I have some motorcycle parts I want to cast.

In my experience with Al castings,

they are on the brittle side. Unlike castings, extruded Al and similar will bend
a fair amount before cracking. Any way to make castings more malleable?
Most of the parts I have in mind are strictly ornamental. I shy away from stuff
that life and limb depends on. But I would consider some parts that I wouldn't o
therwise consider, if I could make the parts less brittle.
Heat treating? Or?
It depends on why they're brittle in the first place.
First thing to check is the alloy. Some alloys are more brittle than others. Hig
h-Si alloys (the really good casting alloys, like 356) tend to be fairly brittle
(circa 5% elongation before fracture) whereas extrusion alloys like 6061 might
have 20-30% elongation as cast. (I believe it's about 10% for 6061-T6, but I don
't remember exactly. In any case, heat treating is kind of a pain, though it is
possible to do in a BYMC setting with reasonable results.)
Second thing to check: Iron contamination! If you're melting in a steel crucible
, your castings are going to be more brittle than the alloy you started out with
. If you're casting something like 6061 and not doing a heat treat, then you may
actually desire a little more hardness, because as-cast 6061 with no contaminat
ion is super soft and gummy (you can practically tie the vent wires into knots),
but if you want to form it after casting, then that's where to start. If you're
just worried about an alloy being excessively brittle and cracking during usage
, then you should start with a known good alloy (356 et al. is fine even though
it's not particularly malleable, because it's not so brittle that effective stre
ngth is reduced) and then not contaminate it. 356 plus iron contamination is alm
ost certain to be weaker than uncontaminated 356 ("too brittle"), whereas as-cas
t 6061 plus iron contamination might actually be stronger than the uncontaminate
d ("not brittle enough"), though it will certainly not respond to heat treatment
properly with contamination.
Fractography is an active research area and has benefited from a clos
ely related interest in quantitative
assessment of load carrying capability as predicted by fracture mechani
cs (and vice versa). The coupling
probably first became obvious when Griffith's model for brittle fracture was app
lied to the study of cleavage
fracture in metallic materials in 1954. It was then realized that cleavage fract
ure in crystalline materials could
not be based simply on a normal stress criterion (e.g., see Honeycombe (Ref 2).
Many new tools and techniques for studying fracture surfaces have become availab
le and made possible a more
complete understanding of fracture processes. A 1948 fracture text and symposium
(Ref 3) focused heavily on
macroscale phenomenological mechanics and multiaxial
failure
surfaces. An
important conference on
fracture held in 1959 (Ref 4) included no fractographs using an electron beam fo
r illumination. A subsequently
published conference proceedings on fracture in 1962 (Ref 5) contained only a fe
w electron fractographs.
The rapid development of both the transmission electron microscope (TEM
) and soon after, the scanning
electron microscope (SEM) during the 1960s provided new and very power
ful tools to examine fracture
surfaces with significantly improved resolution and depth of field. The TEM was
available first, and most of the
early fractographs were obtained with the TEM. These replicas are reversed image
s of the fracture surface. The
differences in appearance between fractographs obtained from replicas and by dir

