THE EFFECTS OF THERMAL AND DYNAMICAL PARAMETERS AND VACUUM
APPLICATION ON POROSITY IN HIGH-PRESSURE DIE CASTING OF A383 Al-ALLOY
M. Koru
Energy Systems Engineering, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey
O. Serçe
ORAU R&D Center, Orhan Automotive, Bursa, Turkey
Copyright  2018 American Foundry Society
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40962-018-0214-7
Abstract
High-Pressure Die Casting (HPDC) is a near-net shape
manufacturing method for the non-ferrous materials cast-
ing process, and it is widely used in the automotive
industry. In the HPDC method, mold (TM) and casting
temperature (TC), first- (V1) and second (V2)-phase injec-
tion velocity, injection pressure (P3), mold and casting
material, mold design and vacuum application are all
important parameters for producing high-quality products,
as they directly affect the mechanical and metallurgical
properties and micro–macroporosity of the product parts.
In this study, the effects of thermal (mold and casting
temperature) injection parameters and dynamic (pressure,
velocity and vacuum application) injection parameters on
the mechanical properties and porosity of the samples were
studied. In the experiments and simulations performed as
part of this study, A383 was selected as the casting mate-
rial and DIN 1,2344 as the hot work tool steel. The mold
cavity was shaped according to the tensile test specimen.
Introduction
High-Pressure Die Casting (HPDC) is a widely preferred
casting method in the production of non-ferrous light
metals requiring complex shapes and dimensional accu-
racy. HPDC is used to produce many automotive parts,
including pistons, gears, valves, gear boxes, suspension
parts, and fasteners. Besides automotive parts, the HPDC
method can be applied for the manufacturing of lighting
parts (armature covers) and telecommunication parts.1
With HPDC, magnesium and aluminum alloys are usually
cast.2,3 The fundamental process involved in the HPDC
method is the transferring of molten metal to a mold cavity
at high speeds, where it solidifies under pressure. This
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018
The experiments were repeated under 64 different condi-
tions, using different dynamic and thermal parameters and
vacuum application drawn in the mold cavity. The samples
obtained from the experiments were subjected to tensile
tests to identify their mechanical properties. A gas pyc-
nometer was used to measure and calculate porosity rates.
All the tests were simulated using FLOW-3D software
proper to the experimental conditions. In conclusion, the
most useful thermal parameters obtained from the experi-
mental study were found to be 1063 K for casting tem-
perature and 493 K for mold temperature, while the
optimum dynamic parameter values were determined to be
1.7 m/s injection velocity and 10–20 MPa injection pres-
sure for vacuum application drawn in the mold cavity.
Keywords: high-pressure die casting, porosity, thermal and
dynamic parameters, vacuum application
process takes place in three basic stages. First, the molten
metal is pushed at a low speed (0.3–1 m/s) toward the mold
cavity. It’s here that the second phase starts, where the
metal is filled into the mold cavity at a high speed (1–10 m/s).
In the final stage, the molten metal filling of the mold is
solidified by being held under high pressure. After the
solidification is completed, the mold is opened and the
ejector pins push the piece away to separate it from the
mold, bringing an end to the casting process.4 Although the
HPDC method has a number of advantages, like high
production speeds and suitability to mass production and
production of complex geometric parts, it also has disad-
vantages, like porosity problems (macro and micro), front
meeting, adhesion, stratification, flaking, cave-in issues,
797
incomplete filling, and bad surface quality.5–20 These types
of problems occur as a consequence of the use of improper
HPDC method parameters, including incorrect selection of
the dynamic and thermal parameters, inadequate mold
design and many other incalculable factors. Accurate
determination of these parameters is important to achieve
desired product quality.8–25 There is various scientific
studies that define these casting parameters effects on the
casting quality. Dargusch et al. worked how intensification
pressure and casting velocities effects porosity percentage
of the casting part, Yüksel and Göloğlu worked on the
effect of runner design on casting quality, Imvinkelried and
Homberger tried to optimize mold fill with simulation,
Savaş et al. investigated which parameters effect porosity
percentage, Lumley et al. tried to find the effect of HPDC
parameters on casting quality, Yalçın et al. worked on how
vacuum application affects mechanical properties of HPDC
parts. Adamane et al. tried to determine the effects of the
injection parameters on mechanical properties and porosity
percentage of the casting parts at HPDC.
Porosity is one of the most significant problems associated
with the HPDC method. In the HPDC method, two types of
porosity formations can be distinguished, namely macro-
and microporosity. Microporosity refers to microgaps that
are not visible to the naked eye. Macroporosity, on the
other hand, refers to larger gaps that can be seen with the
naked eye. Porosity formations are due primarily to air
being trapped in the fluid during the filling process and to
the material being drawn during solidification, especially in
hot spots.17,26 Another factor responsible for porosity for-
mation in the HPDC method is injection speed. Dışpınar
et al.24 reported that the turbulence on the surface of liquid
metal increases with the increase in the injection speed,
whereby turbulence will mix the solid oxide layer on the
liquid surface with the liquid, resulting in porosity forma-
tion. While macroporosity (gas porosity) has a round and
smooth surface formation, microporosity (shrink porosity)
has an irregular, rough surface formation. But sometimes
when the part design is poorly made, there may also be
significant shrink porosity due to poor part design.
Various scientific and empirical studies have been carried
out to find solutions to these types of problems associated
with the HPDC method. Anijdan et al. for example, aimed
to optimize porosity formation in the gravity casting pro-
cess by developing a mathematical model based on artifi-
cial neural networks.27 Some studies in the literature have
reported that porosity formation is a complex phenomenon
and that the amount of porosity depends on the size and
shape of several parameters.28–30 Dargusch et al. sought in
their study to determine the part-quality effect of process
variables in the HPDC method by placing pressure sensors
in the mold cavity. They reported that increasing the
injection pressure reduced the amount of porosity but that
increasing the injection velocity raised the amount of
porosity.5,8 In the HPDC method, the difficulty involved in
798
the need to detect casting faults has led to increased
research on casting simulation programs. Backer et al. used
the WRAFTS simulation program to determine the amount
of air to be squeezed in the filler part. The same researchers
also carried out studies to improve the algorithm of the
program to determine the amount of air trapped and the
amount of porosity to be formed as a result of solidifica-
tion.31 Jin and Kang32,33 have worked on casting temper-
ature, first- and second-phase injection speeds and vacuum
application. Verran et al.9 determined the first- and second-
phase injection velocities and the effect of the injection
pressure on the amount of porosity. Furthermore, Li et al.
and Wang and Xiong34,35 examined the effect of vacuum
application on degree of porosity.
In this study, the effects of different HPDC parameters,
such as casting temperature TC, mold temperature TM,
second-phase injection velocity V2, injection pressure P3
and vacuum application, on porosity were investigated.
Casting simulations were performed on a FLOW-3D sim-
ulation program in accordance with the experimental pro-
cedure carried out in the study. Microporosity results were
obtained from the simulations, with the results being sys-
tematically presented.
Experimental
Preparing the Experimental Setup
For high-pressure casting, the HTME-200 model cold-press
die casting machine was used; an electric smelting furnace
was used for melting the A383 casting material; the TT-
388 mold conditioner was used for heating the mold to
desired values and for keeping it at a constant temperature;
and the Fondarex Highvac Economy 250 SI 25 vacuum
machine was used for vacuuming. A general view of the
test setup prepared in accordance with the high-pressure
casting method is given in Figure 1.
Injection thermal parameters were selected as 983 and
1063 K for (TC), and as 373, 433, 493, 553 K for (TM). The
maximum capacity values of the high-pressure casting
machine used in the tests were taken into account when
these pressure and speed values were determined. In
addition to these thermal and dynamic parameters, exper-
iments were repeated for cases where vacuum was applied
to the mold cavity. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 times
were entered in the vacuum device, and a 0.5 kPa vacuum
was applied for all experiments. Experiments were repe-
ated at least three times for 64 different combinations.
Mechanical tests and percent porosity ratios were calcu-
lated for the three samples, and their average values were
used. The mold was designed to be suitable for obtaining a
tensile test sample and a cylindrical piece after casting.
Vacuum channels, vacuum valve connection point and
filling surface for both tension test part and cylindrical part
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018
 Figure 1. General appearance of the experimental setup.

