Influence of solidification rate on material

properties of cast aluminium alloys based on

Al–Si–Cu and Al–Si–Mg
M. Okayasu* and S. Yoshida
Material properties of two different aluminium alloys (ADC12 and AC4C) were investigated using
cast samples produced by conventional gravity and pressure casting at various solidification
rates. The microstructural characteristics and defect density vary depending on the cast sample.
Those material characteristics affect directly the mechanical properties. The mechanical
properties, including tensile strength and fatigue strength, are improved with increasing
solidification rate, due to the fine grains, very small eutectic structures and low dislocation
density. Tensile strength and ductility for the AC4C alloy are overall higher than those for the
ADC12 alloy. The reason for this is attributed to mainly the lower volume fraction of brittle Si- and
Fe-based eutectic structures. The mechanical properties are more sensitive to the eutectic
structures than to the grain size, although both factors affect the properties significantly. Dimple
based ductile fracture is the main feature for the AC4C alloy, while cleavage based brittle failure is
the dominant feature for the ADC12 alloy. Severe lattice strain occurs around the cracks in the
AC4C alloy because of the high ductility, whereas weak lattice strain occurs in the brittle ADC12
alloy. On the basis of the microstructural and defect characteristics of the cast aluminium alloys,
their tensile properties could be approximated using a proposed formula.
Keywords: Aluminium alloy, Microstructure, Dislocation, Mechanical property, Fatigue property

Introduction direct chill casting, the microstructure is refined markedly

In recent years, many cast aluminium alloys have received
special attention especially in automotive industries due to
their low weight. The amount of cast aluminium alloys
produced has increased significantly. However, there are
problems with these cast Al alloys because some of their
mechanical properties are poor, e.g. low strength and low
ductility. In order to improve their mechanical properties,
various casting technologies have been proposed. Ultra-
sonic melt treatment allows refining of the microstructure
in cast Al alloys1–3 where acoustic waves with a frequency
higher than 17 kHz are induced into liquid metal. The
high ultrasonic frequency and high amplitude oscillations
lead to cavitation of the melt and also promote intense
mixing through agitation.1–3 The influence of ultrasonic
processing on microstructure and porosity was investi-
gated by Alba-Baena et al.,4 with the amount of porosity
decreasing in A380 alloy after ultrasonic melt treatment
due to a reduction of hydrogen in the melt. Furthermore,
grain refinement of the A380 alloy occurs to some extent.
With an air blade and simultaneously applying an
electromagnetic field for cast aluminium alloys during
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Ehime University, 3
Bunkyo-cho, Matsuyama, Ehime, 790-8577, Japan
*Corresponding author, email mitsuhiro.okayasu@utoronto.ca
and cracking is eliminated.5 It is generally considered that
an electromagnetic field leads to an increase in melt flow
velocity in the injection process, thus giving good casta-
bility. Similar research was carried out by Dong et al.6 in
which low frequency electromagnetic casting was devel-
oped to allow grain refinement and to improve the surface
quality.
A good combination of high strength and high ductility
at room temperature is achieved by a-Al grain refinement,
i.e. a small grain size of less than 1 mm.7 To obtain good
mechanical properties, a grain size at the sub-micrometre
level is a significant advantage, which can be explained
through the Hall–Petch relationship8
:
sy ~s0 zky d {0 5
where sy is the yield stress, s0 is the friction stress, ky is a
positive constant and d is the grain size.9 Effect of cooling
rate on solidified microstructure (dendrite arm spacing)
and mechanical properties of cast aluminium alloys has
been investigated by several researchers.10,11 In general, it
is reported that as the dendrite arm spacing decreases, the
microhardness and strength correspondingly increase.10
To obtain the different grain size, various moulds made of
different materials were employed, such as copper, cast
iron, graphite and sand, in which the cast Al–Si–Mg alloys
with finer grains, made by the graphite moulds, have the
best mechanical properties.11

ß 2015 W. S. Maney & Son Ltd.

