An Evaluation of Quality Parameters for
High Pressure Die castings
R. Lumley, N. Deeva and M. Gershenzon
CSIRO Future Manufacturing Flagship, Victoria, Australia
Copyright © 2011 American Foundry Society
Abstract
Several techniques for examining casting “quality” as
it relates to high pressure diecast alloy A380 have been
evaluated in the as-cast condition. The roles of three simple
parameters were considered: a) metal velocity at the gate, b)
the effect of increased Cu or Zn content, and c) the effect of
rotary degassing on a recycled melt. It was shown that tensile
failure in high pressure die casting (HPDC) specimens is
influenced by complex defect clusters and the interaction of a
variety of casting defects. The two major defect cluster types
identified in the current work were comprised of a dispersed
foam-like shrinkage defect, and/or large oxide films present
on the fracture surfaces. The removal of hydrogen had little
effect on average tensile properties which was a surprising
Measures of Comparative “Quality” of Al Castings
Statistical Techniques
One significant advantage of the HPDC manufacturing
route is the very high production rates with which parts
may be produced. With regards to laboratory testing, this
means that large numbers of nominally identical samples
can be produced without substantial variations in prop-
erties, composition, microstructure or dimensions. Since
HPDC tensile test bars require no machining, and their
gage dimensions are identical within a very small mar-
gin of variation, rapid determination of large numbers of
tensile results is possible. This means an examination of
several different techniques for casting quality may be
quantitatively tested.
± 3 Sigma Analysis
It is a common practice for buyers of aluminium castings to
specify values of -3s for the products they purchase from
metalcasting facilities. That is, the lower bounds are speci-
fied as the mean minus three times the standard deviation
of a statistically relevant number of test samples. This tech-
nique has excellent utility in that it is easy to use and in the-
ory, only 0.27% of products manufactured will fall outside
the 3s values. (i.e., 0.135% above or below the +3s or -3s
values respectively) In the context of aluminium castings,
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
result, but rotary degassing did appear to remove a portion
of the oxides present in the melt, thereby improving casting
quality. It is shown that of the different analyses conducted,
all could differentiate a degree of casting quality, but some
techniques (i.e., Weibull statistics combined with flow
curve derivations based on the Ludwik-Holloman equation)
are particularly useful. It is proposed that complex strain
localization and failure occurs in HPDC specimens,
which results in a proportionately large fraction of defects
appearing on the fracture surface.
Keywords: high pressure diecasting, HPDC, casting quality,
A380 aluminium
another advantage is that an adverse change in quality may
be quickly detected by comparing results against a known
baseline value of -3s. This procedure also allows for a rapid
comparison of the same products manufactured by different
facilities, or even different machine operators. The disad-
vantage of this technique is that it assumes a normal distribu-
tion of data exists, which is often not true for a statistically
large number of castings.
Weibull Analysis
It has been proposed that examination of the Weibull dis-
tribution is a better test of quality in aluminium castings1,2
than -3s. Weibull statistics were first developed for brittle
ceramic materials, and have the major advantage in that
adjustments can be made based on the size and scale of the
product being made. Another benefit is that the Weibull
modulus, “m,” is a useful means by which to compare
components made by different processes. As the value of
m increases, the narrower the range of tensile strengths
(and ductility) which will exist, so reliability is improved.
This approach has many merits for aluminium high pres-
sure diecastings. As with other brittle materials, the tensile
strength data of castings in practice exhibits a wide amount
of scatter, and the Weibull distribution provides a simple
method to determine accurately the probability of failure
at any given stress. A practical method for using Weibull
analysis is summarized from Davies:3
37
The Weibull analysis provides a probability of failure at a
given stress, and is often expressed by the empirical rela-
tionship:
Equation 1
Where P is the probability of failure at a stress, s, m is the
Weibull modulus, su is the stress at which P = 0 (and is nor-
mally taken to equal zero), X is the strength limiting dimen-
sion of the material, and so is a normalizing factor, some-
times referred to as the position parameter. Therefore, for
specimens of constant geometry,
Equation 2
the simplest method of obtaining so and m from a series of
data is to rank the s data from smallest to largest and assign
P values so that:
Equation 3
Where “i” is the rank and N the total number of specimens,
Eqn 2 can then be expressed as:
y = A + Bx Equation 4
Where:
The best estimates of so and m can then be obtained using
the linear least squares method, for example:
Equation 5
Equation 6
Where:
More commonly however, it is simplest to plot the xy data
from Eqn 4 and determine the slope of the line which gives
the value of the Weibull modulus, m. The value of position
parameter, so, is equal to the value at which 37% (1 - 1/e) of
samples survive.2
38
A theoretical physical background to the Weibull distribu-
tion has also been established,4 related to the probability
density f(a) of flaw sizes within the material, with f(a) being
approximated by:
Equation 7
Where n in Eqn 7 is the rate at which f(a) tends to zero for
a>>c/n and c is a scaling parameter. Assuming there are a
large number of randomly oriented flaws, m and n are related
through m = 2n - 2. (Note that “n” used in Eqn 7 is the same
notation as the original reference 4 and is not the same as
the strain hardening exponent, n, defined later for Eqns 13
and 14.) Therefore, it is clear the scatter in strength data and
hence the value of the Weibull modulus, is directly related
to the flaw size distribution and therefore casting quality.
One additional advantage to the use of Weibull modulus is in
utilization of the information gained for material at different
scales. For example, Eqn 1 may alternately be written as:5
Equation 8
Where; V is the volume of the component. Therefore, for the
same probability of survival (or failure; note that probability
of survival = 1- probability of failure) the stress at failure
varies with the volume of the component. For example, if su
= 0, and V1 > V2, then:
Equation 9
and
s1 / s2 = (V2 / V1)l/m Equation 10
So for an equal probability of survival (or failure), a larger
volume of the component will display a lower stress to cause
failure.
Similarly, the stress ratio between bending and tension for
the same probability of survival (or failure) is also given by:
sbend / stensile = {2(m + 1)2}l/m Equation 11
The Influence of Defects on
Mechanical Properties of Aluminium Castings
A range of different defect types exist in aluminium cast-
ings and all affect mechanical properties. Elongation and
tensile strength are particularly sensitive to the presence of
any types of casting defect. Surappa et al.6 has shown that
the decrease in elongation to fracture through the presence
of porosity could be related to the projected area of pores
on the fracture surface. This model was further expanded
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
by Cáceres and Selling7 who showed that similar behavior
existed irrespective of the type of defect or numbers of de-
fects, whether it was porosity, dross, oxides or artificially
introduced holes. Bulk volumetric porosity had almost no
correlation to tensile properties, whereas the number or
proportion of defects present on the fracture surface was
directly related to the tensile behavior. Cáceres and Sell-
ing7 proposed a model based on the relationship between a
cross sectional area not containing a defect, Ao, and the cross
sectional area containing a defect, Ai, such that Ai=Ao(1-f),
where f is the area fraction covered by the defect. In this
case, load equilibrium is maintained if:
si(1-f)Aoe-ei =shAoe-eh Equation 12
Where si and ei are the true stress and strain inside the de-
fect, and sh and eh are the true stress and strain outside the
defect.
If the material follows the well-known relationship (Lud-
wik-Holloman equation):
s = Ken Equation 13
Where s is true stress, e is true plastic strain, K is a constant,
known as the strength coefficient and n is the strain harden-
ing exponent;
then combining Eqns 12 and 13 leads to:
(1-f)e-ei ein = e-eh ehn Equation 14
This equation relates the strain inside the defect to the strain
outside the defect. As may be appreciated, when solving
Eqn 14, as the defect area present on the fracture surface f,
increases, for a fixed value of strain outside the defect (eh),
the strain inside the defect containing region (ei ) increases
more rapidly.
Quality Index for Al Castings
Quality index (Q) was originally derived by Drouzy et al.8 to
describe the presence, or absence, of casting defects in per-
manent mold and sand cast Al-Si-Mg alloys such as A356
and A357. It was first developed as an empirical formula:
Q = UTS+150logEf Equation 15
Where Q and UTS are in MPa and Ef is the percent elonga-
