DOI: 10.1002/adem.

201500407

FULL PAPER
Evaluation of Magnesium Die-Casting Alloys for Elevated
Temperature Applications: Castability**
By Mark A. Easton,* Suming Zhu, Trevor B. Abbott, Matthew Dargusch, Morris Murray,
Gary Savage, Norbert Hort and Mark A. Gibson

This paper presents a thorough evaluation of the castability of the most common Mg die-casting alloys
developed for elevated temperature applications. The alloys evaluated include AS31, AJ52, MRI153A,
MRI153M, MRI230D, AXJ530, AE44, and AM-HP2plus. Among the various alloys evaluated,
AE44, MRI153A, and AS31 are found to have better castability than the other alloys. AM-HP2plus
also has acceptable castability, but it shows signs of hot tearing in some samples. The alloys containing
significant levels of Ca, such as MRI153M, MRI230D, and AXJ530, tend to oxidize rapidly, leading to
poor melt handling. The comparison of the castability of the selected alloys sheds some light on alloying
elements that are of greatest importance in developing a castable alloy.

1. Introduction some of the greatest greenhouse benefits from lightweight

Amongst the most attractive applications for Mg alloys in
the automobile industry are powertrain components where
[*] Prof. M. A. Easton, Dr. S. Zhu
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineer-
ing, RMIT University, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia
Formally with Department of Materials Engineering, Monash
University, Clayton 3800, Australia
E-mail: mark.easton@rmit.edu.au
Dr. T. B. Abbott
Magontec Limited, Sydney, New South Wales 2000, Australia
Dr. G. Savage, Dr. M. A. Gibson
CSIRO Manufacturing Flagship, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
Dr. M. Dargusch
Defence Materials Technology Centre, School of Mechanical
and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
Dr. M. Murray
M. Murray & Associates, Briar Hill, Victoria 3088, Australia
Dr. N. Hort
Magnesium Innovation Centre, Helmholtz-Zentrum Gees-
thacht, Max-Planck-Straße 1, 21502, Geesthacht, Germany
[**] This work was performed with the CAST Co-operative Research
Centre, which was formed under, and was funded in part by, the
Australian Governments Co-operative Research Centre pro-
gram. Ms. Yeannette Lizama is thanked for the task of cutting
up the castings and polishing the sections for metallography.
Dr. Vinay Tyagi is thanked for assisting with some of the casting
classification. Some of the authors (M. E., S. Z., T. A. and
M. G.) acknowledge the support of the Australian Research
Council through linkage grant LP130100828.
components can be achieved.[1–4] For powertrain components,
Mg alloys are required to possess excellent mechanical
properties, especially elevated temperature creep resistance
as the operative temperatures are in the range of 150–200  C.
On the other hand, since the powertrain components are
normally produced by high-pressure die-casting, the alloys
also need to have sufficient castability.
The most commonly used Mg alloys are those based on the
Mg–Al system, for example AZ91 (Mg–9Al–1Zn, wt%) and
AM60 (Mg–6Al–0.3Mn). These alloys have good mechanical
properties at room temperature, excellent die-castability, and
adequate corrosion resistance. However, Mg–Al alloys suffer
from poor strength at elevated temperatures.[5–7] As such,
considerable efforts have been undertaken into the develop-
ment of Mg alloys with improved mechanical properties at
elevated temperatures.[6,8] Most alloys developed for elevated
temperature applications are based on the Mg–Al system with
alloying additions such as Si, Sr, Ca, and rare earth (RE),
although an alloy with RE as the primary alloying constituent
is also considered. Typical alloys include AS31 (Mg–3Al–1Si),
AJ52 (Mg–5Al–2Sr), MRI153A (Mg–9Al–1Ca–0.1Sr), MRI153M
(Mg–8Al–1Ca–0.3Sr), MRI230D (Mg–6.5Al–2Ca–1Sn–0.3Sr),
AXJ530 (Mg–5Al–3Ca–0.2Sr), AE42 (Mg–4Al–2RE), AE44
(Mg–4Al–4RE), and AM-HP2plus (Mg–3.5RE–0.4Zn). Recently,
the current authors[9] evaluated the mechanical properties
including creep resistance of the above Mg alloys. It
was shown that a number of Mg alloys have mechanical
properties close to, and in some cases, superior to the
common high-pressure die cast Al alloy, A380. In particular,
AXJ530, MRI230, and AM-HP2plus showed outstanding
strength at both room and high temperatures while AE44

ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2016, 18, No. 6 © 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim wileyonlinelibrary.com 953
 M. A. Easton et al. /Evaluation of Magnesium Die-Casting Alloys. . .
FULL PAPER

was found to have an excellent combination of strength,
ductility, and creep resistance.
While there have been a number of reviews on the
development of Mg alloys,[6,10] only very qualitative descrip-
tions have been used for castability. This is not only due
to the difficulty in quantifying the important aspects of
castability, but also because the alloys compared have been
processed under quite different conditions. Hot tearing is
an important consideration in castability and there is an
increasing amount of data available in the literature on the
hot tearing susceptibility of Mg alloys.[11–25] However, this is
only one aspect of castability and the other aspects include
i) fluidity,[26,27] i.e., the ability to fill a die, especially thin
sections; ii) propensity to form internal and/or external flow
defects, such as porosity;[28] and iii) ease of melt handling. A
recent investigation has attempted to develop a castability
index for Mg alloys, which is based only on hot tearing
susceptibility.[29] The current authors, in contrast, have
developed a visual scheme[30–32] that can evaluate castability
more comprehensively using a specifically designed die.
In this work, the castability of the most common Mg die-
casting alloys developed for elevated temperature applica-
tions is evaluated under the same casting conditions, with an
aim of understanding how compositional factors can influ-
ence the development of a castable alloy.
2. Experimental Section
2.1. Alloys
In this study of alloy castability, the following Mg die-
casting alloys developed for elevated temperature applica-
tions are evaluated: AS31, AJ52, MRI153A, MRI153M,
MRI230D, AE44, and AM-HP2plus. The alloy compositions
determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma – Optical
Emission Spectroscopy are provided in Table 1. Some alloys
were made from elemental additions (AE44, AJ52, AXJ530,
AS31), while the other alloys were supplied directly (MRI
alloys). It is noted that in the preparation of the alloys that
there were some variations from the target compositions.
Mg–Al alloys including AZ91, AM20 (Mg–2Al–0.3Mn),
AM50 (Mg–5Al–0.3Mn), and AM60, together with ZA124
(Mg–12Zn–4Al), were used as a baseline comparison as they
have been reported on previously.[32]
2.2. Casting Procedure
The casting procedure has been described in detail
previously.[32] The key elements are that the alloy melts were
held in an uncoated mild steel crucible in a resistance furnace
at approximately 100  C above the liquidus of the particular
alloy protected by AM-cover (HFC-134a in N2 carrier gas).[33]
Alloys were cast using a Toshiba cold-chamber die-casting
machine into the castability die under four different
conditions with the combinations of nominal die temper-
atures of 180  C (measured temperature 150–160  C) and
250  C (measured temperature 180 190 C) and plunger
velocities of 1.3 and 2.0 m s 1. Ten to fifteen warm-up shots
were undertaken before ten castings were made under each
condition with a cycle time of 60 s. The cycle time was kept
constant for all castings and die spray was used after each
shot. The gate velocities and cavity fill times were approxi-
mately 22 m s 1 and 31.3 ms, respectively, for the 1.3 m s 1
plunger speed and 31.3 m s 1 and 20 ms for the 2.0 m s 1
plunger speed. For the plunger velocity of 1.3 m s 1 the
changeover position was 215 mm while for the plunger
velocity of 2.0 m s 1 it was 205 mm.
Castings were made into a three cavity tensile die[23] to
produce samples for mechanical property and creep testing
which were evaluated elsewhere.[9] These castings were used
to determine hot tearing susceptibility of the alloys as has
been done previously using a scale from 0 (no hot tearing) to
4 (fully cracked).[25]
2.3. Castability Rating Methodology
Castings were rated according to a previously developed
visual scheme considering several quality factors of die-
castings.[32] These were filling, which is related to the melt

Table 1. Chemical compositions (wt%) of the alloys in this study determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma – Optical Emission Spectroscopy.

Alloy Al Si Ca Sr Sn Mn Zn Ce La Nd Pr Y

AZ91 8.88 – – – – 0.19 0.74 – – – – –

AM60 6.26 – – – – 0.29 0.1 – – – – –
AS31 3.52 0.56 – – – 0.27 – – – – – –
AJ52 5.2 – 0.07 1.86 – 0.25a) – – – – – –
MRI153A 8.32 – 1.01 0.09 – 0.22 0.75 – – – – –
MRI153M 7.73 – 1.06 0.30 – 0.25 – - – – – –
MRI230D 6.49 – 2.00 0.43 0.95 0.28 – – – – – –
AXJ530 4.49 – 3.44 0.17 – 0.25a) – – – – – –
AE42 3.45 – – – – 0.31 – 1.45 0.60 0.41 0.1 –
AE44 3.73 – – – – 0.30 – 2.47 1.21 0.51 0.1a)
–
AM-HP2plus 0.05 – – – – – 0.42 0.99 1.65 0.96 - 0.08
ZA124 3.81 – – – – 0.34 12.8 – – – – –

a)
Nominal value.
Where the amount is not listed the composition is below the detectable range usually 0.01 wt%.

