Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 980387

Alternative Methods for Porosity

Prediction in Aluminum Alloys
Julie Huang, James G. Conley and Paul Callau
Northwestern University

Reprinted From: Developments in CAD-CAM and CAE

(SP-1336)

International Congress and Exposition

Detroit, Michigan
February 23-26, 1998

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018
Alternative Methods for Porosity
Prediction in Aluminum Alloys
Julie Huang, James G. Conley and Paul Callau
Copyright © 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
The occurrence of porosity during metal solidification is
one of the major issues that impact the quality of cast-
ings. Quantitative information on the development of
porosity is particularly important for safety critical compo-
nents, such as automotive chassis parts and airframe pri-
mary structures. In this paper, we present two
approaches to predict the location and volume fraction of
porosity for aluminum alloy A356. In the first approach,
the application of Neural Networks to predict porosity is
examined. Results are compared with the established
criteria functions and reported experimental findings.
Neural Networks are shown to predict the occurrence of
porosity with higher confidence than the existing thermal
parameter based criteria functions. In the second
approach, microporosity evolution is modeled mathemati-
cally. This model incorporates various solidification phe-
nomena such as dendrite formation and growth,
hydrogen evolution at the solid/liquid interface, solidifica-
tion shrinkage, interdendritic fluid flow, and formation and
growth of pores. Preliminary results indicate that the
porosity distribution predicted by the proposed model is
in good agreement with experimental measurements.
INTRODUCTION
Aluminum alloy castings are widely used in industry for
their strength/weight ratio, mechanical, and machining
properties [1,2]. However, the occurrence of porosity
during metal solidification is one of the major factors
which impact the quality of metal castings. Porosity
effects mechanical properties, especially ductility, tensile
strength, yield strength, hardness, fatigue life and surface
finish. Thus, quantitative information on the development
of microporosity as a function of casting process condi-
tions is important and can be a useful design tool [3].
Microporosity (~1 to 500 mm) is typically distributed
homogeneously throughout the casting. It often results
from the failure of interdendritic feeding or exsolution of
dissolved gas from the molten metal during solidification.
Inclusions also play an important role in microporosity
1
980387
Northwestern University
formation. They serve as nucleation sites for the dis-
solved gas and thus facilitate gas pore formation [4].
For aluminum alloys, hydrogen is the only gas that dis-
solves to a significant extent in the melt [4]. It is a chronic
source of difficulty for the foundry because it dissolves
upon reaction of molten metal with atmospheric humidity
and moisture. Porosity formation is a complex phenom-
ena where the final amount, size, and distribution of voids
is determined by several strongly interacting process and
alloy variables. For this reason, it is usually difficult to
control and eliminate both shrinkage and gas porosity
completely [5].
There have been a significant number of investigations
into the formation and growth of porosity in aluminum
casting alloys. These studies can be generally catego-
rized into two groups. The first group includes works that
experimentally investigate the location, size and amount
of porosity [6-13]. Some of this work has led to the
establishment of criteria functions, which relate different
thermal parameters to derive an expression for the solidi-
fication conditions that allow feeding of liquid metal to the
last regions of the cast to solidify. Piwonka and Flemings
[6] are pioneers who first modeled the formation of
microporosity during limited interdendritic feeding.
Niyama et al. [7] working on steel derived a parameter
empirically, the thermal gradient (G) divided by the
square root of the cooling rate (R), justified by evaluation
of the one-dimensional continuity and momentum flow
equations, to qualitatively predict microporosity. More
recently, Suri et al. [10] suggested the feeding resistance
number, FRN, 1/GnVsm, as a criteria function, where G is
the thermal gradient and V is the solidus velocity. The
primary differences in the derivation of these criteria
functions are the treatment of permeability of the mushy
zone [11].
The criteria functions are attractive because of their sim-
