Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural

Aluminum Part Made Via the Low Pressure Casting Process

Winston Sequeira
MAGMA Foundry Technologies Inc.
2340 S.Arlington Heights Rd
Arlington Heights, IL 60005

Rafael Ruiz Rosales

Teksid Alumino de Mexico, S.A de C.V
Lib Carlos Salinas de Gortari 2001
Frontera, Coahuila
Mexico 25616

Copyright 2003 American Foundry Society

ABSTRACT

The low pressure casting process is a well-established route for the manufacture of large safety-critical non-ferrous
automotive components. While smooth, ambient mold filling allows for a high degree of control over the process, the
inherently long cycle time results in low productivity. The two most commonly made parts via the low pressure process are
wheels and cylinder heads. More recently, this process has been successfully applied to the manufacture of bedplates and
control arms, and some progressive casters are investigating the adaptation of this process for the manufacture of magnesium
cylinder blocks. Even though the low pressure casting process takes advantage of directional solidification, feeding related
issues in castings can often result in porosity problems after machining. Solving these problems usually requires stringent
control of mold temperatures so as to promote directional solidification, and sometimes tooling changes. Using simulation
capabilities is the best approach for predicting these porosity problems. This paper deals with a case study wherein the root
cause of porosity outbreaks, evident in one of the bulkheads of a bedplate, was linked to feeding problems. Simulation tools
were used to first analyze and predict the defect within the casting. Subsequent simulations with minor, yet important tooling
corrections resulted in a quick solution that were then implemented on the shop floor resulting in significantly lower reject
rates.

INTRODUCTION

Conceptually, the low pressure process which uses a riser tube or a heated launder to deliver metal with low pressure from
the bottom of the mold can be classified into two broad groups. The low pressure casting process may use metallic molds,
expendable molds or a combination of both. The term low pressure diecasting is applied when the casting process exclusively
uses metallic molds or uses sand-based internal cores with external metallic molds. The bulk of the aluminum castings made
via the low pressure die casting process (LPDC) are wheels and cylinder heads, and more recently bedplates (lower
crankcases) and control arms. The precision sand mold based low pressure casting process has already emerged as a
competitive process for the production of automotive cylinder heads and blocks mainly because of well engineered core
assemblies that overcome the problems of poor dimensional accuracy of conventional sand molds. Several variations of this
process are currently in production for aluminum alloys, and they include the Cosworth process, the Rover process, the CMI
process and the Improved Low Pressure process (ILP) (Heathcock, 1994; Campbell, 1988). For example, the Cosworth
process has been applied to the manufacture of aluminum blocks, cylinder heads, lower crankcases, helicopter parts and
battle tank parts (Smith and Wilkins, 1986). In the low pressure sand-mold process, transfer of molten metal may be made via
an electromagnetic pump or by the application of vacuum to the mold. In the low pressure diecasting process however, the
molten metal is traditionally transferred by the application of a positive pressure to the holding furnace located below the
mold. The low pressure process (both die and sand-mold based) is also applied for the manufacture of magnesium alloy based
components (Westengen and Holta, 1989; Hogg et al 1991).

LPDC takes advantage of the non-turbulent filling to minimize filling related defects. Carefully engineered mold design
ensures that the solidification takes place progressively towards the in-gate, thus reducing solidification related defects. The
filling is carefully controlled by adjusting the pressure applied to the holding furnace for a given ingate design. Several

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process
strategies are used to encourage directional solidification, namely, accurate thermal control of the mold, use of multiple gates,
and the application of pressure on the casting until the ingates are completely solidified. The advent of water-cooling
technology for metallic molds in the late 70s and the 80s resulted in significant reduction in cycle times and productivity
gains. Water-cooling of the mold to reduce cycle time was first reported in 1972 (Watanabe et al, 1972) and successful
application of this technology to the LEXUS cylinder block (Kaida et al, 1990), Nissans cylinder block (Ohgami et al, 1991)
and by other automotive companies (Miller, 1991) was reported in the early 1990s. This, combined with high yield of
greater than 95% in the LPDC process when compared with yields of between 50-60% for the manufacture of similar
components in permanent mold based gravity castings, made the process very competitive.

