j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmrt

Original Article

Process optimization of A356 aluminum alloy

wheel hub fabricated by low-pressure die casting
with simulation and experimental coupling
methods

Guojiang Dong a, Shide Li a,b, Shaozhong Ma a, Dongsheng Zhang c,

Jiang Bi a, Ji Wang b,d, Mikhail Dmitrievich Starostenkov e, Zuo Xu b,*
a
Key Laboratory of Advanced Forging & Stamping Technology and Science of Ministry of Education, Yanshan
University, Qinhuangdao, 066004, China
b
CITIC Dicastal Co., Ltd., Qinhuangdao, 066004, China
c
Hebei Key Laboratory of Special Delivery Equipment, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao, 066004, China
d
State Key Laboratory of Metastable Materials Science and Technology, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao, 066004,
China
e
General Physics Department, Altai State Technical University, Leninist. 46, Barnaul, 656099, Russia

article info abstract

Article history: The aluminum alloy wheel hub is mainly produced by low-pressure die casting process
Received 18 February 2023 (LPDC), in which casting quality is closely related to the process parameters. In this paper,
Accepted 29 March 2023 the LPDC process of the A356 alloy wheel hub was numerically simulated by ProCAST
Available online 1 April 2023 software, and the forming quality of the wheel hub under different cooling processes has
been studied. The result indicated that the liquid aluminum exhibited different solidifi-
Keywords: cation characteristics under three cooling processes of 300 L/h for 150 s, 400 L/h for 140 s
A356 aluminum alloy and 500 L/h for 130 s. A sequential solidification state was obtained under the condition of
Low-pressure die casting 400 L/h for 140 s. By comparing the tensile properties of the rim under different cooling
Numerical simulation processes, it was found that the wheel hub casted under 400 L/h for 140 s had higher tensile
Microstructure strength and elongation, which were 178.9 MPa and 6.6%, respectively. The reduction of
Mechanical properties casting defects, microstructure refinement, and uniform distribution of eutectic Si particles
in the wheel hub are the main reasons for the improvement of mechanical properties.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

accidents are caused by the safety problem of wheel hub

1. Introduction structures [1,2]. In addition, under the background of “carbon
neutralization”, energy saving and emission reduction have
According to statistics, about 1.3 million people die in car ac- become one of the development trends [3,4]. Therefore, the
cidents every year worldwide, and 10%e15% of traffic

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zxtc@dicastal.com (Z. Xu).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.03.214
2238-7854/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2
structure safety and weight reduction of wheel hubs are
increasingly important in automobile manufacturing field [5].
The material types of wheel hubs mainly include steel,
aluminum alloy, and magnesium alloy. Due to its advantages
of lightweight, good heat dissipation, high safety factor and
flexible design, aluminum alloy wheel hub accounts for about
54% of the global wheel hub market [6,7], and about 80% of
aluminum alloy wheels are produced by LPDC [8]. As a rapid
near-net shape-forming process, LPDC process has high pre-
cision, good surface quality and high production efficiency
[9e11]. Although the process has been applied widely, it is
easy to appear defects such as shrinkage porosity, shrinkage
hole, and oxidation slag inside the product because of the
complex manufacturing process [12,13]. These defects have a
great influence on the selection and adjustment of techno-
logical parameters in the process of LPDC. Hence, selecting
appropriate process parameters is a major area of interest
within the field of achieving stable and high-quality die-
casting wheel production.
For the selection of process parameters in LPDC, the pre-
vious research is mainly based on numerical simulation, then
experimental verification to optimize the process parameters.
Ou et al. [14,15] presented a modeling methodology to simu-
late the temperature field evolution in the production of A356
automotive wheels, and the model was able to predict clusters
of porosity associated with encapsulated liquid with an
equivalent radius of ~27 mm. Numerical simulation can pro-
vide a general direction for process optimization, to reduce the
number of experiments and achieve the purpose of improving
the efficiency and success rate of experiments [16e18].
Combining production experience with theoretical studies of
casting, the LPDC process can be divided into the filling pro-
cess and the solidification process [19]. The filling stage mainly
requires the simulation and experiment of the flow state of
molten metal. Using other liquids with similar viscosity to
replace liquid metal can be more convenient to observe the
filling process of liquid metal under pressure. Viswanath et al.
[20] investigated the free surface flow characteristics during
mold filling through water model experiments and numerical
simulations. The effect of flow condition was analyzed by
adjusting the filling pressure and the shape of the gate, and
then a numerical flow model coupled to heat transfer was
developed. According to the model, the filling pressure can be
adjusted appropriately to ensure a smooth filling process, to
obtain a product with better performance [21]. In actual pro-
duction, because of the diversity and complexity of the mold
structure, the research of the filling process is commonly
complicated [22,23]. The solidification process is mainly
affected by temperature and pressure of molten aluminum,
the process parameters can be optimized by experiments with
production equipment [24,25]. Therefore, a large number of
researchers choose to optimize the process parameters in the
solidification process [26,27].
Previous studies have compared and analyzed the me-
chanical properties and microstructure of products under
different cooling processes. The results show that aluminum
alloy castings with finer grain size can be obtained by properly
increasing the die cooling rate [28,29]. Azqadan et al. [30]
determined the influence of cooling rate on the mechanical
properties of LPDC AZ80 alloy and found that a lower cooling
3119
rate may lead to pore condensation. In low temperature and
high filling rate condition, a higher cooling rate was generated
and it had a greater effect on the peak pressure flow stress.
According to the above research, the LPDC defects of wheel
hub under different process parameters can be predicted by
numerical simulation method, and the parameters of forming
process window can be optimized to improve the casting
quality, so as to promote the application and development of
LPDC technology in the industry [31].
A review of the work carried out so far shows that the re-
searchers have carried out a series of studies on LPDC simu-
lation and process parameter optimization, the influence of
different key parameters of the process on the forming quality
and microstructure of wheel hub casting is still not clearly
defined. Therefore, this paper optimized the process param-
eters of the LPDC wheel hub by the combination of numerical
simulation and process production test method. Also, the in-
fluence of process parameters on the mechanical properties
and microstructure of wheel hub was studies. Firstly, the
filling and solidification process under different process pa-
rameters were simulated by ProCAST software, and the defect
distribution and the optimized process parameters were ob-
tained. According to the process parameters, the A356 alloy
wheel hubs were trial-produced, and the overall shrinkage
porosity and shrinkage hole of the wheel hub were examined
by X-ray detection. Then the mechanical properties and
microstructure of different parts were tested and compared in
detail. Based on the previous research, the process parameters
of the LPDC A356 alloy wheel hub were optimized by numer-
ical simulation, and more comprehensive mechanical prop-
erties tests were conducted to verify the accuracy of the
simulation. The influence of different cooling process pa-
rameters on the mechanical properties and microstructure of
the wheel hub was further analyzed. The research result in
this paper will provide a meaningful guidance for the pro-
duction of high-quality wheel hubs.
2. Experimental
2.1. Numerical simulation
The LPDC process of the aluminum alloy wheel hub is as
follows: to begin this process, the molten aluminum alloy in
the holding furnace is injected into the mold cavity through a
riser pipe at a certain pressure. After mold filling, pressure
holding, cooling solidification, pressure relief and other
technological steps, the wheel hub casting is formed, as
shown in Fig. 1.
2.1.1. 3D modeling
To verify the effect of different process parameters on the
quality of the LPDC aluminum alloy wheel hub, finite element
simulation is one of the most common procedures. When
modeling the wheel hub model with UG software, the model
was appropriately simplified to improve simulation efficiency.
LPDC aluminum alloy wheel hub mold mainly consists of a top
die, side dies, a bottom die, a split cone, a gate cup and a gate
sleeve. The riser tube, heat insulation furnace, top rod and top
plate mechanism were simplified in the simulation modeling.
3120 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2