plicity and ease of incorporation into existing casting sim-
ulation software. However, the criteria functions do not
account for the effect of dissolved gases in the melt,
hydrogen in the case of Al alloys [11].
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018
Others attempt to numerically model the formation of
microporosity based on first principles [15-19]. The math-
ematical models give insight into the physical mecha-
nisms that control the formation and growth of porosity.
However, the scale used in the models is typically too big
to capture the micro scale defects, i.e. microshrinkage.
A number of existing quantitative criteria functions [20-
23] have been developed. Through a curve fitting like
procedure, a series of independent variables (thermal
parameters) are related them to a dependent variable
(percent porosity). This “forcing” of data to establish a
relationship may not enable the criteria function to per-
form a good nonlinear interpolation. This leads us to
consider the application of Neural Networks for porosity
prediction.
In this paper, two alternative methods for microporosity
prediction will be presented. In the first method, the
application of Neural Networks to predict volume fraction
of porosity for aluminum alloys quantitatively is examined
[24]. Initial hydrogen content of the melt, thermal gradi-
ent, cooling rate and local solidification time are the vari-
ables to be used as inputs to the Neural Network to
determine the pore volume fraction.
In the second method, a two dimensional model that inte-
grates the mathematical model of porosity prediction with
a probabilistic model of grain nucleation and growth is
proposed. It is necessary to couple these two models
together because the size and location of pores are
closely related to dendrite growth and grain structure for-
mation of the solidifying casting. A cellular automation
technique [25] is used to model the grain structure evolu-
tion.
Results from these two approaches will be compared to
experimental measurements of casting porosity.
MODEL FORMULATION
NEURAL NETWORK APPROACH – Neural Networks
demonstrate a surprising capability for a very broad
spectrum of applications, including image classifications,
information encoding and many other pattern-analysis
problems. This methodology can attack any problem that
requires pattern mapping. Given an input pattern, the
network produces an associated output pattern.
Instead of forcing the data into an equation through a
regression, the network is left to learn through a series of
training examples (input-output patterns). Through this
learning process, the network adjusts its internal parame-
ters (weights) gradually. Neural Networks may perform
nonlinear interpolations primarily because the continuous
nonlinear activation functions of the neurons lead to out-
put functions that are also continuous. For this reason,
neural networks are proposed as a new approach for
porosity prediction.
2
Proposed Neural Network
Thermal Parameters – Since the constituents of existing
porosity criteria functions are thermal parameters (ther-
mal gradient, cooling rate and local solidification time,
etc.) or their combinations, the computed values of
porosity criteria depend on the individual values of these
thermal parameters. Some of these thermal parameters,
such as the cooling rate and thermal gradient have quite
different values if taken at different moments in time.
Huang and Berry [21] established in their work that ther-
mal parameters should be calculated a few degrees
above the solidus temperature. It is believed that at this
temperature, the interdendritic feeding problem is perva-
sive.
The proposed Neural Network consists of four input units:
the initial hydrogen content of the melt ([Ho]), thermal
gradient (G), cooling rate (R) and local solidification time
(ts). The four input units are chosen because it has been
demonstrated through qualitative criteria functions [5-8]
that formation of microporosity is related to these vari-
ables. The initial hydrogen content of the melt is mea-
sured during the casting experiment using a commercial
AlSCAN system [25] which measures directly the amount
of hydrogen dissolved in aluminum melts according to
Sievert’s law. The thermal gradient, cooling rate and
local solidification time for each of the control volumes
were determined from computer simulations. Calculation
of the thermal gradient and cooling rate were done at
549°C, 7°C above the solidus temperature. The local
solidification time is defined as the time it takes the melt
to go from liquidus temperature to the solidus tempera-
ture.