954 http://www.aem-journal.com © 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2016, 18, No. 6
M. A. Easton et al. /Evaluation of Magnesium Die-Casting Alloys. . .
fluidity through the filling of the die; cracking, which were
defects attributed to merging of flow fronts, shrinkage, hot
tearing, or post solidification cracking; and spangling, related
to the surface quality including discoloration and flow
defects. A scale from 1 to 5 was used, where 1 is poor and
5 is excellent. For each of the three factors a detailed quality
scale was established (Table 2). Ten castings were evaluated
for each condition upon which a mean and standard error
were determined.
A more detailed metallographic evaluation was under-
taken on selected castings. One casting was taken from Set 2
(i.e., high die temperature and high “high-speed” plunger
velocity) and one from Set 4 (low die temperature and low
“high-speed” plunger velocity) as representatives of the
“best” and “worst” casting conditions. Five selected regions
from significant spots on the casting were cut and polished
according to standard metallographic methods to observe
defects and microstructure using optical microscopy.
3. Results
3.1. Castability Trials
One of the important considerations in practice is how the
alloys behave in the molten state and in transfer and injection
into the die cavity. However, this behavior is also difficult to
quantify. Below are some observations for alloys that had
difficulties in this area.
The first attempt to cast AXJ530 failed. The melt tempera-
ture was set at 720  C and the melt started to burn and the
temperature increased to 750  C, before finally settling down
to 723  C and casting commenced. However, after only 16
shots casting had to stop again as the alloy had a “paste-like”
consistency exiting from the transfer tube nozzle. The melt
temperature was reading 720  C and the alloy had to be bailed
out. On the second attempt the melt temperature was set to
710  C and cast, but the alloy still had a tendency to drip from
the nozzle, which had to cleaned after each shot and this
affected productivity.
Other alloys for which there were difficulties in melt
handling were the MRI alloys. All of these alloys were stable
Table 2. Ratings in a scale of 1–5 for evaluation of castability. After Strobel et al.[32]
Rating Filling
1 Major filling problems, e.g., the box edges not filled
or the thin section in the base of the box not filled
2 Almost filled but with large amounts of turbulent
flow defects (>50% of casting)
3 Filled but with rough edges or flow defects around
notches
4 Fully filled but with some rough edges or minor
defects behind notches or flow swirls in overflows
5 Fully filled with overflows and no obvious defects
behind notches
ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2016, 18, No. 6
FULL PAPER
under the cover gas, in this case AM-Cover (HFC 134A in N2).
However, MRI230D in particular, was prone to excessive
oxide build-up in the heated melt transfer tube and spout,
resulting in blockages to the free flow of the molten metal
making it very difficult to cast, similar to AXJ530. This was
also observed in MRI153A and to a lesser extent in MRI153M,
although neither was as severe as MRI230D. All of the other
alloys were stable under the cover gas and did not cause
any particular difficulties during the melt transfer/casting
operations.
Initially, visual observations were made of the castings to
assess their external quality. Examples of some of the castings
are shown in Figure 1– 3. The behavior of AZ91 has been
reported previously,[32] along with other structural alloys. For
all alloys, good castings could be obtained under the “best”
casting conditions, with almost full filling and limited large
defects on the surface. All alloys responded best to the higher
die temperature (250  C) and greater “high-speed” plunger
velocity (2.0 m s 1), although the injection velocity was more
influential than the die temperature on casting quality. It
was obvious that the variation in the quality of the castings
for the lower die temperature and lower injection velocity
with some alloys cracking (Figure 3b) and others not filling
well, particularly in the thin sections of the test casting
(Figure 2d and 3d), was substantial. Surface spangling was
also observed to vary between alloys. AE44 showed very fine
spangling on the surface (Figure 1b), while the other alloys
showed coarse spangling. It is commonly considered by die-
casters that fine spangling is less detrimental and more easily
polished away.
All the castings were rated for the three different categories
from the visual observations: filling (Figure 4), cracking
(Figure 5), and spangling (Figure 6). Results from the alloys
evaluated in a previous study[32] on the castability based
mainly on the Mg–Al system of structural alloys are also
included for comparison.
The current study showed that some of the “creep-
resistant” alloys also have very good fluidity (Figure 4).
AE44 filled the die very well, particularly at the higher
plunger velocities, while AS31 also performed well. However,
Quality factor
Cracking Spangling
Extensive cracking throughout the casting Large area (>50%) of coarse spangling
Cracking observed at a number of places Significant coarse spangling (20–50%) and
but not throughout casting large area (>50%) of fine spangling
Some minor localized cracking Coarse spangling in some areas (5–20%)
and significant fine spangling (20–50%)
Only some minor flow lines/cold shuts or Almost no coarse spangling (<5%) but
very minor dimpling and hairline cracking with some fine spangling (5–20%)
No visible signs of cracking or flow defects No obvious coarse spangling with very a
small area (<5%) of fine spangling if any
© 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.aem-journal.com 955
 M. A. Easton et al. /Evaluation of Magnesium Die-Casting Alloys. . .

