nursecosmo wrote:
kdlewis1975 wrote:
...titanium will probably have less flex. It is also very susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement, though this may less problem for a car than for a jet...the main reason aircraft structures are generally aluminum instead of titanium.
Umm...no. The main reason that the whole airframe and skin of most aircraft aren't made of titanium is weight and
coshttp://www.titanium.com/titanium/aerospac.cfmt. Niether aircraft nor automobiles see a lot of H2 during their lifetimes, unless they are fuel cell powered.
Ummm...maybe there's more to it...I wasn't able to read your link. As you pointed out, the biggest reason is probably cost due to it being so strong and difficult work in traditional manner. It's easier to make complex structures from aluminum than titanium.
"The two most useful properties of the metal form are corrosion resistance and the highest strength-to-weight ratio of any metal." and "Titanium is 60% more dense than aluminium, but more than twice as strong as the most commonly used 6061-T6 aluminium alloy." from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium . So, in theory, if one wants a structure of X strength, a titanium part should weigh 20% less than the equivalent aluminum part for the same strength value.
If you have water + corrosion of metals going on, then you have a source of hydrogen. The oxidation of iron to rust liberates hydrogen due to the reduction of water. Lead acid batteries can be a source as well for similar reasons. "High-strength and low-alloy steels, nickel and titanium alloys are most susceptible" from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement. How much of that would a car see over it's lifetime...hard to say. I was just suggestingit as a potential issue.
Now in the case of vegiH's application, the embrittlement issue may not a big issue, but it may be a reason to go with aluminum. The choice may ultimately come down to which material has the better fatigue properties and cost.