See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260060167

Solidification Structure of Aluminum Alloys

Chapter · January 2004

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2892.0169

CITATIONS READS

3 2,788

2 authors:

Doru M. Stefanescu Roxana Ruxanda

The Ohio State University Emerson
365 PUBLICATIONS   4,320 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   302 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nucleation and growth of spheroidal graphite View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Doru M. Stefanescu on 20 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Name /bam_asmint_106420/6044_002d5/Mp_1 07/21/2004 02:27PM Plate # 0 pg 1 #

Solidification Structures
of Aluminum Alloys
Doru M. Stefanescu and Roxana Ruxanda, The University of Alabama

ALUMINUM-BASE ALLOYS constitute a
group of cast materials second only to ferrous
castings in tonnage. Aluminum alloys have
gained increasing markets in the automotive and
aircraft industry. New alloys are still under de-
velopment, since there are still wide possibilities
of improving their properties by using simple,
affordable techniques, such as alloying and heat
treating. A wide range of materials can be added
to aluminum (Ref 1): zinc, magnesium, copper,
silicon, iron, lithium, manganese, nickel, silver,
tin, and titanium. The solid solubility of these
elements in aluminum varies considerably. Some
elements are used as solid-solution strengthen-
ers, others form desirable intermetallic com-
pounds. The most common alloy systems are
aluminum-silicon, aluminum-copper, and alu-
minum-magnesium. Some typical solidification
microstructures for these alloying systems are
given in the following sections.
Basic Microstructures
of Aluminum-Base Alloys
Aluminum-Silicon Alloys. The equilibrium
phase diagram of the binary aluminum-silicon
system is similar to that in Fig. 16(b) of the ar-
ticle “Fundamentals of Solidification” in this
Volume, representing partial solid solubility with
a eutectic reaction. The eutectic invariant is at
11.7% Si and 577 ⬚C (1070 ⬚F). Typical exam-
ples of hypoeutectic, eutectic, and hypereutectic
aluminum-silicon commercial alloys are given in
Fig. 1 (Ref 2).
Binary eutectic or hypoeutectic aluminum-sil-
icon alloys are characterized by good castability
and corrosion resistance. However, the alumi-
num-silicon alloys are seldom binary. Strength-
ening of aluminum-silicon alloys is achieved by
adding small amounts of other elements, such as
copper, magnesium, or iron. Higher iron con-
tents can promote the formation of brittle plates
of AlFeSi or other complex intermetallics in the
presence of manganese. This may have a nega-
tive influence on the mechanical properties.
Aluminum-Copper Alloys. The equilibrium
diagram of the binary aluminum-copper system
is given in Fig. 2. These alloys are typical solid-
solution alloys generally containing 4 to 6% Cu
and some magnesium. After a solution treat-
ment, CuAl2 particles precipitate from the
quenched alloy, as seen in Fig. 2. The level of
impurities can affect both the macrostructure and
microstructure. This is demonstrated in Fig. 3
and 4 for a nominal Al-4.5Cu-0.25Mg alloy with
a small amount of silver (0.7%) and titanium,
respectively. Titanium addition considerably de-
creases the grain size.
Aluminum-Magnesium Alloys. The corner
of the phase diagram of practical interest is simi-
lar to that of aluminum-copper alloys, with the
maximum solubility of magnesium in aluminum
at 17.4% Al. Some typical examples of alumi-
num-magnesium commercial alloys are given in
Fig. 5.
Other Multicomponent Aluminum Alloys.
Investigations of higher-order multicomponent
alloys solidification are rather limited. Sophisti-
cated methods are used to identify phases and
their orientation. An example of the microstruc-
ture of the Al 7050 alloy containing 11 elements
is given in Fig. 6 (Ref 3). The dark areas are ␣-
aluminum phase and the bright areas are quater-
nary sigma (r) phase (Al,Cu,Zn)2Mg, ternary S
phase (Al2MgCu), or/and binary h phase
(Al2Cu). These phases were identified using op-
tical metallography, scanning electron micros-
copy (SEM), x-ray map, and electron probe mi-
croanalysis (EPMA) techniques. The dendrite
arms are separated by sigma, S, h, and/or eutec-