tion at fracture (i.e., elastic + plastic strain). Later, Cáce-
res9,10 showed that for any aluminium alloy, derivation of
the flow curve described by the Ludwik-Holloman equation
(Eqn 13) could provide the basis for the assignment of qual-
ity indices based on proportions of what would constitute a
defect-free casting, where the true strain e = n. Although the
Ludwik-Holloman equation is an empirical relationship, n
can be shown experimentally to be equivalent to the uniform
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
elongation, or the true strain at the onset of necking. This
means that a defect-free casting will continue to elongate un-
til the maximum stress is achieved and necking begins, lead-
ing to failure. The presence of defects in the material means
that void growth and crack propagation occurs at levels of
strength and ductility where e < n, these levels being pro-
portionate to the fraction of defects present in the material.
As an alternate to use of the Ludwik-Holloman equation,
the Kocks-Mecking Model and the derivation of the latter
to give the Voce equation are based on a first principles ap-
proach to strain hardening, and represent an excellent al-
ternative.11 Whereas, the Ludwik-Holloman equation may
underestimate experimental results, the Kocks-Mecking
Model may have the opposite effect and be less relevant to
low levels of strain.11 As may be appreciated, scatter exists
in nominally equivalent material, which suggests that indi-
ces based on both models represent the data reasonably well
in application.
One limitation to the use of the quality index is the fact
that, in practice, it is often only used with a small amount
of experimental data, or used with average (mean) results
obtained from a similarly small number of samples. The
combination of these two factors may invalidate conclusions
regarding component quality, since the scatter in tensile data
is directly related to the flaw size distribution and hence
the quality of the cast material. Although average values of
elongation and tensile strength are often presented in litera-
ture, what are clearly of great importance are the lowest val-
ues of mechanical properties as these provide the limits for
safe component operation. These lower limits are important
because it is these values around which components will (or
should) actually be designed.
Experimental Methods
HPDC alloy specimens for tensile testing were produced us-
ing a Toshiba cold chamber die-casting machine with a 250
ton locking force, a shot sleeve with an internal diameter of
50 mm and a stroke of 280 mm. The die provided two cylin-
drical tensile specimens and one flat tensile specimen from
each shot, and these all conformed to specification AS1391.
The cylindrical tensile test bars used for the current tensile
tests had a total length of 100 mm with a central parallel
gauge section 33 mm long and a diameter of 5.55 ±0.1 mm.
The flat tensile specimen on the runner was not used in the
current testing. The first 10 shots in each run were discarded.
At least 100 tensile samples (50 shots) were then cast in each
batch, from which samples for tensile testing were randomly
selected. Tensile testing was conducted following standard
procedures, at a strain rate of 5 mm/min.
Degassing was done with a Reading Foundry Products Mod-
el RE 2/4 rotary degassing unit, operating at 300 RPM with
a flow rate of high purity argon of 7L/minute for 20 minutes
(The furnace held approximately 140kg of metal). Reduced
39
pressure testing was conducted during selected experiments
using a stainless steel cup with a Dynarad reduced pressure
test unit, where a vacuum of -100 kPa was applied. Follow-
ing these procedures, density was calculated using the Ar-
chimedes technique.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was conducted using
either a Leica S440 SEM microscope, or alternately, an FEI
Quanta 400FEG environmental SEM. For select cases, Im-
age Pro Plus analysis software was used with color segmen-
tation to approximate the area of the defect on the fracture
surface.
Results and Discussion
Statistical Analysis
Initial experiments were conducted to determine if mean-
ingful results related to casting quality could be derived for
HPDC components. As a baseline measure of performance,
in previous work on HPDC’s12,13 it has been demonstrated that
some differences exist in the tensile properties derived from
as-cast samples produced with a velocity at the gate of 26 m/s,
compared to those produced with higher velocities such as 82
m/s. The difference in properties was later shown to become
more significant in heat treated conditions,14 where, as would
be expected, a higher quality as-cast part will result in a higher
quality heat treated one. Data for an A380 composition (Alloy
1 from Table 1) were generated using 25 individual tensile
tests for each of the two melt velocities.
Table 1. Alloys Examined
Table 2. Data for Alloy 1 Samples Produced at 26m/s or 82 m/s
40
Values of the mean (m), one standard deviation (s), and
m-3s for the tensile data of each of the two conditions are
shown in Table 2. As a particularly simple technique for ex-
amining the comparative quality of the two sets of castings,
this technique shows an excellent representation, since only
0.135% of actual data should fall below m-3s. (Note that m
±1s represents 68.2% of the data, m ±2s represents 95.4% of
the data, and m ±3s represents 99.7% of the data). As shown
in Table 2, values of m -3s for the 82 m/s samples were sub-
stantially better than for the 26 m/s samples. In this regard
the values of m -3s for the 82 m/s condition are actually
reasonably close to the mean values for the 26 m/s condi-
tion. Here it is important to note that these tensile property
values are only valid for the specific geometry tested, and
importantly, are not necessarily comparable with castings of
other geometries or gating systems.
Representative samples having close to the mean values of
elongation and tensile strength were chosen for further study.
Figure 1 shows fracture surfaces of an as-cast sample pro-
duced with a melt velocity at the gate of 26 m/s. The fracture
surface is shown as a secondary SEM image in Fig. 1(a) and
as an equivalent Backscattered Electron (BSE) image in Fig.
1(b). Figure 1(c) and (d) are higher magnification images of
the central region of the fracture surface, also in BSE mode.
Casual examination of Fig. 1(a) suggests that no large pores
or defects were present on the fracture surface. However, the
BSE image in Fig. 1(b) reveals a defect that occupies a very
large proportion of the fracture surface (the defect was found
to have an area of approximately 6.1 mm2 using Image Pro
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
Plus software). Higher magnification imaging (Fig. 1[c & d])
showed that this is a region where dispersed shrinkage po-
rosity was present, because there was evidence of an almost
foam-like, random dendritic structure. There was also a small
oxide film present in the exact centre of Fig. 1(d) which helps
highlight the wide range of features that may be present in a
complex defect cluster, formed during diecasting.
Another important result was that the tensile properties of
the actual specimen photographed in Fig. 1 were very close
to the statistical mean (Table 2). An implication of this ob-
servation is that either a) the properties of specimens are not
particularly affected by the presence of such large defects, or
b) all of the 25 specimens tested were of equivalently (low)
quality. Since images of the fracture surface of an average
specimen produced at a higher melt velocity of 82 m/s (Fig.
2) show less evidence of large defects, and the specimen has
higher tensile properties, it may be assumed that explanation
a) is likely to be incorrect. As a result of the microstructural
differences between Figs. 1 and 2, it is a reasonable assump-
tion that strain localization during plastic strain is far more
severe in the sample produced at 26 m/s and that this differ-
ence will arise primarily from the defect distribution which
is observed on the fracture surface.
Figure 1. Fracture surface of an average sample produced at 26 m/s at different magnifications.
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
The Weibull distribution was used to further analyze the
data presented in Table 2. In Fig. 3, the Weibull distribu-
tions for tensile strength (UTS) and elongation at failure (Ef)
are shown and the differences between specimens produced
at the two melt velocities are significant. For example, Fig.
3(b) shows that at a stress level of 320 MPa, the probability
of failure in the 26 m/s samples is 95%, whereas for those
produced at 82 m/s, the probability of failure is only 1.1%.
Conversely, 1.1% probability of failure in the 26 m/s sam-
ples occurs at close to 260 MPa, or a difference of 60 MPa.
As shown by Fig. 3(a), the Weibull modulus was 27.3 for
the samples produced at 26 m/s, and 42.3 for samples pro-
duced at 82 m/s. This increased Weibull modulus for the
higher velocity material indicates that since the spread of
data for the tensile strength is reduced, the flaw size distribu-
tion must also be reduced. (It is also important to note that
such a lower value of Weibull modulus as seen in the 26 m/s
samples will produce a more pronounced size and bend ef-
fect, as described by Eqns 8-11). As may be appreciated, the
raw data of tensile results may also be used to examine the
spread of elongation at failure, Ef. Although it is not as usual
