International Journal of Cast Metals Research

ISSN: 1364-0461 (Print) 1743-1336 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ycmr20

Relative porosity in aluminium and in aluminium

alloys

T.-S. Shih, L.-W. Huang & Y.-J. Chen

To cite this article: T.-S. Shih, L.-W. Huang & Y.-J. Chen (2005) Relative porosity in aluminium
and in aluminium alloys, International Journal of Cast Metals Research, 18:5, 301-308, DOI:
10.1179/136404605225023135

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1179/136404605225023135

Published online: 18 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 97

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ycmr20
Relative porosity in aluminium and in
aluminium alloys
T.-S. Shih1*, L.-W. Huang1 and Y.-J. Chen2
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan, 32054, China
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, De Lin Institute of Technology, Tu-Cheng, Taiwan, 236 China

Pores are readily formed in aluminium alloy castings.

Density and porosity area fraction are often used
quantitatively to evaluate the quality of aluminium
alloy castings. This study used the relative porosity, the
ratio (dc 2 dr)/dc, where dc is the density of the chilled
sample and dr is the density of the reduced-pressure test
sample, to evaluate the quality of aluminium and Al–
6Si and Al–13Si alloys. The bursting of degassing
bubbles on the free surface of the melt brought debris of
oxide particles into the melt, which were eventually
trapped in the castings after pouring. These particles
were accompanied with air pockets and/or engulfed by
bubbles, resulting in pores shown on the sections of
poured castings. IJC/573
# 2005 W. S. Maney & Son Ltd. Manuscript received 17
July 2004; accepted 29 April 2005.
1 Amount of porosity as function of hydrogen
Keywords: Pore; Relative porosity; Al–Si alloy; Oxide content in Al–7Si alloy systems6,7
inclusion

determining the pore growth rate and its distribution

Introduction
Oxide particles trapped in aluminium alloy castings
will significantly influence their surface appearance,
mechanical properties and machining performance.
More seriously, alloying elements, such as silicon or
manganese, added to the aluminium melt will
significantly increase the inclusion particle count,
leading to the development of a high pore density in
the solidified castings.1,2 Mohanty and his coworkers3
assessed the effect of foreign particles on pore
formation in aluminium castings. They found not
only that pores precipitated at the particles but also
that silicon phase engulfed the foreign particles.
During solidification, an embryo would emerge
spontaneously from the crevice of a particle ahead
of the solidification front owing to a reduction in the
external pressure and ingress of rejected gas. This
might eventually be released as a gas bubble.
Huang and coworkers4 studied the effect of degas-
sing treatment on the quality of aluminium melts. They
indicated that increasing the silicon content in Al–Si
alloys increases the inclusion particle count after a
degassing treatment. The included particles usually
contained elements of aluminium, silicon and oxygen
and would form mullite or andalusite compounds in
the Al–7Si melt and the casting.
Atwood et al.5 have pointed out that the amount of
hydrogen in the aluminium melt is the key factor
*Corresponding author, email T330001@cc.ncu.edu.tw
in the end product after directional solidification. The
pore growth rate increases as the initial hydrogen
content in the melt increases and the pore size
decreases as the velocity of the solid/liquid interface of
the aluminium casting increases.
Several researchers6,7 have investigated the rela-
tionship between porosity and hydrogen content in
Al–7Si alloys, as shown in Fig. 1. The pore density
increases with increasing hydrogen levels. Indeed,
experimental data are significantly scattered, possibly
owing to differences in the cooling rates of the
samples and/or the amount of inclusions trapped in
the melt and matrix.
The cooling rate is a crucial factor influencing pore
formation in cast aluminium alloys.8,9 Porosity is
substantially reduced as the cooling rate increases.
The pore size can be reduced for a given cooling rate
only if the melt has a lower initial hydrogen level. The
feeding capability of solidified metal is affected by the
solidification mode of the alloys, and consequently
influences the extent of porosity. Therefore, pores
produced in Al–Si alloy castings were affected by the
silicon contents added to the alloy.10 Pores that form in
the matrix of aluminium alloy castings lead to
significant deterioration in casting quality. To improve
the reliability of aluminium alloy castings, understand-
ing the effect of oxides on pore formation is necessary.
Chen11 used an ultrasonic vibration treatment to
reveal oxide films on the sections of Al–Si alloys in
which the silicon content ranged from 0 to 13%. A

