcebase material: wrought 17-4 PH, Condition H 900 (Cleveland-Cliffs) |
| Density | 2,710kg/m³sourcenominal, 20 °C | 7,790kg/m³sourcemean part density (ISO 3369) |
| Strength to weight | 12.9kN·m/kg | 110kN·m/kg8.55x higher |
| Stiffness to weight | 25.5MN·m/kg | 25.3MN·m/kg |
| Poisson's ratio | not sourced | 0.272sourcebase material: wrought 17-4 PH, all conditions (Cleveland-Cliffs) |
| Shear modulus | not sourced | 77.4GPa |
| Bulk modulus | not sourced | 144GPa |
| Speed of sound | 5,046m/s | 5,029m/s |
| Thermal | ||
| Thermal conductivity | 222W/m·Ksourcetypical, O, 20 °C | 17.9W/m·Ksourcebase material: wrought 17-4 PH, Condition H 900, at 149 °C (Cleveland-Cliffs) |
| Thermal expansion | 23.6µm/m·Ksourcetypical, mean 20-100 °C | 10.4µm/m·Ksourcemean 25-100 °C, ASTM E228, AFTER atmospheric heat treatment (as-built value not published) |
| 100 mm part over a 50 °C swing | 118µm growth | 52µm growth2.27x less |
| Specific heat | 901J/kg·Ksourcebase material: commercially pure aluminium EN AW-1050A (Hydro), 20 °C | 460J/kg·Ksourcebase material: wrought 17-4 PH, Condition A, 0-100 °C (Cleveland-Cliffs) |
| Heats up and cools (diffusivity) | 90.9mm²/s18.2x faster | 5mm²/s |
| Thermal shock resistance | not sourced | 5,474W/m |
| Melting point | 640–655°Csourcemelting range | not sourced |
| Values for | 1100-O (annealed) commercially pure aluminium, Kaiser Aluminum Tube & Pipe Alloy 1100 Technical Data (Rev. 05/06), typical properties; specific heat from Hydro EN AW-1050A (99.5% Al) extruded-products datasheet (10/2018). | EOS StainlessSteel 17-4PH IndustryLine (powder 9011-0041), EOS M 290, 40 µm, default job 17-4PH_040_StainlessM291_100, as built, horizontal; ISO 6892 & ASTM E8M |
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.
DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel is 3D printed: its properties depend on build direction and print settings; these are typical values.
Questions
Is Aluminum 1100-O stronger than DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel?
DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel is stronger: its yield strength is 861 MPa against 35 MPa for Aluminum 1100-O (24.6x).
Which is lighter, Aluminum 1100-O or DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel?
Aluminum 1100-O is lighter: 2,710 kg/m³ against 7,790 kg/m³ for DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel.
Which is stiffer, Aluminum 1100-O or DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel?
DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel is stiffer: Young's modulus 197 GPa against 69 GPa for Aluminum 1100-O, so the same part in DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel deflects less under the same load.
Which is lighter for the same job, Aluminum 1100-O or DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel?
For the same stiffness or strength: Aluminum 1100-O is lighter for a stiff beam (bending), stiff panel or plate; DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel is lighter for a strong rod or tie, strong beam, strong panel or plate.
| Part that must be | Aluminum 1100-O | DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel |
|---|---|---|
| Stiff rod or tie (tension) | about equal | about equal |
| Stiff beam (bending) | lighter | 1.7x heavier |
| Stiff panel or plate | lighter | 2.03x heavier |
| Strong rod or tie | 8.55x heavier | lighter |
| Strong beam | 2.94x heavier | lighter |
| Strong panel or plate | 1.73x 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 conducts heat better, Aluminum 1100-O or DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel?
Aluminum 1100-O conducts heat better: 222 W/m·K against 17.9 W/m·K for DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel.
Which expands less with temperature?
DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel expands less: 10.4 µm/m·K against 23.6 µm/m·K for Aluminum 1100-O.
Among 72 materials
Related comparisons
- Aluminum 1100-O vs. Glass
- Aluminum 1100-O vs. Concrete
- Aluminum 1100-O vs. Rubber
- Aluminum 1100-O vs. Aluminum ADC12
- DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel vs. Steel AISI 4340
- DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel vs. Nickel Inconel 718
- DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel vs. Stainless Steel 17-4PH
- DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel vs. Steel AISI 1045