The output of the Neural Network is the volume fraction
of porosity (%P) for each specimen. The pore volume
fraction in the specimens were determined through
pyknometry [24].
Algorithm – The proposed Neural Network model
employs a back-error propagation algorithm which is the
most widely used algorithm to train a neural network in a
supervised manner [24]. A back propagation network
has the following characteristics:
• The network contains one or more layers of hidden
neurons. The input signal propagates in a forward
direction. These hidden neurons enable the network
to learn complex tasks by extracting more features
from the input patterns.
• Each neuron, thus the network, is non-linear. This
non-linearity has to be differentiable everywhere. A
commonly used non-linear activation function is the
sigmoid function, defined as:
1
y= (Eq. 1)
1 + e− z
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018
The application of the back-propagation algorithm
involves two passes of computation. The forward and
backward pass. In the forward pass, an input pattern is
presented to the network. Figure 1 illustrated the for-
ward-propagation computation. The input values of unit j
are summed with their corresponding weights in the fol-
lowing manner:
Z j = ∑ X iWji
i
where X i is the output of unit , and Wji is the weight
from unit i to unit j . After the incoming sum is com-
puted, unit j applies a function f, a sigmoid curve in this
case, where:
1 most common. Back-propagation requires a training set
X j = f (Z j ) = −Z
1+ e j
The resulting value becomes the output of unit j , and is
sent along all of the output interconnections of unit j . In
the input layer, the neurons do not compute a weighted
sum. Each input unit assumes the corresponding value
from the input pattern.
In the backward pass, the error values of all neurons and
weight changes are calculated. Calculations begin in the
output layer and progress backward through the network
to the input layer.
The error value denoted as is computed in the follow-
ing manner:
• For output layer neurons:
j = (Tj − X j ) f '( Z j )
where Tj is target value of unit j , X j is output
value of unit j , f '( Z j ) is derivative of function f,
( Z j is weighted sum of inputs to neuron j .
• For hidden layer neurons:
j = [∑ kWkj ] f '( Z j )
k
In this case, a weighted sum of the values of all units
that receive output from unit j is made. Adjustments to
the connection weights are made by taking into account
the value of the neuron that receives input from the
respective interconnection. The adjustment is expressed
as:
∆Wji = j Xi
where ∆Wji is weight change of weight Wji , j is error
value of unit j , X i is output value of unit i , and is
the learning rate.
Figure 2 shows a flow chart for the back-propagation
training algorithm.
Architecture – When utilizing a Neural Network for pat-
tern mapping, generally, there are two different possible
approaches:
1. The networks architecture is fixed, and the size of the
training set has to be determined in order to produce
(Eq. 2) proper generalization.
2. The training set is fixed, and the networks architec-
ture is to be determined to produce satisfactory gen-
eralization.
Since prior knowledge of a networks architecture for a
given problem is rarely known, the former approach is the
(Eq. 3) and a test set. Both sets most be taken independently at
random, from real or simulated data [19]. The training
data has to be normalized to a range between 0.1 and
0.9. This normalization is required for the weight
changes to be in the same order of magnitude throughout
the network.
The general criteria to select a Neural network architec-
ture for any problem is to find the smallest number of hid-
den layers and hidden neurons that yield a performance
“close” to the results obtained though experiments.
Thus, for the problem in hand, the architecture with one
hidden layer and a different number of hidden units was
tested. The number of hidden units that took the least
number of epochs to reach a predetermined level of
mean square error is selected to be the network architec-
ture. Three to nine hidden units were tested. It was
(Eq. 4) found that for seven hidden units, a mean squared error
of 0.1 is reached in the least number of epochs. From
this result, seven hidden units and one hidden layer were
selected as the networks architecture [24]. The pro-
posed neural network for porosity prediction is shown in
Figure 3.
(Eq. 5) X1
Wj1
Xj
Xj
X2 Wj2
Input f (Zj ) Output
Units Units
X j
Wjn
Neuron j
(Eq. 6) Xn
Figure 1. Forward propagation computation
3
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

