2030 Aluminum vs. ASTM A387 Grade 22L Class 1
2030 aluminum belongs to the aluminum alloys classification, while ASTM A387 grade 22L class 1 belongs to the iron alloys. There are 30 material properties with values for both materials. Properties with values for just one material (2, in this case) are not shown. Please note that the two materials have significantly dissimilar densities. This means that additional care is required when interpreting the data, because some material properties are based on units of mass, while others are based on units of area or volume.
For each property being compared, the top bar is 2030 aluminum and the bottom bar is ASTM A387 grade 22L class 1.
Metric UnitsUS Customary Units
Mechanical Properties
| Elastic (Young's, Tensile) Modulus, GPa | 70 | |
| 190 |
| Elongation at Break, % | 5.6 to 8.0 | |
| 20 |
| Fatigue Strength, MPa | 91 to 110 | |
| 160 |
| Poisson's Ratio | 0.33 | |
| 0.29 |
| Shear Modulus, GPa | 26 | |
| 74 |
| Shear Strength, MPa | 220 to 250 | |
| 310 |
| Tensile Strength: Ultimate (UTS), MPa | 370 to 420 | |
| 500 |
| Tensile Strength: Yield (Proof), MPa | 240 to 270 | |
| 230 |
Thermal Properties
| Latent Heat of Fusion, J/g | 390 | |
| 260 |
| Maximum Temperature: Mechanical, °C | 190 | |
| 460 |
| Melting Completion (Liquidus), °C | 640 | |
| 1470 |
| Melting Onset (Solidus), °C | 510 | |
| 1430 |
| Specific Heat Capacity, J/kg-K | 870 | |
| 470 |
| Thermal Conductivity, W/m-K | 130 | |
| 40 |
| Thermal Expansion, µm/m-K | 23 | |
| 13 |
Electrical Properties
| Electrical Conductivity: Equal Volume, % IACS | 34 | |
| 7.5 |
| Electrical Conductivity: Equal Weight (Specific), % IACS | 99 | |
| 8.6 |
Otherwise Unclassified Properties
| Base Metal Price, % relative | 10 | |
| 3.8 |
| Density, g/cm3 | 3.1 | |
| 7.9 |
| Embodied Carbon, kg CO2/kg material | 8.0 | |
| 1.7 |
| Embodied Energy, MJ/kg | 150 | |
| 23 |
| Embodied Water, L/kg | 1140 | |
| 58 |
Common Calculations
| Resilience: Ultimate (Unit Rupture Work), MJ/m3 | 21 to 26 | |
| 83 |
| Resilience: Unit (Modulus of Resilience), kJ/m3 | 390 to 530 | |
| 140 |
| Stiffness to Weight: Axial, points | 13 | |
| 13 |
| Stiffness to Weight: Bending, points | 45 | |
| 24 |
| Strength to Weight: Axial, points | 33 to 38 | |
| 18 |
| Strength to Weight: Bending, points | 37 to 40 | |
| 18 |
| Thermal Diffusivity, mm2/s | 50 | |
| 11 |
| Thermal Shock Resistance, points | 16 to 19 | |
| 14 |
Alloy Composition
Deprecated: Automatic conversion of false to array is deprecated in /home/public/compare.php on line 452
| Aluminum (Al), % | 88.9 to 95.2 | |
| 0 |
| Bismuth (Bi), % | 0 to 0.2 | |
| 0 |
| Carbon (C), % | 0 | |
| 0 to 0.1 |
| Chromium (Cr), % | 0 to 0.1 | |
| 2.0 to 2.5 |
| Copper (Cu), % | 3.3 to 4.5 | |
| 0 |
| Iron (Fe), % | 0 to 0.7 | |
| 95.2 to 96.8 |
| Lead (Pb), % | 0.8 to 1.5 | |
| 0 |
| Magnesium (Mg), % | 0.5 to 1.3 | |
| 0 |
| Manganese (Mn), % | 0.2 to 1.0 | |
| 0.3 to 0.6 |
| Molybdenum (Mo), % | 0 | |
| 0.9 to 1.1 |
| Phosphorus (P), % | 0 | |
| 0 to 0.025 |
| Silicon (Si), % | 0 to 0.8 | |
| 0 to 0.5 |
| Sulfur (S), % | 0 | |
| 0 to 0.025 |
| Titanium (Ti), % | 0 to 0.2 | |
| 0 |
| Zinc (Zn), % | 0 to 0.5 | |
| 0 |
| Residuals, % | 0 to 0.3 | |
| 0 |