were designed taking into consideration the results of the The mold was designed to be suitable for obtaining a
FLOW-3D simulations and experiments. Figure 2 shows tensile test specimen and a cylindrical piece after the
details about the mold design and casting specimen. casting process. Ventilation channels, runner and vacuum
valve connection were determined for the tensile test

Figure 2. Parts used in experimental studies, gating and vacuum channels and
macrophotograph of the casting specimen.

International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018 799

specimen and the cylindrical part by taking into account
the analysis performed through the FLOW-3D simulation
program and experiments (Figure 2).
In simulations and experimental works, A383 was used as
the casting material and DIN 1,2344 hot work tool steel
was used as the mold material. The melting temperature of
the casting material was 933 K. The chemical composition
of the casting material used in numerical calculations and
experiments is given in Table 1 and XRD results of the
casting material given at Figure 3.
Mechanical Tests
The tensile test specimens were produced in accordance
with TS EN ISO 6892-1 standards, and the tests were
performed at room temperature at a pull speed of 0.3 mm/
min using a universal tensile device. Tests were repeated at
least three times for each parameter. The mechanical tests
were carried out to investigate the effects of mold tem-
perature, casting temperature, injection pressure, second-
phase velocity and vacuum application on the tensile and
yield strength.
Table 1. Chemical Composition of A383 Al-Alloy
Chemical composition of A383 determined with spectral analysis (%)
Al Si Cu Fe Mn Zn
85.3 11.125 2.225 0.66 0.2605 0.233
Figure 3. XRD analysis result of A383 material.
800
Determination of Porosity and Casting
Simulation
The HPDC method facilitates the mass production of a
large number of finished parts. However, the disadvantage
of this method is that it requires a large number of trial
castings to achieve suitable product quality. It is for this
reason that it is important to carry out a simulation of this
method on a computer before initiating the casting process.
In this study, simulations were performed using FLOW-
3D, inputting the same variables as those used in the
experiment. In Figure 4, a filling simulation example
obtained from the FLOW-3D program is given.
Filling results from the performed simulation showed that it com-
plied with the theories proposed by Frommer et al.36 As shown in
Figure 4, the liquid metal is filled into the mold by flushing it
through the filling surface. The liquid metal continues to flow
through the mold cavity by creating severe turbulence. Some of the
liquid metal flows upward along the inner surface of the mold, and
the mold-filled flow energy continues until it naturally reaches its
end, allowing all or nearly all the liquid metal to fill the mold cavity
completely. The mold is completely filled in about 0.26 s,
depending on the specified injection parameters (Figure 4).
V Pb Ni Cr Sn Mg
0.0476 0.059 0.047 0.03 0.011 0.0089
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018
 Figure 4. Figures taken from mold filling simulation.

The solidification steps carried out in the simulations are regions, followed by the tensile test specimen and the
presented in Figure 5. As can be seen from the simulation cylinder geometry. Lastly, the runner is solidified, marking
stages, solidification occurs immediately in the thin-walled the end of the solidification process.

International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018 801

 Figure 5. Solidification simulation.