Received 17 January 2014; accepted 14 July 2014
DOI 10.1179/1743133614Y.0000000128 International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2015 VOL 28 NO 2 105
Okayasu and Yoshida Influence of solidification rate on cast aluminium alloys
It is considered from the above literature surveys that
the mechanical properties of aluminium alloys are directly
affected by the grain size, although other material charac-
teristics, e.g. size and shape of eutectic phases (Si- and Fe-
based phases), are also significantly important in the
interpretation of mechanical properties.12 Recently, Wang
reported that the tensile properties and fracture behaviour
of cast aluminium alloys depend strongly on the secon-
dary dendrite arm spacing (SDAS) of the a-Al matrix
and on the size and shape of the eutectic Si particles and
Fe rich intermetallic, in which the cooling rate during
the solidification refines both the dendrites and eutectic
particles, resulting in high ductility.13 Wang et al.14 further
studied the effect of size and shape of eutectic structure on
the fatigue strength. Large and elongated eutectic particles
in cast aluminium alloys result in shorter fatigue lives,
where Mg- and Fe-based eutectic structures reduce the
fatigue strength. Even though some researchers have in-
vestigated the effect of eutectic structures on mechanical
properties, there is apparently a lack of related experi-
mental data. Moreover, material characteristics of a-grains,
eutectic particles and defect density have not been con-
sidered simultaneously to interpret the mechanical pro-
perties. In the work presented here, cast Al alloys were
produced at various cooling rates to obtain different micro-
structural and defect characteristics in advance, and their
mechanical properties were investigated systematically.
Experimental procedures
Materials
In this study, two cast aluminium alloys, ADC12 and
AC4C, were selected, which have been employed for
various automotive parts, e.g. transmission cases, con-
verter housings, engine blocks and wheels. Chemical
compositions of ADC12 and AC4C alloys measured
were (in mass-%) Al–Si10?6–Cu2?3–Zn0?9–Fe0?8–Mg0?2–Mn0?3
and Al–Si6?8–Mg0?32–Fe0?25–Cu0?11 respectively. The cast
samples were solidified at different cooling rates using air
and furnace cooling. Moreover, moulds made of different
materials with different shape were used to alter the
cooling rate: graphite with many very small pores and
hardened steel. Therefore, four different cast samples
were prepared: air cooling with the graphite mold (ACG);
furnace cooling with the graphite mold (FC); air cooling
with the metal mould (ACM); rapid cooling with the
metal mould (RC). Note that the RC process is related to
the die-casting process with high pressure (P) and high
casting speed (V): P540 MPa and V540 m s21 at the
gate. Graphite molds with DO560 mm (outer diameter)
and DI550 mm (inner diameter)670 mm in depth were
employed for the ACG and the FC process. In both cases,
the ingot putting into the graphite moulds was heated to
and at the temperature above melting points of the cast Al
alloys for 20 min before the cooling in air or furnace to
room temperature. Metal mould for ACM was made of
a cast iron, which is for creating a metal ingot with
dimension (cavity): 600690640 mm. The dimension of
Table 1 Cooling rate for ADC12 and AC4C samples
Al alloys ADC12
Cast samples FC ACG ACM
Cooling rate/K s 0.08 0.44 4.83
106 International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2015 VOL
the metal mould (cavity) for RC was 50612065 mm,
and this mould was made of a hot work tool steel SKD61.
During the casting process, the mould temperature was
set at about 293 K for ACM and at about 423 K for RC
respectively. Because of different mould, the sample
thickness is different: the thickness for FC and ACG is
50 mm, while those for ACM and RC are 40 and 5 mm
respectively. The cooling rates obtained are indicated in
Table 1. The cooling rates were approximated using
temperature profiles measured directly using a K-type
thermocouple. In this case, the cooling rate was defined
by the slope of the temperature profiles between liquidus
and solidus. On the other hand, the cooling rate for RC
was approximated by the following: cooling rate526
1046SDAS22?67.15 The reason for this approximation for
RC is due to the technical difficulty of directly measuring
the cooling rate. Table 1 gives the different cooling rates.
The cooling rates for ACM are higher than those for
ACG and FC because of the high thermal conductivity
of the metal mould compared to the graphite one.
Furthermore, the cooling rate for AC4C is lower than
that for ADC12 even if the same solidification process
was carried out, e.g. furnace or air cooling. This is
because of the temperature difference of solid–liquid
coexistence.
Microstructural analysis
Microstructural characteristics for all the samples were
investigated at room temperature using various methods,
including X-ray diffraction (XRD), electron backscatter
diffraction (EBSD), transmission electron microscopy
(TEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX).
XRD analysis was carried out with Cu Ka incident radia-
tion using a X’Pert Power (PANalytical), where a soft-
ware X’Pert High Score was employed. For EBSD
analysis, a JSM-7000F SEM (JEOL Ltd.) with HKL
Channel 5 software was used. In this analysis, the samples
were prepared for less than 5 mm thick, and their surfaces
for the observation were polished to mirror flatness in a
vibropolisher using colloidal silica. The prepared sample
was then set on a sample holder, which tilted to an angle
of 70u to the electron beam with an acceleration voltage
of 15 kV and beam current 5 nA. TEM analysis was
conducted with an acceleration voltage of 100 kV to
investigate the dislocation density in the cast Al alloys. In
this analysis, a JEM-100CXII microscope (JEOL Ltd.)
was used. The samples for the TEM analysis were pre-
pared by conventional methods, e.g., mechanical thinning
followed by electrolytic polishing to less than 300 nm
thickness at low temperature (about 243 K). EDX analy-
sis was conducted with an acceleration voltage of 15 kV
using a JSM-6510 scanning electron microscope (JEOL
Ltd.).
Mechanical tests
Mechanical properties (tensile and fatigue properties)
were investigated at room temperature using an electro-
servo-hydraulic system with 50 kN capacity (Shimadzu
AC4C
RC FC ACG ACM
101.2 0.04 0.32 2.86
28 NO 2
 Okayasu and Yoshida Influence of solidification rate on cast aluminium alloys