Initialize synaptic weights with random values with range [-0.5-0.5]

Present network with input pattern from training set.

(total number of patterns = p)

r=0

Compute Forward Pass.

Z j = ∑ XiWji
i

1
X j = f (Z j ) = −Z
1+ e j

Compute average sum of errors squared.

1
J=
2
∑ ( Tj − Yj ) 2

Compute Backward pass.

*For output layer

j = ( Tj − Yj ) f ' ( Z j )
*For hidden layers
 
j =  ∑ kWkj  f ' ( Z j )
 k 

Compute weight changes and update.

∆ Wji = j Xi

W ji ( t ) = W ji ( t − 1) + ∆W ji ( t )

J <Minimum
Network
acceptable
r≥ p r=r+1 value
Trained

Figure 2. Back propagation flow chart

Figure 3. Proposed neural network architecture.

4
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018
MATHEMATICAL MODELING APPROACH – The math-
ematical model to predict microporosity evolution during
solidification was first proposed by Kubo and Pehlke in
1984 [15]. The governing equations for microporosity
evolution in our model follow the work of Kubo and Pehlke
closely. However, by combining the mathematical model
with probabilistic grain structure evolution method, the
approach is able to predict the location, size and volume
fraction of porosity more realistically. A comprehensive
description of the basic equations can be found else-
where [26]. Briefly, in the program, gas and shrinkage
pressures are calculated, If gas pressure is larger than
the total external pressure, the hydrogen atoms are
assumed to nucleate at preferred (low energy) sites, such
as inclusions and the base of secondary dendrite arms.
The external pressure includes ambient pressure, metal-
lostatic head, shrinkage pressure and liquid-gas surface
tension.
Calculation Procedure – The probabilistic model to simu-
late dendrite growth uses the cellular automation (CA)
technique [25]. In a cellular automation model, the space
domain is divided into uniform cells and each cell is char-
acterized by different variables, i.e. temperature and
states, liquid, solid or voids. The rules of transaction, i.e.
liquid to solid, of a given cell during one time step are
defined according to the variables of the neighboring
cells. A number of researchers [27-30], such as Rappaz
and Gandin [28], have coupled this technique with a
macro scale heat transfer model to predict grain structure
evolution successfully. In our model, a 2-D grid is gener-
ated for a given slice of the casting where porosity predic-
tion is of interest. Each element of the macro model is
mapped to a much finer grid, the cell. The cell size
should be smaller than that of the secondary dendrite
arm spacing because pores usually nucleated between
secondary dendrite arms [15].
The randomness of our probabilistic model lies in the
selection of solid cells, pore nucleation locations and
pore growth direction. Formation and growth of pores are
governed by the mathematical model. The observation
that gas pores are usually nucleated near the dendrite
tips are taken into account [15-17]. The effect of grain
refiners and grain modifiers on porosity formation is not
considered at present.
The flow chart for the model is shown in Figure 4. The
macro-model to simulate molten metal filling and solidifi-
cation is first solved with established casting process
simulation programs [31-35]. During the solidification
process, the temperature and solid fraction distributions
are calculated and recorded. These simulation results
are coupled with the proposed micro-model to predict
porosity evolution.
5
To model grain nucleation, an instantaneous nuclezation
model where all the nuclei are formed at a specified
undercooling temperature is used. The grain density at a
given location is determined empirically and can be cor-
related with the cooling rate [29]. During the initial time
step of the micro model, the program randomly selects
the grain nucleation sites (cells) in every element.
In subsequent time steps, equiaxed grain growth is simu-
lated, i.e. a grain nucleus will grow to its four nearest
neighbors at the same rate. For each time step, the num-
ber of cells in each element that changes their states
from liquid to solid is determined by how fast the heat is
removed from the element (or the increase of solid frac-
tion) calculated by the macro casting process simulation
model. Physically speaking, these nucleation and growth
laws are valid only for equiaxed grains where the nucle-
ation and growth of the grains occurs randomly.
For simplification, the following assumptions are made
during calculation:
• The dendrite structure of the casting is equiaxed.
• Hydrogen that is dissolved in the melt can not escape
through the mold. This is usually true for permanent
mold casting.
• Hydrogen is homogeneously distributed in the entire
casting.
• The hydrogen solubility limit does not change due to
segregation during solidification.
• Gas pore growth rate is relatively slow compared to
the solidification process. Gas pore does not move
once it is formed (no transport in the liquid).
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Figure 5 is a schematic of the experimental setup. The
plate-like castings of Al A356 alloy were made by a per-
manent mold, gravity casting process. The molds were
made of steel with dimensions of 82 mm x 275 mm x 285
mm. The castings dimensions are 7 mm x 50 mm x 150
mm. Alloy A356 was chosen because it is one of the
most widely used alloys in industry. Some sections of the
castings were designed to have different thickness to
investigate the effects of geometry on the formation of
porosity.
Twelve thermocouples (type K) were installed along the
vertical axis of mold cavity at a distance of 2 mm and 8
mm below pin surface. There were six cooling pipes on
each side of the die cooled by naturally convecting air.
The melt was heated and kept at approximately 695 oC
and the mold was not preheated. The initial temperature
of the mold was approximately 33 °C.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

temperature distribution
calculation

No
grain nucleated? grain nucleation

grain growth

calculate gas pressure, Pg

gas pore formed? No can formed? No

check shrinkage pore
(Pg>P+Psurf)

pore growth pore nucleation

can grow? No
reset cell as liquid
(Pg>P+Psurf)

No
end of solidification?