Fig. 1 Typical microstructures of hypoeutectic, eutectic, and hypereutectic aluminum-silicon commercial alloys. (a) Hypoeutectic aluminum-silicon alloy (Al-5.7Si, alloy type A319).
Fan-shaped Al51-(MnFe)3-Si2 phase growing in competition with the ␣-aluminum phase, silicon crystals, Al2Cu, and areas with complex eutectics. Etchant: 0.5% HF. Original
magnification 110⳯. (b) Eutectic aluminum-silicon alloy (Al-11.9Si, alloy type A339). ␣-aluminum dendrites, primary silicon particles, and areas with complex eutectics. Etchant: 0.5%
HF. Original magnification 110⳯. (c) Hypereutectic aluminum-silicon alloy (Al-15Si, alloy type A390). Large primary silicon particles, eutectic silicon crystals, and Al2Cu phase in a
matrix of ␣-aluminum phase. Etchant: 0.5% HF. Original magnification 110⳯
Name /bam_asmint_106420/6044_002d5/Mp_2 07/21/2004 02:27PM
2 / Metallurgy and Microstructure
ticlike network, or in touch with each other. The
primary stem in Fig. 6 is located at the junction
of two secondary arms. The slightly darker gray
scales at the center of the dendrites show lower
solute contents in the ␣ phase, indicating the
main growth directions of the dendrite arms.
Small, isolated intradendritic droplets are also
Fig. 2 A portion of aluminum-copper equilibrium dia-
gram
Fig. 3 Micrographs of aluminum-copper alloy with a
small amount of silver, having a low level of im-
purities (alloy A201 with 4.10% Cu). Macrostructure show-
ing grains and dendrites. Etchant: 1 mL HBF4 1 mL HF, 24
mL C2H5OH, 74 mL H2O electrolyte. Original magnifica-
tion 56⳯, observed under polarized light. See Fig. 2d5-
3(a) on page XXX of the article “Selected Color Images” for
color version. (b) Microstructure showing Al7FeCu2 (nee-
dles) in ␣-aluminum solid-solution matrix. Etchant: 0.5%
HF. Original magnification 560⳯
Plate # 0
visible especially near the primary stem and the
root of the tertiary arms.
Grain Structure
Grain size is a readily observed feature of alu-
minum alloy ingots and castings. For solid-so-
lution type alloys, mechanical properties are
highly dependent on the primary grain size. A
uniform, fine grain size is sought in most in-
stances to obtain optimal properties in the
wrought product. Accordingly, for solid-solution
type alloys the size of the primary grains result-
ing from solidification is reduced by the use of
grain refinement.
The properties of cast alloys containing large
amounts of eutectic, such as the aluminum-sili-
con alloys, depend more on the eutectic mor-
phology and the dendrite arm spacing than on
the grain size. Therefore, the modification of the
brittle silicon phase from the eutectic is primarily
used when processing aluminum-silicon alloys.
The primary solidification grains in aluminum
alloys ingots have a very pronounced columnar
structure, directed from the mold interface to-
ward the core (Ref 4). If little turbulence and
Fig. 4 Micrographs of aluminum-copper alloy with a
small amount of titanium, having a higher level
of impurities (alloy type A206 with 4.36% Cu). (a) Macros-
tructure showing grains and dendrites. Etchant: 1 mL HBF4
1 mL HF, 24 mL C2H5OH, 74 mL H2O electrolyte. Original
magnification 56⳯, observed under polarized light. See
Fig. 2d5-4a on page XXX of the article “Selected Color Im-
ages” for color version. (b) Microstructure showing
Al7FeCu2 (needles) and Al2Cu in ␣-aluminum solid-solu-
tion matrix. Etchant: 0.5%HF. Original magnification
560⳯
pg 2 #
steep temperature gradient exist during solidifi-
cation, the entire structure will remain columnar
(Fig. 7). However, in normal conditions, some
arms of the floating dendrites can be detached by
the convective motion of the melt, thus deter-
mining the formation of an equiaxed structure in
the middle of the ingot (Fig. 8).
Grain size may be controlled by such me-
chanical methods as vibration, stirring, and con-
trol of metal flow, which provide nuclei by de-
tachment of dendrite arms (Ref 5).
Grain-refining additions may also be used to
change the structure from coarse and nonuniform
(Fig. 9a) to a fine, uniform one (Fig. 9b). The
grain-refining inoculants commonly used in the
aluminum industry are master alloys containing
titanium or titanium plus boron (Ref 6–9).
The aluminum alloy ingots cast without grain
refiner often exhibit a fan-shaped columnar
structure, referred to as “feather crystals” (Ref
4). This structure, illustrated in Fig. 10, may be
found in low- and high-solute alloys. It is most
likely to develop when there is a steep thermal
gradient ahead of the solidifying interface (Ref
5) or an inadequate addition of grain refiner (Ref
10). At higher magnification, the feather crystals
consist of twinned columnar grains (Fig. 11).
In contrast to aluminum ingot alloys, the foun-
dry eutectic alloys exhibit a very regular, mostly
Fig. 5 Typical examples of aluminum-magnesium com-
mercial alloys. (a) Microstructure showing Al3Fe
(gray) and Mg2Si (black) in ␣-aluminum solid-solution ma-
trix (alloy type A518 with 7.6% Mg). Etchant: 0.5% HF.
Original magnification 560⳯. (b) Microstructure showing
