AFS - Aluminum Castings For Structural Application

Aluminum Castings
for Structural
Applications
MAHI SAHOO & DAVID WEISS
Susan P Thomas, AFS Senior Technical Editor
A Publication of the American Foundry Society
AFS Product #NF2200

Edited by Susan P. Thomas, AFS Senior Technical Editor
Book layout by Tyler Buchenot, AFS Senior Manager of Creative Services
Published and Distributed by

Schaumburg, Illinois 60173-4555
afsinc.org
Copyright © March 2022

ISBN 978-0-87433-479-1
AFS Product # NF2200
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any
means—electronic, graphic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, information stor-
age and retrieval systems without the prior written permission of the publisher.
The American Foundry Society, as a body, is not responsible for the statements and opinions
advanced in this publication. Nothing contained in any publication of the Society is to be con-
strued as granting right, by implication or otherwise, for manufacture, sale or use in connection
with any method, apparatus or product covered by letter patent, nor as insuring anyone against
liability for infringement of letters patent.
Disclaimer
Trademarks/Company names used in this publication are for informational purposes only and
do not imply that the products in question are licensed, endorsed or approved by AFS. In no
event, shall AFS be liable for any damage whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the
use, or lack of use, of the products or information recommended within this publication.
// i
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Editor’s Note: Co-authors Mahi Sahoo and Dave Weiss are well-respected award-winning industry
experts that have contributed countless hours to the advancement of the metalcasting industry,
please read more about them.
Mahi Sahoo
Mahi Sahoo, President of Suraja Consulting Inc., is a retired scientist from CANMET-Materials
Technology Laboratory, Canada. His areas of research include the casting and solidification of
nonferrous metals and alloys. He holds four patents, has published over 250 research papers
and is the coauthor of the textbook “Principles of Metal Casting.” Mr. Sahoo is a Fellow of
ASM International and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM). He
has been awarded the John Penton Gold Medal as well as the Scientific Merit Award from the
American Foundry Society (AFS). He has also received the prestigious AFS Howard Taylor
Award four times. In addition, he is a recipient of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Award, several
CANMET Technology Transfer and Business Development Awards, and an Award of Excellence
from the Government of Canada.
David Weiss
David Weiss is VP of Research and Development at Eck Industries, Inc. He has been involved
in all aspects of the manufacture of aluminum castings since 1972. He has been involved in
AFS Technical Committees since 1985. He is past chairman of the AFS Aluminum Division, the
Magnesium Division, and the Research Board. He is currently AFS Technical Council chairman,
Director-at-Large for the Advanced Casting Research Center (ACRC) Consortium at University
of California-Irvine and is on the editorial board of the International Journal of Metalcasting.
Mr. Weiss has won numerous awards from the American Foundry Society including six Howard
Taylor Awards, The Award of Scientific Merit, and the John A. Penton Gold Medal. He has au-
thored 100 papers on the processing of aluminum, magnesium and metal-matrix-composites
and holds 12 patents including nine for the development of the Al-Ce alloy system for casting,
extrusion, and additive manufacturing.
// ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to recognize the excellent support from the AFS Technical Publications Depart-
ment, especially Susan P. Thomas (Senior Technical Editor) and Laura Moreno (past Director
of Special Publications). We gratefully acknowledge Steve Robison (Chief Technical Services
Officer, Emeritus) and Tom Prucha (Editor of the International Journal of Metal Casting and con-
sultant) for their guidance. Thanks also to the Modern Casting staff for supplying the structural
casting application photos.
Mike Gwyn’s vast knowledge of casting design was invaluable to the creation of this book and
he continues to work with structural casting foundries and customers to harness the power of
excellent castings and superior design to extend the usage of castings in the marketplace.
The work on aluminum-cerium alloys would not have been possible without the support of the
entire Critical Materials Institute (U.S. DOE Energy Innovation Hub led by Ames Laboratory at
Iowa State University), especially Dr. Orlando Rios. Dr. Rios (now a professor at the University
of Tennessee) continues his valuable work on Al-Ce systems.
We appreciate that Eck Industries, Inc. continues to actively support metalcasting research
and development activities which are considered a significant competitive advantage in today’s
market.
Mahi Sahoo would like to thank his wife, Mini, for her moral support. She was all too familiar
with the long hours he had spent working on his previous book, “Principles of Metal Casting.”
David Weiss would like to thank his wife, Suzanne, for all her support. Her journalistic back-
ground has helped him become a better writer.
Mahi Sahoo & David Weiss

// iii
PREFACE
In early 2015, AFS conducted a webinar on structural castings in aluminum alloys. Presented
by this book’s co-author, David Weiss, fellow co-author Mahi Sahoo also participated. During
the webinar, excellent data on the casting characteristics and mechanical properties of some
aluminum alloys suitable for producing structural castings were presented. It occurred to Mahi
that this data could be expanded into a book to benefit the metalcasting industry, academia
and users of structural aluminum castings. Mahi suggested this idea to Dave during the Ameri-
can Foundry Society’s annual Metalcasting Conference, and we both agreed to collaborate on a
book about aluminum castings for structural applications.
Since the book’s primary audience would be the foundry industry, we felt that it should be
published by AFS. We drafted an outline of the proposed book and sent it to Tom Prucha of the
International Journal of Metalcasting, and Steve Robison and Laura Moreno of AFS, for their
comments and approval. AFS recognized the industry need for this title and approved the book.
We then set out to search for the latest information on this topic, and Laura helped with the
literature search. The design of structural castings is an important aspect to produce premium
quality components. To this end, a discussion with Mike Gwyn of NoRedesign.com, LLC was
very useful, and some of his data are included in Chapter 2—Design of Structural Aluminum
Castings. NoRedesign images and principles are copyrighted.
This book emphasizes factors affecting the structure and mechanical properties – such as
the influence of alloying elements including impurities, casting processes, gating and riser-
ing design, phase diagrams, melt treatment to improve the quality of the liquid metal – and
solidification characteristics including grain refinement and modification, heat treatment, etc.
Frequently, the reader is referred to another book by co-author Mahi Sahoo, “Principles of Metal
Casting,” which includes a chapter dedicated to the development of alloys for high-tempera-
ture applications. Dave’s cooperative research and development work with Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Ames Laboratory under the sponsor-
ship of the Critical Materials Institute on the development of Al-Ce alloys for high-temperature
applications is the latest technology and is included in Chapter 7—Alloys and Composites for
High Temperature Applications. Quality control of structural castings has also been addressed
in Chapter 9—Testing for Quality.
It is our hope that the design engineer, manufacturing engineer, casting engineer, foundry met-
allurgist and other foundry staff and management working in the premium quality production of
structural castings will benefit from this book. In addition, the book is aimed at both undergrad-
uate and post-graduate students interested in casting technology.
Mahi Sahoo & David Weiss

// v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Author Biographies i
Preface iii
Acknowledgements ix
Chapter One: Introduction To Structural Castings 1

What is a Structural Casting? 2
How Structural Castings are Produced 2
Casting Class and Grade According to AMS Specifications 2
Properties of Aluminum Alloys in Structural Applications 4
Typical Structural Aluminum Casting Applications 4
Aerospace Casting Applications 10
World Production of Aluminum Castings 12
Chapter Two: Design Of Structural Aluminum Castings 15

Introduction 15
Structural Geometry 16
Castability Geometry 18
Junctions 19
Alloy Selection 21
Process Interface Geometry (Gating, Risering & Venting) 21
Downstream Processing Geometry 22
Gating and Gating Removal 22
Preparing for Machining—Finish Stock and Datums 24
Design Considerations to Prevent Machining Issues 24
Crack Initiation and Growth 25
Other Design Considerations 26
Summary 26
Chapter Three: Influence Of Alloying Elements 29

For Structural Applications & Alloy Selection
Major Alloying Elements 30
Minor Alloying Elements and Impurities 32
Other Alloying Elements for Elevated Temperature Service 33
Alloy Groups 34
vi \\
Chapter Four: Phase Diagrams 39

and Solidifications Characteristics
Phase Diagrams and Alloy Systems 41
Aluminum-Copper Alloys 41
Aluminum-Silicon Alloys 43
Aluminum-Copper-Silicon Alloys 45
Aluminum-Magnesium-Alloys 46
Aluminum-Silicon-Magnesium Alloys 47
Aluminum-Zinc-Magnesium Alloys 49
Aluminum-Cerium Alloys 51
Solidification Control 52
Solidification Characteristics 54
Dendrite Arm Spacing (DAS) 54
Microstructure Control 58
Porosity 79
Inclusions 86
Hot Tearing 87
Heat Treatment 94
Polymer Quenching 96
Annealing 100
Hot Isostatic Pressing 100
Solidification Under Pressure 103
Chapter Five: Casting Processes 109

Introduction 109
Sand Casting 111
Green Sand Molding 111
Chemically Bonded Sand Molding 112
Permanent Mold Casting 114
Low-Pressure Permanent Mold Casting 116
Alternative Methods to Permanent Mold Casting 118
Cosworth Process 118
High-Pressure Die Casting (HPDC) 119
Squeeze Casting 120
Semi-Solid Metal Processing 123
Lost Foam Casting 126
Ablation Casting 128
Investment Casting 130
// vii
Chapter Six: Gating and Riser Design 135

Introduction 135
Basic Gating System Components 136
Controlling Metal Velocity 136
Sprue and Pouring Cup Design 137
Runners and Ingates 137
Types of Gating Systems 138
Risers and Feeding 140
Chills 140
Controlling Thermal Gradients 142
Filters 144
Gating in Non-Sand Systems 146
Example of Gating System Analysis 148
Summary 152
Chapter Seven: Alloys And Composites 155

For High-Temperature Applications
Introduction 155
Precipitation Hardened Alloys 156
Al-Cu-Si Alloys 159
354 Alloys 160
Al-Cu-X MMC Alloy Development 160
Manufacturing Technology for Prototyping 161
Development of Al-Ce Casting Alloys 162
Thermal Treatment 164
Prototyping 164
Analysis of Alloys Developed to Date for High Temperature Applications 164
Long-Term Stability of Age Hardenable Alloys 165
Chapter Eight: Post-Casting Operations 193

Introduction 193
Removal of Mold and Core Material 193
Removal of Fins, Gates and Risers 194
Grinding and Bench Operations 196
Robotic Grinders 198
Rotary Tools 198
Appearance Blasting 198
Finishing 199
Machining Characteristics 199
Casting Enhancement Processes 201
Impregnation 201
Welding 202
viii \\
Chapter Nine: Testing For Quality 205

Introduction 205
Specifications 206
Visual Inspection 206
Optical or Vision System Inspection 206
Dimensional Inspection 207
Three Dimensional Surface Inspection 208
Laser Scanning 209
White Light Technology 210
Metallurgical Inspection 212
Chemical Analysis 212
Mechanical Property Testing 213
Metallographic Examination 213
Casting Soundness 214
Pressure Testing 214
Sectioning 215
Radiographic Examination 215
Ultrasonic Velocity Inspection 217
Fluorescent or Dye Penetrant Inspection 217
Chapter Ten: Conclusions: 221

Developing Trends and the Path Forward
Foundry 4.0 222
Additive Manufacturing 222
The Path for Continued Development 223
Final Thoughts 225
Index 227
// 1
CHAPTER ONE:
Introduction
to Structural
Castings
The first book on structural aluminum castings was published by the American Foundry Society
in 1995 and focused on aerospace applications (commercial to military components).1
Since that time, casting technology has developed significantly in many areas including new
casting processes such as:
• Ablation casting;
• 3-D printing for mold- and core-making;
• Metal matrix composite castings;
• Alloys for high-temperature applications;
• New promising alloys based on the Al-Ce system;
• Solidification modeling for gating and risering design and for predicting and minimizing
casting defects;
• Process control methodologies, etc.
These developments have been possible due to research and development programs support-
ed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), the United States Council for Automotive Research
(USCAR), and the US Automotive Materials Partnership (USAMP). There is R & D funding also
provided in Canada for programs such as: AUTO 21 (Canada’s research network focused on
automotive R&D), NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council), and Natural
Resources Canada. High-strength structural castings find applications in many other sectors
such as automotive, agricultural, and petrochemical, where lightweighting is an important con-
sideration, etc. Twenty typical structural casting applications produced in various commercial
alloys using different casting processes are shown in Figures 1-1 to 1-20.
2 \\ Introduction to Structural Castings
What Is a Structural Casting?

Broadly speaking, a structural casting is designed to meet a meaningful percentage of the
primary property of interest, which is often yield strength but may be high- or low-cycle fatigue,
creep, impact strength, compressive strength or toughness. Fatigue strength is the highest
stress that the alloy can withstand for a given number of cycles, and when considered in com-
bination with yield strength, the stress above which permanent, or plastic, deformation occurs,
are usually considered the key inputs for structural casting design.
Most products are designed with a safety factor due to uncertainty about material properties
or because the stresses on the part are not well understood. In aluminum castings, there is
emphasis on elongation values since it is easier to reliably design to yield strengths in a ductile
material. An additional factor may be used if part failure could result in injury. Products that
come to mind include automobile suspension components and aircraft hardware.
This book has been designed to deliver a set of tools to help produce more reliable castings
and to offer both the metalcaster and their customers material choices that will expand the use
of castings for critical applications.
How Structural Castings are Produced

Structural castings in aluminum alloys are produced by a number of casting processes such
as: sand, permanent mold (gravity, low pressure, and electromagnetic pump), high pressure
(with and without vacuum) die, lost foam, investment, and plaster casting. These castings re-
quire high structural integrity with consistently controlled mechanical properties including high
mechanical properties at elevated temperatures for some automotive and aircraft applications
and close dimensional tolerances.
Casting Class and Grade According To AMS Specifications

Castings are classified with respect to the criticality of the application as defined by Aerospace
Material Specification (AMS) 2175. Castings that are inspected in accordance with this spec-
ification are designated by classes and applicable grades. The “Casting Class” governs the
frequency of inspection, while the “Casting Grade” controls the acceptance grade described in
Tables 1-1 and 1-2. To produce high-quality, premium quality or extremely-high-quality cast-
ings, a casting classification based on class and grade should be considered.
// 3
Table 1-1. Casting Class Per Aerospace Material Specification (AMS 2175)2
Casting Class Description

A casting, the failure of which would
endanger the lives of operating personnel,
Class 1
or causes the loss of missile, aircraft, or
other vehicles.
A casting, the single failure of which
would result in a significant operational
penalty. In the case of missiles, aircraft,
and other vehicles, this includes loss of
Class 2
major components, unintentional release
or inability to release armament stores,
or failure of weapon installation compo-
nents.
Castings not included in Class 1 or Class
Class 3 2 and having a margin of safety (excess
structural capability) of 200% or less.
Castings not included in Class 1 or class
Class 4 2 and having a margin of safety greater
than 200%.
Table 1-2. Casting Grade Per Aerospace Material Specification (AMS) 21752
(Castings or casting sections shall be of the following grades)
Casting Grade Description

The highest-quality casting grade (or area
of a casting) with minimum allowable
Grade A discontinuities. This grade can be very
difficult to produce, except in localized
areas of the casting.
The second-highest quality grade of
casting (or area of a casting) which allows
Grade B slightly more discontinuities than Grade A,
and is difficult to produce except in
localized areas of the casting.
A high-quality casting grade (or area of
Grade C a casting) that can be consistently
produced.
The lowest-quality grade of casting (or
area of casting) that is easily produced
Grade D and is used primarily for low stress or
noncritical areas adjacent to higher
grade areas.
Properties of Aluminum Alloys In Structural Applications

Aluminum castings alloys possess many excellent properties for structural applications,
such as:
1. Low density which varies between 2.6 and 2.8 g/cc for important commercial alloys-alloys
that are widely used for structural components, such as: 380, 319, 355, 356, 535, 201, 206,
etc.
2. A wide range of mechanical properties are possible with aluminum alloys which can be
improved using alloying techniques and heat treatment. Mechanical properties of the
strongest alloys can be compared favorably with cast iron and low-strength steel castings,
especially when strength-to-weight ratios are taken into consideration.
3. Aluminum castings have a good surface finish, look lustrous and have no blemishes
4. Aluminum alloys are resistant to corrosion, both atmospheric and aqueous.
5. High-electrical conductivity can be achieved for applications such as induction motors and
rotors.
6. Most aluminum alloys possess a relative ease of machinability.
7. Aluminum alloys have a relatively low melting point (450−560C/840−1040F). Melting and
pouring are greatly simplified when compared to the temperature requirements of cast iron
and steel. Additionally, problems with furnace refractories and molding sands are reduced
due to the lower pouring temperatures.
8. Aluminum casting alloys have excellent casting fluidity. As a result, thin sections in struc-
tural components can be filled easily.
9. A faster casting cycle during permanent mold casting can be expected as the heat transfer
from molten aluminum alloy to metal molds is relatively fast.
Typical Structural Aluminum Casting Applications
Figure 1-1. LED light housing, alloy A356, investment casting (7.3 x 7.3 x 4.7”),
3-D printed pattern. (Artwork courtesy of Aristo-Cast Inc.)
// 5
Figure 1-2. Front view-a lower front body node (8.296 lb.), Middle view-an upper
front body node (6.713 lb.) and Rear view-a rear body node (15.909 lb.), alloy A356.2,
ablation castings, (Artwork courtesy of Honda of America Anna Engine Plant.)
Figure 1-3. Stator housing, A357 alloy, investment casting, 13.5 lbs.,
(9-in. dia. x 13-in. high). Condenser fan assembly in an aircraft galley cooling system.
(Artwork courtesy of Carley Foundry Inc.)
Figure 1-4. Plymouth Prowler Rotor, F3S.20S metal matrix composite,

semi-permanent mold cast. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
Figure 1-5. Racing engine crankcase, alloy A206, (5 x 15 x 19 in.), 3D printing was used
to produce the sand molds. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries Inc.)
Figure 1-6. Chevy Volt front sub-frame K cradle, alloy A356.2-T5, low-pressure permanent mold
casting, (41.2 x 7.2 x 25 in.), front chassis and suspension component, 30% weight reduction
compared to steel (Artwork courtesy of Magna Cosma Grenville Casting.)
Figure 1-7. Afocal Housing, A356-T6, investment casting, 5.7 oz, (6.5 x 7.5 in.),
minimal wall thickness. Converted from an optical housing for a defense application.
(Artwork courtesy of O’Fallon Casting.)
// 7
Figure 1-8. Pump housing, A356, investment cast, (12 x 8 x 8 in.), military
aircraft application. (Artwork courtesy of O’Fallon Casting.)
Figure 1-9. Thermal command center, A356 Alloy, low-pressure sand casting, 14 lbs.
(29 x 13 x 6 in.). Computer-aided design and 3D printing was utilized to make sand molds,
casting combines water pump, thermostat and bypass valves for a marine application.
(Artwork courtesy of Tooling and Equipment International.)
Figure 1-10. Eco Motors opposed piston opposed cylinder (OPOC) crankcase assembly, Alloy
A356-T6. Low-pressure sand casting, (47 x 22 x 20 in., 123 lbs.). New engine main assembly for
transportation application, comprises four unique castings and utilized 3D printed sand
technology. (Artwork courtesy of Tooling and Equipment International.)
Figure 1-11. Steering Knuckle in A206 Alloy cast in green sand, 33 lbs.
(Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
Figure 1-12. Cylinder Heads, Alloy A242, cast in semi-permanent molds,

typical weights 13 to 26 lb. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
Figure 1-13. Stator Housing, alloy and temper: C355-T6M, Molding Method: low pressure pre-
cision sand. Special characteristics: air quench to minimize distortion during machining. Nine
cast-in cast iron and one cast-in steel insert, Weight: 115 lbs. Mechanical properties: UTS = 36
ksi, Yield strength = 27 ksi, Elongation = 5%. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
// 9
Figure 1-14. Cyclotron Motorcycle Swingarm casting, Material: A356-T6, Process: Low pressure
sand casting, Weight: 14 lbs (6.4 kg), Dimensions: 27.5 x 18.5 x 11 in. (700 x 470 x 280 mm)
Application: Swingarm for the rear wheel of a high-performance electric motorcycle. (Artwork
courtesy of Tooling Equipment International.)
Figure 1-15. Rocket engine turbo system for Aerojet Rocketdyne, high-performance boost pump
housing, F357 alloy, Hybrid sand casting, 150 lbs (68 kg), 22 x 25 x 26 in. (56 x 63.5 x 66 cm).
(Artwork courtesy of Wellman Dynamics Corp.)
Aerospace Casting Applications

The following five casting examples were published in the1995 AFS publication, “Design and
Procurement of High-Strength Structural Aluminum Castings. There were 26 castings applica-
tions published in this book and only five castings remain in use by the aerospace industry.
Figure 1-16. This A356-T6 casting is used as a canopy support for T-38 aircraft. It was
made to Northrop specifications, (14 x 12 x 8 in.), Mechanical properties (critical/noncritical),
UTS: 38 ksi/ 33 ksi, YS: 28 ksi / 27 ksi, Elongation 5% / 3%. (Artwork courtesy of various
foundry sources.)
Figure 1-17. This A357-T6 casting is a high-stress electrical access door for the Boeing 777
aircraft. It was made to MIL-A-21180 specification, Mechanical properties (critical/noncritical),
UTS: 50 ksi / 41 ksi, YS: 40ksi / 31 ksi, Elongation 5% / 3%. Wall thickness: 0.08+/- 0.02 in., 24 x
22 x 5 in., Weight: 8 lb. (Artwork courtesy of Teledyne Cast Products.)
// 11
Figure 1-18. These 201.0-T7 castings are missile castings, made to Northrop specifications.
Wall thickness: 0.185 to 1.58 in., Dimensions: 30 x 7.6 in., Mechanical properties
(critical/noncritical), UTS: 60 ksi / 52 ksi, YS: 50 ksi / 48 ksi, Elongation 3% / 2%.
(Artwork courtesy of Hitchcock Industries, Inc.)
Figure 1-19. This A357-T6 casting is the main gear casing on the Bell-Boeing V-22 tiltrotor
aircraft. It was made to MIL-A-21180 specification. Dimensions: 45 x 36 x 22 in., Mechanical
Properties (critical/noncritical), UTS: 45 ksi / 38 ksi, YS: 35 ksi / 28 ksi, Elongation 3% / 3%.
(Artwork courtesy of Fansteel Wellman Dynamics.)
Figure 1-20. This is a cast body section used for the McDonnell Douglas Harpoon
Missile fuel tank. It is made of Alloy A357-T6 to MIL-A-21180 specifications.
Wall thickness: 0.130 +/- 0.030 in.
Dimensions: (approx. 51 in. long x 14 in. diameter), Weight: 126 lb., Mechanical
Properties (critical/noncritical): UTS: 41 ksi / 38 ksi, YS: 31 ksi / 28 ksi, Elongation
3% / 3%, (Artwork courtesy of Teledyne Cast Products.)
World Production Of Aluminum Castings

According to the Aluminum Casting Market Research Report,3 the global aluminum casting
market is projected to grow from USD-$70.4 billion in 2021 to 100 billion by 2026.The high
growth rate in the aluminum casting market is attributed to increased demand in the automo-
tive, manufacturing, and consumer goods sectors. The transportation sector is the largest end
user of aluminum castings. The United States accounts for 27.1% of the global market size in
2020.
Production of aluminum castings for the years 2018−2020 by major producing countries is
shown in Table 1-3. The North American (USA, Canada and Mexico) market is roughly 15% of
the world market. The major use of structural Al castings is in the automotive sector. Typical
weight of all structural Al castings in a mid-size automobile is about 300 lbs. Aluminum cast-
ings are used in the aerospace sector in various degrees. In the general aviation sector, they
comprise most of the powertrain with Al casting usage between 200 and 400 lbs. In military
aircraft, most castings are used in the weapons or surveillance systems. In ground military
vehicles such as the Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Joint Light Tactical Ve-
hicle, hundreds to thousands of pounds of structural aluminum castings are used for transmis-
sion, powertrain and driveline components.
// 13
Table 1-3. Major World Producers of Aluminum Castings4
Major Producers of Aluminum Castings (metric tons)a

Country 2018 2019 2020
Brazil 172,076 164,718 160,464
China 7,150,000 6,850,000 6,800,000
Germany 1,020,013 996,127 652,738
India 1,396,778 1,364,652 1,344,182
Italy 856,016 810,647 540,296
Japan 1,505,499 437,500 345,651
Korea 630,000 623,500 642,200
Mexico 817,911 832,770 832,770
Russia 588,000 588,000 588,000
Turkey 475,003 503,478 449,503
United States 1,609,346 1,795,190 1,425,120

a
No current data from Canada is available. There is no recent data from Mexico or Russia.
References
1. “Design and Procurement of High-Strength Structural Aluminum Castings,” American
Foundry Society (1995).
2. “Aerospace Material Specification, AMS2175,” SAE Aerospace, Revised in 2010-06.
3. “Aluminum Casting Market,” research report, Google Search, MarketsandMarkets.com
4. Aluminum casting production data provided by the American Foundry Society, Inc.
(11/19/2021).
// 15
CHAPTER TWO:
Design of
Structural
Aluminum
Castings
Introduction
Excellence in casting design and manufacturing engineering will create a high value structur-
al component at reasonable cost. Castings offer the designer incredible flexibility and many
avenues to use that geometric flexibility to produce stronger and stiffer components. However,
mechanical properties can vary throughout a casting based upon the temperature distribution
and solidification rates throughout the mold cavity. The resulting microstructure differences
can affect the structural performance of casting, especially in cyclic life, depending on the
location within the casting the microstructural differences occur.
Structural components can be produced in all casting processes used for aluminum castings.
The various processes for aluminum alloys are described in Chapter 5. Solidification integrity,
part cost, volume of parts and part size govern the casting process selection. The most com-
mon casting processes are sand, permanent mold and die casting. Tooling cost is very high for
high-pressure die casting (HPDC), with permanent molds approximately 50% less. Sand casting
is the preferred process for low quantity and very large castings. A very fine grain structure
and hence, relatively high mechanical properties can be expected in permanent mold and die
casting. However, those processes are more prone to feeding defects that may outweigh this
advantage in some instances. The production and use of castings, particularly those needing
to perform under high loads, is a shared responsibility of the casting designer and the found-
ry. The implementation of the design by the foundry is critical to the part success and certain
attributes of the design can be critical to the success of the foundry.
16 \\ Design of Structural Aluminum Castings
The manufacturing engineering phase of a metalcasting design is the link between component
shape, physical & mechanical properties and the physics of converting liquid metal into solid
metal. Success with aluminum structural castings engages the interrelation between the alumi-
num alloy’s castability characteristics, the design geometry’s influence on the alloy’s castability,
the choice of mold cavity-making process, and the design of the liquid metal delivery system…
all combined so that the temperature and mass gradients result in specified mechanical prop-
erties in the right locations to enable robust structural component performance.
It is the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) design engineer who defines the structural
shape, the required mechanical properties in designated locations of the aluminum casting
geometry, important functional physical properties (i.e., corrosion resistance), and the dimen-
sional tolerances required. It is the integration of all the previous design and manufacturing
engineering, executed in forethought, that enables the spectacularly successful aluminum
structural castings currently in the most challenging applications.
More specifically, the integration of design and manufacturing engineering of aluminum struc-
tural castings has many facets that include:
• The aluminum alloy’s preference for a geometry type that enhances its ability to solidify
within the specified microstructural integrity;
• Reconciliation, via iterations of design geometry and the resulting solidification integrity,
of the specific aluminum alloy chosen and the structural geometry required; and
• Development of casting-friendly approaches to meet the structural geometry specifica-
tions.
Casting design is optimized by examining the geometry of what is to be cast through four dif-
ferent geometric concepts, and two key material mechanics concepts:
1. Structural geometry (engineering mechanics of the stress-resisting stiffness, coupled with

the alloy’s stiffness from modulus of elasticity);
2. Castability geometry (shape that the chosen alloy “likes” for enabling solidification integ-
rity, especially the shape of junctions inside the mold cavity space, away from the mold
cavity walls);
3. Process interface geometry (gating, risering, chilling, and venting connections to the mold
cavity surfaces);
4. Downstream processing geometry (features of the casting’s surface geometry specifically
intended to interface with casting finishing functional gauges, machining fixtures, and/or
assembly fixtures, any process step after the casting is poured including heat treatment,
machining and assembly);
5. Crack initiation; and
6. Crack growth.
Structural Geometry
Most casting designs begin by considering the structural geometry of the part. The aim of
structural design is to meet the strength requirements of the part and to prevent fracture by
eliminating (as much as possible) structural details that act as stress raisers and can be poten-
tial fracture initiation sites.
// 17
Specific to aluminum casting structural design, most component requirements involve low
mass and long cyclic life. The capability of aluminum’s low density must be supplemented with
area moment of inertia to develop a geometry that is stiff, adds the least mass, and simultane-
ously protects the aluminum from plastic strain.
Since all aluminum alloys have a modulus of elasticity = ~10 x 106 lb/in2 [68,900 MPa], com-
pared to steel = 30 x 106 lb/in2 [206,800 MPa] or ductile iron = 24 x 106 lb/in2 [165,400 MPa],
geometric provisions are often made using ribbing or increased section thickness where
greater stiffness is required. Further, aluminum alloys have an elastic elongation = 2.5 to 5%
compared to common low alloy steels = 20%, and common ductile iron = 12%. Area moment in-
ertia is the enabler for cast aluminum structural geometry that can locally protect the structure
from plastic strain. Only castings can enable that local strain protection so easily.
There will be multiple considerations depending on how the part will be used in service. A cast-
ing design may begin by understanding the typical stresses the casting will be subjected to and
compared with the yield strength of the alloys that are under consideration. Some additional
safety factor may be applied. Typical casting alloys have yield strengths between 100 and 350
MPa,1 with those strengths varying minimally with casting quality. The casting must possess
enough ductility to yield locally and redistribute the load in the vicinity of the stress raisers. Al-
loy selection is based on many factors that may be out of the designers control including cost
and supplier capabilities. Due to the characteristics of aluminum casting alloys some design
changes may be required to accommodate castability of the alloy chosen. This design loop is
iterative, with castability dependent on design and design dependent on castability.
If stresses in a part are cyclical, fatigue strength may be the critical design criteria. Aluminum
castings typically do not have a true fatigue limit, but there is good data available for most
casting alloys for an endurance limit at 500 million cycles determined by reverse bending tests
on R.R. Moore rotating beam machines. Fatigue performance is primarily influenced by defects
in the casting larger than the microstructural features of the alloy. As an example, in an Al-Si
alloy such as 356, if produced to perfection, the fatigue life will depend on the silicon structure
of the alloy. Various and often contradictory rules of thumb are used to estimate the fatigue
limit of aluminum casting alloys, such as 0.4 of the tensile strength, or elongations of greater
that 5% ensure better than a 70MPa fatigue limit. While these “rules of thumb” may indicate
some broad trends, they do not translate well across alloy families or casting processes. The
best way to maximize the fatigue life of a structure is to iterate between structural and casta-
bility geometry to enable the production of castings with minimum size defects. Appropriate
alloy selection and good casting practice such as grain refinement, modification, use of chills
(to promote directional solidification) and filters (for inclusion removal, etc.) are important con-
siderations to minimize casting defects. According to Gundalch,2 fatigue strength at 10 million
cycles can be as low as 28 MPa (axial fatigue testing) in A356 and A319 alloys due to crack
nucleation at microshrinkage voids. However, fatigue strength can be increased to 97 MPa at
10 million cycles by using chills to promote directional solidification which reduces porosity to
0.01%.
Damage-tolerant design assumes that castings have defects at some level and fracture
mechanics can be used to determine tolerable crack size and crack growth rates and better
estimates design stress levels and fatigue performance. Make sure that the applied stress in-
tensity factor, KI, is always less than the critical stress intensity factor, KC.3 Fracture parameter
data for many commonly used aluminum casting alloys can be found in Reference 1.
Castability Geometry
Castability geometry can be defined as how the shape of the product interacts with the physics
of metal flow and the metallurgy of the alloy poured. The physics of the flow will include fluid
characteristics of the alloy, interactions of the alloy and the atmosphere in which it is poured,
and temperature at which the metal can be poured. Equally as important is how the flow will
interact with the molding medium (interface effect, thermal capacity, thermal conductivity, etc.)
and how thermal gradients in the mold develop over time.
The castability geometry defines casting success. It controls whether the casting can fill within
a reasonable amount of superheat and the type and amount of solidification shrinkage that
forms. The geometry controls heat transfer within the casting as well as heat transfer to the
molding medium. The castability geometry is the major factor that controls shrinkage porosity
in most aluminum castings. Successful castability geometry is significantly influenced by the
junctions of the walls and ribs. Often solidification software is used to define areas that are dif-
ficult to feed and are prone to porosity. A natural solidification (a simulation without a feeding
system) can quickly pinpoint areas of concerns. Figure 2-1 shows one such example, where a
heavy section remote from any feed area looked to be of concern. The customer re-designed
this area to create a feed path, eliminating the problem.
Hot Spot
Area Shown
Figure 2-1. A potential casting defect (hot spot) in a drive housing caused by an isolated heavy
section and the design modification that solved the problem. The numbers in the right hand
image show the casting dimensions in inches. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
// 19
Junctions
Geometric features of a casting come together in junctions. Those junctions have been defined
by the geometric form that they take, i.e., the T, Y and L junctions. These types of junctions are
shown in Fig. 2-2 view (a) and (b). The junctions influence the thermal gradients that will occur
a. Section junctions b. Section junctions and holes

Figure 2-2. The design of section junctions (T, Y & L junctions) and holes.
If the holes are cast they may affect solidification conditions.4
in the casting and those thermal gradients have an influence on the performance of the part.
The casting soundness is heavily influenced by the thermal gradient that can be established
during solidification. One way to think about this is to consider the Niyama criterion as a con-
ceptual framework to design and process castings. The Niyama criterion is defined as the local
thermal gradient (G) divided by the square root of the local cooling rate (T) as follows:
Ny=G/√T
In general, the larger the Niyama criteria the more sound the casting will be. This is partially
influenced by the design of the gating system through the strategic use of chills and risers. It is
heavily influenced by the design of the casting itself.
Most junctions cause inherent hot spots that can lead to porosity. In the T junction shown in
Fig. 2-2, the hot spot can be fed directly with a riser. The casting can easily be made sound in
that area but the strength will be reduced somewhat because of slower solidification at the
riser connection. The Y junction does not offer an attachment point for a riser that can be sub-
sequently removed. In this case the junction should be made small enough to make it possible
to chill the intersection. The solidification of the L junction is primarily controlled by both the
inside and outside radii of the intersection.
The X junction in Fig. 2-3 (a) demonstrates how solidification will naturally occur. The intersec-
tion area, possessing more mass will solidify more slowly, leaving an unfed pool of liquid metal
after the arms have solidified. The problem and solution in Figure 2-1 is essentially a junction
design exercise. Solidification patterns for other junctions corresponding to Fig. 2-2 (a) and
(b) are shown in Fig. 2-3 (b) and (c). These show fraction solid corresponding to later
solidification stage.
The castability factors include (i) liquid delivery temperature and (ii) solidification shrinkage
and amount. For aluminum alloys, the liquid delivery temperature is usually in the range 705 to
788C (1300 to 1450 F). Table 4-2 in Chapter 4 gives solidification ranges for several aluminum
alloys. The volumetric contraction from liquid to solid state for aluminum alloys ranges from
3 to 8.5%. This is influenced by the freezing range of the alloy. Extensive microporosity can be
expected in long freezing range alloys (i.e., 206, 390, and 520) which need effective gating and
risering design and the use of chills to promote directional solidification. Distributed shrinkage
porosity is much less in short freezing range alloys (i.e., 356 and 413).
a. b. c.
Figure 2-3. Mode of solidification corresponding for Fig. 2 from Reference 4.
One of the most effective design tools is the proper use of radii and fillets These often have
advantages for both the structural geometry through redistribution of stresses and the preven-
tion of stress raisers as well as the castability geometry through better temperature distribu-
tion. This is illustrated in Fig. 2-4. Note the improvement in heat distribution with the matched
internal and external radii.
a. b.
Figure 2-4. (a) Artist representation of temperature distribution in the casting and mold with a
L junction with small internal radius and sharp external corner. (b) a modified L junction with
matching internal and external radii from Reference 5.
// 21
Alloy Selection
How an alloy reacts with the casting geometry is influenced by the castability characteristics
of the alloy. The better the fluid life, the more intricate the detail that can be achieved in the
casting. Alloys with shorter solidification ranges feed better and are less likely to hot tear.
Alloys with high levels of magnesium (i.e., 535 [7% Mg]) are more prone to gas porosity. Alloys
such as 356 and 357 are generally considered the best alloys for casting. The alloys containing
copper (i.e., 319, 355 and 206) generally have a longer solidification range and are more sub-
ject to shrinkage porosity. However, they have many desirable properties such as good strength
at elevated temperatures. Apparent alloy castability can be improved by insightful castability
geometry and good gating systems.
Process Interface Geometry (Gating, Risering, & Venting)
One important detail that is sometimes overlooked by those not in the metalcasting industry is
that the gating system must allow the metal to enter and flow into the casting. These systems
have been studied in depth and there are many software packages that can assist in the devel-
opment of gating systems for castings. Critical components of gating systems are described in
Chapter 6. Figure 2-5 shows a typical gating system on an aluminum casting. While this gating
system produces perfectly sound castings (the goal of a gating system!), it is not a good gating
system. The gating connections extend up the side of the casting necessitating an additional
machining operation. The risers on top of the casting slow down solidification and reduce me-
chanical properties in the most highly-stressed area of the castings. Resolving these difficul-
ties is at the heart of the design process for castings.
Risers retard solidifi-

cation resulting in low
mechanical properties.
Gating connections
require extra
machining operations.
Figure 2-5. This gating practice produces a sound casting that introduces other difficulties. CAD
rendering (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
Delivering high mechanical properties in sections requiring risers is a common issue. Often
section size is increased to compensate for this loss in properties which may require a larger
riser to feed it, which reduces properties further, and so on. A better solution may be to reduce
the section size and use a chill to solidify it faster. There are many solutions to such problems
but compromise for the sake of the application is required.
Downstream Processing Geometry

(any process step performed after the casting is poured; including machining and assembly)
Gating and Gating Removal
A customer may never experience seeing a casting with all its gates, risers and chills attached
before processing begins. This can be a teaching moment for the casting manufacturing
process. All of that “stuff” that is critical to producing good castings must be removed before
the final product is shipped and minor design changes will facilitate better castings delivered
to the customer. Figures 2-6 and 2-7 show some examples of castings in the early stage
of processing.
a. b.
Figure 2-6. a) Sand casting after initial blast with gating attached.
b) A permanent mold casting with gating attached. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
// 23
Figure 2-7. A sand casting after knock-out with chill marks and gating and risers attached
before blasting. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
Figure 2-8 is an example of a modification done to the flange of a casting so that ingates and
risers could be attached and removed easily. This modification was made before the design
was finalized and helps to emphasize the need for concurrent engineering of the casting and
the casting manufacturing process. Figure 2-9 shows riser connections beneath the flange line
requiring expensive manual removal. In this case, this was necessary given the need to feed
the heavy sections in the interior of the casting. Perhaps earlier consultation with the customer
to tie the heavy sections to the exterior of the part may have eliminated or reduced this prob-
Connections between bosses for

gate and riser attachment.
Figure 2-8. Flange re-design for ease of gating removal.