802 International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018

 Figure 6. Microporosity simulation results.
Microporosity results were obtained as percentages from
the simulations performed in the experimental procedure
using FLOW-3D. Figure 6 shows a simulation example of
the microporosity obtained from the simulation program. A
significant amount of microporosity forms at the center of
the cylindrical geometry part, whereas the microporosity
formations on the drawing sample are distributed more
heavily in the upper part, where air evacuation is made
(Figure 6). The microporosity results obtained for all test
parameters are given in the ‘Findings’ section.
In addition to the mechanical tests and simulations, the
densities of the components were determined by means of a
Micromeritics Accupyc II 1340 gas pycnometer. For this
purpose, the mass values of the samples were at first
measured using a sensitive scale, followed by the use of the
gas pycnometer to obtain sample density values. After
finding the density values, percent porosity values were
calculated using Eqn. 1.
ðqobservable  qtheoric Þ
%P ¼  100
qtheoric
In this equation, qobservable is the density value measured by
gas pycnometer (g/cm3), and qtheoric is the density value
obtained by pulverizing the sample and measuring it in the
gas pycnometer. Porosity percentage was calculated using
theoretical and apparent density values to determine the
effects of thermal and dynamic casting parameters on
porosity. The experimentally determined porosity
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018
percentage results are given as the sum of the micro- and
macroporosities in the sample.
Results
Mechanical Test Results
The yield and tensile strength test results of the tensile test
specimens produced by the HPDC method under non-
vacuum conditions are presented in Table 2. Table 2 shows
that the tensile strength was affected at relatively low
values by increasing the injection velocity from 1.7 to
2.5 m/s under non-vacuum conditions. Increasing the
injection speed shortens the fill time, but in some cases, it
caused the formation of porosity during the filling of the
liquid metal into the mold and affected the mechanical
properties negatively. Doubling the injection pressure can
diminish this effect. In other words, it would be better to
increase the pressure instead of increasing the injection
speed for the less complex parts. In the case of non-vacuum
Eqn: 1
conditions, the best tensile strength was obtained for
TC = 1063 K, TM = 553 K, P3 = 20 MPa and for both
injection velocities (1.7 and 2.5 m/s).
In looking at Table 3 and all the results it shows when there
is an increase in the injection rate of 32% for fixed mold
temperature and casting temperature values in the experi-
ments performed under vacuum conditions, it can be seen
that the tensile strength results improved by around 2-5%,
803
 Table 2. Tensile Strength and Yield Strength Results Under Non-vacuum Conditions

Injection pressure (MPa) 10 20 10 20

Injection velocity (m/s) 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50
TC (K) TM (K) Tensile strength (MPa) Yield strength (MPa)

983 373 153.16 155.92 158.61 156.92 126.34 130.58 134.43 132.18
1063 373 166.03 168.98 181.45 174.76 131.16 139.08 150.9 142.4
983 433 166.47 175.54 182.98 180.94 132.09 143.22 154.16 152.04
1063 433 171.02 174.47 176.58 182.57 135.1 139.36 146.65 155.79
983 493 172.69 180.63 182.65 184.97 136.7 145.92 151.09 152.15
1063 493 172.99 182.17 186.33 185.89 136.66 147.83 148.25 147.25
983 553 176.22 179.28 183.27 181.64 141.63 148.78 149.21 148.99
1063 553 179.62 180.7 189.95 190.29 143.4 145.75 150.56 153.59

Table 3. Tensile Strength and Yield Strength Results Under Vacuum Conditions

Injection pressure (MPa) 10 20 10 20

Injection velocity (m/s) 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50
TC (K) TM (K) Tensile strength (MPa) Yield strength (MPa)

983 373 167.24 171.03 171.08 173.45 140.03 141.07 141.33 147.5
1063 373 166.22 175.77 177.85 190.22 135.52 140.59 143.52 157.59
983 433 169.89 177.26 184.22 187.26 133.54 145.14 149.23 158.26
1063 433 174.14 178.53 183.99 189.43 138.93 140.58 152.63 158.99
983 493 176.51 179.77 185.44 192.16 137.83 142.55 159.12 162.55
1063 493 177.34 184.31 187.34 191.94 138.55 145.78 160.3 164.86
983 553 203.4 190.19 194.24 195.15 167.64 163.03 165.28 167.66
1063 553 186.56 190.22 193.88 199.71 138.55 145.78 160.3 164.86

with the best results acquired at TC = 983 K, TM = 553 K,
V2 = 1.7 m/s and P3 = 10 MPa. Doubling the injection
pressure for constant values of mold temperature, casting
temperature and injection speed under vacuum conditions
resulted in an increase in around 2–6% in strength and
2–4% in yield strength. When both Tables 2 and 3 are
considered together, the effect of mold temperature, casting
temperature and vacuum application is seen to have a
greater impact on mechanical properties than other
parameters. Taking all injection parameters into consider-
ation, a vacuum application improved the tensile strength
up to 14% and also improved yield strength by about
8–15%.
ANOVA results for tensile and yield strength were exam-
ined and it was found that if P values were under 0.05 that
parameter was considered to be significant. When we
considered ANOVA results with tensile and yield results
together all of the casting parameters are significant for
mechanical properties. You can see the ANOVA results for
tensile strength at Table 4 and Figure 7, and yield results in
Table 5 and Figure 8.
Figure 9 shows the tensile test results for the casting
temperature at 983 K, in relation to different values of
mold temperature, injection pressure and injection velocity.
In the general evaluation made, a significant increase was
observed in the tensile strength results when the mold
temperature was increased. At fixed injection speed and
pressure values and with an increase in the mold temper-
ature from 373 to 553 K under vacuum conditions, tensile
strength was observed to improve around 13–15%.
Applying the vacuum to the mold cavity affected the ten-
sile strength positively in accordance with the increase in
the mold temperature.
Improvements in tensile strength by around 17–18% were
observed when the mold temperature was increased in
experiments with fixed thermal and dynamic parameters
under vacuum conditions. Taking into account all the
parameters for the 1063 K casting temperature, the appli-
cation of vacuum to mold cavity served to improve tensile
strength by about 2–5% compared to non-vacuum condi-
tions. By increasing the mold temperature, the effect of the
vacuum application was even more evident. In vacuum
applications to the mold cavity, lower injection dynamic

