Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 38:586–593
DOI 10.1007/s00170-007-1197-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Effect of process parameters on impact strength of Al-7%
Si alloy castings produced by VAEPC process
Sudhir Kumar & Pradeep Kumar & H. S. Shan
Received: 31 December 2006 / Accepted: 5 August 2007 / Published online: 4 September 2007
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007
Abstract The castings produced by the evaporative pattern
casting (EPC) process have blow holes. The blow holes in
EPC castings are because of the non-escape of the gas
produced as a result of burning of polystyrene pattern in the
sand mold. To overcome the problem of blow holes, the
EPC process is combined with the vacuum (V)- process.
The vacuum applied to EPC mold draws the decomposed
gases and improves the casting quality produced by the
EPC process. The developed hybrid process has been
termed as the vacuum assisted evaporative pattern casting
(VAEPC) process. The objective of this paper to inves-
tigates the effect of process parameters, i.e, degree of
vacuum, pouring temperature, grainfineness number, am-
plitude of vibration and time of vibration on the impact
strength of Al-7% Si alloy castings in VAEPC process. In
order to evaluate the effect of selected process parameters,
the response surface methodology (RSM) is used to
formulate a mathematical model which correlates the
independent process parameters with the desired impact
strength. The central composite rotatable design has been
used to conduct the experiments. The results indicate that
the impact strength decreases with increases in the
grainfineness number and pouring temperature. Whereas,
it has an inverse relationship with amplitude of vibration,
time of vibration and degree of vacuum. The best value of
impact strength (2.34 N/mm2) has been obtained at 400 mm
Hg degree of vacuum imposed, 650°C as pouring temper-
S. Kumar (*)
Centre for Advanced Technology,
Haryana Engineering College Jagadhri,
Haryana, India
e-mail: s_k_tomar02@yahoo.com
P. Kumar : H. S. Shan
Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Roorkee, Uttaranchal, India
ature, 60 as sand grainfineness number, 460 μm as
amplitude of vibration, and 70 s as time of vibration.
Keywords Impact strength . Process parameters .
Response surface methodology (RSM) . VAEPC process
1 Introduction and literature review
In order to maintain market position, foundries have to adapt
the constantly increasing demands of quality and performance
of their products. Numerous examples of high quality castings
illustrate the potential of EPC process and much advancement
in this process has taken place in recent years. Still, there are a
few areas that need attention with regard to the series
production of castings with reproducible quality features [1].
In EPC process, pattern is usually made of expandable
polystyrene (EPS) which increases dimensional accuracy,
and gives improved casting quality as compared to con-
ventional casting [2]. Also, the sand mold contains no
binder and moisture, and hence the refractoriness of the
mold entirely depends upon the molding sand [3]. Any type
of molding sand can be used for the process as long as the
sand resists the temperature of the molten metal being
poured [3]. Silica sand, zircon sand, olivine sand and
chromites can be used as molding sand. Due to high degree
of sand reclamination in EPC process, expensive sands
such as zircon or chromites can be used for mold [4]. The
strength of the mold is determined by frictional resistance
between the sand grains. The strength of the mold is higher
with angular grains, although rounded grains provide a
higher bulk density [5, 6]. Multiple gates have little effect
on casting with oriented vertically pattern, top gating was
increases the defects whereas bottom gating completely
eliminates the defects [7]. The mechanism of misrun
formation in EPC process has been investigated in A356
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 38:586–593
aluminum castings with respect to surface appearance, fill
pattern and microstructure of various misruns [7]. Warner et
al. [8] had suggested that low metal velocity reduces or