END

Figure 4. Flow chart of the proposed model

solidification time (ts), are assumed to be reasonably

accurate.

NEURAL NETWORK – The neural networks learning

and generalization abilities were compared with those of
the Tynelius [20] and Huang-Berry [21] criteria func-
tions. The mean absolute percent deviation (MAPD) was
used as a measure of the prediction error. The MAPD is
represented by Equation 8.

MAPD =
∑ Y −Y i
*
i
(Eq. 8)
∑Y i
*

*
Where Yi is the target value, in this case is the percent
porosity obtained through precision density measure-
ments; Yi is the predicted value and i denotes the pat-
tern number from the training set. In table I, the
calculations of the MAPD associated with each of these
predictions are presented.

Figure 5. Schematic of experimental setup Table 1. MAPD for Testing Set.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Method MAPD Ref.

Tynelius C.F. 76.82 [20]
The macroscopic heat transfer problems is solved by a Huang-Berry C.F 34.01 [21]
commercial casting simulation software, MAGMAsoft
Proposed N.N. 25.07
[32]. Figure 6 compares the calculated cooling curve for
thermocouple 2 with experimental measurement. The
comparison shows agreement. As such, the computed From table I, we can observe that in general, the abilities
values of thermal gradient (G), cooling rate (R), and (for the testing set) of the neural network are better when

6
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

compared to the existing criteria functions. The results
obtained from the proposed neural network have the low-
est MAPD (25.07%) when compared with the rest of the
criteria functions.
MATHEMATICAL MODELING – The casting made in
cycle 10 (see Fig. 6) was chosen as a sample for analy-
sis and testing the proposed porosity prediction model.
The initial hydrogen content in the melt for this casting
was 0.203 ml/100g. After the macroscopic problem is
solved, the results from one slice of the test piece casting
are coupled with the proposed 2-D program.
Simulation of porosity distribution – Figure 7 shows the
calculated distribution of porosity for the entire casting.
The black dots in the figure represent microporosity. It is
shown that there are more pores on top of the casting
and the pores are larger in size when compared to the
bottom of the casting. Figure 8 is the optical image of
specimen C at magnification of 15X. By comparing the
predicted porosity distribution for specimen C (Fig. 7) and
the optical image (Fig. 8), the simulation result seems to
agree with the trend that is demonstrated in the optical
images.

Figure 6. Comparison of calculated and experimental cooling curves.

Figure 8. Optical image of specimen C (15X).

Figure 7. Distribution of porosity from calculation.

7
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

(a) Optical image of specimen A (50X). (a) Optical image of specimen C (50X).

(b) Simulated microstructure and porosity of (b) Simulated microstructure and porosity of
specimen A. specimen C.

Figure 9. Figure 10.

Table 2. Comparison of calculated and experimental
area fraction of porosity.
Specimen %P (image analysis) %P (calculated)
A 2.71
C 3.53
Simulation of porosity and microstructure – Figures 9a
and 10a are the optical images of specimen A and C at
magnification of 50X. Figures 9b and 10b are the simu-
lated microstructure and porosity of these specimens of
the same magnification. The black spots represent
pores. Table 2 shows the calculated and observed aver-
age area pore fractions.
CONCLUSIONS
Two alternative methods to quantitatively predict
microporosity have been proposed. In the first approach,
a neural network model has been developed for porosity
prediction in Al alloy A356. Initial hydrogen content in the
2.74
melt, thermal gradient, cooling rate and local solidifica-
2.87 tion time are used as casting process parameters
(inputs) to predict pore volume fraction (output).
The predictions of the proposed Neural Network are in
good agreement with the experimental results (MAPD =
25%). It has also been demonstrated, that the use of
Neural Networks predict the occurrence of porosity with
better confidence than the existing thermal parameter-
based criteria functions. Additional experiments are nec-
essary to demonstrate the suitability of this approach for
other materials and processes.

