Materials / Compare
Brass C260 vs. Zinc Zamak 3
Compare Brass C260 vs. Zinc Zamak 3 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) | 221MPasourcetypical |
| Ultimate tensile strength | 427MPasourcenominal, strip/flat | 283MPasourcetypical |
| Elongation at break | 23%sourcenominal, in 2.0 in., strip/flat | 10%sourcetypical, in 2 in. |
| Young's modulus (stiffness) | 110GPasourcetypical, temper-independent | 85.5GPasourcetypical |
| Density | 8,525kg/m³sourcenominal | 6,600kg/m³sourcetypical |
| Strength to weight | 40.5kN·m/kg21% higher | 33.5kN·m/kg |
| Stiffness to weight | 12.9MN·m/kg | 13MN·m/kg |
| Poisson's ratio | 0.34sourcereference value at room temperature (Wieland-M30 = CuZn30 = C26000, rolled products) | 0.27sourcetypical, Zamak 3 hot-chamber die cast |
| Shear modulus | 41.2GPa22% stiffer in shear | 33.7GPa |
| Bulk modulus | 115GPa | 62GPa |
| Speed of sound | 3,597m/s | 3,599m/s |
| Thermal | ||
| Thermal conductivity | 121W/m·Ksourcetypical, 20 °C | 113W/m·Ksourcetypical |
| Thermal expansion | 20µm/m·Ksourcetypical, mean 20-300 °C | 27.4µm/m·Ksourcetypical |
| 100 mm part over a 50 °C swing | 100µm growth37% less | 137µm growth |
| Specific heat | 377J/kg·Ksourcetypical, 20 °C | 419J/kg·Ksourcetypical |
| Heats up and cools (diffusivity) | 37.7mm²/s | 40.9mm²/s8% faster |
| Thermal shock resistance | 12,510W/m1.61x more resistant | 7,782W/m |
| Melting point | 916–954°Csourcesolidus-liquidus | 381–387°Csourcemelting range |
| Values for | C26000 cartridge brass, H02 half hard flat/strip: CDA Electronic Connector Design Guide (mechanical) + CDA alloy page (physical) | Zamak 3 (ASTM B86 die cast), Nathan Trotter (zinc alloy producer) technical data sheet, typical values |
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 Zinc Zamak 3?
Brass C260 is stronger: its yield strength is 345 MPa against 221 MPa for Zinc Zamak 3 (1.56x).
Which is lighter, Brass C260 or Zinc Zamak 3?
Zinc Zamak 3 is lighter: 6,600 kg/m³ against 8,525 kg/m³ for Brass C260.
Which is stiffer, Brass C260 or Zinc Zamak 3?
Brass C260 is stiffer: Young's modulus 110 GPa against 85.5 GPa for Zinc Zamak 3, so the same part in Brass C260 deflects less under the same load.
Which is lighter for the same job, Brass C260 or Zinc Zamak 3?
For the same stiffness or strength: Brass C260 is lighter for a strong rod or tie, strong beam; Zinc Zamak 3 is lighter for a stiff beam (bending), stiff panel or plate, strong panel or plate.
| Part that must be | Brass C260 | Zinc Zamak 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Stiff rod or tie (tension) | about equal | about equal |
| Stiff beam (bending) | 14% heavier | lighter |
| Stiff panel or plate | 19% heavier | lighter |
| Strong rod or tie | lighter | 21% heavier |
| Strong beam | lighter | 4% heavier |
| Strong panel or plate | 3% 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 Zinc Zamak 3?
Brass C260 conducts heat better: 121 W/m·K against 113 W/m·K for Zinc Zamak 3.
Which expands less with temperature?
Brass C260 expands less: 20 µm/m·K against 27.4 µm/m·K for Zinc Zamak 3.