Riser connections beneath the

flange line requiring expensive
removal techniques.
Figure 2-9. Risers that are impossible to remove with standard cleaning tools required the use of
a special cut-off wheel. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
lem. Preparing For Machining—Finish Stock And Datums
An excellent guide to finish stock and basic information on datum structures is given in “Stan-
dards for Aluminum Sand and Permanent Mold Castings,” published by the Aluminum Associ-
ation.6 Given the advancements in high speed machining, having more machining stock than
the minimum requirements can be used to an advantage by the foundry. For example, excess
machine stock can increase the ability of a section to feed other areas of the casting and make
it possible to increase the size of fillets and radii. Extra stock can also help to prevent handling
damage and make a casting less sensitive to grinding or sawing errors.
Design Considerations To Prevent Machining Issues
A well designed and executed casting should be able to be machined without great difficulty.
However, most foundries and machine shops would agree that many issues can arise that
would have been better handled during the design phase. Some of these issues can be summa-
rized as follows:
1. Cast locators are positioned in areas that are difficult to mold cleanly or are subject to dis-
tortion or damage during casting finishing operations. Locators that do not protrude from
casting edges and are integrated into the casting geometry work best. Since peripheral
locators are often used, it is important to consider the gating required for the casting to
avoid the risers and gates from interfering with the integrity of the locators. Early consul-
tation between the foundry and machine shop usually results in mutually beneficial locator
positioning.
2. A casting may be too complicated to achieve good machining alignment from a standard
XYZ datum structure. Complicated aerospace or military casting may be produced using
10 to 50 cores, and alignment of those cores to the datum structures and to themselves
presents huge challenges. In cases such as this, the castings are often “targeted”. Target-
ing a casting uses a special fixture to tie core positions or features to a datum structure
that is machined in by either the foundry or the machine shop. Assuming that the core
setting is done with standard foundry practice, this is a very effective technique to ensure
// 25
accurately machined and tolerance castings. An example of a complicated transmission

housing being targeted is shown in Figure 2-10. Recent progress in additive manufacturing
of sand cores has also made it possible to combine cores in one-piece printed assemblies.
This can reduce the total number of cores and improve positional accuracy.
3. Distortion after machining can occur, often discovered in round bores with tight tolerances.
This post-machining distortion is usually caused by residual stress induced in the casting
during heat-treatment quench or, in non-heat treated castings during solidification of the
casting in a rigid mold. Distortion can usually be controlled with stress relief treatments
or modifications to the quench parameters. For example, a warm water quench, spray or
air quench can be used to reduce quench-related stresses. Modification to standard heat
treatment practices may affect the mechanical properties. Reducing the severity of the
quench usually reduces the tensile strength of the material. This should be reviewed and
verified and may require changes to the part design.
Figure 2-10. Targeting fixture for a large transmission case to establish a XYZ
machining location. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
Crack Initiation and Growth

A comprehensive treatise on fracture mechanics is beyond the scope of this book. However,
there are important aspects that have a direct impact on a castings performance and will im-
pact the design of the product and the alloy chosen. Stress concentration factors can occur in
the cast geometry as well as in the geometry after machining. Peterson’s Stress Concentration
Factors7 consider a wide variety of stress concentrators and their effect on local stresses given
an applied stress. Most finite element design software will calculate those local stresses. De-
pending on both geometry and defects in the castings stress concentrators can increase local
stresses by as much as twenty times the applied stresses. Those high local stresses are where
cracks are often initiated.
There are differences among alloys in both the energy needed to initiate a crack and the energy
to propagate a crack. This is also heavily dependent on the microstructure of the alloy, with a
fine microstructure being more resistant to both initiation and propagation. These differences
are particularly important in high-cycle fatigue. A review of the Kaufman and Rooy data from
Reference 1 would indicate those alloys that have high elongations (i.e., 535.0-F and 444.0-F
alloys) require more energy to both initiate and propagate cracks than less ductile materials.
Sigworth8 reported that B206-T4 will tolerate 30% more stress to achieve an equivalent crack
growth rate when compared to A356-T6. Castings are not always at a disadvantage to oth-
er product forms in terms of crack growth. Alloy A206-T4 [10% elongation] has better crack
growth characteristics than wrought 6061-T6 although the higher strength A206-T7 [3% elon-
gation] does not.9
Other Design Considerations

Well-designed castings may fail in service. Those failures are generally time related, with the
mode of failure being in fatigue, creep or corrosion. Even when fatigue considerations are ex-
plored during design, unexpected loading or casting defects can initiate a crack which will then
propagate over time. The exploration of multiple loading and defect scenarios in the design
stage can reduce this problem.
Creep is the tendency of a solid material to move slowly or deform permanently under the influ-
ence of persistent mechanical stresses. It can occur as a result of long-term exposure to high
levels of stress that are still below the yield strength of the material. Elevated temperatures
exacerbate the creep performance of aluminum alloys. For example, bolted joints may loosen
because of the effect of creep, causing unexpected stresses with immediate failure or over
time through fatigue. A range of creep data for common casting alloys is available.10
Thermomechanical fatigue occurs when materials with different CTEs (coefficient of thermal
expansion) are joined and used in an environment that experiences cyclic temperature fluctu-
ations resulting in imposed cycling strain. This can occur when an aluminum casting is bolted
or welded to steel or iron plate or castings. The stress of these joints at operating temperatures
can be calculated to determine if this could be a potential problem.
Aluminum self-passivates and has very good general corrosion performance which can be
further enhanced through coatings. Aluminum alloys containing copper have a susceptibly
to stress corrosion in some tempers. Aluminum 206 alloy has excellent resistance to stress
corrosion cracking in the T4 and T7 tempers but has high susceptibility in the T6 temper. Alloys
containing high levels of magnesium (i.e., 512.0, 513.0. 514.0, 520.0 and 535.0) have the best
general corrosion performance. Corrosion over time can create surface or intergranular defects
that can initiate failure in highly stressed parts.
// 27
Summary
This chapter reviewed some key aspects of the development of cost-effective design of struc-
tural aluminum castings. The foundry and the casting designer both need to understand the
key requirements of the finished product and the processing techniques to produce that prod-
uct. Collaboration early in the design process is key to success. Designing a structural casting
depends heavily on understanding the filling and solidification characteristics of the casting
alloy, proper alloy selection, post-casting processing and meeting the static and dynamic
requirements of the design.
References
1. J. G. Kaufman, E. L. Rooy, “Aluminum Alloy Castings; Properties, Processes and Applica-
tions,” AFS/ASM, p. 117 (2004).
2. R. B. Gundlach, “Understanding Limitations and the Power of Knowledge,” International
Journal of Metalcasting, American Foundry Society (2016).
3. J. M. Barsom and S. T. Rolfe, “Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures: Applications of
Fracture Mechanics,” Third Edition, ASTM (2018).
4. M. A. Gwyn, PowerPoint presentation on “Cast Metal Intermediate Material Shapes,
Segment 7–Alloy Castability and Castability Geometry; Part 3: Interior Casting Section
Junctions,” (2014). https://noredesign.com/syllabus (Link last accessed 01-05-2022)
5. M. A. Gwyn, PowerPoint presentation on “Cast Metal Intermediate Material Shapes, Seg-
ment 22–Structural Geometry 5B; Uniform Transformed Stress or Strain,” (2016). https://
noredesign.com/syllabus (Link last accessed 01-05-2022)
6. Aluminum Association, “Standards for Aluminum Sand and Permanent Mold Castings,”
16th Edition (2021).
7. W. Pilkey, “Peterson’s Stress Concentration Factors,” 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons
(1997).
8. G. K. Sigworth, F. DeHart, “Recent Developments in the High Strength Aluminum-Copper
Casting Alloy 206,” Transactions of the American Foundry Society (2003).
9. D. Weiss, “Fatigue Crack Growth Rate in Cast A206” Publication in Process
10. J. G. Kaufman, E. L. Rooy, “Aluminum Alloy Castings; Properties, Processes and Applica-
tions,” AFS/ASM, pp. 243-252 (2004).
// 29
CHAPTER THREE:
Influence of
Alloying Elements
for Structural
Applications &
Alloy Selection
Aluminum can be alloyed with many elements to improve mechanical and physical properties.
The principal alloying elements in aluminum-base casting alloys are copper (Cu), silicon (Si),
magnesium (Mg), zinc (Zn), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), and nickel (Ni). Cerium (Ce) has
been found to be another important and major alloying element to produce castings for high
temperature applications. Other alloying elements such as: scandium (Sc), zirconium (Zr), yttri-
um (Y), hafnium (Hf) can be added to improve the mechanical properties at elevated tempera-
tures. Iron is an element normally present and usually considered as an impurity. Other minor
alloying elements such as titanium (Ti), boron (B), sodium (Na), strontium (Sr), antimony (Sb),
beryllium (Be) may be added for specific purposes such as grain refinement, Si modification,
modifying the morphology of the iron-rich phase etc. Some of the simpler effects of alloying
can be considered as described as follows. Additional details can be found in References 1-8.
The phase diagrams show that most of the aluminum alloys are characterized as eutectic sys-
tems and contain intermetallic phases as well as other complex phases. These phases usually
are appreciably more soluble near the eutectic temperatures than at room temperature and
hence, their as-cast mechanical properties can be improved significantly by solution and aging
heat treatment.
In addition to alloying elements, ceramic particulates or fibers can be added to aluminum

alloys to develop properties not usually associated with aluminum alloy castings such as wear
resistance, much improved stiffness or low coefficients of thermal expansion. The subject of
aluminum metal matrix composites will be more thoroughly examined in Chapter 7—Alloys for
High Temperature Applications.
30 \\ Influence of Alloying Elements for Structural Applications & Alloy Selection
Major Alloying Elements

The influence of major alloying elements on the characteristics and properties of aluminum
alloys are described in Table 3-1.1,6-8
Table 3-1. Alloying Element Influence on Properties1,6-8
Element Influence on Properties
Copper Increases strength and hardness in the as-cast and heat-treated condi-
Cu tions in the composition range 4-6% Cu. Some alloys contain 4−10% Cu.
Reduces resistance to corrosion, stress corrosion, hot tear resistance
and castability.
Silicon Has outstanding effect on casting characteristics in terms of improving

Si casting fluidity, hot tear resistance and feeding characteristics. Silicon
additions are also accompanied by a reduction in specific gravity and
coefficient of thermal expansion. Hypoeutectic alloys (5−9% Si) are
more common in the casting industry. For slow cooling rate processes
(i.e., plaster, investment, and sand), the range is 5−7% Si, for permanent
mold it is 7−9% Si and die casting alloys contain 8−25% Si. High Si in
hypereutectic alloys improves the wear resistance. Silicon combines
with Mg to form the Mg2Si phase (see following category) but the level
of Si is determined primarily by castability concerns since less than
1% Si is required to form the Mg2Si in alloys containing typical levels of
magnesium. The excess Si contributes to lower levels of ductility and
poor appearance when anodized.
Magnesium Mg is the basis for strength and hardness development in heat-treated

Mg Al-Si alloys and is commonly used in more complex Al-Si alloys con-
taining Cu, Ni, and other elements for the same purpose. This is due to
the precipitation of the Mg2Si phase during precipitation hardening heat
treatment. Common premium-strength compositions in the Al-Si family
employ magnesium in the range of 0.40−0.70%.
Binary Al-Mg alloys are widely used in applications requiring a bright

surface finish and corrosion resistance, as well as attractive combi-
nations of strength and ductility. Common compositions range from
4 to 10% Mg, and compositions containing more than 7% Mg are heat
treatable.
Zinc Addition of Zn makes it possible to obtain maximum mechanical prop-

Zn erties in the as-cast condition. Addition of copper and/or magnesium
results in attractive heat treatable or naturally aging compositions.
Binary Al-Zn alloys are not used in the foundry as Zn alone has no sig-
nificant beneficial effects
// 31
Chromium Improves corrosion resistance in certain alloys and increases quench

Cr sensitivity at higher concentrations. Cr additions are commonly made in
low concentrations to room temperature aging and thermally unstable
compositions in which germination and grain growth are known to
occur. Chromium typically forms the compound CrAl7, which displays
extremely limited solid-state solubility and is therefore useful in sup-
pressing grain growth.
Sludge that contains iron, manganese, and chromium is sometimes

encountered in die casting compositions, but it is rarely encountered in
gravity casting alloys.
Manganese Is added for two important purposes. It helps to modify the Fe phases
Mn which form in secondary foundry alloy compositions from β needles
to α script thereby improving ductility. Mn addition is also made to
reduce die soldering in advanced die-casting processes where Mn can
be substituted for Fe. Manganese’s higher solubility in Al combined
with its lower tendency to form brittle phases gives an alloy with better
properties than those in which Fe is used as the exclusive remedy for
die soldering. Addition of 0.5% Mn may beneficially influence internal
casting soundness by forming MnAl6.
Tin Useful in bearing applications because of its antifriction character-

Sn istics. Additions can also be made to improve machinability. Casting
alloys may contain up to 25% Sn. Sn may influence precipitation-hard-
ening response in some alloy systems at levels in the hundreds of ppm.
Iron Improves hot tear resistance and decreases the tendency for die stick-
Fe ing or soldering in die casting. Ductility decreases with increasing Fe
contents.
Iron reacts to form a myriad of insoluble phases in aluminum alloy

melts, the most common of which are FeAl3, FeMnAl6, and αAlFeSi. In
Al-Si alloys the two most common are β-needles (FeSiAl5) and the Mn
corrected α-script ((Fe,Mn)3Si2Al15). These essentially insoluble phases
are responsible for improvements in strength, especially at elevated
temperature. They do, however, reduce the ductility. As the fraction of
insoluble phase increases with increased iron content, casting con-
siderations such as fluidity and feeding characteristics are adversely
affected. Iron participates in the formation of sludging phases with
manganese, chromium, and other elements; particularly at the con-
centrations and low holding temperatures normally associated with
high-pressure diecasting. In fact, the sludging factor (SF), a simple
expression combining the concentrations of Fe, Mn, and Cr, is given as:
SF = %Fe + 2x %Mn + 3x %Cr
Plots of this factor vs. temperature delineate the minimum temperature
below which sludging can commonly be expected in high-pressure
diecasting.
Cerium Is added to improve casting fluidity, corrosion resistance and high tem-
Ce perature mechanical properties to cast some automotive components.
Minor Alloying Elements and Impurities

The minor alloying elements or impurities present in the aluminum alloys greatly influence their
properties, as described in Table 3-21. Alloy characteristics which may be seriously impaired
are ductility (and toughness) and corrosion resistance.
Table 3-2. Minor Alloying Elements and Impurities1
Titanium Ti is extensively used to refine the grain structure of aluminum casting

Ti alloys, often in combination with smaller amounts of boron which leads
to the formation of TiB2. Foundry alloys are effectively grain refined with
ratios of Ti to B of 5:1. Ti in small concentrations can reduce cracking
tendencies in hot short compositions.
Boron B, in the presence of Ti can form titanium boride particles which act as
B nucleation sites for the active grain-refining phase TiAl3. B also forms
other borides such AlB2. Some adverse effects of borides include re-
duced tool life in machining operations, poor mechanical properties and
ductility, formations of inclusions due to furnace sludging.
Iron Fe improves hot tear resistance and decreases the tendency for die
Fe sticking or soldering in diecasting. Ductility decreases with increasing
Fe content.
Sodium Modifies the aluminum-silicon eutectic from coarse flaky to a fibrous

Na structure, thereby improving the mechanical properties. However,
modification effectiveness is reduced in the presence of phosphorus in
hypoeutectic Al-Si alloys. The effects of sodium and phosphorous are
mutually antagonistic.
Strontium Sr is used to modify the aluminum-silicon eutectic. Effective modifi-

Sr cation can be achieved at very low addition levels (0.004−0.02% Sr).
Higher Sr levels can cause distributed porosity, especially in thick-sec-
tion parts which solidify more slowly. This gas porosity may be caused
by changing the composition of the oxide on the on the melt surface,
leading to higher levels of gas pickup from the atmosphere.9 This in-
crease in porosity can be used to compensate for shrinkage in castings
where increased distributed porosity is tolerable. Degassing efficiency
as determined by vacuum solidification tests may also be adversely
affected at higher strontium levels. The effects of strontium and phos-
phorous are mutually antagonistic in the same manner as discussed
under sodium.
Antimony Refines the eutectic aluminum-silicon phase to a lamellar form in

Sb hypoeutectic compositions when added equal to or greater than 0.05%.
The effectiveness of antimony in altering the eutectic structure de-
pends on an absence of phosphorus and on an adequately rapid rate of
solidification. Sb has the potential to act as a modification poisoner by
combining with other modifiers such as Na or Sr if it enters the scrap
recycling stream.
// 33
Phosphorus Refines the primary Si phase in hypereutectic alloys by forming AlP.

P Phosphorus diminishes the effectiveness of the common eutectic mod-
ifiers sodium and strontium as well as the eutectic refiner antimony.
At parts per million concentrations, phosphorus coarsens the eutectic
structure in hypoeutectic Al-Si alloys.
Nickel Is usually employed with copper to enhance elevated-temperature

Ni properties. It also reduces the coefficient of thermal expansion. Ni will
accelerate filiform corrosion in applications such as coated automotive
wheels if present in high enough trace quantities. Values up to roughly
100 ppm seem to be acceptable, however.
Beryllium Be additions of as low as a few parts per million may be effective in re-
Be ducing oxidation losses. At higher concentrations (>0.04%), Be affects
the form and composition of iron-containing intermetallics, markedly
improving strength and ductility. However, Be is associated with inclu-
sions in magnesium-containing compositions.
OSHA is restricting the exposure limit for Be-containing compounds

during melting, molten metal handling, dross handling and disposition,
and blasting, grinding and welding., as they are known as carcinogens.
Both acute and chronic berylliosis are possible upon exposure to Be
fumes. The chronic form can appear years after the exposure has
ended. For these reasons, there has been a movement to eliminate this
element from aluminum alloys in general.
Bismuth Improves the machinability of cast aluminum alloys at concentrations

Bi greater than 0.1%. Also increase shrinkage tendencies in Al-Si alloys at
concentrations greater than 30 ppm.
Silver 0.5 to 1.0% Ag is used in only a limited range of aluminum-copper pre-

Ag mium-strength alloys at concentrations to cause precipitation harden-
ing but contributes to stress corrosion resistance.
Other Alloying Elements For Elevated Temperature Service

Alloying elements such as zirconium (Zr), scandium (Sc), hafnium (Hf), cobalt (Co) and vana-
dium (V) can be added to improve the mechanical properties of Al-Cu based alloys at elevated
temperatures (>250C/482F). The role of these elements will be discussed in Chapter 7—Alloys
for High Temperature Applications. The role of Ce in improving the high temperature mechani-
cal properties will also be discussed in Chapter 7.
Alloy Groups
Systems used to designate casting compositions are not internationally standardized. In the
United States, comprehensive listings are maintained by general procurement specifications
issued through government agencies (Federal and Military, for example) and by technical
societies such as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). Alloy registrations by the Aluminum Association are in broadest
use; its nomenclature is decimalized to define foundry alloy composition variations.1
Although the nomenclature and designations for various casting alloys are standardized in
North America, many important alloys have been developed for engineered casting produc-
tion worldwide. For the most part, each nation (and in many cases the individual firm) has
developed its own alloy nomenclature. Excellent references are available that correlate, cross
reference, or otherwise define significant compositions in international use.1,10-12
The Aluminum Association designation system attempts alloy family recognition by the follow-
ing scheme:
• 1xx.x: Controlled unalloyed compositions;

• 2xx.x: Aluminum alloys containing copper as the major alloying element;
• 3xx.x: Aluminum-silicon alloys also containing magnesium and/or copper
(Si+Mg, Si+Cu, Si+Mg+Cu)
• 4xx.x: Binary aluminum-silicon alloys;
• 5xx.x: Aluminum alloys containing magnesium as the major alloying element;
• 7xx.x: Aluminum alloys containing zinc as the major alloying element. Also containing
additions of either copper, magnesium, chromium, manganese, or combi-
nations
of these elements; and
• 8xx.x: Aluminum alloys containing tin as the major alloying element.
Of these, only the 2xx.x, 3xx.x, 4xx.x, 5xx.x and 7xx.x are the important alloy groups for struc-
tural applications
Designations in the form xxx.1 and xxx.2 include the composition of specific alloys in remelt
ingot form suitable for foundry use. Designations in the form xxx.0 in all cases define composi-
tion limits applicable to castings. Prefix letters used primarily to define differences in impurity
limits denote further variations in specified compositions. Accordingly, one of the most com-
mon gravity cast alloys, 356, is shown in variations A356, B356, and C356; each of these alloys
has identical major alloy contents but has decreasing limits applicable to impurities, especially
iron content. Aluminum Association composition limits for selected registered aluminum
foundry alloys used to cast structural components are given in Table 3.3.1,5
// 35
Table 3.3. Chemical Composition Limits for Registered Aluminum Alloys in the Form of xxx.0
casting, xxx.1 ingot and xxx2 ingot. Only composition limits that are identical to those listed
herein or are registered with The Aluminum Association should be designated as “AA” alloys1,5
Composition, (b) wt.%
AA No. Products(a) Si Fe Cu Mn Mg Cr Ni Zn Ti Sn
4.0 - 0.20 - 0.15 - 0.15 -
201.0 S 0.10 0.15
5.2 0.50 0.55
- - -
0.35
-
4.0- 0.20 - 0.15 - 0.15 -

A201.0 S 0.05 0.10
5.0 0.50 0.35
- - -
0.35
-
4.0 - 0.20 - 0.25 - 0.15 -

B201.0 S 0.05 0.05
5.0 0.50 0.35
- - -
0.35
-
4.2 - 0.15 - 0.15 -

204.0 S, P 0.20 0.35
5.0
0.10
0.35
- 0.05 0.10
0.30
0.05
4.2 - 0.20 - 0.15 - 0.15 -

206.0 S, P 0.10 0.15
5.0 0.50 0.35
- 0.05 0.10
0.30
0.05
4.2 - 0.20 - 0.15 - 0.15 -

A206.0 S, P 0.05 0.10
5.0 0.50 0.35
- 0.05 0.10
0.30
0.05
4.2 - 0.20 - 0.15 -

B206.0 S, P 0.05 0.10
5.0 0.50 0.35
- 0.05 0.10 0 0.05
5.5 - 3.0 -
319.0 S, P
6.5
1.0
4.0
0.50 0.10 - 0.35 1.0 0.25 -
5.5 - 3.0 -
A319.0 S, P
6.5
1.0
4.0
0.50 0.10 - 0.35 3.0 0.25 -
5.5 - 3.0 - 0.10 -

B319.0 S, P
6.5
1.2
4.0
0.8
0.50
- 0.50 1.0 0.25 -
8.6 - 1.6 - 0.40 -

354.0 P
9.4
0.20
2.0
0.10
0.6
- - 0.10 0.20 -
4.5 - 1.0 - 0.40-

355.0 S, P.
5.5
0.6(g)
1.5
0.50(g)
0.6
0.25 - 0.35 0.25 -
4.5 - 1.0 - 0.45 - 0.04 -

A355.0 S, P.
5.5
0.09
1.5
0.05
0.6
- - 0.05
0.20
-
4.5 - 1.0 - 0.40 -

C355.0 S, P.
5.5
0.20
1.5
0.10
0.6
- - 0.10 0.20 -
6.5 - 0.20 -
356.0 S, P.
7.5
0.6(g) 0.25 0.35(g)
0.45
- - 0.35 0.25 -
6.5 - 0.25 -
A356.0 S, P.
7.5
0.20 0.20 0.10
0.45
- - 0.10 0.20 -
6.5 - 0.25 - 0.04 -

B356.0 S, P.
7.5
0.09 0.05 0.05
0.45
- - 0.05
0.20
-
6.5 - 0.25 - 0.04 -

C356.0 S, P.
7.5
0.07 0.05 0.05
0.45
- - 0.05
0.20
-
6.5 - 0.17 - 0.04 -

F356.0 S, P.
7.5
0.20 0.20 0.10
0.25
- - 0.10
0.20
-
6.5 - 0.45 -
357.0 S, P.
7.5
0.15 0.05 0.03
0.6
- 0.20 0.20 -
6.5 - 0.40 - 0.04 -

A357.0 S, P.
7.5
0.20 0.20 0.10
0.7
- 0.10
0.20
-
6.5 - 0.40 - 0.04 -

B357.0 S, P.
7.5
0.09 0.05 0.05
0.6
- 0.05
0.20
-
6.5 - 0.45 - 0.04 -

C357.0 S, P.
7.5
0.09 0.05 0.05
0.7
- - 0.05
0.20
-
6.5 - 0.55 - 0.10 -

D357.0 S
7.5
0.20 - 0.10
0.6
- - -
0.20
-
6.5 - 0.55 - 0.10 -

E357.0 S, P, I
7.5
0.10 - 0.10
0.6
- - -
0.20
-
6.5 - 0.40 - 0.04 -

F357.0 S, P, I
7.5
0.10 0.20 0.10
0.7
- - 0.10
0.20
-
7.5 - 3.0 -
A380.0 D
9.5
1.3
4.0
0.50 0.10 - 0.50 3.0 - 0.35
7.5 - 3.0 -
B380.0 D
9.5
1.3
4.0
0.50 0.10 - 0.50 1.0 - 0.35
7.5 - 3.0 - 0.10 -

C380.0 D
9.5
1.3
4.0
0.50
0.30
- 0.50 3.0 - 0.35
7.5 - 3.0 - 0.10 -

D380 D
9.5
1.3
4.0
0.50
0.30
- 0.50 3.0 - 0.35
16.0 - 4.0 - 0.45 -

390.0 D
18.0
1.3
5.0
0.10
0.65
- - 0.10 0.20 -
16.0 - 4.0 - 0.45 -

A390.0 S, P
18.0
0.50
5.0
0.10
0.85
- - 0.10 0.20 -
16.0 - 4.0 - 0.45 -

B390.0 D
18.0
1.3
5.0
0.50
0.65
- 0.10 1.5 0.20 -
11.0 -
413.0 D
13.0
2.0 1.0 0.35 0.10 - 0.60 0.50 - 0.15
11.0 -
A413.0 D
13.0
1.3 1.0 0.35 0.10 - 0.50 0.50 - 0.15
11.0 -
B413.0 S, P
13.0
0.50 0.10 0.35 0.05 - 0.05 0.10 0.25 -
4.5 -
443.0 S, P
6.0
0.8 0.6 0.50 0.05 0.25 - 0.50 0.25 -
4.5 -
A443.0 S
6.0
0.8 0.30 0.50 0.05 0.25 - 0.50 0.25 -
4.5 -
B443.0 S, P
6.0
0.8 0.16 0.35 0.05 - - 0.35 0.25 -
4.5 -
C443.0 D
6.0
2.0 0.6 0.35 0.10 - 0.50 0.50 - 0.15
// 37
6.5 -
444.0 S, P
7.5
0.6 0.25 0.35 0.10 - - 0.35 0.25 -
6.5 -
A444.0 P
7.5
0.2 0.10 0.10 0.05 - - 0.10 0.20 -
9.5 -
520.0 S 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.15
10.6
- - - 0.25 -
0.10 - 6.2 - 0.10 -

535.0 S 0.15 0.15 0.05
0.25 7.5
- - -
0.25
-
0.10 - 6.5 -
A535.0 S 0.20 0.20 0.10
0.25 7.5
- - - 0.25 -
6.5 - 0.10 -
B535.0 S 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.05
7.5
- - -
0.25
-
0.35 - 0.6 - 6.0 -

710.0 S 0.15 0.50
0.6
0.05
0.8
- -
7.0
0.25 -
0.7 - 0.35 - 0.25 - 6.0 -

711.0 P 0.30
1.4 0.6
0.05
0.45
- -
7.0
0.20 -
0.50 - 0.40 - 5.0 - 0.15 -

712.0 S 0.30 0.50 0.25 0.10
0.65 0.6
-
8.5 0.25
-
0.40 - 0.20 - 7.0 -

713.0 S, P 0.25 1.1
0.10
0.6
0.50
0.35 0.15
8.0
0.25 -
0.8 - 0.06 - 6.5 - 0.10 -

771.0 S 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10
1.0 0.20
-
7.5 0.20
-
0.6 - 0.06 - 6.0 - 0.10 -

772.0 S 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10
0.8 0.20
-
7.0 0.20
-
0.7 - 0.7 - 5.5 -

850.0 S, P 0.7 0.7
1.3
0.10 0.10 -
1.3
- 0.20
7.0
5.5 - 3.0 - 5.5 -
853.0 S, P
6.5
0.7
4.0
0.60 - - - - 0.20
7.0
(a)P = permanent mold, S = sand, D = high pressure diecasting;

(b) Compositions are maximum, unless shown as a range
References
1. “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys,” Casting, ASM Handbook, Vol. 15, pp. 1059-1084 (2008).
2. “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys,” ASM Specialty Handbook, ASM International, Edited by
J.R. Davis (1993).
3. “Aluminum Alloy Castings, Properties, Processes, and Applications,” Edited by J.G.
Kaufman and E.L. Rooy, American Foundry Society and ASM International (2004).
4. “Aluminum Casting Technology,” 2nd Edition, American Foundry Society, Edited by D.L.
Zalensas (1993).
5. M. Sahoo, and S. Sahu, “Principles of Metal Casting,” 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Com-
pany, NY (2014).
6. X. Sikum, Y. Rongxi, G. Zhi, X. Xiang, H. Chagen and G. Xiuyan, “Effects of Rare Earth Ce
on Casting Properties of Al-4.5 Cu Alloy,” Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 135, p. 1-4
(2010).
7. D. Weiss, “Development and Casting of High Cerium Content Aluminum Alloys,” AFS Pro-
ceedings of the 121st Metalcasting Congress, Paper No. 17-013 (2017).
8. D. Weiss and O. Rios, “Low Density and Temperature Tolerant Alloys for Automotive Appli-
cations,” SAE International, 2017-01-1666 (March 2017).
9. K.E. Honer and Z. Youling, “Influence of Ca and Sr on the Hydrogen Pickup of Aluminum
Alloy Melts by Example of G-AlSi12,” Giesserei-Forschung, Vol. 39(11), pp. 34-48 (1987).
10. R.C. Gibbons, Ed., “Woldman’s Engineering Alloys,” 6th ed., American Society for Metals
(1979).
11. “Handbook of International Alloy Compositions and Designations,” Metals and Ceramics
Information Center, Battelle Memorial Institute (1976).
12. J. Datta, “Aluminum-Schlüssel–Key to Aluminum Alloys,” 5th Ed., Aluminium Verlag (1997).
// 39
CHAPTER FOUR:
Phase Diagrams
and Solidification
Characteristics
Pure aluminum is very soft in the cast form. For example, cast alloy 170.1.1 which contains
99.7% aluminum has mechanical properties of 10 ksi (70 MPa) UTS, 6 ksi (40 MPa) YS and 20
% elongation. For structural applications, aluminum is alloyed with elements such as copper,
silicon, magnesium, zinc etc. to increase the mechanical properties. These elements have sig-
nificant solubility in aluminum which increases with temperature. The liquid and solid solubility
of various alloying elements in aluminum are listed in Table 4-1.1 The decrease in solid solu-
bility from high to low concentration with decreasing temperature is the basis for increasing
the strength by precipitation heat treatment. Other strengthening mechanisms for aluminum
casting alloys are solid solution hardening, second phase intermetallic phases, grain refine-
ment, modification of the silicon phase, and high cooling rate during solidification to reduce the
dendrite arm spacing (DAS). These will be discussed later in the chapter.
“Second-phase” constituents form when the solid solubility limit is exceeded. Elements
such as Si, Sn and Be remain as pure alloying ingredients in the microstructure. Intermetallic
compound phases form in most of the ternary, quaternary and multi-component cast alloys.
For example, alloys 356.0 (Al-Si-Mg, Fe) and 520.0 (Al-Mg-Si-Fe) can contain phases such as
Si, Mg2Si and Fe2 Si2Al9 and FeAl3, Fe3Si Al2, Mg2Si, and Mg2Al3 respectively. The phases that
appear in a cast structure depend on the rate of solidification.
40 \\ Phase Diagrams and Solidification Characteristics
Table 4-1. Solubility Limits for Various Binary Aluminum Alloys1
Temperature(a) Liquid Solubility Solid Solubility

Element
C F wt. % at. % wt. % at. %
Ag 570 1060 72.0 60.9 55.6 23.8
Au 640 1180 5 0.7 0.36 0.049
B 660 1220 0.022 0.054 <0.001 <0.002
Be 645 1190 0.87 2.56 0.063 0.188
Bi 660(b) 1220(b) 3.4 0.45 <0.1 <0.01
Ca 620 1150 7.6 5.25 <0.1 <0.05
Cd 660(b) 1220(b) 6.7 1.69 0.47 0.11
Co 660 1220 1.0 0.46 <0.02 <0.01
Cr 660(c) 1220(c) 0.41 0.21 0.77 0.40
Cu 550 1020 33.15 17.39 5.67 2.48
Fe 655 1210 1.87 0.91 0.052 0.025
Ga 30 80 98.9 97.2 20.0 8.82
Ge 425 800 53.0 29.5 6.0 2.30
Hf 660 1220 0.49 0.074 1.22 0.186

(c) (c)
In 640 1180 17.5 4.65 0.17 0.04
Li 600 1110 9.9 30.0 4.0 13.9
Mg 450 840 35.0 37.34 14.9 16.26
Mn 660 1220 1.95 0.97 1.82 0.90
Mo 660(c) 1220(c) 0.1 0.03 0.25 0.056
Na 660(b) 1220(b) 0.18 0.21 <0.003 <0.003
Nb 660(c) 1220(c) 0.01 0.003 0.22 0.064
Ni 640 1180 6.12 2.91 0.05 0.023
Pb 660 1220 1.52 0.20 0.15 0.02
Sb 660 1220 1.1 0.25 <0.1 <0.02
Sc 660 1220 0.52 0.31 0.38 0.23

// 41
Temperature(a) Liquid Solubility Solid Solubility

Element
C F wt. % at. % wt. % at. %
Si 580 1080 12.6 12.16 1.65 1.59
Sn 230 450 99.5 97.83 <0.01 <0.002
Sr 655 1210 − − − −
Ti 665(c) 1230(c) 0.0.15 0.084 1.00 0.57
V 665(c) 1230(c) 0.25 0.133 0.6 0.32
Y 645 1190 7.7 2.47 <0.1 <0.03
Zn 380 720 95.0 88.7 82.8 66.4
Zr 660(c) 1220(c) 0.11 0.033 0.28 0.085
(a) = Eutectic reaction unless designated otherwise;

(b) = Monotectic reaction; (c) = Peritectic reaction.
PHASE DIAGRAMS AND ALLOY SYSTEMS

Phase diagrams or equilibrium diagrams are most important to understand the alloy character-
istics such as: microstructure, mechanical properties, and interrelation of phases in the alloy
with temperature and composition. Commercial alloys are based on binary and ternary phase
diagrams. Typical phase diagrams for important alloying elements such as Cu, Si, Mg, and Zn
and some important commercial alloys are discussed as follows.
Aluminum-Copper Alloys
Al-Cu alloys are the basis for a number of high-strength casting alloys for structural applica-
tions. The structural effects of copper in Al-Cu base alloys can be studied by referring to the
equilibrium diagram in Fig. 4-1.2 The diagram shows solubility of copper in aluminum increas-
ing in the solid state from less than 0.50% at room temperature to 5.65% at 565C (1018F).
Copper above the solubility limit at any temperature appears microstructurally as the θ phase.
The θ phase has a composition approximating the formula CuAl2 (46.5% Al-53.5% Cu) and
is a hard, brittle constituent.3,4 By comparison, the solid-solution phase is relatively soft and
ductile. Structurally, then, increasing copper content in Al-Cu base alloys results in an increas-
ing percentage of the θ phase. The mechanical properties of hardness and strength can then
be expected to increase as copper content increases while the ductility decreases. A limited
percentage of copper thus has a beneficial effect of strengthening and hardening in Al-Cu base
alloys. An excessive copper percentage will cause tensile properties to fall below the maxi-
mum values obtained with reduction in ductility to a very low level. The copper percentages
in aluminum casting alloys are adjusted so that the lower contents, 2 to 5% are used in alloys
required to have optimum ductility (or toughness), whereas the higher percentages are used
when greater hardness and strength are desired.
The sloping solvus line in Fig. 4-1(b) indicates that Al-Cu alloys can be heat treated. Solution
heat treatment and age hardening can produce a high degree of strengthening in these alloys.
Other alloying elements such as Mg, Si and Zn confer heat-treating potentialities to Al-Cu base
alloys and they greatly extend the range of properties available in aluminum castings. However,
copper-containing aluminum alloys are less resistant to corrosion.
Figure 4-1 indicates that alloys based in the Al-Cu system have a long solidification range.
High-strength casting alloys such as 201.0 and 206.0 have a freezing range of about 80C
(144F). Hence, Al-Cu based alloys are susceptible to solidification cracking (hot tearing) and
interdendritic shrinkage.
Figure 4-1(a). The Al-Cu equilibrium system.4

// 43
Figure 4-1 (b). The aluminum rich area of the aluminum-copper equilibrium diagram.5
Aluminum-Silicon Alloys
Silicon is present in most commercial aluminum casting alloys. Binary Al-Si alloys have good
casting fluidity, castability and corrosion resistance. As an alloying element it is used in
amounts up to about 20% Si. The binary Al-Si phase diagram in shown in Fig. 4-2.5 The solu-
bility of Si in aluminum, the α-phase is limited to 1.65% at 577C (1072F) and less than 0.05%
at room temperature.6 The eutectic composition is 12.6% Si. Undissolved silicon is present as
β, silicon particles containing an extremely small percentage of aluminum. Silicon phase in
an aluminum alloy, containing 14.0% Si, is illustrated in Fig. 4-3.7,8 The size of the silicon-rich
β particles may be varied greatly. A rather coarse particle size occurs in normal melting and
sand-casting practice. Structural refinement (as discussed later) by fast cooling rates (as in
permanent mold and die casting processes) or by addition of elements such as Na or Sr can
modify the silicon morphology to produce from a flaky (as a hypoeutectic alloy) form to a fine
fibrous form.
The effect of silicon on the properties of Al-Si alloys is largely one of alloying since no signif-
icant benefits are obtained by attempts at solution heat-treating and aging. The percentage
of silicon in the alloy is first in importance, closely followed by the microstructural effects of
modification by permanent mold, die casting or modification. Diecasting changes the micro-
structure due to rapid cooling (i.e., smaller size). Modification also results in smaller grain size.
The general effect of increasing silicon contents is shown in Fig. 4-4 to be that of increasing
the strength until the eutectic silicon percentage is reached. Ductility, however, is lowered. The
beneficial effects of modification with elements (i.e., sodium, etc.) and by chill casting are also
evident in Fig. 4-4. From these observations it follows that aluminum-silicon alloys should be
modified by suitable additions, or cast in metal molds. However, modification together with per-
manent mold casting produces further improvements in mechanical properties. Furthermore,

since additional improvement cannot be obtained by heat treatment, these alloys will be used
in the as-cast condition. Other elements used in aluminum alloys which, like Si, do not respond
to solution heat-treatment are manganese and nickel.
Figure 4-2. Part of the Al-Si phase diagram showing composition ranges of various alloy types.5
(a) Directionally solidified at 4.5 x 10-3 cm/ (b) Chill cast (650x)
sec., equivalent to sand casting, (150x).
Figure 4-3. Optical micrographs of transverse sections through an Al-Si alloy containing 14% Si.
(a) directionally solidified at 4.5 x 10-3 cm/sec (cooling rate roughly equivalent to sand casting)
at 150x; (b) Chill cast (650x).7,8
// 45
(a) Applies to normal and modified alloys (b) Applies to chill castings
(sodium-treated) in sand castings;
Figure 4-4. Properties of Al-Si casting alloys as a function of silicon in the alloy. (a) Applies to
normal and modified alloys (sodium-treated) in sand castings; (b) Applies to chill castings.3,4
Aluminum-Copper-Silicon Alloys
Aluminum-copper alloys containing silicon are widely used to produce structural castings. Sil-
icon additions lead to a slight increase in corrosion resistance, improve castability and reduce
hot shortness while copper contributes to strengthening and machinability but lower corrosion
resistance. Silicon also accelerates the age-hardening of Al-Cu-Si alloys. The amount of each
element addition can vary; in some, copper predominates and silicon in others. Alloys contain-
ing all levels of Si are heat treatable, but usually with a magnesium percentage of 0.1 to 10.6%,
which enhances the heat treatment response leading to a very attractive range of properties
including premium strength capabilities. Hypereutectic alloys with more than 12% Si also con-
tain Cu. The primary silicon crystals in these alloys improve the wear resistance and are better
suited for more complex castings and for permanent mold and die casting processes. Automo-
tive engine blocks and pistons are the major uses of these hypereutectic alloys.9,10 Hypoeutec-
tic Al-Si-Cu alloys such as 319.0 have a solidification range of 85C (153F). For hypereutectic
alloys such as 390.0, the range is 140C (252F). Thus, interdendritic shrinkage are expected in
these alloys.
The isothermal section of the Al-Cu-Si ternary diagram at 500C (932F) is shown in Fig. 4-5.9
The ternary system is not fully understood despite many studies on phase equilibria. The
copper-rich corner of the ternary diagram is very complex. This is also true in the binary Al-Cu
and Cu-Si systems. A critical assessment of the ternary system given by Lukas and Leburn
shows that no ternary compounds are present.10 However, Ponweiser and Richter have investi-
gated the phase equilibria and invariant sections in the Al-Cu-Si system by optical microscopy,
powder X-ray diffraction, differential thermal analysis (DTA) and electron probe micro analyzer
(EPMA) and reported a new ternary compound in the region (Al, Cu) – y1 and (Cu, Si) – y and
its solubility range was determined. The composition of the ternary compound is Al18Cu72.2Si9.8.
The Cu-poor region of the isothermal section shows Si in equilibrium with binary Al-Cu com-
pounds such as CuAl2 and, CuAl. The Cu-rich part of the isothermal section shows a three field,
studied using EPMA shows the three-field phase {ε + γ + κ} or Al6Cu78Si16.9
Figure 4-5. Isothermal section of Al-Cu-Si ternary diagram at 500C (932F). Black: single phase
fields, dark grey: three phase fields determined by EPMA measurements, light grey fields: three
phase fields determined by analysis of the neighboring two phase fields, dotted black lines (tie-
lines) measured by electron probe micro-analyzer (EPMA).9
Aluminum-Magnesium Alloys
The phase diagram for the binary system is shown in Fig. 4-6.2 With respect to alloying be-
havior, there is similarity with the Al-Cu system. The phase diagram shows a solid-solubility
change of the α phase with decreasing temperature, 14.9% Mg being soluble at 451C (844F)
and less than 2.90% at room temperature. An intermetallic phase β (Al3Mg2) exists when the
solid-solubility limit is exceeded. This phase is harder than the α phase. The sloping solvus line
indicates that there is opportunity for solution and aging heat-treatments. Freezing range var-
ies between 50 and 80C (90 and 144F). The mechanical property relationships with magnesium
content are similar to those in the Al-Cu alloys. Although there are several alloys based on this
binary system, most common casting alloys contain 4, 7 and 10% Mg. Complex alloys contain-
// 47
ing other elements such as Si, Cu, Zn along with substantial percentage of magnesium are also
available. They have moderate to high strength.
Their most important characteristic is corrosion resistance, including exposure to seawater

and marine atmospheres. They have good machinability, weldability and an attractive appear-
ance in cast, machined, polished and anodized conditions.1,3,6
Figure 4-6. The Al-Mg equilibrium system.2
Aluminum-Silicon-Magnesium Alloys
When Mg is added to Al-Si alloys, magnesium and silicon combine to form the intermetallic
compound Mg2Si which strengthens the alloy. Al-Si-Mg alloys then behave as quasi-binary alloy
systems, as illustrated in Fig. 4-7.3,4 The Al-Mg2Si system is also of the type permitting solution
and aging treatments and their accompanying property changes. Ternary alloys taking advan-
tage of this quasi-binary system and the beneficial effects of silicon contain small percentages
of Mg, up to about 0.30%, and larger percentages of Si, 6 to 8.0%. The excess silicon improves
the casting properties of these alloys since it is not needed to form Mg2Si.
Theses alloys can be modified by adding Sr and grain refined by using TiB2. Sr modification of
low and high Si commercial alloys for structural applications are discussed under Grain Refine-
ment and Modification presented later in this chapter.
Al-Mg-Si equilibrium system Quasi-binary system Al-Mg-Si
Figure 4-7. The Al-Mg-Si equilibrium system and the quasi-binary system Al-Mg-Si.3,4
Mechanical properties of Al-Si-Mg alloys are high enough due to the formation of Mg2Si
strengthening precipitates to cast many structural castings. Their corrosion resistance is also
excellent. However, the Si level far exceeds the amount needed to form Mg2Si phase. The
excess Si contributes to decrease in ductility of the alloy. Work done by Weiss on alloy E357.0,
which contains 6.5 to 7.5 % Si and 0.4 to 0.7% Mg, has shown that decreasing the silicon did
reduce the volume fraction of eutectic silicon and intermetallic iron phase but reducing the
silicon phase resulted in lower strength for alloys containing less than 5% Si. Research on the
effect of eutectic Si on alloy strength discovered that it is expected to play a strengthening
role when the Si is modified.11 However, the large increase in elongation when Si is reduced to
4% and the attendant maximization of the quality index (Fig. 4-8) suggests that functionally,
E357.0 with a reduced Si level may be a better choice as a structural alloy. The reduction in flu-
idity of low-silicon E357.0 is modest and can be easily overcome through additional superheat
of the alloy or adjustment in the gating system.
// 49
Figure 4-8. Quality index for different silicon levels in aluminum E357.11
Aluminum-Zinc-Magnesium Alloys
The Al-Zn equilibrium diagram and the ternary Al-Zn-Mg diagram are shown in Figs. 4-9 and
4-1012 respectively. Their freezing range can vary between 35 and 50C (63 and 90F) which are
considered medium freezing range alloys. Many alloys of this type age naturally at room tem-
perature, achieving full strength within 20 to 30 days after casting. Solution heat treatment is
not usually necessary for property development. Rapid solidification in these alloys can result
in microsegregation of magnesium-zinc phases that reduces hardening potential. The Al-Zn
phase diagram with sloping solvus line indicates that conventional solution heat treatments
can be used only when adequate property development does not occur through natural aging.13
However, such heat treatment is not normally required.
The 7xx series of Al-Zn-Mg alloys contain 2.7 to 8.5% Zn and 0.25 to 2.4% Mg. The ternary Al-
Zn-Mg phase diagram was constructed by looking at microstructures and thermal analysis.12
The Mg-Zn system dissolves very little aluminum. However, the Al-Mg system can dissolve up
to 10% Zn. The Al-Mg-Zn system contains a ternary phase Al2Mg3Zn3 and binary phases MgZn2
and Al3Mg4 at room temperature.
Moderate to good tensile properties in the as-cast condition can be expected in these alloys.
The melting temperatures of alloys of this group are high, an advantage in castings that are to
be brazed.
Machinability and resistance to general corrosion is usually good. The chemistry of most alloys
can be controlled to minimize stress-corrosion susceptibility. The castability of Al-Zn-Mg alloys
is poor, and good foundry practices are required to minimize hot tearing and shrinkage de-
fects.6
Figure 4-9. The Al-Zn equilibrium diagram.2
Figure 4-10. The ternary Al-Zn-Mg alloy at 20 C.12(p. 3.19)

// 51
Aluminum-Cerium Alloys
The Al-Ce phase diagram based on a Thermo-Calc calculation is shown in Fig. 4-11.14 The char-
acteristics of this phase diagram are similar to Al-Cu and Al-Mg systems. The Al-rich corner of
the phase diagram has a eutectic composition of about 10% Ce and a eutectic temperature of
640C (1184F). The intermetallic compound Al11 Ce3 forms at about 58% Ce. Hence, the hypo-
and hyper-eutectic alloys contain this intermetallic compound Al11 Ce3. Ce is used with the
solid solution strengthening Mg and Zn or in age hardening systems that include Si and Mg.
Figure 4-11. Al-Ce phase diagram based on a Thermo-Calc calculation.14

SOLIDIFICATION CONTROL
The cast structure developed after solidification has an impact on mechanical properties and
quality of castings. The mode of solidification of aluminum alloys is governed by their solidifi-
cation range. Freezing ranges for some typical alloys for structural castings are given in Table
4-2. The three groups based on freezing range are:
1. Short freezing range alloys: A freezing range of less than 30C (55F). These alloys are close
to eutectic composition, such as alloy 413.0.
2. Medium freezing range alloys: A freezing range of 30 to 80C (55 to 140F). such as 354.0.
356.0, 712.0, 713.0.
3. Long freezing range alloys: A freezing range of more than 80C (140F), such as 201.0,
319.0,520.0 and some Al-Ce alloys.
Aluminum alloys are characterized as eutectic systems with distribution coefficient less than
one. During solidification of short freezing range alloys, a cellular structure develops at low
solute concentrations followed by fully dendritic structure at high solute concentrations. Pipe
formation is observed in the riser of such alloys. The solidification behavior is sufficiently pro-
gressive to permit easy movement of liquid metal from the riser to get adequately fed castings
with very little shrinkage porosity.
By contrast, solidification characteristics of medium- and long-freezing range alloys are

non-progressive. Solidification starts at the metal-mold interface and columnar grains grow
from the interface towards the center of the casting section. Because of the wide freezing
range, new crystals start forming within the liquid and the columnar crystals cannot grow
very far. A mushy zone is formed by the new crystals and the remaining liquid. As a result, the
movement of the liquid metal is restricted. This is “mass feeding” and solidification shrinkage
can be compensated by the movement of the “mushy” mass of residual liquid and solid crys-
tals. A skeleton of crystal framework is formed by the growth of the crystals within the remain-
ing liquid. Solidification within the crystal framework continues, but the solidification shrinkage
cannot be compensated as the narrow liquid channels get blocked. This gives rise to finely dis-
persed microporosity in the casting. To minimize/eliminate microporosity, it is recommended to
increase the temperature gradient by using metal chills and promote directional solidification
from the riser. Depending on the casting shape, one can use end-chills or tapered chills such as
copper, steel, cast iron and graphite. In some cases, because of the complexity of the casting,
metal chills may not be suitable. In such cases, zircon sand can be used as a chill because of
its relatively high thermal conductivity compared to silica sand.
// 53
Table 4-2. Solidification Range of Typical Aluminum Alloys3,13,14
Melting Temp., Solidification Temp. Solidification Range

Alloy Type Freezing Range Type
C (F) C (F) °C (°F)
201.0 650 (1202) 535 (995) 115 (207) Long
206.0 650 (1202) 570 (1058) 80 (144) Medium
319.0 605 (1121) 520 (968) 85 (153) Medium
354.0 600 (1110) 540 (1005) 60 (108) Medium
355.0 620 (1148) 545 (1013) 75 (135) Medium
356.0 615 (1140) 555 (1031) 60 (108) Medium
357.0 615 (1140) 555 (1031) 60 (108) Medium
380.0 595 (1103) 515 (960) 80 (144) Medium
390.0 650 (1202) 505(941) 145 (261) Long
413.0 585 (1085) 575 (1067) 10 (18) Short
443.0 630 (1166) 575 (1067) 55 (99) Medium
520.0 605 (1121) 450 (842) 155 (279) Long
535.0 630 (1166) 550 (1022) 80 (144) Medium
710.0 650 (1202) 600 (1112) 50 (90) Medium
712.0 615 (1140) 570 (1058) 45 (82) Medium
713.0 630 (1166) 595 (1103) 35 (63) Short to Medium
Al-8Ce-10 Mg 586 (1087) 448 (839) 138 (248) Long
SOLIDIFICATION CHARACTERISTICS
Solidification characteristics that affect the mechanical properties of aluminum alloys are:
1. Dendrite arm spacing;