The arrival of process simulation technologies in the 90s led to further optimization of the low pressure casting process thus
making greater strides in productivity gains. The application of simulation technologies to the low pressure casting process,
that takes into consideration the complete casting process cycle, is now widely applied throughout the industry. Even though
each software interface may vary somewhat, all the low pressure processes and their variations can be easily setup to mimic
the production environment very accurately. Water lines can be switched on and off based on time, or the die temperature can
be controlled using thermocouples implanted within the dies. In the latter, the thermocouples activate the water lines based on
predetermined temperature limits. Further, variables such as forced air-cooling, use of mold coatings, use of air pockets
within the die (insulators) can all be easily included in the simulation to optimize their influence on the LPDC process. Yield
of greater than 95% is commonly reported by best practice companies that leverage simulation technologies to optimize their
casting process.

PROCESS SETUP

Teksid Alumino de Mexico manufactures the bedplate (or lower crankcase), illustrated in this paper, at their manufacturing
operations in Frontera, Mexico. Several low pressure die casting machines are used, and the castings are manufactured from
aluminum alloy 319 with composition in weight percents of Cu 4.0, Si 6.0, Zn 1.5, Mg 0.5, Mn 0.42. The furnace
temperature (casting temperature) was maintained at 720oC. At the end of the cycle, the average temperature of the top mold
was on an average 100oC lower than the bottom mold. Some specific casting process parameters that were input into the
simulation studies are as described in the following sections.

DIE TEMPERATURE CONTROL

The geometry of the bedplate along with the gating system is shown in Figure 1. The size, location and control of the cooling
lines remain confidential to the companys process operational strategies and are not discussed in this paper. The control of
the cooling lines resulted in favorable thermal profiles within the die. Some of the strategies that were used to control the
mold temperature so as to promote directional solidification towards the ingates are as follows.

1. Cooling lines are controlled by time and are therefore switched ON and OFF during the cycle. Different cooling
lines switch ON and OFF at different times.
2. Cooling lines are controlled by thermocouples placed at strategic locations within the die. They were switch ON and
OFF when each sensed its predetermined temperature setting. The temperature limits varied for different
thermocouples.
3. Rectangular air pockets are machined into the die in strategic locations so as to act as insulators thus delaying
solidification in certain areas of the casting.
4. Mold geometry prevented placement of air pockets in certain areas of the die.
5. Air is blown to enhance forced cooling, and coating was applied to the die during the cycle.

Porosity was found after machining the interface between the ingate and the bulkhead # 5 in Figure 1 (circled area). The
appearance suggested that the porosity was of the shrinkage variety (see Figure 2 and Figures 3 (a) and (b)).

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process
Fig. 1 Lower crankcase with ten ingates connecting the casting. Porosity-prone area is the interface between
bulkhead # 5 and the ingate connecting it (i.e., at the boundary separating the two colors inside the circled area).

Fig. 2 A typical macrograph across a section near the machining interface in bulkhead # 5 showing porosity.

(a) (b)

Fig. 3 (a) and (b) Typical micrograph of porosity observed in bulkhead # 5 after machining. The porosity is clearly of
the shrinkage variety (magnification 50X).

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process
PRESSURIZATION AND FEEDING

During the simulation, the filling of the mold was controlled using a pressure versus time curve that was typically used in
production of the bedplates. Pressurization was applied (Figure 4) as soon as filling was completed, and the pressure was
maintained on the cavity until the gates were solidified.

The feeding algorithm included in the simulation package can force-feed areas in the casting during solidification that
become deficient in metal, based on a preset value. For example, feeding of 30% (termed Feeding effectivity) allows feeding
of the metal during solidification until the control volume reaches a fraction solid of 30%. This is considered akin to a
dendritic mesh cutting-off feeding when the volume fraction of dendrites in the region of interest reaches 30%. For 319 alloy
a value of 30% is recommended based on experiments.

Activating Feeding effectivity option within the software generates a result called FSTIME_xx, where xx represents
percentage feeding. Two corresponding result files are written by the software, that complements the FSTIME_xx result.
These result files are FEEDING and POROSITY, the significance of which will be discussed later. Caution must be used
when using feeding related predictive capabilities of the software. Even though the software database recommends a Feeding
effectivity value for a particular alloy, it is a value based on the alloys freezing range (dendrite coherency), observations in
real castings, and other empirical data. Therefore, any simulation strategy must include simulations using the recommended
Feeding effectivity value (optimum value) and a value incrementally lower than the recommended value. The latter is
expected to predict somewhat lower feeding situations, and is a strategy that is used in seeking out additional porosity-prone
areas in the castings that might otherwise be borderline cases.