804 International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018

 Table 4. ANOVA Results for Tensile Strength

Source DF Adj. SS Adj. MS F value p value

Mold T 3 3120.06 1040.02 74.86 0.000

Cast T 1 216.16 216.16 15.56 0.000
Velocity 1 153.96 153.95 11.08 0.002
Pressure 1 1026.72 1026.72 73.91 0.000
Vacuum 1 851.91 851.91 61.32 0.000
Mold T * Cast T 3 349.95 116.65 8.40 0.000
Mold T * Velocity 3 58.32 19.44 1.40 0.258
Mold T * Pressure 3 59.16 19.72 1.42 0.252
Mold T * Vacuum 3 184.54 61.51 4.43 0.009
Cast T * Velocity 1 15.19 15.19 1.09 0.302
Cast T * Pressure 1 50.37 50.37 3.63 0.064
Cast T * Vacuum 1 54.95 54.95 3.96 0.054
Velocity * Pressure 1 9.29 9.29 0.67 0.419
Velocity * Vacuum 1 18.99 18.99 1.37 0.250
Pressure * Vacuum 1 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.957
Error 38 527.90 13.89
Total 63 6697.49
S 3.72723
R2 0.9212
R2 Adj. 0.8693
2
R Pred. 0.7764

Figure 7. The effect of casting parameters on tensile strength.

parameters should be selected to prevent the problems
caused by high pressure and velocities during operation of
the system.
Figure 10 shows the tensile strength results obtained for the
tests conducted at the casting temperature of 1063 K. By
increasing the casting temperature from 983 to 1063 K, the
tensile strength results were less affected than when
changes were made to the mold temperature. Increasing the
casting temperature by 373 K at constant dynamical
parameters and constant mold temperature values in non-
vacuum experiments improved the tensile strength values
by about 1–7%. Similar results were obtained in vacuum
applied conditions too. With vacuum application, tensile
strength improved by around 8%. In evaluating Figures 9
and 10 together, it was found that increasing the casting
temperature from 983 to 1063 K had only a minor effect on
the tensile strength.
The changes in the yield strengths of the samples obtained
by the HPDC method were also investigated in terms of
different thermal and dynamic parameters. Figure 11 gives

International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018 805

 Table 5. ANOVA Results for Yield Strength

Source DF Adj. SS Adj. MS F value p value

Mold T 3 1586.57 528.86 24.04 0.000

Cast T 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.996
Velocity 1 310.95 310.95 14.14 0.001
Pressure 1 2080.61 2080.61 94.59 0.000
Vacuum 1 727.99 727.99 33.10 0.000
Mold T * Cast T 3 292.70 97.57 4.44 0.009
Mold T * Velocity 3 31.95 10.65 0.48 0.695
Mold T * Pressure 3 164.25 54.75 2.49 0.075
Mold T * Vacuum 3 170.11 56.70 2.58 0.068
Cast T * Velocity 1 4.58 4.58 0.21 0.651
Cast T * Pressure 1 69.58 69.58 3.16 0.083
Cast T * Vacuum 1 73.64 73.64 3.35 0.075
Velocity * Pressure 1 27.13 27.13 1.23 0.274
Velocity * Vacuum 1 12.17 12.17 0.55 0.426
Pressure * Vacuum 1 82.88 82.88 3.77 0.060
Error 38 835.86 22.00
Total 63 6470.97
S 4.69002
R2 0.8708
R2 Adj. 0.7858
2
R Pred. 0.6336

Figure 8. The effect of casting parameters on yield strength.

the yield strength results obtained from experimental
studies conducted on the impact of mold temperature,
injection pressure and injection velocity at 983 K casting
temperature. Yield strength results that were similar to
tensile strength results were obtained by increasing mold
temperature. Increasing the mold temperature at constant
injection velocity and pressure values under non-vacuum
conditions improved yield strength values by around
9–12%. Improvement of the yield strength by 12–17% was
observed when the mold temperature was increased in the
tests performed under the conditions of fixed thermal and
dynamic parameters with vacuum application. In looking at
the tests performed at all parameters for the 983 K casting
temperature, it was seen that vacuum application improved
the yield strength by about 3–5% compared to non-vacuum
conditions (Figure 11). When vacuum is applied to the
mold cavity, there is an increase in the yield strength values
for almost all injection thermal and dynamic parameters.
At 373 and 553 K mold temperatures, the effect of vacuum
application on yield strength was more clearly evident.

806 International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018

Figure 9. Results of tensile test using different thermal
and dynamic parameters at 983 K casting temperature.
Figure 10. At the 1063 K casting temperature, status of
tensile strength according to different thermal and
dynamical parameters.
Figure 12 gives the yield strength test results obtained for
the tests conducted at 780 K casting temperature. By
increasing the casting temperature from 983 to 1063 K, the
yield strength results were less affected than when changes
were made to the mold temperature. When the constant
dynamic parameters and mold temperature values are taken
into consideration in the experiments conducted under non-
vacuum conditions, the yield strength improved by 1–9%.
A similar situation was seen in the experiments conducted
under vacuum conditions; that is, a maximum of 10%
improvement was observed in yield strength values under
vacuum conditions.
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018
Figure 11. At 983 K casting temperature, the yield
strength according to different thermal and dynamical
parameters.
Figure 12. At 1063 K casting temperature, the yield
strength according to different thermal and dynamical
parameters.
Density and Porosity Percent Values
Table 6 shows the results of density measurements made
with gas pycnometer and Table 7 shows percent porosity
values based on density results.
At Table 7 porosity calculated using density of the mate-
rial. Density of the material measured with gas pycnometer
(2.7312 g/cm3) and it is really close literature data for
A380 (2.74 g/cm3).37 When the results presented in
Table 7 are examined, it can be clearly seen that the
amount of porosity decreases with vacuum application. The
807
 Table 6. The Results of Density (g/cm3) Measured with Gas Pycnometer