to examine the strain term Ef using the Weibull distribution,
the elongation to fracture is a more sensitive indicator of
casting quality2 so both tensile strength and elongation are
41
parameters requiring analysis. In Fig. 3(c), this data is plot-
ted as a distribution of Ef, and in Fig. 3(d) as a probability
of failure for a level of elongation, P(Ef). Here the stress term
from Eqns 2-6 is replaced by the strain term, Ef.
Here it is very important to point out that the Weibull modu-
lus of Ef is actually less for the 82 m/s melt velocity than for
the 26 m/s condition, irrespective of the fact that this trend
is opposite to that observed for the tensile strength. These
differences are evident in Fig. 3(d), and the consequences of
this observation are that even though the values of elongation
are greater in all samples tested in the 82 m/s condition, the
distribution of values is broader, and it may then follow that
the distribution of flaw sizes was increased simply because
a greater proportion of samples are of higher relative qual-
ity. As may be appreciated, tensile strength does not need to
change as much to result in a large change in elongation, as
tensile strain increases. In these cases therefore, the Weibull
modulus as well as the values of the position parameters (so
and Efo) are also very important measures of quality. (Posi-
tion parameter for this alloy is discussed in more detail later
in the section on the effects of alloy chemistry).
Figure 2. Fracture surface of an average sample produced at 82 m/s at different magnifications (see text for details). Note
that the size of the primary composite defect present on the fracture surface is significantly reduced when compared
to the sample produced at 26 m/s.
42
It therefore seems clear that this technique provides a ver-
satile representation of the quantifiable differences between
the two casting conditions. Furthermore, this approach al-
lows for a robust evaluation for what may be considered to
be “safe” from a design perspective for multiple parameters.1
In contrast to the values of m-3s presented in Table 2, which
are applicable only to the specific geometry of the casting
tested, the results from the Weibull analysis are able to be
scaled to cope with different specimen volumes, geometries
and loading conditions (Eqns 8-11).
Use of the Ludwik-Holloman Equation
Further investigation of quality in the A380 high pressure di-
ecastings was conducted using the techniques developed by
Cáceres,9,10 based on the Ludwik-Holloman equation (Eqn
13). Values of K and n defined by Eqn 13 were determined
for each of the two data sets, (i.e., the 25 samples for each
of the two melt velocities tested). Values of n were deter-
mined by first converting all 25 of the 0.2% proof stress and
tensile strength data points to their true stress values, and all
elongation data points to true strain values. All of the results
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
for both melt velocities were used to form portions of the
average true stress–true strain curve for the alloy. Values of
n were then determined from the slope of the log-log plot
of the line of best fit for each data set; that is, a) 26 m/s,
b) 82 m/s, and c) both velocities combined. At 26 m/s, the
strain hardening exponent, n, was 0.274, and the strength
coefficient K was 906. At 82 m/s, n was 0.261, and K was
872. When both data sets were combined n was 0.267 and
K was 888. All analyses showed reasonable agreement. To
validate the technique, a comparison was made between the
model true stress–true strain flow curve generated from the
combined average values of n (0.267) and K (888) shown in
Fig. 4, with the same curve determined experimentally for a
single specimen diecast at a velocity at the gate of 82 m/s.
All true stress and true strain data for both velocities are also
plotted. The results therefore confirm that this method pro-
vides a valid means of determining useful values for n and
K, for the alloy A380. An added advantage is the ability of
the model to produce values consistent with those resulting
from a statistically large batch of tensile tests, in this case a
total of 50 tests.
(a)
(c)
Figure 3. Weibull distributions of Alloy 1 produced at 26 or 82 m/s. Views (a) and (c) show the distribution and values
of Weibull modulus, m for the UTS and elongation at failure, Ef; (b) and (d) show the probability of failure at stress or
elongation levels for the two conditions tested.
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
From these values of n and K, a quality chart based around
the model flow curve representative of Alloy 1 was derived,
and is shown in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5 it can be seen that for the
samples produced at 26 m/s, the comparative iso-q values as
defined by Cáceres9,10 are between 0.05 and 0.1, and for the
samples produced at 82 m/s, the iso-q values are between
~0.1 and 0.17. Here it is important to note that the lowest
values for the 82 m/s data set were still greater than the high-
est value for the 26 m/s data set.
Effects of Alloy Chemistry
Two additional A380 alloys were tested (Alloys 2 and 3 from
Table 1). Alloy 2 had a higher level of Cu compared to Alloy
1, and Alloy 3 had a higher level of Zn. These alloys were
tested to determine if there were any quantifiable differences
in quality which could be observed because of the composi-
tional changes. Raising Cu level within an A380 alloy may
produce higher levels of strength, but also greater quantities
of hard intermetallic domains in the solidified eutectic that
adversely influence ductility. The susceptibility to hot tear-
(b)
(d)
43
ing may also change. Similarly, increased levels of Zn may
increase porosity in the casting due to its high vapour pres-
sure above 420C (788F).15 Zn has also been reported to sta-
bilize needles or platelets of the Beta phase Al5FeSi,16 which
is well known to cause embrittlement within cast aluminium
alloys. Alternately, either element may enhance castability
as well as increasing strength, so that relative quality may
instead improve.
A further 25 tensile tests were conducted for samples pro-
duced at 26 m/s and 82 m/s for each of Alloys 2 and 3. Val-
ues of the mean (m), one standard deviation (s), and m-3s for
the tensile data of each of the two conditions are shown in
Tables 3 and 4. Examinations were also made of the fracture
surfaces of specimens of Alloy 2 that had been produced at
a velocity of 26 m/s, for three samples which had similar
tensile properties. Images are shown in Figs. 6-8 and some
large, characteristic defects, with different origins are ob-
served. It was also noted that, although the defects ranged in
Table 3. Data for Alloy 2 Samples Produced at 26m/s or 82 m/s
Figure 4. Experimental data for samples produced
at 26m/s and 82 m/s overlaid with one experimental
true-stress-true strain curve, as well as the model true
stress-true strain curve derived using the Ludwik-
Holloman equation. Values of the strain hardening
exponent, n, and strength coefficient, K, derived are
shown within the plot.
44
size, shape and type, the tensile properties of the three sam-
ples were virtually identical. In some cases, the defects were
more homogeneously distributed than others (i.e., compare
Figs. 7 and 8). However, their actual effects on tensile prop-
erties were nevertheless similar.
Weibull distributions were then used to examine the accumu-
lated data in greater detail. As before, the samples produced at
26 m/s were inferior to those produced at 82 m/s. The Weibull
modulus and so values as they relate to tensile strength for Al-
loys 1-3 are presented in Table 5(a). The Weibull modulus and
Efo values as they relate to elongation at failure for Alloys 1-3
are presented in Table 5(b). Respective distributions are pre-
sented in Figure 9 (for tensile strength only). For specimens
produced with a melt velocity at the gate of 26 m/s, it is clear
from Table 5(a) and Fig. 9(a) that Alloy 1 is inferior to Alloy
2 whereas Alloy 3 falls between the other two. This primar-
ily reflects differences in one or both of position parameter and
Weibull modulus. Table 5(a) shows this to also be the case for
Figure 5. Quality chart for Alloy 1 at two different melt
velocities, describing the experimental data using the
flow curve derived from the Ludwik-Holloman equation,
after the method developed by Cáceres.9,10 The data for
the 26 m/s condition all falls between the q = 0.05 to
q = 0.1 iso-quality points, whereas that for the 82 m/s
condition nearly all falls between the q = 0.1 and q = 0.2
iso-quality points.
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
samples produced at 82 m/s, although the relative differences
in position parameter are much less such that the curves nearly
overlap (Fig. 9[b]). One feature that is interesting to note is the
differences in Weibull modulus for tensile strength between the
two different melt velocities, for the various alloys. In Alloy 3,
m is more than doubled when going from the lower melt veloc-
ity to the higher one, whereas for Alloy 1, the increase is less.
Therefore although all alloys clearly benefit from the higher
melt velocity at the gate, Alloy 3, which contained higher Zn
levels, benefits most from this change. Additionally, despite
the almost identical results of m for Alloys 1 and 2 at 26 m/s,
the differences between these two when produced at 82 m/s are
significant. Differences are also pronounced in comparisons of
the Weibull distribution for elongation at the different melt ve-