Fig. 1 e Diagram of LPDC wheel hub, 3D model, and real object.

In addition, to make the simulation results more accurate, the
insulating device was set at the corresponding positions of the
side and top mold. Fig. 2 displays the die casting mold and its
3D model. The reference direction of the wheel hub region
described later is consistent with the hub in Fig. 1.
2.1.2. Finite element modeling
ProCAST software was used for finite element modeling of
wheel hub mold models. Due to the complex structure of this
model, tetrahedron mesh with good geometric adaptability
was selected to mesh the mold when dividing the finite

Fig. 2 e 3D models of LPDC aluminum alloy wheel hub mold: (a) 3D assembly model; (b) Mold physical drawing; (c) Side die;
(d) Top die; (e) Bottom die; (f) Steam distribution cone: pouring bushing, sprue cup.
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2
Fig. 3 e Finite element model and mesh division: (a) casting mold; (b) Section A-A; (c) Side die; (d) Top die; (e) Bottom die;
(f) Other components; (g) Wheel hub.
element mesh. The mold cavity is the main calculation posi-
tion in the simulation, where surface mesh size needed to be
set to 5 mm. There are more detailed features in the spoke
area inside the cavity, and the mesh size was set as 3 mm. The
surface mesh of some small-sized parts and the location of the
cooling boundary were set to 2 mm for detail features like the
spoke edge and wheel center position. The grid ruler of the
position surface of the top die, bottom die, side die and heat
preservation device was set to 10 mm to improve the calcu-
lation efficiency. After the global grid check, the minimum
side length of the surface grid quality is less than 0.25, the
maximum aspect ratio is greater than 6, the minimum tria
internal angle is less than 6
, the tetra ratio of volume mesh
mass was less than 0.001, the simulation accuracy is satisfied
and the convergence is good. Finally, the finite element model
of the mold was obtained by generating the volume mesh
from the surface mesh with good quality. Fig. 3 presents the
finite element model of the wheel hub mold.
2.1.3. Material parameters
In the process of numerical simulation, the material physical
parameters of mold and molten aluminum have a great in-
fluence on the simulation result. Table 1 shows the material
composition obtained by fluorescence spectrum analysis. To
obtain phase types and solidus/liquidus temperatures of A356
aluminum alloy, phase curves and thermogravimetric curves
Table 1 e The chemical composition of A356, H13 and 35CrMo alloys.
Elements Si Mg C V
A356 6.74 0.35 e e
H13 1.0 e 0.405 1.0
35CrMo 0.225 e 0.425 e 0.95
3121
of the alloy were measured by X-ray diffractometer (XRD) and
differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The material of the
top die, bottom die and split cone is H13 steel, the material of
the side die is 35CrMo, and the material of the gate cup and
gate sleeve is ceramic. The physical parameters (density,
specific heat and material parameters) of the above materials
are listed in Table 2. Fig. 4 shows the DSC and XRD curves of
A356 aluminum alloy.
2.1.4. Process parameters and experimental design
According to production experience with theoretical studies
of casting, casting pressure and time play a direct role in the
molding process. To provide data necessary for numerical
simulation, the data source for simulation was extracted from
a commercial LPDC wheel casting machine which was
completed at CITIC Dicastal's plant located in Qinhuangdao,
Hebei, China. The data included the activation time of pres-
sure system and the activation time of cooling system.
The time in the pressure holding stage plays a key role in
the forming quality and overall production efficiency of the
LPDC wheel hub. Pressure holding times of 130 s, 140 s and
150 s were set in different finite element simulations, to study
the influence of different pressure holding time on the form-
ing quality of the LPDC wheel hub [14]. Fig. 5 displays the
experimental scheme and pressure setting. During the solid-
ification process of liquid aluminum, the flow rate and
Cr Ti Mo Mn Al Fe
e 0.09 e e Bal 0.08
5.125 e 1.425 0.35 e Bal
e 0.2 0.875 e Bal
3122 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2

Table 2 e Physical parameters of die and casting.