2. Microstructure control (Grain refinement, Silicon phase modification);
3. Porosity;
4. Inclusions; and
5. Hot tearing;
These five solidification characteristics are discussed as follows.
1.) Dendrite Arm Spacing (DAS)
Dendritic structure is generally observed in all aluminum cast alloys and in all commercial cast-
ing processes except semi-solid casting. Typical dendritic microstructures are shown in Fig.
4-12 (a) and (b).5 The cells obtained within the dendrite structure correspond to the dimensions
separating the arms of primary and secondary dendrites. These spacings are influenced by a
given composition and solidification rate (Fig. 4-12).
(a) Alloy 319.1, cooling rate 0.6°C/s, (56x). (b) Alloy 356.1, cooling rate 0.6°C/s, (55x).
Figure 4-12. Typical dendritic structure in hypoeutectic Al-Si type alloys.5

// 55
Figure 4-13. Dendrite arm spacing and

dendrite cell size as a function of local solidification rate.6
There are at least three measurements used to describe dendrite refinement;
• Dendrite arm spacing—the distance between developed secondary arms;

• Dendrite cell interval—the distance between centerlines of adjacent dendrite cells; and
• Dendrite cell size—the width of individual dendrite cells.
The dendrite arm spacing (DAS), or secondary dendrite arm spacing (SDAS) is a simple inverse
cube root of the solidification time. The effect of the various conventional casting processes
(and hence the cooling rate) on the spacing is shown in Table 4-3. The DAS is also influenced
by the local solidification time as shown in Fig. 4-14. Local solidification times can be obtained
from cooling curves. Mechanical properties of castings are also related to DAS as shown in
Fig. 4-15 for T62 heat treated A.356.0 in plaster-cast plates. In this case, YS is insensitive to
variations in dendrite cell size in comparison with UTS and % elongation. As-cast mechanical
properties of sand-cast cylindrical shaped castings where cooling rate was varied using cast
iron chills are shown in Fig. 4-16 where it is also shown that the UTS is more sensitive to cool-
ing rate and hence, DAS than yield strength and % elongation.
Figure 4-14. The relationship between DAS and local solidification time for alloy A356.0.15(p.112)
Figure 4-15. Tensile properties vs. dendrite cell size for

four heats of aluminum alloy 356.0-T62 plaster cast plates.13(p.1065)
// 57
Figure 4-16. Influence of DAS on mechanical properties

of aluminum alloy 356.0.15,16 (1 kg/mm = 9.8 MPa)
Table 4-3. Relative DAS for Various Conventional Casting Processes6

(These are affected by section size)
Casting Process Cooling Rate Dendrite Arm Spacing
C/s F/s µm Mils
Plaster, Investment 1 1.80 100-1000 3.94-39.4
Sand, Shell 10 18.0 50-500 1.97-19.7
Permanent Mold 100 180.0 30-70 1.18-2.76
Die 1000 1800 5-15 0.20-0.59

2.) Microstructure Control (Grain refinement, Silicon phase modification)
Grain Refinement
Grain refinement of commercial aluminum alloys has been well established. The main aim is
to convert the coarse columnar and/or coarse equiaxed structures to fine, equiaxed grains to
yield the best combination of strength and ductility by maximizing grain-boundary surface area
and more finely distributing grain-boundary constituents. Porosity, if present, is generally of
smaller discrete void size in fine-grain parts. Typical microstructures of coarse and fine grain
structures in an Al-Cu alloy are given in Fig. 4-17.17
Other advantages of grain refinement are:
• Improved mechanical properties;

• Improved feeding characteristics due to the formation of finer, more evenly distributed
intermetallic phases;
• Increased hot tear resistance;
• Increased pressure tightness due to elimination/reduction of porosity;
• Improved response to thermal treatment; and
• Improved appearance following chemical, electrochemical, and mechanical finishing.
(a) not refined, (37.5x) (b) refined, (50x)
Figure 4-17. Anodized microstructures of 206.0 (a) before, and (b) after grain refinement.17
Factors affecting grain refinement are alloy composition, solidification rate, and the concentra-
tion of effective grain nucleation sites provided using grain refiners. Faster solidification rates
as in permanent mold casting or high-pressure die-casting do provide grain refinement. The
use of suitable grain refiners is more common in sand and permanent mold casting operations
to achieve grain refinement. The most widely used grain refiners are master alloys of titanium,
or of titanium and boron, in aluminum. Aluminum-titanium refiners generally contain from 3
to 10% Ti. The same range of titanium concentrations is used in Al-Ti-B refiners with boron
contents from 0.2 to 1% and titanium-to-boron ratios ranging from about 1 to 50. It should be
noted that 1:1 ratio Ti: B master alloys such as Al-2.5% Ti-2.5% B master alloy, and even pure B,
// 59
have been shown to be effective grain refiners of Al-Si alloys. It has been shown that in foundry
alloys, Si, Cu and Zn can hinder the titanium grain refinement, whereas boron alone is a strong
grain refiner. This is shown in Fig. 4-18 for A356.0 alloy as reported by Gruzleski and Closset
and also by Sigworth based on investigations by Lu, Wang and Kung by using three types of
master alloys such as Al-5Ti, Al-5Ti-1B and Al-4B.17-19 It should be noted that in Fig. 4-18, %
Ti or B refers to the master alloy, not the element. For example, 0.04% B is 0.04% of the Al-4B
master alloy which comes to 0.0016% B content.
Figure 4-19 illustrates that in alloy 319.0, a master alloy Al-2.5% Ti-2.5% B is a more effective
grain refiner compared with master alloy Al-5% Ti-1% B. Thus, improved grain refinement is ob-
tained with higher B content.20 They are less effective on non-Si containing foundry or wrought
alloy compositions. Sigworth recommends a B content of 10 to 20 ppm to yield the best grain
size by using Al5Ti-1B or Al-3Ti-1B master alloys.19 In addition, it is advisable to maintain Ti
content of 0.1% in the Al-Si-Cu type alloys before adding the 10-20 ppm of B (Fig. 4-20).
In Al-Cu casting alloys, Sigworth has reported a Ti content of less than 0.05% and 10 to 20 ppm
B to obtain the best grain size and good hot tearing resistance.18 Some foundries use 20 ppm B
for the 300 series alloys and 40 ppm B for the 200 series alloys.
Figure 4-18. The beneficial effect of boron on the grain refinement of A356.0 alloy.19,20
Figure 4-19. Comparison of grain refinement with Al-5% Ti-1%

B master alloy (curve a) with Al-2.5% Ti-2.5% B master alloy (curve b).18
Sometimes grain refinement and silicon modification can be achieved together by using
master alloys which include both grain refinement elements and compounds as well as Sr for
modification. Titanium and aluminum carbides are also considered effective in the nucleation
of grains.
Grain refiners must introduce controlled, predictable, and operative quantities of aluminides
and borides or carbides in the correct form, size, and distribution for grain nucleation. Refin-
ers in rod form, developed for the continuous treatment of aluminum in primary operations
and displaying clean, fine, unagglomerated microstructures are available in sheared lengths
for foundry use. In addition to grain-refining master alloys in waffle or rolled rod form, salts,
usually in compacted form that react with molten aluminum to form combinations of TiAl3 and
TiB2 are also available.
// 61
Figure 4-20. Grain refinement of 319 alloy test castings.19,20
Other Grain Refiners
Scandium, zirconium and strontium have been used for grain refinement of 535.0 alloy and
also 356.0. For the Al-Mg alloy, scandium, zirconium and strontium were effective as grain
refiners at 0.5, 0.2 and 0.1% respectively. Grain size varied between 250 and 470 µm for such
additions. However, similar fine grain sizes could be obtained with 0.05% Ti, 0.085% B, and a
combination of 0.05% Ti + 0.01% B.21
In the case of alloy 356.0, scandium and zirconium concentrations varied between 0.39 and
0.75%, and 0.37 and 0.69% respectively. Grain size for such concentrations were similar to
those obtained with 0.068 to 0.11% Ti and 0.01 to 0.02% B.22 A combination of scandium
(0.31−0.4%) and zirconium (0.27%) is also effective in producing a fine grain structure. Their
mechanical properties in as-cast and heat treated (T6) conditions were similar.
Considering the relatively high cost of scandium and the higher concentrations needed to
achieve equivalent grain size as in Ti- and B- treated alloys, there is no apparent benefit in
selecting scandium as a grain refiner.
Amount of Grain Refiner
Grain refined ingots are available to foundries. Many prefer to do the grain refinement ad-
dition just before pouring. Most common amounts of addition are 0.05-0.15% Ti, 0.004% B,
0.01−0.08% Ti, plus 0.003% B. In case of high silicon alloys, B addition is can be 0.003−0.008%.
Over grain refinement should be avoided as this may lead to formation of
complex intermetallics.
Grain-Refining Fluxes
Grain refinement of aluminum alloys can also be done using fluxes which contain Ti, B or both
Ti and B. Some fluxes contain Ti, B, Zr and carbon.
Ultrasonic Grain Refinement
Another way of achieving grain refinement is to use transduced ultrasonic energy to the molten
metal. This technique has been shown to provide degrees of grain refinement under laboratory
conditions.23-26
The commercial use of this technology is in its infancy. The application of this method to engi-
neered castings shows promise, particularly with the additional degassing benefits that have
been demonstrated commercially using ultrasonic processing.
Grain Size Test
A simple and quick test procedure is to cast aluminum alloy into an open-ended iron ring, 3 in.
(76 mm) diameter and 1 in. (25 mm) high, placed on a block of fused silica. The iron rings are
not preheated. The iron ring provides some chilling and shows a fine grain structure. The bot-
tom face cools next. The top surface solidifies last. Polishing is not needed to reveal the grain
structure. A typical macrostructure is shown in Fig. 4-21 for unrefined and grain refined alloy.
Another method is to plot cooling curves as shown in Fig. 4-22 for both grain refined and unre-
fined conditions. Without the addition of any grain refiner, the metal undercools by about 3 to
4C (5.4−7.2F). In the grain refined condition, there is very little undercooling before the growth
temperature as shown in Fig. 4-22.18 The apparent undercooling Δθ is an indication of grain
refinement and is usually less than 0.5 to 1.0 C (20). Δθ is large for an unrefined alloy as shown
in Fig. 4-23 for alloy 356.0.18
Before grain refinement After grain refinement using Al-Ti-B master alloy
Figure 4-21. Grain refinement test using the iron ring for AlMag 535.0 alloy.21
// 63
Figure 4-22. Cooling curves for grain refined and unrefined conditions. θ0 is
the start of freezing for a grain refined alloy, θ1 is the nucleation temperature for the
unrefined alloy, and Θ2 is the equilibrium growth temperature for the unrefined condition,
and t1 is the period of apparent supercooling.18
Figure 4-23. Average grain size as a function of ΔΘ.18

Mechanical Properties
As mentioned before, grain refinement improves the mechanical properties of castings. In

Al-Cu alloys such improvement is associated with grain refinement and improved porosity
distribution. In case of Al-Si alloys, it is the porosity distribution rather than grain refinement
which contributes to increased mechanical properties. Variation in mechanical properties for
alloy 201.0 is shown in Fig. 4-24.18
Figure 4-24. Mechanical properties of Al-Cu alloy 201.0- as a function of grain size.18
Mechanical properties are also influenced by the dendrite arm spacing (DAS). The DAS is con-
trolled primarily by the solidification rate but is influenced by chemical grain refinement. Tables
4-4 and 4-5 show the effect of DAS on mechanical properties for alloys B206-T6 (0.011% Ti)
and A356-T6 respectively.26
Table 4-4. Tensile Properties of B206-T6 Alloy in AA Test Casting26
Location UTS Yield 4D DAS Solidification

(Thickness) ksi (Mpa) ksi (Mpa) Elongation (microns) Time (sec.)
36.2 ± 1.8 (250 ±
1 (1-3/8”) 39.0 ± 3.6 (269 ± 25)
12)
2.5 ± 1.2 51 100
2 (2”) 52.44.5 (362 ± 31) 37.0 ± 1.0 (255 ± 7) 11.1 ± 4.7 46 63
3 (7/8”) 61.4 ± 1.4 (424 ± 10) 37.8 ± 0.8 (216 ± 6) 21.2 ± 1.8 38 36
5 (3/8”) 63.6 ± 0.7 (439 ± 5) 39.2 ± 0.8 (270 ± 6) 21.1 ± 2.2 33 25
4 (1/2”) 62.9 ± 1.2 (434 ± 8) 39.2 ± 1.2 (270 ± 8) 25.0 ± 1.4 25 11

// 65
Table 4-5. Tensile Properties of A356-T6 Alloy in AA Test Casting
Location UTS Yield 4D DAS Solidification

(Thickness) ksi (Mpa) ksi (Mpa) Elongation (microns) Time (sec.)
1 (1-3/8”) 35.6 (246) 31.3 (216) 2.7 51 100
2 (2”) 36.5 (252) 32.1 (221) 3.0 46 63
3 (7/8”) 39.7 (274) 33.4 (230) 4.6 38 36
5 (3/8”) 39.7 (274) 33.2 (229) 4.9 33 25
4 (1/2”) 41.7 (288) 33.8 (233) 6.5 25 11
Modification of Silicon Morphology
Modification of the silicon morphology in both hypo- and hyper-eutectic Al-Si alloys is needed
to improve the mechanical properties of the cast components.
Hypoeutectic Alloys
As mentioned before, in case of hypoeutectic and eutectic alloys, the acicular and flaky form
of silicon can be modified to a more fibrous eutectic structure by increasing solidification rate
(Fig. 4-3). Similar modified microstructures can be obtained by chemical modification using
calcium, barium, sodium, strontium and antimony. Amount of each metal depends somewhat
on the alloy composition. Of these, sodium, strontium and antimony find significant indus-
trial use. Calcium is very weak modifier. Antimony is used frequently in Japan and Europe in
amounts of 0.1%.18 However, it produces a finer lamellar structure than a fibrous morphology.
Antimony is not compatible with other modifying elements.
Modification by Sodium
Sodium is the most potent modifier. However, it fades easily because of oxidation and high va-
por pressure (0.2 atmosphere at 730C or 1345F) losses as shown in Fig. 4-25.18 Sodium melts
at 98C (207F). Its dissolution in the melt is almost instantaneous. Very low sodium concentra-
tions (~0.001%) are required for effective modification. Typical retained levels are in the range
0.005 to 0.015% to obtain practical casting times between re-modification additions. Sodium
recoveries are low (20 to 30% of the addition). Depending on how sodium is added, it can cause
agitation in the melt, which may lead to hydrogen pick-up.
Figure 4-25. Loss of sodium during holding in a crucible.18
Modification by Strontium
Use of strontium as a modifier is more common in industry as it is less transient. But it may be
less effective for modification under slow solidification rates. A much wider range of strontium
concentrations is in use. In general, addition rates far exceed those required for effective sodi-
um modification. An operating range 50 ppm wide between 0.004 to 0.020% (40 to 200 ppm) is
the modern standard industry practice. However, other alloying elements such as copper and
magnesium can impact the effectiveness of Sr as a modifier. Different amounts of Sr may be
required in Al-Si-Cu alloys such as 355 or in higher magnesium Al-Si alloys such as 357.0.
Normally, good modification is achievable in the range of 0.008 to 0.015% Sr. AFS has de-
veloped a rating system for the silicon morphology in Al-Si alloys. These are divided into six
classes as shown in Fig. 4-2618 and as follows:
• Class 1: Unmodified structures

• Class 2: Lamellar structures
• Class 3: Partial modification
• Class 4: Mostly modified structures
• Class 5: Modified (fibrous) structures
• Class 6: Super modified (very fine) structures
// 67
The effect of Sr content on modification is shown in Fig. 4-27.18 In general, the modification
rating will increase as Sr concentration increases. However, over modification can occur at high
Sr levels as shown in Fig. 4-28.18 Coarsening of the silicon structure and reversion of the fine
fibrous silicon to an interconnected plate form can occur due to over modification. Reduced
fluidity and susceptibility to porosity-related problems are usually encountered well before over
modification may be experienced. Over modification also leads to reduced mechanical proper-
ties.18 Higher levels of Sr may help to prevent die soldering in permanent mold castings.
Strontium is usually added to melts as master alloys. Some common master alloys are:
• Al-3.5 % Sr
• Al-10 % Sr
• Al-10 % Sr-14% Si
• 90% Sr-10% Al.
The master alloy, either in rod or waffle form, can be wrapped in aluminum foil and then
plunged into the melt using a perforated plunger. In general, Sr recovery is high, around 90%.19
Similar to sodium, a strontium addition is associated with hydrogen pickup.
In addition to freezing rate, type of modifier and amount of modifier, other factors such as
impurities present in the melt and silicon content of the alloy can affect modification and the
microstructure. It has been well established that phosphorus interferes with the modification
mechanism. Phosphorus reacts with sodium and probably with strontium and calcium to form
phosphides that nullify the modification additions. It is, therefore, desirable to use low-phos-
phorus metal when modification is a process objective and/or to make larger modifier addi-
tions to compensate for phosphorus-related losses. Primary producers control phosphorus
contents in smelting and processing through the judicious choice of feed materials to provide
less than 0.001% of phosphorus in alloyed ingot.3
With respect to silicon content, larger amounts of modifier are needed as silicon content
increases. For example, Sr content may have to be increased by 50% as the silicon content in-
creases from 7 to 11%.18 In the case of alloy 413.0, about 0.04% Sr is needed for modification.
Remodification through strontium additions may be required, although retreatment is less fre-
quent than for sodium particularly at the lower Sr levels where fade rates can be quite low.
Fading of strontium is much less than that of sodium due to its low vapor pressure. For exam-
ple, at 730C (1350F), its vapor pressure is 10-3 atmospheres, or about 200 times less than that
of sodium.18 Figure 4-29 shows fading curves for alloy 319.2 at two strontium levels. It shows
that a lower strontium content requires relatively less time to fade to half of the original value.
It is 16 hours for 0.025% Sr level compared to 9 hours for the 0.003% Sr content.18
Class 1. Fully Unmodified Structures
Class 2. Lamellar Structures
Class 3. Partial Modification
Figure 4-26. Optical micrographs of A356.0 alloy for

unmodified and various modified conditions, (500x).18
// 69
Class 4. Absence of Lamellar Structures
Class 5. Fibrous Silicon Eutectics
Class 6. Very Fine Structures
Figure 4-26. Optical micrographs of A356.0 alloy for

unmodified and various modified conditions, (500x).18
Top left: 0.0013% Sr; Top Right: 0.0035% Sr; Bottom left: 0.0052% Sr; Bottom right: 0.0097% Sr.
Figure 4-27. Optical micrographs showing change in microstructure of an A356.0 alloy with
increasing strontium concentration, 350x.18
// 71
(a) optical micrograph (400x) (b) scanning electron micrograph (2000x)
Figure 4-28. Coarse silicon caused by over modification with 0.09% Sr in an A356.0 alloy.18
Figure 4-29. Typical strontium losses during furnace holding.18 a.) for an initial
concentration of 0.025% used to cast a cylinder head in 319.2 alloy. b.) for an initial
concentration of 0.03% used to cast manifolds in 319.2 alloy.
Thermal analysis is useful in assessing the degree of modification that can be displayed by the
melt. This is shown schematically in Fig. 4-30.18 The effectiveness of modification treatment
is defined by the degree and duration of undercooling at the solidus. With modification, the
eutectic temperature is depressed, the undercooling for nucleation of the eutectic is increased,
and the period of this undercooling is lengthened. Test results must be correlated with the
degree of modification established metallographically for the castings since cooling rate for
the sample will differ.
Figure 4-30. A comparison of the cooling curves of the

eutectic regions of modified and unmodified alloys.18
The feature most used in thermal analysis control of modification is the depression of the
eutectic temperature by 6−8C (10.8−14.4F) from the unmodified state (Fig. 4-30). Since the
eutectic temperature is easy to measure, it is most often employed by foundries to assess
whether a melt is properly modified or not. Figure 4-22 shows a schematic of cooling curves
for unrefined and grain refined conditions. In Fig. 4-30, the effect of modification is demon-
strated.
Higher tensile properties and appreciably improved ductility are obtained with modified struc-
tures when compared to unmodified structures (Table 4-6). The extent of porosity associated
with the addition of modifiers influences the property improvement.
The effect of holding on mechanical properties of A356.0 modified with strontium is given in
Fig. 4-31. The beneficial effect of modification on impact properties is shown in Fig. 4-32.
// 73
Table 4-6. Typical Mechanical Properties of Modified and Unmodified Cast Al Alloys6
Tensile Yield Strength Ultimate Tensile strength

Alloy and Modification
Product Elongation
Temperature Treatment Ksi MPa Ksi MPa
%
Sand cast
13% Si None - - 18.0 124 2.0
test bar
Na-modified - - 28.0 193 13.0
Permanent
mold test None - - 28.0 193 3.6
bars
Na-modified - - 32.0 221 8.0
Permanent
359.0 mold test None - - 26.1 180 5.5
bars
0.07% Sr - - 30.5 210 12.0
Sand cast
356.0-T6 None 30.1 208 41.9 289 2.0
test bars
0.07% Sr 31.6 218 42.2 291 7.2
Bars cut
from chilled
None 30.9 213 41.2 293 3.0
sand
casting
0.07% Sr 31.6 218 42.2 291 7.2
Sand cast
A356.0-T6 None 26.0 179 40.0 226 4.8
test bars
0.01% Sr 30.0 207 43.0 297 8.0
Permanent
A444.0-T4 mold test None - - 21.9 151 24.0
bars
0.07% Sr - - 21.6 149 30.0
Sand cast
A413.2 None 16.3 112 19.8 137 1.8
test bars
0.005-
15.6 108 23.0 159 8.4
0.05% Sr
Permanent
mold test None 18.1 125 24.4 168 6.0
bars
0.005-
18.1 125 27.7 191 12.0
0.08% Sr
Test bar cut
from auto 0.05% Sr 17.5 121 28.0 193 10.6
wheel
0.06% SR 18.2 126 28.0 193 12.8
Figure 4-31. Mechanical properties of A356.0 alloy modified with strontium

and held for times of up to 11 hours before casting.18
Figure 4-32. Impact strength of strontium modified aluminum alloys.18

// 75
Barium as a Modifier
Barium as a modifier for Al-Si alloys has been explored by several researchers and there is
some controversy regarding its use as a modifier as some have observed modification and
improved mechanical properties. Others did not see any modification and mechanical prop-
erties were not encouraging in both as-cast and T6 conditions.28-31 Most recent work by Eck
Industries, Inc. (Eck) and Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) has used Al-Ba
master alloy for modification of A356 and the results are mixed for permanent mold cast T6
heat treated condition.32 They show that the modification effect of Ba is about the same as Sr
based on thermal analysis and microstructure. They have also observed some grain refining (in
agreement with previous work by Zhang, Ref. 33). Improved static mechanical properties were
observed at 500 ppm Ba addition. However, the properties declined at 1000 ppm Ba.
Interaction of Common Modifiers
Since antimony is used in Europe and Japan for modification, the scrap cycle will be contam-
inated with antimony. Mostly strontium and to some extent sodium are used by the North
American foundries. Mixing of antimony, strontium and sodium in the scrap cycle can cause
problem. Antimony has been shown to have a deleterious effect on strontium modification in
Al-Si-Mg alloys as it reacts with strontium to form the intermetallic compound, Mg2Sb2Sr which
because of its higher density (4.2 g/cm3) concentrates at the bottom of the crucible. Thus,
strontium recovery in the presence of antimony becomes poor. Reaction between sodium and
antimony is similar to that between strontium and antimony. However, there is no negative
effect when both strontium and sodium are used for modification.18,34
Grain Refinement and Modification
Research done by Michigan Tech and Eck shows the effects of grain refinement using TiB2 and
Sr addition on casting quality (minimization of porosity) and mechanical properties in three
alloys A356 .0 (7% Si and 0.35% Mg), E357 (7% Si and 0.50% Mg) and C355.0 (5% Si, 1.25% Cu
and 0.5% Mg). This work clarifies the Sr modification of low and high Si commercial alloys for
structural applications. Amount of TiB2 added was 20 and 40 ppm, whereas Sr addition was 20,
80, 150 and 300 ppm.
Analysis of the data based on liquidus undercooling, eutectic growth temperature, shrinkage
porosity and quality index in step plate castings shows that to produce quality castings:35
• for high Si and low Mg alloys (i.e., A356): high levels of TiB2(40 ppm) and Sr (50 to 300
ppm)
• for high Si and high Mg alloys (i.e., E357): low levels of TiB2(5 ppm) and high levels of Sr
(300 ppm). Here effect of TiB2 is less than that of Sr
• for low Si and high Mg alloys with Cu (i.e., C355): slightly high levels of TiB2(20 ppm) and
low levels of Sr (20 ppm). Here effect of TiB2 is greater than that of Sr.
These data show that grain refinement and modification are alloy specific and the amount of
modifier and grain refiner to be added depends on the Si and Mg contents. The application
of these general rules is highly dependent on casting geometry and the gating and chilling
schemes used to fill and feed the castings. These guidelines are particularly useful when feed-
ing isolated heavy sections or when feeding around chills that are used to improve mechanical
properties in areas of the castings. This work was done using silica sand as a molding mate-
rial. The application in high solidification rate casting such as permanent mold has not been
studied in detail. Nonetheless, the use of grain refiners and modifiers can be a potent tool for
the improvement of soundness in castings regardless of the production method, and should
not be overlooked.
Hypereutectic Alloys
Hypereutectic Al-Si alloys containing 14 to 20% Si are used in the foundry industry because of
their superior wear resistance. Primary coarse silicon crystals present in the microstructure
of such alloys are harmful in the casting and machining of components.6,36,37 Normal practice
is to add phosphorus to molten alloys containing more than the eutectic concentration of sili-
con, made in the form of metallic phosphorus or phosphorus-containing compounds such as
phosphor-copper and phosphorus pentachloride which lead to a marked effect on the distribu-
tion and form of the primary silicon phase. A phosphorus concentration as low as 0.0015% is
effective in achieving refinement of the primary phase. Typical microstructures of unmodified
and phosphorus-modified Al-20% Si alloy is shown in Fig. 4-33.5 Primary silicon crystals can
also be modified by increasing the solidification rate as shown in Fig. 4-34.
a) Alloy 390.0 with 15% Si, Unmodified, (56x). b) Alloy 390.0 with 15% Si, modified with
0.03% P, (56 x).
Figure 4-33. Optical micrographs of alloy 390 with 15%

Si, (a) unmodified and (b) P-modified conditions.5
// 77
Figure 4-34. Microstructure refinement as a function of the cylinder block solidification

rate established based on advanced laboratory solidification experiments. Note that the
typical solidification rate for sand casting (SC), low pressure permanent mold (LPPM)
and high pressure die casting (HPDC) are given.38
Phosphorus content can vary between 0.0015% and 0.03% to achieve modification. Solidifica-
tion of phosphorus-treated melts, cooling to room temperature, reheating, remelting, and resa-
mpling in repetitive tests have shown that refinement is not lost; however, primary silicon parti-
cle size increases gradually, indicating a loss in phosphorus concentration. Precaution should
be taken with respect to degassing since common degassing methods accelerate phosphorus
loss, especially when chlorine or freon is used. In fact, brief inert gas fluxing is frequently used
to reactivate aluminum phosphide nuclei, presumably by resuspension.
Practices recommended for melt refinement are:6
• Melting and holding temperature should be minimum.

• Calcium and sodium contents should be controlled to low concentration levels.
• Brief nitrogen or argon purging after the addition of phosphorus is recommended to re-
move the hydrogen introduced during the addition and to distribute the aluminum phos-
phide nuclei uniformly in the melt.
Mechanical Properties
Tensile properties of unmodified hypereutectic alloys decrease with increasing silicon con-
tents. Phosphorus modification of the silicon morphology improves the mechanical properties.
These are shown in Fig. 4-35. However, these properties also decrease as silicon content
increases.18 Typical mechanical properties for sand, permanent mold and conventional die cast
390.0 alloy is given in Table 4-7. These data show that the silicon morphology of hypereutectic
alloys improves with increasing cooling rates due to modification of the silicon morphology.39
Figure 4-35. Tensile properties of unmodified and

phosphorus modified hypereutectic Al-Si alloys.18
Table 4-7. Typical Room Temperature Tensile Properties

and Hardness of Cast-to-Size 390 Alloy Test Bars38
Casting Process Temper UTS, ksi (MPa) YS, ksi (MPa) % Elongation Hardness, BHN
Sand Cast F 26 (179) 26 (179) <1.0 100
T5 26 (179) 26 (179) <1.0 100
T6 40.0 (276) 40.0 (276) <1.0 140
T7 36.0 (248) 36.0 (248) <1.0 115
Permanent Mold F 29.0 (200) 36.0 (248) 1.0 110
T5 29.0 (200) 36.0 (248) 1.0 110
T6 45.0 (310) 45.0 (310) <1.0 145
T7 38.0 (262) 38.0 (262) <1.0 120
Conventional F 40.5 (279) 35.0 (241) >1.0 120

Die Cast
T5 43.0 (296) 26.7 (184) >1.0 125
// 79
3.) Porosity
Two types internal porosity are observed in complex aluminum castings; hydrogen porosity
and shrinkage porosity. Usually a combination of these two types are observed in the complex
castings. These have detrimental effects on the mechanical properties and pressure tightness.
Stress concentration at these voids can lead to premature failure.
Hydrogen Porosity
Hydrogen is the only gas that is appreciably soluble in aluminum and its alloys. The main
source of hydrogen is the water vapor in the atmosphere which reacts with aluminum by the
reaction.15,18
2Al (l) + 3H2O(g) → Al2O3 (s) + 3H2

(Equation 4-1)
Other sources of hydrogen include:
• Fluxes, which are often hygroscopic and contain chemically attached water;
• Solid additives, such as scrap, grain refiners or even virgin ingots which are not preheat-
ed. All of these may contain adsorbed moisture or entrapped gases originating in a prior
processing operation;
• Tools, crucibles, furnace linings and mold materials which, if not preheated, may contain
moisture;
• Castings, machine turnings and borings, die cast trim press scrap, gates and risers, sand
and other non-metallic molding material debris;
• Fuel-fired furnaces (natural gas, oil) which have hydrogen available from fossil fuels;
Hydrogen solubility in both liquid and solid pure aluminum follows the Sievert’s law which
states that:
Solubility = Ks √PGAS
(Equation 4-2)
Where:
Ks = Sievert’s constant; and
PGAS = Partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere above the melt.
Since solubility of hydrogen is directly proportional to the square root of the hydrogen partial
pressure, a lowering of the partial pressure by 25 times results in only a five-fold solubility
decrease.15
Temperature is the most important factor affecting hydrogen solubility. As shown in Fig. 4-36,13
hydrogen solubility is considerably greater in the liquid than in the solid state. Actual liquid and
solid solubilities in pure aluminum just above and below the solidus are 0.69 and 0.04 ppm
(cm3/100g) at the melting point (660C / 1220F).15 Thus, the solubility of hydrogen in liquid pure
aluminum is more than 16 times the solubility of hydrogen in solid aluminum, and the equilibri-
um partition coefficient of hydrogen in aluminum is significantly less than 1.
Alloying elements have a strong and varying influence on the solubility of hydrogen in alumi-
num. For example, silicon, copper, zinc, and iron decrease hydrogen solubility in liquid alumi-
num, whereas lithium, magnesium, and titanium increase it as shown in Fig. 4-37.13 However,
Sigworth has shown that the effect of alloying elements in aluminum alloys can be calculated
by using the alloy correction factor and interaction coefficients. For important commercial
alloys the hydrogen solubility at 732C (1350F) is given in Table 4-8.19,40 As shown, higher
hydrogen solubility can be expected in Al-Mg alloys such 520.0 and 535.0, and lower hydrogen
solubility can be expected in Al-Si and Al-Si-Cu alloys such as 355.0 and 356.0.
Figure 4-36. Hydrogen solubility in aluminum casting alloys (Ref. 12 p. 185).
Figure 4-37. Hydrogen solubility in liquid pure aluminum and binary aluminum alloys at 1 atm
hydrogen partial pressure (Ref. 12, p. 68).
// 81
Table 4-8. Hydrogen solubility in commercial aluminum alloys40
H2 Solubility
Alloy Wt% Si Wt% Cu Wt% Mg Wt% Zn Wt% Fe Wt% Ti
cc/100g @ 732C (1350F)
A206.0 0.07 4.50 0.25 0.03 0.13 0.20 0.98
319.0 6.00 3.50 0.06 0.40 0.50 0.15 0.87
B319.0 6.00 3.50 0.25 0.40 0.50 0.15 0.88
332.0 9.00 3.00 1.00 0.40 0.50 0.12 0.89
333.0 9.00 3.50 0.35 0.70 0.60 0.12 0.83
354.0 9.00 1.80 0.50 0.05 0.12 0.10 0.95
C355.0 5.00 1.25 0.50 0.05 0.12 0.10 1.01
A356.0 7.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.12 0.10 1.02
E357.0 7.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.12 0.10 1.03
359.0 9.00 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.12 0.10 1.00
360.0 9.50 0.30 0.50 0.40 1.10 0.12 0.90
380.0 8.50 3.50 0.06 0.60 1.10 0.12 0.80
390.0 17.00 4.50 0.50 0.10 1.10 0.10 0.77
413.0 12.00 0.40 0.10 0.30 0.70 0.10 0.89
511.0 0.40 0.10 4.00 0.10 0.25 0.12 1.41
512.0 1.80 0.10 4.00 0.10 0.25 0.12 1.36
518.0 0.25 0.15 8.00 0.10 0.60 0.10 1.79
520.0 0.25 0.15 10.00 0.10 0.25 0.10 2.10
535.0 0.10 0.00 6.80 0.10 0.10 0.15 1.74
705.0 0.10 0.10 1.60 3.00 0.40 0.15 1.13
710.0 0.10 0.50 0.70 6.50 0.40 0.15 1.02
713.0 0.15 0.60 0.35 7.50 0.50 0.15 0.94
Shrinkage Porosity
Volumetric contraction during solidification, especially from the liquid to the solid state which
ranges from 3 to 8.5% for aluminum alloys is the major cause for shrinkage porosity. It is also
affected by the solidification range of the alloy. Long freezing range alloys are more prone to
microporosity.
Shrinkage can appear as distributed voids or microshrinkage because of failure during the last
stages of interdendritic feeding as in 2xx series of Al-Cu alloys. The other form of shrinkage is
centerline or piping voids resulting from gross directional effects. Short freezing range alloys
such as 413.0 and 713.0 exhibit extensive piping as opposed to distributed shrinkage porosity
due to directional solidification. Good gating and risering design together with use of chills to
promote directional solidification is likely to minimize the formation of microporosity in long

freezing range alloys.
Improved modification and refinement of aluminum-silicon alloys, improved grain refinement,

and reduced oxide contents all improve feedability and therefore reduce shrinkage severity.
Typical porosity in cast aluminum alloys are shown in Fig. 4-38.18 Gas porosity appears round
in shape. By contrast, shrinkage porosity being located in interdendritic areas appear rugged.
In castings most of the porosity is a combination of gas and shrinkage.
Figure 4-38. Typical porosity in cast aluminum alloys.16 Top left: Shrinkage porosity found inside
a casting; Top right: gas porosity in an Al-8% Si alloy; Bottom left: gas plus shrinkage micropo-
rosity; Bottom right: Gas plus shrinkage microporosity.(18, p. 150)
// 83
Degassing
Degassing is carried out in foundries to minimize/eliminate gas porosity in aluminum castings.

Gas purging is the most common method of degassing a melt. The principle is illustrated in
Fig. 4-39. A bubble of gas is introduced into the bottom of a melt. The gas may be inert or reac-
tive with the melt metal, but initially it must contain no atoms of the gas species to be removed
from solution. Since partial pressure of the gas to be removed is initially zero in the bubble,
there exists a driving force for diffusion of gas atoms from the liquid into the introduced bub-
ble. As this bubble rises through the bath, it will pick up progressively more and more of the
undesirable dissolved gas until it finally escapes from the free surface of the melt.15
The most common method of degassing in aluminum foundries is purging an inert gas such
as argon and nitrogen through a rotating graphite lance under low pressure (less than 207 kpa
or 30 psi) into the melt (Fig. 4-40). The insoluble nitrogen or argon gas bubble then rises within
the melt, and the hydrogen atoms diffuse to this gas bubble and form a hydrogen molecule.
The hydrogen is released when the bubble reaches the surface of the melt. If the relative
humidity in the atmosphere is particularly high, this will be a dynamic process because new
hydrogen may become absorbed into the melt.
Figure 4-39. The principle of gas purging to remove dissolved gas.15 The internal partial gas
pressure during different steps of the degassing process is PG.
Figure 4-40. Gas purging using a lance (Artwork loaned courtesy of CANMET.)
The lance degassing technology is relatively inefficient because of the large bubble size that
emanates from the bottom of the lance, especially in the case of large vessels. It is important
to produce a very fine dispersion of bubbles to be effective in a minimum of time. To this end,
gas purging through a rotary impeller degasser consisting of series of vanes which chops a
gas stream into a mass of fine gas bubbles and then disperses them throughout the melt (Fig.
4-41). The effect of bubble size in degassing efficiency is shown in Fig. 4-42.
Figure 4-41. A schematic of a rotary impeller degassing unit is shown. The

rotating impeller chops the gas stream into a mass of fine bubbles that provide very
efficient degassing of the melt.15
// 85
Figure 4-42. Degassing efficiency as a function of purge gas

bubble size, de.(Reference 13, p. 187).
The rotary impeller degassing technique was introduced into the aluminum foundry industry
in the mid-1980s and is used extensively in melting furnaces, transfer ladles, and in contin-
uous-flow launder systems. The basic components of a rotor degassing system include a
mechanical drive unit to rotate the shaft/rotor assembly, a gas source, and controls to manipu-
late the gas injection into the system, and the shaft/rotor assembly itself. Equipment can be as
simple as well-mounted drive unit or more complex, with a fixed-mast drive-up ladle treatment
station or a mobile unit that can be moved from furnace to furnace. Often times rotary degas-
sing equipment is also equipped with flux injection, which assists in removing oxides from the
melt.
Hydrogen content in an aluminum melt can vary greatly due to fluctuations in quality of charge
materials, control of melt temperature, and ambient conditions of air temperature and humidity.
To monitor these fluctuations and implement a reproducible treatment process, a model has
been developed to predict rotary degassing effectiveness within molten aluminum alloys. Trials
at a commercial metal treatment station have shown that the model can be used to identify op-
portunities to reduce cycle time or reduce purge/consumable spent when conditions favorable
to degassing/upgassing exist. This process is termed Self-Monitoring Adaptive Recalculation
Treatment Technology (SMARTT).41,42 However, it is unknown if SMARTT will reduce the degas-
sing time when one has favorable degassing conditions (low humidity, low metal temperature),
because the short degassing cycle may not remove all the inclusions.
Ultrasonic Degassing
Ultrasonic degassing is being promoted for both hydrogen and inclusion removal. This is an
environmentally clean and relatively inexpensive technique that uses high intensity ultrasonic
vibrations to generate cavitation bubbles. Hydrogen in molten aluminum diffuses to the cavita-
tion bubbles which escape to the open atmosphere. Foundry trials have been run in small heats
using alloys A356.0, and Al-9Si-3Cu alloys. The efficiency of degassing has been evaluated by
density measurement. There is significant reduction in dross formation following ultrasonically
assisted argon degassing.
Industrial trials using 900 lb melts of 2XX Al-Cu and 3XX Al-Si alloys in an electric resistance
furnace have shown that complete degassing and cleaning cycle can be completed in less
than 30 minutes without the use of chlorine or dry flux. About 98% of theoretical density can
be achieved after degassing and PoDFA analysis shows 85%+ inclusion removal in 3XX alloys.
Similar results have been obtained during continuous casting of 5052 and 5154 wrought
alloys. In fact, 97 to 98.5% of inclusions could be removed for the two wrought alloys. Hydro-
gen removal efficiency was 72%. A rough estimate of hard cost savings are possible because
of reduced gas and flux usage, and equipment deterioration and fluxes. There are also fewer
environmental regulations.43,44
4.) Inclusions
Inclusions found in aluminum castings are of two types. These are exogenous and indigenous.
The former originates from outside the bulk melt and consists of refractory bits broken off
from furnace linings or the crucible, flux particles or pieces of slags or dross, broken ceramic
filters or loose sand remaining in the gating system. A chemical reaction between the melt and
some other chemical species produce indigenous inclusions. Indigenous inclusions can also
originate from melt treatment such as fluxing or grain refinement. Typical indigenous inclu-
sions are alumina or Al2O3 (formed due to oxidation of aluminum), magnesia or MgO (formed
due to oxidation of magnesium), spinel or MgAl2O4 (formed due to reaction of aluminum oxide
with magnesium oxide), magnesium chloride or MgCl2 and aluminum carbide or Al4C3(s). MgCl2
forms due to a chemical reaction between magnesium and aluminum chloride gas (due to
halide flux treatment) and Al4C3(s) forms by aluminum-methane reaction due to combustion of
natural gas and decomposition of hexachloroethane tablets.
These inclusions are categorized in Table 4-6 Their size varies from 0.1 to 5000 µm.18 Quantity
and size of inclusions can be reduced by employing good melting practice such as degassing,
fluxing, and refinement and using good quality ingots and clean scrap for melting.45,46
Table 4-6. Inclusion Sources and Types in Aluminum Alloy Castings6
Classification Types observed Potential source(s)

Refractory degradation,
Various refractory particles,
Nonmetallic exogenous remelt ingot, refractory/metal
Al4C3, etc.
reactions
MgO, Al2O3 films, clusters,
Melting, alloying metal
Nonmetallic in situ and dispersoids; MgAl2O4
transfer turbulence
films and clusters
Poor separation of fluxing
Homogenous halide salts MgCl2-NaCl-CaCl2, etc.
reaction products
Salt generated during
chlorine fluxing of magne-
Particle/salt MgCl2-NaCl-CaCl2/MgO, etc. sium-containing alloys, filter
and metal-handling system
releases
// 87
Aluminum oxide concentrations can increase, despite the fact that the oxide that initially forms
on the surface of molten aluminum is highly protective and self-limiting, by:
1. Any agitation or turbulence in the treatment and handling of molten aluminum;

2. When alloying additions are stirred into the melt;
3. When grain refiners or modifiers are stirred into the melt;
4. When metal is tapped for pouring; and
5. When metal is poured into the pouring basin and conducted by the gating system into the
mold cavity. Pressurized gating system promotes oxide formation.
Induction melting is highly energy efficient and effective for melting fines and poor-quality
scrap, but electromagnetically induced eddy currents result in high level of entrained oxides
which need to be removed. Care should be taken in controlling melt superheat, pouring, gating,
and minimizing the reoxidation of the metal to control inclusions in castings. Molten metal
filtrations can be effective in minimizing the inclusion level. This is needed to produce high
integrity, high strength castings where fracture toughness characteristics are important. In
addition, hydrogen pore formation can be suppressed by removing oxides from the melt.
5.) Hot Tearing
Hot tearing can be defined as a strain-induced fracture that occurs during solidification or sub-
sequent cooling of a metal casting as a result of hindered contraction.47 Pure metals and alloys
of eutectic compositions are not prone to hot tearing while alloys of intermediate compositions
exhibit susceptibility to hot tearing.
General observations on hot tearing of alloys are:48-54
1. Alloys with wide freezing ranges and/or little eutectic content that cannot completely sur-
round the grains are prone to hot tearing.
2. Grain refinement promotes good interdendritic feeding, low interlocking stresses and
hence, contribute to hot tear healing.
3. High surface tension of the interdendritic liquid which impedes interdendritic channel
feeding would promote hot tearing.
4. Oxide inclusions have an adverse effect on hot tear resistance as they impede interden-
dritic feeding and reduce the wettability of the interdendritic fluid.
5. Nature of interdendritic second phases and compounds has an effect on grain boundary
strength and brittleness.
6. The establishment of a steep thermal gradient through chills or die cooling promotes
good interdendritic feeding and reduces the tendency for hot tearing.
7. In case of permanent mold casting, control of mold temperature in addition to grain refine-
ment is critical to improving the hot tear resistance.
Hot tears can be large and visible to the naked eye and sometimes very small and only visible
after dye penetrant inspection. This complex phenomenon depends largely on alloy composi-
tion, part design, feeding system and casting parameters. Hot tearing defects arise partly due
to the inability of the casting to shrink freely during cooling, and can be more severe with the
constraint of a rigid metal mold. During early stages of solidification, mass feeding of solid-
ification shrinkage can occur relatively easily to feed developed shrinkage cavity to relieve
contraction stresses without hot tearing. Towards the final stages of solidification, the casting
structure becomes a coherent mass due to the formation of a dendrite network, and liquid
metal cannot flow easily to fill the voids caused by solidification and contractual shrinkage.
Therefore, hot tear defects can be mitigated by implementing good casting design principles
and solidification conditions to compensate for strains in the casting caused by both types of
shrinkage. The need to fill the void space can produce significant stresses in parts of the cast-
ing, and if these stresses are greater than the ultimate strength of the metal at any time during
solidification, hot tearing can occur. A typical hot tear is shown in Fig.4-43 for an automotive
component.
(a) Rocker arm casting with the riser. (b) Alloy 535.0 showing hot tear crack.
Figure 4-43. Hot tearing in a rocker arm casting

produced in alloy 535.0 by gravity permanent mold casting.50
A detailed investigation of the effect of mold temperature and grain refinement has been car-
ried out on aluminum alloy A206.0 (Al-Cu type with a solidification range of 80C/144F) using
a restrained metal mold for 3-rod casting. Computer simulation using the MAGMASOFT(R)
software package has also been performed to show the effect of mold temperature on hot
tearing. The mold halves, typical castings and hot tear cracks are shown in Fig. 4-44.52,52 This
mold design has been used extensively to evaluate the influence of casting parameters on the
hot tear tendency of aluminum and magnesium alloys. The maximum principal strain devel-
oped during solidification was calculated by simulation and correlated with fraction solid as
a function of mold temperature (290C and 450C/554 & 842F). Figures 4-45 (a) and (b) show
that the maximum principal strain developed during the last stage of solidification is lower at a
higher mold temperature of 450C (842F) and no hot tearing was observed under this condition.
It has been demonstrated that a combination of grain refinement and preheating of metal mold
to ≥400C (752F) is necessary to prevent the formation of hot tearing during the solidification
of alloy 206.0 in the restrained metal mold. The computer simulation results closely match
the hot cracking trends observed experimentally during the casting trials. Similar conclusions
have been obtained in another study on effect of mold temperature on hot tearing suscepti-
bility where it has been shown that the mold temperature for aluminum alloys 319.0, 535.0,
and 206.0 should exceed 350, 220 and 400C (350, 428 & 752F) respectively to eliminate hot
tearing.55
// 89
(a) Three-arm metal mold halves (b) 3-arm restrained casting
(c) Hot tears close to the ingate (d) Hot tears towards base of round section
Figure 4-44. Photographs of (a) three-arm mold halves, (b) 3-arm restrained casting,
(c) and (d) showing the location of hot tear cracks.52
(a) Mold at 290C (554F)
(b) Mold at 450C (842F)
Figure 4-45. Simulation results for alloy 206.0 at 290C and 450C for the 3-rod casting. Grain
refinement was not considered during simulation. The range of fraction solid and maximum
principal strain are shown on the side scale. The white areas are 100% solid.51
// 91
Modifying alloy composition can also lead to elimination/minimization of hot tearing. It has
been shown that during permanent mold casting of two automotive components such as the
engine mount (low pressure casting) and rocker arm (gravity casting), lowering of the magne-
sium level in 535.0 from 7.2 to 5.0% and copper level in 206.0 from 5.0 to 2.85% improved hot
tear resistance.50 This improvement in hot tear resistance can be attributed to the reduction in
solidification range of the two alloys. Examining the Al-Mg and Al-Cu phase diagrams indicate
that such reduction in Mg content in the Al-Mg alloy reduces the freezing range to 60C (108F).
In case of the Al-Cu alloy, this reduction in the freezing range is 30C (54F).
Another method of eliminating/minimizing hot tearing is to add mischmetal. In case of alloy