DOI 10.1179/136404605225023135 International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2005 Vol. 18 No. 5 301
302 Shih et al. Relative porosity in aluminium and in aluminium alloys
2 Foggy marks on polished specimen surface vibra-
tion treated for 300 s in 500 ml of tap water: a alu-
minium ingot; b A356 boat ingot; c A356 boat
mould; d A356 tensile bar from ASTM B 108
mould; e A356 squeezed mould; f A356 aluminium
wheel casting; g wrought 6061 bar12
microjet impact eroded the oxide film on the polished
surface of the specimen, and consequently the treated
specimen displayed visible ‘foggy marks’, as shown in
Fig. 2.11 These foggy marks may be in the form of
spots, strips or clouds. Increasing the silicon content
to 6% increases the so-called ‘foggy’ spots but reduces
the extent of foggy strips or leaves. Further increasing
the silicon content to 13% slightly decreases the
number and size of the foggy leaves. In addition, after
ultrasonic treatment for a short period of time, for the
pure aluminium specimen the eroded oxide film shows
mostly concave depression, while for the Al–6Si alloy
the eroded surface shows a combination of concave
depression and plate-like cavities and for Al–13Si the
whole eroded oxide shows plate-like cavities (see
Fig. 3).12
In brief, porosity is formed and distributed in
the matrix of the casting. The pore counts of different
Al–Si alloys were affected by the solidification modes
of the alloy, the amounts of oxide film and/or particle
inclusions, the cooling rates, atmospheric pressures
and the hydrogen levels of the melt. This paper
focuses on the effect of inclusion (oxide) particles
on porosity formation and the density of chilled
and reduced-pressure samples. The relative porosity
(dc 2 dr)/dc, where dc is the density of the chilled
sample and dr is the density of the reduced-pressure
sample, was used to assess the quality of poured
samples.
International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2005 Vol. 18 No. 5
Experimental procedure
An induction furnace (3000 Hz, 150 kW) equipped
with a SiC–graphite–clay crucible was used to melt
20–25 kg batches of aluminium alloy. A master alloy
of Al–50Si was added to the melt in order to bring the
silicon content to the desired levels. Different batches
of pure aluminium (99.86 wt-%), Al–6Si and Al–13Si
were sequentially degassed by nitrogen gas via a lance
diffuser for 1800 s. The lance was porous and made of
graphite, and was 50 mm in diameter. After the
degassing treatment, the molten metal was held at
973 K for 600 s. The hydrogen content of the molten
metal was then tested using BOMEM ALSCAN
(model F-HMK 100D) at 973 K. After the hydrogen
content had been tested, the molten melt was poured
into a spoon made of ceramic fibre, and then poured
to make the chilled and the reduced-pressure samples
respectively. A residual pressure of 76 mmHg was
employed in making the reduced-pressure samples.13
The hydrogen content of the melt was checked again
following the increase in holding time. One melt could
provide 5–6 sets of 50 mm diameter and 10 mm thick
samples poured into a chill mould. After polishing,
the constituents of the samples were analysed by
spectrometer (see Table 1).
The samples were removed and their density
measured by Archimedes’ method. Chilled samples
possess a rapid solidification rate, about 4.5 K s21,
and tend to produce a sound matrix. On the other
hand, the reduced-pressure sample solidifies under the
condition of reduced pressure and has a relatively low
cooling rate, 0.3 K s21, which promotes the growth
and coalescence of pores. Both samples originating
from the same spoon of melt possess a similar level of
hydrogen content, inclusion particle content and/or
oxide film content. Differences in the densities and the
pore morphologies were influenced by the different
cooling rates and the reduced pressure.
After the spectrometer tests, the chilled samples
were polished again. The pore counts were then
measured via an optical microscope equipped with an
image analyser. Each sample was measured 10 times
and the average of the total pore counts and average
area per pore were obtained. After measuring the
pore counts, the chilled samples were polished again
and placed in an ultrasonic cleaner filled with 500 ml
of tap water. The samples were then treated by
ultrasonic vibration for 1800 s to reveal foggy marks
on the samples. All the foggy marks were photo-
graphed. The constituents and the morphology of the
marks on the test specimens were observed and
analysed by electron X-ray probe microanalyser
(EPMA), optical microscopy (OM) and scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) with EDAX equipment.
Table 1 Chemical compositions of different
aluminium alloys used in this study
(wt-%)
Main element Si Fe Al
Pure aluminium 0.08 0.11 Bal.
Al^6Si 6.06 0.14 Bal.
Al^13Si 13.9 0.18 Bal.
 Shih et al. Relative porosity in aluminium and in aluminium alloys 303