8
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018
In the second approach, a two dimensional model that
integrates the mathematical model of porosity prediction
with probabilistic model of grain nucleation and growth is
examined. This model is able to predict microporosity not
only in terms of the amount, but also the possible size
and location. The preliminary examination of the model
shows promising results, however, further work is needed
to refine and validate the model. Because the modeling
method can give some insight on defect size and shape,
it is concluded that the mathematical model for porosity
prediction has more long term promise than Neural Net-
works.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the Program for Integrated
Design, NDE and Manufacturing Sciences under U. S.
Department of Commerce, National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology Cooperative Agreement No.
70NANB4H1535 together with support of the National
Science Foundation through contract number DMI-
9614076. Additionally, the authors would like to thank
Prof. John T. Berry and Anne Sculthorpe at Mississippi
State University for the excellent work of preparing the
optical images and analysis.
REFERENCES
1. J.T. Berry, "Linking Solidification Conditions and Mechani-
cal Behavior in Aluminum Castings--A Quarter Century of
Evolving Evidence," AFS Transactions, 103, 1995, 837-
847.
2. M.W. Ozelton, S.J. Mocarski and P.G. Porter, “Durability
and Damage Tolerance of Aluminum Castings”, Wright
Laboratory Final Technical Report, #WL-TR-91-4111,
(1991).
3. J.G. Conley, B. Moran and J. Gray, “A New Paradigm for the
Design of Safety Critical Castings”, SAE publications
#980455.
4. M. Flemings, Solidification Processing, McGraw-Hill, 1974.
5. A.M. Samuel and F.H. Samuel, “Review Various Aspects
Involved in the Production of Low-Hydrogen Aluminum
castings”, Journal of Materials Science, 27, (1992), 6533-
6563.
6. T.S. Piwonka and M.C. Flemings, “Pore Formation in Solid-
ification”, TMS-AIME Transactions, vol 236, 1966, pp1157-
1165.
7. E. Niyama, T. Uchida, M. Morikawa and S. Saito, ``A
Method of Shrinkage Prediction and Its Application to Steel
Casting Practice'', 49th International Foundry Congress,
1982.
8. Y.W. Lee, E. Chang and C.F. Chieu, “Modeling of Feeding
Behavior of Solidifying Al-7Si-0.3Mg Alloy Plate Casting”,
Met. Transactions B 21B, Aug. 1990, pp715-722.
9. H. Iwahori, K. Yonekura, Y. Sugiyama, Y. Yamamoto and M.
Nakamura, ``Behavior of Shrinkage Defects and Limiting
Solid Fraction of Feeding on Al-Si Alloys'', Comm. AFS
Transactions, 71, 1985, 443.
10. V.K. Suri, A.J. Paul, N. El-Kaddah, and J.T. Berry, “Predic-
tion of Microporosity in Castings: A Generalized Criterion”,
AFS Transactions, 102, 1994, Paper 94-138.
11. R.A. Overfelt, R.P. Taylor and J.T. Berry, “Dispersed Poros-
ity in Long Freezing Range Aerospace Alloys”, 4th Decen-
nial Intl. Conf. On Solidification Proc., Sheffield, July 1997.
9
12. R.P. Taylor and J.B. Berry, “Parallel Derivation and Compar-
ison of Feeding-Resistance Porosity Criteria Functions for
Castings”, Proc. ASME 31th Natl. Heat Tansfer Conf, 1996,
pp69-77.
13. J.T. Berry, R. P. Taylor and R. Overfelt, “The Place of Pro-
cess Modeling in Non-ferrous Casting Practice”, 1st Int.
Non-ferrous Proc. And Tech. Conf. March 1997.
14. J.A. Spittle, S. G. R. Brown and J. G. Sullivan, “Application
of Criteria Functions to the Prediction of Microporosity Lev-
els in Castings”, 4th Decennial Intl. Conf. On Solidification
Proc., Sheffield, July 1997.
15. K. Kubo and R. Phelke, ``Mathematical Modeling of Poros-
