with a simple theoretical derivation given in the Appen-
Discussion
Discussion of ‘‘Prediction of Shrinkage
Pore Volume Fraction Using a
Dimensionless Niyama Criterion’’*
GEOFFREY K. SIGWORTH
DOI: 10.1007/s11661-009-0056-2
Ó The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and ASM
International 2009
Carlson and Beckermann[1] recently proposed a mod-
ified, ‘‘dimensionless’’’ form of the Niyama criterion.
Although this appears to be a useful approach, there are
problems with their analysis.
It will be convenient to first consider the original
experiments of Niyama et al.[2] Their results were
obtained from steel castings of varying sizes, up to
68 tons in weight. The soundness at various locations
was compared to the gradient at the end of solidifica-
tion, as calculated from computer simulations. When
the thermal gradient in the feeding direction was greater
than a certain value, no shrinkage was observed in steel
castings. That is, the castings were ‘‘sound.’’ However,
the gradient required to avoid shrinkage depended on
the square root of the local solidification time. Figure 1
summarizes their results and has been reproduced from
their article.
From pffiffiffiffi
the preceding plot, we see that when
G
32= tS ; there was no shrinkage in their castings.
The solidification time (tS) may be approximated by
 vided by metal height in the riser of the casting (a total
tS ffi DTf T_ ½1
where
tS = local solidification time (in minutes),
DTf = freezing range of the alloy (in degrees
Celsius), and
T_ = cooling rate at the end of solidification (in
o
C/min).
Thus, the Niyama criterion (Ny) becomes
pffiffiffiffi
32 T_ G 32
G
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi or Ny ¼ pffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ½2
DTf T_ DTf
where G is the thermal gradient in the feeding direc-
tion (having units of degrees Celsius per centimeter).
This was the form of the equation offered originally by
Niyama et al.[2] They justified this functional dependence
GEOFFREY K. SIGWORTH is with GKS Engineering Services,
Rockdale, TX 76567. Contact e-mail: gksigworth@gmail.com
*K.D. CARLSON and C. BECKERMANN: Metall. Mater. Trans.
A, 2009, vol. 40A, pp. 163–75.
Discussion submitted July 22, 2009.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
dix of their article. The derivation assumed that shrink-
age formation was controlled by the pressure drop
associated with the flow of liquid through the semisolid
portion of the casting. Carlson and Beckerman made a
similar, more sophisticated derivation, using the same
fundamental assumption.
No one is questioning the validity of the results
plotted in Figure 1 and represented by Eq. [2]. However,
several important questions remain:
(1) What is the physical significance of the Niyama
criterion?
(2) To what extent can the Niyama criterion, or a
modified form of it, be used in other alloy systems
having different thermal and solidification charac-
teristics?
(3) Can we use the Niyama criterion to predict the
amount of porosity that forms at any particular
location in commercial castings?
These are important questions, which formed the
impetus for the study by Carlson and Beckermann and
which they attempted to answer in their article.
Regarding the first point, both Niyama et al.[2] and
Carlson and Beckerman assumed that formation of
shrinkage porosity was governed by the pressure drop
associated with metal flow inside the semisolid casting.
Is this correct? Probably not.
Sigworth and Wang conducted a detailed theoretical
study of this problem[3,4] and showed that the pressure
drop associated with metal flow through the semisolid
region is extremely small. The plot in Figure 2 is taken
from Reference 4. The top, nearly horizontal line shows
the ‘‘mechanical’’ pressure inside the casting during
solidification. At the beginning of solidification, the
pressure in the liquid is equal to the prevailing atmo-
spheric pressure, plus a small additional pressure pro-
of 1.1 atm.). At 99 pct solidification, this pressure
decreased very slightly, to 1.04 atmospheres. The diag-
onal lines show the ‘‘chemical’’ pressure of hydrogen
dissolved in the melt, for different gas contents at the
beginning of solidification. The chemical pressure
increases because of the segregation of dissolved hydro-
gen into the liquid as the metal freezes.
Gas or shrinkage porosity may form when the lines
for the chemical and mechanical pressure cross. This
plot shows that the pressure drop associated with metal
flow in solidifying castings cannot explain the results
found by Niyama et al.[2]
Instead, the Niyama results are better described by
using a ‘‘geometric’’ model of the solidification process.
This model is shown in Figure 3, which illustrates
schematically the cross section of a solidifying plate
casting. The dark area in the center of the plate
represents a tapered pool of liquid metal. The taper is
described by the angle h. As long as this angle is greater
than some critical value, feeding occurs.
Equation 19 of Reference 4 describes the functional
dependence of the geometric model on the angle h and
the relevant thermal constants for the mold and the
metal. If one assumes that the critical angle for feeding
 100
50