POROSITY OUTBREAKS IN THE BULKHEAD - HYPOTHESIS

Since there were ten ingates connecting the bulkhead, the fettling operation involved sawing-off and machining of the ingate
stubs connecting the bulkheads of the bedplate. The majority of the porosity outbreaks were consistently found after
machining in the bulkhead#5 region of the casting. Several hypotheses were discussed in a brainstorming session amongst the
team of engineers, and the following (Table 1) were considered worthy of serious investigation using the software.

Fig. 4 Pressurization parameters and feeding effectivity parameters used in simulation #1. A pressurization of 250
mbar was switched ON after completion of filling and the pressure was then ramped-up to 520 mbar. A final pressure
of 520 mbar was maintained for 110 s after filling was completed. A feeding factor of 30% was used in this simulation.

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process
 Table 1. Hypotheses for possible causes of porosity in the bulkhead of the bedplate.

Hypothesis #1: Was pressurization removed prior to the solidification of the ingates?
Comment: If the pressure on the casting was maintained until all the ingates were fully solidified, then the
porosity in bulkhead #5 is not due to lack of pressurization. This was to be tested via the simulation.

Hypothesis #2: Is the ingate solidifying before the bulkhead # 5 area (machining interface)?
Comment: If the above argument were true, then solidification time and dendrite arm spacing (SDAS)
measurements would shed more light on this issue. There appeared to be merit in this argument since tooling
related issues prevented placement of air pockets in the vicinity of the problem area. This hypothesis was to
be tested in the simulation, and SDAS values obtained in the simulation were to be compared with actual
values obtained in bulkhead #5.

Hypothesis #3: Is the area of porosity outbreak an area that has a cooling rate that is favorable for the
formation of gas porosity?
Comment: Criteria functions suggested in literature can be used to verify this hypothesis. While this would
only give an indication of the formation of porosity, its actual occurrence would depend on several
parameters such as gas content in the melt, direction solidification etc. This hypothesis would be put to test.

Hypothesis #4: Is early development of interdendric network (dendrite coherency) preventing feeding in
bulkhead #5 area of the casting? If so, could this result in porosity formation?
Comment: Simulations can be carried out to predict if bulkhead #5 (machining interface) is an area that
lacks feeding. This was to be checked by varying the feeding effectivity (or Feeding factor) in the
simulations.

DISCUSSION TESTING OF THE HYPOTHESIS

In total, three simulations listed below were carried out to test the hypotheses listed in Table 1.

Simulation #1: As received geometry simulated with all shop floor based process parameters and a feeding effectivity value of
30%. Hypotheses # 1, 2, 3 and 4 were tested using Simulation #1.

Simulation #2: As received geometry simulated with all shop floor based process parameters identical to Simulation #1. A
feeding effectivity value of 20% was used in the simulation. Hypotheses # 4 was retested to verify if results predicted by this
simulation were any different from those predicted by Simulation #1.

Simulation #3: Modifications to the ingate geometry simulated with all shop-floor based process parameters identical to
Simulation #1. A feeding effectivity value of 20% was used in the simulation. Hypotheses # 4 was further evaluated to verify
if the casting problem was solved.

Detailed filling and solidification results that were obtained from Simulation #1 were analyzed. There was a strong bias from
the onset that the porosity in bulkhead #5 was solidification related. However the filling pattern (which took 43 s inclusive of
filling in the riser tube) along with Air Pressure results were carefully analyzed to ascertain if the cavity filling (turbulence)
played any role in the porosity problem. As a rule of thumb, local flow velocities during filling of the casting must be less
than 0.5 m/s so as to prevent turbulence. However, Watanabe et al (1972) reported that outside a narrow range of gate
velocities (0.13-0.22 m/s) the cylinder heads made via the low pressure die casting process were defective, either due to cold-
shuts or misruns. If the porosity in the bulkhead #5 was filling related, it would have originated from entrapped air due to
metal turbulence and back filling. Considering the location of the porosity this was extremely unlikely. Not only were the
velocity profiles well below the 0.5 m/s, there was no plausible evidence from filling results that the porosity in bulkhead # 5
was in any way related to filling. Therefore in conclusion, the defects in bulkhead #5 were not considered filling related.