3 Fractured surfaces of different Al–XSi alloys after 15 s ultrasonic vibration treatment at 46 kHz in
500 ml of tap water: a pure aluminium showing concave cavities; b Al–6Si alloy showing concave
cavity; c Al–6Si alloy showing plate-like cavity; d Al–13Si alloy showing plate-like cavity11

Experimental results
Particle inclusion and pore
Before ultrasonic treatment, the chilled samples were
polished and observed optically to obtain the pore
count (see Table 2). The pure aluminium samples
show the lowest pore count among all the samples
studied. Increasing the silicon content increased the
pore count of chilled samples, although the Al–13Si
alloy possessed a lower pore count than the Al–6Si
alloy. Pores in the Al–13Si alloy are more rounded
than those in the Al–6Si alloy, resulting in a
significantly reduced total area (Table 2).
In order to identify the relationship between pores
and inclusion particles, slim pieces of chilled samples
and reduced-pressure samples were cooled in liquid
nitrogen and fractured, and the fracture surfaces were
observed. A piece of oxide film trapped in the pore is

Table 2 Experimental data of densities and pore counts for samples of aluminium and Al–6Si and Al–13Si
alloys
Density of Hydrogen
Main chill sample, RPTS, Relative content, Pore count, Section area,
element Number g mL21 g mL21 porosity, % ml per 100 g Al mm22 mm2

Pure 1 2.705 2.703 0.07 0.119 36 768

aaluminium 2 2.707 2.700 0.27 0.170
3 2.706 2.700 0.22 0.226
4 2.705 2.704 0.05 0.251
5 2.707 2.702 0.19 0.312
Al^6Si 1 2.689 2.648 1.52 0.119 106 2075
2 2.683 2.621 2.30 0.123
3 2.686 2.615 2.66 0.156
4 2.687 2.538 5.54 0.204
Al^13Si 1 2.649 2.634 0.57 0.087 74 1053
2 2.652 2.630 0.80 0.091
3 2.646 2.619 1.02 0.138
4 2.642 2.566 2.88 0.172

International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2005 Vol. 18 No. 5

304 Shih et al. Relative porosity in aluminium and in aluminium alloys
4 SEM and EDAX analyses on stringer-type oxide film accompanied with pore observed on fracture sur-
face of Al–6Si sample4
visible, as shown on the fracture surface of the Al–6Si
chilled sample in Fig. 4. This leaf-type oxide film is
engulfed by a pore and contains mainly alumina and
some mullite or andalusite, together with small
amounts of Na, Cl and K contaminants. The
experiment did not use flux during melting. Therefore,
the oxide may have originated from the ingot and was
consequently trapped in the chilled sample after
pouring.
Figure 5 shows an apparent gas hole and some
inclusion particles trapped in the hole on the fracture
surface of an Al–6Si reduced-pressure sample. Oxides
trapped in the Al–Si alloy may be leaf type or particle
type and they may be engulfed by a pore. In addition,
it is possible that the individual pores may coalesce to
form a more substantial gas hole. Experimental
observations also show that, for the Al–7Si alloy,
the oxide particles often contain mullite or andalusite
and their surface is ragged and contains plate-like
crevices, as indicated by the arrow in Fig. 6a drawing
comparison with the similar cavities shown in Fig. 3c.
SEM observations indicate that the matrix of the
5 Inclusion particles with pores on fractured
surface of thin plate of Al–6Si chilled specimen
International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2005 Vol. 18 No. 5
Al–7Si chilled sample tends to protrude into the
crevice, as indicated by the arrow in Fig. 6b.
However, for the pure aluminium chilled sample,
the surface of the oxide particle is smooth and
contains shallow concave depressions, as indicated by
the arrow in Fig. 7. SEM observations show that the
oxide particles are indeed fully engulfed by the pores;
that is, little or no matrix protrudes into the crevice as
occurred in the Al–Si alloy. It has also been confirmed
from SEM observations that oxide particles tend to
shift in pore cavities if pure aluminium specimens are
tilted.
In summary, for the pure aluminium, both the
chilled sample and the reduced-pressure samples were
macroscopically sound (no apparent gas holes
occurred even after the samples had been solidified
under reduced pressure). However, metallographic
study indicated that air pockets could be observed to
attach to the oxide film, as shown in Fig. 8 of the pure
aluminium sample. For the Al–Si alloy, the pore
counts were significantly increased in the chilled
samples. For the reduced-pressure samples, gas holes
were apparent and their sizes were affected by the
hydrogen content and solidification rate.
Hydrogen content and relative porosity
Figure 9 shows the effect of hydrogen content on the
relative porosity of the different alloys studied. When
the relative porosity is small, the alloy sample does
not have visible pores or has only a minor amount of
microporosity, and vice versa. Increasing the silicon
content decreases the hydrogen absorbed in the Al–Si
melt. In the present study, the pure aluminium melt
can absorb hydrogen as much as 0.312 ml per 100 g
Al, but the Al–13Si alloy is limited to 0.172 ml per
100 g Al. The relative porosity of pure aluminium
ranges from 0.05 to 0.22%, following an increase in
hydrogen content from 0.119 to 0.312 ml per 100 g
Al. Compared with pure aluminium, the Al–6Si and
Al–13Si alloys develop more than 10 times the relative
porosity even at lower hydrogen contents (see Fig. 9
 Shih et al. Relative porosity in aluminium and in aluminium alloys 305