Injection pressure (MPa) 10 20 10 20

Injection velocity (m/s) 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50
TC (K) TM (K) Non-vacuum condition Vacuum condition

983 373 2.6609 2.6341 2.6646 2.6513 2.6612 2.6896 2.6502 2.6526
1063 373 2.6351 2.6688 2.6759 2.6948 2.6972 2.6996 2.6953 2.6471
983 433 2.6856 2.6787 2.6741 2.6702 2.7114 2.7008 2.6871 2.6785
1063 433 2.6873 2.6681 2.6318 2.6027 2.7016 2.6597 2.6476 2.6536
983 493 2.6738 2.6203 2.6882 2.6735 2.6751 2.6640 2.6887 2.6813
1063 493 2.6848 2.6300 2.6443 2.6001 2.7125 2.6664 2.6864 2.6329
983 553 2.6761 2.6937 2.7050 2.6801 2.6855 2.6511 2.6627 2.6649
1063 553 2.6679 2.6919 2.6243 2.7031 2.6744 2.6461 2.6824 2.6912

Table 7. Calculated Percent Porosity Rate (qtheorical: 2.7312 g/cm3) Based on Density Results

Injection pressure (MPa) 10 20 10 20

Injection velocity (m/s) 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50
TC (K) TM (K) Non-vacuum condition Vacuum condition

983 373 2.5727 3.5546 2.4373 2.9248 2.5618 1.5219 2.9645 2.8779
1063 373 3.5168 2.2829 2.0248 1.3309 1.2449 1.1546 1.3120 3.0792
983 433 1.6696 1.9192 2.0907 2.2316 0.7225 1.1131 1.6147 1.9296
1063 433 1.6055 2.3103 3.6364 4.7025 1.0838 2.6167 3.0597 2.8400
983 493 2.0986 4.0599 1.5726 2.1108 2.0540 2.4605 1.5549 1.8246
1063 493 1.6964 3.7035 3.1787 4.7970 0.6847 2.3726 1.6391 3.5967
983 553 2.0156 1.3712 0.9581 1.8698 1.6733 2.9328 2.5056 2.4251
1063 553 2.3158 1.4365 3.9110 1.0289 2.0772 3.1134 1.7855 1.4646

decrease in the amount of porosity ranged between 30%
and 75%. In examining the porosity in terms of injection
velocity change, increasing the injection velocity at low
mold temperatures decreased the amount of porosity, while
the opposite was true when high mold temperatures were
used, i.e., porosity increased. In terms of the injection
pressure, when the vacuum was not applied, the increase in
the injection pressure caused a decrease in porosity per-
centage, whereas when the vacuum was applied, there was
a slight increase in porosity percentage. For vacuum
applied conditions, the increase in mold temperature and
pressure caused a decrease in the amount of porosity.
According to the data presented in Table 7, the best results
based on a porosity percentage of around 72% were
obtained using the following thermal and dynamic
parameters under vacuum application: TC = 983 K,
TM = 433 K, V2 = 1.7 m/s, and P3 = 10 Mpa. Again, for
the same dynamic parameters and TC = 1063 K,
TM = 553 K, the porosity result was around 0.68%. As can
be clearly understood with this information, when the
casting temperature is increased, the mold temperature
must also be increased, because as the difference between
the mold and the casting temperature increases, the cooling
becomes unbalanced, causing porosity formation.
Table 8 gives the microporosity results obtained from the
FLOW-3D simulation program. The table shows that
increasing the mold and casting temperature leads to a
decrease in the amount of porosity. Similarly, the table re-
veals that an increase in the second-phase velocity leads to
a decrease in the amount of porosity. The lowest amount of
porosity was determined when the mold temperature was at
433 and 553 K. Moreover, when the mold and casting
temperature were higher, the vacuum application reduced
the amount of porosity, but lower mold and casting tem-
perature values increased porosity, even under vacuum
application. According to the simulation, when the best
parameters are selected, the amount of porosity can be
decreased by approximately 45%. Considering the casting
temperature parameter alone (most of the time, this
parameter had no effect on simulation results), porosity can
be decreased by around 22, 20% at best, considering the
injection velocity parameter alone, and 15% at best, con-
sidering the injection pressure parameter alone. Therefore,

808 International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018

 Table 8. Percent Microporosity Obtained from FLOW-3D Simulation Program

Injection pressure (MPa) 10 20 10 20

Injection velocity (m/s) 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50 1.70 2.50
TC (K) TM (K) Non-vacuum condition Vacuum condition

983 373 1.383 1.406 1.507 1.395 1.414 1.339 1.221 1.306
1063 373 1.368 1.406 1.507 1.395 1.414 1.339 1.221 1.306
983 433 1.333 1.069 1.19 1.028 1.237 1.237 1.313 1.018
1063 433 1.333 1.19 1.069 1.028 1.68 1.27 1.512 1.271
983 493 1.583 1.179 1.578 1.308 1.608 1.27 1.512 1.271
1063 493 1.583 1.179 1.578 1.308 1.237 1.156 1.341 1.018
983 553 1.144 1.065 1.257 1.08 1.266 1.069 1.218 0.978
1063 553 1.144 1.065 1.257 1.08 1.266 1.069 1.218 0.978

