Materials / Compare
Aluminum 5052-H32 vs. Ceramic Alumina 96%
Compare Aluminum 5052-H32 vs. Ceramic Alumina 96% 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 | 195MPasourcetypical, 0.2% offset | not given (tensile used) |
| Ultimate tensile strength | 230MPasourcetypical | 221MPasourcetypical tensile strength, 25 °C (ACMA Test #4) |
| Compressive strength | not sourced | 2,068MPasourcetypical, 20 °C (ASTM-C773) |
| Flexural strength | not sourced | 358MPasourceflexural strength (MOR), 20 °C (ASTM-F417) |
| Elongation at break | 12%sourcetypical | not sourced |
| Young's modulus (stiffness) | 70GPasourcetypical | 303GPasourcetypical, 20 °C (ASTM-C848) |
| Density | 2,685kg/m³sourcenominal | 3,720kg/m³sourcetypical (ASTM-C20) |
| Strength to weight | 72.6kN·m/kg22% higher | 59.4kN·m/kg |
| Stiffness to weight | 26.1MN·m/kg | 81.5MN·m/kg3.12x higher |
| Poisson's ratio | 0.33sourcetypical (handbook physical constant) | 0.21sourcetypical, 20 °C (ASTM-C848) |
| Shear modulus | 26.3GPa | 125GPa4.76x stiffer in shear |
| Bulk modulus | 68.6GPa | 174GPa |
| Speed of sound | 5,106m/s | 9,025m/s |
| Thermal | ||
| Thermal conductivity | 138W/m·Ksourcebase material: 5052 in O temper (same alloy, annealed); Kaiser typical | 24.7W/m·Ksourcetypical, 20 °C (ASTM-C408) |
| Thermal expansion | 23.8µm/m·Ksourcetypical, mean 20-100 °C | 8.2µm/m·Ksourcemean, 25-1000 °C (ASTM-C372) |
| 100 mm part over a 50 °C swing | 119µm growth | 41µm growth2.9x less |
| Specific heat | 963J/kg·Ksourceat 100 °C (212 °F); table covers O, H32, H34, H36, H38 | 880J/kg·Ksourcetypical, 100 °C (ASTM-E1269) |
| Heats up and cools (diffusivity) | 53.4mm²/s7.07x faster | 7.55mm²/s |
| Thermal shock resistance | 10,822W/m6.24x more resistant | 1,736W/m |
| Melting point | 605–650°Csourcemelting range | not sourced |
| Values for | 5052-H32, Kaiser Aluminum tube & pipe typical datasheet (mechanical, CTE, melting); MIL-HDBK-5J (Poisson, density, specific heat) | CoorsTek AD-96, nominal 96% Al2O3 sintered alumina, typical values; CoorsTek "Ceramic Seal Material Properties" (© 2018, 01899 F). AD-96 is the general 96% grade, not the ADS-96R substrate grade. |
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.
Questions
Is Aluminum 5052-H32 stronger than Ceramic Alumina 96%?
Ceramic Alumina 96% is stronger: its tensile strength is 221 MPa against yield strength 195 MPa for Aluminum 5052-H32 (13%).
Which is lighter, Aluminum 5052-H32 or Ceramic Alumina 96%?
Aluminum 5052-H32 is lighter: 2,685 kg/m³ against 3,720 kg/m³ for Ceramic Alumina 96%.
Which is stiffer, Aluminum 5052-H32 or Ceramic Alumina 96%?
Ceramic Alumina 96% is stiffer: Young's modulus 303 GPa against 70 GPa for Aluminum 5052-H32, so the same part in Ceramic Alumina 96% deflects less under the same load.
Which is lighter for the same job, Aluminum 5052-H32 or Ceramic Alumina 96%?
For the same stiffness or strength: Aluminum 5052-H32 is lighter for a strong rod or tie, strong beam, strong panel or plate; Ceramic Alumina 96% is lighter for a stiff rod or tie (tension), stiff beam (bending), stiff panel or plate.
| Part that must be | Aluminum 5052-H32 | Ceramic Alumina 96% |
|---|---|---|
| Stiff rod or tie (tension) | 3.12x heavier | lighter |
| Stiff beam (bending) | 1.5x heavier | lighter |
| Stiff panel or plate | 18% heavier | lighter |
| Strong rod or tie | lighter | 22% heavier |
| Strong beam | lighter | 27% heavier |
| Strong panel or plate | lighter | 30% heavier |
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 5052-H32 or Ceramic Alumina 96%?
Aluminum 5052-H32 conducts heat better: 138 W/m·K against 24.7 W/m·K for Ceramic Alumina 96%.
Which expands less with temperature?
Ceramic Alumina 96% expands less: 8.2 µm/m·K against 23.8 µm/m·K for Aluminum 5052-H32.