ternary eutectic and ␣-aluminum solid-solution dendrites
matrix (alloy type A512 with 4Mg-1.8Si). Etchant: 0.5% HF.
Original magnification 560⳯
Name /bam_asmint_106420/6044_002d5/Mp_3 07/21/2004 02:27PM
equiaxed structure, as shown in Fig. 12. If prop-
erly etched, aluminum-silicon eutectic alloys re-
veal both the equiaxed grains and the dendrites
within each grain. Different etching techniques
(Ref 11) can be used to outline the grains, as
shown in Fig. 13 and 14.
Eutectic Microstructure
of Aluminum-Silicon Alloys
The microstructure of the eutectic or near-eu-
tectic alloys consists of acicular or lamellar eu-
tectic silicon (faceted crystals) dispersed
throughout the aluminum matrix. Examples are
given in Fig. 15 and 16. The addition of various
modifiers (sodium, calcium, strontium) in small
amounts changes the morphology of the eutectic
phase from acicular to fibrous (nonfaceted), as
shown in Fig. 17 and 18.
Fig. 6 Microstructure in cross and longitudinal sections
of DS Al 7050 alloy cooled at 0.45 ⬚C/s (0.8 ⬚F/
s) (BSE images). The actual bulk composition: 2.60% Cu,
2.37% Mg, 6.56% Zn, 0.03% Cr, 0.09% Fe, 0.05% Mn,
0.01% Ni, 0.06% Si, 0.018% Ti, 0.10% Zr, balance alu-
minum
Plate # 0
Solidification Structures of Aluminum Alloys / 3
In unmodified faceted silicon crystals, growth
is favored in certain crystallographic directions.
Some twin planes that form “re-entrant edges”
are particularly effective in promoting growth
(see Fig. 19). Some theories explain the mor-
phological change by the disturbances in the
growth step of the silicon crystals induced by the
adsorption of the modifying elements, which
causes frequent twinning to occur (see Fig. 20)
(Ref 12). Examples of the effect of modification
on the microstructure of some alloys are given
in Fig. 21 (Ref 13, 14).
New methods of investigation, capable of de-
termining the grain orientation, have emerged.
The microstructure of the eutectic growth inter-
face was investigated with electron backscatter-
Fig. 7 Cross section through an alloy 1100 ingot cast
by the Properzi (wheel-and-belt) method show-
ing columnar grains growing perpendicularly to the faces
of the mold. Tucker’s reagent. Original magnification 1.5⳯
Fig. 9 Cross section of a 150 mm (6 in.) diam ingot of alloy 6063 direct-chill semicontinuous cast. (a) Without grain
refiner. (b) With grain refiner. Tucker’s reagent. Actual size. Source: Ref 4
pg 3 #
ing diffraction (EBSD) in directionally solidified
Al-7Si and A356 alloys, unmodified and stron-
tium modified (Ref 15). An example of an EBSD
map in relationship with the microstructure is
given in Fig. 22. Colors indicate different crys-
tallographic orientations on the EBSD map.
Nonindexed points are black. The relationship
between the crystallographic orientation parallel
to the sample surface normal and the colors in
the EBSD maps is given at the right. It was dem-
onstrated that the eutectic aluminum has mainly
the same crystallographic orientation as the den-
drites in the unmodified alloys and the stron-
tium-modified Al-7Si alloy. A planar eutectic
growth front was observed in the Al-7Si alloy
alloys; a more complex eutectic grain structure
was found in the strontium-modified A356 alloy.
Dendritic Microstructure
An example of a microstructure containing
typical aluminum dendrites is shown in Fig. 23.
The dendrites, revealed by deep etching the mi-
crostructure with modified Poulton reagent, were
enhanced using specialized image analysis soft-
ware. The three-dimensional shape of the den-
Fig. 8 Longitudinal section through 25 mm (1 in.) thick
slab of alloy 1100 cast by the Hazelett (two-belt)
method. Tucker’s reagent. Actual size. Source: Ref 4
Name /bam_asmint_106420/6044_002d5/Mp_4 07/21/2004 02:27PM
4 / Metallurgy and Microstructure
drites can be observed in the microshrinkage
cavities of the fractured specimen, as shown in
Fig. 24.
Recently, time-resolved direct-beam x-ray im-
aging with intense, coherent, and monochro-
Fig. 10 Longitudinal section through a 75 mm (3 in.)
diam alloy 1100 ingot, direct-chill cast without
grain refiner. Center of section contains fan-shaped zones
of feather crystals. Tucker’s reagent. Actual size. Source:
Ref 4
Fig. 11 Feather crystals in an alloy 3003 ingot cast by
the direct-chill semicontinuous process.
Growth twins in the crystals. Polarized light. Barker’s re-
agent. Original magnification 50⳯. Source: Ref 4
Fig. 12 Macrostructure of an Al-12.7Si alloy showing
equiaxed grains and dendrites. Etchant: modi-
fied Poulton reagent (60% HCl, 30% HNO3 5% HF, 5%
H2O). Original magnification 5⳯
Plate # 0
matic third-generation synchrotron radiation and
high-resolution fast-readout detector systems
have been used for in situ studies of dendritic
growth processes in aluminum-copper alloys
(Ref 16). Two frames from a movie produced
Fig. 13 Outlining of grains using chemical etching.
Etchant: modified Poulton reagent (60% HCl,
30% HNO3 5% HF, 5% H2O)
Fig. 14 Outlining of grains using thermal etching. Sam-
ples held for 1 h at 590 ⬚C (1095 ⬚F), then