Table 9. ANOVA Results for Calculated Porosity Results

Source DF Adj. SS Adj. MS F value p value

Mold T 3 1.4827 0.49423 0.84 0.481

Cast T 1 1.1048 1.10478 1.88 0.179
Velocity 1 2.6891 2.68915 4.57 0.039
Pressure 1 1.4892 1.48922 2.53 0.120
Vacuum 1 2.6706 2.67057 4.54 0.040
Mold T * Cast T 3 6.4346 2.14486 3.65 0.021
Mold T * Velocity 3 5.3841 1.79471 3.05 0.040
Mold T * Pressure 3 3.8071 1.26905 2.16 0.109
Mold T * Vacuum 3 3.6529 1.21764 2.07 0.120
Cast T * Velocity 1 0.0155 0.01553 0.03 0.872
Cast T * Pressure 1 1.7490 1.72904 2.97 0.093
Cast T * Vacuum 1 0.9103 0.91033 1.55 0.221
Velocity * Pressure 1 0.1960 0.19604 0.33 0.567
Velocity * Vacuum 1 0.3096 0.30959 0.53 0.473
Pressure * Vacuum 1 0.3038 0.30375 0.52 0.477
Error 38 22.3605 0.58843
Total 63 54.5600
S 0.767095
R2 0.5902
2
R Adj. 0.3205
R2 Pred. 0.0000

it can be said that mold temperature is the most influential
parameter for lowering porosity percentage. Table 9 and
Figure 13 show ANOVA results for calculated porosity
results and Table 10 and Figure 14 show it for simulated
porosity results.
The best results for porosity percentage were obtained
using the following parameters with vacuum application:
P3 = 20 Mpa, TM = 553 K, TC = 1063 K, and
V2 = 2.5 m/s. In contrast, the worst results for porosity
percentage according to the simulation were obtained using
the following parameters with vacuum application:
P3 = 10 Mpa, TM = 433 K, TC = 1063 K, V2 = 1.7 m/s.
Comparing the simulation results with the experimental
results, it was seen that only minor changes occurred in the
microporosity results by changing casting parameters in the
simulation. In addition, the porosity percentage for some
parameters in the simulation results was well below that of
the experimental results. This could be attributed to the fact
that in the experimental studies both micro- and

International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018 809

 Figure 13. The effect of casting parameters on calculated porosity results.

Table 10. ANOVA Results for Simulated Porosity Results

Source DF Adj. SS Adj. MS F value p value

Mold T 3 0.59227 0.197424 25.91 0.000

Cast T 1 0.00000 0.000000 0.00 0.995
Velocity 1 0.45833 0.458329 60.15 0.000
Pressure 1 0.01671 0.016706 2.19 0.147
Vacuum 1 0.00278 0.002783 0.37 0.549
Mold T * Cast T 3 0.10548 0.035160 4.61 0.008
Mold T * Velocity 3 0.15393 0.051310 6.73 0.001
Mold T * Pressure 3 0.03989 0.013297 1.75 0.174
Mold T * Vacuum 3 0.19201 0.064003 8.40 0.000
Cast T * Velocity 1 0.00009 0.000090 0.01 0.914
Cast T * Pressure 1 0.00056 0.000564 0.07 0.787
Cast T * Vacuum 1 0.00002 0.000018 0.00 0.961
Velocity * Pressure 1 0.00003 0.000033 0.00 0.948
Velocity * Vacuum 1 0.00035 0.000352 0.05 0.831
Pressure * Vacuum 1 0.02657 0.026569 3.49 0.070
Error 38 0.28955 0.007620
Total 63 1.87857
S 0.0872909
2
R 0.8459
R2 Adj. 0.7445
2
R Pred. 0.5628

macroporosity was summed up together. On the other hand,
however, the simulation program showed better results
when the injection velocity was higher, whereas the
experiments showed the opposite.
Discussion and Conclusion
Aided by the studies found in the literature, the following
can serve as a general evaluation of the tensile strength,
yield strength and porosity results of the samples obtained
from the high- pressure casting process:
• During the filling of the mold cavity with
aluminum alloys, turbulence and air gaps have a
negative impact on the mechanical properties. For
this reason, mold design directly affects product
quality. In this study, analyses were performed
with the FLOW-3D program to ensure a good
mold design. Based on these analysis results and
field experience, the most suitable mold design
was determined.
• Another factor that affects product quality is mold
temperature. When mold temperature increased,
tensile strength increased by around 13–15%