The first issue in the analysis of solidification results was to make sure that the intensification was maintained until the gates
were fully solidified. The pressure was maintained for 110 s after the end of filling. This meant that the solidification result
files after 153 s from the start of filling (inclusive of filling time of 43 s) should show fully frozen ingates. In other words,
areas of the casting (or bulkheads) that become deficient in metal must be force-fed, and all the ingates must be solidified
before the 153 s. An analysis of solidification results clearly showed this was indeed the case. Figure 5 shows that the outside

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process
bulkheads (#1, #5, #6 and #10) solidify earlier than the inner bulkheads, and bulkhead # 5 completely solidified at a time
value of 144 s.

Figure 5 also indicates that the ingate connecting bulkhead #5 solidifies after the bulkhead, and the SOLTIME results (Figure
6) show temperature contours progressing from the casting toward the ingate. Such well-banded solidification time contours
are highly desired in the low pressure die casting process, and gives a clear indication of directional solidification progressing
from the top mold towards the bottom mold in which the ingates are located.

Of greater significance than the SOLTIME result is the FSTIME result (in this case FSTIME_30) shown in Figure 7. This
result indicates that the local time necessary to reach 30% fraction solid in bulkhead #5 and the ingate. Even though one can
clearly see the evolution of isolated areas with longest FSTIME_30 (63 s and greater) deep inside the casting, such isolated
areas are not formed at the machining interface between bulkhead #5 and the ingate connected to it. The physical significance
of these results must be clearly understood areas within a casting having the longest FSTIME are regions that will be cut-off
from feeding if they are isolated due to the formation of bottlenecks of low FSTIME values. In Figure 7 such bottlenecks can
be seen forming in the lower part of the ingate, but no isolated regions of high FSTIME values are seen in machining areas
(indicated by the horizontal line). In reality, the isolated regions end up as porosity-prone regions well within the casting as
indicated by the FEEDING result in Figure 8. These areas remain deep inside the casting and are surround by enough cast
material that the structural integrity of the casting is not compromised.

In continuing the discussion based on results obtained from Simulation #1, the first two hypotheses cannot be completely
eliminated unless one analyses the secondary dendrite arm spacing (SDAS) results. It is well know that the SDAS values are
good indicators of local solidification times within a casting. There have been some SDAS studies reported in literature for
319-type alloy (Radhakrishna and Seshan, 1980 & 1992; Dann et al, 1974; Comalco Research and Technology, 1994).

Fig. 5 Solidification pattern showing progressive solidification of the bedplate towards the in-gate. The bulkhead # 5
(circled) can been seen solidifying towards the ingate. The invisible areas in the casting indicate areas that are fully
o
solid or are below the solidus temperature of 482 C.

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process
Fig. 6 SOLTIME represents local solidification time. The contours clearly indicate that the ingate solidifies after the
bulkhead # 5 machining area (indicate by the horizontal line).

Fig. 7 FSTIME_30, meaning a feeding efficiency of 30%, indicates that the bulkheads 5 and 6 machining interface
(horizontal line) does not contain any converging islands of high FSTIME values. This indicated that the machining
area would not have regions with feeding problems, which later turned out to be untrue (when a feeding factor of 20%
was used).

Early SDAS studies of binary Al-4.5%Cu alloy were carried out by Dann et al (1974) who developed a relationship
0.39
SDAS = 7.5t s , where ts indicates the solidification time. Radakrishna and Seshan (1980, 1992) studied the effect of
chills on 319-type alloy for different section thickness and have proposed a SDAS versus relationship that falls within a range
of values. Comalco Research Center (CRC) (1994) has compiled similar data for alloy AA320 for use in the improved low
pressure process (ILP). The AA320 alloy used by CRC was more or less similar in composition to alloy 319, and the work of
0.36
Dann et al (1974) is in close agreement with the relationship reported by CRC, which is SDAS = 7.1t s .

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process
Fig. 8 FEEDING results using feeding effectivity of 30% showed porosity-prone areas deep within the casting. Note
that the machining interface does not show any feeding problems that might be a cause of concern in terms of
porosity.

Fig. 9 SDAS values in a section roughly halfway into the ingates connecting bulkheads #5 and #6. These results
indicated that the ingate solidifies after the bulkhead region of the bedplate. The SDAS values were in strong
agreement with measured values (see Table 2).