eliminates folds, bilsters and internal porosity defects.
The castings produced by EPC process have blow holes.
The blow holes and/or gas porosity in EPC castings is
because of the non-escape of the gas produced as a result of
burning of polystyrene pattern in the sand mold. To
overcome the problem of blow holes, the EPC process is
combined with the vacuum sealed molding process (V-
process). The vacuum applied to the EPC mold draws the
decomposed gases and improves quality of casting pro-
duced by the EPC process. This new hybrid process has
been termed as VAEPC process.
In this paper an, attempt has been made to evaluate the
effect of process parameters on the impact strength of Al-7%
Si alloy castings in the VAEPC process. In order to evaluate
the effect of process parameters on the impact strength, RSM
was applied. The RSM was used to correlate the independent
process parameters with the impact strength by a mathemat-
ical model. The second order response surface was found
sufficient for the present work. The central composite
rotatable design was used to plan the experiments.
2 Selection of coating material
There are several kinds of evaporative pattern coating with
different thermo-physical characteristic, which are specially
designed to meet number of requirements of the EPC process
[9]. Dieter [10] used Zircon flour coating for aluminum alloy
where as Trumbulovic [9] used kaolin and talc for the
coating. Sodium silicate coating is not recommended
because they lack permeability and can lead to metal
splashing during mold filling. For the cast iron, a coating
based on iron powder has been found successful in
preventing metal penetration problems [11]. The high
pouring temperature ranges of cast iron and steel usually
dictate the selection of a silica or mullite type refractory [12].
Kumar et al. [13] performed coating analysis using filler
materials siliminite, quartz, and aluminum silicate in
combination with zircon flour and binder for considering
cost economy. In addition, zircon flour with aluminum
silicate was found to be low dielectric constant, high density,
high viscosity, and pH value nearer to neutral refractory.
3 Vacuum assisted evaporative pattern casting process
Experimental set of VAEPC process is shown in Fig. 1. The
VAEPC process starts with the pre-expansion of beads,
usually polystyrene, which contain pentane as blowing
agents. After the pre-expanded beads are stabilized, they
587
Fig. 1 Experimental set up of vacuum assisted evaporative pattern
casting process
are blown into the mold to form pattern sections. When the
beads are in the mold, a steam cycle causes them to fully
expand and fuse together; this process is followed by an in-
mold cooling cycle. The pattern is made to the exact shape
of required components, including all shrinkage and ma-
chining allowances. Feeders, running and gating systems
made in polystyrene are added at the suitable points. The
pattern, coated with suitable refractory wash (Zircon +
Aluminum Silicate + Bentonite), is embedded in dry,
unbounded sand, which is vibrated to produce a rigid mold.
Then the mold is encapsulated between two plastic films and
vacuum is applied in the sand mold. Vacuum thus rigidizes
the mold and mold hardness greater than 85 BHN is
achieved. On pouring, the molten metal replaces the
polystyrene pattern, precisely duplicating all of the features
of the pattern. Thus quality (dimensional accuracy, surface
roughness) of the pattern is of utmost importance as it has
the direct bearing on the quality of the castings. After shake
out the casting requires minimal fettling because the
expandable pattern requires no mold joint line and cores
may be entirely eliminated. The molding sand is entirely
reclaimable with cooling and classifying the only treatments
required.
4 Process parameters of vaepc process
In order to identify the process parameters that affect the
quality of the castings produced by VAEPC process, an
Ishikawa cause-effect diagram was constructed, as shown in
Fig. 2. The Ishikwa cause-effect diagram depicts that the
following process parameters may affect the impact
strength of the castings produced by VAEPC process.
588 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 38:586–593