Materials Density/ Specific heat/ Conductivity/ Solid- Viscosity/ Young's Poisson's
(kg$m3) (kJ$kg1$K1) (W$m1$K1) liquidus/(
C) (centipoise) modulus/(MPa) ratio
A356 2.7  103 0.963 151 548e613 1.17e1.83 e e
35CrMo 7.7  103 0.517 37.7 1425e1494 3.41e4.73 55e23.5  104 0.27
H13 7.8  103 0.422 28.7 1355e1473 3.46e5.45 106e20.9  104 0.36
Ceramic 3.97  103 1.13 1.32 e e e e

duration of cooling water influence the solidification process.
The solidification process of LPDC affects the forming and
distribution of defects, microstructure morphology and phase
uniformity of wheel hub forming. In the cooling process, the
cooling system at the side dies position plays a leading role in
the overall cooling. To study the influence of different cooling
water processes on the solidification process and the influ-
ence on the final wheel hub performance and structure, the
cooling water process is 300 L/h for 150 s, 400 L/h for 140 s, and
500 L/h for 130 s.
The parameters of the simulation model were set in detail
as follows: the surface heat transfer coefficient was 1000 W/
(m2$K) between the mold, 2000 W/(m2$K) between the mold
and the aluminum alloy casting, 20 W/(m2$K), 5000 W/(m2$K)
between the mold and the air cooling and the cooling water
[15]. Since the initial temperature will only affect the number
of cycles in which the simulation reaches the steady state and
has little effect on the final steady state temperature, the
initial temperature of the mold was selected as 500
C, and the
initial temperature of the molten aluminum was 700
C [32].
2.2. Experimental procedure
The BQ-C-6 type low-pressure casting experiment machine
was used to trial the production of A356 aluminum alloy
wheel hubs and analyzed the forming quality of wheel key
position and organization performance.
Firstly, the SRE90 CNC type X-ray detector was conducted
for the wheel hub internal inspection and analyzed the trial
production wheel hub under different process parameters
distribution of internal defects. Then, tensile samples, hard-
ness test samples, and microstructure analysis samples were
cut at different locations of the wheel hub for mechanical
properties and microstructure test analysis. The size and
location of the samples are shown in Fig. 6.
The unidirectional tensile test was carried out by WDW-100
electronic universal testing machine. The tensile test was
carried out according to GB/T 228-2002. The tensile test tem-
perature was room temperature, and the tensile speed was
2 mm/min. Each tensile result was averaged by 5 samples. The
samples were cut from the 1e5 positions of the hub casting,
and the samples were first coarsely and finely ground with 800
Cw, 1000 Cw, 1500 Cw and 2000 Cw sandpaper impregnated
with water in turn. Then particle size of 1 mm diamond abrasive
spray and gold velvet polishing cloth was used to mechanically
polish the sample in the MPD-1 polishing machine until the
mirror surface had no trace. Used the Sigma 500 scanning
electron microscope (SEM) on the microstructure observation.
The A356 aluminum alloy was chemically corroded with Kel-
ler's reagent (V(HF): V(HCl): V(HNO3): V(H2O) ¼ 1: 1.5: 2.5: 95) for
15 s. Finally, the microstructures were observed by Zeiss Axio
Scope A1 optical microscope. The hardness test was performed
by QATM automatic microhardness tester, the test load was
2 N, and the pressure holding time was 10 s. After grinding and
polishing, the samples from 1 to 5 positions met the hardness
test conditions, and the average value was taken from 10 po-
sitions measured for each position. And its hardness standard
error is 4%.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Mold filling and solidification
Fig. 7 presents simulation results of the mold filling at
different stages of the LPDC aluminum alloy wheel hub.