6 SEM micrographs showing fractured surface of Al–7Si alloy chilled sample: a oxide particle trapped in
matrix, along with EDAX analyses; b oxide particle trapped in matrix, showing ragged surface of oxide
associated with column of matrix protruding into crevice, as indicated by arrow

and Table 2). The pure aluminium chilled sample is
macroscopically sound, while the reduced-pressure
sample has some micropores when the hydrogen
content is high, as illustrated in Figs. 10a and b.
The Al–6Si alloy possessed the highest pore count.
Figure 9 indicates that the porosity is significantly
influenced by the solidification mode and the hydro-
gen contents. When all the alloys possessed a low
hydrogen content, y0.1 ml per 100 g Al, the relative
porosity was low and differed slightly; that is, the
effect of silicon on the relative porosity was minor.
The relative porosity was substantially scattered when

International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2005 Vol. 18 No. 5

306 Shih et al. Relative porosity in aluminium and in aluminium alloys

7 SEM micrograph showing fracture surface of pure aluminium chilled sample, including fractured oxide
particles along with concave cavity

all melts (pure aluminium, Al–6Si and Al–13Si)
possessed high hydrogen contents.
Interestingly, the relationship between hydrogen
content and relative porosity showed a similar trend
for the Al–6Si and Al–13Si alloys. This means that the
effect of the silicon content on the relative porosity of
the Al–6Si and Al–13Si alloys is similar, differing only
slightly in magnitude owing to the difference in the
solidification mode. For a given hydrogen content,
the Al–6Si alloy shows a slightly greater relative
porosity than the Al–13Si alloy.
For the pure aluminium, containing only 0.08%Si,
the ratio of the relative porosity was very low
regardless of the amount of hydrogen absorbed,
0.12–0.32 ml per 100 g Al, and its associated oxide
particles or oxide film mainly comprised alumina. The
oxides in the Al–6Si or Al–13Si alloys contain a high
fraction of mullite or andalusite as a possible result of
the alumina reacting with the melt and covering it
with some fractions of mullite or andalusite. The
oxide film, mainly composed of alumina, shows a
concave depression on its eroded surface (Fig. 3a),
but it displays a plate-like cavity on the Al–13Si alloy
sample, as shown in Fig. 3d after ultrasonic treatment
for 15 s.12
Discussion
The relative porosity of aluminium alloys is greatly
affected by the solidification mode and hydrogen
content of the melt. When the solidification front
approaches an oxide particle, the particle experiences
the hydrogen-rich environment produced by the
rejection of gas from the advancing solid. The ingress
of gas by diffusion into the air pocket in the crevice of
the oxide particle expands the pore. The pore may
grow to such a size that it engulfs the complete
particle. This is likely if the particle is poorly wetted
by the melt, and if the freezing rate is slow, giving time
for hydrogen to diffuse into and enlarge the pore. For
conditions of rapid solidification, the growth of the

8 SEM micrograph indicating pore attaching at 9 Relationship between relative porosity and
oxide film in less pure aluminium sample hydrogen content measured in aluminium, Al–
(99.86%Al) 6Si and Al–13Si melts

International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2005 Vol. 18 No. 5