810 International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018

 Figure 14. The effect of casting parameters on simulated porosity results.
under non-vacuum conditions and by around
17–18% under vacuum conditions. In other words,
the tensile strength of the samples increased by
increasing the mold temperature and applying
vacuum. Regarding yield strength, it increased by
around 9–12% under non-vacuum conditions and
by 12–17% under vacuum conditions. However,
in the results obtained from the experiments it was
observed that the porosity percentage gradually
increased up to a mold temperature of 433 K. In
the simulation program, porosity was clearly seen
to decrease with increasing mold temperature and
vacuum application. Increasing the mold temper-
ature and applying vacuum to the mold cavity
positively contributes to strengthening the
mechanical properties.
• Increasing the casting temperature has a lower
impact on the mechanical properties than increas-
ing the mold temperature does. By increasing the
casting temperature by 373 K, the tensile strength
values improved by up to 8%.
• Increasing injection velocity was found to cause
an increase in porosity percentage, while increas-
ing pressure decreased porosity percentage.
Increasing the injection velocity results in turbu-
lence on the surface of the liquid metal. This
turbulence causes the solid oxide layer on the
surface of the liquid and the air in the environment
to mix into the liquid and thereby form porosity.18
In this study, it was determined that increasing the
injection velocity leads to an increase in the
amount of porosity percentage and a weakening of
mechanical properties. The porosity percentage in
this case can be reduced only by increasing the
injection pressure. Therefore, the increase in
injection pressure improves the mechanical prop-
erties. The pressure values used in this study
(P3 = 10–20 MPa) were planned according to the
existing infrastructure, since higher pressure val-
ues could not be analyzed.
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018
• Vacuum application in pressure casting is
expected to give better results compared to non-
vacuum conditions because it will reduce the
possibility of air mixing into the liquid metal.
However, this was not the case for some injection
conditions in this study. This is clearly evident
considering that the work of the shell piston in
pushing the metal into the cavity is increased due
to ovalization and abrasion when the cast parts are
air mixed into the melt. The pressure inside the
bushing drops to 2000 Pa, but the atmospheric
pressure (101,325 Pa) at the back of the piston
brings gas leakage through the bushing piston
operating space, causing air entrapment in the
melt and thereby worse results than normal
casting.30 On the other hand, vacuum application
allows for lower dynamic and thermal parameter
selections, which results in savings on the energy
cost per part, increased competitiveness due to the
longer mold life cycle, and better functioning of
the injection machine. These advantages are
particularly pronounced with the lower mold and
casting temperature required under vacuum
conditions.
• When we compared the results with similar
studies, we had seen similar effects of the casting
parameters on mechanical properties and porosity.
Obiekea et al. reported similar results at their
study for A350 casting material. When they
increased injection pressure both tensile and yield
strength increased around 3–5%.38 Li et al. Stud-
ied at their work about how vacuum effects on
tensile strength. They reported that with vacuum
application porosity and pore sizes in the casting
specimens can be decreased and with this vacuum
effect positively tensile strength. They found
tensile strength of the cast specimen increased
196–231 MPa and these results are similar to our
work.34 Wang and Xiong examined how vacuum
application and injection velocity to tensile
strength and porosity. They found similar results
811
 at our work. While vacuum application positively
effects both tensile strength and porosity, increas-
ing injection speed effects on the contrary.35
Weiler et al. and Lee and Shin found similar
relationship for porosity and mechanical proper-
ties. Both studies say when porosity percentage
increase tensile and yield strength decreases on
the contrary for Al and Mg alloys.39,40
• In comparing the experimental results with the
simulation results in terms of porosity, there were
some important differences between the two that
should be noted. In the experimental work, the
total porosity was the subject, while in the
simulations, only the microporosity results were
taken into account. Moreover, some of the neg-
ative aspects experienced in the experimental
studies (such as charge cleaning, degassing,
cleaning of pot and ladle, physical state of the
reservoir, waiting period, difference of the ladle
transfer time) could not be taken into account in
the simulation environment.
• In general, while there are many parameters that
influence the formation of porosity in casting,
after all is said and done, it was observed that the
increase in the mold temperature and the applica-
tion of vacuum consistently improved the integrity
of the mechanical properties.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK) for support-
ing this project with the project number 114M003 and
Süleyman Demirel University BAP Coordination Unit
for supporting the Project with Number 4416-YL1-15.
REFERENCES
1. X.H. Teng, Y.T. Mae, Probability characterization of
tensile strength of an aluminum casting. Eng. Fract.
Mech. 76, 983–996 (2009)
2. R.S. Beals, C. Tissington, X. Zhang, K. Kainer, J.
Petrillo, M. Verbrugge, M. Pekguleryuz, Magnesium
global developments Outcomes. TMS 2007 Annu.
Meet. 59, 39–42 (2007)
3. NADCA, The North American die casting association,
archived from the original on http://www.webcitation.
org/5tVCFPCyL. Accessed 30 May 2016
4. M. Koru, Basınçlı döküm yönteminde Al-Si (A413)
alaşımının termal ve dinamik parametrelere bağlı
olarak ara yüzey ısı transfer katsayısının deneysel ve
teorik incelenmesi, Ph.D. Thesis, Grad. Sch. of Nat.
and Appl. Sci. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, 127,
(2009)
5. S.M. Dargusch, G. Dour, N. Schauer, C.M. Dinnis, G.
Savage, The influence of pressure during solidification