Alloy Vacuum Vibration Table 2 Components of central composite second order rotatable
Frequency design
Pouring
temperature
Degree of Amplitude
Number of Number of Total Value
Pouring
time
vacuum variables of
Time
K Factorial Star Center N α
VAEPC Process points points points
(Impact Strength)
Type 3 8 6 6 20 1.682
Size of 4 16 8 7 31 2.000
Shape beads Thickness
5 16 10 6 32 2.000
Size & size Density Slurry
distribution 6 32 12 9 53 2.378
material
Sand Pattern Coating
Fig. 2 Ishikawa cause effect diagram of VAEPC process 5 Response surface methodology

1. Molding sand based variables-type, shape, size and size Response surface methodology is a collection of mathe-
distribution matical and statistical technique useful for analyzing prob-
2. Vibration based variables-frequency, amplitude of lems in which several independent parameters influence a
vibration, time of vibration dependent variable or response, and the goal is to optimize
3. Vacuum based variables-degree of vacuum imposed the response [14]. In many experimental conditions, it is
4. Pouring material based variables-pouring time and possible to represent independent factors in quantitative
temperature form as given in Eq. 1. Then these factors can be thought of
5. Pattern based variable-density and size of polystyrene as having a functional relationship or response as follows:
beads Y ¼ φðx1 ; x2 ; :::; xk Þ
er ð1Þ
6. Coating based variables-material slurry, thickness
Between the response Y and x1, x2,...., xk of k quantitative
The following process parameters were selected to factors. The function Φ is called response surface or
visualize their effect on the impact strength of castings of response function. The residual er measures the experimental
Al-7%Si alloy produced by VAEPC process. errors. For a given set of independent variables, a character-
1. Degree of vacuum istic surface is responded. When the mathematical form of Φ
2. Pouring temperature is not known, it can be approximated satisfactorily within the
3. Grain fineness number experimental region by a polynomial. Higher the degree of
4. Amplitude of vibration polynomial better is the correlation but at the same time
5. Vibration time costs of experimentation become higher.
For the present work, RSM has been applied for
The other parameters such as frequency of vibration
developing the mathematical models in the form of multiple
(23.35 Hz), pouring time (5 sec.), density (22 kg/m3), and
regression equations for the quality characteristic of the
size of polystyrene beads (1/4 inch.) were kept fixed during
casting. In applying the RSM, the dependent variable was
the entire investigation. The range of the selected process
viewed as a surface to which a mathematical model is
parameters were decided by conducting the experiments
fitted. For the development of regression equations related
with one variable at a time approach. The process parame-
ters, their designated symbols and range are given in Table 1.

Table 1 Process parameters, symbols and their ranges

Process parameters Symbol Levels

−2 −1 0 1 2

Degree of vacuum A (mm Hg) 200 250 300 350 400

Pouring temperature B (°C) 650 675 700 725 750
Grain fineness number C (AFS No.) 60 80 100 120 140
Amplitude of vibration D (μm) 400 430 460 490 520
Time of vibration E (s) 40 55 70 85 100 Fig. 3 [(a) Expandable polystyrene pattern, (b) Casting of pattern of
Al-7%Si Alloy]
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 38:586–593 589

45º±2º
scheme, based on central composite rotatable design, which
2
fits the second order response surfaces very accurately.

5.1 Central composite rotatable design

55±0.6 10±0.11 In this design, standard error remains the same at all the points
All dimensions in mm 8±0.11 which are equidistant from the center of the region. This
Fig. 4 Impact test specimen criterion of rotatability can be explained as follows. Let the
point (0, 0... 0) represent the center of the region in which the
to various quality characteristic of VAEPC process, the relation between Y and x is under investigation. From the result
second order response surface has been assumed as [15]: of any experiments, the standard errors, er of Y can be com-
puted at any point on the fitted surface. The standard error
X
k X
k X
k
acts as a function of the co-ordinates xi’s of the point. Because
Y ¼ b0 þ bi x i þ bii x2i þ bii xi xj þ er ð2Þ
i¼1 i¼1 i < j¼2
of rotatability condition, the standard error is same at all
equidistant point with the distance ρ from the center of region,
This assumed surface Y contains linear, squared and cross i.e., for all points for which the following equation holds.
product terms of variables xi’s. In order to estimate the
regression coefficients, a number of experimental design x21 þ x22 þ ::: þ x2k ¼ ρ2 ¼ constant ð3Þ
techniques are available. Box and Hunter [16] has proposed a

Table 3 Experimental design,

average impact strength values Std Run Degree Pouring AFS Amplitude Time of Impact strength
order of vacuum temperature number of vibration vibration (N/mm2)