 Shih et al. Relative porosity in aluminium and in aluminium alloys 307

10 Optical micrographs indicating pores in sections of reduced-pressure test samples from different melts
and hydrogen levels: a pure aluminium with hydrogen level of 0.226 ml per 100 g Al; b pure alumi-
nium with hydrogen level of 0.312 ml per 100 g Al; c Al–6Si with hydrogen level of 0.204 ml 100g Al21;
d Al–13Si with hydrogen level of 0.172 ml per 100 g Al

pore will be expected to be arrested prematurely as it
is engulfed by the advancing solid. Factors leading to
the formation of an engulfing bubble include the size
and shape of the oxide particle and any crevices, the
solidification rate, the hydrogen content and the
wetting capability of the melt and oxide particles.
For the Al–6Si alloy, pores were scattered through-
out the reduced-pressure samples (see Fig. 10c). For
the Al–13Si alloys, the eutectic solidification released
a great amount of latent heat. Pores grow and
coalesce following the moving solid–liquid interface
and migrate to the last solidified zone. In summary,
for Al–Si alloys, air pockets ahead of the solid–liquid
interface grow in size and increase the possibility of
engulfing bubbles being formed. SEM observations
confirm that pores tend to be round in the Al–13Si
alloy samples and may therefore have progressively
coalesced to form significant gas holes in the reduced-
pressure sample, as shown in Fig. 10d.
Mohanty et al.3 surmised that the viscous pressure
drop and the equilibrium gas pressure behind the
particle would favour the nucleation of minute
bubbles and make it feasible for bubble embryos to
grow and release gas bubbles from the crevices in the
alumina particles. Campbell14 has stated that a large
contact angle makes the decohesion of liquid from
solid easier, but most inclusions are complex so that it
is extremely difficult to generalise about the mechan-
ism of a gas bubble nucleating from the inclusion. He
mentioned that non-classical initiation of pores, such
as pre-existing suspension of bubbles and/or pore
initiation on bifilms, which are effectively the same
mechanism, should be considered on the basis of
the impossibility of meeting the fracture pressure
criterion for the formation of a bubble embryo.14
The present study focused on experimental obser-
vations of the bursting of outgassing bubbles on the
free surface of the melt and its effect on the pore
formation in castings.
Bursting of outgassing bubbles
Degassing treatment is necessary for improving the
quality of aluminium alloy casting and it has been
commonly adopted in producing aluminium alloy
castings. Shih and coworkers used water simulation
to observe the dynamic behaviour of degassing
bubbles.15 The fine bubbles floated to the subsurface
and coalesced in the area near the diffuser, and then
exploded at the free surface. The coarse bubbles
floated and moved in the outer field of the bubble
stream, at a distance from the diffuser. These bubbles
moved along the subsurface to the area near the wall
of the crucible. They coalesced and then exploded,
generating debris consisting of particles that fell back
into the transient liquid crater and finally sank into
the melt.
The surface tension of pure aluminium is about
0.86 N m21. Adding 1–12 %Si into the aluminium
melt slightly decreases its surface tension to
0.82 N m21.16 The surface tension of the melt affects
the interaction of gas bubbles with the melt surface.
Hahn and Neuschutz17 studied the ejection of steel
and slag droplets from gas stirred steel melts. When a
single bubble reaches the melt surface, it eventually
disrupts the bubble film, causing many small film
droplets to form. Hahn and Neuschutz adjusted the
surface tension of the steel melt by changing its
oxygen content and found that raising the surface
tension of the melt increased the quantity of drops
collected. In the present study, the pure aluminium
melt possesses a higher surface tension and therefore
produces a larger amount of fragments after the
bubble has burst on the surface of the melt. The
droplets fall into the crater of the melt and become
trapped as inclusions. It is assumed that, for the
aluminium and Al–Si alloy melts, the fragments of
exploded bubbles form different oxides instanta-
neously by reaction with the surrounding air atmo-
sphere. The particles fall into the melt, which is
accompanied with air adhering in crevices, forming
air pockets in the melt. These air pockets preserve
their stable size in the melt, which is affected by the
surface energies of the liquid and oxide particles (or
the wetting capability). Each particle, with its
associated crevices and tiny air pockets, moves in
the melt following the convection loops developed
during degassing and holding. Particles are finally
trapped in the casting after pouring.