1 Optical micrographs of ADC12 and AC4C samples

International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2015 VOL 28 NO 2 107

Okayasu and Yoshida Influence of solidification rate on cast aluminium alloys

2 EDX and XRD analyses for ADC12 and AC4C samples

108 International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2015 VOL 28 NO 2


3 Secondary dendrite arm spacing (SDAS) for a ADC12
and b AC4C samples
Corp.). The tensile strength and elongation were examined
via tensile stress versus strain curves. The tensile stress and
strain were measured by a commercial load cell and strain
gauge (2 mm gauge length) respectively. The tensile stress
was applied with a loading speed of 1 mm min21 to
failure. For the fatigue test, tensile–tensile cyclic loading
was conducted with a sinusoidal waveform at a frequency
of 30 Hz and a stress ratio of 0?1 up to 107 cycles. The
fatigue strength was evaluated via stress amplitude (sa)
versus cyclic number to fracture (Nf). The maximum
tensile stresses (smax) for the cyclic loading were
determined on the basis of the tensile strength, e.g. smax
is less than sUTS.
Results and discussion
Microstructural characteristics
Figure 1 shows optical micrographs of the four samples
of the ADC12 alloy and three of the AC4C alloy.
Observations reveal the formation of a-Al grains and
several eutectic structures in all samples. However, the size
of the microstructures is different due to the different
cooling rates. From the X-ray diffraction and energy
dispersive X-ray analysis shown in Fig. 2, the eutectic
structures appear to consist of Si, CuAl2 and Al8Fe2Si for
ADC12 and Si and Al8FeMg3Si6 for AC4C. Their eutectic
International Journal of Cast Metals Research
Okayasu and Yoshida Influence of solidification rate on cast aluminium alloys
4 Size of Si and Fe based eutectic phases for a ADC12
and b AC4C samples
structures are similarly obtained in related papers.16,17,18
From this analysis, needle shaped largely grown eutectic
structures (Si- and Fe-based) are present in the FC
samples, while fine structures are present in the RC
sample. It should be pointed out that the hardness of the
Si- and Fe-based eutectic phases, examined using a dyna-
mic ultra-micro-hardness tester (DUH-211, Shimadzu),
are found to be about 4000 MPa, which is more than five
times higher than that for the a-Al matrix and CuAl2.12
The SDAS values of all samples were measured, and
the results obtained are shown in Fig. 3. Note that the
number of repetition for this measurement (nm) is more
than 100. Although the SDAS values are widely scattered,
the mean SDAS increases with decreasing cooling rate for
both ADC12 and AC4C. The SDAS for RC-ADC12 is as
small as 7?2 mm, which is about 12 times smaller than that
for FC-ADC12 (84?6 mm). Figure 4 displays the size of
Si- and Fe-based eutectic structures. Like the SDAS
results, the size of the eutectic phases varies (nm.100),
where the higher the cooling rate, the smaller the eutectic
phase. The mean size of the eutectic structures for RC-
ADC12 is about 3?8 mm, which is about 16 times smaller
than that for FC-ADC12.
Figure 5 presents transmission electron microscopy
images of the ADC12 samples. It is clear that dislocations
of cell boundaries are distributed with low density across
2015 VOL 28 NO 2 109
Okayasu and Yoshida Influence of solidification rate on cast aluminium alloys
5 TEM images of FC-, ACG-, ACM- and RC-ADC12 samples, showing dislocation
all the cast samples, but are of higher density in the RC
sample. The variation in dislocation density is due to the
casting conditions: for example, the higher cooling rate
and the higher casting pressure for the RC sample lead to
the high dislocation density. Based upon several transmis-
sion electron micrographs, the dislocation density was
estimated by measuring the total length L (m) of the
dislocation line in a cube of side l (m) and then dividing this
by the volume of the cube l3 (m3), to give the dislocation
density as L/l3 (m22). The dislocation density values
are indicated in Table 2. Low dislocation densities are
obtained for the FC, ACG and ACM samples (between