201.0, adding 1.5 to 2% mischmetal, improved the hot tear resistance significantly. Metallo-
graphic examination indicated that addition of such mischmetal refined further the grain size
(average secondary dendrite arm spacing reduced from 132 to 51 µm), even though the alloy
had been grain refined using standard Al-Ti-B practice and the eutectic phase got modified.56
Various test methods have been developed to evaluate the hot tearing tendency of alloys.
These have been reviewed by Eskin et al.57 However, each test method has its limitations and
there is no universal test method yet. Li et al have recently reviewed hot tearing in aluminum
alloys focusing on theories and methods, hot tearing variables, and test methods.58 Follow-
ing this, they produced a quantitative test method in collaboration with CANMET Materials
Technology Laboratory as shown schematically in Fig. 4-46 where the test casting has two
arms with a riser at the center. The right arm is constrained and the left arm is connected to
the load cell. The data acquisition system measures the temperature of the casting and the
stress generated. Parameters affecting hot tearing are alloy composition, casting temperature,
mold temperature, and grain refinement. Details of the test method can be found in References
58 and 59. A typical plot for alloy 206.0 is given in Fig. 4-47 showing load, temperature and
load derivative with time. Quantitative information on crack initiation and propagation can be
obtained by analyzing the data in Fig. 4-46. Similar data on alloy 356.0 predicted no hot tearing.
Figure 4-46. Schematic of the experimental set-up to determine hot-tear resisitance.58

Figure 4-47. (a) upper view (b) lower view,(c) below-3 views
// 93
Figure 4-47 (d)
Figure 4-47. This data illustrates: (a) temperatures and load development as a function of time
for alloy 206.0, TC1 and T2 are measured by thermocouples located at the centerline of the rod
as shown in Fig. 4-47; (b) derivative of load vs. time curves; (c) photographs of the constrained
casting shows cracking locations and (d) displacement measured as a function of time.58
Accurate computational models have been developed to optimize alloy composition and
processes to get desirable mechanical properties through microstructure control. Integrated
computational materials engineering (ICME) has been developed by researchers at General
Motors Company to produce high performance aluminium castings by reducing casting defects
such as hot tearing in Al-Cu-Mg system. A contour plot showing the calculated hot tearing ten-
dencies for this ternary alloy system is shown in Fig. 4-48.60 This plot shows that high Mg and
mid-range Cu or high Cu and mid-range Mg have low tendency for hot tearing.
Figure 4-48. Calculated hot tearing tendencies in an Al-Cu-Mg alloy with contour plot.60
Heat Treatment
Most of the aluminum alloys can be heat treated (annealed, solution treated, precipitation
hardened, overaged, etc.) to obtain desirable combination of physical and mechanical proper-
ties for different applications. Aluminum castings could be heat treated to meet the following
objectives (Reference 6, p. 61):
• Increase strength and/or produce mechanical properties associated with a particular

material condition;
• Stabilize mechanical and physical properties;
• Increase hardness for improved machinability;
• Relieve residual stresses induced by casting, quenching, machining, welding, or other op-
erations; however, the quenching process can add residual stresses to the castings which
may be reduced or eliminated during aging.
• Minimize or eliminate microsegregation; and
• Reduce susceptibility to corrosion by altering insoluble phases.
The Aluminum Association has standardized the definitions and nomenclature applicable to
thermal practice and maintains a registry of standard heat treatment practices and designa-
tions for industry use. Standardized temper designations applicable to castings are:6,61
• O (formerly T2, T2x): annealed (thermally stress relieved),

• T4: solution heat treated and quenched,
• T5: artificially aged,
• T6: solution heat treated, quenched and artificially aged. This treatment gives the optimum
combination of strength and ductility
• T7: solution heat treated, quenched, overaged, or stabilized. This treatment improves
ductility, thermal stability and resistance to stress corrosion cracking.
There are variations to these thermal treatments with second and third digits in the standard
designation for example T61, T62, T71, T572 etc. to achieve different levels of strength and
hardness and other physical properties. These are given in ASTM B917/B917M-12 (Standard
Practice for Heat Treatment of Aluminum-Alloy Castings from All Processes). A few examples
are as follows.
• T61: For additional strength and stability but reduced ductility compared to T6 treatment,
aging is typically at 300−340F (150−175C) for 6−10 hours
• T71: Following solution treatment and artificial aging, aging is typically at 435−500F
(225−260C) for 4−6 hours for additional thermal stability and resistance to stress
corrosion cracking.
A schematic of the hardness curve for the various tempers is shown in Fig. 4-49. All these
tempers form a maximum hardness curve.
// 95
Figure 4-49. A schematic of hardness variation for various tempers.61
The most common heat treatment practice is solution treatment, quenching and precipitation
hardening or aging. This is because of the nature of the equilibrium diagram, as shown in Fig.
4-50. for the Al-Cu system. Here, the solubility of the eutectic increases with temperature and
this is the case for other systems such as Al-Mg, Al-Zn, Al-Sn, etc. Solution treatment involves
heating the sample above the solvus temperature but less than the eutectic temperature. The
solution treatment temperature is governed by the composition. The solution treatment time
to achieve complete solution of the phases depends on the fineness of the microstructures.
The coarse microstructure associated with slow solidification rate as in sand castings requires
relatively longer times. Solution time in excess of that required to achieve complete solution
may cause coarsening of some phases. This is known as the T4 condition.
The events that occur during solution treatment are: 1.) dissolution of the elements that cause
age hardening, 2.) spheroidization of the undissolved constituent, and 3.) homogenization. The
solution treated sample is then quenched in water, oil, salt bath, or some organic solution to
retain the solid solution. Rapid cooling by quenching from the solution treatment temperature
is essential to maintain the metastable solution. Usually, water is the most common quenching
medium. In commercial practice, water temperature is maintained at 65C (150F). Cooler water
will improve the quench rate and is useful in quench sensitive alloys. Warmer water can be
used to reduce part distortion and residual stress.
Polymer Quenching
The use of polymer quenching in the aluminum heat treating industry is increasing. Polymer
quenchants retard cooling rates by the formation of films around the structural part. Type of
polymer, concentration and agitation can affect the cooling rate of a quenched part. Some
of the advantages using polymer quenchants are control of distortion, reduction of residual
stresses, elimination of risk of fire and smoke, ease of handling, extended lifetime as viscos-
ity remains constant over time, precise control of quenching speeds, consistent quenching,
etc. The most accepted polymer is polyalkylene-glycol. These are water soluble and a range
of quenching speeds can be achieved by varying the concentration of glycol and dilution with
water. The higher the glycol concentration, the slower the cooling rate.
The next step is to age harden at a lower temperature below the solvus line to precipitate
the solutes in supersaturation in α-aluminum. This is the T6 treatment which is performed to
get the increased strength and hardness (although at a loss of ductility). The sample can be
under-aged, fully aged or over-aged depending on the ageing temperature and time. In general,
longer times at lower aging temperatures result in higher peak strength. Over aging (T7 condi-
tion) consists of carrying out the aging cycle to a point beyond peak hardness.
Natural aging at room temperature following quenching can produce some hardening.62 In
case of alloy 356.2, natural aging can be varied between 1 and 8 h to get desirable mechanical
properties in castings such as engine blocks (one hour natural aging) and steering knuckle and
cylinder heads (4 to 8 hours natural aging). In the case of B206.0 alloy, natural aging of one day
is recommended to get the benefits of artificial aging.63 Natural aging at room temperature fol-
lowed by precipitation hardening is sometimes employed as in Al-Zn-Mg alloys. Natural aging
can be done over extended periods involving hours, days, months and even years.
The noncoherent θ or CuAl2 is the equilibrium phase which precipitates during fully aged or ov-
eraged conditions in Al-Cu type alloys. Presence of Mg in Al-Cu-Mg alloys accelerate the room
temperature ageing and the stable equilibrium phase is formed quickly during high tempera-
ture ageing. In case of A-Si-Mg alloys as in 356.0, 357.0, the equilibrium stable phase is Mg2Si
to cause peak hardening. The Al-Zn-Mg alloys such as 712.0, 713.0 several hardening phases
may precipitate as shown in the ternary diagram (Fig. 4-9). The stable equilibrium phase is
Mg3Zn3Al2.
For multi-component alloy systems as in the Al-Si-Cu-Mg and Al-Zn-Cu-Mg systems, stepped
solution treatment is sometimes recommended to avoid the melting of lower melting phases.
In case of alloy 319.0, a typical stepped heat treatment is first step at 495C (923F) for 2 h
followed by a second step at 515C (959F) for 4 hours.64 This modified heat treatment could
produce improved mechanical properties in thick sections (in excess of 215 MPa UTS, 170 YS
and 1.8% elongation). A two-step heat treatment has also been produced for the AC2A [com-
position close to 208.2 alloy] alloy (5.3% Si, 3.7% Cu, 0.14% Mn and 0.04 % Ti) which is used
in light-duty cylinder heads. It consists of 1h at 505C (941F) and then 2h at 525C (977F) to
produce mechanical properties of 278 MPa UTS, 250 MPa YS and 1% El).64,65 The stepped solu-
tion treatment temperature can be obtained from advanced thermal analysis as shown in Fig.
4-51 for an Al-Si-Cu alloy. Thermal analysis can also be done to modify the solution treatment
temperature together with shorter solution treatment time.66
Recommended heat treatment practices for aluminum casting alloys are listed in Table 4-10.
// 97
Figure 4-50. A portion of the aluminum-copper binary phase diagram. Temperature ranges for
annealing, precipitation heat treating, and solution heat treating are indicated. 6(p. 61)
Super imposed First Derivative (FD) of the Al-20%Si alloy showing transforma-
tion temperatures during the melt cycle on the conventional heat treat schedule
(T6#1: Solution at 490C (914F)/4 hrs. and aging at 200C (392F)/4 hrs.).
Numbered metallurgical reactions:

#1=solid state precipitation (start of overaging reaction
#2=beginning of the Cu, Mg based phase melting (503.6C/938.5F)
#3=end of the Cu, Mg based phase melting (534.1C/993.4F)
#4=end of the AL-Si eutectic melting (580.2C/1076F)
#5=end of the primary Si crystals melting (701.9C/1295F)
Figure 4-51. Thermal analysis of Al-20% Si alloy.66

Table 4-10. Typical Heat Treatments for Aluminum

Alloy Sand and Permanent Mold Castings13( p. 1072)
Solution Heat Treatment(b) Aging Treatment
Temperature Temperature
Alloy Temper Type of °C °F Time, h °C °F Time, h

Casting(a)
510- 950- Room
201.0 T6 S 2 12-24
515 960 Temperature
525- 980- Then
T7 S 14-20 310 20
530 990 155
204.0 T4 S or P 520 970 10
A/B206 T4 S or P 510 950 2
Then Room
990 14-20 5 days
530 Temperature
Then Then
990 14-20 320 0.5-1.0
530 160
Room
T7 S or P 510 950 2 12-24
Temperature
Then Then
990 14-20 370 4-5
530 190
319.0 T5 S - - - 205 400 8
T6 S 505 940 6-12 155 310 2-5
P 505 940 4-12 155 310 2-5
355.0 T51 S or P - - - 225 440 709
T6 S 525 980 12 155 310 3-5
P 525 980 4-12 155 310 2-5
T62 P 525 980 4-12 170 340 14-18
T7 S 525 980 12 225 440 3-5
P 525 980 4-12 225 440 3-9
T71 S 525 980 12 245 475 4-6
P 525 980 4-12 245 475 3-6
C355.0 T6 S 525 980 12 155 310 3-5
Room
T61 P 525 980 6-12 8 min.
Temperature
- - - 155 310 10-12
// 99
Solution Heat Treatment(b) Aging Treatment
Temperature Temperature
Alloy Temper Type of °C °F Time, h °C °F Time, h

Casting(a)
356.0 T51 S or P - - - 225 440 7-9
T6 S 540 1000 6-12 155 310 3-5
T6 P 540 1000 4-12 155 310 2-5
T7 S 540 1000 6-12 225 440 8
P 540 1000 4-12 225 440 8
T71 S 540 1000 6-12 245 475 3-6
P 540 1000 4-12 245 475 3-6
- - - 155 310 10-12
357.0 T6 P 540 1000 8 165 330 6-12
T61 S 540 1000 10-12 155 310 6-12
520.0 T4 S 430 810 18
535.0 T5 S 400 750 5
Room
712.0 T5 S - - - 21 days
Temperature
- - - 155 315 6-8
771.0 T53 S 415 5 180 360 4
T5 S - - - 180 360 3-5
T6 S 590 1090 6 130 265 3
T71 S 590(j) 1090 6 140 285 15
850.0 T5 S or P - - - 220 430 7-9
(a) S=sand: P=permanent mold; (b) Unless otherwise indicated, solution treating is followed by
quenching in water at 65-100C (150-212F).
Mechanical property or other functional improvements are possible through modification of

both solution and aging practice. A common practice is to age at a lower temperature or short-
er time to improve the elongation of Al-Si alloys at the expense of yield strength. An increase in
solution temperatures is often possible to improve the dissolution of phases. This is often done
in combination with a stepped heat treatment to dissolve low melting point phases in order to
prevent melting of the eutectic phase. Table 4-10 gives solution recommendations based on
lowest eutectic temperatures allowed by the chemical composition and the best understanding
of multi-phase diagrams at the time. Good control of casting chemistry, thermal analysis and
understanding of phase diagrams is required to deviate significantly from these recommenda-
tions. Tensile strength improvements of up to 8% in some alloys have been demonstrated using
this approach.
Annealing
Annealing of castings is performed e to achieve high dimensional stability. It is also a stress

relief treatment of castings to relieve residual stress as in non-heat treatable Al-Mg castings,
permanent mold castings and high pressure die castings. A typical annealing practice consists
of 2 to 4 h exposure at a minimum temperature of 345C (650F).
Hot Isostatic Pressing
It is well known that aluminum alloy castings can exhibit both hydrogen gas porosity and
shrinkage porosity . Hot isostatic pressing, also known as HIP or HIPping, is a process to
eliminate such internal gas porosity and improve mechanical properties in castings. Castings
rejected for reasons of internal porosity can be salvaged by HIPping.67 An example is shown in
Fig. 4-52(13, p.408) for an aluminum alloy (A356.0-T6 condition) where shrinkage and gas poros-
ities in Fig. 4-52(a) have been eliminated [Fig. 4-52(b)]. This process has no effect on cracks,
shrinkage and other casting defects that are open to the surface of the casting.
The process involves surrounding the casting with a pressurized fluid, usually argon gas, while
simultaneously heating the casting to a temperature below the solidus but high enough to pro-
mote plastic flow and diffusion within the material. Internal void and microporosities are elim-
inated by plastic deformation, creep and diffusion at elevated temperatures. The driving force
to achieve densification is associated with the reduction in surface area and, hence, surface
energy of the pores. Precipitated hydrogen in excess of the solubility limit is compressed and
redistributed, resulting in increased structural density and integrity. This improves the mechan-
ical properties of the castings. The applied pressure ranges from 51 MPa (7,350 psi) to 310
MPa (45,000 psi) in a pressure vessel. Low end of the pressurization is good enough for most
of the castings. The pressure is applied from all directions, hence, the term isostatic. There
are no rams, dies, or external frictional forces. A typical pressure of 100 MPa (approximately
1000 atm) is roughly equivalent to the pressure at the bottom of the ocean’s deepest trench.
Commercial Hipping units are available with operating temperatures between 500C (932F) and
2000C (3632F). Typical Hipping temperatures and pressures for aluminum alloys are 500C
(932F) and 100 MPa.6 In 200 series alloys, eutectic melting may occur if the rate of heating is
too fast or if the maximum temperature in the furnace is exceeded. Work zone diameter can
vary from 75 mm to 3 meters. Recently, ASTM Standard B998-17 has been developed as a
standard guide for hot isostatic pressing of aluminum alloy castings.
// 101
Figure 4-52. Effect of HIP on microstructure of A356.0 aluminum casting

(a) in the as-cast and T6 condition showing porosity (b) in the as-cast, HIPped,
and T6 condition showing elimination of porosity.13
The driving force for closure of an isolated spherical pore can be expressed as:
P = 2ɣ/r
(Equation 4-3)
Where:
ɣ = surface energy (joules (J)/m2) of the internal surface of the pore; and
r = radius of curvature of the pore surface.67
For a pore of 0.1 mm in diameter, the driving force (ɣ = 1J/m2) is 40 kPa. At a typical hot
isostatic processing (HIPping) pressure of 100 MPa, the pore can be completely dissolved in
the matrix. Elimination of internal porosity leads to improvement in mechanical properties as il-
lustrated in Fig. 4-536 for the high cycle fatigue properties in alloy 356.0. The tensile properties
for permanent mold cast, T61 heat treated A356.0 increased from 242 MPa UTS, 193 MPa YS
and 4% elongation in the untreated condition to 273 MPa UTS, 214 MPa YS and 5% elongation
following HIPping. This HIPping step improves the fatigue performance of 200 series in a simi-
lar manner. In one study, the high cycle fatigue performance increased by nearly 300% and was
better than optimally produced ASTM 2175 A grade castings. Similar trend has been observed
in fatigue life for alloy A206-T4 as shown in Fig. 4-54.
Figure 4-53. Improvement in fatigue life of aluminum alloy AlSi7MgCu0.5

(gravity die-cast automotive diesel-engine block) when HIP is used.(6,p.408)
Figure 4-54. Improvements in fatigue life in an A206-T4 casting.68

// 103
Solidification Under Pressure
Another approach to eliminate/minimize porosity in castings is to solidify under pressure

which may be less expensive than HIPing. This non-conventional technique has been applied to
aluminum alloys A356.0, A319.0, A206.0 where solidification under 10 atmospheres pressure
has led to reduction in porosity by 63-84% and consequently improvement in mechanical prop-
erties.69-71 Amount of porosity present after solidification was less than 0.5% in A356.0 alloy
cast in chemically bonded sand molds as a result of which UTS increased by about 6 to 11%
and % elongation increased by 50 to 130 %. In the case of A319.0 and A206.0 alloys, increased
soundness of wedge castings improved % elongation by 13 to 45% and 112 to 120 % respec-
tively. UTS of A206.0 alloy increased by about 18%.
The theory behind the reduction in porosity due to solidification under pressure is based on
Sievert’s Law and Boyle’s law as follows:
Cs = K√P
(Equation 4-4)
Where:
Cs = solubility of hydrogen (main dissolved gas in solid Al alloys);
K = constant; and
P = pressure inside the pore (can be equal to applied pressure).
Vp = C(1/P)
(Equation 4-5)
Where:
Vp = volume of the hydrogen pore; and
C = volume available to form a pore.69
If the volume of gas available for the formation of voids is constant, as pressure increases,
volume of the voids must decrease. Thus, application of 1 to 10 atmospheres, should lead to a
10 fold reduction in pore size.
A pressure vessel is required for pressurizing during solidification. A combination of com-

pressed air and nitrogen has been used successfully to do pressurization. This solidification
technique is being used commercially (i.e., Mercury Marine, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin, where
cylinder blocks for the marine industry are being cast using the lost foam process).72
REFERENCES
1. “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys,” ASM Specialty Handbook, ASM International, Edited by
J.R. Davis (1993).
2. ASM Handbook, Vol. 3, “Alloy Phase Diagrams” (1997).
pany, NY, (2014).
4. R.W. Heine, C.R. Loper, Jr. and P.C. Rosenthal, “Principles of Metal Casting,” McGraw-Hill
Book Company, NY (1967).
5. L. Bäckerud, G. Chai and J. Tamminen, “Solidification Characteristics of Aluminum Alloys,
Vol. 2: Foundry Alloys,” American Foundrymen’s Society and Skanaluminium, Sweden)
(1990).
6. “Aluminum Alloy Castings, Properties, Processes, and Applications,” Edited by J.G.
Kaufman and E.L. Rooy, American Foundry Society and ASM International (2004).
7. F. Vinuk, M. Sahoo and R.W. Smith, “The Hardness of Al-Si Alloys,” Journal of Materials
Science, Vol. 14, pp. 975−982 (1979).
8. M. Sahoo and R.W. Smith, “Structure and Mechanical Properties of Modified Eutectics,”
Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 1−6 (1976).
9. N. Ponweiser and K.W. Richter, “New Investigation of Phase Equilibria in the System Al-Cu-
Si,” Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 512(1−2), pp. 252−263 (Jan. 25, 2012).
10. H.L. Lukas and N. Lebrun. “Al–Cu–Si (Aluminium–Copper–Silicon),” Light Metals Systems,
Part 2, Effenberg G., Ilyenko S., editors, Landolt-Börnstein-Group IV Physical Chemistry
11A2, Springer Materials, vol. 11, pp. 135–147 (2005).
11. D. Weiss, “Reduced Silicon Alloys for Enhanced Casting Performance,” AFS Transactions
(2019).
12. W. Koster and W. Dullenkopf, “Das Dreistoffsystem Aluminium-Magnesium-Zink III Der
Telibereich Mg-Al3Mg4-Al2Mg3Zn3-MgZn2-Mg,” Z.Metallkd, Vol. 28, p. 225−231 (1936).
13. ASM Handbook, Vol. 15, Casting, “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys,” pp. 1059−1084
(2008).
15. J.E. Gruzleski, “Microstructure Development During Metal Casting,” American Foundry-
men’s Society, Inc., Des Plaines, IL (2000).
16. K. Radhakrishna, S. Seshan and M.R. Seshadri, “Dendrite Arm Spacing in Aluminum Alloy
Castings,” AFS Transactions, Vol. 88, pp. 695−702 (1980).
17. F.A. Fasoyinu, M. Sahoo S. Sikorski, “Hot Tearing of Aluminum Alloys 206 and 535 Poured
in Permanent Molds,” Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Permanent Mold
Casting of Aluminum and Magnesium,” AFS, Dallas, Texas (February 11−12, 2008).
18. J.H. Gruzleski and B.M. Closset, “The Treatment of Liquid Aluminum-Silicon Alloys,” Amer-
ican Foundry Society, Des Plaines, IL (1990).
19. G. Sigworth, “Best Practices in Aluminum Metal Casting,” American Foundry Society, Des
Plaines, IL (2014).
20. H.T. Liu, L.C. Wang and S.K. Kung, “Grain Refinement in A356 Alloys,” J. of Chinese Found-
rymen’s Association, Vol. 29, p. 10−18 (1981).
21. F.A. Fasoyinu, J. Thomson, D. Cousineau, T. Castles and M. Sahoo, “Grain Refinement Ther-
mal Analysis of Al-Mg Alloy 535” of Aluminum Alloy, 6th Int. Conf. on Molten Aluminum
Processing,” Nov 11−13, 2001, Orlando, Florida (2001).
// 105
22. F.A. Fasoyinu, D. Cousineau, P. Newcombe, T. Castles and M. Sahoo, “Grain Refinement of
Aluminum Alloy 36.0 with Scandium, Zirconium and a Combination of Titanium and Boron,”
AFS Transactions, Vol. 109, pp. 397−418 (2001).
23. X. Jian, C. Xu, T.T. Meek, and Q. Han, “The Effect of Ultrasonic Vibration on the Solidifica-
tion Structure of A356 Alloy,” AFS Transactions, Paper No. 05-085 (2005).
24. X. Jian, Q. Han, H. Xu and T.T. Meek, “Solidification of Aluminum Alloy A356 Under Ultra-
sonic Vibration,” Solidification of Aluminum Alloys, Eds. M.G. Chu, D.A. Granger, and Q.
Han, (Warrendale, PA: The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, pp. 73−79 (2004).
25. H, Xu, Q, Han and T.T. Meek, “Effects of Ultrasonic Vibration on Degassing of Aluminum
Alloys,” Materials Science and Engineering A, Vol. 473, Issues 1−2, p. 96−104 (2008).
26. US Patent, US 7,682, 556, B2, March 23, 2010, Q. Han, H, Xu and T.T. Meek, Degassing of
Molten Alloys with the Assistance of Ultrasonic Vibration (2010).
27. G.K. Sigworth, “Recent Developments in the High Strength Aluminum-Copper Casting Alloy
A206,” AFS Transactions (2003).
28. A. Knuutinen, K. Nogita, S. D. McDonald and A.K. Dahle, “Modification of Al-Si Alloys with
Ba, Ca, Y and YB,” of Light Metals, Vol. 1, p. 229−240 (2001).
29. H.K. Zhang, G.C. Su, C.W. Ju, W.C. Wang and W.L. Yan, “Effect of Modification Treatment
on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Al-0.35% Mg-7.0% Si Cast Alloy,” Ma-
terials and Design, Vol. 31, p. 4408−4413 (2010).
30. J. Zhou, X. Cao, J. Cong and C. Yang, “Ba-A Permanent Modifier of Al-Si alloys,” Dalian
Gongxueyuan Xuebao, Vol. 21, Issue 4, (1982).
31. M. Shamsuzzoha, L. Nastac, D. Weiss and J.T. Berry, “Permanent Mold Castings of High-
Strength and High Ductility Ba-Treated Hypo-Eutectic Al-Si Alloys,” AFS Transactions, 15-
087 (2015).
32. D. Weiss and T. Wood, “Understanding Barium as a Modifier in Al-Si alloys,” AFS Transac-
tions, (2018).
33. H.K. Zhang, G.C. Su, C.W. Ju, W.C.Wang, and W.L Yan., “Effect of Modification Treatment
on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Al-0.35%Mg-7.0%Si Cast Alloy” Mate-
rials and Design, vol. 31, 4408−4413 (2010).
34. N. Handiak, J.E. Gruzleski and D. Argo, “Sodium, Strontium, and Antimony Interactions
During Modification of ASG03 (A356) alloys, AFS Transactions, Paper 87-20, 95, p. 31−38
(1987).
35. D. Weiss and (Michigan Tech), “Rethinking Modification in Aluminum Alloys,” Aluminum
Casting Conference, Knoxville, TN (November 2018).
36. W. Kasprzak, H. Kurita, J.H. Sokolowski and H. Yamagata, “Energy Efficient Tempers for
Aluminum Motorcycle Cylinder Blocks,” Advanced Materials and Processes, pp. 24−27
(March 2010).
37. W. Kasprzak, M. Sahoo, J. Sokolowski, H. Yamagata and H. Kurita, “The Effect of the Melt
Temperature and the Cooling Rate on the Microstructure of the Al-20% Si Alloy used in
Monolithic Engine Blocks,” International Journal of Metal Casting, Vol. 3, pp. 55−71 (2009).
38. H. Yamagata, W. Kasprzak, M. Aniolek, H. Kurita and J.H. Sokolowski, “The Effect of Aver-
age Cooling Rates on the Microstructure of the Al-20% Si High Pressure Die Casting Alloy
Used for Monolithic Cylinder Blocks,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 203,
p.333−341 (2008).
39. “390 Alloy Technology-Foundry Characteristics (Including Mechanical and Physical Prop-
erties),” Reynolds Metal Company (June 1975).
40. G. Sigworth, Private Communication.
41. B. Began and R. Simon, “Introduction and Experiences in SMARTT Degassing,” AFS Trans-
actions, Paper 17-012 (2017).
42. B. Began and R. Simon, “Experiences in a New Degassing Concept,” Modern Casting,
p.36−39 (Feb 2018).
43. V. Rundquist and K. Manchiraiu, “Ultrasonic Degassing and Processing of Aluminum,” Light
Metals, (edited by B.A. Sadler), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA (2013) doi:
10.1002/9781118663189.ch161
44. R. Von-Gal, D. Weiss and V. Rundquist, “Ultrasonic Degassing of Aluminum Alloys,” AFS
119th Metal Casting Congress, April 21−23, 2Columbus, Ohio (2015).
45. R. Gallo, “I have Inclusions! Determining the Best Cost Saving Approach,” Modern Casting,
p. 31−35 (Aug 2017).
46. R. Gallo, “I have Inclusions! Identifying the Source,” Modern Casting, p. 34−37 (Sept 2017).
47. A.L. Keaney and J. Raffin, “Hot Tear Control Handbook for Aluminum Foundrymen and
Casting Designers,” American Foundrymen’s Society Publication (1971).
48. M.O. Pekguleryuz and P. Vermette, “A Study on Hot-Tear Resistance of Magnesium Die-
casting Alloys,” Transactions of the American Foundry Society, Vol.114, Paper #06-092
(2006).
49. S. Lin, C. Aliravci and M.O. Pekguleryuz, “Hot-Tear Susceptibility of Aluminum Wrought
Alloys and the Effect of Grain Refining,” Metallurgical and Material Transactions A, Vol. 38A,
pp. 1056−1068 (May 2007).
50. Y. Fasoyinu, J. P. Thomson, M. Sahoo, P. Burke and D. Weiss, “Permanent Mold Casting
of Aluminum Alloys A206.0 and A535.0,” Transactions of the American Foundry Society,
Vol.115, Paper #07-095 (2007).
51. Y. Fasoyinu and M. Sahoo, “Factors Influencing Hot Tearing of Aluminum Alloy 206.0
Poured in Metal Molds,” Proc. of the Intl. Symposium on Materials Development and Per-
formance of Sulphur Capture Plants, Edited by C. Barry and P. Wanjara, MetSoc, COM 2009,
pp. 3−17 (2009).
52. Y. Fasoyinu, M. Sahoo and S. Sikorski, “Hot Tearing of Aluminum Alloys 206 and 535
Poured in Metal Mold,” International Conference on Permanent Mold Casting Aluminum and
Magnesium,” Dallas, Texas, pp. 11−12 (February 2008).
53. M. Sadayappan, M. Sahoo and R.W. Smith, “Influence of Alloying Elements and Melt Treat-
ment on The Hot Tearing Resistance of Aluminum Alloy A201,” Light Metals 2001 Métaux
légers, Conference of Metallurgists - COM 2001, August 26−29, 2001, Toronto, Ontario, pp.
455−466 (2001).
54. Q. Liu, R.W. Smith and M. Sahoo, “Control of Hot Tearing in Cast-to-Shape Products,”
Proceedings of the 4th Decennial International Conference on Solidification Processing,
Sheffield, UK, pp. 213−216 (1997).
55. M. Sadayappan, M. Sahoo and D.J. Weiss, “Evaluation of the Hot Tearing Susceptibility of
Selected Magnesium Casting Alloys in Permanent Molds,” Transactions of the American
Foundry Society, Vol. 115, Paper #07-154 (2007).
56. M. Shkuka, B.J. Yang, R.W. Smith, M. Sadayappan and M. Sahoo, “Microstructure and
Mechanical Properties of Al-Cu Casting Alloys–Effect of Addition of Mischmetal,” Transac-
tions of the American Foundry Society, Vol. 112, Paper No. 04-130 (2004).
57. D.G. Eskin, Suyitno and L. Katgerman, Progress in Materials Science, Vol. 49, pp. 629−711
(2004).
58. S. Li, D. Apelian, and K. Sadayappan, “Hot Tearing in Cast Al Alloys: Mechanisms and Pro-
cess Control,” International Journal of Metalcasting,” Paper # 12-007 (2012).
59. S. Li, D. Apelian and K. Sadayappan, “Quantitative Investigation of Hot Tearing of Al-Cu
Alloy (206) Cast in a Constrained Bar Permanent Mold,” Materials Science Forum, Vols.
618−619, p. 57−62 (2009).
// 107
60. Q. Wang, P. Jones, Y. Wang and D. Gerrad, “Integrated Computational Engineering (ICME)
Tools for High Performance Cast Aluminum Component Development,” Modern Casting,
(Sept. 2017).
Zalensas (1993).
62. J. Manickaraj, G.Y. Liu and S. Shankar, “Effect of Natural Ageing Coupled with Artificial
Ageing in T6 Heat Treatment of A356.2 Aluminum Casting Alloy,” International Journal of
Metalcasting, Vol. 4 , (2010).
63. D. Jean, J.F. Major, J.H. Sokolowski, B. Warnock and W. Kasprzak, “Heat Treatment and
Corrosion Resistance of B206 Aluminum Alloy,” AFS Trans., Vol. 117, pp. 113−129 (2009).
64. J.H. Sokolowski, M.B. Djurdjevic, C.A. Kierkus and D.O. Northwood, “Improvement of 319
Aluminum Alloy Casting Durability by High Temperature Solution Treatment,” Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 109, pp. 174−180 (2001).
65. W. Kasprzak, H. Onda, M. Aniolek, J. H. Sokolowski and K. Akiyama, “Characterization of
the AC2A Cylinder Head and Development of its Heat Treatment Process,” Proc. of the
International Conference, on Aluminum Alloys,” Sept 5−9, 2009, Yokohama, Japan (2009).
66. 66. W. Kasprzak, J.H. Sokolowski, H. Yamagata, and H. Kurita, “Development of Energy
Efficient Heat Treatment Processes for Light Weight Automotive Castings,” Heat Treating
Proceedings of the 25th ASM Heat Treating Society Conference, September 14−17, 2009,
Indianapolis, IN, USA, Edited by F. Specht, S. MacKenzie and D. Weires (2009).
67. H.V. Atkinson and S. Davies, “Fundamental Aspects of Hot Isostatic Pressing: An Over-
view,” Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A, Vol. 31A, pp. 2981−3000 (Dec 2000).
68. D. Weiss, “The Effect of Chill and Riser Placement on Mechanical Properties of Premium
Sand Castings,” AFS International Conference on Structural Aluminum Castings (2003).
69. S.B. Ghanti, E. A. Druschitz, A.P. Druschitz, and J.A. Griffin, “The Effects of Solidification
under Pressure on the Porosity and Mechanical Properties of Cast Aluminum Alloy,” Trans-
actions of the American Foundry Society, Paper # 10-063, 7 pages (2011).
70. S.B. Ghanti, E.A. Druschitz, A.P. Druschitz, and J.A. Griffin, “The Effects of Solidification un-
der Pressure on the Porosity and Mechanical Properties of A206-T6 Cast Aluminum Alloy,”
Transactions of the American Foundry Society, Paper # 11-048, 8 pages (2011).
71. P.P. Chintalapati, J.A. Griffin, and R.D. Griffin, “Improved Mechanical Properties of Lost
Foam Cast A356 and A319 Aluminum Solidified under Pressure,” Transactions of the Amer-
ican Foundry Society, Paper # 07-058, 17 pages (2011).
72. R. Donahue, Mercury Marine, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, USA, Private Communication.
ADDITIONAL READING
1. D. Apelian, G.K. Sigworth and K.R. Whaler, “Assessment of Grain Refining and Modification
of Al-Si Foundry Alloys by Thermal Analysis,” AFS Transactions, Vol. 92, p. 297−307 (1984).
2. R. Dasgupta, C.G. Brown and S. Marek, “Analysis of Overmodified 356 Aluminum Alloy,”
AFS Transactions, Vol. 96, p. 297−310 (1988).
3. “Aluminum Permanent Mold Handbook,” American Foundry Society (2001).
4. ASM Handbook (1948).
5. ASM Metals Handbook, Vol.2, “Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Pure Met-
als,” Vol.2 (1979).
// 109
CHAPTER FIVE:
Casting
Processes
INTRODUCTION
The eight principal casting processes that can be applied to aluminum alloys are:
• Sand casting (green sand molding and chemically bonded sand molding);
• Permanent mold casting (gravity, low-pressure and high-pressure die);
• Cosworth process;
• Squeeze casting;
• Semi-solid casting,
• Lost foam casting;
• Ablation casting; and
• Investment casting.
Because of the low pouring temperature and specific gravity of aluminum alloys, molds are
less affected by heat than when pouring iron and steel alloys. Consequently, excellent surface
finish and dimensional accuracy may be obtained even in large castings.
Factors to be considered in the selection of any casting process include dimensional accuracy,
desired mechanical properties, surface finish/quality, and cost of pattern/core or mold making.
The casting design may have to be modified depending on the selected process. The minimum
section thickness for aluminum castings produced by the common processes is illustrated in
Table 5-1.
110 \\ Casting Processes
Sand castings weighing several tons have been successfully produced. Permanent-mold cast-
ings weighing 354 kg (780 lb.) and die castings up to 32 kg (70 lb.) are in use. It is well known
that the rapid chilling of the metal mold, and in the case of diecasting, the effect of casting
under pressure, produces the improved properties. However, it should be recognized that mere
chemical specification of a certain alloy is no guarantee of mechanical properties. Casting
process, casting design, melting practice, and the complete history of foundry processing
(i.e., grain refinement, modification, heat treatment, etc.) must be considered. In spite of the
improved mechanical properties obtained with metal molds, sand casting remains as a leading
casting process because of its inherent advantages.1,2
Table 5-1. Minimum Section Thickness for

Aluminum Castings Produced by Different Processes2
Section thickness, mm (in.) Section length

Sand Castings
3.2 (1/8) Under 76 mm (3 in.)
4 (5/32) 76 to 152 mm (3 to 6 in.)
4.8 (3/16) Over 152 mm (6 in.)
Permanent-Mold Castings
2.5 (0.100) Under 76 mm (3 in.)
3.2 (0.125) 76 to 152 mm (3 to 6 in.)
4.1 (0.1600 Over 152 mm (6 in.)
Die Castings
1.3 (0.050) Small Parts
2 (0.080) Large Parts
Plaster-Mold Castings
1.6 (1/16) 51 mm (2 in.) or less
2.4 (3/32) 76 to 152 mm (3 to 6 in.)
3.2 (1/8) Over 152 mm (6 in.)
Shell-Mold Castings
1.6 (1/16) Under 13 mm (½ in.)
2.4 (3/32) 13 to 76 mm (½ to 3 in.)
3.2 (1/8) 76 to 152 mm (3 to 6 in.)
4 (5/32) Over 152 mm (6 in.)
Precision Sand Castings
2 (0.080) Under 76 mm (3 in.)
2.5 (0.100) 76 to 152 mm (3 to 6 in.)
3.8 (0.150) Over 152 mm (6 in.)
// 111
Section thickness, mm (in.) Section length

Investment Castings
0.9 (0.035) 3.25 mm (¼ in.)
1.5 (0.060) 51 mm (2 in.) or less
2.3 (0.090) 51 to 102 mm (2 to 4 in.)
3.2 (0.125) 102 to 203 mm (4 to 8 in.)
3.8 (0.150) Over 203 mm (8 in.)
Centrifugal Permanent-Mold Castings
1.8 mm (0.070 in.) up to 25.8 sq cm (4 sq in.) per casting;
2 mm (0.080 in.) 32.2 to 64.5 sq cm (5 to 10 sq. in.);
2.3 mm (0.090 in.) 71 to 129 sq cm (11 to 20 sq in.);
2.5 mm (0.100 in.) 135.5 to 193.5 sq cm (21 to 30 sq. in.)
2.8 mm (0.110 in.) 200 to 451.5 sq cm (31 to 70 sq. in.);
3 mm (0.120 in.) 458 to 645 sq cm (71 to 100 sq in.); and
4 mm (0.156 in). over 645 sq cm (100 sq in.) per casting.
SAND CASTING
Aluminum sand castings represent about 11% of the total weight of aluminum castings pro-
duced in the world using both green sand molding and chemically bonded sand molding.
Green Sand Molding
Green sand systems may be composed of components such as sand, clay, water and other
additives. Green sand molds are not baked or dried. The molding process is described in Fig.
5-1.3 The process starts with pattern, which is a replica of the finished casting, except that it
is slightly larger to allow for aluminum shrinkage during solidification and cooling. The pattern
(made of wood, plastic or metal) can either be loose or attached to a plate.3
A flask is placed around the pattern to contain the prepared, free-flowing molding sand that
is placed on the pattern. Pressure is applied to the sand to compact it firmly against the face
of the pattern. When it is compacted, the green sand mixture exhibits physical properties that
allow it to retain the exact shape of the pattern after the pattern is drawn from the mold. Gates
and risers are part of the gating system design. These are discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
After cores (if any) are placed in the bottom (drag) half of the mold, the top (cope) section of
the mold is set in place. The closed mold is then ready for pouring the molten aluminum alloy.
After solidification, the casting is removed by mold shakeout and then sent for fettling to
remove fins, gates and risers before shipment or any post-casting operation such as heat treat-
ment or machining.
Synthetic sands are silica, olivine (a solid solution of forsterite (Mg2SiO4) and fayalite
(Fe2SiO4), zircon and chromite. Both zircon and chromite sands are used as special facing
sands in an aluminum foundry to improve casting surface finish.
Clays are the natural “glue” to hold sand molds together in green, dry and hot conditions. Some
sands, typically silica, occur in nature mixed with certain amount of clay (kaolinite). These are
called naturally-bonded molding sands. The characteristics of such sands suitable for alumi-
num castings are shown in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2. Molding Sands for Al Casting
AFS GFN 130-200

AFS clay content (%) 12-18
Recommended moisture (%) 5-7
Permeability 10-25
Green compressive strength (KPa) 34-69
Specialty additives are added to molding sands to get improved sand characteristics. Cellulose
and cereal are two specialty additives used in aluminum sand systems. Cellulose acts as a
cushioning material between sand grains to lower sand’s expansion stresses. It also increases
sand collapsibility, reduces hot tears and cracks and improves sand flowability. Cereals are
generally not added to aluminum sand mixtures. But small additions may be beneficial with
certain heavy-section castings to increase deformation (ductility) making it easier to remove
the pattern from the mold.
Chemically Bonded Sand Molding
The core and mold making processes used for casting aluminum include heat-cured shell resin
sand systems (which produce hollow shell-like cores) and carbon dioxide (CO2) gas-hardened
silicate systems, heat-cured hotbox binders, nobake systems (chemically cured without the
application of heat), vapor-catalyzed cold box processes, and vapor-reacted resins. Over 22
binder systems have been introduced in the last four decades. The various coldbox, nobake
and heat-activated systems are summarized in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Categories of Resin Core/Mold Processes3 (p.204)
Coldbox Nobake Heat-Activated

Phenolic/urethane
Furan/Acid Shell
/amine (PUA)
Silicate/CO2 Phenolic/Acid Core Oil
Furan/SO2 Phenolic/Ester Phenolic Hotbox
Acrylic/Epoxy/SO2 Oil Urethane Furan Hotbox
(Acrylic) FRC/SO2 Silicate/Ester Urea Formaldehyde Hotbox
Phenolic/Ester
Phenolic Urethane (PUNB) Warmbox
(methyl formate)
Phenolic/CO2 Phosphate/Metal Oxide
Polyol Urethane
// 113
Figure 5-1. These molding process steps illustrate

how a green sand “matchplate” mold typically is made.3 (p. 188)
PERMANENT MOLD CASTING