1 17 250 675 80 430 85 2.25

2 32 350 675 80 430 55 2.10
3 5 250 725 80 430 55 2.00
4 19 350 725 80 430 85 2.30
5 12 250 675 120 430 55 2.14
6 15 350 675 120 430 85 2.30
7 26 250 725 120 430 85 1.80
8 13 350 725 120 430 55 2.20
9 1 250 675 80 490 55 2.17
10 14 350 675 80 490 85 2.30
11 10 250 725 80 490 85 2.01
12 29 350 725 80 490 55 2.37
13 7 250 675 120 490 85 2.21
14 22 350 675 120 490 55 2.25
15 23 250 725 120 490 55 2.03
16 11 350 725 120 490 85 2.40
17 27 200 700 100 460 70 1.90
18 25 400 700 100 460 70 2.30
19 8 300 650 100 460 70 2.35
20 20 300 750 100 460 70 2.30
21 4 300 700 60 460 70 2.31
22 18 300 700 140 460 70 2.13
23 6 300 700 100 400 70 2.00
24 31 300 700 100 520 70 2.13
25 30 300 700 100 460 40 2.20
26 2 300 700 100 460 100 2.25
27 28 300 700 100 460 70 2.35
28 16 300 700 100 460 70 2.27
29 3 300 700 100 460 70 2.25
30 21 300 700 100 460 70 2.23
31 24 300 700 100 460 70 2.24
32 9 300 700 100 460 70 2.25
590 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 38:586–593

Table 4 Pooled ANOVA-

impact strength Source SS DF MS F-value Prob>F

Model 0.55 10 0.055 17.91 < 0.0001 significant

A 0.24 1 0.24 78.75 < 0.0001
B 0.021 1 0.021 6.84 0.0162
C 0.012 1 0.012 3.81 0.0644
D 0.035 1 0.035 11.23 0.003
E 0.007 1 0.007 2.28 # 0.146
AB 0.098 1 0.098 31.78 < 0.0001
AE 0.013 1 0.013 4.12 0.0553
BE 0.015 1 0.015 4.88 0.0384
A2 0.047 1 0.047 15.14 0.0008
D2 0.069 1 0.069 22.59 0.0001
Residual 0.065 21 0.0031
Lack of Fit 0.055 16 0.00344 1.8 0.2679 not significant
Pure Error 0.0095 5 0.00191
Cor Total 0.61 31
Std. Dev 0.06 R-Squared 0.8951
Mean 2.20 Adj R-Squared 0.8451
C.V. 2.52 Pred R-Squared 0.7511
PRESS 0.15 Adeq Precision 15.51
Significant at 95% confidence level, # The model is hierarchical

Central composite rotatable design is subdivided into
three parts
– Points related to 2k design, where k is the number of
parameters and 2 is the number of levels at which the
parameters are kept during experimentation.
– Extra points called star points positioned on the co-
ordinate axis to form a central composite design with a
star arm of size ‘α’.
– A few more points are added at the center to give
roughly equal precision for response Y with a circle of
radius unity [16].
The factor ‘α’ is the radius of the circle or sphere on
which the star points lie. With k≥5 the experimental size is
reduced by using half replication of 2k factorial design.
With half replication, α become 2(k-1)/4. Also no replication
is needed to find error mean square. The error mean square

Fig. 5 Normal probability plot Normal Plot of Residuals

of residuals for impact strength

99
Normal % Probability

95
90

80
70

50

30
20

10
5

-1 .87 -0 .85 0.16 1.18 2.20

Studentized Residuals
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 38:586–593 591

Fig. 6 Plot of actual v/s pre- Predicted vs. Actual

dicted response of impact
strength 2.40

2
2.25

Predicted
2.10

1.95

1.80

1.80 1.95 2.10 2.25 2.40

can be found out by replicating the center points. The com-
ponents of central composite second order rotatable design
for different number of variables are shown in Table 2.
Actual
been prepared from the middle step of the castings. The
impact test was carried out on an impact testing machine.
The experimental values for making molds along with the
average values of impact strength are given in Table 3.