Table 4. Data for Alloy 3 Samples Produced at 26m/s or 82 m/s

Figure 6. Fracture surface of a sample of Alloy 2 showing a combination of an oxide film plus a large foam-like shrinkage
defect. Views (a) secondary electron mode, (b), backscattered electron (BSE) mode show the oxide and defect cluster,
(c & d)) BSE at higher magnification. Note also in (d) there are significant quantities of Fe-bearing particles present on
the fracture surface, the white phase (0.2% proof stress, 184 MPa, UTS 296 MPa, 1.7% Ef).

International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011 45

locities. Alloy 2 displays the same general trends as Alloy 1, also provided in Fig. 3 [c & d]). For Alloy 3 both the Weibull
shown by Table 5(b), where the Weibull modulus is lower and modulus and the position parameter (Efo) are greater for the
the position parameter (Efo) is greater, (results for Alloy 1 are samples produced at 82 m/s.

Table 5a. Weibull Modulus and Position Parameter, so for Tensile Stress

Table 5b. Weibull Modulus and Position Parameter, Efo for Elongation at Failure

Figure 7. Fracture surface of a sample of Alloy 2 showing a large shrinkage foam-like defect cluster on the fracture
surface. Views (a) secondary electron mode, (b), backscattered electron (BSE) mode showing the extensive defect
cluster, (c & d) BSE at higher magnification. (0.2% proof stress 180 MPa, UTS 296 MPa, 1.8% Ef)

46 International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011

The conclusions that can be reached from this are (a), Alloy and (b), both Alloys 2 and 3 display superior quality (higher
3 displays a greater flaw size distribution (i.e., lower Weibull Weibull modulus) to Alloy 1 when cast at 82 m/s. As a result,
modulus) than Alloys 1 and 2 when produced at 26 m/s; it may be concluded that the higher alloying contents do have

Figure 8. A sample of Alloy 2 showing several large oxide defects (in the mm range), on the fracture surface. Views
(a) secondary electron mode, (b), backscattered electron (BSE) mode showing the oxide films, (c & d)) BSE at higher
magnification. Note in (d), the material still shows a small amount of the foam-like shrinkage defect cluster in the centre
of the image and hard, Fe-bearing particles showing white contrast. (0.2% proof stress, 182 MPa, UTS 302 MPa, 1.9% Ef.)

(a) (b)

Figure 9. Two Weibull distributions for the three alloys at (a) 26 m/s, or (b) 82 m/s. Note the differences which exist at
26 m/s are reduced at 82 m/s.

International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011 47

an effect on improving castability, but this is most important
at the higher melt velocity. At the lower velocity, increased
Cu level has had little effect on Weibull modulus, but higher
Zn content has reduced this value and hence has reduced the
relative quality because the flaw size distribution is greater.
Despite the differences due to composition which could be
identified using the Weibull statistics in Tables 5 (a & b),
such variations in chemistry would of course be considered
to be normal during production, where the metal composi-
tion is expected to vary continually within the specification.
Values of K and n were again determined for the data sets
using the procedures outlined in the previous section. Table
6 shows all of the strain hardening exponents (n) and values
of the strength coefficient (K) recorded for each of the three
alloys, at both melt velocities.
480 MPa, and engineering strain of almost 30% (assuming of
course that flow instability did not arise leading to the onset
of early necking).
The results and spread of data shown by the flow curve of
Fig. 11 have additional meaning. By solving Eqn 14 for the
value of strain hardening exponent n, a relationship between
the strain outside of the defect (i.e., true plastic strain), and
the strain inside the defect, may be related to the fraction of
features which have an equivalent effect to defects present on
the fracture surface. That is, it must be taken into account that
defects spread throughout the microstructure are numerous in
type and their interactions may be extraordinarily complex.