ity Formation in Solidification'', Met. Transactions B, 16B,
June 1985, pp359-366.
16. Q.T. Fang and D.A. Granger, ``Porosity Formation in Modi-
fied and Unmodified A356 Alloy Castings'', AFS Transac-
tions, 97, 1989, pp989-1000.
17. J.D. Zhu and I. Ohnaka, ``Computer Simulation of Interden-
dritic Porosity in Aluminum Alloy Ingots and Casting'', Mod-
eling of Casting, Welding and Solidification Processes, V,
1991, pp. 435-442.
18. S. Shivkumar, D. Apelian, J. Zou, ``Modeling of Microstruc-
ture Evolution and Microporosity Formation in Cast Alumi-
num Alloys'', AFS Transactions, 98, 1990, pp897-904.
19. D.R. Poirier, K. Yeum and A.L. Maples, ``A Thermodynam-
ics Prediction for Microporosity Formation in Aluminum-
Rich Al-Cu Alloys'', Met. Transaction A, 18A, 1987, pp1979-
1987.
20. K. Tynelius, J.F. Major, D. Apelian, ``A Parametric Study of
Microporosity in the A356 Casting Alloy System'', AFS
Transactions, 1993, pp401-413.
21. H. Huang, J.T. Berry, ``Evaluation of Criteria Functions to
MinimizE Microporosity Formation in Long-Freezing Range
Alloys'', AFS Transactions, 1993, pp669-675.
22. V. Laurent, C. Rigaut, ``Experimental and Numerical Study
of Criteria Functions for Predicting Microporosity in Cast
Aluminum Alloys'', AFS Transactions, 100, 1992, pp647-
656.
23. J. Huang, Study of Criteria Function for Porosity Prediction
in A 356 Casting, Master Thesis, Mechanical Engineering,
Northwestern University, Dec. 1995.
24. P. Callau, Study of Neural Networks for Porosity Prediction
in Al A356 Casting, Master thesis, Mechanical Engineer-
ing, Northwestern University, June 1997.
25. H.W. Hesselbarth and I.R. Gobel, Acta. Metallurgica. 39,
(1991), 2135.
26. J. Huang and J.G. Conley, “Modeling of Microporosity Evo-
lution During Solidification Processes”, to be published in
Proceedings of Annual Review of Progress in QNDE, San
Diego, 1997, published by Iowa State University Center for
Non-Destructive Evaluation.
27. J.L. Spittle and S.G.R. Brown, ``Computer Simulation of
the Effects of Alloy Variables on the Grain Structures of
Castings'', Acta Metallurgica, 37, 1989, pp1803-1810.
28. M. Rappaz, Ch-A. Gandin, ``Probabilistic Modelling of
Microstructure Formation in Solidification Process'', Acta
Metallurgica, 41, 1993, pp345-360.
29. G.K. Upadhya, K.O. Yu, M.A. Layton, and A.J. Paul, ``Prob-
abilistic Modeling of Solidification Grain Structure in Invest-
ment Castings'', Modeling of Casting, Welding and
Solidification Processes, VII, 1995, pp. 517-523.
30. J.Y. Ahn, K. Y. Lee, S. M. Lee and C. P. Hing, “Modeling of
Microstructure Formation of Al-Cu Crystalline Ribbons in
Planar Flow Casting”, Modeling of Casting, Welding and
Solidification Processes, VII, 1995, pp. 687-694.
31. C.W. Hirt, B.D. Nichols, Romero, ``SOLA-A Numerical
Algorithm for Transient Fluid Flows'', Los Alamos Scientific
Report LA-5852, 1975.
32. C.W. Hirt, “A FLOW-3D Study of the Importance of Fluid
Momentum in Mold Filling”, Numerical Sim. Of Casting
Solidification in Auto. Applications, TMS, 1991, pp173-188.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

33. P.N. Hansen, E. Flender and G.C. Hartmann, “MAGMA-

SOFT-The MAGMA System of Mold Filling and Solidifica-
tion Modeling”, Numerical Sim. Of Casting Solidification in
Auto. Applications, TMS, 1991, pp221-230.
34. S.P. McConkey and C.D. Skinner, “SOLCAST Implementa-
tion and Successes”, Numerical Sim. Of Casting Solidifica-
tion in Auto. Applications, TMS, 1991, pp335-336.
35. P. Laty, P. Large and C. Rigaut, “SIMULOR, a Software to
help the Development of the Mold”, Numerical Sim. Of
Casting Solidification in Auto. Applications, TMS, 1991,
pp159-169.

10