6 Experimental procedure
As suggested by the experimental design, 32 castings of the
three stepped pattern were produced which is shown in Fig. 3.
The Al-7%Si alloy was poured in the VAEPC molds. The
standard charpy V-notch specimen as shown in Fig. 4 has
7 Results, analysis and discussion
The results of the second order response surface model fitted in
the form of analysis of variance (ANOVA) after ignoring the
insignificant terms are given in Table 4. The determination

Fig. 7 Plot of residuals v/s Residuals vs. Predicted

predicted response for impact
strength
3.00
Studentized Residuals

1.50

0.00
2

-1 .50

-3 .00

1.86 1.99 2.12 2.24 2.37

Predicted
592 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 38:586–593

coefficient (R squared) indicates the fitness level for the model. The value of Prob.> F in Table 4 for the model is less
In the present investigation, the value of the determination than 0.05 which indicates that the model is significant. In
coefficient (R squared=0.8951) indicates that only 10 % of the the same way, degree of vacuum (A), pouring temperature
total variations are not taken into account. The value of the (B), amplitude of vibration (D), interaction effect of degree
adjusted determination coefficient (Adj. R squared=0.8451) is of vacuum with pouring temperature (AB), interaction
also high, which indicates a high level of accuracy of the model. effect of degree of vacuum with time of vibration (AE),
Predicted R Squared (0.7511) is a reasonable agreement with interaction effect of pouring temperature with time of
the adjusted R Squared. Adequate precision (15.51) compares vibration (BE) and second order term of degree of vacuum
the range of the predicted values with average prediction error (A), amplitude of vibration (D) have significant effect. The
at the design points. At the same time a relatively lower value of rest of terms are said to be insignificant. The lack-of-fit
the coefficient of variation (CV=2.52) indicates improved term is non significant as it is desired.
precision and reliability of the conducted experiments. After The normal probability plot of the residuals for impact
ignoring the non-significant terms, the response surface strength is shown in Fig. 5 which revealed that the residuals
equation for impact strength is given as follows: are falling on the straight line, means that errors are
distributed normally. All the above results indicate an
Im pact StrengthðIS Þ ¼ 0:908  0:034  A  0:014  B  1:104 excellent adequacy of the regression model. Figure 6 shows
 103  C þ 0:050  D  1:578  105 the comparison between observed value and predicted
 A2  5:357  105  D2 þ 6:25  105 ð4Þ value as calculated from the model. It can be seen that the
regression model is fairly well fitted with the observed
 A  B þ 3:75  105  A  E  8:166
values. Figure 7 shows the plot of residuals and predicted
 105  B  E
9:50  103 values which revealed that they have no obvious pattern
.

a b
2.32
Impact Strength (N/mm 2 )

2.26 2.32
Impact Strength (N/mm 2 )

2.20 2.26

2.13 2.20

2.07 2.13

2.07

350
120
325 725
110 120
300 713
100 110
Deg. of Vacuum (mm Hg)275 90 700
100
Grainfineness Number (AFS No.)
250 80 Pouring Temperature ( °C)688 90
Grainfineness Number (AFS No.)
675 80

c d
2.32
2.32
Impact Strength (N/mm 2 )

2.26
Impact Strength (N/mm 2 )

2.26
2.20
2.20
2.13
2.13

2.07 2.07

490
12 0 85
475 120
110 78
460 110
100
70
Amplit. of Vibration (um)445 90 100
Grainfineness Number (AFS No.) Time of Vibration (sec) 62 90
430 80
Grainfineness Number (AFS No.)
55 80