The accumulated true stress and true strain data is presented

in Fig. 10, which shows all of the combined tensile test re-
sults plotted together with the model flow curve representing
all 150 tensile tests of the A380 alloy samples.

Figure 11 shows the corresponding quality chart describ-

ing all three alloys, at both melt velocities together with the
model flow curve describing the data, based on an n value of
0.259 and a K value of 883 (Table 6). Since all three alloys are
within the same compositional specification and the values
are similar, it is not necessary to plot lines of constant quality
(iso-q lines) on the diagram. Points corresponding to values
of q of between 0.01 and 1 are marked. As well as describ-
Figure 10. Experimental true stress–true strain data for
ing the behavior of the three different A380 alloys, the curves
samples of Alloys 1-3 produced at 26m/s and 82 m/s
of Fig. 11 also accommodate reasonably well the combined overlaid with the model true stress-true strain curve
results from other specimen geometries, literature values for derived using the Ludwik-Holloman equation. Values
A380 alloy test bars, and samples machined from castings,17-23 of the strength coefficient, K, and the strain hardening
where these are converted to true-stress and true-strain values. exponent, n, derived to generate the model flow curve
Therefore, it may be suggested that Fig. 11 could permit ten- are shown within the plot.
sile properties from any casting made from A380
alloy to be evaluated against this common baseline.
As will be appreciated, this plot is valid for A380
alloy with 0.2% proof stresses between 160 and
190 MPa, and lower values of 0.2% proof stress and
tensile strength resulting from a coarser Al grain,
or Si particle size, causes the strength coefficient
K to be reduced and hence the curve may be offset
downwards. Similarly, increased Mg content above
0.2% for other 380 type alloys (i.e., C380) causes
the strength coefficient to be raised and the curve
is then offset upwards. What is also interesting to
consider from these derivations of n and K, is their
relative magnitude, and therefore, the scope for im-
provement in the alloy. In particular, it is interesting
to note that, A380 alloy is reaching less than 20% of
its maximum potential, and that if straining was not Figure 11. Quality indices (q) plotted along the flow curve determined
limited by defects (i.e., a defect free casting) neck- for the combined results for three A380 alloys at two different
ing would only begin at a true stress value of 622 melt velocities. Area fraction equivalent defects are plotted on the
MPa and a true strain value (where e = n) of ~0.26. second Y axis, determined by solving Eqn 14 for the value of strain
This would correspond to an engineering stress of hardening exponent, n, shown. Symbols are the same as for Fig. 10.

48 International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011

In Fig. 11, the equivalent fraction of defects (generated
by solving Eqn 14 for a strain hardening exponent of n =
0.259) may be examined against the spread of data pres-
ent. For the samples produced at 26 m/s, the proportional
spread of equivalent defects present on the fracture sur-
face ranges from around 0.32 to 0.44. For the samples
produced at 82 m/s, the equivalent values are 0.22 to 0.34.
It is important to note that these numbers generated us-
ing Eqn 14 appear to be very large since it is most com-
mon to have less than 2% average porosity by volume in
a HPDC. However, as noted by Cáceres and Selling,7 the
volume fraction of defects present in a casting is a poor
representation of the tensile fracture behaviour. In addi-
tion, as pointed out by Sigworth,2 the defects present on
the fracture surface may be of the order of three to twenty
times the volume fraction of porosity present in the alloy.
Examination of Figs. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 agree with this state-
ment and suggest that a very large proportion of the frac-
ture surface may be part of a composite defect structure.
In addition to porosity, oxides and Fe bearing particles,
other microstructural features such as Cu bearing inter-
metallics, coarse silicon plates, heterogeneous grain sizes
arising from pre-solidified grains24 and weaker than aver-
age aluminium grains, are also likely to be contributing to
the defect equivalence, where complex flow localization
is considered. In addition, the skin of an A380 HPDC may
have tensile properties higher than the average,* meaning
the weaker, interior material, occupies a relatively large
proportion of the cross sectional area and therefore will
also play an important role in strain localization leading
to failure. (*Note: Preliminary experiments on a limited
number of samples [three] of Alloy 1 produced at 26 m/s,
where the centre was carefully machined out of the cast-
ing leaving only the skin layer, suggest the strength prop-
erties are approximately 20% higher than the average,
for the test bars used in the current work.) In the current
samples, the “skin” layer is 400-500μm thick, and there-
fore accounts for approximately 1/3 of the cross sectional
area. Therefore, although the numbers generated by solv-
ing Eqn 14 for the equivalent defect contents are high,
they do not appear to be unrealistic in light of the actual
defect clusters observed on the fracture surfaces.
Effect of Melt Degassing
To further test these proce-
Table 6. Individual and Combined Strain
dures and to examine one
Hardening Exponents, n and Strength Coefficients, K, for Alloys 1 to 3
potential way to improve
casting quality, an addition-
al set of experiments were
conducted utilizing the prin-
ciples outlined above. Alloy
4 from Table 1 was manu-
factured at a melt veloc-
ity of 82 m/s from recycled
runners, biscuits, and reject
samples of A380 used for
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
making Alloys 1-3. It was expected that the use of recycled
material containing larger proportions of oxides and other
defects would simply produce a greater spread in the re-
sults and would therefore produce a good comparison. Two
batches of samples were prepared. In the first batch of sam-
ples, the recycled material was cast with no special prepara-
tion. Once molten and the temperature stable, the dross was
skimmed from the surface prior to casting. A reduced pres-
sure test sample taken just before casting commenced (but
after skimming) is shown in Fig. 12(a) and it will be seen
that, as expected, the material contained substantial amounts
of hydrogen. It is also reasonable to assume, oxides are pres-
ent in suspension. Following preparation of the first set of
samples, the melt was treated with the rotary degassing unit
operating at 300 RPM with high purity argon flowing at 7
litres/min. for a total of 20 minutes, and a reduced pressure
test specimen was again taken before casting. The results
are shown in Fig. 12(b), and the absence of pores confirms
that the melt had been successfully degassed. In addition,
it would be reasonable to assume, a percentage of the ox-
ides present in the melt were also eliminated.1,25 Gallo25 has
shown that by melt degassing alone without the use of flux,
around 60% of oxide films are removed from the melt, along
with up to 80% of the spinel-like oxide inclusions that are
present. One interesting observation in this regard appears
in Fig. 12(c), which shows the results of a reduced pres-
sure test specimen taken after holding the molten metal for
16 hours after the test of Fig. 12(b). The sample presented
in Fig. 12(c) has almost the same measured density as Fig.
12(a) due to the re-hydrogenation of the molten aluminium,
but the appearance of the porosity present is somewhat dif-
ferent to that observed in the lower section of Fig. 12(a) and
may have resulted from oxides in the melt. Irrespective of
the reasons for this curious difference, both hydrogen and
oxides are well known to adversely influence casting quality
and it would be quite reasonable to suggest samples made
from the material shown in Fig. 12(b) should be of superior
quality to those made from the material shown in Fig. 12(a).
Twenty-five tensile tests were conducted with material
cast both before and after the rotary degassing, therefore
representative of the metal obtained from the reduced
pressure test samples shown in Figs. 12(a & b). Values
of the mean (m), one standard deviation (s), and m -3s
49
for the tensile data of each of the two test conditions are
shown in Table 7. It is important to note the averages
of each set of tensile data were nearly identical; the un-
treated condition in Table 7 corresponded to the metal in
Fig. 12(a), and the treated condition corresponded to the
rotary degassed metal shown in Figure 12(b). The data
presented overlaid with the model true-stress–true strain
flow curve is presented in Fig. 13, and the corresponding
quality chart is presented in Fig. 14.
On first examination, considering only the mean values
presented in Table 7, it would seem that there was little
or no benefit in rotary degassing of the molten metal. This
would appear to be a very surprising result and not con-
sistent with what is known about the advantages of degas-
sing molten metal. One important observation was that
there was no increase in the upper bounds of the data set
corresponding to the treated (degassed) metal. This tends
to suggest that hydrogen did not have an adverse effect in
the current sample geometry, since if it did, it would be
expected that an overall improvement would be observed
in the treated metal, similar to the differences seen be-
tween melt velocities of 26 and 82 m/s. It may however
be likely that, in thicker sections, hydrogen would have a