many alloys did not show as good filling

FULL PAPER

characteristics, particularly at the lower

plunger velocities including MRI153M and
AJ52. This was most easily observed in poor
filling of the inner box of the test casting, e.g.,
Figure 3d.
Cracking (Figure 5) was also particularly
noticeable in some alloys. MRI153M cracked
quite badly, with large cracks often observed
(Figure 3b). AXJ530 also had a tendency to
crack, although the cracks were not as large
and obvious as those observed for MRI153M.
Many of the alloys displayed some fine
cracking around the inner box orcracks formed
at the interface of convergent flow fronts.
Spangling (Figure 6) is related to the surface
appearance and here again alloys displayed
different behavior. It was on this criterion that
AE44 scored its lowest rating. It showed
extensive fine spangling on the surface
(Figure 1a and b). This decreased its overall
rating significantly, although it is likely that
this is only a cosmetic feature, particularly
since it was so fine. AXJ530 was also very prone
to spangling (Figure 2b), but the spangling
was much coarser in nature. The poor surface
quality also decreased the overall rating for
Fig. 1. Pictures of one of the better castings (a) and (c) die temperature 250  C and injection velocity 2.0 m s 1,
AS31 and was also a problem for MRI230D
and worst castings (b) and (d) die temperature 180  C and injection velocity 1.3 m s 1 for AE44.
compared to the two other categories.
For the structural alloys[32] an overall
castability rating for each of the alloys was
obtained by averaging the values of all the
individual ratings. While there are problems
with this approach if taken too literally (e.g.,
are some factors more important than others,
different alloys may have different optimum
operating windows), it does provide a
relative overall indication of the castability
of the alloys under consideration (Figure 7).
While ZA124 and AZ91 remain superior
casting alloys to any of the “creep-resistant”
alloys, there is a group of the “creep-
resistant” alloys whose performance lies
between the former alloys and AM50/60.
These are AE44, MRI153A, MRI230D, AS31,
and AM-HP2plus. It is, therefore, likely
that this is the group of alloys that could
potentially be useful in applications requir-
ing higher creep resistance, although the melt
handling issues with MRI230D may exclude
it from consideration. It is interesting to note,
however, that the castability of AS31 rated
much higher than that of both AM20 and
AM50. This indicates that Si may improve the
Fig. 2. Pictures of one of the better castings (a) and (c) die temperature 250  C and injection velocity 2.0 m s 1,
castability as well as the creep response of
and worst castings (b) and (d) die temperature 180  C and injection velocity 1.3 m s 1 for AXJ530. Mg–Al alloys. However, while consideration

956 http://www.aem-journal.com © 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2016, 18, No. 6
M. A. Easton et al. /Evaluation of Magnesium Die-Casting Alloys. . .
Fig. 3. Pictures of one of the better castings (a) and (c) die temperature 250  C and injection velocity 2.0 m s 1,
 1
and worst castings (b) and (d) die temperature 180 C and injection velocity 1.3 m s for MRI153M.
Fig. 4. A comparison of the filling evaluation for each of the alloys for the nominal die
temperatures of (a) 180  C and (b) 250  C for the two injection velocities of 1.3 and
2.0 m s 1.
ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2016, 18, No. 6 © 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FULL PAPER
of the condition of the outward appearance of
the castings may be useful, it is not until the
castings are investigated for internal porosity
and other defects that a true understanding of
the castability can be obtained.
Another defect that can be specifically
measured is the hot tearing susceptibility
from the observation of cracking in the cast
tensile test pieces. The best indication of hot
tearing susceptibility comes from the flat
tensile samples, so approximately 30 samples
were evaluated for each alloy as done
previously.[24,25] Of all the alloys cast,
only MRI153M, MRI230D, and AM-HP2plus
showed any indication of hot tearing with
ratings of 0.15  0.03, 0.11  0.02, and
0.20  0.03, respectively, indicating only
some dimpling on the surface of some of
the samples. Interestingly, of these three
alloys, only MRI153M showed extensive
cracking in the castings (Figure 3b). Hence,
while it appears that hot tearing based on
dog-bone samples may provide some indi-
cation of the susceptibility of an alloy to hot
tear, there may not be a direct correlation
with die-castings. While all these alloys have a low hot tearing
susceptibility according to this test compared with other
alloys the authors have studied,[22,24,25] it does provide an
indication of where limitations to the castability of these alloys
may be found.
3.2. Internal Porosity Evaluation
Of great importance to the integrity of a casting is the
internal structure and in particular the porosity distribution.
Hence castings were sectioned for each alloy to assess the level
of internal defects. At least one good casting from the 250  C
die temperature and 2.0 m s 1 high-speed injection velocity
was assessed from every alloy, although for some alloys many
more were investigated.
The alloys that performed best in the previous study were
AZ91 and in particular ZA124. To compare with the other
alloys, the porosity distribution in AZ91 is shown in Figure 8.
There was some significant porosity in the thin perpendicular
Section 3 and there was some shear banding[34,35] observed in
Sections 5 and 7. The thick boss-like sections also showed
some internal porosity but this was not significant. The
castings made with ZA124 contained very little porosity at all,
including in the thin perpendicular sections, which appeared
to fill without any problems. There was some dispersed
porosity in both the “best” and “worst” castings, but it
generally showed exceptional castability.
AS31 cast under the “best” conditions only showed a small
amount of dispersed porosity throughout the casting. The
perpendicular sections did have some porosity toward the
top, but it was similar to that observed in AZ91 at the lower
die temperature and injection velocity. The casting made
http://www.aem-journal.com 957
 M. A. Easton et al. /Evaluation of Magnesium Die-Casting Alloys. . .
FULL PAPER