quenched in cold water and dried
Fig. 15 Eutectic silicon crystals with acicular mor-
phology in an unmodified sample of alloy
A365. Etchant: Keller’s reagent
pg 4 #
with this technique are shown in Fig. 25. Two
grains nucleated through the detachment mech-
anism are shown: one in the center of the figures
and one on the right (marked with arrow). The
Fig. 16 Silicon crystals with flakelike morphology in an
unmodified sample of alloy A365. Scanning
electron micrograph after deep etching. Original magnifi-
cation 1000⳯. Source: Ref 2
Fig. 17 Eutectic silicon crystals with fibrous morphol-
ogy in a modified sample of alloy A365. Etch-
ant: Keller’s reagent
Fig. 18 Silicon crystals with seaweedlike morphology
in a modified sample of alloy A365. Scanning
electron microscopy image after deep etching. Original
magnification 1000⳯. Source: Ref 2
Name /bam_asmint_106420/6044_002d5/Mp_5 07/21/2004 02:27PM
images are taken 34 s apart, and growth of the
new crystals is clearly evident.
The secondary dendrite arm spacing (SDAS)
depends on the local solidification time and cool-
ing rate as discussed in the article “Fundamentals
of Solidification” in this Volume. For Al-4.5Cu
alloys, the experimental data (Ref 17) in Fig. 26
can be fitted to Eq 7 in that article when the
coarsening constant is 10ⳮ6 m/s2. The influence
of cooling rate on SDAS is illustrated in Fig. 27.
The influence of solute content is less well
defined (Ref 4). In general, up to eutectic com-
Fig. 19 Location of twin planes and re-entrant edge in
a silicon crystal. Source: Ref 2
Fig. 21 Modified as-cast microstructures of aluminum alloys. (a) Al-10Si, Strontium-modified eutectic. Source: Ref 13. (b) Alloy A356.0, strontium-modified eutectic. Source: Ref
14. (c) Alloy A356.0, sodium-modified eutectic. Original magnification 100⳯. Source: Ref 14
Plate # 0
Solidification Structures of Aluminum Alloys / 5
positions, the effect of increasing solute content
at a constant cooling rate is to decrease the den-
drite arm spacing (Fig. 28) (Ref 18).
For Al-Cu-Si alloys the change in the copper
content of the alloy has greater effect on the
SDAS than silicon, when silicon content is
greater than 0.5%; otherwise the silicon has
greater effect. The combined influence of local
solidification time, tf, cooling rate at the liquidus
temperature, ṪL, copper composition, CCu, and
silicon composition, CSi, on the SDAS can be
calculated with (Ref 19):
−0.333
SDAS = 34.9 ⋅ CCu ⋅ CSi−0.145 ⋅ tf0.208
−0.1989
SDAS = 77.09 ⋅ CCu ⋅ CSi−0.078 ⋅ T
L−0.252
For Al-Mg-Si alloys, changing the magne-
sium content of the alloy has a greater effect on
the SDAS than changing the silicon content, for
silicon content greater than 0.5%. The combined
influence of local solidification time, cooling rate
at the liquidus temperature, magnesium compo-
sition, CMg, and silicon composition, CSi, on the
SDAS can be calculated with (Ref 20):
Fig. 20 Adsorption of impurity atoms on growth steps
of a silicon crystal causing twinning. Source:
Ref 12
pg 5 #
−0.108
SDAS = 14.15 ⋅ CMg ⋅ CSi−0.125 ⋅ tf0.302
−0.235
SDAS = 65.21 ⋅ CMg ⋅ CSi−0.104 ⋅ T
L−0.22
Microsegregation
Most of the major alloying additions in alu-
minum are less soluble in the solid phase than
in the liquid phase (equilibrium partition ratio, k
⬍ 1). Moreover, for most solutes, aluminum ex-
hibits a relatively low terminal solid solubility;
therefore, second-phase constituents are invari-
ably present in cast structures. For these reasons,
the dendrites, which are the first portions of a
cast structure to solidify, are low in solute con-
tent and are surrounded by interdendritic net-
works of one or more second-phase constituents.
The size and distribution of the constituents de-
pend on such factors as solute concentration,
dendrite arm spacing, and grain size. The solute
distribution characteristic of cast alloys may be
described with reasonable accuracy by the Scheil
equation (see Eq 3 in the article “Fundamentals
of Solidification” in this Volume). Examples of
elemental microsegregation are shown in Fig. 29
for the case of silicon microsegregation between
the ␣-aluminum dendrites of solid solution and
the eutectic in an Al-12.7Si cast sample, and in
Fig. 30 for the case of copper and magnesium
microsegregation in a 2124 direct-chill cast in-
got. Microsegregation can be decreased by a ho-
mogenization treatment.
Macrosegregation
The chemical composition of large, commer-
cial-size ingots can vary significantly from point
to point through the ingot thickness, which is
usually greater than 406 mm (16 in.) (see Fig.
31). This type of segregation, referred to as “ma-
crosegregation,” is only slightly affected by ho-
mogenization. In general, macrosegregation can
be reduced in direct-chill ingot casting by de-
creasing ingot thickness, lowering the casting
speed, and maximizing molten metal superheat
(Ref 4). Macrosegregation is less of a problem
in shaped castings. The mechanisms of forma-
Name /bam_asmint_106420/6044_002d5/Mp_6 07/21/2004 02:27PM Plate # 0 pg 6 #
6 / Metallurgy and Microstructure