Aluminum castings can be produced using three types of permanent metal mold casting pro-
cesses; gravity, low-pressure (LPDC) and high-pressure die casting (HPDC). Gravity permanent
mold casting or gravity die casting is generally known as permanent mold casting where mol-
ten metal is poured into the mold cavity directly or by tilting the mold. Coring may be done with
metal cores in permanent molds, but these must be removable after the metal has solidified.
More intricate coring may be done by using sand, plaster, ceramics or even salt. When nonmet-
al destructible cores are used, the process is referred to as semi-permanent mold casting.
Advantages of the permanent mold casting process are finer grain structure and superior
mechanical properties due to the high solidification rate (and hence, thinner wall castings and
significantly lower-weight designs), less shrinkage and gas porosity, excellent surface finish,
near-net-shape, uniform casting shape, excellent dimensional tolerances, high production rate,
good control of solidification since sections of the mold can be cooled or insulated selectively.
Depending on the part design, some castings may not be appropriate for the process since
they can be more difficult to feed. These problems can sometimes be overcome by applying
pressure to the metal in the mold before solidification is complete or through the use of the
low-pressure permanent mold process (LPPM).
The mold surface is coated by spraying the hot mold with a suspension of a fine-particle-size
refractory in water. The mold coating can be used to promote directional solidification. Sec-
tions required to freeze more slowly can be given a thicker refractory coating. Mold coatings
serve to prevent sticking of the casting to the mold, provide a smooth surface, and assist in
controlling solidification so that sound castings are obtained. Production of quality perma-
nent-mold castings requires careful control of pouring temperature, mold temperature (typical-
ly 315 to 427C / 600 to 800F), mold coating, gating, pouring, mold manipulation, and continuity
of operation. Most alloys are favorably cast in permanent molds, but alloys with wide solidifi-
cation ranges require careful control of mold heating and cooling to avoid hot tearing and other
problems.
Molds are produced from gray iron, H13 tool steel, SAE 1020 and SAE 4140 steels. Gray iron
has better heat transfer capacity (hence shorter cycle time, faster solidification rates and more
uniform die heating) and excellent machinability. H13 tool steel on the other hand is more
resistant to wear and thermal stresses. Multiple-cavity molds can be used to increase the
production rate. Venting of the molds to permit air to escape (during mold filling) should be
considered in mold design. Metal molds have a production life of 10,000 to 120,000 or more
castings.4(p.689)
There are two types of mold coatings: insulating and lubricating. Mold coatings are composed
of:
1. refractory fillers (titania, talc, mica, vermiculite, alumina, iron oxide, silicon and graphite);
2. binder (sodium and potassium silicate and clays); and
3. a carrier (usually water).
// 115
A wide variety of alloys are suitable for permanent mold casting including: 204.0, 205.0, 206.0,
319.0, 355.0, 356.0, 357.0, 390.0, 413.0, 444.0, 711.0, 713.0, 850.0 and 853.0. Their compo-
sitions are given in Chapter 3, Table 3-3. It has been shown that alloy 535.0 can also be cast
by the permanent mold casting process.5 Alloy 535.0 can be used for automotive, marine and
military applications because of its good corrosion resistance in mild alkaline and salt spray
exposure, and a good combination of strength and ductility, shock resistance, and dimensional
stability in the as-cast condition. CANMET’s Materials technology laboratory (Now known as
Canmet MATERIALS) has demonstrated in their casting trials that components can be suc-
cessfully produced from aluminum alloys 535.0 and 206.0 which are hot tear susceptible in
commercial casting machines (Fig. 5-2). Following these trials, production parts were pro-
duced to test some of the ideas that made this possible (Fig. 5-3). The casting trials at two
production foundries showed that with proper equipment and process control, engineering
components can be cast successfully in metal molds without hot tears in both alloys.6
Typical casting applications are: oil pans and engine cradles, pistons, engine blocks, cylinder
heads, intake manifolds, and other functional parts of internal combustion engines for the
automotive, trucking, diesel, and marine industries. Other major uses for permanent mold
castings include internal and accessory parts for reciprocating and jet-type aviation engines;
missiles, forms for concrete, textile machine parts, electric motor housings, portable and hand
tool components, support members for outdoor light standards, electric griddles and kitchen
pots and pans, and a host of other commercial applications.
Figure 5-2. Photograph of rocker arm with the gating and risering system cast in alloy 535.0.5
Four swivel castings with gating system. One Swivel head casting.
Figure 5-3. Photographs of swivel head castings

with and without the gating system cast in alloy 535.0.5
Low-Pressure Permanent Mold Casting
Low-pressure permanent mold (LPPM) casting is a process where molten metal is introduced
into the mold by the application of pressure to a hermetically-sealed metal bath, forcing the
molten metal up through a narrow-diameter fill (stalk) tube from a furnace usually residing
below the casting machine (although there is a version using electromagnetic forces to lift
metal into the mold, and then the furnace may be an open hearth located beside the casting
machine). Another modification to the process is the use of vacuum to draw the metal. The
process can be considered for low to high volumes of casting from 5 to 100 kg (11 to 220 lb)
and usually incorporates the use of iron or steel permanent molds. Recent developments in
sand molding technology have made precision sand molds a viable choice for low-pressure
casting as well. A wide range of casting core options, such as expendable sand and shell cores
and mechanical single or multipiece permanent cores, are successfully used in the low-pres-
sure process.
The low-pressure process incorporates the use of a hydraulically-operated machine to vertical-

ly open and close a casting mold that is situated over a ready supply of molten metal. A basic
schematic of a LPPM machine is given in Fig. 5-4. The machine consists of an upper (moving)
and lower (stationary) platen, to which the upper (cope) and lower (drag) mold halves are at-
tached, respectively. The moving platen is raised and lowered hydraulically to allow for casting
and extraction of a component. Standard mold design allows the casting to remain in the upper
mold as it is opened and subsequently ejected from the mold for manual or automatic remov-
al. The stationary platen is typically positioned directly over a sealed, airtight furnace with a
supply of molten metal. Pressure applied can vary from 3 to 15 psi depending on the casting
configuration and desired quality of the casting.
// 117
Figure 5-4. Schematic of a low-pressure permanent mold (LPPM)

casting machine with an electric resistance crucible furnace.4 (p.701)
To provide optimum performance and consistency to the process, almost all LPPM machines
are controlled by a programmable logistic controller (PLC). The PLC will control all moving
functions of the casting machine, pressurization of the casting furnace, mold cooling/heating
circuits (oil, water, or air), automatic casting extraction, and manipulation of casting furnace for
refilling. The PLC can also track important historical data of the casting cycles, such as mold
temperature, cycle time, metal temperature, pressure profiles, and cooling cycles, which may
be used to gage productivity or troubleshoot casting problems.
Most low-pressure machines include automatic casting extraction due to the size and number
of castings produced by the process. A casting extractor can be a simple shuttle pan onto
which the casting is ejected or a robotic arm that extracts the casting and moves it to a subse-
quent process operation.
Advantages of the LPPM casting process are very high casting yield, low inclusion level as the
liquid metal is taken from the middle of the bath using a feed tube and minimum turbulence,
good to excellent surface finish, selective heating or cooling of mold sections to control solidi-
fication.
ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO PERMANENT MOLD CASTING

Cosworth Process
While most castings molded in sand are poured in gravity via ladle pouring, there are alterna-
tive methods used with all varieties of sand casting molding media. Bottom pour techniques
often associated with permanent molds, such as low pressure or counter gravity casting, are
used to produce castings of very high integrity such as engine blocks or cylinder heads. The
Cosworth Process was the original development of this technique, designed to produce high
quality engine components and is schematically shown in Fig. 5-5.7 Many variations of this
basic process are used. Mold filling can occur with an electromagnetic pump (as in the original
process), pressure or vacuum. The original process used zircon sand for dimensional stability.
Since the price of zircon sand is high, less expensive aggregates are usually used. Some cores
and mold sections may still use zircon, chromite or blends when needed to prevent core distor-
tion or mold erosion. Commonly, coatings are used to prevent metal penetration into the sand,
particularly near the sprue and ingates. Bottom pouring forces the metal up through the cavity
preventing many of the oxides formed during a traditional bottom pour. If necessary, the cast-
ing can be fed both by the furnace pressure as well as by feeders added to the upper portion
of the casting as shown in Figure 5-5. In addition to automotive components, the process is
being used for casting components for aerospace and defense industries like helicopter engine
components, helicopter winch drums, high-pressure refueling manifolds for tanker aircraft, gun
cradles, aluminum structural parts for airframes and marine engines, etc.
Advantages of the Cosworth process include:
• Casting have high integrity

• Reduced porosity formed therefore the castings have improved pressure tightness
• Improved mechanical properties
• Reduces fettling time
• Thinner section can be cast allowing the design of lighter, more robust components
• High strength and ductility for the cast products.
Figure 5-5. A schematic of the Cosworth process.7

// 119
High-Pressure Die Casting (HPDC)
High-pressure die casting (HPDC), also simply called die casting, consists of forcing molten
metal under considerable pressure into metal dies. Die casting of aluminum alloys is the most
rapidly developing metal casting process to produce larger, more complex, and more dimen-
sionally accurate parts for industry groups such as transportation (especially automotive),
agriculture, mining, construction, electronic, home appliance, sporting goods etc. Because of
the relatively lower melting point of aluminum alloys, tens of thousands of castings can be
produced in any die. The tolerances can be held unusually close for the cast parts (0.08-0.13
mm). The rapid chilling inherent in the die casting process produces a very fine-grained surface
structure The cast-to-shape parts require very little machining. The other advantages include
very high production rate compared to conventional casting processes, better surface finish,
thinner wall thickness and better dimensional tolerances of 0.013 to 0.025 mm (0.005 to
0.01 in). The main disadvantages are the high tooling cost and costs for die casting machines
and their maintenance. In addition, choices of alloys are limited and internal porosity during
conventional die casting restricts heat treatment or welding. However, vacuum HPDC has been
successfully used to evacuate the air and gases from the die cavity and metal delivery system
before and during molten metal injection.
Die casting of aluminum can be done by the cold chamber high-pressure method. The hot
chamber die casting method is almost never used anymore for aluminum alloys and hence, will
not be discussed here.
The cold chamber die casting method is depicted in Fig. 5-6.8,9 The molten metal is fed into a
shot cylinder either by hand ladling, auto-ladling, or by a pump. It is then injected fast (5 to 100
m/s) by a plunger into the cavity, where it solidifies into a net shape part under high pressure
0.3-2.9 MPa (5-20 ksi). If used to form undercuts, cores are retracted. Finally, the casting is
ejected, and the part is trimmed by separating it from the gating system and the biscuit (left-
over ladled metal in the shot sleeve). The entire cycle takes usually less than one minute. It is
very cost effective near-net-shape casting process, especially for the automotive industry.
Figure 5-6. A cold chamber die casting machine.8,9

While the fast injection of molten metal into the die cavity allows for the filling of very thin sec-
tions, it also contributes to air entrapment in the castings. The resulting porosity can impair the
mechanical properties. If high mechanical properties are targeted, special precautions need
to be taken to prevent air entrapment. Eliminating the air from the shot sleeve and the cavity
by application of vacuum can reduce the air entrapment in the casting.10 This process not only
removes the air from the cavity, but also eliminates excessive handling of the molten metal.
The metal is drawn by the vacuum, directly from the furnace to the shot sleeve without expo-
sure to air. The reduced level of oxides and porosity produces parts with superior mechanical
properties.
Squeeze Casting
A variation of the gravity permanent mold, low-pressure permanent mold and die casting pro-
cess is squeeze casting which can be used to produce high integrity and heat treatable com-
ponents in aluminum alloys. It is also known as the liquid metal forging process. The process
involves slowly filling the mold cavity with degassed and filtered molten metal (with minimal
turbulence) followed by the application of pressure during solidification. The flow rate during
squeeze casting is about 0.5m/s compared to 30 m/s in high- pressure die casting (HPDC).
There are two major squeeze casting processes: direct and indirect. In the direct squeeze cast-
ing process, the pressure is applied directly to the liquid or semi-solid metal from a hydraulic
source.4,11-14 It does not require a gating system. In the indirect squeeze casting process; liquid
metal is injected into the mold through gates located below the die cavity. Schematics of the
two processes are shown in Fig. 5-7 and 5-8. Pressure levels of up to 70 to 100 MPa (482 to
689 ksi) are generally used.
Figure 5-7. A schematic of the direct squeeze casting process.11

// 121
Advantages of the squeeze casting process are:
• reduced or absence of shrinkage porosity;

• very small dendrite arm spacing and fibrous silicon morphology due to rapid solidification;
• Squeeze cast components are heat treatable;
• Strength properties are comparable to other casting processes with better ductility and
impact toughness due to reduced porosity and refined microstructure; and
• Prevention of hot shortness.
Figure 5-8. A schematic of the indirect squeeze casting process.11
Squeeze casting has the capability to manufacture metal matrix composites (MMCs) because
of the high pressure and available casting control,. It is done by infiltrating a ceramic sponge or
preform with liquid metal, as shown in Fig. 5-9.
Figure 5-9. Squeeze casting infiltration is used to produce metal matrix composites (MMC).12
Two types of squeeze casting machines are commercially available: vertical and horizon-
tal-vertical. Typical cast components for the automotive industry are wheels, axle carriers, axle
covers, front steering knuckles and suspension links. Mechanical properties of squeeze-cast
aluminum alloys are summarized in Table 5-4 together with those from other casting processes
such as gravity permanent mold and die casting.
Macrosegregation can be expected in squeeze cast products due to interdendritic fluid flow.
Computer simulation of metal flow and solidification helps to improve the quality of the cast
components. Optical micrographs for squeeze cast samples at four different applied pressures
are shown in Fig. 5-10 for wrought alloy 2017.0.
Table 5-4. Various Properties of Squeeze Cast Aluminum Alloys4 (p.730)
Impact
Yield Strength(a) Tensile Strength(a)
Strength(b)
Hardness,
Alloy Process MPa ksi MPa Ksi Elongation(a), % J (ft lb)
(HRB)
221 - 296 - 43 - 14 - 18 (10-
A356.0-T6 Squeeze 32 - 34 10 - 14 48 - 63
234 310 45 13)
207 - 283 - 41 -
A356.0-T6 GPM(c) 30 - 33 3-5 45 - 58 8 - 10 (6-7)
228 303 44
241 - 324 - 47 -
357.0-T6 Squeeze 35 - 38 8 - 10 52 - 58 N/A
262 338 49
241 - 331 - 48 -
357.0-T6 GPM(c) 36 - 38 5-7 50 - 65 N/A
262 338 50
152 - 241 - 35 -
383.0-F(d) HPDC(e) 22 - 25 1-2 50 - 60 N/A
172 262 38
145 - 241- 39 -
383.0-F(d) Squeeze 22 - 25 2.75 - 3.5 50 - 60 N/A
159 262 42
234 - 359 - 52 -
383.0-T4(d) Squeeze 34 - 37 5-7 55 - 70 7 - 11 (5-8)
255 386 56
234 - 359 - 52 -
383.0-T4(d) Squeeze 34 - 37 5-7 55 - 70 7 - 11 (5-8)
255 386 56
296 - 379 - 55 -
383.0-T4(d) Squeeze 43 - 46 3-5 73 - 84 5 - 8 (4-6)
317 421 61
172 - 193 - 28 -
390.0-F HPDC(e) 25 - 28 0.5 - 1.0 50 - 60 <1 (<1)
193 228 33
352 - 51 -
290.0-T6 Squeeze N/A N/A <1 80 - 90 <1 (<1)
396 57
248 - 400 - 58 - 47 - 56 (35-
206.0-T4 Squeeze 36 - 39 21-26 63 - 75
269 421 61 41)
248 - 407 - 59 - 35 - 48 (26-
206.0-T4 GPM(c) 36 - 41 14 - 18 60 - 75
283 441 64 35)
(a) All tensile data based on samples ma- machined from actual casting;
chined from actual castings; (c) GPM = gravity permanent mold;
(b) Cross section of impact specimens = 10 x (d) Modified chemistry; and
3.3 mm (0.4 x 0.1 in.) all specimens (e) HPDC = high-pressure die casting.
// 123
Figure 5-10. Optical micrographs of the squeeze cast sample (a) 15 MPa; (b) 30 MPa;
(c) 60 MPa; and (d) 90 MPa applied pressure for wrought alloy 2017.0.13
SEMI-SOLID METAL PROCESSING

The Semi-Solid Metal Casting (SSM) processing has attracted a lot of attention in the research
community and industry because of the high-quality components and near-net-shapes that
can be produced. The process combines the advantages of casting and forging where complex
parts can be produced near net shape. Other advantages are: lower operating temperature and
cycle time; reduced porosity and solidification shrinkage, improved mechanical properties,
good pressure tightness, tight tolerances, thin walls, increased die life, etc. Parts produced by
SSM can be heat treated (T4, T5 and T6). SSM is usually done at a temperature between the
liquidus and solidus temperatures and the metal is 30 to 65% solid.15,16
For aluminum alloys, the two common SSM processes are thixocasting and rheocasting, Thixo-
casting consists of producing a billet with a non-dendritic (globular) microstructure, heating the
billet to the semi-solid temperature range and then forming the billet in a die casting machine.
In rheocasting, there is no premium added to the billet cost and the scrap recycling issues as
the semi-solid slurry is produced from the liquid metal by thermal management of cooling. This
rheocasting process is more common for aluminum alloys. Due to the viscous flow behavior of
the slurry, a more laminar cavity filling is obtained leading to less gas entrapment.17
Some of the rheocasting processes include:
1. UBE Industries, Ltd—New Rheocasting (NRC) Process;18

2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)—Semisolid Rheocasting (SSR);19
3. THT Presses—Sub-liquidus Casting (SLC);20

4. Alcan—Swirl Enthalpy Equilibrium Device (SEED);21-24
5. Brunel University—Rheo-Diecasting;25
6. Mercury Marine—Slurry-on-Demand Process (Fig. 5-11), and
7. Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)—Continuous Rheoconversion Process (CRP).26
A description of each process is given in Reference 16, (p. 773). The typical globular micro-
structure produced by the SEED process in alloy 356.0 is shown in Fig. 5-12. Microstructures of
the CRP process are given in Fig. 5-13.
While the semi-solid process can develop good results in some geometries, problems with
complex shapes has limited its acceptance. Those problems generally are caused by oxide
development either from the outside of the semi-solid billet or from trying to knit together
approaching metal fronts through naturally developing oxide skins.
Figure 5-11. Mercury Marine’s slurry-on-demand

semi-solid casting process and a cast component.17
// 125
Figure 5-12. Microstructure of SEED–process, alloy A356.0.24
Figure 5-13. Microstructures of an A206.0 alloy. (a) Air-cooled from the liquid state (left), (b)
As-solidified structure obtained with the CRP (right).25
LOST FOAM CASTING

Lost Foam Casting (LFC) is a binderless casting process where foam patterns are used to
produce castings. The LFC process is a cost-effective method for producing complex castings
using an expendable polystyrene foam pattern (EPS) and unbonded sand. The fundamentals of
the lost-foam casting process consists of placing a molded and refractory-coated polystyrene
foam pattern and its gating system in a flask, surrounding it with unbonded sand, and vibrating
it to achieve maximum compaction of the sand around the foam pattern assembly. Molten met-
al is poured directly into the gating system. The metal vaporizes the polystyrene pattern leaving
a casting that is a replica of the foam pattern. The gases that form during the vaporization of
the pattern permeate through the coating and sand and exit through the flask vents.27-29
A schematic of the LFC process is shown in Fig. 5-14.
Figure 5-14. A schematic comparing the lost foam and sand casting processes.28
Some unique advantages of the LFC process are close dimensional tolerance, part consoli-
dation, high casting yield, capability to produce complex castings, improved casting surface
finish, no fins around coreprints or parting lines, and the elimination of sand cores and binders.
The flexibility of gluing foam sections together to form one component with complex inter-
nal passages (i.e., as in engine blocks and heads) without the use of cores common in the
sand-casting process is one of the major advantages of the LFC process. Some automotive
engine blocks and heads are cast from aluminum alloy A356.0 using the LFC process.29-32
Foam permeability, density, surface quality, fusion and dimensional stability are the key control
areas to produce premium quality castings. The foam pattern is prepared for casting by attach-
ing a gating system (sometimes molded as part of the pattern) of material of the same type
// 127
and density. Patterns for aluminum castings are usually coated to eliminate metal penetration
and burned-on sand and to improve as-cast surfaces. Sand used can be either washed and
dried silica sands, lake sands or other high-quality sands.
Use of vacuum is an effective way of improving the mold filling of aluminum alloys in addition
to removing pyrolysis products and improving the apparent fluidity.31 Figure 5-15 shows a
vacuum box that can be used for LFC. The degree of vacuum to be applied should be optimized
depending on the thickness and complexity of the castings.
Figure 5-15. Vacuum box and pressure manifold system.31
Molten aluminum shrinks by approximately 6% on solidification. This leads to about 1% po-

rosity in conventional sand castings. However, the application of pressure during lost foam
casting can reduce porosity to <0.1%. The pressure can be applied at 1-1.5 MPa (0.15 -0.22 ksi
or 10-15 atm) in approximately 60 to 90 s to eliminate hydrogen porosity and decrease unfed
shrinkage porosity by over an order of magnitude compared to conventional casting processes.
The most common defect in lost foam casting is the formation of folds33,34 due to oxide/liquid
system films in the molten metal which prevent “knitting” of two metal fronts that come in con-
tact with an intervening dry-sided oxide surface. Figure 5-16 shows fold defects in aluminum
alloy 356.0 during lost foam casting.34
SEM Optical
Figure 5-16. Fold defects in an aluminum 356.0 alloy during lost foam casting.34
ABLATION CASTING
Ablation casting process is the latest emerging technology in the casting industry which takes
advantage of the high cooling rate due to water spray on a sand aggregate with a water-soluble
binder.35,36 In this process, the liquid metal is poured into the mold, and the mold is progressive-
ly ablated away with the molten metal in the mold cavity (Fig. 5-17). The mold may be tilted
to control metal fill. Since the mold is progressively removed, the water can contact the metal
casting directly, eliminating the air gap. As a result, the heat transfer is more rapid compared
with other conventional casting processes and hence, high temperature gradients are estab-
lished that help to eliminate shrinkage porosity, especially in thick sections. The final outcome
is very high solidification rates in a sand mold leading to fine microstructures and improved
mechanical properties. A typical casting produced by this process in alloy B206.0 is shown in
Fig. 5-18.
Figure 5-17. The ablation of the mold in progress.35

// 129
Figure 5-18. An aluminum alloy B206.0 (Al-4.5Cu) alloy swing arm casting, 2.5 mm thick wall,
with isolated unfed bosses, notably free from hot tearing, characteristic of this alloy.35
The rapid cooling effect of the ablation fluid on the solidifying alloy produces a unique micro-
structure and very high mechanical properties (see Table 5-5 where the mechanical properties
for different alloys are compared). The secondary dendrite arm spacing (SDAS) after ablation
can be coarse (the same as sand-cast products). However, the later solidifying eutectic struc-
ture can be very fine, leading to superior mechanical properties. A comparison of microstruc-
tures for ablation casting and naturally solidified casting is shown in Fig. 5-19.
Fig. 5-19 Optical micrographs to compare the microstructures following ablation casting with
naturally solidified casting. (left) AlSi7Mg structure in an ablated casting (right) Naturally solidi-
fied in sand from the same alloy.36
Table 5-5. Comparative Mechanical Properties for Alloy A356.034
Squeeze Pressure /Counter

Sand Cast Perm. Mold Ablation Cast
Cast Pressure
UTS MPa 228 262 312 334 325
Yield MPa 179 207 243 239 261
Elongation % 3.5 4 11.0 14.3 12.5
INVESTMENT CASTING
Investment casting uses expendable patterns which are completely surrounded or invested,
that is, with no parting lines. The pattern is coated with a slurry of molding aggregate which
hardens by chemical reaction. Patterns are most often made of fusible materials such as wax-
es, plastics, or fusible alloys (at one time, even frozen mercury was used) which are removed
from the mold by melting-out. As wax has been used for centuries, the process has come to be
known as lost-wax casting, or la cire perdue.37
There are two variants of the investment casting process: 1) investment flask casting, where a
solid mold is enclosed in a flask; and 2) investment shell casting, where a pattern is enclosed
in a shell of molding aggregate. In the latter, the shell must be strong enough to permit removal
of the pattern material and then casting.
The steps (Fig. 5-20) for both variants of the investment casting process are:
1. Production of a wax replica of the desired part using heat-disposable special waxes or
plastic patterns. This is accomplished by injecting wax or plastic into a die cavity.
2. After injection, the wax replica is removed from the injection tool. Parts are inspected for
tolerance and then cleaned for assembly.
3. Assembly of patterns, a central sprue, the pouring cup and gating system into a tree;
4. The assembled sprue is then dipped or “invested” in into a ceramic slurry. After draining,
the sprue is then coated or “stuccoed” with a fine ceramic sand. This process is repeated
several times using progressively coarser grades of ceramic material to “build” sufficient
“shell” strength.
5. Dewaxing the shell by heating in a furnace or autoclave leaving behind the perfect shell
cavity.
6. Firing of the ceramic mold to burn out the last traces of the pattern material, developing
the high-temperature bond. This cures the shells interior into a smooth, hard and strong
ceramic material.
7. Pouring, usually by gravity, after removing the hot shells from the furnace.
8. The poured shells are allowed to cool followed by knockout, removal of rigging, finishing,
and inspection.
// 131
Wax Injection Pattern Removal Wax Assembly
Shell Building De-waxing
Shell Preheating Pouring Part Finishing

Figure 5-20. Basic production steps for investment casting methods.37
Advantages of Investment Casting are:1
1. Intricate, complex thin-walled castings, excellent smooth surface finish (40-125 micro
inch);
2. Linear tolerance of ± 0.005 in. (±0.13 mm) for dimensions in the first inch, plus ± 0.005 in.
for each additional inch. Better tolerances are possible, depending on alloy and the part’s
configuration;
3. Minimal machining requirements;
4. Recently 3D CAD models are used to “print” three-dimensional photo-polymers, ther-
mo-polymers or other materials. These prototypes are attached to a gating system.
Disadvantages of Investment Casting are:
1. Long lead time;

2. Very high pattern costs and mechanized equipment.
REFERENCES
pany, NY (2014).
2. R.W. Heine, C.R. Loper, Jr. and P.C. Rosenthal, “Principles of Metal Casting,” McGraw-Hill
Zalensas (1993).
4. ASM Handbook, Vol. 15, “Casting” (2008).
5. Y. Fasoyinu, D. Cousineau and M. Sahoo, “Permanent Mold Casting of Prototype Compo-
nents in Al-Mg Alloy 535.0,” AFS Transactions, American Foundry Society, Vol. 112, (2004),
6. F.A. Fasoyinu, J.P. Thomson, P. Burke, D. Weiss and M. Sahoo, “Permanent Mold Casting of
Aluminum Alloys A206.0 and A535.0,” AFS Transactions, American Foundry Society, Vol.
115 (2007).
7. D. Weiss,, TALAT Lecture 3201: Introduction to Casting Technology, https://www.slide-
share.net/corematerials/talat-lecture-3201-introduction-to-casting-technology (Site last
accessed 12-8-21).
8. S. Udvardy, NADCA, Private Communication (2008).
9. “Introduction to Die Casting,” NADCA, (1999).
10. D. Schwam , “Vacuum Die Casting,” NADCA Publication #528 (2007).
11. B.L Mordike, T Ebert, “Magnesium: Properties-Applications-Potential,” Materials Science
and Engineering: A, Volume 302, Issue 1, Pp. 37-45 (2001).
12. “Substances & Technologies,” www.substech.com (Site last accessed 12-8-21).
13. N. Souissi, S. Souissi, C. Le Niniven, M. B. Amar,C. Bradai and F. Elhalouani “Optimization
of Squeeze Casting Parameters for 2017 A Wrought Al Alloy Using Taguchi Method,” Met-
als, 4(2), 141-154 (2014).
14. M.R. Ghomashchi and A. Vikhrov, “Squeeze Casting: An Overview,” Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, Vol. 101, No. 1-3, pp. 1-9 (2000).
15. M. S. Salleh, M. Z. Omar, I. Syarif and M. N. Mohammed, “An Overview of Semisolid Pro-
cessing of Aluminum Alloys,” ISRN Materials Science, Article ID 679820 (2013).
16. “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys,” ASM Specialty Handbook, Edited by J. R. Davis, p. 102
(1993).
17. ASM Handbook, Vol. 15, “Casting,” p.763 and 773, (2008).
// 133
18. 18. “Method and Apparatus for Shaping Semi-Solid Material,” European Patent #EP 0 745
694 A1, UBE Industries Ltd. (1996).
19. J. A. Yurko, R. A. Martinez and M. C. Flemings, “SSR: The Spheroidal Growth Route to
Semi-Solid Forming,” Eighth International Conference on Semi-Solid Processing of Alloys
and Composites, Limassol, Cyprus (2004).
20. J. L. Jorstad, “Fundamental Requirements for Slurry Generation in the Sub-Liquidus
Casting Process and the Economics of SLC Processing of Alloys and Composites, Eighth
International Conference on Semi-Solid Processing of Alloys and Composites, Limassol,
Cyprus (2004).
21. D. Doutre, G. Hay and P. Wales, “Semi-Solid Concentration Processing of Metallic Alloys,”
US Patent No. 6,428,636 (August 6, 2002).
22. D. Doutre, J. Langlais and S. Roy, “The SEED Process for Semi-Solid Forming,” Eighth Inter-
national Conference on Semi-Solid Processing of Alloys and Composites, Limassol, Cyprus
(2004).
23. S.H. Nafisi, O. Lashkari, R. Ghomashchi, J. Langlais and B. Kulunk, “The SEED Technology:
A New Generation in Rheocasting,” Proceedings Light Metals, Conference of Metallurgists,
Calgary, Canada (2005).
24. J. Langlais, A. Lemieux, “The SEED Technology for Semi-Solid Processing of Aluminum
Alloys: A Metallurgical and Process Review,” Ninth International Conference on Semi-Solid
Processing of Alloys and Composites, Busan, Korea, (September 11-13, 2006).
25. Z. Fan, S., Ji, G. Liu, and E. Zhang, “Development of the Rheo-Diecasting Process for Mg
Alloys and Their Components,” Eighth International Conference on Semi-Solid Processing of
Alloys and Composites, Limassol, Cyprus (2004).
26. Q.Y. Pan, M. Findon, and D. Apelian, “The Continuous Rheoconversion Process (CRP): A
Novel SSM Approach,” Eighth International Conference on Semi-Solid Processing of Alloys
and Composites, Limassol, Cyprus (2004).
27. R. Bailey, “Understanding the Evaporative Foam Casting Process (EPC),” Modern Casting,
pp. 58-61 (April 1982).
28. R.W. Monroe, “Expendable Pattern Casting,” American Foundry Society (1992).
29. Staff Report, “Engine Design Freedom with Lost Foam Casting,” Engineered Casting Solu-
tions, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 28-32 (2004).
30. Y. Fasoyinu, P. Newcombe and M. Sahoo, “Lost Foam Casting of Magnesium Alloys AZ91D
and AM50,” AFS Transactions, Vol. 114, Paper # 06-79 (2006).
31. J.L. Dion, R.D. Warda, R.K. Buhr, J.R. Emmett and M. Sahoo, “Production of Aluminum Alloy
Castings Using Evaporative Pattern and Vacuum Techniques,” AFS Transactions, Vol. 98,
pp. 131-140 (1990).
32. Y. Fasoyinu, H. Chioren, P. Newcombe and M. Sahoo “Vacuum Assisted Lost Foam Casting
of Magnesium Alloy AZ91E,” AFS Transactions, Vol. 113, paper 05-53 (2005).
33. M. Sands and S. Shivkumar, “EPS Bead Fusion Effect on Fold Defect of Aluminum Alloys,”
J. Materials Science, Vol. 41, p.2373-2379 (2006).
34. S. Jagoo, C. Ravindran, and D. Nolan, “Fold Defects in Aluminum A356 Lost Foam Casting,”
AFS Transactions, Paper # 07-068, pp. 1-6 (2007).
35. J. Grassi, J. Campbell. M. Hartlieb and F. Major, “Ablation Casting,” Proceedings from
Aluminum Alloys: Fabrication, Characterization and Applications, Edited by W. Yin and S.K.
Das, TMS, pp. 73-77 (2008).
36. J. Grassi, D. Weiss, and B. Cox, “Technology for Magnesium Castings: Design, Products
and Applications,” Ablation Casting, M. Sahoo as Principal Author, American Foundry Soci-
ety, pp. 197-201 (2011).
37. Investment casting process information http://www.investcastinc.com/production (Site
last accessed 12-8-21).
// 135
CHAPTER SIX:
Gating and
Risering Design
INTRODUCTION
Usually a gating system is defined as the mechanism to fill and feed a casting and to supply
metal to the casting during solidification. This encompasses every process step from the lip
of the ladle until the casting is 100% solid. The gating system is arguably the most import-
ant aspect in the “art and science” of making a casting since it is the primary contributor to
determining casting soundness and mechanical properties. While simulation software is widely
used in the development of gating systems, a preliminary model needs to be created for the
software to analyze. The closer that preliminary model design is to the fundamental physics
of metal filling and feeding, the quicker a casting can be fully developed. The gating system is
implemented into a pattern or die. The metal can be poured directly into a die, as in permanent
mold or the pattern is used to produce a mold in sand. In either case, the metal interacts with
mold materials creating emergent behavior that may change how the simulated gating works.
As has been emphasized elsewhere in this book, designing the part with castability in mind will
make it easier to develop a suitable, cost effective gating system for production.
136 \\ Gating and Risering Design
BASIC GATING SYSTEM COMPONENTS

The basic components of a gating system are illustrated in Fig. 6-1.
Figure 6-1. A typical gating system used in the sand casting process.
A gating system is the mechanism by which metal enters the mold and feeds the casting
during solidification. A good gating system will maintain a metal velocity high enough to com-
pletely fill the casting but low enough to avoid the development of turbulence during the pour.
Feeding of the casting is required to compensate for the solidification shrinkage that occurs
when aluminum solidifies.
Controlling Metal Velocity
Campbell1 has suggested that above a critical velocity of about 0.5 m s-1, a stream of metal
may entrain surface oxides leading to various levels of casting defects. The goal of a filling
system should be to not exceed that critical velocity. However, in many gravity cast products
that have complex geometries, control of velocity to that level may not be possible, practical
or cost effective. In cases where velocity control to the desired level is not practical, other
techniques can be used to minimize casting damage. Filters or screens are used to clean up
the metal at the base of the sprue where critical velocities are often exceeded, particularly for
tall castings. Chills can be used to set up solidification rates high enough to prevent entrained
oxides from unfurling. When combined with other advantages of chill use, mechanical proper-
ties can be very high even with moderate amounts of oxides.
// 137
Sprue and Pouring Cup Design
The main purpose of the pouring cup is to make it possible to contain the metal stream during
pouring and make a smooth transition to the sprue. Conical pouring basins are used due
to their simplicity and low cost. They require pouring skill since the filling patterns can vary
depending on where in the cone the metal stream is directed. A conical basin is best used for
smaller casting or used with an automatic pour system, where pouring consistency can be
insured. Offset basins and offset basins with steps or dams are often used in larger castings.
The sprue carries the metal from the pouring basin into the runner. The sprue can be the most
problematic part of the gating system, particularly when they are very tall since air can be aspi-
rated into the pouring stream. The typical strategy is to taper the sprue and make it as narrow
as possible while still being able to deliver the metal at a temperature that will fill the casting.
The sprue base exit size is determined by the desired flow rate of metal into the casting and
the head height (sum of sprue height and poring cup height). To avoid air aspiration the sprue
size at the top is generally calculated based on maintaining equivalent velocities along the
length of the sprue. This can be done by taking the square root of the ratio of the sprue length
to the pouring cup height and designing the taper accordingly. For example, if the sprue has a
length of 8” and the pouring cup has a height of 2”, the square root of that ratio is 2. Therefore,
the cross-sectional area of the top of the sprue should be double that of the exit. This method
is sufficient in most cases but not exact. Often, the metal is delivered some distance above the
pour cup and this method considers neither viscosity nor surface tension.
The flow rate from the sprue into a horizontal runner system in pounds per second can be
calculated using the formula:
Q=cDA√2gh
Where:
c = orifice coefficient (different for rectangular and round sprues; generally,
between 0.6 and 0.7);
D = material density in pounds per cubic inch;
A = sprue exit area in square inches;
h = effective head height in inches; and
g = acceleration due to gravity in inches per second.
Detailed design rules for pouring cups and sprues can be found in Reference 1.
Runners and Ingates
Runners distribute metal from the base of the sprue to the ingates. Depending on the geometry
and size of the casting there can be multiple or single runners distributing metal into multiple
or single ingates. Figure 6-1 shows a casting design that has two runner bars emanating from a
single sprue. The runner on the left delivers metal to two ingates and on the right to one ingate.
In convention gating systems, the amount of metal required to fill the casting is controlled
by the sprue exit area and the metallostatic head. The cross-sectional area of all runners is
typically two to three times the sprue exit area. This help to control metal velocity which in turn
reduces the likelihood of trapped and development of oxides. The ingates have about the same
or slightly larger cross-sectional area than the runners. This prevents the metal from increasing
the velocity through the gates and the metal jetting into the casting cavity. In Figure 6-1 the left
side runner splits into two to reach different area of the casting. The sum of the cross-sectional
area of the ingates after the split equals the cross-sectional area before the split in order to
maintain a constant velocity.
Campbell1 and others have done much work to refine these basic gating rules to match the
actual physics of metal flow in order to avoid the development of oxides and air entrapment.
However, less emphasis has been given to the location of the ingates and how the thermal
profile changes as ingate location changes. Further discussions of those concerns follow.
Types of Gating Systems (Gravity Cast Sand)
Gravity sand gating systems can be categorized into the following general types:
• Side pour-conventional AFS-type systems

• Top pour systems
• Bottom pour systems
• Experimental and non-conventional systems
Recent work by Hoefert et al2 compared side pour, top pour and bottom pour gating systems in
their ability to deliver high mechanical properties and defect free castings in a common casting
geometry. These gating systems are shown in Fig. 6-2. These gating systems had advantag-
es and disadvantages depending on the requirements of the casting. Top pour systems will
typically have a strong thermal gradient which may improve soundness in the lower part of
the casting but are more likely to have turbulence related defects on the upper surface of the
casting. These defects are typically entrained air or gases. Bottom pour systems deliver metal
with minimum levels of turbulence but can set up adverse thermal gradients in the casting that
reduce mechanical properties. Side pour gating systems appear to be a good compromise in
terms of overall performance, depending on the casting geometry.
Figure 6-2. Comparison of top fill (left), side fill (middle) and bottom fill (right) gating systems.
// 139
Mechanical property testing, x-ray and microstructural analysis on a range of alloys has
demonstrated that development of a thermal gradient to improve feeding and minimizing po-
rosity is the most important influence on casting quality.
The flexibility of the sand casting process makes it possible to design optimized filling systems
based on bottom pour systems. Innovative approaches advanced by Puhakka3 and others,
control metal velocities precisely. The gating system shown in Fig. 6-3 is considered a naturally
pressurized system with narrow runners to control backflow and turbulence.
Figure 6-3. A dual sprue vortex gating system.
When printed sand molds are used and the gating is freed from the restrictions of the parting
line geometry almost anything is possible. Recent research at Penn State4 explored innovative
sprue designs using printed sand molds as shown in Fig.6-4.
Figure 6-4. Different types of sprue profiles:–(a) inclined,

(b) parabolic, (c) hyperbolic and (d) conical-helix.
Risers and Feeding
Risers are reservoirs of metal used to feed solidification shrinkage in aluminum alloys. The
volume of aluminum shrinks 5-7% during solidification. Risers are typically placed in heavy
sections of the casting where the solidification shrinkage is greatest. Based on experience or
with the aid of solidification modeling, the size of riser is selected so that it solidifies after the
section that it is designed to feed has solidified. However, if feeding continues too late in the
solidification of the riser, the alloying elements may redistribute leading to segregation defects.
Sigworth5 gives an example of a cylinder head in 319.0 alloy where copper-rich liquid is fed into
the casting leading to segregation visible in radiography. Therefore, risers are usually designed
to be larger than required based on static thermal analysis of the casting sections. Thermal
analysis is usually based on the concept of casting modulus, a ratio of the volume (V) to the
heat emitting surface area (A) of the section. A riser to feed a section of the casting should
have a larger thermal modulus than the section and must have enough volume feed capacity.
The freezing time of a section is proportional to the casting modulus. Therefore, a riser with a
larger casting modulus than the section it is feeding will stay liquid long enough to feed that
section.
The use of chills in conjunction with risers increases the feeding efficiency of the riser. Increas-
ing the feeding efficiency will result in less casting porosity or may make possible the use of
smaller risers and less efficient risers. The feeding distance of risers will depend on the casting
geometry, the alloy used, the metallostatic head as well as the thermal gradient. Beeley6 gives
some useful rules of thumb for a start on riser design. He suggests that a thermal gradient
needs to be established of between 5.5°C/cm and 13°C/cm (25 and 59.4°F/in) depending on
the freezing range of the alloy. For initial designs where the thermal gradient is unknown, tra-
ditional starting points for the feeding distance, D, given a casting thickness t range from 4.5 t
to 6√t. For longer freezing range alloys, the feeding distance is generally shorter than for short
freezing range alloys.
The feeding effectivity of risers can be increased either by the use of insulating sleeves, an
exothermic compound placed on top of the risers (post pour) or the use of other insulation to
prevent heat loss from the surface of the risers. All of these techniques change the effective
thermal modulus of the section.
Chills
Chills are metallic inserts molded into the sand surface to promote high solidification rates.
They can be machined or cast and are usually made from iron, aluminum or copper. The selec-
tion of the type of chill depends on ease of manufacture and the desired thermal effects of the
chill. The effectiveness of the chill will depend on size, thermal conductivity, thermal capacity
and the thermal transfer across the molten metal/chill interface. The variation between chilled
and un-chilled mechanical properties tends to be greater in long freezing range alloys. This
occurs because the chilling affects directional solidification and therefore feeding of the alloy.
The resultant improvement in soundness contributes to the improvement in mechanical prop-
erties. In aluminum sand casting, iron chills are usually used but chills can be made from other
materials such as copper or aluminum. These chills differ in conductivity as well as in thermal
capacity. A higher conductivity will remove heat faster and a higher specific heat capacity will
extract more heat before the chill loses its effectiveness. Table 6-1 lists the conductivity, spe-
// 141
cific heat capacity and volume normalized heat capacity [specific heat capacity times density
in grams per cubic centimeter] for easy comparison of common chill materials. In all cases the
addition or subtraction of alloying elements will change these properties somewhat as will the
continued re-use of chills due to microstructural changes in the chill material.
Table 6-1. Comparison of Common Chill Materials
Specific Heat Volume Normalized