Fig. 5. A comparison of the cracking evaluation for each of the alloys for the nominal Fig. 6. A comparison of the spangling evaluation for each of the alloys for the nominal
die temperatures of (a) 180  C and (b) 250  C for the two injection velocities of 1.3 die temperatures of (a) 180  C and (b) 250  C for the two injection velocities of 1.3
and 2.0 m s 1. and 2.0 m s 1.

under the “worst” conditions showed more porosity in However, the casting from the lower die temperature and
the thin perpendicular sections, such as Sections 3 and 7, injection velocity showed much more porosity together with
and shear banding was observed where the thick section some shear banding, indicating that the fluidity of this alloy
constricted to a thin section in the floor of the inner box, may be near the limit. Hence, the alloy can be cast quite well as
Section 4. However, the casting almost had as good a quality long as the die temperature is relatively high and the injection
as observed for AZ91. It appears from these
observations that the good castability identi-
fied by the visual observations was con-
firmed by the sectioning of the castings.
AE44 also produced relatively sound
castings (Figure 9) with some dispersed
porosity and well feed perpendicular sec-
tions particularly in the casting under good
conditions, although there was porosity in
Sections 3, 5, and 7. It does appear to have a
tendency to some center-line defects. It also
appears that porosity is more common when
cast at the slower injection velocity, while
shear bands are more prevalent at the higher
injection velocity.
The MRI alloys displayed a range of
internal porosity distributions. The internal
quality of MRI153A was reasonably good for
the “best” casting conditions, with a little
dispersed porosity and most of the perpen-
dicular thin sections being of good quality. Fig. 7. Overall castability rating based only on external appearance of the castings.

958 http://www.aem-journal.com © 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2016, 18, No. 6
M. A. Easton et al. /Evaluation of Magnesium Die-Casting Alloys. . .

FULL PAPER
Fig. 8. Internal assessment of porosity in alloy AZ91 in (a) “worst” casting, cast at a high-speed injection velocity of 1.3 m s 1
and a die temperature of 180  C and (b) in a “best”
casting, cast at a high-speed injection velocity of 2.0 m s 1 and a die temperature of 250  C.

velocity is sufficiently fast. Similar to the external observa-
tions, MRI153M showed poor internal integrity, with large
amounts of porosity and cracking under the “worst” casting
conditions. The “best” casting conditions showed fewer
defects, but it was still considerable compared with the other
alloys investigated. Hence this, along with the external
ratings, suggests that it is quite difficult to obtain good
castings with this alloy. Under the “best” casting conditions,
the MRI230D casting had relatively good internal integrity.
The perpendicular sections were well fed and there was only
minor cracking in the center of the casting, not unlike AE44,
which may be related to shear bands. However, the alloy cast
under the “worst” casting conditions had a significant amount
of porosity and cracking, particularly associated with the
section changes. It appears that this alloy also requires
higher die temperatures and injection velocities to be able to
obtain satisfactory castings.
The AM-HP2plus alloy also showed very good internal
integrity at the higher injection velocity and die temperature,
although, there was what appeared to be a flow defect at one
of the changes in section thickness. Internal porosity was
common in the alloy cast at the lower die temperature and
injection velocity although, in general, the skin was relatively
well formed, which gave the impression of a higher integrity
casting from the outside than was actually the case based on
the internal defects observed.
4. Discussion
There is a great variation in the castability of the creep-
resistant Mg alloys studied here. It is important to note that
good castings could be made in all of the alloys investigated;
although for some alloys the operating window was much
wider than that for others. This discussion aims to determine
whether there are some “rules of thumb” that can be applied
to designing a more castable alloy. It should be noted that
while processing conditions differences between casting
techniques such as the application of pressure, differences
in cooling rate and the scale of microstructure all will
influence castability, the discussion here will focus on the
solidification path of the alloy and this is likely to have
substantial influence on the castability in all casting methods.
An important piece of information when considering the
castability of an alloy is the temperature–fraction solid profile.

ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2016, 18, No. 6 © 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.aem-journal.com 959
 M. A. Easton et al. /Evaluation of Magnesium Die-Casting Alloys. . .
FULL PAPER

Fig. 9. Internal assessment of porosity in alloy AE44 in (a) “worst” casting, cast at a high-speed injection velocity of 1.3 m s 1
and a die temperature of 180  C and (b) in a “best”
casting, cast at a high-speed injection velocity of 2.0 m s 1 and a die temperature of 250  C.

This describes the solidification sequence of an alloy, which
in turn affects the fluidity, hot tearing performance and the
microstructure formation, and subsequently the properties
of the alloys. The solidification path is known to be critically
important to the castability of alloys. For example, long
freezing ranges often lead to defects such as porosity[36] and
hot tearing[19,25,37,38] and the freezing range also affects the
fluidity.[26,27,39] The solidification range can also affect
whether a solid shell is formed during casting.[40] There has
been considerable work conducted on developing computa-
tional thermodynamic models for these alloy systems[41–51]
much of which is incorporated into the commercial packages
such as Pandat, which was used in the present study.
AZ91 has a wide solidification range (150  C) but it ends
in a significant proportion of eutectic and large low-
temperature eutectics tend to assist with fluidity[32] and
reducing hot tearing,[11] which results in the relatively good
castability displayed by AZ91. Interestingly, the alloy with the
narrowest solidification range (40  C), AM-HP2plus, also
had relatively good castability. It is known that for Mg–RE
alloys the solidification range is critical to its hot tearing
susceptibility and that Mg–La-based alloys tend to have a
lower hot tearing susceptibility.[25] These alloys also tend to
form more integral solid shells during casting[40] meaning that
defects tend to be moved toward the centerline of the casting.
Hence, as along as the composition can be well controlled,
e.g., minimizing the amount of Nd and contain appropriate
amounts of Y and/or Gd,[24] die-castable alloys are obtainable
in this system.
AE44 was also found to be a very castable alloy. Figure 10
indicates that this also has a very wide solidification range.
However, the lowest temperature eutectic is associated with
the formation of the Mg17Al12 phase. This phase has not been
observed in the microstructure of the alloy,[52] it is likely
therefore, that in most cases the solidification path does not
actually reach the lowest eutectic. Hence, its real solidification
range probably finishes with the ternary eutectic at approxi-
mately 600  C. As a consequence, it would appear that this
alloy also has a relatively narrow solidification range, which
will decrease its hot tearing susceptibility and tendency for
porosity formation. What is also interesting, however, is its
good fluidity compared with AZ91, even though it has a