Fig. 22 Alloy A356.0 near-quenched eutectic growth interface. (a) Secondary electron image. (b) Electron backscat-
tering diffraction map. See Fig. 2D5-22 on page XXX of the article “Selected Color Images” in this Volume.
Colors indicate the crystallographic orientation as represented in (c). Source: Ref 13

Fig. 25 Dendritic growth and grain multiplication in

Fig. 24 Scanning electron micrography image of alu- Al-20Cu alloy. Image (b) was taken 34 s after
minum dendrites in the fractured surface of a image (a). Arrow indicates grains nucleated by detachment.
tensile test bar of an A356.0 alloy Source: Ref 16

Fig. 23 Typical dendrites in an A356 alloy in a com-
puter-processed image. Etchant: modified
Poulton reagent (60% HCl, 30% HNO3 5% HF, 5% H2O)
tion of macrosegregation are discussed in detail
in Ref 21.
The size and shape of the pore is determined
by the amount of gas rejected by the melt. If this
amount is large, spherical pores will form and
continue to grow through diffusion before den-
drite coherency is reached (Fig. 32). Their size
can be of the order of tenths of mm to mm. This
defect is called gas porosity. At lower amounts
of gas rejected by the melt, pores form in the
later stages of solidification, after dendrite co-
herency. The concomitant development of
shrinkage cavities nucleated by these pores re-
sults in microshrinkage. The appearance of mi-
croshrinkage is not spherical, but follows the
dendrite shape (Ref 22, 23) as seen in Fig. 33(a)