0?1861014 and 0?4161014 m22) and a high dislocation
density of 2?6661014 m22 is obtained for the RC sample.
Such different dislocation densities could make a difference
to their mechanical properties, which is discussed in the
following section.
Mechanical properties
Figure 6 shows the Vickers hardness (HV) versus SDAS
for the Al alloy samples (nm.10). In this case, the
hardness values were obtained by the following formulas:
Table 2 Dislocation density for FC-, ACG-, ACM-, and
RC-ADC12 samples
Al alloys ADC12
Cast samples FC ACG ACM RC
Dislocation density (61014) m22 0.18 0.41 0.29
110 International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2015
HV50?1896W/dI2, where W is the load value for the
hardness test and dI is the average diagonal length of the
indentation. It is seen that the hardness decreases with
increasing SDAS. Such high hardness is caused by the fine
microstructures. Similar approaches have been carried out
by several investigators13,19 using heat treated aluminium
alloys, and the material strength increases with decreasing
the SDAS. The hardness for RC- and ACM-ADC12 is
found to be about 1?0 GPa, which is about 20% higher
than that for ACG- and FC-ADC12. Although a similar
trend is obtained for AC4C samples, overall the hardness
for AC4C is lower than that for ADC12. The reason
behind this is not clear at the moment, but this could be
because of the different volume fraction of the hard Si
element as described above, i.e., the larger the amount of
eutectic Si, the higher the hardness. It should be pointed
out that the hardness data for ADC12 are slightly scattered
(e.g. standard deviation of 0?01 for FC-ADC12) compared
to AC4C (e.g. standard deviation of 0?002 for FC-AC4C),
which could be due to the randomly distributed large
amount of the hard eutectic structures in the ADC12 alloy.
Figure 7 shows the representative tensile stress versus
tensile strain curves for the cast ADC12 and AC4C alloys.
As can be seen, different tensile properties are evident,
with the stress versus strain relationship for the samples
with high cooling rate indicating better tensile properties
compared to those with low cooling rate: the higher the
tensile strength, the higher the material ductility. Similar
result was also reported in the study by Li et al.,20 in which
2.66
there is an almost linear correlation between the strength
VOL 28 NO 2
 Okayasu and Yoshida Influence of solidification rate on cast aluminium alloys

7 Relationship between tensile stress and strain for a

ADC12 and b AC4C samples

reason for the low ductility of ADC12 is attributed to the

6 Vickers hardness for a ADC12 and b AC4C samples
and elongation for the related aluminium alloys. The
average values of tensile properties (tensile strength sUTS
and fracture strain ef) for RC-ADC12 samples (nm53),
sUTS5246 MPa and ef51?7%, are higher than those for
the other ADC12 samples. Similar results are obtained for
the AC4C samples, where the tensile strength and fracture
strain for ACM-AC4C are 214 MPa and ef55?2% respec-
tively. It should be noted that the strain levels for ACM-
AC4C are overall higher than those for ACM-ADC12,
although their tensile strengths are almost the same. The
Table 3 Microstructural and defect properties for ADC12 and AC4C samples
high volume fraction of the eutectic Si embedded in the
a-Al grains.
It is reported that the ultimate tensile strength of
aluminium alloys is directly attributed to not only the grain
size, but also the size and aspect ratio of eutectic Si. Those
microstructural factors are directly related to their UTS.21
In addition, the effects of cast defect and SDAS on the
tensile properties of cast aluminium alloy were examined.22
In our previous work,23 the tensile strength of ADC12
alloy was estimated by a multiple regression analysis, using
five independent factors: SDAS, defect density of micro-
porosity (DR), size of eutectic structures (SE), aspect ratio
of eutectic structures (AE) and dislocation density (DD).
To interpret clearly the tensile properties of our samples,
the influences of these five factors on the mechanical