Table 7. Data for Alloy 4 Samples Produced from Recycled Metal,

either a) Untreated, or b) Treated by Degassing with High Purity Argon

Figure 12. Reduced pressure tests for (a), as-melted alloy, untreated, r = 2.39g/cm3. (b), rotary degassed alloy, r = 2.74g/
cm3. (c), as (b) +16h hold before taking sample; r = 2.5g/cm3. Sample diameter was 5cm at the base.

50 International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011

far greater effect as it would segregate to the centre of the
casting, thereby contributing to shrinkage porosity. What
is most likely, however, is simply that hydrogen porosity
is, at least over this specific range of tensile results and
elongations, a defect of lesser importance. That is, either
much larger defects contribute to the failures, or the effect
of hydrogen on the defect clusters present, is negligible.
In summary, at this level of quality, hydrogen has little or
no effect on the measured mechanical properties. Examina-
tion of the values of m -3s (for the engineering stress and
strain), and those shown on the flow curve of Fig. 13, (for
the true stress and strain) suggests there may be a change
in the relative spread or distribution of results. It may also
be expected that the value of Weibull modulus, m, will also
show differences because this value is a direct indicator
of the flaw size distribution. Weibull plots for the tensile
strength are presented in Fig. 15(a), and for elongation to
Figure 13. True stress-true strain data overlaid on the
model flow curve derived from the Ludwik-Holloman
equation, showing the relative spread of data between
the materials which was a) recycled and untreated, or b)
subsequently treated by degassing with high purity Ar.
(a)
Figure 15. Weibull plots for Alloy 4 with either no melt treatment, or with a melt treatment, where the procedure conducted
was rotary degassing with high purity Ar. Plot (a) is for the tensile strength, and (b) is for the elongation at failure, Ef.
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
failure in Fig. 15(b). Note that the Weibull plot for Ef was
similar in form to that for the tensile strength; for the un-
treated material m was 5.6 and the position parameter Efo
was 3.83. For the treated material, m was 7.9 and Efo was
3.89. From the engineering tensile stress data for these sets
of tests, the Weibull modulus, m, was 25 with a so value
of 329 MPa for the untreated material. The value of m was
44.7 for the treated alloy, with a so value of 332 MPa. For
both stress and elongation data, the position parameter is
almost the same, but the values of Weibull modulus are
different, which suggests a change in flaw size distribution
between the two conditions. These differences in Weibull
modulus are actually similar to those between the melt ve-
locities for Alloy 1, shown in Table 5a.
During the tensile testing to generate the results used in
Figs. 13-15, samples displaying oxide defects on the frac-
Figure 14. True stress-true strain plots for untreated and
treated samples that correspond to Fig. 13.
(b)
51
ture surface that were visible to the naked eye were routinely
segregated for further examination. Three samples from the
untreated batch of material were placed aside, whereas only
one showed this type of defect in the treated material. After
testing was complete, and the data analyzed, it became clear
that these four samples also represented the lowest four data
points in the combined set of test results, falling within the
range of q = 0.05 to q = 0.1 in Fig. 14.
Figure 16 shows secondary electron images of the frac-
ture surfaces of the four segregated samples in (a, c, e
and g). Corresponding backscattered electron images are
provided in (b, d, f, and h). For reference, the specimens
with the fracture surface shown in Fig. 16 (g & h) demon-
strated the lowest properties (159 MPa 0.2% proof stress,
283 MPa UTS and 2.1% Ef), with all three of the other
samples showing almost identical properties to each other
(157-165 MPa 0.2% proof stress, 304-306 MPa UTS and
2.7-2.8% Ef). Interesting comparisons may be made be-
tween the fracture surfaces. Figure 16 (a & b) represented
the one sample showing a visible oxide defect where the
molten metal was treated by degassing. In (c & d), close
examination revealed there were two oxide defects pres-
ent on the fracture surface (arrowed). A small amount of
the foam-type dispersed shrinkage porosity mentioned
earlier was also able to be detected from the BSE im-
age. Alternately, in (e & f), only a small oxide defect was
present but a larger amount of the foam-type shrinkage
porosity was evident as the darker region in the centre of
Figure 16(f). In (g & h), it is important to note that, not
only is the amount of the foamy shrinkage defect present
relatively significant, the size of the oxide defect on the
fracture surface was also larger than in all other exam-
ples. This sample corresponded to the lowest mechanical
properties derived from the combined set of tests.
What is most significant is that the four lowest values of
tensile properties within the combined data sets all dis-
played the presence of one or more oxide films present on
the fracture surface. This would suggest that the presence
or absence of these films is critical to the properties and
relative quality of HPDC components. In this instance, it
may be concluded that rotary degassing clearly had very
little effect on average tensile properties, but did have an
effect on the spread of results. Quality was improved in
the treated material since the Weibull modulus was in-
creased from 25 to 44.7. This increase corresponded to
the proportion of samples displaying large, visible oxide
defects on the fracture surface being reduced by melt
degassing, and as a result, the quality of the final cast
product was improved.
Summary and Conclusions
Here it is important to comment on the different measures
of what constitutes casting “quality,” and the various ways
in which it can be evaluated. What is the best method to
52
use is the subject of much debate,11 but it is important to
note each technique has widely varying complexities. The
techniques used in this current work all provide excellent
information regarding casting quality and all can clearly
identify what constitutes a “better” casting. The methods
developed by Cáceres9,10 may be considered to be robust in
that they can represent different casting geometries from
different sources, for a single alloy specification, and allow
them to be compared against a unified measure of casting
quality. An even more powerful tool for analysis of as-cast
high pressure diecastings is to use these accumulated re-
sults in combination with a derivation of the Weibull mod-
ulus of both tensile strength and elongation.
Whichever technique that is used, most crucial is the
ability to establish the baseline performance with high
reliability. Once the baseline condition and importantly,
the spread of data, are known, changes in quality and the
reasons for these changes are relatively simple to detect.
Secondly, samples generated during the evolution of the
baseline data, provide a wealth of reference information.
In the current work, it has been demonstrated that casting
quality may be improved by increasing the melt velocity
at the gate, which has the effect of decreasing the size of
defect clusters appearing on the fracture surfaces. Cast-
ing quality is also influenced by alloy composition, but
this effect would appear to be complex, and further in-
vestigation regarding the actual basis of the differences is
warranted. Rotary degassing to remove hydrogen and ox-
ides from the melt does not influence quality in the same
way as melt velocity at the gate, but it does decrease the
spread of results generated. In this instance, casting qual-
ity would appear to be improved through the removal of
a proportion of oxides from the melt, which has an effect
on the value of Weibull modulus. As may be appreciated,
it is impossible to completely eliminate oxides from the
HPDC process as many will originate simply due to the
extreme turbulence that exists during casting. However,
eliminating large oxides already present in the melt which
arise from the use of recycled metal would appear clearly
to be advantageous.
Finally, it is important to note that defects with substantially
different size, shape and distribution may have similar or
equivalent effects on the tensile failure. In HPDC defects
are usually present in complex clusters where many differ-
ent features have an inter-relationship, and, as a result, such
defect clusters may behave as singular defects with a sub-
stantially different size.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Andy Yob and Gary Sav-
age for assistance with casting, reduced pressure testing and
rotary degassing. The authors would also like to thank Drs.
Carlos Cáceres, Geoffrey Sigworth and Prof. Ian Polmear
for their valuable comments on this manuscript.
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
Figure 16. Fracture surfaces of the four samples containing naked eye visible defects on the fracture surfaces. Views (a, c,
e and g) are secondary electron images, and (b, d, f and h) are the corresponding BSE (Back Scattered Electron) images.