Fig. 4 e Material parameters of A356 aluminum alloy: (a) DSC curve; (b) XRD diffraction pattern.
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2
Fig. 5 e LPDC process pressure curves of the A356
aluminum alloy wheel hub.
Firstly, the molten A356 aluminum alloy entered the mold
cavity through the riser pipe and the gate cup under pressure,
then fills the bottom of the cavity through the spokes. The flow
process was relatively smooth and there was no uneven
diversion as shown in Fig. 7 (a). The result indicated that the
pressure selection of the molten as it entered the mold was
appropriate. When the molten aluminum flowed to the outer
rim, the molten in the middle section of the spokes formed
closed areas and appeared air entrainment. When molten
aluminum flowed through the outer rim, it diverted and
merged. Turbulent flow is likely to occur after the impact and
collision of two liquid aluminum streams at the confluence,
which resulted in defects. In order to reduce the defects in
Fig. 7 (b), the filling pressure required to be controlled at this
stage to ensure a smooth flow of the molten aluminum. After
the molten aluminum was filled through the outer rim, the
flow velocity began to slow down. At this stage, the filling
pressure could be properly increased to improve the feeding
capacity of the fluid. The contact pressure between the molten
aluminum and the mold will also be increased to improve the
heat exchange efficiency, speed up the production rate and
improve the efficiency of production. When t ¼ 22.08 s, the
molten aluminum was filled into the inner rim, and the filling
process was completed, as shown in Fig. 7(c)e(f).
Fig. 6 e Schematic diagram of mechanical properties testing of A356 aluminum alloy wheel hub.
3123
After filling the cavity, the holding-pressure was raised to
the maximum value (0.95 bar) and maintained to start the
feeding and solidification process. An appropriate solidifica-
tion range can effectively increase the production efficiency
and integrated performance of LPDC wheel hubs. To demon-
strate the solidification effect of molten A356 alloy under
different cooling processes, three process parameters with
similar cooling efficiency were chosen: 300 L/h for 150 s, 400 L/
h for 140 s, and 500 L/h for 130 s, as shown in Fig. 8.
It can be seen that when the water flow was 300 L/h (Fig. 8
(a)), the outer rim solidified firstly due to the thin thickness of
this zone. What's more, the water-cooling channel locates in
the lower part of the side die, which is close to the outer rim.
The wheel hub solidification result was better when the
duration of cooling water increased at a lower water flow rate.
The molten A356 alloy at the junction of the spokes and the
center of the wheel hub solidified at the end. Two factors are
the main reasons for the slow solidification of this position:
the structure of this area is complex and the wall thickness of
the part is large. The final stage of solidification tended to
cause shrinkage porosity, shrinkage cavity defected, and
affect the microstructure growth of this part and the me-
chanical properties of the wheel hub.
When the water flow was 400 L/h and the duration was
140 s (Fig. 8 (b)), the wheel hub started to solidify at the outer
rim, but the overall solidification sequence was basically from
top to bottom and from outside to inside. It can be seen that
the final solidification result of the wheel hub was good during
this cooling process. Under the condition of this process, there
is also an isolated solidification region at the junction of the
spoke and the hub, leading to an increase in defects in this
region.
When the water flow rate was 500 L/h and the duration was
130 s, the wheel hub solidified can be seen in Fig. 8 (c). Due to
the excessive cooling rate of the outer rim and the inner rim,
there was an isolated solidification area in the rim. The
probability of casting defects such as shrinkage porosity and
porosity in this area was greatly increased, and it was easy to
generate hot joints, which lead to thermal stress and hub
deformation after the completion of hub molding. After the
wheel hub had been formed, thermal stress was generated,
which lead to the deformation [33]. In conclusion, when the
water-cooling process is 400 L/h for 140 s, the wheel hub will
be solidified sequentially and the casting quality of the hub
3124 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2

Fig. 7 e Mold filling simulation of the LPDC fabricated A356 aluminum alloy wheel hub at different times: (a) t ¼ 15.52s;
(b) t ¼ 16.94s; (c) t ¼ 18.09s; (d) t ¼ 20.01s; (e) t ¼ 21.11s; (f) t ¼ 22.08s.

will be better, while the shrinkage defects will be more under
the other cooling process.
3.2. Simulation result analysis
Fig. 9 provides simulation results of wheel hub internal de-
fects at different pressure-holding times (130 s, 140 s, 150 s).
From an overall point of view, with the increase in the pres-
sure holding time, the defects of the wheel hub showed a
decreasing trend, and the maximum shrinkage porosity of the
parts with shrinkage porosity decreased. When the pressure-
holding time was 130 s, the feeding ability of the molten was
poor during solidification. Because of the shorter pressure
holding time, the probability of shrinkage defect was higher