The COMPOSE utility within the software allows for the creation and display of user defined criteria functions. An example
of the use of the COMPOSE function to predict SDAS values for 319 alloy using the equation derived by CRC is shown in
Figure 9. The SDAS versus time relationship for results obtained in Simulation #1 showed excellent correlation with
measured values. The predicted values and the measured values of SDAS are listed in Table 2.

Having eliminated the first two hypotheses as inapplicable, it was decided to verify some criteria functions (hypothesis #3)
that may indicate a favorable cooling rate regime in bulkhead #5. This was done using results obtained from Simulation #1
and was done prior to testing the last hypothesis.

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process
 Table 2. Actual SDAS measurements and their comparison with those predicted by Simulation #1.

Location Measured SDAS Measured SDAS SDAS predicted by Simulation #1

Bulkhead #5 Bulkhead #6
Bulkhead interface 39.4 m 36.4 m Simulation indicates SDAS in the
range 39.934.4 m in all regions
6.5 mm below the 41.7 m 36.3 m just above and below the
interface machining interface in bulkhead
#5 (see Figure 9)
9 mm above the 41.0 m 35.9 m
interface

There have been various criteria functions developed by many researchers over the past few years to suggest a cooling rate
regime that might be favorable for the casting unsoundness (Johnson and Kura, 1959; Viswanathan, 1990; Felcicelli et al
2000, Berry 1991). The term casting unsoundness appears to be applied to porosity, which may include both shrinkage and
gas porosity. Johnson and Kura (1959) studied the feeding behavior of Al-7Mg alloy and suggested a minimum temperature
gradient of 1.1oC/cm to produce sound castings. Vishwanthan (1990) studied the Al-4.5% copper alloy (binary version of
alloy 319) and concluded that for a certain class of castings, the local temperature gradient divided by the rate of movement
of the freezing front applies. It must be noted that while Al-7Mg alloy has a freezing rate of 71oC is considered a long
freezing range alloy. Alloy 319 has a freezing range of 128oC, which is almost twice that of Al-7Mg. Consequently, the
minimum temperature gradient to produce sound casting may be much higher than that recommended for Al-7Mg alloy.
More recently, feeder design recommendations based on criteria functions have been recommended by Turyakioglu and
Berry (1999), thus providing greater legitimacy to the argument of using criteria functions as a practical tool to predict
porosity. However, caution must be used in the application of these criteria functions as their application is dependent upon
casting geometry, melt treatment, nuclei (inclusions), alloy content and pressure head amongst others (Felcicelli et al, 2000).
Nevertheless, the simplicity of criteria functions and their predictive capabilities in indicating areas that may have cooling
rate conditions conducive to the formation of defects in castings cannot be ignored.

In the present studies, temperature gradient results were predicted in and around bulkhead #5 and bulkhead #6. The gradient
results were predicted at a preset temperature of 549oC, meaning that when the local temperature reached this value in a
particular area of the casting, a temperature gradient result was written. This relationship, which is similar in principal to the
one used by Johnson and Kura (1959), is shown in Figure 10(a). Even though quoting absolute values of gradients as criteria
limits for definite casting unsoundness is far fetched, it is clear that the very low gradients developing in the bulkhead #5 at
the machining interface (Figure 10(a)) indicates that there are merits in using gradient type criteria functions as a tool to
identify unsound areas in the casting.

In addition to the temperature gradient type criteria in the present study, there appears to be anecdotal evidence of average
cooling rates being used as criteria functions, and typical values quoted by hearsay are around 2oC/sec for aluminum alloys.
There does not appear to be any evidence in literature to substantiate this claim, but it appears that this is a corollary of
studies involving temperature gradient type criteria functions. In the casting optimization software, a relationship (equation
below) that predicts average cooling rate results may be constructed using the COMPOSE function. In the current study, the
freezing range divided by the time between liquidus and solidus is used to predict the Average cooling rate in the casting.

(TL Ts )
Average cooling rate (oC/s)=
LIQTOSOL

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process
 (a) (b)

Fig. 10 (a) Temperature gradient result predicted by the simulation showing regions of very low gradient developing
at the machining interface in both bulkheads (#5 and #6), and (b) Average cooling rate result generated using the
o o
COMPOSE utility within MAGMASOFT. These results indicate an average cooling rate in the range 1.66 C/s - 1.94 C/s
in and around the machining interface.