104
Defects

Macroporosity and Microshrinkage. Gas 103

evolution during solidification is responsible for
Dendrite arm spacing, µm

at least two casting defects: macroporosity and 102

microshrinkage (also called “microporosity” in
the literature). While both defects have a signifi-
cant influence on mechanical properties (ductil- 10
ity, fatigue), their mechanism of formation is
quite different. Macroporosity results when gas
is rejected from the liquid and is entrapped in the 1
solidifying metals as spherical gas defects of
millimeter size. Microshrinkage occurs when
10–1
liquid metal cannot reach interdendritic areas
during casting solidification. It is caused by a
combination of shrinkage and gas evolution, be- 10–2
ing the standard foundry defect for mushy-freez- 10–4 10–3 10–2 10–1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
ing alloys, such as aluminum alloys, steel, su-
Local solidification time, s
peralloys, brass, bronze, and cast iron.
Microshrinkage voids are of the order of 10 to Fig. 26 Relation between secondary dendrite arm spacing and solidification time for Al-4.5Cu alloys. Data from 10
100 lm (Ref 21). investigators. Source: Ref 17
Name /bam_asmint_106420/6044_002d5/Mp_7 07/21/2004 02:27PM
and (b). If the melt is very well degassed, the gas
bubbles form at the very end of solidification
between the eutectic grains (Fig. 33c).
The amount of microshrinkage seems to de-
pend directly on the amount of hydrogen dis-
Fig. 27 Microstructures of A356 alloy solidified at dif-
ferent cooling rates. (a) Cast in metallic mold
(high cooling rate), fine dendrites and network of interden-
dritic eutectic form. (b) Cast in green sand mold (low cool-
ing rate), coarse dendrites and discontinuous network of
interdendritic eutectic result. Etchant: Keller’s reagent
Fig. 28 Effect of copper content on secondary arm
spacing in eight aluminum alloys, plotted for
five cooling rates. Source: Ref 18
Plate # 0
Solidification Structures of Aluminum Alloys / 7
solved in the melt. Unless the gas content of the
liquid is reduced below the solid solubility of the
gas prior to solidification, the gas will precipitate
when the last liquid to freeze (usually the eutec-
tic) solidifies.
Modification of aluminum-silicon alloys with
sodium or strontium increases the volume frac-
tion of microshrinkage (Ref 24). This has been
explained through a number of hypotheses such
as decreased liquid surface tension because of
modification, change in the dendrite morphol-
ogy, increased number of inclusions, and ob-
struction of the liquid flow. Experimental evi-
Fig. 29 Secondary electron microscopy image of den-
drites and eutectic from an Al-12.7Si cast spec-
imen. Silicon microsegregation between the dendrites of
solid solution and eutectic revealed by electron probe mi-
croanalysis
Fig. 30 Microstructure at a midthickness location. Di-
rect-chill semicontinuous cast 610 ⳯ 1372
mm (24 ⳯ 54 in.) 2124 alloy ingot. Etchant: (a) 0.5% HF.
(b) Copper and magnesium microsegregation (revealed by
electron probe microanalysis) across the dendrites. Source:
Ref 4
pg 7 #
dence demonstrates that a high level of
impurities in the melt is associated with a high
microporosity.
Surface Defects. A surface layer containing
an undesirable concentration of alloying ele-
ments and associated coarse particles is often
found in direct-chill semicontinuous cast alu-
minum alloy ingots (Ref 4). A typical example
in an alloy 7075 ingot is shown in Fig. 34. The
constituents segregated near the surface are
mainly Al-MgZn2, iron-containing phases, and
MgSi2. In alloys with a large mushy zone, such
as alloy 7075, exudations may occur on the sur-
face. A similar surface defect, associated with
dilute alloys, is the presence of bleed bands (Ref
Fig. 31 Variation in copper concentration across a 600
mm (24 in.) thick direct-chill semicontinuous
cast ingot of 2124 alloy. Source: Ref 4
Fig. 32 Pores formed by gas evolution in the casting.
(a) Optical micrograph of a pore in aluminum-
silicon alloy. Etchant: 0.5% HF. (b) Scanning electron mi-
croscopy image of pore in unmodified aluminum-silicon
alloy
Name /bam_asmint_106420/6044_002d5/Mp_8 07/21/2004 02:27PM