Al alloys ADC12 AC4C

Cast samples FC ACG ACM RC FC ACG ACM

SDAS/mm 84.6 59.0 22.6 7.2 131.9 78.5 27.6

Size of eutectic structures (SE)/mm 61.9 36.9 11.9 3.8 35.8 18.4 9.2
Aspect ratio of eutectic phase (AE) 8.8 13.5 9.5 10.7 6.2 8.3 10.4
Defect density (DR)/% 2.03 1.69 1.33 0.04 1.82 0.92 0.07

Table 4 Predictions of ultimate tensile strength using equation (1)

Al alloys ADC12

Cast samples FC ACG ACM RC

Ultimate tensile strength (sUTS)/MPa 94.1 113.0 202.9 245.7

Prediction by equation (1)/MPa 235.4 18.5 175.0 230.8

International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2015 VOL 28 NO 2 111

Okayasu and Yoshida Influence of solidification rate on cast aluminium alloys
8 S–N curves for a ADC12 and b AC4C samples
properties were investigated. The material properties (five
factors) for our investigated ADC12 alloy are indicated in
Tables 2 and 3. Note first that the measurement data in
the tables (SDAS, SE and AE) are mean values from more
than a hundred measurements. Because the associated
eutectic phases are formed with needle shape, no clear
change of aspect ratio is obtained. On the other hand, the
defect density seems to have clear trend with changing
the cooling rate or sample thickness, where the thinner the
thickness, the lower the defect rate. With these material
parameters, ultimate tensile strength for the ADC12
samples was estimated using the following equation23
sUTS ~330:2{(3:35|SDAS){(4:71|DR){
(0:1|SE){(7:66|AE)z(2:88|DD)
Table 5 Fatigue strength coefficient and endurance limit for ADC12 and AC4C samples
Al alloys ADC12
Cast samples FC
Fatigue strength coefficient (sf)/MPa 69.0
Fatigue exponent (b) 20.070
Endurance limit (sen)/MPa 19.6
112 International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2015
The calculated and experimentally obtained values of
sUTS are indicated in Table 4. A comparison of the
numerical and experimental sUTS values shows close
levels for RC- and ACM-ADC12, whereas different
values are found for ACG- and FC-ADC12. The reason
for the poor prediction for the latter samples could be a
result of the influence of the large grown microstructure
for FC and ACG. In fact, the above formula proposed in
previous work was determined through statistical analysis
using cast ADC12 alloys with finer microstructures, e.g.
SDAS of 3?7–33?3 mm and SE of 0?3–15?8 mm,23 these
values being much smaller than those for the ACG- and
FC-ADC12 samples of the present study (see Table 3).
Similar approach was carried out by Ceshini et al.,21
where the ultimate tensile strength of the aluminium alloy
is approximated by the microstructural characteristics
(grain size, area of Si particle and aspect ratio of Si particle)
and defect rate. Using their proposed equations, an
attempt was made to estimate the tensile strength of our
samples. It appears that our tensile strength is relatively
approximated accurately by the grain size (d) and area of
eutectic phase (ASi): sUTS520?167 dz371?7 and sUTS5
21?252 ASiz337?12.
Figure 8 shows the relationship between stress ampli-
tude (sa) and fatigue life (S–N curves) for ADC12 and
AC4C. The arrows indicate the test specimens which are
not completely fractured by 107 cycles, i.e. the endur-
ance limit (sen). As is seen, a high endurance limit is
obtained for the samples with high cooling rate: the
mean sen is 45 MPa for RC-ADC12 and 60 MPa for
ACM-AC4C, which are much higher than those for the
samples with low cooling rates: sen519?6 MPa (FC-
ADC12) and 27?0 MPa (FC-AC4C). The fatigue prop-
erty was quantified using a power-law dependence to
obtain the fatigue strength coefficient sf and the fatigue
exponent b, sa5sfNfb, where two independent factors
are employed: the number of cycles to fracture Nf and
the stress amplitude sa. In this approximation, increased
fatigue life is expected for an increasing sf and decreasing
b. The sf and b values for all samples are indicated
together with the sen values in Table 5. There is a high
correlation rate between sf and sen of about R250?95,
while the coefficient of determination between b and sen is
less than R250?2.
Failure analysis
The fracture surfaces of all samples after being fractured
by monotonic and cyclic loading were analysed. Figure 9
shows scanning electron microscopy images of the
fracture surfaces for FC-ADC12, ACM-ADC12 and
ACM-AC4C after tensile testing. From Fig. 9, cleavage-
like brittle fracture is the dominant feature for both
ADC12 samples, while dimple-based ductile fracture is
(1) observed for the AC4C sample. Such different fracture
modes are related to the different ductility, as indicated in
AC4C
ACG ACM RC FC ACG ACM
108.3 136.0 155.7 51.4 61.7 116.8
20.080 20.072 20.072 20.041 20.031 20.046
26.1 38.4 44.3 27.0 37.3 54.0
VOL 28 NO 2
 Okayasu and Yoshida Influence of solidification rate on cast aluminium alloys