International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2005 Vol. 18 No. 5

308 Shih et al. Relative porosity in aluminium and in aluminium alloys
11 Comparison of embryos residing at crevices of
particles after bubble or air pocket has
detached from particle
Effects of oxides on growing air pockets
The droplets from the bursting bubbles accompany
air into the liquid, attached as air pockets. After
holding, pouring and solidifying, the oxide particles
are trapped in the matrix of the casting. Microbubbles
grow from the air pockets owing to the ingress of
diffused gas during solidification. The surface tension
of the aluminium melt is greater than that of the Al–Si
melt. The average size of concave depression on the
eroded alumina (about 6–8 mm) is larger than that on
the andalusite (about 3–5 mm) (see Fig. 3). The radius
of curvature for embryos that resided at the crevices
of the alumina particles will therefore be expected to
be slightly larger in the aluminium melt than that at
the crevices of the andalusite particles in the Al–Si
melt (see Fig. 11). Micro air pockets in the crevice of
andalusite (or mullite) experience a lower force
resisting growth outwards into the melt owing to a
decrease in surface tension of the Al–Si melt. There-
fore, air pockets in the Al–Si melt are more likely to
grow as engulfing bubbles. Pores shown on the section
of the Al–Si alloy chilled sample tend to be rounded. In
casting, the pores are affected by the solidification
mode, the solidification rate and the hydrogen content,
resulting in different morphologies.
Conclusions
The bursting of degassing bubbles at the free surface
of a melt introduces debris of different oxides that
falls back into the transient crater of the bursting
bubble in the melt. The oxide particles contain air in
their crevices. The surface morphologies of the
various oxides are different; a concave depression is
observed for alumina while a plate-type cavity is
observed for mullite or andalusite.
The radius of curvature of microbubbles for
aluminium and alumina is larger than for Al–Si and
International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2005 Vol. 18 No. 5
mullite. Micro air pockets in the crevices of alumina
grow as air pockets attached to particles. In the Al–Si
alloy, air pockets in the crevice of particles grow to
form engulfing bubbles.
The lowest relative porosity was observed for pure
aluminium. Increasing the silicon content in the
aluminium melt increases the pore counts, and
oxide particles consisting of mullite and/or andalusite
are increased. For the Al–Si alloys, pores reside in the
chilled samples and increase the relative porosity. For
the Al–13Si alloy, the pores are mostly rounded in
the chilled sample but seemed to coalesce to form
larger gas holes, especially in the reduced-pressure
samples.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation
to the National Science Council of the Republic of
China for their financial support of this work (NSC
91-2216-E-008-002).
References
1. g. k. sigworth, s. shivkumar and d. apelian: AFS Trans.,
1989, 97, 811–824.
2. l. w. huang, w. j. shu and t. s. shih: AFS Trans., 2000, 108,
547–560.
3. p. s. mohanty, f. h. samuel and j. r. gruzleski: AFS Trans.,
1995, 103, 555–564.
4. l. w. huang, p. w. wang, t. s. shih and j. h. liou: Mater.
Trans. (JIM), 2002, 43, (11), 2913–2920.
5. r. c. atwood, s. sridhar, w. zhang and p. d. lee: Acta Mater.,
2000, 48, 405–417.
6. j. r. denton and j. a. spittle: Mater. Sci. Technol., 1985, 1,
305–311.
7. h. iwahori, k. yonehura, y. yamamoto and m. nakamura:
AFS Trans., 1990, 98, 167–173.
8. s. shivkumar, d. apelian and j. zou: AFS Trans., 1990, 98,
897–904.
9. q. t. fang and d. a. granger: AFS Trans., 1989, 97,
989–1000.
10. j. m. kim, h. w. kwon, c. r. loper and jr: AFS Trans., 1996,
104, 743–749.
11. y. j. chen, l. w. huang and t. s. shih: Mater. Trans. (JIM),
2003, 44, (2), 327–335.
12. y. j. chen, l. w. huang and t. s. shih: Mater. Trans. (JIM),
2003, 44, (6), 1–8.
13. m. h. mulazimoglu, n. handiak and j. e. gruzleski: AFS
Trans., 1989, 97, 225–232.
14. j. campbell: ‘Castings’, 2nd edn, 181–186; 2003, Butterworth-
Heinemann.
15. t. s. shih, k. y. weng and l. w. huang: Mater. Trans. (JIM),
2004, 45, (6), 1852–1858.
16. ‘ASM specialty handbook, aluminum and aluminum alloys’,
110; 1993, ASM.
17. i. hahn and d. neuschutz: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 2002, 29,
(3), 219–223.