Sound
G (deg C/cm)

10
5

Shrinkage
1
0.5
Low C steel

0.5 1 5 10 50 100 1000

Solidification Time
(minutes)
Fig. 3—Schematic illustration of the geometric model.
Fig. 1—Thermal gradient required to avoid shrinkage in steel cast-
ings (reproduced from Ref. 2).
Table I. Dimensionless Freezing Range (/) of Sand
Castings[4]

Alloy Value of /
0.3 pct C steel 1.8
85Cu-5Sn-5Pb-5Zn 28
Al-7Si-Mg 50
88Cu-8Sn-4Zn 92
Al-4.5 pct Cu 133
Al-7Mg 140
Mg-6Al-3Zn 144

Fig. 2—Plot of mechanical and chemical pressures during the direc-

tional solidification of A356 alloy.[4]

(h) is 1 deg, it is possible to derive a curve that falls

exactly on top of the line shown in Figure 1.
The logic of the pressure drop calculations has been
so compelling that it has seduced scientists (myself
included) for many years. However, when one makes
exact numerical calculations, as in Figure 2, it is seen
that this approach cannot explain the formation of
shrinkage porosity in steel castings.[4] The apparent
explanation, a simple geometric criterion, was over-
looked.
We now pass onto the second question: ‘‘To what
extent can the Niyama criterion, or a modified form of
it, be used in other alloy systems having different
thermal and solidification characteristics?’’
This question was considered at length in Reference 4 Fig. 4—Volume fraction porosity found in A356 alloy castings
and in a follow-on experimental study.[5] It was con- (reproduced from Ref. 6).
cluded that Niyama’s criterion and the geometric model
do not apply to alloys having a long freezing range. This
is best illustrated by considering the dimensionless the average temperature difference between the surface
freezing range (/) given by Eq. [21] of Reference 4. and center of the casting. It is also equal to the effective
This is equal to the freezing range of the alloy divided by length of the mushy region compared to the thickness of

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

the mold. Values of / are given in Table I for sand
castings of several different alloys.
The Niyama criterion describes the tendency for
shrinkage formation, by calculating only the local
thermal conditions at each point in the casting. This is
reasonable in steel castings because of their narrow
freezing range. In alloys that have a long freezing range
and higher thermal conductivity, as in many aluminum-
and copper-based alloys, the situation is vastly different.
Consider the popular Al-7Si-Mg casting alloy. If we
have a sand casting 1-in. thick, the ‘‘mushy’’ semisolid
portion of the casting will be 50-in. long. Thus,
questions such as the following become important:
(1) Is the riser sufficiently liquid to ‘‘feed’’ the casting?
(2) Is there a continuous feed path between the riser
and the portion of casting under consideration?
In other words, we need to consider conditions
throughout the entire casting, not just at local condi-
tions existing at any single point.
It should be noted that the values for dimensionless
freezing range (/) depend on the casting process used. In
castings made with metal molds, the value of / may be
10 to 100 times less than the values given in Table I.
Regarding the third and final question posed previ-
ously, I do not believe the Niyama criterion (in any
form) should be used to estimate the amount of
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
porosity. In my experience, porosity formation is
controlled primarily by freezing rate and, to a lesser
extent, by gas content. This was discussed at some
length in References 3 and 4; however, it will also be
useful to consider some of the results given by Fang and
Granger.[6] From Figure 4, we see that the solidification
rate has an overriding influence on the amount of
porosity in a casting. Castings that freeze quickly can
tolerate high contents of gas. Slowly cooled castings,
however, easily form significant amounts of porosity.
REFERENCES
1. K.D. Carlson and C. Beckermann: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2009,
vol. 40A, pp. 163–75.
2. E. Niyama, T. Uchida, M. Morikawa, and S. Saito: AFS Int. Cast
Met. J., 1982, vol. 7 (3), pp. 52–63.
3. G.K. Sigworth and C. Wang: AFS Trans., 1992, vol. 100, pp. 979–
87.
4. G.K. Sigworth and C. Wang: AFS Trans., 1992, vol. 100, pp. 989–
1004.
5. G.K. Sigworth, C. Wang, H. Huang, and J.T. Berry: AFS Trans.,
1994, vol. 102, pp. 245–61.
6. Q.T. Fang and D.A. Granger: AFS Trans., 1989, vol. 97, pp. 989–
1000.