Grade 13 Titanium vs. ISO-WD32260 Magnesium
Grade 13 titanium belongs to the titanium alloys classification, while ISO-WD32260 magnesium belongs to the magnesium alloys. There are 30 material properties with values for both materials. Properties with values for just one material (1, 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 grade 13 titanium and the bottom bar is ISO-WD32260 magnesium.
Metric UnitsUS Customary Units
Mechanical Properties
| Elastic (Young's, Tensile) Modulus, GPa | 110 | |
| 46 |
| Elongation at Break, % | 27 | |
| 4.5 to 6.0 |
| Fatigue Strength, MPa | 140 | |
| 150 to 190 |
| Poisson's Ratio | 0.32 | |
| 0.29 |
| Shear Modulus, GPa | 41 | |
| 18 |
| Shear Strength, MPa | 200 | |
| 190 to 200 |
| Tensile Strength: Ultimate (UTS), MPa | 310 | |
| 330 to 340 |
| Tensile Strength: Yield (Proof), MPa | 190 | |
| 230 to 250 |
Thermal Properties
| Latent Heat of Fusion, J/g | 420 | |
| 330 |
| Maximum Temperature: Mechanical, °C | 320 | |
| 120 |
| Melting Completion (Liquidus), °C | 1660 | |
| 600 |
| Melting Onset (Solidus), °C | 1610 | |
| 520 |
| Specific Heat Capacity, J/kg-K | 540 | |
| 970 |
| Thermal Conductivity, W/m-K | 22 | |
| 110 |
| Thermal Expansion, µm/m-K | 8.7 | |
| 27 |
Electrical Properties
| Electrical Conductivity: Equal Volume, % IACS | 3.6 | |
| 28 |
| Electrical Conductivity: Equal Weight (Specific), % IACS | 7.2 | |
| 140 |
Otherwise Unclassified Properties
| Base Metal Price, % relative | 37 | |
| 13 |
| Density, g/cm3 | 4.5 | |
| 1.9 |
| Embodied Carbon, kg CO2/kg material | 32 | |
| 23 |
| Embodied Energy, MJ/kg | 520 | |
| 160 |
| Embodied Water, L/kg | 210 | |
| 940 |
Common Calculations
| Resilience: Ultimate (Unit Rupture Work), MJ/m3 | 73 | |
| 14 to 19 |
| Resilience: Unit (Modulus of Resilience), kJ/m3 | 180 | |
| 560 to 700 |
| Stiffness to Weight: Axial, points | 13 | |
| 13 |
| Stiffness to Weight: Bending, points | 35 | |
| 63 |
| Strength to Weight: Axial, points | 19 | |
| 48 to 51 |
| Strength to Weight: Bending, points | 22 | |
| 56 to 58 |
| Thermal Diffusivity, mm2/s | 8.9 | |
| 63 |
| Thermal Shock Resistance, points | 24 | |
| 19 to 20 |
Alloy Composition
Deprecated: Automatic conversion of false to array is deprecated in /home/public/compare.php on line 452
| Carbon (C), % | 0 to 0.080 | |
| 0 |
| Hydrogen (H), % | 0 to 0.015 | |
| 0 |
| Iron (Fe), % | 0 to 0.2 | |
| 0 |
| Magnesium (Mg), % | 0 | |
| 92.7 to 94.8 |
| Nickel (Ni), % | 0.4 to 0.6 | |
| 0 |
| Nitrogen (N), % | 0 to 0.030 | |
| 0 |
| Oxygen (O), % | 0 to 0.1 | |
| 0 |
| Ruthenium (Ru), % | 0.040 to 0.060 | |
| 0 |
| Titanium (Ti), % | 98.5 to 99.56 | |
| 0 |
| Zinc (Zn), % | 0 | |
| 4.8 to 6.2 |
| Zirconium (Zr), % | 0 | |
| 0.45 to 0.8 |
| Residuals, % | 0 to 0.4 | |
| 0 to 0.3 |