Materials / Compare
Brass C260 vs. Titanium
Compare Brass C260 vs. Titanium 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 | 345MPasourcenominal, strip/flat, 0.5% extension (not 0.2% offset) | 885MPasourcetypical, plate (>0.187 in), annealed, 0.2% offset |
| Ultimate tensile strength | 427MPasourcenominal, strip/flat | 940MPasourcetypical, plate, annealed |
| Elongation at break | 23%sourcenominal, in 2.0 in., strip/flat | 16%sourcetypical, in 2 in., plate annealed |
| Young's modulus (stiffness) | 110GPasourcetypical, temper-independent | 107–122GPasourcetypical range, 20 °C |
| Density | 8,525kg/m³sourcenominal | 4,430kg/m³sourcenominal1.92x lighter |
| Strength to weight | 40.5kN·m/kg | 200kN·m/kg4.94x higher |
| Stiffness to weight | 12.9MN·m/kg | 25.8MN·m/kg2x higher |
| Poisson's ratio | 0.34sourcereference value at room temperature (Wieland-M30 = CuZn30 = C26000, rolled products) | 0.342sourcemean of TIMET measurements |
| Shear modulus | 41.2GPa | 42.7GPa4% stiffer in shear |
| Bulk modulus | 115GPa | 121GPa |
| Speed of sound | 3,597m/s | 5,084m/s |
| Thermal | ||
| Thermal conductivity | 121W/m·Ksourcetypical, 20 °C | 6.6W/m·Ksourcetypical, 20 °C, mill annealed |
| Thermal expansion | 20µm/m·Ksourcetypical, mean 20-300 °C | 9µm/m·Ksourcetypical, mean 0-100 °C |
| 100 mm part over a 50 °C swing | 100µm growth | 45µm growth2.22x less |
| Specific heat | 377J/kg·Ksourcetypical, 20 °C | 580J/kg·Ksourcetypical, 20 °C |
| Heats up and cools (diffusivity) | 37.7mm²/s14.7x faster | 2.57mm²/s |
| Thermal shock resistance | 12,510W/m3.35x more resistant | 3,730W/m |
| Melting point | 916–954°Csourcesolidus-liquidus | 1,630–1,650°Csourcemelting range |
| Max service temperature | not sourced | 400°Csourceupper recommended use temperature |
| Values for | C26000 cartridge brass, H02 half hard flat/strip: CDA Electronic Connector Design Guide (mechanical) + CDA alloy page (physical) | TIMETAL 6-4 (Ti-6Al-4V Grade 5) annealed plate typical (TIMET properties manual) + TIMET datasheet TMC-0150 physical properties |
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 Brass C260 stronger than Titanium?
Titanium is stronger: its yield strength is 885 MPa against 345 MPa for Brass C260 (2.57x).
Which is lighter, Brass C260 or Titanium?
Titanium is lighter: 4,430 kg/m³ against 8,525 kg/m³ for Brass C260.
Which is stiffer, Brass C260 or Titanium?
Titanium is stiffer: Young's modulus 115 GPa against 110 GPa for Brass C260, so the same part in Titanium deflects less under the same load.
Which is lighter for the same job, Brass C260 or Titanium?
For the same stiffness or strength: Titanium is lighter for a stiff rod or tie (tension), stiff beam (bending), stiff panel or plate, strong rod or tie, strong beam, strong panel or plate.
| Part that must be | Brass C260 | Titanium |
|---|---|---|
| Stiff rod or tie (tension) | 2x heavier | lighter |
| Stiff beam (bending) | 1.96x heavier | lighter |
| Stiff panel or plate | 1.95x heavier | lighter |
| Strong rod or tie | 4.94x heavier | lighter |
| Strong beam | 3.61x heavier | lighter |
| Strong panel or plate | 3.08x 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, Brass C260 or Titanium?
Brass C260 conducts heat better: 121 W/m·K against 6.6 W/m·K for Titanium.
Which expands less with temperature?
Titanium expands less: 9 µm/m·K against 20 µm/m·K for Brass C260.