Fig. 8 (a–d) Combined effect of process variables on impact strength

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 38:586–593
and unusual structure. This implies that the models pro-
posed are adequate and there is no reason to suspect any vio-
lation of the independence or constant variance assumption.
Using Eq. 4, the response surfaces have been plotted to
study the effect of process parameters on impact strength.
Figure 8 (a–d) represents 3D surface graphs for impact
strength. It is clear from Fig. 8 (a), impact strength decrease
with the increase in the grainfineness number of the sand
grains. This may be attributed to the reason that large
amount of fines are available with a sand of high grainfine-
ness number. These fines settle on the pattern surface due to
the vibrational energy, resulting in reduced voidage at the
mold cavity surface. Due to the reduced voidage in the sand
mixture, there is reduction in the radiative heat transfer co-
efficient. Thus the solidification rate reduces, which in turn
reduces the impact strength of Al-7%Si alloy castings pro-
duced by VAEPC process. It is represented from Fig. 8 (a, c,
d) impact strength increases with an increase in degree of
vacuum imposed, time of vibration and amplitude of vi-
bration up to a certain level. The higher the degree of com-
paction, the more effective contact areas of sand particles in
a sand aggregate. This implies that solidification rate in-
creases if the degree of compactness of the sand aggregate
increases. Hence impact strength increases with the increases
in degree of vacuum, time of vibration, and amplitude of
vibration. During pouring and solidification some gases may
be evolved and if the vacuum applied is sufficient enough to
suck these gases through the sand pores, the microporosity
of the casting reduces.
The higher temperature of the liquid metal provides
better feeding of liquid metal at the interdendritic cavities.
At the same time, solubility of hydrogen gas with the liquid
metal increases at the higher pouring temperature of the
liquid metal. The dissolved hydrogen gas comes out of the
molten metal during solidification due to it lower solubility
at lower temperatures. Some of the gases are entrapped
which increases the porosity in the castings. Further, the
higher the degree of the superheat present in the molten
metal, the greater the solidification time (reduced solidifi-
cation rate). Hence impact strength is reduced with the
increase in pouring temperature [Fig. 8 (b)].
8 Conclusion
The response surface methodology was a useful tool to
investigate the optimum conditions for the impact strength.
593
Impact strength of Al-7%Si alloy allows the casting
increase with increase in amplitude of vibration, time of
vibration and degree of vacuum imposed. Whereas, it
decreases with increase in grainfineness number and
pouring temperature. The ANOVA revealed that degree of
vacuum, pouring temperature, and amplitude of vibration
has a significant effect. The best value of impact strength
(2.34 N/mm2) has been obtained at 400 mm Hg degree of
vacuum imposed, 650°C as pouring temperature, 60 as sand
grainfineness number, 460 μm as amplitude of vibration,
and 70 s as time of vibration.
References
1. Hahn O (1999) Influence of the coating on the mold filling
mechanisms in the lost foam casting of aluminum. Cast Plant Tech
Int 15:9–15
2. Kuo J-H, Chen J-C (2003) Mold filling analysis in lost foam
casting process for aluminum alloys and its experimental
validation. Mats Trans 44(10):2169–2174
3. Lal S, Khan RH (1981) Current status of vacuum sealed molding
process. Indi Foun Joun 27:12–18
4. Clegg AJ (1985) Expanded polystyrene molding-A status report.
Found J Trad 159:177–196
5. Green GA (1982) Superior castings and improved environment
from V process. Cast 28:30–36
6. Dieter HB (1967) Sand without binder for making full mold
castings. Mod Cast 51:133–146
7. Tschopp MA, Wang QG, DeWyse MJ (2002) Mechanisms of
misrun formation in aluminum Lost Foam Castings. Ame Found
Soci Trans 110:1371–1386
8. Warner MH, Miller BA, littleton HE (1998) Pattern pyrolysis
defects reduction in lost foam casting. Ame Found Soci Trans
104:777–787
9. Acimovic Z, Pavlovic Lj, Andric Lj (2003) Synthesis and
characterization of the cordierite ceramics from nonstandard raw
materials for application in foundry. Mats letts 57:2651–2656
10. Dieter HB (1967) Aluminum castings from expanded polystyrene
pattern. Ame Found Soci Trans 73:133–146
11. Clegg AJ (1978) The full mold process-a review part II:
Production of castings. Found Trad Jour 145:393–402
12. Salah D (2002) Reactive lost foam coating, proceeding of the 65th
world foundry congress Gyeongju, Korea, pp 1015–1022
13. Kumar S, Kumar P, Shan HS (2006) Comparative study of some
refractory fillers materials with Zircon flour in Evaporative Pattern
casting process. Trans Ame Found Soc 104:987–1000
14. Douglas Montgomery C (1976) Design and analysis of experi-
ments. Wiley, New York
15. Cochran G, Cox GM (1962) Experimental design, Asia Publish-
ing House, New Delhi
16. Box GEP, Hunter JS (1957) Multifactor experimental designs for
exploring responses surfaces. J Ann Math Statistics 28:195–242