Chill Material Thermal Conductivity
Capacity Heat Capacity
A356.0 Aluminum 167 W/mK 963 J/kgK 2585
Class 20 Gray Iron 46 W/mK 490 J/kgK 3675
Beryllium Copper 260 W/mK 390 J/KgK 3432
If the primary goal of using chills is to improve mechanical properties, the use of higher ther-
mal conductivity chills will be most effective since it can remove the heat faster during the crit-
ical time period when the microstructure is developing. When using chills to develop thermal
gradients in heavy castings, the use of chills having a higher volume normalized heat capacity
is preferred since they can accept more heat before the thermal gradient is “turned off” by the
increasing temperature of the chills.
Very effective localized chilling can be accomplished using cooling fins on castings. Wright
and Campbell7 demonstrated a significant reduction in solidification time using fins at 0.1
times the half-section thickness and a fin length four times the half-section thickness. This
basic concept is illustrated in Fig. 6-5, in this case used in steel casting where fins were used to
eliminate mid-wall shrinkage. Wright and Campbell7 make the point that fins are more effective
in high thermal conductivity material like aluminum than in steel.
Figure 6-5. Two examples of the use of cooling fins

to reduce mid-wall shrinkage in a steel casting.8
Mild chilling can also be accomplished with the use of high conductivity sands such as zircon,
chromite or blends as well as with the use of mold coatings. This can be useful in some situa-
tions where a mild increase in local cooling rates are beneficial for the castings.
Internal chilling using cylindrical rods or micro-chills using turning and powder was studied by
Biswas et al9. This type of chilling is not extensively used in aluminum alloys because the oxide
skins on the chills usually prevent complete incorporation of the chill in the final structure
and the deleterious effects of oxides may outweigh the benefits on the final microstructure.
However, Biswas did demonstrate mechanical property improvements of between 10-15% in an
Al-4.5% Cu alloy when the internal chills were melted completely.
Heat pipes have been considered for thermal control. Heat pipes can effectively transport large
amounts of heat from the solidifying casting. Elalem10 studied the use of heat pipe technolo-
gy in permanent mold castings and showed good results in an experimental A356.0 casting.
Fig. 6-6 shows an active heat pipe produced using a copper pipe filled with a zinc-aluminum
(ZA) alloy. The copper extracts heat rapidly and the phase change of the ZA alloy can absorb
significant amounts of heat. This type of system can be used in either sand or permanent mold
castings.
Figure 6-6. A copper tube containing a Zn-Al alloy for use

as a heat pipe. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
Controlling Thermal Gradients
The feeding effectivity in a given alloy is at least partially controlled by the thermal gradient in
the casting system. Consider a plate with a cross section as shown in Fig. 6-7.
Figure 6-7. Illustration of the use of an end chill for a

plate casting to increase the thermal gradient.
// 143
The thermal gradient is the difference of the cooling rate at the riser and the cooling rate at the
chill divided by casting length. In this case, if the cooling rate at the riser is 1°C/sec (1.8°F/sec)
and at the chill it is 7°C/sec (12.6°F/sec) and the plate is 6 inches long, the thermal gradient is
(7 - 1)/6 = 1°C/inch (1.8°F/inch). If this casting is made from a 7% Si alloy, the literature gives
values of about 3°C per inch (5.4°F/in.) to avoid shrinkage porosity, so this casting could be
expected to have shrinkage somewhere in the casting. There are several potential solutions
from a gating standpoint to resolve this problem. The riser size can be increased to reduce
the cooling rate at that end of the casting or the size of the chill can be increased to increase
the cooling rate at the far end, or a combination of the two. Increasing the riser size will also
decrease the local freezing rate, potentially reducing the mechanical properties in that area.
The Niyama criteria is an equation that provides an effective way to think about thermal
gradients and how they can be applied to the production of structural aluminum castings. The
equation for the Niyama criteria is:
Ny=G√T
Where:
G = thermal gradient; and
T = local cooling rate.
The Niyama criteria has a threshold value where shrinkage can generally be avoided, and it
is different for different alloys. The threshold value for Ny generally increases as the freezing
range of the alloy increases.
A deeper look at the Niyama criteria helps to explain some of the issues with metalcasting
considering some of the special requirements of structural products. Consider the same plate
but with requirements of higher mechanical properties partway down the plate.
High
Property
Zone
Figure 6-8. An illustration of the use of a chill in the mid-section of the plate.
One can choose to place a chill adjacent to that area since the yield strength is inversely pro-
portional to grain size and one of the most effective ways to control grain size is by increasing
the cooling rate using chills. This is illustrated in Fig. 6-8. However, it is easy to see that the
chill reduces the thermal gradient in the chill zone moving from left to right. This could result
in higher levels of porosity particularly in longer freezing range alloys. This has been demon-
strated11-13 in alloys such as 535.0, 206 .0 and E357.0 where reduced dendrite arm spacing
(DAS) resulted in lower mechanical properties due to the presence of microporosity caused by
a reduction in thermal gradient.
The problem becomes even more evident in complicated castings. Often low porosity castings
as simulated or in practice can be compromised using chills to boost mechanical properties in
localized areas.
Filters
Filters have a few different functions in the aluminum casting gating system. The primary func-
tion is to improve cleanliness of the metal entering the casting from the gating system. Even
with very good metal preparation and pouring techniques, stray oxides from the lips of ladles
or oxides inadvertently developed in the pouring process can be present. Filters can also be
used as flow control devices within the gating system. Filtered metal will generally have higher
fluidity and resultant castings will have more consistent mechanical properties.
There are different types of filters used in aluminum casting processes (Fig. 6-9).
A B C
Figure 6-9.Three different filter types are shown. A) Ceramic Foam Filter,
B) Woven Fiber Filter, C) Rigid GlassweveTM Filter.
// 145
The predominate type used for structural castings is a ceramic foam filter. These filters can be
purchased in a variety of cell sizes. Filters with small cell sizes remove a larger proportion of
finer inclusions but require a higher metallostatic pressure to prime properly. Most aluminum
casting operations use filter sizes of 10 pores per inch (PPI) to 30 PPI.
Metal traveling through a ceramic foam filter can show a significant velocity decrease. Zadeh
and Campbell14 showed reductions in velocity of about 80% in a 4 mm channel thickness using
an Al-Si alloy and measured using real time-radiography. This is an important factor to consider
for the rest of the gating system to assure enough velocity to get the casting to fill completely.
Woven fiber filters are a less expensive option for in-mold filtration of aluminum alloys. The
fibers can be made of ceramic, glass or metal wire. These filters have less of an effect on met-
al flow but are somewhat less effective in removing oxides and inclusions. Woven metal wire
filters are widely used in magnesium sand and permanent mold casting.
As reported by Fritzke and Weiss15 a new type of filter, Rigidized GlassweveTM (RGW), has been
developed to minimize some of the issues encountered in the foundry by previously devel-
oped filters. Ceramic foam filters often must be cut from the gating system before re-melting
to avoid ceramic particles in the melt and manufacturing consistency and pour times vary
between manufacturers and within manufacturing lots. Typical woven filters are prone to metal
bypass which reduces their filtering effectiveness. The new filters utilize a combination of ge-
ometry and rigidized glass weave to produce filters that are dimensional stable in filter pockets
and can be re-melted as part of the gating system. RGW filters reduced the standard deviation
of pouring time by 3 to 4 times when compared with ceramic foam filters.
Weiss16 showed that the use of multiple filters will improve the removal of inclusions from the
casting gating system. He documented a 67% improvement in elongation when comparing a
single 10 PPI ceramic filter with a 10 PPI filter in front of a 20 PPI filter angled at 30 degrees.
This was so effective that the mode of fracture changed from oxide films to eutectic silicon
particle cracking. The use of multiple filters for metal velocity control can be particularly useful
for tall castings where metal velocities at the base of the sprue can be very high.
Filtering is a mechanical method of removing inclusions from the melt. Active filtering intro-
duces chemical activity to the filtering process. For example, the introduction of fluorides,
which are wetted by the aluminum, improves the removal of suspended particles. Some formu-
lations make it possible to remove Al2O3 inclusions as small as 6 µm in size. Fluorides can also
remove alkali contaminants such as Li, Na or Ca.17
Other active methods include electric or magnetic fields that have been used to remove in-
clusions from the molten aluminum melt. Sun et al18 studied a combination of DC current and
a strong magnetic field to remove inclusions from a cylindrical flowing channel in aluminum,
which would be analogous to flow through a gating system.
All these active methods are experimental and have not been widely adopted commercially,
either because of environmental effects in active chemical filtering, or because of cost and
logistic issues in the case of magnetic or electrical methods. Research is continuing, however,
as customers demand cleaner castings for more demanding applications.
Gating in Non-Sand Systems
Gating of castings produced in molding media other than the sand have the same goals; intro-
duction of aluminum into the mold in a tranquil manner in order to avoid trapped air and estab-
lishment of the proper cooling rates and thermal gradients. An overlooked but crucial aspect of
gating for mold materials less permeable than sand is the ability to vent air normally tapped in
the mold after closure or gases generated by the breakdown of sand cores used in the molds.
Permanent Mold
In standard permanent mold castings using molds made from iron or steel and statically
poured, the gating system is very similar to a sand casting where a vertical sprue is used to
deliver metal into a horizontal runner and through gates into a casting. The major difference
between the processes is the role of the higher heat transfer coefficient between the solidi-
fying metal and the mold surface; how this is impacted by the insulating and protective mold
coatings used and the thermal gap that develops between the mold and the casting during
solidification. The heat transfer coefficient is proportional to the difference between the mold
temperature and the metal temperature which both vary during the solidification event. The
differences in heat transfer coefficients between permanent mold and sand will generally not
change the solidification sequence but will have an impact on solidification rate. This enhanced
solidification rate will cool the incoming metal in the gating system quicker so filling systems
may need to be larger than they are in sand casting to prevent premature solidification of the
incoming metal stream. Venting is usually done at the parting line, through the ejector system
or with auxiliary vents such as hex or slotted vents. An example of a static pour permanent
mold gating system is shown in Fig. 6-10. Other gating and pouring systems can be found in
Figs. 5-2 and 5-3 in Chapter 5.
Figure 6-10. A static pour gating system for a test plate showing a tapered
sprue and continuous side ingate. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
// 147
Tilt Pour Permanent Mold
In the tilt pour system, metal is delivered to a basin which serves a receptacle for the metal
while the mold is in the horizontal position. The mold then tilts to the vertical position, deliv-
ering the metal to the casting through the filing system. Gating systems for tilt pouring are
usually simpler than those for standard permanent mold since the control of melt entry into the
die cavity is controlled by the tilt speed and tilt profile. A tilt pour mold is illustrated in Fig. 6-11.
Figure 6-11. Tilt pour, open mold (left) and pre-tilt after metal is ladled
into pouring cups. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
Low Pressure Permanent Mold
Low pressure permanent mold systems are usually the simplest systems with typically one or
multiple entry points of metal on the base of the casting. A strong thermal gradient is es-
tablished from the bottom of the casting to the top which can be modified with temperature
control systems for the mold. Metal is delivered to the mold cavity from a furnace located
under the mold and the rate of delivery is primarily controlled by a controlled pressurization
sequence. More details of this process and a schematic of the low pressure system are given
in Chapter 5 and Fig. 5-4.
Example of Gating System Analysis
Before the widespread use of casting simulation software, gating systems were designed
primarily using gating spreadsheets. Those spreadsheets are still widely used to help to set up
gating for initial designs used in solidification and fluid flow software packages. An example of
this type of spreadsheet is shown in Fig. 6-12. This spreadsheet helps to solve the basic equa-
tions of flow as defined by Bernoulli’s theorem. That theorem states that the sum of the poten-
tial energy, the velocity energy, the pressure energy and the frictional energy of a flowing liquid
is constant. Traditionally nonferrous filling systems use an unpressurized gating system, where
the choke is at the base of the sprue and the runner bar and ingates have increasing cross
sectional area to reduce the metals velocity. Typical gating ratios in the system are 1(base of
sprue):2(area of runners):4(total area of ingates). Pressurized systems choke the metal flow at
the ingates. A typical gating ratio may be 1:1:0.8. Campbell has proposed variations of these
systems which he calls naturally pressurized systems where the cross section of the base of
the sprue and of the runner bar are equal. Typical ratios there are 1:1:4-10. The choice of the
system used may be casting geometry or alloy dependent.
The numbers inserted in the spreadsheet (Fig. 6-12) are relevant for a typical unpressurized
aluminum system used for an aluminum casting.
// 149
Figure 6-12. An example of a typical gating system spreadsheet.

These spreadsheets can serve as valuable tools to set up initial gating system for further anal-
ysis using solidification software.
In Fig. 6-13, a facemask casting was gated using preliminary spreadsheet recommendations.
While acceptable castings were generally produced, there were occasional misruns and curi-
ous defects in the center area of the casting. This defect was believed to be an erosion type of
defect.
Figure 6-13. Preliminary sampling of a facemask

casting showing sand erosion in the center of the casting.
Analysis using simulation tools revealed turbulent and uneven flow in the area of defect (Fig.
6-14). The gating system was modified to reduce the turbulence by redirecting the metal flow
through the casting, not by changing the fundamental gating ratios.
// 151
High velocity jetting metal causing mold erosion.
Changing metal entrance points eliminated jetting.
Figure 6-14. Jetting behavior captured in flow analysis

resolved by changing entrance point of metal.
SUMMARY
It is useful to think about the gating of structural aluminum castings in two parts. First, it
is advantageous to design a filling system to deliver metal to the mold cavity in a way that
minimizes turbulence and air entrapment. The result of that filling system feeds into the larger
system that exerts thermal control over the solidifying casting. Thermal control mechanisms
include the risers, chills and how the filling system impacts the thermal flow within the casting.
The development of sound castings and high mechanical properties depend on both the lack of
filling defects and the proper thermal environment that makes it possible to both feed solidifi-
cation shrinkage and solidify at a rate high enough to maximize properties. In actual castings
those objectives are often at odds because of the casting geometry and customer defined
requirements. The use of sound gating principles and the assistance of sophisticated software
can help to get the casting to the best affordable compromise to meet the customer’s require-
ments.
REFERENCES
1. Campbell, John, “Complete Casting Handbook,” Elsevier, p. 615 (2011).
2. “Quantifying Casting Quality Through Filling Conditions,” D. Hoefert, et al, AFS Transactions,
Vol. 128, Paper no. 20-051 (2020).
3. Puhakka, R. (Bob), personal blog; and papers in “Shape Casting: ASM 4th International
Symposium in Honor of John Berry,” editors Tiryakioglu, M., Campbell, J., and Crepeau,
P.N., pp. 79-86 and pp. 241-248 (2011).
4. “Non-Conventional Mold Design for Metal Casting using 3D Sand-printing,” Sama, S.,
Wang, J., Manogharan, G., 46th SME North American Manufacturing Research Conference
(2018).
5. Sigworth, Geoffrey K., “Best Practices in Aluminum Metalcasting,” American Foundry Soci-
ety, pp 167-171 (2014).
6. Beeley, P.R., “Foundry Technology,” The Butterworth Group, p. 110 (1972).
7. “Enhanced Solidification Rate in Castings by Use of Cooling Fins,” Wright T.C, Campbell J.,
AFS Transactions, pp. 639-644 (2002).
8. “Feedability Analysis and Optimization Driven by Casting Simulations,” Ravi. B, Joshi. D,
Indian Foundry Journal (April 2007).
9. “The influence of internal chills on the structure and properties of aluminum alloy cast-
ings,” Biswas. T, P.K., Pillai, R.M, Rohatgi, P.K., Dwarakadasa, E.S., Cast Metals 7:2, 65-83
(Dec 2016).
10. “Application of Heat Pipe Technology in Permanent Mold Casting of Nonferrous Alloys,”;
Elalem, K., PhD Thesis, McGill University (June 2014).
11. “Special Report on the Mechanical Properties of Sand Cast Aluminum Alloy Test Castings,”
The Aluminum Association (Jan. 2000).
12. “AFS-AMC Phase IV (CIR) Cast E357 Aluminum Statistical Properties Final Report,” Ameri-
can Foundry Society, Thomas Prucha, Editor, [program notes] (October 31, 2011).
13. “Mechanical Properties of A206 Aluminum Sand Castings for MMPDS Handbook,” West-
moreland Mechanical Testing and Research, [program notes] (September 2016).
// 153
14. “Filter systems for high velocity liquid metal flow,” Zadeh, H., Campbell, J., International
Journal of Cast Metals Research, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 99-106 (2004).
15. “New Filter Design to Replace Ceramic Foam Filters,” Fritzke, J., Weiss, D., AFS Transac-
tions, pp. 177-181 (2019).
16. “Improved Mechanical Properties in Aluminum through Enhanced Filtering Techniques,”
Weiss, D., Weiss, K., AFS Transactions, pp. 117-121 (2011).
17. “Removal of dissolved elements in aluminium by filtration,” Görner, Harald, PhD Thesis,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (November 2009).
// 155
CHAPTER SEVEN:
Alloys and Composites

for High-Temperature
Applications
INTRODUCTION
The use of aluminum alloys for automotive, aerospace and military applications is increasing
for light weighting, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving efficiency and perfor-
mance. Some major uses for aluminum alloys include engine block and cylinder head castings
for gasoline engines, suspension components, and compressor wheels for turbines. Except for
engine components, most of the other applications are aimed at room temperature operations.
The maximum operating temperature of most structural aluminum alloys, both cast and forged,
is about 150C (302F), which is limited by their aging temperatures. There is little or no history
of aluminum alloys use above 150C (302F). Mechanical properties of common cast aluminum
alloys for structural applications are summarized in Table 7-11 for three temperatures (room
temperature (RT), 205C/401F and 315C/599F). The maximum UTS/YS/ and % elongation
obtained at high temperatures are: (1) 248/228/9 at 205C/401F and 69/62/39 at 315C/599F
for Alloy 201.0 (T6) and (2) 262/193/10 at 205C/401F and 145/103/11 at 315C/599F for Alloy
224.0 (T7).
Auto manufacturers are under commercial and regulatory pressure to improve engine efficien-
cy. This requires increased specific power output (horsepower per liter of engine displace-
ment), accomplished by use of direct fuel injection, higher compression ratios and turbocharg-
ers. However, these improvements result in higher operating temperatures and pressures. This
causes increased thermo-mechanical fatigue, particularly in the valve bridge between inlet
and exhaust ports on the combustion face of cylinder heads. Engine designers have realized
156 \\ Alloys and Composites for High-Temperature Applications
that further improvements will require better materials. This has been the main impetus for the
development of a number of new materials for service temperatures approaching 250-300C
(482-572F) with good mechanical, fatigue and toughness properties and good castability. An
improvement in mechanical properties at high temperatures would improve the efficiency of
end products such as internal combustion engines and hence, fuel efficiency would increase.
The need to reduce the exhaust emissions of medium- and heavy-duty diesel engines has led
to the use of two-stage series turbocharger designs for the air systems. Single stage compres-
sors run at an outlet temperature of about 175C (347F) at sea level. This is the approximate
temperature limit for the currently used cast 354.0-T61 aluminum alloy castings. Aerospace
companies and military have need for lightweight castings that can operate in the temperature
range 250-300C (482-572F). Although titanium alloy castings can meet these temperature
requirements, they are expensive and require more energy for titanium alloy production than
aluminum alloy castings.
There are four ways to improve the high-temperature performance of aluminum alloys: solid
solution strengthening, precipitation hardening, ceramic particle reinforcement, and develop-
ment of new alloys with alloy additions that can stabilize the high-temperature properties. In
the first approach, elements which show complete solubility in the solid state increase the yield
and tensile strengths of the solvent, in this case pure aluminum. The second approach is the
in-situ formation of very fine and thermally stable intermetallic phases in the aluminum matrix
that will not coarsen at elevated temperatures and maintain coherency with the matrix. For
example, Al-Cu and Al-Cu-Mg alloys are strengthened by the precipitation of θ (CuAl2) and S’
(Al2CuMg) phases which transform to more stable θ (CuAl2) and S (Al2CuMg) phases at a tem-
perature of 230C (446F) and lose coherency with the matrix. In the third approach micron-sized
non-reactive ceramic particulates can be introduced to an Al alloy matrix to produce a metal
matrix composite (MMC) which are known to improve high-temperature mechanical properties
of Al alloys. The fourth approach consists of strengthening by intermetallics such as Al11 Ce3 as
in the Al-rich region of the Al-Ce system. Research to date show that the last three approaches
have promising results.
PRECIPITATION HARDENED ALLOYS

With respect to precipitation hardening, the major tasks in the development of a new alloy
systems are to determine the thermal stability of candidate strengthening precipitates and then
devise an alloy and thermal treatment process to generate the stable precipitates that increase
ultimate tensile strength and fatigue strength at elevated temperatures. Al-Cu and Al-Cu-Si
alloys are known as precipitation strengthened alloys and are listed in the ASM Handbook2
and are summarized in Table 7-1.1 Important developments in the production high-temperature
performance aluminum alloys are the following.
1. Rolls Royce alloy 350.0 was developed by adding Ni, Co, and Zr to essentially an A206.0
composition which resulted in increased properties at elevated temperatures(315C/599F)
but exhibits poor castability.3
2. Additions of Ti, Zr, V, Cr, etc. to improve both intermediate and elevated temperature
properties of several aluminum-silicon-copper hypereutectic and eutectic alloys used to
manufacture cast aluminum engine pistons resulted in alloys with adequate tensile and
// 157
yield strengths at temperatures up to 350C (662F) but fracture toughness was insufficient
to be considered for structural (fatigue driven) applications.4-9
3. The hypereutectic Al-Si alloy, C56F developed by Granger, et al.,5 contained 15.6% Si, 5.2%
Ni, 4.8% Cu, 0.62% Fe, 0.62% Mg0.04% Ti and 0.005% P, had improved high-temperature
properties but low fatigue properties.
4. Crepeau, et al.,6 evaluated the mechanical properties near eutectic Al-Si alloy 339.0-T5
containing Cu, Mg and Ni at 177C/351F and 343C/649F using samples extracted from a
cast diesel piston and associated the improved tensile and high cycle fatigue properties
with the formation of CuAl2 and Mg2Si precipitates.
• Addition of even higher quantities of V and Zr, as in the NASA developed 388.0 and
398.0 alloys, has shown that the operating temperature can be increased by another
75 to 100°C (135-180°F) over those already available.4 These alloys appear to be
promising but there is some question as to whether they have sufficient resistance
to crack propagation to be used for applications, which demand excellent fatigue
performance at elevated temperatures. In addition, castability is a problem.
5. Tri-aluminides such as Al3Ti, Al3Y, Al3Zr, and Al3Hf are stable at high temperatures10 but are
brittle and lack coherency in many aluminum alloys making them unsuitable as strength-
ening elements.
6. Addition of scandium to aluminum alloys such as Al-Mg, Al-Zn-Mg, and Al- Mg-Li systems
is reported to form a ductile, coherent Al3Sc particle.10-15 These coherent particles con-
tribute to the high-temperature stability by increasing the recrystallization temperature of
wrought alloys. However, scandium cannot be used with all alloying elements since it can
form W- phase particles when the Cu-Sc ratio exceeds certain limits.11-16 Data from litera-
ture plotted in Fig. 7-1 can be used to estimate the allowable Sc content in aluminum-cop-
per alloys if the formation of ‘W’ phase is to be prevented. An optical micrograph of the W
phase is shown in Fig. 7-2.
7. It has also been reported that silicon may react with scandium in the melt to form primary
precipitates that consume copper and scandium making these solutes unavailable to form
stable Al3Sc precipitates during thermal treatment.11-12
8. Work done by Yu, et al. showed that the addition of 0.3% Sc and 0.3% Zr to an aluminum
alloy containing 2.2% Cu (the other elements were similar to aluminum alloy 2618.0) had a
positive response to thermal treatments designed to cause precipitation of tri-aluminides.
The authors indicated that Al3Sc and Al3Zr precipitates were formed in the cast alloy and
the elevated temperature mechanical properties of this alloy were improved by their pres-
ence.12
9. A joint R & D activity between CANMET Materials and Eck Industries to develop Al-Cu-Sc
alloys for high-temperature applications resulted in an aluminum alloy containing copper,
magnesium, silicon, nickel, manganese, and scandium as alloying additions.16,17 Fifteen
alloys with 2-5% Cu, 0.2-1.0% Mg, 0.4-0.8% Si ,0.5% Ni, 0.16-0.25% Sc, 0.16-0.43% Zr and
with and without Ti were tested using single and two step heat treatments. The most
promising alloy contains about 2% Cu, 1% Mg, 0.5% Si, 0.5% Ni, 0.5% Mn and 0.2% Sc
with good strength at high temperatures, as high as 250C. The alloy retained its hardness
following a solution treatment temperature of 590C (1094F), warm water quenching and
then aging at 250C (482F) for as long as 1000 hours.16 The hardness values (HRB) were
83 (as-cast), 78 (solution treated), 96 (15 min aging), 90 (2 hours aging) and 84 (6 hours
aging). Yield strengths at room temperature and 250C (482F) for heat treated samples are
summarized in Table 7-2 for exposure times of 100, 500 and 1000 hours at 250C (482F)
and plotted in Fig. 7-3. Only yield strength data is reported as the specimens fractured
after that. The specimens contained considerable amount of porosity. The yield strength
of the alloys decreases as they are exposed to 250C (482F). Almost 50% of the strength is
lost after 500 hours exposure.
Squeeze casting was done to reduce the porosity levels in the tensile test samples which were
solution treated at 590C (1094F). Mechanical properties are shown in Table 7-3. Although the
room temperature properties are lower for the squeeze cast samples, they are for higher after
1000 hours exposure.
Mechanical properties of sand and permanent mold cast alloys are given in Table 7-4 to show
the effect of solidification rate.17 Hipped samples were given a stepped solution treatment
consisting of 540C (1004F) for 4 hours followed by 560C (1040F) for 4 hours. Aging was done
at 300C (572F) for 6 hours. Strength properties are almost similar for the two casting process-
es except that relatively higher elongation is obtained with the permanent mold alloy. Stress
life fatigue data at a test temperature of 200C (392F) and an R-ratio of -1 indicates a fatigue
strength of 78.6 MPa. Room temperature fatigue life (R = -1) after exposure at 260 and 315C
(500 and 599F) of cast and heat treated at a stress level of 110 MPa is given in Table 7-5.18
This stress level is greater than the sand cast alloy at room temperature.
Castability of the AlCuMgSc alloy is similar to that of Cu containing aluminum alloys18 as

shown in Table 7-6 with respect to fluidity, resistance to hot cracking and pressure tightness.
Casting parameter rating varied from 1 to 5 with decreasing order of performance. In order to
assess the castability of the alloy, an air-cooled cylinder head with section sizes varying from 3
to 15 mm was cast as shown in Fig. 7-4. This part is currently produced from alloy A242.0, an
alloy with good high-temperature strength and moderate castability. The experimental alloy had
similar castings characteristics to alloy A242.0 with slightly reduced mold filling capability as
evidenced by some misruns at the tips of the fins. The fin-tip thickness is 1.5 mm. It is antici-
pated that casting practice can be adjusted to yield good castings consistently with this alloy
composition.18
Alcoa has developed a superior alloy for powertrain applications suitable for applications such
as cylinder heads, turbochargers, impellers, etc. It is alloy 351.0 SupracastTM containing 8-10
Si, 1.35-2.1 Cu, 0.08-0.6 Mn, and 0.25-0.55 Mg. It may contain some microalloying elements
such as V and Zr as in the second alloy. The microalloying elements improve the high-tempera-
ture strength and creep resistance. Mechanical properties of alloy 351.0 at room temperature
are 280-350 MPa yield strength, 370-400 UTS and 2-3% elongation. These properties drop to
55MPa YS, 75 MPa UTS and 41% elongation at 300C (572F). Fatigue strengths at R of -1 and
107 cycles are 95 MPa at 150C (302F) and 79 MPa at 250C (482F). Castability is very good
and suitable for sand, investment and permanent mold casting. Room temperature mechanical
properties determined by Eck Industries are 279 MPa YS, 355 MPa UTS and 3% elongation.19,20
Wang et al, have evaluated the high-temperature mechanical properties of a modified ver-
sion of 351.0 alloy containing 9.3 Si, 1.87 Cu, 0.12 Fe, 0.10 Mn, 0.36 Mg, 0.12 Ti,, 06 Zr, 0.07
V and 0.01 Sr and compared them with alloy A356.0 containing 0.5% Cu (7.15 Si, 0.49 Cu,
0.13 Fe, 0.02 Mn, 0.33 Mg, 0.12 Ti and 0.007 Sr).21 Tensile samples were machined from
cylinder heads subjected to a 2-step solution treatment (2 hrs at 504C/939F and the 4 hrs at
530C/9862F), quenched into 90C (194F) water and then aged at 190C (374F) for 6 hrs. For
alloy 356.0 with Cu, only one step solution treatment (535C/995F for 5 hours) was used as
the Cu-containing phases are fully dissolved in the solution treatment. Tensile properties were
measured at 150C, 200C, 250C and 300C (302, 392, 482 and 572F). Tensile samples were
// 159
preconditioned for 200 hours at each test temperature. Mechanical properties of 351.0-T6
were superior to alloy 356.0 with 0.5% Cu. At 250C (482F), UTS, YS and elongation values were
about 101 MPa, 89 MPa, and 18.2% respectively compared to 95 MPa UTS, 84 MPa YS and
16.6% elongation for A356.0 with Cu. Creep resistance of the 351.0 alloy is significantly better
than that of A356 with 0.5% Cu. Fatigue performance of the 351 alloy is similar or slightly supe-
rior to the A356.0 with 0.5% Cu.21 Alloy 356.0 with 0.5% Cu T7 (primary) exhibits UTS, YS and %
elongation of 73 MPa, 66 MPa, and 34.5 respectively.21
However, as we understand the go to alloy for automotive heads right now is A356 with .5% Cu.
To meet the demand of automotive design engineers for higher performance engines, ALCOA,
using computer-based calculations of phase diagrams in the Al-Si-Cu-Mg system, has modified
their alloy by combining with the use of aluminide forming elements (Ti, V and Zr) and devel-
oped a new high strength alloy having excellent castability. It is designated as AA351.0 alloy
and contains 8.3 to 9.7 Si, 1.6-2.0 Cu, 0.25-0.45 Mg, 0.2 Fe, 0.05-0.35 Mn, 0.2 Ti, 0.08-0.30
Zr and 0.08-0.30 V. Castings were heat treated utilizing a stepped solution (490C, 505C, and
525C, [914, 941, and 977F] each for four hours), quenched in water maintained at 70-80C (158-
176F) followed by aging at 170C/338F for 6 hours. Its room temperature mechanical properties
are 390 MPa UTS, 340 MP YS and 2% elongation in the T6 temper. Its 250C (482F) mechanical
properties are very encouraging with 200 MPa UTS, 190 MPa Ys and 28 % elongation. Such
high mechanical properties at 250C (482F) have not been achieved in all the alloys and MMCs
reported in this chapter. This alloy has very good casting characteristics such as castability,
pressure tightness together with minimum porosity. As a result, 351 alloy was chosen for
cylinder heads and blocks for racing engines. Figure 7-5 is an example of a high-performance
engine block.22
Al-Cu-Si Alloys
Al-2 Cu-1.2 Si and Al-2 Cu-8Si (low Cu version of 319.0 alloy) alloys containing 0.4 Fe, 0.6 Mn,
and 0.4 Mg have been alloyed with Ti, Zr, V, Ni, Sr, La and Cr in different combinations and given
various heat treatments such as T5, T6, T62, and T7 after direct solution treatment (495C/
for 5 hrs as well as multi-stage (495C/923F for 5 hrs + 515C/959F for 2 hrs and 530C/986F
for 2 hrs for only T62 temper). Aging temperature was 180C/356F for 8 hrs for T5, T6 and
T62 and 240C/464F for 4 hrs for T7 treatments.23,24 The porosity level in the high Si alloys
was low (0.04 to 0.30%) in comparison with the low Si alloys (0.17 to 1.43%). The multi-stage
heat treatment showed only slight improvement in mechanical properties. Room temperature
mechanical properties of 402 MPa UTS. 357 MPa YS and 1.9% elongation were obtained for
the T62 temper for the low silicon alloy with 0.15% Zr, 0.2% V and 0.3% Ni. Mechanical testing
at 250C (482F) following 1hour exposure at 250C (482F) were 173 MPa UTS, 172 MPa YS and
3.4 % elongation for the T62 temper. However, the high silicon alloy without any other alloying
element gave 204 MPa UTS, 202 MPa YS and 2.3 % elongation at 250C (482F) following 1hour
exposure at 250C (482F) afterT62 temper treatment. These 250C (482F) mechanical prop-
erties were significantly reduced when exposure time was increased to 200 hrs at 250C. The
values were 88 MPa UTS, 76 MPa YS and 20% elongation for the low silicon alloy and 100 MPa
UTS, 85 MPa YS and 10% elongation for the high silicon alloy. These are lower than the Al-Cu-
Mg-Sc alloys (see Table 7-7).
Bogdanoff et al have added Co (0.48%), Co (0.82%) and Ni (0.8%) as well as Co (0.47%), Ni

(0.55%) and Sr (0.029%) to an Al-7% Si alloy and studied the microstructure and mechanical
properties room temperature and 230C (446F).25 Samples were held at 240C (464F) for 1000
hours before testing at 230C (446F). The combination of Co, Ni and Sr gave high mechanical
properties at 230C (446F) with about 97 MPa UTS, 90 MPa YS and 15% elongation. It should be
noted that there was no copper addition to Al-7%Si alloys in case of work done by Samuel.26,27
354 Alloys
Alloy 354.0 containing about 9 Si, 1.9 Cu, 0.8 Mg, 0.2 Fe, 0.16 Ti and 0.25Zr has been modified
by adding 2% Ni, 4% Ni, 0.75% Mn, 0.75% Mn + 2% Ni, and 0.15% Sc. T6 heat treatment (solu-
tion treatment at 495C (923F), quenching in warm water followed by aging at 180C (356F) for
8 hours) and T62 heat treatment (multi step heat treatment comprising 595C (1103F)/5h, then
515C (959F)/2h and then 530C (986F)/2h, followed by warm water quenching at 60C (140F)
and then aging at 180C (356F) for 8 h) gave some promising results. 250C (482F) mechan-
ical properties following 1h and 200h stabilization at 250C (482F) are given in Table 7-8 for
three alloys containing Zr, Zr+2Ni and Zr+0.75 Mn.26,27 There is significant drop in mechanical
properties when the 250C (482F) stabilization treatment is increased from 1h to 200h. Higher
exposure times up to 1000 hours have not been evaluated. Strength properties are expected to
be reduced from the values after 200h stabilization. In general, these alloys modified by adding
a combination of Zr, Ni and Mn do not look promising.
Al-Cu-X MMC Alloy Development
Eck Industries worked with the U.S. Department of Energy to develop the metal matrix com-
posite for high-temperature applications. It involved the selection of a ceramic or intermetallic
reinforcement that is chemically stable at elevated temperature and the Al-Cu-X matrix that
would accept the reinforcement by a low-cost liquid metal mixing technology.18 Out of a num-
ber of potential oxides, carbides and nitrides and also intermetallic reinforcements available
in the literature which would impart a homogeneous distribution in the matrix, attention was
focused on a low-cost alumina powder with particulate sizes of 17, 10 and 7 µm. Copper-coat-
ed and nickel-coated powders were also tried. EDX analysis of the alumina powder indicated
that most of the particles were alumina with some particles containing titanium oxide, silicon
oxide, calcium oxide and traces of magnesium oxide. Figure 7-6 shows the SEM micrograph of
the as-received Duralum WP 400 powder. EDX analysis also indicated that the Ni and Cu coated
particles were less than 5 µm in size, agglomerated and not uniformly coated. An example of
copper-coated alumina powder is shown in Fig. 7-7. The powders were preheated and protect-
ed under an argon atmosphere.
Four types of aluminum alloys (A206, Al-Mg-Si with two levels of Mg and the promising
high-temperature alloy Al-2Cu-1Mg-0.2Sc (mentioned earlier) were tried with different stirring
rates and powder feeding rates. Preliminary runs were tried with A206.0 alloy and since the
powders were rejected, a two-step casting process was developed. The first step involved
incorporating the alumina particulates into an Al-Mg-Si matrix to wet the alumina particulates.
In the second step, a molten alloy with chemical composition that combined with the molten
Al-Mg-Si/alumina composite to produce the desired AlCuMgSc matrix alloy composition.
Powder incorporation could be achieved with this two-step process. However, agglomeration
of particulates and porosity were observed in the microstructure.
Finally, attention was focused on the Al2Cu1Mg0.2-Sc alloy. Use of Duralum alumina powder
employing stir casting and the two-step casting process produced better aluminum/alumina
// 161
composite. Casting parameters were 667 to 687C (1233 to 1269F) melt temperature for pow-
der addition, a particle feeding rate of 3-4 kg/h and stirring rate of 600-700 rpm which gradually
increased to 1250 rpm. Remelting and recasting in an air environment neither reduced porosity
nor improved the particle distribution. However, remelting and recasting in a vacuum environ-
ment reduced the porosity drastically. The cross section of the ingot, thus produced is shown
in Fig. 7-8. However, the particles in the composite were segregated in the top section of the
ingot. Composites containing 10% and 7% Al2O3 produced by the two-step casting operation
have been cast by gravity permanent mold casting with the dimensions 9 x 28 x 6 cm. It is an-
ticipated that if the entire stir casting operation could be done under vacuum, sound composite
with uniform particle distribution could be obtained.
Samples have also been produced by squeeze casting. Macrostructures of squeeze cast
and stir cast samples are shown in Fig. 7-9. Porosity observed in stir cast samples has been
eliminated by squeeze casting. Microstructure of the squeeze cast AlCuMgSc ingot is shown
in Fig. 7-10. Interfacial characteristics between Al2O3 particles and the aluminum matrix were
examined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) which shows high levels of Mg and Si at
the interface.
Mechanical properties of squeeze cast base alloy (Al-2 Cu-1 Mg-0.2 Sc) and the MMC for heat
treated as well as exposed at 250C (482F) for 1000 hours conditions are compared in Table
7-9 and 7-10 for room temperature and 250C (482F) testing. The high mechanical properties
of the squeeze cast MMC are higher than the base alloy both at RT and 250C (482F) in both the
specimen conditions.
Standard ASTM sand cast test bars produced in the MMC alloy containing 10 volume percent
alumina have been heat treated using parameters same as the matrix alloy. Their mechanical
properties determined at RT and 250C (482F) are summarized in Table 7-10. Although the RT
properties are slightly lower for the composite alloy, the high-temperature strength is about
13% higher.
MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY FOR PROTOTYPING

In order to establish the manufacturing technology to produce components in the MMC, after
several inhouse trials for bulk production, Eck Industries worked with REL (Calumet, Michigan)
to produce 34 volume percent of alumina particles by the pressure infiltration process.18 This
MMC was dispersed into the Al-2Cu-1Mg-0.2Sc alloy melt by standard mixing methods. This
resulted in getting an MMC with 8 volume percent alumina. The cost of producing such MMCs
has been reduced by producing alumina master alloys and then dispersing into the AlCuMgSc
matrix alloy. Due to the density difference between alumina (3.95 g/cc) and aluminum (2.7 g/
cc), continuous melt stirring is needed to keep the alumina particulates in suspension. The
stirring protocol can vary from furnace to furnace. It is also important to maintain a protective
atmosphere of argon to minimize hydrogen and oxide pick up in the melt. A rotary engine end
housing (Fig. 7-11) has been successfully produce by Eck in this MMC.
DEVELOPMENT OF AL-CE CASTING ALLOYS

Recent research and development work has shown that cerium containing binary Al-Ce and
ternary Al-Ce-Mg alloys have the potential to be used for high temperature use in number of au-
tomotive components.28-30 In the 1980s, it was shown that powder metallurgy (hot pressing and
forging) can be used to produce an Al-4 wt% Ce alloy component that had high-temperature
mechanical properties (300 MPa at 230C/446F) that exceeded the best aluminum commercial
aluminum casting alloys.30 Microstructure and mechanical properties of Al-Ce-Ni alloys con-
taining up to 16 wt% Ce and 8 wt% Ni had been studied by Belov, et al.31 Shikun, et al. had re-
viewed the effect of Ce additions up to 4 wt% on the solidification range, solidification volume
change and cast microstructure.33 Significant development work has taken place since 2010 in
the Al-Ce system because of a potentially large impact on the economics of rare earth mining
if large amounts of cerium could be consumed. A significant amount of data on solidification
characteristics and mechanical properties of Al-Ce alloys followed by prototyping to demon-
strate the castability of the alloys has been completed.28-30 While some investigation of thermal
treatments is described here, in general the alloys do not require thermal treatment. The alloys
are primarily solid solution and intermetallic strengthened and do not require heat treatment to
develop properties. Homogenization has proved to be beneficial in some alloys.
A Thermo-Calc calculated Al-Ce phase diagram is shown in Fig. 7-12.28 It has a eutectic com-
position at about 10 wt% Ce with a eutectic temperature of 640C (1184F). Hypo- and hyper eu-
tectic alloys contain the intermetallic compound Al11 Ce3. Sims, et al. focused on the Al-12Ce,
Al-12 Ce-0.4 Mg and Al-12Ce-4Si-0.4Mg alloys and evaluated their castability, microstructure,
and mechanical and physical properties.28 Test bars were given the T6 heat treatment (8 hours
at 537C/998.6F, water quenched and then artificially aged at 155C (311F) for 3 hours). Casta-
bility of the Al-12wt% Ce alloy met or exceeded the castability of commercial Al-Si casting
alloys. Addition of 0.4% Mg had no adverse effect on castability. However, a 4 wt% silicon
addition reduces the fluidity of the alloy. Influence of lower amount of Si on castability has not
been evaluated. No hot tearing was observed when cast into a 6-arm hot tear mold. Scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) images of the three alloys are shown in Fig. 7-13 in both as-cast
and heat- treated conditions together with x-ray powder diffraction (XRD) data for phase analy-
sis. Figure 7-13 (a) shows the face-centered cubic (FCC) aluminum (gray) and the intermetallic
Al11 Ce3 (white) which has an orthorhombic crystal structure. Although this is a hyper-eutectic
alloy, no primary crystallization is observed. Heat treatment modified the cast microstructure
containing interconnected lath-like structure to particle-like structure. Microstructure of the
Al-12wt%Ce-0.4wt% Mg alloy shows additional primary crystals of cubic Al3 Mg2 phase in the
as-cast condition (Fig. 7-13 (b). Microstructural modification of the ternary alloy is similar
to that of the binary alloy after heat treatment. The as-cast microstructure of the quaternary
Al-12Ce-4Si-0.4Mg alloy is characterized by the FCC aluminum and the intermetallic Al11 Ce3
since Si remains in solid solution, Fig. 7-13 (c). However, the Al11 Ce3 shows both primary and
eutectic solidification in the as-cast state. A new phase, intermetallic AlCeSi p appears after T6
heat treatment.
Room temperature mechanical properties of these binary, ternary and quaternary alloys are
summarized in Table 7-11 for the as-cast and heat-treated conditions. Data for commercially
pure aluminum (CPA) is also included in the table which shows that strength properties of the
// 163
binary alloy are higher than those for the CPA. The ductility of the binary alloys is high despite
the presence of the intermetallic phase Al11 Ce3. UTS and yield strengths are decreased after
heat treatment; but the ductility has doubled. This is due to the small amount of coarsening
observed in the microstructure following heat treatment. There is marked increase in UTS
and yield strength of the ternary Al-12Ce-0.4Mg alloy over the binary alloy probably due to the
dispersion of the Al3Mg2 particles in the aluminum matrix. However, the % elongation is almost
reduced by half. The decrease in % elongation may be due to the presence of large primary
crystals. Heat treatment reduces the UTS and yield strength, although there is some increase in
the ductility. The quaternary Al-12Ce-4Si-0.4Mg alloy has relatively low UTS and % elongation
in the as-cast condition in comparison with the binary and ternary alloys. However, its response
to T6 heat treatment is similar to what can be expected in traditional heat treatable Al alloys
such as 356.0.
Weiss and Rios determined the mechanical properties of five binary Al-Ce alloys containing 6,
8, 10, 12 and 16wt% Ce by using the ASTM B108 test bar mold for permanent mold casting.29
Amongst these five alloys, the first two belong to the hypoeutectic group, the last two to the
hypereutectic group and the 10% Ce alloy has the eutectic composition. Mold filling was influ-
enced by the Ce content. The hypoeutectic and eutectic alloys filled the mold cavity completely
at 750C (1382F) pouring temperature and 400C (752F) mold temperature. Mold filling became
difficult with further increases in Ce content. At 12% Ce, metal temperature was increased by
25°C (45°F)to fill the mold cavity. This mold filling behavior is similar to binary Al-Si alloys.
At 16% Ce, the mold did not fill completely. Optical micrographs for hypoeutectic Al-6Ce and
hypereutectic Al-16 Ce are given in Figs. 7-14 and 7-15. Presence of large crystals of the inter-
metallic Al11 Ce3 phase is evident in the Al-16 Ce alloy microstructure. By contrast, a very fine
interconnected eutectic microstructure is evident for the hypo-eutectic Al-6wt% alloy.
As-cast mechanical properties of the five binary Al-Ce alloys (hypoeutectic, eutectic and
hypereutectic) are reported in Table 7-12 together with those for the Al-5Si type, alloy 443. The
room temperature mechanical properties were not high enough for many commercial applica-
tions. They also did not have a positive response to the T6 heat treatment. In order to evaluate
the effect of other alloying elements on the mechanical properties of binary Al-8wt% Ce alloys,
another 20 alloys containing Si, Mg, Cu, Zn, Ni, Ti, Mn or Fe were prepared. However, the mold
filling capability was reduced for all alloys when added in excess of 1 wt%, except with Mg,
even though many of the alloys had improved mechanical properties. Yield strength increased
and % elongation decreased with increasing Mg contents for the ternary Al-Ce-Mg alloys (Table
7-13). Mold filling ability remained unaffected. Extensive high-temperature mechanical testing
has been done. The data shown in Table 7-13 is the average of six test bars.
It was noted that room temperature properties were better after long-term exposure at 315C
(599F)than at 260C (500F). This indicates some positive effect from long-term exposure at
high temperatures. Thermal treatments have been investigated to improve room temperature
mechanical properties.
Thermal Treatment
Generally, the Al-Ce-Mg alloys are not heat treated. However, at high levels of Mg there was
microstructural evidence of magnesium pools that were not fully dissolved in the matrix (Fig.
7-16). Depending on the amount of segregation present, traditional heat treatments were
either not effective or resulted in incipient melting of magnesium aluminum phases. A stepped
thermal treatment (two hours at 490C (914F), raising temperature to 510C (950F) for two
hours, raising temperature to 525C (977F) and holding for 12 hours followed by quenching in
water maintained at 82C (180F) has been developed that homogenizes the alloy through the
dissolution of these segregated aluminum pools (Fig. 7-17). For the Al-8wt%Ce-10wt%Mg (this
alloy has recently been registered by the Aluminum Association as alloy 527.0), this results in
improved mechanical properties as shown in Table 7-14.34 Optical microstructures are shown
in Fig. 7-18 for the as-cast, T4 heat treatment and HIPping conditions. Hipping was done using
standard aluminum cycle of 516C (961F) for two hours at a pressure of 103 MPa. HIPping did
reduce the pore size and improved the mechanical properties of the alloy to 262 MPa UTS, 206
MPa YS and 2% elongation (Table 7-15).
Elevated temperature mechanical properties of 527.0 alloy are summarized in Table 7-13 to-
gether with those for other Al alloys for comparison as shown in Table 7-15.35
Prototyping
Considering the good castability and good mechanical properties of the Al-Ce and Al-Ce-Mg
alloys commercial castings such as air-cooled cylinder head (Fig. 7-19) was cast in Al-8wt%Ce
alloy and cylinder heads and rotary engine rotor in 527.0 alloy were prototyped (Fig. 7-20).
Extensive work has been done by Oak Ridge National Laboratory using neutron scattering to
measure microstructural changes in an Al-Ce cylinder head in an operating engine. Figure 7-21
shows the operating set-up. SNS pulsed neutron diffraction of alloy showed load is borne main-
ly by the Ce3Al11 intermetallic phase. Parts currently in production in Al-Ce alloys including high
performance impeller blades and pistons (Fig. 7-22).
ANALYSIS OF ALLOYS DEVELOPED TO