Fig. 8 e Solidification process of the LPDC aluminum alloy wheel hub under different cooling processes: (a) 300 L/h for 150 s;
(b) 400 L/h for 140 s; (c) 500 L/h for 130 s.
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2
Fig. 9 e Shrinkage defects of the LPDC A356 alloy wheel hub fabricated at different holding times and different cooling
processes: (a) 130 s; (b) 140 s; (c) 150 s; (d) 140 s, 300 L/h for 150 s; (e) 140 s, 400 L/h for 140 s; (f) 140 s, 500 L/h for 130 s.
and the degree of shrinkage was more serious. In addition, the
gap between the wheel hub casting and the mold increased
because of the failure of timely filling, which affected the heat
transfer and cooling of the mold and was also part of the
reason for the increase in shrinkage and porosity. When the
holding time was 140 s, the inhibition effect on defects was
much higher than that at 130 s. Because of the location of the
die and its thinner thickness, the cooling rate was faster and
there was a greater probability of small-size shrinkage. Under
this condition, the maximum shrinkage rate of the shrinkage
area was 1.4%, and it was concentrated in the outer rim area.
The prediction results are similar to those obtained in the
study of Dhisale [19], which has a lower shrinkage porosity.
The wheel hub solidification result was better under the
140 s holding time process, which was within the solidifica-
tion window period. With the pressure holding time
increasing to 150 s, the shrinkage area reduced, and the
shrinkage rate decreased by 0.2% compared with 140 s. How-
ever, the reduction of shrinkage porosity was slight, which
indicated that the solidification result in this area was close to
the optimal value and was conducive to the growth of crystal
nucleus and grain refinement. The production rate of the
wheel hub will decrease with the increase in pressure holding
time, resulting in the reduction of economic benefits. There-
fore, the process is relatively appropriate when the pressure is
maintained for 140 s.
Through numerical simulation, it is concluded that the
reasonable pressure holding time is 140 s, Fig. 9 (d), (e), and (f)
show the simulation of defects under different cooling pro-
cesses at 140 s. In the lower or higher cooling flow rates, the
defects are increased, as shown in Fig. 9 (d) and (f). And there
is a shrinkage defect at the rim position, the defect
3125
distribution is 90
clockwise. The reason is that the defect is
located at the junction of four side dies, and the junction is
affected by two cooling water pipes. So, the cooling rate at this
location is relatively high, and shrinkage defects are easy to
occur. However, cooling flow and time control change gently,
and the cooling coupling effect of the two cooling pipes is
small, so defects are not easy to appear at the rim position
when the cooling flow rate is 400 L/h and the time is 140 s, as
shown in Fig. 9 (e). Due to the influence of cooling efficiency
and undercooling degree at the hub center flange position,
there are some defects in the center hub edge of the simula-
tion. To verify whether the simulation defect conforms to the
real production condition, the following X-ray observation
will be carried out for verification.
3.3. X-ray observation analysis
According to the simulation, it is known that when the cooling
flow rate is 400 L/h and the time is 140 s, the simulated
shrinkage defects are more than the other two process pa-
rameters, so the test die casting of this process is not carried
out in this manuscript. Based on the simulation results, the
BQ-C-6 low pressure casting machine was used for trial pro-
duction with two sets of process parameters: 1. Pressure-
holding time of 140 s, side mold water flow of 300 L/h, dura-
tion of 150 s, and 2. Pressure-holding time of 140 s, side mold
water flow of 400 L/h, duration of 140 s. It can be seen from
Fig. 10 that preliminary observation of shrinkage porosity and
cavity defects was carried out through X-ray.
It can be seen from Fig. 10 (a) that there is no obvious
shrinkage cavity defect at the spoke position under the two
process parameters, indicating that the solidification result at
3126 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2
Fig. 10 e X-ray inspection of wheel hub fabricated at different processes: (aec) Process 1; (b) Process 2.
this position is good and consistent with the simulation re-
sults of Fig. 9 shrinkage defect. In the spokes center area,
shrinkage and loosening traces appeared. The results as
shown in Fig. 10 (b), indicate that the unreasonable design of
the cooling process in this position may lead to the failure of
timely feeding of molten A356 alloy. The large difference in
thickness between the wheel center and spoke is also one of
the reasons leading to more defects so the simulation accu-
racy in Fig. 9 (e) is partially verified. What stands out in Fig. 10
(c) is the crack defect that appears at the inner rim position of
the rim in process 1. It indicates that the uneven shrinkage
caused by thermal stress leads to defects at this position,
while there are few similar defects at the corresponding po-
sition in process 2, which is consistent with the shrinkage
defect at the simulated rim position in Fig. 9 (d). By analyzing
the X-ray observation results, it can be shown that the simu-
lation is accurate which is similar to the prediction results
proposed in the study of Fan [34].
3.4. Mechanical property analysis
Fig. 11 shows the comparison of mechanical properties tests
results in five regions of the wheel hub under the two sets of
process parameters in Section 3.3. The mechanical experi-
ments in each area were repeated five times and the average
of the results was taken. The average yield strength of the
samples from five regions in process 1 is 98.9 MPa, the average
tensile strength is 160.7 MPa, and the average elongation is
3.4%. This is because this process parameter is located at the
boundary of the forming process window, resulting in poor
mechanical properties. The average yield strength and tensile
strength of the samples in process 2 are 100.9 MPa and
178.9 MPa, respectively, which are 2.0% and 11.3% higher than
those in process 1. The average fracture elongation is 6.6%,
which is 94.1% higher than process 1. Besides, the average
tensile strength and the average yield stress of process 2 was
higher than those of the grain-refined process [35].
The hardness of the spoke, the outer edge, the lower edge,
the upper edge, and the inner edge of the hub specimens were
measured and compared with that of the cube specimen with
a side length of 10 mm under two different processes. It is
considered that the hardness error is consistent with the
hardness value of this point within 4%. The hardness of the
two sets of specimens does not change significantly at
different locations. The spoke area is the hardest part with an
average hardness of 71 HV and 69.8 HV, followed by the lower
edge with an average hardness of 67.5 HV and 68.4 HV. The
main reason is that these two parts have high density or a few
defects. The difference in hardness between the outer rim and
the upper part of the rim is larger, the difference is 8.9% and
7.7% respectively. As for the rest of parts, the difference in
hardness is less than 3.3%. This is owing that the aluminum
matrix distribution at the outer rim position is more uniform,
and there are fewer shrinkage defects. In the upper part of the
rim, the difference in microstructure density between the two
processes is small. In addition, the uniform distribution of
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2 3127

Fig. 11 e Mechanical properties of LPDC processed aluminum alloy wheel hub: (a), (b) Mechanical tensile property; (c),
(d) Hardness testing; (e), (f) Craft contrast; (g) The corresponding position of the samples.

eutectic Si particles is also one of the reasons for its high 3.5. Metallographic structure analysis
hardness. The results of the mechanical properties test meet
the requirements of the aluminum alloy hub proposed in In the process of wheel hub casting, the differences in wheel
Kaba's [35] research. hub configurations lead to different wall thicknesses of
3128 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2

Fig. 12 e The metallographic microstructure at different regions of the wheel hub: (a) Spoke; (b) Outer rim; (c) Under the rim;
(d) On the rim; (e) Inner rim.

spokes, upper rims, and lower rims. Moreover, the solidifica-
tion sequence and the cooling processes at different locations
are also different. In this section, the metallographic micro-
structure of five characteristic positions of the wheel hub
(spoke, outer rim, lower rim, upper rim, and inner rim) under
different casting processes have been observed, as shown in
Fig. 12. The range of SDASs is similar to that of the same alloy
fabricated by LPDC with local squeeze [36]. By comparing and
analyzing the distance between the secondary dendrite arms
of the two groups of processes in 3.3, it was found that the
secondary dendrite arm spacing and grain size of the hub
obtained by process 2 were smaller than those obtained by
process 1. Because a large water flow can produce greater
cooling speed, which is beneficial to grain refinement.