9 Images (SEM) of fracture surfaces for ADC12 and AC4C samples after fracture by monotonic loading

International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2015 VOL 28 NO 2 113

Okayasu and Yoshida Influence of solidification rate on cast aluminium alloys

10 Images (SEM) of fracture surfaces for ADC12 and AC4C samples after fracture by cyclic loading

114 International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2015 VOL 28 NO 2


11 Inverse pole figure (IPF) maps and misorientation (MO) maps for ACM-ADC12, ACM-AC4C and FC-AC4C samples
around fatigue cracks created by monotonic loading
Fig. 7. The roughness of the fracture surface is also
different among the samples, where a rougher surface is
observed in the FC sample than in the ACM ones. This
could be attributed to the large grown eutectic phases
between the a-Al grains in the FC sample. Cast defects
of shrinkage porosity can also be seen in the FC sam-
ple, which accelerate the failure. Figure 10 displays the
fracture surfaces of the FC and ACM samples after
fatigue testing. Note that these samples were fractured
after cyclic loading of more than 100 000 cycles. Like the
tensile test samples, relatively rough fracture surfaces are
seen in the FC-ADC12 sample, where defects and cleavage
facet are clearly observed. On the other hand, a step
morphology and rugged fracture surfaces are observed in
the AC4C sample, in which striation-like formation is
detected.
To understand the failure characteristics in detail, the
strain characteristics were examined by electron back-
scatter diffraction analysis. Figure 11 shows the inverse-
pole figure (IPF) maps and misorientation (MO) maps
for ACM and FC samples around cracks, after being
fractured by monotonic loading. The colour levels of
the pixels in the IPF maps represent the deviation of
measured face centred cubic crystal orientation. The red
solid lines in the MO maps are related to MO angles of
more than 2u. The MO maps show the extent of the
internal strain (lattice strain), accumulated mainly by the
stress during the tensile tests. From this analysis, overall
lattice strain (density of reddish zone) for ACM-AC4C is
high compared to ACM-ADC12. Moreover, the internal
strain for ACM-AC4C is higher than that for FC-AC4C.
Such a different strain level is influenced by the different
severity of plastic deformation, i.e. the higher the
deformation, the severer the lattice strain level.
Conclusions
The effects of microstructural and defect characteristics
on mechanical properties of two different cast alumi-
nium alloys (ADC12 and AC4C) have been investigated.
On the basis of the results obtained, the following
conclusions can be drawn.
International Journal of Cast Metals Research
Okayasu and Yoshida Influence of solidification rate on cast aluminium alloys
1. The sizes of a-Al grains and eutectic phases depend
on the cooling rate. In addition, the defect density
(porosity and dislocation density) varies: the lower
cooling rate makes the lower dislocation density and the
higher defect density. Such different material character-
istics affect directly the mechanical properties and failure
characteristics.
2. The mechanical properties, including tensile strength
and fatigue strength, are improved with increasing cooling
rate, due to the fine grains and very small eutectic
structures. The good mechanical properties are also
affected by the low defect density and the high dislocation
density. The material ductility for AC4C is higher than
that for ADC12, which is because of the low volume
fraction of brittle eutectic structures.