DATE FOR HIGH-TEMPERATURE APPLICATIONS
The alloys studied to date have been summarized in Table 7-16 for the 200 series, Table 7-17
for the 300 series and Table 7-18 for other alloys, such as: MMC and Al-Ce-Mg alloys. Table
7-19 is a summary of promising alloys for high-temperature applications. As mentioned before,
the operating temperature range for aerospace and military casting is as high as 250-300C
(482-572F). In our opinion, the tensile specimens should be exposed at 250C (482F) for 1000
hours before testing at 250C (482F). As shown in Tables 7-16 to 7-18, there is a spectrum of
time and temperatures for exposing the test specimens and then testing at different tempera-
tures. Not all alloys have been to 1000 hours at 250C (482F). However, based on mechanical
properties above and below 250C (482F), we have used our judgement to arrive at Table 7-19
to recommend promising high-temperature alloys. In addition to the mechanical properties,
one has to look at the casting characteristics such as castability or fluidity, hot tear resistance,
etc. Despite this, we can arrive at the following conclusions.
// 165
1. In the 200 series, alloys 224.0 and 249.0 look promising and alloy 201.0 is borderline due
to lack of data at higher than 205C/401F. However, 200 series alloys have a long freezing
range and can be prone to hot tearing. Their castability is fair.
2. In the 300 series, NASA 398 which is similar to SAE A390.0 and Rolls Royce 350 (AA
designation is 203.0) with Ni, Co and Sb look promising. These alloys are not prone to hot
tearing but the complex microstructure makes them prone to segregation and feeding
issues, particularly in large complex castings.
3. In the 400 series, NASA 388 or R380 (similar to A413.0) looks promising. Because of high
Si content, it has good casting fluidity and being close to eutectic composition, hot tearing
is not likely to be a problem.
4. The MMC with 10% alumina in alloy Al-2wt%Cu-1wt%Mg-0.3wt%Sc is a new development
and looks very promising. Prototype castings have been produced.
5. Alloy 527.0 is the newest alloy introduced in the last few years. Although not exposed to
1000 hours at 250C (482F), it shows some promise considering its mechanical proper-
ties (138 MPa UTS, 96 MPa YS and 5% elongation) at 260C (500F) following stabilization
at 260C/500F for 336 hours. More developmental work is needed to further improve the
260C (500F) mechanical properties. This alloy has good castability and several protype
castings with thin walls have been produced successfully.
6. In most high-temperature alloy systems, greater care must be used in gating design to
achieve the flow and solidification conditions necessary to produce premium structural
castings. The MMC alloys are also more difficult to produce and castings made from these
alloys are more difficult to machine. However, modern production and analytical tech-
niques have enabled the use of more challenging alloy systems that deliver better perfor-
mance at higher temperatures.
7. Although, squeeze casting and HIPping processes can improve the mechanical properties
at 250C (482F), production cost of components will increase (Tables 7-8 and 7-15).
LONG-TERM STABILITY OF AGE HARDENABLE ALLOYS

Most of the alloys so far described are alloys that are age hardened to achieve maximum
strength. When subjected to temperatures higher than the aging temperature, the strength-
ening precipitates such as Mg2Si, Al2Cu or Al2CuMg will coarsen and the properties will drop.
These precipitates coarsen at different rates depending on composition and temperature. Due
to permanent coarsening, the properties do not fully recover when the alloy returns to room
temperature. As a consequence, both the high temperature and room temperature properties
deteriorate over time.
Many of the alloys discussed partially counter this effect through the use of transition metals
such as Zr,Sc,Ni,Ti,V and Mn. This strategy is helpful but only slows down the effect and does
not eliminate it. In solid solution strengthened alloys using Mg and Zn as a primary strengthen-
ing phase this effect does not occur. In alloys with high levels of magnesium the exposure to
heat homogenizes the Mg structure and can result in improved room temperature mechanical
properties at room temperature after exposure to elevated temperatures. Unfortunately, these
solid solution alloys have poor high-temperature properties. Adding Ce or Sc to a magnesium
solid solution alloy improves the high-temperature properties significantly, and results in full
recovery of properties at room temperature. The hardness values are summarized in Table 7-20
and Figure 7-23 compares room temperature strength recovery data in E357.0, A206.0, Al-Ce-
Mg and Al-Ce-Mg-Sc.
REFERENCES
1. Data Compiled by David Weiss.
2. ASM Handbook, “Vol. 2 Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special-Purpose
Materials,” ASM International, pp 125, 173-175 (1990).
3. A. W. Gunderson, “Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties of Two cast Aluminum
Alloys,” Report AFML-TR-69-100, Airforce Materials Laboratory (MAAE), Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio.
4. “NASA 398 and R380 Aluminum Alloy, Materials Properties Data Sheet,” Published by
NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center, Metallic Materials and Processes Group, Huntsville,
AL 35812 (April, 2001).
5. Granger, D. A., Truckner, W. G. and Rooy, E. L., “Aluminum Alloys for Elevated Temperature
Application,” AFS Transactions, Vol. 143, pp. 777-784 (1986).
6. Crepeau, P. N., Antolovich, S. D., and Worden, J. A., “Structure-Property Relationships in
Aluminum Alloy 339-T5: Tensile Behavior at Room and Elevated Temperature,” AFS Trans-
actions, Vol. 148, pp. 813-822 (1990).
7. Gundlach, R. B., et al., “Thermal Fatigue Resistance of Hypoeutectic Aluminum Silicon
Casting Alloys,” AFS Transactions, Vol. 141, pp. 205-223 (1994).
8. Komiyama, Y., Uchida, K., and Gunshi, M., “Effects of Fe, Ni, Mn,, Cr, and Mg on Properties
of Ni free aluminum casting alloy for piston,” J. Japan Inst. Light Metals, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp.
377-382 (1978).
9. Catherall, J. A., and Smart, R. F., “The Effects of Nickel in Aluminum-Silicon Eutectic Al-
loys,” Metallurgia, 78-79, pp. 247-250 (Jun 1969).
10. Seidman, D.N., et al., “Precipitation strengthening at ambient and elevated temperatures of
heat treatable Al(Sc) alloys,” Acta Materialia, Vol. 50, pp.4021-4035 (2002).
11. Zakharova V.V and Rostova T.D., “On the possibility of scandium alloying of copper-con-
taining aluminum alloys,” Metal Science and Heat Treatment, Vol. 37, Nos. 1-2, pp. 65-69
(1995).
12. Li Yu, W., et al., “Mechanical properties and microstructures of alloy 2618 with Al3(Sc, Zr)
phases,” Materials Science and Engineering, A368, pp. 88-93 (2004).
13. Nakayama, M. and Miura, Y., “The effect of scandium on the age-hardening behaviour of
Al-Cu alloy,” Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Aluminum Alloys, pp. 538-545
(1994).
14. Paris, H.G., Sanders, T.H. and Riddle, Y.W., “Assessment of Scandium Additions in Alu-
minum Alloy Design,” Proceedings, 6th. International Conference on Aluminum Alloys, pp.
219-224 (1998).
15. Toropova, L.S., Eskin, D.G., Kharakterova, M.L. & Dobatkina, T.V., “Advanced Aluminum
Alloys Containing Scandium,” Gordon & Breach Science Publishers (1998).
16. Sadayappan, K., Gegel, G. A., Weiss, D. and Sahoo, M., “Development of an Aluminum Alloy
for Elevated Temperature Applications”, Proceedings of Shape Casting: The 3rd Interna-
tional Symposium, Edited by J. Campbell, P. N. Crepeau and M. Tiryakioglu, TMS, pp. 207-
214 (2009).
17. Weiss, D, Gegel, G. A., and Sadayappan, K., “Development of Cast Al Alloys for Elevated
Temperature (250C) Service,” AFS Proceedings (2011).
18. D. C. Weiss and G. A. Gegel, “Development of elevated temperature aluminum MMC alloy
and its processing technology,” Final Technical Report, US Department of Energy (2014).
19. ALCOA Specialty Alloys: SupracastTM Data Sheet.
20. ALCOA 351 SupracastTM Aluminum Air-Quenched Data (May 10, 2018).
21. Q. Wang, D. Hess, X. Yan and F. Caron, “Evaluation of a New High temperature Cast Alumi-
num Alloy for Cylinder Head Applications,” AFS Transactions, 7 pages (2018).
// 167
22. D. Weiss, “An Aluminum Alloy for High Performance Engines,” AFS Proceedings of the
122nd Metalcasting Congress, Paper No. 18-069 (April 2018).
23. A. I. Ibrahim, A. M. Samuel, H. W. Doty and F. H. Samuel, “Response of Varying Levels of
Silicon and Transition Elements on Room and Elevated Temperature Tensile Properties in
Al-Cu Alloy,” International Journal of Metalcasting (IJMC), AFS, (September 2017)
24. A. I. Ibrahim, A. M. Samuel, F. H. Samuel and H. W. Doty, “Response of Varying Levels of
Silicon and Transition Elements on Room and Elevated Temperature Tensile Properties in
an Al-Cu Alloy,” AFS Transactions, 15 pages, Paper 18-101, (2018).
25. T. Bogdanoff, A. K. Dahle and S. Seifeddine, “Effect of Co and Ni on the Microstructure and
Mechanical properties at Room and Elevated Temperature of an Al-7%Si-Alloy,” Internation-
al Journal of Metalcasting (IJMC), AFS, 12(4):1-7 (October 2017).
26. L. Alyaldin, E. M. Elgallad, A. M. Samuel, H. W. Doty, S. Valtierra and F. H. Samuel, “Effect of
Additives and Heat Treatment on the Tensile Properties of 354 Alloy at 250°C and 250°C,”
Materials Science and Engineering A, 708, p. 77-90 (2017).
27. G. H. Garza-Elizondo, A. M. Samuel, S. Valtierra and F. Samuel, “Effect of Transition Metals
on the Tensile Properties of 354 Alloy, Role of Precipitation Hardening,” International Jour-
nal of Metalcasting (IJMC), AFS, Vol. 11, Issue 3, p. 413-427 (2017).
28. Z. C. Sims, D. Weiss, S. K. McCall, M. A. McGuire, R. T. Ott, T. Geer, O, Rios and P. A. E.
Turchi, “Cerium-Based, Intermetallic-Strengthened Aluminum Casting Alloy: High-Volume
Co-product Development,” Journal of Metals, Volume 68, No. 7, p. 1940-1947 (2016).
29. D. Weiss and O. Rios, “Low Density and Temperature Tolerant Alloys for Automotive Appli-
cations,” SAE International, 2017-01-1666 (March 2017).
31. A. A. Luo, Journal of Metals, Volume 54, No. 42 (2002).
32. N. A. Belov, A. N. Evgeniya and D. G. Eskin, “Casting Alloys of the Al-Ce-Ni System: Mi-
crostructural Approach to Alloy Design,” Materials Science and Engineering, A 271.1, pp.
134-142 (1999).
33. X. Sikum, Y. Rongxi, G. Zhi, X. Xiang, H. Chagen and G. Xiuyan, “Effects of Rare Earth Ce
on Casting Properties of Al-4.5 Cu Alloy,” Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 135, p. 1-4
(2010).
34. D. Weiss, “Thermal Treatment of Al-Mg-Ce Alloys, AFS Transactions, Paper No. 18-070
(2018).
35. D. Weiss, Data from Eck Industries, Inc.
36. D. Weiss, “Developments in Aluminum-Scandium-Ceramic and Aluminum-Scandium-Ceri-
um Alloy,” TMS 2019 (in press).
ADDITIONAL READING
• “NASA 398 Material Properties Data Sheet” (Revision date: April 20, 2001).
• Advanced Material Technology, Inc., R380 (also NASA 388) Material Properties Data Sheet,
(Revision date: April 20, 2001).
• “Aluminum Alloy Castings, Properties, Processes, and Applications,” Edited by J.G.
Kaufman and E.L. Rooy, American Foundry Society and ASM International, p.214-215
(2004).
• A. W. Gunderson, “Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties of Two Cast Aluminum
Alloys,” Report AFML-TR-69-100, Airforce Materials Laboratory (MAAE), Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio.
• J. D. Tirpak, “Elevated Temperature Properties of Cast Aluminum Alloys A201-T7 and
A357-T6,” Materials Laboratory, Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Wright-Patter-
son Air Force Base, Ohio, Report AD-A163 487.
Table 7-1. Compositions and Mechanical Properties of Standard

Aluminum Alloys for High-temperature Structural Applications1
A. 200 Series
Alloy No. Si Fe Cu Mn Mg Ni
201 (T6) 0.10 0.15 4.0-5.2 0.2-0.5 0.15-0.55 -
A206 (T7) 0.05 0.10 4.2-5.0 0.2-0.5 0.15-0.35 0.05
220(T551)
222(T551) 2.0 1.5 9.2-10.7 0.50 0.15-0.35 0.50
224 (T7) 0.06 0.10 4.5-5.5 0.2-0.5 - -
240 (F) 0.5 0.5 7.0-9.0 0.3-0.7 5.5-6.5 0.3-0.7
242(T77) 0.7 1.0 3.5-4.5 0.35 1.2-1.8 1.7-2.3
249(T7) 0.05 0.10 3.8-4.6 0.25-0.5 0.25-0.5 -
295(T6) 0.7-1.5 1.0 4.0-5.0 0.35 0.03 -
296(T6) 2-3 1.2 4.0-5.0 0.35 0.05 0.35

// 169
A. 200 Series
Alloy No. Ti Test Temp, C UTS, MPa YS, MPa % Elong
201 (T6) 0.15-0.35 24 448 379 8
205 248 228 9
315 69 62 39
A206 (T7) 0.15-0.30 24 434 345 11.7
205 331 303 17.7
220(T551) 24 283 276 0.5
205 165 117 2
315 59 34 14
222(T551) 0.25 24 255 241 0.5
205 172 138 1
315 59 34 10
224 (T7) 0.35 24 421 331 4
205 262 193 10
315 145 103 11
240 (F) 0.20 24 234 200 1
205 228 172 1
315 117 83 4
242(T77) 0.25 24 207 159 2
205 138 103 3
315 55 28 20
249(T7) 0.02-0.35 24 469 407 6
205 186 159 20
315 ?? ?? ??
295(T6) 0.25 24 248 165 5
205 103 62 15
315 28 21 75
296(T6) 0.25 24 276 179 5
205 117 76 15
315 24 17 75
B. 300 Series *3.0% Zn
A319(T7) 5.5-6.5 1.0 3.0-4.0 0.50 0.10 0.35
332(T5) 8.5-10.5 1.2 2.0-4.0 0.50 0.5-1.5 0.5
336(T551) 11.0-13.0 1.2 0.5-1.5 0.35 0.7-1.3 2.0-3.0
354(T6) 8.6-9.4 0.20 1.6-2.0 0.10 0.40-0.60 -
355(T6) 4.5-5.5 0.60 1.0-1.5 0.50 0.40-0.60 -
356(T7) 6.5-7.5 0.60 0.25 0.35 0.20-0.45 -
A356(T6) 6.5-7.5 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.25-0.45 -
A357(T6) 6.5-7.5 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.40-0.70 -
360(F) 9.0-10.0 2.0 0.60 0.35 0.40-0.60 0.50
380(F)* 7.5-9.5 2.0 3.0-4.0 0.50 0.10 0.50
384(F)* 10.5-12.0 1.3 3.0-4.5 0.50 0.10 0.50

// 171
B. 300 Series *3.0% Zn
A319(T7) 0.25 24 301 276 1.2
210 244 236 1.9
320 102 75 7.5
332(T5) 0.25 24 248 193 1
205 172 110 3
315 83 55 15
336(T551) 0.25 24 248 193 0.5
205 179 103 2
315 69 28 10
354(T6) 0.25 24 379 283 6
205 103 76 45
315 ?? ?? ??
355(T6) 0.25 24 241 172 3
205 117 90 8
315 41 21 36
356(T7) 0.35 24 234 207 2
205 83 56 18
315 28 21 60
A356(T6) 0.20 24 283 207 2
205 83 59 40
315 28 21 70
A357(T6) 0.04-0.20 24 359 290 8
205 69 52 50
315 ?? ?? ??
360(F) - 24 324 172 3
205 152 96 8
315 48 31 35
380(F)* - 24 331 165 3
205 165 110 8
315 42 28 30
384(F)* - 24 324 172 1
205 179 124 6
315 48 28 45
C. 400 Series *0.5% Zn
413(F)* 11.0-13.0 2.0 1.0 0.35 0.10 0.60
443(F) 4.5-6.0 0.80 0.60 0.50 0.05 -
D. 500 Series
514(F) 0.35 0.50 0.15 0.35 3.5-4.5 0-
518(F) 0.35 1.8 0.25 0.35 7.5-8.5 0.15
Table 7-2. Effect of Long-Term Exposure in Air at Room Temp

and 250C (482F) on Yield Strength of Sand-Cast Alloys16,17
1000 hr Exposure
Heat Treated MPa 100 hr Exposure MPa 500 hr Exposure MPa
MPa
Alloy @ @
@ 250C @ @ 250C @ @ 250C
RT 250C @ RT
(482F) RT (482F) RT (482F)
(482F)
Al-2Cu-1Mg- 245 199 180 139 157 108 159 105

0.2Sc alloy
Table 7-3. Tensile Properties of Squeeze Cast Al-2Cu-1Mg-0.2Sc Alloy18
Exposed at 250C (482F) for

Heat Treated
Test Temperature 1000 hrs
UTS, MPa YS, MPa % Elong UTS, MPa YS, MPa % Elong
RT 211.7 175.6 1.4 205.6 158.5 1.9
250C (482F) 143.2 120.5 6.8 117.9 86.8 11.7

// 173
C. 400 Series *0.5% Zn
413(F)* - 24 296 145 2.5
205 165 103 15
315 31 14 35
443(F) 0.25 24 227 110 9
205 110 83 25
315 34 24 3.5(?)
D. 500 Series
514(F) 0.25 24 172 83 9
205 124 83 9
315 62 28 17
518(F) - 24 310 186 8
205 145 103 40
315 59 31 45
Table 7-4. Room Temperature Tensile Properties

of Sand and Permanent Mold Cast AlCuMgSc Alloy18
Casting Process UTS, MPa YS, MPa % Elongation
Sand 272 184 4.5
Permanent Mold 280 181 7.9
Table 7-5. Room Temperature Fatigue Life (R= -1) After Elevated Temperature
Exposure of Cast and Heat Treated AlCuMgSc alloy at Stress Level of 110 Mpa18
Exposure Temperature, C(F) Exposure Time, Hours Average cycles to Failure (3 tests)
260C (500F) 100 803,000
315C (599F) 10 450,000
315C (599F) 100 360,000
Table 7-6. Comparison of Castability of AlCuMgSc

alloy with other Copper Containing Aluminum Alloys18
Resistance to Hot
Aluminum Alloy Fluidity Pressure Tightness
Cracking
201 3 4 3
242 3 4 4
319 2 2 2
356 1 1 1
AlCuMgSc 3 3 3
Table 7-7. High-temperature (250C/482F) Tensile Properties of Alloy 354 Modified by Adding Zr,
Ni (Tested At 250C(482F) After 1 and 200 Hours Stabilization at Testing Temperature26,27
Alloy UTS (MPa) YS (MPa) %Elong

354 + 0.25% Zr, 1h at 250C (482F) 171 158 4.2
354 + 0.25% Zr, 200h at 250C (482F) 104 82.6 8.7
354 +0.25% Zr + 2% Ni, 1h at 250C (482F) 226.6 225 2
354 +0.25% Zr + 2% Ni, 200h at 250C (482F) 111.3 90.3 8
354 +0.25% Zr + 0.75% Mn, 1h at 250C (482F) 230 226 2
354 +0.25% Zr + 0.75% Mn, 200h at 250C (482F) 96 78.2 14
Table 7-8. Ultimate Tensile Strength of AlCuMgSc Alloy in

Heat Treated Condition and After Exposure at 250C (482F)18
Heat treated 100 hr exposure 500 hr exposure 1000 hr exposure

Alloy 250C 250C 250C 250C
RT RT RT RT
(482F) (482F) (482F) (482F)
Sand UTS 245 199 180 139 157 108 159 105
Cast
Squeeze UTS 212 143 206 118

Cast
// 175
Table 7-9. Tensile Properties of Squeeze Cast AlCuMgSc Alloy18
Exposed at 250C (482F)

Heat treated
Condition Test Temperature for 1000 h
UTS YS % UTS YS %
Base alloy RT 211.7 175.6 1.4 205.6 158.5 1.9
250C (482F) 143.2 120.5 6.8 117.9 86.8 11.7
MMC RT 227.5 198.3 0.7 192.8 166.6 0.8
250C (482F) 162.4 142.8 3.8 127.8 102.7 4.9
Table 7-10. Mechanical Properties of Sand Cast

Al2Cu1Mg0.2Sc–10 v/o Al2O3 Metal Matrix Composite Alloy18
Test Temperature, C (F) UTS, MPa YS, MPa % Elongation

20C (68F) 228 161 2.6
250C (482F) 139 104 8.9
Table 7-11. Room Temperature Mechanical Properties (ksi)

of As-Cast and Heat Treated Al-Ce Alloys28
As-Cast T6 Heat-Treated
Yield (4
Alloy Yield Point Elonga- Yield Elonga-
UTS (KSI) UTS (KSI)
(KSI) flexural tion (%) (KSI) tion (%)
testing)
Al-12Ce 23.4 8.3 11.9 13.5 19.1 6.9 26.5
Al-12Ce-0.4Mg 29.1 11.4 15.4 6 32.5 9 8.5
Al-12Ce-4Si-0.4Mg 20.5 10.9 22.5 2 36.6 18.6 8.5
Table 7-12. Mechanical Properties (MPa)of As-Cast Binary Al-Ce Alloys30
Tensile, As Cast Yield, As Cast % E, As Cast

Al-16Ce 144 68 2.5
Al-12Ce 163 58 13.5
Al-10 Ce 152 Test Error 8
Al-8 Ce 148 Test Error 19
Al-6 Ce 103 30 25
443 (Al-5Si) 145 40 2.5
Table 7-13. As Cast Mechanical Properties (MPa)

of Ternary Compositions in the Al-Ce System34
UTS at 260C, YS at 260C % Elong at

UTS, MPa YS, MPa %Elong
MPa (500F), MPa 260C, (500F)
Al-8Ce-4Mg 189 107 3 No Test No Test No Test
Al-8Ce-7Mg 195 151 2 134 121 4
Al-8Ce-10Mg 227 186 1 137 130 4

(Alloy 527.0)
Table 7-14. Room Temperature Mechanical Properties of Al-8Ce-10Mg

Alloy (Alloy 527.0) after Homogenization and Hot Isostatic Pressing34
Tensile Yield %E
As Cast 227 MPa 186 MPa 1%
-T4 248 MPa 199 MPa 2%
-HIP 262 MPa 206 Mpa 2%
Table 7-15 Elevated Temperature Properties (MPa) of Al-8Ce-10Mg (Alloy 527.0)35
At Temp At RT After Heating

Time
Temp Tensile Yield Tensile Yield
Hours %E %E
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Al-10Mg-8Ce (Alloy 527.0) 260C 0.5 138 131 4
Al-10Mg-8Ce (Alloy 527.0) 260C 336 138 96 5 158 138 1
354-T61 260C 100 83 65 35
2618-T61 260C 0.5 90 62 50
4032-T6 200C 0.5 90 62 30
Al-10Mg-8Ce (Alloy 527.0) 315C 0.5 96 55 20
Al-10Mg-8Ce (Alloy 527.0) 315C 216 94 55 20 172 158 1
2618-T61 315C 0.5 52 31 80
4032-T6 300C 0.5 38 24 70
Al-10Mg-8Ce (Alloy 527.0) 400C 120 218 190 1.5
Al-10Mg-8Ce (Alloy 527.0) 400C 500 233 186 1.5
Al-10Mg-8Ce (Alloy 527.0) 500C 120 252 185 3
Al-10Mg-8Ce (Alloy 527.0) 500C 500 256 185 2
Al-10Mg-8Ce (Alloy 527.0) 500C 1000 251 1.5
Baseline Room Temperature Properties 33 27 1
// 177
Table 7-16. Typical Tensile Properties of Selected Aluminum Casting Alloys, 200 Series
Room Temperature High Temperature

Exposure
Properties Properties
Temp &
Alloy Si Mg Cu Fe Mn Ti Zr V Sc Ref
Time,Test
Temp
%
UTS YS UTS YS E
Elong
250 C, 100
224 (RTA) 0.1 0.11 3.64 0.15 0.34 0.30 0.11 0.16 440 345 6 220 175 7 34
hours
224.0-T7 4.5- 0.2- 230 C,

2.0 -- 1.5 0.35 -- -- 420 330 4 235 160 13 37
Sand & PM) 5.5 0.5 1000 hrs
224.0-T7 4.5- 0.2- 260 C,

2.0 -- 1.5 0.35 -- -- 420 330 4 215 140 10 37
Sand & PM) 5.5 0.5 1000 hrs
224.0-T7 4.5- 0.2- 315 C,

2.0 -- 1.5 0.35 -- -- 420 330 4 160 105 11 37
Sand & PM) 5.5 0.5 1000 hrs
205 C,
242.0-T77 - 1.40 4.10 205 160 2 150 110 2 37
1000 hrs
260 C,
242.0-T77 - 1.40 4.10 205 160 2 105 70 4 37
1000hrs
Al-2Cu- 250 C, 15-

0.47 0.98 1.99 0.23 0.25 0.17 272 184 4.5 1151 881 351
1Mg-0.3Sc 1000 hrs 17
Al-2Cu with
1.2 and 8 1.2
250 C, 22,
Si plus Zr, and 0.40 2.4 0.40 0.60 0.15 0.15 0.20 335 310 1.5 95 80 8
200 hrs 23
V, Ni, Sr, La, 8
Cr-T622
A201-T7
205 C, ??
with 0.45 0.08 0.3 4.7 0.04 0.3 0.24 325 305 12 39
hrs
Ag
0.15- 4.0- 0.15 0.20- 0.15- 230 C,

201.0-T7 0.10 495 450 6 150 105 25 37
0.55 5.2 Fe 0.50 0.35 1000 hrs
0.15- 4.0- 0.15 0.20- 0.15- 260 C,

201.0-T7 0.10 495 450 6 110 90 25 37
0.55 5.2 Fe 0.50 0.35 1000 hrs
0.15- 4.0- 0.20- 0.15- 315 C,

201.0-T7 0.10 0.15 495 450 6 62 55 48 37
0.55 5.2 0.50 0.35 1000 hrs
205 C,
A 206-T7 - 0.25 4.6 0.35 0.22 434 345 12 331 303 18 34
??hrs
249.0-T7 205 C,
0.38 4, 0.38 0.18 470 405 6 200 170 16 37
with 3% Zn 1000 hrs
Table 7-17. Typical Tensile Properties of Selected Aluminum Casting Alloys, 300 Series

Exposure
Temp &
Time,Test
%
UTS YS UTS YS E Temp
Elong
8.3- 0.25- 1.6- 0.05- 0.08- 0.08- 250 C,

AA351-T6 0.20 0.20 390 340 2 200 190 28 21
9.7 0.45 2.0 0.35 0.30 0.30 100 hrs
ALCOA 351 300 C,

0.25- 1.35- 0.08- 370- 280-
Supracast 8-10 0.2 0.3 0.3 2-3 75 55 41 500 37
0.55 2.1 0.6 400 350
TM
hrs,
Modified 250 C,
9.3 0.36 1.87 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.06 0.07 365 298 3.5 101 89 18.2 20
351-T6 200 hrs
Modified 275 C,
9.3 0.36 1.87 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.06 0.07 365 298 3.5 65 57 37.4 20
351-T6 200 hrs
Modified 300 C,
9.3 0.36 1.87 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.06 0.07 365 298 3.5 61 46 42.1 20
351-T6 200 hrs
NASA 398, 16.0- 0.45- 4.0- 260 C,

0.50 0.10 0.20 277 235 0.4 187 159 1.5 35
SAE A390 18.0 0.85 5.0 100 hrs
NASA 398,
260 C,
Similar 16.0- 0.45- 4.0-
0.50 0.10 0.20 277 235 0.4 180 152 2.0
1000 35
to SAE 18.0 0.85 5.0
hrs
A39012
Rolls Royce, 350 C,

RR-350 with 5.0 0.25 0.20 0.25 253 201 1.4 160 118 5.6 1000 38
Ni, Co & Sb hrs
3.0- 260 C,
319-F 6.0 -0.1 -1.0 -0.50 0.25- -- -- 185 125 2 105 85 2.5 37
4.0-- 100 hrs
260 C,
3.0-
319-F 6.0 -0.1 -1.0 -0.50 0.25- -- -- 185 125 2 1o5 75 3.5 1000 37
4.0--
hrs
250 C,
319+MnVZr 7 0.15 3.5 <0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 392 306 5.2 115 101 27 34
100 hrs
354 with Co, 250 C, 25,

9.08 0.83 1.88 0.19 0.02 0.16 0.25 350 345 0.8 111.3 90.3 8
Ni and Sr 200 hrs 26
4.5- 0.45- 1.0- 250 C,

C355-T6 0.15 0.10 0.20 -- -- 315 235 6 102 93 28 34
5.5 0.6 1.5 100 hrs
240 C,
Al-7Si with 1000
Co, Ni and 6.61 0.089 220 75 14 97 75 14 hrs & 24
Sr7 tested
at 230C
8.6- 0.4- 1.6- 250 C,

354-T6 0.20 0.10 0.20 -- -- 380 285 6 95 74 32 34
9.4 0.6 2.0 100 hrs
A356-Cu, Zr, 250 C,

6.8 0.35 0.48 0.11 0.15 0.12 0.14 -- 319 264 11.3 76 65 37 34
,Mn. 100 hrs
250 C,
A356-Cu 7.5 0.34 0.49 0.10 <0.02 0.13 -- -- 327 275 9.8 73 66 34.5 34
100 hrs
250 C,
A356-T7 7.1 0.37 -- 0.11 <0.02 0.14 -- -- 299 257 9.9 61 55 34.5 34
100 hrs
6.5- 0.20- 260 C,

A356-T6 0.25 0.60 0.35 0.25 228 164 24.0 38 28 6.8 37
7.5 0.45 100 hrs
260 C,
6.5- 0.20-
A356-T6 0.25 0.60 0.35 0.25 228 164 24.0 34 24 6.8 1000 37
7.5 0.45
hrs
// 179
Table 7-18. Typical Tensile Properties of Selected Aluminum Casting Alloys, Other Alloys

Exposure
Temp &
Time,Test
%
Elong
NASA 388
or R380, 260 C,
13.0 283 228 1.0 172 138 3.1 36
Similar to 100 hrs
A413.0.
NASA 388
260 C,
or R380,
13.0 283 228 1.0 165 138 3.2 1000 36
Similar to
hrs
A413.0.
Al-2Cu-
1Mg-0.3Sc 250 C,
with Ni & 0.54 1,0 2,2 0.04 0.52 0.20 228 161 2.6 139 104 8.9 1000 17
10% Al2O3 hrs
MMC
Al-10 Mg- 260

8Ce C,
227 186 1.0 138 96 5 34
(Alloy 336
527.0) hrs
Al-10 Mg- 315

8Ce C,
227 186 1.0 94 55 20 34
(Alloy 216
527.0) hrs
Table 7-19. Promising High-temperature Aluminum Casting Alloys

Exposure
Temp &
Time,Test
%
Elong
230 C,
224.0-T7 4.5- 0.2-
2.0 -- 1.5 0.35 -- -- 420 330 4 235 160 13 1000 37
Sand & PM) 5.5 0.5
hrs
205 C,
249.0-T7 with
0.38 4, 0.38 0.18 470 405 6 200 170 16 1000 37
3% Zn
hrs
A201-T7 with 205 C,

0.08 0.3 4.7 0.04 0.3 0.24 325 305 12 39
0.45 Ag ?? hrs
NASA 398, 260 C,

16.0- 0.45- 4.0-
Similar to SAE 0.50 0.10 0.20 277 235 0.4 180 152 2.0 1000 35
18.0 0.85 5.0
A390 hrs
Rolls Royce, 350 C,

RR-350 with 5.0 0.25 0.20 0.25 253 201 1.4 160 118 5.6 1000 38
Ni, Co & Sb hrs
NASA 388 or
260 C,
R380, Similar 13.0 283 228 1.0 172 138 3.1 36
100 hrs
to A413.0.
NASA 388 or 260 C,

R380, Similar 13.0 283 228 1.0 165 138 3.2
1000 36
to A413.0. hrs
Al-2Cu-1Mg-
250 C,
0.3Sc with Ni
0.54 1,0 2,2 0.04 0.52 0.20 228 161 2.6 139 104 8.9 1000 17
& 10% Al2O3
hrs
MMC
Al-10 Mg-8Ce 260 C,

227 186 1.0 138 96 5 34
(Alloy 527.0) 336 hrs
Table 7-20. Hardness Values of Alloys Exposed to 350C (662F)36
Room Temperature Hard-

Hardness Before Percent Hardness
ness after 350C (662F)
Exposure Retention
exposure for 100 hours
Al-10Ce-F 40 40 100
Al-8.7Ce-.4Sc-T6 48 48 100
Al-9.5Ce-13Mg-F 86 86 100
Al-12.15Mg7.64Ce-.35Sc-F 114 114 100
Above T4 810F 129
Above T4 910F 114
T6 810 121 121 100
T6 910 114 121 100
A201-T7 139 100 72
A357-T6 96 28 29
Figure 7-1. Relation between copper and scandium content

on the formation of W-phase precipitates.18
// 181
Figure 7-2. W-Phase in Al-Cu-Mg Alloy.18
Figure 7-3. Effect of long-term exposure at 250C (482F) yield strength.16

Figure 7-4. Air-cooled cylinder head poured in Al-2Cu-1Mg-0.3Sc alloy.18
Figure 7-5. High performance engine block produced from AA351 alloy.
(Artwork courtesy of TMEYER Precision Automotive Machining and Manufacturing.)
// 183
Figure 7-6. SEM image of as-received Duralum WP 400 alumina powder.18
Figure 7-7. SEM image of Cu-coated alumina powder.18

Figure 7-8. Effect of vacuum re-melt and recasting on porosity and

particle segregation of F800 alumina/AlCuMgSc alloy. Note that the vacuum cast (right)
ingot contains less porosity and particle segregation than the stir cast (left) ingot.18
Figure 7-9. Macrostructure of stir cast (left) and squeeze cast (right)
F800 alumina/Al-Cu-Mg-Sc MMC.18
// 185
Figure 7-10. Microstructure of squeeze cast F800 alumina/AlCuMgSc alloy.18
Figure 7-11. End housing of rotary engine cast from AlCuMgSc MMC alloy.18
Figure 7-12. Thermo-Calc calculated Al-Ce phase diagram.29
Figure 7-13. (a) As-Cast and Heat-treated SEM images of Al-12Ce with accompanying XRD
spectra and phase information. (b) As-Cast and Heat-treated SEM images of Al-12Ce-0.4Mg
with accompanying XRD spectra and phase information. (c) As-Cast and Heat-treated SEM im-
ages of Al-12Ce-4Si-0.4Mg with accompanying XRD spectra and phase information.28
// 187
Figure 7-14. As-cast microstructure of Al-6Ce.29
Figure 7-15. Microstructure of as-cast Al-16 Ce alloy showing the primary Ce.29
Figure 7-16. Undissolved magnesium pools in Al-8Ce-10Mg.35
Figure 7-17. Same sample as Figure 7-5 after stepped homogenization treatment.35
// 189
(a)As-cast
(b) T4 Condition (c) HIP
Figure 7-18. Optical microstructures of AlMg10Ce8 as cast, T4 and HIP conditions.30

Figure 7-19. An air-cooled cylinder head cast in Al-8Ce alloy.35
Figure 7-20. Experimental rotary engine rotor produced

in chemically bonded sand with an Al-Ce-Mg alloy.35
// 191
Figure 7-21. Set-up for operating engine neutron scattering experiment.30
Figure 7-22. High performance pistons produced from various formulations of Al-Ce alloys.35
Figure 7-23. Recovery of room temperature strength

following exposure at 350C (662F) for 100 hours.36
// 193
CHAPTER EIGHT:
Post-Casting
Operations
INTRODUCTION
Post casting operations are critical to the performance of the final product. These operations
typically include removal of the filling and feeding system, heat treating and final inspections
as required by the customer. Sand castings and castings that require the use of cores will need
an operation to remove the adhering sand. Special requirements may include impregnation,
welding and hot isostatic pressing. The sections that follow, cover additional detail on these
important processes.
REMOVAL OF MOLD AND CORE MATERIAL

Surface blast cleaning is the primary technique used to remove adhering mold or core sand
from the casting. Blast cleaning may involve air, water or mechanical blasting. Figure 8-1
shows castings being loaded for blast cleaning. Since cores may not break down at the
relatively low aluminum pouring temperatures (depending on the binders used), special core
removal methods such as mechanical vibration, oven baking, or increasing the airless blast
cleaning cycle, may be used.1
Figure 8-1. Castings are loaded onto hangers prior to the blast cleaning operation.1
REMOVAL OF FINS, GATES AND RISERS

Gates and risers may be removed using a band saw, power saw, abrasive cut-off wheel, or with
a sprue cutter. Use of band saws to remove fins, gates and risers is very common in the alu-
minum foundry. Rugged blades, ¾ to 1 inch wide, 20 or 21 gauge thick with 3-4 teeth per inch,
are preferred for faster cutting.1 Cutting speeds can be 2500-4000 feet per minute (fpm). Stick
lubricant can be used to avoid contamination. Parting line flashes and gates can be removed
by using a trim press. A band saw is shown in Fig. 8-2.
Trim presses operated manually (Fig. 8-3) or robotically in an automatic operation (Fig. 8-4)
can be used to remove parting line flash. In the latter operation, the robot removes the casting
from a diecasting or permanent mold casting machine and places it in the trim press. Gates
of 1/8 to ½ in. in thickness may be readily sheared on the sprue cutter or trim press. In some
cases, parting line fins may be removed, and gates cut off simultaneously by using a punch
press fitted with a special die for performing these operations. Die castings are often treated in
this way.2
// 195
Figure 8-2. Gate removal using upright band saw. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
Figure 8-3. This vertical hydraulic trim press is used to manually remove excess gating and
parting line.1(Fig.17-3)
Figure 8-4. This 50-ton horizontal hydraulic trim press is used to remove excess gating and
parting line manually.1(Fig.17-4)
Grinding and Bench Operations
Sanding, grinding and bench operations ordinarily follow the removal of gates and risers to
smooth off or blend in the gate and riser areas. This helps surface finish or appearance and
to meet dimensional requirements of the parts. These operations also make the parts safer to
handle by eliminating any sharp edges.
Floor or bench-mounted wheels, belts or discs, and swing frame and portable grinders are used
for heavy duty material removal. Hand-held grinders equipped with abrasive wheels or carbide
burrs are used for removal of parting line fins, remnants of gating connections and general sur-
face finishing of castings as shown in Fig. 8-5. Grinding wheels generally vary from 8 to 30 inch
in diameter and are resin-bonded, reinforced around 20 grit, 0 grade. The wheels are made of
aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, blended zirconia, alumina or a combination of these. Portable
grinders are usually used on large castings. Figure 8-6 shows the removal of a parting line and
fins using a hand-held disc grinder.
// 197
Figure 8-5. An abrasive sand grinder. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
Figure 8-6. (left) Parting line removal using a hand-held disc grinder.
(Artwork courtesy of De Pere Foundry Inc.) (right) Grinding cooling fins on aircraft cylinder
heads (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)3
Robotic Grinders
Robotic grinding is becoming more popular for intricate or highly irregular-shaped parts that
have multiple surfaces to grind and especially where close tolerances are required. These
systems are often coupled with diamond or super-abrasive grinding discs as industrial robots
can apply the higher pressures and speeds necessary for optimum performance from the
abrasives.
Rotary Tools
Cleaning of aluminum alloys may be performed using rotary filing tools or cutters. These may
be electrically- or air-operated tools and are usually of the portable type as shown in Fig. 8-7.
The tool operator may then file off excess metal on any casting surface accessible to the tool.3
A rotary file is a hardened steel grinding wheel.
Figure 8-7. Finishing marine motor propeller blades using an

air grinder.3 (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
Appearance Blasting
Many castings will undergo a final blasting operation to remove any remaining foreign material
and to blend the previous finishing operation. This will impart a uniform surface appearance
and help to prepare for any additional finishing required. For castings requiring heat treatment,
this is usually completed post the final heat treat operation. This final blasting operation can be
done with steel shot or grit, sand or synthetic media.
// 199
Finishing
At this finishing stage, many castings have received their final cleaning operations when ap-
pearance blasting is completed. Others are given additional surface finishing such as: chemi-
cal treatment, polishing, buffing, and painting per product specifications before shipping to the
customer (Fig. 8-8).
Figure 8-8. Buffing the surface of a missile wing.3 (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
MACHINING CHARACTERISTICS
Machinability of aluminum alloys varies with composition and temper. Alloys containing
copper, zinc and magnesium machine easily. On the other hand, hyper-eutectic Al-Si alloys and
composite alloys can be more difficult to machine. Machinability ratings for sand, permanent
mold and die cast alloys for different temper conditions are compared in Table 8-1.1 The rating
is based on a range of cutting operations and characteristics such as: ease of cutting, surface
finish, chip formation and especially tool wear. Speed and feed for machining are influenced by
depth of cut, cutting fluid, tool material, power of machine, etc. Machinability can be improved
by reducing internal stresses by intermediate thermal treatment.
Table 8-1. Machinability Ratings for Aluminum Castings1

Ratings
Alloy Temper Permanent Mold
Sand Castings* Die Castings**
Castings*
222.0 T Excellent Excellent
242.0 T2, T571, T77 Very good Very good
295.0 T4, T6, T62 Very good
296.0 T4, T6, T7 Good
308.0 F Fair Good
319.0 F, T5. T6 Good Good
332.0 T5 Fair
333.0 F, T5, T6, T7 Good
336.0 T551, T65 Good
355.0 T51, T6, T7, T71 Good Good
C355.0 T61 Good Good
356.0 T51, T6, T7, T71 Good Good
A356.0 T61 Good Good
357.0 T6 Good Good
358.0 F Good
360.0 Fair
A360.0 Fair
380.0 Good
A380.0 Good
384.0 Good
413.0 Fair
A413.0 Fair
443.0 F Poor Fair Fair
511.0 F Excellent
512.0 F Very good Excellent
513.0 F Excellent Excellent
514.0 F Excellent
515.0 Very Good
518.0 Excellent
520.0 T4 Excellent
535.0 F Excellent Excellent
710.0 F Excellent
711.0 F Excellent
713.0 F Excellent
850.0 T5 Excellent
851.0 T5 Excellent
852.0 T5 Excellent
* Machinability rating is based on a range of all cutting operations. ** Die castings are generally used in as-cast (F) condition.
// 201
CASTING ENHANCEMENT PROCESSES

Castings which have been rejected because of failure to meet inspection requirements are not
necessarily scrapped. If the defects are not too serious, reclaiming is possible in many cases
by straightening, welding, impregnating with sealants, or other treatment (i.e., hot isostatic
pressing followed by refinishing). Hot isostatic pressing has been discussed in Chapter 5–
Casting Processes. Castings that are defective because they are leakers under pressure tests
may be reclaimed using a sealing processes. Whether salvage is permissible or economical
depends greatly on factors such as the casting size and shape, relative cost of new casting vs.
defect repair, difficulty of salvage, availability of repair equipment and methods, quality require-
ments, and any agreements between the foundry and casting user relative to salvage castings.
Casting defects such as porosity, sand holes, saw cuts, grinding errors, etc. are often repaired
by welding. This depends on the ultimate function of the part and the nature and accessibility
of the defect. For structural castings or high-stress areas, it is advisable to get permission from
the customer prior to any reclamation work.
Impregnation
Impregnation of castings is done to improve the casting quality and pressure tightness by
sealing microporosity mainly due to interdendritic shrinkage and occluded gases. This process
has been used by the foundry industry for over 50 years. The aim of impregnation is to reduce
the high cost associated with scrapping machined castings. Three types of microporosity can
be found in castings as shown in Fig. 8-9.1 These can be sealed by impregnation using material
that is chemically resistant and can withstand the conditions such as temperature, pressure
and stress depending on the casting application.
Impregnation of castings is done either by application of pressure or vacuum. The drawback

with pressure impregnation is that incomplete filling of the voids can be expected. This is due
to expansion of the air trapped in the porosity after the release of pressure which pushes the
sealant out of the pores. This problem is overcome by applying a vacuum which removes the
air prior to introducing the sealant.
There are two types of vacuum impregnation processes: wet-vacuum and dry-vacuum. In the
wet-vacuum process, castings are immersed in the sealant in a pressure vessel where the ap-
plication of high vacuum removes the air. The vacuum is then released, and the vessel pressur-
ized forcing the sealant into the pores. During the dry-vacuum process, castings are subjected
to vacuum prior to being immersed in the sealant. After immersion, vacuum is released to the
atmosphere, or the vessel may be pressurized to allow sealant to enter the pores.
Figure 8-9. Three types of microporosity in castings are depicted above.1(p.336)
Welding
In-process weld rework during finishing of as-cast surfaces on many kinds of castings is wide-
ly misunderstood by casting materials engineers, manufacturing engineers, and inspectors.
Castings are susceptible to having small surface imperfections (i.e., inclusion pits, gas micro-
porosity, cold laps, mis-run edges, or dents) from handling damage that are cosmetically unap-
pealing, or cosmetically non-compliant. In-process weld rework of castings, also referred to as
“cosmetic weld repair,” is a routine casting finishing activity that is used to mend such casting
surface imperfections across almost all alloy families and mold cavity-making processes.
A casting that has been welded, blended, heat treated, and has passed all drawing specified
inspections will be dimensionally, physically, chemically, metallurgically, and structurally com-
pliant to drawing requirements. Therefore, specifications to limit or document in-process weld
rework of surface imperfections are rarely noted in commercial castings.
// 203
REFERENCES
Zalensas (1993).
2. H.J. Chamberland, “Band Sawing Nonferrous Castings,” Foundry, vol. 60 (September
1952).
pany, NY (2014).
ADDITIONAL READING
• R.W. Heine, C.R. Loper, Jr. and P.C. Rosenthal, “Principles of Metal Casting,” McGraw-Hill
• “Cleaning Castings” AFS Cast Metals Series, 401 Pages (1992).
• D. Weiss, M. Gwyn and K. Sturgill, “Welding of Aluminum Castings: An Overview and Rec-
ommendations,” AFS Transactions (2019).
• D. Weiss, M. Gwyn and K. Sturgill, “Recommendations for Welding Aluminum Castings,”
Modern Casting, p. 31-34 (January 2020).
• “Casting Inspection and Classification,” SAE AMS 2175, Revision A, (Revised 2010-06).
• “Aluminum Alloy Castings, High Strength,” SAE AMS-A-21180, Revision B, (Revised 2011-
08).
• “In-Process Welding of Castings,” SAE AMS-2694 Revision C, (Revised 2013-01).
• T. Bosworth, “Repair Welding of Aluminum Castings,” AFS Transactions, 83-36 (1986).
// 205
CHAPTER NINE:
Testing
For Quality
INTRODUCTION
Testing to check the quality of the castings is an important aspect of the structural casting
operation to decide the acceptance or rejection of the component. There are several testing
procedures which may be classed as follows:
1. Visual, surface inspection for casting defects;

2. Dimensional, requiring gauges for measurements;
3. Metallurgical, requiring chemical, physical, and mechanical tests to determine compo-
sition, and physical and static mechanical properties (i.e., UTS, YS, % elongation) and
dynamic properties (i.e., fatigue strength, impact toughness);
4. Microstructure verification
5. Nondestructive testing, consisting of:
a. X-ray radiography
b. Dye penetrant inspection
c. Ultrasonic testing
Complete inspection may consist of all or some of these inspection procedures depending on
customer requirements and casting specifications.
SPECIFICATIONS
Often AMS 2175 (Classification and Inspection of Castings) is specified for the inspection of
military and aerospace castings. In AMS 2175, severity of cast component service is classified
as Class 1 through 4, and surface and/or internal integrity is specified as Grade A through D.
Classes require different levels of sampling for non-destructive tests to verify compliance with
the specified integrity grade. Significantly, grades directly correlate to the cyclic life of a classi-
fied casting’s highly stressed surfaces. AMS 2175 covers almost all casting processes and the
full range of casting alloys, so it is also adopted as a commercial standard for safety critical
castings, SAE 2175 being identical.1
Sometimes AMS-A-21180 is specified where the cognizant design authority doesn’t have faith
that the non-destructive testing specified in AMS 2175 for aluminum structural castings will
assure safe performance in Class 1 or 2 severe service.2
Customers may request castings be inspected to internal specifications or may reference other
industry standards such as those by ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials).
Normally, the specifications required for inspection of the castings is defined by the casting
print or purchase order.
VISUAL INSPECTION
Visual examination of the casting is the simplest method of inspection to reveal certain types
of casting defects such as rough surfaces, cracked castings, tears, dirt, blowholes, scabs,
metal penetration, severe shifts, runouts, misruns, swell or strains, cracked mold or cores,
etc. Casting defects of this type are usually associated with defective molds, cores, alloy type,
flask equipment, molding and core making practices, and other faulty practices in making
and pouring the mold. Their correction is a necessity and can be facilitated if the cause of the
defect can be located. Inspectors may be able to identify the casting defects with or without a
magnifying glass and assign their cause to some foundry operation or material so that correc-
tive measures can be taken.3,4
Optical or Vision System Inspection
Although visual inspection by human eyes or using a magnifying glass still accounts for a large
percentage of casting inspection, to get more reliable information, modern vision systems
coupled with high resolution digital cameras with computer software can perform both simple
color matching type inspection to more detailed contour and dimensional compliance.3,4 The
system may be “taught” in the former case to recognize differences in surface color or tone
due to surface contaminants or irregularities (dents, holes, protrusions). Prominent diameters,
lengths and heights may be programed by controlling the cameras position or in combination
with three dimensional surface inspections (Fig. 9-1).
// 207
Figure 9-1. Brake rotor inspection using an automated vision system.