960 http://www.aem-journal.com © 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2016, 18, No. 6
M. A. Easton et al. /Evaluation of Magnesium Die-Casting Alloys. . .
Fig. 10. Temperature–fraction solid curves for the solidification of the various alloys
based using the PanMg8 database (the AM-HP2plus data is based only on the rare earth
elements[46,51] as the influence of the other alloying elements have not been established,
although it is likely to be minor) using the Gulliver–Scheil model.
higher liquidus temperature. AE44, like the Mg–RE alloys,
appeared to have an integral surface with some centerline
porosity typical of alloys with narrower solidification
ranges.[40]
Many of the alloys that were difficult to cast (i.e., MRI153M,
AXJ530, and AJ52) undergo a series of eutectic reactions
toward the end of solidification meaning that there is a
relatively extended temperature range, during the final 10–
20% of solidification (Figure 10), associated with a compli-
cated sequence of reactions. As described above, this is known
to be an issue for defect formation,[53] and it also appears to be
a problem for the final filling of thin sections and the merging
of convergent metal flow fronts.
AS31 has a relatively large solidification interval toward
the end of solidification, although it does not have a
complicated solidification sequence, with only a simple
binary eutectic at the end of solidification. Si and the
formation of Mg2Si have relatively large heats of fusion,
which have been reported to increase the fluidity of Si
containing Mg alloys.[27] This may be an additional factor
that improves the casting properties of this alloy.
Hence, while a comprehensive model of what makes an
alloy castable cannot be formulated here it is clear that greater
eutectic volumes, a narrower solidification range and the lack
of a complicated reaction sequence in the final stages of
solidification are all beneficial to the castability of an alloy.
The other factor worth noting was the difficulty with the Ca
containing alloys (i.e., MRI153M, AXJ530, and to a lesser
extent MRI230D) with melt handling. It was very apparent
that these alloys did oxidize substantially leading to a build-
up of dross that resulted in the transfer tube clogging
repeatedly. However, this does contrast to reports in the
literature on the use of CaO additions to Mg alloys leading
to substantial reduction in burning and improved melt
ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2016, 18, No. 6 © 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
stability,[54–56] although it appears that it is most effective
FULL PAPER
in combination with Y.[57] There are a few factors to be
considered here. In the present work, it was only AXJ530
that showed some burning and this was likely due to it being
produced from elemental additions. The alloys that were pre-
made (MRI153M and MRI230D) were stable under the cover
gas but still showed the same difficulties with the melt
transfer operations that appeared to be due to the formation of
a very thick oxide film which correlates with observations
elsewhere.[58,59] Also, it is possible that the nature of the
covergas may have some influence over the oxidation of
different alloys. In this work, HFC134A was used as the
protective gas which has a much lower global warming
potential than SF6, which has been used commonly in the
industry although being phased out for this reason. It is
apparent that this requires further investigation.
5. Conclusions
Good castings can be produced for all selected alloys in this
study under the optimal casting conditions, e.g., a high die
temperature 250  C and a high injection velocity (2.0 m s 1).
However, there is a substantial variation in the operating
window of these creep-resistant Mg alloys. Some alloys, such
as AE44 and AS31, can be cast almost as well as AZ91.
MRI153M and AM-HP2plus tend to show some evidence of
hot tearing. The Ca-containing alloys were found to have
problems with melt handling operations due to melt oxidation,
which requires further study as to how this relates to the
reported advantages of CaO additions in melt protection.
Alloys containing a number of elements, such as Ca, Sr, and
Sn, are more difficult to cast because of the complexity in the
final stage of solidification. In general, an alloy with large low-
temperature eutectic, narrow freezing range, and simple final
solidification path is expected to have better castability.
Article first published online: November 24, 2015
Manuscript Revised: October 25, 2015
Manuscript Received: August 5, 2015
[1] J. F. King, Mater. Sci. Technol. 2007, 23, 1.
[2] C. H. Caceres, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2007, 38, 1649.
[3] M. Hakamada, T. Furuta, Y. Chino, Y. Chen, H. Kusuda,
M. Mabuchi, Energy 2007, 32, 1352.
[4] T. B. Abbott, Corrosion 2015, 71, 120.
[5] I. J. Polmear, Mater. Sci. Technol. 1994, 10, 1.
[6] A. Luo, Int. Mater. Rev. 2004, 49, 13.
[7] M. Dargusch, M. A. Easton, S. M. Zhu, G. Wang, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A 2009, 523, 282.
[8] M. O.€ Pekgüleryüz, M. Celikin, Int. Mater. Rev. 2010, 55,
197.
[9] S. M. Zhu, M. A. Easton, T. B. Abbott, J. F. Nie,
M. Dargusch, N. Hort, M. A. Gibson, Metall. Mater.
Trans. A 2015, 46, 3543.