International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011 53

References
1. Campbell, J., “Castings: The New Metallurgy of Cast
Metals,” 2nd ed., Elsevier, Oxford, UK (2004).
2. Sigworth, G.K., “Quality Issues in Aluminium
Castings,” Fundamentals of Aluminium Metallurgy,
Chapter 7, R.N. Lumley, ed., Woodhead Publishing,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 155-182 (2010).
3. Davies, I.J., “Best Estimate of Weibull Modulus
Obtained Using Linear Least Squares Analysis: An
Improved Empirical Correction Factor,” J. Mat. Sci.,
39 (4) pp. 1441-1444 (2004).
4. Jayatilaka, A., De, S., and Trustrum, K., “Statistical
Approach to Brittle Fracture,” J. Mat. Sci., 12,
pp.1426-1430 (1977).
5. Hertzberg, R.W., “Deformation and Fracture
Mechanics of Engineering Materials,” 4th ed., John
Wiley and Sons Inc., p.271 (1995).
6. Surappa, M.K., Blank, E.W. and Jaquet, J.C., “Effect
of Macro Porosity on the Strength and Ductility
of Cast Al-7Si-0.3Mg Alloy,” Scripta Metall, 20,
pp.1281-1286 (1986).
7. Cáceres, C.H., and Selling, B.I., “Casting Defects and
the Tensile Properties of an Al-Si-Mg Alloy,” Mat. Sci.
Eng. A, A220, pp.109-116 (1996)
8. Drouzy, M., Jacob, S., Richard, M., “Interpretation of
Tensile Results by Means of a Quality Index,” AFS Int.
Cast Met. J., vol. 5, pp. 43-50 (1980).
9. Cáceres, C.H., “A Rationale for the Quality Index of
Al-Si-Mg Casting Alloys,” Int. J. Cast Met. Res., vol.
10, pp.293-299 (1998).
10. Cáceres, C.H., “A Phenomenological Approach to the
Quality Index,” Int. J. Cast Met. Res., vol. 12, pp.367-
375 (2000).
11. Tiryakioğlu, M., Campbell, J., and Alexopoulos, N.D.,
“Quality Indices for Aluminum Alloy Castings: A
Critical Review,” Met. And Mat. Trans. B, 40B, pp.
802-811 (2009).
12. Gunasegaram, D.R., Finnin, B.R., Polivka, F.B.,
“Effect of Flow Velocity on the Properties of High
Pressure Diecast Al-Si Alloy,” Mat. Forum, vol.29,
pp.190-195 (2005).
13. Gunasegaram, D.R., Finnin, B.R., Polivka, F.B., “Melt
Flow Velocity in High Pressure Die Casting: It’s Effect
on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties in an
Al–Si Alloy,” Mat. Sci. Tech., vol. 23, #7., pp.847-856
(2007).
54
14. Lumley, R.N., O’Donnell, R.G., Gunasegaram,
D.R., Givord, M., “Heat Treatment of High Pressure
Diecasting Alloys,” International Patent Application
PCT/2005/001909, WO2006/066314.
15. Lumley, R.N., and Schaffer, G.B., “Anomalous Pore
Morphologies in Liquid Phase Sintered Al-Zn Alloys,”
Met. and Mat. Trans. A, 30A, (6), pp.1682-1685
(1999).
16. Zak, H., and Tonn, B., “Melt Treatment, Grain
Refinement and Modification 1: Effect of Alloying
Elements on Iron-Containing Intermetallics in Al-Si-
Mg-Cu 319 and 380 Alloys,” Conf. Proc. ICAA11,
Aachen, Germany, pp. 279-284 (2008).
17. Wang, L., Makhlouf, M., and Apelian, D., “The Effect
of A380 Alloy Chemistry on its Microstructure and
Mechanical Properties,” AFS Trans. vol. 103, pp. 675-
681 (1995) (and references 1-5 therein)
18. Lumley, R.N. and Griffiths, J.R., “Fatigue and
Fracture Resistance of Heat Treated Aluminium High
Pressure Die-castings,” Conf. Proc. 112th Metalcasting
Congress, NADCA, paper T08-042 (2008).
19. NADCA Product Specification Standards for Die
Castings 6th ed., NADCA publication 402, Standard
A-3-2-06, NADCA, Wheeling, Illinois. (2006)
20. MatWeb Material Property Data, Online Materials
Information Resource,
http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?Mat
GUID=5f92a8f7d6ad416c8ce9398cae14a363&ckck=1
Accessed Feb. 2010.
21. Kaufman, J.G., “Properties of Aluminum Alloys,
Tensile, Creep, and Fatigue Data at High and Low
Temperatures,” The Aluminum Association, ASM
International, Ohio, USA, pp. 266-267 (2002).
22. Alcan Primary Foundry Alloys, Alcan Primary Metal
Group, Alcan Aluminum Corp. Ingot Sales, p.64
(2002).
23. Makhlouf, M.M., Apelian, D., Wang, L. Microstructure
and Properties of Aluminum Die Casting Alloys,
NADCA Publication, #215, p.71 (2007)
24. Murray, M.T., “High Pressure Diecasting of
Aluminium and it’s Alloys,” Fundamentals of
Aluminium Metallurgy, Chapter 9, R.N. Lumley, ed.,
Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK., p. 217-259.
(2010).
25. Gallo, R., “Cleaner Aluminium Melts in Foundries: A
Critical Review and Update,” AFS Trans., vol. 116,
pp.195-220 (2008).
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
Technical Review & Discussion
An Evaluation of Quality Parameters for
High Pressure Diecastings
R. Lumley, N. Deeva, M. Gershenzon;
CSIRO Future Manufacturing Flagship, Victoria, Australia
Reviewer: As important to die casting results as gate veloc-
ity, is terminal pressure and achieved final cavity pressure.
These values are not given in the paper, but higher terminal
pressure likely resulted from the higher gate velocity and
was the reason for better performance in some experiments.
Authors: In the current results, we have found that the dif-
ferences in quality due to gate velocity arise primarily be-
cause of the dispersed shrinkage porosity observed on the
fracture surfaces of the tensile samples. This is substantially
reduced in the higher velocity material. The question then
becomes “Which part of the shot pressure and velocity pro-
file relates to this microstructural defect?” It is our opinion,
and based on discussions with a colleague who has conduct-
ed experiments examining these effects, that increasing melt
velocity at the gate primarily influences shear of the metal at
the point of restriction. From his experience and examina-
tion of shot traces taken under differing conditions, the melt
velocity only influences the impact (terminal) pressure (i.e.
the instant at which the cavity is full), and not the maximum
in-cavity pressure during intensification, which occurs after
the cavity is full.
Reviewer: The results regarding hydrogen (degassed vs.