Fig. 13 e Metallographic structure at tensile fracture: (aec) Process 1; (d-f) Process 2.

 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2
Fig. 14 e The SEM morphologies and EDS mappings of different regions of the wheel hub: (a) Spoke; (b) Outer rim; (c) Under
the rim; (d) On the rim; (e) Inner rim; (f) EDS mapping of Al, Mg and Si.
The microstructure of the wheel hub is dominated by a-Al
and eutectic Si, and eutectic Si is distributed around a-Al in
granular form. Therefore, the microstructure morphology at
different positions of the LPDC aluminum alloy wheel hub is
not the same. By comparing the spacing of secondary dendrite
arms at five locations, it can be found that the spacing di-
mensions between the outer and inner rims are the smallest.
Because these two zones are located on the edge of the wheel
hub during molten aluminum filling and solidification, with
thin wall thickness and proximity to the water-cooling chan-
nel, a fine grain structure is formed at higher cooling rates. The
grain size at the spoke is significantly larger than that at the
other four positions. The secondary dendrite arm spacing at
the hub obtained by process 1 and process 2 is 55.9 mm and
48.2 mm, respectively. The solidification sequence of the hub is
from the top to the bottom inner rim, rim, outer rim, spoke, and
center. The solidification rate of the spoke is relatively slow and
the grains have enough time to grow, resulting in the spacing of
secondary dendrite arms in this position being significantly
larger than that of the outer rim, rim, and inner rim.
Fig. 13 displays the metallographic observation of the
fracture location of the tensile specimens cut at the rim. At
low multiple observation, the microstructure morphologies
obtained under the two processes are almost the same, and
3129
the secondary dendrite arm spacing is 38.7 mm and 34.5 mm,
respectively (Fig. 13 (a)).
From the comparison of tensile properties, it can be seen
that the tensile strength and elongation of process 2 are higher
than those of process 1. By enlarging the fracture position
(Fig. 13 (b) and Fig. 13 (c)), it can be found that the sample
microstructure uniformity obtained by process 1 is signifi-
cantly lower than that obtained by process 2. And there are
more Si particle segregation and small-size shrinkage defects
in the sample of process 1. In process 2, the number of
shrinkage defects in the sample is reduced, and the distribu-
tion of a-Al and eutectic Si is more uniform. The main reasons
for the improvement of tensile properties are the refinement
and uniformity of grain structure and the reduction of
shrinkage defects. Under the tensile load, the crack tip was
first initiated at the tip of the hole defect of the sample and
then expanded along the area where eutectic Si accumulates.
The microcrack gradually developed into a macroscopic crack,
which eventually lead to the fracture of the sample. In addi-
tion to the pores inside the sample, the segregation of eutectic
Si particles is also the main reason for the decrease in tensile
properties. The area where eutectic Si is concentrated is hard,
brittle, and poor toughness, so the sample tends to fracture in
the area where there are many shrinkage defects and Si
3130 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2
Fig. 15 e The fracture morphologies of tensile specimens in the rim region under different LPDC processes: (a) Process 1;
(b) Process 2.
particles are biased. The non-uniform distribution of Si par-
ticles and shrinkage defects are the main causes of the
decrease in tensile properties of the alloys.
3.6. Microstructure analysis
Fig. 14 compares the SEM microstructure at different positions
of the hub. As can be seen from the picture, the aggregation
area of eutectic Si at the spoke has a wide size, and the
morphology of Si particles is irregular and long, with a size
distribution of 3e8 mm. The size change of the secondary
dendrite arm at different positions is almost the same.
In the outer rim area, there are a few small shrinkage
holes, and the shape of the shrinkage holes is an approxi-
mately circular or irregular strip (Fig. 14 (b)). In addition, the
size of the eutectic Si particle segregation region is
decreasing. In the rim region, the microstructure is similar to
that of spokes and outer rim, but the size of a-Al cell crystal
decreases, which is related to the solidification conditions in
this region. Fig. 14 (e) shows the microstructure at the inner
rim which has the smallest secondary dendrite arm size. The
size of a-Al cell crystal ranges from 10 to 30 mm. Under the
three processes of mold-filling, solidification, and cooling, the
microstructure of each part of the hub has great differences.
During the mold-filling process, the molten A356 alloy at the
inner rim has the longest flow distance in the mold, and the
temperature of the molten is lower than the other parts. The
solidification rate of this part is faster than that of other areas
because the inner rim of the wheel is thinner and the effect of
cooling water during the pressure-holding solidification
process. The energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) mapping
of Al, Mg, and Si was added in Fig. 14. As shown in Fig. 14(f),
the element distributions of Al, Mg, and Si at the inner rim
were exhibited. The size of cellular dendritic crystals ranged
from 20e50 mm. The Si particles distributed surround the a-Al
matrix. While the Mg element was distributed uniformly in
the matrix.
Fig. 15 compares the fracture morphologies of the tensile