ect observation can also be

striking. Because of the early use of the TEM in microfractography, a
substantial amount of fractographic
images via TEM replicas have been published. In 1966, for example, Cedric Beache
m published the results of
an extensive study of fractographic features and interpretation at the Naval Res
earch Laboratory (Ref 6). This
report also contains a detailed discussion of artifacts that can be created by r
eplication of the fracture surface
and handling of the replica.
Reference 6 was soon followed by an ASTM Symposium on Electron Fracto
graphy in 1967 (Ref 7). At
essentially the same time, La Microfractographie was published in France (Ref 8)
. In 1971, a second ASTM
book (Ref 9) was published, followed in 1975 by second major compilation of frac
tographic information (Ref
10), which contained extensive direct SEM images of the fracture surface. The us
e of SEM had advantages over
TEM. The availability of the SEM obviated the necessity of replicating the fract
ure surface for examination and
also provided the capability to examine larger areas of the fracture surface but
at decreased resolution. The
ability to place large sections in the microscope is of considerable importance,
because incomplete examination
of the fracture surface may result in not obtaining critical information. The co
rrect procedure is to document the
fracture surface in a series of photographs obtained at increasing magnification
, each time indicating the region
of the higher magnification in the previous photograph. This is not easy to do u
sing the TEM for examination
due to the size limitation of the replica (approximately 3.2 to 6.4 mm, or
1
8
to
1
4
in., in diameter.)
Since the 1970s, the SEM has become the most common instrument of use for high-m
agnification examination
of the fracture surface today (variable pressure SEM for polymeric materials). O
ptical light fractography is still used today for examination of glasses, but th
e common tool of choice for metallic materials is the SEM, in part
because of the increased depth of field and higher magnification. Although optic
al light fractography produces
important information regarding fracture surface features, the ability to examin
e detail on the fracture surface is
limited by a maximum magnification of 1000 to 1500 diameters, small depth of fie
ld, and limited resolution.
In some ways, ready availability of the SEM also has limited detailed examinatio
n by TEM, because of the
ability to place large sections in the microscope for examination in conjunction
with reasonably high resolution
and without the difficulties in preparing and using fracture surface replicas. H
owever the higher resolution of
the TEM still remains the tool of choice for examination of fine detail on fract
ure surfaces and to obtain a more
complete understanding of fracture processes such as cleavage (Ref 11). Nonethel
ess, it is still important to
remember that the higher resolution capability of the TEM does not guarantee bet
ter understanding. It is the

self-consistent data gathered over a range of magnifications that provides under

standing.
Additional tools and techniques also have become available, including energy dis
persive x-ray spectroscopy
(EDS or WDS), the Auger microscope, the variable-pressure SEM, the atomic-force
microscope and others.
These tools have made possible answers to several long-standing questions of imp
ortance, such as an improved
understanding of temper embrittlement in steels. Advancement in the quantitative
understanding of fracture also
continues. For example, two relatively recent symposia on fracture in
1996 and 1997 (Ref 12 and 13)
demonstrate the continued close coupling between fracture mechanics, mac
roscopic and microscopic
continuum mechanics, finite element analysis, dislocation theory, and fr
actography. Better quantitative
understanding of fracture progression and of its microscale appearance
and mechanism facilitate potential
scaling to fabricated engineering components.
Several compilations of fractographic information (albeit dated in some instance
s) are also available for metals,
polymers, ceramics, and composites. Examples include Ref 14, 15, 16, 1
7, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.
References 14 and 18 contain polymers. References 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24 (including
Fractography, Volume 12 of ASM Handbook) contain metals, and Ref 18 contains com
posites. Although not an
atlas of fractographs, another text (Ref 25) contains several fractographs of me
tals, polymers, ceramics, and
composites, as well as discussion of the relationship between microstructure and
fractographic appearance.
Also ensure that you're fluxing properly to remove dross inclusions. Inclusions
in a casting will weaken it and make it easier for cracks to propagate. You may
not see the inclusions (unless you have a huge dross problem) but you'll be able
to tell the difference in ductility between fluxed and unfluxed aluminum. Along
with fluxing is degassing (if you flux, you'll probably have to degas too, beca
use the flux will promote gas), because a severe gas problem will weaken the cas
ting. The degassing action also helps the flux do its job removing inclusions.
As far as heat treatment goes, it depends heavily on the alloy. Alloys like 6061
are usually heat treated to make them harder and stronger, and thus more brittl
e (because as-cast 6061 is almost uselessly soft), but if you have an alloy that
's particularly sensitive and was cooled fast during casting for whatever reason
, you might be able to anneal some of the stresses out of it to make it softer.
In general though, as-cast temper is pretty much an annealed temper, so heat tre
atment isn't going to help if you want more ductility. Also, many good cast allo
ys don't respond much to heat treatment or aren't intended to be heat treated, p
recisely because it's an extra manufacturing step that can be avoided by the use
of an alloy that doesn't need it.