[10] A. Luo, M. O.€ Pekgüleryüz, J. Mater. Sci. 1994, 29, 5259.
http://www.aem-journal.com 961
 M. A. Easton et al. /Evaluation of Magnesium Die-Casting Alloys. . .
[11] G. Cao, S. Kau, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2006, 417, 230.
FULL PAPER
[12] L. Bichler, C. Ravindran, Mater. Des. 2010, 31, S17.
[13] L. Bichler, C. Ravindran, D. Sediako, Can. Metall. Q.
2009, 48, 81.
[14] G. Cao, I. Haywood, S. Hou, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2010,
41A, 2139.
[15] L. Zhou, Y.-D. Huang, P.-L. Mao, K. U. Kainer, Z. Liu,
N. Hort, Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 2011, 24, 170.
[16] Z. G. Wang, Y. Huang, A. Srinivasan, Z. K. Liu, F. Beckmann,
K. U. Kainer, N. Hort, Mater. Des. 2013, 47, 90.
[17] A. Srinivasan, Z. Wang, Y. Huan, F. Beckmann, K. U.
Kainer, N. Hort, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2013, 44, 2285.
[18] R. A. Rossenberg, M. C. Flemings, H. F. Taylor, AFS
Trans. 1960, 68, 518.
[19] R. A. Dodd, W. A. Pollard, J. W. Meier, AFS Trans. 1957,
65, 110.
[20] P. Gunde, A. Schiffl, P. J. Uggowitzer, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
2010, 527, 7074.
[21] G. Cao, S. Kou, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2006, 37A, 3647.
[22] W. Xiao, M. A. Easton, S. Zhu, M. Dargusch, M. A.
Gibson, S. Jia, J. F. Nie, Adv. Eng. Mater. 2012, 14, 68.
[23] M. A. Easton, T. B. Abbott, J. F. Nie, G. Savage,
Magnesium Technology 2008, The Metals, Minerals and
Materials Society, Warrendale, PA, USA 2008, p. 323.
[24] S. Gavras, M. A. Easton, M. A. Gibson, S. Zhu, J. F. Nie, J.
Alloy. Compd. 2014, 597, 21.
[25] M. A. Easton, M. A. Gibson, S. Zhu, T. Abbott, Metall.
Mater. Trans. A 2014, 45A, 3586.
[26] Q. Hua, D. Gao, H. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Q. Zhai, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 2007, 444, 69.
[27] Y. Z. Lu, Q. D. Wang, W. J. Ding, X. Q. Zeng, Z.
Metallknde. 2000, 91, 477.
[28] S. G. Lee, A. M. Gokhale, G. R. Patel, M. Evans, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A 2006, 427, 99.
[29] M. O.€ Pekgüleryüz, P. Vermette, Int. J. Cast Met. Res.
2009, 22, 357.
[30] M. A. Gibson, M. A. Easton, V. Tyagi, M. T. Murray,
G. L. Dunlop, Magnesium Technology 2008, The Metals,
Minerals and Materials Society, Warrendale, PA, USA
2008, p. 227.
[31] M. A. Easton, M. A. Gibson, M. Gershenzon, G. Savage,
V. Tyagi, T. Abbott, N. Hort, Mater. Sci. Forum 2011,
690, 61.
[32] K. Strobel, M. A. Easton, V. Tyagi, M. T. Murray, M. A.
Gibson, G. Savage, T. Abbott, Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 2010,
23, 81.
[33] N. J. Ricketts, S. P. Cashion, Magnesium Technology 2001,
The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, Warrendale,
PA, USA 2001, p. 31.
[34] C. M. Gourlay, H. I. Laukli, A. K. Dahle, Metall. Mater.
Trans. A 2007, 38, 1833.
962 http://www.aem-journal.com © 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
[35] C. M. Gourlay, B. Meylan, A. K. Dahle, Acta Mater. 2008,
56, 3403.
[36] G. K. Sigworth, C. Wang, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 1993,
24B, 365.
[37] J. Campbell, T. W. Clyne, Cast Met. 1991, 3, 224.
[38] L. Katgerman, JOM 1982, 34, 449.
[39] S. S. Khan, N. Hort, I. Steinbach, S. Schumacher,
Magnesium Technology 2008, The Minerals, Metals and
Materials Society, Warrendale, PA, USA 2008, p. 197.
[40] K. V. Yang, M. A. Easton, C. H. Caceres, Adv. Eng. Mater.
2013, 15, 302.
[41] M. Ohno, D. Mirkovic, R. Schmid-Fetzer, Acta Mater.
2006, 54, 3883.
[42] M. Ohno, D. Mikovic, R. Schmid-Fetzer, Mater. Sci. Eng.
A 2006, 421, 328.
[43] D. Mikovic, R. Schmid-Fetzer, Metall. Mater. Trans. A
2007, 38A, 2575.
[44] J. Gröbner, A. Kozlov, X. Y. Fang, J. Geng, J. F. Nie,
R. Schmid-Fetzer, Acta Mater. 2012, 60, 5948.
[45] J. Gröbner, D. Kevorkov, R. Schmid-Fetzer, Intermetallics
2002, 10, 415.
[46] J. Gröbner, M. Hampl, R. Schmid-Fetzer, M. A. Easton,
S. Zhu, M. A. Gibson, J. F. Nie, Intermetallics 2012,
28, 92.
[47] B. Böttger, J. Eiken, M. Ohno, G. Klaus, M. Fehlbier,
R. Schmid-Fetzer, I. Steinbach, A. Buhrig-Polaczek, Adv.
Eng. Mater. 2006, 8, 241.
[48] L. Jin, D. Kevorkov, M. Medraj, P. Chartrand, J. Chem.
Thermodyn. 2013, 58, 166.
[49] S. Avraham, Y. Maoz, M. Bamberger, CALPHAD 2007,
31, 515.
[50] Y. Zhong, J. O. Sofo, A. A. Luo, Z.-K. Liu, J. Alloy. Compd.
2006, 421, 172.
[51] J. Gröbner, A. Kozlov, R. Schmid-Fetzer, M. A. Easton,
S. Zhu, M. A. Gibson, J. F. Nie, Acta Mater. 2011, 59,
613.
[52] S. Zhu, J. F. Nie, M. A. Gibson, M. A. Easton, P. Bakke,
Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2012, 43, 4137.
[53] S. Kou, Acta Mater. 2015, 88, 366.
[54] M. Sakamoto, S. Akiyama, K. Ogi, Proc. 4th Asian
Foundry Congress, Australian Foundry Institute -
Queensland Division 1996, p. 467.
[55] D. B. Lee, Corr. Sci. 2013, 70, 243.
[56] J.-K. Lee, S. K. Kim, Trans. Nonferr. Met. Soc. China 2011,
21, s23.
[57] J. F. Fan, G. C. Yang, Y. Z. Zhou, Y. H. Wei, B. S. Xu,
Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2009, 40A, 2184.
[58] B.-S. You, W.-W. Park, I.-S. Chung, Scr. Mater. 2000, 42,
1089.
[59] S.-L. Cheng, G.-C. Yang, J.-F. Fan, Y.-J.
̈ Li, Y.-H. Shou,
Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2009, 19, 299.
ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2016, 18, No. 6