The Average cooling rate criteria constructed using results of Simulation # 1 for bulkheads #5 and #6 are shown in Figure
10(b). The results show an Average cooling rate between 1.66oC/s - 1.94oC/s is obtained in and around the machining
interface. This range may be considered credible in terms of favorable cooling rate for casting unsoundness. However, using
this criteria function alone, in light of lack of any published work, to identify areas in the casting that will show casting
unsoundness is a major leap in faith and may result in incorrect analysis of a more specific problem.

The above discussion is a detailed analysis of all hypotheses using results obtained from Simulation #1. Even though there
were some indications of thermal conditions that point towards some impending casting problems in bulkheads #5 and #6,
conclusive predictions of defects (porosity) were not obtained from results. The only area that warranted further investigation
was the feeding related issue. As discussed earlier, it was felt that the borderline feeding problems in the casting were not
predicted using an optimum Feeding factor of 30%, and it was decided to re-run the simulation with a lower than optimum
Feeding factor of 20% (Simulation #2). Changing the feeding factor in a simulation only changes the force-feeding
characteristics in the casting and will not affect any other thermal characteristics. Consequently, only testing of the last
hypothesis was required.

In running Simulation #2 with a Feeding efficiency of 20%, all other process parameters were maintained identical to those
that were used in Simulation #1. The results obtained were interesting indeed. Analysis of FSTIME_20 results predicted an
island of large FSTIME_20 value exactly at the machining interface of the ingate feeding bulkhead #5 (Figure 11(a)). The
FEEDING result shown in Figure 11(b) complemented the FSTIME_20 result by showing feeding problems in the same
region of the ingate. All the other bulkheads (#1-#10) were analyzed to see if similar feeding problems existed, but none of
them showed a problem similar to the one that was seen in bulkhead #5.

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process
 (a) (b)

Fig. 11 (a) FSTIME_20 values with a feeding efficiency of 20% indicate that the bulkhead #5 machining interface
(horizontal line) contains an island of high FSTIME value, and (b) the corresponding area showed a FEEDING problem
at the machining interface. These results were obtained from Simulation #2.

TOOLING CHANGES AND PRODUCTIVITY GAINS

Having identified the problem as feeding related, it was decided to make a local tooling change to the ingate feeding
bulkhead #5. This decision was based after detailed analysis of the results obtained from Simulation #1 and Simulation #2.
The design change to the ingate involved decreasing the taper on the ingate feeding bulkhead # 5, and this design change is
shown in Figure 12.

Fig. 12 Design changes implemented to the ingate prior to running the final simulation (simulation #3).

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process
The final simulation (Simulation #3) was carried out with a feeding effectivity of 20% and process parameters similar to
earlier simulations. The FSTIME_20 result obtained for this simulation is shown in Figure 13(a). A comparison of Figure
13(a) and Figure 11(a) clearly shows that, in the latter, the island of high FSTIME_20 value in the ingate (at the machining
interface) feeding bulkhead #5 has disappeared. Figure 13(a) also shows high FSTIME_20 values in the middle of the ingate
pipe feeding directly into the bedplate. The absence of islands of high FSTIME_20 values in the ingate resulted in a
FEEDING prediction shown in Figure 13(b). This FEEDING result is considered a major improvement; so much so, it was
decided to implement this ingate design change on the floor.

(a) (b)

Fig. 13 (a) FSTIME_20 values after the design change to the ingate feeding bulkhead #5. The result shows a pipe of
high FSTIME values feeding the bulkhead, and (b) the corresponding area does not show any major FEEDING
problems at the machining interface.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The bedplate is a high volume part and runs simultaneously on several machines at the Teksid facility. Since the
implementation of the design change, a reduction in reject rates were experienced across the board in the manufacturing
facility. The full impact of the design change is yet to be compiled. However, early indications suggest that even though the
actual design change was small, its impact on the reject rates will be substantial. Due to the confidential nature of the
program, details of the improvements remain as commercial-in-confidence information with Teksid, Mexico.

An effort has been made in this paper to demonstrate how simulation technology can be leveraged along with other
metallurgical techniques in problem-solving casting defects in industry. Companies who use simulation technologies in-
house can benefit immensely from these tools as it takes the guesswork out of the process or tooling-related changes that are
necessary to improve manufacturing operations. All process related and tooling related changes can be implemented on the
desktop, simulated, analyzed and then finalized using simulated technologies. The impact of simulation technologies based
approached for problem solving is a must for companies striving to join the elite group of Best Practice Companies.