3. With five independent variables (secondary dendrite
arm spacing, porosity density, size of eutectic structures,
aspect ratio of eutectic structures and dislocation density),
ultimate tensile strength for the ADC12 samples can be
estimated accurately, especially for ACM- and RC-
ADC12. On the other hand, the poor estimations for
ACG- and FC-ADC12 are a result of the influence of the
largely grown microstructure in the FC and ACG samples.
4. Ductile fracture (dimple and striation) is a domi-
nant feature for AC4C, although brittle fracture (cleavage
facet) is detected for ADC12. Internal strain is evaluated
by the misorientation angle of crystal orientation, where
severe internal strain (lattice strain) is obtained for the
AC4C samples, because of the high plastic deformation.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant (Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (C), 2014) from the Japanese Govern-
ment (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture).
References
1. G. I. Eskin: ‘Ultrasonic treatment of light alloy melts’, 155; 1998,
Amsterdam, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
2. L. Zhang, D. G. Eskin, A. Miroux and L. Katgerman: ‘Light
metals’, The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 2012, 2012,
999–1004.
2015 VOL 28 NO 2 115
Okayasu and Yoshida Influence of solidification rate on cast aluminium alloys
3. L. Zhang, D. G. Eskin and L. Katgerman: J. Mater. Sci., 2011, 46,
5252–5259.
4. N. Alba-Baena, T. Pabel, N. Villa-Sierra and D. Eskin: Mater. Sci.
Forum, 2013, 765, 271–275.
5. J. Cui, H. Zhang and Y. Zuo: Mater. Sci. Forum, 2013, 765, 165–169.
6. J. Dong, J. Cui, F. Yu, C. Ban and Z. Zhao: Metall. Mater. Trans.
A, 2004, 35A, 2487–2494.
7. K. Kubota, M. Mabuchi and K. Higashi: J. Mater. Sci., 1999, 34,
2255–2262.
8. Z. Horita, T. Fujinami, M. Nemoto and T. G. Langdon: Metall.
Mater. Trans. A, 2000, 31A, 691–701.
9. Y. S. Sato, M. Urata, H. Kokawa and K. Ikeda: Mater. Sci. Eng.
A, 2003, A354, 298–305.
10. L. Y. Zhang, Y. H. Jiang, Z. Ma, S. F. Shan, Y. Z. Jia, C. Z. Fan
and W. K. Wang: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2008, 207, 107–111.
11. S. G. Shabestari and H. Moemeni: J. Mater. Process. Technol.,
2004, 153–154, 193–198.
12. M. Okayasu, S. Takasu and M. Mizuno: J. Mater. Sci., 2012, 47,
241–250.
13. Q. C. Wang: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2003, 34A, 2887–2899.
116 International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2015 VOL 28
14. Q. C. Wang, D. Apelian and D. A. Lados: J. Light Met., 2002, 1,
85–97.
15. M. Okayasu, Y. Ohkura, S. Takeuchi, S. Takasu, H. Ohfuji and T.
Shiraishi: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2012, A543, 185–192.
16. H. Xin and Y. Hong: J. Wuhan Univ. Tech.-Mater. Sci. Ed., 2013,
28, 202–205.
17. C.-L. Chen and R. C. Thomson: Intermetallics, 2010, 18, 1750–
1757.
18. M. Abduiwahab, I. A. Madugu, S. A. Yaro and A. P. I. Popoola:
Slicon, 2012, 4, 137–143.
19. G. Ran, J. Zhou and Q. C. Wang: J. Alloys Compos., 2006, 421, 80–
86.
20. Z. Li, A. M. Samuel, F. H. Samuel, C. Ravindran, S. Valtierra and
H. W. Doty: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2004, A367, 96–110.
21. L. Ceshini, A. Morri, A. Morri, A. Gamberini and S. Messieri:
J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2009, 30, 4525–4531.
22. L. Ceschini, I. Boromei, A. Morri, S. Seifeddine and I. Svensson:
J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2009, 209, 5669–5679.
23. M. Okayasu, K. Ota, S. Takeuchi, H. Ohfuji and T. Shiraishi:
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2014, A592, 189–200.
NO 2