8 / Metallurgy and Microstructure
Fig. 33 Microshrinkage in aluminum alloys. (a) Optical micrograph of interdendritic microshrinkage in aluminum-silicon alloy. Etchant: 0.5% HF. (b) Scanning electron microscopy
image of interdendritic microshrinkage in aluminum-silicon alloy. (c) Scanning electron microscopy image of microshrinkage between the eutectic grains in aluminum-
silicon alloy
25) (see Fig. 35). Both defects are caused by
reheating the solidified shell of the casting when
it separates from the mold wall, briefly ceasing
heat removal (Ref 4).
The surfaces of aluminum alloy ingots are of-
ten “scalped” to remove segregated or nonuni-
form surface layers, which vary in thickness and
Fig. 34 Section through an alloy 7075 ingot (edge at
right), direct-chill semicontinuous cast. Etch-
ant: dilute Keller’s reagent. Original magnification 250⳯.
Source: Ref 4
Fig. 35 Bleed bands normal to the casting direction on
the surface of a direct-chill semicontinuous
cast ingot of alloy 3003. Unpolished. One-fourth actual
size. Source: Ref 25
Plate # 0
may extend 20 mm (0.75 in.) below the chilled
surface (Ref 26). The contrast between the
coarse structure of the surface layer and the fine
subsurface structure of an alloy 2024 ingot is
shown in Fig. 36.
Hot tearing is the result of tensile stresses
building up in the mushy zone at the end of so-
lidification. The mass deficit in the last volume
to solidify produces voids in the interdendritic
liquid as the dendrites are pulled apart when fluid
flow cannot compensate for shrinkage. This de-
fect is most common in dilute alloys.
The hot crack surface is very smooth, with
small undulations corresponding to secondary
dendrite arms (Fig. 37). This seems to indicate
that hot cracking occurred while the grain
boundary was covered by a thin liquid film. At
many locations, spikes such as those shown in
Fig. 37(a) can be observed on both sides of the
hot cracked surface. They seem to have formed
by elongation of a liquid region with simulta-
neous oxide formation at the surface, but without
appreciable deformation. In a few cases, spikes
Fig. 36 Section through a 305 mm (12 in.) diam alloy
2024 ingot, direct-chill semicontinuous cast.
Coarse dendrites and copper and magnesium constituents
agglomeration in the surface layer. As-polished. Original
magnification 25⳯. Source: Ref 4
pg 8 #
such as that observed in Fig. 37(b) are seen. They
exhibit a torn surface indicating that they have
probably been formed by deformation and neck-
ing of a solid bridge extending across the grain
boundary (Ref 27).
Columnar structures are particularly prone to
hot tearing, which may occur at the intersection
of two columnar fronts, because of the mass def-
icit in the last region to solidify, and because of
a buildup of internal tension stresses during final
cooling of ingots. An example of center cracking
in an alloy 1100 ingot is shown in Fig. 38. Center
cracks (at arrow) resulted from excessively steep
temperature gradients.
Inclusions and Oxide Films. According to
recent research (Ref 28), liquid metals cannot
Fig. 37 Scanning electron microscopy observation of
Al-3Cu. (a) Spike probably formed by the last
solidification of interdendritic liquid. (b) Deformed spike
probably formed by necking of a solid bridge
Name /bam_asmint_106420/6044_002d5/Mp_9
Fig. 38 Cross section through a 75 mm (3 in.) diam
alloy 1100 ingot, direct-chill cast. Center
cracks at arrow. Etchant: Tucker’s reagent. Actual size.
Source: Ref 4
Fig. 39 Surface turbulence, acting to fold in a bifilm
and bubbles. Source: Ref 28
nucleate such defects as pores and cracks by het-
erogeneous nucleation. The melt surface is usu-
ally covered with a film, usually an oxide film.
The entrainment of this surface film during pour-
ing leads to many defects on which pores and
cracks can grow. The defects include bubbles
and their associated bubble trails of various
kinds, and folded films (bifilms) that act as
cracks and as substrates for the precipitation of
many phases. Most failure mechanisms of cast
products appear to be associated with bifilms,
particularly those introduced during mold filling.