ACKNOWLEGEMENT

The primary author (WS) would like to thank the management of Teksid Alumino de Mexico, S.A de C.V for permission to
publish this paper.

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process
REFERENCES

Achim, S., Dirk, S., Simulation in modernen Qualittsmanagementsystemen, Vorgetragen auf dem Deutschen Gieereitag am
in Berlin (20/21.06.2002), 2002 (in German, for English version see author Heisser, C. below).
Berry, J.T., Integrating Solidification Modeling into North American Casting Production The current Challenge,
Proceedings of the18th Annual Automotive Materials Symposium, May 1-2, 1991, Detroit, Michigan. Eds. Kim.C
and Kim.C.-W, TMS, Warrendale, PA.
Campbell, J., Some recent developments in the Aluminum Casting Industry, Cast Metals, Vol 1, No 3, 1988, p156-160.
Comalco Research Center (CRC) - unpublished internal research report (1994), Analysis of Dendrite Arm Spacing for 320
Alloy, Private communication with Dr. Malcolm Couper, Comalco Research Center, Thomastown, Melbourne,
Australia.
Dann, P.C., Eady, J.A., Hogan, L.M., Dendrite arm Spacing in Aluminum Alloys, Journal Australian Institute of Metals,
1974, Vol 19, p140-147.
Felcicelli, S.D., Poirier, D.R., Sung, P.K., A model for the Pressure and Redistribution of Gas-Forming Elements in
Multicomponent Casting Alloys, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, Vol 31B, December 2000, p1283-
1292.
Heathcock, C.J., Precision sand mold casting processes for aluminum, Proceeding of Aluminum Association Conference,
Alumitech 94, 26-29 October 1994, Atlanta, Georgia.
Heisser, C., Simulation in Modern Quality Management Systems, AFS Trans., AFS Trans., Paper #03-111, 2003.
Hogg, J.C., Westengen, H., Albright, D.L., Low Pressure sand casting of magnesium alloys, Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Extraction, Refining and Fabrication of Light Metals, Ontario, Aug 18-21, 1991.
Johnson, W.H., Kura, J.G., Some Principles for Producing Sound Al-7Mg Alloy Castings, AFS Trans., Vol 67, 1959, p535-
552.
Kaida, K., Matsubara, N., Minai, C., Hayashi, Y., Masuda, R., Uozumi, M., New Casting Technology of Closed Deck
Aluminum Cylinder Blocks, SAE Technical Paper Series 901725, 1990.
Meurer, B., Hamferkamp, D., Jorg, A., Use of simulation in the Production of Cast Aluminum Wheels Using MAGMASOFT
at Michelin Kronprinz Werke GmbH, Giesserei, Heft 6, 2001, p59-65 (For English version see
www.magmasoft.com under Press/Publications).
Miller, J.C., Automotive Aluminum Casting Processes and Technology, Die Casting Management, April 1991, p16-20.
Ohgami, E., Ohsawa, N., Saito, T., Nissans New V8 and L4 Aluminum Cylinder Block Design and Production, SAE
Technical Paper Series 910431, 1991.
Radhakrishna, K., Seshan, S., Controlling DAS in Aluminum Alloy Castings, AFS Trans., 1992, p662-671.
Radhakrishna.K, Seshan.S: Controlling DAS in Aluminum Alloy Castings, AFS Trans., 1980, p695-702.
Smith, R.A., Wilkins, P.S.A., Low Pressure Sand Casting: Current Experience with a New Process, AFS Trans., 1986, p785-
792.
Turyakioglu, M., Berry, J.T., Use of Feeder Design Recommendations and Criteria Functions for the efficient Feeding of
Aluminum Castings, Proceedings Ist International Conference on Gating, Filling and Feeding of Aluminum
Castings, Nashville, TN, Oct 11-13, 1999, p239-247.
Viswanathan, S., The relation of Solidification Parameters to Microporosity in Al-4.5% Cu alloys Castings, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Pittsburg, 1990.
Watanabe, M., Goto, S., Takahashi, T., A comparison of High and Low Pressure Die Casting Processes, 7th SDEC
International Die Casting Congress, Paper # 7572, Chicago, 1972.
Westengen, H., Holta, O., Low Pressure Permanent mould casting of Magnesium Recent developments, Foundry Trade
Journal, October, 1989, p738-740.

Application of Casting Process Optimization Tools to a Structural Aluminum Part made via the LPC Process