specimens in the rim region under different LPDC processes. It
can be seen from Fig. 15 (a) that there are a few cleavage steps
and dimples in the fracture morphology, and the size of the
dimples is small, which illustrated the fracture mode of the
tensile specimen was the mixed tough-brittle fracture. The
morphology of dimples and cleavage is similar to that
mentioned in Kong's [36] study. The result indicates that the
toughness of the sample is poor. Enlarging the cleavage step
area, as shown in Fig. 15 (b). Some small-size shrinkage de-
fects and Si particles can be seen on the surface of tensile
fracture. The above characteristics further confirm that
shrinkage cavity and eutectic Si particle aggregation are the
main reasons for the reduction of toughness during the tensile
process. Under the water-cooling process of 400 L/h for 140 s,
the tensile fracture morphology of the sample is displayed in
Fig. 15 (b). The number of dimples on the specimen surface
increased significantly. The area in the red dashed box is
enlarged, and Si particles and small dissociation steps can be
seen. The change in fracture morphology indicates that the
fracture toughness of the sample is improved under the pro-
cess parameters. At a larger water-cooling flow rate, the so-
lidification rate of molten aluminum is accelerated, the
spacing of secondary dendrite arms is reduced, and the dis-
tribution of a-Al and eutectic Si particles is relatively more
uniform, resulting in the simultaneous increase in strength
and toughness at this position of the hub.
4. Conclusions
The LPDC of the A356 aluminum alloy wheel hub was simu-
lated by ProCAST, and the influence of pressure holding time
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2
and cooling processes on the quality of the wheel hub was
compared. With the casting parameter optimization, two
group LPDC parameters were chosen for the trial-
manufacturing of the wheel hub, namely process 1 (pressure
hold time: 140 s and water cooling: 300 L/h for 150 s), process 2
(pressure hold time: 140 s and water cooling: 300 L/h for 150 s).
The mechanical properties and microstructure of wheel hubs
were analyzed in detail.
(1) The pressure holding time has a great effect on the
casting quality of the wheel hub. From the simulation
result, the overall defects of the hub are decreased at a
pressure hold time of 140 s. When the water-cooling
process was 400 L/h for 140 s, the wheel hub first
starts to solidify at the outer rim, and then the wheel
hub solidified in sequence. At this time, the casting
quality of the wheel hub was better, whereas other
processes were prone to shrinkage cavities and porosity
defects.
(2) Under the cooling process of 300 L/h for 150 s, the yield
strength and tensile strength of the rim were 98.9 MPa
and 160.7 MPa, respectively. As for the cooling condition
of 400 L/h for 140 s, the yield strength and tensile
strength of the rim increased to 100.9 MPa and
178.9 MPa, which is 2.0% and 11.3% higher than those of
process 1. The fracture elongation also increased from
3.4% to 6.6% when the wheel hub was fabricated by
process 2.
(3) The secondary dendrite arm spacing at the rim and
spoke were 38.7 mm and 34.5 mm under the cooling
parameter of 300 L/h for 150 s and 400 L/h for 140 s,
respectively, which indicates that the microstructure of
the wheel hub was more refined under the condition of
process 2. Due to the larger cooling water flow of pro-
cess 2, the solidification rate of liquid aluminum
increased and the solidification time shortened, which
was conducive to the reduction of secondary dendrite
arm size.
Fund projects
Supported by Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province of
China (E2021203138).
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work is financially supported by the Hebei Natural Sci-
ence Foundation (No. E2021203138).
3131
references
[1] Zhao YQ, Zhu MM, Lin F, Xiao Z, Li HQ, Deng YJ. Thermal
modal analysis of novel non-pneumatic mechanical elastic
wheel based on FEM and EMA. AIP Adv 2018;8(1):015229.
[2] Duan YC, Zhang FF, Yao D, Hu JH, Dong R, Zhao X, et al.
Multiscale fatigue-prediction method to assess life of A356-
T6 alloy wheel under biaxial loads. Eng Fail Anal
2021;130:105752.
[3] Gu GT, Zheng HR, Tong LY, Dai YX. Does carbon financial
market as an environmental regulation policy tool promote
regional energy conservation and emission reduction?
Empirical evidence from China. Energy Pol 2022;163:112826.
[4] Tian SS, Dai Z, Dai M, Chen WQ, Zhang Q. Comprehensive
assessment of energy conservation and CO2 emission
reduction in future aluminium supply chain. Appl Energy
2022;305:117796.
[5] Sun X, Meng FR, Liu JR, Mckechnie J, Yang JX. Life cycle
energy use and greenhouse gas emission of lightweight
vehicle-A body-in-white design. J Clean Prod 2019;220:1e8.
[6] Kumar S, Tewari SP, Rajak U, Dasore A, Verma TN. Properties
evaluation of A356 and A319 aluminium alloys under
different casting conditions. Mater Today Proc
2022;49(2):523e8.
[7] Jiang WM, Fan ZT, Liu DJ, Liao DF, Dong XP, Zong XM.
Correlation of microstructure with mechanical properties
and fracture behavior of A356-T6 aluminium alloy fabricated
by expendable pattern shell casting with vacuum and low-
pressure, gravity casting and lost foam casting. Mat Sci Eng A
2013;560(10):396e403.
[8] Shahane S, Aluru N, Ferreira P, Kapoor SG, Vanka SP.
Optimization of solidification in die casting using numerical
simulations and machine learning. J Manuf Process
2020;51:130e41.
[9] Liu WP, Peng T, Kishita Y, Umeda Y, Tang RZ, Tang WCJ, et al.
Critical life cycle inventory for aluminium die casting: a