This seems to be particularly true of hot tearing,
which appears to be eliminated in even the most
susceptible alloys simply by reduced surface tur-
bulence during mold filling.
The entrainment mechanism is a simple fold-
ing-in action, thus folding the surface oxide dry
side to dry side, and entraining a thin layer of
adsorbed air between the films (see Fig. 39)
forming a bifilm. Since there is practically no
bonding across the air layer bounded by these
dry interfaces, the defect acts as a crack in the
liquid (Ref 28). The bifilms can be extremely
thin: the oxides may be only 20 nm thick. If the
air layer has a similar thickness the total thick-
ness may be only 60 nm, although total thickness
in the range 1 to 10 lm is common. However,
the area of the defect can be large. In aluminum
castings 10 mm square is common, but 10 to
1000 lm is probably more usual. Their volume
density (number per mL) can range from 1 to
1000 or more.
View publication stats
07/21/2004 02:27PM Plate # 0
Solidification Structures of Aluminum Alloys / 9
Fig. 40 Coarse primary crystal of CrAl7 in an alloy
7075 ingot. As-polished. Original magnifica-
tion 100⳯. Source: Ref 4
Other inclusions may be present in the solid-
ifying aluminum casting (Fig. 40). Hard inclu-
sions may perforate the oxide films and initiate
fracture (Fig. 41).
REFERENCES
1. I.J. Polmear, Light Metals, E. Arnold Pub-
lishers, London, 1981
2. L. Bäckerud, G.C. Chai, and J. Tamminen,
Solidification Characteristics of Aluminum
Alloys, Vol 2, AFS/Skanaluminum, 1990
3. F. Xie, X. Yan, L. Ding, F.Z., S. Chen, M.G.
Chu, and Y.A. Chang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
Vol A00, 2003, p 1_/10
4. D.A. Granger, Solidification Structures of
Aluminum Alloy Ingots, Metallography and
Microstructures, Vol 9, ASM Handbook,
ASM International, 1985, p 629–636
5. R.E. Spear, R.T. Craig, and C.R. Howle, J.
Met., Vol 23 (No. 10), 1971, p 42–45
6. A. Cibula, J. Inst. Met., Vol 80, 1951, p 1–
16
7. L. Bäckerud, Jernkontorets Ann., Vol 155,
1971, p 422–424
8. L. Bäckerund, Light Met. Age, Oct 1983, p
6–12
9. L.F. Mondolfo, Light Metals, Metallurgical
Society of AIME, 1972, p 405–426
10. D.A. Granger and J. Liu, J. Met., Vol 35
(No. 6), 1983, p 54–59
11. C. Degand, D.M. Stefanescu, and G. Laslaz,
Solidification Science and Processing, I.
pg 9 #
Fig. 41 Scanning electron microscopy image of oxide
inclusions in aluminum cast samples (fractured
surface)
Ohnaka and D.M. Stefanescu, Ed., 1996, p
55–63
12. S.-Z. Lu and A. Hellawell, Met. Trans. A,
Vol 18A, Oct 1987, p 1721–1733
13. K. Nogita and A.K. Dahle, Scr. Mater., Vol
48, 2003, p 307–313
14. J.E. Gruzleski and B.M. Closset, The Treat-
ment of Liquid Aluminum-Silicon Alloys,
AFS, 1990
15. G. Heiberg, K. Nogita, A.K. Dahle, and L.
Arnberg, Acta Mater., Vol 50, 2002, p 2537–
2546
16. R. Mathiesen, L. Arnberg, K. Ramsoskar, T.
Weitkamp, C. Rau, and A. Snigirev, Metall.
Mater. Trans. B, Vol 33B, 2002, p 613–623
17. M.C. Flemings, T.Z. Kattamis, and B.P.
Bardes, AFS Trans., Vol 99, 1991, p 501
18. J.A. Horwath and L.F. Mondolfo, Acta Me-
tall., Vol 10, 1962, p 1037–1042
19. V. Ronto and A. Roosz, Int. J. Cast Met.
Res., Vol 13, 2001, p 337–342
20. V. Ronto and A. Roosz, Int. J. Cast Met.
Res., Vol 14, 2001, p 131–135
21. D.M. Stefanescu, Science and Engineering
of Casting Solidification, Kluwer Academic,
2000
22. R. Fuoco, H. Goldenstein, and J.E. Gru-
zleski, AFS Trans., Vol 101, 1994, p 297
23. T.S. Piwonka, Proc. Merton C. Flemings
Symposium on Solidification and Materials
Processing, R. Abbaschian, H. Brody, and
A. Mortensen, Ed., TMS, 2000, p 363
24. D. Argo and J. Gruzleski, AFS Trans., Vol
96, 1988, p 65
25. D.L.W. Collins, Metallurgia, Vol 76, Oct
1967, p 137–144
26. G. Siebel, D. Altenpohl, and M.H. Cohen,
Z. Metallkde., Vol 44, 1953, p 173–183
27. M. Rappaz, J.M. Drezet, P.D. Grasso, and
A. Jacot, Modeling of Casting, Welding and
Advanced Solidification Processes, D.M.
Stefanescu, J. Warren, M. Jolly, and M.
Krane, Ed., TMS, 2003, p 53–60
28. J. Campbell, Modeling of Casting, Welding
and Advanced Solidification Processes,
D.M. Stefanescu, J. Warren, M. Jolly, and
M. Krane, Ed., TMS, 2003, p 209–218