812
of high pressure die cast aluminium telecommunica-
tions components. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 180,
37–43 (2006)
6. V.D. Tsoukalas, Optimization of porosity formation in
AlSi9Cu3 pressure die castings using genetic algorithm
analysis. Mater. Des. 29, 2027–2033 (2008)
7. M. Rübner, M. Günzl, C. Körner, R.F. Singer, Alu-
minium–aluminium compound fabrication by high
pressure die casting. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528,
7024–7029 (2011)
8. M.S. Dargusch, G. Wang, N. Schauer, C.M. Dinnis, G.
Savage, Manufacture of high pressure die-cast radio
frequency filter bodies. Int. J. Cast Meter. Res. 18–1,
47–53 (2005)
9. Experimental Results, Numeric Simulation, G.O.
Verran, R.P.K. Mendes, M.A. Rossi, Influence of
injection parameters on defects formation in die cast-
ing Al12Si1,3Cu. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 179,
190–195 (2006)
10. S. Yüksel, C. Göloğlu, Metal enjeksiyon kalıplamada
yolluk tasarımı sistematiği 5. Int. Adv. Technol. Symp.
8, (2009)
11. T.H. Imvinkelried, H. Homberger, Mould fill simula-
tion to improve the quality of a component. Magnes.
Ind. 39–43 (2001)
12. Ö. Savaş, R. Kayıkcı, E. Cüceloğlu, Alüminyum-Sil-
isyum alaşımlarının dökümünde mikro porozite prob-
leminin incelenmesi. Metal Dünyası 144, 119–123
(2005)
13. M.H. Marques, CAE Techniques for casting opti-
mization. Inst. de Engenharia Mecânica e Gestão Ind.
1–4 (2006)
14. R. Lumley, N. Deeva, M. Gershenzon, An evaluation
of quality parameters for high pressure diecasting. Int.
J. Metalcasting 5(3), 37–56 (2011)
15. R. Lumley, N. Deeva, An evaluation of quality
parameters for high pressure diecasting part II: heat
treatment. Int. J. Metalcasting 5(4), 47–61 (2011)
16. B. Yalçın, M. Koru, A.E. Özgür, O. İpek, Effect of
injection parameters and vacuum on the strength and
porosity amount of die-casted A380 alloy. Int. J. Me-
talcasting 11(2), 195–206 (2017)
17. C. Thoma, W. Volk, R. Heid, K. Dilger, G. Branner,
H. Eibisch, Simulation-based prediction of the fracture
elongation as a failure criterion for thin-walled high-
pressure die casting components. Int. J. Metalcasting
8(4), 47–54 (2014)
18. A.R. Adamane, L. Arnberg, E. Fiorese, G. Timelli, F.
Bonollo, Influence of injection parameters on the
porosity and tensile properties of high-pressure die cast
Al–Si alloys: a review. Int. J. Metalcasting 9(1), 43–53
(2015)
19. Ö. Boydak, M. Savaş, B. Ekici, A numerical and an
experimental investigation of a high-pressure die-
casting aluminum alloy. Int. J. Metalcasting 10(1),
56–69 (2016)
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018
20. A. Illah, N. Korti, S. Abboudi, Effects of shot sleeve
filling on evolution of the free surface and solidifica-
tion in the high-pressure die casting machine. Int.
J. Metalcasting 11(2), 223–239 (2017)
21. A. Uludağ, Basınçlı döküm yönteminde kalıp sistem
tasarımı ve simülasyon analizi. Msc. Thesis, Grad.
Sch. of Nat. Appl. Sci., Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi 91
(2007)
22. E. Flender, G. Hartman, Modeling and simulation in
high pressure die casting. Met. World, 10–17 (2008)
23. O.S. Aslan, Basınçlı dökümde kaliteyi etkileyen fak-
törlerin araştırılması. Msc. Thesis, Grad. Sch. of Nat.
Appl. Sci., Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, 84 (2007)
24. D. Dışpınar, F. Syvertsen, M. Ekelik, J. Campbell, Al-
Si alaşımlarında kalıp dizaynı ile mekanik özellikler
arasındaki ilişki. 4. Alüminyum Sempozyumu, İstan-
bul, 363–371 (2009)
25. D. Dışpınar, J. Campbell, Alüminyum ve alaşımlarının
döküm kalitesinin belirlenmesi. 4. Alüminyum Sem-
pozyumu, İstanbul, 394–404 (2009)
26. M. Sirviö, S. Vapalahti, J. Väinölä, Complete simu-
lation of high pressure die casting process (Casting
Simulation Web, 2007),
http://www.castingsimulation.com, Available 12
August 2014
27. S.H.M. Anijdan, A. Bahrami, H.R. Madaah Hoseini,
A. Shafyei, Using genetic algorithm and artificial
neural network analyses to design an Al–Si casting
alloy of minimum porosity. Mater. Des. 27, 605–609
(2006)
28. S.G. Lee, A.M. Gokhale, G.R. Patel, M. Evans, Effect
of process parameters on porosity distributions in high-
pressure die-cast AM50 Mg–allo. Mater. Sci. Eng. A
427, 99–111 (2006)
29. V.D. Tsoukalas, A study of porosity formation in
pressure dies casting using the taguchi approach.
J. Eng. Manuf. 218, 77–86 (2006)
30. A.K. Dahle, L. Arnberg, D. Apelian, AFS Trans. 160,
963–969 (1997)
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 12, Issue 4, 2018
31. G. Backer, M. Ranganathan, J. Heimsch, M.
Mclaughlin, W. Kim, Simulation of flow-induced gas
entrapment and its effects on porosity in aluminum die
castings. North Am. Die Cast. Assoc. Trans. 44–53
(2001)
32. C.K. Jin, C.G. Kang, Fabrication by vacuum die
casting and simulation of aluminum bipolar plates with
micro-channels on both sides for proton exchange
membrane (PEM) fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrogr. Energy
32, 1661–1676 (2012)
33. C.K. Jin, C.G. Kang, Fabrication process analysis and
exprimental verification for aluminum bipolar plates in
fuel cells by vacuum die-casting. J. Power Sour 196,
8241–8249 (2011)
34. S. Li, D. Li, X. Zeng, W. Ding, Microstructure and
mechanical properties of Mg–6Gd–3Y–0.5Zr alloy
processed by high-vacuum die-casting. Trans. Non-
ferrrous Met. Soc. China 24, 3769–3776 (2014)
35. Q. Wang, S. Xiong, Vacuum assisted high-pressure die
casting of AZ91D magnesium alloy at different slow
shot speeds. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 24,
3051–3059 (2014)
36. H.H. Doehler, Basınçlı Döküm, (Bayvas, M. Ş.,
Mesleki ve Teknik Öğretim Kitapları, Etüd Program-
lama Dairesi Yayınları No: 80), p. 514
37. D.M. Stefanescu, ASM Handbook Volume 15: Casting,
1st edn. (ASM International, 1988), p. 1256
38. K. Obiekea, S.Y. Aku, D.S. Yawas, Influence of
pressure on the mechanical properties and grain
refinement of die cast aluminum A1350 alloy. Adv.
Appl. Sci. Res. 3, 6 (2012)
39. J. Weiler, J. Wood, R. Klassen, E. Maire, R. Berk-
mortel, G. Wang, Relationship between internal
porosity and fracture strength of die-cast magnesium
AM60B alloy. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 395, 1–2 (2005)
40. C.D. Lee, K.S. Shin, Effect of microporosity on the
tensile properties of AZ91 magnesium alloy. Acta
Mater. 55(13), 4293–4303 (2007)
813