lightweight-vehicle manufacturing enabling technology.
Appl Energy 2021;304(15):117814.
[10] Luo AA, Sachdev AK, Apellian D. Alloy development and
process innovations for light metals casting. J Mater Process
Technol 2022;306:117606.
[11] Mattia M, Timelli G, Bonollo F, Garagnani GL. Impact
behaviour of A356 alloy for low-pressure die casting
automotive wheels. J Mater Process Technol
2009;209(2):1060e73.
[12] Sun JY, Le QC, Fu L, Bai J, Tretter J, Herbold K, et al. Gas
Entrainment behavior of aluminium alloy engine crankcases
during the low-pressure-die-casting process. J Mater Process
Technol 2019;266:274e82.
[13] Wang RJ, Wu SP, Chen W. Mechanism of burst feeding in
ZL205A casting under mechanical vibration and low pressure.
Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 2018;28(8):1514e20.
[14] Ou J, Wei CY, Cockcroft S, Maijer D, Zhu L, Lateng A, et al.
Advanced process simulation of low pressure die cast A356
aluminum automotive wheels-Part I process
characterization. Metals 2020;10(5):563.
[15] Ou J, Wei CY, Cockcroft S, Maijer D, Zhu L, Lateng A, et al.
Advanced process simulation of low pressure die cast A356
aluminum automotive wheels-Part II modeling methodology
and validation. Metals 2020;10(11):1418.
[16] Jiang JF, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Xiao GF, Liu YZ, Zeng L.
Microstructure and mechanical properties of thixoforged
complex box-type component of 2A12 aluminum alloy.
Mater Des 2020;193:108859.
[17] Jiang JF, Yan J, Liu YZ, Hu GQ, Wang Y, Ding CJ, et al.
Investigation on heat treatment of large-sized and complex
3132 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 2 3 ; 2 4 : 3 1 1 8 e3 1 3 2
AlSi9Mg aluminum alloy components formed by squeeze
casting. J Alloys Compd 2022;924:166504.
[18] Duan YC, Zhang FF, Yao D, Tian L, Yang L, Guan YP, et al.
Numerical prediction of fatigue life of an A356-T6 alloy
wheel considering the influence of casting defect and mean
stress. Eng Fail Anal 2022;118:104903.
[19] Dhisale M, Vasavada J, Tewari A. An approach to optimize
cooling channel parameters of Low pressure Die casting
process for reducing shrinkage porosity in Aluminium alloy
wheels. Mater Today Proc 2022;62(6):3189e96.
[20] Viswanta A, Manu MV, Savithri S, Pillai UTS. Numerical
simulation and experimental validation of free surface flows
during low pressure casting process. J Mater Process Technol
2017;244:320e30.
[21] Jadhav AR, Hujare DP, Hujare PP. Design and optimization of
gating system, modification of cooling system position and
flow simulation for cold chamber high pressure die casting
machine. J Mater Process Technol 2021;46:7175e81.
[22] Li Y, Liu JX, Zhang Q, Huang WQ. Casting defects and
microstructure distribution characteristics of Aluminium
alloy cylinder head with complex structure. Mater Today
Commun 2021;27:102416.
[23] Zhang C, Fu Y, Wang H, Hao H. Multi-objective optimization
of process parameters during low-pressure die casting of
AZ91D magnesium alloy wheel castings. China Foundry
2018;15(5):327e32.
[24] Christy JV, Arunachalm R, Mourad AHI, Krishnan PK, Piya S
Al-Maharbi M. Processing, properties, and microstructure of
recycled aluminium alloy composites produced through an
optimized stir and squeeze casting processes. J Manuf
Process 2020;59:287e301.
[25] Hamasaiid A, Dargusch MS, Dour G. The impact of the
casting thickness on the interfacial heat transfer and
solidification of the casting during permanent mold casting
of an A356 alloy. J Manuf Process 2019;47:229e37.
[26] Koziel T, Pajor K, Gondek L. Cooling rate evaluation during
solidification in the suction casting process. J Mater Res
Technol 2020;9(6):13502e8.
[27] Erzi E, Gursoy O, Yuksel C, Colak M, Dispinar D.
Determination of acceptable quality limit for casting of A356
aluminium alloy: supplier's quality index (SQI). Metals
2019;9(9):957.
[28] Wang LD, Li XS, Wang C, Wang LM, Cao ZY. Effects of cooling
rate on bio-corrosion resistance and mechanical properties
of Mg-Zn-0.5Ca casting alloy. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc
China 2016;26:704e11.
[29] Agrahari S, Panda I, Patel FM, Gupta M, Mohanty P. Effect of
cooling rate on microstructures and mechanical property of
Al 1230 alloy in a sand casting process[J]. Mater Today Proc
2020;26(2):1771e5.
[30] Azqadan E, Uramowski J, Roostaei AA, Behravesh BS,
Javaid A, Williams B W, et al. The effect of cooling rate and
degassing on microstructure and mechanical properties of
cast AZ80 magnesium alloy. Mater Sci Eng A Struct Mater
2022;844:143176.
[31] Yavuz H, Ertugrul O. Numerical analysis of the cooling
system performance and effectiveness in aluminum low-
pressure die casting. Int J Metalcast 2021;15(1):216e28.
[32] Fan P, Cockcroft S, Maijer D, Yao L, Reilly C, Phillion A.
Examination and simulation of silicon macrosegregation in
A356 wheel casting. Metals 2018;8(7):503.
[33] Huang JM, Zhao HD, Chen ZM. Microstructure and properties
of A356 alloy wheels fabricated by low-pressure die
casting with local squeeze. J Mater Eng Perform
2019;28(4):2137e46.
[34] Fan P, Cockcroft S, Maijer D, Yao L, Reilly C, Phillion A.
Porosity prediction in A356 wheel casting. Metall Mater
Trans B 2019;50(5):2421e35.
[35] Kaba M, Donmez A, Cukur A, Kurban AF, Cubuklusu HE,
Birol Y. AlSi5Mg0.3 alloy for the manufacture of automotive
wheels. Int J Metalcast 2018;12(3):614e24.
[36] Kong DC, Sun DZ, Yang BC, Qiao HB, Wei CY, Lang YL, et al.
Characterization and modeling of damage behavior of a
casting aluminum wheel considering inhomogeneity of
microstructure and microdefects. Eng Fail Anal
2023;145:107018.