not degassed) should not be a surprise—at HPDC pres-
sures, hydrogen solubility in the liquid would be higher in
the solidifying metal than during gravity casting, and any
hydrogen pores that might have formed would, according to
the gas laws, have been compressed to extremely small and
insignificant size. While it can be argued that degassing also
removed oxides, only removal of large films or dross would
be significant because the extreme turbulence encountered
as melt is sprayed at high velocity into the die cavity would
rapidly react with any oxygen-bearing atmosphere or lubri-
cants to create new finely divided oxides.
Authors: We essentially agree with the reviewers comment.
The solubility of hydrogen in aluminium under pressure
might reasonably be assumed to increase under pressure.
Certainly, it has been proven that this occurs with Si, for
example. However we have not currently seen documented
proof of this effect for hydrogen, and the effect may not be
significant. Irrespective of the solubility during solidifica-
tion, even during cooling to room temperature, it follows
that any hydrogen residual in the solid solution is non-equi-
librium and likely to be forced out of solution, in the same
way that Cu can precipitate onto grain boundaries as equi-
librium Al2Cu. That is, the hydrogen must precipitate out
as porosity if it was actually present previously in the solid
solution. The only way in which this hydrogen would be re-
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011
tained would be to have much higher cooling rates than are
achieved in diecasting, and even then, it might be expected
that the hydrogen will still precipitate out of solid solution
as porosity. Any hydrogen porosity present and oxide films
must contribute to the equivalent defect fraction appear-
ing on the fracture surface, but it is the largest oxides that
are most visible and appear in conjunction with the lowest
values of tensile properties (Figure 16). For the readers in-
terest, an excellent representation of how rotary degassing
can influence inclusion size and content is provided in ref
1, page 150. We believe that degassing mainly eliminates a
proportion of the oxides that contribute to the equivalent de-
fect fraction present on the fracture surface. In this regard,
the Weibull modulus does show a significant change / reduc-
tion in the flaw size distribution, since the value of modulus
is substantially increased (from a value of 25 to a value of
44.7 for tensile strength).
Reviewer: 3. The comment that Cu (alloy 2) might cre-
ate hard intermetallic domains does not seem reason-
able when compared to the Si and beta type crystals al-
ways present in 380 alloy HPDC components, but Cu
does reduce ductility simply by increasing strength.
Authors: Whereas the Si and b- Al5FeSi crystals are
clearly of primary importance in affecting ductility in the
cast material, the solidified Cu bearing phases are also
extensively distributed within the solidified eutectic in the
as-cast condition. As may be appreciated, there may be
1% Fe by weight in the casting, but 3-4% by weight of
Cu. Of this, some is retained in solution in the aluminium
grains during cooling, but much of it actually is observed
to solidify in the eutectic, or subsequently precipitates
out of the solid solution as coarse equilibrium Al2Cu par-
ticles, forming on grain boundaries and other high free
energy sites. This intermetallic phase also adversely in-
fluences ductility. Increasing the content of any brittle
particle which resides in the fracture path will result in
lower ductility, whether it is b- Al5FeSi, Si, or any other
hard intermetallic phase.
Reviewer: Zn (alloy 3) in 380 at normal and increased
levels does little more then increase the density of the al-
loy (greater weight of metal in each casting). This was
shown to be significant in past studies when lower cost
380 having 3% Zn proved to actually be more expen-
sive because of the greater weight that was shipped, and
the lower cost 380 did not offset that additional cost.
Authors: Zn is an interesting element in diecastings and we
believe its role requires further investigation; it seems to
impart both advantages and disadvantages. Many diecast-
ers believe that at least 0.5% is required (this amount may
always have been there in the alloy purchased), and higher
Zn alloy (e.g. 2%) is generally cheaper, as mentioned. We
have observed here that increased Zn content was appar-
ently beneficial to castability, but only at the higher melt
55
velocity used. At the lower melt velocity, increased Zn con-
tent led to an increased flaw size distribution and hence re-
duced quality. There is also some evidence that suggested
high Zn contents correlated historically with porosity out-
breaks and increased reject rates. We believe if a higher
Zn alloy was proven to be more expensive in production,
both from the perspective of increased density and from
increased reject rates, then a lower Zn version of the alloy
would be preferable. (Note B380 is the low Zn version of
A380 alloy, having <1%Zn).
Reviewer: Table 2 contains a lot of data. The 1 sigma, and 2
sigma lines could be eliminated.
56
Authors: The tables contain important data to help clarify
the shape of the distribution for the results, and the authors
believe it is instructive to the reader. That is, ±1s describes
68.2% of the data, ±2s describes 95.4% of the data, and
±3s describes 99.7% of the data.
Reviewer: Is there a significant difference in Alloy 1 and 2
at 26 m/s?
Authors: The Weibull modulus of tensile strength for Alloys
1 and 2 are nearly identical, as stated in the text, but the po-
sition parameter for the two is different (i.e. the failure prob-
ability curve for Alloy 2 is moved to the right, Figure 9a).
International Journal of Metalcasting/Summer 2011