(Artwork courtesy of Waupaca Foundry, Inc.)
Dimensional Inspection
Dimensional inspection of castings is a customer requirement to minimize the high cost of

machining out-of-tolerance or inconsistent castings. It involves the principles of gauging as it
is applied to any machined elements. Surface plates, height and depth gauges, layout tables,
dividing heads, go and no-go gauges, snap and plug gauges, templates, dies, contour gauges,
etc., as used in standard layout and inspection procedures may be applied to castings (Figure
9-2). Agreement between the machine shop and foundry, or purchaser and vendor, is necessary
so that gauging and dimensional checking may be carried out in a mutually acceptable way.
Locating points used as starting points for machining and dimensional inspection should be
selected by common consent. It may be necessary to section castings to check metal-wall
thickness. It needs to be pointed out that the closest cooperation between the foundry, pattern
shop, and machine shop utilizing the casting will result in the most efficient use of good gaug-
ing and machining practice.
Figure 9-2. Dimensional inspection using a standard layout table.

(Artwork courtesy of Waupaca Foundry, Inc.)
Three Dimensional Surface Inspection
3D inspection data can be created outright or overlaid to its original digital nominal CAD format
to track deviations in the casting process. Software can calculate precise deviations and illus-
trate them in a color coded format to visually show inconsistencies in the casting relative to
its designed intent (Figure 9-3). Positive or negative surface areas can be used to recalculate
where the pattern tooling requires correction or track the life of tooling by repeatedly scan-
ning it over time to calculate wear patterns. The commonly employed techniques used for 3D
inspection are laser and white light scanning.4
// 209
Figure 9-3. A typical surface inspection report. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
Laser Scanning
Laser scanning is a non-contact, relatively fast method of surface contour measurement. The
most common method of data collection uses triangulation. A laser line is reflected off the
casting surface and a receiving camera determines its depth in the field of view. The angle be-
tween the laser emitter and the camera is a known as the fixed angle. This allows the software
to calculate the 3D profile of the object based on where the laser line is in the field of view. To
track its relative position in space requires specific hardware to mount the laser scanner to, as
illustrated in Fig. 9-4. The most common method employed is a user driven portable CMM (Co-
ordinate Measuring Machine) equipped with articulated arms. These articulated arms contain
a series of joints that contain encoders to track the end of the arm position relative to its base.
The encoders are sensor equipped bearings that relay precise coordinates back to a home or
zero position. The intelligent joints, in conjunction with the laser scanning head, allow software
to merge multiple scans into the same coordinate position with a very high accuracy. The laser
scanning process is best described analogously as ‘spray painting’. The laser emitter is passed
over the casting surface using a series of overlapping logical segments, or strokes. This free
form movement allows the scanner to see the part from a broad range of different angles. User
driven CMM arms offer an advantage when scanning complicated parts and there is a signifi-
cant time savings because no programming is required to determine the part shape. Portable
base fixtures allow the inspection of large or difficult to transport castings.4
Figure 9-4. Dimensional analysis of an engine bedplate

using a laser scanner (Artwork courtesy of Waupaca Foundry, Inc.)
The laser scanning heads can also be mounted to traditional CMM machines. This system
uses a more permanent structure. Standard CMM systems comprise of a thick granite base
and a bridge system that contains mechanical drives that allow the laser head to move in 3
directions, commonly known as XYZ positions. Some systems have adapted the mechanics to
incorporate additional axis of rotation to make the scanning process easier. Because this sys-
tem is mechanically driven, programming is required by the operator to tell the scanner which
location to move to. Bridge CMM systems are more accurate because there is less mechanical
movement, reducing the amount of error in the positional changes. Because they are typically
a permanent structure, part size and capabilities can be limited. If a part is too large for the
table, the machine may not be able to measure it. Also, parts have to be brought to the CMM; it
cannot be carried out to the field for onsite measurements.4
White Light Technology
White Light scanning, also known as structured light, is currently one of the cleanest forms of
3D scanning, typically used as a benchmark for quality 3D data. Its technology is comprised of
some very simple hardware coupled with a series of complex mathematical algorithms. Multi-
ple cameras are symmetrically and sometimes asymmetrically mounted around a central light
source, or projector as shown in Fig 9-5.
Behind the light source is a slide mechanism. The mechanism contains a series of varied
thickness vertical stripes, known as fringes. When the scan is initialized, the projector displays
a sheet of light onto the object being scanned. The different fringe patterns are cycled onto the
part and the cameras record the distortion in the fringe pattern as shown in Fig. 9-5. Software
converts the deviations into 3D coordinates. These projections can contain up to 12 million
// 211
data points per scan volume (the size of the rectangle of projected light). By varying the optics,
similar to a conventional camera, the resolution of the scans can be changed. This allows you
to scan areas the size of a postage stamp, up to the size of a small automobile. The scanning
process is repeated to capture all different angles of the object.
Figure 9-5. Non-contact structured light fringe pattern projected onto the subject
casting surface (Artwork courtesy of Capture 3D, Inc.)
In order to align the scans together to form the final part shape, two different methods are
used. The most common uses small circular black and white targets, or index markers. These
are randomly placed onto the surface of the part. The software uses the contrast between the
black and white to determine the target center. This allows the software to generate a refer-
ence frame. Each successive scan must contain three targets from the previous scan in order
to calculate the relative position on the part. The software places successive scans in the
correct coordinate position with an extreme amount of accuracy. The other method employs
a user driven, contour based alignment. Instead of index marks, the operator visually picks 3
common geometry areas on two scans. Once identified, the software uses an algorithm to fit
the two data sets together based on the contour of the geometry. This process is repeated until
the entire surface is scanned and the data sets are stitched together to make the final 3D part
shape.
There are limitations to White Light scanners. As most systems use two cameras or a stereo
configuration, they may not both be able to see areas of the casting at the same time. For
example, both cameras may not see the bottom of a deep hole or pocket at the same time,
resulting in no data being captured in this area. Another limitation sometimes is surface finish
and color. Some highly reflective surfaces, like diecast nonferrous metals are hard to scan
due to reflectivity of the projector. This can be combatted by coating or painting the object a
white or light gray color (if the casting tolerances allow the additional thickness of the coating/
paint). Dark colors also can be an issue as the scanners use the contrast of colors in their
calculations. If the surface is too dark, it may not be seen by the cameras. Projecting different
light spectrums onto the part, such as blue or green light systems and incorporating multiple
scan heads as shown in Fig. 9-6, capturing different finishes, complex geometries that present
greater color variation or contrast are possible.
Figure 9-6. Structured blue light 3D scanner shown with 3d deviation color-map
inspection report (Artwork courtesy of Capture 3D, Inc.)
Metallurgical Inspection
Metallurgical inspection of structural castings includes chemical analysis, determination of

mechanical-properties, evaluation of casting soundness, and product testing of special prop-
erties such as electrical conductivity, resistivity, corrosion resistance, response to heat-treat-
ment, strength in assemblies, surface conditions, coatings and surface treatments, etc.
Chemical Analysis
Chemical analysis test methods are described in ASTM E34, “Test Methods for Chemical Anal-
ysis of Aluminum and Aluminum-Base Alloys;” E607 “Test Method for Atomic Emission Spec-
trometric Analysis Aluminum Alloys by the Point to Plane Technique Nitrogen Atmosphere;”
and E1251 “Test Method for Analysis of Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys by Atomic Emission
Spectrophotometry.” These standards set forth the standard and tentative standard procedures
// 213
adopted for aluminum alloys by ASTM International. ASTM International, is an international

standards organization that develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards
for a wide range of materials, products, systems and services.
Mechanical Property Testing
Castings and test bars must be tested to see that mechanical property specifications are met.
Tensile (ultimate tensile strength, yield strength and percent elongation), hardness, impact,
fatigue, and other properties are tested in accordance with standard procedures adopted by
ASTM (B26 for sand casting , B108 for permanent mold casting, B85 for die castings, B618 for
investment casting and B969 for squeeze, thixo and semi-solid casting) and other specifying
groups. Some special test bars, such as sub-size tensile specimens) peculiar to certain casting
alloys can be considered. Thus, mechanical tests may be used to qualify castings for their
service requirements, as well as for determining the normal strength properties.
Metallographic Examination
For many structural castings, characterization of microstructure is a requirement to know the

grain size, nonmetallic impurities, morphology of the phases present in as-cast and heat-treat-
ed conditions, and defects such as gas and/or shrinkage porosity, hot tears, etc. It is also
important to know the nature of crack propagation after tensile, impact or fatigue testing. Tools
used for metallographic examination are optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) with energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) to get the composition of some phases
and an electron probe microanalyzer (EPMA) to run phase analysis and study segregation pat-
terns. A microstructure from an Al-Ce-Mn alloy is shown in Figure 9-7.
Figure 9-7. Microstructure of an aluminum-cerium-manganese casting alloy.

Casting Soundness
Presence of shrinkage cavities, blowholes, gas holes, porosity, hot tears, cracks, entrained slag,
lapped or cold-shut surfaces, etc., contribute to lack of casting soundness. The importance
of these defects depends on the casting application. Many castings with internal shrinkage,
porosity, or other defects that do not interfere with the functioning of the casting are quite
acceptable to the user. Castings for aircraft, ordnance, and other highly precision-engineered
applications where the requirements are high and factor of safety (FoS) is low, the highest de-
gree of metallurgical quality is required for absolute soundness and optimum properties. FoS
is the ratio between the specified strength of the material and the maximum stress in the part.
These objectives will be met only when the casting inspection includes methods which check
the casting for soundness defects. Different methods to detect casting defects are described
as follows. These include: leak testing, radiographic examination, ultrasonic testing, super
ultrasonic testing, fluorescent or dye penetrant inspection, resonance acoustic method, etc.
Pressure Testing
Pressure testing is used to locate leaks in a casting or to check the overall strength of a casting
in resistance to bursting under hydraulic pressure. Equipment for sealing off castings and find-
ing leaks is available commercially. Proof loading by hydraulic pressure involves introducing a
fluid, oil, or water, into a casting as shown in Fig. 9-8. The casting is then subjected to pressure
in excess of the maximum stress that the casting will encounter in service. Leaks are indicated
by the seeping of the fluid, oil or water. Cast pipe or tubes are often proof tested in this way. If
air or gas pressure is used, the casting to be pressurized is immersed in a tank of water. Leak
is indicated by bubbles.3-5
Figure 9-8. Leak testing an aircraft cylinder head. (Artwork courtesy of Eck Industries, Inc.)
// 215
Sectioning
In some cases, it is desirable to section a casting to examine the interior soundness and verify
the section thickness. Macroetching may be used to locate suspected shrinkage, porosity, or
cracks.
Radiographic Examination
The three commonly used radiographic methods are film radiography (FR), computed (or
digital) radiography (CR), and real time radiography (RTR). The basic principles of radiography
remain the same, regardless of the method used. All describe techniques where collimated
X-ray or gamma ray beams are passed through a subject casting and are impinged onto film or
an imaging substrate or device. As illustrated in Fig. 9-9, the beam passes through the casting,
and the energy is attenuated in proportion to the material thickness and the presence of any
voids, inclusions or discontinuities within the casting. As a result, a shadowgraph of the object
is created with a depiction of the internal structure defined by changes in density. The pres-
ence of any void (shrinkage porosity or gas hole) would appear as darkened areas. Conversely,
high-density inclusions would appear as lightened areas. References 6-11 may be of interest to
the reader.
Figure 9-9. Standard arrangement of a typical X-ray examination system.4
Film Radiography (FR) is a commonly used radiographic NDT method. Procedures governing
the method and interpretation for film radiography are offered by ATSM standards.6 FR offers
the best sensitivity and contrast when interpreting castings with very small discontinuities as
the film substrate is highly refined. Developing costs and cumbersome handling and storage
of the film are the major drawbacks of the technique. As interpretation of the X-ray results
is largely a manual task, the skill of the reader becomes a factor in the selection of a testing
laboratory.
Computed radiography (CR), also known as digital radiography is becoming the industry choice
for casting radiography. CR is a film-less radiographic method which uses a photosensitive
phosphor imaging plate housed in a special cassette placed under the object to be examined.
The resulting image is processed through a special laser scanner or CR reader that digitizes
the image. The digital image can then be viewed and enhanced using a special imaging soft-
ware with functions that can adjust contrast, brightness, magnification and filters.10,11 CR can
be used with higher energies on thicker material, but sensitivity and contrast will be sacrificed.
The rising cost of film, ease at which digital files can be transmitted to the customer and the
ease of record storage are largely responsible for the growing popularity of the technique. As
the possibility that the digital images can be manipulated, some industries may not accept the
technique for some applications.
Automatic or assisted defect recognition (ADR) in digital imaging technology has been used
for automotive castings for over 20 years.12,13 It is becoming increasingly important in produc-
tion processes due to advances in X-ray tubes, detectors and better software with improved
algorithms. In many cases automation means there are no operators to interpret the images.
The systems usually make a “accept” or “reject” decision based on parameters supplied by
the quality engineer. Casting defects previously difficult to see are now easier to identify, and
with appropriate software tools, systems can help inspectors find, characterize and dispose
anomalies while accepting or rejecting the castings. Current ADR systems can typically detect
casting flaw sizes down to 0.1 sq. mm with minimal depth of approximately 3% of the material
thickness at an average of 2-5% false reject rate. However, the detectable flaw size depends on
the focal spot size, detector resolution and magnification – not the software.12
Figure 9-10. A Direct Radiography detector plate used in place of film or

image cassette.4 (Artwork courtesy of InspecTech Corp.)
Real Time Radiography (RTR), also known as fluoroscopy or direct radiography is used primar-
ily in high volume situations or in field examinations. The image is produced electronically on
a fluorescent screen or flat panel detector (Fig. 9-10) as opposed to on film or cassette, so
the image appears shortly after the subject has been radiated. Unlike FR and CR, the image
formed is a “positive” with lighter areas indicating greater level of transmitted energy. In other
words, brighter areas would represent voids, lower density or thinner sections. This is oppo-
site of the negative image produced in film radiography. Sensitivity and contrast are reduced
with increased system speed. Higher energy input also lowers contrast and sensitivity. Due to
these limitations, the technique is best used for large discontinuities (voids) or castings with
// 217
few changes in section thickness. RTR is gaining greater acceptance due to lower cost of the
equipment and ease of protecting and storing digital images. When coupled to an axial rotation
system, a 3D X-ray image may be created.12,13
Ultrasonic Velocity Inspection
The speed of sound (high frequency acoustic energy) is transmitted through a casting in the
Ultrasonic Velocity inspection method to determine wall thickness, detect internal flaws or to
characterize the material against a standard of known quality. A short duration sound pulse is
transmitted through the test piece and the time of flight of the sound’s pulse from the trans-
mitter to a reflective surface and back are measured and the velocity calculated. Deviations
from the known velocity of a reference material can be used to determine the compliance to
a quality standard or indicate the potential for internal defects, as described in ASTM E-494.14
Griffin, et al., demonstrated the use of ultrasonic testing to determine relationships between
ultrasonic signal attenuation and fatigue and tensile strengths in A206-T4 aluminum, although
the technique is broadly applicable to most aluminum alloys.15
Fluorescent or Dye Penetrant Inspection
Figure 9-11. Lap defect revealed using fluorescent dye penetrant.4

A low-cost inspection method used to detect surface rupture type defects (hairline cracks) in
all types of castings is dye penetrant inspection.16-18 The method uses a low surface tension oil
or fluid to which a fluorescent or non-fluorescent dye has been added to penetrate into a clean
and dry surface by capillary action (Figs. 9-11 and 9-12). The excess fluid or oil is removed
from the surface after some time and a developer (often chalk based) is applied (Fig. 9-13).
The developer draws out additional penetrant from the flaw as shown in Fig. 9-14. This is
followed by inspection under white or ultraviolet light depending upon the type of dye used in
the penetrant.4
Figure 9-12. Dye penetrant is applied to the part surface.4

(Artwork courtesy of InspecTech Corp.)
Figure 9-13. Crack developer has been applied to subject part.4

(Artwork courtesy of InspecTech Corp.)
// 219
Figure 9-14. Crack indication revealed after penetrant seeps out of the casting.4
(Artwork courtesy of InspecTech Corp.).
REFERENCES
1. Aerospace Material Specification, AMS2175, SAE Aerospace (Revised in 2010-06).
2. Aerospace Material Specification, AMS-A-21180, SAE Aerospace (Revised in 2011-08).
3. “Aluminum Casting Technology,” 2nd Edition, American Foundry Society, Edited by D. L.
Zalensas (1993).
4. M. Sahoo and S. Sahu, “Principles of Metal Casting,” 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Com-
pany, NY (2014).
5. K.M. Smith, Dimensional Checking and Pressure Testing of Gray Iron Castings, Transac-
tions of the American Foundrymen’s Society, vol. 59, p. 304 (1951).
6. ASTM E1742-12, “Standard Practice for Radiographic Examination.”
7. “Nondestructive Evaluation and Nondestructive Testing Education,” “Introduction to Radio-
graphic Testing,” Iowa State University, Center for Nondestructive Evaluation, (2013). www.
ndt-ed.org. (Link last accessed 12-16-21).
8. W. Harara, “Digital Radiography of Aluminum Castings by Fluoroscopy,” Russian Journal of
Nondestructive Testing, vol.48, no.6, p. 384 (2012).
9. F. Brant, www.ndt.net, “The Use of X-ray Inspection Techniques to Improve Quality and
Reduce Costs,” vol. 5, no. 05 (May 2000).
10. GE Inspection Technologies, “Radiography (X-ray)-Non-Destructive Testing” (2013).
11. GE Inspection Technologies, “Radiography (X-ray)-Non-Destructive Testing” (2013).
12. H. Boerner, H. Strecker, Automated X-ray Inspection of Aluminum Casting, IEEE Trans.
Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 10, issue 1, p 79 (1988).
13. “Trends in X-ray Casting Defect Recognition,” Modern Casting, AFS, pp. 57-61 (May 2016).
14. ASTM E494–10, “Standard Practice for Measuring Ultrasonic Velocity in Materials.”
15. J. A. Griffin, J. Church and D. Weiss, “Fatigue, Tensile, and NDE Relationships in Cast
A206-T4 Aluminum,” Paper No. 03-117, AFS Transactions (2003).
16. ASTM E165–12, “Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrant Examination for General Industry.”
17. 1R.W. Bono, “Resonant Acoustic Nondestructive Testing,” Advanced Materials and Process-
es, vol. 164, no. 9, p. 35 (September 2006).
18. ASTM E165–12,” Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrant Examination for General Industry.”
ADDITIONAL READING
• B. V. Kovacs and G. S. Cole, “On the interaction of Acoustic Waves with SG Iron Castings,
AFS Transactions, 83, p.497 (1975).
• “Improving the Effectiveness of Visual Inspection,” Ted J. Schorn, AFS (2018).
// 221
CHAPTER TEN:
Conclusions:
Developing Trends
and the Path Forward
The use of structural casting in the manufacturing sector continues to grow. In order to main-
tain that growth, the metalcasting industry needs to continue to improve aluminum cast prod-
ucts. Industry, universities and research organizations must look ahead to develop new alloys
and improve their quality in terms of microstructures, mechanical properties and soundness,
especially for high-temperature applications. Important application areas are in the automo-
tive and aerospace sectors where alloys with desirable mechanical properties at temperatures
around 300C (572F) are needed. Recent research has focused on Al-Sc, Al-Zr, and Al-V which
form stable L12 precipitates that have good property retention under 300 C (572F). Some alloys
containing high amounts of cerium, further described in Chapter 7, can have stability to above
350 C (662F), often without heat treatment. Complicated alloy systems such as AlCuCeNiZnMg
are difficult computationally but have shown experimental promise.
In addition, efforts should be made to explore the potential for improved high-temperature me-
chanical properties through the development of affordable and easily produced metal matrix
composites in all aluminum alloy systems. Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
in 2007 has shown that sub-micron size reinforcements can improve the yield strength of
aluminum and magnesium by 50%.1 The engineering of systems to do that reliably and cost
effectively at scale has not yet been developed.
In order to produce better castings, we need to improve their density. We work very hard to
produce metals that are better than 99% dense. But consider a material that is 99.9999% dense
(a density that cannot be physically measured by conventional techniques). Such a material
has ~5 x 1016 pores/cm3 if the pores are 100 nm in diameter.2 In aluminum, using the best
cleaning and de-gassing techniques available, inclusion sizes of 0.04 mm (40,000 nanometers)
222 \\ Conclusions: Developing Trends and the Path Forward
and overall metal densities of 99% are barely achievable in the foundry environment.3 Those
numbers are even less encouraging after the metal is poured through the indignity of the typi-
cal gating system into a typical casting design. Good aluminum castings can show a variance
between actual and theoretical densities of 1.5-2.0%. Enhanced filtering and metal cleaning
techniques need to be developed to eliminate defects caused by oxides and foreign materials.
FOUNDRY 4.0
The foundry industry is in the early stages of harnessing computational tools to better under-
stand and improve the manufacturing process for castings. This effort, dubbed Foundry 4.0,
brings together data collection, big data analysis, artificial intelligence, robotics and sensor
technologies to improve the consistency of the metalcasting process. Every scrap casting
produced, every variation in mechanical properties and every dimensional variation has an
assignable cause if it can be found within the noise. Environmental conditions within a foundry
(temperature, humidity, airflow) will have an impact on mold making, metal preparation practice
and variations in end-casting quality. We all ‘know’ that producing sand castings where the
mold and air temperatures are 25C (77F), and the relative humidity is 40% is different than if
the mold and air temperatures are 35C (95F) and the relative humidity is 70%. We can choose
to ignore the variations, which results in variations in casting quality or we set procedures for
the worst-case scenarios which adds cost to the product. With enough data, analyses and
equipment our processes can auto-correct–for example, by increasing metal de-gassing times
when the humidity is high and increasing metal temperatures when the molds are cooler. Sim-
ple sensors and controllers have become so inexpensive, and the software so easy to use, that
it is possible and cost effective to embed them in-mold to record data and to use it for down-
stream control functions.
Advances in data collection, improved regression methods and neural networks are being used
to gain a deeper understanding of the casting manufacturing process. As an example, Kopper,
et al.,4 used machine learning and neural network regression models utilizing high pressure die
casting process data as inputs to improve the predictability of tensile strength in castings. The
same techniques could be used to predict radiographic quality or pressure tightness.
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
Many foundries are taking advantage of additive manufacturing in some form. The printing of
sand molds has become common for many prototypes. The building of a pattern when less
than twenty castings are required is generally more expensive than printing, or having molds
printed. The technique is also used for production of complicated core sets. It is relatively com-
mon to replace a five to ten-piece core assembly with a single piece printed core. The cost is
lower, and the accuracy is improved without the need for expensive core assembly fixtures.
Castings that cannot be molded conventionally can also be produced using additive manu-
facturing. Draft is not required; unconventional gating systems can be used, and designs can
be optimized for weight and performance. For example, the 2018 American Foundry Society,
Casting of the Year, a motorcycle swing arm, was produced using printed precision sand molds
(Fig. 10-1).
// 223
Simulation was used to map out the entire manufacturing process, including machining. The
prototype mapped out the entire machining process in a virtual simulation that simulated the
cutting tools, fixtures, and the motion of the pallets. The organic casting shape hints at the
future of metalcasting and the growing opportunities for the industry.
Figure 10-1. This cast motorcycle swing arm was

produced from 3D printed precision sand molds.
Additive manufacturing is also used to make patterns, particularly for investment casting. It is
less commonly used to make patterns used in traditional sand casting, but as the technology
improves, it continues to gain share. 5
THE PATH FOR CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT

The development in new metals is slow due to quality control and processing issues, accord-
ing to Ivan Amato’s book, Stuff, The Materials The World Is Made Of.”6 While hundreds of new
potential casting alloys are developed every year, few of them see successful commercializa-
tion. Research typically focuses on small batches of material and there is little development
money or effort to learn how to scale these promising materials to the thousands of kilograms
required for commercial deployment with the consistency required for structural castings. The
desire to spend the time and money to do that development is further hindered by the barriers
to use at customers, who require extensive, and expensive testing on their end to qualify a new
material for production.
224 \\ Conclusions: Developing Trends and the Path Forward
The continued development of structural castings would benefit from the following:
• Reasonable Financial Support from the Government
While the funding for metalcasting alloys and improved processes has been increasing it
is still significantly less than the $300 million dollars a year spent on battery development.
The low level of funding suggests a lack of understanding that the most effective way
to improve vehicle efficiency, for example, is to reduce the overall weight of the vehicle
whether the vehicle is powered by an internal combustion engine or by batteries. In a ma-
jor review article in Nature7 on improving the sustainability of structural metals it is noted
that in the downstream manufacturing following primary production, the overall yield
losses occurring through liquid metal processing, forming and fabrication of aluminum is
40% by mass. The authors conclude that systematic improvements “will break with almost
all traditions of our current industrial practice since the beginning of the first industrial
revolution around 1800.” This is clearly an opportunity for targeted government funding.
• Revised Thinking from Metalcasters, Their Suppliers, Researchers and Customers
In the course of daily business, ask the following questions:
Metalcasters: Why do our customers use other aluminum product forms other than cast-
ings? Is it price or performance? Is my scrap rate zero? Why not? What can I do about it?
Suppliers: How can we help make aluminum cleaner? How can we reduce interactions
between the molding media and molten aluminum? How can we improve the design of
pouring ladles? Are their more efficient ways to remove castings from molds? Are their
better ways to remove contaminants from castings?
Researchers: Can the processes and materials be scaled? Do you have a production part-
ner to consult? What is the plan for development after research? Is there enough informa-
tion that I (or someone else) could start a company and be profitable?
Customers: Am I buying value or price? How do I define value? How can I reduce the im-
pediments to use new alloys and processes? How can castings improve the value proposi-
tion to my end customers?
• Whole System Simulations
The development of casting simulations has shown tremendous progress over the last
twenty years. The capabilities of the simulations have been improved to take into ac-
count the latest casting science and are, for the most part, accurate for the prediction of
misruns and solidification shrinkage in most aluminum alloy systems. The simulations
also assume the inputs into the software are accurate and not variable. Normal process
differences in modification, grain refinement, alloy chemistry and heat treatment are not
taken into account or are difficult to implement within the software. In many alloys, the
fundamental physical inputs are not available. Creation and implementation of this data to
the level where mechanical properties can be accurately simulated should be a priority for
the industry.
// 225
• Education and Training
Formal apprenticeships for skilled trades in the foundry are not what they used to be.
Many companies no longer offer formal apprenticeship programs. The advent of automat-
ic molding machines and flexible automation make it seem less necessary. However, the
deep knowledge conveyed through apprenticeships is often lacking. An argument can be
made for a revised system that retains some of the best aspects of these programs but
modernizes the approach to take into account up-to-date production methods and busi-
ness practices.
The Foundry Education Foundation and its affiliated schools forms the backbone of formal
foundry training in the United States and needs continued support. They are changing
as well, recognizing that today’s foundries require a variety of engineering skills, notably
including robotic engineering and data scientists.
FINAL THOUGHTS
The great industrial metallurgist and essayist, Cyril Stanley Smith7 said, “Much of the history
of materials has been rather dull, for man has usually been satisfied to make do with what he
had, but there are three periods in which sharp change occurred. These correspond to the first
discoveries of the principal alloys and ceramic materials, the beginning of scientific explana-
tion, and the very recent realization that, by control of their structure, materials that possess
almost any property in high degree can be designed and produced for special applications.”8 An
increased need for structural castings, driven by changes in transportation and other sectors
will make it difficult to ‘make do’ with existing alloys and technologies. The design of new ma-
terials and the latest production techniques along with fundamental foundry knowledge will be
required to continue to push the envelope of capabilities in aluminum structural castings.
REFERENCES
1. Li, X., Yang, Y., Weiss, D., “Ultrasonic Cavitation Based Dispersion of Nanoparticles in
Aluminum Melts for Solidification Processing of Bulk Aluminum Matrix Nanocomposite:
Theoretical Study, Fabrication and Characterization,” AFS Transactions, Vol. 115, Paper 07-
133 (2007).
2. Messing, G., Stevenson A., “Toward Pore Free Ceramics,” Science (17 October 2008).
3. Gallo, R., “Cleaner Aluminum Melts: A Critical Review and Update,” AFS Transactions, Vol.
116, pp. 195-220 (2008).
4. Kopper, A., Karkare, R., Paffenroth, R., Apelian, D., “Model Selection and Evaluation for Ma-
chine Learning: Deep Learning in Materials Processing,” Integrating Materials and Manu-
facturing Innovation, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2020). DOI 10.1007/s40192-020-00185-1.
5. Shah, J., “The 3D Printed Precision Sand Casting Process,” lead author, sponsored by the
AFS Additive Manufacturing Division, 3D Printed Sand Committee, American Foundry Soci-
ety (2020).
6. Amato, Ivan, “Stuff, The Materials The World Is Made Of,” Avon (1997).
7. Smith, Cyril Stanley,” A Search for Structure, Selected Essays on Science, Art and History,”
The MIT Press, p. 112 (May 1981).
8. Raabe, D., Tasen C., Olivetti, E., “Strategies for Improving the Sustainability of Structural
Metals,” Nature, Vol. 575, (7 November 2018).
// 227
Index
132, 133, 140, 141,
0 145, 152, 155, 156,
354 Alloys 160 157, 158, 160, 166,
167, 168, 174, 198,
A
199, 203, 212, 213,
217, 221, 224,
Ablation Casting 1, 5, 109, 128, 129, Aluminum Castings 1, 2, 4, 10, 12,13,
133 15, 17, 18, 27, 42,
Additive Manufacturing 25, 222, 223, 225 79, 83, 86, 94, 107,
Aerospace Casting 109, 110, 111, 112,
Applications 10 114, 127, 143, 152,
200, 203, 220, 222,
Age Hardenable Alloys 165
Aluminum-Cerium Alloys 51
Al-Ce 1, 51, 52, 156, 162,
163, 164, 165, 167, Aluminum-Copper Alloys 41, 45, 157
175, 176, 186, 190, Aluminum-Copper-Silicon
191, 213, Alloys 45
Al-Cu-X MMC Alloy 160 Aluminum-Magnesium
Alloy Groups 34 Alloys 46
Alloy Selection 17, 21, 27, 29, Aluminum-Silicon Alloys 34, 43, 82, 104
Alloy Systems 31, 41, 47, 96, 156, Aluminum-Silicon-Magnesium
165, 221, 224 Alloys 47
Alloying Elements 29, 30, 32, 33, 39, Aluminum-Zinc-Magnesium
41, 42, 66, 80, 106, Alloys 49
140, 141, 157, 158, AMS Specifications 2
163 Analysis of Alloys 164
Alternative Methods to Permanent Annealing 97, 100
Mold Casting 118
Appearance Blasting 198, 199
Aluminum Alloy(s) 2, 4, 15, 16, 17, 20,
B
26, 27, 29, 31,
32,
33, 34, 35, 38, 40, Basic Gating System 136
42, 43, 44, 52, 53,
54, 56, 57, 58, 62,
74, 80, 81, 82, 85,
86, 88, 91, 94, 98,
100, 102, 104, 105,
106, 107, 109, 111,
115, 119, 120, 122,
123, 126, 127, 129,
228 \\ Index
144
C Design 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
Castability Geometry 16, 17, 18, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
21, 27
26, 27, 34, 38, 41,
Casting Applications 1, 4, 10, 115, 81, 87, 88, 94, 105,
Casting Class 2, 3 106, 109, 110, 111,
114, 116, 118, 133,
Casting Enhancement
135, 137, 139, 140,
Processes 201
148, 152, 153, 155,
Casting Grade 2, 3 156, 157, 159, 165,
Casting Soundness 19, 31, 135, 212, 166, 167, 206, 208,
214 222, 224, 225,
Chemical Analysis 212 Design Considerations 24, 26
Chemically Bonded Developing Trends 221, 222
Sand Molding 109, 111, 112 Dimensional Inspection 207, 208
Chills 17, 19, 20, 22, 52, Downstream Processing 16, 22
55, 75, 81, 87, 136,
Dye Penetrant Inspection 87, 205, 214, 217
140, 141, 142, 144,
152
Composites 29, 121, 133, 155, E
161, 221 Elevated Temperature
Conclusions 88, 164, 221 Service 33
Continued Development 223, 224
Controlling Metal Velocity 136 F
Controlling Thermal Feeding 15, 18, 30, 31, 52,
Gradients 142 58, 75, 81, 87, 135,
136, 139, 140, 142,
Core 1, 24, 25, 109, 111,
160, 165, 193,
112, 114, 116, 118,
119, 126, 132, 146, Filters 17, 86, 136, 144,
193, 206, 222 145, 153, 216
Cosworth Process 109, 118 Final Thoughts 225
Crack Initiation Finish Stock 24
and Growth 25 Finishing 16, 24, 58, 130,
131, 196, 198, 199,
D 201, 202
Fins 111, 126, 141, 152,
DAS 39, 54, 55, 56, 57,
158, 194, 195, 197
64, 104, 107,
129, Fluorescent or Dye
133, 144, 152 Penetrant Inspection 214, 217
Datums 24 Foundry 4.0 222
Dendrite Arm
Spacing (DAS) 39, 54, 55, 57, 64,
91, 104, 121, 129,
// 229
Hot Tearing 42, 49, 54, 59, 87,

G

88, 91, 93, 104,
106, 114, 129, 162,
Gates 22, 24, 79, 111, 165
120, 138, 146, 194,
HPDC 15, 77, 114, 119,
195
120, 122
Gating 1, 16, 19, 20, 21,
I
22, 23, 24, 48, 75,
81, 86, 87, 111,
114, 115, 116, Impregnation 193, 201
119, 120, 126, 130, Impurities 32, 34, 67, 213
132, 135, 136, 137,
138, 139, 143, 144, Inclusions 32, 33, 54, 85, 86,
145, 146, 147, 148, 87, 106, 145, 215,
149, 150, 152, 165, Ingates 23, 118, 137, 138,
195, 196, 222 148
Gating Design 165 Inspection 2, 87, 130, 193,
Gating in Non-Sand 201, 202, 203, 205,
Systems 146 206, 207, 208, 209,
212, 214, 217, 220,
Gating Removal 22, 23
Investment Casting 4, 5, 6, 109, 111,
Gating System Analysis 148 130, 131, 132, 133
Green Sand Molding 109, 111 213, 223
Grinders 196, 198
Grinding and Bench J
Operations 196 Junctions 16, 18, 19, 27
H L
Heat Treatment 4, 16, 25, 29, 30, Laser Scanning 209, 210
39, 42, 44, 45, 46,
Long-Term Stability of Age
49, 94, 95, 96, 98,
Hardenable Alloys 165
99, 107, 110, 111,
119, 157, 159, 160, Lost Foam Casting 109, 126, 127, 128,
162, 163, 164, 166, 133
167, 198, 212, 221, Low-Pressure Permanent
224 Mold Casting 6, 116
High-Pressure Die Casting 15, 58, 114, 119,
120, 122
High-Temperature
Applications 1, 155, 157, 160,
164, 221
HIP 100, 101, 102, 103,
158, 164, 176, 189,
Hot Isostatic Pressing 100, 107, 176, 193,
201
M P
Machining 8, 16, 21, 22, 24, Path for Continued
25, 32, 76, 94, 111, Development 223
119, 132, 182, 199, Permanent Mold Casting 4, 6, 22, 24, 27, 43,
207, 223 58, 67, 87, 88, 91,
Machining Characteristics 199 98, 100, 104, 105,
Machining—Finish Stock 106, 109, 110, 111,
and Datums 24 114, 115, 116, 118,
132, 142, 145, 146,
Manufacturing Technology 152, 158, 161, 163,
for Prototyping 161 194, 200, 213
Mechanical Property Phase Diagrams 29, 39, 41, 90, 99,
Testing 139, 213 104, 159
Metal Velocity 136, 137, 145 Polymer Quenching 96
Metallographic Porosity 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
Examination 91, 213 32, 52, 54, 58, 64,
Metallurgical Inspection 212 67, 72, 75, 79, 81,
Microstructure Control 54, 58, 93 82, 83, 100, 101,
103, 107, 114, 118,
Minor Alloying Elements 29, 32
119, 120, 121, 123,
Mold 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 127, 128, 139, 140,
15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 143, 144, 157, 159,
24, 25, 27, 30, 37, 160, 161, 184, 201,
43, 45, 52, 57, 58, 202, 213, 214, 215
67, 73, 75, 77, 78,
Post-Casting Operations 193
79, 87, 88, 89, 90,
91, 98, 99, 100, Pouring Cup 130, 137, 147
101, 103, 104, 105, Precipitation Hardened
106, 107, 109, 110, Alloys 156
111, 112, 113, 114, Pressure Testing 214, 220
115, 116, 117, 118,
120, 122, 126, 128, Prevent Machining Issues 24
129, 130, 132, 135, Process Interface
136, 139, 141,142, Geometry 16, 21
145, 146, 147, 148, Prototyping 161, 162, 164
151, 152, 158, 161,
162, 163, 173, 193,
194, 199, 202, 206, R
213, 222, 223, 224, Radiographic Examination 214, 215, 220
O Removal of Fins, Gates
Optical or Vision and Risers 164
System Inspection 206 Removal of Mold and
Core Material 193
Riser Design 140
Risering 1, 16, 20, 21, 81,
115, 135
Risers 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, Structural Geometry 16, 17, 20, 27
79, 111, 140, 152, Surface Inspection 205, 206, 208, 209
194, 196
Risers and Feeding 140
T
Robotic Grinders 198
Thermal Treatment 58, 94, 156, 157,
Rotary Tools 198 162, 163, 164, 167,
Runners 137, 139. 148 199
Runners and Ingates 137 Three Dimensional
Surface Inspection 208
S Types of Gating Systems 138
Sand Casting 7, 9, 15, 22, 23, 43,
44, 45, 73, 77, 95, U
107, 109, 110, 111, Ultrasonic Velocity
118, 126, 127, 136, Inspection 217
139, 140, 146, 152,
V
193, 200, 213, 222,
223, 225
Sectioning 215 Venting 16, 21, 114, 118,
146
Semi-Solid Metal
Processing 123 Vision System 206, 207
Solidification Visual Inspection 206, 220
Characteristics 27, 39, 52, 54, 104,
162 W
Solidification Control 52 Welding 33, 94, 119, 193,
Solidification Under 201, 202,
Pressure 103, 107, White Light Technology 210
Specifications 2, 10, 11, 12, 16, World Production of
34, 199, 202, 205, Aluminum Castings 12
206, 213
Sprue 118, 130, 136, 137,
139, 145, 146, 148,
194
Sprue and Pouring
Cup Design 137
Squeeze Casting 109, 120, 121, 122,
132, 158, 161, 165
Structural Aluminum
Casting Applications 4
Structural Applications 4, 29, 34, 39, 41,
47, 75, 155, 168
Structural Casting 1, 2, 16, 27, 45, 48,
52, 145, 165, 201,
205, 206, 212, 213,
221, 223, 225

AFS - Aluminum Castings For Structural Application

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

AFS - Aluminum Castings For Structural Application

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AFS - Aluminum Castings For Structural Application

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aluminum Castings

A Publication of the American Foundry Society

AFS Product #NF2200

Published and Distributed by

Copyright © March 2022

Mahi Sahoo & David Weiss

Mahi Sahoo & David Weiss

Chapter One: Introduction To Structural Castings 1

Chapter Two: Design Of Structural Aluminum Castings 15

Chapter Three: Influence Of Alloying Elements 29

Chapter Four: Phase Diagrams 39

Chapter Five: Casting Processes 109

Chapter Six: Gating and Riser Design 135

Chapter Seven: Alloys And Composites 155

Chapter Eight: Post-Casting Operations 193

Chapter Nine: Testing For Quality 205

Chapter Ten: Conclusions: 221

What Is a Structural Casting?

How Structural Castings are Produced

Casting Class and Grade According To AMS Specifications

Casting Class Description

Casting Grade Description

Properties of Aluminum Alloys In Structural Applications

Typical Structural Aluminum Casting Applications

Figure 1-4. Plymouth Prowler Rotor, F3S.20S metal matrix composite,

Figure 1-12. Cylinder Heads, Alloy A242, cast in semi-permanent molds,

Aerospace Casting Applications

World Production Of Aluminum Castings

Table 1-3. Major World Producers of Aluminum Castings4

Major Producers of Aluminum Castings (metric tons)a

Brazil 172,076 164,718 160,464

China 7,150,000 6,850,000 6,800,000

Germany 1,020,013 996,127 652,738

India 1,396,778 1,364,652 1,344,182

Italy 856,016 810,647 540,296

Japan 1,505,499 437,500 345,651

Korea 630,000 623,500 642,200

Mexico 817,911 832,770 832,770

Russia 588,000 588,000 588,000

Turkey 475,003 503,478 449,503

United States 1,609,346 1,795,190 1,425,120

1. Structural geometry (engineering mechanics of the stress-resisting stiffness, coupled with

a. Section junctions b. Section junctions and holes

Figure 2-3. Mode of solidification corresponding for Fig. 2 from Reference 4.

Process Interface Geometry (Gating, Risering, & Venting)

Risers retard solidifi-

Downstream Processing Geometry

Gating and Gating Removal

Connections between bosses for

Figure 2-8. Flange re-design for ease of gating removal.

Riser connections beneath the

lem. Preparing For Machining—Finish Stock And Datums

Design Considerations To Prevent Machining Issues

accurately machined and tolerance castings. An example of a complicated transmission

Crack Initiation and Growth

Other Design Considerations

In addition to alloying elements, ceramic particulates or fibers can be added to aluminum